Norcross.Talk

By Justin

February 5, 2007 04:59 AM | Link to this

I disagree with your argument. I believe it is the criminal element that gives guns a bad name, because an overwhelming percentage of guns are not used in crimes. Imagine if no crimes were committed with guns. No nightly news stories or front page headlines. Yes, suicides and accidental deaths and injuries would still occur, but people find ways to kill themselves without guns, and the number of unintentional deaths and injuries with guns is incredibly small when compared to other causes of death and injury. It’s still awful that people are accidentally injured or killed with guns, but it sounds like you’re striving for perfection in the form of no accidental gun deaths or injuries. If you are that concerned about deaths and injuries, there are other causes that would be, proportionally speaking, more beneficial to address: motor vehicles, poisoning, drowning, fires, suffocation, numerous diseases, etc. But if guns are your issue, then suicide prevention and the criminals who use guns in crimes are really where your focus should be.

I would probably support any steps to reduce gun ownership/possession by criminals. I agree that the general public has no need to possess semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles as well as armor piercing bullets. All loopholes that exist in which legal transactions take place without proper background checks should be closed. All gun owners should have to go through some sort of training before obtaining a general license which could then be used to purchase a gun. This training should stress the importance of safety, especially when children are in a home with a gun.

By Edward

February 5, 2007 06:38 AM | Link to this

Face it this is Atlanta and the city is wrought with crime and thugs, a gun to protect yourself is a must here, all the thug criminals have them, so why shouldn’t law abiding citizens have legal guns. Look at the news, how many faces of young black males killing and and robbing innocent people does it take before you buy a gun to protect your family. The news just reported that a group of so called civil rights activist are going to protest at the sentencing of the two brothers who pled guilty to nine felony charges, one felony being cooking the puppy alive. They want to make sure the brothers receive no jail time. This is the mentality we are up against, they think its okay to do nine felonies and not go to jail just because they are black. This is insane, first off, who do they think they are trying to intimidate the judicial system. Second, is this the best you could come up with to save, these two criminal idiot thugs?

By Dennis

February 5, 2007 08:03 AM | Link to this

When policemen, Sheriff Dupties, private detectives, security guards and the body guards of celebrities, acknowledge that they do not need their guns and willingly give up their guns: then, I might be convinced that it is safe for me to give up my guns.

By Matt

February 5, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Hey look, another Democrat writing for the AJC. Shocker!

By T Jordan

February 5, 2007 08:06 AM | Link to this

Take guns away from the general public and the only people left with guns will be the law and criminals. Forget the right to bear arms. Oh yea that was in the Constitution.

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 08:18 AM | Link to this

What this article does not mention are the positive and legal uses of guns. According to academics such as Professor Gary Kleck at Florida State University, firearms are lawfully used 4-5 times more often by citizens to stop the commission of a crime than criminals misuse guns to commit a crime. Regarding accidents, the CDC ranks firearms among the lowest causes of accidental deaths. Children are far more at risk from many other things, so let’s ban them too. The number one cause of accidental deaths for both adults and children are cars: 44,000+ are killed each year. The reason accidental deaths by firearms are reported on so much is because they are very rare.

If banning guns is the way to reduce crime, then the author needs to explain why England, which banned handguns and has severe restrictions on rifles and shotguns, ranks as the most violent western industrialized nation according to the International Crime Victim Survey. Why does a nation that bans guns have a gun crime problem? See link to article below.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/08/ngun08.xml

The 2nd amendment is no more responsible for violence than the 1st amendment is responsible for child pornography. Criminals don’t need rights and freedom to commit crimes, but we need rights and freedom to defend ourselves from criminals. The reasons given in this article for banning guns are based on nothing more than firearm-phobic ignorance.

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this

When murder is outlawed, only outlaws will be murdering. See how silly the NRA-style arguments are?

The fact is, most gun deaths aren’t caused by some shadowy “criminal class.” They’re caused by stupidity, accidents, and outbursts of rage from perfectly normal, everyday people like you and me.

We have a Constitutional requirement for a well regulated militia, and gun registration and control have been upheld in the courts time and again.

The tired old “defending ourselves against tyranny” argument doesn’t work, either. You have a handgun? They have tanks. Guess who wins?

“I believe everyone should have the right to own a gun. However, only I should have bullets. Because I wouldn’t trust the rest of you idiots with anything more dangerous than string.” —Dilbert—

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 08:32 AM | Link to this

Matt: Not a Democrat at all. Im an independent.

T Jordan: Go back and read what I wrote… I said no one ‘needs’ a gun.. not good people.. not bad people.

James Mullen: Not sure I can accept FSU as a reliable source.. but I will check out what he had to say anyway.

By Doug

February 5, 2007 08:36 AM | Link to this

In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, “Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, “even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.

If you don’t have the means to protect yourself from the criminals, then who will? Don’t take my guns!

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 08:57 AM | Link to this

Woody Bass: The publication, if my memory serves me correctly, is titled “Targeting Guns”. Gary Kleck is a professor of criminology at FSU.

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 09:05 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: FYI, firearms licensing and registration can only be enforced against lawful citizens. Criminals are exempt from these regulations and can never be charged with violating them on 5th amendment grounds per U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Haynes vs. U.S. (390 U.S., 85, 1968). What do you call a government that recognizes Constitutional rights for criminals, but can not grasp the definition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Accidents are not murder, though they can be classified as manslaughter. The FBI Uniform Crime Report states that most violent crimes, including murder, are committed by violent repeat offenderes.

By KA

February 5, 2007 09:19 AM | Link to this

Woody, your question should be, “Are guns too accessible to irresponsible people?” The answer to that question is YES. And irresponsible includes the criminal element. Education is the key element, and most people who own guns are responsible and handle their guns properly. Motor vehicles in the hands of irresponsible peeople are weapons, too. Would you take all of the cars away just because a small percentage of the population are irresponsible drivers?

By KA

February 5, 2007 09:40 AM | Link to this

Woody, I think your problem is that you depend too much on the media for your perception of reality. When you read, watch and listen to “NEWS” that focuses primarily on murder, mayhem, mischief, misery and miscreants, then you think that those events and people are predominate and define our lives. They don’t. Our lives are full of moral, responsible, lawful, and educated people who do the right thing for themselves and their families. But our stories don’t qualify as NEWS. You need a reality check. Take a break from the media for a week and you may find that your agitation will abate. Have a serene week!

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 09:47 AM | Link to this

KA: Would you take all of the cars away just because a small percentage of the population are irresponsible drivers?

Come back next week as I already planned to answer that very question

To your point on the media, I know fully well that its focused alot on sensationalism. However, you have to acknowledge the frequency of certain types of reports.

By KA

February 5, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Woody, The ‘frequency’ of the sensational reporting is determined by the media reporting it. Can you report to us the actual percentage of the gun owning population that has tragic accidents or murders family or freinds? Most reports of shootings in the media are the result of criminal actions or the negligence of irresponsible gun owners who don’t secure their guns.

By Colonel Kilgore

February 5, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

If the smell of gunpowder isn’t something you love, then, Woody old sport, your masculinity is in question. And, given that geeky photo of you, no surprise that you are a fat, geeky girly-man.

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

Woody: Murder is one of the least committed offenses, yet it is one of the most reported offenses by the media. Like accidents, it gives a wrong impression. The murder rate per capita 100,000 is 5.6, and this rate includes non-negligent manslaughter too The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows this. America has a higher homicide rate with firearms compared to other western industrialized nations, but our rates of homicides committed without a firearm are higher than other western industrialized nations too.

FBI UCR 2006 Violent Crime Rates:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html

By KA

February 5, 2007 10:21 AM | Link to this

Woody, It’s funny that you advocate less government control of liquor sales, but then you want more government control of firearms. So you think that most people are responsible drinkers, but most people are not responsible gun owners?

By Christopher

February 5, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this

If guns have too much power for one person to hold and should be banned,then cars should be too. One old geezer in a car can devastate 10 or more; it’s happened. And so should airliners - hundreds die when one pilot screws up. Railroads, refineries, chemical plants - all should go to. If you apply Woody’s logic fairly, you’ll be living in a cave hoping the roof doesn’t fall it.

Woody - life’s dangerous. Get over it.

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

Col. Kilgore: You’re all class, and you really represent the gun-fondler mentality excellently.

Psychos like this shouldn’t be allowed to drive, drink, OR own guns.

By Matt

February 5, 2007 11:39 AM | Link to this

Woody - as much as I would love to argue this with you, it’s pretty much impossible and too tedious to do this over a post by post basis.

You can read this though: http://www.mattandthat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=20843

Living in a fantasy world doesn’t make all of the guns go away. There will always be bad guys. Good guys need to defend themselves against them.

I think Christopher said it best: Woody - life’s dangerous. Get over it.

hahaha!

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this

Unfortunately, a lot of the damage is done by those “good guys.” And not in self-defense against “bad guys,” either.

The more I think about it, the more I really appreciate Col. Kilgore. He also revealed the hidden insecurity of the gun-fondler: “You can’t take my boom-stick away! Without it, I’m not a REAL MAN!”

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this

Christopher: I could, and may someday, make the argument that some people shouldnt be driving either. But thats another blog for another day.

Keep the questions coming… Ill do my best to address all your counter-arguments next week.

By vinnie

February 5, 2007 01:09 PM | Link to this

Sorry I NEED my guns. Feral dogs, injured livestock that needs put down. Feral people in the city. Availability IS the problem. When you could order weapons through the mail, no questions asked, the crime rate was MUCH LOWER.

By Seamus

February 5, 2007 01:13 PM | Link to this

I call for a ban on poker, watching cartoons and political talk shows, making Woody’s house a home, cooking especially hot-‘n’-spicy cuisine. No one needs to play poker, or watch caroons or political talk shows. Spicy food lead to heartburn, can’t have that.

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 01:53 PM | Link to this

Seamus: Very clever. However, Im not officially calling for a ban.. but I wouldnt cry over spilled milk if it happened. Last I heard, no one was getting killed by playing poker or watching cartoons.

However, some have claimed I was trying to kill them with my chili. There was only 5 habaneros and 12 jalapenos in the batch! Thats nothing.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:25 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this child not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on him and his family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

A 57-year-old man who was shot and killed by his 14-year-old hostage Monday at a home on Ocean Drive had been released from jail Friday and had committed several other burglaries, including a similar home invasion, according to police and court records.

Capt. John Houston said the man, who police identified through fingerprinting Tuesday as James Slaughter, had been involved in criminal activities since 1967 and was in and out of the prison system on several occasions.”His (method of operation) was to break into homes. If someone was there, he’d tie them up,” Houston said.

Police said they received a call from Rose Ann Kozlowski from her home in the 4200 block of Ocean Drive at 12:55 p.m. Monday reporting that a man had bound her and her son Michael and held them at knifepoint.

Houston said Rose Ann Kozlowski made the call after she freed herself and before Slaughter was shot but investigators were still trying to piece together a detailed timeline of the events late Tuesday.

An attorney for the Kozlowski family said he is certain Michael, a ninth-grade student at Incarnate Word Academy, acted purely out of self-defense.”The truth is it was absolutely justified,” said attorney Jimmy Granberry.”They’d all like to get back to the life they had, but they probably won’t be able to.”

According to police reports, Rose Ann Kozlowski had picked up Michael from school after he became ill and the two returned home. She then took a short trip to the grocery store and, upon her return home, was confronted by Slaughter, who threatened to kill her. He had a folding knife with a 4- to 5-inch locking blade.

Slaughter led the two to the upstairs master bedroom, where he bound their arms with men’s neckties from the closet and ransacked the house for jewelry and other valuables, putting those items in the family’s SUV.

She freed herself once, but Slaughter bound her arms again with more ties.

After freeing herself a second time and untying her teenage son, she took her husband’s six-shot revolver from a security box under the bed, handed it to her son and locked the double doors to the bedroom.

Houston said that Slaughter heard the two moving around and tried to force his way back into the bedroom.”He would slip the knife through the door and push it open a few inches to a foot,” Houston said.

Michael aimed the pistol at the space between the partially open doors and fired one shot as Slaughter was trying to force his way in.

When officers arrived, they found Slaughter with a gunshot wound to the face.

Slaughter, who lived in several Texas cities, was sentenced to 45 years in prison in 1984 for a break-in at a home in Taft the previous year. He tied up the couple and then fled the scene in their vehicle, which he packed with clothing and valuables.

San Patricio Sheriff Leroy Moody said Slaughter led deputies on a brief chase that ended when they rammed the stolen vehicle.

Despite his feeling Slaughter never should have been paroled, Moody said ultimately the system was not to blame.”He chose the lifestyle he lived. It’s all about choices,” Moody said.

Local residents at the nearby H-E-B on Alameda Street and Robert Drive commended the teenager for his actions.”I would have done the same thing. I’m glad (Slaughter) won’t be able to do it again,” said Tanya Brandon, the mother of a 6-year-old girl.”He was protecting his family.”

Yvette Contreras, who lives on Grossman Drive, said the recent burglary has made her reconsider keeping a gun in her home.”They probably would have been killed if he hadn’t shot him,” Contreras said.”Nowadays, it seems like it’s happening everywhere.”

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:27 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this child not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on him and his family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

An accused group of thugs were thwarted by a 12-year old with a gun. It happened in Greenville when police say five masked men stormed into a house and started beating up the child’s father.

FOX Carolina’s Jamie Guirola reports, Try and picture it. A 12 year old walks into the living room, sees his mother frantically protecting the baby, and several strangers attacking his father. The 12 year old rushes out of the living room, but comes back pointing a gun at the five suspects. As of Monday night, all but one are in jail.

These are the alleged home invaders without their masks. The youngest barely seventeen, the oldest just 20. George Dickert didn’t have time to think about their ages when he tells us they broke into his home and tried to rob his family.

George Dickert/Victim:”F*$# you! That’s what I was thinking.”

Sunday night, George says, one of the suspects in the group followed him into his house after he smoked a cigarette. He tells us the man pulled out a gun, threatening him. When George reached for a different gun in self-defense, a fight broke out.

George:”I work five days a week and my wife works six days a week. We’re an honest couple. We do what we have to do to make a living and some idiot decided he wanted what I had.”

When the struggle started, police say, two other men came into the house and started beating on George. That’s when George’s 12 year old son made the move credited with scaring the accused thugs out of the house, and stopping the burglary without even firing the gun.’

George:”He did what he had to do to protect his family last night. And a 12 year old child should never have to go through that. Even if he does know what to do, he should not have to do that.”

Police later found these four near George’s home sweating and breathing heavily. Something George hopes they’ll do again if they’re convicted and sentenced to the max.

George:”…And I will press and push and do whatever it takes to make sure every individual in it gets it.”

Police aren’t releasing details about the fifth person they’re looking for. George says he has five guns in the house. His taught his son how to use each of them. jamie.guirola@foxcarolina.com

http://www.fox21.com/Global/story.asp?S=5134073&nav=menu149_1

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 02:28 PM | Link to this

Woody, you’ve done a good job riling up the gun nuts.

Can accusations of fascism and Nazi references be far behind when you even question the sanctity of their beloved boom-sticks?

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:29 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this child not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on him and his family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

Maxine Chandler thought she would faint in the wee hours of Saturday when she heard a knock at her door and opened it, only to have a man lunge toward her.

She slammed the door shut and watched the 6-foot-tall man banging a bicycle against the front of her house — repeatedly hitting the window and the door.

Chandler’s screaming and crying roused her 15-year-old son, Javaris Granger, who came to see what was wrong.

Javaris went to his mother’s bedroom and loaded the two handguns his father keeps for protection in the home in the 700 block of South 61st Avenue. The family also called 911.

The man — later identified by police as Keil Jumper — kicked the door off its hinges and barged into the home about 3:30 a.m. Jumper, 22, lives on the Seminoles’ reservation near Hollywood.

Javaris, who is 5-foot-6 and weighs about 125 pounds, took cover behind a wall, armed with a gun in each hand. One of the guns was a .38 caliber, but family members said Tuesday night they were unsure about the other gun.”He was going crazy,” Javaris said.“I shot one time to let him know he had to leave. The dude didn’t leave. He was looking at my eyes, trying to get closer.”

The gun in Javaris’ right hand jammed, and he fired with the gun in his left, sending Jumper running from the single-story home. Javaris thought his shots missed the man, simply scaring him off.”I was real scared…. When I was shooting, my main focus was protecting my mom and family,” Javaris said.

Police found Jumper lying on the ground a few houses away, shot multiple times and bleeding from his wounds, said Hollywood police Capt. Tony Rode.”Preliminary investigation suggests it was a justifiable shooting, and the 15-year-old won’t be charged,” Rode said.

Police said the family did not know Jumper. Records show Jumper has served time in prison for cocaine possession, criminal mischief and throwing a deadly projectile into a home.

On Friday, the day before he allegedly broke into the Chandler home, Jumper was arrested by Seminole police for assault on an officer and resisting an officer.

Javaris protected the 11 other family members in the house — including four children under age two, Chandler said.”We didn’t want to hurt anyone, but we had to do what we had to do,” Chandler said.“When he got in here he had to shoot him.”

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14651308.htm

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:35 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

[Please note that Woody would have preferred that this mother not have access to a gun, with all the consequential harm that would have fallen on her and her family. That is sooo cold of Woody.]

EUREKA SPRINGS, N.C.— A pregnant mother shot and killed a suspected intruder in her home Tuesday afternoon, authorities said.

Crystal Strickland, 23, who has two young children, was lying on her couch in Cumberland County when she heard a noise and saw a man looking through her window, authorities said. When he began trying to force his way in, she told him she had a gun, and he told her that he also was armed, authorities said.

When the man broke into the home, he and Strickland exchanged gunfire, authorities said. The man later died from his wound, authorities said.

The man’s identity hasn’t been released.

Strickland was uninjured.

The incident remains under investigation, but authorities said Strickland’s gun was legally registered.

http://www.nbc17.com/news/8001286/detail.html

By tiger

February 5, 2007 02:43 PM | Link to this

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:44 PM | Link to this

“There is no excuse, nor any reason, why guns should be allowed in homes with children. The two simply do not mix, and it is completely irresponsible parenting.”

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Here you’ll find story after story after story about ordinary homeowners just like you and I protecting their lives, their homes, and their families against predators. Any failure to imagine why someone would want to have a gun in the home is a mark against the Woody, not against the homeowners.

On the very low end of guesstimations, approximately 90 million homes have guns in them. Do ten percent, or 9 million, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

Do one percent, or 900,000, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

Do 1/100th of one percent, or 9,000, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

Do 1/1000th of one percent, or 900, of these homes have children die in them from gunshots each year? No

While every child’s death is a individual tragedy, I fail to see a overwhelmingly large societal problem with gunowners.

Swimming pool owners accidently kill more kids each year than gun owners do.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:52 PM | Link to this

“I am not going to hide how much guns disgust me. I think they are one of the, if not THE, most vile contraptions on earth. “

Here’s the face of anti-gun mentality and reasoning. A person who:

1) knows nothing about guns… 2) doesn’t own a gun… 3) can’t conceive of a reason to own a gun…

and yet constantly speaks about guns and gun owners as if he is an expert with years behind the trigger.

He states with authority that:

1) The general public has no reason to own firearms (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.) 2) Guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have. (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.) 3) There’s a number of completely irresponsible people who go out and purchase a gun knowing absolutely nothing about them (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.) 4) Guns some false sense of security (yet he self-admittedly knows nothing about guns and gun owners.)

Folk… who here would listen to a person who has never driven a car, doesn’t own a car, has never ridden in a car, has never taken a course in car mechanics, and self-professedly believes that all cars are evil but yet constantly expounds about cars.

Would you bother to ask this person to solve your engine problems? Or even how to solve the problem of too many car accidents? Drunk drivers?

Of course not. He would be marginalized in any adult conversation about cars and at best, would be tolerated as comic relief as she makes car noises with his lips to show how internal combustion engines must work (in his view). BRRRR BRRRR BRRRR.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 02:55 PM | Link to this

“The general public has no reason to own firearms such as semi-automatic guns or assault rifles “

“Assault rifles” are being demonized by many politicians, media-types, and anti-gun folk who actually have no idea what it is they are demonizing. Most people who hear the truth are quite surprised to find out just how off-base and factually wrong these nay-sayers such as Woody are.

Assault rifles were first developed by the Germans in WWII, and further refined by the Russians post-war as defined by the AK-47. America’s version, the M-4, wasn’t too bad either.

They tried to meet the needs of the soldiers who were actually fighting so the weapons tended to be:

—lightweight —of a smaller caliber —easy to maintain —rugged —Shot from the hip if necessary —fairly accurate out to a reasonable distance. —Could be fired in three different modes, single, 3-shot, and full automatic.

Any extra metal or wood was left off the gun, and if the part wasn’t needed it wasn’t on the gun. This meant that often the stock (the part that goes against the shooter’s cheek) was just a bare outline of metal. This “look” is often consider bizarre by those who never thought about the “why” of it.

Now, being lightweight created it’s own set of problems.

The foremost problem is that the barrel was a skinny, short little thing, which meant that it got pretty hot quickly. This is not good. Even a little .22 rabbit-rifle heats up with enough shots fired just at the firing range, and a soldier didn’t want to be worrying about a hot barrel. That can cause many bad things to happen including ammo accidentally firing at random. To minimize that a “shroud” was used over the barrel, with ventilating holes to carry away the heat and protect the soldiers hands. It didn’t add anything to the gun except to keep the barrel cooler when firing multiple rounds in a short time.

Often a flash-suppressor was added, not to keep the enemy from knowing where the fire is coming from, but to keep the soldier’s nighttime eyesight protected. The enemy would have plenty of notice about where the fire is coming from since the bullets would be coming directly towards him.

Soldiers don’t like humping heavy things; they have enough to carry anyway so the smaller the rounds (bullets) the more the soldier could pack. One can never have too much ammo, but it doesn’t do any good if you’ve left it all back at the barracks.

This meant the majority of the assault riffles were chambered for the .223 round. That means the width of the bullet is only .223 of a full inch. The significance of this?

Well, the most popular round in the world, and the one that is used to take more rabbits and squirrels than any other (because that’s about all it’s powerful enough for) is the .22 Long Rifle.

The .22 LR bullet is a little thing. Itty bitty. Imagine something less than a quarter inch in diameter. And the dreaded assault riffle bullet is three one thousandth of an inch bigger in diameter. Think of it like this – you have to drive 220 miles to get to your friends house. But he’s moving three miles further away in a month. Will now driving 223 miles make much of a difference overall?

The actual .223 bullet really isn’t that much larger than a fat grain of rice.

So how does such a small bullet help the soldier? Because the .223 is put into a larger cartridge with more powder it comes out of the barrel much faster than a normal .22. That creates more energy when it hits someone, but the small size of the bullet has always kept it from being considered a sure mankiller. In Vietnam a Marine coined the term “poodle killer” for the .223 and that name has stuck even to today. That was okay with the soldiers because in reality a wounded soldier on the other side was better than a dead soldier. A dead soldier was forgotten about but a wounded one needed on average four other soldiers to take care of him.

Because of the way the gun was normally carried on patrol it was good to have a way to immediately bring it into play… thus the stock and grip were designed to fire, if necessary, from the hip. Couldn’t hit a darn thing with it that way but when in combat the enemy doesn’t necessarily stick their head up to check your accuracy. So it worked in a fashion. Kept the enemies heads down until a soldier could get into a better position behind cover.

The rifle didn’t have to be super accurate and it wasn’t. Especially at a distance. Combat between individual soldiers is just not that far apart. If you can barely see the guy it’s a job for artillery, not rifles.

The main distinguishing feature, though, was it’s ability to “select” fire. The shooter could choose between, with one pull of the trigger, to shoot one shot, three shots, or full automatic which meant the gun would fire all the rounds attached to it. Some magazines held five rounds, some ten, twenty, thirty, and even a hundred.

The truth is though, very few of the assault rifles are ever fired full auto by trained troops. The reason is because they just can’t hit anything. Inside a barn they would have trouble hitting the sides of the barn. The barrel wants to rise with every bullet fired, and unless one is a super-sized Rambo the barrel WILL rise into the air while it’s firing.

Virtually every company commander in Vietnam had a standing rule: an automatic $50.00 fine for any troop who shot his gun at full auto without an express order from the commander. This was the days when $50 was almost a months pay for these guys.

There were some extremely limited times when full auto was helpful, and then one was glad they had it.

Our guys in Iraq are under similar orders about firing full auto. It’s just not a productive way to fight a war or kill people.

Why is the full auto bit stressed. Because these guns are NOT what is being sold today, but yet it is what every one screams about when they say “assault weapons.”

The guns sold to the civilian market that “look like” the military weapons all fire ONE SHOT at a time, just like virtually every other gun on the market. It’s nothing special, and it’s the way civilian rifles have been made for almost 140 years.

Buying a newly-manufactured full-fledged automatic assault weapon has been illegal since 1986, and unless one has jumped through sufficient federal government hoops it is also highly illegal to buy one that was made before 1986.

The process to obtain an older automatic weapon is complicated and expensive, and includes fingerprints by the Feds and an exorbitant federal transfer tax on each full auto weapon.

“Machine guns” and “automatic weapons” are simply not bought down at Walmart. Complaining about someone waking into a store and legally buying fully automatic weapons is akin to complaining about how circuses mistreat unicorns.

Those who talk about “machine guns” blasting away at rabbits or deer are either highly ignorant of the subject or just doing it to demagogue the discussion.

What the anti-gunners mean when they say “assault weapons” are guns that are made to “look like” the real ones. And that’s it. There are a number of variations in manufacturers, and model names, but not a single one of them would be found on a battlefield. The real soldiers would laugh at them.

One can take a little .22 rifle which looks like a harmless little plinking rifle that wouldn’t do any great damage to a armadillo and for a couple of hundred dollars buy all kinds of replacement parts and add-ons such as the barrel-shroud and flash-suppressor that would make it indistinguishable (from the outside) to an “assault rifle.” Yet, internally it would be the same little ol’ .22.

What many in the anti-gun movement are trying to do is to get one to believe that if you put racing stripes and decals on your dad’s Oldsmobile you can take it out to the NASCAR track and compete equally.

Yes, many of the look-alikes fire the same .223 round as the military ones do, but this is considered an underpowered round by the civilian world. It’s certainly less powerful than what Uncle Bob’s deer hunting rifle fires. And, by the way, it does make a perfectly fine hunting gun if used on the right game. Many people think rifles chambered for the .223 cartridge are the absolute best for hunting varmints such as coyotes, and it’s even popular for some small types of deer in parts of the country where the forest is thick and sight is only fifty yards or so.

They are lightweight, rugged, and easy to maintain because many people, including tens of thousands of ranchers, farmers, and backpackers need this type of rifle while out in the fields. Many police departments in both big and little cities across the nation are converting to these guns for the same reasons.

A farmer friend of mine in northwest Arkansas carries one on the back of his tractor out in the fields. His bane is armadillos, which tear up his crops faster than anything else. When he sees one he shoots it. He needs something that can stand up to the abuse of being shaken for hours on the tractor, is lightweight and short enough not to get in his way, and is powerful enough to pierce the ‘dillo hide. His AR-15, the semi-auto civilian model of the M-4, is perfect for his use.

These rifles can use magazines that hold up to 30 rounds, but if one can shoot three 10 round mags in 30 seconds or one 30 round mag in 24 seconds it is not really any more dangerous. When the King riots were happening in L.A. there were many Koreans on their rooftops with their AR-15s and multiple round mags. They kept their neighborhood from burning down. That’s a pretty impressive reason for wanting any weapon.

The civilian models have been made more accurate than the military models because the majority of the guns sold are simply used as target rifles. It’s a huge sport and tens of thousands compete across the country to see who can maintain the most accurate rifle. Go to most outdoor ranges and you’ll see all kinds of guys with their AR-15s and others at the line. These guys are just average, everyday guys (and some women) who like to put little holes in paper with things that go bang.

Many of these folk are former military who hold fond memories of those days. Others just want to look cool, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. A lot of them consider the military as “heroes” and want to emulate them.

Again, these guns may “look” like a military weapon but they are the farthest thing from one… they fire just one bullet at a time the way every other civilian rifle is sold. There is fundamentally no difference between them and Uncle Bob’s hunting rifle except in they way they look, and a smaller type bullet.

Now that you know the truth of the matter you can spot when someone is ignorant about assault weapons and yet are still willing to give their opinion about something they know nothing about.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:08 PM | Link to this

“Power changes people and guns provide more power than any one individual was meant to have.”

As you read the following be thinking of the questions, What would Woody have me to do? What would Woody have done? What would Woody have wanted his wife to do? And is Woody really this cold-blooded that he wants innocents to die just to satisfy his fear of guns?

As you may be aware, Indiana is one of the almost 40 states where citizens can exercise their right to bear arms on a daily basis. I am one of the 350,000 Hoosiers who chose to do so.

A little while back, my work took me into Gary, which has been the murder capitol of the U.S. for several of the past ten years.

I parked my van in the church parking lot where my business was, and having locked the door behind me, went to meet the pastor. After the meeting I headed back to the van.

When I was about 100 feet from the van, I noticed two young, urban youths coming down the other side of the street. They saw me at the same time. They immediately wheeled in my direction and, after diagonally crossing the street, started walking towards me. Any instructor of self-defense techniques will tell you that is a clear and present danger signal.

I managed to make it back to the van, while listening to them the whole time trash-talking about how they were the baddest ones in the ‘hood and they didn’t take no crap from no one. They were catching up to me pretty fast.

The driver door was on the other side of the van, away from the street, and I understood that I would have to have my back turned to them as I was trying to unlock the door. Not only would any action they took be blocked from any passerby, but it put me in a highly vulnerable position.

Now, it’s easy to say that I should not have put myself in that position in the first place by going to Gary, but that only holds true if one is willing to redline the entire city.

I must admit, I was quite concerned for my safety. I’m past middle-aged, slow, fat, and with a bum leg. Facing down two urban youths was not what I wanted to do when I woke up that morning, ready to greet the day. However, that was exactly what I had to do, because no more than a second or two after I reached the driver’s door the two came around the back side of my van and began approaching me.

Because I have a mature understanding about guns I am able to finish the story. As I rounded the back of the van myself, I put my hand into my front pocket and wrapped it around my legally carried handgun. When I reached the locked driver’s door, I turned and put my back to the door, and faced outward, keeping my hand in the pocket. I had the confidence that if needed, I was going to be able to defend myself, and quite possibly, my life.

This must have showed on my face. The youths came around the back of the van and saw me calmly standing there waiting for them. I didn’t say anything, and I didn’t pull the gun - but my attitude certainly said they needed to reconsider any very-near future actions they were contemplating.

They were predators, and they understood this very well. Weak targets of opportunity are eaten quickly, but those who give strong indications that they’ll bite back are left alone. They backed away, turned, and headed across the lot to places unknown.

According to the desires of Woody I should have been forced to somehow run instead of facing down these two thugs. Got that? If I am minding my own business and am assaulted or threatened by a violent criminal Woody wants the onus to be on me to flee, retreat, submit, or even die — anything EXCEPT stand my ground with a firearm.

How morally and intellectually backwards can Woody be to adopt such an indefensible position? The duty and perfect right of a law-abiding citizen is to defend themselves with deadly force if need be against criminals. That is the essence of the disagreement between the opposing sides on gun control.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:13 PM | Link to this

Here’s what a friend of mine wrote her young daughter…compare the level of maturity and thoughfulness between her and Woody.

A Letter To My Daughter By Lana White Austin - -

Dear Alexandra,

You may still be young, but I want to start very early in your life telling you about a subject that is vital to me and you and everyone we know who values freedom. While you will frequently hear dissenting views, many vehemently proclaimed, know that I have reached my opinions through years of research, personal experience and hopefully from a perspective of integrity.

Guns will be blamed for numerous deaths and injuries when, in fact, it’s people who should be blamed. As our society seems to be ripped to shreds and morality, commitment and common sense are left behind, something will have to be blamed for the remaining chaos.

Many people will turn to guns as the target of their rage and frustration. Some will be innocent in their views. Perhaps they’ve experienced first hand the pain of losing someone and are looking for a reason. Their pain is undeniable. I am a mother and I grieve with them. But I can’t support their conclusions - they’re wrong.

You will see the media frequently report only a partial version of the truth. You’ll hear about tragic events in schools where senseless violence took the lives of the innocent. You’ll hear guns take the brunt of the blame, not the many other factors that contribute to such heinous events. While the images frequently portrayed on television, those of distraught families dealing with the loss of a loved one, will break your heart, don’t be deterred in your dedication to defending the truth. Without guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, there will be far more bloodshed and far more distraught families.

Although you’ll rarely see it accurately portrayed by the media, the truth is that where law-abiding men and women can carry guns for their own protection crime goes down. That means less violence, less death, less innocent children to be buried. I feel that when I fight for my right to bear arms, I am, in actuality, saving more innocent children. So many people have it backwards. We have to share the truth with them.

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.

The language of the Second Amendment is pretty clear, if you know just a little bit of history. Some people twist the words to suit their own purposes, though. They’ll try to tell you that that first subordinate clause guarantees the right for states to have a state militia or the National Guard. Not even close. When the Framers of the Constitution said “militia”, they meant you.

That’s right, every able-bodied citizen old enough to bear arms. It’s an individual right. When the Second Amendment says “the people”, it means just that, like it does in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Also notice that the Constitution doesn’t give you your rights, it protects the bold claims of the Declaration of Independence, that we are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”

After all, what good are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the means to protect them? People who want to take this right away from you are afraid of your freedom. That’s why gun control has its roots in the worst kinds of rascism. The first gun control laws in this country served to deny free blacks and American Indians the right to defend themselves.

As a woman, you’ll meet people who don’t think you’re capable of responsibly owning a gun. Those people are the ideological descendants of the men who didn’t want black Americans to be able to fight off lynch mobs.

Don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise. Defend this right with your life if you have to because all other constitutional freedoms could be taken away if we waver on the right to bear arms.

Time and time again women have been saved from horrible things - rape and death - because they carried a gun. It can truly be the only thing that can “level the playing field” in situations like that when you’re smaller and you’re alone, confronted by danger. When you’re old enough we’ll teach you how to safely handle, shoot and care for the guns in house. We make sure that you can safely and securely defend yourself with a gun if the situation ever arises.

This is so important to me because I feel that it is my moral obligation as your parent to help you be independent and to protect you in any possible situation. I hope that one day you feel the same way about providing your daughter with the same opportunity to fully protect herself.

Keep in mind, though, that not only will shooting sports provide great amusement, they can be instrumental in teaching self-discipline, attention to detail, responsibility and other values as well.

Statistics can be misreported or only half the story told in an effort to twist your mind and force you to believe something that isn’t true, so you have to do more research and look beneath the surface of information you’re given. You will hear how thousands of people die from firearms every year, but you won’t hear how thousands more people were saved by the use of guns. I feel completely confident that if you are willing to do thorough research that you will come to the same conclusions that I have.

What could possibly be more important that that?

That’s why I’m writing you this letter. I love you and wish for you and my future grandchildren and their children and so on, and so on, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And I believe with my whole heart that our right to bear arms is the only way to ensure that you and future generations will still have that

Love, Your Mother

By Brian Curtis

February 5, 2007 03:19 PM | Link to this

“Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline. If you’re obsessive-compulsive, please press 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.”

Sounds like somebody’s hot-button has been pushed.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:21 PM | Link to this

“Next week, I will propose my plan to eliminate some, if not the majority, of that irresponsibility.

Ten will get you one that ol’ Woody will get around to talking about treating guns “just like cars.”

Okay… I’m game for that. But let us explore a moment what that means…

Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.

Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.

Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes

Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes

Can I buy Hummers like the troops use? Yes.

Do I need a license to buy a car? No (in most states)

Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.

Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes

Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes. Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes

Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)

Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No

Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No

Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No

Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not

Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes

Shall I go on? Or do we really, really want to treat guns like cars?

In Addition:

IF GUNS WERE TREATED LIKE CARS :

10 The news would stop reporting gun accidents unless more than 10 children were killed at one time. Onesy-twosey would only be notable in small towns or if Princess Di’s bodyguard shot her while aiming at paparazzi.

11 If the price of ammunition rose 20% the Federal Government would release war reserves of ammo to bring the price back down to the consumer’s comfort level.

Ammo would carry a 50% tax to finance public shooting ranges.

12 We’d teach gunsmithing in vocational-education programs.

13 Every 16 year old would be looking forward to the day when he could take the family revolver to school. The rich kids would get a high capacity semi-auto pistol on their 16th birthday and endanger everyone when they learn to use it in public.

14 High schools would have large gun lockers to store student’s arms while they attend classes. Administrators would try to charge for the service to discourage teen-age gun carrying to school.

15 Schools would have shooter’s education classes to make sure the kids could pass the test. They would show gory films of gunshot wounds. The squeamish would throw up.

16 Old people who can hardly see would still be permitted to shoot in public because to disarm them would be to damage their self-esteem. Families would wring their hands over holes in the walls and ceiling.

Occasionally an oldster would fire into a schoolyard when they mistake the trigger for the safety. Legislators would refrain from criticizing because of the AARP’s influence.

17 Congress would be debating alternative weapons systems for people who can’t afford their own guns.

18 There would be such a thing as “public weapons” for the masses.

19 Congress would be subsidizing weapons for people too limited in means to afford their own.

20 Congress would be willing to float a loan to Colt’s in order to ensure the survival of an American company against unfair foreign competition. (Think “Chrysler”)

21 We, except for Ralph Nader, would dismiss 40,000 deaths and 500,000 injuries per year as “the price of freedom.”

22 You would have MADS. Mothers Against Drunk Shooters (instead of HCI). MADS would conduct a campaign of public education instead of trying to use the force of government to prohibit irresponsible drinking and shooting.

23 You could rent a gun at any airport if you are over 25 and have a credit card.

24 You would have the fringe-greenies advocating bows and arrows because they think gunsmoke is damaging the environment.

Al Gore would write a book about the damaging effects of gunsmoke.

Al Gore would also claim to have been a handloader before his sister died in a powder fire.

25 You’d have huge outcry in the Press and Congress over our dependence on cheap, imported, foreign ammunition.

26 Ted Kennedy would have shot Mary Jo Kopekne instead. Ted would be a few thousand dollars richer (bullet:$0.25 vs car:$3000)

Ted would stop carrying his own gun and instead, hire bodyguards to carry fully-automatic weapons under their coats for him.

27 You’d have businesses like “Jiffy Gun-Clean” to make life convenient. But you’d always worry that they might not have gotten the magazine fully seated afterwards.

28 You’d have “Classic Gun Events” with parades on public roads as everyone with such a classic carries it for all the public to see.

29 You’d have huge eyesores where piles of guns are left to rust in the open at “Gun Junk Yards”. They would charge you outrageous prices to go out back and pick off a hammer or sear which is probably also worn out like the one you want to replace.

30 There would be a booming business and debate about substituting non-OEM parts in the gun repair business.

31 You’d have TV news crews going under cover with hidden cameras to ferret out “unscrupulous gun smiths.” This story would be “old reliable” and works every year.

32 The Japanese would be trying, and succeeding, at taking over the market for efficient, reliable high-quality guns.

The Koreans would be trying to sneak in at the low end of the market.

The Germans would be selling premium brands based on better workmanship, longer life, and brand cachet. But their guns would require you to take it to a gunsmith every 3 months for a complete tear-down and dimensional inspection at outrageous labor rates.

The Italians would paint their guns flaming red and they would have a reputation for being finicky.

The State Department would be applying pressure to get Japan to allow more US-built guns into their country.

The Japanese would resist the US by saying that Japanese shooters have extra-special safety requirements that only Japanese manufacturers can meet.

33 You’d have an entire section of the Saturday Coloradoan devoted to ads for new and used guns.

34 You’d have a pair of fun-loving gunsmiths on Public Radio doing a show on gun problems. They’d be named “Tap & Rack”

35 There would have been a terrible TV show back in the black & white days named “My Mother - The Gun”. It starred Jerry Van D** and ran just one season.

36 Dean Jones would have made a series of stupid movies starring Herbie the Love-Gun. Herbie was an adorable anthropomorphized cheap German Saturday Night Special. Dean Jones would never show his face in public again after these movies.

37 Competition would be carried on TV all day on Saturdays. The Daytona 500 would be round-count instead of miles. There would be speed contests, endurance contests, and off-range marksmanship events.

NASGUN would create big heroes in the South and extravagant marketing opportunities.

38 High-schools would paint up a gun in the colors of the opposition and charge $.25 for you to swing a sledge hammer at that gun during pep rallys.

39 John Elway would own half the gunstores in the Denver Metro area.

40 Wellington Webb’s wife would be carrying the finest English Double shotgun money can buy while Wellington has body guards to carry his semi-auto pistols for him.

41 Back in the 1970’s during the ammo crisis, Congress would have set a maximum cyclic rate for autos and semi autos in order to conserve ammo.

42 After Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait, the national cyclic rate was raised to something all semi-autos can be comfortable with.

43 The Coloradoan would be publishing the locations of range repair work every week to be sure no one would be inconvenienced.

44 The Beach Boys would have released some songs about guns:

“Spring little Cobray gettin’ ready to strike….. Spring little Cobray with all your might…..”

“She’s real fine my Wonder Nine, she’s real fine my Won-der Nine.”

“Fun, fun, fun ‘til Daddy takes her Kel-Tec away……”

45 Letters to editors would be written decrying that all those Soccer Moms are lugging .50 cal machine guns around town, wasting ammo and getting in everybody’s way.

46 Letters to editors would be written responding that putting one’s beginning driver son or daughter behind a .50 cal would mean that the writer’s offspring would survive any conflict with lesser armed individuals.

47 Al Gore would claim he invented the .50cal cartridge and say he was sorry.

48 Cities would be experimenting with electric guns but would be surprised to find that people would step in front of them at the range because they were too quiet so no one knew the electric gun was there.

49 President Clinton would demand that electric gun manufacturers put a cowbell on each one to prevent senseless accidents.

50 The National Rifle Association would be reduced to selling travel insurance for your guns because the rest of society will have seen to it that there would be no chance that firearms would ever be banned.

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:30 PM | Link to this

““Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline. If you’re obsessive-compulsive, please press 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1.””

Your right, Brian… Woody writing three papers on guns and gun control in one college semester probably is a little OCB, but hey, it’s a free country and if his profs don’t mind who are we to say otherwise.

His continuing need to deal with his irrational fears out in public though strike me as a person who knows he is too much of a coward to take care of the safty of his family and is therefore trying to bring all others down to his level instead of taking a look inside and raising his game up to what’s necessary. But he’ll have to deal with that himself.

Thanks for helping him by pointing out at least one of his problems though.

By Joe Huffman

February 5, 2007 03:31 PM | Link to this

I have Just One Question for Woody:

Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?

By jack burton

February 5, 2007 03:51 PM | Link to this

“Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?”

I’ll take your challenge up Joe, since Woody is too busy on sensory overload realizing that sometimes a gun in the home actually CAN help a child.

Yes, not having access to a Glock (or knife, or sword, or shotgun) kept Cain and Abel from ever quarreling and led them to enjoy a long and fruitful life together until they both died of old age (which in those days were really, really old).

So there.

By Woody Bass

February 5, 2007 04:02 PM | Link to this

Jack Burton: Good points (those Ive had time to read so far that is).. and again.. Ill do my best to address them here or in next week’s blog.

Joe Huffman: I remember reading about 5 or so years ago about someone who did that very research. Ill try to find the link again and post here.

By woodys mom

February 5, 2007 04:31 PM | Link to this

this is one thing woody and i dont talk about at all. in one way i agree with him that gun control needs to be enforced. when it comes to guns in homes they should be regulated and locked up. if they are a responsible gun owners and keep all weapons locked up then you dont have to worry about children around them. but guns should be kept in a gun safe locked up. if and accident happens because of not be a responsible gun owner then you should pay the consequences according to the law. in other wards im not like woody i do believe in the right to bear arms but with responiblity. i personally plan on getting a snake shot gun for those d** rattle snakes in tenn that is suppose to be on our property.. hate snakes worse than guns for sure…

By Kristopher

February 5, 2007 05:49 PM | Link to this

I’ll save you the trouble of looking up that 5 year old research.

The “researcher” is named Kellermann. He claimed that a home with a firearm in it is 43 times more likely to suffer a firearms accident/assault of one of the family members.

He worked for a major anti-gun group while spending 2 million dollars of federal CDC funds on his bogus research. He has, to this date, refused to release his data for peer review.

No peer review = Not science

By Joe Huffman

February 5, 2007 05:53 PM | Link to this

Woody, the CDC reviewed a bunch of papers on the topic in 2003. Perhaps you can leverage some of their work in your search for evidence.

See also the original link to Just One Question.

Good luck! :-)

By Chuck@PodunkOutpost

February 5, 2007 06:09 PM | Link to this

Jack,

Hell of a job your doing, even if you are missing a couple of source citations…

By Heard it here first

February 5, 2007 06:33 PM | Link to this

Kristopher and Joe: Kellermann doesnt ring a bell, I believe the source to the article I am referring to was the ATF but I am still looking for the article again so I can clarify.

I will check out the link as soon as I can Joe.

By Kevin Roth

February 5, 2007 06:51 PM | Link to this

I was shot by another student in high school, the year was 1966 when I was 14 years old. The shooter had been a victim of teasing and he took his dad’s 22 cal. pistol to school that october morning. He shot me and killed an administrator. I own one shot gun, one rifle and a pistol…all are used for pleasure, hunting and target practice. I do not keep the ammunition near the locked guns, so my point is people need to be responsible gun owners. Checkout: colimbinedangels.com for schools shootings in the US.

By Scott Hamilton

February 5, 2007 08:01 PM | Link to this

“What’s more dangerous: a swimming pool or a gun? When it comes to children, there is no comparison: a swimming pool is 100 times more deadly.

In 1997 alone (the last year for which data are available), 742 children under the age of 10 drowned in the United States last year alone. Approximately 550 of those drownings — about 75 percent of the total — occurred in residential swimming pools. According to the most recent statistics, there are about six million residential pools, meaning that one young child drowns annually for every 11,000 pools.

About 175 children under the age of 10 died in 1998 as a result of guns. About two-thirds of those deaths were homicides. There are an estimated 200 million guns in the United States. Doing the math, there is roughly one child killed by guns for every one million guns.

Thus, on average, if you both own a gun and have a swimming pool in the backyard, the swimming pool is about 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is. “

quoted from Steven D. Levitt, Professor of Economics, University of Chicago

By James Mullen

February 5, 2007 08:25 PM | Link to this

Kristopher, the so-called study you mention was performed by Dr. Arthur Kellerman. How he got those numbers was by including suicides in his data samples instead of limiting them to crimes committed or accidents with a firearm within the home.

Anti-gun groups love to claim that approximately 30,000 Americans die from gun violence each year. While that number is accurate, they are not the result of “gun violence”. Just over half of that number (30,000) are composed of suicides. A quick visit to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report will verify the number of people who are murdered and what weapon was used.

FBI UCR Data: Murder By Weapon http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expandedinformation/data/shrtable07.html

By jack burton