Today's Cartoons 11/29 started with Guns. There hasn't been a school shooting lately so, it has been out of the news. There was supposed to be one but, the authorities found them out before one bullet was fired.

Depending on how and who reads the 2nd. Amendment, you either can or cannot have a gun. You have the Right to Bear Arms but, do you have to be part of a Well Regulated Militia? Does a Police Department fall under that heading, what about the National Guard? I don't think our Forefathers meant the 2nd. Amendment to be ambiguous nor did they write it that way. During their time having a gun was not an issue. I believe they thought, it would remain a non issue.

As we all know today, it is an issue. We have failed to keep it a non issue by doing nothing, while guns kept being made, sold to anybody, no questions asked. The few Gun Control laws the government has are weak, with loopholes. The States were given the responsibility to control the sale of guns, few do their jobs to make an impact. The lobby of the NRA rides herd over the Congress to ensure the flow of Guns keeps coming.

The only way this issue can be settled is be compromise on both sides. It is unfortunate that the NRA does not know what that word means, until they do Automatic guns such as the AK-47, will be allowed to be sold for hunting. The NRA does not trust this type of gun to be banned. They believe if they give in, all guns will eventually be off the market. The NRA refuses to budge from this stance.

I don't know where all of your information comes from but I can tell you that your info on gun control in Germany, under the Nazis, is incorrect. The Weimar republican established gun control and it was punishable by death to have an illegal gun. The Nazis reversed the Weimar rules....except for Jews. Anyone in the Nazi party could own a gun.

It is also untrue that the Japanese could have invaded the US, but decided not to because of privately owned weapons. If you have any evidence of that I'd be interested in reading it. Remember that the Japanese didn't invade Australia either. With a much smaller population and without widespread private ownership of guns, Australia should have been a push over....eh?

Look at the number of British soldiers captured at Singapore. If I am not mistaken, they all had guns. There were 75,000 soldiers who surrendered in the Phillipines and guns were owned by a lot of people in the PI. As a matter of fact the Morro rebellion was quite costly to the occupying power (The USA).

The right to own guns cannot be interpreted to include people who are incapable of controlling their tempers, as proven by records of medical care or police records. We should not allow the ownership of battlefield weapons. Machine guns, RPGs, land mines and grenade launchers are on my list of things I don't want my neighbor to have in his basement armory.

The buy back program was in 1997. The statistics you quote are pretty loosely linked to reality. Handguns were never widely owned. The possession of hand guns was limited to certain groups of people, special clubs, collectors etc...

The buy back program targeted semi-automatic and pump action weapons.

The 300% increase in firearm homicides is talking about an increase of 12 deaths, from 7 in 1996 to 19 in 1997 in a state with a population of 4.5 million people.

<link>

New York has a population of 8 million and in 2007 there were 500 homicides and you certainly can't claim that there is any shortage of guns in New York city, in spite of the Sullivan act.

”This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead.” (Chancelor’s Speech, 1935 by Adolf Hilter)
“The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subject peoples to possess arms. So let’s not have any talk about native militas.” (Hitler’s Secret Conversations, 1941-44, Farrar, Strauss and Young, 1953)
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” (by Mao Zedong in the Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in “Selected Works of Mao Zedong,” 1965)

In the 1930's, after Hitler came to power, the NAZI government made the ownership of guns among private civilians illegal. They then proceeded to confiscate all the guns so the German people would be weak, and unable to stand up against the tyrannical activities of their own government. Name one communist country, or one despotic dictatorship, where gun ownership among the civilian population is a cherished right? Of course you can't. That type of tyranny only florishes in an environment where the population is weak, and unable to stand up for itself.

During Hitlers reign, the Germans invaded country after country in Europe. However, one country they would not invade was Switzerland. Why? Switzerland was the only country left in Europe that still allowed it's people to freely keep and bear arms. The NAZI's, being afraid of widespread armed resistance, left them alone. Do you think if the Jews in NAZI Germany were well armed, and offered feirce resistance, that the holocaust would have happened on a scale that it did? Of course not. They offered very little resistance, and were not armed.

• A recent report for Congress notes, "All countries have some form of firearms regulation, ranging from the very strictly regulated countries like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore and Sweden to the less stringently controlled uses in the jurisdictions of Mexico and Switzerland, where the right to bear arms continues as a part of the national heritage up to the present time." However, "From available statistics, among (the 27) countries surveyed, it is difficult to find a correlation between the existence of strict firearms regulations and a lower incidence of gun-related crimes. . . . (I)n Canada a dramatic increase in the percentage of handguns used in all homicides was reported during a period in which handguns were most strictly regulated. And in strictly regulated Germany, gun-related crime is much higher than in countries such as Switzerland and Israel, that have simpler and/or less restrictive legislation." (Library of Congress, "Firearms Regulations in Various Foreign Countries, May 1998.")
• Many foreign countries have less restrictive firearms laws, and lower crime rates, than parts of the U.S. that have more restrictions. And many have low crime rates, despite having very different firearms laws. Switzerland and Japan "stand out as intriguing models. . . . (T)hey have crime rates that are among the lowest in the industrialized world, and yet they have diametrically opposite gun policies." (Nicholas D. Kristof, "One Nation Bars, The Other Requires," New York Times, 3/10/96.) Swiss citizens are issued fully-automatic rifles to keep at home for national defense purposes, yet "abuse of military weapons is rare." The Swiss own two million firearms, including handguns and semi-automatic rifles, they shoot about 60 million rounds of ammunition per year, and "the rate of violent gun abuse is low." (Stephen P. Halbrook, Target Switzerland; Library of Congress, pp. 183-184.) In Japan, rifles and handguns are prohibited; shotguns are very strictly regulated. Japan`s Olympic shooters have had to practice out of the country because of their country`s gun laws. Yet, crime has been rising for about the last 15 years and the number of shooting crimes more than doubled between 1997-1998. Organized crime is on the rise and 12 people were killed and 5,500 injured in a nerve gas attack in a Japanese subway system in 1995. (Kristof, "Family and Peer Pressure Help Keep Crime Levels down in Japan," New York Times, 5/14/95.) Mostly without firearms, Japan`s suicide rate is at a record high, about 90 per day. (Stephanie Strom, "In Japan, Mired in Recession, Suicides Soar," New York Times, p. 1, 7/15/99.)
• U.S. crime trends have been better than those in countries with restrictive firearms laws. Since 1991, with what HCI calls "weak gun laws" (Sarah Brady, "Our Country`s Claim to Shame," 5/5/97), the number of privately owned firearms has risen by perhaps 50 million. Americans bought 37 million new firearms in the 1993-1999 time frame alone. (BATF, Crime Gun Trace Reports, 1999, National Report, 11/00.) Meanwhile, America`s violent crime rate has decreased every year and is now at a 23- year low (FBI). In addition to Japan, other restrictive countries have experienced increases in crime:

England -- Licenses have been required for rifles and handguns since 1920, and for shotguns since 1967. A decade ago semi-automatic and pump-action center-fire rifles, and all handguns except single- shot .22s, were prohibited. The .22s were banned in 1997. Shotguns must be registered and semi-automatic shotguns that can hold more than two shells must be licensed. Despite a near ban on private ownership of firearms, "English crime rates as measured in both victim surveys and police statistics have all risen since 1981. . . . In 1995 the English robbery rate was 1.4 times higher than America`s. . . . the English assault rate was more than double America`s." All told, "Whether measured by surveys of crime victims or by police statistics, serious crime rates are not generally higher in the United States than England." (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Crime and Justice in the United States and in England and in Wales, 1981-1996," 10/98.) An English doctor is suspected of murdering more than 200 people, many times the number killed in the gun-related crimes used to justify the most recent restrictions.

"A June 2000 CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain `one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world.` Declared Dan Rather: `This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness. . . (But now) the U.K. has a crime problem . . . worse than ours.`" (David Kopel, Paul Gallant, and Joanne Eisen, "Britain: From Bad to Worse," America`s First Freedom, 3/01, p. 26.) Street crime increased 47% between 1999 and 2000 (John Steele, "Crime on streets of London doubles," London Daily Telegraph, Feb. 29, 2000.) See also www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/oks­lip.html, <link> and <link>

Australia -- Licensing of gun owners was imposed in 1973, each handgun requires a separate license, and self-defense is not considered a legitimate reason to have a firearm. Registration of firearms was imposed in 1985. In May 1996 semi-automatic center-fire rifles and many semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns were prohibited. As of Oct. 2000, about 660,000 privately owned firearms had been confiscated and destroyed. However, according to the Australian Institute of Criminology, between 1996-1998 assaults rose 16 percent, armed robberies rose 73 percent, and unlawful entries rose eight percent. Murders increased slightly in 1997 and decreased slightly in 1998. (Jacob Sullum, "Guns down under," Reason, Australia, p. 10, 10/1/00) For more information on Australian crime trends, see <link>

Canada -- A 1934 law required registration of handguns. A 1977 law (Bill C-51) required a "Firearms Acquisition Certificate" for acquiring a firearm, eliminated protection of property as a reason for acquiring a handgun, and required registration of "restricted weapons," defined to include semi- automatic rifles legislatively attacked in this country under the slang and confusing misnomer, "assault weapon." The 1995 Canadian Firearms Act (C-68) prohibited compact handguns and all handguns in .32 or .25 caliber -- half of privately owned handguns. It required all gun owners to be licensed by Jan. 1, 2000, and to register all rifles and shotguns by Jan. 1, 2003. C-68 broadened the police powers of "search and seizure" and allowed the police to enter homes without search warrants, to "inspect" gun storage and look for unregistered guns. Canada has no American "Fifth Amendment;" C-68 requires suspected gun owners to testify against themselves. Because armed self-defense is considered inappropriate by the government, "Prohibited Weapons Orders" have prohibited private possession and use of Mace and similar, non-firearm means of protection. (For more information, see www.cfc- ccaf.gc.ca and <link>

From 1978 to 1988, Canada`s burglary rate increased 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate. Half of burglaries in Canada are of occupied homes, compared to only 10% in the U.S. From 1976 to 1980, ethnically and economically similar areas of the U.S. and Canada had virtually identical homicide rates, despite significantly different firearm laws. See also <link>

Germany -- Described in the Library of Congress report as "among the most stringent in Europe," Germany`s laws are almost as restrictive as those which HCI wants imposed in the U.S. Licenses are required to buy or own a firearm, and to get a license a German must prove his or her "need" and pass a government test. Different licenses are required for hunters, recreational shooters, and collectors. As is the case in Washington, D.C., it is illegal to have a gun ready for defensive use in your own home. Before being allowed to have a firearm for protection, a German must again prove "need." Yet the annual number of firearm-related murders in Germany rose 76% between 1992-1995. (Library of Congress, p. 69.) It should be noted, HCI goes further than the Germans, believing "there is no constitutional right to self-defense" (HCI Chair Sarah Brady, quoted in Tom Jackson, "Keeping the Battle Alive," Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93) and "the only reason for guns in civilian hands is sporting purposes" (HCI`s Center to Prevent Handgun Violence Director, Dennis Henigan, quoted in USA Today, 11/20/91).

Italy -- There are limits on the number of firearms and the quantity of ammunition a person may own. To be issued a permit to carry a firearm, a person must prove an established need, such as a dangerous occupation. Firearms which use the same ammunition as firearms used by the military -- which in America would include countless millions of rifles, shotguns, and handguns -- and ammunition for them are prohibited. Yet, "Italy`s gun law, `the most restrictive in Europe,` had left her southern provinces alone with a thousand firearm murders a year, thirty times Switzerland`s total." (Richard A. I. Munday, Most Armed & Most Free?, Brightlingsea, Essex: Piedmont Publishing, 1996.)

1. I'm not aware of any politician in the US calling for a ban on guns.

2. I was only questioning your statistics and the part of your post having to do with Nazi Germany. In 1928 the Weimar republic passed a law that included the death penalty for the possession of certain weapons or even ammunition. The Nazis gained power in 1933 and by a huge majority of the vote. The first record I can find of them changing the gun laws is 1938 and that simply required a license to sell guns and membership in the Nazi party to own one. Gun control obviously did not play a part in their taking over the government of Germany. Remember that the reason for the 1928 law was that there were so many private militias at war with one another that there was open warfare in the streets of Berlin. As is evident in the US, gun control is a reaction to gun violence. The first efforts at nationwide gun control was due to the availability of machine guns in the 1920's. Shit, you could buy a thompson from the Sears catalog.

Bringing up quotes from the past is both a help and a hinderance to the debate. Read this to see why I say that.

<link>

Most people are in favor of reasonable gun controls. You cannot actually want to have your neighbors to have an armory in their houses. Are you in favor of being allowed to buy machine guns? How about RPGs or mortors or maybe small crew served weapons like recoiless rifles? Got a problem with backpack nukes?

One problem you have to realize is that a bunch of suburban dads running around attempting to pretend that they are keeping the nation free is silly. Our military keeps us free and I have no reason to suspect that they would fail to do so in the future. If you want the Colorado Light Militia (a bunch of overweight dads) to be able to fight against a trained and disciplined military unit, then you will have to give them access to more than hunting rifles and handguns.

The other point that I think you would agree with is that no every American should have a gun. If you've been convicted of a felony or are currently under a court restraint or have been treated for mental disorder.....you can't have a gun. I'm in favor of controls on who can sell a gun, because I think background checks are vital. Should be easy to arrange a system where gun dealers can sell your gun on consignment. I'm against someone being able to buy 20 guns in a week, unless they have a dealers license. People talk about New York or DC as unsafe, even though they have fairly restrictive laws on owning guns. Yes they do, but in tracking guns used in crimes the FBI has found that people drive to states where guns are easy to get, buy a bunch, drive to DC and sell them from the trunk of their cars. That should be easily prevented.

Try just a few……..

Senator Dianne Feinstein: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them... 'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here." CBS-TV's "60 Minutes", February 5, 1995

We must be able to arrest people before they commit crimes. By registering guns and knowing who has them we can do that... If they have guns they are pretty likely to commit a crime.

Mary Ann Carlson

State Senator (VT)

As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun.

John H. Chafee

U.S. Senator (R-RI)

We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases.

William L. Clay

Robert L. Koenig, NRA-Backed Measure May Derail Brady Bill, St. Louis Post Dispatch, 1A

Representative (D-MO) [St. Louis]

1993-05-08

And we should -- then every community in the country could then start doing major weapon sweeps and then destroying the weapons, not selling them.

Bill Clinton

If the personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees.

Bill Clinton

1993-08-12

You know I don't believe in people owning guns, only the police and military. And I'm going to do everything I can to disarm this state.

Michael Dukakis

in conversation with Mike Yacino, MA Gun Owner's Action League, and Roy Innis, CORE

Massachusetts Governor

1986-06-16

I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns.

When the soviet union tried to take over Afghanistan, their “military” crumbles, but the people fought them to a stand still and it all started with outdated weapons, many of their guns were single shot rifles.

I can agree that if you've been convicted of a felony or are currently under a court restraint or have been treated for mental disorder. I would even take it a little further out than you do. I think that proper gun safety should be taught at every JR in the U.S.. Also that everyone who buys a gun needs to provide evidence that they have had proper gun training. However you have to realize that prohibition did not work and neither will gun control.

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

I've already tracked some of the quotes you've provided to a web site that has proven them to be wrong. I have not heard anyone call for the outright abolition of guns. I don't have the time to track down each and every quote you put in your post, but the ones I have so far were wrong.

It is easier to buy a gun than it is to buy a car. If you are ok with car registration, why not guns?

Your example of Afghanistan is a good one. The Afghans were losing big time until the US started providing them with stingers and other military weapons. Proves my point. If you actually fear the US military then you have to belong to a militia that is able to fight against a disciplined military force. Just being able to buy an Uzi or a full auto M16 isn't going to keep the country safe.

The VietCong would never have won without the help of the North Vietnamese army. The French resistance would never have defeated the Nazis, neither would the combined resistance movements of all of the occupied European countries and I don't think there was any shortage of guns......especially after the Allies started airdropping weapons in for the resistance.

I am not in favor of confiscating guns. It would seem that you and I are not that far apart in terms of what we'd consider reasonable gun control. I just don't think that the future of the republic rests on the number of guns in the hands of untrained citizens and I don't consider anything less than boot camp and periodic military service to be adequate training.

It's easier to buy a gun than to buy a car???

How do I answer something that comical?

I used to live in CA. I could have walked into any car dealership and plunked down cash, the dealer would have done all the paperwork for me and I could have driven off within an hour. But when I went to buy a gun I had to fill out a pile of paperwork, all by myself, and then I had to leave. Fifteen (15) days later I was allowed to return to the store to pick up my gun and take it home.

I now live in TN. I have a handgun carry permit, my fingerprints are on file with the state of TN AND the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I still have to fill out paperwork, show them my handgun carry permit, and wait for them to run a so called "instant" check on me, even though to get my handgun carry permit, I had already gone through a complete background check with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, which includes finger printing and a check with the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Your well used liberal cry that "it is easier to buy a gun than a car" is ridiculous.

I would be interested in which quotes you have "tracked" and found were "proven to be wrong", how were they "proven to be wrong" and what website "proved" them wrong.

Since I lived in CA, I know Barbara Boxer has called for the complete banning of all guns. Since I live in the USA, I also recall Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton saying they would like to see all guns banned. As a matter of fact I recall Bill Clinton actively attempting to deconstruct the second amendment through his Attorney General Janet Reno. The woman responsible for the murder of innocent American citizens, because she didn't like the fact they had guns in their cabin.

I also believe there are people who should not own guns, and I firmly believe a person should have safety/usage training prior to purchasing a gun. But in no way should a law abiding citizen of sound mind ever be prevented from owning any type of firearm. I don't care if they want to buy a thousand a week. I am not worried about any of my law abiding neighbors having an "armory" in their basement, because it is unlikely that they will be using those weapons for any nefarious activities as they are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS!

Just a few stats from the U.S. DOJ for a period where individual gun ownership increased and "right to carry" laws became more prevalent.

Injury

From 1993 through 1997, less than 1% of serious nonfatal violent victimizations resulted in gunshot wounds.

The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

Offenders

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%

a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%

family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.

On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.

Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearms.

<link>

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005

<link>

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

In 2005, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced approximately 23 million crimes, according to findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey.

-- 77% (18.0 million) were property crimes

-- 22% (5.2 million) were crimes of violence

-- 1% (227,000) were personal thefts.

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% (423,000) of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

(That means that at least 5,486 people found a way to kill that didn't involve a firearm. So if there are no firearms available people will still find a way to kill each other.)

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) has estimated there were about 215 million guns in 1999; the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million. The number of new guns each year averages about 4.5 million.

That would put the number of guns in America in 2005 between 242 MILLION and 285 MILLION. that means that the 423 thousand violent crimes involving firearms in 2005 were committed using about one tenth of one percent of the firearms in the U.S. at the time.

so the above stats show that 10,650 people were killed with firearms in 2004. Thats about 4.4 deaths for every 100,000 firearms, 3.62 deaths per 100,000 population, 29.17 deaths per day .

Now lets look at traffic fatalities, According the the U.S. Department of transportation in 2004 there were 18 deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles, 21.54 deaths per 100,000 licensed drivers, 14.59 deaths per 100,000 population, 117.35 deaths every day.

SO THAT'S 3.62 DEATHS PER 100,000 FOR FIREARMS, and 14.59 DEATHS PER 100,000 FOR AUTOMOBILES. THE FATALITY RATE FROM AUTOMOBILES IS OVER FOUR (4) TIMES THAT OF FIREARMS!

Where is the outrage? Where is the moral indignation? Where are the cries for justice for the dead? Where are the cries for more control on the weapons that are killing over 117 Americans EVERY DAY!

Statistics have proven that more firearms possessed by more law abiding citizens reduces violent crime and murder, where as, more cars on the road and more licensed drivers can only mean more senseless deaths at the hands of irresponsible, or incompetent vehicle owners/operators.

So lets start putting controls on and/or BAN the real danger in the U.S., AUTOMOBILES. They should be outlawed, there is no logical need to own or operate an automobile in this day and age. Due to todays technological advances a majority of people can now work at home, children can attend school at home and only those people that can PROVE they need a car should be allowed to have one. There is no need for people to drive for "recreational purposes", walking and running are very recreational. We need to do this for our children, to keep them safe. Too many of our children are put in danger every day by parents who are wrapped up in their unsafe ego-maniacal addictions to automobiles. Banning these dangerous unnecessary weapons should be an easily accomplished goal, as there is no Constitutional Amendment guarantee for Americans to own automobiles.

So you bought a handgun and it required a background check. I bought a rifle and it took 15 minutes from the time I said I'll take it.

The rest of your statistics don't mean shit. If you want to go on a campaign to outlaw cars, go ahead, but that is just a distraction from the conversation about completely uncontrolled ownership of guns vs. some kind of reasonable control.

Last time I checked there were about 30,000 gun deaths. The ease with which an illegal handgun can be had is the problem. Your own stats showed 80% were illegally obtained. The FBI tracked all guns seized in arrests in the DC area and found that a huge majority were bought from two sources. The sellers would drive to somewhere that it was easy to get guns, fill up the trunk of the car and then drive to the inner city to sell them. We could stop that if we made it difficult to buy more than one gun per month. We could make it more difficult to use a gun in a crime if we made it more difficult for people who could not show some kind of a certificate of ownership. That wouldn't require a database, since many people fear government intrusion in possession of guns. It would require a system that printed out a legal document for the legal transfer of a gun.

Got any source for your claim that Bill Clinton wanted to confiscate guns?

Your statistics are a little confusing.....

The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

so the above stats show that 10,650 people were killed with firearms in 2004.

I think you mean the number of "MURDERS" would be about 10k and the number of firearm deaths is closer to 30k.

There are ways to solve the problem, if only people would engage in reasonable discussions to figure out a way. People like you say there is no problem. Columbine High school is down the road from me.....there is a problem.