This is not a thread about gun control, tho it is an integral part of the over all issue.

========================================
I live in a suburb where the police respond to a call in literally a minute.
========================================
Yes Chelsea, you are fortunate. You must live in a very good neighborhood. Everyone is not so fortunate. I am wondering how the police know to come if you can not get to your phone.
Statistic shows the average response time is considerably slower than one minute, and sometimes much longer.

=====================================
The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics -- 1990 (1991):257.
=====================================

And Chelsea,, if you think the police are there to protect you as an individual, think again.


The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community." Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A. 2d 1 (1981).

============================
Guns are symbols of violence--even when no threat is present, the gun remains a symbol of violence.
============================
This is the perception I can't understand. You stand all snuggly in your home, with all the freedom you enjoy, paid for with the lowly gun, and all you can see is the symbol of violence.


There will always be the criminal element. Tho small in comparison to the general law abiding population, they can reek havoc if uncontrolled. The gun gives the power to deal with the ultimate threat, to anyone with reasonable ability. And that can mean the policeman on the street, or the grandmother living alone.

So how can you not see the value of the gun as a symbol of peace?

And yes Chelsea, I believe guns used for protection can only be useful if loaded and without locks. Would you suggest the police use trigger locks?

Getting back to the subject of the thread. We have only seen the violence of disgruntled postal workers taking it out on former bosses and fellow workers in recent years. And then Children shooting other children at school. The trend just seems to defies common logic. But experts always found a way to vilify the perpetrators as loners and general misfits. Course it is convenient that every teenager is a misfit at some point. But as it happens closer to home, and with children of normal parents, it becomes far harder to understand, and impossible to explain.

That came for us Dec. 6, 1999 when at Fort Gibson, Okla. Four students wounded as Seth Trickey, 13, opened fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun at Fort Gibson Middle School.

As I said in a earlier post, I grew up with guns readily available to myself as well as everyone I knew. I had plenty of disagreements, and fights. I can never remember anyone every even suggesting settling a disagreement with a gun.
So for me the gun is clearly not the problem. What I think has changed are basically two things.

1. We have slowly been exposed to more and more violence in our entertainment, until it has become all too common. Studies show it does have an effect on us, and on our kids.
2. Less and less gun safety is taught at home. The major extent of gun knowledge for children today is learned in the movies where no common sense is every used.

Zebra, you say that this thread is not about gun 'control', and I use that word in the loosest possible context, but that is the whole crux of the argument!

You say

Quote:

---

There are a 101 things in the common house that can cause death. Many could be far worse that a gun. One of the most deadly could be a barbecue Liquid Petroleum tank found in most houses

---

and 100 of those 101 are used for specific purposes. A gun has only ONE purpose- to kill or injure people. I have never heard of a drive-by LPG attack. Have you?

I just wonder what would have happened at Columbine if those kids only had access to rat poison and not guns... difficult to kill a dozen people that way, would you agree? Guns give people the chance to kill remotely, unlike knives, fists, or baseball bats.

The standard reply 'It is my constitutional right to bear arms' does not wash with me, I am sorry, and I consider that as one of the greatest platitudes of all time.

With regard to kids having access- I do not care how tight a parent considers his security system- a kid can always find a way to outsmart that system Would not removing the temptation or opportunity to even possibly reach the top of the cupboard, or wherever you keep your personal arsenal, be defeated if there was nothing there?

I am not unfamiliar with firearms, as I was raised on a farm, but I cannot imagine using a gun for more than vermin control. Guns have been banned in this country for several years now, and despite the crims and the cops being the only ones with (legal) access, the murder rate has plummeted- can you say the same?

I think I let this one pass by a bit too long...and I'll give you a teacher's viewpoint from a large family of teachers in the States...I do not feel safer as a teacher anywhere in the States because of people being able to have guns to "protect" themselves...
Most of the members of my family, even elementary teachers have been threatened, just going about their work, trying to help kids have a chance in life...
Many times they get their tires slashed, obscenities carved into their vehicles, and harrassment on the phone.
If the parents of these kids who already express their displeasure with the only meager disciplinary measures available to them, maybe bad grades or suspension, possess weapons, how do you think we all feel?
One of the main reasons I have against teaching in the States, is that I do fear for my safety and that of my loved ones. Don't forget, I've lived all over the States, South, North, Midwest, everywhere, I've lived in good neighborhoods and not so good ones..and honestly, I do not feel safer knowing people have guns and as a teacher, the person primarily concerned in this thread, it's probably even worse.

I once applied from abroad for a position in Oregon in a town I knew pretty well, but it was mid term, I asked why the person had left, they didn't say why...I researched it, it was the town where a kid had shot up a bunch of kids..
It wasn't a bad town, very peaceful...Oregon's pretty law abiding as places go! Yet, just because someone had a gun and then had a beef...don't care how many lessons they've had to use that thing, it was used in a tragic shooting.
I feel much safer knowing here in France, that most guns are regulated pretty closely, the shootings by people are often by people who have registered them properly, sure, however, the number of shootings is so much lower than the States.

What happens when the person who's supposedly had all this training to use his (or her) gun gets drunk or stoned? What happens when they have a fight with their spouse and feel despondant?
Am I dreaming or isn't the rate enormously high for this type of shooting?

So gun control is clearly warranted though it isn't engrained into the American pioneer mentality..
If you had to go through more checks, to get your gun, and then be unable to carry it around with you without security measures and a permit..then you'd have fewer of these things happen.

I just cannot accept the fact that people with legitimate reasons to have guns would be so stubbornly opposed to gun control. If I wanted to go shoot at a gallery for sport, I'd want more controls not fewer!

So sorry, but I'm sure that if we had more stringent controls in the States, we'd have fewer of these tragedies to deal with, but our mentality is so selfish about our freedoms, that we end up being enslaved by it!

By the way, we had a gun in our house too..but it was in a secure place. It was an old hunting rifle, and it was treated with the deepest respect. Nobody ever hunted, it was just an heirloom that no one wanted to deal with disposing of it...
Dad had enough of guns on another Uncle Sam sponsored trip to Korea.

I am not a teacher, but I was a student for the past 4 years at a large metro area school. We never felt scared or threatened about shootings, because the probability of their occurance has to be very low. Maybe the solution is to not allow guns in school. Wait, they already do that and people bring them anyway...

There aren't any schools that allow kids to bring guns, what I mean is that you stand a lot more chances of being in school in America with someone who could have easier access to a gun owned by his parents, legally perhaps, bought down at the TArget or whatever the store that sells them is, Best products etc, and in a fit of depression or using drugs or alcohol, he or she could use that weapon in your nice neighborhood...it's a fact of life in the States....
That's what I'm speaking about Mayersell...it's just something we unfortunately have to accept, that the legal guns are a menace to us just as much as the illegal ones are.
And we have friends here from pioneer traditions and their countries aren't as liberal about gun laws and they have lower rates. of someone running amuck and killing a teacher or principal at school..look at Australia or Canada as examples.
I'm not making this up, I grew up with it, harsh reality, that teaching was a decent profession yet, we did run a risk.
I get so weary of defending my home and saying that the violence you see on TV is exaggerated when, actually, you stand more chances of being shot by someone who's got a wire loose in the States, with a legal gun I might add, than anywhere else I can think of.

The other thing is, we need to support our law enforcement, make them feel as though their job is appreciated...I sure appreciated the police in all the places I've lived...they were excellent especially when they have such hard jobs. But should teachers have to fear for their lives doing their jobs? No way. The harder a gun is to get the better.

Bruyere, I don't think that the dangers of guns are imaginary, but I do question the idea that the likelyhood of a school shooting is relatively high. I might be persuaded by claims that "the probability of being murdered in school is higher in the US than in countries that ban guns" if someone could find a source with the actual numbers (I would, but I have a handicap when using the Internet- Google hates me;)).

While I agree that you have to look at the underlying causes of violence, I'm not sure that's quite the point. Plainly no-one likes having a generation with no respect for life, but that's an immensely complicated issue to deal with, and not one that's likely to go away in the near future. In the meantime, it's far more dangerous if that generation has easy access to guns. It's madness to ignore that on the grounds that guns aren't the fundamental cause.

Proportionately, gun crime in the UK is miniscule as compared with the US. The arguments about only criminals having access to guns simply don't pan out. Plainly some criminals can get hold of guns, but it's far more difficult for them to do so. They're also much easier to arrest - possession of an unlicensed firearm is enough.

I'm convinced the US's resistance to gun control is a major factor in its high gun crime rate.

Proportionaly, CRIME in the UK is miniscule as compared with the U.S.

It's simple for criminals to buy illegal guns, especially in areas with higher crime rates. I could buy one with ease and I'm not personally familiar with that element.

Possession of an unlicensed firearm is already a crime and it has not stopped criminals from killing with illegal guns.

I understand the sentiment behind those who wish to ban guns, just as I understand the sentiment behind those who wish to ban tobacco products which kill more people than guns (though I disagree and I'm a non-smoker). But it is also a constitutional issue and a deeper societal problem that cannot be solved simply by banning guns.

I agree, you'll never get Americans to give up their guns, that's extremely sad, but will you ever realize that the easy availability of guns in the States makes it so much more likely to be a victim of a more violent crime ? But no, many Americans are still going to be gripping onto their right to have a gun like grim death. I'm not talking a hold up or a robbery, I'm talking someone getting a wire loose and holding hostages, or killing his wife who wants to leave him and then himself, or you know what I mean...the everyday occurence in the States. It happens in other places, but with guns less likely to be at home, it's a lot rarer.
And this "criminals would be the only one with guns" bit the NRA drowns us with...this litany, let's say the criminals were the only ones with guns, they'd be easier to prosecute. I've been hearing that one my whole life, and I still do not buy it..sorry.

The reason that disgruntled students or employees are able to get into schools etc in Europe and shoot people or hold hostages, is that basically in places like Germany, most of the guns are strictly regulated, if you're carrying a weapon on you, in your car, it has to be in a separate locked location etc and not in the vehicle. It's like alcohol for us in the States. So the weapons that do come in illegally from Eastern European countries, are actually a fluke. As anyone found with weapons like that had better produce a permit PDQ, the smuggling of weapons into Germany isn't easy. This reduces by far the amount of killings by people who get it into their heads that they can do it.
Plus if you do have a weapon, it would be for sport, or professional reasons. Few people could come up with a valid reason to have that gun with them in the vehicle and unlocked for example...ok?

The criminals possessing weapons here in France are pretty easy to catch.
One other thing, pardon me if it's off topic, however, the availability of arms is the main point, as if the kid didn't have a gun, he would not have done what he did, it is relatively rare to see crimes like breaking and entering here, where the people are killed or held up with a gun..I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not like every five seconds as it is in the US of A. It's simply harder to get and then if you do have an illegal gun and you're caught, it's very easy to prosecute you. You just get caught for a moving violation and as it's rarer for people to transport arms, it's clear you don't have a legitimate reason.
So is your "only criminals will have guns" thing holding true?

Let's say that these kids who have had a loose wire somewhere in their heads had legal guns or their parents, because as far as I know, don't regulations prohibit minors from purchasing guns? Well let's say you live in a reasonably nice neighborhood, as many of these kids do...do you REALLY feel better about the safety of your family knowing that every other house and family has a gun?
I'm not convinced as you as a father prefer not to have one around your family...

Now don't get me wrong, I know the States, so I suppose that many Americans would never believe that not having so many guns in private homes doesn't make them safer.

I'll use the old Texas analogy, do I really need stats for this one? We know there are a lot of private citizens in Texas with guns, for their personal safety and all that, so then why are there so many violent crimes still that require the death penalty? If I really saw a drop in crime in Texas for gun related crimes then I'd maybe try and see my way clear on that point, but I don't.

Another example, your little neighborhood, but sometimes you'll have a few quarrels over, I don't know, dogs, kids, the usual, do you REALLY feel safer knowing that those silly little quarrels might escalate, and we know they do, and that the other person has a gun? I do not.

How come in Britain the police don't even carry them and yet they get their business done without them? They have a much lower rate of gun related crimes than the States does?

There's no easy answer, but the first step is to realize that having guns in every home is not the answer to Americans' personal safety.
That's probably impossible though.

Let us say that I am wanting to hold up a small store in America. As it is legal to have a gun I would suspect that there might be a gun under the counter, therefore I will take a gun with me in order to commit my crime as I wouldn't want to be confronted with a gun if I didn't have one.

Now we take the same person but wanting to hold up a shop in the UK, the person behind the counter won't have a gun under the counter therefore if I take a baseball bat or a knife I will be more heavily armed than the person I want to rob.

That is the way it works, if you are not going to be confronted with a gun when you commit a crime you are far less likely to use one yourself if you are a criminal. That is also the way it works with our police, as they are not armed criminals are far less likely to carry guns - they have to be really hard criminals for that, bank robbers or in the drug scene.

It is not just criminals with guns we have to be afraid of. Many people are not criminals before they manage to get their hands on a gun.
And, as long as we have guns so readily available, we will continue to have innocent victims of gun violence in our schools, workplaces, and our public areas. No one is safe from this violence.
This is the latest incident:



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

May 9, 2003
Shooting Standoff Ends at University in Cleveland
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Filed at 11:20 p.m. ET

CLEVELAND (AP) -- A man wearing camouflage and carrying a high-powered rifle opened fire inside a university business school Friday. Hospital officials said at least one person was killed and another wounded.

The standoff ended seven hours later, with police taking a suspect in custody.

``We believe he is the shooter or one of the shooters,'' said Police Chief Edward Lohn. He would not elaborate.

Lohn said about 70 people had been in the Peter B. Lewis Building and that most had been rescued. He would not discuss injuries, saying family members had not been notified.

Police sealed off the sprawling building at Case Western Reserve University after the shooting began at about 4 p.m. The gunman was believed to be inside at the time, along with an unknown number of terrified students and faculty who had locked themselves in rooms.

``We're all shaking and quite scared. One of the girls in our office is seven months pregnant -- we're trying to keep her as calm as possible,'' Tracy Warner, 30, told The Associated Press from a third-floor office where she hid with several other people.

University Hospital spokeswoman Janice Guhl said a male brought to the hospital died. She wouldn't release specifics of his injuries. She said no others from the business school were taken to University Hospital.

Police begged the gunman to call them, but by early evening, two dozen SWAT team officers wearing helmets and bulletproof vests had moved inside.

Shots were heard intermittently until at least 5:30 p.m. About four hours after the shooting began, rescuers began taking people out of the building. They were being reunited with family members waiting at a nearby campus auditorium.

Denise Smith, a spokeswoman at Huron Hospital, said a male was in good condition after suffering a gunshot wound in the buttocks.

In addition to the two people shot, an unknown number of people were taken out of the building and placed on stretchers. Further details were not available and it was not clear if any had been shot.

A student who escaped, Sachin Goel, 26, was standing near the cafeteria with two friends when the gunman approached and opened fire. One of his friends screamed as he was hit, and the others dove for cover under a table.

``He couldn't get us. And then he again shot as we turned the table and put it in front of us,'' Goel said. ``He was indiscriminately firing at everyone and a sane person would not be doing that.''

Police said the man was believed to be wielding a high-powered rifle.

``He was just walking, aiming his guns and firing,'' said LeKisha Spencer, 28, who works in the first-floor cafeteria. She said he was carrying a ``machine gun'' and book bag, and was wearing a camouflage shirt and military-style green hat.

Albert DiFranco, 26, an assistant alumni director, said he was returning to his first-floor office when he saw drops of blood and broken glass on the floor outside his door. People shouted down from a second-floor mezzanine to get out.

``I ran out,'' he said. ``People were saying, 'Go go go!'''

Administrative assistant Bonnie Copes, 50, was locked in a department office inside the building. She said she heard repeated gunshots.

``Rounds and rounds and rounds,'' she said.

Case Western has 9,500 students. The $62 million Lewis building, designed by Frank Gehry, opened last fall and is about five stories high. Instead of walls on the south side, it has a curving roof, made of 20,000 stainless-steel shingles, that seemingly tumbles to the ground.

http://nytimes.com

From the National Transportation Safety Board
==================================
In 2000, 3,594 DRIVERS 15 to 20 years old were killed, and an additional 348,000 were injured, in motor vehicle crashes.
While traffic crashes account for approximately 2 percent of all deaths, they account for 36 percent of all deaths among 15 to 20 year olds.
In the decade of the 1990’s, 63,000 children aged 15-20 died in traffic crashes, more than 120 each week.
In 2000, 21 percent of fatally injured drivers aged 15-19 were intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration [BAC] greater than 0.10 percent). Another 8 percent had a BAC of 0.01 to 0.09 percent.
Teenage drivers with a BAC of 0.05 to 0.10 percent are far more likely to be killed in single vehicle crashes—18 times more likely for males and 54 times more likely for females.
=================================


Lets put this in prospective.

There are 10 times more Children killed in 1 week in driving accidents than are killed in school shooting in a year.
And out of those, almost a third involve alcohol.

In fact one study showed More children are killed playing football in school than they are by guns in school.

So the question has to be,, are we really interested in saving lives or are we on a mission to take advantage of every disaster to advance a personal and misguided gun control at all cost?

We don't have planes hijacked very often at all, does that mean we should ease up on airport security?

I don't think we should ignore the fact that guns potentially jeopardize everyone's security. I don't think any place is really safe from gun violence any more. The fact that these events occur with a low degree of frequency is immaterial--because when they occur they can result in mass killings and injuries.

I can understand why people want to own guns. But I feel that pro-gun advocates make no attempt at all to understand the feelings of those who feel quite threatened by the easy availability of weapons--particularly automatic weapons--in our society. The position of groups like the NRA comes off sounding incredibly selfish when it comes to the general welfare and the real problems of gun violence.

Why on earth does anyone need an automatic or highpower firearm? This goes beyond any reasonable need for home protection or self defense.

I don't seek to take advantage of every gun tragedy to satisfy a personal need of mine. It's rather that each new tragedy is a reminder that the situation is already somewhat out of control. This latest incident at a university is the second shooting to occur on a college campus in recent months. Gun violence has been invading the "safest" places people generally congregate. I mentioned in an earlier post we had a shooting in a church which killed a priest and a worshiper. We had a random shooting on our commuter train which killed and injured many people. Nationwide we certainly have had a good number of school shootings--we have even had 5 year olds show up in school with loaded guns.

At what point will gun owners take a look at our society and acknowledge that something is very wrong? Guns are very obviously getting into the wrong hands simply because it is very easy for virtually anyone to obtain a gun. Guns aren't stopping crime--they are contributing to it by making certain crimes possible. And the random shootings--which are violence simply for the sake of violence, without any other criminal intent in mind--are certainly related to gun availability.

We may have gotten to a point where it is simply too dangerous to have guns so available in our society. Times have changed--things ain't the way they used to be.

Nearly everyone who has posted to this thread has made some good points.

It is my observation living in a country where gun ownership is very tightly controlled that gun control both works and is desirable. It does not, as has been pointed out stop criminals obtaining weapons but it makes it much harder for them to get hold of firearms. The pool of modern weapons in the UK which is available to criminals is very small. This continues to make policing without the general issue of firearms for police officers possible in the UK. Gun control also radically reduces if not completely eliminates the incidents of what may be described as ‘rage killings’ where for example a motorist in a traffic accident kills the other motorist involved. It requires a much greater degree of courage, savagery, call it what you will to kill someone with a knife or bludgeon them to death than to shoot them.

If safety of the citizenry is the only issue then simple statistics indicate that gun control is the best approach. The issue of constitutional rights has also been raised, I will avoid this other than to note that the constitution may be amended if there is sufficient support for the change. If the USA can ban booze it can ban guns.

Yet having said all of that Jax has a point which cannot be addressed by gun control alone:

" … then Children shooting other children at school. The trend just seems to defies common logic. But experts always found a way to vilify the perpetrators as loners and general misfits. Course it is convenient that every teenager is a misfit at some point. But as it happens closer to home, and with children of normal parents, it becomes far harder to understand, and impossible to explain. "

I don’t agree with his suggested reasons for the problem but I am absolutely certain there is more to the problem than just the free availability of firearms. A society where so many children and youths feel the need to kill their peers and educators has some serious self examination to do.

I agree with Jax, I don't think guns are the problem. Kids are getting more violent. Violent shows and games are what we need to be concentrating on. Some kids just can't handle that stuff in my opinion, i.e., they get used to the gore and blood, and it becomes natural for them. As we know gun control will never work in the U.S., the government should concentrate on putting restrictions on shows and games. The current ones are not enough. Take it from me, I'm a kid, and some kids I know are easily getting awful, violent games. And they get used to it. And they like it.

I think guns are fun. They are not a "symbol of violence", they can be used for things besides killing. Target shooting, skeet shooting, etc. is highly enjoyable. I have learned gun safety, and I would never think of firing a gun at another human being, unless it was in self-defense or war. I regard myself as a safe and stable human, and I give the credit to my parents. I am being raised in a good home, therefore I will grow up not wanting to slaughter people. The problem is not guns. The problem is people. As long as there are people, there will be violence, guns, and murder.

How should we solve the problem of people? Not sure. I'll leave that question to the philosophers.

{This is the brother of Janefan}

Quote:

---

Jax wrote: In fact one study showed More children are killed playing football in school than they are by guns in school.

---

Wouldn't you prefer your kids to be hanging around a football match than hanging around other kids with guns? Chances are that a football isn't going to accidently (or otherwise) go off and hurt others. Perhaps all contact sports should be banned and things like clay pigeon shooting brought in instead.

I am still thinking about the kid who shot people in Springfield Oregon in 1998. He was the son of two teachers and he'd shot them before his spree at his school..this was a medium sized town devastated.
His father had attempted to get him some kind of help prior to this, and also, he was going to be expelled for buying a gun from a classmate which may have precipitated the event.
He not only took in a small gun but a rifle too!

It's just way too easy to get a gun in the States, legal or illegal, who really cares? And I suppose the next step for gun advocates is the teachers packing weapons too? You've already got the pilots packing them, hope you're happy about that. I know some pilots who aren't too sure about some of their colleagues doing it.
I believe that was brought up a long time ago here in these forums.

Now to our younger member who enjoys shooting stuff, I'm a mother of a boy, I know the attraction to guns on most boys, perhaps some girls, but never seen it that much on a girl...however, I still feel that this should be restricted to sporting or else part of your chosen profession. There is a big difference between sports shooting and using a gun for protection. A clay pigeon isn't a person.
And you shouldn't mind passing major checks of your background then if you have a legitimate reason for having a firearm. If we do use the analogy about cars, we have to have licences to drive a car, so why not make a person get a licence after passing a test to possess a gun legally? Sure makes sense to me!
I lived a couple blocks from the gun place that sold the gun that killed Lennon...that same year..and the guy took it on several flights to do it! Therefore, I just cannot help but find the controls insufficient. I'm sure if they'd popped that dude through a computer, they'd have come up with something..now perhaps, then we didn't have the resources.Or at least have a decent waiting period.
Few people from outside the US can comprehend the difficulty however in controlling anything throughout the country, as each State has a different jurisdiction. One state might allow something and the next state wouldn't.
But controls need to be tighter..

Hmm, the football analogy, I did see one or two cases of severe paralysis and brain damage in my big country high school...but they did rather run that risk..didn't they? Don't most schools make them sign waivers? I bet they do now. I'm sorry that doesn't wash either. However if sports get things out of kids' systems, then by all means, it's worth the risk!
Getting shot at school isn't a risk you assume when you go to school is it? That analogy doesn't hold water, sorry.
Nor does the baseball bat, or the car accident...we're talking guns.

Now, I sure wish I felt that there could be change on this in the States, I think I gave up a long time ago...it's in the mentality, look at Waco Texas if you don't believe me.

Now let me see,, children killed in auto accident or playing foot ball is acceptable?

Is that because neither can help the gun control cause?

Wouldn't you rather your child be protected where ever possible. Would receiving safety lessons in how to handle firearms not decrease risk to your child?
======================
However if sports get things out of kids' systems, then by all means, it's worth the risk!
=====================

Obviously "things' are not getting out of our children with our present system, even with the risk. Do we not owe it to our children and out selves to look at the root cause?


=====================
Wouldn't you prefer your kids to be hanging around a football match than hanging around other kids with guns? Chances are that a football isn't going to accidently (or otherwise) go off and hurt others. Perhaps all contact sports should be banned and things like clay pigeon shooting brought in instead.
====================
Why can we not have both. Where children can learn safety and respect from responsible leaders.

Actually, there are more children killed riding to and from foot ball games than die in the sport, or shot at school.

Unfortunately a death is a death, and we should do all we reasonably can to prevent any. But we will never be completely safe, and we know that. We are willing to risk lives in several areas, knowing there will be a predictable loss of life.
My point is, we should look at the root cause of violence instead of blindly blaming it on the gun.
The children, and adults that act out violently in killing sprees are surly just the tip of the over all violence.

Another Texas Mon kills her children.

Here is a headline you will be seeing for the next few days. Do you think if she had used a gun it would be posted here as an example of gun violence?
Do we see a trend with Texas women killing their children? Should we endeavor to keep rock out of their hands?

Are we choosing to ignore facts?
There are estimated to be 200 million guns in America.
What is the percent that are misused?
Will additional laws affect criminal behavior?
Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.7 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

Jax, if law abiding citizens have to defend themselves with guns on an average of 6850 times a day in this country, we have very very serious problems which won't be solved by putting more guns in people's hands. That sounds like our problems with crime and violence are already out of control.

This is the latest news on the gun issue in the U.S.--and I find it dismal:

GOP Will Let Gun Ban Expire
House Won't Act on Assault Weapons
By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 14, 2003

The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said yesterday, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, he told reporters.

His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.

As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills are voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation to renew it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress does not act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed a decade ago by President Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose renewing the ban, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced to into a roll call vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.

President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

"The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game."

Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," a House GOP leadership aide said. "The White House does not want us" to vote.

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."

It is unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan.

Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal and reflect a notable shift in the politics of guns over the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up."

The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss.

In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons and copycat versions that do not fall under the ban are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

In May 1994, the Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (Wash.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (Tex.) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them in a political campaign.

The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a high-water mark after Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost gun rights bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns.

Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action will not matter.

In the House, Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced a tougher bill last week that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," McCarthy said.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company http://washingtonpost.com
----------------------------------------------------

Carolyn McCarthy is my Representative in Congress and I want her to keep up the fight. Her husband was killed, and her son severely wounded, in that shooting which occurred on our commuter train. She understands all too well why we need better gun control.

I've heard good arguments in favour of gun control and I've heard good arguments against gun control, but I have yet to hear a single reasonable explanation in favour of semi-automatic assault rifles.

I won't bore you with the whole report, but figures are what is reported.
==================
Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law
==================

So you are for the bill. Just what is there in it that will make you safer?
Look at the name, and just ask yourself ,, what is an assault weapon, and just what kind of threat do they pose?
If you examine it closely, you will find it is ambiguous and ridiculous. It makes some of the most harmless guns illegal. And it could be used to ban all clip fed guns.