State's rights are being eroded to a homogenized "one size fits all," Diehard. States are not autonomous as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned except that what is not proscribed or permitted by the Constitution is left to the various states. Federal firearm laws take precedence over state laws, as you know.
If Congress wants to outlaw handguns, the states must comply.

Lothruin,,
Every thing we do or use has some risk attached. Our fear does not always mirror the actual risk. Guns in the house are not unlike other useful devices such as electrical service in our house that give us a lot of connivance and comfort. If used with sense and caution, the risk can be acceptable. I could name at least ten items in the home that pose far greater risk than a closely monitored gun. I am not suggesting you should have a gun if you do not feel conformable or see the benefit, but you should not want to impose your fears on everyone else.

Quote:

---

There's no place for a gun in a house with a child, and no one will convince me otherwise.

---

A gun can give you security for the risk, But only if you know how, are able and capable of using it properly. Risk can be minimized with some simple precautions that we already employ with other dangerous household items. I, and many of my friends, grew up with guns in the house with not one case of an accident so it is certainly possible.

But don’t forget the lives they save. According to the Bureau of Justice guns are used in defense thousands of times a year, and that is just the reported cases.
Jax

In fact, Jax, I specifically said I did not want to impose my views on others. I also said I was not afraid of guns. My opinion differs from yours on only one real point: I do not think the benefits of having a gun in my home outweigh the risk to my child. The benefits of electrical service can hardly be compared. Convenience is not associated with a gun in any way that I can see, unless you use it to open your soda, which I think would be messy, and unless my rifle had a pink fluffy stock, I can hardly see the comfort.

As I said above, I do not think defense of property is worthy of deadly force, or even potentially deadly force, and the likelyhood of my home being broken into with the intent of someone doing harm to me or my family is quite slim, slimmer even, I think, than the chance of my child being hurt by a gun in my home. A chance I'm willing to take, anyway.

I will also admit readily that guns HAVE saved lives. I do question the real legitimacy of that Dept of Justice statistic, though. If guns are used in defense thousands of times a year, that's fine. However, how many of those times is it really a life or death situation? Surely you aren't suggesting that in every case where a gun is used in defense, a life has been saved, and I'd venture what I think is a pretty safe guess that in many of the cases where guns ARE used in defense, it would have taken much less to do the job.

I do not think guns are unnecessary. I simply do not believe they are as necessary as some people seem to think, and I certainly do think there are plenty of non-felon Americans who really shouldn't have one.

I find it amazing that a civilised world has not come up with a more feasible way of rendering a person immobile without having to take that persons life but maybe the gun manufacturers have disuaded research of this kind.
Maybe people who own guns like the power it gives them to paraphrase Chairman Mao

exactly my point, maybe we like killing each other

Not really, CWM52. What we do like is what is available to every American: self-defense.

Questions then, are there any stats on gun use for self-defense as opposed to guns involved in accidents, suicide, crimes committed against neighbors or family members by the owners of those weapons and/or their family members?
I really feel that there are more incidents of the latter than the former. But I'd like to see stats, and preferably not from the NRA as there's a teeny tiny conflict of interest.

Do US (or other countries if there are any comparable) law enforcement officers really endorse the use of personal weapons as helping them or is there a consensus amongst law enforcement?
Do they feel that it really deters crimes committed against citizens in their homes?

Do law enforcement officials feel comfortable knowing that private gun ownership is common in the States when they answer routine calls and disturbances?

To address your middle question first, Bruyere, law enforcement officers never feel that an armed citizenry is "helping them." When they answer a call they want everyone involved to be unarmed. It lessens the danger to themselves of being shot.
No police official thinks that private ownership of guns deters crimes in private homes. The only way a policeman/woman will breathe a sigh of relief on a shooting call is if everyone involved greets the officer with empty hands waving in the air.

http://medlib.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html is an interesting source for a statistical analysis of gun deaths throughout the world.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is a member supported advocate of gun ownership for hunting, sport and competition shooting. It's strong influence on the right to own guns stems from its membership support; few members, weak influence.

The members believe strongly in each citizen's right to own guns and to promote safe and responsible ownership.

Maybe as the white man made his way from coast to coast in the USA killing the native inhabitants,the idea of guns and their usefulnness has become ingrained into their pysche

look at the damage one gun made in Maryland, Washington both physical and psychological,killed innocent ,defenceless people ,closed schools,terrorised the county.Over 1000 people were involved in the search for the sniper,initially looking for a white van which turned out to be erroneous.A waste of resources ,manpower which could have been put to better use.23 days of FEAR.
One gun !
This scenario happens far too frequently and it is my opinion that Americans become inured to this kind of event
As the above research shows there is a "gun culture" that thrives throughout the USA.

Bruyere,, you seek stats that are not slanted. Unfortunately most are in one way or another. If the stats are not slanted, the use of the information often is, or the selection of the research that supports the position you already have. When studies do not slant the way the commissioning bodies want, they simply discredit the study and commission another one. In other words we make up our minds and look for research to support what we already believe. This is only human.
Gary Kleck is Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University.
He was against guns, hated guns and was pro gun control. The facts revealed in his research changed his mind. And if you look at the evidence it may give you a different point of view.
http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/kleck.htm

Studies in the US show where gun control is strong, there is some of the highest crime, and where gun control is low is some of the lowest crime.

A good case study is Australia and the UK where they have begun an experiment that should be interesting. They spent tons of money to eliminate guns from their society, and it did not have the desired results. In fact just the opposite. And some unforeseen consequences, like security guards being targeted by criminals in order to get their guns.
Now here is where you will find an embarrassed governments doctoring report.
I will not provide any links, you can do a search and accept what you want.

Fjohn I disagree with you.

Quote:

---

No police official thinks that private ownership of guns deters crimes in private homes.

---

Cwm52 and Ladymac,, laws will not stop this kind of act. We recently had a man commit suicide by driving his car across the median of the highway at a high rate of speed into the on coming traffic. Should we ban cars too?
Unfortunately when people are ask to give up their gun, it is always the law abiding citizens that does so and leaves the criminal with a gun.

We may not like it, but there will always be a criminal element who will impose their will on others. The gun is the most effective tool to deal with the situation.
With the average law enforcement officer ratio of about 2,000 citizens to one law, you can figure your chances of a quick response.
Jax

Lots of points raised here.

As you state, the stats will almost always be skewed towards the viewpoint of the writer, it's pretty easy to do. If I want to promote individual gun ownership, I'm going to do a 'Studies show' as you've cited, that shows the lower crime rate in a place where gun control isn't as prevalent. However, these are almost always unfairly skewed because they don't factor in the different environment or conditions.

I just heard the Swiss paradox cited yet again by a pro-gun speaker on the radio, that the Swiss males all had high calibre guns at home during their military service (in fact he didn't mention that military service fact) and that the crime rate was lower...and then, he inferred that this was a cause and effect relationship. I keep thinking, does this guy have any idea of what Switzerland is like or its populace or its military service training? Besides what he's learned from the pro gun lobby, he probably doesn't. Switzerland and the States are like apples and oranges in about a thousand ways I could name. Does the speaker really know how stringent the Swiss police are for every little thing? He's obviously never been stopped at the border for a minor offense of bringing in 'foreign goods' like my Swiss friends buying their diapers in France ten miles away. So, when someone is holding a gun at home, I can assure you, it's tightly locked up and not likely to be the cause of an accident. When the guy takes it in a vehicle, he's not packing it on his gun rack or anything, oh no. So when I heard this I was amazed they were resorting to Switzerland as an example. If they had more guts they'd use Canada for at least the area and major cities. But the Swiss are not pulling out their guns every time there's a bump in the night like in the States.
Plus as these weapons are highly regulated, anything else is easy to spot if it's illegal.

The Germans might be a better example, as the illegally obtained weapons come across the border from the former Eastern Bloc countries. Germans who carry weapons and own them for sport or professional reasons are subject to strict regulations though. Funnily enough, it's about like what we call open container laws in the States or you cannot have alcoholic beverages open in the passenger compartment of your vehicle. Well, the Germans can't have guns in theirs. American laws are stricter about carrying booze than they are about carrying a gun with you in a car, ready for road rage to set in.
I wish I were exaggerating, but it's not an exaggeration.

The suicide thing, hmm, well, I've heard this over and over and over. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. That's up to me of course, but it's not logical to me. Of course someone who uses their car in an attempt to leave this earth can cause great damage to him or herself and others. But, a vehicle is subject to more laws than a gun is in my opinion and more likely to be stopped by law enforcement officials than the gun in someone's house in the same instance. You need to follow a driving course, pass tests, etc to drive a vehicle but a gun requires much less training and testing. A kid in a household with a car is much less likely to go out and drive the car over a cliff if he's fourteen because he knows he'll get caught, but if there's a gun in the house, it's way too tempting.
Plus, a gun is more final, and you might be saved if you overdosed with pills and it was noticed in time, but if you shoot yourself, it's more liable to be fatal. There's no turning back. What about the guy who decides to shoot himself and the object of his despair as well, his family?
So these are the things I want people to consider, and I know I'll pass for a namby pamby lily livered...shudder to think, liberal. I wouldn't pigeon hole me too quickly though. If I really could see there was some possible benefit to the crime rate as opposed to the risks to life at having a gun at home, I'd be more inclined to listen.
But the more I see, the more I see daily gun incidents that should not have been happening, and they were with weapons that were supposedly to protect the selfsame family they were used on.

The stats, undoubtedly inflated by flaming liberal causes once again if you assume that they are skewed towards the gun control viewpoint, are pretty sad for women in general. So many women have had guns pulled on them in arguments that the debates about these weapons being to protect the same women just fall flat. I won't even dredge up those, as you've already assumed the contrary.

So my position is that, you probably won't be able to change anything in the States because of the gun mentality that is already there.
When I heard the whole thing about guns = freedom, in so many words, I just thought of how hopeless it was to effect any change. The more you show examples of countries that have changed despite their similar pioneer debuts and the frontier mentality, the more the gun lobby says that people are unhappy and they hunt up anything they can to prove the contrary.









Therefore whenever it suits someone's purposes, they'll cite studies that back up their view.

My abhorrence of firearms of ANY description stems from three different incidents.

I have had guns trained on me twice, and been shot at once (they missed), and it is a VERY unnerving feeling.

The first time was in the 1960s, when I was a teenager hitchhiking between two small country towns- supposedly an area that had a very low crime rate. A couple of drunken idiots stopped, opened the car door, pointed a rifle at my chest, and proceeded to belt the daylights out of me. Should I have fought back, and risked being shot?

Secondly, (and years later), I was woken by three policemen after my flatmate left the front door open. I showed them my ID (hard to do when you are still 99% asleep), and they had the wrong bloke. I woke up rather quickly, but I still think an alarm clock would be a gentler way of being woken.

The (hopefully) last time was when a couple of friends and I were taking a short cut home through a public park. About half a dozen shots rang out, and we heard bullets passing through the nearby trees. We hit the deck, and stayed there for ages- I have never been so scared, before or since.

Now, the police incident I can overlook, but the other two would not have happened if guns were not freely available.

Hopefully you can now see why I do not want guns available to just anyone. Perhaps if it happened to a member of the pro-gun lobbyists, they might change their views, too.

Jax, your car suicide situation is not a very good analogy. Cars are designed to be used as a method of transportation- guns are solely designed to kill things/people.

Mention has been made in this thread about psychological testing for applicants- maybe I am naive, but would they not be easy to fudge? An impulsive killing is more likely to be carried out by a person that is angry, frustrated or under the influence of drugs/alcohol. I cannot imagine that testing would be carried out under these conditions.

<<And some unforeseen consequences, like security guards being targeted by criminals in order to get their guns.>>

Yes, this does happen in Australia, but the times they are a-changing. Many security companies have lost their licences to operate for failing to secure weapons properly.

Ladymac,, I completely agree with you.

The Washington Times reported in 1999 that, "Although federal officials say about 400,000 persons have been prevented from buying guns by the instant check system, only one has been prosecuted by the Department of Justice in the last three years."

Quote:

---

If I really could see there was some possible benefit to the crime rate as opposed to the risks to life at having a gun at home, I'd be more inclined to listen.

---

Bruyere,,

I have provided a few notes that might help you. Would you believe a Criminologist at the at Florida State? How about the Department of Justice and the American Medical Association?

Dr. Gary Kleck. A criminologist at Florida State University, Kleck began his research as a firm believer in gun control. But in a speech delivered to the National Research Council, he said while he was once "a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis," he has now moved "beyond even the skeptic position." Dr. Kleck now says the evidence "indicates that general gun availability does not measurably increase rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S."


According to the Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.

The Journal of the American Medical Association, found that the Brady registration law has failed to reduce murder rates. In August 2000, JAMA reported that states implementing waiting periods and background checks did "not experience reductions in homicide rates or overall suicide rates.”

Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect themselves."


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.


I think this is kind of interesting too.
The Indianapolis Star and News reported in 1998 that the U.S. Department of Justice had over-stated the number of people who were denied firearms in Indiana alone by more than 1,300%. Indiana was not an aberration, as the newspaper found that "paperwork errors and duplications inflated the [DOJ's] numbers" in many states.

Ozzz,, more people are killed by cars each year than guns. I can point to at least a dozen instances where young drives have needlessly endangered their lives and the lives of other on the road, in my small community.
The gun manufactures build their guns to shoot accurately. Some times it is necessary to kill someone to save a life. Unfortunately this happens all too often. I certainly agree that deadly force should always be the last resort, in cases of individuals in self-defense situations as well as law enforcement.
The gun is not a cure all, it is just a necessary tool. All law abiding gun owning citizens agree that gun misuse should be severely punished.
The myth that all red necks in Oklahoma packing a gun are likely to just have a shoot out old west style, is just not true.
Truth is most drivers are safe and responsible, and so are the vast majority of gun owners.

I do have a gun permit, but I rarely carry a gun.
Jax

Jax, or anyone else that cares to reply...


Have YOU ever seen the wrong end of a gun? It is scary!

Ozzz, from what I'm reading, I think that some gun advocates always assume they'd always be prepared for every single eventuality. The more I read in the docs of the pro gun lobby, the more I feel this to be true. What's scary is that I'm seeing people claim that rape victims might have been better off pulling a gun on their rapist, and etc etc...it goes on and on. That's getting dangerously close to a blame the victim mentality.
Does this mean therefore that we must pack a pistol at all times to defend ourselves because we must exercise our right?
The victims of many crimes are not always able to manipulate weapons, so what it looks like the gun lobby is promoting is a survival of the fittest and older people unable to keep and use weapons would be left where in this scheme?

For me though, it's a bit like not having a flashlight (torch) when you need it the most. Like changing a tire in the pouring rain and you forgot to change the batteries. If you have a gun at home for your protection and that's your right under the consitution of your country, fine, but, when you're taking out the trash one night somebody jumps you and you're not packing the weapon, what does that mean? That you deserve the attack for letting your guard down?

What I'm trying to get at is that I'm willing to accept the fact that many gun owners assume that they'll have their weapon to defend themselves at all times, but perhaps they won't.

I've had a few situations in my life, where I had to talk someone out of aggression when they were drunk or mentally ill. If they'd had a weapon, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have been so easy. Plus even trying to discreetly call the police was hard and seen as an aggression. If I'd pulled a gun on them and they had one, it would have been the OK Corral. Once was in the workplace with one other employee with me and we managed to deflect the guy's anger long enough to call Honolulu's finest who took him back to the facility he'd walked away from. When you're a woman employee and someone comes into a place frequented by families yelling about his wife and kids leaving him and how he wants revenge, you worry.

One was with neighbors who were aggressive and the cops talked them down immediately and never pulled a weapon on them. A good police force knows how to react to these things and talk people down. If the person has a weapon, then that begets violence. The police officer intervening in a domestic call is really risking more when one of the people is armed and threatening to shoot.
I admire them for their guts.

Now back to the assault weapons, the Swiss have a kind of gun worship that gun lobbyists admire, they have shooting festivals, all started with William Tell I hear. However, if you wish to request military service without a weapon, you have that right. In other words, if you're a Swiss male and do not wish to bear arms but serve your country in another capacity, you have the right. The use of guns is highly respected there though.
You can't compare a small country that has jurisdiction over the whole area to the States that has state laws and even local laws that differ if you go ten miles.
I will grant you that they do respond to the 'orderly militia' concept that the US constitution aspired to many years ago though. But how could the US have an orderly militia now?