The city of New York for example, where they have strict anti-gun laws, has a murder rate that’s double that of the rest of the state. Despite strict gun control, Chicago was the murder capital of the United States in 2003. In Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love where anti-gun politicians are calling for more strict anti-gun laws for the entire state, their murder rate was 7 times higher than the rest of Pennsylvania. And finally, in Washington, D.C. where they have the most restrictive gun laws in the entire country (where people can’t even own pepper spray without registering it), they were the murder capital of the United States – up until recently.

So who leads the nation in murders now you might wonder? Mayor Ray Nagin’s city of New Orleans is now the murder capital of the United States, according to a recent news report. The article was focused on the fact that the violence has grown in New Orleans in the 19 months since Hurricane Katrina hit, even though the population itself is only half of what it was before the storm. This reality has caused the number of people applying for permits to carry concealed firearms to double. Even with only half the population and State Police and National Guard units patrolling some streets, it’s still managed to take the shameful title of murder capital away from D.C.

And just who is it that are applying for permits to carry firearms? They are law-abiding citizens made up of doctors, lawyers, construction workers and soccer moms. They see the possible threat and are getting themselves better prepared to meet it face to face should the need ever arise.

Those who want to restrict firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens are constantly calling for new gun laws to be written, yet they’re naïve if they think that criminals will ever obey those laws or turn in their weapons if they were suddenly banned by additional legislation. There are at least 20,000 firearms related laws out there already, but the laws and rules will never apply to the criminals because they will never follow them. They’re criminals. Breaking the law is what they do, it’s pretty much their job. The only thing to be accomplished by enacting gun laws that prohibited firearm’s ownership by law-abiding citizens is that the new laws would make instant criminals out of the law-abiding citizens who refuse to turn over their guns, and potential victims of those who did. A by-product to such foolish mandates would be that it’d give thugs, bullies, and criminals the advantage by allowing them as lawbreakers, to remain armed, for as we’ve established, they do not and will not obey our laws.

If the time for private ownership of guns has passed, change the constitution instead of relying on activist judges.

E. Zach Lee

You cite the young volatile fellow apt to go berserck. Well, a knife is less likely to be used from a distance, so the potential victim has more opportunity to elude and defend.

And so on.

My ideal will always be to see people settle scores with words, not violence. As long as that ideal is not possible, I want to see us at least moving in the right direction to make gun duels at high noon the less likely prospect.

Another thing to consider, the type of person who goes berzerk is generally younger and fitter than his potential victims. He’s almost as lethal with a knife, axe, or baseball bat. Disarming the populace means you disadvantage the victims more than the perpetrators.

I am talking about what it means in a volatile society when guns are readily available to put the period to any argument.

Hunting, target practice and self-protection are on one side of the situation. The well armed angry crowd (or even individual) are on the other.

Somewhere we need to step in to prevent the available from becoming the deadly. We regulate the sale of alcohol, cigarettes and medicine-
all with limited success, and all besically potential tools for self injury. Guns are tools for injuring others and deserve no less concern, I would say more.

Not presuming your level of familiarity with firearms, but in my experience once a person is introduced to a target pistol, is shown the safe + proper way to handle it, and has the opportunity to shoot up some paper targets, they don’t turn Republican, but they do modify their position on them.

In the past I’ve taken a more than a few of my acquaintances to the range for their first time and have had uniformly good results. One trip involved 2 female co-workers, a couple, whose politics were to the left of George McGovern. It’s become a cliche, but both shot passably well right out of the box. Neither had ever handled a gun before.

Just a suggestion, find a gun owning relative or friend who you trust and ask them to go target shooting. Nobody’s asking you to join the NRA, but just to keep and open mind and see what your fellow citizens are talking about.

Imagining a crowd of people, all armed, when an argument starts is very scary to me. I prefer fisticuffs, if some are hell bent on fighting.

There are levels of involvement in every hobby/technology/toys. From the casual to the fanatical. You can always find somebody further out on the end of the scale if you look. It’s been my experience that gun owners are no different than non-gun owners in that respect. People who carry regularly are no different. Most of them don’t talk about the fact they carry and never brandish. It’s just a tool.

We don’t ban powerboats because some yahoo’s cigarette boat is sucking down 3 gallons of 100 octane a minute and we don’t ban guns because some yahoo hangs every accessory imaginable off of his AR-15. As long as he’s not hurting anyone we tolerate people’s eccentricities. If you look on the firearms bulletin boards, people who embrace being “tacticool” get ridiculed mercilessly. It’s good sport.

Is it a sense of strength or power? It might also reflect the lifestyle of ranchers and country (vs. urban) lives. Sometimes it seems to be a nostalgic reenactment of rugged frontier days.

I wish some psychologist would investigate and write a book. It interests me.

What I was elaborating on is that the second part is the stronger of the two.

“Shall not be infringed” is very strong language. So you can argue the exact meaning of the first part, but since it simply provides an explanation for the second, it should in no way become the controlling phrase in the Amendment. Gunbanners accuse gun rights partisans of glossing over the first part, but it is they who ignore the controlling second part.

I also interpret the second amendment as Gray does, to mean that gun ownership is allowed as part of a well-armed militia; I’m quite certain that the Founding Fathers did not intend for private citizens to have weapons caches in their homes to include semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

While I too, have a healthy distrust of government power, I prefer a ballot on Election Day to taking up arms against it. If the federal government ever did try to establish an autocracy, we would not be able to stop our own military, which possesses far superior weapons.

But if you reduce liberties a bit at a time, and don’t rush up too hard against political will, you can make government more autocratic without a single shot being fired.

Carpeicthus: This is an amazing observation- just brilliant, and in my view, what we are experiencing right at the moment!

The average citizen has the right to defend their lives and property. The modern firearm allows the elderly, the weak, the infirm, women, and the busy(Not everybody has the time to become a black belt in karate) to accomplish that. Denying them that Right, like the DC laws do, is tyranny at it’s worst.

The problem is, first of all, the powerful NRA lobby and, second, enforcement. Our drug laws have done nothing but fill up prisons. So, a better and smarter approach to gun laws would be necessary.

Considering how many seem to have a real love affair with their weapons, I suspect the best solution is a really tough control and regulation policy.

That said, as I grow older (and read about violence in European countries, especially Britain which is closest to us culturally) I find myself more sympathetic to the idea that gun bans hurt those that aren’t physically strong and our violence rates have more to do with our nation’s psyche rather than free access to firearms — a point explicitly made in Bowling for Columbine that most detractors tend to ignore.

carpeicthus: excellent point. Even the most brutual regimes need a large chunk of the populace to participate and fealty to our principles should prevent that from ever happening.