America's Great Gun Game--a new book on gun control

[Owen]

Dr. Earl,

If your stats are irrefutable, please tell us where to find them. I'm npt going to buy your book, because I refuse to send money to someone that thinks I'll be better off defenseless.

Danus Ex, do you still believe that Dr. Earl is anything less than a full blown gun grabber?

 

[Gator]

Dr. McDowell,

You ask if we care about victims of criminals armed with guns. I marvel at your lack of concern for the hundreds of thousands of law abiding citizens who defend themselves with guns every year. You are advocating increasing the criminals advantage by disarming the law abiding.

 

[IA_farmboy]

I obviously can not answer your questions.

It is not obvious to me. You continue to take the time to comment and yet you continue to claim you do not have the time to answer all of our questions. Fine, you don't have to answer them all. You can answer a select few, take your time and pick a couple. Do your research and reply when you do have the time.

You still have not answered my question. The best answer I heard was lock the criminal up. Great idea. I'm tired of you liberals critizing me.

Now, that is completely uncalled for. Calling me a... a... I have trouble even repeating the word... a LIBERAL. You take that back.

Again many have answered your question but the answer is not what you wanted, or expected, to hear. History shows that more guns leads to less crime or, at best, has little effect on crime.

What you continue to talk about is gun crime. I fail to seem how the implements used in crime affects the outcome. Theft, rape, murder, are all still a crime without the use of a gun. What gun registration does is create more laws to be broken. Laws that tend to be broken only by those with the intent to break other crimes. By this logic if you wish to reduce gun crime then reduce the laws restricting the ownership and trade of firearms.

If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so. My statisitics can not be refuted when using neutral sources. We can stop the gun violence. Let's join together to solve the gun problem.

I don't think anyone here is so sadistic to not care that 30,000 deaths occur each year. I did a bit of checking with the CDC about your claim of 30,000 deaths due to firearms and I found the number to be about right. What I also found is that about 30,000 committed suicide. About half of those suicides were with the use of a firearm. If find it quite disingenuous to claim that we could have saved 16,000 people from themselves by removing firearms from their homes. Especially since 15,000 people found ways to end their lives without the aid of a firearm.

661 deaths were because of accidental discharge of a firearm. (Before I continue I must point out that some of these may actually be suicides but rules as "accidents" by LEOs not wanting to see a family distraught over the thought of a suicide, or lack of being able to collect life insurance.)

To put that into some perspective there were 47,000 automotive deaths. 18,000 by falls, 19,000 by poisoning, and 16,000 by "other and unspecified" among many other means that people have died accidentally.

Out of the 16,000 deaths by assault 11,000 were by firearms and 5,000 by other means. The CDC doesn't track who died by who's hand. A large number may have been criminals falling victim to other criminals, police, or their intended victims.

So let's take another look. 30,000 (actually I think the number is closer to 28,000 but close enough) people died by firearm. More than half are suicides. About 1,000 were accidental, undetermined, or other. Then there were 11,000 deaths by assault with a firearm. This is from what I think many would agree to be a neutral source, the CDC.

I don't see a gun problem here. I see a suicide problem, and/or a crime problem. If you want to lower firearm deaths then I suggest you look into suicide intervention. Taking firearms used for sport, defense, collectible value to reduce such deaths is like using a hand grenade to get a housefly.

 

[Gene_WI]

Dear uncle Earl

Lets not beat around the bush, we are all mature adult people. You claim that you have studied the subject matter for 33 years. Please enlighten us with your opinion on the repeal of the 1986 ban on registration of newly manufactured machine guns in the NFA. This is a very simple question, that you should be able to answer for us. If we are to believe that you do not mean us harm, and do not wish to impose an England style confiscation of firearms. Why would you be opposed to the repeal of the 86 ban. As stated earlier legally owned register MG have been used in only a handful (<10) crimes since 1934.

If registration worked like you claim, would you be in favor of New Zealand, Finland or Norway type gun laws in the US.

To answer your question about crime. Gun laws are irrelevant to murder. You should have plenty of statistics to know this. The root of violent crime is "Organized Crime", your should know very well that the majority of US crime problems relate to gangs. As such the primary concern should be the eradication of not only gangs, but the social conditions that feed them. Again volumes of research have been published on the subject mater.

Gun control only works on the law abiding.

 

[EBRDude]

"If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so."

They needed to be armed, then maybe we can make sure the 30,000 people killed are the aggressors, and not the victims.
If a child is killed by a firearm, then the blame rest with the parents, not with the gun. I raised two wonderful daughters who shoot often. They are plenty safe, unless you intend to do them harm.
So, I guess I don't really care about those 30,000 people. No more than I care about the thousands who die from disease, accidents, etc. You take your chances, and you win some, you lose some. Heck, I plan on dying some day. I would rather it be because I decided to die, not because someone else did.
If you want to pull heart-strings, go on a crusade against parents who neglect their children. I would support that.

 

[TCB in TN]

Seeing how there are an estimated 80 to 120 million gun owners in the US I hardly see US as the vocal minority.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I don't have time to respond to the gentleman from SA, but I really appreciate his sincerity. I have several friends who live in London, and they love it there. They appreciate being able to go out at night and not worry about being shot.

Oh you have time for them? It must be that they share your views about gun control. Personally, I fear for their safety. You can't see trouble coming with your heads in the clouds of Utopia. Haven't you warned them about Britain's rising crime rate? This is a well documented fact.

But we still have the problem, don't we? How are are we going to solve this problem? How can we lower the death rate by 5 percent in 2008?

Several ways have already been stated. We'll wait til you're done reading those before we add more.

If the gun laws proposed by Homer Cummings had be implemented, it is unlikely that John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther king would have been assassionated. what do you think about that or don't you care?

Please, spare us. What good would gun control, especially registration schemes, have done? Even one of our biggest gun grabbers, President Bill Clinton, had the intelligence to state that further gun control wouldn't have prevented the recent campus massacre in Virginia

You still have not answered my question. The best answer I heard was lock the criminal up. Great idea. I'm tired of you liberals critizing me.

:banghead:

The quote from 1923 about man killers is even more relevant today. I believe you just care about your guns. My mother told me that my grandfather slept with a pistol under his pillow. Some people in my area of Pennsylvania do the same. These are sick peope.

They probably think you're sick. I don't think you're sick. Just misinformed, set in your ways, and not very practical.

If you don't care about the 30,000 people each year who dies from guns, just say so. My statisitics can not be refuted when using neutral sources. We can stop the gun violence. Let's join together to solve the gun problem.
If you don't care about others, just say so, but I still care about your safety.

Oh come on. You can do better than that. Resorting to that when you are losing an argument is just like our anti-gun politicians. Only difference is theirs is "for the children" while yours is "I care about people." And besides, how many of those are gang on gang or other types of criminal victim? Probably most, certainly a lot, and to answer your query about care, I don't care about those!

 

[average_shooter]

Quote: Earl McDowell

There have been 325 comment. I believe I have written 12 to 15.

There you go inflating numbers again. Sad when we can all see this:

Earl McDowell
New Member


Join Date: 08-23-07
Posts: 8

I have a question for you, Dr. I cherish all life. Not all American life, all life. Worldwide.

So far in history governments have been among the greatest causes of death, by gun and other means.

If you wish to truly reduce death by firearms, why do you not advocate disarming first the government? Then, as the government leads by example and we all see crime decline, we will be inclined to follow said example.

When the government publicly destroys it's entire arsenal, you will find many more people willing to agree with you about privately owned arms. Since many believe that the ultimate meaning behind the 2nd Amendment is protection against tyranny in government.

 

[TCB in TN]

The NRA seems to have a position; that is is also shared by the United States Senate, Professor Lawrence Tribe, and other legal scholars gets no emphasis here.
We've already seen "the opinions of Supreme Court Justices", most notably the one published in that peer-reviewed journal Parade Magazine.
I wonder which former US presidents he may feel have applicable opinions; I myself prefer Thomas Jefferson.

I agree!
I must question the assumptions of anyone who attempts to "interpret" the Constitution and the Framer's thoughts when they (such as Jefferson) wrote so extensively about what they meant and why they meant them.

 

[Brian Williams]

Also looking at Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Harvey Oswald, they were both legal gun owners and James Earl Ray it is questionable as to whether he actually pulled the trigger, although he was an escaped convict.

 

[Atticus]

Gun Ownership vs. Americans' Safety presents two sides of the gun issue- the gun control advocates, the silent majority; and the gun rights supporters, the vocal minority.

Since when is the Democratic Party (or the Republican party for that matter) concerned about a vocal minority? Even Bill Clinton is wise enough now to not push the gun issue, yet I still hear this fallacy repeated over and over. It's simple rhetoric, just like the phrase "cop killer bullet", that is intended to influence opinion rather than illustrate a truth. I'm leery of anyone who spouts rhetoric, and can't even get the simple truths right.

30,000 deaths a year are tragic...why does this happen in our society? It didn't happen back when a kid could walk into the local hardware store and buy a gun...or order an M1 through a magazine. Truthfully, I don't know the stats, or if the stats would reveal the truth, but I would hazard a guess that 29,900 of these deaths are little criminals killing other little criminals. I'm 51 years old, have been around gun owners my whole life, and have never known any of them to misuse their guns in any way. I did have a friend killed by one the previously mentioned little criminals. My friend, an anti-gun female, was murdered by her boyfriend -he strangled her.

I do believe that some people should not have guns, however, I don't think that liberals have the backbone to use the data to identify those people and to disarm them. It's easier just to target everyone...especially the hard working, law abiding folks.

 

[IA_farmboy]

From a Center for Disease Control 2004 report

Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms     16,603
Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms                  11,250
Accidental discharge of firearms                                661
Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent                      222
                                                           --------
                                                             28,736

I no longer have the link to the original report but it should be easy enough to find again.

The CDC does not differentiate between defensive homicide (intruder killed by homeowner), or offensive homicide (home intruder kills occupant). I imagine the FBI tracks such things. I'll search for that data when I have the time, assuming someone else doesn't do so first.

 

[M1 Shooter]

Here is an interesting read. Check it out.

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

 

[Kentak]

As has been said, it's not about guns, it's about self-defense.

Regardless of the meaning of the Second Amendment, to deny an honest, free citizen the RKBA, is to deny, through an unbroken chain of logic, the right to life--the most basic human right of all.

It is intellectual gibberish to make any statement that amounts to this, "You have the right to live, but you don't have the right to defend your life."

Or, "You have the right to live, but can only defend your life with less than effective means."

Or, "You have the right to live, but must rely on a greater authority to defend your life."

Victims who died by means of firearms, didn't die *from* guns. The vast majority died *from* the criminal acts of people who don't respect the rights of others to be left the hell alone. I wish academia would spend more effort on that aspect of the problem. Solve that one and the issue of gun ownership will be irrelevant.

K

 

[camslam]

Dr. McDowell,

Here is the answer to your question of how we lower our death rate in this country.

LOCK UP THE CRIMINALS AND KEEP THEM OFF OUR STREETS!

Please take the time to look at this study as I posted it before.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

One more time so you can't miss it:

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

I think you will be sufficiently enlightened about who is actually committing the murders in this country. Although Rudi likes to take credit for the drop in crime in New York, it really was from more police officers and ACTUALLY locking up the criminals and getting them off the streets.

At some point our broken judicial system in this country will crash, but for now, it is the main contributor to our murder woes. When you let convicted criminals out of jail to commit further crimes, it is kind of a no-brainer that you are going to have more deaths and crime. If we were to lock up the criminals and keep them off the streets, I'm sure we would see a 50%+ drop in murder rates.

Until we lock them up and control the criminals, please answer me what you would have the rest of us do to protect ourselves, our families, and other innocents from these criminals.

 

[Steve499]

My partner and I won every debate,

Until now.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Statistics and Gun Violence.

I'm curious about the 30K deaths. Statistics are deceptive as is the loaded term "gun violence."

If a police officer lawfully shoots a felon is self-defense or the defense of another, isn't this a permissible use of deadly force? Is that police officer's shooting of said felon included in that statistic? I know several police officers who've shot and killed in the line of duty and in the shooting review board, their actions were upheld as justifiable according to the law and to their department's use of force policy. Likewise, is shooting in self-defense such as when a crime victim kills his/her assailant justifiable? I know one woman who was being stalked, got a restraining order and when he approached her with a deadly weapon, she fired and killed him. The police and the district attorney both held it was self-defense and no charges were brought against her. Equally important, no wrongful death suit was filed by the suspect's survivors and that spared her the ordeal of a civil suit. Isn't the use of deadly force by law enforcement and the lady I mentioned (and those like her) all examples of lawful use of deadly force? Were shootings of criminal suspects by citizens like herself included in that 30k statistic? If so, the 30k statistic is deceptive.

Furthermore, if justifiable homicides are included, then can you concede that some "handgun violence" is good and dare say I, necessary? "Violence" raises a negative inference and tying it to guns with the term "gun violence" is misleading.

Firearms Registration as a public safety measure

I'm a bit at a loss as to how firearms registration prevents gun deaths. Whether a firearm is registered or not has no bearing on whether it will be involved in a homicide. People who want to kill themselves and are determined to kill themselves will do so and unless they vocalize it such that there can be intervention, they will succeed whether they have a gun or not. Someone jumps off the Golden Gate Bridge or onto some train track in the San Francisco Bay Area all the time. Turning to the issue of registered guns and suicide, the fact that whether a gun is registered or not does not determine whether it will be used as an instrument for suicide. Both registered guns (and probably non-registered) guns have been used. I can verify the former as I knew a police sergeant and a deputy sheriff who are dead because they committed suicide. Neither would have been barred from firearms possession either because of their profession. Having a registered or unregistered firearm by them (or anyone else) wouldn't have made a difference when they elected to take their own lives.

The children

Define children. It's my understanding that the statistic used includes 0-25 year olds. Can you verify this and do you believe, as I do, that by including 18-25 year olds is deceptive on the part of the statisticians?

Let's say for argument's sake that they are below the age of 18. Now, do the statistics show how many are involved in criminal activity? I'm willing to bet that most of those "children" are gangsters involved in criminal activity. As an academian, you've access to your economics colleagues at your university. Ask them for a run down on the economics of crime. It goes back to rewards and consequences. If the consequences of getting caught are small in comparison to the rewards (of engaging in criminal activity), then why not be a gangster?

On youth-related deaths, might I suggest Col. David Grossman's book, Stop Teaching Our Children to Kill? Col. Grossman points out that guns have always been around in our society. Back in the '60s & '70s, it wasn't unusual for high school kids to bring guns to school. They went hunting after class and no one though anything of it. Guns were available then and now. What happened? Col. Grossman attributes the increased violence in our community to the violence in the media and the video games that promote violence. The first desensitizes the individual and the second conditions them towards violence. Of course, its easier said than done. The media has a First Amendment right to put out movies with high body counts or songs that glorify the gangster life and taking of human life. As for controlling the video games, that takes (a) responsible parent(s) - something that isn't really around with many single parent families. The one parent is too busy working to provide for junior's proper supervision.

Oh yes, before I forget, lock 'em up too. Catch 'em, incarcerate them. Mind you, incarceration should include a lot of schooling (basic reading skills) and job training. The Japanese give their juvenile delinquents a lot of training so when released, they may, if they so desire, have some marketable skill.

Microstamping

Microstamping isn't a proven technology and it can be defeated. Show me a mircostamped firing pin and I'll show you a concrete sidewalk or a granite block. That's all it'll take to change the configuration of a firing pin. A few swipes and voila! Gone. Maybe even tig welding will hide the stamp mark. Gotta hand it to them, criminals can be creative.

Not all guns involved in gang shootings are semi-automatic pistols. Even if it was a semi-automatic pistol, brass catchers attached to the gun will keep the spent case from falling on the ground. Even easier, pick up the brass. Even if one can't pick up the brass, throw away the gun. Oh, serial #s? Well, what if the serial #s have been removed such that they can't be recovered by X-ray? In Law Enforcement Armorer's School, one officer brought a collectible gun that he worked on, and then destroyed, because its serial number had been removed. His agency allowed him to take it to class so he could learn on it, acquire skills, and to get practice in destroying guns (he brought it back to prove it). Many of us wanted to cry.

Solution

First, recognize that guns aren't the problems. Criminals are. Punish them, not society. One trouble we have today is that criminals are idolized in the media. Al Pacino's Scarface - great role model, huh? I see folks wearing t-shirts with Pacino's Scarface all the time. Bonnie & Clyde protrayed by popular Hollywood actors/actresses. Rap Music promotes criminal conduct. In the 18th Century, a criminal was scorned and run out of town. No respectable person wanted to associate with them. Today (some in) society honors them and that is terribly wrong.

Take care of the criminals and that'll take care of the crime. Make the punishment - including execution - such that its not worth the risk of committing the unlawful act.

BTW, would you like examples of failed gun bans? Australia & England. Crime rate has increased when they passed a ban. How about something more local? San Francisco lost Officer Issac Espinoza to a criminal who used an AK-47 assault weapon. This is not the semi-automatic civilian lookalike firearm that was banned in California in 1989. It was a military selective fire weapon capable of full-automatic firing and that was smuggled illegally into this country. The law banning its importation or possession didn't protect Officer Espinoza since the criminal who used it didn't respect the law. Nor would any criminal respect a gun ban, registration, micro-stamping or any of the other measures proposed.

 

[carpediem]

Book Response - Partial

Dr. McDowell,

In your book you reference two incidents in your life where you wonder what your reaction would have been had you had a loaded, functional firearm. Please do not take offensive at my saying so, but the implication is that you feel the presence of a firearm might have emboldened you to shoot the man who exposed himself or the crowd rocking your vehicle.

In my opinion (given a limited understanding from reading your account), neither presents sufficient cause for taking a life. That is reserved for defending oneself or another against immanent serious injury (my personal view here). If I may paraphrase John Stuart Mills, substituting 'violence' for 'war': "Violence is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth violence is much worse." I abhor violence. Yet there are those whose social-pyschological development has regressed to a primitive evolutionary level, who are predators and see others as prey, who respect only force. There are things that, once taken, cannot ever be restored. Life is one such thing. The sanctity of a human being's person is, to paraphrase Hemingway, "a fine thing and worth fighting for." I desire to be neither predator nor victim, and will act only to ensure that.

Though I do not possess the legally requisite concealed carry permit and thus do not and have not carried a concealed handgun, I have been under the impression that carrying a deadly weapon is more likely to result in one avoiding conflict than precipitating it. As the adage goes, "An armed society is a polite society." By raising the stakes (that is, the consequences) of interpersonal conflict, being armed among others who are armed is likely to deter conflict over all but the gravest injuries, as nothing else is worth taking or losing life over. That is a rational perspective. People make irrational decisions as well. In the end, it's all about the person. Your scenario may lead you to a different conclusion than I reached.

You state "The "enemy within, or temper, is inherent in each of us, and guns are frequently used when this enemy is stirred to anger." You quote William Manchester as saying "Guns don't kill people...people kill people...that was the cheap sophistry. People with guns kill people." As an academic, I'm sure you have the rational discernment to realize that firearms are inherently inert, and assume you refer to people's reaction to the presence of firearms, reinforced by your personal accounts. You and Mr. Manchester seem to share the opinion that people, yourselves included, cannot be trusted not misuse firearms under duress. I do not attack this evaluation in so far as you apply to your personal sphere of experience. However, should you evince a willingness to apply your personal perspective (specifically, through coercive legislation) to others outside your experience, I would suggest that this is perhaps unwarranted. Psychologically this phenomenon resembles projection. Skirting the long extant Freudian "defense mechanism" interpretation, projection is simply the attribution of personal perspectives to other people. As a published academic I'm sure you're familiar with the related issue of objectivity and perspective in the evaluation of ideas: from a first person, subjective (NOT in the pejorative sense but simply being rigorously honest - people form opinions, and acknowledging these opinion's potential influence on their thought process is part of striving toward the objective ideal) perspective it is difficult to view one's work with the detachment and different cognitive structure that a third party has. This is NOT criticism. This issue affects anyone who's ever written about something on which they have an opinion. I am merely suggesting that the perspective you advance above appears to be formed from self-reflection as well as your environmental experience and may not be representative of how others would react. Your thoughts on this issue remind me of a quote from the writings of Albert Camus, a French philosopher whom I respect but cannot agree with on this point. He says, essentially, that there are pestilences and there are victims, and it is our responsibility in so far as it is in our power not to collude with the pestilences. The unfortunate implication is that one must be a victim. I submit that for rational individuals there is and should be a middle ground. If one's evaluation leads them to distance themselves from weapons, I respect the validity of that stance, but only as it applies to that person. You might say hypothetically that is all very well, but we're dealing with peoples lives here. I would respond, precisely. And it is because of the value of life and human agency* (*in the philosophical sense) that we must not deny others the means of protecting it. You might believe that protecting life requires you to remove firearms from your household. I might believe for precisely that reason that I need a firearm in my household. Please again remember the gist of my earlier post: firearms are the best personal weapons available today. They are certainly not the only ones. I would agree with Mr. Manchester if he said: "People with weapons kill people." Anecdotally, there was a domestic violence incident very recently in my community. A live in boyfriend killed a young boy and severely injured the boy's mother with a meat cleaver. This occurred in one of the safest large cities in America. Meat cleavers are not regulated. Domestic incidents like these rarely occur spontaneously without warning signs. These cues may not be obvious to the family. Perhaps we could agree that interviewing family violence counselors, ministers, social workers, police, and abuse survivors to determine common cues, then funding a campaign to educate people about them might be more productive.

I am blessed this evening by some leisure time, so I will continue to read the excerpts from iuniverse and post my reactions as possibile. Thank you.

 

[average_shooter]

carpediem wrote:...neither presents sufficient cause for taking a life. That is reserved for defending oneself or another against immanent serious injury (my personal view here).

No, not just your opinion. It is written into law.

Lethal force may only be used to defend against death or Great Bodily Harm. Great Bodily Harm may be defined slightly differently in each state, but generally means that the injuries would be permanent, debilitating, and/or may lead to an untimely death.

I have been under the impression that carrying a deadly weapon is more likely to result in one avoiding conflict than precipitating it.

One of the reasons is due to some level conflict resolution training received as part of the Concealed Carry class one must take. Though, it usually doesn't actually take much training to learn. Also, nobody wants to be in the legal mess that results from using lethal force.

Also, for lethal force to be justified the victim must be a "reluctant participant," "reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm," in a situation where "no lesser force will do," and wherein "retreat is not practical."

This according to Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota by Joel Rosenberg, written for AACFI, copyright 2003.

 

[BullfrogKen]

I often find this same exact sort of logic present at the forefront of any gun control debate - that the costs of private gun ownership in America are <such and such>.


And the debate ends there.


The benefits of private gun ownership are never acknowledged by those who wish to rid us of them. Not the individual benefits, nor the collective. Neither. All gun control treatises begin in such fashion. The tug at the heart strings by those who would make us feel ashamed, or attempt to shame us as callous in front of the world, both begins and ends at that premise. What's in the middle is little more than pabalum. As it is also here.

Automobiles kill far more Americans than guns. Yet we see no movements to ban cars. Its a silly argument. Their benefits outweigh the cost, don't they? Hell cars aren't even Constitutionally protected, therefore it ought to be easier to ban them. I reckon we car owners just love our cars too much to part with them. Hmmm . . . I think I just gave Al Gore some ideas here . . .


This "re-interpretation for modern times" argument contains both an acknowledgement that the language means what it meant, and a concession by those who wish it weren't so that they lack the political support to actually effect the change the way alterations to our Constitution were intended. If we troglodytes were the minority you suggest, your political allies should have no problem mounting support for repealing that amendment. As it is, opponents of private gun ownership cannot get elected on that platform outside of heavily urbanized, heavily Democrat strongholds.



Dr. McDowell, be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Should your "re-interpretation" theory of legal practice become accepted case law, you might find things once thought sacrosanct erased by such shenanigans.



I resent your assertion we don't care for the deaths of the victimized. Shame on you.


You know, I recall there were four people injured during the assassination attempt on President Reagan. The only one I'm aware of who became anti-gun over it was Mrs. Brady. The actual target of that assassination attempt, Mr. Reagan, probably had more cause than anyone there that morning to adopt a platform for stricter gun control. And you know what, had he chosen to do so, he most certainly could have seen it happen.


He didn't.


Good for you, Mr. Reagan. Rest well.


Sarah Brady . . . upon her passage from this mortal coil, I will have less stellar comments .

 

[average_shooter]

Dr. McDowell:

I would like to again thank you for engaging in this debate and I hope this message finds you well.

While reading through this discussion I have wondered if you are aware of the book Everything You Need to Know About (Legally) Carrying a Handgun in Minnesota written by Joel Rossenberg, copyright 2003, published by The American Association of Certified Firearms Instructors (AACFI).

If you have not already been made aware of this book, it covers all of the legal and practical issues surrounding concealed carry in the state of Minnesota. The book is provided by the instructor when taking a concealed carry course. Essentially, the book is written to dissuade the reader from carrying concealed by outlining every detail of the law and making it clear that use of lethal force is severely punishable and the responsibility must not be taken lightly at all.

Everything You Need to Know... also dispels some of the common myths and misunderstandings about concealed carry and the laws surrounding the action thereof. As well as issues surrounding handguns in general.

If you are interested, the book is available for $24.95 from the following website: http://www.aacfi.com/products/MNEverythingYouNeedToKnow.shtml

However, I understand you may not want to pay for this book. I especially understand after seeing some of the posters adamantly declare that they will not spend any money on your book.

Given this, I am willing to extend an offer to loan you my copy for an afternoon for your perusal. I would be willing to meet and talk with you about this issue, however I am unwilling to loan my only copy of this book for a significant time as I use it often for reference.

I also understand that as you are a professor you may be too busy to accept and the semester will be beginning soon. I attend college in Wisconsin and am starting another semester soon as well. With my workload I will be unable to meet after the start of the semester.

If you have not acquired a copy of the aforementioned book, I encourage you to do so one way or another. It is written for anyone interested in the topic.

Thank you for your time,

average_shooter

 

[bogie]

Well, not to be judgemental, but the cover starts off in a sort of adversarial stance...

Let's not consider that well over 99% of firearms are pointed at paper (or other innocent substance...) targets... The cover aims that sucker at the reader!

There's bias right there, before Dear Reader even gets past the fainting spell, and cracks the glue...

(Toad rocks, by the way... Damn, I hope that when I'm Ginger's age I can at least do some stuff without assistance... Oh, the joys of waiting for jobs to RIP while watching and listening to cool DVDs while blithering on the interwoob...)

I'm guessing that the fellow assumes that there is a benevolent governmental authority who will assure that guns are only owned by Good People, and thus only used for the Greater Good.

The fellow needs a bit of a lesson in history. The world has not, to date, functioned in that manner. Governments, while they may start out as benevolent despotical entitities, rarely stay that way for long...

Ask yourself: I'm in a situation where I know what is good for someone - will I use force to make them do it?

You'll say no.

But a lot of folks will say yes....

 

[meef]

Interesting ongoing pattern here.

Every so often Dr. Uncle Earl the Pearl jumps in and makes another post chiding the boys and girls for refusing, or failing, to answer his question(s). The timing may or may not be coincidental to those moments when there appears to be a lull in the posting by others in this thread.

In all eight (thus far) of his appearances I have yet to see him address a single point made by any of those people who address his own points quite reasonably and with considerable data and references to support them.

For my own part, I would love to know just what his real reason for being here is.

Ever go to the beach and toss out food bits where the seagulls are hovering, and then watch them scramble and focus en masse on each piece you deign to throw - even if it's the same old thing over and over? I get the feeling that he must feel like that here - being the one doing the throwing, that is.

On a positive note, while I've always been impressed with the caliber (pun intended) of much of the membership here, this thread shines with the responses of so many articulate and knowledgeable individuals that I am honestly awed.

 

[bogie]

If I'm in danger from the guns which own, then I'm really, really, really worried... And I will sue your gonads off if you quote anything less than this entire internet post. You see, I'm not worried about inanimate objects harming me. What does worry me are people who have the mindset to harm me. And they _are_ out there. The world is not comprised of individuals who are benevolent. The world averages people with a 100 IQ who are vaguely disturbed about that... But they'll kick your ass... Why? They forget - Who is going to win the Idol show?

My "toys" are generally stored in a safe. Those that aren't are stored loaded and within fairly easy reach. Otherwise they wouldn't be called "guns." I'd refer to them as "ungainly clubs." I lived in an urban area far too long to not be a trifle paranoid. I'm within 18" of one of the diabolical devices at this very moment...

...

No odd noises...

No clicking...

Not even any rustling in the drawer.

No kaboom at all.

Ain't gonna happen without HUMAN interference.

Dr., are you saying you can fix mankind?

Are you going to be on guard, every minute, of every day, to protect EVERY potential victim?

Seems to me like gun control folks seem to think that everyone who is fit and able-bodied needs to learn some sort of magical kung-fu, so as to deal, all tv-style, with the criminal element... And that those of us who are older, or smaller, are just sorta out of luck.

We know you're male. How big are you? How physically fit are you? Not everyone may be as lucky as you. Too many gun control advocates seem to think that it is feasible for a 120 pound woman to defend herself via hand-to-hand combat against a 240 pound assailant. And then they tell us that we're sexist pigs when we mention that little size-difference concept.

Dr., I suggest that you spend some time outside the ivory halls of academia. Visit the real world. Without expectations. It may surprise you.

I think it's time for some Led Zepplin now... Looks like I have another half hour until this bloody thing finishes... And this is with a decent dual-core rig!

 

[txgolfer45]

Earl has refused to answer my question to him: Do you believe a person has the right to defend himself?

Now he doesn't accept PM's. He clearly doesn't want to hear arguments contrary to his deep seated beliefs for gun control. He doesn't want to debate. He doesn't want to learn. Yet, he is in a position to teach someone's child.