It would certainly help your position, if you knew what you were talking about and were reasoning with actual facts.

About Australia - Here's a link to Snopes that explains it all in detail: http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

In case you're a Snopes-denier; here's Fact-Check: http://www.factcheck.org/2009/05/gun-control-in-australia/

If neither of those will persuade you then I'll assume you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Poor Barbara, here are the actual govt links to Australia.

Of course there are other countries that have recently tried gun bans, what effect did that have on their violence?

1997 Australia, Canada, England

Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2011 1,259.4 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England (ref http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/4510.02011?OpenDocument

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/F/F/B/%7bFFB9E49F-160F-43FC-B98D-6BC510DC2AFD%7dmr01.pdf

While your at it, can you go to figure #26 and explain to everyone how the use of sharp instruments, knives has increased, the same percentage as illegal use of a firearm has fallen in the commission of murders in Australia?

See, if gun control truly was the cause for the reduction in murders, there wouldn’t be any replacement use by other means.

But hey, a 100% increase in aggravated assaults, burglaries, rapes and other violent crimes is a great trade off (over 50,000 crimes reported increase) for a couple dozen murders reduced that by the data was trend already occurring several years before their gun ban.

Which in part can also be attributed to the aging of the baby boomers. The largest statictical age group of people born soon after WW2. Criminalogists agree the most active criminal age for people is around 18-34 yrs old and the it declines. A trend mirrored in the US, and obviously in Asutralia as well, prove otherwise.

All while in the US..We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.

We see from FBI NICS reports since 2000 we have gone from 8 mil background checks to 16.5 mil projected for 2012, which translates per the Brady Bunch to 4.5 mil new firearms in civilians hands each year.

We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 403 VCR per 100k people in 2010.

That is a 38% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 26% reduction in murders?

All while at the same time we see 16 more states reinstated concealed carry to 49 states total, and 35 states reinstated concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. 4 states and 200+ universities reinstated concealed carry. Not to mention self defense outside ones own home reinstated in 25 states with Stand your Ground, 24 Castle Doctrine (five pending change to Stand your Ground).

All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits suggests for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep. Those anti gun soothsayers really suck at predicting violence and mayhem from the law-abiding citizen, every single time. Hope they aren’t trying to make a living as a soothsayer they are starving if they do.

So much for more guns in civilians hands equals more violence BS people like you believe.

So since not one single anti has ever proven gun control of the law abiding reduces violence by the career criminals, gang members, suiciders and crazies recognized by our govt to commit over 92% of killings by illegal use of a firearm each year, then you antis are indeed the problem.

I'm afraid, Mark, that Barbara has got you on this one. Factcheck.org does a fantastic job and it puts a complete lie to your point.

Example: The EMail you're relying upon talks about "12 months". Oops, the change was made 13 years ago!!! Excising a small period from a much larger trend is a CLASSIC tactic used by some to mislead us.

I'm going to assume that you didn't mean to insult me by calling your own opinion on this issue "mature" implying that my opinion is less so, so I'll let it pass. I read what you wrote and not sure how it applies to what I wrote since I've not called for a ban or repeal.

Barb, I will leave it to others to decide that maturity level of those who want to punish the innocent for the deeds of the evil. Or those who refuse to use a 17th century definition of "well regulated" when appealing to what a 17th century document says about it.

Or to feel that somehow the 79,990,000 gun owners who did not hurt someone must jump through approved hoops because of the 10,000 who did. I am not sure why it would be mature to insist that the 99.999 percent are held accountable for the actions of the .001 percent.

If you want to consider those as the hallmarks of maturity then go for it.

But I am glad to know that you are fully in favor of people buying and owning ARs, AKs, .50 caliber rifles, handguns big enough to kill an elephant, and handguns small enough to drop into a shirt pocket.

Jack, punish? How do you get that conclusion? How is it punishing the innocent by requiring gun registration? How is it punishing the innocent to require training before handing over a potentially lethal weapon? We register cars and boats. Teens are required to undertake Driver's Education.

I don't make meth yet I'm required to show my license and have my name recorded to buy Sudafed. I'm not a terrorist but I have to take my shoes off to board a plane.

What about hand-grenades and land mines? There are no deaths in America by hand-grenades and land mines so why is my freedom to protect my home with land mines being infringed by big government? Shouldn't I have the right to defend myself with a hand-grenade if someone breaks into my home after negotiating the mine field?

Then let’s go ahead and “register” people with their fingerprints and DNA, eh. Innocents won’t object, and imagine the benefits.

Registration accomplishes nothing. You feel good to discuss it, but in actually making even the slightest difference in stopping or solving crimes it is meaningless. If you don’t think making those who do no harm to others jump thru meaningless hoops to have a gun is wrong, then that is up to you.

You think it is common sense to require 79,990,000 people who won’t hurt anyone with their guns to go thru “training” as if it is some magically talisman that is going to cure problems that don’t exist. The 99.999% must do this because of the .001%.Do criminal go thru “training”? Is a “trained criminal” going to stop being a criminal?

Based upon what training in firearms costs around the country, we’re looking at about $200 per person. Eighty million times $200... We are looking at 16,000,000,000, or sixteen BILLION dollars to solve exactly nothing. This is why when people such as Barb propose “common sense” regulations we know there is not mush sense in the regulations at all.

And last I looked, neither cars nor boats were in the Bill of Rights.

Yes, the nanny state is moving through the supermarkets and airlines. That doesn’t make it correct, and it doesn’t make it necessary for free citizens to roll over and continue to let it happen. If you’re content with it it doesn’t mean others are.

Patrick, when you find a National Handgrenade and Land Mine Association and a Handgrenade and Land Mine Control, Inc who are battling the issue out then get back to us. Otherwise your snark is telling much more about you than the issue at hand.

Well-regulated means many things and I agree that part of the definition means well-trained should you desire to be a gun owner. In fact, training should be mandatory for owning a weapon. I do not accept that the way to prevent mass shootings in schools is by arming teachers. Your reference to Israel is comparing apples to oranges as Israel lives under a constant threat of war.

Many issues contribute to mass shootings and they all need to be addressed. Sensible regulation of guns is a necessary part of working to prevent these in the future. I don't have time to read up on the Texas School District you mentioned since I'm on a break from work so will refrain from commenting until I can.

Okay... let me comment on what you really said. My brother had his car stolen a few years back. The guy who stole it used it to grab a young girl off the street and rape her.

You would have my brother in jail for that, wouldn't you.

Actually that's not a comment on what I wrote but let me answer it this way: If we, as a country, had a 30 year history of cars being left unattended with keys in the ignition and they were being used to mass murder people; then yes, your brother should be in jail but since that's not the reality, it's not a very good analogy.

Barb... I know tens of thousands of firearm owners and I don't know a one who leaves their gun laying about on the lawn or the sidewalks. Do you believe they do?

And I am glad that you were honest enough to admit that my brother should be in jail. After all, rape is pretty serious, eh. It now pretty much proves my original post.

Actually, I said your brother should be in jail under the scenario I outlined and NOT in jail as you phrased your question. Reading comprehension is important.

And there's not a dimes worth of difference between jailing an innocent person who had his gun stolen and used for bad things and jailing an innocent person who had his car stolen and used for bad things other than you don't like guns.

Sue, I agree there's a lot of parental responsibility (or lack thereof) that needs to be addressed. It's a complex problem that will require a mix of complex and simple answers. I also agree that no legislation can make up for parenting but it can help to ensure that other children do not pay the price.

In the meantime, responsible gun owners can and should help shape national policy on regulations.

Barb... do you know that the NRA helped Congress shape and pass the "instant check" system used to prevent criminals from buying guns?

Do you know that the NRA helped shape and pass the law preventing those with mental problems from buying guns?

Do you know that the NRA helped shape and pass the law prohibiting bullets made from ultra dense material in order to better protect policemen?

OK Jack, responsible gun owners should CONTINUE to help shape national policy. That better?

I would disagree with Patrick. I too come from a small farm community in the mid-west and spent 12 years in the military. Both backgrounds afforded valuable experience with firearms. Self-defense is no joke. I would hope proper training (I'm certain Patrick experienced) would advocate this point. Home defense must be effective and efficient and SAFE. I have two adult daughters and they weren't worse off for the wear for how I effected SAFE firearm home defense methods. I would contend that teaching children properly does not make me a bad parent as Patrick generalized so inappropriately. If someone has already pulled a gun on you, Patrick is right. You can't get your's out in time. However, most all Home Defense events involve the resident being aware that something is "not right" (noise, footsteps, other out-of-character traits) thus acute predisposition & preparedness for defense posturing is the advantage of the resident. The element of surprise would be completely squandered if choosing the tactic of "punching". (reality check!) Want to guess why I'm so specific on this? Also, phesants tastes great if properly prepared. Preparation, after all, can improve a lot of things.

Patrick, you are lying or ignorant or both. Between 800,000 and 2.5M defensive gun uses per year, depending on the survey. Do the research. It is out there.

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually."

Henry,
Did this study take into account how many of those people had been threatened by black kids with skittles?

That's the best that Patrick can do, eh...

Ok, Kleck's survey got to 2.5 million by asking 5000 people and 'extrapolating' which is sciency-talk for 'If 1 out of 5 says they like blue in 5000 people, then 1 out of 5 people must like blue in the rest of the 300 million people here.'
The reason Henry is citing a study done in 1993 is because every study (that I could find in the 10 minutes I gave to this) done since then says that guy was full of crap.
This sums it up well if you feel like reading. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10881&page=112

The last thing I want is a New England ex-cop telling me what I need or don't need, especially when the subject is hunting. Your ignorance is showing yet again. To put it in the simplest terms: There are many tools in the tool box. Yet the choices you suggest are a hammer and a screwdriver. There are mnay tools for many different purposes. I NEED THEM ALL.

Was never a cop in New England, but that's not important. What's important is that there is apparently some kind of big game in the US I'm not aware of. Tell me, Henry, what are you hunting that can't be brought down with a .30-06 or 12 gauge? Do we have elephants here?

We can absolutely impose reasonable limits on rights. We may differ as to what those limits are and what they should be, but we can, and do, impose them. No yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater comes to mind.

Barb... did you know that it is perfectly legal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? Here's is one of the most liberal law professors in the country to explain it to you...

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/89jan/dershowitz.htm

[scroll down to read it]

Anyone who falsely shouts fire in a theater with the intent to harm others by creating a panic will be judged for his ACTIONS.

There is no requirement that theater goers must wear a muzzle to ensure that something "bad won't happen in the future."

Yet, you and most others who are calling for greater "regulations" are doing just that... demanding that because something "might happen" that you want to muzzle every single gunowner regardless of if he has actually DONE anything.

Jack, explain to me how requiring gun registration is akin to muzzling you?

Explain how requiring a writer of a letter to the editor to get government approval first on the letter is not muzzling him.

Explain how requiring a pastor to get prior approval of his sermon is not muzzling him.

Explain how requiring the owners of all printing presses to register their press with the government is not muzzling them.

Do you have a problem with the concept of "privacy" and that not everything we do is the business of the governments?

Do you know that many governments, even here in the U.S. have used gun registration as the first step in gun confiscation?

Do you know that a "car" doesn't need to be registered if it is only used on your own property? (so please don't give that discredited "but we register cars!!!!")

Obviously, I disagree. Regulation, in this case, yelling "Fire", is a limiting force on the First Amendment since it clearly places limits on that right. The limitation is intended to INSURE DOMESTIC TRANQUILITY and promote the GENERAL WELFARE by not inciting panic in a crowded public venue.

If that's the case, BHirsh, where does the government get off preventing me from driving a fully armed tank to work? The second amendment doesn't specify which arms I have the right to so it's completely unconstitutional for the government to say I can't have a tank. I would also like my own F-15 because I am sick of taking my shoes off at the airport.

Patrick, the Second Amendment deals with guaranteeing the keeping and bearing of small arms in common use that have military utility.

Your argument is hyperbolic nonsense.

BHirsh,
Not so! The second amendment, in it's entirety, states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That's the whole thing. I thought I had missed something, but that's the entire thing. Tank please.

Yep, that's true. But be honest, Jack. Those arms on those instruments must be deactivated for them to be legal.

AND you can't drive them on the highway, which infringes on my right to squish Priuses..Priusi?

Jack, it's obvious that most of these well-intentioned people really haven't a clue about precedent and its effect on the government's ability to act. It is also obvious that they truly don't understand the intractibility of natural rights.

shouting match = winning with logic, facts and questions that make pro gun control people look foolish

BHirsh,

Perhaps Barbara’s use of the two components of the constitution isn’t a good way to argue for gun regulation. I’ve got a better one for you: The landmark 2008 Supreme Court case that found, once and for all, that the possession of firearms cannot be outlawed – District of Columbia vs. Heller.

This case and the MacDonald case that extended its decisions to the States, basically read the “militia clause” of the 2nd Amendment out of the Constitution, leaving a broad right to possess firearms. But the judges took great pains to emphasize that it iSVERY LEGAL to regulate the possession of firearms. In particular, this clause from the decisions is important in this discussion:

“Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons”.

So, the most important and very recent (2008) constitutional source on this says that we ARE allowed to prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons”. Now reasonable people can disagree on the definition of “dangerous”, but to me an AR-15 with large ammo clips qualifies as “dangerous”.

The sale of military style weapons CAN be prohibited.

David... EVERY gun is dangerous. I don't know of a one that isn't, and that even includes Daisy air rifles. It doesn't say "dangerous OR unusual" it says, "dangerous AND unusual" by your own admission. Since there are millions upon millions of ARs and AKs in the hands of law abiding citizens who are not using them to harm anyone it is going to be a tough sell claiming that they are either especially dangerous or unusual.

Jack Burton says:

There are “millions upon millions of ARs and AKs in the hands of law abiding citizens”

Hmmmm… not according to the Congressional Research Service…

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf

… which says of the United States in 2009:

“By the year 2009 the estimated total number of firearms available to civilians in the U.S. had increased to approximately 310 million: 114 million handguns, 110 million rifles, and 86 million shotguns” … “data are not available on the number of ‘assault weapons’ in private possession or available for sale, but one study estimated that 1.5 million assault weapons were privately owned in 1994.”

Let’s see: 1.5 million out of 310 million: That’s less than a whopping one half of one percent Jack! Now, the assault weapon estimate is pretty old. Why don’t I give you the benefit of the doubt and double the assault weapon percentage to 1%.

I’m sorry Jack, but Americans don’t own “millions upon millions” of assault weapons. Assault weapons most definitely ARE unusual.

Sorry Henry, you can't make me fall for that one: I can hold more than one concept in my mind at once.

Concept 1: As you say, society should do a better job of identifying, treating and if necessary incarcerating the mentally disturbed people who become mass murders.

Concept 2: Since Concept 1 will never be implemented perfectly, we should also outlaw the sale of military-style weapons that enable disturbed individuals to kill people rapidly.

Both are correct. Both should be done. But your emphasis of the former does not negate the correctness of the latter

Yes, this. Exactly.

Oh come on BHirsh, you know darn well that military style weapons are not "in common use". Well, what we're debating here is that they are TOO COMMON but the weapons that are in common use are hand guns and guns used for hunting.

You also avoided the term "dangerous" in the SCOTUS decision. Now, reasonable people can disagree on what's "dangerous" but I personally believe that military style guns with high capacity ammo clips are very dangerous.

The test in Miller stated (incorrectly) that the short barreled shotgun was NOT an arm the military used and therefore was not protected. Therefore, arms used by the military, such as select fire assault rifles, should, under that ruling be legal. If those arms are legal, then surely the semi-automatic versions cannot be illegal. Secondarily, the AR platform rifles are the most common rifle in use today in America. Furthermore, if not for the NFA of 1934, fully automatic firearms and short barreled shotguns would be much more common. As for who needs these firearms, just ask the Korean merchants who, during the LA riots, when abandoned by the police, used these types of firearms to protect themselves and their stores.....

I"m afraid, BHirsh that you'll have to explain "it runs afoul of constitutional protections set in precedent". And to do that usefully, you'll have to be specific. I have been specific by quoting the Heller Decision that expressly states that the ownership of guns CAN be regulated.

As to interpretation of "the amendment": I don't need to rely upon your interpretation because the Heller and MacDonald SCOTUS decisions have done that that for us very recently. And they say that gun ownership can't be banned but it CAN be regulated, including prohibiting types of weapons.

I'm sorry BHirsh, it's all in Heller and MacDonald and that's the current law of the land, i.e., current constitutional interpretation.

Wow Diane, it can't be said much better than that!

As the "vision of the NRA" you're seeing it here in the attitudes of gun advocates. NO LIMITATIONS WHATSOEVER. The heck with the good of the country! We DEMAND our guns! Full stop.

I have no problem with schools having a designated, uniformed, armed officer. I'm a teacher and have seen that in multiple schools. Since this person is obviously a security officer and since he or she is trained as such, this is fine. Perhaps that's one of the takeaways from Newtown.

Beyond that, however, I cannot see it.

First, there is plenty of data out there that shows that more guns means more gun violence. If we make guns prevalent throughout schools, we'll have more not less violence.

Second, principals and teachers must remain focused on teaching and NOT be asked to become security officers themselves.

Finally, can anyone envisage a class with a teacher at the front of the room with a loaded handgun at his/her hip?

Come on Mark, do you really think that people are buying AR-15s with large ammo clips to protect their families? No way man! Those types of weapons are being purchased by collectors and by guys who just love the feel of a bad a** weapon in their hands.

Have you ever heard of a home invasion by people armed with military-style weapons? Perhaps you have, but let’s be sensible here: That’s EXCEEDINGLY rare. No, hand guns are the dominant weapons of choice for home invaders, that is, by people who threaten families. So a hand gun, or perhaps a conventional rifle, is the appropriate weapon for someone looking to protect his/her family. There’s no need for them to arm up as if they're patrolling a dangerous sector of Baghdad!

Now, even if home owners DID employ assault weapons, that wouldn’t be a problem if a side effect of that didn’t exist: The fact that they’re also available to mentally unstable people like the Newtown shooter. But, as we see over and over, that side effect does exist. So, allowing average citizens to overarm with assault weapons is bad for society.

One half of one percent is common BHirsh? Not very I'm afraid.