Wow. Look at all this. LOL

Mikki, I agree with you on some things but not necessarily on others. I worked as a psychiatric counselor with at risk youth for 2 years and I agree with you on the stand point that the majority of the problem is the angry kids. where are the parents? Which is another thing I'd like to bring up. From my experience many of these low income one parent families are the ones that have the highest risk of producing these angry kids. Of course any kid has the potential of becoming a perpretrator if he doesnt have a proper amount of support from various levels. So, yes, I agree Education and Prevention is something our country needs to make a top priority. Another thing. Look at the military families. If I ever got in trouble as a kid you could be rest assured that my Dad would hear about it from his CO. What I think is their is a lack of parenting and accountability on the part of the parents. There should be more intervention on the part of the local governments and the schools to see that parents do their job and if they dont then someone needs to step in before its too late.

As for public executions. why did we get rid of public hangings anyway? I could see how you would think it would be violent but look at the message its sending to everyone. I think theres lots of violence on t.v., rap(songs that recruit gang members), violent movies, etc. It might be quite a shock, but I think it would be something worth a try. You could always send your child to their room or give them something to do. Maybe that doesnt sound realistic but what I'm trying to say is we really need to take a stand and make a change. One that sticks and doesnt fall after 4 years of a presidential admnistration.

One idea I have which would probably only apply to those in high school but why not target those high risk kids in families and direct them in some kind of career mentoring/coop program. Just as you suggest Jeff. I think that would be pretty effective. I know from experience that is a useful tool. I'm not sure if it would ever happen but what about 1 year of required service in either the Conservation Corp. or in the U.S. Military upon H.S. graduation.

Jeff, Thanks for the kind words, yeah, I worked at a maximum juvenile correctional facility here in Virginia for a few months. I never had a firearm, because of state law and for obvious reasons relating to Virginia Juvenile Justice Law. The juveniles in our system that are incarcerated for felonies are kept until they are 20 and a half. Most from my experience were gang affiliated and had that street sense so that when they go into the facility they are at home. It really blows you away. Then they go through the rehabilitation program and get all the avenues of support. Then when their done the state releases them. Thats if they havent tacked more time on while inside. When they leave they have nothing. They go right back to where they came from and a lot of them go back to their high risk families if they have them. The ones in gangs, which are most of them end up being major targets when they leave the system. So as far as those kids that have served time I'm not really sure what the solution is. Most of those kids were more focused on modeling the adult criminals and basically play lip service. So my opinion of those incarcerated isnt very optimistic but then there is a small percentage that does make it to the outside and serve a productive life.

Well shut my mouth, I was not expecting that detailed and informative response http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

I used the reference to first world nations because they have relatively equal stability and living standards. It's not fair to include Columbia and it's war on drugs as a means for comparing homicide rates. Neither is it realistic to use countries in the Bulkans that have not gone more than 50 years without a war in their entire history.

Yes, your reference to Swizterland and Japan does perhaps suggest that a correlation with violence is endemic to the cultural history of a society. The United States was founded on violence, and has moulded it's identity around military strength. But could the same not be said for Germany, for example? Here's a nation that has always maintained strong nationalism and also has a very detailed history of wars and violence, yet the importance of guns is inconsequential.

Yes the quote from Billy and your reference to it was an important example for the need for guns 200+ years ago, but is it still valid in the 21st Century? If Guns were eliminated in society, would the U.S. populace be subject to any lack of freedoms? I look to England as another example here, Bobbies do not even carry guns, they don't have to.



[This message has been edited by Lil_G (edited April 05, 2001).]

geez--guess I need to get the internet hooked up at home!

Ok--where to begin? LOL

Wait a minute - wouldn't you agree that personal freedom ends where it limits the freedom of others?

yes--you take away guns, you limit the freedom of every gun bearing American--limiting their personal freedom. I know that's not what you meant--but it goes both ways and freedoms will be 'limited' regardless. Driving my car limits the freedom of others right to clean air, smoking a cigarette does the same . . . the argument can hold true for an abundance of things.

I think uncontrolled guns truely limit the freedom of all those who prefer living in a slightly (caution! - understatement) safer environment.

I never said anything about uncontrolled guns. I said I don't believe in banning guns, and I don't agree with extremely tough gun laws--but the way things are now--I think it's fine. Things are controlled to a point, but being OVER-controlling is 'limits the freedom of all those who prefer to live with a gun in their home.'

I would rather have that limitation than having to be scared about children being shot at school because of an over abundance of weapons .....

And I would rather not have to pay for the mistakes of others and their irrisponsibility by the government limiting MY freedoms.

Mikki you mention that guns are needed as a method for survival in some parts. Okay, that means that those who need guns would be more willing to do the extra effort to get the guns because they need them. Here in Canada, they've added stricter laws to acquire and maintain guns. You need to show a license just to buy ammo. The average user who would otherwise have a gun would then not what to go through this to have his gun that he or she may rarely if ever use.
Thus, a lot of the accidental injuries caused by firearms such as road rage or some school shootings would be reduced. Guns would be much tougher to get a hold of, maybe by that time the instant aggression of getting cut-off in traffic or losing a fight would prevent someone getting killed.

We're only 'masking' the problem, creating a temporary 'out' when we make 'tougher' laws and attempt to 'ban' guns. People who 'kill' because of road rage or lose a fight have BIGGER problems and taking a gun away won't solve those problems. We need to get to the root of the problem, not 'quick fix' it. LIFE is a risk--there will ALWAY be people out there with problems, but I don't think making things tougher on everyone is the answer.

I think theres lots of violence on t.v., rap(songs that recruit gang members), violent movies, etc.

Yes, You're right about that--there IS lots of violence on TV. Mostly fiction though, and that allots for something. I think that some of it affects children, but for the most part, they understand the difference between real and unreal. There's lots of talk about banning cartoons (looney tunes) because of supposed violence (walking off cliffs, blowing things up)--but for the most part people understand that these things don't really happen. But when you put a REAL execution on TV--what are you supposed to tell your kids? That it's not real? Sure, we can do that--but then your message is lost. It reminds me when I was little and I would see a dead animal on the side of the road--my mother would tell me that it was just sleeping. Why? Because kids don't understand death and shouldn't have to at such an early age.

You could always send your child to their room or give them something to do. Maybe that doesnt sound realistic

Sorry, no, it doesnt sound realistic. I agree with you when you mentioned the decline in family values--lack of parenting. When I worked for an after-school program and summer program for the YMCA 2 years ago--I saw it SO MUCH. The reason I say the above ISN'T realistic is because we need to attack the family values part before we can trust people to 'send their kids to another room'.

but what I'm trying to say is we really need to take a stand and make a change. One that sticks and doesnt fall after 4 years of a presidential admnistration.

I am not in disagreement with that. I'm not trying to send the US back in time to where everyone carries a gun and we shoot each other in the street. I'M FOR certain gun 'laws' such as background checks. I just feel that BANNING guns or OVER-restrictions is the wrong approch. It's a way to 'quick fix' our real problems.

Limiting the freedoms of the majority to maske the problems of a few is not a realistic approch. IMHO.

I must say it is refreshing to see a 23 year old female so vigorously defend a freedom. Many people today would surrender some freedom for a feeling of more security. We have seen this in England, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand in the last 5-10 years. The U.S. has a history of being rebellious though.

young AND female--I've always defied the norms though http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif

But it would not have been a problem if the kid would not have had a gun in the first place! Where did he get it from? It certainly did not drop from a truck! I think that is the problem.
Over and out - permanently. You won't convince me and I won't convince you. So I don't see a point in further aguing over it.

Nuh-uhh, Corbin....its 61% of statistics that are made up on the spot! http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/biggrin.gif

You won't convince me and I won't convince you. So I don't see a point in further aguing over it.

I don't think anyone is arguing over anything, I think we are just having a healthy debate. I'm not out to convince people my ideas are right (I know they are http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/tongue.gif ). I think we are just talking over certain ideas and situations. I just wanted to mention that because I'd hate anyone to take this too personally or to heart. I don't think anyone wants to upset you.

But it would not have been a problem if the kid would not have had a gun in the first place! Where did he get it from? It certainly did not drop from a truck! I think that is the problem.

It would have still been a problem if there had not been a gun. The outcome might be a little different but we'd still have an angry child in society--that will always be a problem. Where did he get it from, it sure could have been 'dropped from a truck!'. The black market maybe? It will always exist. People are not trustworthy--no matter WHAT they do. Even if we were to have an all out ban on guns--SOMEONE would be illegally selling them in the US. Look at how easy it is to buy drugs--they're illegal--but you can find someone so easily to buy from. The same would happen with guns (and it already DOES happen with guns). If someone--including a child--wants to commit murder, they'll do it by any means they can. The gun isn't the problem, the person BEHIND the gun is the problem.

I am so happy to see such a spirited dicussion!! To bad more aren't joining in, but at least they are reading.

I will use this opportunity to respond and to add some references that I mistakenly left out. I do not expect anyone to accept what I say as true that is not a logical derivation or supported by a reference.

Regarding the reference of a wolf with a gun and a flock of unarmed sheep that was used against me when I used it to explain the difference in a Democracy and a Republic, that is actually the example of a dictatorship.

I would say that he would get his gun the same place that he would get his drugs. Cocaine is not produced here, but there does not seem to be much of a shortage and there sure doesn't seem to be a shortage of illegal guns in England since their complete ban a few years ago, reference the link to the story about why bobbies carry guns above. Easier and much more effective if the killer would just poison everyone rather than trying to shoot them all. Shooting takes skill, poisoning doesn't.

I mentioned a court decision where police were not liable for not protecting the individual, but failed to give references:
Link to the latest occurrance in Boston: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/loc...ob04052001.htm
Court ruling:
“. . . a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”
--Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)

I also left out references to the reports debunking Kellerman I find conflicting dates of 1986 and 1988, not 1986 as I posted above. http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.html http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/43_to_1_fallacy.htm http://users.erols.com/dsmjd/rkba/kellerman.htm

For a bibliography on both sides of the gun control issue: http://www.pitt.edu/~upjecon/BERGER/...trol1_bib.html

A new report out says gun control studies for the last 20 years which supported gun control were done with a political agenda in mind and not the objective study that they claimed to me at all: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...6/184457.shtml

You know Jeff-- If you want some ideas from other ethnic groups, in particular African Americans, then email me. I really would deter from you discussion and debate that you have going on in here...

At any rate, I think just like the bumper sticker says: Gun control is holding with two hands instead of one... Violence incited with guns is very ugly and painful to see. However, it sure does beat the crap out what it use to be like when folks have to kill each other--swords and arrows... You do have to wonder though, why are a lot of Americans "arming" themselves with heavy artillery?

Ooh, Lil_G--my project includes choosing one of the four systems! Personally...I like retribution and rehabiliation combined--donno if that makes sense though!

I'll email you about that more.

I'd rather see swords. You have to train for a good while to learn how sword fight well enough to kill someone. At least we would have discepled killers...and not every one would have accesses. Only people willing and able to learn how.
Why are people arming themselves?? Well, I like to be optimistic, as the name implies. They're going to be legioniers (sp.) when I reinstate the Roman Empire. All Hail Billius Maximus!

I was actually the chair for the silent march against gun violence in my city a year ago. It is a grass root organization ran out of New York. I am for gun control. After doing research and discovering that my state had the 2nd highest percentage of people under the age of 20 killed (Utah was top I believe) I decided to take action...if anyone is interested in what we did or how to get involved...reply and I will email you!



------------------
Smile Pep Charm Style that's what we have...but most of all you'll love our laugh (whooaa)

AKA Monet, thank you so much for responding, you bring up a couple of excellent points I would like to address. You are absolutely correct that violence with guns is very ugly, but so is violence without gun, in fact more so. A gunshot victim is 'clean' (with the notable exception of a head wound though a series of blows from a baseball bat has much the same effect) compared with someone dying in a violent auto accident or being beaten and kicked to death. Gunshot deaths are much quicker and cleaner than someone bleeding out from a stab wound or arrow. Guns do offer a measure of protection not available to someone with a sword or bow and arrow. The old, weak, or infirmed find a firearm the great equalizer, they would be unable to successfully defend themselves with older weapons. The firearm also gives the advantage of being able to maintain a 'stand off' distance while defending oneself, older type weapons require the 'up close and personal' approach which most people are not trained for nor are they willing to train for. I know of one gentleman who is unable to afford to live in a nice area, he lives alone, he is blind and confined to a wheelchair. His choice of a defensive weapon is a .44 mag revolver which is loaded with blanks. Harmless to people in the surrounding apts., but quite lethal at contact distance out to a couple of feet. As far as the 'heavy artillery' comment goes that has a very specific meaning and not an at issue here as they fall under control of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA '34) and are considered destructive devices. Legal to own, but not suitable for personal self defense as they are all crew served weapons. If you mean to refer to a handgun I have no problem understanding why Americans are arming themselves. I have been the intended victim of two violent encounters both of which were stopped by the introduction of my personal defense firearm. Fortunately I have not had to shoot anyone, but I have accounted for two of the estimated 2.5 million unreported self defense uses of a firearm to thwart a crime that occurs every year. So yes, I understand completely why some people choose to go armed.

I would happily discuss the problem of guns as it relates to the black community. I apologize in advance for not using the term African Americans if 'black' is offensive, as I have a personal aversion to the term African American as I find it to be generally grossly inacurate. I know, work, have worked with, and met a number of black people and African Americans. Only a couple of the African Americans that I have met were black, both born in Nigeria and now American citizens, and one person who was classifed as 'colored' under apartheid in South Africa. Besides them every true African American I have ever met is white, largely from South Africa or Egypt. Gun control is horrible racist. The very term 'Saturday Night Special' is an extract from a 'niggertown Saturday night'. An excellent article, The Racist Roots of Gun Control', was published in the Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy in 1995. It can be found here if you are interested: http://www.ggnra.org/cramer/racism.htm
The idea is that since blacks were not citizens and could not vote they were not protected by the Second Amendment to own firearms either.

Homicide, in general, is a serious problem plaguing the black community. The U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Statistics shows that the homicide victimization rates of whites has been in steady decline for the last 20 years. Over the same 20 years the black rate has been 4 to 8 times that of whites and has been in decline for the last 6 years. Blacks were also 7 times more likely to COMMIT murder than whites in 1999 and 10 times more likely than whites in 1991-1993. The drug related murder rate for blacks was more than double that for whites. I was unaware of this information until I came from Austin, Tx (low black population) and began working in Indianapolis, In (20%+ black). In Austin we had fewer than 50 murders, in Indy it was about 190 in 1999 (most of them black), yet both areas have about the same population. Yes, Indy is a little bigger, but not 4 times bigger. This info is all contained on the govt website here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

newbie, good choice, but I think prevention has the best chance of success. I say this because rehabilitation means that the problem has already occurred and the best way for all of us is to keep the problem from ever happening.

DBPM04, I would really like to be able to review the study you mention. If you have a link to it that would be great. If it is as you remember it proves that gun control has little effect on deaths of people under age 20 because New York has some of the toughest gun control laws in the nation compared with Utah which has some of the lightest gun control laws.

I see that you are in Illinois. If you are in Chicago around Mothers Day I believe that what is left of the Million Mom March organization may try to hold another rally that weekend. I was in D.C. last year for the counter protest, but plan on being in Chicago this year. Our group in Chicago last year required police protection, as did our group in D.C., to protect us from the 'Mean Mommies'. The hint is to see which way the police face during the rally, that is where they perceive the threat to come from.

"The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies -- the militias -- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapons he or she desires."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

That is pretty much what I believe.

"The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that the state armies -- the militias -- would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapons he or she desires."
-Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

Jeff, I'm almost finished w/my Sociology project, and basically--I kinda verved off...it's mostly cold-hard-retribution now. I have a little bit of rehabilitation mixed in (community service and entering into programs) but mostly I'm punishing future criminals hard! The project called for us to develop our own prison system--forget about the constituton--just create one based on your knowledge of "how men behave."

I belive in strict gun control. I wish I could only find the links to my school newspaper online--there were 2 brilliant articles on why gun control is the only method which will keep our communities safe! Apparently, those two articles have not been added online though.

You might want to visit www.debateinfo.com/values/crime.html. I used that site in my argument for retribution. It has a debate between the four systems.

[This message has been edited by newbie (edited April 11, 2001).]

Hey Jeff--

That's why your need to email me, 'cuz although some of your reference statements are printed, it does not mean they are the truth as to who and what to call us... And it is irregardless of what, some of your "friends" may have told you. So, if you want to really know the truth, email me in private because if I post what the deal is, it will detract from the "flow of reasonings"on this board...

Other than that, gun violence in my community is utterly atrocious even though we are seeing a minute decline from the late 90's. However, the decline is still smaller compared to that observed in other communities.

Why are you interested on folks "take" on gun control?

[This message has been edited by AKA_Monet (edited April 11, 2001).]

Arya, I agree with art of what Burger said. The Second Amendment does not permit individuals unlimited access. That was shown in U.S. v. Miller (1939) (link to the decision in a previous post regarding the defintion of 'militia' in the Second Amendment) and is why individuals are not allowed to own weapons of 'mass destruction', like nuclear weapons. Rights are not unlimited, they are limited when they begin to infringe on the rights of others, hence it is a violation of the First Amendment right to free speech to yell 'Fire' in a theater or to use the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble to incite people to riot. The first part of Burger's statement shows a SEVERE lack of knowledge of U.S. Code, U.S. History, and background and intent of the intent of the founding fathers. He also seems to think that that the U.S. Constitution 'grants' rights to the people, rather than restricting the power of a central govt to restrict individual rights as it was intended. I do not believe Burger to be that stupid and the quote is probably a statement from him as a 'hopeful' opinion. His statement was also made prior to the 1990 Supreme Court ruling that the term 'people' are 'individuals' when it is used in the preamble to the Constitution as well as the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, and 10th amendments. They determined that each amendment spoke of an individual right. Here is the link to U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990): http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bi...=494&invol=259
Basically it says you can't define the word 'people' one way throughout the entire Constitution and then make a single exception and claim that 'the people' means a 'group' only in the Second Amendment. This is referred to as the 'individual' interpretation as opposed to the 'collective' interpretation. Burger was wrong, but in fairness to him researching the Second Amendment and its intent was not his specialty.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 12, 2001).]

newbie, thanks for the link, I will check it out. You have taken a proven position. Retribution or incarceration is effective. The crime rate in the U.S. has been dropping since 1992, but we have also locked up more criminals than at anytime in history. We have built more prisons, pack prisoners into the prisons we already have, and inacted '3 strikes and you're out' legislation. Locking up criminals and removing them from society does reduce crime since 85% of all crime is committed by repeat offenders. I would still like to see why you think gun control is an answer when the areas with he most strict gun control laws are also areas of the highest crime rates. L.A., D.C., Chicago, Detroit, and NYC compared to Phoenix, Salt Lake City, Oklahoma City, Austin, and Little Rock. I just don't see guns as a 'cause'.

AKA_Monet, my interest lies in the fact that I am a 43 year old white male from Texas who hasn't been to college in 20 years. Reviewing this board I found a number of young, educated, females, from the east and west coasts. Exactly the type of people that I don't have contact with on a daily basis. This curiousity began when I attended a forum at Butler University in Indianapolis, In last Sept. and was surprised at the lack of knowledge of the history of the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. in general displayed by university students. This was of great concern to me. They were not the least bit interested in the 'whys' and 'hows' of anything, more of a tell me how it is and let's move on attitude. Seems that they didn't care at all. The problem with this is the absence of a thought process and the students are taking whatever the professors tell them at face value and without question. It is no surprise to me to find that people are perfectly willing to then trample on rights that they do not understand. To give law enforcement wide leeway in enforcement of search and seizure for drugs is finally meeting some resistance, but if those same law enforcement groups are going after guns people say that is okay. Diane Feinstein has even advocated troops going door to door to seize firearms, but by her own admission only if she thought that she could get away with it. That attitude scares me.

Please forgive my ignorance of black issues. The issues affecting blacks interest me because I know so little of black culture. I attended a private school and the high school had 1000 students of which only 4 where black. As a consultant I work with few black people, though the ones that I have worked with in the private sector have been VERY good. My only regular contact is with a young lady that I have dated some over the last year. She is a 26 year old Purdue graduate that works for my current client. We don't work together, but see each other in the company work out room. I have learned much from her. In fact I just learned about a month ago that ALL black people have curly hair. She never did until recently and she explained to me that she has always used a hair straightener or relaxer to keep it from curling. I am 43 and never knew that. Learn something new every day.

Jeff--actually that Utah fact is a little misleading becuase utah as so few people killed...only like 10 or less were teenagers....I don't have the link to the study becuase it was info sent to me by my organization...but here is some interesting stuff to ponder
"It shouldn't take a Columbine, a Jonesboro or an inner-city drive-by shooting to make us realize that American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States."
"Guns do kill people, especially when wielded by children. More than 800 Americans, young and old, die each year from guns shot by children under the age of 19." http://www.silentmarch.org/index.htm

------------------
Smile Pep Charm Style that's what we have...but most of all you'll love our laugh (whooaa)

How many of those 800 are killed intentionally or by accident? If it's by accident, then education is the problem. How many of those gun deaths are with guns that are illegaly owned anyway? Just curious http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
Steve Corbin
Lambda Chi Alpha
Theta Kappa Chapter
Rose-Hulman Inst. of Tech.

Billy's absolutely correct (i didn't want to get involved here . . . eh) - according to statistical studies, the death penalty is a non-factor in crime rates on a state-by-state level - whether or not that is extensible to a nationwide penalty is open to debate, but the obvious conclusion . . . apparently criminals don't think of that particular penalty during premeditation (if any exists).

Also, crime in general has dropped over many many years, although violent crime among young people has increased - i don't think you can address this problem by simply removing or altering the legal right to own guns. Endemic crime in the US is not based solely on any one law or how well it is followed; violent crime especially can be linked to various historical, socioeconomic, and educational factors. How to address these? Probably no way I can list here . . . a problem for those smarter than I.

I am in almost complete agreement with you with the exception of this quote. Try this: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm
You will find a table near the bottom, about the third table down, with deaths by age bracket and these are dropping for young people as well.

The amazing thing to me is that although the CDC reports show a drop in gun deaths from 1993-1999 and there were over 12 million more guns in the hands of private citizens, some people still insist that guns are the 'cause' of gun related deaths. If there are 12 million plus more firearms in the population, an increase of roughly 5%, and guns in the population are the cause of gun related deaths (as they claim), then there should be at least a 5% increase in the firearm related death rate for the same time frame, showing a direct correlation. IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! Fact is that the number of firearms in the U.S. society goes up every year, yet the firearm related deaths fluctuate widely and amoung whites has actually seen a steady decline for 20 years.

This is misleading in a number of ways:

First, there are about 11,000 TOTAL firearm related deaths in the U.S. excluding suicides. Therefore they must be including suicide deaths in their figure. We know from looking at the suicide rates in Japan that firearms do NOT have a causal effect on suicide. Japan has a greater number of suicides than the U.S. and half the population giving them a suicide rate of more than double that of the U.S.

Second, the figure also includes 'children' who are in fact adults in an attempt to pad the number and play on emotion. Note that the CDC identifies children in a category of ages 0-14 in the study found at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm and show only 630 firearm deaths in 1997, far fewer than the 5285 stated. The next CDC category is 15-24 years old. The higher death count from this group is needed by certain organizations to bump up their claims of 'children' being killed, so they 'borrow' some numbers from this more adult group. The intent is to associate the higher figure with the term 'children'. This is an attempt to put the emotional image in the mind of people who do not question what they read into thinking that the babies we see in diaper commercials on TV (children) are being killed with guns when in fact it isn't happening. In Texas an adult is 17, 18 year olds are allowed to vote and to be sent off to die in wars everywhere in the U.S. Hardly children. These 'children' that they count are also frequently in 'high risk' groups, such as being members of gangs or involved in drug activities. (This was shown as THE SINGLE MAJOR factor in firearm related deaths by the Kellerman study back in 1986. Kellerman was trying to prove a casual effect of firearms, but with the raw data that he did provide it showed that 'high risk behavior' was the actual causal effect.) As a result we see a higher incidence of firearm related death in the 14-19 year olds than in the 0-14 year olds. This tells us again that guns have no causal effect. If it did we would see a even impact across all age groups to adulthood as we would see with something like an anthrax virus infection or the effect from radioactive fallout. To see the cause we would need to look at a study of, parental influence in the home, economic standing, criminal background, drug involvement, and general 'high risk' behavior.

Third, the statement neatly tip-toes around countries that do not fit such as Israel and Switzerland. Both countries have higher rates of private firearm ownership than the U.S. yet have lower firearm related child deaths and lower firearm related child death rates. It also does not mention those countries with lower private gun ownership rates yet have more firearm deaths, the masacre of refugees in, I think, Ruwanda a few years ago comes immediately to mind.

Fourth, using the logic in that statement we could also say that we have a much higher number of deaths of children in the U.S. due to automobile accidents. The U.S. a higher number of deaths due to drowning in swimming pools. Why is that? It is because the U.S. has 275 million people, a larger population than any country mentioned. We also have more automobiles, more highways, more streets, drive further due to spread out urban areas, and have more privately owned swimming pools. It is a case of you couldn't die of a heart attack if you didn't have a heart. Sure we could do away with all the deaths that doctors and hospitals cause (a much higher rate than gun related) by doing away with them, but the benefit of having them outweighs the risks. Same with cars and swimming pools. We accept a certain death rate for the convienience of having them. The misuse of roughly 260,000,000 guns in the U.S. equate to about 10,000 NON-justifiable homicides and accidental deaths in the U.S. (.00384%) versus the lawful 2,500,000 to 3,000,000 uses each year to prevent a crime and a multitude of lawful uses daily for shooting, hunting, and competition purposes. As I stated in an earlier posting I personally accounted for two of those self defense uses in 1989.


[This message has been edited by Jeff OTMG (edited April 18, 2001).]

as someone who has felt the pain of a sucide that was done with a gun...guns do (in my personal opinion) lead to sucides. I wish i could find the site....but children in homes with guns are like 3-4x as likely to committ sucides

------------------
pass that old silver goblet with the Phi Mu upon it and we'll all have another round of *cheer* cuz it's not for knowledge that we came to college but to have fun while we're here!

More women than men commit suicide, or at least try to, but men are more sucessful. Men are more likely to use guns or jump off buildings, where as women are more likely to take some pills, and call their best friend.

I am 31, teach high school, and grew up in Arkansas. When I was growing up, it was a rite of passage (for both sexes) to receive his/her first personal weapon (usually a
4-10 shotgun) and be allowed to go hunting with the grown-ups. Until 12 years old, children went hunting with the adults on special teaching trips. The goal was not to bring in game but to learn how to hunt and how to handle oneself when armed. We had guns in eveyr household I visited. They were never secured or locked up. AND WE NEVER PLAYED WITH THEM. Why not? We were taught that we should not play with guns. They were not toys. We never aimed guns at people. It was dangerous. Sure, we had guns in the trunks of cars and behind the seats of the trucks at school. Why? People went hunting before and after school. Did we ever use them to shoot people at school? NO. Why not? Because that is stupid.
Yes, we played cowboys and Indians. With toy guns and water pistols. We knew the difference.
Why should people own guns now? Food. Defense. And because it is our second amendment right. If we do not exercise our rights, then just like an arm or leg that is not exercised, it will atrophy and become useless.
I teach in a high school. Am I afraid? Yes indeed. Not all of these kids believe in the sanctity of human life. What bothers me the most? That by law I am required to be completely and utterly defenseless while on school property. I have NO method of defending myself or my students in case of emergency. My military training with weapons will be useless. And we (my students and myself) will be dead.

People who will shoot up a school do not stop to consider that taking a gun on school property is illegal. 1-5 years in jail in some places. They are planning on murder. Life sentence. One small little law about taking weapons onto school grounds doesn't deter them.

For those who advocate registration- When the government decides to go collect all of the newly "illegal" firearms, the registration list will be a confiscation list. Those who were law abiding and registered will be defenseless. Those "criminals" who failed to register their weapons will still have protection. Historically, in countries where only the military had guns, only the military (and its military-supported government)and its supporters had rights, food, clothing, education, ......

Just something to think about.

[This message has been edited by tcsparky (edited April 21, 2001).]

tcsparky, reading what you wrote reminded me of the recent 60 Minutes broadcast. From the transcript of an interview done by Bradley with the parents of victims at Columbine:

Ms. FLEMING: There was no one in that school that had a gun other than the two killers. And no one pursued them. No one tried to engage them.

Unlike the Vice Principal in Pearl, Ms who was able to stop the school shooting there after retrieving his pistol from his car or more recently the first shooting at the school outside San Diego where a person carrying a concealed firearm was at the school and was able to prevent the kid from shooting more people.

The other thing that we should point out is that should gun registration pass, convicted felons are NOT required by that law to register their guns, only the law abiding must comply. You think that sounds strange? The problem is that it is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. If he were to go in and register his gun it would be in violation of of his constitutional right to protection from self incrimination. That is why if a felon buys a gun from a dealer and fills out a 4473 form it is not admissible as evidence. As a result, only the people who may legally have guns would be required to register them and supposedly that isn't who they are going after.

Miami1839, you must be quite comfortable when you are working in a correctional facility. It must me the safest place in the world since there are no guns anywhere. I bet you never watch your back. Stay safe. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/wink.gif

If the government ever out laws ALL guns, which is highly unlikey, they will not have the power to take yours if you bought them before that law was made. Thats in the constitution too. Its known as the "ex post facto" claus. I only advocate registration of high power guns. And I think it should be done on the distributors level. That means, the manufactures and distributiors keep tabs on how many are made, and if the number that is sold doesn't match up, then we know they got into the wrong hand. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

Jeff,

Its a job I used to have and dont have the slightest desire to work in the profession or CJ field again. However I do have much respect for those that work in locked facilities over thoses that work on the roads. I think "safe" is a relative term. Like sometimes a stolen pencil in the wrong hands can mean life or death for a juvenile correctional officer. I had back up whenever I needed it with a radio and plenty of cameras. Basically, my main tools were my pen, paper, and my voice. I did have to always watch my back and I felt that the support in my facility was lacking so I left after 3 months. I definitely learned and took a lot from that job and gained a lot of insight of what it feels like to clock in and clock out of a locked environment. Its not like the felons are the only ones locked up. Anyways, yeah, it was a safer environment in some ways I guess compared to schools. Now, I'm in a job ten times better than that and pay is way better too. http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif

Kevin

Billy, I have to disagree with your facts on suicide. I'm not sure if thats actually true. Last year when I went through juvenile correctional officer training we had a clinical psychologist(heads the diagnostic unit for all incoming juveniles who have been adjudicated in the state system) who gave us a lecture. She claimed with proof that there are less attempts for girls than there are for boys. She added that girls tend to be more successful. At least thats how I remember it. Of course I'm talking more in terms of Virginia. They definitely dont pay teachers enough. My mom is a teacher and definitely has it more rough than when I was a juvenile correctional officer I think. Its even bad here in Virginia for juvenile correctional officers because they are keeping older kids until they are 20 and half that corrupt the younger ones. Plus we had no firearms or spray of any kind. So I was up against(supervising independently) the roughest kids in Virginia (18-25 kids). Though at least my environment was more controlled than a school setting. My mom is a first grade teacher and she has no choice when she gets 2 or 3 emotionally disturbed kids who throw chairs or whatever. Often times she has to deal with them for 6 months or so until the administration decides to move them to a specialized setting. Schools definitely are different then when I was in high school in the late eighties.

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Miami1839 (edited April 21, 2001).]

Miami1839, intended as a joke. I hear people say how safe it would be if there were no guns and it always reminds me of inside the walls of a prison where there are no guns. Sure still seems to be a lot of violence though. So, guns do not equal violence. Violence is a personality trait. I couldn't work in a lock down prison. WAY to violent and dangerous, even if it were kids.

A friend of mine sent this to me, I got a kick out of it:

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense --give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.
13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons vehicles buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a “state” militia.
14. These phrases; ”…right of the people peaceably to assemble," "…right of the people to be secure in their homes," "…enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people…" all refer to individuals, but "…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…" refers to the state.
15. “The Constitution is strong and will never change.” But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.
16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.
17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren’t “military weapons”, but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles,” because they are military weapons.
18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.
19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
30. The ACLU is good because it defends parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends parts of the Constitution.
31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.
38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands.” Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

Cool list Jeff. Its good to see the constitution defended. But, school violence is down a lot now. Lowest sence people started going to highschool. Its just more spread out now, thats why the media is able to focus on it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Billy Optimist:
[B] If the government ever out laws ALL guns, which is highly unlikey, they will not have the power to take yours if you bought them before that law was made. Thats in the constitution too. Its known as the "ex post facto" clause"

Actully, they can take weapons that you possessed before a particular gun was outlawed. They have done it in California. People were told that they were legally allowed to own SKS rifles, but that they must register them. The next attorney general to take office then decided to outlaw that particular weapon, used the registration list to mail a notice to those people that they must surrender their SKS, alter them to make them inoperable(ruin), or sell them out of state. Anyone who did not comply was then labeled a felon, and the registration list became a confiscation list. "Ex po facto" did not protect these people from this law. If a weapon is outlawed, it is against the law to own it, whether you bought it before or after it was outlawed. You are thinking that if the IMPORTING of a particular weapon is outlawed, then people who already own it are allowed to keep it, and any of those for sale that are already in the country are allowed to be sold.

TC Sparky--
Then that action was unconstitutional, and should be challenged.

Jeff, I invite you to visit my school's newspaper site...where there were three very good articles regarding gun control and recent school violence... http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/200...7-gunctrl.html and http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/200...7-opblame.html and http://www.thelowell.org/opinion/200...p2ndamend.html

My school's newspaper has always won either Number One or Two in "Best High School Newspaper" in the U.S....so you can bet that you will have a good time reading the articles! http://www.greekchat.com/forums/ubb/smile.gif


[This message has been edited by newbie (edited April 27, 2001).]

AND IF YA WANNA BATTLE BRING A SHOT-GUN!!
BUT IF YOU DO YOU'RE A FOOL CUZ I DUEL TO THE DEATH TRYIN TA STEP TA ME YA TAKE YA LAST BREATH