Washington Votes

2005 Senate Bill 5475 (Banning assault weapons)

[Comments on this legislation] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

  • Introduced by Sen. Adam Kline, (D-Seattle) on January 26, 2005, to declare that no person in this state shall manufacture, possess, purchase, sell, or otherwise transfer any assault weapon, or any assault weapon conversion kit, except as authorized by this act. No person in this state shall possess or have under his or her control at one time both a semiautomatic or pump-action rifle, semiautomatic pistol, or shotgun capable of accepting a detachable magazine, and any magazine capable of use with that firearm that contains more than ten rounds of ammunition. See companion HB 1627.
    • Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on January 26, 2005.

Line

Comments

Introduced by Sen. Adam Kline, (D-Seattle) on January 26, 2005. New Comment

1) Who cares? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 10, 2008]
So what if the creators of the Constitution didn't envision automatic weapons? They had duels where one could openly kill another if both accepted to a duel. Of course no one would duel now a days with guns as powerful as they are, but even still the fact that we're done with dueling shows how much more civilized we've grown (well, most of us.)
Reply New Comment

Line

2) Who cares? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 10, 2008]
So what if the creators of the Constitution didn't envision automatic weapons? They had duels where one could openly kill another if both accepted to a duel. Of course no one would duel now a days with guns as powerful as they are, but even still the fact that we're done with dueling shows how much more civilized we've grown (well, most of us.)
Reply New Comment

Line

3) Ban on Assault Weapons not far enough [by Legashira on January 19, 2008]
This is a long-overdue, first baby step toward banning all private ownership of handguns. Our Wild West mentality is embarrassing . . . and life-threatening.
Reply New Comment

Line

4) Over Due? [by Anonymous Citizen on August 23, 2008]
How could this be a step in the right direction? Making it illegal to own firearms will not do our state or country any good. It is far more easy to obtain an illegal firearm than to get one legally. And for the most part people who are buying them legally do not intend to use them illegally. the criminals in our society will get them one way or another and i for one enjoy the right to defend myself against those who may want to hurt me or god forbid my family.
Reply New Comment

Line

5) I disagree [by Anonymous Citizen on June 10, 2008]
It would be wonderful if we could ask other countries to not attack us, and never worry again, but that's not how things work in real life. We can't just ask people to stop using drugs so we made them illegal, and now we have drug dealers. If we start banning guns, the only people who will have them are our police, military, and anyone smart enough and wreckless enough to do some damage. Removing citizens of their right to bear arms is an almost communistic view of ruling.
Reply New Comment

Line

6) Civility, please [by mckercher on January 19, 2008]
Regardless of your position on this Bill, please keep posts civil and constructive.

*****

Personally, I adamantly oppose this bill:

First, it is in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, and thus in violation of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of Washington....

Second, it directly violates Article I, Section 24 "RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

Third, the now-expired federal version of this legislation was demonstrably counter-productive in terms of reducing crime or otherwise increasing the safety of law-abiding citizens.

In my opinion, no one with even a casual acquaintance with the Federalist Papers and the writings of the the *many* people who publicly debated the intent and necessity of adopting (or rejecting) the Bill of Rights, can logically support this bill.

Conversely, those who support such laws are generally dismissive of the "inconvenient truth". Since they cannot logically support their argument, they try to drag their opponents down to their own emotion-based level.

I urge everyone to neither fuel stereotypes nor to allow the discussion to stray from reasoned discussion.

molon labe
Reply New Comment

Line

7) Assault weapon ban [by Anonymous Citizen on January 19, 2008]
More children are killed by drowning in 5 gallon buckets than by assault weapons. Shouldn't we license and regulate buckets first?
Reply New Comment

Line

8) Great Bill [by Anonymous Citizen on October 6, 2007]
Nothing could be better than banning weapons that people are accidentally killed by far too many times a year.

Reply New Comment

Line

9) webkinz [by Anonymous Citizen on November 7, 2007]
Word of Mouth is how people find my 300 classic entertainment variety videos- Youtube/ Google should pay more attention to producer's who present quality entertainment and help to promote their channel or someday they may well find a better place to showcase their productions- Just a thought.. joelsamuelpresents
Reply New Comment

Line

10) Get with the times [by Anonymous Citizen on October 21, 2007]
Not only a day late...but short on a lot civic responsibility and a marked lack of substantial facts as well. Read the Constitution; and after your done with the United States Constitution, go back and read the Washington State Constitution.

More people die from alcohol abuse, accidental drowning, or medical malpractice than all firearm deaths all combined.

You don't like my choice of firearm, I don't like your choice of diatribe! Especially when your diatribe flies in the face of our constitutionaly protected RIGHTS! Rights granted not by any government but by the very power that so graciously ALLOWS government to exist at all. THAT is in the founding documents of this country too. Try reading those! While your at it...perhaps you should read them ALL.
Civic responsibility includes protecting our rights...ALL of them.
Reply New Comment

Line

11) No, YOU get with the times [by Anonymous Citizen on January 7, 2008]
I don't like your diatribe either, pal. For one thing, malaria kills more people than "alcohol abuse, accidental drowning, [and] medical malpractice" combined. So, by the line of reasoning you just employed, we should get rid of lifeguards, ban malpractice suits, and legalize drunk driving.

Incidentally, there's a big difference between legislating diatribe and legislating assault weapons: diatribe doesn't kill people. Sorry, but I happen to think my right to be safe from any psychotic impulse that runs through your head precludes your right to tote around a submachine gun.

The constitution, as you so astutely pointed out, derives its authority from the people. Do you really think "the people" consent to your ownership of an AK-47? And where does it say in the Constitution that you have a right to carry around any darn weapon you please? Do you think that private citizens should be allowed to own fighter jets? Or battleships? Or suitcase nukes?
Reply New Comment

Line

12) This ban is illegal [by Anonymous Citizen on April 23, 2006]
This ban goes against everything the 2nd Ammendment stands for. Taking away legally owned firearms will have NO effect on crime. The only firearms used in crimes are ones obtained illegally so that they cannot be traced back to the criminal. Banning firearms from people who legally buy them (for target shooting at a range) is doing nothing other than giving crimals helpless victims to take advantage of. Criminals will still be getting these weapons with or without the ban while everyone else suffers. It is sad that our country is being taken down to this level, if it continues soon it may be time to take action...
Reply New Comment

Line

13) Guns Don't Protect Homes, Police Do [by Philoctetes on January 17, 2008]
Here's the thing. If your hypothetical gun owner who only wants to use his/her firearm at the range (like me) is prevented from owning both a Ruger 10/12 and a Mark I with high cap mags, How am I a victim mask-wearing, stripy-shirt sporting bad guys?

Didn't I just want the firearms for range shooting anyway?

If you can't defend your home with two firearms loaded with 10-shot magazines, maybe you should rethink your emergency plan. Like running instead of shooting.

Learn to shoot and earn your right to bear arms.
Reply New Comment

Line

14) Thank goodness it never made it out of the 05 commitee [by Anonymous Citizen on April 24, 2006]
Be watchful though, the anti gun ilk can try again any time soon.
Reply New Comment

Line

15) Concealed Carry [by Anonymous Citizen on January 12, 2006]
Many would think Marcus Vick is a little off his rocker, but he isn't much different than many Americans. He gets mad because some people are ribbing him & out comes his gun to shut them up. This isn't fiction this is reality if we are allowed to carry guns & own semi-automatic weapons. Read the news there are too many "I never thought they would do that..." out there to allow this. I used to be a bouncer who the hell would take that job if the law changed? If you have death wish sign up. Your an idiot if you think so called responsible gun owners are safe. I know many who you consider this way & they are anything but stable, especially when drinking.
Reply New Comment

Line

16) A Senator that thrives on controversy, not useful leglisation. [by BobJunior on January 9, 2006]
Senator Kline when are you going to learn? You are beating this dead horse and making yourself look foolish. Well on that thought, go ahead keep up the good work.
Reply New Comment

Line

17) Last year's bill [by Anonymous Citizen on January 9, 2006]
Let's hope it stays on the dead sled this year.
Reply New Comment

Line

18) Obviously A Senator that thrives on controversy, not useful leglisation. [by BobJunior on January 9, 2006]
Senator Kline when are you going to learn? You are beating this dead horse and making yourself look foolish. Well on that thought, go ahead keep up the good work.
Reply New Comment

Line

19) Obviously a commentator who thrives on controversy, not useful commentary. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 7, 2008]
Who's the one beating a dead horse? The senator that introduced a reasonable and socially conscientious senate bill that could save dozens of lives—or a commentator who double-posted a meaningless ad hominem attack?
Reply New Comment

Line

20) Stop the Violence! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
Your statistics in favor of allowing assault weapons in Washington State do not impress me. Here's one: 100% of the people blown up by an assault weapon are probably dead of injured for life.

When will our society come to their senses and let go of their "wild west" mentality? Jefferson and the other founders of this nation intended that a militia be armed just so that in peacetime there would be no standing army required.
Reply New Comment

Line

21) Really???!!! – Try getting educated before waxing moronic [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
Obviously you are uneducated in what the founders (especially the one you reference) REALLY thought. Here are some REAL thoughts from Thomas Jefferson::

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

Here are some thoughts from other founders::

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

And even more from other prominent figures of the time::

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


The Virginia ratifying convention met from June 2 through June 26, 1788. Edmund Pendleton, opponent of a bill of rights, weakly argued that abuse of power could be remedied by recalling the delegated powers in a convention. Patrick Henry shot back that the power to resist oppression rests upon the right to possess arms:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. "
Henry sneered, "O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?"

Saint George Tucker (1752-1828) served as a colonel in the Virginia militia, was wounded in the Revolutionary War, was a law professor at William and Mary, and later was a justice on the Virginia Supreme Court from 1804 to 1811. He was also a friend of Thomas Jefferson. In 1803 he published a five-volume edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England.
To Blackstone's listing of the "fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject ... that of having arms ... suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law," Tucker in a footnote added: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He cited the second amendment, noting that it is "without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." He added: "Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England." In discussing the second amendment, Tucker wrote:
"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorize the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty."

"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;..."

And more recently::

According to Title 10 and title 32 of the United States Code, "All able-bodied males between the age of 17 and 45 are, by law, members of the militia, and provide for the exceptions and exclusions to that rule.
If a person is, by law, a member of the militia, how can they perform their lawful duties if they are forbidden by statute law to posses a firearm?

Source: Title 10 United States Code, Sections 311-312, and Title 32 United States Code, Section 313.


...the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.”

Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Constitution
January 20, 1982

So…as to whether or not you are impressed…we could care less! Try a little true research before opening you mouth and removing all doubt as to just how big of a fool you really are!
Reply New Comment

Line

22) that was then [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
the founders lived in different times

I doubt very much they conceptualize a laser sighted asault weapon

people living in wilderness areas probably do have an arguement for having guns as part of their everyday living...but those city partment dwellers...unless they are collectors or hunters really have no reason for such an item.
Reply New Comment

Line

23) The right is guaranteed!! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
We the people do not need to justify or have a reason for needing or owning guns to you or anyone else. The first 10 ammendments are the Bill of RIGHTs NOT the Bill of needs.
Reply New Comment

Line

24) this is now [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
no one is taking away that right...to lawful
citizens

however, a gun is one thing, an arsenal is another
Reply New Comment

Line

25) The words are as follows: [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
The Right to keep and bear ARMS... Not an arm or a single arm but ARMS (plural) and also notice that those words do not break the keeping and bearing down to any particular type or design either.
They did have other arms back then too not just flintlocks.
Reply New Comment

Line

26) ya gotta be Right [by Anonymous Citizen on January 4, 2006]
whatever...

go ahead and build up an arsenal in your basement...just don't be surprised when the FBI comes bashing down your big bad butt at 3 in the morning

and while you're eating carpet as they put on the handcuffs be sure to start whining about your constitutional rights...they love that stuff
Reply New Comment

Line

27) Keep Dreamin bud... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 4, 2006]
the law and the protections are on my side, and thanks but I already have my arsenal..all leagal and constitutionally protected. So if the FBI does show up, they can come on in and have a cup of coffee and discuss my right to self defense.

In the meantime, you might consider waking up and joining reality,
Reply New Comment

Line

28) Reality check!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on January 4, 2006]
You're talking to an obvious brickhead. Some morons just don't care about our constitution or the rights it guarantees as long as they can besmirch and demean those who uphold them. They continue this way until some protected right that they hold dear comes under attack and then watch out - the whinning and crying becomes theirs. Some things never change and some people never change.
These same morons also don't know what else to do when they are out-debated and proven wrong time and again, so they just whip up a few idle threats, some snide remarks, steal a few cute anecedotes, and then go back to living in their la-la-land bubble.
Better luck talking to a box of rocks.
Reply New Comment

Line

29) I guess you're right. [by Anonymous Citizen on January 4, 2006]
Just too bad that the law also protects these idiots as well.

Like Ben Franklin said "Those who are willing to sacrifice freedoms for security; deserve neither freedom OR security."
Reply New Comment

Line

30) Funny.... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
I don't recall reading THAT in the bill of rights.
Reply New Comment

Line

31) So... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
for someone who demonstrated so little knowledge of what the founders REALLY thought, you sure have a lot to say about what they did or did not envision. Must be more of the demonstrated foolery we saw in your last post....or a pompous self-righteous attitude that trys to impose itself upon others

The founders probably did not envision the Internet, Television, Word processors or Cell phones either when they considered freedom of speech...your point is.......?
Reply New Comment

Line

32) times are a-changing [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
there's a lot about modern technology the founders didn't envision...

the point is law is only that - someone's ideas of what is acceptable

laws can be modified and changed...yes, even the bill of rights can be modified to meet the changing times

and this is indeed necessary...because life evolves it doesn't stay the same

the consitution, while a historic document is not exactly the ten commendments written in stone
Reply New Comment

Line

33) Aw Shucks - [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
Look here,a real Bob Dillan clone. And I bet you think you're clever.
You bet times are a changin...people like you who want to take away everyone elses rights are being exposed for what you are. Bout time.
I suppose you feel you have a lot to fear from a law abiding citizen that owns an assault rifle...you know...that conjured up term to define cosmetic adaptations on an otherwise benign and common firearm? If you find a way to get them away from every criminal out there, go for it. That is the target audience (in case you thought otherwise) and if you think a ban is going to stop them, I bet you're interested in buying some ocean-front property in Nevada too. Until then though, leave us lawful citizens alone if you don't mind. We are doing you no harm...either tangible or implied.
Reply New Comment

Line

34) Soooo..... [by Anonymous Citizen on January 3, 2006]
....get off yer butt and DO something bout it. Change it(if you can - and lots-a-luck) until then, the law (and the Bill of Rights)stands as is no matter what you think (or don't). So stow your stale, jack-boot rhetoric and go trifle with some of your own rights instead of other peoples.
Reply New Comment

Line

35) Here you go [by Anonymous Citizen on November 15, 2005]
If you want to take my "assault weapons" from me go ahead. I'll make sure to give you the bullets first.
Reply New Comment

Line

36) The Key is... [by Anonymous Citizen on November 15, 2005]
...not to let them be able to come and try to take them...to rally yourself and everyone you know and then about 25 more you don't know and use some diplomacy to expose them to the truth about gun control and the myths and lies that the anti-gunners promulgate. Convince them that 2nd Ammendment rights are something worthwhile and urge them to join any of the pro 2nd Ammendment organizations, write their legislators and local officials and become active 2nd Ammendment supporters.

Above and beyond that, I'm with you...
...'From my cold, dead hands !"
Reply New Comment

Line

37) GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE [by Anonymous Citizen on September 3, 2005]
When are you people gonna open your eyes and see that GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE
Reply New Comment

Line

38) Assault Laws [by Anonymous Citizen on August 12, 2005]
You don't get it, do you, Mr. Kline? Article 1, Section 24, of the Washington State Constitution forbids such egregious legislation. The People of Washington have a God-given, Constitutionally protected Right, to keep and bear arms for personal defense. Moreover, there is no such thing as an "assault weapon." A rose by any other name is an "automatic defense weapon." Stop mincing and perverting words. Whether this law passes or not, I will continue to keep and bear arms; as a personal defense, AND as a defense against tyranny.
You are guilty of violating your oath of office to defend an support the Constitution. Have you even read it?
Go home; you're fired!
Reply New Comment

Line

39) SheeZaim SheeZaim SheeZaim!!! [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2005]
And a hearty “well gauauauauleeee” to all you gun grabbing harbingers of doom’! Looks like the word’s out and guess what, the gun ban side looks pretty darn foolish. Ban assault weapons to stop crime? My aching arse!
Nine months after the Clinton assault weapons ban sunset and 3 months after the Washington State assault weapons travesty fizzled out in committee, the latest FBI information is in and lo-and-behold…murders nationwide are down by 3.6%. This is the first drop since 1999, but there’s more: Not only murder, but all violent crimes in which guns are usually used have dropped significantly to all time lows.
Now wait just a darn minute! According to the gun ban fools on this post and elsewhere nationwide, this was supposed to be the year of the slaughter; the year blood would run in the streets and Uzi’s and AK47s would be in the hands of every two-bit hood in the land. Chicken Little was supposed to be running around dodging the hail of bullets that would be killing our cops in record numbers; the year that Shumer, Boxer, Feinstein, and scores of other gun grabbers swore would justify their anti-gun mantra of garbage. Jim Moeller, distr 49…put left hand on right ear, right hand on left ear and pull yer head firmly out of your rectum. Feed us all some more hysteria, doom, and gloom about the ‘evils’ of the (OMG) assault weapon.

Uh? Right! Sure thing folks! Uh huh!

Reply New Comment

Line

40) Where’s MrProgressive now? [by Anonymous Citizen on July 2, 2005]
Hey Regressive! Have ya chowed on them words yet? How do they taste?
Blah, Blah, Blah!
Reply New Comment

Line

41) Assault Cars [by Anonymous Citizen on June 21, 2005]
It's no secret that cars can be used for mass murdering. Anyone who has one should turn it in for scrap. Bicycles are much safer, and an auto driver may have a mishap at anytime or go off the deep end. Think about it.
Rod Hagel
Reply New Comment

Line

42) Why would anyone want an assault weapon? [by Anonymous Citizen on June 21, 2005]
For the same reason peasants have needed them down through history. To keep their government from taking too many indecent liberties. Also to protect others and themselves from the criminals who have them.
Sincerely yours, Rod Hagel
Reply New Comment

Line

43) New laws do NOTHING! [by Anonymous Citizen on June 20, 2005]
Creating new laws is useless! If a criminal was likely to follow new laws would they be criminals? Aren't they criminals because they ignore the current laws? How will making new laws help this?

All it will do is disarm law-abiding citizens. Making them more defenseless against the criminals, who will own these weapons regardless of what laws there are.

According to the CURRENT laws, a felon is unable to own ANY firearm, yet how many people are shot by felons? Criminals will always have guns, bats, knives, ect. Good, law-abiding people must have the most effective TOOLS to protect themselves from them.
Reply New Comment

Line

44) Screenplay for Bang bang youre dead [by Anonymous Citizen on June 13, 2005]
I'm from Poland and I'd like to find somewhere screenplay for Bang bang you're dead.I have seen film about that and from that moment I want show it in my school together with my schoolfriends and teachers.
It's very important for me to find it so if someone of you know, where I can find it please write to me: buufakamaka@interia.pl
PS-->Sorry for my English:)

Reply New Comment

Line

45) Protect the Second Ammendment [by Anonymous Citizen on May 31, 2005]
If we ban guns of any kind we are leaving ourselves open for a complete ban. If we outlaw guns, outlaws will be the only ones with guns.

H. B. Porter
Cicero, NY
Reply New Comment

Line

46) nice [by nsphilip on June 6, 2005]
That would make a good bumper sticker
Reply New Comment

Line

47) A possible solution [by nsphilip on April 26, 2005]
Since I am way too lazy to see if this has already been posted:

A solution to the gun problem could be to tax the hell out of them, and funnel the money into law enforcement.
Reply New Comment

Line

48) Gun Problem? [by Anonymous Citizen on July 4, 2005]
What gun problem are you refering too?
Reply New Comment

Line

49) Liberal Mentality (an oxymoron) [by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2005]
Research on bread indicates that:
1. More than 98 percent of convicted felons are bread users.
2. Fully HALF of all children who grow up in bread-consuming households score below average on standardized tests.
3. In the 18th century, when virtually all bread was baked in the home, the average life expectancy was less than 50 years; infant mortality rates were unacceptably high; many women died in childbirth; and diseases such as typhoid, yellow fever, and influenza ravaged whole nations.
4. More than 90 percent of violent crimes are committed within 24 hours of eating bread.
5. Bread is made from a substance called "dough." It has been proven that as little as one pound of dough can be used to suffocate a mouse. The average American eats more bread than that in one month!
6. Primitive tribal societies that have no bread exhibit a low incidence of cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's disease, and osteoporosis.
7. Bread has been proven to be addictive. Subjects deprived of bread and given only water to eat begged for bread after as little as two days.
8. Bread is often a "gateway" food item, leading the user to "harder" items such as butter, jelly, peanut butter, and even cold cuts.
9. Bread has been proven to absorb water. Since the human body is more than 90 percent water, it follows that eating bread could lead to your body being taken over by this absorptive food product, turning you into a soggy, gooey bread-pudding person.
10. Newborn babies can choke on bread.
11. Bread is baked at temperatures as high as 400 degrees Fahrenheit! That kind of heat can kill an adult in less than one minute.
12. Most American bread eaters are utterly unable to distinguish between significant scientific fact and meaningless statistical babbling.


In light of these frightening statistics, Liberals have proposed that the following bread restrictions be made:

1. No sale of bread to minors.
2. A nationwide "Just Say No To Toast" campaign, complete celebrity TV spots and bumper stickers.
3. A 300 percent federal tax on all bread to pay for all the societal ills we might associate with bread.
4. No animal or human images, nor any primary colors (which may appeal to children) may be used to promote bread usage.
5. The establishment of "Bread-free" zones around schools.


Reply New Comment

Line

50) More like the Conservative mentality [by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2005]
Get a clue. Both sides are guilty of faulty reasoning on occasion, depending on the issue. Just say no to name calling, okay?


Reply New Comment

Line

51) It is Liberals that need a clue [by Anonymous Citizen on April 22, 2005]
It's not the Conservatives that insist on banning inanimate guns to avoid the more painful (not to mention more difficult) realities of really dealing with the socio-economic problems that cause the issues where upon illegal uses of any inanimate object comes from. Review all the reasoning (or lack there of) behind banning guns of any kind and you will find the same 'Liberal mentalities" that the 'Bread' ban parody points out.
When Liberals start staying out of everyone elses 'legal' busisness, leaving peoples constitutional rights alone, and start attending to real concrete issues and effective measures to deal with societal problems, I will stop what you coin as 'name calling'. If calling someone a Liberal is calling them a name, then so be it.
Reply New Comment

Line

52) Wait...you're not being hypocritical, are you? [by randis on April 25, 2005]
Funny, but the same diatribe could be applied to "conservatives" who insist on banning illicit drugs (most notably marijuana), homosexuality, and certain medical procedures. Wouldn't you agree that "conservatives" and "liberals" are equally invasive regarding people's private lives, and that they just focus their invasions on different aspects of people's lives? Therefore, how can you legitimately base your disdain for a particular group of politicians on invasiveness and claim the other is the non-invasive party when both are equally invasive?
Reply New Comment

Line

53) Show me... [by Anonymous Citizen on April 27, 2005]
...the constitutional text that specifically mentions(by name please), the protections for any of those items or issues you mentioned. When it comes to guns(of which the 'OMG' assault weapons are part and which by the way, is the topic I was following in this particular post), the constitutions(both)are quite explicit in the protective phraseology unlike the more general protective phraseology under which many of the other things you spoke of may or may not fall. I will agree however, that your point about being equally invasive is indeed the case on many of those other issues, dependent on the issue. We can (and have) argued this on other posts as well. On this thread however, the one on which my 'diatribe' was based, you must agree, it is the Liberals who are spearheading the bans, the frivolous lawsuits, the junk science taxes, etc, etc, et al. It is upon this that I proceed with my clear disdain for the mantra and the 'Label' if you will. So in answer to you insinuation about being hypocritical...No. Not on this issue.
Reply New Comment

Line

54) My point was... [by randis on April 27, 2005]
...that both parties are guilty of acting in a way to make someone say what you said:

"When Liberals start staying out of everyone elses 'legal' busisness, leaving peoples constitutional rights alone, and start attending to real concrete issues and effective measures to deal with societal problems..."

"Liberals" and "Conservatives" are interchangeable, and when you make a blanket statement about a particular group, you must remember that the other side is equally guilty of the same thing. That's all.
Reply New Comment

Line

55) my gun [by nsphilip on April 22, 2005]
I have two guns, each with two barrels. I have not killed any humans...although, isn't it ironic that they who are the most indictable live, while those who are innocent, even incapable of acting in a manner ruled by spite or villainy, are those I routinely license myself to gun down every winter in the Pacific flyway?


Reply New Comment

Line

56) Ban of "Assault Weapons" [by xtinmover on April 19, 2005]
This bill is indicative of the ignorance in Olympia. This didn't work nationally. I can't work in Washington State. You should be working to train our citizens on the proposer use and care of weapons as is their individual right.
Reply New Comment

Line

57) Guns kill people #25 [by MrProgressive on April 11, 2005]
From 1990 to 1999 approximately 30,000 US youth were murdered with a firearm — 62% of the victims were youth of color.

- Centers for Disease Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/
Reply New Comment

Line

58) Read the fine print [by Anonymous Citizen on July 4, 2005]
When I queried for homicides by firearms for 1990 to 1998 for ages 1-17, I got back 14,331. When I changed the race to just Black rather then all, I got back just 7,848, which is 54.76%.

For 1999-2002 I got 3,487 overall homicides by firearms for the age group.
Reply New Comment

Line

59) Guns kill people #24 [by MrProgressive on April 9, 2005]
The cost of treating gunshot wounds can reach over $100 million a year at an average county hospital. Because many gunshot victims are uninsured, an estimated 85-96% of medical charges due to gunshots are paid by taxpayers through public health care and public debt.

- Ordog, J. Wasserberger, G. Ackroyd. “Hospital costs of Firearm Injuries.” Abstract. Journal of Trauma Feb. 1995. p.1
Reply New Comment

Line

60) You still don't get it [by SteveG on April 10, 2005]
I see you still can't distinguish criminal action from inanimate objects.

Best of luck,
Steve G.
Reply New Comment

Line

61) Not much has changed [by RosemontCrest on April 14, 2005]
Welcome back, Steve. How was the fishin'?

As I'm sure you have seen, MP still doesn't get it. I have been busy with other tasks, but I have noticed that there are several new players in this lingering discussion -- most notably the Anonymous Statistician. It's been fun to watch him (?) tear apart MP's "Guns Kill People #..." posts.

As we've said before, just ignore MP. He'll go away sooner or later.


Reply New Comment

Line

62) OT Reply re: Fishing [by SteveG on May 1, 2005]
Nothing to see here, move along,...

Hi, fishing was a bust. A close look at the fishing stats on the Kona Coast shows it is generally slow, but if you do catch something it is pretty good. It was nice being able to communicate with the crew for once, learned a lot there.

I think I'll stick to deep sea fishing in Mexico, one it is cheaper, and two, you tend to catch a lot more fish. Especially sails and dorado.

On a side note, the boat I had originally booked sank in 1200 ft of water just off the Kona Airport the week before I got there! Everyone was rescued. Captain told me not to worry about my deposit check, it went down with the ship.

Best of Luck,
Steve G.
Reply New Comment

Line

63) Guns kill people #23 [by MrProgressive on April 8, 2005]
LAUREL, Del. Apr 7, 2005 — A man wearing a bulletproof vest killed two people and wounded four others Thursday during a bizarre shooting rampage in Maryland and Delaware before police arrested him, authorities said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=651531

CANTON, Texas Apr 7, 2005 — The father of a high school football player shot and wounded the team's coach Thursday, then fled in a truck loaded with weapons and tried to kill himself by slashing his wrists, authorities said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=651346
Reply New Comment

Line

64) Guns kill people #22 [by MrProgressive on April 6, 2005]
Gun violence is the number one killer of African Americans ages 15-34.

- Centers for Disease Control’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/

Reply New Comment

Line

65) Guns kill people #21 [by MrProgressive on April 5, 2005]
2002, the most recent data available from the Federal Bureau of Investigation's unpublished Supplementary Homicide Report, firearms were the most common weapon used by males to murder females (928 of 1,733 or 54 percent). Of these, 73 percent (679 of 928) were committed with handguns.

- When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data
http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf
Reply New Comment

Line

66) MrProg is a Loser is right [by Anonymous Citizen on April 5, 2005]
This guy is a waste of good air. His is indeed just as MrProg is a Loser said he is, Stuck on the VPC, CDC etc etc. I'm out of here.
Reply New Comment

Line

67) MrProg, don’t forget to stand here alone and post a proclamation of victory [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Sure Thing...Sun
Reply New Comment

Line

68) In farewell – An open Post to all. [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
In the early days of this Blog, many were those who sincerely added to my knowledge and even presented some opposing viewpoints that I took to heart. For that, I thank all, especially Steve G, RosemontCrest, Dad with the Pail, randis, PeeWee, the anonymous statistician, and a score of others. The debate with Mr. Cut and Paste has grown to be a waste of time as he is caught in the same old repetitive rut with the same old repetitive sources. Matching him, cut for cut and paste for paste, has also become redundant. There are much better ways of being productive rather than continuing a battle of wits with an unarmed mental midget (literally). Time has come now to move on to other issues, other activities. The Salmon are running, Competitive Marksmanship Events are ‘firing up’ (pun intended). Who knows, maybe my Garands and I will even make it to the Camp Perry championship matches. At any rate, at least some of those Salmon will definitely be mine.
In the last few weeks, I have taken on the task of conducting research in the attempt to discern whether or not the recent ‘Guns Kill People” cut and pastes held any water. Unfortunately, they did not. While I was able to show that for every cut and paste one does, another, opposing view can just as easily be found, I also found valuable lessons in exactly why researching is so important. In my searches for source materials and the root of some of the statistics used, I discovered three very interesting and revealing facts:
First, in almost every instance where he (MrProg) used a cut and pasted snippet of data, the root of that data for the most part, always came home to roost in one of four basic statistical number mills or a combination there of – The Center for Disease Control (CDC); The Violence Policy Center (VPC - one of the top vehement anti-gun media machines); Handgun Control Inc (HCI -another anti-gun number twister), or something from A. Kellermann, a proven faulty and erroneous statistician. Others on this post have also clearly rebutted and shown the blatant errors in these snippets; in fact, I am quite convinced now, that there isn’t much more out there in support of gun control other than these few sources and the never ending chain of articles the refer to articles that refer to articles that refer to any of these sources. I found that while spewing massive amounts of ‘scary’ numbers, the baselines and comparative references were lacking. In addition, every post failed to make a case for banning anything; instead, they clearly pointed out and made the case for addressing and finding a solution for the underlying socio-economic problems that cause these issues in the first place. There was nothing stated in those many articles that social education programs, proper storage, safety education, or stricter enforcement of existing laws wouldn’t address. There was simply no justification for any further restrictions or bans. It becomes easy to get the picture; I did. Please, don’t take my word for it, by all means do your own research, it didn’t take me very long or much effort to find out what I did. Of course, this to will be summarily dismissed as some kind of ‘clever word games”. Que’ sera sera.
I am lead to believe that because of his marked inability to do any real research coupled with his denial of statistical analysis techniques, that MrProg did not realize that his so called ‘proof’, came from clearly refutable sources or if he did, he simply doesn’t give a hoot. Of course, he will have a typical rebuttal something along the lines of ‘NRA propaganda’ or some other stoic observation about how his cut and pastes have somehow ‘proven’ us all wrong and, of course, there will be his strident declaration that he ‘won’ something simply because he managed to be the only dead horse left to beat upon.
It would have been nice to see an attempt to debate the ‘Guns Protect People” posts or “MrProgressive is a Loser” series, perhaps we all could have benefited by having someone debate these issues with the same fervor in which I debated his but as usual, he has yet to do so. Of course, I fully expect some ridiculous tirade in rebuttal, but such is the nature of the man.

Second I found, that in my own quest for supporting information, I did not have to restrict myself to only a few anti-gun or government data sites to find data and evidence. The wealth of information in support of the right to keep and bear arms was overwhelming. Source materials were wide and varied; everything from FBI statistics, and Crime rate information from the Department of Justice, to dedicated analysis from criminology organizations in every state. The information was most assuring however, deliberately under-reported by the major media outlets and mainstream press. Check out these sources and you will see what I mean. I think you will find them refreshing in light of what the ‘opposition’ has had to post in the past few weeks.

Lastly, I found a legacy our founding fathers left for us. A legacy I will continue to fight for, no holds barred. To MrProgressive and the likes of him who so callously discard our cherished documents of freedom as unfounded rubbish or propaganda able to be tailored to suit their whims, I say this: This time, you lost dude. You managed to ban nothing, restrict nothing, or enact nothing. Every anti-gun bill presented in Washington this year failed, as did your pathetic attempts to get them passed. Wring your hands, dry your eyes, and get over it. Even the factoids you cut and pasted represent a tiny fraction of overall deaths in this country when compared to other causes for concern and death here. Automobiles, Alcohol, Drugs, Medical malpractice, and non-firearm related accidents all play a much greater role in causing deaths than do firearms no matter how hard the media blows it up or the anti-gun groups spin it. You don’t try and ban those things, why…because you know that trying is a useless and ridiculous effort. Furthermore, those inanimate objects are even less protected by constitutional powers than are inanimate firearms touted to be doing all the killing.

Sure, there is next year, but those ‘darn’ statistics show that support for gun ownership continues to climb with about 4.5 million ‘new’ gun sales in this country every year and somewhere around 9.5 million total gun transactions. 46 out of the 50 states allow concealed carry and all 50 have protections for gun ownership built in to their constitutions. Gun owners increase their numbers every month. You can bet we will be there next year and every year to pound the anti-gun movement and its ilk back to the stone age where it belongs.

Until then….

Reply New Comment

Line

69) Standing Tall [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2005]
No one is a winner or loser Dude...(your term-not mine) when voicing opinions. That is what makes our country great. All of our opinions have value. It's shortsighted of you not to see this.
Stand tall Mr. Progressive... your voice is not alone in the wildneress for every child or loved one who has fallen victim to careless firearm use. A law that is sadly part of our constitution. In this day and age...a very dangerous Right.
Reply New Comment

Line

70) Indeed yes - it was actually MrProgressive's term [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2005]
Just happened to stop in after work and saw some blatant ignorance so I had to point it out.

See the post from a month ago entitled

I won, you lost [by MrProgressive on March 16, 2005]

Anyhow, I'm intrigued by yer idea of *opinion* and what is value. You are absoltely correct that all our opinions have value, even his if he ever choses to agree that they are just that, opinions. You obviously condone his calling everyone elses opinions doubletalk, clever word games, or Rifle Association plans to assasinate him and his family at the first opportunity, but then that must be real *value*.

Opinion is one thing, mindless pasting another's opinion or article is something different and of little value unless used to support a persons expressed opinions with something that is not so obviously a false statement. I think that was the whole point behind the Guns Protect and Loser posts from MrProgressive is a Loser (god what a handle). The main diff is that Progressive himself makes no attempt to offer any contest or attempt to present any *opinions*. If he wants to copy statistics, at least copy ones that he is prepared to defend when they are debated and then do so with substantiated and supported debate not just the *I said so* bullcrap this post has seen from him since the beginning..

It's short sighted of you as well, too not see this.

There are other voices that are not alone in the wildneress for every child or loved one who has fallen victim to careless automobile use as well, so hows bout givin up yours when we legislate to ban them eh?

You have an intersting choice of words when you say, "A law that is sadly part of our constitution. In this day and age...a very dangerous Right."

Dangerous yes, like the right to freely assemble, or to excersize freedom of speech or press. All can be dangerous if abused but all are still garanteed Rights.

Yes...I see clearly now...free speech, a law that are also part of our constitution, must indeed be another of those very dangerous rights when it comes to the right of Pro gun organizations to speak out around election time eh? Just ask McCain and Feingold.

Stand tall *Dude*... MrProgressive himself is hiding from actually debating what you have shoved in his face. BTW, great info - refreshing like you said, I'll definitely keep some of it for later study. (you could have chose a better handle though)

I will be there with you when the time comes for him to take that trip to the stone age.

Reply New Comment

Line

71) MrProgressive Loser #30 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Sarah Brady's own figures show that so-called assault weapons are not the criminal's "weapon of choice." A study published by Handgun Control, Inc. in November of 1995 shows that the overwhelming majority of guns used to murder police officers are not "assault weapons." The irony is that HCI uses a very inflated definition of "assault weapon" and still can not demonstrate that they are used in over 50% of the crimes.

Source and Expansion: By using an inflated definition of "assault weapon," HCI attempts to "show" that these guns killed 36 percent (a minority) of the policemen who were murdered between January 1, 1994 and September 30, 1995. Of course, HCI's figure wildly departs from the 1% figure given by official government studies. Handgun Control, Inc., Cops Under Fire: Law Enforcement Officers Killed with Assault Weapons or Guns with High Capacity Magazines, (29 November 1995):2.
Reply New Comment

Line

72) Guns Protect People #30 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Some Documented evidence that Gun Control Costs Lives:

Bonnie Elmasri -- She inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware.

Source: Congressional Record, 8 May 1991, pp. H 2859, H 2862.

Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross -- she bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. (36) Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her.

Source: Wall Street Journal, 3 March 1994 at A10.
Reply New Comment

Line

73) MrProgressive Loser #29 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
- Step One: Registration -- In the mid-1960's officials in New York City began registering long guns. They promised they would never use such lists to take away firearms from honest citizens. But in 1991, the city banned (and soon began confiscating) many of those very guns.

Source: On August 16, 1991, New York City Mayor David Dinkins signed Local Law 78 which banned the possession and sale of certain rifles and shotguns.

- Step Two: Confiscation -- In 1992, a New York city paper reported that, "Police raided the home of a Staten Island man who refused to comply with the city's tough ban on assault weapons, and seized an arsenal of firearms. . . . Spot checks are planned [for other homes]."

Source: John Marzulli, "Weapons ban defied: S.I. man, arsenal seized," Daily News, 5 September 1992.
Reply New Comment

Line

74) Guns Protect People #29 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."

57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."

Source: National Institute for Justice, 1985
Reply New Comment

Line

75) MrProgressive Loser #28 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982)-- "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."

Source: U.S. Senate, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms," Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, (1982):12.
Reply New Comment

Line

76) Guns Protect People #28 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour.

Currently, there are about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 250 million Americans or almost 1,700 citizens per officer.

Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help (28.57%) to Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect themselves."

Source: US Department of Justice public records archive, 1989
Reply New Comment

Line

77) MrProgressive Loser #27 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
- A Justice Department survey of felons showed that 93% of handgun predators had obtained their most recent guns "off-the-record."
- Press reports show that the few criminals who get their guns from retail outlets can easily get fake IDs or use surrogate buyers, known as "straw purchasers," to buy their guns.

Sources: Department of Justice, "Survey of Incarcerated Felons," p. 36. ;
Pierre Thomas, "In the Line of Fire: The 'Straw Purchase' Scam," The Washington Post, 18 August 1991;
Thomas, "Va. Driver's License is Loophole for Guns: Fake Addresses Used in No-Wait Sales," The Washington Post, 20 January 1992.
Reply New Comment

Line

78) Guns Protect People #27 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
In 1981, three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them during a brutal abduction, fourteen hour imprisonment, and repeated rape, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.''

Source: Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
Reply New Comment

Line

79) MrProgressive Loser #26 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Dave Kopel, an expert in constitutional issues and firearms research, categorically states that, "Every scholar who has 'switched' has 'switched' to the side that is skeptical of controls. Indeed, most of the prominent academic voices who are gun control skeptics -- including law professor Sanford Levinson and criminologists Gary Kleck and James Wright -- are people who, when they began studying guns, were supporters of the gun control agenda."

Source: Dave Kopel, "Guns, Germs, and Science: Public Health Approaches to Gun Control," 84 The Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia (June 1995): 272.

Reply New Comment

Line

80) Guns Protect People #26 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
During the 1992 Los Angeles riots, USA Today reported that many of the people rushing to gun stores to buy a gun for self defense of their homes and families were "lifelong gun-control advocates, running to buy an item they thought they'd never need." Ironically, they were outraged to discover they had to wait 15 days to buy a gun for self-defense.

Source: USA Today Special Reports, Jonathan T. Lovitt, "Survival for the armed," USA Today, 4 May 1992.
Reply New Comment

Line

81) MrProgressive Loser #25 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
- Washington, D.C. has the most restrictive gun control laws in the country, and yet it has one of the highest murder rates in the nation.
- Objection: Critics claim criminals merely get their guns in Virginia where the laws are more relaxed. This, they argue, is why the D.C. gun ban is not working.
- Answer: Perhaps criminals do get their guns in Virginia, but this overlooks one point: If the availability of guns in Virginia is the root of D.C.'s problems, why does Virginia not have the same murder and crime rate as the District? Virginia is awash in guns and yet the murder rate is much, much lower. This holds true even for Virginia's urban areas. The murder rates are:

City 1995 Murder rate Washington, DC. . . . . . 65.0 per 100,000 (27)

Arlington,VA .. . ...... 5.9 per 100,000 (28)
(Arlington is just across the river from D.C.)

Total VA metropolitan area..8.2 per 100,000 (29)

Source: FBI, "Crime in the United States," (1996):69., According to Arlington County's own statistics, the population in Arlington, Virginia for 1995 was 184,000 people.
Reply New Comment

Line

82) Guns Protect People #25 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Every 13 seconds, an American gun owner uses a firearm in defense against a criminal. This year, between January first and March 28th , there were 578864 criminal attacks stopped by the defensive use of a gun.

Source: The World Wide Web Gun Defense Clock http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/
Reply New Comment

Line

83) MrProgressive Loser #24 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities, 1979, p. 31.
Reply New Comment

Line

84) Guns Protect People #24 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

Source: Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1786-87
Reply New Comment

Line

85) MrProgressive Loser #23 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Concealed Carry v. Waiting Period Laws. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia's law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin's murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period.

Source: Comparison of waiting periods and concealed carry laws in Georgia and Wisconsin. Compare FBI, "Crime in the United States," (1977):45, 53; and FBI, (1994):70, 78.
Reply New Comment

Line

86) Guns Protect People #23 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
"In America we may reasonably hope that the people will never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty."

Source: St. George Tucker, American Revolution Major and Post Revolution Judge, as quoted in American Blackstone, 1803
Reply New Comment

Line

87) MrProgressive Loser #22 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
House Bill 2211 Lead shot excise tax, Kagi (Demo District 32) Dies in the House Financial Commitee, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm

Reply New Comment

Line

88) Guns Protect People #22 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
“Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense."
“Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."

Source: John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763
Reply New Comment

Line

89) MrProgressive Loser #21 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
House Bill 1822 Lead shot hunting ban, Kagi (Demo District 32) Dies in the House Natural Resources Commitee, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

90) Guns Protect People #21 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
"Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."
"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."

Source: John F. Kennedy, quoted by "Know Your Lawmakers", April 1960, Page 4
Reply New Comment

Line

91) MrProgressive Loser #20 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
House Bill 1687 Insanity finding/firearms Moeller (Demo District 49) Dies in the House Judiciary Commitee, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

92) Guns Protect People #20 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
“The National Fraternal Order of Police does not support any Federal requirement to register privately owned firearms with the Federal government,” the group said. “And, even if such a database is limited to firearms manufactured in the future, the cost to create and maintain such a system, with such small chances that it would be used to solve a firearm crime, suggests to the F.O.P. that these are law enforcement dollars best spent elsewhere.”

Source:"Fraternal Order of Police, Viewpoint: Ballistics Imaging and Comparison Technology.", FOP Grand Lodge, October 2002
Reply New Comment

Line

93) MrProgressive Loser #19 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
House Bill 1490 Parks and Rec area gun ban, Darneille (Demo District 27) Dies in the House Judiciary Commitee, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

94) Guns Protect People #19 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the national average to 4% below the national average and remains below the national average to this day.

Source:Cramer C and Kopel D. Shall issue: the new wave of concealed handgun permit laws. Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994. Also Florida Department of Justice, 1998
Reply New Comment

Line

95) MrProgressive Loser #18 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Senate Bill 5593 .50 BMG rifle ban, Kline (Demo District 37) Dies in the Senate Judiciary Committe, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

96) Guns Protect People #18 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
-Fact: 92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes.
-Fact: 65.8% believe there should be no gun rationing, such as ‘one gun per month’ schemes.
-Fact: 97.9% of officers believe, that through illegal means, criminals are able to obtain any type of firearm.
-Fact: "Gun control has not worked in Washington D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith & Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed."

Source: National Association of Chiefs of Police, 1999 Police Survey Lt. Lowell Duckett, Special Assistant to DC Police Chief; President, Black Police Caucus, The Washington Post, March 22, 1996
Reply New Comment

Line

97) MrProgressive Loser #17 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Senate Bill 5344 Capitol campus gun ban , Fairley (Demo District 32) Dies in the Senate Judiciary Committe, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

98) Guns Protect People #17 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Switzerland has extremely lenient gun control (more so than the U.S.), and has the third-lowest homicide rate of the top nine major European countries, and the same per capita rate as England and Wales.

Source:Carol Kalish, International Crime Rates, Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report (Washington: Department of Justice, May 1988). 1984 data for Switzerland, and the 1983 data for England and Wales.
Reply New Comment

Line

99) MrProgressive Loser #16 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Senate Bill 5343 Gun show loophole, Kohl-Welles (Demo, District 36) Dies in the Senate Judiciary Committe, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

100) Guns Protect People #16 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
"There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level. If gun control worked, then [statistically], we should be free of [gun related] crimes".

Source:Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimate and reported via James Wright, Peter H. Rossi, Kathleen Daly, “Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America”, 1983
Reply New Comment

Line

101) MrProgressive Loser #15 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Senate Bill 5342 Safe storage of firearms, Kohl-Welles (Demo, Distric 36) Dies in the Senate Judiciary Committe, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

102) Guns Protect People #15 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Maryland has some of the strictest gun control laws and has the highest robbery rate in the country, and is 4th in violent crime and homicide. The robbery rate is 70% than the national average. These numbers are likely low because one of their more violent cities, Baltimore, failed to report their crime levels.

Source:FBI Uniform Crime Reports, September 15, 2000
Reply New Comment

Line

103) MrProgressive Loser #14 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Senate Bill 5131 - Insanity finding/firearms, Carrell (Rep, District 28) Dies in the Senate Rules Committe, 5:30PM on March 2, 2005

Source: Washington State Legislature, Online Bill Information Website, 2005 - 2006 Biennium, http://www.leg.wa.gov/wsladm/billinfo1/dspBillSummary.cfm
Reply New Comment

Line

104) Guns Protect People #14 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
James Wright, was formerly a gun control advocate. Wright received a grant from President Carter's Justice Department to study the effectiveness of gun control laws. To his surprise, he found that waiting periods, background checks, and all other gun control laws were not effective in reducing violent crime.

Wright stated "I was surprised to discover, during the course of research, that neither waiting periods, background checks, nor ANY gun control laws were effective in reducing violent crime... "It seemed evident to me, we needed to mount a campaign to resolve the crisis of handgun proliferation." But," he says, "I am now of the opinion that a compelling case for 'stricter gun control' cannot be made."

Source: Justice Department, Article titled "Second Thoughts About Gun Control" by James Wright, Published in The Public Interest, Spring 1988 issue.
Reply New Comment

Line

105) MrProgressive Loser #13 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Perhaps most surprising recent statement about the ludicrous visions of gun ban advocates, was made in a column by a Chicago Tribune editorial staff writer, Steve Chapman, who observed that “decrying America’s love affair with guns is like decrying America’s love affair with football or movies. There are some 260 million firearms in private hands in this country, and any solution requiring vast numbers of people to reject something they have long valued is not a solution but a fantasy.” The State of Illinois and City of Chicago in particular, are notorious for their anti-gun stances.

Source: Chicago Tribune, Editorial, March 2005
Reply New Comment

Line

106) Guns Protect People #13 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
To refute the results of the National Self Defense Survey, two pro-gun-control researchers, Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig, were given funding by the Clinton administration's Department of Justice to do their own survey of Defensive Gun Uses, to attempt to prove that the National Self Defense Survey's estimate was too high.
Unfortunately for advocates of gun control, the Cook-Ludwig survey produced results about the same as the National Self Defense Survey and -- in one remarkable paragraph -- suggested that their methodology was too conservative and that the Defensive Gun Use figure could even be doubled: "Because respondents were asked to describe only their most recent defensive gun use [in the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University], our comparisons are conservative, as they assume only one defensive gun use per defender. ...Inclusion of multiple DGUs reported by half of the 19 NSPOF respondents increases the estimate to 4.7 million DGUs."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice Survey Report: Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig. May 1997
Reply New Comment

Line

107) MrProgressive Loser #12 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Despite 536,000 prohibited buyers caught by the National Instant Background Check, only 6,700 people (1.25%) have been charged for these firearms violations. This includes 71% of the violations coming from convicted or indicted felons. None of these crimes were prosecuted by the Federal government in 1996, 1997, or 1998.

Source:Bureau of Justice Statistics, Federal Firearm Offenders and Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, June 4, 2000, U.S. Justice Department statistics, 1999
Reply New Comment

Line

108) Guns Protect People #12 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
John Lott Peer Reviews:

"'A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates.'--James Bovard, Wall Street Journal"

"John Lott's thoughtful study should be read by everyone interested in the control of violent crime, and protection against terrorism." --Vernon L. Smith, 2002 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"John Lott's 1998 book, More Guns, Less Crime, created quite a stir among the gun-control romantics, whose expressive advocacy involves neither sound analytics nor empirical evidence. In this follow-on book, The Bias Against Guns, Lott continues the struggle, and responds to his critics, motivated by his strong conviction that analysis and evidence must, finally, win the day." --James Buchanan, 1986 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"Another major contribution by John Lott to the evidence on the effects--good and bad--of gun-control legislation. An important supplement to his More Guns, Less Crime."--Milton Friedman, 1976 Nobel Prize Winner in Economics

"[Lott] marshals unimpeachable evidence on how the anti-gun crusade, driven by sins of omission and commission, might actually be costing many more lives than it saves. You'll want to have this intellectual ammunition." --Walter E. Williams, economist and syndicated columnist

"John Lott is a scholar's scholar and a writer's writer--and his book shows why. That gun ownership might bring social benefits as well as costs is a story we do not often see in the press, and Lott here explores why. With a blend of new data, evidence, and examples, he unpacks the bias against such stories in the media."--J. Mark Ramseyer, Harvard Law School professor

Need some more? - too many to post where these came from...
Reply New Comment

Line

109) MrProgressive Loser #11 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Every US citizen automatically has the right to carry concealed within Vermont's borders with no permit required. No permit, no training, no permission, no problem.
Not coincidentally, among the 50 states VT has the lowest risk per capita that a citizen will be injured by a violent criminal. Vermont was also consistantly rated in the bottom 5% of the 50 states for the lowest rates of violent crimes per capita.

Source: United States: Uniform Crime Report -- State Statistics from 1960 - 2000, http://www.disastercenter.com/crime and the Vermont State Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16
Reply New Comment

Line

110) Guns Protect People #11 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
"States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-Six states now have such laws called 'shall-issue' laws and 11 more have 'may issue' laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness."

Source: More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics) by John R. Lott Jr. (professor of criminal deterrence and law and economics at the University of Chicago Law School)
Reply New Comment

Line

111) Slight Correction [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
One of the 36 stated, 1 state is actually still in the legislature to pass the bill into law and so technically, there are still only 35
Reply New Comment

Line

112) MrProgressive Loser #10 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
As of June 28, 2004, there are 46 states that allow concealed handgun permits, called Concealed Carry Weapon (CCW). That equates to a whopping 92% of out nation. There are only 4 states that do not allow lawful citizens to carry concealed weapons. The three basic types of CCW are: "Shall Issue - meaning the state has no choice in the matter providing the citizen meets all legal requirements for firearm ownership." (35 states), "May Issue - meaning the state will issue concealed carry licences but has the discreation of denying concealed carry based on state and/or local ordinances" (11 states) and "No Issue - meaning under no circumstances will the state grant ANY citizen the right to carry a concealed weapon" (4 states). Of the 46, one state, Vermont has no licensing requirements whatsoever.

Source: CCW Online Database, http://www.packing.org, March 2005. Also, Vermont State Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16
Reply New Comment

Line

113) Guns Protect People #10 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
According to Title 10 and title 32 of the United States Code, "All able-bodied males between the age of 17 and 45 are, by law, members of the militia, and provide for the exceptions and exclusions to that rule.
If a person is, by law, a member of the militia, how can they perform their lawful duties if they are forbidden by statute law to posses a firearm?

Source: Title 10 United States Code, Sections 311-312, and Title 32 United States Code, Section 313.
Reply New Comment

Line

114) MrProgressive Loser #9 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Think you're going to be successful at banning guns...think again. Guns are here to stay.

Approximately 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year in the United States, including 2 million handguns. In addition, estimates of annual secondhand firearms transactions (i.e., sales, trades, or gifts) range from 2 million to 4.5 million (5,6). Further, an estimated 0.5 million firearms are stolen annually (6). Thus, the total number of firearms transactions could be as high as 9.5 million per year.
Of the estimated 192 million firearms owned in the United States at the time of the 1994 NSPOF survey, 65 million were handguns; 70 million, rifles; 49 million, shotguns; and the remainder were other guns (7). Among handgun owners, 34.0% kept their guns loaded and unlocked. An estimated 10 million handguns, one sixth of the handguns owned, were regularly carried by their owners, approximately half in the owners' cars and the other half on the owners' persons.

Source: Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Commerce in firearms in the United States. Washington, DC: US Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 2000.
Cook PJ, Molliconi S, Cole TB. Regulating gun markets. J Criminal Law Criminol 1995;86:59--92
Reply New Comment

Line

115) Guns Protect People #9 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Peer Review for Source: Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz...
"...they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.

Source: The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995: by Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country.
Reply New Comment

Line

116) MrProgressive Loser #8 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
Floridians could shoot violent home intruders and carjackers under a bill that cleared a key hurdle in the Senate on Tuesday.

"Since the time of the Romans, a man's home has been his castle," said Sen. Durrell Peaden, R-Crestview. "There is a presumption that anyone who enters your home illegally is there to harm or kill you. ... You don't have to retreat if you're in fear for your life or fear great bodily harm."

Both of Leon County's senators, Democrat Al Lawson of Tallahassee and Republican Nancy Argenziano of Dunnellon, are co-sponsors of the bill. With 83 sponsors in the House and 29 in the Senate, the bill (SB 436) is virtually guaranteed passage.

Source" The Tallahassee Democrat Article: Self-defense bill moves forward in Senate, By Bill Cotterell Democrat Political Editor, March 23rd, 2005
Reply New Comment

Line

117) Guns Protect People #8 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
"Saving a life through Defensive Gun Use (DGU) [is] a benefit, but this almost never involves killing the criminal; probably fewer than 3,000 criminals are lawfully killed by gun-wielding victims each year, representing only about 1/1000 of the number of DGUs, and less than 1% of the number of purportedly life-saving DGUs. Therefore, the number of justifiable homicides cannot serve as even a rough index of life-saving gun uses. Since this comparison does not involve any measured benefit, it can shed no light on the benefits and costs of keeping guns in the home for protection."

Source, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995
Reply New Comment

Line

118) MrProgressive Loser #7 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
In Reports Evaluating the Effectiveness of Strategies for Preventing Violence: Firearms Laws, every one of the twelve separate studies of gun restrictions or restrictive gun laws, sited insufficient evidence to conclude that any of the restrictions or laws had any affect on violent crime reduction.
"The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes . In summary, the Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."

Source: Task Force on Community Preventive Services; Findings of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services regarding firearms laws and prevention of violence, November 1, 2002
Chair: Jonathan E. Fielding, M.D., Los Angeles Department of Health Services, Los Angeles, California
Vice-Chair: Patricia Dolan Mullen, Dr.P.H., University of Texas-Houston School of Public Health, Houston, Texas
Reply New Comment

Line

119) Guns Protect People #7 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 4, 2005]
THE COST OF GUN CONTROL - MAJOR 20TH-CENTURY GENOCIDES - 95 MILLION MURDERED THANKS TO GUN CONTROL (1)

PERPETRATOR ELEMENT:Ottoman Turkey
DATE:1915-1917
TARGET:Armenians
# MURDERED (ESTIMATED): 1-1.5 milion
DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW: 1866 - 1911
SOURCE DOCUMENT:Article 166, Penal Code and Article 166, Penal Code

PERPETRATOR ELEMENT:Soviet Union & International Jews (2)
DATE:1929-1990
TARGET:Anti-Communists, Anti-Stalinists, Germans, Christians
# MURDERED (ESTIMATED): 20 million (3)
DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW: 1929
SOURCE DOCUMENT: Article 182, Penal Code

PERPETRATOR ELEMENT:China
DATE:1949-1975
TARGET:Anti-Communists, Pro-Reformists, Buddhists
# MURDERED (ESTIMATED): 72 million (3)
DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW: 1935 - 1957
SOURCE DOCUMENT: Articles 186-7, Penal Code and Article 9, Security Law, 10/22

PERPETRATOR ELEMENT:Guatemala
DATE:1960-1981
TARGET:Maya Indians
# MURDERED (ESTIMATED): 100,000
DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW: 1871 -1964
SOURCE DOCUMENT: Decree 36, 11/25 and Decree 283, 10/27

PERPETRATOR ELEMENT:Uganda
DATE:1971-1979
TARGET:Christians, Political Rivals
# MURDERED (ESTIMATED): 300,000
DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW: 1955 - 1970
SOURCE DOCUMENT: Firearms Ordinance and Firearms Act

PERPETRATOR ELEMENT:Cambodia
DATE:1975-1979
TARGET:Educated People
# MURDERED (ESTIMATED): 2.3 million (3)
DATE OF GUN CONTROL LAW: 1956
SOURCE DOCUMENT: Articles 322-8, Penal Code

Total Victims; 95 Million +....GUN CONTROL = GENOCIDE

(1) Sources, unless otherwise footnoted: "Gun Control; Gateway to Tyranny" by Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman [J.P.F.O., 1994]; "Lethal Laws" by Jay Simkin, Aaron Zelman, and Alan M. Rice [J.P.F.O., 1994].

(2) See "An Eye for an Eye" by John Sack [Basic Books, 1993], "The International Jew" by Henry Ford, Sr. [Henry Ford, Sr., 1921], Jewish Communists: The Documentary Record by Michael A. Hoffman II, "The Last Days Of The Romanovs" by Robert Wilton [Institute For Historical Review, 1993], "Mullins' New History of the Jews" by Eustace Mullins [The International Institute of Jewish Studies, 1968], and "Pawns in the Game" by William Guy Carr [National Federation of Christian Laymen, 1955].

(3) See Communism's 100 Million Victims, Holocausts of Communism Test.
Also see: Is Gun Control a Nazi Scheme?, and Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945
Reply New Comment

Line

120) another washingtonian [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2005]
what would you do if someone broke into your home in the middle of the night and you heard them coming down the hallway. do you think that if you had a phone in your room and you called the cops they would get there in time? what if after they came in with guns they decided to rape your wife in front of you, how would you feel then? how would you feel if mabey they killed your whole family in front of you? kind of scary huh? there are people like that out there and i for one would like to be able defend myself and not have to hope that the intruder will be reasonable. besides that i've worked hard for everything that i own and i'll be damned if i'm going to let some scum bag take my things so they can buy drugs or whatever.
Reply New Comment

Line

121) Guns kill people #20 [by MrProgressive on April 4, 2005]
Between 1995 through 1999, nearly a third (32.1 percent) of child handgun homicide victims were murdered by another child.

- Violence Policy Center. Kids in the Line of Fire: Children, Handguns, and Homicide
Reply New Comment

Line

122) Guns kill people #19 [by MrProgressive on April 3, 2005]
Annually, about 30,000 people die of firearm injuries. In 2000, guns claimed 28,663 lives in the United States, the majority from suicides.
Firearm deaths, 2000, by cause:
Suicide — 16,586
Homicide — 10, 801
Unintentional Shootings* — 1,276
*includes causes: accidental, undetermined and legal intervention

Miniño AM, Arias E, Kochanek KD, Murphy SL, Smith BL. Deaths: Final Data for 2000. National vital statistics reports; vol 50 no 15
Hyattsville Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 2002.
Reply New Comment

Line

123) Whats the matter Sun, stuck in a rut? [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2005]
What a waste of time.
Reply New Comment

Line

124) Guns kill people #18 [by MrProgressive on April 2, 2005]
Children living in the five states with the highest levels of gun ownership were 16 times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injury, seven times more likely to die from firearm suicide, and three times more likely to die from firearm homicide than children in the five states with the lowest levels of gun ownership. Additionally, children in the top five gun ownership states were twice as likely to die from homicide and suicide overall as children in the five lowest gun ownership states.

- "Firearm Availability and Unintentional Firearm Deaths, Suicide, and Homicide among 5-14 Year Olds," February 2002 issue of The Journal of Trauma, Harvard School of Public Health
Reply New Comment

Line

125) Context [by Anonymous Citizen on April 4, 2005]
The problem with these statistics is that they don't seem to take into account the population for each state. If the five states with the highest numbers of guns happen to be the five states with the highest populations, or the highest number of people living in poverty, it would make perfect sense that there are more deaths. So the data really holds no meaning without proper context.
Reply New Comment

Line

126) This guy's a waste of my time - I'm outta here to another part of this site [by Anonymous Citizen on April 3, 2005]
He can cut 'n' paste to his hearts content - the only dead horse here will be him. Watch him wave the victory flag again like he did before.... jeeeze!
Reply New Comment

Line

127) Come on lead based clown, is this all ya got - Skip-shhhhhh, Skip-shhhhhh [by Anonymous Citizen on April 2, 2005]
Back for another dose... for an instant reply, we all can see Regressive's earlier meager and entertaining attempts to puke up the same info in a different cut and paste.

Ripping this idiot wide open is getting redundant.

All of these writings gain a substantial amount of data from the CDC and other Government statistics mills and simply twist id in different ways. The fact that these articles can be found at CDC does not in itself indicate that the CDC is the source. The indication and proof comes from the fact that all related articles quote statistics gleamed from CDC databases. They also included excerpts and interpretations from such refutable sources as Josh Sugarman, inventor of the term 'assault weapon as a public fear tactic (he so stated himself). Sugarman is also the executive director of the Violence Policy Center(VPC). The work even has statistics taken from the works of A. Kellermann.

The top four sources used and quoted in this Harvard Report are no exception.

1. Gotsch KE, Annest JL, Mercy JA, Ryan GW. Surveillance for fatal
and nonfatal firearm-related injuries – United States, 1993–1998.
MMWR Surveill Summ. 2001;50(SS-2):1–36.

This one found at....

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) CDC Surveillance Summaries: Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatal Firearm-Related Injuries - United States, 1993-1998
The MMWR is a CDC sub-publication. The CDC Surveillance Summaries provide a means for CDC programs to disseminate surveillance findings, permitting detailed interpretation of trends and patterns based on those findings.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5002a1.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4845a1.htm

...and this one...

2. Krug EG, Powell KE, Dahlberg LL. Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middle-income countries.
Int J Epidemiology. 1998;27:214 –221.

Co authors A Reza and J A Mercy, from Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Interestingly, this particular reference has numerous references the obtain data from the CDC and VPC as well.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/epi_of_violence.htm

...this is definitely a great source ;~]

3. Diaz T. Making a Killing: The Business of Guns in America. New York, NY: New Press; 1999:69 –84.

Note:Tom Diaz is senior policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center. This is his book. Again wrought with stats obtained from...guess where....

...and last but not least...

4. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. (MMWR) Motor-vehicle safety: A 20th century public health achievement. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly, Rep. 1999;48:369 –374.

As stated earlier, the MMWR is a CDC subsidiary.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5007a1.htm

The circle is endless.

BORRRRING!

Reply New Comment

Line

128) Yawn... [by Anonymous Citizen on April 2, 2005]
and yet again...
Reply New Comment

Line

129) MrProgressive Loser #6 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 2, 2005]
...the uniqueness of our free institutions, the fact that an American citizen can boast freedoms unknown in any other land, is all the more reason to resist any erosion of our individual rights. When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men.”

Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman
Subcommittee on the Constitution
January 20, 1982
Reply New Comment

Line

130) Guns Protect People #6 [by MrProgressive is a Loser on April 2, 2005]
The brutal Aug. 23, 2000, Carpenter family multiple-murder in Merced, Calif., is a case in point. Here two young children were slaughtered by an intruder with a pitchfork while the parents were away. One of the surviving children, 14-year-old Jessica, who had been taught to shoot by her father, was unable to protect her siblings.

The father's guns, pursuant to California safe-storage laws, were kept unloaded and inaccessible to the children. Had Jessica been able to reach a loaded weapon, she may have saved her little brother and sister.

Miami Herald, Article: More Guns, Less Crime, by Paul Crespo, Monday, November 25, 2002 |
Mr. Crespo is a political analyst; writer; Senior Fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC; Professor and visiting lecturer in the political science department at the University of Miami dept of US and world politics with a focus on dictatorships and democracy.

Reply New Comment

Line

131) MrProgressive Loser #5 [by MrProgressive is a Los