ok people..the smoking Gun...your take on Gun control...

Master_Jedi_Beefcake:

By that logic, then, freedom of the press only encompasses the technology used at that time, either.

And there is no prohibition about using infra-red sensors to look inside a person's home.

The Supreme Court ruled in the latter case, by the way (http://www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy062201.shtml). They ruled that using the infrared camera to scan a home is a search. It

Ergo, technological advances do not negate any provision in the Bill of Rights, nor do they place something outside their purview. The reason they did not use musket, rifle, pistol, or a less general term than arms is they figured that new technologies would be developed.

 

JediSmuggler, perhapds you can enlighten us as to what should be done about the many public shootings in america.

 

Perhaps nothing. Perhaps lots. But whatever is done must have sensible trade-offs between exisiting liberties and future security.

 

KaineDamo, I've outlined what I'd support elsewhere. Unfortunately, I cannot guaruntee 100% success with it.

However, I will put it all here.

1. 10-20-Life for those using a gun in the commission of a Crime. Brandishing it gets them 10 years, firing it gets the crook 20 years, or injuring someone with it gets the crook life.

2. Permanent prohibition for those convicted of violent felonies with regards to even TOUCHING a gun. If they violate that, then they get 5 years in prison.

3. Prohibiting violent juveniles from ever being able to TOUCH a gun.

4. An INSTANT background check from licensed firearms dealers. No waiting periods will be needed. Where I live, several bad guys who did try to buy guns were caught with this thing. It works pretty well, and has minimal inconvenience for the law-abiding.

5. I'd also pass the type of law that exists in 32 states, allowing good guys who pass a background check and who finish a training course to carry a gun for personal protection. I think Vermont is TOO lax in this regard. If someone is 18 or over, has a CLEAN record, and passes the training course, then they get the permit.

Israel has found this type of law to be effective as well, and armed civilians there have broken up some of the suicide attacks.

6. In terms of the type of shooting I believe you are referring to, this also can be solved by several proven measures. In at least one case I know of off the top of my head, the criminal were allowed to plea-bargain down to misdemeanors. Another guy was convicted, but there was no follow-up. One of the school shooters was caught with a stolen gun the day before. No charges filed, and he was released to his parents. These type of things usually have warning signs that are ignored, and better awareness of them could head most of them off.

It's not perfect, but it's the best option that respects the rights of the law-abiding citizens with whom there is no legitimate quarrel. Why pick a fight with someone for no reason?

 

No what I'm saying is that the term "Arms" used then didn't just mean a "Gun" it meant all weapons that the British or any other government could taken away.


We are in the 21st century and things especially weapons are different today than they were back then. Are rules and regulations must change with them. The 2nd amendment is first on that list of priorities.

Our founding fathers may have instituted the right for self defense but they didn't create it for what it has become. Furthermore they didn't create those Bill of Rights for half the population of the U.S. back in 1791. That half of the population would be the Slaves. Slaves were not given those rights until after 1865. That is 74 damn years before something was changed giving those rights to all. Not to mention women couldn't vote until the 1920's. So our founding fathers of the Constitution left out a whole hell of a lot of people when it came into existence.

Frankly I'm sick and tired of some people qouting these guy's as biblical scripture. They were not perfect, and they certaintly didn't make the constitution perfect, rather they left it open for review if needed. Were they influential in getting us off the ground? Yes they were, but were they 100% RIGHT? HELL NO they were not. It's time to change things now.

 

The Constitution is made so that changes can be made if needed. Just because it's the founding document, it doesn't mean it's revelant NOW.

 

JediSmuggler, more or less, what you would do is throw more people into jail. I know this is an argument for another thread, but its objectionable about wether or not throwing more and more people into already over crowded prisons even reduces crime. I commend you for coming up with a way of handling the problem, but I don't think its nearly enough, and will only fill up our prisons even more.
The best fix i can think of is to change the laws regarding weapons in the Constitution. This combined with harder sentences for those who misuse guns and for repeat offenders would greatly decrease the number of overall gun incidents.

 

Not acceptable, because the stuff in there is to protect those who are innocent.

Project Exile in Richmond played a big part in cutting the crime rate there by 50%. The totals with regards to the amount of crime committed by the career criminals are also pretty clear, IMHO. We target them, it's at LEAST a 50% reduction.

You cannot solve the problem by hassling the law-abiding citizens.

 

Emperor_Dan:

I can think of how a shall-issue system can mitigate one of the major weapons used by our enemies in the war we are currently fighting.

The Israelis run a carry permit system very similar to that in 32 states, and on at least two occasions, permit holders (not cops or soldiers) stopped suicide attacks before they could harm innocents.

These terrorist types and the nations that support `em are, deep down, cowardly nurderers who have profaned the religion they claim to be defending. They can't handle a straight fight. We need to reduce their chances of finding helpless people to target.

 

Master_Jedi_Beefcake:

So, some rights go away due to technological advances, and others do not? The ruling in Kyllo v. United States makes that clear. The Founders were not perfect, but they were among the best-read and most intelligent of their day. They chose to err on the side of individual freedom, and they probably were aware of a number of repeating (another term for semi-automatic or fully-automatic) firearms or weapons dating as far back as 200 B.C. (a fully-automatic crossbow used in China), and a lot of guns also existed in the 17th century that operated much like our semi-autos today (including 25 and 40-shot carbines. They knew of those advances, and they didn't put an exception in that excluded them.

Also, many of them did not like slavery, but they did what everyone has done in politics: They compromised to accomplish more important things that HAD to be done right away, like fixing the mess that the Articles of Confederation had created. The other problems which existed would be dealt with down the road after the current problems had been fixed.

 

Look at what happened to New York. No amount of guns could have prevented that.

 

Did I say the right should go away? No I did not, but it's time to re-evaluate this right, because it's unlike any other in those first 10.

It needs to fit the 21st century and needs to fit for the next 100 years, because it's very dumb to think that the way it's written today still applies to this day and age. It doesn't.

The way it should be written is that it spells out exactly what weapons are allowed and which ones are not. It also throws out the vagueness of it and clarifys what goes along with that right. It's one thing to have the right to defend yourself in that case you have other means of that, but it's another to use this right to hurt others.

I would say the same thing about the 1st amendment as well. There are times when the 1st amendment needs to take a BACKSEAT TO REASON. The problem is that we have morons like the ACLU who want to defend a website which advocates that kids should be molested, raped and stuff. I forget the exact name of this group, but it influenced a man to kill a child in 1997 after he read there website and he even admits this. The website starts with the letter M but it's a weird name and can't remember it. The ACLU is defending these sick SOB's right to free speech saying that this site is not commmiting a criminal act when they clearly are by many peoples standards of basic morality. This is a prime example of when reason and common sense who take precedence over free speech. The same goes for the 2nd amendment. When peoples lives are put in danger because of something which can be changed then do it. I'm not saying get rid of it, but things need change and that is what America was founded on. Change and not sitting around while things run amuck. So lets do our patriotic duty and fix these things which some take to literal and put some common sense and reason behind it.

 

While I've been doing my research I've come across some interesting things of what the people living back in 1785 up through the 1840's strongly believed in pertaining to the "Right to bear Arms"

Some of this comes from Supreme Court Cases such as.

United States v. Miller 1939

Presser v Illinois 1886

Aymette vs The State 1840

All throughout reading these cases one thing was continously mentioned. What was mentioned was how the "Right to Bears arms" back then was any Free White Man between the ages of 18 and 45 and were able bodied to do so will be basically OBLIGATED (Hense Draft) to defend the State in which they live from uprisings, or invasion. They must supply there own firearm which is very specific of what a firearm was and how it was to kept. You must supply your weapon with powder, balls and have two spare flints, a blanket and knapsack. Basically it adds up to this folks. If your of age and can fight then ONLY when the time is needed shall these weapons be present. These men are basically to organize into a army and be soldiers.

Now look at today. You have joe blow who has no military training buying handguns and such for whatever reason and not knowing how to use it properly. See what's wrong with this picture, and why the 2nd amendment needs to be altered and changed to fit these times. The 2nd amendment by historical dates was outdated towards the 1890's. It should have been revised then.

This comes from the National Firearms act. 1936

The term "Firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length, or any other weapon, EXCEPT a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such a weapon is capable of being concealed on the person or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or sot such a firearm is included within the forgoing definition, but does not include any rifle which is within the forgoing provisons soley by reason of the length of it's barrel if the caliber of such rifle is .22 or smaller and if it's barrel is sixteen inches or more in length.

I will be back with more later.

 

Woah I just finished my paper. 2 weeks and 18 pages later and I'm finished. I will try to post my paper here after I've done the final edit in a few days.

I took all the point of views on this subject, and gave my opinion on them. Then historical facts and such and all this paper did was strengthen my stance.

It was a lot of work but it was fun. I would like to add that though that the NRA are full of ****. I'm sorry but they are so narrow minded on this subject that they are dangerous in my eyes.

I didn't know that Former President Bush dropped his membership in 1995 after just how ugly the NRA had gotten. Vice President Wayne LaPierre issued a fund-raising letter in 1995 that referred to federal agents as "Jack-booted thugs," At least I wasn't alone when I dropped my membership last year, because that is totally wrong.

 

"Just curious where you get this. Does this mean that when guns are limited, more people get killed by them? Maybe I'm missing something."

I cannot recall off hand, it may have been NCPA, the CDC or some other item. It basically means that the more people that are armed, the less crime results statistically, because if a state allowed people to carry concealed weapons criminals would be more hesitant to try and commit a crime/assault.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Moriarte it's on the NRA website. The NRA claims in the news posting that the Brady Campaign gave grades of F's to states with less gun control laws, and the NRA's findings is those states have fewer crimes due to the fact that there is less gun control laws.

Like Alabama, Kentucky are examples of states which have less crime as well as less gun control laws, yet the brady campaign aparently gave them low marks.

Maryland was the emphasis on this report because it got an A while it has high crime.

 

Well here it is. I just edited down and I might go back and add a few more details but overall here it is. Enjoy.



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

These are the words of the 2nd Amendment, and are the basis of this paper I?m writing today. Authors Robert J. Cottrol and Raymond T. Diamond said, ?That in short, the 2nd Amendment is an area of constitutional jurisprudence that still awaits its philosopher.? I agree with this simply because reason and plain common sense has been evaded in the debate for years. This amendment has always been one of the most controversial and most debated due to several interpretations as to what this Right stands for in our nation?s history. As early as 1840 there was a case of Aymette V. State, wherein a man concealed a bowie knife on himself. ? The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping of weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense?. Towards the end of the 19th Century with the immigration movement in full swing in America, and with the industrial revolution a growing concern in urban areas was that of guns and controlling all the guns that people had.
Widespread concern over guns became a national issue in the 1920?s after the invention of the Tommy Sub Machine gun, which was involved in St. Valentine?s Day massacre in 1929. Seven dead gangsters were covered with bullet wounds due to this new and more powerful gun, which sprayed bullets instead of just firing one single shot. From that point on you had the first National gun act laws instituted in the 1930?s. Throughout the 50?s and 60?s with the assassination of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King gun control has become a very hot topic for many people. On into the 80?s and 90?s with the creation of the Brady Gun Control Act of 1993 this debate over gun ownership and the right to bear arms is as strong as ever. With the recent events in Boulder, Colorado where fifteen teenagers were killed by schoolmates who went on a shooting rampage, the issue of trigger locks and other gun control bills have reached Washington only to be stalemated. Looking at all the other 28 amendments the 2nd Amendment is the only one which supposedly grants very powerful rights in which a deadly weapon, like a gun, can be used as a means of self defense. Some interpret these rights to be individual rights. Others believe that it was a State right to keep a well standing army in times of conflict. Either way it grants people the right to bear arms and the only other amendment to rival it in power would be the 1st Amendment.
There are several interpretations of the words in the 2nd Amendment. Some of the key words which come up often in the debate over this right are; ?Militia? ?Being necessary? ?of the people? and ?arms? are all examples of words which many people have different views on. Some claim that the Militia was the form of military back in the 18th Century and the need for a national defense in which citizens who would be part of this Militia needed to keep and bear arms. Others believe this as well, but will point out that this was a State right to keep it?s borders secure in a time of war and it doesn?t mean that people just walk around with weapons for the heck of it. This brings us to the next word phrase ?being necessary?. Some believe that it is necessary to keep and bear arms at all times for hunting, personal protection and to ward off invasion. Others believe that this meant only in the time of trouble should the Militia be formed to defend its domain. The same goes for the other key words, which help keep the 2nd Amendment so vague. This is why the debate still goes on today.

This paper I will examine three points of view. First, those who are pro-gun. Second, those who are anti-gun and the third will be my point of view. Each point will examine what

 

Master_Jedi_Beefcake

You said: "The only other alternative for me would be that the government ban all weapons and issue a modified version of the single shot musket which each citizen would receive, because if pro-gun people want to go word for word with the 2nd Amendment then they should only get the same amount of firepower that was around at the time when the amendment was written."

I think you might want to amend this. Research by a number of firearms historians has shown a number of REPEATING firearms designs that pre-dated the writing of the Second Amendment. The NRA's museum has a 12-shot repeating rifle that is contemporary with the Founding Fathers (a Cookson repeating flintlock made before the American Revolution). (http://www.nrahq.org/museum/gallery/Gallery3.asp)

Granted, these were not examples that worked that well - technology had not come up to a level that would make them work well quite yet. It would take smokeless powder and the brass cartridge case to make them practical. But they existed, and I don't think the Founding Fathers were unaware of them.

I invite you to run a search on Google.com for "Puckle Gun" and "repeating crossbow" and get back to me about what firearms and other arms were known to have existed during the time the Second Amendment was written, and get back to me.

You said: "I believe that no where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that people should be allowed to carry concealed firearms. It is not safe, and that needs to be abolished. The only people who have any right to have a concealed weapon on their persons in my opinion are police, active or retired military personal. It certainly shouldn?t be just anyone. This will cut down on shootings, and will also distinguish the criminals and the ordinary citizens. I think a ban on handguns should be next, because they are so easy to conceal, plus much more dangerous than say a rifle or shotgun."

John Lott's study strongly refutes your assertion on concealed-carry laws. 32 states have shall-issue laws, and Vermont doesn't even require a permit. I know of no "Wild West" shootouts in those states, and multiple opponents of concealed carry have admitted that they were WRONG when they made doomsday predictions.

In those states, crime dropped, and the permit holders were a lot more law-abiding than the general population.

And you might want to check and see how well handgun bans worked in DC and Chicago, Illinois. Both of those cities have very high murder rates.

You said: "I believe that a mandatory training class and trigger locks should be required by law in order for you to have a firearm. This will cut down on accidents with guns involving everyone including kids."

And on that trigger-lock provision, well, David Kopel makes one point about that:

"On other hand, responsible parents who obey the law and teach their children to do the same will obey the gun-lock law. These people weren't going to commit crimes with their firearms. Because of the gun-lock laws, these people end up becoming easy prey for criminals.

In Merced, California, in August 2000, a pitchfork-wielding man attacked and murdered Jessica Carpenter's 7-year-old brother and 9-year-old sister while their parents were not home. Jessica's father kept a gun in the home that was, in accordance with California law, locked in a safe. According to the family, Jessica, age 14, is a very good shot, and had the gun not been securely stored, Jessica would have been able to retrieve it and use it to fend off the murderer.

The California mandatory gun-lock law helped kill two children in Merced."

(http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel030901.shtml)

Tell me, are the Carpenter children who died because the older sister who was babysitting them couldn't access a gun any less dead than if they had been shot? Trigger locks are not a panacea, nor are smart guns. It depends on an individual's situation.

---

I outlined earlier what I'd accept. I'll take 10-20-Life, and an INSTANT background check, with a concealed car

 

First off that repeating rifle which the NRA has was not in widespread distribution and highly inacurate.

Also this weapon in no way can be compared to the weapons we have access today. It's like comparing a sling shot to a crossbow.


As for that example of the kids who were killed. I've responded to this before. First off common sense should have RANG true to get your brothers and sisters out of the house and get them to safety. No 14 year old kid should be going for a gun. I don't care if they are a shooting ace. If they knew so much about guns then she should have known that a trigger lock was on the weapon. It is a tragety but if they had just left then those kids didn't have to die. The guy was only armed with a pitchfork. You can run away from a pitchfork. Second parents shouldn't be have a 14 year old watching all these younger kids. That is just my view, but that is the way I see it. Don't keep the kids in the house, get them out, run to a neighbor call the police and let them take care of it.

Now trigger locks and training courses is not by any means a quick fix. However I think if we impliment it and see how things go in 5 years that if it cuts down on crime, accidental shootings and such then keep it, if not get rid of it. I agree that gun control does require that you look at each situation individually, however that was not the intention of this paper, because that would take way to long. One thing that I did notice while doing my research is the conflicting statistics between anti and pro gun people. One side says one thing and the other says another. That is why you will not see many statistics in the paper. Who do you believe?

 

They couldn't run away quickly. The murderer had barricaded himself inside the home.

He'd also cut the phone lines.

(http://archive.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500243129-500359133-502102870-0,00.html)

They were trapped long enough for the guy to pitchfork two of them to death while the gun was locked, in accordance with the "safe storage" law in California which you have said you supported. They did what you said they should do, by the way. The got out as quickly as possible. The problem was, the guy managed to pitchfork two of them to death.

Had the gun in the house NOT been locked up, I think there is a good chance this situation would have ended much differently, with one or two of the children WOUNDED as opposed to two DEAD, and one wounded. After the children make their escape through the windows and run the 300 yards to have the neighbor call the cops.

Sorry, but I think it's pretty hard to dispute the notion that that trigger-lock law COST two children their lives. Never mind the fact that a ten-year old can defeat the locks. Never mind the fact that the same law that got those kids killed didn't stop a pair of school shootings in 2001 in California.

If you look at the NRA's Armed citizen database (http://nraila.org/ArmedCitizen.asp), you could probably find several other instances where children that age used guns to protect themselves and others.

I counted at least a half-dozen instances using "teenager" where a potentially tragic situation was avoided because the teenager had access to a gun. You can also probably find a fair number of other instances with "boy" or "girl" as well (you'll have to wade through about 70 stories that the latter two search terms come up with). I think it is fair to say that these number of instances (at least as reported in the Armed Citizen database) I cite probably come close to the number of school shootings there are.

The law you want might or might not prevent accidents. I think it is safe to say that your law would have prevented most of the instances where guns were used by teenagers in self-defense.

Whether or not children should be left home under the supervision of a 14-year-old is open for debate. Again, I would pointout that this is a situation where you cannot apply a blanket rule. Jessica Carpenter, by all accounts, was extremely responsible and mature for her age. One can look at some who are twice her age who and immature would be a gross understatement.

Ultimately, this has to be decided at an individual level. I think it's safe to say that the trigger lock law caused the death of those two children, and has not provided any benefits.

--

Also, I made no comments about the effectiveness of the repeater. I think it is safe to say, though, that things like the Punkle Gun and the Cookson-type flintlocks were around to make the Founders aware of the possibility that workable designs could be achieved (Franklin was quite an inventer, IIRC).

Technological advances have not been ignored by First Amendment jurisprudence (the Internet and CNN make it VERY easy for a slander to travel around the world - ask Richard Jewell) or by Fourth Amendment jurisprudence (see Kyllo v. U.S.). As such, it's safe to say that the Founders chose to allow the right to bear arms to also be advanced with technology.

--

There are a lot of contradictions in the stats. The self-defense figure has been anywhere from 2.5 million (Kleck) to 2 million (John Lott) to 1.5 million (Phillip Cook in a study for the Police Foundation).

The famous "13 kids killed by guns every day" stat is also out there - never mind that they count people up to age 19 as kids (pediatricians only go to age 14), and the rate for children 14 and under is TWO per day (actually 1.7). The other 8.3 comes from the 15-19 age group, more appropriately called juveniles. And with juveniles you have a big spike in homicide and suicide from the 0-14 age group.

Accidents? From 0-19, on the latest stats available, there were 262 fatalities resulting from

 

That is all circumstansial. Maybe, maybe not if the gun had not locked would things had been different. You and the NRA would love to believe that the gun would have solved all the problems when it could have created more. For instance say the guy knew the gun was their and was able to overpower the kid from getting to the gun and then this guy has a gun to shoot all of them with it. Instead of 2 you have all of them dead.

Neigther you or I can even judge this case without photos, and other things which go into investigating a crime like this. If someone breaks into a house and baricades themselve and has time to cut the phone line then to me that gives you time to get out,or those kids were unfortunately in a very close proximity to the bad guy so if the gun was assesible or not wouldn't have mattered.

The way it unfolds is this.

1. Guy breaks in.

2. 14 year old immediatley goes for gun.

3. However 2 kids were in close proximity of bad guy.

4. Meanwhile seconds go by while getting to the gun and then finding out you can't shoot it.

5. Trying to get kids out of house and as a result 2 kids are already dead.

Take away part 4 and maybe those 2 kids wouldn't have been killed. The 14 year old should have yelled for all the kids to get to the other end of the house and knock out a window or whatever. Stop wasting your time getting to a gun in which you may know how to fire, but didn't know there was a trigger lock on it. That is something the parent should have explained. Second the parents should have gone over procedures for emergencies such as fire or break in's with the 14 year old. I don't think a gun would help you in a time of fire. She should have gathered the kids and found the nearest window or door to go out of.


As for the ancient repeating rifle, it was nothing more than experimental and there were hardly any around. It's heresay that they knew weapons would evolve to what we have today.

 

The poblem is, I have not promised that it would have saved the lives. I only said it gave them a better chance.

The family involved, incidentally, HAS blamed the safe storage law for the loss of two children, and they're now opposig such laws elsewhere.

The link below is a letter sent to the North Carolina legislature which was considering a law similar to what you proposed. It's from the grandmother of the two dead children.

http://www.grnc.org/mary_carpenter_letter.htm

The family, which has seen that scene, is pointing a finger of blame right at the law you want to see enacted.

Read that letter, then get back to me.

 

I will not be discredited...

This is from the NCPA

There is little evidence of a relationship between the number of privately owned guns and the amount of violent crime. For example, between 1973 and 1992:

The rate of gun ownership in the United States increased by 45 percent.

The number of handguns increased by 110 percent, from 37 million to 78 million.

The national homicide rate fell by nearly 10 percent, and areas with relatively high gun ownership rates tended to report relatively low violent crime rates.
Studies claiming to show gun control measures reduce violent crime are plagued by flaws, including the failure to control for other factors, the selective use of data and the failure to measure the real impact of gun laws on the rate of gun ownership.

However, a comprehensive 1993 study covering all forms of gun violence and encompassing every large city in the nation analyzed the impact of 19 kinds of gun control measures on six categories of violence. In 90 of the resulting 102 relationships, gun control laws had no significant negative effect on violence.

Gun control laws, which usually focus on handguns, encourage the substitution of other weapons. Further, most handgun violence is perpetrated by criminals who are already forbidden by law to possess firearms and who acquire guns on the illegal market, where background checks and waiting periods are not enforced. Therefore, gun control laws are more likely to disarm the general public than criminals.

Major crime fell dramatically in states which have legalized the carrying of concealed handguns, according to a comprehensive new study at the University of Chicago.

For the first time, researchers analyzed crime statistics for all 3,054 counties in the United Sates between 1977 and 1992, according to one of the authors of the unpublished study, Professor John Lott. After adjusting for a general fall in crime rates, the study found that:

In the 31 states that now have "concealed right to carry" laws, murders were down, on average, by 8.5 percent.

Rapes were down 5 percent and serious assaults by 7 percent.

In cities with populations of more than 250,000, murder rates dropped after the passage of such laws by an average of 13.5 percent.
According to the study, the fall in crime did not result from an increased use of guns, but from potential criminals avoiding confrontations. In fact, criminals apparently shifted to lower-risk offenses, since property crimes increased in those states. Other findings included:

The most dramatic falls in murder rates were in areas where the number of women carrying firearms was high.

The study found that for every woman who carries a concealed hand, the murder rate fell by three to four times more than it would have if one more man had carried a concealed gun.

If states with concealed handgun bans had allowed them in 1992, about 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and more than 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided.
In addition, the researchers found no evidence of an increase in accidental killings or suicides in states with concealed carry laws.

Sources: Ian Katz, "'Gun Law' Cuts Crime Rate, US Study Finds," Guardian, August 3, 1996, and Dennis Cauchon, "Study: Weapons Laws Deter Crime: Fewer Rapes, Murders Found Where Concealed Guns Legal," USA Today, August 2, 1996.


Statistically and among other things, I am right.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

Jedi don't use guns. Nuff said.

 

Duckman:

Unfortunately, there aren't any Jedi on this planet.