Growing up in rural areas of Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, I didn't know anyone who would admit to not owning a gun.

Not owning one, but everyone believing that you do gives a bit of protection itself.

My wife and I have two revolvers and two shotguns in the house--I don't mention them to people--absolutely none of their business. Perhaps there is some sort of perception that gun owners are fondling, brandishing, and otherwise flaunting their fire arms, around the non-gun owning public. Whatever. As Professor V notes, says more about the quoted indvidual than gun owners, I think.

When I was growing up, my dad (who was a police officer, and therefore presumptively in possession of a gun) always told me not to talk about our guns to my friends/others. His worry, I think, being that people might try and either break in and steal them when we were not home or go looking for them when visiting. Of course, my dad's paranoid. :-)

Glenn Reynolds one told us (in Con Law class): when he was a law student at Yale (82-85), he told some classmates that he had used a firearm. He says that their reaction was similar to as if he had said that he'd eaten human flesh.

I think I can say the opposite

"Everyone I know owns a gun."

Is this also preference falsification? Because I'm reasonably sure I do know people who don't own guns, but growing up in Arkansas you rarely run into any of the "guns are evil" people.

The quote reminds me of Justice Powell's famous line "I don't believe I've ever met a homosexual,"...

Ahhh, the good old days, when that kind of information wasn't everybody's business.

TMI

Glenn Reynolds one told us (in Con Law class): when he was a law student at Yale (82-85), he told some classmates that he had used a firearm. He says that their reaction was similar to as if he had said that he'd eaten human flesh.

It's amazing the absurd statements, and obvious lies, law professors can get away with in class. No wonder when they become bloggers they get all bent out of shape when they are called on their bullshit.

Some dude: I wonder why you say so. I know my heterosexual friends' and acquaintances' sexual orientation because I often see their boyfriends/girlfriends and spouses, or hear talk about them (not sexually explicitly, of course, but in a "what did you do last week?" / "I went skiing with my girlfriend" way), or see their pictures on office desks. One would expect to know one's homosexual friends' and acquaintances' sexual orientation the same way -- unless they were trying to hide this very important part of their lives. That is in fact what happened in the "old days," but I don't see why that was "good."

poor, poor gun owners. the discirmination is unacceptable. let's make 'em a protected class!

So JFThomas: you extrapolate from Clayton's comments (an n = 1) to "a number of people.... You obviously have the data about gun ownership among posters on this site, and know that these particular posters have "an unhealthy fear of crime and strangers." Perhaps you could post your research in some academic journal, but I would submit it is not the best research method I have seen. I don't think it would get by peer review.

But seriously, I don't want it generally known that there are guns in my house, not because I fear social stigma, but because of the possibility of theft.

I should go on the record first as saying that I'm both neutral and pretty apathetic on the gun question, but I have to note the irony in the apparently prevalent concern that owning a device a primary purpose of which is often cited as the deterrence of or protection against crime in the home may actually make one's home a target for crime. Isn't that a bit self-defeating?

Of my very close circle of friends, I am the only one who does not own a gun. And I don't mean the hunting variety, I mean handguns.

Only one of these people is training for a law enforcement position. The others just like having them around.

Carrying a gun makes one the opposite of paranoid ( or in my case being surrounded by friends who all carry ). It makes you comfortable and feel safe, even when in dangerous areas of the city.

Wow!! Everyone thinking with their feelings again. I grew up and live in Seattle. I've owned a gun all my life, as do my brothers. I had dinner last night with a law school classmate; he, too, owns a gun. Gun owners are, in fact, all over Seattle. Just check attendance at the ranges.

Prof. Reynolds quote seems accurate to me. Just why "hawkins" thinks an accurate observation is "absurd" strikes me as, well, absurd. There are many people with a puerile and irrational fear of guns. They are a large part of the faculties and students in higher education. What is absurd is the irrational fear.

Thomas accuses Prof. Reynolds of being a liar on what evidence? Was he there? Why the ad hominem in the first place?

Clayton seems to me more rational than J.F. Thomas. The incidence of assault and murder in DC is sky high, especially when compared to where Clayton lives. It seems to me than Clayton is rationally assessing the risk.

In light of the tenor of the argument here, I will close with a quote attributed to Freud:

A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.

What Iolo said! We all know that the only reason there are illegal guns on the streets is that they have all been stolen from paranoid homeowners who fear strangers and crime. If gun ownership were made illegal, gun crimes would magically disappear. /sarcasm off

<blockquote>There are a number of people who post on this site who apparently think it is foolish and puts them at great personal risk to walk the streets of any major city without being armed. That kind of paranoia is ridiculous.</blockquote>

So is a persistent denial of reality.

<b>Deadly Weekend Sees 37 Shot, 2 stabbed, 7 Dead, in a single major city</b>

CHICAGO (CBS April 21, 2008) ― Five people were shot overnight in what capped off a very violent weekend here in Chicago.

In all, at least 37 people were shot, two were stabbed and at least seven people are dead.

CBS 2's Joanie Lum reports that Chicago police say that warmer weather means more opportunities for violent crime, so they are stepping up patrols and focusing their efforts on targeting gang leaders.

Most recently, A 25-year old man died after a gunman shot him in the chest as he stood with a friend in the 800 block of South Karlov at about 12:30 a.m. Monday. Police say the unidentified man was shot in the chest and the suspect ran away.

Also, two shooting victims drove themselves to Mount Sinai Hospital at about 11:30 p.m. Sunday. A 31-year-old man was critically injured and a 32-year-old woman was shot in the arm and stomach when a gunman walked up to their van and opened fire, in the Lawndale neighborhood on the West Side.

[Chicago has the <b>most restrictive ban</b> on handguns outside the District of Columbia. Cook county bans "assault weapons" and "zones-out" licensed gun shops. That is backed up by state laws requiring gun owner registration, waiting periods, background checks, a total prohibition on carrying firearms in public, etc. <b>None of it deters murderers or crime/drug gangs in the slightest.</b>]

Police admit that three dozen shootings in one weekend is a lot, but through the end of March in Chicago, violent crime was down.

On Friday, <b>15</b> people were shot — four fatally — between noon Friday and midnight Saturday, police said.

* * *

The violence continued Saturday, as <b>13</b> more people were shot — two fatally.

* * *

On Sunday, police reported <b>9</b> people were shot in six separate shootings — one of which was fatal — and a stabbing that critically injured two people.

* * *

No one has been charged in any of the shootings except for the police involved incident, where Teague was charged with murder and attempted murder, police said early Monday. Flournoy, of Des Plaines, was charged in the stabbing.

Detectives from all areas of the city, Harrison, Calumet, Wentworth and Grand Central are investigating the shootings and Belmont Area detectives probed the stabbings.

The STNG Wire contributed to this report.
(© MMVIII, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

EV--There's a ditinction: When I say to my coworkers that I took my wife on a date over the weekend, that's called actually "Being a caring husband."

On the other hand: If a gay person says the equivalent, it's called actually "Flaunting his sexual preference right in our faces."

See? So that's the distinction. Write it down.

Fixed to remove liberal sarcasm.

I have to note the irony in the apparently prevalent concern that owning a device a primary purpose of which is often cited as the deterrence of or protection against crime in the home may actually make one's home a target for crime. Isn't that a bit self-defeating?

Not every gun has a purpose of self defense. I have a valuable rifle that is very good for shooting at a piece of paper 200 yards away, but would not be very good for hunting, and would be a crummy tool for self defense.

In re Glenn Reynolds: similarly, I remember when I told my conservative friends that I ate brie and drank pinot.

Q.
Get back to us when the unit cost for your wine rises to the unit cost of your aftershave.

And a good number of the gun owners who post on this site display an unhealthy fear of crime and strangers that seems just plain unhealthy.

Thanks, J.F. Thomas! I had always wondered why I bought that gun. Now I know it was just my unhealthy paranoia. How absurd of me to think otherwise!

This conversation reminds me of something Clint Smith said, "If you carry a gun, people call you paranoid. That's ridiculous. If I have a gun, what in the hell do I have to be paranoid about?"

Its "whack-a-mole" time starring JF Thomas as the mole--Renolds didn't say all yale law studenets reacted that way, now, did he. You have an uncanny ability to take a single sentence or phrase, and from that one expression create an entire alternate universe.

Clayton revealed he would feel uncomfortable going to DC for the SC hearing if he couldn't be armed.

I'd be wary about going to DC for any reason, armed or unarmed. Part of that is because of the ban in effect, which tells criminals they are free to accost law-abiding citizens without worrying about being met with superior force, and part of that is because of the crime rate said ban has failed to reduce.

Having said that, I would note there are a number of ways to be armed without carrying a gun. What is JF Thomas' view of carrying hunting knives? Collapsible batons? Stun guns? Is it OK to carry a baseball bat for self defense, or does that make me just as crazy and bitter as the guys who need to buy ammunition?

Prof. Reynolds quote seems accurate to me. Just why "hawkins" thinks an accurate observation is "absurd" strikes me as, well, absurd. There are many people with a puerile and irrational fear of guns. They are a large part of the faculties and students in higher education. What is absurd is the irrational fear.

If you dont see anything absurd in claiming that others reacted as if he were a cannibal for simply admitting that he had fired a gun (not even a mention of ownership or a handgun for that matter), Im sorry but I am unable to explain it to you.

may I observe that hawkins and JF Thomas appear to be complete ninnies?

I have nothing against firing or owning a gun. What did I ever say that implied I did? And even if I did, how would that make me a "ninny"?

I agree with EV. When I was a kid there was a concept entitled "That's none of your business." For example, "Growing up in Seattle, I knew nobody who had anal intercourse." Those who do, don't feel the need to broadcast it to their friends and acquaintances.

I think you actually disagree with EV, then.

J.F. Thomas reminds me of "The Grizzley Man" Treadway( I think his name was). He calls those who are aware and prepared paranoid while he seems to be proud he walks the streets of a crime ridden city just daring anyone to harm him cause you know "I who am aganist firearms will not be harmed ie. hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil). It is called being childish and nieve. I hope he does not regret his silly prideful strutting. Pride always comes before the fall.

Has anybody asked Obama if he owns a gun? Maybe something he once purchased in a fit of bitterness at Washington's failure to listen to him?

Something must be said about the psychology of gun owners. There has to be something going on in your head to make you want to own a device whose sole purpose is to inflict fatal injury (or threaten the infliction of fatal injury).

The fact that people cling to them like they are their most valued possession is alarming--your most valued possession is a murder weapon? Charlton Heston and "cold, dead hands" bumper stickers come to mind.

I disagree. People have legitimate interests in owning a gun. Whether for self defense or sport, I dont think there has to be "something going on in your head."

I dont understand why some people place this above other important issues, but it is clearly an important right.

Orson Buggeigh: Same experience growing up in urban Massachusetts, but clearly that was in a time far distant from today. If I had been carrying a switch-blade or 'gravity knife', it would have been a different story, though...

KWC2000: I actually own a sharpened battle-ready sword at home, and I though it's not my "most valued possession" I do value it quite a lot. I am trained in its use, it is designed to inflict fatal injury with great efficiency, and I would not give it up even if a law was passed to make ownership illegal. (I don't carry it in public, but that is mostly a matter of style and convenience.)

Is there something wrong with my psychology as well? Do your mind reading rays of morality detect something objectionable "going on in my head"? Is it the mere possession of a firearm that turns otherwise decent people into the crazed paranoids the (ironically paranoid) anti-gun crowd sees all around them, or does any instrument of self-defense provide proof of mental instability?

There has to be something going on in your head to make you want to own a device whose sole purpose is to inflict fatal injury (or threaten the infliction of fatal injury).

I get it now! Self defense is not legitimate, and therefore preparation for self defense is not legitimate, and the ownership of an effective means of self defense is a sign of mental disorder.

Don't tell anyone you own a gun if you live or work in Berkeley CA. Owing a gun there is tantamount to possessing an atomic weapon. If you should admit it, then you run the risk of being shunned by your neighbors or coworkers. You can do a lot less than that and suffer. I know someone who worked for a small consulting firm in Berkeley. She had a good relationship with her boss until she declined to go on a peace march (this person was apolitical). After that he become somewhat nasty to her and she eventually quit. He would remarks to her coworkers like "she's a Republican." This of course is the ultimate insult in Berkeley. Better to admit being a child molester than a Republican in Berkeley.

Which brings two lessons to mind:

1. The habit of striking out and 'fixing' other posters' texts is juvenile at best, obnoxiously self-defeating at worst.

2. Hard-core ideologues on the right (the left as well, they're just less prevalent here) clearly do not understand the concept of self-parody.

Here's the distinction that should be made:

1. Telling your co-workers you went on a date with your wife? Okay.
2. Telling your co-workers you went on a date with your partner? Okay.
3. Telling your co-workers about the anal/oral sex you had on that date with your wife OR partner?
Way too much information.

When I find myself agreeing with Loki13, I know that I need to do something constructive and get back to work.

But before I do, and on a slightly different tangent, but with respect to the phenomena and not EV's example, there is always Pauline Kael's aprocryphal statement regarding Richard Nixon's 1972 landslide, "I don't know how Nixon won. No one I know voted for him."

The phenomena is based on our personal projections and experiences--we each consider ourselves rational and intelligent, so people "like us" must really be "like us." We fill in the missing pieces about what we know of others by projecting either ourselves or our perceptions of what people in a particular group are like onto them.

That is all this phenomena is about--nothing more and nothing less.

For example, without knowing more, our experiences would be that an extremely rich person living in a solidly "red" state would probably be a Republican--though that description also describes Warren Buffett, who is not.

Our experience would be that a black person is likely to be a Democrat, though Clarence Thomas is not.

And if I see a white, middle aged attorney, I will project onto that person all things about myself (since I am a white middle aged attorney) until I find pieces of that person's puzzle that prove me wrong.

Renolds didn't say all yale law studenets reacted that way, now, did he. You have an uncanny ability to take a single sentence or phrase, and from that one expression create an entire alternate universe.

No, but the way the anecdote was relayed implied that Reynolds was showing his salt of the earth UT Law Students (who probably bring their deer rifles to class) how out of touch, and what pansies, those elitist Yalies (like George Bush) are.

I can rather honestly say that there are more close acquaintances out there that know my bisexuality (n>30) than know that I own firearms (n=6). Every close acquaintance that knows I own firearms also owns firearms themselves (100%), while I've predominately discussed my sexuality to individuals who themselves are not bisexual or gay (6.7%). Leaving the field of close acquaintances and going to all individuals I interact with, I've only brought up gun ownership with individuals directly related to shooting, firearms training, gaining a CCW, or purchasing a firearm. Even of the close acquaintances, most people I discussed my sexuality with I was not particularly planning to do anything bisexual with.

There are just some very wildly different social pressures in place. I've lived in Massachusetts, where law-abiding gun owners are treated like felons-to-be. Revealing gun ownership there won't just get stares like you've committed cannibalism; it's enough to get you fired, have your car searched once a week, or have political pressure to get your ownership permit revoked suddenly appear.

It's been thirty-five years since gay people were being thrown at psychiatrists. It's been five days since a state governor suggested every gun owner be thrown to the shrinks. It's been more than twenty years since sexual orientation discrimination laws were first codified in state law. Individuals, like Chris Byrne, fired suspiciously close to the time a boss found out about their gun ownership, are in a fairly common situation with little legal recourse, and are opposed by folk whose particular brand of bigotry is not considered socially unacceptable.

That's just been my personal experience, but I think it's a non-trivial one.

Im still waiting to hear an explanation of why George Smith called me a "ninny."

But I must know serial killers since serial killers exist.

I do. Several years ago, I read a book discussing psychological profiling of criminals. To my shock, one of the criminals profiled was a guy I had grown up with, a couple years older than me. Like most serial killers, he used a knife. The second time he killed, he took the knife from the victim's kitchen drawer. He wasn't a very successful serial killer, though, he was put away after the second time.

(1) Hypocrisy. I suspect that a large number of the gun-owning "how dare you impose your morality on me" types are the same people who vote against gay rights. I should support your right to carry a murder device, but somehow my brother's marriage to a man should be forbidden. We call that "hypocrisy."

Maybe it would be best to inquire regarding everyone's views, rather than making uniformed blanket assertions.

It's always interesting to me when the discussion turns to guns. I am generally liberal, but probably to the right of most posters here in regards to guns (I figure if you're out of jail and not on probation, your gun rights should be restored). That being said there are those on both sides who act like complete morons when the subject comes up. Some say it reveals a problem with your morality to own a gun, because it is only capable of causing death...bullshit. Others say NOT owning a gun implies that you aren't willing to use lethal force in self-defense and that also implies a problem with your morality. Where do people come up with this??? Lots of people don't own guns because they don't believe the hassle is worth the low risk of being in a situation where its needed. If you disagree, great, own your guns. I'm one of those who doesnt' own a gun (this may change soon) but would absolutely defend your right to own one.

When does a fear of crime become irrational? That depends on the probability of becoming a victim. If the probability is very small then I would say the fear is irrational. But if it exceeds 10% then it’s rational to be fearful. When soldiers perceive that they stand greater than a 50% chance of getting killed they will mutiny or run.

So how dangerous are US inner city neighborhoods? Very dangerous— especially if you live there and are white. La Griffe du Lion provides the probabilities in his essay Crime in the Hood. He computes the probability that a white person will become the victim of a violent crime as a function of the neighborhood demographics. That magic 50% point occurs when the neighborhood is more than about 87% black. Of course that’s living there. The probability of becoming a victim with one trip into such a neighborhood would be about 0.14%, assuming living there is equivalent to 355 trips. That’s a pretty small number, so I conclude that there is no need to carry a gun if you plan a single trip into a dangerous inner city neighborhood. But if you live there, you better pack.

"I do not know any serial killers. But I must know serial killers since serial killers exist. The only fault is that in the universe of people whom I know, none have admitted to their true nature."

while you make a good point from a logical stance, let's remember that gun owners (in seattle area certainly) are very very very common. so, are concealed weapons holders.

serial killers, not so much. although we have our fair share :)

i can tell you there are a LOT of people carrying in the seattle area. using my "keen powers of observation" (20 yrs on the street), i can frequently make out the "telltale" bulge on people when i am downtown seattle. and of course far more carry than i can make out the bulge. i know from citizen contacts, that a fair %age of people are carrying. in terms of carrying legally, i almost never contact a SUSPECT (of any crime) who is legally carrying a firearm, that i am aware of. since i pat down a fair %age of suspects (and all of those i arrest), that stat is reasonably accurate. the last one i remember was a DUI driver about 5 years ago. i fairly frequently encounter witnesses and victims who let me know they are carrying (since you rarely have reason to pat down a victim/witness, you aren't gonna know unless you tell them).

my point is it is quite easy for the average seattleite to walk around assuming that they are surrounded by people similarly unarmed as they are. the reality is that a pretty fair %age of people are carrying. moreso in the unincorporated rural areas of course. but plenty in the city.

much as the average new yorker can go many years if not their entire life on average, and never see a NYPD cop with their gun drawn, it does not follow that NYPD cops don't fairly frequently have to draw down on suspects.

a seattleite can walk around for 20 years and never see a single civilian with a gun, yet they encounter hundreds if not thousands.

fwiw, i don't carry concealed because i FEAR crime. i carry because i want to be prepared.

similarly, i don't fear my house being burned down. but i carry insurance for the same reason.

gun owners are more often than not Republican and that Republicans...

believe in the virtue of self-reliance and self-sufficiency. They don't expect a government agency to bail them out in a crisis. Further, it is settled law (see, e.g. Bowers v. DeVito) that the state generally does not have an affirmative duty to protect citizens from private acts of violence.

I don't think it's that controversial that gun owners are more often than not Republican and that Republicans are heavily engaged in the practice of moral regulation (especially most and most recently against gays).

Oh please. What else is the entire panoply of liberal dogma - from gay "rights" to gun control to the environment to affirmative action to "economic justice" - but a system of moral regulation that liberals are aggressively, and successfully, promoting, most often under the aegis of the Democrats?

Similar to A. Zarkov's comment about Berkeley....I live in Seattle and in the course of discussing my frustration that the ABA had used my dues to file a brief in the Heller case, it came out that I owned a gun. Now the reaction hasn't been quite as bad as the time that I suggested that it was possible that Bush didn't actually lie about WMD (perhaps he actually believed exactly what Bill and Hillary believed at the time, however wrong it was), but I am now considered that "crazy gun guy." The extreme reaction of many really has surprised me.

the way the anecdote was relayed implied that Reynolds was showing his salt of the earth UT Law Students (who probably bring their deer rifles to class) how out of touch, and what pansies, those elitist Yalies (like George Bush) are.

Mr. Thomas, please check your facts before posting and making balnket assumptions/stereotypes. UT students are not allowed to bring firearms on campus.

rarango posts: Congratulations, KWS2000: I didnt think it was possible to string together three of the most uninformed, judgmental, and erroneous statements I have seen. But you did it! Well done. (my note: thats a rant?--nahh, snarky, but not a rant)

KWC200 posts: Rarango: Disprove; don't rant.

OK--Show me your data for: "I suspect that gun types are homophobic" not your words, but i think my paraphrase is accurate...

(2) You ASSUME that gun owners are paranoid: show me the evidence that says they are before you make the assertion

(3) Whit demolishes your argument about the sole purpose of guns being to take lives (and as a shooter of sporting clays, I can assure you those clays feel no pain).

When you provide some evidence for your assertions, I will assume you arguing in good faith; until then, I will just assume you rendered your opinions on the readership as some sort of brilliant argument. Not nearly as brilliant as you seem to think it is.

Mr. Thomas, please check your facts before posting and making balnket assumptions/stereotypes. UT students are not allowed to bring firearms on campus.

Not true. I have been to UT football games, and there are always armed students (or at least one student) at every game. (You will find that this is a true, if completely deceptive, statement).

Obviously you don't appreciate sarcasm.

The fine citizens of Hyde Park, home to BO, are similarly dismissive of guns (and the evil police) until someone from the nearby ghettos come into the neighborhood for the easy pickings offered, be it some poor grad student from an African nation or other limousine lib. as to guns and this past weekend in Chicago, the simple fact is that we have lots of gangs who like to shoot their rivals. I, in all honesty, don't particularly care if gangbangers shoot one another. Of course, the actions of the politicians and the good reverends is directed at guns and not the moral failings of their constituents and flocks, leading me to believe they don't much care either.

"I suspect that gun types are homophobic"

Like THIS?

youtube.com/watch?v=ixnYHSYzHtk

The statistical, per capita, odds for being the victim of a violent crime are roughly one third that of the odds of being in an automobile accident, using 2003 numbers.

But the chances of being a victim of violent crime are much lower if you don't hang out with or around criminals and bad people. Most victims of crime know their attacker and most murder victims are not very nice people to begin with. And even when fine upstanding citizens are killed it is usually because of some domestic dispute. Ordinary people being killed for no reason in random violence or even during the commission of another crime are truly outliers. Crime occurs in clusters, while auto accidents are well-distributed across the population.

(1) Hypocrisy...

(2) Paranoia...

(3) Denial...

That's some fine trolling. Does your mommy know you're using the computer?

I carry a firearm for self-protection. I also keep a fire extinguisher the car. Does that mean I'm paranoid of fires?

I don't have any guns, but my father has several and taught me to shoot when I was growing up. In Massachusetts. Sounds like things have changed.

What I do have is archery equipment, which is stored in a way that makes it absolutely useless for self-defense. But I suppose I could use it on the offense if I took it out and put it together in advance. People have used bows to rob convenience stores in the past, and of course there's always the precedent of the Battle of Agincourt.

But if I really wanted to kill someone, I have lots of other options. Cooking knives. Golf clubs. Heavy brass lamps. A significant percentage of the things in my toolbox. And a few of the bottles under my kitchen sink, if it comes to that.

What's with the fixation on guns? Is it some Darkover novel thing, where people should only be able to inflict force if they come within range of having it inflicted right back? Or is it part of a cultural aversion to 19th Century industrial technology, with all the ugly dark metal? I'm not sure I get it. Stuff is stuff, and the reason I don't go around braining people with my golf clubs isn't that they come equipped with a locking mechanism. It isn't even that the people in Berkeley might disapprove, odd as that might sound to them.

Ordinary people being killed for no reason in random violence or even during the commission of another crime are truly outliers.

Yes, and because the risk of being mugged or killed is small, it's unhealthy to carry a weapon as a precaution. It would be much more healthy to just hope that you never end up a statistic, and if you do, well, them's the breaks.

You know it is really ridiculous that you keep insisting that a pocket knife (that you could—and I regularly did—carry on airplanes pre-9/11) is an effective self defense or offensive weapon. Especially if it doesn't have a locking blade, you are much more likely to hurt yourself than anyone else if you get in a knife fight with a pocket knife.

My current pocketknives are a CRKT M16-10KZ and a Taylor Cutlery (aka Smith and Wesson branded) SW990TA. Neither of them are ideal weapons, but they'd be fairly good in a knife fight; they're long enough to cut the important tendons in an individual's arms, are a locking and straight blade respectively, and are light enough weight to be easily handled.

I'd prefer a real gun, a >50kv taser, several cans of mace, and a pair of long butterfly knives, respectively, but the pocket knives are a lot easier and more legal to carry in more places.

Fub: don't forget your elbows, knees, and forearms. But thanks for making the point, I was waiting on KWC2000 to try extending his ridiculous philosophy further down his train of "thought" before raising the issue.

"But the chances of being a victim of violent crime are much lower if you don't hang out with or around criminals and bad people."

true. although many people can't choose their neighborhood (at least $$$ wise), or their neighbors.

" Most victims of crime know their attacker and most murder victims are not very nice people to begin with. And even when fine upstanding citizens are killed it is usually because of some domestic dispute. Ordinary people being killed for no reason in random violence or even during the commission of another crime are truly outliers. Crime occurs in clusters, while auto accidents are well-distributed across the population."

again, true. but auto accidents are much like violent crimes in that in many cases the victim did at least something to contribute to them becoming a victim.

in the case of auto accidents, at a minimum - not driving defensively, etc.

you can certainly decrease your chances of being in a collision OR being a victim of violent crime.

other factors are more out of your control (where you live, what roads you need to travel to get to work). another factor often out of control is WHEN you drive. there are far more drunk drivers, etc. (dangerous drivers) after 10pm on a friday night, then on a sunday at 1pm. but if you gotta be at work at 1030 pm, you are more likely to be a victim in your commute, then somebody who drives in stop and go traffic at 900 am.

etc. etc

i think we can both agree there are affirmative steps you can take to minimize your chance of victimhood - while driving, and while walking around (violent crime violence). people should drive defensively. people should also not do generally stupid stuff (like stumble drunk through a dark alley at 3 am while wearing an expensive watch and muttering about how much money you have in your wallet ) :)

Disclaimer: I'm pro 2A (and "out" about it).

I consider myself that way too, yet comments on Gun Rights Threads here never fail to make me a little bit nervous, or at a minimum feeling the need to argue against some of the things said here.

Well yes, I am much more likely to get killed slipping and falling in my bathroom. Yet it is unhealthy for me not to take a bath.

Sarcasm, J. F. Thomas; J. F. Thomas, sarcasm. Do you work at being this obtuse, or does it come naturally?

I don't actually believe the Glenn Reynolds story; it seems far too close to an actual documented quote of Scalia's:

This is such a minority position in modern academia and in modern legal circles that on occasion I’m asked when I’ve given a talk like this a question from the back of the room — “Justice Scalia, when did you first become an originalist?” — as though it is some kind of weird affliction that seizes some people — “When did you first start eating human flesh?”

But the notion that this story is absurd makes no sense. Lots of urban liberals really do react that way to guns. There are hysterical parents who won't let their kids play with kids whose parents own guns. Etc.

I suspect the gear you carry runs close to being accused of the mindset JF Thomas and KWC2000 suspect gun holders to have.

The funny thing is that I got into these sort of tools back when I was pretty heavily antigun. I don't like the 'tacticool' nature, but unlike those cruddy SAKs, you can get them out quickly and do a lot of useful stuff with them.

I was more than a little willing to give up the awl, corkscrew, and nail file out of place in exchange for something that could actually cut cardboard.

"Well yes, I am much more likely to get killed slipping and falling in my bathroom. Yet it is unhealthy for me not to take a bath. "

but it is entirely prudent for you to get some cheap grippie things for the surface of your bathtub. that's a nice safety measure.

i used to be a lifeguard (D000000d!). the chances of somebody drowning at the beaches is very very small even w/o a lifeguard (realizing that some poor swimmers might only select lifeguarded beaches thus skewing the stats). yet we hire lifeguards with taxpayer money!!!

what it comes down to is that it's a good thing to be proactive and take personal responsibility for one's actions, and one's safety. we take calculated risks every time we drive, every time we step out the door, etc. that's life.

nobody should live cowering in fear. but it's cool to be reasonable about protecting oneself- wearing a seatbelt, not driving drunk, carrying a gun, having homeowner insurance, setting stop losses on your latest futures trade.

and when i engage in risky behavior (i used to surf alone all the time in massachusetts. not a lot of surfers where i was, so hard to arrange for company at times). is that risky? yes. but it's a personal choice.

if you don't want to carry a gun, that's your choice. and if i want to carry one, that's mine.

The reason most gun owners do not openly tell others they own guns is that it is the easiest way to get a visit from the police. Sure you might just be ostracized by your so called friends but often the anti-gun person will report you, especially if your carrying. So you get a visit where you have to explain your carrying a weapon as all the police get is a report of someone with a gun. Often this is as far as it goes once you show your permit but some aren't above lying which might cause the officer to have to sort out a claim of brandishing.

But the notion that this story is absurd makes no sense. Lots of urban liberals really do react that way to guns. There are hysterical parents who won't let their kids play with kids whose parents own guns.

Reynold's equated their reaction to someone speaking on the having my arm for a meal. Obviously there is a bit of hyperbole in that statement, but still I doubt that people were aghast in horror. I know some of these urban liberals, and while they might make that decision about their children and guns, firing a gun isn't some alien concept that would elicit shrieks and disgust. None of us have proof on this anecdote, but it sounds like complete shenanigans to me.

But I've run into enough people of questionable mental stability on the streets of both DC and my home town of Philadelphia to feel more comfortable being armed

I hope you are not implying that you would be justified in shooting a mentally ill person. Because that is exactly the one of the reasons I oppose CCW. It may encourage people who should retreat to stand their ground, leading to tragic deaths of people who are not responsible for their actions.

I get a reaction like unto I've confessed to worshipping Nyarlathotep underneath the full moon while naked and covered in pudding.

So no reaction at all? It is California after all.

can you present us any evidene that CCW laws adversely affect the homicide rate (by making it go up, despite the fact I don't particularly care about the gang population destroying itself). if John Lott is having you believe something, you should have reams of data showing us how the homicide rate explodes.

I hope you are not implying that you would be justified in shooting a mentally ill person. Because that is exactly the one of the reasons I oppose CCW. It may encourage people who should retreat to stand their ground, leading to tragic deaths of people who are not responsible for their actions.

Except that that doesn't seem to happen in states that have passed it, and I certainly don't advocate people running around executing the mentally ill. Most of us are more than aware of when you can and can't use deadly force. Mentally ill person in your face and scaring you, move away... fast. Mentally ill person in your face and threatening you with a weapon, you're justified in using deadly force. Most people who aren't psychopaths are going to be very reluctant to kill another human people. People with concealed weapons licenses are no exception to that.

can you present us any evidene that CCW laws adversely affect the homicide rate

Is this directed at me? If so, you need to reread what I wrote. As far as I know, and I would love to know if any such surveys exist, nobody has ever done a survey to find out if concealed carry goes up when such laws are loosened (i.e., just because people get CCW permits, do they actually use them, or do those who get permits and actually carry just legitimize what they were doing illegally).

I'm just going to assume that JF hasn't spent much time hanging around with urban, "upper class" New Englanders

True, grew up in the midwest, so even the anti-gun people aren't shocked by the existence of such.

But both John Kerry and George Bush are "upper class" New Englanders (and they went to Yale). They spent the entire 2004 election trying to prove who loved guns more.

I suspect KWC2000 may be related to the nice lady who once upon a time checked my security clearance renewal paperwork for completeness and physically recoiled when she noticed that I held a Curio &Relics Federal Firearms License (obviously this particular petty contract bureaucrat wasn't a DoD or LE employee). A nice, boring legal professional and family man might actually collect vintage guns? Oh, my... better schedule him for a psychological evaluation!

Irrational fear of firearms is, unfortunately, rampant in certain segments of society. In my "other career" as a Scout leader in a fairly well-off suburb of a major city, I've had several discussions with mothers (but seldom fathers for some reason) of Scouts, where mom was somewhere on the spectrum between concerned and hysterical over the prospect that her child might actually have an opportunity to learn to fire a single-shot bolt action .22 rifle at Boy Scout summer camp. Only once was I unable to assuage parental fear by explaining (1) the safety emphasis in Boy Scout shooting sports, (2) the benefit of having their son carefully educated to respect and understand the dangers and capabilities of firearms, should they ever find themselves in a situation where they got access to one (e.g., at a friend's house), and (3) if all else fails, reminding them that it's the BOY SCOUTS, for crying out loud, not an apocalyptic right-wing militia (let's not go off-topic and relitigate BSA v. Dale, folks -- keep in mind that families who willingly enroll their sons in Scouting generally have already decided BSA isn't a Nazi front organization).

Incidentally, the one parent who never gave permission for their son to use the Boy Scouts' rifle range? Had no problem with him spending his time with a compound bow on the archery range next door. Go figure...

Has anyone actually figured out how many people actually carry.

Not every permittee carries; last December California State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata was carjacked at gunpoint in north Oakland. Perata, who received his CCW permit fifteen years ago, was not packing at the time.

In February, Perata gave his gun to a gun buyback program he helped arrange at a church in Oakland. However, he turned in a .357 magnum (according to the Oakland Tribune) while back in 1999 he owned a 9mm Beretta (according to a 1999 story in the SF Chronicle).

My children aren't allowed to have toy guns

My wife's cousin forbid his children to have toy guns. One day he noticed his son ate his breaded veal into the shape of a gun and was shooting at another child with it.

One experience I had in this area was in Con law in LS. The prof asked a feminist to take the anti-abortion side of Roe v. Wade. All hell broke loose. A number of the students signed a petition condemning him for this, and the general consensus seemed to be that there was no anti-abortion side to this case. Never mind the flimsy support that the case had at the time it was decided. It was only as it played out, and in private, that I discovered that a number of the students were in reality pro-life, or, like me, ambivalent (I am a guy, after all), and were offended that this case could not be discussed rationally in a Con law class. My guess is that maybe 1/2 of the class was strongly pro-choice, maybe 1/4 ambivalent, and 1/4 pro-life. But you would never have known that from what happened in class and in the attempt to sanction to prof (who turned out to be pro-choice, but IMHO doing his job). Absolutely no one stood up to defend him in class or to take the anti-abortion side of the case.

As an atheist who thinks the 2nd amendment should be repealed, Obama's recent comments were the gospel truth.

When I read the stuff from gun owners, it makes me wonder, 'what the HELL are they thinking'? Gun ownership seems to be a fetish that gun owners simply can not explain. It's risible when gun owners say they don't talk about guns for fear of being ostracized, when, in fact, if you question gun ownership, they look at you as if you just got off a spaceship.

There is no justification for gun ownership at all. Gun ownership has no logic and the 2nd, which was written over 200 years ago, is in desperate need of being repealed.

"There is no justification for gun ownership at all. Gun ownership has no logic and the 2nd, which was written over 200 years ago, is in desperate need of being repealed."

Would you say there's no justification for the other Amendents as they were written a long time ago as well?

I read that article. Interestingly, the only person in Seattle I know is a gun nut.

I live in Seattle and in the course of discussing my frustration that the ABA had used my dues to file a brief in the Heller case, it came out that I owned a gun * * * but I am now considered that "crazy gun guy." The extreme reaction of many really has surprised me.

Do your associates know that there are over 300,000 untrained, untested, carry permit holders in Washington state? That the law has allowed this for almost fifty years? That those permit holders, that they've never heard of, commit an infinitesimal number of crimes (of any type)? And that, when they go out for dinner tonight, there is a one-in-twenty chance that a fellow diner is carrying.

Our victim, W/M, stated that on Tuesday, April, 8, 2008, at 12:30am, he was walking in the 500 block of Burgundy when he was approached by an unknown black male who produced a pistol and pointed it at the victim.

I'm assuming this was in New Orleans. Obviously our victim was lucky his assailant apparently didn't intend to use the gun he pointed at the victim. He's lucky he didn't get shot while drawing his gun.

bpuharic wrote:
As an atheist who thinks the 2nd amendment should be repealed, Obama's recent comments were the gospel truth. . . .

There is no justification for gun ownership at all. Gun ownership has no logic and the 2nd, which was written over 200 years ago, is in desperate need of being repealed.

With the caveat that I've previously been accused of missing intented sarcasm in posts and may well be guilty again --

I'm sure we all wholeheartedly support your Constitutional right to express this view, no matter how wrongheaded. If you really believe this, Article V of the Constitution provides your remedy. Good luck getting the Second Amendment repealed... you'll need it...

bpuharic wrote:

When I read the stuff from gun owners, it makes me wonder, 'what the HELL are they thinking'? Gun ownership seems to be a fetish that gun owners simply can not explain. It's risible when gun owners say they don't talk about guns for fear of being ostracized, when, in fact, if you question gun ownership, they look at you as if you just got off a spaceship.

This is just begging for someone to rewrite it, substituting "gun banners" for "gun owners", etc... how do you do that strikout trick?

There is no justification for gun ownership at all. Gun ownership has no logic and the 2nd, which was written over 200 years ago, is in desperate need of being repealed.

Now let's all just sit in a circle, join hands, and sing Kumbayah! Seems to me that this rabid irrational desire to disarm me provides sufficient logic to refuse to be disarmed. Kind of a self-fullfilling prophecy. Fortunately, those who want it repealed are heavily outgunned by those of us who are totally unwilling to even consider the possibility.

As I said, no gun owner's ever been able to explain why guns are needed. And so far in this forum, that statement remains true. Diversions and non sequiturs are offered in place of explanations.

And that's pretty much the entire argument.

Furthermore, it assumes that such permit holders are carrying even when they know they may be consuming alcohol. I thought that was something no responsible gun owner would do.

You have a drink every time you go out to dinner? Does one beer make you lose complete self-control? Even for driving a car, which is far far more hazardous than carrying a firearm, the legal limit is 0.08. I actually have no problem with regulations prohibiting CCW holders from consuming alcohol while armed, but it seems to me that it would make about as much sense to do the same for drivers.

And it is a ridiculous assertion that Yale law students are going to react in such a way to someone who says they have fired a gun. Maybe he got that reaction out of some tree-hugging granola girl as he recounted some hunting adventure. But to say that he told "some" students and their reaction was revulsion is just bullshit

Because you say so, right?

Persuasive.

When I read the stuff from gun owners, it makes me wonder, 'what the HELL are they thinking'? Gun ownership seems to be a fetish that gun owners simply can not explain. It's risible when gun owners say they don't talk about guns for fear of being ostracized, when, in fact, if you question gun ownership, they look at you as if you just got off a spaceship.

There is no justification for gun ownership at all. Gun ownership has no logic and the 2nd, which was written over 200 years ago, is in desperate need of being repealed.

Let's start simple.

I enjoy target shooting. For that purpose I own a rifle. (the same rifle is used for hunting, but that's not my point)

I can verify with absolute 100% certainty that my rifle has never been used to harm a human being.

I am just as sure, although the future can never be verified, that it will never be used for that purpose, given that it's securely kept unloaded and inside a gun safe except when it's being used.

Can you prove to any reasonable degree, that prohibiting me from owning this firearm will provide a benefit to society?

As someone who follows the gun debate quite closely as a completely seperate academic interest, I'll venture that you can't do so without cherry picking evidence. There are studies out there that show a small correlation between gun control legislation and reductions in crime. But there are just about as many studies that show the opposite.


Just starting with this simple proposition. The least controversial (and possibly least important) of any potential use a gun might have, and assuming the smallest potential burden for justifying the legislation. In my opinion, this can't be proven.

bpuharic wrote:

As I said, no gun owner's ever been able to explain why guns are needed. And so far in this forum, that statement remains true. Diversions and non sequiturs are offered in place of explanations.

And that's pretty much the entire argument.

Because that's pretty much all you provided. Conclusions, no substance.

Actually, they gave plenty of explanations, you just refuse to acknowledge them because they are so far removed from your own reality. Works both ways.

J.F. Thomas

So perhaps we should institute designated shooter programs.

Those are called bodyguards.

Now let's see...11,000 dead from gunfire last year. And the justification for gun ownership?

Uh...trap shooting. I'm sure the 11,000 former human beings who are now corpses would agree.

As to "Kumbayah"...another diversion and non sequitur from the gun crowd. You're proving my point.

Thanks.

As I said, no gun owner's ever been able to explain why guns are needed.

As I said, no homosexual has ever been able to explain why gay marriage is needed.

You are simply beclowing yourself.

Wow.

Because this is not a situation I ever care to find myself in.

Here's the problem.

Some people, likely including the one you're responding to, see the alternative headline to the one you're giving to be "Man shoots three teens in self defense, wounds innocent bystander."

Some might well read this story and see such a man as a champion of the right of self defense. Others will see him as an overly nervous gun owner who overreacted to a situation.

I might well lean toward the former group, but EVERYONE can admit that this is a controversial situation.

That's why I started simpler. I firmly believe that it's not the job of the government to prohibit private ownership and or use of anything unless it can be proven to a pretty significant degree that the prohibition will benefit society. The added protection the second amendment provides , which in my opinion ought to be Strict Scrutiny, and the right of self defense only heighten this burden.

Emotional responses aside, I don't think a "ban" on guns can even meet this rational basis (not the legal term because I'm talking about going behind the rationale for a policy). Some other regulations might and I might be willing to consider those, but I want to see evidence.

And the justification for gun ownership?

Uh, it's actually appalling to watch you pretend to care that anyone has died from firearms. You're simply a fascist.

End of discussion.

Some people, likely including the one you're responding to, see the alternative headline to the one you're giving to be "Man shoots three teens in self defense, wounds innocent bystander."

Care to link us to some articles where "innoncent bystanders" are shot in the course of another person using a firearm for self defense?

"Let's start simple.

I can verify with absolute 100% certainty that my rifle has never been used to harm a human being. "

That's true. Today. Tomorrow? Maybe not. Why should my life be in your hands without my having a say so?


"Can you prove to any reasonable degree, that prohibiting me from owning this firearm will provide a benefit to society? "

If we banned ALL firearms, 11,000 people would be alive today who are not...killed by firearms last year.



"As someone who follows the gun debate quite closely as a completely seperate academic interest, I'll venture that you can't do so without cherry picking evidence. There are studies out there that show a small correlation between gun control legislation and reductions in crime. But there are just about as many studies that show the opposite. "

Trying to control guns in this country, without banning them, is like trying to control the ocean from a liferaft.

He's making a moral argument.

Against gay rights or for gun rights?

He's making a moral argument

Really?

It doesn't appear to be the case.

That's true. Today. Tomorrow? Maybe not. Why should my life be in your hands without my having a say so?

How is my rifle going to endanger your life given that (in it's current state) it's nothing more than a strangely shaped piece of metal locked up in a safe in my basement?

To use my rifle to endanger anyone's life, a criminal would have to first break into my house. Second, break into a solidly constructed steel safe, which is no minor undertaking. Third, go find ammunition from a different source. Fourth, actually use it to harm someone.

I also happen to have a tank of propane on my porch to fuel my grill. Sitting out in the open. If a criminal were to steal that, they would have the materials to make a very significantly sized explosive device. Not to mention a powerful tool for arson.

Even with the understated assumption that I have the same right to grill as I do to own and use a rifle for personal enjoyment. Can you logically argue that there's more risk from the unloaded rifle in a safe in my basement than there is from the thousands of BTU's of contained energy sitting freely available on my porch?

If we banned ALL firearms

Would you like me to link you to figures regarding the increasing crime rate in Great Britain after their gun ban?

Australia?

I bet you believe nobody drank during prohibition.

You good little fascist you...

Does anyone truly think that otherwise law-abiding citizens who carry are more likely to commit a crime than they are to deter one?

Ace writes:

"As I said, no gun owner's ever been able to explain why guns are needed.

As I said, no homosexual has ever been able to explain why gay marriage is needed.

You are simply beclowing yourself."

The same argument applies to straight folks, I guess. Such logic! (And what does freedom have to do with guns anyhow?)

He also writes that cars kill more people than gun owners do. So? Cars have a use. Guns do not. If we banned guns, nothing would happen except a lot of people would still be alive. If we banned cars our economy would collapse.

Common sense makes the best attempt to provide a reason for gun ownership:

"Reason 1: entertainment. Whether its hunting or trap shooting, that is a justification, although maybe it doesn't meet your personal standard. "

Unfortunately, there are 11,000 corpses who aren't in a position to assert their 'personal standards' either...those folks having been killed last year by gunfire.


"Reason 2: Self Defense. The police cannot, will not, and are not required to provide defense. They merely have to apprehend criminals after the act. Thus, many responsible people feel that having a weapon for self defense is required, although most hope they never have to use it."

And if there were no guns in our society, those who use guns in crimes would be fire less likely to use them in an attack.

"Reason 3: Although this is far fetched, anyone who believes in the legitimacy of the United States must acknowledge a right of revolution, although the grounds for that right are of considerable debate. The only way to affect that right is to be armed. "

That may have been true 200 years ago. The outcome of such an event today is more likely to resemble Lidice than the American revolution.


"I don't think those are diversions. Although you may personally disagree with any of them, sufficient people in this country agree with at least one, and thus the law stands as it is. That's the price of living in a republic"

That's true. Just as, at one time, most people opposed integration.





"and the proof that banning guns outright will reduce this number? or alternatively not simply replace it with 11,000 dead from illegal guns or from stabbing?

If you examine the evidence carefully, it just isn't there. Gun laws just don't have a statistically significant effect on crime rates either way."

Tell it to the Japanese, the British, the French, the Canadians, etc. etc. all of whom have lower incidences of gun related deaths than we do.


The Ace writes:

"And the justification for gun ownership?

Uh, it's actually appalling to watch you pretend to care that anyone has died from firearms. You're simply a fascist.

End of discussion."

ANOTHER non argument!

The argument made was that its hypocritical to interfere in people's lives...

Indeed, but the person making that argument was the one indulging in that hypocrisy unless they support gun rights as well.

"Unfortunately, there are 11,000 corpses who aren't in a position to assert their 'personal standards' either...those folks having been killed last year by gunfire."

How do you know many of these people wouldn't have died by other violent means (all would have died eventually.) I daresay it would have been a measurable number.

bpuharic

As far as self-defense, a gun isn't required for a crime. However, it is a great equalizer for someone who is frail to assert their right to self defense. Nothing, not mace or tazers, equalizes a woman to a rapist like a gun.

As far as revolution- I would argue about the ability to successfully revolt today (as would the Iraqis), but the same arguments were made in the 1700's. For the time, the British's technology far out did our own, especially at sea. Just because people don't think that a right has any use means that we should eliminate the right. I don't think anyone would argue that the conditions required for a revolution are applicable today, but that doesn't mean we should forego our means for executing that right.

Finally, you isolate gun deaths without looking at deaths as a whole. If gun deaths increase, but the violent death rate as a whole declines, isn't society better off? Earlier commenters posted evidence indicating this might be the case.

Care to link us to some articles where "innoncent bystanders" are shot in the course of another person using a firearm for self defense?

You know that wasn't my point.

My point was that people think that way. You can't convince someone of anything if you can't figure out where they're coming from in the first place.

The secondary point was that, whether rightfully or not, the actual use of lethal force in self defense is a controversial subject. One need go no farther than the story of Bernard Goetz to see that. Totally regardless of whether or not he was justified, a great many people were concerned by his acts. Which is just an explanation of why I started my argument the way I did. It was a way of isolating the relevant issue, the only thing controversial about target shooting is the gun ownership itself. Beyond that, you get more and more areas a person can potentially find to disagree with.

I've been a member of a gay gun club for quite a few years now. It isn't the mainstream middle-aged white guy that is in dire need of self-protection, it's the women, minorities, and otherwise downtrodden that benefit the most.

There is a severe social stigma about firearms ownership within the gay community. It took years before people stopped spitting in our direction at the Pride weekend events.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

He also writes that cars kill more people than gun owners do. So? Cars have a use. Guns do not.

Cars get you from point A to point B. Guns sling projectiles at high speeds. Both functions can be undertaken by other instruments, and the fact that you prefer the former's functions over the latter's is not an argument that makes a speck of difference to any debate, anywhere.

If we banned guns, nothing would happen except a lot of people would still be alive.

Another bald assertion, and I'll note that attempting to enforce such a ban would likely spark a civil war by the people who understand the purpose of firearms much better than you.

If we banned cars our economy would collapse.

If we banned cars a lot more people would still be alive than if we banned guns, unless there is some high incidence of horse-related deaths I'm unaware of. Why should one result be preferred over the other? For economic reasons--which implies you have some specific value per human life in mind when you make these judgement calls?

The rest of your comments are self-evidently ludicrous, and at the risk of you screeching yet again about a lack of argumentations against your own unsupported assertions, I will decline to rip them apart individually.

And if there were no guns in our society, those who use guns in crimes would be fire less likely to use them in an attack.

I don't really have the time to become an expert swordsman. Or do you really think if you could somehow take all the guns out of society and completely forget the technology, which you can't, all the violent psychopaths in the world would suddenly love kittens and hug puppies?

Tell it to the Japanese, the British, the French, the Canadians, etc. etc. all of whom have lower incidences of gun related deaths than we do.

What about the swiss? What about Washington DC Crime rates? What about the fact that Japanese Communities within the US have gun related deaths closer to those in Japan than those in other parts of the US?

If you're going to assert evidence you have to be fair and look at all the evidence. And again, when you look at all the evidence, you just can't make that assertion.

When 32 kids were killed at VA Tech last year, their families shouldered the burden, both emotionally, and financially, for that crime. Most states have laws to force car owners to pay into a fund for uninsured motorists. But those who own guns get an economic free ride. They kill, wound, and the rest of us pay for it in higher hospital bills, funeral costs, loss of income, etc.

That's a bit of a non sequitur don't you think?

Some here might be opposed to such a thing in principle, but I would at least be open minded about a tax on the sale of guns to mitigate the negative effects of the presence of guns brings. The second amendment might have an effect on this, but given that it's not been conclusively decided, I can't say what it might be.

I say ban breathing, it's a sure ticket to certain death.

Yes. Because no one uses C3H8 to commit murder. They routinely use guns for murder.

Also, just as a sideshow

Story of an attempted murder using a propane cannister

Stories of many crimes and serious accidents involving propane

I find it quite humorous that so many of you take this "gotcha" tone with your weak, weak arguments. For instance, the whole whole "I have my hands and those are deadly weapons" argument is so incredibly flawed. Amnong other clear flaws, the fact that you are insisting with the same breath that you need your gun for self-defense (or the best self-defense)undermines your point that you are so deft with your hands.

While half of you are arguing that I have no "proof" that the guntoters are homophobes and thus hypocritical regarding their "how dare you impose morality stance", the other half is making homophobic anti-gay comments and trying to distinguish gay rights and gun rights. It's absolutely hilarious.

Hoosier's video provides insteresting insight re: the homophobes. See youtube.com/watch?v=ixnYHSYzHtk

What about the fact that Japanese Communities within the US have gun related deaths closer to those in Japan than those in other parts of the US?

And where exactly are these Japantowns that are large enough to make a statistically meaningful comparison? Except perhaps Hawaii, which has the strictest statewide gun control regs in the country.

and thus hypocritical

No, you are hypocritical regardless of what gunowners (who are all het?) think about gay rights. You're the one who wants to restrict the rights of innocent people.

It would be interesting if there were evidence showing what correlations there are between gun ownership and support for gay rights, and gun ownership and sexual orientation. There does seem to be a common bias to blind stereotypes to the point that people think they never met a gun owner or homosexual (or evangelical or drug legalization proponent.)

In an urban office environment, talking about gun ownership isn't typically something that would come up in casual conversation. I don't think that's because gun ownership is viewed all that negatively, it's just people want to be careful about what they say in the workplace, much like you don't ask co-workers about their religion or political views.

Tony Tutins says I'm engaged in magical thinking because I think guns should be banned in the US. He admits this is a violent society. I guess he thinks matches and gasoline have no relationship to explosions, either.

As to his reference to Mexico...it seems he's never been there. Mexico is a 3rd world country. America isn't. There's a big difference.

As to gays and guns, I read the "American Rifleman"...and distinctly remember Charleton Heston's tirades against gays in that magazine.

Yet women still get raped..and murdered. How many women were murdered by guns last year? How many were shot by their ex lovers, jilted boyfriends, etc.?

Are armed women over- or under-represented in the victims?

30yearprof:

My associates probably assume that all of those 300,000 live east of the Cascade Mountains. :)

I once had an interesting experience in a diner. I was with about 10 people who I had known for about three years. One of the women asked me to get something from her purse because it was close to me. I happened to notice that she had a gun in there, and I kind of unconsciously mumbled something in pure surprise like, "You have a gun?!".

Five people at the table, all of whom I assumed did not have guns, remarked that they too were carrying guns at that time. The gun owners outnumbered the non-gun owners. These are all people I had known for years and had assumed were not carrying guns.

As to his reference to Mexico...it seems he's never been there. Mexico is a 3rd world country. America isn't. There's a big difference.

So you openly admit that there are other factors that affect violent crime rates, but insist that the only significant reason America has higher crime rates than some other countries is because we lack gun control?

He also writes that cars kill more people than gun owners do. So? Cars have a use. Guns do not. If we banned guns, nothing would happen except a lot of people would still be alive. If we banned cars our economy would collapse.

Guns do have uses. I offered trap shooting as one example. Hunting is another, self-defense is another, and civilian training for armed conflict is another.

Is this really that hard?

2. widely publicizing one's gun ownership would help dispel some of the stereotypes about who own guns.

Indeed. As gays coming out of the closet was mentioned. All gays aren't drag queens or bathhouse, um, bathers. Most gun owners aren't like what some think, nor are those who carry.

Unbeliever: I will not engage your sophistry; it has become quite tedious.

What's interesting about the trolling on the comments is it (the trolling) exposes part of the reason that most gun owners don't mention they own guns. There is a significant but very vocal minority that appears to equate ownership of one gun, any gun, with being some type of nut.

This is true. Most people are actually just fine with it, even if they aren't actively pro-2A, but often there are one or two busybodies who are more than happy to be the turd in everybody else's punch bowl.

an actual argument to offer.

I take it that he thinks rejecting gun rights is as immoral as rejecting the rights of gays. This has merit.

I assume you are refering to rape devices?

Of course. Hegemonic troglodytes with underdeveloped rape devices feel the need to collect murder devices to compensate. It's all starting to make sense to me....I feel more enlightened already.

J.F. Thomas has a remarkable capacity for not understanding. I prefer not being disarmed in a big, crime-ridden city like D.C. Why? Because it has a horrendous murder problem. Not so much around the Supreme Court--but you do have to drive through neighborhoods that aren't quite that safe. The risk is relatively tiny that you will be a victim of a serious crime is small--but the consequences are horrendous. I know way too many victims from growing up in Los Angeles.

If J.F. Thomas was arguing that gun ownership is bad because there is a horrifying high crime problem, and banning guns would reduce this problem, this would be at least a logical argument. But his argument against being armed, and against gun ownership, is that there is really no significant risk of being a violent crime victim. This makes no sense.

Thomas thinks that because a mentally ill person is not responsible for their actions, using a gun in self-defense is wrong. Here, Thomas demonstrates that he is completely out of touch with reality. There are large numbers of incidents in which mentally ill people, often with guns, but also with knives, swords, and personal weapons, commit murder. The victims have a perfect right to prevent being murdered, maimed, or badly injured REGARDLESS of whether the attacker is sane or not. Only a deranged liberal would argue that you don't have the right to defend yourself from a violent attack.

For a liberal to whine about conservatives trying to impose their moral values through the law is hilarious. When, ever, have liberals attempted to persuade people to their position, instead of using the power of the government to force people (often a majority of the people) to follow their wishes?

The difference between J.F. Thomas and me is this: while such laws are certainly constitutional, I do not support sodomy laws. What consenting adults do in private should not be the government's business, and it doesn't matter if it is sodomy, employment, or photography. Liberalism of the J.F. Thomas variety is a form of totalitarianism in Birkenstocks.

There is a severe social stigma about firearms ownership within the gay community. It took years before people stopped spitting in our direction at the Pride weekend events.

Think of that as a statement that those spitting at you knew that you weren't prone to flying off the handle and shooting at people for no good reason.

JKB, where exactly do you live? Because I can think of few things less likely than a visit from the police at my home because somebody reported to them that I was carrying a gun. (Like whit, I live in WA, just a little south of him.)

J.F., the reason he mentioned the mentally ill is that they commit a fair amount of the street crime (as well as being victims of it, of course.) For example, remember the Westlake shooting in Seattle? This was considered a completly justifiable shooting by the prosecutor and absolutely no charges were filed against the shooter. The subject of the shooting, who was carrying out an assault against the shooter, was quite possibly mentally ill, and had spent a fair amount of time in prison after trying to burn down his mother's day-care center. He started that day's spree by a bunch of loud public ranting quite near my son's apartment on Boren Ave, then wound his way down to Westlake--arguably Seattle's highest-end shopping district--where he picked the wrong person to randomly assault.

30yearprof,

there is a one-in-twenty chance that a fellow diner is carrying.

That seems to be pressing the raw stats into saying something they don't actually say. First of all, the fact that someone holds a permit doesn't say whether they're carrying at any given moment. Secondly, in the opposite direction, there will doubtless be some who carry even though they don't have a permit. I'm not aware of any surveys that try to measure the actual percentage of the population carrying at any given moment (though some of us do our best to keep the figures up!)

Ace, I'm sure there are some incidents where innocent bystanders are hurt during an instance of lawful self-defense, but my guess is that they are fairly rare. If it were not so, I'm sure my friends the Bradys would have informed me by now. :-(

"Most gun owners aren't like what some think, nor are those who carry." Yep. Understatement of the year. Short example from last week at the trap range. I sat down to lunch mid-day, and was across the table from a plastic surgeon and sitting next door to a tile-setter, retired teacher down the way chatting with a college girl. It takes all kinds folks. I'm sure the same is true with CCWs. Shooting sports are great social levelers - redneck golf as it were.

What the leftists can't see is that the prupose of a gun is not to kill people. The purpose is to stop people from killing people. A gun can be used very successfully without being fired.

But leftists only see the rare cases when a gun needs to be used or when it is misused.

Lonely Capitalist: (1) I don't think this is a leftist/capitalist issue. Plenty of leftist regimes in latin america rely on militia power; (2) prove that gun misuse is rarer than its positive use.

Unbeliever:

The fact that you seriously uttered the phrase "sharpened battle-ready sword" makes you a total tool. Sorry. You are probably 5-5 and 200 pounds. I just can't take you seriously.

The whole "gun for sports" thing makes no sense as does the "everything can be used as a weapon mantra". What the heck does that prove? Nothing.

THe point is that guns are NOT for sports. They are for killing. The "sport" part is just a rehearsal for the real thing. You people switch to whichever gun use makes your point, all the while offering disingenuous pro-gun arguments. Is it for self-defense? To shoot clay discs? NO. It's to supplement your weak and frail egos. To make you feel like a man because you don't feel like one otherwise.

That something can have multiple uses doesn't prove anything. When banning obscenity, people look to pornographic materials, not to shoes -- eventhough to some shoes are the ultimate turn on. This is because porn is designed to be evoke a prurient interest, as are guns designed to kill.

When the disingenousness ends, the conversation can really begin.

"THe point is that guns are NOT for sports. They are for killing. The "sport" part is just a rehearsal for the real thing."

This statement demonstrates that you have little knowledge of firearms or the people who use them for sport and defense. Skeet shooting is pretty poor practice for the defensive use of firearms. Go to a gun range if you want to see how people practice for the combat use of guns.

"It's to supplement your weak and frail egos. To make you feel like a man because you don't feel like one otherwise."

Your statement here is a good example of psychological projection. You see in others what you feel yourself. It also shows you have no substantive arguments to advance. Like Thomas you just start name calling because that's all you can muster.

Why should my life be in your hands without my having a say so?

You put your life in the hands of total strangers without having a say so every time you get in a car - and on any given day, your chance of being killed by an irresponsible stranger with a car is far higher than your chance of being killed by an irresponsible stranger with a gun.

THe point is that guns are NOT for sports. They are for killing.

Even if one accepts this... so what? Sometimes killing is both just and necessary, and in such cases, it is entirely correct to have the proper tool to do so (a gun).

Have to disagree with those saying the anti-gun crowd is a small minority. I wish it were true...but it ain't.

I do believe people who may have some anti gun tendencies are not a small minority. However I believe that the portion of the population that has views like bpuharic; supporting a complete and utter ban on all firearms/repealing the 2AM is thankfully a small minority.

KWC.
Ref talking about hands and so forth:
Thing is, I can kill you with my hands. You can't kill me.
The lack of guns means the big ugly guys get to do pretty much what they want.

Who favors submitting to an attack without offering resistance while waiing for the police to answer a 911 call? If it's OK to resist, is it OK for a 100 pound woman to use a gun to resist a 200 pound man? Or should she slug it out rather than keep a gun in the house?

Here's the link:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1030769

It IS a leftist issue. The socialist countries you mention are only ok with guns when they are in the hands of the authorities. Those that are completely against guns are really just against private ownership. The root mentality of the leftists/socialist/fascist is hatred of the individual. The individual’s right to defend himself (or worse revolt) is something to be debased, slandered, and weakened when possible. This is not a ban on violence it is a ban on individual power and a transfer of all power to herd control. The leftist hatred for "gun nuts" is the hatred of the herd member for the non-herd member.

My experience is the gun debate is a more practical, if subliminal, debate over the rapidity of the availability of firearms if needed. It's not a debate over guns, just how quickly they can come to your defense. To illustrate.

1. I live in a blue state. I have never owned a gun, although I have a minor amount of experience firing them and have no moral or practical problem with them. My estimate of danger is a balance of x (likelihood of needing one), y (the personal cost and hassle of owning one, including staying current, keeping it safe etc, likelihood of children in the house, etc) and z (speed with which local police would arrive carrying their guns), and I thought the balance favored the police. Note this is not a pro or anti gun argument, it's just a practical calculation. My view is that most anti gun people unconsciously make the same calculation, and live in areas where they believe the police are nearby and the hassle of owning a gun (largely imposed by the invasive state) are quite high. They may cast this calculation in moral tones (gun owners are evil and I am not) or psych tones (gun owners are crazy and I am not) but what they are really doing is in fact relying on their estimate of the likelihood that policemen armed with guns will arrive quickly enough to make their personal gun ownership unnecessary. They in fact have no problems with guns, they just want to outsource their use.

2. My wife's family, also entirely from blue states, owns a farm in s. dakota (oddly, as a place to go on vacation - they are all gentlemen farmers). The place is an arsenal. None of her family, not one, owns a gun in their respective blue states. But you could start a decent insurrection with what is present in their farm (and they are all pretty good shots). Why? Their farm is 40 miles from the nearest town (in the black hills) down an unpaved road the whole way. There are no cops. However, there are black bears, rabid racoons, nasty coyotes and lately, rabid cougars (one of which was recently shot under another farmer's pickup truck, where it had apparently gone to die), leaving aside the occasional dubious human (the sturgis bike rally being an annual nearby event). If you are out hiking, fishing, or even driving your car, whatever, you are completely, utterly on your own. There you bring a big noisy dog (you learn to appreciate other animals' fear of big noisy dogs, truly man's best friend when you have no other) and a gun (in case the dog dies in your defense). Again, an utterly rational, if somewhat subconscious calculation.

3. The big city anti gun folks, in my estimation, argue for gun restrictions because they think they can tip the balance further in the favor of the police, NOT because they think guns are in fact evil. They just want to outsource, if possible, the necessary violence involved in their personal self defense. Not irrational, although subject to debate as any practical calculation is. The situation in Wash DC and Chicago seem to indicate that this tipping calculation is probably wrong, and that they might be better off if many of their fellow law abiding citizens were armed, but whatever.

But in the black hills, the calculation is so far in the other direction that it would probably be clear even to the most ardent anti gun person. Come out to the farm with me, hear something snuffing around the house at two in the morning, see the big noisy dog go ballistic next to your bed, and you will understand without further reflection why the guns hung on the wall actually work and why the ammo is not locked up.

3. Is this contradictory? Not at all, in both cases, my nice suburban blue state, and sodak, guns are readily available for my defense. In my suburban town, I outsource the job to the cops, and in sodak, I insource the job to me.

4. Recently, an event occurred in my blue state that should make all the anti-gun folks think twice. Typical hollywood scenario, nice suburban family (doctor, blah blah) killed by rampaging crack-heads, tortured all night long, etc. with all the hollywood extras, recently released on parole etc. The cops? Surrounded the house early in the morning while waiting for backup, and apparently, a sign from god. Evidence is the family was still alive when the police arrived. They were not once the event ended. Cops arrested the crackheads because they crashed their getaway car during their getaway. Found the dead family later. Very nice town, high taxes, nice family.

Conclusion? The policeman's first job is to keep himself alive, not you. He's armed, but job 1 is still job 1. Secondly, police are paramilitary organizations that follow rules. Rules that say things like surround the building and observe to determine a course of action. Now a crackhead may be raping your daughters and killing your wife while you watch, but until the sun comes up, you are probably, under their rules of engagement, on your own, while they watch from across the street. So the anti-gun folks who rationally estimated that armed police are close at hand may have to re-evaluate.

I and my wife have re-evaluated. We are now armed. No big deal, and no different that sodak. Only at our house, and our children are grown and gone. I understand the limitations of the police (better than a few months ago) and don't fault them for it. I also don't perceive the same risks in my car or at work, so I didn't bother to get a CCW, although it isn't too difficult in my state. But I was wrong when I estimated that the fact that the cops are 9 minutes away meant that armed men would be inside my house in 9 minutes defending me. Try four or five hours. So ok, I was wrong, and I have changed my estimate. The scenario that occurred in the nearby town would result in my visitors being on the wrong end of a brand new Remington 870 (which if it did nothing else, would render them permanently deaf - did I mention that next to the ammo are hearing protectors? - I intend to still be able to listen to Bach after blowing large bloody holes in my visitors). And we just acquired a very friendly, but big, noisy rescue dog. He seems very very grateful. Just like the one the neighboring farmer keeps for my wife's family in sodak. No big deal, no moral whinging one way or the other, just a practical estimate of the risks. If the dog can't scare them off (which actually is quite likely - nobody likes big angry dogs, not humans, bears or cougars), and can't disable them, then everyone on my team will need hearing therapy and the dog will probably need that and some paxil. Oh well, you live, you learn. Or is it, you learn, you live?

And to prove it to you, if you take my guns away from me I'm going to come kill you with my machete. It's a lot messier than a gun.

I am inclined to believe that J.F. Thomas and most other antigun fanatics aren't motivated by a desire to set up concentration camps or other forms of totalitarianism. My problem is that once they have concentrated power in the hands of the state, what prevents people who have those sort of ambitions from acting on those desires?

There is no reason for anyone to get "touchy" about guns. The only part that I am touchy about, it is in my opinion a protected right that is before the court now. What bothers me more is the willingness of some to dismiss a constitutional right simply "because". If you don't like a constitutional provision, there is always article V, and that is really the issue. The anti 2nd folks simply do not have the political capitol to change the constitution. The base of this argument will become clearer (I hope) near the end of June.

What some seem to forget, is that one protected right dismissed by less than constitutional methods lays open others to be dismissed by less than constitutional methods. In other words, do it right or do not do it at all.

TLove,

I thought the balance favored the police.

I assume you've never been the victim of an assault? Oh, I see as read further down the page--it is a long post, after all (not that there's anything wrong with that!)--you're one of that rare breed that can learn from other's misfortunes, rather than having to experience them for yourself. Good call on your part.

As for your #3, your interpretation sounds good, but one thing that's missing is an explanation of why we should consider your take on it over the actual words that the big-city anti-gun types actually use.

Tlove:

Welcome to the real world. Not only are the police fettered by rules of engagement, they might not even come. I made a call to the Oakland Police at the highest priority. I told the operator that my life was in immediate danger. The police didn't come. I called back. The operator said that they didn't intend to come because they were too busy. You also have to understand that there is a political component to this story. I lived in a largely white neighborhood in a majority black city with a black government. My neighborhood didn't get much in the way of police services as a matter of policy. Neighbors with friends in the police department were told to "get guns" because protecting my neighborhood was not a priority. The primary function of my neighborhood was to pay taxes and shut up. Being mostly good liberals they did just that.

The point is that guns are NOT for sports. They are for killing.

Then why are most firearms manufactured today designed to be more useful in sport shooting than in killing? For instance, single shot target guns, black powder firearms, obsolete (for self defense) single action revolvers, large heavy target rifles, long skeet and trap shotguns, and so forth.

To make you feel like a man because you don't feel like one otherwise.

Right. Come on down and tell my women students that. Let me get out of the way first.

(2) prove that gun misuse is rarer than its positive use.

Depending on which study is cited (and some of the studies come from anti-gun sources) between 500,000 and 3,500,000 people use firearms to defend themselves annually, most without having to injure anyone. Firearms are the only method of self defense that will deter a violent person enough to make him cease an attack, and are therefore the least violent means of resisting. Justice department statistics show that people attacked by criminals are most likely to be injured if they resist without a firearm, less likely to be injured if they don’t resist, and least likely to be injured if they resist with a firearm.

The way guns appear to function in the movies and on TV usually bears little relation to how they function in real life.

I really believe there is a school in Hollywood that teaches actors the wrong way to handle firearms. They can’t all be that bad by accident.

But I was wrong when I estimated that the fact that the cops are 9 minutes away meant that armed men would be inside my house in 9 minutes defending me.

I work for an agency that helps sexual assault survivors. Part of the training involves 911 tapes. Three minutes is a hell of a long time to listen to someone scream. You made a good decision, and I hope you never need to implement it.

Nothing stops women from carrying guns today.

Except the laws of many states, plus loony attitudes like yours.

Yet women still get raped..and murdered. How many women were murdered by guns last year?

Zero.

How many were shot by their ex lovers, jilted boyfriends, etc.?

You tell us. Don't forget to also include, for comparison's sake, the number killed or seriously injured by their ex lovers, jilted boyfriends, etc., without guns.

Ruralcounsel says that guns cause a lower incidence of violence. He offers no proof of that whatsoever. None at all.

Even if one rejects John Lott's work, his critics, in attempting to rebut him, showed that guns had no effect on violence.

Brett says our rights aren't dependent on hoplophobes. Unfortunately, our right to life, it seems is dependent on gun owners...they can take it away at will!

Ben P thinks there's no correlation between the level of violence in a society, the presence of guns, and murder. Guess he doesn't know who's buried in Grant's tomb.

MXE thinks that, no matter HOW dangerous, anything should be permitted in society if someone wants it.

As to Heston's homophobic bigotry, see:

vpc.org/nrainfo/statements
vpc.org/nrainfo/excerpts
celebritywonder.com/html/charltonheston_trivia1

(note '.html is needed at the end of each URL. this site does not allow long URL descriptions)

he also appeared in a photo with the head of the racist group "Council of Conservative Citizens":

netglimse.com/celebs/pages/charlton_heston/index
(needs .shtml at end)

(although Heston was not a racist)

Uthaw says that we put our lives in the hands of strangers every time we use a car. Fine. If gun owners agree to the licensing and testing and taxing, etc. associated with owning a car, that's a good start.

Semper's irrational response to an imaginary 'bpuharic', in whose mouth he puts imaginary words, merely proves my point. He has no use for the fact that 11,000 people were killed last year by guns so he makes up whatever he needs to demonstrate his case.

Elmer tries a not very subtle comparison to outlawing drugs...ignoring, of course, that drugs are an addiction. While guns do seem to have similar effects on many of their owners, causing them to suspend rational judgement, gun ownership isn't an addiction.

As to Nieporent's view of Lott's work, all murders are violent, but not all violence is murder. Murder is quite easy with a gun.

Semper's irrational response to an imaginary 'bpuharic', in whose mouth he puts imaginary words, merely proves my point.

Dude, if I were you, I would be the last person to be complaining about imaginary words in imaginary mouths.

You fit a pattern. In my personal history of being involved with the shooting sports, I've encountered dozens of people both online and in person with your attitude. You bring nothing to the discussion I (and others) have not seen dozens of times over. You cannot be reasoned with, because reason isn't what drives you.

He has no use for the fact that 11,000 people were killed last year by guns so he makes up whatever he needs to demonstrate his case.

I'm very aware of the number people killed by firearms last year. I keep track of it year to year, it comes with the territory. Here's a quick quiz: Was 2007 higher or lower than that 11,000 figure you keep spouting off without a link to your source? (speaking of which... The FBI disagrees with your 11,000 figure). Where did you get that 11,000 number again?

The difference between J.F. Thomas and me is this: while such laws are certainly constitutional, I do not support sodomy laws.

Actually Clayton, the difference between you and me is I respect the rule of law. You apparently believe that sodomy laws are constitutional, when the Supreme Court has ruled that they are not. Obviously you think you are the ultimate arbiter of what is or is not constitutional, not the pesky government.

Folks, did y'all notice when the comments on this thread disappeared for a time? Given the number of craven violations of this blog's quite reasonable comment policy (see below the comment box), I'm sort of surprised the thread actually came back, or at least came back without the comment function locked out. Professor Volokh, you obviously have much better things to do than police comments, but in extreme cases I think most users and visitors will understand the occasional need for thread euthanasia. Even those of us who fervently believe that free and unfettered expression of opinions is almost always a societal good. This thread struck me as an appropriate candidate for application of what my criminal law professor long ago described as the "Texas defense" to homicide: "the snake needed killin'."

In the meantime, a thought for all: "Please Don't Feed The Trolls."

Let's just let this thread quietly bleed out on the sidewalk, OK?