Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Gun Sales Up, Crime Down

January 2, 2013 by  

Gun Sales Up, Crime Down
PHOTOS.COM

Gun sales are up in California and, contrary to what politicians and the media say, gun deaths and injuries in the State are down sharply.

Firearm dealers in California sold 600,000 guns in 2011, almost double the number sold in 2002. Over the same period of time, hospitalizations due to gun injuries declined from about 4,000 annually to 2,900, a roughly 25 percent drop, according to The Sacramento Bee.

Health records from the State also indicate that there was an 11 percent drop in firearm-related fatalities, which fell from about 3,200 annually to about 2,800.

What is happening in California also appears to be playing out on a national scale.

The FBI reported a record number of background checks (16.5 million) were conducted in 2011 for individuals who were purchasing firearms. During the same year, FBI numbers showed a 4 percent decrease in violent crime throughout the Nation.

Gun control has become one of the Nation’s hottest topics following the tragic murders of elementary school students in Connecticut last month. President Barack Obama has vowed to use the full power of his office to make stricter gun laws during his second term, and a handful of liberal lawmakers are preparing bills that include draconian gun-control measures.

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Gun Sales Up, Crime Down”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • phideaux

    Mr Rolley don’t confuse the gun grabbers such as eddie and Flashy with facts it makes their heads hurt so they get testy and lie compusiflvy.

    • Vicki

      Shhhhh… Don’t tell Flashy or eddie47d. It would just upset their excuses.

    • eddie47d

      May not have a thing to do with guns [comment has been edited]! I love when Conservatives admit when crime is down because that is another one of there favorite boogie men when crime is up!Crime is down yet the Conservatives bellyaching is still at fever pitch! Generally when the economy of any country is sour crime goes up so I wonder why its different this time. Could it be that the American people (at least normal ones) have a healthy respect for the efforts that Obama has put forth and that has kept crime down.

      • ranger09

        EDDIE47d, You made a statement That( Anyone who kills has mental problems.) Well i guess that you mean all the Americans that have died in wars. ? Had mental problems.
        EDDIE you are the Mental Problem, And People that think like you. Or as a lot of people on here think, You do this as employment. or you are just a plain Dork.

      • Vicki

        Darn. I told them not to tell you cause it would only upset your excuses and low and behold here you are to prove the point. :)

      • Kate8

        phideaux, ranger and vicki – Here’s one better.

        A new strategy for 2013 (they’ve left us no choice):

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/a_2013_conservative_call_to_arms.html#ixzz2Gqb49PYo

        Who knows. While I realize this is not really in the nature of conservatives to do this, it might actually be fun when we get the hang of it.

        Sometimes you just have to fight fire with fire. As long as we’re holding the truth, it’s all within bounds.

      • mr_bad_example

        eddie, you’re such a glutton for punishment, you have nothing better to do than draw insults and degrade yourself.

      • Mac M

        Wait for it Eddy, wait for it. The Crime against person rate is down, but now that Obummer and his cronies have got their way the Cliff crap, crime against Property is going to go up. Never fails. Your car can’t shoot back when it is stolen, but someone with a gun, damn sure might. If you were the thief, which one would you attempt to steal from?

      • Bad Bob

        Eddie47d
        Anyone can type but if ever you want to debate this issue with me one on one, or Hell, one on bring all your friends, Sarah and Side Show Brady, Rebecka Peters, BaRack Obama, and Satan himself and I will beat you on every point. I would bring 17,000,000 with me that have up close and personal knowledge on gun control to cheer me on but they are all dead.

    • wandamurline

      Just got to hear an audio tape of Dianne Feinstein where she was a permitted gun carrier awhile back and said that she needed to protect herself…and that if someone took her out, she would take them out. HYPOCRISY at its highest level. Again, they want guns to defend their children…David Gregory and BO send their kids to a private school that has ELEVEN (11) armed guards…they just don’t think that the common people like us deserve to have the same safety net as their kids get.

      • eddie47d

        Yes Wandamurline they have to be armed to protect themselves from being assassinated by the likes of you and your continual threats against them.

      • Gordon

        Making bodily threats is as assine as it is stupid.

      • FreedomFighter

        Eddie, most of the mass murders in this centruy if not all, have been commited by satanists and Radical Islamists and those that identify with liberalism — no conservatives

        In fact liberal progressive supported laws and goals are contributing factors in all the mass murders of this century…

        1. Liberal progressive creation of GUN FREE ZONES or KILLING ZONES
        2. Liberal progressive responses to mental illness thru the ACLU making it more difficult to commit dangerous psychos
        3. Liberal attitudes of acceptance to dangerous cults and religeons such as Radical Islam and Satanism — almost all the mass murders of this century in America are either Satanists or Radical Islamists
        4. Liberal media spewing hour after hour of coverage of tragidy – creating copy-cat killers that want a few minutes of infamy.

        So if the elite are protecting themselves from anyone, they are protecting themselves from the monsters they know they have created.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 2, 2013 at 9:33 am

        Yes Wandamurline they have to be armed to protect themselves from being assassinated by the likes of you and your continual threats against them.
        ______________________________________________________________________

        And exactly what threat was made moron?
        And so you also admit that they are “special” and the rest of us are just cannon fodder for criminals, is that right?
        You really are a piece of work you low life maggot.
        Screw you! We ALL have the right to self defense whether you like it or not.

      • eddie47d

        Freedom Fighter: Yesterday someone said that the USA had the most mass murders in 1929. (I don’t know if that is true or not) but there were few Islamics living in this country back then so maybe you are mistaken. Besides Islamics are very Conservative not Liberal in any way. Saying that people are Satanic is a stretch or is that another Conservative code word to confuse others? Anyone who kills has mental problems even Joe normal who whacks his wife.

      • eddie47d

        JC: I have never said you don’t have a right to defend yourself so back off on the lying. [comment has been edited]

      • FreedomFighter

        The mass murdres in this century eddie…1929 is last centruy… so ok, those mass murders 1929 were by ? socialist nazi sympathizers…progressive liberals are socialists…

        In fact communist/socialists governments have murdered 100 million in other countries and now you socialist commies are wanting to do it in America.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Robert Smith

        Eddie asks: “Saying that people are Satanic is a stretch or is that another Conservative code word to confuse others? ”

        “Satan” is a part of the christian thing.

        There are religions that don’t have a counterpart to the god. Those folks take personal responsibility for “sin” and don’t blather about a “satan” made me do it.

        Rob

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 2, 2013 at 11:50 am

        JC: I have never said you don’t have a right to defend yourself so back off on the lying. [comment has been edited]
        _____________________________________________________________________

        You said that they needed to protect themselves from Wandmurline’s threats.
        Is what you said….
        Do you even know what day it is?

      • Right Brain Thinker

        FreedomFighter says, “Eddie, most of the mass murders in this centruy if not all, have been commited by satanists and Radical Islamists and those that identify with liberalism — no conservatives”

        FF, would you not consider Timothy McVeigh a “conservative”? Began as a registered Republican, later voted Libertarian, supported the militia and sovereign movements, born a Catholic (and he was over there in Desert Storm shooting some sort of “Islamists”, wasn’t he?) Sounds pretty conservative to me Or does the fact that he later started calling himself an “agnostic” somehow equate with being a “satanist”?

        And we could spend some time talking about the idea that “radical Islamists” are actually among the most “conservative” folks on this planet, and they were responsible for 9/11. So, can we agree that the two worst mass killings in this country were perhaps the work of “conservatives”?.

        Laus Veritas
        S/F

      • FreedomFighter

        Like I said: Not a conservative

        Sorry RB, BS fail.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and asks:
        “FF, would you not consider Timothy McVeigh a “conservative”?

        We would consider him a “patsy”, “fall guy”, “useful idiot”, “scapegoat”, “mole” maybe even an agent provocateur. We might even consider him stupid.

        However the paradigm of interest is 100% vs limited vs 0% government. Conservatives tend toward limited government. Liberals tend toward unlimited (100%) government. Democrats tend toward unlimited government. Republicans tend toward unlimited government at a slower rate. This will help your understanding of some of the apparently odd bed fellows in the sub groups of Americans.

        Here is a video that goes into detail of the paradigm of interest for all Americans.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4r0VUybeXY
        And possibly for all freedom loving people in the world.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “There are religions that don’t have a counterpart to the god. Those folks take personal responsibility for “sin” and don’t blather about a “satan” made me do it.”

        Quite true. They also don’t blather about a gun made him do it either.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        FreedomFighter says, “Like I said: Not a conservative. Sorry RB, BS fail”, whatever the heck that means. BS is when I present some FACTS about McVeigh that you don’t like? I guess it really means that FF just doesn’t like “inconvenient truths” and doesn’t want to discuss them.

        And Vicki says pretty much the same. Even though McVeigh would seem to be a “conservative” by many of the measures we can apply, Vicki finds that to be “inconvenient” as well, and even goes so far as to say “the government made him do it”, in apparent reference to the conspiracy theories that abound in the land of the parrots and circular firing squads.

        So much for trying to have a rational discussion about what FF said—-motivated reasoning and denial rules, apparently.

        And thanks for the attempt at educating me about the “odd bed fellows”, Vicki, although I have been around for a long time and am quite familiar with them. They are not “apparently” odd, however. Some are truly “odd” in the fullest sense of that word. (You and FF among them). Although I must admit, I HAVE learned something about people who CALL themselves Libertarians while visiting PLD—-some eye-opening there.

        Sic Semper Veritas on PLD
        S/F, FF

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker doesn’t and says:
        “And Vicki says pretty much the same. Even though McVeigh would seem to be a “conservative” by many of the measures we can apply,”

        Since your entire source of information is what the obviously biased MSM told you, your assumption that McVeigh is conservative by any measure is suspect.

        ” Vicki finds that to be “inconvenient” as well, and even goes so far as to say “the government made him do it”, in apparent reference to the conspiracy theories that abound in the land of the parrots and circular firing squads.”

        Amusing failure to comprehend followed by ad hominem attempt to demonize based on a statement that was not made by me. And all after a proof by bald assertion ( McVeigh would seem to be a “conservative” by many of the measures we can apply,) Including the appropriate weasel words “would seem” when the original proof by bald assertion was

        January 2, 2013 at 1:00 pm
        “FF, would you not consider Timothy McVeigh a “conservative”? Began as a registered Republican, later voted Libertarian, supported the militia and sovereign movements, born a Catholic (and he was over there in Desert Storm shooting some sort of “Islamists”, wasn’t he?) Sounds pretty conservative to me Or does the fact that he later started calling himself an “agnostic” somehow equate with being a “satanist”? ”

        And in there he spent most of his dialog trying to lead the witness. (Would you not consider….)

        Perhaps RBT is a lawyer in RL.

      • JC

        The following letter, written by U.S. Marine Joshua Boston and headlined “No ma’am.,” was posted in the CNN iReport on Dec. 27 with the included note from the producer and photo. It has struck a nerve with many and is being circulated around social media venues like Twitter and Facebook.

        Senator Dianne Feinstein,

        I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

        I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

        I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

        I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

        We, the people, deserve better than you.

        Respectfully Submitted,
        Joshua Boston
        Cpl, United States Marine Corps
        2004-2012

      • Bad Bob

        HYPOCRISY is right I would put one between that waste of good dirt’s eyes before she could crawl back into the wood-work.

    • JeffH

      The village idiot says “May not have a thing to do with guns [comment has been edited]! I love when Conservatives admit when crime is down because that is another one of there favorite boogie men when crime is up!Crime is down yet the Conservatives bellyaching is still at fever pitch! Generally when the economy of any country is sour crime goes up so I wonder why its different this time. Could it be that the American people (at least normal ones) have a healthy respect for the efforts that Obama has put forth and that has kept crime down.”

      Let’s try to break this comment down to an understandable level.

      1. “May not have a thing to do with guns [comment has been edited]!” But it does!
      2. “I love when Conservatives admit when crime is down because that is another one of there favorite boogie men when crime is up!” Confused and nonsensical…ie right is left and up is down. Note the emphasis on the exclamation mark for effect.
      3. “Crime is down yet the Conservatives bellyaching is still at fever pitch!” Emotionally charged comment that fails to acknowledge that increasing legitamate gun ownership has an actual effect on the reduction in the crime rate.
      4. “Generally when the economy of any country is sour crime goes up so I wonder why its different this time.” It’s different because of the publics increased gun ownership which is proven to be a strong deterrent against crime.
      5. “Could it be that the American people (at least normal ones) have a healthy respect for the efforts that Obama has put forth and that has kept crime down.” The “normal ones” have recognized that neither the government, the states and the local police can consistantly prevent crimes or prevent crimes through legislation. The “normal ones” have also learned from the history of gun control.

      Some Gun Control Facts!
      http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/guncontrol.htm

      1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

      1929 The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

      1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

      1938 Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

      1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

      1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

      1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

      “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” -Adolph Hitler 1938

      We should NEVER forget that Lenin, the Communist Revolutionist, was an agent of the GERMAN government. What is not commonly known is that Stalin murdered nearly 6 million Jews during the World War II period, as did Hitler.

      One has only to learn what really happened to the Christians in Rwanda between April and July of 1994 to imagine what may lie in store for Christians here in America at some time in the not-too-distant future. After the Christian Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the early 1990s, Hutu-led military forces began to systematically massacre the defenseless Christians.

      “Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms
      is the goal”–(Janet Reno)

      Here’s a question for anti-gun people: “Would you be willing to put a sticker on your car window or the front door of your house saying ‘I am an anti-gun person–there are no guns in this[car/house]‘”

      History repeats itself, always has, always will, and those who haven’t learned their history is doomed to repeat with it.

      • Kate8

        JeffH – Don’t expect the trolls to reply to this one.

        They think things like: your stats are not even true; it can’t happen here; you’re worrying for nothing; you’re a loon; conservatives deserve to be rounded up and exterminated. In any case, they are safe as they’ve sold their souls to the progs.

        It’s hard to figure why they are so foolish. It can only be due to low comprehension, brainwashing and idiocy.

        In any case, we really have to mobilize this year if we’re going to survive the onslaught by the prog Left. I hope gunowners don’t back down when Obama et al give the order to confiscate firearms. Rhetoric is easy when it’s all saber-rattling. We’ll see how many people with real guts we have when the SHTF.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JeffH says: “Let’s try to break this comment down to an understandable level”, and proceeds to regale with a bunch of untruths and distortions gathered from some pro-gun wing nut site. He includes a liberal dose of those “non sequitors” that DaveH-JeffH-DaveH-JeffH (so hard to tell them apart) are so fond of talking about—-I refer to the “unable to defend themselves” phrase in many of the “facts” he lists for us.

        Guess what, Jeff? All those “roundups and exterminations” did NOT occur because the folks were unarmed, but because SOMEONE wanted to round them up and exterminate them and would likely have done so even if the victims were better armed and better able to defend themselves. If the “exterminees” had been able to own more weapons and fight back better, all that would have likely changed is the overall death toll—-a few more bad guys would have been gone with them in the melee. Despots and corrupt governments tend to kill off the opposition and they are usually the best armed kids on the block even BEFORE they allegedly take EVERY gun away from the population—-I wonder what the stats on gun ownership were in these countries—were many Armenian peasants in 1911 or Cambodians in 1956 very well armed to start with? Can’t take guns away from those who never had them in the first place, can you?

        You don’t add to your credibility by offering up bogus Janet Reno and Hitler quotes and talking about Guatemala either. Should have stayed overseas and way in the past there, since the US has very dirty hands regarding what went on in Central America. But they were “communists”, so killing them was OK, I guess.

        My basic complaint, however, is with the fact that you need to keep up all this “shouting” and “citing of evidence from the past” and general fear-mongering (look at all those “Christians” that got slaughtered—-OOOOOH!). What is the point? Does it “put hair on your chest” to rant like this? Make you feel more “manly”? More “patriotic”? What? It certainly is no proof of anything or argument for anything other than that the human race is pretty sorry.

        You say, “…imagine what may lie in store for Christians here in America at some time in the not-too-distant future. History repeats itself, always has, always will, and those who haven’t learned their history is doomed to repeat with it (sic)”.

        No, Jeff, history does NOT repeat itself EXACTLY—-we are not likely to see another Hitler or Stalin and the conditions in the United States are such that we need not fear all the things you would like us to fear.

        And you just can’t resist asking that same old stupid circular firing squad question, “Here’s a question for anti-gun people: “Would you be willing to put a sticker on your car window or the front door of your house saying ‘I am an anti-gun person–there are no guns in this car/house”. Dumb and dumber.

      • JeffH

        Kate8, Happy New Year! You are right of course. I read your post a little earlier and YES, we must stand together and fight fire with fire. The idea of being the bigger person playing nice just don’t cut it, a reason why I like Michelle Malkin so much…tell it like it is, keep telling the truth, keep warning others and keep pointing out the lies and manipulation of the elected eletists and their lackeys in the media…the propagandists.

        Gun control is hitting what you’re aiming at…Feinstein and Obama and the gun grabbers can all “Kiss My Glutius Maximus”!

        μολὼν λαβέ/Molon Labe – History has demonstrated time and again that, to the degree citizens are unarmed, government suppression and tyranny are inevitable.

        The Founders of the United States knew these lessons well. This is why the U.S. Constitution not only grants American citizens the “right to keep and bear arms” — but the DUTY to be well-organized as state militias reporting to their respective governors.

        But this duty, as well as the militia, are often misunderstood. As a result, a “gun-control lobby” has been steadily eroding the original intent of the Founders by passing illegal gun control “laws”, funding a standing global army, and destroying the 300-year old militia system established by WE THE PEOPLE.
        http://www.molon.us/

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Kate8 answers some of my questions about why JeffH rants as he does. It apparently makes him attractive to gals like Kate! I can smell the pheromones wafting about the two of them as they do their little “guns mating dance” (or is it Eau de Gunslick by Outers that I’m smelling?)

        No, Kate, I wouldn’t quibble with Jeff’s “stats”—-lots of bad things have happened in the world because of the sorry nature of the human race. I do tend to think that it can’t happen here, but then I don’t draw strength and pleasure from paranoia as you seem to do, so I’m not a motivated reasoner.

        And we can agree on something here. “It’s hard to figure why they are so foolish. It can only be due to low comprehension, brainwashing and idiocy”. Except that we’re probably thinking of different “theys”.

        What I have difficulty understanding is why so many folks scream about “government” and want to destroy it when it is our last hope against what we should really be afraid of. The fact that the country and much of the government has been bought by the plutocracy and the corporate oligarchy. If we can’t get the big money out of politics by campaign finance reform, can’t reduce the influence of the lobbyists and the special interests, and can’t rein in the excesses of the financial sector, we are doomed. And short of “going to the guns”, our only hope is to get “government” turned in the right direction. All this ranting over on the side that we see on PLD is just the masses sucking up the “bread and circuses” that are designed to distract us.

        PS Reading another great new book this week that gives a lot of good info on that—-DemoCrips and ReBloodLicans, by Jesse Ventura—-looks like a really good read—-Jesse is right on the money with everything he has said so far. (The title is a play on the gang names and colors—-Jesse considers the two parties to be no better than “gangs”).

        Kate closes with, “In any case, we really have to mobilize this year if we’re going to survive the onslaught by the prog Left. I hope gunowners don’t back down when Obama et al give the order to confiscate firearms. Rhetoric is easy when it’s all saber-rattling. We’ll see how many people with real guts we have when the SHTF”

        WHOA, KATE! Are you too trying to grow hair on your chest like Jeff with rhetoric like that? Are you going to stop talking showers as he has done in order to feel more manly? The gun-loving, gun-toting ladies I know would be appalled at the thought of that. They shave their legs and armpits and try to smell nice at all times (and Gunslick does have a nice smell). Be like them, not Jeff.
        .

      • Right Brain Thinker

        JeffH and Kate8 continue their little “dance”.

        JeffH says, “Kate8, Happy New Year! You are right of course. I read your post a little earlier and YES, we must stand together and fight fire with fire”. Don’t overexcite yourself and play too easy to get, Jeffy.

        “Gun control is hitting what you’re aiming at…Feinstein and Obama and the gun grabbers can all “Kiss My Glutius Maximus”!” Aha, an apparent reference to naked body parts to “steam things up”! (But wait, wasn’t Glutius a Roman emperor? In between the reigns of Claudius and Julius? How do we kiss him if he has been dead for 2000 years? I’m confused, Jeff—-whatever are you talking about here?

        (And JeffH reveals that Michelle Malkin is another of his love interests—-to that I can only say Lord love a duck!) So we can add her to the Coulter-Palin-Bachmann-Kate8 list?—-hotties all but looks aren’t everything)

      • Vicki

        Right Brain Thinker shows that he CAN think with his emotions by saying:
        “Kate8 answers some of my questions about why JeffH rants as he does. It apparently makes him attractive to gals like Kate!……”

        And goes on for 2 comments attempting to ridicule completely off the topic or sub threads.

        This probably explains a lot of his comments.

      • JeffH

        Half Brain Thinker is emotionally half witted as usual.

        He says “What I have difficulty understanding is why so many folks scream about “government” and want to destroy it” Those are the words of Half Brain Thinker, an “extremist” in his own right and a common progressive shill.

        Let me figure this out…folks scream about government and want to destroy it? Want to destroy it may be a might stong…reign it in and return it back to it’s rightful owners, the people, is my choice.

        Hmmmm, I know I complain about our BIG OVEREACHING DISCONNECTED GOVERNMENT. I know I complain about the BIG NANNY GOVERNMENT. I know I complain about the BIG GOVERNMENT trampling on the Constitution, their continuous need to take us into wars, to continue to wrecklessly spend the US into recession without any regard for balanced budgets. I know that I can take the responsibility of caring for myself without the government’s guidance, control, intrusion or direction. I know I can balance a bank account or a check book, something that government cannot, will not or is incapable of doing.

        I also know that I back it up by communicating regularly with my elected representatives, sharing my thoughts and concerns.

        In short, I want the government that our founders gave to all of us.
        __________________________________________________
        IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 – The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

        When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

        We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
        http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

        It is not I that is or has commited treason against my government, it is those in government,and those(shills)that support it in it’s present state, that have been and are commiting treason against the United States of America and it’s citizen people.

      • Bad Bob

        JeffH Good job pointing the facts out and the use of logic. But that might work on a brick wall but never on a Libtard. So you’ll have a better chance of a one on one conversation with one next time here are a few pointers:
        1. Before you start drag a cheese grader across your head until you see gray matter
        2. Crack your self in the head a few times with a 20 oz. ball peen hammer, don’t be scared of a forceful swing as the harder the bang the better you will understand the lame.
        3. Always remember it’s always mind over matter. You should never mind because Libtards never matter Well, except at the voting booth and during a good genocide.

      • JeffH

        Bad Bob, Thanks for the great advice.

  • Harold Olsen

    No matter what the true statistics are, the left will find a way to twist them to fit their agenda. They want to take our (that’s a generic “our” since I personally do not like, nor own any, guns) guns away from us and they’ll do anything they can to accomplish that.

    • Robert Smith

      I don’t want to take guns taken away from qualified citizens either.

      However… The “logic” of the claim that guns are responsible for the decline isn’t there. Folks are confusing coincidental with causative. What is needed is PROOF that the gun ownership caused the decline.

      As mentioned in another thread the Kenasaw, GA, is an excellent example.

      But another strong argument has been made. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Impact_of_Legalized_Abortion_on_Crime

      “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime” is a controversial paper by John J. Donohue III of Yale University and Steven Levitt of University of Chicago that argues that the legalization of abortion in the 1970s contributed significantly to reductions in crime rates experienced in the 1990s. The paper, published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in 2001, offers evidence that the falling United States crime rates of the 1990s were mostly caused by the legalization of abortion due to the Roe v. Wade court decision of 1973 .

      It’s quite a compelling argument that women not having babies that aren’t wanted has contributed to the decline in crime.

      So, I guess is the “argument” is does the killing occur before or after birth?

      Rob

      • Gordon

        Go to barnhardt.biz home page, scroll down about 14 screens and tell me if that is a fetus or a decapitated and dismembered baby in the picture. Come on liberals, you can do it.

      • stevel

        If women who cannot afford to properly raise a child abort’s, that that’s one last child to be raised in poverty.
        I will not see it in my lifetime but a time for eugenics is needed, when you consider the number of women on welfare foodstamps and government housing are creating an unsustainable debt crises on this nation
        I could tell you story after story of Ho;s living off the government.
        49 million people on food stamps at the taxpayers expense, 90% of it wasted,the people of this country do not know the meaning of hunger or poverty.

        Sadly i did starting to sound like a good Nazi but this country is headed toward a totalitarian communist style dictatorship.

        Ask Asse and his blow buddy Eddie d who killed more people the communist for the nazis or ask comrade Obama.

      • eddie47d

        Stevel is walking on both sides of the fence with that spiel or is that talking out of both ends. The commies did what for the nazi’s now? [comment has been edited]

      • Hedgehog

        Are you seriously putting forth the thesis that abortion is proactive with regard to crime? In other words, the more babies that you kill in the womb, the fewer babies grow up to be criminals! Ultimately, if abortion becomes a universal practice, crime will disappear due to a lack of victims and perpetrators! Murder can be halted if the intended victim can commit suicide quickly enough? What are you some kind of Nihilist?

        Robert Smith you definitely need psychotherapy!

      • Robert Smith

        Question asked: “Are you seriously putting forth the thesis that abortion is proactive with regard to crime? ”

        It is a serous as the “argument” that crime is reduced because of the sale of guns.

        The facts are there. Abortion became legal and crime goes down as part of that generation of criminals are not present. More guns are also present.

        So, what caused the decline in crime?

        What I’m asking for is as much proof that more guns caused crime to go down that has been presented that crime went down because of abortion.

        Again, sort out coincidental vs. causative.

        For example, I had a friend who drank a glass of orange juice for breakfast and then got hit by a truck later in the day. I don’t drink orange juice anymore because I don’t want to get hit by a truck. Does that make any sense? (BTW, vodka in the juice disconnects even the remotest possibility of the juice having a causative effect.)

        Now do you understand causative vs. coincidental?

        Rob

      • ranger09

        IF you checked the states that have CCWs You would find that their state has lowered its crime rate. Git me some figures folks.

      • Robert Smith

        Show me. AND explain away any other factors that might cause a reduction in crime.

        Rob

      • Bad Bob

        According to BoRock Obama life starts not at conception or birth. As a state senator a bill to stop the practice of taking babies born alive after botched abortions and deny them water, food, and shelter letting them die. Some on operating tables, others in dumpsters and one was tossed atop a Plan Parenthood roof. Twice he voted against the bill and a third time he was able to kill the bill before it reached the house floor.

        When a bill of the same wording to stop the murder of the most innocent and helpless of Americans reached a Federal Level not one member of the House or Senate voted to keep up this slaughter. Not Frank, or Pelosi, or even my Representative and he’s co-chairman of the Socialist Party, a member of MEChA, and called for a boycott of his own state.

        What cracks me up is when the flared tempers starts on BoRock is a Christian, no he is a Muslim when anyone that has done his homework knows he is a godless, arrogant, contemptuous, atheist

    • Vicki

      Robert Smith says:
      January 2, 2013 at 9:51 am

      I don’t want to take guns taken away from qualified citizens either.

      However… The “logic” of the claim that guns are responsible for the decline isn’t there. Folks are confusing coincidental with causative. What is needed is PROOF that the gun ownership caused the decline.”

      The proof has been offered. More than once. But here is one of the proofs yet again.
      http://startingpoint.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/17/more-guns-less-crime-john-lott-explains-controversial-theory/

      Now lets look for a moment at an un substantiated claim by gun grabbers.
      They say that more guns = more crime so we need to get rid of guns
      Now that we have MULTIPLE cases of more guns and actually LESS crime we have sufficient evidence to counter the claim even without providing a causal link. Their argument did not provide a causal link either.

      Never mind that EVERY case of reduced (legal) gun ownership, such as but not limited to Washington D.C. and Chicago happen to match the highest crime rates.

      Now in fairness to the gun grabber (not that they have ever been fair to us) I would note that there are several factors that affect crime rates. Gun possession by the intended victim is just one of the more obvious ones.

      • Robert Smith

        Vicki, Vicki, Vicki… You are beating a dead horse.

        Why not pick some of Lott’s work that isn’t questioned? It’s half the battle and there isn’t any contrariety about some of his work.

        If relaxed carry laws don’t INCREASE crime, why deny any responsible adult?

        For example you can go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott#Concealed_weapons_and_crime_rate

        “As Lott critics Ian Ayres and John J. Donohue III pointed out: “We conclude that Lott and Mustard have made an important scholarly contribution in establishing that these laws have not led to the massive bloodbath of death and injury that some of their opponents feared.”

        In other words, why not lead with things that aren’t in dispute? Wild claims don’t win the discussion about gun control. Common sense has a better chance. Ain’t guaranteed but it sure is leaps and bounds above making claims that are easily shot full of holes.

        Now, accept that either abortion and guns contributed to the decline in crime, or they didn’t. When one is proven the other is also proven. It’s that simple.

        Rob

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith writes:
        “Now, accept that either abortion and guns contributed to the decline in crime, or they didn’t. When one is proven the other is also proven. It’s that simple.”

        And on January 2, 2013 at 3:58 pm
        The difference is that the thing with abortion was connected directly to the data of states starting earlier showed a reduced crime rate earlier.”

        Boy are anti-gunners going to be upset with you.

        Then again you also said on Jan 2 2013 at 3:58 pm
        “No such causative relationship has yet to be established with guns.”

        Problems keeping your stories straight?

  • Dave

    “Firearm dealers in California sold 600,000 guns in 2011, almost double the number sold in 2002.”
    How many of them were straw purchases that ended up in the hands of criminals?
    The bad guys are not stupid, if guns become harder to get than they want to get them while the getting is easier.

    • JimH

      Hi Dave, If the stats show a 4% decrease in crime, how many of those guns do you think ended up in the hands of “criminals”?

      • Sanders

        Violent crimes rate down 25% in California, that’s exceptionally good considering that states liberal open borders policy and the tremendous amount of illegal aliens there.

      • Robert Smith

        Maybe one can conclude that it ain’t border issues that contribute to crime…

        Can’t anyone actually connect the dots? What we are looking at is a bunch of coincidental stuff.

        Rob

      • Gordon

        Come on people, open your minds. Facts clearly show (look em up) that MOST of the crimes, including violent crimes including rape and child molestation, are commited by non-US born aliens and racial minorities. That might be hard to swallow but it is facts from the LEOs themselves.

      • Robert Smith

        Hey Gordon: “Facts clearly show (look em up)”

        Nope. YOU make an argument, YOU support it.

        I’m not doing your homework for you.

        Rob

      • FreedomFighter

        “#30 One of the cities with the strongest gun laws in the nation, Chicago, had 532 murders in 2012 and it is now considered to be one of the most dangerous cities on the planet. By the end of 2013, the murder total in Chicago will be above 600.”

        http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/50-predictions-for-2013

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • Robert Smith

        Freedom bleats: “Chicago, had 532 murders in 2012 and it is now considered to be one of the most dangerous cities on the planet. ”

        So?

        “Murder rate in New York City hits a record low with 414 homicides in 2012
        Slayings drop by nearly 20 percent from this time last year. Shootings fall to their lowest point in 18 years…
        Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/murders-fall-record-city-article-1.1229273#ixzz2GqV1Ru2P

        NY also has strict gun control.

        How’s ’bout considering something else that might be impacting the murder rate…

        Rob

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Throw DC into those stats as well. Under 100 murders for 2012. That’s the lowest in around 50 years. Murders in DC were in the 500+ range in the 1990′s.

      • JeffH

        Half Brain Thinker says “Throw DC into those stats as well. Under 100 murders for 2012. That’s the lowest in around 50 years. Murders in DC were in the 500+ range in the 1990′s.”

        I have to wonder if DC vs Heller had any effect on those murder rates?

        DC Firearm Murder rate in 2011 – Rates per 100,000 population:
        Total: 77
        2010-11% change: -22
        Firearms murders as % of all murders: 71
        Firearms murders rate: 12.46
        Firearms robberies rate: 242.56
        Firearms assaults rate: 87.7

        Of course, while the number of killings is a symbolic measure of how well D.C. is doing, especially given the city’s history, it’s also an imperfect way to measure the safety of the city’s residents. According to police crime statistics, for one, assaults with a dangerous weapon are up by seven percent over last year, while sex abuse crimes have jumped a surprising 51 percent. All told, crime is up four percent from 2011 levels.

        According to the Washington Times violent crimes surged in 2012 while homicides are down. While crime rates have steadily declined in the rest of the country, the trajectory in the District is up. Or maybe it’s down. It depends on whom you ask.

        The only certainty is that the odds of being a crime victim are much higher in D.C. than anywhere nearby.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        ” What we are looking at is a bunch of coincidental stuff.”

        So when statistics favor gun owners it is coincidence. When statistics favor gun-banners it is accepted science?

      • Robert Smith

        No more or less than with abortion.

        Abortion up, crime down.

        Guns up, crime down.

        Gun control in Chicago, crime up.

        Gun control in NY, crime down.

        Rob

        • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

          Mr Smith,
          Regarding the comment about “crime being down because abortion is up”-
          This reminds me of this comedy skit they showed on TV during the Civil Rights movement
          in the wake of these murder of Civil Rights Workers.
          The comedian shows a graph of crimes committed in Our Country.
          He points to southern state and says murder is not included in the survey because murder is not considered a crime in that state.
          Joann Flanagan

    • Nadzieja Batki

      Dave, so criminals are getting a conscience and keeping themselves and other criminals from crime. You did read that crime is down.

    • Mikey

      Dave says, “How many of them were straw purchases that ended up in the hands of criminals?
      The bad guys are not stupid, if guns become harder to get than they want to get them while the getting is easier.”

      EXACTLY DAVE! The criminals will ALWAYS find ways to get guns. That’s why it’s so important to make it easy for the law abiding public to get them as well. It’s called balance of power, and that’s why crime is down. Simple logic.

    • Vicki

      Dave says:
      “Firearm dealers in California sold 600,000 guns in 2011, almost double the number sold in 2002.”
      How many of them were straw purchases that ended up in the hands of criminals?”

      Ask Eric. He seems to know about such things.

    • JC

      Dave says:
      January 2, 2013 at 7:16 am
      “Firearm dealers in California sold 600,000 guns in 2011, almost double the number sold in 2002.”
      How many of them were straw purchases that ended up in the hands of criminals?
      _______________________________________________________________________

      Gee Dave, I don’t know…what does your imagination think it is?

  • hipshotpercusion

    Shhhh! Don’t confuse anti gunners with facts they ignore anyway.

    • Robert Smith

      Have you ignored the fact that crime in California is down, but they still have a huge problem with illegals?

      Rob

      • Sanders

        Rob, the dots are connected. 600,000 more guns in the hands of private citizens (dot #1) and 25% drop in violent crime rate (dot #2). Thought I’d spell that out for you, even though they are quite obvious to anyone with at least half a brain.

      • Gordon

        Has anyone considered why the feds have purchased 1.6 Billion rounds of NON-Geneva convention ammo?

      • Robert Smith

        Sanders says: “600,000 more guns in the hands of private citizens (dot #1) and 25% drop in violent crime rate (dot #2). ”

        Could be coincidental.

        The real cause might be that abortion removed a large segment of potential criminals. Abortion up, crime down.

        What was it? Guns or abortion?

        Rob

      • FreedomFighter

        Rob put a sign in your front yard that says:

        GUN FREE ZONE

        please

        Hope you sleep lightly.

        Laus Deo
        Semper Fi

      • eddie47d

        Yes Robert it is not always what they assume and probably there are several factors involved.

      • Robert Smith

        Freedom wants me to post a sign: “GUN FREE ZONE”

        That would be a lie, Freedom. My house is not such.

        I also have a very big and noisy dog who is part of the family.

        I’m pro-gun. I’m anti silly arguments that can be punched full of holes.

        If you can’t come up with anything better than coincidental “evidence” to keep guns then the argument is lost.

        The sad part is I’m beginning to honestly believe that you don’t understand the difference between causative and coincidental.

        Remember, abortion is also considered as an influence on the reduction in crime and the evidence there is quite compelling. States that legalized abortion (the people spoke) experienced a reduction in crime before those where it was legalized after Roe v. Wade. But the connection is definitely there.

        Rob

      • JC

        “Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” — L. Neil Smith

      • TML

        Robert

        Showing causation may not be the intent, since it is obviously statistical data. It appears just the opposite to me by proving that more guns does not necessarily cause more crime.

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “What was it? Guns or abortion?”

        Looking at the time-frame it is apparent that more guns lead to a faster result.

      • Robert Smith

        Wrong again Vicki.

        The fact is that if a trend started 20 years ago in one location and it had an impact 20 years later at that location it is the same cause and effect as if something started yesterday and had an impact today.

        The difference is that the thing with abortion was connected directly to the data of states starting earlier showed a reduced crime rate earlier.

        No such causative relationship has yet to be established with guns.

        BTW, I’m pro-choice on guns. I have my permit to carry and I own several. I’m truly embarrassed that such weak arguments are being made.

        Rob

      • Vicki

        Robert Smith says:
        “Wrong again Vicki.

        The fact is that if a trend started 20 years ago in one location and it had an impact 20 years later at that location it is the same cause and effect as if something started yesterday and had an impact today.”

        We were discussing efficiency not efficacy. Please try to keep up.

        -Robert Smith: “The difference is that the thing with abortion was connected directly to the data of states starting earlier showed a reduced crime rate earlier.”

        Proof by bald assertion.

        -Robert Smith: “No such causative relationship has yet to be established with guns.”

        Evidence already submitted (see op, See more guns less crime – John lott)
        but here’s another.
        http://dailycaller.com/2012/11/26/report-in-virginia-more-guns-less-crime/

      • Vicki

        JC says:
        “Gun control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound.” — L. Neil Smith

        Or if you prefer a video we have:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DO42gUPdwk

  • http://malouisville.com Leroy

    Just how many law abiding citizens do you think would purchase a firearm that would be registered to them for the purpose of either selling it or giving it to a person who legally can’t buy one or a person who is a known felon? In case some of you are unaware of the law, it is illegal to either sell or give a firearm to a felon….by the same token, it is illegal for a convicted felon to own or even hold a firearm.

    • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

      Remember the sniper that killed two firemen in New York? A young woman expressly purchased those weapons for a convicted killer because he couldn’t buy them himself.

      Now, about that question…

      • JimH

        Hi D.Fields, That young woman broke the law and now should be under arrest.
        Does that answer, “now about that question”?

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        So, what you’re saying is that criminals don’t obey the laws?!? Then if we ban guns, only the criminals will have guns?!? Can’t you see the flaws in your thinking?!?

      • eddie47d

        Okay but it also proves that “legal citizens” are willing and able to supply criminals with weapons. Rouge gun dealers are also part of the problem and their licences are seldom revoked. Straw purchases haven’t gone away either but you all say we can’t have national laws to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns either. In the Luntz Poll where NRA members were questioned 29% said we need fewer laws and even said anyone on a terrorist list should be allowed to buy a weapon. The last time I looked terrorists are for the most part criminals. There’s a small group of people out there making it harder and harder to have a common consensus in keeping guns out of the wrong hands.

      • Sanders

        Rational/logical thinking is not one of Liberals strong suits.

      • Robert Smith

        Sure it is. Abortion became pretty much legal everywhere and the crime rate went down.

        http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/DonohueLevittTheImpactOfLegalized2001.pdf

        Rob

      • Sanders

        Rob, your abortion connection doesn’t hold water very well in this story. The 600,000 guns sold in California in the year 2011 and the subsequent 25% drop in violent crimes since. If your bucket had no holes than those would be fellows would be less than 2 years old. Although I don’t doubt there may be some truth to your connection.

      • Sanders

        Would be felons, not fellows.

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        @JimH: In direct response to Leroy, I pointed out that it does happen. For your information, that young woman is in jail–but not until after two emergency responders died because of her ‘error in judgement.’

        @Nancy in Nebraska: Did I ever say “ban all guns”? I merely pointed out that people WILL bypass the laws when those laws inconvenience them.

        @Saunders: I know you’re not talking about me. I’m a life-long Republican and I can certainly see “cause and effect” better than most.

      • JimH

        @eddie. Hi eddie, That “legal citizen” gave up that status as soon as she did that illegal act.
        She is in jail now.

      • eddie47d

        We’re not talking about shoplifting here so why do we all wait until after these serious crimes occur before we take measures to stop them? Even then we sometimes do nothing. If gun free zones isn’t working then that needs to change. If most of these mass murders are being done with assault type weapons then lets change the policies. Time for all sides to pull their heads out instead of protecting their turf!

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Rouge gun dealers are also part of the problem and their licences are seldom revoked.”

        eddie you make this claim every time guns are discussed here on PLD but have yet to provide any proof to support it. Untill you can provide links that prove this is a pervasive problem I say you lie.

        “Straw purchases haven’t gone away either but you all say we can’t have national laws to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns either.”

        But straw purchases are illegal and are prosecuted as happened in the case in NY.

      • eddie47d

        Don’t be so naive Buster few straw purchasers are even caught and I have brought up those Milwaukee dealers more than once.

      • JimH

        Hi eddie, Just how are we to know who is going to commit a crime, until they do?
        Until then they are “legal citizens”.
        So what measures do you prepose, to stop these crimes before they happen?
        Lock everyone up before they have a chance to commit a crime?
        There is no way to do this without trampling all over good peoples rights.

      • Vicki

        D. Fields says:
        “Remember the sniper that killed two firemen in New York? A young woman expressly purchased those weapons for a convicted killer because he couldn’t buy them himself.

        Now, about that question…”

        Do please ask Eric that question. He doesn’t seem to have any objection.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “Okay but it also proves that “legal citizens” are willing and able to supply criminals with weapons.”

        Since it is illegal for a citizen to buy guns for felons your statement is patently false.

        -eddie47d: “Rouge gun dealers are also part of the problem and their licences are seldom revoked.”

        Red gun dealers? Do you mean red state or communist?

        Btw I found some rogue gun dealers but they don’t seem to need licenses.
        http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fbi-says-gang-infiltrators-stealing-military-weapons-for-sale-on-u-s-streets/

        -eddie47d: “Straw purchases haven’t gone away either but you all say we can’t have national laws to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns either.”

        You HAVE national laws to prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns.
        Hows that working out for you?

      • Buster the Anatolian

        “Don’t be so naive Buster few straw purchasers are even caught and I have brought up those Milwaukee dealers more than once.”

        So, how do you know there so many straw purchasers? If they are so rarely caught it would weem to indicate there were few to begain with.

        Just what Milwaukee dealers would that be eddie? You have provided NO sources or links to prove your assertion and even if true a few dealers in one city is hardly a pervasive provlem.

      • JC

        D. Fields says:

        January 2, 2013 at 9:12 am

        Remember the sniper that killed two firemen in New York? A young woman expressly purchased those weapons for a convicted killer because he couldn’t buy them himself.

        Now, about that question…
        _______________________________________________________________________

        A crime was committed.
        Is that supposed to be some sort of argument for stripping a nation of its rights?

    • Gordon

      Are you implying that someone who WOULD buy a gun for a felon actually cares about the laws?

      • Gordon

        By the way, it was attempted at least twice here locally in the last month. The same guy was turned down at WM twice, and then tried at a local gun store and turned down. ALSO question 11a on the 4473 form (reverse side explanation) says that a person CAN buy a gun for someone else if it is a gift and not a straw purchase.

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        And how do you prove it is a ‘gift’ and not a ‘straw purchase’? You have to rely on the buyer’s word.

        The problem is that we have too many laws that are contradictory and get in each others’ way to the extent that law enforcement is crippled at best. Fewer, yet more concise (less confusing) laws that are more clearly enforced is a better solution.

  • Motov

    Imagine that!!! More guns and LESS crime?,… there must be something about this!!!!
    I wonder what it could be? Too bad liberals will never admit they are wrong.

    • CJ14224

      YES When Australia stole people’s guns, crime greatly increased.

      • Motov

        WOW!!!! that totally goes against liberal thinking!!! Why can’t they learn from their own mistakes? Less guns means more crime? How can that be? Liberals are supposed to be able to walk on water, and know what is best for us and,… hey wait a minute…. this sounds like communism!

      • Average Joe

        Motov,
        In answer to your quandry:

        “Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so.”
        Douglas Adams

        ;)

        AJ

    • eddie47d

      Wrong about what? Gun ownership in Australia went from 7% down to 5% after the partial gun ban. Hardly a big drop and homicides are also down. Rapes and assaults are way up but that is mostly due to increased sexual trafficking coming into the country. Organized crime (mafia style) has increased by leaps and bounds during this same time period. Murders are up within their ranks where criminals are killing other criminals in territory disputes. Thus crime statistics are up! Australia’s economy is doing well so the average citizen isn’t effected by those other factors and the guns laws haven’t changed their ability to protect themselves. Another problem which Australia has always had (like Russia) is that drinking is going up which has increased those rapes and domestic violence.That partial gun ban did serve its purpose in stopping mass murders. There were 11 such incidents before the ban and none since so taking high caliber weapons off the street did work. To make it clear gun ownership is still allowed in Australia. So yes Motov we all need to learn from what works and what doesn’t work!

      • http://www.facebook.com/hubert.hurst Hubert Hurst

        So Eddie, do you suggest that gun control has worked so well that now the government should do something about drinking to reduce the rapes and assults? Oh, what kind of
        gun was used in those 11 crimes?.

      • Gordon

        I have a very good friend in Australia, and guns are NOT banned there, only restricted. Those semi-auto weapons are still there and owned by many people.

      • Motov

        I know, when ever GOVERNMENT becomes involved with anything, they screw up.
        They have the “Anti-King Midas Touch” They never achieve whatever goal they claim to cure, It always costs way more than they say, and the problem always gets worse..
        By hindering the law abiding citizens, and Liberal’s major fixation on “Criminal rights”, Our justice has become a joke. No-one seems to care for the victims.
        If someone breaks into your house you risk a lawsuit if you injure him with a weapon.
        I say lets help the Victims by giving them the power to defend themselves!
        Then criminals may think twice before they commit their crimes.

      • eddie47d

        I guess that flew over Motov’s head. You/victims DO have the right to defend yourself so enough of the hot air.

      • eddie47d

        Hubert: The last one in Tasmania where 35 were killed was with a military style semi-automatic weapon. Others involved a wide variety of weapons including two shotgun attacks. Two people did die from knife attacks in a motorcycle gang melee plus others from shotguns in that same occurrence.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I guess that flew over Motov’s head. You/victims DO have the right to defend yourself so enough of the hot air.”

        See eddie47d does claim you have the right to defend yourself. He just wants you to do so as inefficiently as possible. This is likely why.
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngsKzdKNAmo

      • TML

        Eddie47 says “Rapes and assaults are way up but that is mostly due to increased sexual trafficking coming into the country.”

        An increase in rape as a result of sexual trafficking seems like an oxymoron to me. Why rape if you can buy it at the street corner? It would seem more reasonable to me that an increase in rape could be due to the confidence of the assailant that his victim is unarmed.

        Eddie47 says “Organized crime (mafia style) has increased by leaps and bounds during this same time period. Murders are up within their ranks where criminals are killing other criminals in territory disputes.”

        Sounds to me like an admission that only the organized criminals are now armed.

        Eddie47 says “Thus crime statistics are up!

        Yes, crime has gone up. On the other side of the token, there has been a decrease in crime in America in which over 34% of the population are gun owners. Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban has had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime

        Eddie47 says “Australia’s economy is doing well so the average citizen isn’t effected by those other factors and the guns laws haven’t changed their ability to protect themselves.”

        The gun laws in Australia have directly changed, by prohibition, the average citizen’s ability to protect themselves. Gun licenses are provided only upon giving a “genuine” reason which must relate only to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license.

        Eddie47 says “That partial gun ban did serve its purpose in stopping mass murders. There were 11 such incidents before the ban and none since so taking high caliber weapons off the street did work. To make it clear gun ownership is still allowed in Australia. So yes Motov we all need to learn from what works and what doesn’t work!

        The mass murders may have stopped regardless. Australia has historically had low crime rates even before the ban. The string of mass murders has been attributed by forensic psychiatrists to copycat behavior which is in many cases triggered by sensational media treatment. As you pointed out, the drop in gun ownership only dropped from 7% to about 5%, so, can you explain how the gun ban stopped the murders? It is inconceivable that such mass murders only happened because a high caliber weapon was available. And even if we accepted that great leap in logic, then it doesn’t even begin to justify the rise in violent crime despite the gun ban, in contrast to a drop in crime in America.

        Point in case, we do need to learn what works and what doesn’t, and banning guns, doesn’t work.

  • “Homer”

    EVEN PRAVDA, the Russian news media, said…America, don’t give up your firearms! IF I had a Gun…I’d surely not get rid of it or give it up! STUDY the history of Gun Control, behind every gun control episode in history is a state of nation takeover by the gun grabbers…i.e. Russia 1917/Red China 1950′s/Germany 1933/Cuba 1950′s and see Venezuala and Poland and sooooo many other countries…Guns don’t kill people anymore than lead pencils make mistakes or anymore than scalpels make the wrong cut…etc PEPOLE KILL people with the instruments that are made by people! The ONLY way to STOP crime is to change mans “NATURE” and until that happens (1 Peter 3:18 KJV) the trouble continues. In the mean times Capitol Punishment and Guns control crime !!

  • deerinwater

    The notion that a criminal might stand in line to buy a gun is sort of quaint. While I’m sure some do, it’s not a requirement when they can bust into your home and steal all your have or buy fenced hardware at reduced rated with no paper trail that leads to their doorstep.

    If I’m not mistaken, I believe the abolitionist John Brown was caught in an attempted raid on an armory depot somewhere around Harpers Ferry. I guess he had “Plans” and seen a need for them.

    I’ve toyed with the idea of upgrading myself.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      You say: I’ve toyed with the idea of upgrading myself.

      Now’s your chance! The window is closing! Oh, but then, you’re probably the type that would turn them in when the government tells you to. So, why bother?!?

    • Gordon

      Most of you people are totally misinformed about the “paper trail” and the so called “registering” that is in effect NOW in the USA. Both are limited in scope and almost impossible to track anything, except the few NEW guns still in the hands of their original purchaser.

  • Bob Rice

    That amount of guns sold,increased,because Holder was PROBABLY still arming gthe mexican cartels..NEVER GIVE UP OUR GUNS…

    • eddie47d

      Actually it was private dealers along the border that was supplying the cartels which lead to government involvement. Two wrongs don’t make a right but the trails lead in more than one direction.

      • JC

        LIAR!

        I have posted evidence that it was the dealers who alerted the ATF about the straw buyers, only to find out the straw buyers were working for the ATF. And then have the ATF coerce the dealers into playing along. Obama and Holder are as guilty as sin as accomplices to murder.

      • JC

        Confidential informants who are participating in the Congressional probe of the Project Gunwalker (Operation Fast and Furious) scandal have now zeroed in on the FBI connection. Such a connection has been hinted at in the past, but information relayed today shows that FBI involvement was much deeper than anyone imagined.

        The investigation into Gunwalker has revealed a scandal involving multiple departments of the Obama Administration–Justice, FBI, ATF, ICE, DEA, DHS, and State. These connections have been verified through previously hidden emails and documents, and sworn testimony of whistleblowers.

        But the FBI connection is one that could be potentially the biggest one yet, indicating that the bureau not only was involved in Gunwalker but has been up to its neck in a scandal all its own–a program called ‘PATCON,’ or ‘Patriot Conspiracy.’

        http://www.examiner.com/article/gunwalker-scandal-broadens-the-fbi-connection

      • JC

        There’s the FBI’s manipulation of the instant background check system to allow ATF-monitored felons to purchase firearms from U.S. gun stores. There’s Operation Castaway, another gun smuggling operation run out of Tampa, Fla. There’s the U.S. attorney’s office’s decision to overrule the ATF and release from custody a man who made machine guns and grenades. The man returned to Mexico.

        Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/12/gunwalker-is-only-the-tip-of-a-scandal-iceberg/#ixzz2GqEHuX8y
        Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

      • JC

        TESTIMONY OF SPECIAL AGENT JOHN DODSON BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
        ON OVERSIGHT & GOVERNMENT REFORM

        “Simply put, during this operation known as Fast and Furious, we, ATF, failed to fulfill one of our most fundamental obligations, to caretake the public trust; in part, to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. When I became involved in this operation in late 2009, the ATF agents running it briefed me that local Phoenix firearms dealers had provided them with more than 40 individuals whom they believed to be purchasing guns for others—”straw purchasers”—including members of Mexican drug cartels”

        http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2011/06/15/statement-of-john-dodson-about-atf-gunwalker-scandal-the-very-idea-of-letting-guns-walk-is-unthinkable-to-most-law-enforcement/

      • eddie47d

        If private dealers are selling weapons then I’m not a liar JC. Nice try! Since I don’t agree with the F & F operations I’ll ignore your accusation.

      • JC

        eddie47d says:

        January 2, 2013 at 9:38 am

        Actually it was private dealers along the border that was supplying the cartels which lead to government involvement.
        _________________________________________________________________________

        That’s what you said eddie…
        And it’s a lie because you are saying that the dealers were acting illegally….
        They weren’t. It was Holder’s Department of Justice that was acting illegally and it was brought to light….wait for it…BY THE DEALERS!

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “If private dealers are selling weapons then I’m not a liar JC.”

        On January 2, 2013 at 9:38 am eddie47d says:
        “Actually it was private dealers along the border that was supplying the cartels which lead to government involvement.”

        A lie by both omission and misdirection. Sorry eddie. The evidence is clear and from your own words at that.

        Now what was the omission?
        The private dealers became suspicious of certain purchases that were being allowed by the governments (and liberals baby) NICS. Thus the government WAS involved and was allowing the purchases.

        The private dealers reported their concern to the government agency called BATFE. That agency told the dealers to go ahead with the sales.

        Now what was the misdirection?
        Eddie continues to libel these dealers by directing honest readers away from the simple fact that the dealers were and are honest, law abiding and conscientious citizens thus directing the honest reader away from the criminal mischief of the government who approved the sales via the NICS and then drew law abiding citizens into committing federal crimes.

        Probably the only reason these folk still have their licenses is that they carefully kept written records of the BATFE letters giving them permission to continue the sales.

        Eddie’s continued lies about this event have lead to his credibility being near or equal to that of flashy. (not the only reason but a really good one)

        Eddie. You lie. You have been caught. Do you have what it takes to accept and apologize?

      • JC

        Don’t hold your breath waiting for eddie to “man up”
        Vicki…he’s a spineless cretin.

  • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

    So injuries are down in California, yet just two nights ago–at midnight of New Years Eve–a young girl, just 10 years old, was injured by a bullet apparently fired into the air in celebration in the state of Maryland.

    Gun ownership is a responsibility as well as a right. Not everybody who owns guns really deserves the privilege of possessing them.

    • JimH

      Hi D, Yes injuries are down. No one said they went completly away. You found “one” of them. Yes, I agree with rights come responsability. Some reckless idiot is responsable and I hope some one does hold them resposable.

    • Nancy in Nebraska

      D. Fields, gun ownership is NOT a privilege to be deserved!!! IT IS A RIGHT!!! Read the Second Ammendment!!! There will always be idiots and criminals among us!!! But we shouldn’t have to give up our RIGHTS because of them!!!

      • eddie47d

        No one is taking away your right to protect yourself and the 2nd isn’t going anywhere. Slavery was also a Right and in our Constitution but the 13th abolished it. Laws can and do change for the betterment of society and if the 2nd is improved on or changed that might be a good thing. I believe in taking away the weapons of mass carnage from all sides including the police. The 2nd can and will read exactly the same without those weapons being anywhere around.

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        Nancy, how about reading what I wrote again? It is a RIGHT for Law Abiding citizens to own weapons, criminals and those who are irresponsible lose that right once they are convicted of any crime–ANY crime. Reckless endangerment IS a crime. The sad part is that it is highly unlikely that the person who fired the shot that injured that child will ever be found unless that person owns up to it. As such, that individual is now a criminal EVEN IF they are otherwise a respected person.

      • Gordon

        D Fields= You are incorrect. They must be convicted of a felony. Only felonies affect gun use, as well as additional status change. Most felonies are plea bargained down to misdemeanor violations of local ordinances, the perp pays a fine, and the case is done. Other LEOs refuse to prosecute non violent felons because “the judge will let them off anyway”. It’s just the way it is.

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        You mean like my Brother in Law is ineligible to ever own or possess a firearm because he has been in jail so many times just because he stole some money, took drugs and otherwise committed ‘minor’ crimes?

        A criminal is a criminal, no matter the type of crime. Were he to remain ‘clean’ for a sufficient period of time he ‘might’ re-earn the right to bear arms–but he simply can’t stay out of jail and now his wife is a jailbird too–with two young children in the household.

        Our social system is out of whack, too; it’s really difficult for a convicted criminal–even if only a misdemeanor–has extreme difficulty getting a decent job because hiring offices simply assume that person will steal from the company. That has nothing to do with guns, true–but you can see how a single crime can result in an habitual criminal, no?

      • TML

        Eddie
        No, slavery was not a “right”. The constitution mentioned nothing about slavery.
        Your dream of removing weapons of defense such as you describe, would be like trying to ban a technology such as cars or the light bulb. It’s a utopian dream that would never happen, and as many have tried to explain to you, would do nothing but leave them in the hands of criminals by definition. It’s a nice utopian dream to wish such guns were never invented, but it’s not reality Eddie.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “No one is taking away your right to protect yourself”

        Just as inefficently as possible by denying your right to keep and bear the best tools for the job. Such a nice guy.

        “…and the 2nd isn’t going anywhere.”

        Patently false. NFA 1934, GCA 1968, GFSZA 1990, GFSZA (amended) 1995, Any of a number of federal laws including the now expired weapon ban which D.Fienstein wants to re-introduce with some lovely additions. Or perhaps you mean just the words on a piece of parchment are still stuck to it?

        -eddie47d: “Laws can and do change for the betterment of society and if the 2nd is improved on or changed that might be a good thing.”

        What improvements did you have in mind :)

        -eddie47d: “I believe in taking away the weapons of mass carnage from all sides including the police. The 2nd can and will read exactly the same without those weapons being anywhere around.”

        I notice you did not mention directly the group most likely to laugh at your belief. But you did want to disarm the police as well as law abiding folk. Interesting.

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        DFields, you said:
        Gun ownership is a responsibility as well as a right. Not everybody who owns guns really deserves the privilege of possessing them.

        I read it again! I copied and pasted it! You said it! “Not everybody who owns guns really deserves the privilege of possessing them”. I say again, gun ownership is NOT a privilege!!! It IS a RIGHT!!! People SHOULD be responsible but that doesn’t quantify the RIGHT to own and bear arms!!! Because SOME people are irresponsible does NOT mean that others should have their rights removed!!!

      • Nancy in Nebraska

        eddie47d, the Second Ammendment was NOT written so that we could own a gun to go hunting or to protect us from bad guys or even from the police! The Second Ammendment WAS written to protect us from a tyrannical government! So, if the people are ever forced to stand up to the might of the federal government I don’t think that a pop gun would do the job! Our founding fathers put NO limits on what we were allowed to have! They wrote the Ammendment so that we could protect and defend ourselves!!! I sure hope the good guys have at least, semi automatics. They should be allowed whatever they want!!!

      • Vicki

        Nancy in Nebraska says:
        “Our founding fathers put NO limits on what we were allowed to have! ”

        Our founding fathers put a specific REQUIREMENT on government to PROTECT ANY form of “arms” we choose to have. They even mentioned the class of “arms” they considered most useful and why.

        http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/tench+coxe
        “Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

        “The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

        “The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them”

    • Vicki

      D. Fields writes:
      “Gun ownership is a responsibility as well as a right. Not everybody who owns guns really deserves the privilege of possessing them.”

      Did you have a point or were you just enjoying stating the obvious?

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        All you have to do is look at Nancy’s responses to realize that not everybody can see the obvious.

      • Vicki

        D. Fields says:
        “All you have to do is look at Nancy’s responses to realize that not everybody can see the obvious.”

        Amusing ad hominem attack. Failed.

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        … by you.

  • mark

    This whole article runs 180 degrees counter to Rolley and Livingston’s recent articles decrying the breakdown of American values and society and the increasing sick violence in our country. I guess what ever is appropriate for the argument of the day can be twisted around and sold to the readership with a new set of supporting statistics. Unreal.

    • eddie47d

      I’ve noticed that many times myself Mark and see some commenter’s taking an opposite position of what they said on previous issues. They are easily manipulated but won’t admit it!

      • Gordon

        Eddie, it’s about stirring up a good blog and getting a lot of hits on the site. $$$$$$$$$

      • eddie47d

        Do you mean the more hits the more advertising comes their way?

    • Steve E

      The American values have gone down the toilet. But with an armed public, the scumbags that exist will still not try to shoot someone not because he doesn’t want to. It’s because he may be shot himself by the good guys with the guns..

  • David

    All you have to do is read Jon Lott’s book “More Guns, Less Crime”. He methodically PROVES the ONLY thing gun control does is cause MORE crime! In every state where concealed or carry permits have been made on a shall issue basis (meaning the state must issue to anybody who meets the state’s standardized criteria), crime has gone down! I.E. people are able to defend themselves! Note the drop in violent crime in those states. Violent crimes like rape, home invasion and assault have dropped dramatically once those states issued permits. Places where you can’t get a permit, like Chicago, NY, and DC, have nowhere near the decrease that has taken place in areas where honest citizens can obtain the means to defend themselves. In fact, those 3 areas have the highest per capita have amount of violent crime in the country! Now our “we know what’s best for you” politicians want to reduce, or completely eliminate, our means of self defense. Write to your representatives and warn them that you will vote against them and inform ALL of your friends to vote against them if they vote for ANY sort of 2nd Amendment restrictions. It’s a very slippery slope folks. First it’s “assault” weapons, then it’s “high capacity” clips/mags, then it’s semi-auto handguns, then All handguns, then “high power” rifles” then ALL rifles and shotguns. What do we have left? Criminals with guns and you’ll be lucky if they allow you a Swiss Army knife. (Certain ones are actually banned in England now!) If we allow this to happen, it will be our own fault. It may sound reasonable to some to say, “why does anybody need a 30 round AR-15?” Well, when they come and take those (they being the gov’t) you can still use an M-, right? Not considered an “assault” weapon, right? Ever try and clear your home or tight/close quarters with a very heavy, long rifle? THAT’s why we need an AR or similar weapon. The M-1 is far more deadly on a sot for shot basis than an AR but doesn’t “look scary”. Remember the student in Texas who picked off all of those students and police from the library tower? He used a bolt action rifle! The man who killed JFK fired 3 kill shots in under 2 seconds with an Italian Carcano bolt action rifle. (Regarded as one of the worst rifles ever made!) The bottom line is, a gun is a gun is a gun. It’s who’s hands it’s in that makes all the difference in the world.

  • AK Tom

    It really takes a special kind of stupid to think that criminals are going to obey gun laws. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who keep their swords.

    • eddie47d

      I have never ever heard anyone say that criminals are going to “obey gun laws”. Who are these people that so many of you keep mentioning? I’d like to hear a name (anyone) who has said that common quote. Its like the one “if guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns”. Quaint but won’t happen as long as we have the right to bear arms and even with Feinstein’s bill that will be allowed!

      • Dennis48e

        eddie while you might or might not have said it outright every time you call for a new more restrictive gun law you imply that the criminal will obey it.

      • eddie47d

        Maybe what you mean is that the more weapons in this country the more the criminal element will have access too.

        • Motov

          You can make deadly weapons from common objects, A sock with a roll of quarters can easily bash a skull, People can be very inventive when the need arises.

      • Vicki

        eddie47d says:
        “I have never ever heard anyone say that criminals are going to “obey gun laws”.”
        Who are these people that so many of you keep mentioning? I’d like to hear a name (anyone) who has said that common quote.”

        How can you know a common quote if you have never heard it? Did you originate the quote?
        -
        -
        -eddie47d: “Its like the one “if guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns”.

        The correct quote is:
        “when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.”

        This is a self evident quote and is funny because of its obvious and eternal truth.

        -eddie47d: “Quaint but won’t happen as long as we have the right to bear arms and even with Feinstein’s bill that will be allowed!”

        Checking. Yep the right will still be there. In fact the right will be there even if you remove the mention of it in the Constitution. The right was given to you by your Creator and not a piece of parchment.

        The Constitution, being a contract between The People and Diane does require her to PROTECT the right to keep and bear arms. Her bill will not affect the right at all. It will affect (therefor infringe upon) the rights of millions of the people by harassing them. It will be prima facie evidence that she is in violation of her oath of office.

  • stevel

    eddie47d
    Did anyone ever tell you it is illegal to have sex with animals?
    Just as a matter of curiosity who’s paying you and Asse?

    • JeffH

      stevel, eddie’s volunteers his stupid for free…it’s a gift only he can give.

  • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

    As John Lock points out in his Secound Treatise On Civil Libertys the most basic right is the Right To Life. All other rights follow from the right to selfpreservation. Given the assumption that there is no Right To Life it must necessarily follow that there is no right to selfpreservation.
    So natureally in in a society which denies the Right To Life there can be no right to bear arms to defend this right which no one has.
    How can One have a right to preserve that which one does not have a right to in the first place be it ones’ life,ones’ wallet or ones’ tv set?
    So obviously only if and when Roe VS. Wade is overturned will any of our rights including those listed in the Bill Of Rights be secure.
    Joann Flanagan

    • Gordon

      AMEN, check out barnhardt.biz home page, scroll down 14 screens and look at the picture of the aborted fetus.

    • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

      I’m going to disagree with you here; that so-called “Right to Life” killed four people last year in a very public manner *because abortion for any reason is against the law* in both countries where it happened. One woman was denied life-saving cancer treatments “because they might abort the fetus” which meant that the cancer killed both mother and child and in another case the child dying in the womb after the abortion was prevented killed the mother in Ireland.

      In other words, by promoting the Right to Life, you’re promoting a death sentence for many people–all innocent.

      • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

        Given the assumption that there is no Right To Life it necessarily follows that pregnant women as well as their unborn children lack it.
        Joann Flanagan

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        You do realize you just contradicted yourself, don’t you? If the “Right to Life” kills, then abortions, when performed for the right reasons, saves.

      • Vicki

        Ok lets take baby steps and “progress” to only for the medical survival of the mother. That would cut way way down on the number of abortions.
        http://women.webmd.com/tc/abortion-reasons-women-choose-abortion

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        @Vicki: Yet there are those who say there is no reason, EVER, to permit an abortion–not even to save the life of the mother.

      • Vicki

        D. Fields says:
        “@Vicki: Yet there are those who say there is no reason, EVER, to permit an abortion–not even to save the life of the mother.”

        And this is a reason too……?

      • http://dwfields.com D. Fields

        @Vicki: too(sp)… state the obvious.

      • Vicki

        So you really had no point. Why are we not surprised.

      • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

        Let’s see..
        Four people die because abortion is illegal in some places. Regretable.
        Scores of millions die because abortion is legal in other places. Several millions times more regretable!
        So that’s four deaths weighed against scores of millions of death.
        It’s simple arithmetic:abortion destroys several millions of lives for every one it saves.
        Joann Flanagan

      • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

        Let’s see…
        Four people die because abortion is outlawed in some places. Regretable.
        Dozens of millions of innocent young people die because abortion is condoned in other places. Oviously that is several million times more regretable.
        Joann Flanagan

  • John

    I am seeing plenty of flawed logic in several replies. Guns do not kill people, people kill people! What logic leads one to believe that if guns are removed from legal owners that people will no longer be killed? For those that wish harm on others there are thousands of ways that can do so. How about removing the shootem up games that train young kids and adults to blast away everything in a seemingly harmless manner. So how many people really cannot distinguish fantasy from reality? There certainly have been plenty of young people doing the shootings nation wide!

    • ibcamn

      well john,if you live in an area that has a lot of crime,most times it’s young adult’s that teach kids to kill!the criminal element is around every corner,let’s just take L.A.,and they do a lot of killing there!it’s a hand me down in the family type thing,(gangs)big numbers come from that alone.most of them take what ever they get their hands on!if they live long enough they work their way up to better weapons(which they steal or buy[if they have no prior history of crime]and get from black market),some just carry machetties and knives,some carry bats and clubs….but they steal and kill!the mass murder is just a single nut job most the time and nowhere near as often as the gang members.the people against weapons in public hands always seem to put the two figures together!thus you get a greater amount in % of the number of murders(to include assault rifles or handguns) that have nothing to do with the subject!.that gang member kills 8 people with a gun,beats two to death with a bat and shoots and wounds 4 people in a drive-by,then goes out and then gets his hands on a AK-47 and a magazine(which he stole from a break-in)goes and steals a car,kills the man and goes and robs a store kills the clerk and then trashes car and he runs and goes back to L.A. and sits in his chair at home and thinks,…what am i gonna do next weekend?!…and to think no one does the news on this guy,just one guy!(one member of this gang)and in L.A. there’s big gangs(young and old members)that one guy is just as bad as the most recent a$$ to do terrible things to other people,but he’ll do it again(or not)but he didn’t die at the end or get caught,he’ll just teach another kid to do the same thing!it’s a big picture when it comes to this type of person(sick)others seem to get caught or die while this type of mass murderer goes free and undetected!where are the outcries for what he did,that one gang member,people kill people,period!

    • Vicki

      John says:
      “I am seeing plenty of flawed logic in several replies. Guns do not kill people, people kill people! What logic leads one to believe that if guns are removed from legal owners that people will no longer be killed? ”

      Good question. One thing Gun-Free zones have taught us is that when legal owners are denied the power to use the best tool for the job, people WILL be killed and in greater numbers.

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2969594/posts

  • ROGEr, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

    Let me relay to you,as a Canadian, my experience and observations. As you are all aware, I am sure, REGULATIONS , in Canada,are such that it is next to impossible, TODAY, for an ordinary citizen to get a handgun and easy to get a rifle. Rifles are legal. When I lived i Toronto, as a teen and young man, murder by gun was never more than 3 per year yet MOST people were armed, as regulations were very few and the population,at that time was 1.6 million. My last time living in Toronto.2001, murders BY GUN were up to 50-70 per year which is a ( using average 60) 2000 percent increase BUT the population had only increase by under 100 percent to 3. million AND Torontonians were now totally disarmed. I now live in a RURAL very small city, where guns are a way of life and the last murder ( one only and a drug related hit)) was about 5 years ago and EVERYBODY here is ARMED. there are NO bank nor large store robberies and small “corner’ stores, when they do get robbed, which is VERY rare,are robbed at KNIFE point…WHY…because the criminals know they will be shot by the store owners, if they use a gun !!! Just in case any of the drones reading this message, don’t get it -I am NOT defending regulations , I am simply showing how when we do have guns CRIME is definately down.I truly wish Canada had NO RULES for gun ownership because ONLY SLAVES cannot own guns.Freer gun ownership surely would reduce the murder rate in Toronto

    • JC

      Further to that: Canada has had a hand gun registry and one must get a permit to own one…since the 1930′s….yet most gun related crimes are committed with a handgun.
      Go figure…

      • ROGER, Irish-Canadian LIBERTARIAN

        Yes but handguns and permits were pretty easy to get .When I was a young man, living in Toronto, as I said, in my previous message,I had a PERMITTED S and W 357 MAG handgun with 6 ( or longer-can’t remember) inch barrel and many other people also had handguns BUT no more.Next to impossible. ….great gun by the way

      • JC

        I’ve been north of the border in Alberta for a few years now.
        Beautiful, beautiful country and great hunting…
        It takes some doing but I got a handgun permit here.
        Kimber .45. I use it for target shooting at the club.

  • FreedomFighter

    Englanders want guns back,

    MUST SEE

    England Warns America: Don’t let them take your guns

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=n9ZvwPmjJu4

    Crime is rampent, the police in England cant handle it, the people are being subject to false imprisonment for protecting themselves — you must be a victim or goto jail.

    Laus Deo
    Semper Fi

  • HKaufman

    To the article author, spread that to the 20 plus familys who lost a family member because of a wacko with a dam gun, and the wacko that purchased the weapon. Unless your shootn buffalo for food and keeping warm, or military,or involved in Law enforcement, why hell do you need a dam GUn, whats next finding a vacant plutonium vein and creating your own nuclear bomb. Yeap pard ill mosey on down to Store and get me some RPG,sand assult weapons, then ill mosey on down and find a good running Abrams Tank to control all the dam road rage wacko’s with Guns i might add, if thats not enough ill round me up one of them there Stealth bombers… Really stupid comment here right, well thats how i feel about owning a DAM WEAPON of mass people destruction. Keep going with this attitude and the AGE of HUMANKIND will surely vanish and the age of the insect will emerge. YE HAW when the bullet hits the BONE…

    • FreedomFighter

      Please put a sign in your yard that says:

      Gun Free Zone
      There is no need for guns in America

      All your questions may get answered about the need for self defense. 2nd option would be to relocate to North Korea.

      Laus Deo
      Semper Fi

    • JC

      HKaufman says:

      January 2, 2013 at 12:33 pm

      To the article author, spread that to the 20 plus familys who lost a family member because of a wacko with a dam gun, and the wacko that purchased the weapon.
      _________________________________________________________________________

      Well that is a tragedy in every case.
      But does it negate the right of all these other people who successfully defended themselves from a criminal with a gun? I say it does not.

      http://www.youtube.com/user/TheArmedCitizen

    • alpha-lemming

      Why do you need a gun??!!?? So only LEOs (..and the criminals by inference..) should be allowed to carry?? Maybe because “when seconds count….. the police are only minutes away”

      You are so open-minded… I fear your brain has fallen out.

    • Vicki

      HKaufman says:
      “To the article author, spread that to the 20 plus familys who lost a family member because of a wacko with a dam gun, and the wacko that purchased the weapon. ”

      Actually you should go after the wacko’s that made it a crime for the teachers to be armed. They had to go up against a madman with a gun using only their hands.

      We all saw how well that worked out.

  • ibcamn

    Well i’m gonna look at it as,i’m glad 16.5 million more legal weapons are in play on this defense of our family’s and others!and i’m glad crime went down and i guess some others arn’t,is what probably happened was the low level thieves are a bit more chicken to steal as where the hardcore thieves don’t care and maybe some of the junkies who steal went into rehab!!so then you have a drop in crime!!!…just saying!

  • Motov

    My gun shoots paintballs, so best I can do is give people more color!

    • Hedgehog

      You can always single load your paintball gun with poison darts. The darts are easy to make. Getting hold of a suitable poison is more difficult.

      • Motov

        I got something even better than that! I have a one gallon sprayer, all I have to do is fill the tank with alcohol (Isopropyl or the stuff used for getting water out of your gas tank) and wallah! I have a flame thrower. Since it burns blue it won’t easily be seen, the wand is made of brass, so no worries of it melting Just pump it up get one of those grill lighting lighters, and burn,…burn,….burn!

        Or use gasoline for that explosive yellow flame fun!

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    Gun sales are up and crime is down? Boy, that must be driving the progressive, anti-gun kooks “up the wall”!

    For a deeper insight and better understanding of the “Anti-gun-mentatlity”.

    Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

    By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

    From Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Inc.

    A must read: http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    What is it about progressive-liberals and their irrational fear of guns? Personally, I believe that they know that if they had one, they would over-react just once and ruin their lives. If libs hate something, they insist everyone else must, and should hate the same. They are control freaks and always have been. I see where they are coming from…they know that babies are the most vulnerable and support executing them. They use grandiosity to hide it but they know. These rock-toss recipients are clearly morally bankrupt, so they unconsciously assume everyone else has to be as well!

    • JC

      Exactly right. They themselves, see they themselves as incompetent so assume everyone else must be. It’s all in their imaginations and people of low intelligence tend to let their imaginations run wild with them. Sad really…

      • Motov

        This is why they operate in groups, each group believes they are entitled to special rights they demand is theirs alone. They fail to understand responsibility, and pass that off to Government.

  • Earnest Roberts

    Were you fortunate enough to be educated in this country BEFORE the government began “dumbing down” our children ?

    You wont hear this on the 6:00 news.

    See how evil, gun control is (viewer discretion advised)
    Do you know what steps are taken to create a foundation of genocide?
    Do you know how dictatorships come into power?
    Do you know why people fear their government?
    Are you concerned about the preservation of life?
    Are you concerned about your personal safety and your family?
    Gun advocates should also watch this HISTORY OF GUN CONTROL
    Do you support OUR troops on foreign soil defending the people who have been disarmed and left defenseless by THEIR government?
    We can help prevent the horrors that happen to defenseless people by self educating.
    Want to donate to “humanitarian” groups? Better find out what their stand is concerning “gun control”.. the U.N. would not help out with supplying photos for this documentary once they found out this is a “pro gun” documentary. (should make you think).
    Its time we self educate. If we want to stop a criminal we have to speak to criminals in a language a criminal understands!

    Watch, learn, and please share this documentary.

    http://youtu.be/iDivHkQ2GSg

  • James

    An honest man with a gun is the only one to stop a crook with a gun!!! You people want gun control——Don’t you realize when they start taking away your guns they are taking your freedom piece by piece. As far as Obama, he is so cocky and I’m so tired of him reminding us that he is the president and he will do what he wants to!!! I

    • http://yahoo.com Joann Flanagan

      Well,James,I’ll say one thing for Ceasar Omamus Abominus:he’s as efficient as his Nazi predicessors.
      He begins attacking the Bill Of Rights by vandalising the Ist Amendment. Now he attacks the 2nd Amendment. One suspects his step is attacking the 3rd Amendment..Then so on down the line.
      Wait till he gets to the 13th Amendment!
      Joann Flanagan

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.