A LITTLE GUN HISTORY!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 14 2007, 11:11 PM) [snapback]495976[/snapback]</div>

How fortunate it is that the right to own slaves was not specifically enumerated in the original Bill of Rights. I make the point because while I agree completely that civil rights should never be ceded, and fiercely defended, exactly WHAT constitutes "civil rights" is still (and will probably always be) unsettled.

Mark Baird
Alameda CA

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 15 2007, 12:21 AM) [snapback]495922[/snapback]</div>

You asked me for proof and it was provided. Did you even bother to read the research paper that I posted a link to? No, of course not. Because if you had, your would have seen the statistical support for my original assertion.

Also, are you debating the claim that I made that guns reduce crime, or are you merely questioning the rates by which they reduce crime? Let me ask you, where do you stand on the right to keep and bear arms? I ask this because you have never made your position clear, and I want to know where you stand on the issue.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 14 2007, 05:29 PM) [snapback]495731[/snapback]</div>

Good morning Pinto Girl.

The only rights worth fighting for are the ones we still have left. Period.

The A-10 Warthog is an awesome aircraft. slow at around 300 knots, but basically it is a flying cannon, or tank buster. Bada Bing.

The only rights worth fighting for include your right to carry your .22 in your purse, as long as you have a CCW.

ciao

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 15 2007, 01:11 AM) [snapback]495976[/snapback]</div>

I'm aware that I'm only looking at raw numbers and a proper method would be to population adjusted numbers. My problem is not with Swanny's premise that more guns equals less crime. I don't think it is true but it that is besides the point. My problem is with Swanny's absurd claim that "For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent." All that he has shown to prove this is a 11 year old study that's methodology has been called into question.

Kentucky Number:
Year-----Murders------Rapes-----Robbery-------Assault
1996------228----------1,230------3,643----------7,347
1997------228----------1,304------3,546----------7,308
1998------182----------1,153------2,968----------6,877
1999------203----------1,148------3,104----------7,757
2000------193----------1,091------3,256----------7,363
2001------181----------1,051------3,269----------6,009
2002------191----------1,087------3,131----------6,692
2003------181----------1,124------3,224----------5,703
2004------236----------1,238------3,268----------5,410
2005------190----------1,055------3,690----------5,833

A 10% Population change does not explain the sudden jumps up and down in murders or that robberies rapidly declined and then have increased to the same level in the raw numbers. The site has the crime rates per 100,000 too if you are interested.

You could look at my home state of Michigan. It passed a concealed carry law in 2001. It has also had a declining population due to a steadily worsening economic climate. Yet despite the passage of the concealed carry law you have the follow crime rates per 100,000:

Year-----Murders------Rapes-----Robbery-------Assault
2001------6.7-----------52.6--------129.3---------365.3
2002------6.8-----------53.4--------118.0---------362.6
2003------6.1-----------54.3--------111.6---------339.3
2004------6.4-----------54.3--------112.2 --------319.4
2005------6.1-----------51.3--------131.8---------362.9

Another state, and again, it doesn't fit his claim of a steady reduction in murder, rape, and robbery. In fact, the rates fell much more quickly from the early 90's to 2000 before the concealed carry law was passed.

It also may surprise you to hear that I'm not opposed to individual gun ownership and am a gun owner myself. I grew up hunting on my grandmother's farm in central Michigan. I own a Mossberg 500 with a 28" barrel for small game, a 24" rifled barrel for deer, and a 18.5" barrel for home defense. I'm also not against reasonable restrictions on individual firearm ownership.

What I am against is ridiculous claims with no evidence.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 05:56 AM) [snapback]496011[/snapback]</div>

The link you provided didn't have Dr. Lott's original paper but it did have: More Guns, Less Crime: A Response to Ayres and Donohue (2000) and Confirming More Guns, Less Crime (2002). I did read these papers and find them unconvincing specifically because they only state conclusion, not methods or data. I am also concerned that they project data past their original study instead of using actually data to confirm their original conclusions.

I also looked at "Shooting Down More Guns, Less Crime:" by Ayres and Donahue 2002. I specifically liked page 126 (PDF page 27) where they point out that Lott specifically picks states before and after adoption of concealed carry laws to skew his results and page 131 (PDF page 32) where they point out the Lott gets his county numbers by throwing out any county that didn't provide arrest rates (the ratio of arrests to crime in a given county)

As others have stated, you can pick and choose statistics to "prove" just about anything. Personally a don't think more guns reduce crime. I would point to other democracies with much lower crime rates and much tighter gun control laws as proof of that. I believe that concealed carry laws have very little effect on crime and do little besides provide suburbanites a false sense of security. Of course since they are at a very low probability of violent crime anyway it really doesn't matter. Driving a car is by far the most dangerous thing that the typical American does.

Now my stance on the 2nd amendment and the right to keep and bare arms. As I said above, I am a gun owner and see no problem with individual ownership of firearms. I also have no issue with licensing or restrictions on types of firearms an individual can own. To me regulations similar to Australia's would be perfectly acceptable. They would allow hunters and sport shooters to continue to enjoy their hobbies while limiting access to firearms that cause most of the carnage on our streets. I also believe that an individual should be licensed and have undergone firearm training before they be allowed to purchase a firearm.

 

The only way you are going to be able to criticize Lott's book is to read it. He includes tables and charts showing all the correlations he came up with, even many that aren't statistically significant. Put simply, he tried to include all available crime data from the FBI, from state and local police forces, and from earlier private studies. This is the most comprehensive study that has been done on this subject so far. Of course, all the data are not quite consistent, and furthermore, analyzing on a state level actually gives a different view of the results than analyzing on the county level. Lott explains these differences, and how he accounted for them in this research. In cases where it is possible, he reanalyzes the same data under different conditions (say, excluding certain states or looking at a different level of fineness), and comments on the various results.

That does not mean the data is perfect. In some cases, Lott had to analyze results from just two or three states because the others didn't fit the set of criteria he was looking at or didn't collect the data he needed to do the analysis. In other cases, the data spanned only a short time period-- say, if a state had passed a nondiscretionary law just a couple of years earlier so the effect of the law wasn't totally clear yet. But these problems aren't Lott's fault; I think he did the best he could have with limited data.

We need more data, and more studies like Lott's. A few other research groups have analyzed the same data in order to check Lott, and most came up with similar results, but of course, there were conflicts and questions. And some researchers have claimed to get rather different results. This is a good thing, by the way! It happens all the time in research, particularly in "cutting-edge" cases where the data are still a bit thin and the assumptions made in the analysis are not yet agreed-upon and affect the results strongly. The disagreement over Lott's results imply that we need more research. I hope we will keep collecting detailed crime data so that another study like this can be done in 5-10 years, when the results can be even more accurate.

 

Everyone is debating numbers and percentages, does it go down, does it go up? Who cares! I think we can all agree that the numbers will not go below zero.

Although this is frickin' hillarious!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 14 2007, 08:40 PM) [snapback]495740[/snapback]</div>

We all know that you people are crazy down there in Florida...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 15 2007, 11:52 AM) [snapback]496153[/snapback]</div>

I propose a simple case study:
I live in Michigan, a shall issue state. I have a CCW permit, I am not dead. Thank you.

Pinto Girl:
I too am a flaming liberal and even once lived in California. I drive a Prius, not a truck, SUV, or Semi. Yes, my gun travels with me in my Prius. I believe Iraq was a HUGE mistake, was completely about oil, and that G Dubs is the worst president, nay, human being I have ever seen. I tote the party lines right up to the point where they cross me n' my guns.

This issue is not about statistics, they are contorted by each side to meet their own objective. Laws affect only law abiding people. He who abides the law is not the one you need to worry about having a gun; whether you think it is justified by law, 2nd amendment, common sense or whatever.

I will continue to carry my gun in defense of my home and family. Unfortunately should the day come that I must defend said home and family I will do so without an instant of hesitation. Too those who try to sue for harm come to them while in the commission of a crime (and they have won) I say:
"Stop breaking the law a$$hole!" - Jim Carey, Liar Liar

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 10:33 AM) [snapback]496131[/snapback]</div>

I'm not going to buy and read Lott's book, my reading list is far to long to waste my time. I did read two of his papers and a report critical of his book which is far for than you have done. All I asked is for you to post some data. I have done it for you below. As I said, Lott picked and chose data to fit his model and hypothesis. A simple look at Florida shows the data he built his thesis on. Crime per 100,000

---------------------Florida-----------------------------------------------Indiana
Murders---Rapes--Robberies--Assaults----Year----Murders---Rapes--Robberies--Assaults
--11.7------52.7------366.8------605.3------1986-------6.0------25.9------90.0-------185.9
--11.4------50.2------356.6------606.3------1987-------5.6------29.1------88.6-------205.2
--11.4------49.7------403.3------653.3------1988-------6.4------31.0------89.0-------253.5
--11.1------49.7------404.0------644.6------1989-------6.3------32.3-----101.4-------266.5
--10.7------52.4------416.8------764.4------1990-------6.2------37.9-----101.3-------328.4
---9.4------51.7------399.8------723.4-------1991-------7.5-----41.3------116.0-------340.5
---9.0------54.2------366.9------777.2-------1992-------8.0-----42.4------122.2-------335.7
---8.9------53.8------357.6------785.7-------1993-------7.5-----39.1------119.8-------322.6
---8.3------52.3------328.8------757.4-------1994-------7.9-----35.6------130.2-------351.5
---7.3------48.6------299.9------715.1-------1995-------8.0-----33.3------135.2-------348.3
---7.5------52.1------289.2------702.2-------1996-------7.2-----34.1------124.1-------371.6
---6.9------51.9------276.1------688.7-------1997-------7.3-----32.9------132.4-------342.1
---6.5------49.6------242.7------639.9-------1998-------7.7-----33.1------111.2-------279.0
---5.7------46.3------211.6------590.5-------1999-------6.6-----27.0------109.3-------231.7
---5.6------44.2------199.0------563.2-------2000-------5.8-----28.9------103.3-------211.1
---5.3------40.6------200.7------551.7-------2001-------6.7-----28.0------117.0-------219.3
---5.5------40.5------195.2------530.1-------2002-------5.9-----29.9------107.4-------214.1
---5.4------39.6------185.4------500.6-------2003-------5.5-----27.7------103.2-------215.9
---5.4------38.0------172.5------495.8-------2004-------5.1-----29.0------102.4-------189.5
---5.0------37.1------169.4------496.6-------2005-------5.7------29.6-----108.6-------179.9

Even with Florida his model doesn't fit. Yes, the trend is down but only steadily for murders. Rapes stayed steady for several years while robberies and assaults when up. It is only when you get past the end of his study 1992 that the number start dropping steadily across the board. I would tie that decrease in crime to the booming economy of the 90's rather than more guns on the street.

However, if you notice Indiana which also passed a concealed carry law in 1986 didn't do nearly as well. They saw murder, rape, robberies, and assaults climb for 10 years in spite of passing the concealed carry law. As I already pointed out Kentucky and Michigan also failed to see the 2% reduction in murder, 3% reduction in rapes, and 2% reduction in robberies each year after passing concealed carry laws. Why didn't the passage of the concealed carry law lead to the promised decrease in crime in these other states? Maybe because crime is tied to a whole lot of factors.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dareniott @ Aug 15 2007, 12:20 PM) [snapback]496231[/snapback]</div>

I also propose a simple case study:
I live in Alabama but have lived in Tennessee, Virginia, and Michigan. In Virginia the people that lived in the townhouse next door sold drugs. I have never carried a concealed weapon or owned a handgun. I am still alive. Thank you. (A equally useless case study of 1)

However while looking at papers at Swanny's link I did find this interesting paper:

More Statistics, Less Persuasion: A Cultural Theory of Gun-Risk Perceptions
DONALD BRAMAN George Washington University - Law School
DAN M. KAHAN Yale University - Law School

Abstract:
What motivates individuals to support or oppose the legal regulation of guns? What sorts of evidence or arguments are likely to promote a resolution of the gun control debate? Using the survey methods associated with the cultural theory of risk, we demonstrate that individuals' positions on gun control derive from their cultural world views: individuals of an egalitarian or solidaristic orientation tend to support gun control, those of a hierarchical or individualist orientation to oppose it. Indeed, cultural orientations so defined are stronger predictors of individuals' positions than is any other fact about them, including whether they are male or female, white or black, Southerners or Easterners, urbanites or country dwellers, conservatives or liberals. The role of culture in determining attitudes towards guns suggests that econometric analyses of the effect of gun control on violent crime are unlikely to have much impact. As they do when they are evaluating empirical evidence of environmental and other types of risks, individuals can be expected to credit or dismiss empirical evidence on "gun control risks" depending on whether it coheres or conflicts with their cultural values. Rather than focus on quantifying the impact of gun control laws on crime, then, academics and others who want to contribute to resolving the gun debate should dedicate themselves to constructing a new expressive idiom that will allow citizens to debate the cultural issues that divide them in an open and constructive way.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 15 2007, 08:52 AM) [snapback]496153[/snapback]</div>

Hammer Strap! Dang does that mean I can't carry my Glock 19 in Florida?

Wildkow

 

Interesting. I believe Washington State requires that a driver have the firearm on their person at all times, not in the glove box or elsewhere.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 15 2007, 01:53 PM) [snapback]496262[/snapback]</div>

Numbers and papers and authors and links and books all assume one thing, that you CARE what happens to other people. I do not, so a case study of one is all that is necessary. You are not dead, good for you. Whether anyone other than my family in this state, country, or world ceases to exist tomorrow worries none. I will continue to carry my gun on the very, very, very off chance I might need it. No one has said it yet, so here ya go. "You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jhinton @ Aug 15 2007, 01:42 PM) [snapback]496250[/snapback]</div>

First off, have you ever heard of a library? It is a neat little place where you can go to borrow books, read them and return them. They are really quite nice.

Second, please provide a source for your statistics.

Finally, if you want to continue this discussion, I would encourage you to do it outside of this forum via PM with me. I look forward to continuing the discussion, but I want to be courteous of the others on here and not turn this into a personal debate, which is exactly where it seems to be heading.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(KD6HDX @ Aug 15 2007, 08:39 AM) [snapback]496063[/snapback]</div>

G'morning!

I'm going to be totally honest now...I don't think that I'm always up to the responsibility of carrying a firearm, and deciding when to use it.

And I don't think a lot of us are, really...and we should be a bit more honest with ourselves.

Sometimes, I can be too emotional and too easily swayed by personal baggage...sometimes I can just get plain old p*ssed off (reading some of my older osts actually horrifies me)...

...and the same is true, I believe, for all of us.

I'm sorry, but I'm simply more comfortable trusting my fate to the positive energy of the world and the goodness inside everyone (even though it may be repressed deeply). And I'd be more comfortable living in a country where there's something over and above the direct threat of violence, that keeps us in line.

I don't think this is really about "defending oneself from violent crime" as it is about needing to carry a gun in order to convince oneself that one is safe. And, in my opinion, that assertion is flawed.

To me, whether I carry a gun or not doesn't make me feel safer. I have no intension of shooting it out with someone, and don't believe that creating more of these scenarios --not to mention the increased number of children who will no doubt be injured accidentally by the increased number of guns lying around-- is going to do any of us any good.

This discussion constantly flip-flops. First it's about the individual's right to bear arms...then, when the specifics of that "right" are called into question, proponents two-step over to, "I need protect myself against violent crime."

Then, when *that's* refuted, it's back to "but it's my right to keep and bear arms..."

And around and around.

How about, if we had a zero tolerance rule for guns...and if you used one for *any* reason --or were even caught in possession of one-- the violator is automatically put to death?

That'd make me feel better, actually, in a perverse way. Not the 'put to death' part, but the idea that you're going to feel some serious hurt --guaranteed- if you mess with a gun.

And no more violent movies which glorify police violence (they're the "good guys" after all, so they can do what they want, right?). Bad, bad, bad.

We need to send the message to our children that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. It's not cool, it doesn't make one "manly" or powerful, it won't get you fame or fortune or the trophy girlfriend of your dreams...it's a bad thing, period, and simply won't be tolerated.

Seeing one's parents with a gun and growing up with them says to kids that guns are okay, that violence is okay "under the right conditions" (and we get to determine, personally, what those are)...that's wrong. We *don't* get to determine those conditions willy-nilly, in my opinion.

And, as I said, I'm not going to take on an A-10 with my.22 (or even a Cessna 172, for that matter)

 

Pinto Girl,

That is all fine and well, but we have this little thing called the 2nd Amendment which protects our rights to own firearms. Our founding fathers understood just how important this right is and specifically enumerated it in the Bill of Rights. I feel it is my duty as an American to defend that right.

As for the kids part of your post, the only misuse of guns comes in environments where there are drugs, alcohol, bad parents, and undisciplined children. Period. My guns are locked and stored safely, so I don't worry about my kids getting into them. Sure, there are irresponsible parents out there that don't safeguard their guns like I do, but if we taught gun safety in the schools, then kids would know not to touch guns.

The NRA's Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program is a gun accident prevention program for children in pre-kindergarten through third grade. Using instructional materials including workbooks, an animated video, and student reward stickers, the program's safety mascot, Eddie Eagle, teaches children that if they find a gun in an unsupervised situation, they should: STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult.

One study published in the Journal of Emergency Nursing Online (October 2001) named The Eddie Eagle GunSafe Program the best of 80 gun accident prevention programs evaluated. Beyond that, the effectiveness of the program is evident in several ways. First, according to the National Center for Health Statistics fatal firearms accidents in the Eddie Eagle age group have been reduced more than 80% since the program's nationwide launch.

The program has been honored or endorsed by groups such as the National Sheriffs' Association, the U.S. Department of Justice (through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention), and the Association of American Educators. The program also received bipartisan support from 26 state governors, as well as resolutions from 23 state legislatures, recommending the use of the Eddie Eagle Program. Finally, the fact that 25,000 schoolteachers and law enforcement officers have taught the program to over 20 million children verifies the popularity of the program with those who deal with child safety issues every day.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]496297[/snapback]</div>

Yes, but as I said, my reading list is already too long. I have 6 books waiting already. BTW, I read about 15 to 18 non-fiction books per year.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]496297[/snapback]</div>

My source is the same as I have posted earlier: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm
They get their data from the FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/
I already checked the 2005 numbers to make sure they were legit before I posted the first time.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 01:36 PM) [snapback]496297[/snapback]</div>

I'm not really sure how that would be meaningful. I'm sure you not going to back away from Dr. Lott's finding of CCW laws leading to a continuous reduction in violent crime. I'm not going to come close to finding his results valid for the 15 years since his data was compiled.

Besides I start a new job tomorrow so I will be spending much less time on PriusChat. it's been fun. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]496302[/snapback]</div>

Sorry bout' that. But carrying a gun will sober you up real quick! I am personally aware of when I have my gun and when I don't and my actions are actually much more subdued when I have my gun. I don't like criminals, and I am ever aware that if my actions are inappropriate while in legal possession of my firearm then I become ONE of them. I however do not believe that my well being and that of my family should be determined willy-nilly by a God, nature, the stars, positive energy, good feelings, little furry bunnies, or some CRIMINAL. Lest we forget we do not often choose when or who robs or kills us or our family (unfortuantely).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]496302[/snapback]</div>

One goes through an, albeit short, class before one can carry a gun. However, anyone serious about protecting themself or their family will study and train in the proper use and tactics of their weapon for defense. This includes when and how it may be used safely and most effectively to deter criminal actions against oneself. All that aside. Even if it didn't make someone necessarily safer, should you deny them the right to feel safer.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]496302[/snapback]</div>

I heartily agree!! I am ALL for MASSIVE gun regulation. You committ any crime with a gun anywhere within 10 miles of you, then you are banned for life! Any violent crime, abuse, or any crime even having the word child in the same law, you are banned for life! Ever found in posession of your firearm while uner the influence of ANY substance, banned for life! I do however believe that in every single state in the country a LEGAL gun owner should be able to carry that firearm anywhere and anytime, concealed or right out in the open.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]496302[/snapback]</div>

I agree, it is not cool nor fun. It does not make one manly, powerful, and girls tend to dislike it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 02:43 PM) [snapback]496302[/snapback]</div>

I do not believe the government (state or federal) makes a very good role model or parent though. Do not judge ones parenting skills or values based on their ownership of an in-animate object. I agree very much that conditions should not be determined willy-nilly but unfortunately we do not make those decisions, the criminal does. Don't tread on me and I am guaranteed not to kill you.

I mean absolutely no offense to you or your values Pinto Girl. I always enjoy reading your posts in other threads. I will simply not allow my fate to be chosen by that of a criminal. Just my opinion...


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 02:55 PM) [snapback]496305[/snapback]</div>

While I agree with him mostly, I am not defending anyone but myself. Our founding fathers are long since dead and the Bill of Rights is a dusty old piece of paper that deosn't mean a whole lot in todays world and government. If I stopped posting here tomorrow because I was mugged and killed by a criminal in a Wal-mart parking lot tonight, would any of you notice? Would you care? I think not. Maybe the passing "Oh, that is so sad." and then start the "How much are they selling his Prius for?". Everyone be honest with yourselves! The only people that care about you are you and the ones you love. Protect them because no one else matters!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Aug 15 2007, 01:55 PM) [snapback]496305[/snapback]</div>

I wasn't aware of that program. But, ummmmm...the best we can do is "reduce fatalities 80% in the participant group???

How about the other 20%? One in four odds aren't that great when it comes to being shot accidentally, are they?

------

The Second Amendment? I believe there is some freedom of interpretation as to what, exactly, it permits, and why. Clearly, we differ on that point.

So, what is it, for you? You need firearms to:

(1) Protect you from a government run amok, or
(2) Protect yourself from violence?

These are two *entirely* different points, but you're speaking of them as they were one. They're NOT.

Accidents with guns? That's why they're called accidents...'cause they can happen to anyone, at any time. Even --despite your best attempts at being a great parent-- to you (God forbid). No matter how many programs we throw at the problem.

If we didn't have so many guns in the first place, we wouldn't need to educate kids about them. And if we vilified the gun instead of glorifying it (or --worse-- making it commonplace, as you're suggesting) we'd have LOTS less gunplay and fewer firearm-assisted violent crimes.

It's also my right not to be shot by someone who mistakes me for an intruder. What's the penalty for THAT? Do I get to sue? Oh, wait, I'm dead...can't.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 15 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]496328[/snapback]</div>

Why doesn't this surprise me coming from you? Individual ownership of firearms is legal and protected under the 2nd Amendment. Of course, you live in San Francisco, a city whose residents voted to strip gun owners of their rights. The ban not only violated federal constitutional guarantees, but also the California statute that gives the state sole authority to regulate firearms. Luckily, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James Warren struck down the San Francisco handgun ban, asserting that under California law local officials do not have the authority to ban firearms from law-abiding citizens.

Actually, I see the need to own firearms for both reason, plus a couple more, namely hunting and target shooting. I bought a handgun after I was car-jacked several years ago. I vowed then that I would never be a victim again, and I won't. And, after watching our rights continually eroded by things like the USA Patriot Act, one can never be too sure that government won't run amok.

I agree with you. One gun accident is too many, which is exactly why education for both the gun owner and for children is so very, very important. As Dr. Gary Kleck pointed out, "The risk of a gun accident is extremely low, even among defensive gun owners, except among a very small, identifiably high-risk subset of the population. Consequently, it is doubtful whether, for the average gun owner, the risk of a gun accident could counterbalance the benefits of keeping a gun in the home for protection: the risk of an accident is quite low overall, and is virtually nonexistent for most gun owners."

You live in a country where there are hundreds of millions of firearms, and they are never going to go away completely, no matter how hard you try to outlaw them. So, with this in mind, doesn't it make more sense to at least educate our children about them. Drugs are illegal and we educate our children about them. Cigarettes are dangerous and we educate our children about them. Why can't we just do the same thing with guns?

Funny, but using deadly force, at least in Ohio, doesn't work that way. We have a duty to retreat before using deadly force, which means that the only way you would be mistaken as an intruder is if you were in someone else's home and you were posing an imminent physical threat to them which they had no other way of escaping than by shooting you.