So where are the Reds bleating about the murder of "our children?" Or are they only children when they're fighting Muslims overseas, but they're adults here?

Here Fricking Here!!! I work on a college campus now and we should be allowed to conceal and carry as well. Hell, if everyone on the airplane had a gun the hijackers wouldn't have much of a shot at hijacking it would they?

Guns don't kill people, People kill people, a gun is just a tool. The Gun control people are of the belief that a hammer left on a table will somehow bludgeon someone to death. Just as a gun on tha table will of its own accord shoot people. When you keep people from carrying a gun the only people with a gun are the criminals and the insane jihadi bastards.

Nidal Hasan's mission to murder innocent people there last week was helped along in significant part by laws preventing those people from carrying weapons to defend themselves.

Knowing what you're talking about can be helpful. Oh wait, I'm talking to a wingnut. Not knowing what the hell you're talking about is a prerequisite.

The military branches set their own policy for guns on bases. No law prevented this. Army policy did. You may want to take a moment to think about why the Army has such a policy.

I hate to do this, REALLY HATE it, but mantis is correct, whatever local civil laws require have zero bearing on what is allowed on a military base.

Meanwhile, obama's mayor of record Chicago's Mayor Daley, thinks this tragedy was because of America's love of guns.

"Unfortunately, America loves Guns. We love guns to a point where that uh we see devastation on a daily basis. You don't blame a group."

Typical lefturd.

A wingnut that knows what he's talking about?

Wrong, by definition.

That's all you have "Steve "Now THAT's Ironic" Green"?

Another typical lefturd, all pomp and no circumstance.

Now that you have been shown to be either ignorant or lying with regards to how the law applies to soldiers carrying firearms on Army bases, Albert, are you going to correct your post?

You could just add a correction and say "Well I still think the *POLICY* is stupid." And that way your argument would be as strong as if your original contention had been correct, and you would demonstrate an understanding of what you're talking about. Win, win--right?

From a personal point of view, and having no problem with people exercising 2nd Amendment Rights; I really don't think it would be appropriate for soldiers to be "carrying" on base 24/7.

They should have been safe. But their SAFETY was sacrificed on the alter of POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. Certain superior officers did not HAVE THE FUCKING BALLS to call that asshole on his bullshit and kick him out of the service. The FBI and the CIA fucked up AGAIN. Anyone getting fired there? HA!

The Army's Criminal Investigative Service also 'investigated'. "Nothing there". Yep, wonder if this dirt clod will also manage to keep his job.

13 good people are dead because others in this country in leadership positions decided to 'play it safe', after all, they 'didn't want to offend anyone (Muslims)'.

Well some of those "leaders" had better read the freaking Constitution. NO WHERE does it say that you have the right not to be offended.
Any investigation that comes out of Washington will be a WHITEWASH!

Having been in the Navy I have egg on my face for not pointing out the difference. Thank you for pointing out that it was policy not law.

But the premise of my post still stands. Guns don't kill people, people do. Idiots argue otherwise, if he hadn't had access to guns he might have taken a butter knife and begun shanking people. Who knows, the point being that anything is a weapon in the wrong hands. A gun does more good than harm in the hands of 90% of the population.

Personally I always found it stupid that you couldn't carry on base unless it was part of your Uniform of the Day such as for those on guard duty. Not that you should need a weapon while on base, that should be the safest place available anywhere. But as this story proves, perhaps in a time of war a sidearm should be standard issue just as those in theatre carry gas masks in case of BCR attack.

Albert,

Although I concur with mantis that the absence of firearms on most military posts is policy, not law, I did appreciate this little nugget:

"...sweet nothings percolating from Obama's presidential pie hole"

Now that's quality.

Thanks, BPG. You're all of course right about the laws/policy mistake. I've corrected the post, as you can see. Would have done it sooner but I've got the baby by myself for a few days and darn if he doesn't demand a lot of my time...:)

Hope that the error didn't distract too much from the object of the post, which was that the inspiration behind laws and policies alike which tend to limit our right to arm ourselves (responsibly), actually have the "unintended" consequence (as most liberal policies do) of working the exact harm they were meant to prevent.

Cheers.

Soldiers/sailors/airmen/marines/(yes, even Coasties) carry weapons when they are under reliable risk for attack. In recent times, this has not been the case on US soil. Perhaps now is a time to reconsider.

Albert declares, "that anti-gun 'theory' (which operates in anti-gun law as well as policy) ends up costing more lives than it saves" and "When guns are criminalized, only criminals will have them."

Well, Albert, given that guns are illegal in Japan, do please try to explain the following:

Murders per 100,000: U.S.: 6.32, Japan 0.58

(http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/3231.html )

Gun control ends up "costing more lives than it saves"??? My ass it does.

Good job correcting the post, Albert.

Highlander: in wingnut fantasy land, every single homicide worth losing sleep over would be prevented because righteous civilians would be armed and thus the swarthy villains would be deterred or killed.

The ones that happen as a result of the victims being armed can be ignored because those victims are mostly criminals and thus not really victims at all.

So, how many of the murders for each country were committed with a gun?

Oh, right: the "data set" doesn't say.

Try this one (prettified data from the CIA Factbook).

tl;dr version:

• The data is for 2002
• The counts of murder by firearm is defined as, "Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm."
• US is 4th, with 9,369
• Japan is 28th, with 47

My questions for the anti-gun crowd:
- If gun control is the only viable solution to homicide-by-firearm, why were there ANY homicides-by-firearm in Japan? Shouldn't there be zero?
- Why have all of the mass homicides-by-firearm in the US been in (wait for it) gun-free zones (either so-declared by the managing entity or mandated as such by governing law)?

Why have all of the mass homicides-by-firearm in the US been in (wait for it) gun-free zones (either so-declared by the managing entity or mandated as such by governing law)?

Could it be that criminals don't respect the law? I realize it's just a wild-assed guess there, but it's just possible...

And I wonder how many of those "Total recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm." are associated with those wonderfully gentle people involved in the drug trade?

Another potential reason behind the low number of homicides in Japan is some pretty stiff cultural homoginization, an emphasis on social conformity and group harmony that's pretty much traditional. That's not the sort of thing taught in the US.

Of course, beer in their vending machines doesn't hurt, neither does the explicit manga.

"Oh, right: the "data set" doesn't say."

Well, of course the data set doesn't say! Had I instead provided numbers for gun homicide only, the gun worshippers would be proclaiming, "well, that doesn't prove anything -- the Japanese criminals just murder by other means instead."

But thanks, Morrissimo, for showing how few in Japan are actually murdered by guns.

"...why were there ANY homicides-by-firearm in Japan? Shouldn't there be zero?"

Well, why don't you use your brain to draw reasonable conjectures? Maybe a few guns were successfully smuggled into Japan, or maybe a few extra-diligent criminals succeeded in making their own guns and bullets.

In any case, I would take 47 murders by gun over 9,369 any day of the week!!!

"Why have all of the mass homicides-by-firearm in the US been in (wait for it) gun-free zones (either so-declared by the managing entity or mandated as such by governing law)?"

Damn, what a dumb question. Incredibly stupid. THE U.S. ITSELF ISN'T A GUN-FREE ZONE, SO IT'S EXTREMELY EASY TO TRANSFER GUNS TO THESE LAUGHABLY "GUN-FREE" ZONES! I mean, upon entering a "gun-free" American university or city, do you think all your bags are thoroughly examined???

Highlander, murder of any sort in Japan is lower than the US.
And their suicide rate is more than double the US. (triple for women)
They also sell soiled panties in vending machines.
The point being, the Japanese are a different culture. They were different before Perry, and still are now.
Why not compare something that is closer to like for like: 2 states in America, or 2 different cities, one with more gun control than the other?

Could it be that your argument would implode...

Canadians own more guns per capita than Americans (legally speaking, anyway). Our society is as diverse as yours, particularly in urban centres where most gun violence occurs.

Are you comfortable shrugging off the enormous disparity in gun homicides between our two countries as a simple cultural difference? Are you comfortable suggesting that Americans are simply culturally predisposed to killing people in order to solve their problems, whereas Canadians are not?

Thanks for setting up my next points, Highlander :) Perhaps we can move beyond ad hominem distractions.

You said:

Maybe a few guns were successfully smuggled into Japan, or maybe a few extra-diligent criminals succeeded in making their own guns and bullets.

You also said:

I mean, upon entering a "gun-free" American university or city, do you think all your bags are thoroughly examined???

Personal ownership of firearms in the United States is not just a horse that's already left the barn, it's a part of our national heritage and culture. That will not change. Like the fallacy of "eliminating nuclear weapons", complete gun control here or anywhere else is not possible -- as Japan proves.

Defanging the sheepdogs because they force you to think about the wolves in the wilderness doesn't make the wolves magically disappear. It only makes the sheep less safe. (A thought-provoking read)

I believe the most logical balance is to allow law-abiding citizens the rights to possess firearms and carry them as freely as possible. Yet even then there will be incidents wherein a person with no prior criminal record "snaps". When that happens, were others free to carry, there will in all likelihood be someone nearby who could put that person down before they could kill dozens of innocents -- exactly the scenario hyperbolist referenced earlier (#14). Does that make me a wingnut...?

Freedom and security are a continuum; there is a balance to be struck between the two. I tend towards freedom.

AP more repulsive disgusting reptiles

Morrissimo, I don't purport to speak for Highlander, but I'll try and address your point:

Your argument as I see it boils down to this. There are two options:

1) Society A, where the chance of being murdered with a firearm is about 1 in 1,000,000

2) Society B, where the chance of being murdered with a firearm is about 1 in 50,000 but the chance of deterring or killing a would-be murderer with one's own legal firearm is a very real possibility, whereas it is i not in Society A.

A person who prefers a greater chance at living a long life, for themselves and their children, would prefer to live in Society A; whereas a person who thinks that any impingement on their liberty is unacceptable regardless of actuarial outcome would choose to live in Society B, especially if they get some psychological satisfaction through owning and carrying around firearms.

Pretty much the entire free world is happy to live in something resembling Society A, but many--perhaps most--Americans prefer Society B. Not saying they are wrong to do so, but please don't act as though Society B produces better outcomes in terms of preventing gun violence than Society A, which is what this discussion is about.

"Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?"
Joe Huffman

Political correctness has prevented more people from defending their 2nd Amendment rights in this country than any other form of bigotry, because that's exactly what it is, bigotry in the name of political correctness.

To answer Joe Huffman's question: um, yes. Prisons, for instance. Airports would be another good example. The nations of Japan and South Korea would be others. Courthouses, bars, casinos...

Gmac, it's pure fantasy that carrying a weapon makes you safer. There are no statistics to support your claim.

Nice dodge Hype, but it's still a dodge.

Do try again when YOU have some facts.
BTW, GIYF, try 'Who is Gary Kleck?'

Prisons...Armed guards are everywhere asshat, felons are by law not allowed to posses firearms.

Total snickers all the way around on Korea and Japan...Ever hear of 'Martial Arts' and did you learn anything about how they came into existence?

Courthouses? You can't carry there because the police have deemed it politically incorrect as judges and certain officials make tempting targets for unhappy .

Casinos are private property and if they set the rules and have a no carry policy then they are responsible for your personal safety. If you don't like it don't patronize them, let them know why.

Last I saw you CAN carry in bars in 41 states.
You really are looking like a fucking moron at this point Hype.

Ever wonder why criminals go to the 'Gun free' zones to kill?

One hint: Its because criminals are just that, they don't obey laws.

add 'criminals' after unhappy...

hyperbolist,

nice reply to morrissimo. :)

I lived in South Korea for a year. Every male there is conscripted for two years and can handle a rifle and sidearm. And tae kwan do is incredibly popular. But effective? Nope! Not unless your opponent agrees to only use tae kwan do-approved kicks and punches against you. It's a sport, and it's useless.

Really, if your argument in favour of guns is "Koreans and Japanese don't need them because they're all ninjas!", then you're a lot dumber than I thought and I regret replying to you.

And if you are suggesting that certain criminals wake up and think "Shit, I'd really like to shoot some defenseless saps today," and then Google "gun-free zones", then you're way, waaaaay dumber than I thought.

People like you prefer living in a society where people are more likely to be murdered with firearms because of some poorly articulated argument having to do with fundamental rights. Go ahead and embrace that position, but don't think anyone is stupid enough to accept that your position actually produces better outcomes with regards to homicide rates as a result of firearm ownership--legal or otherwise.

Oh, and Gmac, I don't care about your anecdote. There are lots of people who are killed because they aren't allowed to carry guns and someone with a gun shoots them; but there are lots, lots more people that die because of a certain society's permissive attitude towards lethal firearms, whether through accidents or illegal use of a lawfully owned weapon.

Domestic violence. Neighbourly disputes. Kids accidentally killing one another. Kids intentionally killing one another. Fuck all those people! You DEMAND the right to challenge a would-be mugger to a de facto duel, am I right?!

The problem is, your society is soaked in gun porn. Probably no way to fix it, but you could at least stop lying about less restrictions on firearms producing better outcomes in terms of intentional and accidental deaths.

I still haven't gotten an answer to "Just one question" and it's because you don't have one.

Just a free hint Hype, when was the last time you saw a news report of a mass murder happening at a gun show as opposed to a school or church?

"You DEMAND the right to challenge a would-be mugger to a de facto duel, am I right?!"

No, you're dead wrong as usual. I demand the right to be able to defend my rights as a free citizen in the USA as opposed to a slave in some rat hole that doesn't have a BoR that states straight up I have the right *DEFEND* myself with a firearm.

That's the difference Hype, your mindset is surrender, mine is to defend myself.