Bloomberg to air anti-gun ad with VT victims' families

New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg has reportedly teamed with the families of those killed in the April 16, 2007 shootings at Virginia Tech to produce a political ad calling for tighter controls on the sale of firearms at gun shows. According to the Associated Press, Bloomberg will unveil the ad at a press conference in Arlington on Monday, April 13. This is not the first time Bloomberg has decried Virginia's gun laws. In 2007, Bloomberg tussled publicly with then-Attorney General Bob McDonnell after Bloomberg sent NYPD officers to the Commonwealth to investigate guns-for-drugs trades, and sued six Virginia gun shops for selling weapons to alleged New York drug dealers.
–photo courtesy of the Office of the Mayor of New York City



The only thing you didn't touch on was what planet you hail from.

"The ignorance and NRA dittoheading is deafening."

I certainly don't speak for the NRA. And I'm certainly not ignorant to guns. After all, I was trained by our own government to work in law enforcement.

"There is no justification for Virginia’s gun laws."

There's over 230 years of justification in this country alone.

"The greed of gun manufacturers and the blind zealot behavior of NRA stooges has combined to make Virginia - and a number of other states along the East Coast - a gun market for everyone from NYC to gangs to Mexican drug lords."

Apparently you believed every word that Sen. Feinstein said. Please check her facts. Even the BATF Director tried to correct her and got dismissed. Her only concern was with headlines. Facts be damned.

"Those of you who parrot the NRA line about the 2d Amendment, some of you know it’s mostly a lie. Others just don’t know any better."

Good thing the 1st Amendment isn't a lie. But, I guess the Supreme Court was also lying.

"But any of you who can pay attention to the statistics and the individual stories of gun deaths in the country - how do you sleep at night?"

I sleep fine at night knowing that I can protect my family. Can you say the same?

"Imagining that the Revnew Agents are gunna come and take your guns - that’s pig ignorance."

Now you think we're all a bunch of moonshine drinking hillbillies. My IQ is 155. What's yours?

"The NRA and its dittoheads are morally responsible for the free flow of guns in this country to any moron who wants to own one - no matter how damaged emotionally, psychologically, financially, anti-spousally."

Now who is spewing lies.

"Guns should be treated like cars and other potentially dangerous consumer products - because they are."

Crap, I agree with you on this point. Everyone should be licensed to carry a gun.

"Hopefully, the next deranged gunman will open fire in Phoenix next month, during the NRA Annual Convention.

That might bring the message home to you people.

One can only hope."

I hope for your sake it does not happen. Because, you'll be the first door I knock on.

quote: "Guns should be treated like cars and other potentially dangerous consumer products - because they are."


And since cars, alcohol and tobacco kill more 25 times more people in this country each year than guns do, let's start with banning cars, alcohol and cigarettes first. :)

Todd, I'm gonna have to side with these two on this subject.
As corny as it sounds, it is our constitutional right to own a fire arm.
Now why on earth would a group of wise gentlemen with the task of forming a new country put the right to own firearms second to freedom of speech?
The men who built our nation understood that government was necessary to preserve the people’s freedoms. But they also knew that government agents could not be trusted to use their power justly and that government remains the single greatest threat to the rights and liberties of a free people.

America’s Founding Fathers knew that the best insurance policy for freedom was for the people always to retain the ability to take their government out of the hands of abusive officials, ââ?¬Å?to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

This was far from just some lofty theory to the Founders. They had witnessed oppressive government firsthand and had seen this principle unfold in dramatic practice as thousands of armed citizens took up their muskets and drove the king’s soldiers ââ?¬â? their government’s soldiers ââ?¬â? back to Boston on April 19, 1775. They knew the vital role played by armed citizens at Bunker Hill, Saratoga, and Yorktown. They had seen the United States born out of the fight against tyranny.

As far as the criminals, there will always be innocent bystanders unfortunatly, but these degenerates will eventually end up in jail or kill each other off. Heck, hopefully some of them will find Jesus but hardening gun laws and making it harder for average, law abiding citizens to obtain proper weapons will just makes things worse.

Think about how many burglars think twice about breaking in somewhere because chances are that homeowner has a 12 gauge or a 40 caliber pistol under their pillow? Aw man i could go on and on about this subject.... Ive said enough though


First of all, there is no gun show loophole. It is a state law that allows private transactions to take place.

Second, how in the world can you prevent a criminal from getting a gun? It has never happen anywhere. Not in DC, NYC, or even the UK, all of which have banned handguns from the public. It is just impossible to do.

Thirdly, hiring more LEOs to do what? Search every household and business for weapons and confiscate them. Park outside your house to protect you. Get real.

I see, you have the right to protect yourself, but you shouldn't do it. Right! Well you may believe that the police are there to protect you. But, you're kidding yourself. It is not their job to do so. The only one that can protect yourself is yourself.

Do you really want criminals to be the only ones out there with guns? Yikes!

You are very naive about the real world.

Virginia must close the gun show loop holes. More guns will NEVER be the solution. Education for those who will responsibly use guns is a great thing and should be funded and promoted, however, guns for self protection - is about the worst idea to promote. I'd rather see more funds and resources go into preventing the wrong people from getting guns and for more law enforcement agents to be hired.

Those who get a gun simply because it is their right to have one - are very ignorant. Just because it's a right - doesn't always mean you should exercise it.

VT Alum - 2000

Todd, the 70 year old grandmother in the video bought a gun because it was her right to do so. Do you think she's ignorant too? Or did it save her life perhaps?

NYC is just like DC. Where there are more criminals with firearms than police and the law abiding citizens are just targets. Banning firearms will not take firearms away from criminals. Banning firearms will not make you safer. Banning firearms puts your life more at risk by making you more of a target.

If you really want to decease crime, then every adult should learn firearm safety and be able to shoot a firearm. Laws should be tougher on criminals that use weapons. Use a weapon in the commission of a crime and go to prison for LIFE without parole.

Make criminals think twice about a committing a crime with a weapon.

Don't be a victim, protect your rights to protect yourself. No one else is going to do it for you.

I believe we should ban all guns. Just look at DC, NY and Chicago, these cities have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and as a result are also the safest place to live and work. Just compare that to Virginia, where lax gun laws obvious allow trigger-happy gunmen to rule the streets and crimes must be completely out-of-control.

If I were about to commit a crime, I'd definitely make sure I am out of the city limits before proceeding. Getting convicted with murder, rape, or armed robbery is one thing, but nobody wants to get caught in possession of an illegal gun! I mean, that's why people in the movies always gets rid of their murder weapons, right?

I have often wondered why there is no outcry on all the deaths due to cars and trucks. Yes ban driving for the safety of our citizens.
Driving is not a right.

A right unexercised is a right lost.

Here are a few interesting stories to consider:

The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, VA
After a police dog failed to find a suspect hiding inside a burglarized Charlottesville, Virginia, auto parts store, owner Thomas Hathaway began cleaning the ransacked area. Walking into the storeroom, a startled Hathaway discovered the burglar still inside and pulled a gun on the intruder, ordering him to lie face down on the floor. Hathaway held him for police, who quickly returned to the scene.

And another...

The Daily Progress, Charlottesville, VA
Brenda Jones, a 24-year-old University of Virginia graduate student, was leaving her Charlottesville, Virginia, apartment when a man grabbed her from behind. During the ensuing struggle, Jones and her attacker fell back into the apartment, where Jones managed to break free of her assailant. Jones sprinted to her bedroom and grabbed her revolver. Training it on the criminal, she demanded he leave, which he did.

My question would be how often has a firearm been successfully used for self-defense and the results have not been reported? I know several persons myself that have used firearms to fend off potential criminals (no shots fired) and they never reported the event.

And when consider the small percentage of events actually many make the newspaper? A handful maybe. Newspapers are not habitual reporters of good news - they are first and foremost a business. They would be selling even fewer papers if all they reported were happy stories with good endings.

nick said: "Hopefully, the next deranged gunman will open fire in Phoenix next month, during the NRA Annual Convention.

That might bring the message home to you people.

One can only hope."

You should be ashamed of yourself for condoning or even insighting violence.

What about the 2nd amendment is a lie? People have the right to protect themselves and their families. That is the truth. There are people out there who want to hurt/kill innocent victims. That is the truth. Criminals do not care about the laws, no matter how many you pass. That is the truth. Show me the lies.

What is next to be a lie? The 4th or 5th amendments, Maybe you would like the entire Bill of Rights thrown away because you don't like them.

Dear readers,

If you consult our comments policy below, you will notice that there is nothing in there about not making violent threats. We figured people just knew better. Evidently, that's not the case. So let me make it explicitly clear that threats of physical violence will be promptly deleted from this forum.

Thanks for reading.

Lindsay Barnes

I cannot believe that there are actually citizens the U.S.A that think all firearms should be banned! If you think banning firearms will keep guns out of criinals hands why dont you also post a sign at city limits that says no criminals allowed! Im sure that will wrok and they'll turn around and go to city that doesnt have a sign posted. Self-defense is a god given right and as A law patriot and constitutionalist I do not need the governments permission to have the means to protect myself and my family. THERE IS NO GUNSHOW LOOPHOLE! A private gun transaction is simply one adult selling HIS property to another adult thta is a law abiding citizen. FREEDOM ISNT FOR EVERYONE IT CAN BE A LITTLE SCARY,so if you dont like the constitution please do live in another country ! This country was made possible because of firearms so we could overthrow british tyranny. "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither"- benjamin franklin

It's always been my opinion that the anti-gun finatics think somebody like this can save their bacon when it needs saving.

Do you realize ten time the amount of people killed in this country with firearms are killed by there doctor giving the wrong prescription!

Does anyone know why Mr. Bloomberg and the his NYPD officers were not arrested for federal and state firearms violations. When they illegally bought firearms here in Virginia to take back to NYC. Isn't take trafficking in illegal firearms?

"inciting" not "insighting" Why do the pro-gun folks not know how to spell? The more education you have, the less likely you are to be pro-gun, btw.

If your only concern is protecting yourself from violent crime, by all means buy a gun. I do not feel a threat from violent crime and never have, so I see no need to own a gun. I've lived in large, crime-ridden cities and have managed to stay safe by being street smart. People in these cities laugh at those that claim that they should own guns as they know that having a gun around INCREASES the chance of dying by gunfire.

It is a completely different issue in small towns such as Charlottesville and rural areas such as most of Virginia, of course. In the extremely small chance that you will be a victim of a violent crime in these areas, owning a gun may help you out of one of those extremely rare jams.

People that claim that everyone should own a gun because of their own paranoid fears seem misguided to me, but then I haven't lived my entire life in a rural area or small town, so what do I know?

Billy Bob, that says a lot about our education system, eh? Stay armed, stay safe.

billy bob;

In cities (big and small), street crimes and daytime burglaries are more prevalent than nighttime burglaries.
With so much crime readily available during the day and night on the street. There's no need for a criminal to take the risk at doing a nighttime burglary. So, I can see that having a firearm at home does not make sense for most. However, these same people usually have other weapons at home.

You said, "having a gun around INCREASES the chance of dying by gunfire." That's more of same lame anti-gun sensationalism that has no facts behind it. How many cases have there been where an intruder in a home, either finds or takes away a firearm and kills the homeowner with it?

Why is it that the anti-gun folks think that gun owners are uneducated?

If having an education makes you anti-gun, then our founding fathers would have been blethering idiots. Which is undisputedly not the case. So, an education has nothing to do with why an individual is either anti or pro gun.

Your statement is again more of the lame anti-gun sensationalism that tries to tie in having a lack of education with criminals and gun owners. It's another bogus argument. There are highly educated criminals and pro-guns owners. Just as there are ignorant anti-gun people.

Excuse me, I have employed NO sensationalism. I will not do your research for you. Gun owners (legal or otherwise) are more likely to die or be injured by firearms. Do you actually dispute that?

If I were to employ sensationalism, I would write about the Police Officer that came home, fell asleep on his couch and left his handgun on his coffee table. His toddler son woke up the next morning, picked up the gun and shot him dead.

For every story the uneducated, pro-gun masses tell about criminals being deterred by law-abiding gun owners, there are several more stories about law-abiding gun owners accidentally shooting someone or getting shot themselves. Gun owners, by and large, are less educated and have lower IQs. These are facts that cannot be overcome by your emotional arguments about the founding fathers, who established laws for a society that does not resemble the one we live in.

DC is not a state, as we all know, but a city. It should not be in the sample and statistically it is an outlier. I probably should explain basic statistics for all the pro-gun people reading, but there isn't enough space to give them such a basic education.

If you look at the state data, you see Alaska, Wyoming and Louisiana leading the "death by firearms" category! These are also the states with the highest rate of gun ownership, and the lowest level of education.

There is a direct correlation between IQ and education level, btw.

At the low end of the scale are those states with the restrictive gun control laws along with high levels of education and IQ: New York, New Jersey, Conneticut and Massachusetts and Hawaii.

What conclusion can you reach? STATES with restrictive gun laws are PROTECTING their people. These people use intelligence to craft public policy. The policy is effective and the result is positive.

The states that brought us Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal and Dick Cheney have crafted policies that result in greater death for their citizens. These states have lower education levels, IQ, income and greater death due to firearms.

quote: "I would write about the Police Officer that came home, fell asleep on his couch and left his handgun on his coffee table. His toddler son woke up the next morning, picked up the gun and shot him dead."

I've never heard anybody accuse cops of being the smartest group of people walking the streets. Why not blame this death on ignorance instead of blaming the gun?

Billy Bob, you said you will not do your research for us. Yet you are completely unwilling to provide even a single credible source for your wild conjecture. Unreasonable assumptions and unresearched statements based on zero evidence should be avoided. You'll have to forgive me if I have some typos. Typing with thumbs on a touchscreen phone is rather difficult.

Nathan, I have provided a link establishing the fact that those states that employ strict gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths. Reason would suggest that strict gun laws result in lower rates of gun death. If you are unable to counter this fact with reasoned argument, I suggest you don't try. I'm sorry that my argument is so easy to support with facts and yours isn't.

Sick, I blame the person owning the gun, not some abstract concept such as "ignorance". As you point out, gun owners (cops) aren't the smartest group of people. Thanks for supporting my argument and undercutting your own.

Here are two facts :
DC had a ban on just about all guns but has one of the highest gun related crime rate in the nation.
California has the strictest gun laws of any state but has always ranked near the top in gun violence.

Virginia has some of the most relaxed gun laws in the nation and consistantly ranks as one of safest states.

DC is not a state but a city. Comparing DC with California or Virginia shows that your argument does not stand up to reason.

Please make a valid comparison in order to make a rational statement.

You are cherry picking states whereas the link I provided showed that, on average, strict gun laws result in lower rates of gun deaths.


This link shows California ranks 30th in terms of gun deaths. Virginia ranks 24th.

California is therefore safer than Virginia when it comes to gun deaths.

Your argument is wrong and mine is correct. I have shown evidence proving my argument, you have made baseless assertions that I have shown to be wrong.

Billy Bob - When considering any sort of firearm death rate the first thing you must do is extract all suicide data. Multiple studies have been proven that suicide rates are directly related to social and economic conditions, not the availability of firearms. In summary, if firearms are present they will be used; if no firearms are present the suicidal person will select another form, e.g., jumping, drugs, etc.

Billy Bob may I suggest you read "More Guns, Less Crime" (ISBN 0226493636) by Dr. John Lott, a senior research scientist at UMCP.

Dr. Gary Kleck, a criminologist at FSU clearly established the fact that defensive uses of handguns outweigh criminal use in the United States. Dr. Kleck is regarded as an expert regarding guns, violence, and gun control laws in the United States. His work has been cited in the United States Supreme Court.

Good man, Chet. Good man.

quote: "Sick, I blame the person owning the gun, not some abstract concept such as ââ?¬Å?ignorance”. As you point out, gun owners (cops) aren’t the smartest group of people. Thanks for supporting my argument and undercutting your own."

Billy Bob, you don't seem to know me very well yet. :)

I have no problem conceding the fact that the cop wasn't the brightest crayon in the box. I just didn't want the gun, the accessibility to a gun, or the kid to be blamed for the cop's ignorance. And oh yes, it was pure unadulterated ignorance to lay a loaded gun on a coffee table and then go to sleep.

And what about the cops in Pennsylvania watching the Super Bowl recently who left his loaded weapon laying around resulting in a tragic death. More unadultertated ignorance. (see below).

Wasn't that long ago a local county police firearms instructor shot himself in the leg. And several cops sitting around playing in Gordonsville shot the chief, or who?? Maybe a first step in the right direction in effective gun control is taking guns away from all cops because of a few incidents?

And Nathan, shame on you for posting so many truths in so few words!!! :)

The mayhem on Bleigh Avenue near Crispin Street allegedly started with an off-duty cop placing a gun on a table and tragically ended with another man being charged with the murder of the cop's brother-in-law. Christopher Donaghy, 27, the son of a Philadelphia police officer, had invited about eight friends and family members to his home on Bleigh Avenue for a Super Bowl party in his basement, according to police. Donaghy's brother-in-law Christopher Surma, 29, an off-duty Plymouth Township police officer at the party, allegedly placed a gun he owned on a table sometime during the game, city homicide Capt. James Clark said.
Another guest at the party, Ronald Parncutt, 49, who lives two doors away from Donaghy, picked up the unattended weapon and "started toying with it," Clark said. The 9 mm semiautomatic Glock, which lacked an external safety, discharged once while in Parncutt's hands, striking Donaghy in the back around 8:52 p.m. while he watched the game, Clark said. Donaghy was taken to Frankford Hospital-Torresdale, where he was pronounced dead at 10:09 p.m.

Chet, I appreciate your valid arguments, but they are only arguments. I have provided statistical evidence supporting my position, you merely suggest that the statistics can be manipulated to support yours.

Instead of relying on what other people say, please provide the evidence in this forum or admit that you are unable to do so.

Thanks for participating!

If you don't want to own a gun, that's fine, don't own one.

Don't tell me how and where I can defend myself lawfully.

If you dont want to speak freely and don't want to hear other viewpoints. Then keep your mouth shut and turn off or put down the T.V., radio, newspaper, etc...

Don't tell me whether I can speak my mind or not.

If you want to be searched personally; if you want your home searched and turned inside out and upside down by authorities with no evidence against you and no warrant; if you want to be stopped, and have your vehicle searched when there is no probable cause or suspicion of a crime simply because the officer wants to search your vehicle; if you want an officer to stop you for no reason as you walk and then have him grab your bag and search it... that if your right to comply

Don't tell me I can't be protected against unreasonable search and seizure.

If you want to be yanked into a police precinct for something you may or may not have done and waive your rights to say nothing without a lawyer present and then end up inadvertantly spilling your guts; or even if you are innocent say something by accident that gets you wrongfully convicted, it is your right to comply.

Do not tell me, that even when innocent, that I must have something to hide because I want a lawyer present before saying ANYTHING to the police. Don't presume to tell me who I am and what I may or may not have done based on the presence of legal counsel.

You have the right to comply with any request and to not exercise any of your rights.

You do not have the right to tell me how to exercise mine.

Nathan, I'm not suggesting that you stop speaking. I am stating the truth that I have shown your argument to be wrong. If you can't take losing an argument, perhaps you should think twice before entering one.

Billy Bob - how is the statistical information that you provide different from what I provide - we both are providing published info, correct?

My profession has relied heavily upon statistics and I work in this regime daily - I am confident in my abilities.

My suggestion that suicide data be retracted from any statistical measure of gun related deaths has noting to do with manipulating data - this retraction would actually improve the resolution of measure since suicide data can not be made a valid part of your argument.

I have provided multiple sources, you are depending on a single flawed citation that includes suicide data. Are you unable to find anything else to support your claim?

Have you read a book such as More Guns, Less Crime by Dr. Lott? He provides dozens of examples spanning hundreds of pages to support the effectiveness of personally owned and carried firearms with regard to reduction of crime.

I spend much of my time researching both side of the argument. How can you suggest the ability to offer objective analysis if your subjective self only reads one side of the story. May I offer my professional suggestion that you educate yourself and read both sides - start with Dr. Lott or Dr. Kleck.

And finally Billy Bob; if your mother, wife, or daughter, were faced with rape, torture, and eventual murder by an approaching attacker, would you rather they have a cellular phone of a firearm? And what would be you basis for selecting either.

and sick, You bring up a few anecdotes and ascribe to me a ridiculous position based on them? I brought up the toddler shooting his father in response to all the "law abiding citizen stops crime in progress" stories. I was pointing out how ridiculous anecdotal evidence can be. Please don't claim that I support a position that I don't.

re:"And finally Billy Bob; if your mother, wife, or daughter, were faced with rape, torture, and eventual murder by an approaching attacker, would you rather they have a cellular phone of a firearm? And what would be you basis for selecting either."

The fact that you would make such an emotional appeal in a reasoned debate displays the weakness of your argument.

My mother was killed by a man that owned his gun legally. My daughter watched it happen. I wish the man did not have the gun, but there was nothing I could do about it because the law said he had a right to bear arms. I wasn't there, but I wish I was and could have done what I wasn't able to do to protect her, but I wasn't. This tragedy led me to the position I have, not to the position you have.

I have provided the source of my statistical contention, you are asking me to go look in the library for a book that supports yours or google a pro-gun FSU professor. You are also suggesting that my statistical evidence is flawed but provide no support for this suggestion. Until you can back up what you say, I will regard what you say as backed up by nothing.

You are correct, I am decent and honorable, I have provided my name.

You are hiding behind a screen name. Please provide your full name.

My research sources should allow me to reference the story you claimed above in a matter of minutes.

Sorry if this appears harsh or cruel but the world we live in is both. When I make claims I am able to reference or cite prior work to back them up. I would expect you to be capable of doing the same.

Billy Bob...please clearly establish the position you support.

You still have not answered my question Billy, cellular phone or gun?

I know this may be difficult but as husbands, fathers, and male citizens, we have a duty, and obligation, to consider the best answer to questions such as these.

Please answer the question...

furthermore, it is well established that those states with stricter gun-control laws (NY, MA, CT, NJ, etc) have lower rates of gun deaths.

Clearly, as a public health policy, gun control is more effective for reducing the number of gun deaths. You can ask that you subtract a certain number of those gun deaths, but that presumes that the state bears no cost (monetary or otherwise) for that subset of gun deaths.

Your question is moot and quite ridiculous Chet. You are making a hypothetical argument which is intended to manipulate me into an emotional response.

I've already told you what happened to my mother and daughter. I would appreciate it if you dropped the subject.

You are either a decent, honorable man or you are not. Your choice.

If your mother, wife, or daughter, were faced with rape, torture, and eventual murder by an approaching attacker, would you rather they have a cellular phone of a firearm? Interesting question!

If they have a cell phone, the police are on the way! They might be brutally assaulted or dead by the time the police get there, but rest assured, the police are on the way! Bravo!

But with a handgun they could take their own fate in their own hands and defend themselves instantly. Just like the 70 year old Grandma in South Bend, Indiana who recently held a burglar at gunpoint until the police got there 5 minutes after her call was placed. (Google Cyrus Brown burglar) Had the lady lived in a county rather than a city, it could possibly have taken the police 2 to 3 times longer to get to her.

Thank God the lady was "ignorant" enough to own a firearm. :)

With violent home invasions on the increase in the city, one of the most recent resulting in the murder of a young lady for a laptop computer, my family has instant access to handguns, rifles and shotguns on every level of my home.

My argument is simple. Gun control saves lives. States with strict gun control laws have fewer gun deaths. Those states are less cruel (by your apparent standard).

There is nothing dishonorable in using an internet screen name to post internet comments, Chet. How odd and unusual that you would suggest such a thing! To me, this is more evidence that you know that you are losing this argument.

What is dishonorable it to try to use personal tragedy to provoke an emotional, fear-based response amongst a population in order to increase profits, as the gun industry regularly does.

Posting it again. States with strict gun control laws are states with low rates of gun deaths.

Billy Bob - this will be my final post for now since I will be spending the rest of the day with my family. Don't worry for our safety, I always have my .45 on my hip and train extensively on how to defeat every conceivable threat. I even plan on how to deal with the unexpected.

Bob, do you have a fire alarm or extinguisher in your home? If you do I would consider you paranoid. Shouldn't you be able to know when a fire will happen and prevent that?

Or are you one of those crazy Americans that were a seat belt and have air-bags in their vehicles? Nuts I tell you - you are so paranoid. Just do a better job driving and you will not have to worry about those pesky accidents.

Sill waiting for your real name Bob so I can reference your story.

Oh, wait, there are other key players in the abovementioned. Our ability to predict fires and accidents is on par with our ability to predict crimes.

I have a fire alarm and extinguisher, I wear seatbelts and have air bags...and I carry a firearm for the unforeseen times when I may be in the eyes of a violent felon.

I am not paranoid, I am prepared.

One final thought Bob before I sign off for a few hours...

The Second Amendment has more to do with our God-given right to life than it does with anything else.

A firearm in the hands of a free man is the greatest tool in protecting our God-given rights to free speech, peaceable assembly, choice of religion, protection against unreasonable search, etc.

Our Bill of Rights do not grant us these rights - they warn the government that these rights are granted upon us by our Creator. The Bill also warns against government infringement upon these God-given rights.

Rights can not be taken away, or even given away. You may choose not to take advantage of them and freely allow yourself to be restricted, searched, or wander around without protection, but you still have the right should you choose to take advantage of it.

The government can not take away these right either, for any reason...they can only infringe upon them. And when enough people feel their rights have been infringed upon enough...the blood of patriots and tyrants will be used to refresh the tree of liberty. And guns will be the tool of choice in securing our God-given rights and freedoms...forever.

Chet, I too will be signing off, but I will point out that God has nothing to do with the second amendment. In fact, God doesn't exist.

I just LOVE hearing the paranoid anti-gun nuts try to convince people that making new laws are the solution to our crime. More guns may not be the solution to our crime but neither are new laws. By definition all that making a new law does is create a new criminal. Although sometimes I feel that creating a criminal out of the law abiding citizen is more the point than decreasing crime...I won't go there. I'll give these anti-s the benefit of the doubt. I'll assume that they really do want to decrease crime. They just don't understand that taking the gun out of Jane and Joe's hands is not going to prevent Mo from carrying out his fantasies of murder and suicide. I'll also assume that the anti-s really just don't understand that making new gun control laws only hurts those looking to defend themselves and their families.

I'm going to assume that the anti-s really are using their brain and not just their hearts and understand the logic behind the crime and the laws and how they interact with each other.

People reading this....just think logically about how/why laws are broken. Put yourself in the shoes of a murderer. If someone creates a new gun control law....are you going to decide not to murder? Now put yourself in the shoes of someone who is having their homes broken into and the man coming through the door has a gun or a knife. Do you want to have the proper tools avaiable to you to stop him/her as quickly as possible before he/she can get to your son or daughter sleeping in the room next door? OF COURSE YOU DO!!!!

Just think logically folks. The answer is simple. More gun control is not the answer. Just ask the cities with the highest crime rates how gun control works. IT DOESNT.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 56.5% of all gun deaths are suicides. If you combine drug related gun deaths with suicides, they account for 2 out of every 3 gun related deaths. is their home page.

Billy bob, here's some information on one of your fellow anti-gunners who is in fact a hypocrite.

Sarah Brady helps her son Scott Brady avoid the Brady criminal background check

"I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car and drove home. It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat." - Sarah Brady, explaining how her son avoided the Brady criminal background check by getting her to buy the sniper rifle for him. Source: New York Daily News, Mar. 21, 2002, "Gun control advocate may have violated gun laws"

"And you probably won't believe what I bought for Scott. I had thought that he wanted some musical equipment for his guitar, but when I asked him for some details, he announced that what he really wanted for Christmas was a hunting rifle." - source: "A Good Fight", Sarah Brady, chapter 21, page 223 of first edition hardback, ISBN 1-58648-105-3

"And I can't describe how I felt when I picked up that rifle, loaded it into my little car, and drove home. It seemed so incredibly strange: Sarah Brady, of all people, packing heat." - source: "A Good Fight", Sarah Brady, chapter 21, page 224 of first edition hardback, ISBN 1-58648-105-3

March 26, 2009, 8:00 a.m., Palm Beach Sheriff's Office major Richard Jenkins, upon exiting his shower in preparation for work, engages in hand to hand combat with an intruder which has broken into his residence. A 50+ year old man wrestling with a 22 year old felon. Jenkins finally has to shoot and kill the intruder.

June 21, 2007, California, an off-duty San Leandro police officer fatally shot an intruder who entered his home Wednesday evening around 7:10 p.m. Another report claims the police officer was actually holding his 7-month-old son at the time of the home invasion.

December 01, 2008, retired NYPD officer Carmine Longo shoots and kills an intruder who entered his residence and was now attempting to kill the officer with a vehicle while escaping.

Feb 19, 2009, Pittsburgh, A Duquesne police officer fatally shot an intruder this morning in a home just before 9 a.m.

Mar 12, 2009, 7:40 a.m., An off-duty Chicago police officer shot and wounded a man who broke into his South Side home.

The list goes on and on, just google it. These people were fortunate enough to have access to firearms due to the nature of their employment. Suppose they hadn't?

Anti-gun advocates do not fare as well in scenarios like the above. They are brutally assaulted, robbed, raped and murdered. Why? Because of their anti-gun beliefs. More power to them! :)

Most firearms used by criminals in federal prison were obtained legally.

Maybe we shouldn't make it so easy for these criminals to get guns? That would be a wise conclusion from the statistics provided. Fortunately, many of the people that are NOW in power are wiser than those that were over the last 8 years. We should see some good, sensible gun control laws soon.

Right after Clinton banned assault weapons, gun violence took a nose dive.

An intelligent reading of these facts would lead to the logical conclusion that guns should be well regulated, just as the second amendment indicates.

Those who get a gun simply because it is their right to have one - are very ignorant. Just because it’s a right - doesn’t always mean you should exercise it.

VT Alum - 2000 " " "

To the Above, Maybe you should quit voicing your happy go lucky opinion, and not excersise your freedom of speech all the time huh? thought so.....

why not throw out the 13th amendment next, or the fifth, or maybe even the whole lot. sounds wonderful. Dominoes fall one at a time, and I will not contribute to the tumble.

Any way, butt out, Virginia is its own state, and seems to do great all things aside.


Bob, suicides by gun are high. Over 50% of all gun deaths. The choice of using a gun in these cases, is because it usually works the first time. Unlike, poisoning, jumping, etc. Which only work in about 1 in 3 attempts. For each suicide, there are 100 attempted suicides. (data from CDC)

Suicides are a crime against ones self and not a crime against another person.

They should be excluded when discussing homicides by guns.

Violent crimes per 100,000

United States average 466.9

Massachusetts 431.5 (Brady Campaign 54 of 100 points)
New York 414.1 (Brady Campaign 51 of 100 points)
Connecticut 256.0 (Brady Campaign 54 of 100 points)
New Jersey 329.3 (Brady Campaign 63 of 100 points)
Hawaii 272.8 (Brady Campaign 43 of 100 points)
Average 340.7/53

Alaska 661.2 (Brady Campaign 4 of 100 points)
Louisiana 729.5 (Brady Campaign 2 of 100 points)
Wyoming 239.3 (Brady Campaign 9 of 100 points)
Average 543.3/5

Virginia 269.7 (Brady Campaign 18 of 100 points)
North Dakota 142.4 (Brady Campaign 4 of 100 points)
Vermont 124.3 (Brady Campaign 9 of 100 points)
Average 178.8/10

So what is the correlation Billy Bob? Looks to me as if VA, ND, & VT have a violent crime average half of MA, NY, CT, NJ, & HI yet the gun laws in VA, ND, & VT are only 20% as good according to the Brady Campaign.

BTW - the District of Columbia is a record setting 1414.3 - explain that!

Bob, I went to Did you not read the disclaimer.

"The statistics cannot take into account the differences that exist between the legal definitions of offences in various countries, of the different methods of tallying, etc.Consequently, the figures used in these statistics must be interpreted with great caution. In particular, to use the figures as a basis for comparison between different countries is highly problematic."

Also, if you goto the real source of the data at the you'll notice that the data quoted at wikipedia is from 1999. In subsequent years you'll noticed that homicides in the UK are going up while in the US they are going down. But, that doesn't matter, because the data is already highly problematic.

I'm at least willing to ignore bad data. You however, continue to use it as fact.

Billy Bob,

It's already been pointed out that your data is skewed to include irrelevant information (suicides, etc), but you continue to cling to it. How about another page from your same web site:

Illinois #2, Maryland #3, California #5 - How can states with some of the strongest gun control be so high in gun violence? As noted, the statistics on that site are strewn with a lot of extraneous data.

Living in a free country can be tough sometimes, but living in a country where you have little to no rights, can be even harder.

You think guns are bad. Why not look at the UK for advice? They systematically outlawed almost all guns. In response, their gun and knife crime rates has been steadily rising year after year.

The one simple truth is criminals are, wait for it....criminals. They don't care what gun laws you pass. They will continue to get guns and hurt people. Gun laws only make it more difficult for good, law-abiding people to protect themselves.

I'm sorry for what happened to you, bad things do happen to good people. You're mother trusted a bad person and, it sounds like, she wasn't armed, unlike her attacker. I hope if something bad happens to you or your family in the future, you are able to protect them instead of letting a bad incident in your past put your families future in jeopardy.

"If your only concern is protecting yourself from violent crime, by all means buy a gun. I do not feel a threat from violent crime and never have, so I see no need to own a gun. I’ve lived in large, crime-ridden cities and have managed to stay safe by being street smart." -Billy Bob

Just as the students at VT did not feel a threat from violent crime, they quickly became victims and felt the threat, and they were not allowed to defend themselves. Who was there to protect these students?? The police?? Well the Supreme Court has said that the government has no responsibility to protect the people from madmen and lunatics. So that only leaves me to protect myself. The only correct thing in your whole comment is the bit about being street smart. I have lived in Charlottesville for 10 years and street smarts must not be a strong requirement for admission into UVA.

"My mother was killed by a man that owned his gun legally. My daughter watched it happen. I wish the man did not have the gun, but there was nothing I could do about it because the law said he had a right to bear arms. I wasn’t there, but I wish I was and could have done what I wasn’t able to do to protect her, but I wasn’t. This tragedy led me to the position I have, not to the position you have." -Billy Bob

This is sad indeed and I offer my condolences, however, this proves a very good point. Policy should NOT be created on the back of emotion, but instead on the foundation of fact and and research. By saying that the facts you presented are true and that any analysis, critical or otherwise, of the numbers is "manipulating them" is the true sign of ignorance here.

To these facts I will say that I am an avid 2A supporter, I feel that every person, no matter their race, religion, beliefs, or their social-economic status, has the right to defend themselves, their family, and the ones they care about. To further regulate the rights of law abiding Citizens would be to further go against the Constitution of the United States, the document that has made this country so great to live in, but a document that increasingly seems to be an optional set of guidelines than rights guaranteed.

I will end by quoting the founders of the great nation:

"He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither."
-Benjamin Franklin

"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)
-John Adams

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
-Patrick Henry

And some who disagree with those who built our country:

"When we got organized as a country, [and] wrote a fairly radical Constitution, with a radical Bill of Rights, giving radical amounts of freedom to Americans, it was assumed that Americans who had that freedom would use it responsibly...When personal freedom is being abused, you have to move to limit it."
-Bill Clinton

"You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. (THIS IS BY NO MEANS A COMPARISON OF ANYONE TO ADOLF HITLER, JUST ANOTHER WORLD LEADER'S VIEWPOINT).

Dear Chet,

Your comment probably got caught in the "awaiting approval" queue because it contained multiple links, which our system automatically sets aside because spam comments usually contain multiple links. See above to see your comment.

Lindsay Barnes

I am very pro-gun and believe that every person of sound mind should be familiar with firearms. Anti-gun crowd, I would ask you to learn how to safely handle and fire a weapon and know the difference between assault rifles and hunting rifles, and terms like automatic and semi-automatic before judging others. It's easy to fear the unknown, it's harder to take the time to learn.

What anti-gun people need to understand is criminals by definition are law-breakers. It's illegal to shoot people and rob and murder right now, but criminals still do it. You can make as many gun laws as you want but criminals still will break them, so anti-gun laws wind up mostly affecting law-abiding citizens.

However on the issue of the "gun show loophole", it seems to me if a background check is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer, why shouldn't there be a background check to purchase one from a private owner? The goal of the background checks I think is to keep firearms out of the hands of people proven dangerous or mentally unfit.

billy boob

I think the Firearms Deaths per 100,000 at the link provided is simplistic and being used to infer personal safety. First and foremost, I recommend reading the FBI caution against ranking based on crime statistics. ( Also, it's based on 2002 data. Furthermore, it takes nothing related to crime rates other than firearms deaths into account.

I expect higher firearms death rates in states where people have a tradition of hunting quite simply because hunting can be a dangerous activity. Also, I would argue women who have been raped don't give a rats ass about firearms deaths per 100k since the violence against them is not counted.

But lets get to the meat of the issue on personal safety--Crime. Violent crime (including Homicide, Rape, Robbery & Serious Assault) per 100,000 is the most valid measure of a person's safety where they live.

DC 1,371.2/100k Draconian gun laws (and all city)
LA 638.7 Permissive gun laws (2007 #49 income $39k)
MS 295.1 Permissive (2007 #50 income $36k)
NY 441.6 Draconian NYC 673.1 (#24 income $49k)
NJ 355.7 Draconian Newark 1,010.8 (#3 $65k)
CT 286.3 Harsh (#4 $64k)
MA 458.8 Draconian BOS 1,155.2 (#10 $57.6k)
MD 700.5 Harsh Balt 1,631.1 (#2 $65.5k)
IL 542.9 Draconian CHI 1,178.7 (#18 $51k)
CA 551.8 Harsh LAPD is 718.4 (#12 $56k)
VA 275.6 Permissive (#8 $59k)
PA 411.1 Moderate Philly 1,475.4 (#26 $49k)
AK 634.5 Very Permissive (2007 #6 income $60.5K)
FL 711.3 Permissive (#35 $46k)
GA 455.5 Permissive (#21 $49.7k)
NH 167.0 Very Permissive (#1 income $66k)
VT 112.0 Very Permissive (#19 $52k)
MT 293.8 Very Permissive (#39 $42k)
ME 103.5 Permissive (#32 $47k)
SC 784.2 Permissive (#41 $42k)
US Avg 465.5 Detroit 2,289.0

I would argue these statistics do not tell enough of the story to draw a conclusion. Violent crime correlates to income, but at nowhere near the rate of overall crime. Look at Louisiana vs. Mississippi. They are the bottom two in income and dramatically different on violent crime because LA has New Orleans. Gun laws neither drive violent crime nor derive from it. New York has higher violent crime rates thanks to NYC than Vermont or New Hampshire where the gun laws are most permissive while all remain better than average overall.

Violent crime correlates to cities, income disparity, gang activity, drug activity, minority population, proximity to the Mexican border and a host of other factors not related to gun laws or median income.

I support every individuals right to meet violent crime with lethal force.

Stay safe.

I'll keep my freedom, guns and money. You can keep the change.

Here's another "ignorant" gun owner who was able to protect himself and his family.

What a tremendous debate here. Billy Bob, at least, has tried to shed a few facts on the NRA-dominated landscape.

The simplest points are these:

- the U.S. has a uniquely intense love affair with guns; it is part of our heritage both revolutionary and conquering the West and the whole lone gunslinger thing, which no other nation can quite compare

- our Constitution does say something about guns - in the 2d Amendment. However, there is not and NEVER WILL BE more than bare-majority consensus about what that Constitutional right really is. Due to the convoluted history of the federalist/anti-federalist debates and the militia clause as part of the 2d Amendment compromise AT BEST we might agree:

1) that there is a strong 'individual rights' argument and an also strong 'collective rights' argument (meaning that the right to bear arms is tied not to YOU/INDIVIDUAL (e.g. the borderline domestic terrorist building up an arsenal to resist the government because you don't like black men bossing you around and taxing you


2) there is also a strong "collective rights" argument (meaning the right belongs to YOU/MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY only if you are engaged somehow in the old school form of militia activity (e.g. the current National Guard or, perhaps, other organized State-defense) - NOT the more popular current form of militia activity, engaged in by the hopefully, soon-to-be-Waco-barbecued-folks; many of whom went tea-baggin yesterday.

- thus, there is nothing but noise when it comes to the whole 2d Amendment debate. The NRA is a loud, extraordinarily powerful single issue pressure group. They have devoted decades and millions (if not billions) of dollars to protecting not the rights of individuals, but the profits of gun manufacturers.

- I wonder how many of the obsessive gun fetishists on this board really DO give a crap about THIS COUNTRY - as opposed to a single-minded focus on owning multiple guns, unlimited ammunition, high powered weapons, with massive ammuition and reload capability etc)

- I understand how many gun fetishists operate out of fear: fear that others will come take their property, break into their house, take their women, etc). And many of us have experienced violent crime or property invasions which make these very real fears. For those who want to defend themselves with guns, great. That's fine. No one is stopping you. No one is saying nor have they EVER said your guns will be taken. That is YOUR PARANOID SELF-PERPETUATING FANTASY.

- but those slightly less narrow minded gun owners can see past the myopic discussion of "Government gun grabbers" (which is not happening and never has been threatened in this nation and has ALWAYS been a red herring used by the NRA to raise money and fear).

- How about the following questions:


- urban gang-bangers
- Mexican drug gangs
- heat of passion ex-spouses and lovers intent on violence
- mentally challenged folks whose records are not properly kept or who slip through the patchwork of regulations?


- would you sign on to compromise in which the scary-government-gun-grabber word "Registration" is removed and the rule is that, in order to obtain your weapon, you get the waiting period, and you must prove that you have taken a 6 hour (or more) gun safety training class? How about that? How about if trainers of those classes are allowed to make notes to the gun shop etc like: "Potential buyer has photo of his ex-wife and kids which he takes out and points gun at repeatedly: do NOT sell weapon"??

= or would THAT, too, be an outrageous invasion of your GOD-GIVEN (get a clue) right to own a GUN (I missed that part of the Bible; when did God say we should own guns again?)

Just trying to keep the conversation interesting.

Good luck tea-baggers.

Nick, you arrived far too late and offer nothing of any value.

The God-given right to life, and the ability to defend and protect my life, and the lives of others, against criminals and tyrannical governments existed prior to the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. Think whatever you wish - as a father, husband, and fellow citizen I will always be prepared to defend my family as well as yours.

I would not hesitate in risking my life to defend you or your family and I am confident there are tens-of-millions of other Americans that feel the same way. You run away from gunfire, we run towards it to defend the helpless like you.

My answer to all of your questions posted above can be found in this fine document - each and every fact is cited.



The mere fact that you would quote Guy Smith demonstrates how far right and out of touch you really are:

This guy is a borderline domestic terrorist and nothing but another whore making money selling guns to anyone with the cash to pay, with no concern for where the gun ends up and what the collateral damage is.

It is time for the majority of Americans (the REAL "silent majority") to rise up against the Gun Fetishists and make it clear that your selfish hunger for never-ending supplies of guns and ammunition is literally killing thousands of Americans every single year.

You, Chet, and this fool you quote, are apologists for an industry that cares only about selling guns, and you are indirectly but morally culpable for every cop killed on the beat, every innocent teenager shot in the crossfire, and every single death at Virginia Tech.

You Chet. You are responsible, as is every NRA dittohead out there.

You live in a self-righteous bubble of imaginary Constitutional right; in fact you folks are nothing but selfish single-interest voters who care nothing about anyone except the people you intend to defend with your guns.

Keep pretending that you occupy some moral high ground.

You do not; you and your ilk dwell near the middle runs of Hell.

Todd, you are using one of your rights and taking it for granted. The first right given to you but one of this country's founding father's GUN. The right you are uselessly using now was won with the right to oun firearms. Thanks for filling the air I breath with useless hot air!

"Those who get a gun simply because it is their right to have one - are very ignorant. Just because it’s a right - doesn’t always mean you should exercise it."

I have to agree with Todd in the fullest sense here. You shouldn't exercise your rights just because you have them. In line with this wisdom I urge you all to please refrain from speaking freely. Another party might disagree with your viewpoint and this has been known to start arguements that may lead to violence. Please refrain from free speech! It's OK inside your own home where it belongs. Please contact your legislators about placing rightful restrictions on the First Amendment as WELL as the Second. Speaking freely is dangerous, because it can possibly lead to violence, sometimes.

I propose making ALL schools "speech free zones", this will help cut down on violence!

I also propose suspending the Fourth Amendment as well, officers should be able to stop you where ever you are and strip search you and your vehicle, inside and out, whether you are under suspicion or not. This will allow officers to catch more bad guys because they will not be able to hide anything ever!

I think the Fifth Amendment aids criminals too. People arrested by the police should NEVER be allowed access to a lawyer UNTIL they explain EVERYTHING to the police on a recorded tape! This will allow higher conviction rates!

What wonderful ideas! Such tasteful conjecture!

We don't need rights!

Or maybe people like Todd who share this line of reasoning are a greater threat to America than ANY terrorist could EVER BE.

That's all I have to say about that.

So Billy Bob, your personal evidence is based upon a population sample incident?

Are you claiming that the fact that a family member of yours was murdered by a criminal would not skew your interpretation of available information?

I am sorry to hear of your story but to be honest, I do not believe it short of you providing evidence of what actually happened. Are you able to cite a newspaper or something of the sorts?

And finally Billy Bob, what would have you used to battle an armed felon? What would have been the most effective tool for you to have at your only have a fraction of a second to decide.

Bob, the question posed by Chef is valid. Your answer shows your position. So answer it. Don't use that emotional question bologna. Yes or no?

Ok and again Bob. The numbers on their own mean nothing. What are the manner of the deaths? Suicides? Self defense? Accidents? All of these factors must be considered rationally before you can make a statement. A single link to one number is not sufficient.

Nathan, it is a ridiculous question! It is hypothetical and such ridiculous, hypothetical questions should NOT be the basis for public policy.

If you were falling to earth, would you prefer to have a parachute or not? If you say that you would prefer to have a parachute, should I then say that parachutes should be allowed everywhere? If my workplace insisted that I not wear a parachute to work, I should then be able to say "but what if I were falling out of an airplane!?" That is EXACTLY how much sense your and Chet's argument makes.

Parachutes save lives! I will therefore wear my parachute everywhere!!!

Gun violence tragedy does not necessarily support one argument or another. This fact is exemplified by the article these comments are supposed to be about. The family members of the VT gun tragedy support stricter gun control laws.

Again sir, you dodge the question. Your entire base for you position stands now on one single word. One word to answer Chef question. Answer it. Yes or no.

The numbers do speak for themselves and are directly germane to this discussion. Because they so effectively render your argument null and void, you attempt to take issue with the numbers.

Gun deaths are reduced by public policies that reduce the number of guns. How the gun deaths happen is simple. A person picks up a gun, points it at a person, and pulls the trigger.

I bet that in a moment of honesty, you would say "of course there are fewer gun deaths in those states! Those states have fewer guns." And at that moment of honesty and lucidity, you would be seeing the truth of my argument and the ridiculousness of your own.

I'm with you Chet. I'm done here. There is no reasoning with the unreasonable, remember that.

So lets assume we ban guns and gun related crime inevitably continues (as it does everywhere guns are banned) what will be the excuse then? We didn't ban them quickly enough? Will we ban the kitchen knives used to behead the student at Virginia Tech? Because guns are only tools of murder do we take the guns from the cops? From the agents? From the Secret Service?

Once we disallow people to protect their lives and people are still being are you going to prevent the crimes from persisting? Are you just going to look at the victims families and say oh well.....we tried. Good luck!??

I understand most anti-s reasoning comes down to something like 'I'm X years old and I've lived in this neighborhood for X years and I've never needed a gun to protect myself'.....the point is that EVERYONE SAYS THAT!! Every victim at VT said that their school was safe and that they never felt the need to protect themselves. Every worker at the Immigration Office thought that their job was very safe and that they never felt threatened by anyone. Every victim of criminal behavior thinks that they are safe PRIOR to being victimized.

Its funny how you never hear of murder or mayhem happening where there are the MOST guns. You always hear of murder and mayhem happening where there are the LEAST.


Billy bob; The CDC is the source of your statement about having a gun at home increases your chances of dying by a gun. However, this statement was taken out of context and was referring to suicides.

"If you make guns illegal, only the people who don't follow the law will have them," says the Pittsburgh police officer who was at the scene of Poplawski's standoff.

Does gun ownership make us safer? Let's take guns out of the equation.

Let's suppose that all firearms turn to dust at midnight tonight. At that moment, no one will own an operative firearm, nor be able to acquire one.

Now, what will happen to the death rates in states that had the most restrictive gun laws compared to less restrictive states?

Research indicates that suicide rates will remain essentially unchanged. The other deaths which were formerly due to firearms will either be by other means, or not happen. Similarly, other non-fatal violent crimes formerly committed using a firearm will either not happen or require use of another weapon. Assume that the crime rates for these types of crimes remains unchanged.

Now, which states will offer the safest places to live?

Here is a systematic review of Firearm laws and the reduction of violence done in 2005.

In all cases where studies of a specific laws were reviewed, the task force found that the available evidence was insufficient to determine its effectiveness or ineffectiveness. It is still to early to make any determination about gun laws.

Although this was done in 2005, almost all data quoted from anti-gun advocates comes from pre-1998 CDC reports. The CDC was banned from making further reports in 1998.

Bloomberg needs to stop minding Virginia's business, on any subject. And Virginia needs to stop accepting the countless tons of filth that NYC ships to Virginia every month. Bloomberg should stick his head back up the vile blowhole from whence it came and try being a a happy, quiet, pompous billionaire. Stay the hell outta Virginia!

and if you don't watch out we may secede-- who needs NY anyway

Hey gun control laws work great! Just look how the laws protected the students at Virginia tech. Seems like the gun contol advocates should be sued for not allowing people to defend themselves, just so they can go to school! Control the criminals not the law abiding Americans!

People have noted that Virginia has lax gun control laws. Those are the laws that were on the books when the VT tragedy occurred.

I've posted the stats regarding gun deaths and states with gun control laws. People reply, "yeah but many of those are suicides and drug related!" As if taking away a certain percentage of those gun deaths will somehow magically make the statistics mean the opposite of what they mean.

Mass, NY, CT, NJ and HI have some of the strictest gun control laws. Alaska, Louisiana and Wyoming have some of the laxest. What's the result? Alaska, Louisiana and Wyoming are at the top of the pack in terms of rate of gun deaths. MA, NY, CT, NJ and HI are at the bottom.

No one has countered these facts with other facts. They counter them with arguments such as, "if your mother had a gun held against her head, wouldn't you wish to have a gun at that moment?"

Fortunately for the residents of MA, NY, NJ, CT and HI, those states have policy decision makers that are wiser and more intelligent than the people leaving pro-gun comments on this page.

The right to bear arms is enshrined in our constitution. Most other developed nations have strict gun control laws.

Note the rates of gun violence in this wiki article:

Clearly, the nations with less guns have less gun violence. Our country has an alarming rate of gun violence in comparison.

Those states such as the New England states and New York are leading the United States in lower rates of gun violence. It is a shame that Virginia and the other southern and rural western states do not have as intelligent and wise political leaders as those residing up North.

@Bob; "Right after Clinton banned assault weapons, gun violence took a nose dive."
Yes, and during this same period, more states went to "shall issue" for concealed carry permits.

I see we are practicing censorship now.

Last night I spent several hours providing detailed replies to include references and citations to nearly every single one of "billy bob's" arguments - all were marked "awaiting approval."

None were ever posted.

I guess in your desire to eliminate our beloved Second Amendment you must start by eliminating the First.

quote: "ââ?¬Å?You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” Admiral Yamamoto advising Japan’s military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan’s decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength."

I am afraid the same is true of the day our government attempts to ban the private ownership and possession of firearms in America by any civilian. God help the soldiers and cops sent door to door to gather up firearms headed for destruction by the government.

"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands" isn't just a clever phrase, it's a belief nationwide. Soldiers and cops might have gotten by with confiscating weapons in Louisiana during the hurricane, but I do not believe they will fare as well nationwide.

All that a gun is is a pipe with a hammer to set off the bullet. they can be manufactured in any machine shop in about an hour.

Molotov cocktails take less time.

Pipe bombs take about an hour a piece and most high schools had at least one nut who did it for fun.

The point being that the government can never take away anyones gun for longer than a day or so before they pay dearly for the taking. They sized tham in New orleans and they still saved there reputaion as the murder capitol.

If those idiots in Iraq can make effective roasdside bombs then what do you think those hillbilillies from west virginia could do?

Truly, the only effective way to reduce crime is to make the perpetrator think twice about committing them. I am pro-2A and firmly believe in the right to own and carry firearms. However, I do not advocate that everyone should own or carry a firearm. But, they should at least know how to safely handle them and not be afraid of them.

The one thing that I noticed with the anti-gun folks' gun data is, that it always includes suicides in the total of deaths by gunfire. Suicides are over 50% of all gun deaths. However, not one of the anti-gun groups has lifted a finger to reduce these gun deaths by supporting better mental heath services.

The argument about getting rid of the guns will solve the suicide by gun problem is bogus. Until, the underlying problem of providing better mental heath services is solve. There will still be all those individuals out there that didn't get the help they needed. And, they will always find a way to commit suicide by other means.

I have also never read why the anti-gun groups believe that law abiding citizens should not own guns. Clearly, it's not that they are concerned about suicides. They don't even care that criminals will always have guns. I can only draw the conclusion that they believe all law abiding citizens that own guns are future criminals.

A lot of the anti-gun folks out there have had a loved one or someone they know either killed or hurt by a gun. I empathize with you. For it is this reason why I choose to defend my right to defend myself and my family. And I believe it is these events in your lives, that driven you to fear guns and to believe that all people with guns are killers.

Isn't time that you anti-gun folks got the mental help you really deserve. So, you can work out your fears and anger issues.

quote: "Isn’t time that you anti-gun folks got the mental help you really deserve. So, you can work out your fears and anger issues."

Steve, sadly enough, I refuse to believe it a mental disorder. It's more of a mental block. The fear of guns is now taught in this nation from a very young age. And the anger issues arise from these "guns are evil" teachings.

Also Chet

I notice that you had neither the guts nor the intelligence to respond to the basic questions I posed in my earlier "nothing of value" post.