bondiguy 

here the answer to your question

WHEN AN ARSONIST lights a match that burns a building, is the match at fault? Are match manufacturers responsible for the fire? Should laws be passed prohibiting you from having and using matches, or restricting which types you can have, and in what quantities?

The obvious answer to these questions is no. The same match that is misused by the arsonist lights the fireplace that warms us, and the stove that feeds us. The match has no mind of its own. It is not an evil invention. Its purpose is to ignite, nothing more. If it is misused, the solution is to punish the individual wrongdoer. Everyone else should be left alone.

The same is true of firearms.

Firearms are employed every day by police, military, and law-abiding private citizens to deter crime, participate in competitions, hunt, and in the gravest extreme, to save the life of a victim of murder, rape, or serious assault. Most often, the mere presence of a firearm is enough to stop criminal activity in its tracks.

To the woman whose clothes are about to be torn from her body by a knife-wielding rapist in a deserted parking lot, a handgun in the purse is a lifeline. It is a genuine equalizer that may mean the difference between her life and her death. It gives her a chance when she otherwise would have none.

Every police officer who has made an arrest or stopped a crime understands this principle. Every soldier who has known battle understands this as well. And every private citizen who has ever faced a violent criminal alone, and knows the feeling of an impending, untimely death at the hands of a merciless savage, understands the importance of being able to own and carry a firearm, whether or not he or she ever has to fire it.

Guns Stop Crime

Criminologists of all political persuasions, in over a dozen studies, estimate that firearms are used for protection against criminals several hundred thousand to 2.5 million times per year, often without a shot fired. This is a staggering statistic, but it's not one you are likely to hear on the evening news. Why is it that you don't hear about the homeowner who defended his family before the police could arrive; or the shopkeeper who saved his own life and the lives of his customers; or the woman who stopped her own rape and murder; or the teacher who stopped the school shooting?

Yet when a single criminal goes on a tragic rampage, that's ALL you hear about, over and over and over again, along with angry cries to ban firearms.  Why?

Media Bias

A recent study by the media watchdog Media Research Center (Alexandria, Virginia) concluded that media coverage of firearms is overwhelmingly biased to the negative, noting that between 1995 and 1999, television networks collectively aired 514 anti-gun stories, to a mere 46 that were pro-firearm, a ratio of more than 11-to-1 against firearms.

Unfortunately, we are only being told one side of the story. When we hear only one side, we assume that what we are told is all there is to know, and we do not inquire further. Biased media coverage controls public opinion by controlling public perception.

We have been conditioned to associate gun ownership with criminal activity, when in fact the opposite is true. There are nearly 80 million law-abiding gun owners in America, whose use of firearms is entirely for sport and self-defense. For these millions of people, firearms represent safety, security, and recreation. Shooting is even an Olympic sport, and the first medal of the 2000 Summer Olympics was gold, and was won by an American woman in a shooting event.

When a lone criminal misuses a firearm, does that negate the hundreds of thousands of times each year that firearms are used by citizens to prevent crime? Should the misdeed of a single wrongdoer be seized upon as an opportunity to recast all firearms and their law-abiding owners into evil entities to be ostracized, regulated and banished from society? Should you be compelled to turn in your matches because of the acts of an arsonist; or to turn in your steak knife because of the acts of a slasher; or to turn in your car because of the acts of a drunk driver? Of course not.

Crime Control, Not Gun Control

The public outcry for justice after a tragedy is both understandable and correct. But rather than calling for specific justice -- the apprehension and punishment of the particular wrongdoer so severely that future criminals will be effectively deterred -- we have been conditioned to emit an emotional response decrying guns and gun owners, and calling for urgent new regulation in the name of public safety.

This ignores the fact that there are already more than 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and every act perpetrated by the criminal was already in violation of existing law. What makes us think that new laws will have any more influence over the criminal mind than the existing ones?

New laws may make us feel good for the moment, satisfying the emotional need for a sense of justice after a tragedy, but all they really accomplish is to further restrict the rights of those who already follow the law.

Like the arsonist and his match, it is the wrongdoer who must be punished, not the law-abiding owner or manufacturer. Arson was already illegal when the fire was started. What will a new law accomplish, except making it more difficult -- perhaps impossible -- for you to light your fireplace when you need its warmth to stay alive?

Self Defense Hindered

Regulating and banning guns has the effect of disempowering the law-abiding while supplying advantage to the criminal. Try arguing this point with Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp. In 1991, after leaving a legally owned firearm in her car in compliance with a local “safety” law restricting its carry in certain public places, Suzanna watched helplessly as her parents, along with 21 others, were murdered in a mass shooting at a local restaurant. Suzanna followed the law; the criminal didn't. How might the outcome have been different if the law had not restricted Suzanna’s right to have her firearm with her?

One might ask the same question about every mass shooting or terrorist attack that has occurred in recent memory: how might the outcome have been different if one of the victims had been lawfully armed?

The inescapable answer to this question is that lives would have been saved. This has been demonstrated in many documented incidents, but the mainstream media refuses to report that lawfully armed citizens have stopped killings before police could arrive.

For example, in 1997 in Pearl, Mississippi, a 16-year-old satanist murdered his ex-girlfriend and wounded seven other students at a high school. As he was leaving to kill more children at a nearby junior high school, the assistant principal retrieved a lawfully owned handgun from his car and held the youth for five minutes until police arrived. Not long after, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a school rampage ended abruptly when a local merchant lawfully armed with a shotgun convinced the teenage killer to surrender before police could arrive. How many more children would have died if “safety” laws had prevented the assistant principal and the merchant from owning and accessing their firearms?

And how many lives would have been saved on 9/11 had a pilot, an air marshall, or a qualified passenger been lawfully armed?

Gun Ownership Reduces Crime Rates

The surprising truth is that there is a direct connection between lawful ownership and possession of firearms and the reduction of violent crime rates. In his book More Guns, Less Crime, Professor John R. Lott, Jr. (University of Chicago Press) provides the most comprehensive and statistically reliable study of firearms and crime ever conducted, analyzing the relationship between gun ownership and FBI crime statistics for each of the 3,045 counties in America over an 18 year period.

The study’s irrefutable conclusion: crime rates for murder, rape and robbery drop six to ten percent, and are sustained at reduced rates, when and where law-abiding adult citizens are permitted to carry concealed firearms. The reason for this is obvious: some criminals are deterred when they think that their intended victims may be armed.

This principle is not novel. For several years, the town of Kennesaw, Georgia had an ordinance requiring every resident to keep at least one firearm in the home. As a result, the home burglary rate in Kennesaw fell by over 80%. A similar regulation was recently passed in the town of Virgin, Utah.

Before you conclude that Georgia and Utah are populated by the misguided, consider the nation Switzerland, which actually issues military firearms and ammunition to be kept in the home. Possession of pistols and semi-automatic firearms by civilians is only modestly regulated. The resulting crime rate is surprisingly low – lower, in fact, than the crime rate in Great Britain, where gun control laws are the most restrictive in the western world.

Guns Prevent Oppression

Movements to ban and overregulate firearms and demonize their owners are based on fear and misunderstanding of the role that firearms play in a free society. Private firearms ownership insures personal safety when police are delayed or unavailable, and collective firearms ownership by a population is an insurance policy against government oppression and extreme abuses of power. This is what the men and women who founded America had in mind when they acknowledged the people's right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights, next to the First Amendment.

If you don't think that governments oppress and commit atrocities against their own people, think again. During the 20th century, while Americans were building cars, factories, and shopping malls, at least seven major genocides occurred throughout the world, in which more than 50 million people were exterminated by their own governments (Germany, USSR, Communist China, Cambodia, Uganda, Guatemala, and the Ottoman Empire). Each of these state-run atrocities was preceded by "common sense" gun control, registration, and eventual confiscation by the government, all under the pretext of advancing public safety.

The most well-known example is Nazi Germany. Prior to the murder of 13 million people throughout Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, a gradual and systematic program of gun control and registration was implemented. Public safety was the stated justification. Once gun owners had been identified through registration, an aggressive gun confiscation program to disarm the population (and in particular, Jewish people) was implemented. As a result, the population was rendered defenseless against the slaughter that followed. Said Hitler in his Edict of March 18, 1938: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall."

How might the outcome of the Holocaust and other government-organized genocides have been different if the victims had not first been disarmed under the pretext of public safety?

Even the great pacifist leader Mahatma Ghandi comprehended the significance of a population's right to be armed. Said Ghandi in an autobiography: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

Guns Save Lives

The bottom line is that firearms stop crimes, prevent oppression, and save lives. Like any tool or instrument, they can also be misused. The solution is not to restrict or eliminate the tool in general, but rather to punish and banish the specific misuser. Restriction or elimination of the tool creates the mere illusion of justice while depriving everyone else of its undeniable benefits.

—Scott L. Bach
   (Publication Pending)

I couldn't have said it better... I feel that the world would be a whole lot better with less children and less guns!! Oh well...

I don't really think this conversation is getting anywhere, but I suppose it's refreshing to hear the other side argued out. I will choose to respectfully disagree with you guys. I just hope you realize that there are people out there that feel safe without guns, and I don't believe that a live in a dilusional state. I just choose to be happy with my life and every minute of it so if and when something does happen to me I'm ready, whether that's a hundred years from now from old age or tomorrow from some serial killer...

I guess we just live life differently and hold some different views! I'm glad your gun offers you the protection and safety you feel it does, and out of all of this it is refreshing to see a responsible level headed gun owner.

I highlighted the only word worth highlighting in your post.... show me the facts!

Take a match out of an arsonists hand and it will take him a long time to burn that building down rubbing 2 sticks together!

Guns may not stop murders but it surely only limit them?
Yeah I am now officially over it. I do like the USA and most of it's people but with guns bred so deeply into it's culture I am glad I do not live there. If I had to carry a gun for protection I'd rather put it to my own temple.

Well.. you could put your gun to my temple.

(ooo that was bad .. I'm sinking to new lows!)

I highlighted the only word worth highlighting in your post.... show me the facts!

Take a match out of an arsonists hand and it will take him a long time to burn that building down rubbing 2 sticks together!

Guns may not stop murders but it surely only limit them?
Yeah I am now officially over it. I do like the USA and most of it's people but with guns bred so deeply into it's culture I am glad I do not live there. If I had to carry a gun for protection I'd rather put it to my own temple.

Not to get into this arguement because I can truly see both sides on this one, but trying to show facts on something not taking place is impossible. It brings to mind the old question of if a tree falls in the woods and there is noone around to hear it does it make a sound?

Finally.... welcome to our level!

I possess a lethal shot!

I don't know... I need some proof before you make me a believer.

Well get your fine little self over here!

Easier said than done!

Open the first VS store in Sydney!

I'll do one better... I'll open the first one in Sydney and the first one where the associates wear the clothes!!

Now THAT is a franchise that will work!

I have a feeling it would be a hit!!

I'd be a platinum level customer within the first day

LOL.. I have a feeling it mite turn into a little more than just selling clothes..

Isn't that the privilage of the platinum member?

Why.. yes of course!! Would you like pink or black velvet pillows in your private room?

Hmmmmm pink!

Ok, and here is Rocky, he'll be modeling our new man thong and will be glad to rub you down!!

My name is Bondi.... not Gnappster!

Oh sorry for the mix up sure!!

Here is Candy, she's modeling our sexy little things thong and corsette collection and she'd be happy to get down on her knees for you!

I love this store!

Excelllleeennt

Hmmm maybe you shouldn't open it... I'd be bankrupt within weeks

THat;s my plan...

You're as evil as you are sexy

Of course... did you think this much sexy could come without all the evil??

I had hoped it did!

It would be a crying shame for a good looking girl to be too good to use what she's got!

Spoken like a wise man!

It would be a crying shame for a good looking girl to be too good to use what she's got!

First off, I don't understand why you would need to have a gun here to feel safe. I live an hour from Philadelphia, go there 1-2 times a month to visit our son at Temple. I also live about 10-12 miles from the Amish shooting.
Some people carry a gun because they have "little man syndrome", and I don't mean pecker size lol. I work with a few that have them because it makes them feel like a big shot, and knowing them, there is one that should NOT have one.
I have no problems with people having a weapons permit, but they should be a little harder to get. I was brought up with a Dad that was a collector. At one time, we had around 105 weapons in the house, all locked up, with an alarm system. We also had a napoleon cannon from the Civil war that we did reenactments with.
Between training from my Dad, 6 years of National Guards, I have plenty of experience with weapons, but I still choose not to carry one.
The U.S. is a violent culture. We have the same video games, movies and music as many other countries, but they are not violent, we are. Figure that one out. Could it be we have a bigger drug problem? More disparity between the greedy rich and the middle class/poor? To many broken families? How 'bout that little fellow running the Country that feels he can invade a Country for Preemptive reasons? One could argue for any one of these issues.
When the right to have arms was written, it was for a quick assembly of a militia in case of need again. (not for fear of natives lol) But did they foresee a gun firing hundreds or rounds/sec when they wrote it?
I repeat, I have no problems with people who need to carry weapons getting a permit, but there should be better screening.
You will NEVER get the guns away from the people that want to use them to commit a crime. Drugs are illegal, and look how easy it is to get them. Any way, points to ponder.

First off, I don't understand why you would need to have a gun here to feel safe. I live an hour from Philadelphia, go there 1-2 times a month to visit our son at Temple. I also live about 10-12 miles from the Amish shooting.
Some people carry a gun because they have "little man syndrome", and I don't mean pecker size lol. I work with a few that have them because it makes them feel like a big shot, and knowing them, there is one that should NOT have one.
I have no problems with people having a weapons permit, but they should be a little harder to get. I was brought up with a Dad that was a collector. At one time, we had around 105 weapons in the house, all locked up, with an alarm system. We also had a napoleon cannon from the Civil war that we did reenactments with.
Between training from my Dad, 6 years of National Guards, I have plenty of experience with weapons, but I still choose not to carry one.
The U.S. is a violent culture. We have the same video games, movies and music as many other countries, but they are not violent, we are. Figure that one out. Could it be we have a bigger drug problem? More disparity between the greedy rich and the middle class/poor? To many broken families? How 'bout that little fellow running the Country that feels he can invade a Country for Preemptive reasons? One could argue for any one of these issues.
When the right to have arms was written, it was for a quick assembly of a militia in case of need again. (not for fear of natives lol) But did they foresee a gun firing hundreds or rounds/sec when they wrote it?
I repeat, I have no problems with people who need to carry weapons getting a permit, but there should be better screening.
You will NEVER get the guns away from the people that want to use them to commit a crime. Drugs are illegal, and look how easy it is to get them. Any way, points to ponder.

First off, I don't understand why you would need to have a gun here to feel safe. I live an hour from Philadelphia, go there 1-2 times a month to visit our son at Temple. I also live about 10-12 miles from the Amish shooting.
Some people carry a gun because they have "little man syndrome", and I don't mean pecker size lol. I work with a few that have them because it makes them feel like a big shot, and knowing them, there is one that should NOT have one.
I have no problems with people having a weapons permit, but they should be a little harder to get. I was brought up with a Dad that was a collector. At one time, we had around 105 weapons in the house, all locked up, with an alarm system. We also had a napoleon cannon from the Civil war that we did reenactments with.
Between training from my Dad, 6 years of National Guards, I have plenty of experience with weapons, but I still choose not to carry one.
The U.S. is a violent culture. We have the same video games, movies and music as many other countries, but they are not violent, we are. Figure that one out. Could it be we have a bigger drug problem? More disparity between the greedy rich and the middle class/poor? To many broken families? How 'bout that little fellow running the Country that feels he can invade a Country for Preemptive reasons? One could argue for any one of these issues.
When the right to have arms was written, it was for a quick assembly of a militia in case of need again. (not for fear of natives lol) But did they foresee a gun firing hundreds or rounds/sec when they wrote it?
I repeat, I have no problems with people who need to carry weapons getting a permit, but there should be better screening.
You will NEVER get the guns away from the people that want to use them to commit a crime. Drugs are illegal, and look how easy it is to get them. Any way, points to ponder.

You're arguing both sides of the issue. Did your Dad, a gun owner, have "Little Man Syndrome"? Then you say in one sentance that you can't understand why someone feels the need to carry a weapon, followed by "The U.S. is a violent culture". There's your answer. You're basically calling the government incompetent, yet it's this very gov't that would be solely responsible for protecting you from crime if everyone relinquised their right to carry arms. Carrying a weapon is a serious responsibility. For the people not willing to accept that responsibilty, deny them access to weapons. Prosecute those who misuse them and leave everyone else alone.

No, not arguing both sides, "some points to points to ponder" was at the end of that. Just to stimulate more discussion about different points.

Wow, way to toss my Dad under the bus.  My Dad was a gun COLLECTOR, did not have a concealed weapons permit. I thought I made that clear that the two people I work with had the permit, and DO suffer from this syndrome. Re read it, did I say ALL people that carry have this syndrome? No.

I don't feel the need to carry one, and the US is a violent culture. You can have both, because most Americans DON"T carry weapons, but the violence can be seen on the news every day. Do you not agree??

I think my government IS incompetent. I think they should all be booted out, replaced
with people that are worried about a Countries NEEDS, not wants, and not keeping squeaky wheels oiled. I need to buy a few cases of tea and head to Boston Harbor.
Do you not agree that the US is a violent culture?

If you also notice, I said I have no problem with people HAVING a concealed weapons permit, they need to change WHO they give them to, and what checks they do.
I don't recall saying the Feds should round up all the weapons from people either. Re read it again.

It's not up to the governments discretion whether Americans can own guns. The Second Amendment is pretty clear on that. You WANT them in charge, then in the next breath claim they are incompetent, how is that rational? Basically, what you want is incompetent people responsible for who can own a weapon. Does that sound logical to you? I, along with millions of Americans, am confident that I'm smarter and more well informed when it comes to my personal safety than any random government bureaucrat is. If you want to leave your life and the lives of your family in the hands of (your words) incompetent government employees, than that is a choice you are certainly entitled to. I choose not to and that's a right I'm entitled to.

You read stuff that isn't even there, and narrow other statements down to suite your opinion  lol.   

You read stuff that isn't even there, and narrow other statements down to suite your opinion  lol. And no, not everyone should be able to carry a weapon, or even own one and anyone that thinks so is a major idiot. You want a convicted Felon to be able to carry a concealed weapon? How 'bout to even own a gun. If you say no, then you are yapping out of both sides of your mouth, because doesn't the looneys on the hill dictate that already?  Just because I think the Boys on the hill are idiots, that doesn't mean EVERY decision they make is bad/incompetent, just most of them lol.

You just seem like one of those radical NRA folks/supporters that you just can't discuss this topic with, and I WAS an NRA member, so I will give you the pleasure of the last reply or a game ow twister with my words, I am going to bail on you for this topic. I'll still support gun owners, shoot guns also, but not everyone has the right to a concealed weapons permit. The radical right of any special interest group gives the whole group a black eye.   Have a good/safe new years.  

WELCOME TO  RATE MY MELONS  ..get used to the above sentence  if you choose to stay  ... 

Lol, been here for a while, just don't post to often. Still hard to believe people think that EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun. Yep, good feeling to know there are people that rob banks, rape, child abusers, people being treated for brain disorders, walking down the street with a 9mm under their coat. How would that make you feel safer. Some you ask that very question to, and they avoid the answer.   

Lol, been here for a while, just don't post to often. Still hard to believe people think that EVERYONE should be able to carry a gun. Yep, good feeling to know there are people that rob banks, rape, child abusers, people being treated for brain disorders, walking down the street with a 9mm under their coat. How would that make you feel safer. Some you ask that very question to, and they avoid the answer.   

I am not against owning guns at all skull (we have them in our house), but when you know some kid who has been shot accidentally, and the way it rips apart a family with a tragic death at the age of 18, you might think differently on the trigger lock thing. 

Virtually useless does not equal completely useless.