How could a dad do this? - Gun control

Log Out | Lost Password? | Topics | Search | Who's Online Contact | Register | My Profile | SO home | MOL home

Thread Originator Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   sarinka Citizen Username: Sarinka Post Number: 49 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:34 am:        Just read this horrific story about a Dad that shot his 2 sons (14 and 20) and then himself, apparentely over money troubles. He had 2 registered guns in his house. I am certain this would never have happended if guns were banned. What can we do about this? I would love to have a ban in US (my sister will not list me a guardian for her kids as she does not want them raised in US where guns are allowed). Would love your thoughts and how we can act as a town against this - also, how do you know which of your neigbors as a gun? I don't want my kids in a house with guns.... http://www.nj.com/news/ledger/jersey/index.ssf?/base/news-3/11526848024680.xml&c oll=1   tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4472 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:38 am:        I don't mind my children being in a house where any guns are properly stored. I would be concerned about my children being in a house where one of the parents are either permanently or temporary mentally ill as this man clearly was. Also, if aside from the gun ownership laws in the U.S., you are the best guardian for your nephews and nieces in the event that something happens to your sister, I find it terribly sad that she doesn't list you as the primary guardian.   LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2001 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:41 am:        As much as I am against having guns in the home, the cause of this tragedy wasn't guns, it was a disturbed individual who happened to have guns. Without them, he may have found another way to do what he did. Having guns didn't cause him to do this, they just happened to be the means he used.   Joan Supporter Username: Joancrystal Post Number: 7764 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 11:57 am:        I agree with LilLB. The guns were simply the tool in this case.   Soparents Supporter Username: Soparents Post Number: 1998 Registered: 5-2005 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:01 pm:        Very sad, and echo-ing everyone else, it was simply a tool.   Gregor Samsa Citizen Username: Oldsctls67 Post Number: 553 Registered: 11-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:03 pm:        My hero Charlton Heston told me once that "guns don't kill, people do."   Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3560 Registered: 5-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 12:05 pm:        Wow, did he come up with that all by himself?   tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4473 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:05 pm:        Charlton Heston certainly is an airbag. It is technically correct that guns don't kill people, but guns certainly make it more likely that a person acting on the spur of the moment will kill people. If this father had attacked his boys with a knife, one or both might be alive today. For better or worse, however, I just don't see much chance that guns will be outlawed in the United States any time soon.   thegoodsgt Citizen Username: Thegoodsgt Post Number: 1012 Registered: 2-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:33 pm:        Tragic, to be sure, but if this sick man hadn't had a gun, he would've used some other means to hurt his children and himself. There have been many other sad stories about parents who kill their children in many different ways. Remember folks -- and this is very, very important -- if we were to ban guns, criminals would still have them. According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, 80 percent of the inmates who possessed a gun got it from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source.   Illuminated Radish Citizen Username: Umoja Post Number: 19 Registered: 6-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:34 pm:        The reason for gun ownership, and the right to have a militia is often called out dated and archaic, but I strongly disagree. Most people don't look at the wider meaning of the law. Guns and militia are tools of protection, not from other countries, but from our own Uncle Sam. Our country was created in a revolution against an unjust government, and if our country was ever to stop representing our own interest our own bill of rights makes us aware that's it's our duty, and our right to fight against it. Our culture is the problem in gun related deaths, as everyone who watched 'Bowling for Columbine' would know guns are legal in Canada, but gun related deaths aren't nearly as much of a problem. As for the tradgedy mentioned by Sarinka, I'll agree that's it's alot easier to pull a trigger, but look how one man in New York tried to commit suicide.....   Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 994 Registered: 7-2003 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 2:38 pm:        Sorry, Radish, but for all practical purposes guns are ILLEGAL in Canada. I do not know what your boy made up for his movie, but I think his facts are wrong. The amount of bureaucratic paperwork necessary to obtain ANY firearm in Canada is stupendous. Net result? Legal firearms are few, while illegal firearms are many.   newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 419 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 4:36 pm:        I agree with the others - if no gun was available he would have used a knife, hammer, table, etc.   Illuminated Radish Citizen Username: Umoja Post Number: 21 Registered: 6-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 4:41 pm:        I stand corrected Chris. Out of curiosity then, where else are guns legal? Is America unique in that regard?   Guitar Dad Citizen Username: Guitardad Post Number: 13 Registered: 3-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 4:57 pm:        Yes, it's true, guns don't kill people. It's those pesky little bullets . . .   LilLB Citizen Username: Lillb Post Number: 2005 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:03 pm:        I like Chris Rock's solution. He suggested that if bullets cost $5000 each, people would think twice about using their guns.   Guitar Dad Citizen Username: Guitardad Post Number: 14 Registered: 3-2006 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:08 pm:        Nice! Yes, you at least have to be very selective.   Joanne G Citizen Username: Joanne Post Number: 335 Registered: 10-2004 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 5:15 pm:        While not buying into the current discussion on cultural mores and on the virtues of better mental health care vs better gun control, I just want to tell you our situation. In Australia gun ownership is highly regulated. So you can own 'em and even keep 'em in your home, but how you do so is regulated. We have had our share of gun related tragedies inclduing mass death - I'm sure some of you will have heard of the Port Arthur (Tasmania) killing spree a few years ago, and it wasn't the first nor the last. we also have many people wounded and killed as a result of hunting accidents each year. We don't have the 'right to bear arms' in the way you do, only because we don't have a written Bill of Rights the way you do - personally, i don't think we'd ever agree to anything long enough to get that far! Until the last couple of decades, our police didn't wear guns routinely (I've only become aware of them doing so in the last 10 years but I may have been a bit slow in observing this change). Our prevailing cultural belief is that if you have guns and their ammunition readily to hand, someone is more likely to use them and hence is more likely to fatally wound another or themselves before help can get there. Sure, the same causes may lead that person to use another means under the same provocation, but that other means is less likely to be a swiftly fatal as a loaded gun. That means you have a better chance that medical help can get there in time to save lives. (Of course that also presumes the rest of the medical and emergency systems are working properly...) Looking at lifestyles of many people who are not as careful with their guns & ammunition storage means that often alcohol is being consumed in large amounts when the guns are out, tempers are often not in control or practical jokes are being played (Darwin Award style), and fear is suddenly ruling your decisions. Not a good mix. Plus you guys seem to have rapid-fire wweapons allowed in your homes.... Personally, I'd rather not live with a gun in the house - once shared a house with a refugee from a war zone who didn't tell me he had hidden a rifle in his room. One evening a few months after he'd moved in, a car backfired in the street, he thought it was gun-fire and out came the rifle so quickly he nearly blew the head off our landlord walking in the door at the same time. Guns can lead you to making very swift and unalterable decisions. <shudder>   sarinka Citizen Username: Sarinka Post Number: 50 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 7:08 pm:        OK, you guessed...I am against guns in domestic homes ...esp. in residential NJ. PAX is a great organization that is trying to educate on asking if there are guns in the homes your kids play at - 40% of homes have guns vs. 32% with dogs. That is alarming to me! http://www.paxusa.org/ask/   Chris Prenovost Citizen Username: Chris_prenovost Post Number: 995 Registered: 7-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 9:56 am:        May I point out that we do NOT have the 'right to keep and bear arms'? Maybe someone who knows constitutional law better than I could correct me, but the second amendment to the constitution (part of the bill of rights?) reads as follows: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Note the first line, a 'well regulated militia'. It does not speak of the 'well armed citizens', or a citizen militia. It speaks of a 'well regulated militia', i e an army, national guard, police force, ect. So we do NOT have the right to keep and bear arms.   Dave Supporter Username: Dave Post Number: 10098 Registered: 4-1997 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 10:15 am:        A militia back then was average citizens. There was no professional "army" the way we understand it today. That's why it includes the clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."   Ligeti Man Meat Citizen Username: Ligeti Post Number: 734 Registered: 7-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 10:54 am:        Yes, if we want to kill someone, we'll use any available weapon. But my impression is that Americans own more guns per capita than people in other "civilized" countries. Not more; a lot more. I read somewhere that 90% of the world's guns are in America. Doesn't this seem like a problem? How many American children are killed accidentally each year by guns? That wouldn't otherwise be killed by knives or hammers? If one child's life could be saved by outlawing guns, I'M ALL FOR IT. And I'm against guns for anyone except the police, the military, and self-defense in very specific circumstances.   Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 44 Registered: 5-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 11:08 am:        If liberals read the 2nd Amendment as broadly as they read the rest of the constitution they would be arguing that gun ownership was not only mandatory but that the government should subsidize it. Also when the term “the right of the people” appears elsewhere in the Bill of Rights, it’s universally understood to mean the individual citizen. Not many constitutional scholars still seriously argue that the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right of individual American’s to own guns. You can argue that the right can be limited for a variety of reasons, for example, denying weapons to felons, but most scholars agree that the only way to implement the policies of anti-gun organizations would be the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Also if you were really concerned about your child being hurt at your neighbor’s house you should ask your neighbor if they have bathtubs, pools, matches or lighters, cleaning chemicals, or any high areas where the child could fall from. Statistically speaking, a child is far more likely to be killed or injured by any of those things that a gun.   Illuminated Radish Citizen Username: Umoja Post Number: 24 Registered: 6-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 2:28 pm:        Maybe it's HANDGUNS that are the problem. The reason most people murder with guns is because (being handguns) they can easily be concealed. Wasn't it legal in California until the late 60's to carry around an unconcealed rifle? And Ligeti, I don't think saving one life of a child by banning something is a good policy. I'm sure if smoking cigarettes was banned we could save children's lives as well, and honestly that would be far easier to ban (look how quickly alcohol got banned!).   Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1418 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 2:54 pm:        If he didn't have a gun..he might've used a bat or screwdriver or kitchen knife and so on and so on etc etc etc Guns are not the issue here.   Rastro Citizen Username: Rastro Post Number: 3571 Registered: 5-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 3:44 pm:        A few things... Ligeti, Countries like Switzerland, I believe, require gun ownership. It's no optional. So I doubt we are the most heavily armed citizenry in the world. I also doubt he 90% number, if you're only talking about guns held by citizens. Add in our military, and you might be right. Also, chlorine bleach kills kids. I would guess at least one child dies every year from misusing it. Outlawing it could save a single child's life. Would you be for outlawing it? If not, how many lives would it have to save for it to be worth outlawing? 5? 50? 500? Cars kill thousands of people every year. Those are still legal. You might not like the other purposes that guns serve, but that doesn't make them any less worthwhile to others. Spinal Tap, most other amendments and articles are not written in grammar that leads to such open interpretation. Also, "infringe" is also open to interpretation. Does requiring registration infringe on your right to own a gun? Sure it does. But so does limiting the types of weapons a citizen can own. A strict interpretation would imply that the government could not legally deny me the ability to build a nuclear weapon, since it is an "arm." There is no definition of "arms" in the Constitution. Radish, I don't think most people murder using guns. I think knives are more prevalent, though I could be wrong. Glock and others, if he didn't have a gun, he might have killed them with another weapon. Or he might have acted less rashly without a fast-acting weapon at hand. We'll never know. And I doubt we can ever know whether people would kill less without access to guns. How do you eliminate all the other factors that lead to a murder and only account for gun access? I don't think I'd believe any study that claims to be able to do that. Guns are a part of the issue, but they are not the main issue.   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1189 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:01 pm:        Just thinking out loud here in Maplewood. Whether Mr. Madison, and his co-authors, intended that the several States be permitted to call and maintain a milita necessitating that the people be permitted to "keep and bear arms"; or whether they meant that all people be permitted to "keep and bear" so the people could form a militia, when necessary, I dunno. However, I do know what they wrote, and what was adopted by the fourteen States. Amendment II of our Constitution is composed of an independent clause and a preceeding dependent clause. That preceeding dependent clause has no meaning without that which follows. The second independent clause can stand alone. Can a dependent clause control the meaning of an independent clause in the same sentence? I will leave the final determination of that to better gramarians than I; but I think not. Whichever "intent" one gives to Mr. Madison's words, however, begs the question of whether the right of the people to "keep and bear" has any relevance, or purpose, in the 21st century. A time in which every State, I think, has a National Guard, with which a State can repell the invading hoardes from a neighboring State, not to mention those crazed Canadians or hard working Mexicans. For myself, I think not. The problem is not whether it would be good for our society to ban gun ownership. Its not whether handguns should be banned. Its not whether guns pose a risk to children or members of society at large. The problem is that Amendment II guarantees that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". There are some amongst us who advocate the amendment of our Constitution to better reflect the realities of the 21st century. To them I say, convince me that anywhere near seventy-five percent of the American populace want the same thing. Just keep in mind that there are large groups of people who would, for well intentioned reasons, do away with: the right to free speech, or free exercise of religion under Amendment I; the protection against warrantless searches under Article IV; the double jeopardy protection of Amendment V; and/or the right to counsel and a speedy trial under Amendment VI., etc., etc., etc. (I've heard, or read, opinions on doing away with pretty much all the rights aforded us under the Constitution with the exception of Amendment III. But hey. If those crazy Canadians decide to invade, who knows what will happen). Banning guns has a certain viceral appeal to those who live in metropolitan areas; to those concerned with the safety of children; to those who have never hunted or practiced target shooting as a hobby. But if someone wants to do away with Amendment II, just give some thought to what some well intentioned person may think of a particular right that you think is important. As I wrote, just thinking out loud. TomR   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 740 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:10 pm:        Tom: 'The problem is that Amendment II guarantees that "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". ' That's not the whole sentence. It's qualified by: 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,...' So if you are part of said militia...   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1190 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:16 pm:        Scully, You are absolutely correct. And there is no reason to pay any attention to the rest of my ruminations. They'll just get in the way of your clear and lucid thoughts. TomR   Spinal Tap Citizen Username: Spinaltap11 Post Number: 45 Registered: 5-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 6:31 pm:        Let’s list some of the things I have been told are in the constitution: The right of the government to take your private property and give it to private developers. The right of the government to limit funding for political discourse. The right of the government to stop a public school choir from singing Christmas Carols. The right of pedophiles to traffic in “virtual” child pornography. The right of a teenage girl to have a partial birth abortion without parental consent. The requirement that the commander-in-chief has to check with the courts before gathering intelligence information on our enemies during war time. However, this is a huge mystery: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Give me a break.   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 742 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:07 pm:        TomR - Sorry   Ligeti Man Meat Citizen Username: Ligeti Post Number: 735 Registered: 7-2002 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:33 pm:        Yes, it's true you can killed by almost anything. But hammers, knives, staplers, potato peelers, eyebrow tweezers, etc., are all designed to do something functional in every day life. Guns exist for one reason: to kill. "Although many reports and news stories have emphasized the continuing decline of serious crime, it is helpful to keep in mind that the U.S. remains far and away the most violent industrialized nation." The New York Times Almanac 2006 Reject guns and the insecure girly men who insist they must own them.   newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 420 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:42 pm:        Here we go again....   tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 4477 Registered: 12-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 7:58 pm:        Ligeti, I have struggled deeply with every one of your contributions. After extensive meditation on the problem, I have concluded that you should not own a gun. I sense that you don't like guns.   CageyD Citizen Username: Cageyd Post Number: 700 Registered: 6-2003 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 8:13 pm:        Two thoughts, In the book Freakonomics they found that it is far more hazardous, I mean WAY more hazardous, to let children play/live in a house with a pool than in a house with a gun. More children die each year b/c of swimming pool fatalities that by guns. Also I read recently that in a midland English city, maybe Manchester, the rate of stabbings had gone up so much that the police began a knife buy back program. I found that idea to be completely idiotic (since knives are sold in grocery and kitchen stores)but also illustrative that people will do stupid, dangerous, anti-social things that can harm or kill the innocent no matter how closely you regulate their world (DWI is perfect example) I don't like guns and wish we didn't have them in this country, but frankly your relative who doesn't want you to have custody is being absolutely absurd. The likelihood that her children would in any way be impacted by handgun violence is pretty remote. The likelihood that they would benefit from our outstanding - if expensive - medical system, our educational system, and our exceptionally high standard of living is very high.   Southerner Citizen Username: Southerner Post Number: 1265 Registered: 2-2004 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 8:41 pm:        Didn't a lady currently on trial recently kill all her kids by using a bathtub. Maybe we should go the way of Europe and ban bathing! Also, was that a serious question - "how do you know which of your neigbors has a gun? I don't want my kids in a house with guns...."? It is hard for me to believe this was a serious question from a parent. The answer is you ask! I have multiple guns in my house and before my kids play at someone's house, I ask them about dogs, bodies of water (pool, pond), and guns. I also check the sex offender registry's not only for my own neighborhood but also of relatives I am visiting or friends. There are two areas I don't mind offending someone, on MOL and in the safety of my children. As for the gun issue, blah, blah, blah. Nothing is going to change in this country so this issue is similar to abortion. It's almost worthless to discuss. If you don't want a gun in your house or don't want an abortion then don't get one, but don't tell me I can't.   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 1045 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 9:43 pm:        Dear Southerner: How nice to have you back. Would you like me to send you some Pepto-Bismol down to where you live .... I mean one of these days we got to be able to cure that diarrhea of the mouth you got going on there.   Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1422 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 9:58 pm:        Bajou...what are you talking about? Just because he is right is no reason to get snooty.   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 1049 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 10:55 pm:        Glock read the post... He/she checks if other people have guns in the house? And if yes are your kids allowed to go there? If yes why bother asking and if no then what the f are you doing with them in your house. Guns kill in the hands of young children who are not aware how dangerous they can be. I guarantee you that more kids have died of accidental gunshot wounds then have been safed by the guns being there. I don't know how anybody can compare the need to have a gun in the house to the desperation that will lead a woman to have an abortion. Stupidity at is highest form.   Peter G. Magic Citizen Username: Pmagic Post Number: 169 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 11:06 pm:        Rastro, where on earth did you get the idea that the citizens of Switzerland were required to own guns? Not true! Perhaps you are thinking of the soldiers? Switzerland in earlier times had soldiers for hire. Very few Europeans own guns. The majority of gun owners would be in the former Soviet Union but the United States stands out for the number of guns per household -way higher than any other civilized nation. Also, civilized nations don't have the death penalty. On that issue we are aligned with China, Iraq, North Korea, etc.   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1191 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 11:38 pm:        Scully, It is I who should apologize. In rereading my last post, it is unnecessarily abrasive and antagonistic. I should have found a better way to ask that you take your excerpt of my preceeding post in context of the whole message. Sometimes I think fast. Sometimes my thinking is half fast. This thread started out with a request for assistance in how best to acheive some sort of gun control at the municipal level. There has been little discussion responsive to that request. I only sought to point out that which, I believe, is a most dangerous route to solving a societal malady. Out of curiousity, do you favor doing away with Amendment II, or limiting its scope and application? If you're in favor of limiting it, to what extent? Do good and fare well. TomR   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 744 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:26 am:        TomR - Oh no apology needed. I'm the first to criticize when people react to the first part of a post, when if they had carefully read the whole thing there would have been nothing to argue over. I thought I had read it carefully but maybe at that point they were all starting to blur together... And I think I was reacting to hearing the second half of that sentence standing alone. I know there's a lot of argument about it's 'fuzziness', but to my untutored eye it seems pretty clear. 'A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...' to me says that weapons would have to be neccesairily kept by any citizens who were a part of that 'well regulated' militia. (The National Guard?). In answer to your question, no I would NOT want to get rid of Amendment II. The way I read it (totally amateur night here) it makes total sense. Guns SHOULD be in the hands of a 'well regulated militia'! But in private hands? I can see hunting and target practice, but not the tons of handguns our nation seems to be awash in. And as far as 'limiting its scope and application', well it's been done! There are weapons an individual can't own. And what you can own has to be registered and that's after qualifying to buy whatever gun you want in the first place. Basically, what I suspect that I'm trying to say is that a lot of the problems with guns we now face might be better addressed by enforcing what rules we already have in place. I'm tempted to add 'just like with immigration' but there's a subject I know even less about... Good talking with you. BTW, you've done your good deed for the day by inspiring me to bookmark 'The Constitution Online' and start checking for what else I've been taking for granted lo these many years. Later!   newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 421 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 6:59 am:        PGM - FYI: Switzerland has mandatory gun ownership for military age males. Most civilian men of military age have weapons at home in case of national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up.   Peter G. Magic Citizen Username: Pmagic Post Number: 170 Registered: 10-2005 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 9:24 am:        Yes Rastro and Newone - my mistake and apology. My family often vacations in the Alps in the summer and we never see guns. After a little research it seems that they assault rifles that the young men are given are carefully regulated and each one is issued 72 rounds or bullets which are inspected and must be accounted for. Regulating ammunition as well as regulations on locking up the guns seems to make the difference. They do have a problem with handguns as they are not as carefully regulated. Here are the statistics for the industrialized nations: Percent of households possessing handguns: US - 29% Switxerland - 14% Finland - 7% Germany - 7% Belgium - 6% France - 6% Canada - 5% Norway - 4% Australia - 2% Netherlands - 2% United Kingdom - 1% Handgun murder rate: US - 5.28% Switzerland - 1.47% Canada - .47% Sweden - .42% Australia - .07% United Kingdom - .06% Any other nations with more handguns and murders from them are third world countries, not part of the industrialized nations   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1192 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:23 am:        Scully, As I wrote above, if the opening of the Amendment is construed to guarantee the "right to keep and bear" so that a militia can be called or formed, the idea behind the Amendment may be antiquated, but the Amendment had, and has, no sunset provision. Whatever the reason for the substantive right guaranteed, that right is guaranteed to the people, without infringement by the government. If Amendment II is limited in its protections to those citizens who are members of the National Guard, wouldn't that make the "right to keep and bear" subject to government control? And if so, can it be called a right at all? TomR   John James Leuchs Jr Citizen Username: Clairvoyant Post Number: 106 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 11:42 am:        I teach the Constitution and Bill of Rights in my Enrichment Law units. The courts are using the strict interpretation of the Constitution as TomR and others have said. All citizens have the right to bear arms unless they are under the legal age, mentally incompetent or insane, or have a criminal record (felonious). That is why there is registration for permits. However, the illegal gun market still supplies the criminals.   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 1068 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 2:50 pm:        In regards to the Swiss issue. I am Austrian and Switzerland is only 3 hour ride from my house. Austria like Switzerland is neutral. Switzerland as a neutral country can not have a military so they have the equivalent of the National Guard. Yes every adult Swiss man has a riffle in the home. This is a requirement and the person has to go regularly to a range to recertify. The Swiss do not lock their guns up, they usually just lean in a closet corner. What you don't factor in is that in Switzerland as in Austria children are reared by a stay at home mom or dad. A child in Switzerland or Austria would never dare set foot in their parents bedroom unless he/she is asked to come in. The entire mindset is much different. You will not see somebody drop the slightest bit of litter anywhere. Homes are not locked and in general there is rarely any crime. Most crimes that are commited are commited by foreign criminals. Swiss is mostly swiss though. There is no big mix and mingle going on and therefor not alot of distrubances (that's why its also considered a really boring country which I can attest to). The country is beautiful but the people are boring as heck with very little creativity in their bones. The average swiss person acts like a swiss banker by age 10. But for all you gun freaks...the swiss would not pull out their gun if they hear somebody breaking into their home. The have alarms systems and would call the police. Swiss guns are not loaded and the bullets which do have to be accounted for once a year are most likely in a safe. The swiss are mad at their own government right now because it was discovered that Switzerland sells alot of guns to Africa. What also has to be considered is that before a person in Switzerland is admitted to the civilian militia they have to go through extensive tests and will be excluded if they fail. I grew up shooting rifles and am a darn good shot however I grew up in a house were no gun was ever loaded as it was only used for hunting. Neither I nor my three sisters would have ever even tought of touching the rifles unless we were instructed to do so. Actually I think we were more worried we might scratch it then anything else. Personally I do not think that people should have guns in the home but that is just me..   MichaelaM Citizen Username: Mayquene Post Number: 204 Registered: 1-2004 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 3:03 pm:        Another father/son death. Sad. Father Kills Self After Shooting Son By Tom Jackman, Stephanie McCrummen and Daniela Deane Washington Post Staff Writers Friday, July 14, 2006; 2:50 PM A George Mason University law professor shot his 12-year-old son dead and then killed himself at their home in McLean after an apparent domestic dispute with his wife, police said Friday. Fairfax County police identified the victims as William Lash III, 45, a GMU faculty member and a former Assistant Secretary of Commerce, and his 12-year-old son William Lash IV, known as "Will." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071400502. html   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 747 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 6:15 pm:        'Police said Lash and his son had been shot in the upper body with a shotgun...' It's possible to turn a shotgun on yourself? Do they have shot ones? I guess they do or the police would have suspected another shooter. Sad.   newone Citizen Username: Newone Post Number: 422 Registered: 8-2001 Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006 - 7:48 pm:        Scully - simple answer, yes, you can turn one on yourself.   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 751 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 4:46 am:        TomR 'If Amendment II is limited in its protections to those citizens who are members of the National Guard, wouldn't that make the "right to keep and bear" subject to government control? And if so, can it be called a right at all?' Good point. But isn't the 'right' to bear arms already subjected to government control? You have to be a certain age, not have a certain background and so forth. I always thought of that as balancing the rights with the responsibilities. Look at Amendment I. Freedom of speech is guaranteed but not without limit. Libel and slander aren't allowed. Again, to me, that looks like a balancing of the 'rights' with responsibilities. Are you saying that to be a right it has to be without limits?   TomR Citizen Username: Tomr Post Number: 1199 Registered: 6-2001 Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:54 am:        Scully, No. What Im saying is that any rights or priviledges cannot be infringed without due process of law. TomR   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 1078 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 6:35 pm:        How selfish of these men! They have domestic disputes with their spouses and punish their enstranged wifes by taking their children away from them. You really have to be a selfish and selfcentered bas*ard to be able to take away your childs life to pay somebody back.   Glock 17 Citizen Username: Glock17 Post Number: 1438 Registered: 7-2005 Posted on Saturday, July 15, 2006 - 10:15 pm:        Bajou, if it was the other way around...I can hear it now... "It is the woman's right to have her children!"   John James Leuchs Jr Citizen Username: Clairvoyant Post Number: 108 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 12:32 am:        Times have changed, Glock. Most states now have joint custody. The father also has a say in adoption issues if the marriage or relationship is terminated and the mother wants to let a couple adopt the child.   Scully Citizen Username: Scully Post Number: 756 Registered: 8-2005 Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:38 am:        Glock! The comments weren't about a simple custody disputes where obviously there are two sides to a story. The subject was about somebody who murdered his kids. There're NO two sides to THAT story!!! Forgive me, but how can you not relate to a 20 year old college student? Look at all you have ahead of you (I hope). And that kid had it all blown away through absolutely no fault of his own. And I gotta say it. The way those kids were slaughtered, your posting the picture of a big handgun right next to your comments was absolutely tasteless!!!   scrim Citizen Username: Scrim Post Number: 49 Registered: 5-2001 Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 3:52 pm:        I found this enlightening: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia   Bajou Citizen Username: Bajou Post Number: 1087 Registered: 2-2006 Posted on Sunday, July 16, 2006 - 4:11 pm:        Glock. Sometimes there is no two sides. I could care less if the wife left the husband or the husband left the wife. If they left for another man or another women, if the money ran out and their world was crumbling. There is no difference if it's the father who murders the child or if it's the mother who does it. A child died by the hands of somebody who is supposed to be their eternal protector. How can you look at your child and pull a trigger just so you hurt your spouse??? To me, as a mother, this has to be a temporary insanity moment. Now what if there would have been no gun in that house...? Would that moment have passed without not just one but two deaths? I don't know, you don't know and the innocent child will certainly never know.