Bruce Tiemann: Deceit is central to the "gun control" movement"

Deceit is central to the "gun control" movement
Ammo for the Gun Rights Debate

Most of the platforms of 'gun control' proponents are based on deceit, specious arguments, logical fallacies, and emotional hype. This must be exposed. Judgements should be based on on facts, not on emotional and especially not on intentionally deceptive rhetoric. Those employing such should be viewed with extra suspicion: If the facts decisively favored a given side, that side should not need to resort to lies to make its case. The "gun control" talking points are mostly lies or deceptions. Those who are gun-phobic or who are prejudiced about gun owners have a right to their bigotry ... but this does not justify the use of deception to accomplish their mission of destroying other's right to self-defense.

The first thing to do when trying to talk to an anti is to ask them, what, if anything, will cause them to abandon their support for gun control? What evidence would they accept that it is misguided? Naturally, convincing someone of something that won't change their mind anyway is a wasted effort.

If they think the Second Amendment protects the right of states to arm their National Guards, would they drop their support for gun control if you could convince them that the National Guard is a federal force, or that Second Amendment regards an individual, civil right?
If they think the Second Amendment may have been appropriate when it was written but is now obsolete, would they drop their support for gun control if you could convince them that tyrants still exist today or that governments continue to kill far more people than armed criminals do?
If they think gun control is needed because guns cause crime, or because guns are killing our children, would they drop their support for it if you could convince them that they stop more crimes than they cause, that crime in America is highest where gun control is strictest, or that guns are a negligible cause of child death compared to other household items?
If they think that people don't need guns because the police are there to protect them, would they abandon their support for gun control if you could convince them that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual?
If they think having a gun around the home places a family at greater risk of being murdered with it than protected by it, would they abandon their support for gun control if you could convince them that the "study" which drew this conclusion is based on fallacy and that the opposite is true?
If they think that guns are bad because America has many guns and many gun deaths compared with other countries, would they abandon their support for gun control if you could convince them that these comparisons are flawed, by ignoring rates before the other contries disarmed, or by neglecting current trends in crime rates?
If they think that guns are evil, bad, and horrible devices which just jump up and kill people, and you find out that they have no experience with them at all, would they abandon their support for gun control if you offered to take them to a range to see for themselves a real gun that can shoot holes in a piece of paper, without jumping off the table and without killing anybody?
If they think gun control is needed because there is so much public support for it, or so many stories for it on the news or in the papers, would they abandon their support for it if you could convince them that most people are not informed about the issue and are acting on emotions, and that the news media has abandoned objectivity and has demonstrably taken sides in the gun control debate?
If they think gun control is needed because the arguments favoring it seem so convincing - would they abandon their support for it if you could convince them that most of those arguments are based on deception, partial truths, misleading studies, logical fallacies, methodological flaws, hypocrisy, and deliberate misuse of words?
Lastly, if they tell you that there is nothing whatsoever that you could possibly demonstrate, that would change their mind about gun control - then remind them they are taking a dogmatic, bigoted, and even essentially religious position about guns, gun owners, and gun control that has no place being legislated in a free society: Their beliefs are their right, but they have no right to inflict these beliefs on others under color of law.
Even if they are unwilling to accept any new evidence that could cause them to question their beliefs, they may already hold self-contradictory positions, which, if found and pointed out, would also serve the purpose. (See: "What you have to believe, in order to believe in 'gun control.'")

"He who will not reason, is a bigot; he who cannot, is a fool; and he who dares not, is a slave." -- Byron

This research is free to copy, free to forward. Comments arewelcome. Permission is hereby granted to use any part of it or all of it for any pro-rights purposes, and especially for pro-gun webpages or letters to the editor. The page is long - sorry about that. Download it and read it at your leisure later! brucet@ctilidar.com Here are my PGP keys.

"No one has the right to destroy another person's belief by demanding empirical evidence." -- Ann Landers, Director, Handgun Control, Inc. [Evidently, she thinks freedom of speech does not apply to asking questions.]
"We didn't spend enough money, and we didn't tell enough lies." [WRT the reasons Washington Safety First and Handgun Control Incorporated lost the WA State I-676 handgun control initiative] --Charles W. `The Needle' Pluckhahn; aka: "CWP" < needle@seanet.com >
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

Here is a typical "gun control" 'FACT':

The New England Journal of Medicine reported that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to cause the death of a family member or a friend than a criminal. The study concluded:

"The home can be a dangerous place. We noted 43 suicides, criminal homicides, or accidental gunshot deaths involving a gun kept in the home for every case of homicide for self-protection. In light of these findings, it may be reasonably asked whether keeping firearms in the home increases a family's protection or places it in greater danger."

"Torture data long enough, and it will confess to anything." -anon http://www.smith-house.org/books/Larry_Smith/quotes.html

"But since Kellermann and Reay considered only cases resulting indeath, which Gary Kleck's research indicates are a tiny percentage of defensive gun uses, this conclusion does not follow. As the researchers themselves conceded, "Mortality studies such as ours do not include cases in which burglars or intruders are wounded or frightened away by the use or display of a firearm. Cases in which would-be intruders may have purposely avoided a house known to be armed are also not identified." By leaving out such cases, Kellermann and Reay excluded almost all of the lives saved, injuries avoided, and property protected by keeping a gun in the home. Yet advocates of 'gun control' continue to use this study as the basis for claims such as, "A gun in the home is 43 times as likely to kill a family member as to be used in self-defense."
From: http://www.reason.com/9704/fe.cdc.html
http://www.azstarnet.com/~sandman/doctors.htm

This "fact" is typical of the misleading propaganda produced by the "gun control" lobby. The methodology is flawed, and the results misleading and deceptive despite the technicality that the numbers themselves are "correct." (They are as correct as "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.")

Suicides are included. Accounting for some 55% of guns deaths nationwide, they account for fully 37 of the 43 deaths from "guns in the home," or 87% of the total! Blaming the guns for these deaths is dubious, because people can, will, and do kill themselves without guns. Curiously, when it comes to suicide, we don't see many comparisons with all those countries that so wisely keep guns out of people's hands -- maybe because old gun-crazy America wouldn't look so bad by comparison. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/03/13/guns/print.html In 1996, the suicide rate per 100,000 people was 11.8 in the U.S., 13.4 in Canada, 17.9 in Japan, 20.9 in France and 25 in Finland. Japan is essentially gun-free.

Furthermore, self-defense doesn't require killing. It makes no more sense to measure the effectiveness of guns in private hands by counting the number of dead bodies they produce as it does to measure the effectiveness of a police force solely by their annual body count.

Given this, do you still accept the 43-to-1 "fact?" Even the study's authors have backed off their claim. (It became 22 times more likely: Kellermannn A.L. Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home Journal of Trauma, vol. 45, no. 2, 1998, pp. 263-267. http://www.jointogether.org/gv/action/tools/facts/reader.jtml?Object_ID=257007 It then became "In homes with guns, the homicide of a household member is almost three times more likely to occur than in homes without guns.) Nevertheless, some "gun control" groups still report it as fact. For example, SLAM!theNRA does so on it's "firearms facts" page, by stating: "Guns kept in the home for self-protection are 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than to kill in self-defense." (From: http://www.slamthenra.com/) They make a call to action based in part on this fraud!

Besides those who simply repeat the frauds "without ill intent," which SLAM!theNRA could barely claim, there are other groups such as the Violence Policy Center, which continue to perpetrate new frauds in the same vein despite being called on them. They cannot claim "ignorance" or that "they got the information from other sources." Anyone who sort of vaguely supports the notion that guns are bad and should be controlled, should be educated on the deliberate deceptions perpetrated by the VPC and other such groups, and pressed to explain why they do it, and why anything those groups support should be accepted given their deceit.

Incidentally, by use of the same methodology, one can come up with other equally misleading, but pro-rights stats. The question is, how come we only hear about "43 times more likely" and never these?

A gun is 25 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to kill anybody.
A gun is 245 times more likely to be used by a non-criminal to defend against criminal threat than to commit criminal homicide.
A gun is 55 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to kill another person intentionally.
A gun is 50 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to be used in suicide.
A gun is over 500 times more likely to be used to defend against criminal threat than to accidentally or unintentionally kill anybody.

Explanations of these numbers, and a further discussion of the 43-to-1 statistic, are from: http://www.goal.org/articles/coveystats.html More on 43-to-1: http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel013101.shtml

Summary of Bad-Faith Arguments, Deceptions, and Distortions

The Stentorian: Attacking the lies of "gun control" proponents.
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/

The "43-times more likely" abuse of statistics is typical of the lies put forth by the gun prohibition lobby. Well, maybe they're not lies. Maybe, as Clinton would say, they are "legally accurate ... but do not volunteer information." Remember that? "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." ... "That depends on what 'is' is."

But this abuse is not nearly the only offense against honesty coming from the gun prohibition lobby; Other arguments they make are equally deceptive or fraudulent. Some are made in bad faith: In answer to a certain problem, a certain solution is seriously proposed that cannot possibly fix the problem. Another kind of fraud is the deliberately deceptive (mis)use of words, and a third type is the use of fraudulent methodology employed in order to exaggerate the harm, or minimize the benefit, of guns. (43-to-1 fits in this section.) A fourth is the simple use of bogus arguments, illogical or rhetorical. A fifth section is governmental misinterpretations. Since the State acts with the force of law, their bad-faith arguments deserve a special section.

1. Bad Faith Arguments and Blatant Hypocrisy Solutions advanced to "solve" a problem that can't possibly be solved in the proposed way.

Licensing and registration

In response to the workplace shooting at a Xerox building in Hawaii, Clinton and others called for national gun registration and owner licensing. But in Hawaii, this is already law, and the licensed shooter used his registered gun to commit the massacre. http://www.cnn.com/US/9911/03/honolulu.shooting.01/ Similarly, the Melrose Park, IL shooter at Navistar, Inc, was a convicted child molestor and yet had a firearms permit which, nevertheless, did not prompt authorities to confiscate his guns (let alone put him immediately in prison). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36499-2001Feb7.html Criminals are exempt from having to undergo licensing and registration! - since gun ownership is prohibited to criminals, and since registering constitutes admission of ownership, the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination "provides a full defense" to prosecution! http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/cramer.haynes.html) In other words, Licensing and registration only applies to law-abiding citizens! Here is a list of arguments against, and rebuttals to arguments for, licensing and registration: http://spot.colorado.edu/~tiemann/registration.html

"Closing" the "gun show loophole"

In response to the Columbine shootings, Clinton and others call for background checks at gun shows, "because" shooters Harris andKlebold were supplied weapons bought from a gun show by straw-purchase buyer Robyn Anderson, who didn't take any background check. But there are two lies here: First, Harris and Klebold didn't buy their guns at a gun show, they bought them from Robyn Anderson. Close the Robyn Anderson loophole, if anything! Second, Anderson had a clean record, and would have passed any check.
If you look up "loophole" in the dictionary, you will find that it isn't one: a "loophole" means a possibility for circumventing the intent of a law while obeying the letter of the law. If the legislators had intended background checks for all gun transfers, but people at gun shows somehow mananged to find a way to sell guns without these checks by a creative interpretation of the law, that would be a loophole. On the other hand, if the legislators specifically decided not to include gun shows within the scope of the Brady law, and private sellers at shows accordingly didn't conduct the background checks, that isn't a "loophole." (This argument courtesy of Mike Humer.) Thus, the "gun show loophole" used in the customary way is really "gun prohibitionist's incessant mission creep." It would seem that the background checks for FFLs was sold to voters or to Congress with the disclaimer that "Don't worry, these checks only apply to FFL sales. They don't affect gun shows and private sales at all ... people will still be able to trasact freely once guns leave the original dealer." - And then we are told about the dangerous "gun show loophole." In fact...
... now in Colorado that the "gun-show loophole" is closed, there will still be the "private seller loophole" that allows people not at gun shows to sell guns without performing background checks. This "private sale/newspaper ad loophole" will be the next one mentioned - and in just as deceptive and misleading way as the "gun-show loophole" has been. (Prediction comes true: "Leaders of gun control groups from Illinois and 15 other states today called on the nation's newspapers to stop carrying classified advertisements for guns, saying such ads let criminals obtain firearms without undergoing federally mandated background checks." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/561835/posts)
Actually, it isn't a "loophole" anyway: the gun prohibition lobby would have you believe that current law allows criminals to purchase guns at gun shows But this is false! Criminals are never "allowed" to purchase guns - they are absolutely prohibited from doing so, whether at a store, gun show, from a newspaper ad, or for that matter from the black market. The "gun show loophole" is tantamount to the "street corner loophole," which allows people to stand on street corners without a background check, to buy and sell heroin - it simply isn't legal. There is no loophole here whatsoever, there areonly unenforced laws.
The gun prohibition lobby claims that this loophole was created by the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986, which for the first time allowed private sellers to sell guns at gun shows, without performing background checks. They have it exactly backwards: Until 1986, FFL holders were prohibited to transact at gun shows - only private sellers were allowed to sell at gun shows. But Presto! As soon as FFLs were allowed to sell at gun shows, suddenly it's a "loophole" that private dealers do not have to conduct background checks.
If you are opposed to registration, but support "background" (registration) checks, you are misinformed about the true nature of the checks: they are registration, because they include make, model, and serial number of the purchased firearm(s), which have no bearing on the background of the checkee. See below.
"Closing" is exactly wrong: Firearms laws are the same at gun shows as everywhere else: dealers are required to perform (unconstitutional) checks, no matter where they set up business, and private citizens are not, whether at a gun show or not. However, the ballot initiative in Colorado, Amendment 22, creates a loophole because now, a private seller would have to provide for background checks at "gun show" sales but not for non-gun-show sales. Presumably the "newpaper ad" or "private sale" loophole will be the next target to be closed in the future. Then, there will be full government monitoring and registration of all firearms transfers - a feat even King George was not able to secure in his day. http://www.i2i.org/SuptDocs/Backgrounders/gunshows.htm Next, there is that pesky freedom loophole.
Now in Colorado, private sellers who sell guns at gun shows must pay sales tax on their sales, even though it is private property they are selling. (Gotcha! This wasn't talked about by the supporters of Amendment 22 at all!!) Furthermore:
... those who attempt to sell to someone who turns out to be a prohibited person must go through a background check themselves in order to get their own gun back, because once the gun is in possession of an FFL to transfer (register) the gun to the prospective buyer, the gun can't be "just given" to anyone, including the seller. The only way to transfer a gun from an FFL to someone is via the check, including returning it to the seller, when the sale is denied. Gotcha again! This too was not discussed when the ballot initiative was being discussed. However, laws always have unintended consequences. Maybe they're intended - but that would be paranoid to think so, right?
Given that that Maryland has already "closed" the gun show "loophole," the movement there to ban gun shows altogether indicates that the gun show "loophole" is a merely smokescreen. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A19618-2001Feb2.html http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-2001221182052.htm

The Brady Law: Background Checks and Waiting Periods

The Brady Bill was named in honor of Reagan's press secretary, James Brady, who was shot in the head, by mentally unstable attempted presidential assassin John W. Hinckley, Jr. The stated purpose of the "Brady" check and its mandatory waiting period was to keep people like Hinckley from being able to get guns, but under the provisions of the Brady bill, Hinckley would not have been denied, and he bought the gun he used more than the waiting period length prior to his assassination attempt. Thus, neither provision would have stopped the shooting.

Trigger locks

When a 6-year-old shooter killed 6 year-old Kayla Rolland at an elementary school near Flint, Michigan, Clinton and others stated how much this shows how badly we need trigger-lock laws. But the gun was stolen, and traded to a crack dealer for drugs - at the house of the 6-year-old shooter. Can a serious case be made that crack whores will obey trigger-lock laws? What about felony drug laws? http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/03/06/gun.locks/
All but 2 of 32 brands of trigger locks could be opened without a key. In light of this failure rate, could it be that trigger lock proposals are a result of knee-jerk hysteria rather than carefully implemented policy? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35373-2001Feb6.html
Anti-gun Maryland governor P. Glendening wanted to demo how easy a locked gun can be to open - but he required the assitance of a nearby police officer to do it.

Despite the fact that he would have been killed if this had been a defensive situation in which he needed the gun, "the next day, Parris Glendening's henchmen in the General Assembly abandoned Senate rules and brought to the floor the administration proposal to ban sale of all handguns which do not have these types of mechanical gadgets built in." http://www.direct-action.org/Gunlock/demo.html

"Stricter" penalties

Because LA Police-Chief Bernard Parks's granddaughter Lori Gonzalez was killed in a gang-related shooting, the police chief has called for tighter restrictions on guns, and harsher penalties to be made available to people who commit crimes with guns. http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a39415e6d22ce.htm But the shooter is already eligible for the death penalty - and prosecutors haven't even decided whether they will seek it. http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/06/09/chief.grand/ How much stricter than the death penalty can we imagine going? Being Rosie O'Donut's live-in slave?

"Tighter" Handgun Regulations

In response to the spree shooting at the DC Zoo in which a handgun was used, the Violence Policy Center called for a ban on handguns. But handguns are already effectively banned in Washington DC - which even the Violence Policy Center already admits! ("Although the District of Columbia has had a ban on handgun sale and possession since 1976, Washington residents are held hostage by the lax gun laws of surrounding jurisdictions." - Josh Sugarmann. In that case, how come the gun death rates in these adjoining places, where the gun laws are lax, aren't even higher?)

Concealed carry

Gore, some PTAs and others http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/19/utah.schools.guns/index.html are calling for a ban of carrying concealed weapons in schools and churches. This argument is even a rallying cry to defeat G.W. Bush, who signed legislation allowing it. http://www.bushandguns.com/pages/churches.html But it is not the carry-permit holders who are committing the mass shootings in these locations.

Arrest rate of Washington, DC police officers:                        19    per 1000
Arrest rate of St. Louis police officers:                                  13    per 1000
Arrest rate of New York City police officers:                             3    per 1000
Arrest rate of Florida concealed handgun permit holders: 0.9 per 1000
(Source: "D.C. Police Paying for Hiring Binge" Washington Post 8/28/94; Memorandum by James T. Moore, Commissioner of Florida's Department of Law Enforcement, to office of the Governor, dated 3/15/95.)

Texas Concealed Handgun Carriers: Law-abiding Public Benefactors
http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba324/ba324.html

When Florida passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would turn the Sunshine State into the "Gunshine State." It didn't happen. When Virginia passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would turn Virginia into "Virginia City." It didn't happen. When Texas passed shall-issue concealed carry, opponents said it would return Texas to the days of the Wild West. Didn't happen.

Quotes of Concealed carry converts:

"I lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because I thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict. That hasn't happened. All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert." - Glenn White, president of the Dallas Police Association: http://detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0101/14/comment2/comment2.htm
"I'm detecting that I'm eating a lot of crow on this issue. It isn't something I necessarily like to do, but I am doing it on this." - Harris County [Texas] District Attorney John Holmes http://www.moccw.org/leforccw.html
"Some of the public safety concerns which we imagined or anticipated a couple of years ago, to our pleasant surprise, have been unfounded or mitigated." -- Fairfax County VA Police Major Bill Brown, The Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97.
"I was wrong. But I'm glad to say I was wrong." -- Arlington County VA Police Detective Paul Larson, previously an opponent of Right to Carry, The Alexandria Journal, 7/9/97.
"The concerns I had - with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons - we haven't experienced that." -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg NC Police Chief Dennis Nowicki, The News and Observer, 11/24/97.

Other relevant quotes:

Florida

"From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems in the community from people arming themselves with concealed weapons." -- Commissioner James T. Moore, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Memo to the Governor, 3/15/95.

"To set the record straight... The process is working... The statistics show a majority of concealed firearms or firearm licensees are honest, law-abiding citizens exercising their right to be armed for the purpose of lawful self defense." -- Sandra B. Mortham, Florida Secretary of State.

Texas:

"As we have seen in other states and had predicted would occur in Texas, all the fears of the naysayers have not come to fruition. A lot of critics argued that the law-abiding citizens couldn't be trusted... But the facts do speak for themselves. None of these horror stories have materialized." -- Sheriff David Williams, Tarrant County, TX, Fort Worth Telegram, 7/17/96.

Virginia:

"Virginia has not turned into Dodge City. We have not seen a problem." -- Virginia Public Safety Secretary Jerry Kilgore, The Fredricksburg Freelance Star, 2/2/96.

USA-Wide

"Allowing citizens to carry concealed firearms deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have right to carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly." -- Professor John R. Lott, Jr., and David B. Mustard, University of Chicago.

"The facts are in and the record is clear: Right to Carry gives law enforcement, their families and our communities real protection from violent criminals." -- James J. Fotis, Executive Director, Law Enforcement Alliance of America.

Source: http://www.moccw.org/leforccw.html

(But in one sense, maybe they're right: only three (3) people died at the famous shootout at the OK Corral - and the reason it's famous is because, for the Wild West, that was a big number. http://www.linecamp.com/museums/americanwest/western_places/ok_corral_gun_fight/ok_corral_gun_fight.html ) Yet, they continue to fight against the introduction of CCW everywhere else. Where is the difference between a difference of opinion, and a record of being 100% wrong, every time - and still expecting to be taken serioulsy? Even astrologers and psychics sometimes have a prediction come true! But opponents of shall-issue conceal carry continue to say letting guns on the streets will result in mass death and destruction.

"By getting rid of the guns, we will reduce crime!"

Many gun prohibitionists claim to seek reduced crime rates (specifically, 'gun-violence' rates).
But:

They propose to turn thousands of people into new, paper criminals by banning certain types of weapons or magazines which they already own. For example, mere possession of a banned so-called 'assault weapon' is considered a violent felony in California. Here is the story of one such "criminal" http://www.guntruths.com/Puckett/why_i_will_not_obey_california.htm There are proposals to make possession of certain types of ammo and gun accessories (such as full-capacity magazines), as well as some types of guns, strictly prohibited. I confess: I have a 25 round magazine for a 22 rimfire rifle. Would it "reduce crime" by banning this item, turning me into a criminal, without my taking any action?
Fun Fact: Those who pass such laws will instantly be creating not just criminals, but armed criminals by the thousands, or more! At the stroke of a pen!! Canada has just manufactured 400,000 armed criminals. How that for reducing crime? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25796-2001Jan5.html
Even California officials admit little compliance with their latest registration scheme:
"No one knows exactly how many of these types of guns are in private hands, but we estimate the number is far higher than what has been registered," said state Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/default-2001122225211.htm
"Well, what do you think [laws] are for? We want them to be broken. There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. [...] just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers ... that's the game." -- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged p. 411
Some people value their freedom more than the law, and will violently resist confiscation - and this is already well known. http://www.henrybowman.com/Articles/artADeclarationOfDisobedience.htm http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/dear_peace_officer.htm Continuing on the path to civilian disarmament in light of this knowledge means they do not want to "reduce violence" - they wish to provoke it. There are people willing to kill to keep their weapons and the freedom. Are the gun prohibitionists willing to die, or to kill in the name of "reducing gun violence" in order to disarm these people? (Some antis will claim that, no, they don't want to kill people to take away their guns. But frankly, it's out of their hands; once a law is enacted that criminalizes firearms or accessories, the matter of law enforcement is out of their hands. If the police then want to no-knock suspected owners of these things at 3 AM using a dozen ninja-suited thugs in riot gear and jackboots in the fine tradition of the drug war then that's what they will do, the docile intentions of some gun prohibitionists notwithstanding.)

"We need to hold gun makers responsible for negligent marketing of guns to criminals, who then use them in crimes."

Lately it has been popular to sue gun makers for "the cost of gun violence" and "selling guns to criminals" by suing them for damages when one of their products is used in a crime. For example, an article Gun Maker Glock Sued, Sellers, Sued Over Pizza Hut Shooting "Civil suits like this are a very important supplement to our laws because they give gun sellers a very important financial incentive to act responsibly," said Dennis Henigan, who directs the Center [To Prevent Handgun Violence]'s legal action project. http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a67463e3e1a.htm But the gun used in this crime was first sold to a police department as admitted in the same article. Thus, selling guns to police departments is evidently the sort of negligent, irresponsible behavior on Glock's part that these lawsuits are supposed to put a stop to.

By the way, such lawsuits violate the separation of powers. In America, policy is to be written by legislators, and interpreted by the courts, but the tobacco litigation already completed and the gun litigation currently is an attempt to create public policy in the courts not in the legislature where it belongs.

"Clinton is only trying to make our country safer by getting violent criminals off the streets!"

The Brady registration checks make it a felony to lie on the form, and it is a felony for prohibited persons to even try to buy a firearm. Clinton and Reno like to say how some 400,000 criminals were denied purchases. How many have been jailed? Fewer than 1,000.
If he wanted to get violent criminals off the streets, why did Clinton pardon violent terrorists who made bombs, and shot people? See those FALN criminals (that Clinton pardoned) making a bomb here. http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/1999/cyb19990920.html Many were murderers, too. (After all making a bomb isn't violent - using a bomb is. The White House admitted as much.)
The lack of Federal prosecution as regards attempts by restricted persons (felons, mentally unstable, etc) to purchase guns has been detailed in a report produced by the US Government Accounting Office (Report [GGD-96-22] Gun Control: Implementation of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act ). This report, which SUPPORTS what the NRA has stated regarding the matter, can be accessed at US Gov't Printing Office Web-Site http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/aces/aces160.shtml) enter (GGD-96-22) in the Report Number search field.
Check out the criminals Clinton pardoned in his last hours of office, and see if you can still say with a straight face that his goal is to get violent people off the street.

Blatant Hypocrisy: Examples

"We must do more to reach out to our children and teach them to resolve conflicts with words, not weapons. ... Violence is wrong." - President Clinton, speaking of the Columbine massacre, while the US military was bombing Yugoslavia on his orders.

Million Moms For Vigilante Shootings, in Washington DC where handguns are banned.

One Million Mom March member, Barbara Graham (Lipscomb, Martin), joined the MMM because her son was killed "by a gun." But the MMM fell short and she took the law into her own hands by shooting (with a handgun of course) the man, Kikko Smith, she thought killed her son. Police seized four guns, including a TEC-9 sub-machine gun, from her house. [Horrors! An arsenal!! And did she pay her $200 tax on the machine gun? And were they all registered as required by law in Washington DC?] http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40501-2000Jul13.html http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/metaksa/metaksa09-28-00p.htm

By the way, the man she shot is paralyzed for life - and didn't kill her son. And other Million Moms are backing her at the trial(!) [For possessing illegal and even banned guns in Washington, DC? For shooting someone who she thought killed her son? For helping to reduce gun violence? Just what do the Million Moms support? Censorship and vandalism? Illegal lobbying by a tax-exempt organization?] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37911-2001Jan23.html

She's been convicted (but this story conveniently neglects to remind the reader of her Million Mom affiliation): http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15185-2001Feb1.html

Don't point any fingers ... except at guns!

In response to a school shooting (at Carter G. Woodson Middle School in Central City, in New Orleans, 26 Sept 2000) in which two youths shot each other with the same gun, the Mayor advises that no fingers be pointed. Then he does so:

I hope the community doesn't fall into the blame cycle that we love to engage in when we have a problem -- to blame the school system, or point a finger at all the parents, or ask what the police did or did not do," [Mayor Marc] Morial said. "We have a very serious underlying problem: Children have too easy access to weapons.
Without a gun, this would have been a fight between a 13- and 15-year-old, a little pushing and shoving on the playground," he said.
http://www.nola.com/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/t-p/frontpage/338820291-0927national01.html

Let's ignore drunk drivers and focus on guns... says a drunk driver.

This week, figures supplied by Mothers Against Drunk Driving said drunken drivers killed 15,935 in 1998. Handgun Control, a Washington group that pushes gun control, said there were 12,102 homicides by firearms in 1998.
Neither figure is heartening, but the drunks are outdoing the gunslingers when it comes to deadly violence.
And that brings us back to ["First Monday" march organizer Helen] Ruch and a final surprise.
Noting her view that it's not fair for children to feel unsafe because of guns, I asked her Thursday if she thinks it's also unfair that they feel unsafe because of the far more serious dangers from drunken drivers.
"What does that have to do with anything?" she replied.
I told her it has to do with her drunken driving charge.
"I have no comment," she said.
That's OK, because Lehigh County Court records commented plenty.
They say Ruch was charged with public drunkenness (later dropped), driving under the influence, and improper "emerging onto roadway" in 1996. "Driver was given sobriety tests of balance and walking and failed all tests. Effects of alcohol were extreme," said an Allentown police report. The report said her breath test registered 0.162.
The records say that in 1997, Ruch agreed to enter the Accelerated Rehabilitative Disposition program. Typically, when ARD is successfully completed, DUI records can be expunged.
http://www.mcall.com/html/columns/cpc/b_pg001_e15surprises.htm Mirrors: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.mcall.com/html/columns/cpc/b_pg001_e15surprises.htm+lehigh+ruch+drunk+driving&hl=en

Rosie O'Donnel

"I honestly think - and I am not an expert on the amendments - I think the only people in this nation who should be allowed to own guns are police officers. I don't care if you want to hunt, I don't care if you think it's your right. I say 'sorry'. It is 1999, we have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun and if you do own a gun, I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnel, 21 Apr 1999.

"There have been times, yes, when there has been -- only since April 21, when I became a vocal gun control advocate - there have been times when I have had armed people at my house, not inside my house, outside my house, to make sure that no one who's not supposed to get in the house, get in the house." - Rosie O'Donnel http://homes.acmecity.com/rosie/happy/365/rosie.html http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=\Culture\archive\CUL20000601b.html

(Image courtesy of Ironwill )

Governmental Hypocrisy:

All gun control laws are passed by our elected representatives, and signed by the the President. These laws disarm us, say, in national parks, in certain cities, or if we own certain types of firearms. However, these laws are crafted by people protected by armed guards (at the Capitol buildings), guards who have short-barrelled ("sawed-off"), silenced and fully-automatic rifles - each characteristic of which is a felony for us to own without special permission. Some who even hire or have assigned, personal bodyguards. Clinton always had a cadre of such bodyguards, armed with machine guns, and under the watchful eye of snipers posted atop buildings everywhere, all the time when he travels. In fact, after retirement presidents continue to enjoy 24 hour, 365 days/year Secret Service protection for years, no matter how many gun control laws disarming us he has signed. His daughter Chelsea has been assigned Secret Service protection for the duration of her Stanford education, another executive order by her dad. This is, of course, despite the "gun-free" schools act that ensure the rest of us can't use self-defense.

"We've got to do more to stop gun violence."

(These arguments address only the failure of gun prohibitions to reduce violent crime rates. This does not imply that even if such prohibitions did reduce crime, I would support them, since there is a value to having freedom even in the face of increased danger. These arguments are only to refute or rebut the argument that "we should 'do more' to reduce gun violence" - since even on its face what has been done so far isn't working.)

In Schools:

The "gun-free" schools act was not passed until the mid-1990's. Yet most high-profile school shootings have happened after its passage than ever before. So we have to do more? If anything, it shows that the act should be repealed for being a proven failure.
Part of the fault here lies with the media, for making school shootings such high profile cases in the first place. Copycat shootings wouldn't happen if nobody hears about anything they could then copy. So one part of doing more to stop school shootings is stopping their coverage to deny copycats the knowledge of anything to copy.
Also, the media creates an incentive for future school shooters who wish their 15 minutes of fame. An attention-seeking misfit can be assured of national coverage, headlines, photos on the front pages of newspapers, his nmae being known to the whole country etc, if he were to complete a school shooting. Another way to do more is to deny fame to those who would do this. But this means getting the media to overcome its fondness for sensationalistic school shootings. (Recall that newspapers are business concerns, and that "If it bleeds, it leads." To the extent that school shootings sell papers, and that photos of grieving survivors win accolades and Pulitzer prizes http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2000/breaking-news-photography/ it is in the business interest of newspapers to have as many school shootings as possible. Harsh? If the shoe fits...
There were already police at the Carter G. Johnson Middle School (see above) as a result of a fight some weeks ago, and there were already metal detectors through which students had to pass. Yet, a gun passed through the fence and used by two people to shoot each other means that we need to do more? (Close the fence loophole!! Only steel-reinforced concrete walls, topped with concertina wire should be permitted to enclose our precious youth while they are at school. Right?)
Police showed up at Columbine only 4 minutes after the first 911 call, but didn't enter until nearly all the killing was done, some 40 minutes later. Doing more by way of dropping police response from 4 minutes to 1 minute won't do much good if it takes 40 more minutes to enter the building. (Note that it takes only a few seconds to fire six or ten shots, and only a few more seconds to reload whether a revolver or a semi-automatic. If the police aren't there in 1 second, more people are at risk of dying.)
Metal detectors wouldn't have worked in Columbine, since the gunmen shot their way into the school in the first place, and could have overpowered any security guard manning the detector anyway. http://www.20ishparents.com/archives/dad2.shtml Nevertheless they are proposed for use in schools.
Guns are now flatly prohibited at schools, unlike ever before, yet school shootings continue to happen. What next? Body cavity seraches, electric fences around schools, with moats and live crocodiles? Telescreens installed in every hall, classroom, and drinking fountain to make sure no action goes unnoticed by Big Brother?
Here's a 16-year-old kid, who removes his coat before being dropped off at school, but there was a gun in the pocket and the granny finds it and turns him in. Seems like he was going out of his way to comply with the gun-free schools act ... but the is not good enough. http://www.newsnet5.com/news/stories/news-46338620010215-190225.html

In Cities and States:

Washington DC, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, and until recently, New York City, have among the strictest "gun control" laws anywhere and the highest rates of violent crime anywhere. In Washington DC, the "murder capital of the US," the gun laws came first and then the murder rate started to climb.

What will it take to admit the failure of "gun control?"

Will it take the slaughter of 100,000,000 people by their own governments after passing "gun control?" Too late - it's already happened.
Will it take the incineration of a peaceful religious sect comprising 83 men, women and children, in the name of "gun control?" Too late, it's already happened.
Will it take the deaths of innocent people as a result of law-enforcement raids, at the wrong addresses? Too late, it's already happened.
Studies have shown that waiting periods and background checks have been been associated with an increase in rape rates in America. http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/gc083100.htm How many more women need to be raped in the name of "gun control" before support for these policies wanes? A study by anti-gun authors writing in JAMA were unable to show that the Bracy Act reduced overall homicide or suicide rates. http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/abs/joc91749.html
- Waiting period story 1: Catherine Latta In September 1990, a mail carrier named Catherine Latta of Charlotte, North Carolina, went to the police to obtain permission to buy a handgun. Her ex-boyfriend had previously robbed her, assaulted her several times, and raped her The clerk at the sheriff's office informed her the gun permit would take two to four weeks. "I told her I'd be dead by then," Ms. Latta later recalled. That afternoon' she went to a bad part of town, and bought an illegal $20 semiautomatic pistol on the street. Five hours later, her ex-boyfriend attacked her outside her house, and she shot him dead. The county prosecutor decided not to prosecute Ms. Latta for either the self-defense homicide, or the illegal gun. http://www.afn.org/~afn01182/waiting.html
- Story 2: Bonnie Elmasri On March 5, 1991 Bonnie Elmasri called a firearms instructor, worried that her husband-who was subject to a restraining order to stay away from her-had been threatening her and her children. When she asked the instructor about getting a handgun, the instructor explained that Wisconsin has a 48-hour waiting period. Ms. Elmasri and her two children were murdered by her husband twenty-four hours later.
How many more voodoo cures will it require that don't work before we admit that the witch doctor does not fix the problem? If one aspirin didn't cure your headache, you might try two, or three. But what if you had already taken 10 aspirins, and the politicians implored you to do more? How far down a dead-end pathway does one have to go before admitting that the path is wrong and going back?
- What if there were a disease that killed people, though not more people than car accidents do, and there were also a government-mandated drug for "treating" this disease, except that the places where the government dose of this drug is highest, had the highest death rate from the disease, namely cities?
- And what if the government response, repeated by the gun prohibitionists, is that the high death rate of this disease compared to other countries, shows why we should give all Americans this drug instead of just those in the cities? (Other countries than America give a large dose of it, but have lost millions of people to outbreaks in the past, though the people alive today tend to show lower death rates from it, but Switzerland gives a very low dose and has a very low death rate.)
- And what if these same people say, well, the reason the death rate is high where the dose is high, but low elsewhere in America, is because people from the countryside who haven't had a large dose of it can come to the cities and spread the disease - so this "proves" how a large, uniform dose is needed for everybody? The dose, they say, should be increased in the cities, and then made uniform throughout the land.
- Do you think the FDA would approve this drug? Would they approve mandating it to all Americans, based on what is presented here? In case you missed it, the disease is violence and the government-mandated drug is disaramament laws, their severity being the dose.

What, if anything, does it take to finally prove that "gun control" is a failure? If there is nothing that will suffice, then the "gun control" position is essentially a dogma, being out of the rational sphere. In which case, our First Amendment right to be free from government-imposed religion should make it go away.

2. Deceptive Use of Words

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!" -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803), letter to John Pitts, January 21, 1776
"That depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." Then-President Bill Clinton, under oath, at his deposition for the Paula Jones lawsuit.

"Assault Weapons"

This term was coined in Nazi Germany to describe their new compact full-auto carbines, but then this term was borrowed by a gun-hater to intentionally mislead and deceive the public, namely, Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, who applies it to firearms which are not full-auto:

"['Assault weapons'] menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." --Josh Sugarmann, executive director of New Right Watch, and spokesman for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America," policy report of New Right Watch and the Education Fund to End Handgun Violence, September 1988

You can't get more decpetive than that - deliberate and admitted use of the public's confusion in order to advance an agenda. (N.B.: The Violence Policy Center is an "educational" tax-exempt organization. Do you think intentional deception should be grounds to revoke their tax-free status?)

Note: The BATF calls semi-auto firearms "assault rifles" not "assault weapons" - they can't even bother to mislead as HCI does. They simply contradict the DOD. http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/assault/index.htm

"The Centers for Disease Control reports that American children under 15 are 12 times more likely to die from gun violence than their peers in 25 other industrialized nations combined."

Source: http://www.pednurse.org/violence_statement.htm Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children�26 Industrialized Countries, MMWR (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report), Vol. 46, No. 5, February 7, 1997, pp. 101-105. Key Statistics: The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 was nearly 12 times higher than among children in the other 25 industrialized countries combined. The firearm-related homicide rate in the United States was nearly 16 times higher than that in all of the other industrialized countries combined. [Emphasis added] http://www.vpc.org/studies/wherfvgn.htm

The word "combined" suggests aggregate, as if, even if you add up the rates of all those other countries, the US still has such a higher rate. But this is misleading, which is made clear by example. If two cups of coffee each have a temperature of 150 degrees, the temperature of the two "combined" is still 150, not 300. If the murder rate in country A is 3 per 100,000 per year and in country B is also 3 in the same units, the rate in the countries, "combined" is also 3, not 6 - you don't add these either. The stat could be fairly represented as, the rate is 12 times higher than the average of the other 25 countries. But that doesn't have as much sway, and it isn't what they say. When anti-rights types use this statistic, listen for the pause before, and emphasis they place on, the word "combined." It is quite possible that they themselves don't realize that they don't understand what they're talking about. Ask them to clarify what it would mean for rates from various countries to be "combined." (Ask them what the combined temperatures of two cups of coffee would be!)

"Common Sense" controls

Gun control advocates claim they merely seek "common sense" or "reasonable" restrictions. "Responsible" gun "safety." If the gun control arguments are convincing, what about other, similar ones?

For example, would you support laws requiring people to chew their food before they swallow it? After all, it's just common sense - and many people each year die from choking on their food. With such a law, survivors of food-chokings could be prosecuted!! Think of all the lives that would save!! On a similar note, how about these other causes?
M.I.L.T.: Mothers Insisting on Licensed Tools.
Sensible Fire Safety Now! - my speech to the Boulder City Council Firearms Hearing, in response to their proposed firearms ordinances. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/ed-house-2001221182052.htm
Doctors. http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm
98% of felons use this!
The killer among us.
The Pen is Mightier than the Sword.
Waiting periods for publishing - while the Government checks your facts.
Easy Access to Unregulated Weapon is Killing our Children http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=1292
If these aren't convincing, why is "gun control" convincing?

Maddening examples of "gun safety" at work:

http://www.keepandbeararms.org/russell_laing.htm
A shooting park in Burro Canyon atop a land fill is closed due to environmental damage since railroad ties used there have creosote "leaking toxins" into this "forest" - even though the same stuff is on the telephone poles and railroad tracks which also traverse national forests. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=1293
Canada advises a non gun-owning hunter, who wishes to borrow but not own, guns, to get the incorrect gun license to do this - and then advises her to just simply break the law when they learn it was the wrong advice. "I'm not usually of the opinion that the gun registry is a conspiracy to strip gun owners of their firearms, but if that were the government's intention, counselling people to lie and then confiscating their guns as punishment would be one way of achieving such a goal."

Futhermore, are these good examples of common sense?

"OLDSMAR -- A fifth-grader was taken from Oldsmar Elementary School in handcuffs Wednesday after a teacher found drawings he had made of weapons, school officials said.
"The 11-year-old, who is not being named because of his age, was not charged with a crime. ... "The children were in no danger at all. It involved no real weapons."
"... The boy was handcuffed by campus police for his safety and not because the student was violent or out of control, said school district spokesman Ron Stone.
"The typical procedure involves immediately notifying a campus police officer or a school resource officer, counselors and the student's parents to "assess the threat and work with the child," she said. [But the threat was already assessed above: The children were in no danger al all.]
"... The classmates who turned in the student after seeing his drawings should be commended because that was the right thing to do, Schmitt said.
"We just need to get it through kids' heads that there are certain things you don't say and there are certain things you don't draw," he said. [... because these things are thought crimes and the thought police will not tolerate them.] http://www.sptimes.com/News/051101/news_pf/TampaBay/Student_removed_from_.shtml

Third-grader suspended for gun key chain. http://www.greenbaynewschron.com/page.html?article=104279
Cobb school calls wallet chain a weapon, suspends [sixth grade] girl, 11 http://stacks.ajc.com/cgi-bin/display.cgi?id=3a60d67241dd7Mpqaweb1P11010&doc=results.html - story on 9-28-2000, by Yolanda Rodriguez.
[Different]Michigan third grader suspended for having gun toy http://www.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500299211-500477675-503265666-0,00.html

"The NRA is unwilling to compromise"

Compromise means each side gives a little up to gain something else. But that's not what the gun prohibition lobbyists mean when they use it: If a robber broke into your house and wanted to steal your cash, jewelry, TV, and computer, it isn't a "compromise" if you negotiated with him to take only the cash and computer - that's still theft. It is surrender. It is capitulation. Yet, this is the misleading and deceptive sense with which the "gun control" forces use the word. They want to violate all gun rights, a bit at a time - and they complain to a willing mass media that the NRA fights them tooth and nail and is unwilling to "compromise" and settle for "only" half the rights violated. Anyone who uses this word in this context, or quotes such a use in a news story without criticism, is perpetrating a fraud.

(Even so, the NRA has been too willing to surrender: The NRA brought us the Brady Registration checks, the "cop-killer" ammunition ban, and other such prohibitionist legislation.)

Examples of real compromise would be, you can ban cheap "junk guns" if you also provide subsidies so that poor people can afford high-quality, but expensive, handguns that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to afford, or if you mandate magazine capacity limits in exchange for Vermont carry everywhere. That's compromise (even though both examples infringe rights). N.B. To learn about Vermont carry, here's a gun prohibition lobby site's map of CCW rights, courtesy of the CSGV. http://www.efsgv.org/content/coalition/coal_ccw.html

"We are not going to break new ground by being cautious," said [Nick] Pacheco, a former [Los Angeles] deputy district attorney. "If we have to tailor it down, that's fine. But we need to start out aggressively. If we don't then we aren't going to have any middle ground to fall back on." LA Daily News, 6 Mar 2001.

"You've got to draw the line somewhere!" For example: "Nobody needs a 50 caliber rifle." (See immediately below.)

Once upon a time, a congressman learned about .50 caliber target rifles. "Those guns are too big!" the congressman said, and so he introduced a bill in the Congress to outlaw them. But soon he found out that some people owned tiny little guns. "Those guns are too small!" the lawmaker warned, and he introduced another bill to outlaw them, too. http://www.claremont.org/publications/wheeler001031.cfm

This wouldn't be a case of drawing the line, that was already done in 1934. This would be a case of moving the line. In 1934, so-called "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, guns greater than 50 caliber with rifled barrels (with certain exceptions), silencers, and machine guns were banned from ordinary civilian possession. (National Firearms Act of 1934 - and never mind that silencers aren't firearms.) Current bills to ban the so-called 50 cal. "sniper" rifles, which can be lethal at 2,000 yards, are proposed on the basis of "you've got to draw the line somewhere." But this is a case of moving the line, not drawing it in the first place as they deceptively assert.

If this bill passes, what's next? Once the precedent is set for moving the line, where will it stop? 338-378 Weatherby magnum, which are lethal at 1500 yards? Who needs that kind of firepower? 300 Winchester magnum, which are lethal at 1000 yards? Why would you ever want to kill someone that far away? 308 Winchester, which are lethal at 600 yards? 22 long rifle, which are lethal 200 yards? Who needs to kill anybody at that kind of distance? Pellet guns, which are lethal at 50 yards? Who needs that kind of firepower? A cast-iron skillet, which is lethal at 1 yard? I mean, you've got to draw the line somewhere!

The line is already drawn - and noone who wants to move it mentions where they will finally stop.

"Kids"

Gunfire is widely charged with killing 13 kids a day, though the latest statistics have revised that number down to 10. But this number includes people age 0-19, including legal adults 18-19. Most of the number is made up of 17-19 year old gang members killing each other - and sometimes being killed by police or even armed citizens.

Here are some examples of the children, the kids killed by gunfire, and whose deaths add to the death toll which is then used as an emotional argument for why the right to armed self-defense should be even more restricted. Yes, these below number among the "13 kids killed every single day."

Boy with shotgun accidentally kills self (2 Aug 2001) A 15-year-old boy died Wednesday after accidentally shooting himself while using the barrel of a shotgun to break into a car, police said. Oliver Shepphard [was killed...]. Witnesses told police the boy was trying to break the windows of a stolen car in a vacant lot near his home around 11:30 p.m. Tuesday. The gun went off, and the boy was struck once in the chest, police said. He was found lying next to the car, police said. [...] (Note that the title does not disclose how the accident occurred; you have to read the story. How many other headlines are similarly deceptive? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chicago/chi-0108020165aug02.story (Lets get Hillary, Schumer, Feinstein, Rosie and the Brady's on this right away to sue auto makers for making car windows so tough to break into that it makes your gun go off and kill yourself. There outta be a law! After all, we must protect "the children". - garyhope Source.)
Customer won't be charged for killing teen-age robber Portsmouth, VA; 4 Jan 2001. "A Portsmouth man who shot and killed an 18-year-old robber of an Alcoholic Beverage Control Store in Churchland on Dec. 22 was justified in his actions, according to the Commonwealth's Attorney. The 41-year-old man was a customer in the store when Neshion N. Claiborne of Suffolk entered the store with a gun about 6 p.m., ordered six customers to the floor and made store employees fill a bag with cash, prosecutors said. The customer, who has legal permission to carry a concealed weapon, shot the teen several times as he headed towards the door with the money." http://www.pilotonline.com/news/nw0104abc.html Archive: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a54882d4e99.htm
Boy, 16, fatally shot in robbery attempt Hollywood, FL; 22 Apr 2001: "A Coast Guardsman who was being robbed in a movie theater parking lot pulled out his own gun and shot his two assailants, killing one and critically injuring the other, a police spokesman said on Saturday. Police, however, will not charge Jorge Anez in the shooting. Under the state felony murder rule, Xavier Winston, 18 who is in stable condition at Memorial Regional Hospital, will face first-degree murder charges in the death of his partner, Toddrick Allen, 16, said spokesman Carlos Negron." (Story by Andreas Tzortzis.) http://www.sun-sentinel.com/templates/misc/printstory.jsp?slug=sfl%2Dcshot22apr22

Paradoxically, when 16-year-old "child" gang members commit murder, they are often charged as adults! http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/04/26/zoo.shootings.02/ Hence, they're "kids" only for the purpose of jerking your heartstrings, so many "children" killed each day.

"Do it for the kids" is a website supporting "gun safety" (see below) - which includes this factoid for "kids" 10-24 killed by guns:

From: http://congress.nw.dc.us/dik/votercenter.html

But wait! By far the overwhelming majority of the "kids" killed each day by guns are inner city mid- and late-teenage drug dealers and gang bangers, killing each other over turf or to avenge previous killings - not what the photo would have you think:

"These groups have been in conflict for a good part of the afternoon, going at one another. But it wasn't until they were put out of the zoo and they were standing on Connecticut Avenue, one group on the west side of the street, one on the east side, that they started throwing bottles back and forth, and then someone pulled a gun and then began firing at the crowd," said Ramsey. http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/04/26/zoo.shootings.02/

Source: http://congress.nw.dc.us/dik/relatedlinks.html

In this photo:

Notice that "youths" are defined to include legal adults 18-24 years old! By this definition, nearly everyone in the military are youth, and Bill Clinton was receiving a blow job from a youth by the name of Monica Lewinsky while he was ordering the bombing of Yugoslavia.
The caption speaks of people aged 10-24. What is the age of the girl in the picture? Do you think she's in this age range? If not, do you think it is ethical to caption a photo with text that does not apply to the subject in the photo?

Here is a bill that explicitly cites "10 kids a day are killed by handguns" - legislation based on deception - in order to use tax money for gun "buy backs" (another deception): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.278:

We also hear how important it is to get guns out of the hands of children. Never mind that kids used to take 22 cal. rifles on the subway to school each day in New York City for use in rifle practice after school - and they never went berserk and shot crowds of people. But also:

Most rape victims are under 21 -- US Justice Dept, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/soo.txt
- But - Women under 21 years old should not be allowed to own guns. -- Bill Bradley, Al Gore, and (duh!) Bill Clinton

Care to rethink that one? Or are you pro-rape? http://www.geocities.com/wftright/2ajulie.html

More on "13 kids a day":

If 13 kids a day were killed by guns, why does the media get so much mileage out of a single death, such as that of 6-year old Kayla Rolland who was shot in an elementary school in Mt. Morris Township, near Flint MI? What about the other 12 that day, and the 13 the previous day and the following?
http://www.stentorian.com/2ndamend/13perday.html
http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=72055

Using a more reasonable age for children of 0-14 years of age, 1.4 children, not including adolescents and young adults, are killed each by gunfire. Still a tragedy, but nowhere near the misleading 13-kids-a-day number cited by the rights-control lobby.
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/rosen/0512rosen.shtml
What about this grave threat?

See for yourself how many "kids" a day are killed by guns, and by other means. This is at the official Center for Disease Control website. Type in your own age ranges and causes of death: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html Another such calculator is brought to you by the gun prohibition group "Americans for Gun Safety" at this link: http://ww2.americansforgunsafety.com/asp/risks.asp Notice that this calculator does not show the death rates for causes other than guns - guns are merely listed as "the fourth leading cause of death," for example, but it does not show by how much the other causes exceed guns.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither safety nor liberty." -- Benjamin Franklin

Gun ownership and delinquency

The nominal reason for background checks is "to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and children." Is arming children a bad thing, empirically? Maybe not: Want to reduce teen delinquency? Give your kid a gun! Think this is crazy? Read the following which was developed based on U.S. Government collected and published data:

Adolescent ownership and use of firearms is a growing concern, and results from the Rochester study suggest the concern is well founded. By the ninth and tenth grades, more boys own illegal guns (7 percent) than own legal guns (3 percent). Of the boys who own illegal guns, about half of the whites and African-Americans and nearly 90 percent of the Hispanics carry them on a regular basis. Figure 13 shows a very strong relationship between owning illegal guns and delinquency and drug use. Seventy-four percent of the illegal gun owners commit street crimes, 24 percent commit gun crimes, and 41 percent use drugs.
Boys who own legal firearms, however, have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns. The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gun owners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gun owners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gun owners, it appears to take place on the street.

http://www.lp.org/rel/990521-guns.html
http://www.infomagic.com/liberty/vs990531.htm
http://www.webleyweb.com/tle/libe48-19990615-05.html

"For The Children"

This classical bit of demagoguery is quite popular with the gun prohibitionists, because it implies that anyone who would disagree is "against the children." In fact, the bigoted Million Moms explicitly state as much when quoting their canned line, "We love our children more than they love their guns" as if gun owners do not also love their children.

There are many ways in which this line falls short:

Acts done "for the children" might be taken to the detriment of the grandchildren, or the great-grandchildren. For example, even if it were the case that banning guns would lower child gun murders, it would be creating a disarmed and defenseless world for these same children to inherit - unable to protect themselves from crime or invasion at some time in the distant future.
The National Organization for Women (NOW) supports child-killer Andrea Yates (who drowned her five kids in a tub, one by one), whereas groups like the NRA support women who would protect their children, as by becoming armed and trained. Which organization is "for the children?"

"It's beyond time that Congress finally passed meaningful "gun control" legislation."

This phrase is used in a manner to suggest that present controls - some 20,000 gun laws already on the books - aren't meaningful. If that were truly the case, then there should be no opposition to repealing all of it until some meaningful legislation is finally proposed. However, the fact that current "gun control" laws are tenaciously guarded indicates the gun prohibitionists hold them to be vitally important - exposing their use of "finally...meaningful" to be deceitful.

Here is a typical example: http://www.jointogether.org/gv/wire/press_releases/reader.jtml?object_id=260844 You can see that the word "meaningful" has some special importance at Join Together, at least - look at all the stories they have which include it. http://www.jointogether.org/gv/search/searchResults.jtml?qu=meaningful&ct=jtoNews%2CjtoGV&issGunViolence=Y&search.x=42&search.y=7 In contrast, only two stories have the word "meaningless" in them; one quotes a pro-gun speaker, the other, regards the opinion of the Firearms Owner Protection Act, which is nominally pro-rights.

"Gun-free" "safe" zones

Wouldn't it be nice if your kid could go to a school where guns couldn't exist. A "gun-free" zone. Then there would be zero risk of a school shooting of any kind. Right? Federal law prohibits possession of guns on school grounds, with certain exceptions for police and for carry-permit holders. But wait!! That law was in place when Harris and Klebold shot up Columbine High School!! They were willing to break a gun control law in order to commit mass murder! (Imagine the nerve!) That particular "gun-free" "safe" zone only assured that the victims would be disarmed and defenseless. Even the SWAT team, equipped with automatic weapons and wearing body armor, was afraid to go in while the killers were still shooting and didn't enter until every i was dotted and every t crossed. If guns made a zone "unsafe" then how come NRA conventions and gun shows don't have rampant killings? After all, those places are just full of guns!! Answer: Because criminals aren't stupid. They don't follow laws, and they don't want to be stopped from doing what they have decided to do - even if it involves suicide. They want to go on their terms and don't want anybody else to shoot back. Presto! "Gun-free" zones are just perfect for their needs! A captive audience where noone can shoot back. It is not necessary to arm all teachers or even any teachers for this to be effectively halted: simply stating that teachers may be carrying firearms will give pause to psychotic killers expecting no resistance. They will then have an incentive to go elsewhere - a different school or church that is still a "gun-free" "safe" zone.

Gun "safety"

Lately, the gun prohibitionists have been shying away from the term "gun control" in favor of "gun safety" - but what they propose are things like licensing, registration, fingerprints, waiting periods... and a host of other things that burden all lawful gun owners, and don't increase safety at all, i.e. gun owner control, just under a different name. For example, Roger Olson of Boulder employs "safety" in this deceptive manner in a letter to the editor, which I rebutted.
The "safety" folks also object the loudest when suggestions to put marksmanship training, hunter safety education, the Eddie Eagle program, and similar firearms classes in schools. http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/metaksa/2001/metaksa02-15-01.htm But education and training are how to build up safety: in response to traffic accidents, teens are given driver's ed, and children are drilled "look both ways before you cross" rather than banning sports cars from everybody, the parallel to calls to ban semiautomatic firearms. But real gun-ed and "don't touch it" messages are all but prohibited from schools ... in the name of "safety." Or, an insurance company threatens to drop the policy of a school with a firing range (which teaches gun safety to kids) because such is inappropriate in this age of "gun violence!" http://www.newsobserver.com/ncwire/news/Story/310652p-308630c.html When someone asks about gun "safety," as them if know how to see if a semiautomatic handgun is loaded, and how to unload it, or how to sheck and unload a revolver. Ask them if their children know. Ask them if they know the four essential rules of real gun safety?* Or if their children know. After all, kids sometimes find guns and then shoot others with them not knowing that the chamber may still be loaded even if the magazine is removed, never mind pointing a gun at another and pulling the trigger! If they clamor for "gun safety" but do not know these things, or if their children do not know these things, remind them to walk the walk before they push their agenda on others.
*Always treat every gun as if it were loaded. (Accidental shootings are usually done with "unloaded" guns.)
Never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. (Never, ever, point a gun at someone "as a joke.")
Keep your finger off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.
Speaking of gun safety (and enforcing laws already on the books) Senator Diane Feinstein herself commits a felony (bringing a gun into a government building) as well as violates one of the big four gun safety rules, here in the picture. Besides her finger being on the trigger, note that the magazine is in the gun, and the bolt is closed, too! (Which means that there could very well be cartridges in the magazine and in the chamber with the gun ready to fire - and her finger is on the trigger!)

Here's a good example of the value of teaching kids about real gun safety: Teen school shooting victim Josh Ryker was familiar with firearms and recognized when the shooter Kip Kinkel ran empty, and rushed and tackled him at that time to disarm him. Gun-phobic types typically do not advocate teaching children how to recognize when someone's gun runs empty, making the shooter vulnerable. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/shootinghero980524.html
Nazi Germany had, and Red China has, "gun safety." Would you feel safer there? If not, why not? Is there something wrong when only the government has guns? If you can see this, you are half way to seeing why gun rights are important - and why things like "gun safety" seriously infringe, actually, violate, these rights.

"Americans for Gun Safety" is a group which uses "safety" in this deceptive way, but also employs deceptive use of words throughout their glossary of gun terms.

Hint: Where is the gun pointing? (Images from here and here.)

Examples of how gun "safety" kills innocent people

Schools as of 1990 are all federal "gun free" zones, meaning that people cannot legally defend their lives there. However, this has not stopped school shootings such as Columbine from happening. Most high-profile school shootings happened after being declared "gun free" zones. If repealing these laws would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?
At the 4 Feb 2001 shooting at a Navistar plant in Melrose Park, IL (just outside of Chicago) shooter William Baker was a convicted thief and child molestor. Yet, he had a firearms permit issued by IL, which it was too difficult to revoke upon his felony conviction. But, IL bans open and concealed carry, preventing workers from being able to defend themselves. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36499-2001Feb7.html There was a security guard there, but she was unarmed, and company policy is that such guards are to comply with any gunman's orders. http://www.chicago.tribune.com/version1/article/0,1575,SAV-0102070122,00.html If repealing these laws would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?
At the Edgewater Technology workplace shooting in Wakefield, MA (26 Dec 2000) Louis "Sandy" Javelle, one of the victims, had a carry permit from New Hampshire, but this permit was not recognized in Massachussetts and this person was not carrying at the time. Defenseless, he was murdered. http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewItem.asp?ID=1743 If repealing these laws would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?
A pitchfork wielding murderer broke into a house with several children and started stabbing them to death. (Typically, a local newspaper story http://www.fresnobee.com/localnews/story/0%2C1724%2C189079%2C00.html doesn't see fit to mention the following:) One 14 year old girl there at the time was an expert marksman with a rifle, and knew how to handle guns safely but this rifle was locked away as required under California's "safe storage" laws in a cabinet and two of the children were stabbed to death before armed police showed up and killed the man. http://members.aol.com/readmenownet/news7.html If repealing these laws would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it? Mary Carpenter, the grandmother of the slain children, thinks so and wrote a letter to her representatives saying as much. (Source.)
In 1991 at a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, Suzanna Gratia Hupp was dining with her parents. She also carried a handgun in her purse for personal protection. However, at that time Texas law forbade people from carrying guns into restaurants, so she dutifully complied and left her handgun in her car. A gunman came in and killed 21 people, including both of her parents. Distressingly, there were times when the gunman had his back to her and she could have easily killed him. (In response, Suzanna ran for office in TX and was elected, and championed a shall-issue carry bill which has since passed.) http://www.abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000505_21st_Hupp_feature.html http://www.goa-texas.org/cgi-bin/alerts/mb.pl?PN=39 If repealing these laws would save only one life, wouldn't it be worth it?

It is fraudulent and Orwellian to use examples of killings that happen in gun-controlled places as a reason to further restrict gun ownership elsewhere, or to use examples of criminals shooting people as a reason to futher restrict gun ownership amongst non-criminals. It is like citing the death statistics of drunk driving as the reason to deny cars to non-drinkers, or to deny drinks to non-drivers, or like banning toothbrushes since, after all, prisoners sharpen them and use them as weapons.

"Gun control"

The very term is deceptive: "gun control" laws don't control guns at all, they control gun owners; this is why I use the term "gun control" in quotes throughout this site - it's deceptive on its face. Gun control, without quotes, means hitting your target. Having to be fingerprinted, http://www.FreeRepublic.com/forum/a3a6e0fae55d7.htm or have your picture taken, or only being allowed to own a certain type of firearm upon passing a certain test, or being forced to pay a fee, or being denied certain rights within city limits, or being denied the ability to buy another one within a month, or being forced to lock it up at home so it is useless to defend you, is a control of people, not of guns. Additionally, "control" sounds peaceful, the opposite of "out of control" but some gun banners equate "control" with a complete ban, extermination, sort of like "pest control" - another deception on their part.

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." -- Sammy "The Bull" Gravano

The gun show "loophole"

There is no such loophole. The laws are the same at gun shows as everywhere else, namely, licensed dealers must conduct background registration checks, but private sellers do not. The media, and Clinton like to say that gun shows are places where criminals are allowed to buy guns, bypassing the background checks needed at gun stores. But this is a lie: criminals aren't presently allowed to buy guns at gun shows because they aren't allowed to buy guns anywhere, ever. They aren't allowed to buy them in the black market, either - just like nobody is allowed to buy heroin: it's completely illegal. Furthermore, "closing the loophole" is sold to the public as, if it were done, criminals wouldn't be able to buy guns except on the black market. But even this is a lie: private sales advertised through the newspapers would still be permitted erven if the "gun show loophole" bill were to be signed into law - meaning, there would still be a source of guns for criminals anyway. In other words, the proposed laws can't do what they promise. After the so-called "gun show loophole" bill passes into law, if it does, there will then be calls to close the "newspaper ad loophole" or "private sale loophole." Then, all firearms transactions will be registered with the government - but the black market will still exist. Finally, there will be the "private ownership loophole" - all transactions will already be registered with the government, but individual ownership will not be registered. When this remaining "loophole" is closed it there will be full gun registration in America. Next stop: Confiscation. (See: England, Australia, Nazi Germany, Canada, California, New York City...) Here is a summary of registrations turning to confiscations. (At the end.)

"Handgun" Control Inc., Stop "Handgun" Violence.

If this rights-killing organization could stay true to its name, it would restrict itself to worrying about handguns. But it doesn't: it seeks to ban rifles and shotguns as well. However, the organization doesn't have the decency to change its name to a more honest one. "Gun Prohibition Inc." just wouldn't sell, I suppose. (To be fair, the National Rifle Association cares about more than rifles, too. But it hasn't changed its name since it was founded - but Handgun Control Inc. has recently changed its name: it used to be "The National Coalition to Ban Handguns." But that name was a bit too honest, even if it was also wrong.)

Similarly,

"In the aftermath of the Wakefield, Massachusetts shooting in which seven people were killed by a gunman with an AK47 assault rifle and assorted other weapons, we are calling for an immediate renewed effort on the part of Governor Cellucci and the legislature to finally close this deadly assault weapons loophole." stated John Rosenthal, founder and Chairman of Stop Handgun Violence. http://www.jointogether.org/gv/wire/press_releases/reader.jtml?object_id=265530

... except that AK-47s are not handguns. (And what is the deadly loophole? That people may possess AK-47s? As in, keep and bear arms?)

The "gun violence" epidemic

Doctors are trying to elbow their way into the gun control debate. Do they belong? http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a47626c672b.htm
Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? ... A long scholarly article with hundreds of references. http://www.2ndlawlib.org/journals/tennmed.html
Guns don't kill people, doctors do British doctor Harold Shipman "probably killed 236 of his patients" by giving overdoses of heroin (diamorphine) to elderly patients in his care. Can you imagine the news coverage if someone went into a retirement home and killed 236 people with a gun? Instead, this story is hardly news. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_1101000/1101480.stm

Gun "buy-backs"

This phrase is employed when the police purchase guns from anyone would would prefer $50 to a functional gun. So, the police act a fence for stolen guns, and never return them to their rightful owner but rather destroy them. But the phrase itself subtly implies that the State is the owner of all weapons: they are not bought by the police, they are bought back - as if they came from the police in the first place. Which is a lie.

Here is a bill that cites a number of these deceptions, like "10 kids a day are killed by handguns," in order to use tax money for gun "buy backs" (another deception): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.278:

"Cop-killer" bullets

"Cop-killer" bullets? More like Cop-Killer Propaganda - brought to you by HCI who find it more important to violate your rights than to save the lives of officers - but not yours nor mine.

Handgun Control Inc. came up with term to describe some types of so-called armor-piercing ammunition out of the "concern" that police officers, who always wear ballistic armor, could be killed by criminals using this type of ammo.
Never mind that

Not a single officer, ever, has been killed by such a round penetrating a ballistic vest http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm http://Keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=404
After publishing this "study," the knowledge that the police always wear ballistic vests become widely known to criminals, which it wasn't beforehand. This led to more criminals taking head shots against officers, now knowing them to be wearing armor. This resulted in an increase in the killings of police officers.
Of course, law enforcement and federal agents are exempt from this ban and its proposed extensions. After all, we might be wearing armor and they need to be able to kill us at all times. Ask HCI about it - they support such exemptions.
(On that note, some places are trying to ban body armor from civilian possession, such as the notoriously anti-gun state of Maryland. How this fits in with "gun safety" escapes me; it means citizens are not only required by law to be subject to bullets fired by the police, but also to bullets fired by criminals. Maybe they think criminals don't have any guns, since it's against the law and criminals are known for obeying the law.)

Colorado is the Ground Zero of the 'Gun Control' Debate

The Million Moms have decided to define Colorado as the ground zero for the 'gun control' debate as a result of the Columbine massacre. However, leaflets advise attendees of their functions not to debate the opposition who may be there in protest, and their officers have a policy not to accept invitations from the pro-rights side to publicly debate the issues. It's hypocritical how much mileage the Left gets from Bush's unwillingness to debate, while the Million Moms go them one further and the media goes along.

"The Million Mom March"

All three words are lies!

It wasn't a million: http://www.etherzone.com/mmm052300.html
Many of their officers and members are men, like Sam Cole, the Vice President of the Boulder, CO chapter of this organisation.
It wasn't a march: there were booths set up and people held placards in Washington D.C., but there was no route followed by a band of people walking. It was more like a picnic. Ditto in Denver.

"The Million Moms, a groundswell of grassroots activism."

They were founded by Donna Dees-Thomases, billed as "just an ordinary" or "regular" mom who is actually Dan Rather's publicist and also the sister of Hillary Clinton lawyer and confidante Susan Thomases. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=15356 Unlike the MADD founders, she didn't lose any children to gun deaths. This is a regular mom? http://www.frontpagemag.com/archives/guest_column/metaksa/metaksa09-28-00.htm

Furthermore, the attendance claims of the Mother's day demonstration are grossly exaggerated; the media said 750,000 attendees. The Washington Post said it was the largest gathering ever in recent memory on the mall. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35459-2000Oct28.html Judge for yourself:
http://www.etherzone.com/mmm052300.html
http://www.sierratimes.com/images/gunrally.htm

Trigger "locks" make guns "safer" - so they should be mandated

They aren't "locks" because some guns can be both loaded and fired with a trigger "lock" installed: http://www.donath.org/Rants/OnTriggerLocks/ This isn't "safer" than an unlocked gun!
Actually, it is more dangerous as the false sense of security of a "locked" gun could lead to complacency or carelessness on the part of a parent with small children, falsely believing they had been rendered safe, when they would have otherwise been kept out of reach. For example, child "safety" caps on medicine bottles actually caused an increase in child poisonings since adults no longer kept the medicine on high shelves, and kids were more able to open the caps than expected. (How many of you older folks give your medicine bottles to your kids to please open them for you?) Similarly, adults who own guns might at one time have taught their children about gun safety, but now with trigger locks might not think it necessary.
Trigger locks are a puzzle and a challenge. Kids learned to solve Rubik's cube. Do you think a $3 lock will securely keep a kid from the forbidden fruit of an unlocked and unsecured firearm? It happens:
Boy shot with trigger-locked gun
Minutes after they had been left alone in their Dale City house yesterday morning, two brothers ran to the small box under their parents' bed and pulled out the two handguns that made their frequent games of "cops and robbers" more realistic. http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44683-2000Jun22.html/ Far better would have been to teach the kids real gun safety - like never pointing a gun and something you don't want to destroy.
There should be no more mandate to require the sale of trigger locks than there should be a mandate to sell cars with child car seats - not everybody has children.
Trigger lock prevents girl from defending lives of siblings; man with pitchfork stabs two to death and injures others. Girl knew how to use gun, and was a good shot, but gun was safely locked up: http://www.sierratimes.com/edvs092500.htm http://www.yorknewstimes.com/stories/082500/nat_0825000025.shtml
Trigger locks are also possibly a form of backdoor gun control: "If a new gun cannot be sold without a lock and then the standard that is set for that lock is so rigid no lock can apply, it's a backdoor route to gun control [and could] end up being a de facto ban on gun sales." - Jeff Reh, general counsel for Beretta USA. http://frontpagemag.com/columnists/metaksa/2001/metaksa02-15-01.htm (Note that this is on the heels of a report that 30 or 32 gun locks failed even basic tests for non-defeatability. Gotta make them stronger! Or institute strict standards!!) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35373-2001Feb6.html

Gun "DNA" and ballistic "fingerprinting"

Fingerprints and DNA are useful to forensic scientists since they are more-or-less unique signatures connecting a certain person to a crime. It would be nice to do this with guns, except fingerprints hardly change (and when polished off, they grow back), and DNA essentially never does. But it's easy to change the markings a gun imparts to cases or to bullets... even when the latter are recovered from a crime scene. Changing or abrading the barrel, firing pin, chamber, or extractor, which takes only a few minutes, permanently alters the markings the gun will impart. The old markings do not grow back. Programs to catalog every bullet and case imprint, from every gun, is an expensive boondoggle that is very much easier to defeat than fingerprints or DNA is in ordinary crimes, which won't have much effect in solving crimes - but which does amount to backdoor gun registration because the government will need lists of all the guns out there to match up with the "fingerprints." http://www.planettimes.com/features/barrel_twist/2000/june/erase.shtml

Background Checks

As currently done, so-called background checks also record the make, model and serial number of the gun(s) sold to the successful checkee, and these records must be retained for 20 years, can be inspected by officers at any time for any reason, and must be surrendered to the BATF if the FFL holder dies or goes out of business. (Louis "Sandy" Javelle was one of the victims at the Wakefield massacre - and an FFL holder.) What gun is bought has nothing to do with whether chekee has a clean background. Thus, the checks are also firearms registration.

Even if someone supports firearms registration, it is intentionally deceptive for them to sell it to the public under the guise of "background checks." Do not allow them to perpetrate the fraud of selling background checks, and delivering firearms registration.
Those who do support background checks but oppose firearms registration are confused about what the checks actually accomplish, and should review the records requirements for the "check" as currently implemented.

3. Twisted Numbers and Deceptive Methods and Studies

"A Gun in the Home is 43 Times More Likely to Kill Friend Or Family than an Intruder"

This one is so blatant it's the intro to this webpage. If you get nothing else from this page, please understand from this statistic alone how creatively the gun prohibition side is willing to frame a question in order to arrive at a desired but deceptive result.

13 12 11 10 "Kids" a Day

As already mentioned, gunfire is charged with killing 10 "kids" a day - a number which includes people age 0-19, including legal adults 18-19. Most of the number is made up of 17-19 year old gang members killing each other. Here is an example of a child killed by handgun violence, according the them: http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a54882d4e99.htm If one considers "kids" to be "children" - before adolescence, say, 0-14, then gunfire of all types kills 1.7 kids a day. http://www.themestream.com/gspd_browse/browse/view_article.gsp?c_id=72055 (The number keeps dropping, since crime rates have been falling for some time, but that doesn't keep the media from making it seem like there's an epidemic raging.)
This topic is considered in greater depth below.

The "cost" of gun violence to society

Articles have appeared that speak about "the cost of firearm violence to society." It's a simple propostition: add up all the medical bills incurred treating gunshot victims, and there you go. You can even add funeral bills, unemployment and disability compensation (or "lost wages"), and so on. But this is a bogus argument for a variety of reasons:

It includes criminals shot by police and by citizens acting lawfully in self defense.
It includes suicides, which happen even when guns aren't around. (Japan has almost no guns and twice the suicide rate of the USA.)
It includes "lost income" from all victims, including those who were drug dealers shot on the job ... as if they were positive contributors to society, and the lost drug profits negatively impact the society.
It neglects the lives saved, the injuries averted, and the property protected by lawful defensive gun uses, even those in which no gun was fired; there are only costs and no benefits. How many defensive gun uses this year so far? This many. Gun control nuts have been laying out empty shoes representing "children killed by gun violence" in a "Silent March." But they can't lay out the shoes of children, and others, saved by guns because those people are still wearing them. http://members.aol.com/readmenownet/news7.html
No similar comparisons are made for similar things: police violence, knife violence, bicycle violence, and for the suicides, the cost of rope violence. Improper health care has been estimated to cost Americas $77 billion each year; where is the outrage? http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm Without comparison, guns seem like they're costly. But compared to cars, crime in general, or the health care profession, they pale. Yet, it's news!!

http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v282n5/full/joc90626.html

More on The Cost Of Gun Violence

Studies like to point out how much guns "cost society." But this number is meaningless in the absence of context. Here is a typical example: http://www.gunfree.org/content/resources/resc_facts_costguns.html

Shooting in the dark: estimating the cost of firearm injuries. Health Aff (Millwood) 1993 Winter;12(4):171-85 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=7802749
Costs of gunshot and cut/stab wounds in the United States, with some Canadian comparisons. Accid Anal Prev 1997 May;29(3):329-41 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?db=m&form=6&Dopt=r&uid=9183471

These studies tend to add up all the lost income, the hospital bills, etc and portray the sum as the "cost of gun violence." But this analysis is disingenuous for a number of reasons. First, some of the gunshots are criminals being shot by police - to blame this on "gun violence" is outrageous. Similarly, lawful self-defensive shootings and gun suicides and attempted suicides also do not represent a "cost:" in the absence of self-defense shootings, armed victims would become dead victims, and suicides which choose guns would not simply stop trying if guns were unavailable. (What is the cost of belt and rope violence to society?) Finally, lives are saved, injuries are averted, and property is saved because a lawful citizen used a gun to defend his life or property. But this "benefit of guns to society" is never deducted from the "cost."

For example, one proposal to reflect the "cost of gun violence" back to gun owners is a mandatory socialization of that cost in the way of firearms insurance. Basically, the idea being that you can own whatever guns you wnat, but you must buy insurance which covers that gun's fraction of the "total cost of gun violence," thus, there would be a free-market incentive to have fewer, or less dangerous, guns. http://prorev.com/idguns.htm But here the fallacy is again that benefits are not counted; gun owners would collectively, pay for all the "costs" of firearms violence, but they would not also be credited for the value of property protected, crimes stopped, or criminals killed (besides the obvious objection against socialism, common to mandatory car insurance, that people are forced to pay for a cost which they do not incur).

The net value of private firearm ownership - the dollar savings from defensive gun use, minus the costs of "gun-violence" - has been estimated at up to $38.9 billion, annually. (National Center for Policy Analysis, March 1999) Source: http://www.jrwhipple.com/findit/firearm_facts.html How many defensive gun uses have occurred so far this year? This many. Here's the story of serial rapist Anthony Peralez stopped - but not killed - by a civilian firear being wielded by Jean Zamarripa, a 72-year-old grandmother: http://www.sierratimes.com/archive/guesteds/2001/feb/gedar022001.htm

The police kill and wound people ... but there is no comparison to the "cost of police protection to society" counting medical expenses incurred by victims of police. Nobody studies the "cost of car violence" including all the drunk driving casualties. There is no "cost of kitchen violence" collecting kitchen accidents, stabbings, scaldings, burnings, let alone heart disease caused by fatty foods prepared in these killer kitchens, nor "cost of rope violence" studies adding up the hospital bills of attempted suicides, and the lost income of successful suicides. The "cost of gun violence" is presented in a vacuum, and it sure looks like a high number. Want a laugh? Calculate the "cost of Department of Justice Violence" by seeing how much wealth Janet Reno erased from the US stock market by suing Microsoft for antitrust violations. Compare that number to even the worst "cost of gun violence" number you can find.

"In 1997, gunshots caused 31,636 fatal injuries and approximately 100,000 nonfatal injuries in the United States. In addition to the enormous human toll of gun violence, the cost of treating these injuries imposes a financial burden on society. While measuring medical costs is not as straightforward as counting the number of victims, valid cost estimates are important for at least 2 reasons. First, such estimates are relevant to evaluating gun violence-reduction programs. Second, reliable estimates for the financial burden that gun violence imposes on the medical care system may help guide reimbursement policies. ..."

But wait! Later, they admit:

"Our study's most important potential limitation concerns the lifetime medical costs for treating gunshot injuries resulting in permanent disability, which account for a large share of total medical costs."

Let's see now: If the purpose of this study is to evaluate gun-violence cost reduction programs, is one to infer it becomes a goal to ensure that people die as opposed to survive gunshot injuries as the latter are responsible for a large share of the medical costs? I guess it's just common sense!
From: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v282n5/full/joc90626.html

Needless to say, it's highly ironic that the medical profession, as represented by the American Medical Association, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Center for Disease Control all spout the need for more "gun control" - while doctors, medical misadventures, and the American health care system as a whole cause more deaths and cost the society more money than guns do by a wide margin. Pot calling the kettle black?

"A gun at home nearly triples the risk of murder."

This results from another fraudulent "study" by Kellerman. He looked at houses in which homicides occurred, matched them with "control" households having the same age, race, and income levels, and then looked at how often the deceased households had guns compared to the control households. The ratio was 2.7:1. But the methodology is flawed: to see whether gun ownership increased risk of murder, he should have looked at gun owners vs. non-gun owners, and then looked at the murder rates for the two groups. Instead, he looked at murders, and saw how often the deceased people owned guns. The study confuses correlation for causation, a logical fallacy. In response to objections, Kellerman states: "If a gun in the home affords substantial protection from homicide ... we should have found that homes in which a homicide occurred were less likely to contain a gun than similar households in which a homicide did not occur. The opposite was true." (!!) http://www.nejm.com/content/1994/0330/0005/0365.asp He is wrong: "If chemotherapy affords substantial protection from cancer we should have found that homes in which a concer death occurred were less likely to have had chemotherapy than similar households in which cancer deaths did not occur." There is some more explanation of this point in this talk.

Still, here is a bill that explicitly cites "a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide" - legislation based on deception - in order to use tax money for gun "buy backs" (another deception): http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:H.R.278:

"A gun in the home increases risk of suicide by a factor of 57."

The suicide rates of people who had recently purchased a gun were compared to those with long-standing gun ownership and with non-gun owners. The "study" found a 57-fold risk suicide risk increase for recent-purchase group, a risk that lingers for several years. But the "study" neglected to admit that some suicides may have bought the gun for that purpose, and it also fails to account for correlations such as, a personal event or condition possibly being the same thing that both caused someone to buy a gun and also to commit suicide. For example, it noted that the suicides were more likely to be in possession of drugs than the control groups - but it does not also conclude that drug use increases the chance for suicide. This "study" is a fraud. http://www.nejm.com/content/1999/0341/0021/1583.asp

"In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 101 women were murdered with a handgun." ... "In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill an intimate acquaintance in self-defense, 83 woman were murdered by an intimate acquaintance with a handgun." ... "In 1998, for every time a woman used a handgun to kill a stranger in self-defense, 302 woman were murdered with a handgun."

These stats are churned out by The Violence Policy Center (VPC) http://www.vpc.org/studies/myth.htm and share the same logical fallacy as the "gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill friend or family than an unknown intruder" stat, namely, that it compares body counts only with body counts only, ignoring the protective benefit of handguns in >98% of the cases in which a criminal flees without being shot dead. These cases amount to the real protection of the women in question, but they are not counted in fraudulent studies such as this one. A physicians group has come out and slammed this particular VPC report: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21648 (In light of the VPC's insistence on using such fraudulent rhetoric, their motives must flatly be called in question: What could possibly be compelling these people to continue to perpetrate such deceptions? Futhermore, anyone who supports gun control should be questioned about support from groups like the VPC and HCI, and relentlessly so if they quote any of the "statistics" from such groups: Why do they rely on the "research" of groups that are easily provable to be fraudulent? And, would they be willing to consider the possibility that they themselves have been misled by the likes of the VPC and HCI, and reconsider their support for gun control in light of this fact?)

"The reason for all the school shootings is because of increased access to guns."

There are more gun laws today than ever before, yet mass school shootings are a recent phenomenon. For example, until the late '60s many kids took .22 rifles to school in order to have them for practice after school let out. They would check them in in the morning and get them back when the left. Somehow, these kids did not shoot the schools up.

What goes unmentioned is the medication of school children and other perpetrators of outburst killings.

A host of psychiatric drugs -- Paxil, Ritalin, Prozac and Zoloft -- provided the easy solution to teen suicide. In the absence of parents and teachers who care, today's suburban teens can pharmaceutically control their feelings. But, at what price? Teen suicides may have declined, but, it seems that these medications have helped some teens externalize their depression, erupting in rage.
A few years ago, an Escondido teen-ager on Paxil stabbed his step-grandmother over 50 times. A year later, a medicated young man in Vista brutally stabbed his parents, his grandparents and his little sister. He set fire to the house and drove away in the family's Mercedes. Columbine shooter Eric Harris had been on similar medication. "