Two things.

First off, Bobert, if I need lecturing, and comments like "disgustingly shameful arguments", I will ask my Mother to do it. Your patronizing, horseshit tone is offensive. I am not sure why you don't answer the points I have made, maybe it is an inability to do so. But you continue to make comments like that without answering the points made.

This is my last post on this matter. I want you to read for comprehension.

I am not a Second Amendment freak. I think using that argument is silly and simply marginalizes one from the discussion.

I don't believe the problem in high crime urban areas is related to the legal availability of guns as much as it is related to the conditions and lack of opportunity for the young people. Poverty breeds crime (as ever has been so) and with crime comes violence. When automatic weapons were banned, it did not do anything to slow their use by criminals. It simply created a black market.

In their zeal to impose their values on me, anti gun folks refuse to make the distinction between high crime areas, and suburban and rural areas where the crime rate is lower. They refuse to make the distinction between gun deaths from illegally purchased firearms for criminal purposes, and legally purchased weapons used for legitimate reasons by law abiding citizens. They don't want to do this, IMO, because law abiding gun owners account for such a miniscule amount of the gun deaths (as opposed to criminals using illegally obtained guns)that it is hardly worth mentioning. You don't have to like hunting and shooting sports, and if that is the case then that is an honest disagreement. But facts don't fit in the emotion driven arguments that drive the anti gun folks. Only by demonizing the gun and its owner can you use demagogic arguments to make your case. By the way, I found it interesting that you all got pissed when I pointed out that I could answer your "stories" with other stories that showed weapons used for personal safety. But when someone above pointed out a story or two, you immediately jump on him/her for using them. Seems a bit hypocritical on your part. But these stories are not the point anyway. It is hard data, and that doesn't support your positions.

Murders, such as Cho, usually spend months planning (as is now coming out), with much hatred and premeditated planning. If legal guns aren't available, then illegal ones would be obtained, or another method would be found, as in the case of McVeigh.

To the smart ass (read that old European troll) who derides using guns as a method of teaching responsibility, you are a fool and show your intent, which is more of attacking me than making a comment on the issue. Many of our countries greatest leaders received weapons training focusing on safety and good practices. In my own family, it was a rite of passage to finally be able to carry a gun when hunting, or shooting for target practice. This only came after a certain age, and after a Safety course had been passed. Then came the "probationary" time when you were allowed to carry under the close supervision of parents, Aunts, and Uncles. Finally you were allowed to hunt/target shoot unsupervised. As I say, this was a rite of passage. It was a time of great memories and time spent with family.

As to self defense, this too is a legitimate use, but rarely used. I can carry a gun legally in a number of States (due to reciprocity laws), but can count the number of times I have done so on one hand. I spend huge amounts of time at the range, have trained for surgical shooting, but in a home invasion, I would rarely use the handgun, or any gun for that matter. There are better ways to protect ones self. Staying put, and calling 911 is the answer.

But most importantly, I think it is foolish to debate the premise that all guns should go, or even limiting legal owners. I know it is hard for people from other countries to understand, but guns are a very large part of our country's culture. They have been from the beginning. It simply is not possible to collect them all. Most law abiding gun owners would simply not give them up, thereby becoming criminals simply because a right (notice, slow readers, that I didn't say Constitutional right) was being taken for no reason other than others don't want them to have weapons. These folks broke no laws, are responsible in their ownership, have never pulled them in anger, use them responsibly as part of their lifestyle, and yet others want to take them.

The statistics show that in areas where guns are completely illegal to own, violent crime goes up. No one yet has addressed my most basic question, that being; how is taking the weapons, or even registering the weapons, of law abiding citizens who have never committed a crime, going to address the problems you see? In fact, what is the problem you see? When you answer this one, please don't do the old "C'mon, Mick, you can't be serious" routine. I am tired of the debate tactic that seems to focus on belittling ones belief's because you don't have an answer. Even my friend Bill D., when presented with numbers he didn't like, didn't bother to respond to them. He simply questioned the validity of them. This was done in spite of the fact that I pointed out that these numbers were arrived at by researchers looking to eliminate guns.

There are three things that I believe constitute reasonable gun regulations. 1) If a person is going to earn the right to carry a concealed weapon, then they must take and pass comprehensive training on the order of what police must take. This training should be administered rigidly by professionals. These professionals should be able to hold up issuance of the permit if they observe any behaviour that might indicate mental instability. 2) There are already plenty of laws on the books. I believe they ought to be enforced rigidly, and I believe the penalties for crimes involving firearms (most especially those laws dealing with securing one's firearms so that kids can't get at them) ought to very severe. I don't believe they should be able to be bargained down. Violate them and you are going away for a long time. 3) Investment must be made in a national system which allows for instant checks for mental health/criminal background issues that might disqualify one from purchasing firearms. We can check every detail of ones life now, why can't we have a system which would have disqualified Cho from purchasing the handguns. Usually the anti gun folks give this one lip service but don't push for it as they really just want to eliminate guns ..... period.

As to the issue of defending oneself against tyranny, I do think that you all too easily dismiss the potential consequences. One that fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it. In every great dictatorship (including some very recent examples), the first order of business is to disarm the populace. I don't feel like this type of thing is imminent for us, but can you think of a leader in this country that seems to think that he has a direct line to God and is right when all around him (including his own party) tell him he is wrong? Do you think this guy, who has suspended Habeus Corpus and can, at will, declare folks enemy combatants, would like to disarm the populace so he could act with impunity? Hell, he already does it. Again, I don't necessarily think this imminent, but I think it is a mistake to just dismiss those that are worried about this as loonies. Recent world history seems to lend some credence to these views.

So hack away now, I am headed back to the music threads where we are all still friends. But do yourself a favor and try to use some original thinking and analysis. It makes for a much better debate than this "Oh yeah?????" stuff.

Mick