Ron, once again you attempt to shift the burden. The public already has the right, to varying degrees, to own these weapons. I understand your desire to change the premise, but I can't agree. When one is attempting to take away a right, they must justify their reason for doing so. So far, I have heard plenty of emotional opinion as to why law abiding, responsible citizens should be forced to give up the right to own a weapon. But I have heard precious little of what would be accomplished by doing so. That is because the statistics don't support the desired outcome.

Perhaps it would help if I gave a bit of background as to how I have come to this place of understanding. Those of you who know me and something of my background, know that my politics run very much to the liberal, progressive side. I have spent a lifetime pursuing what I see as justice in social, labor, and environmental causes. During the 2000 United States Presidential election, I was the Director of/and an advisor to Gore's Michigan campaign. I knew that I would end up discussing the gun issue, as it is a very big issue in the State of Michigan. I determined that I would try to wade through the data, weed out the slanted numbers from both sides, weed out the propaganda from both sides, and determine for myself as to whether these laws had the desired effect. I did this because my life experience in urban and rural areas around the country were in conflict with the platform of my party. And I was in a position that didn't allow me to duck it. I had also seen my party crippled by allowing Newt and the boys to wedge the gun issue, and the abortion issue, with working class folks that had far more reason to vote Democratic than Republican. The result of that was a lot of years of legislation, Supreme Court appointees, and damage that will take several generations to recover from. And all this because we were operating from an emotional place instead of what the numbers seemed to tell.

I completely understand where folks are coming from, in light of Columbine and Virginia Tech. I understand the anger, and the desire to just rid the country, indeed the world, of these weapons. But that is an emotional desire that isn't realistic, and can't be accomplished. Then folks ask to control these weapons. But the problem is that where stringent gun control is in effect, the violent crime rate goes up. As to Ron's contention about suicide, my response is that anyone who is determined to kill themselves will do so. If a gun isn't available, then a rope, or jumping, or poison, or the tailpipe of a car, is. I just don't buy into that as being a good reason to take away the rights of decent, law abiding, responsible citizens. When one takes the percentage of crimes committed as a percentage of the legally owned guns, or gunowners if you like, the number is negligible. Violent crime is committed by criminals using illegal weapons. But the damage done by the legislation and appointments of right wing legislators, has resulted in war, and misery far beyond any perceived benefit gained by these well meaning efforts.

Mick