There ... ohmygod .. there isn't anything to argue about.

A reasonable post, values the practical over the ideological. Cool.

Thanks for the sane post, ECB. As a gun-friendly liberal Democrat I support an individual's right to keep and bear arms, as does Howard Dean (who, while Gov. of Vermont, was given an 'A' rating from the NRA).
It is not easy to get a concealed weapons' permit, and it is not practical to carry a gun in WA. There are many restrictions on where someone legally licensed can carry.
Besides, gun control is only an urban issue politically, and folks in the 'burbs and the country would dump Democrats if they advanced a policy of gun confiscation.

Excellent post. The problem all gun control advocates have is how to shut the lid back in Pandora's box. The answer is that it will never, in any practical sense, happen unless overwhelming numbers of society agree to it.

Personally, I'd love to see handguns abolished, but it will not happen in my lifetime, so I don't even argue the position. It's simply a dream and has all of the substance of a dream.

Besides, there's a good, cogent argument to be made about a citizenry armed for protection from it's own government. The scenario does not have to involve whacked out Branch Davidians either. As a liberal, I'm pretty concerned about the country's current government and many Democrats give me no reason to rest easy about those concerns. Not that I'll carry a gun any day, but I can understand why some would want them.

There is way more wrong with a society full of guns, then there is with a society devoid of guns. period. As a society we should be moving towards fewer guns. We are currently moving towards more.
Erica, the reasons you gave why you would own a gun are related to you being threatened by others with guns. If there is one thing we know about our society, it's that it is violent. Very, very violent. It deosn't help a violent society to have easy access to tons of guns.
If you have a hunting shotgun, or a .357 under your pillow, don't worry, we are not after you. Calm the hell down. What we are after is the arsenal stock pilers, a la Mr. Huff, who aquire lots of assault style weapons that are only meant for one purpose, spattering other human beings brains on the wall.

As you for you assault rifle, armor piercing bullet afficinados, anytime something inherently dangerous is banned because Public safety concerns outweigh personal liberty, it can be sad. Hell, i was a responsible lawn dart owner and was not happy that they made them illegal because some people weren't responsible with them. Booo friggin hoo if someday you can't have your 3 Bushmaster's and an AR 15 in your trunk, because no private citizen should be trusted with that much excessive firepower.

Will,

The NRA's goal is now and always will be to elect Republicans. I don't understand how you can love them but hate the environmental and abortion groups that are with you 90% of the time.

Erica,

I'm not an advocate for taking all the guns (but I am for a hell of a lot more restrictions than you are). I don't think that you have to do it all at once, though. Start with the measures to restrict the worst weapons and getting the guns out of the hands of criminals. Even if you were to just exclude the "antiques that have never been fired" and the legit hunting weapons, that cuts the numbers significantly. Given the number of heavily armed countries to give up their weapons, it's not exactly like there is no blueprint.

As a society we should be moving towards fewer guns. We are currently moving towards more.

Right. Who bells that cat?

Which is to say - you say we should have fewer guns. How do we do that?

Your solution must be politically acceptable to a majority of the electorate (nationwide), be do-able within the bounds of our culture.

While I find guns personally distasteful, I too understand/respect Barnett's point of view. The problem it seems to me are two-fold: the mythology of taking a right vs. the granting of rights; and accessibility of fire arms.

In Canada, like Switzerland, for example, guns can be readily had, for the right purpose. No one's going round (in large numbers at least) claiming their 'rights' are being trampled on. Hunters, property owners, gun collectors, marksmen/hobbists can all own and carry a firearm if needed (my grandfather for example was in charge of payroll and and his job was to give prairie laborers their weekly pay for building grain elevators and carried a 22 along with a permit).

Of course, I'm also not looking forward to having to ask my 4-year daughter's playmate's parents if they've got a gun in their house next door (I'm thinking chances are good to even that they do), and if so whether could they please kindly show me that it's being stored adequately - I mean shouldn't be a problem if they're measuring up to Barnett's standard of being responsible and handling them properly and all, right?

Howard Dean and Brian Schweitzer get good rating with the NRA because they are from rural states. The NRA is parnt'n'parcel a GOP outfit, but lots and lots of Democrats and independants are members of the NRA, Carl. And they don't vote solid GOP, Carl.

i agree with barnett. eli is out of his mind. and for everyone to have been armed on the street to deal with this guy they would've all needed concealed carry permits. well, to be legal at any rate.

sounds like good shooting by spd!!

and as for gun bans, you've got to ask yourself "do you feel lucky? well, do you punk?" because there are always gonna be freaks out there looking to do violence to regular old citizens. do we expect the public health dept or someone to deal with that for us???

Eli is right, those against guns are morally superior to the pro gun types.

Any ethical, moral citizen has to admit banning guns would make us all safer.

Lawn darts rule! I love you, Longball!

"how do gun-ban proponents suggest the government go about seizing them all?"

From our cold, dead hands, that's how (at least, that's how they'll have to take mine).

Considering the rise of Jeebofascism in Amerikka these days, I'm surprised at least a few more progressives haven't picked up on some of the better qualities of the 2nd Amendment (or that the Democratic party hasn't figured out that this issue is not exactly a vote getter among the working class folks they ought to be courting).

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I was getting tired of all the ban-all-guns-no-matter-whether-people-are-responsible-or-not rants.

>Eli is right, those against guns are
>morally superior to the pro gun types.

>Any ethical, moral citizen has to admit >banning guns would make us all safer.

Sure, I'll admit that if we banned all guns, rounded up every single legal and illegal firearm in existence in the US to melt down into playground slides, and then built a giant metal detector around our borders to make sure that nobody could ever get a gun into the country again, we'd probably be safer.

Then we'd have to go after knives... those things are sharp!

I'm not an advocate for taking all the guns (but I am for a hell of a lot more restrictions than you are). I don't think that you have to do it all at once, though. Start with the measures to restrict the worst weapons and getting the guns out of the hands of criminals. Even if you were to just exclude the "antiques that have never been fired" and the legit hunting weapons, that cuts the numbers significantly. Given the number of heavily armed countries to give up their weapons, it's not exactly like there is no blueprint.

But Carl, how do you define a criminal? Many shootings come from gun-owners who have never committed a crime before in their lives.

And that goes back to Erica's original question: how do you enforce serious gun restrictions on current gun owners. Do you go into everyone's homes and seize their weapons? Doesn't that infringe on consitutional rights aside from the right to bear arms?

How? How? I'll tell you how.

Two words:

Giant. Orbiting. Electro-magnet.

I live in Washington DC, not Washington state, and I am neither a NASCAR-loving redneck nor a pot-smoking peace-loving hippie.

I am a crime victim.

In 2000, I got mugged at gunpoint by a criminal. A man who was later caught, who had a long criminal record, and who was not legally allowed to own a gun. He was also, incidentally, not legally allowed to foricbly separate me from my belongings or my nose from it's rightful place in the center of my face.

Obviously, he displayed a disregard for the law.

Unfortunately for me, I did not. DC does not allow handguns. I can't buy one here. I can't bring one here. I can't keep one in my house. I can't keep one in my car. I can't keep one in my purse.

Tell me how a law disallowing handguns keeps people safe.

Explain it to me. Please. Yes, I understand, gun owners must be responsible. They must be accountable for their actions. Fine. I understand, also, that if there were NO guns in the world, there would be no shootings. But anyone who has thought past the ideology and looked at the reality knows that it simply not going to happen, and it shouldn't. Guns are necessary for some things, like them or not. And as much as it frightens me to think that average citizens could be put in a position to choose whether some other person lives or dies at their hand, I'd prefer average citizens any day to the thug that I met that night. I was lucky. He didn't shoot me. If I was allowed to own a handgun in DC, I wouldn't have to rely on luck.

Tell me how a law disallowing handguns keeps people safe.

So you walk around carrying a handgun for fear of being mugged. Someone attempts to mug you at gunpoint, you draw and shots ring out. One or both of you are now dead, probably you because he already had his gun ready. Congratulations on your safer society.

I was lucky. He didn't shoot me. If I was allowed to own a handgun in DC, I wouldn't have to rely on luck.

No, you wouldn't. You would have to rely on having much faster reflexes.

Of course, if everyone knows that everyone else is carrying a gun, it all becomes much simpler. Some people with anti-social tendencies will be deterred, while others will just resort to excessive violence without warning, by hitting or shooting you from behind, for example.

A society whose decisions are based on fear will only end up more scared than before.

The laws on this vary from state to state, but some states do have waiting periods, background checks, and safety standards—all of which are good ideas.

Actually, Erica, the laws are uniform. This is because they are Federal. Buying a gun in any State is the business of the Federal Government, and the FBI in particular. Anyone purchasing a firearm must fill out a form 4473. If the item is a long gun or shotgun then the information is given over the phone to the (N)ational (I)nstant (C)heck (S)ystem, or NICS. They may responed in one of 3 ways; proceed, delayed, or denied. A handgun purchase falls into the same process only if the purchaser has been issued a concealed pistol license, otherwise it's an automatic 5 business day wait (to conduct a background check). To obtain a carry permit (in the State of Washington) you must submit 2 sets of fingerprints along with your complete criminal history, if any.

Do you think a criminal would go through any of this?

Yo GT_Mule, they go to GUN SHOWS. None of that shit is necessary at the gun shows. But when we talk about restricting the gun shows, or doing away with them all the gun nuts scream bloody murder and start waiving the 2nd amendment around because apparently the British are still coming or something.

All right Gun apologists, here's some damning shit that shouldn't have happened but only did because GUN LOVING FUCK HEADS don't want guns to be policed at all... Kyle fucking Huff bought his guns legally. He bought an excessive amount of guns legally. This was not about personal protection. Kyle Huff discharged one of his weapons in public just for kicks, and he retained the right to own a gun after demonstrating he was NOT TO BE TRUSTED WITH ONE EVER AGAIN! they even gave said gun back to him. Come on douchetards! Everytime we try to put reasonable rstrictions in place you all bear your true colors as gun loving nut jobs. Oh and crime vicitm, Megan, i really have to LAUGH at the idea that you going dirty harry on the mugger would have made that situation turn out any better.
Well gun loonies, i'm awful sad that Kyle Huff, Eric Clebold, Randy Weaver and company all rained on your fun loving, just for protection, good times gun parade, but they did. Guns aren't safe. Guns make dangerous people infinately MORE dangerous and they even make non-dangerous people dangerous.
I'm, sorry you lost your purse Megan, but a stick up is always better than a shoot out.

Now, deploy the "Giant. Orbiting. Electro-magnet."

"(G)un ownership for a few makes everyone safer. I don’t own a gun, but, in certain circumstances, I would: If I owned a business, or had a family, or lived in a dangerous city, a firearm would give me the ability to protect myself and my property. I believe this is a constitutional privilege that I, as a law-abiding citizen, have the right to exercise if I choose to."

This is a variation on the theme of monkeys, typewriters, & Hamlet. Given enough words & time it was inevitable that someone at The Stranger would write something with which intelligent readers can agree.

Thanks, EB.

This is for Megan:

About a year ago, a mugger just waltzed right up to me on a bridge here in
Washington, D.C. It was early evening, and I was a stone's throw from my
apartment in what is considered a nice neighborhood, as neighborhoods go in
the Murder Capital -- the richly deserved nickname for the nation's capital.

I won't belabor my cunning and completely fortuitous escape, except to say that for the few minutes I was standing there waiting to be mugged, I was fuming. I knew he knew that I didn't have a gun.

It's illegal to carry a handgun here in the Murder Capital. Not merely illegal but a felony that carries up to a five-year maximum sentence.

Just as I could look at my prospective mugger and see that he was not the
kind of fellow who would be a fanatic about property rights and bodily
integrity, he could see from 50 yards that I was not the type to be
committing felonies.

I wanted a gun, but more than that I wanted him to think I might possibly
have a gun. I wanted him to at least accord me the respect I get from
criminals in other cities, where they have to exercise a little creativity,
lying in wait, sneaking up from behind, hiding in bushes and dark alleyways
-- that sort of thing. No, in D.C. muggers just walk right up to you on a
brightly lit street. As an apparently law-abiding citizen, I am ostentatiously defenseless.

But let's forget about completely defenseless me on the bridge for a moment. ...

Some may be willing to rely on withering editorials in the New York Times to preserve their liberty. I'm counting on a sleek and tasteful SIG-Sauer. If the courts started interpreting the Second Amendment the way they interpret the First, we'd have a right to bear nuclear arms by now.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court is incessantly having to remind Americans
of their First Amendment rights, issuing more than 100 decisions in the
past half century alone. The Court has ruled on the Second Amendment in
only a handful of cases, the last time in 1939.

But still, about half the citizenry deeply, passionately believe that they
have a right to bear arms. Give the First Amendment no support from the
courts for over half a century and see if anyone remembers why we're
supposed to let Nazis march in Skokie.

But the half of the country that intuitively assumes the right to bear arms doesn't live in my neighborhood. That's why I'm getting exasperated with
the constitutional argument. Too few people -- girl people in particular
-- appreciate the central point: Guns are our friends.

When it comes to the First Amendment, everyone gets warm patriotic feelings, tearing up over John Stuart Mill's marketplace of ideas. They think immediately of our right to engage in political speech, scientific research, avant-garde art, and to burn politicians in effigy (or maybe that's just me). Speech on the fringe, like Aryan Nation propaganda or Hustler magazine is understood to be an unpleasant, if inevitable, by-product of a freedom we cherish.

But with the Second Amendment, it's all Hustler magazine. No upside, just school shootings and all those apocryphal "gun accidents." (In 1945, for every million Americans there were 350,000 firearms and 18 fatal gun
accidents. By 1995, there were 850,000 firearms per million, and fatal gun
accidents had fallen to six.)

Guns are our friends, because in a world without guns I'm what is known as
prey. Almost all females are. Any male -- even the sickliest 98-pound weakling -- could overpower me in a contest of brute force against brute force. For some reason, I'm always asked whether I wouldn't prefer a world without guns. No, I'd prefer a world in which everyone is armed, even the criminals who mean to cause me harm. Then I'd at least have a fighting chance.

What the arms-control faithful really want is a world without violence, not
a world without weapons. These are the ideological descendants of the authors of the Kellogg-Briand Pact, which purported to outlaw war. But we can't have a world without violence, because the world is half male and testosterone causes homicide. A world with violence -- that is to say, with men -- but without weapons is the worst of all possible worlds for women. As the saying goes, God made man and woman; Colonel Colt made them equal.

Prey like me use guns against predators about a million times a year. Fifteen different studies (including those sponsored by gun control advocates) have arrived at the following estimates: at the low end, several
hundred thousand times per year; at the high end, several million.

I especially want potential assailants to have to worry that I might be carrying. In numerous surveys, criminals have confirmed the blindingly
obvious point that they are disinclined to attack a victim who might be armed. Countries with those fabulously low crime rates and fabulously fascistic gun control laws -- such as Canada, the Netherlands, and Britain --- have more burglaries of occupied homes per capita than we do. Canada's burglary rate of occupied homes is more than three times that of the armed-to-the-teeth U.S. Although the murder rate is lower in Britain, rape, robbery, burglary, and assault are all substantially higher there than in the U.S.

It must be said, the framers were not insensate to the crime-prevention
qualities of firearms. In the late eighteenth century, standing armies had
become nothing more than roving bands of criminals. The Second Amendment
was, in part, a response to those early cases of police brutality. (Why is
it that the same people who have the least confidence in the police and the
military are the most willing to allow only the police and the military to
have guns?)

Thomas Jefferson, for example, copied into his book of favorite quotes an
observation by Cesare Beccaria, the founder of the science of criminology:
"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."

That night in Washington, by the way, I was rescued by a man. I'm all for
men; I like to have them around all the time. But sometimes they can't be.
Sometimes they have to go buy things for us. More pertinently, sometimes
they're ex-husbands coming after us with machetes. We live in a world in
which men are supposed to freeze when we say no, our bodily integrity is
sacrosanct, we are autonomous beings, I am woman, hear me roar -- but we're
not allowed to defend ourselves from a physical attack with the only
effective means possible. Just stand waiting on the bridge and hope for a
nice man to come along.

- Ann Coulter, George Magazine, 1999

Ok, pro gun folks, you have Ann Coulter on your side. I rest my case.

Like Stephanie Miller, Longball probably has a hardon for the Divine Ms Ann, & probably hopes she will someday rub his feet & turn the pages of his Bible. (See Cienna, above.)

Ok, pro gun folks, you have Ann Coulter on your side. I rest my case.

And you have 'Stranger' poster FNARF. I think we're even.

Removing guns is a band aid on the bigger problem. Why do people steal from, attack, hurt, kill, rape and threaten one another?

Yeah, that's a lot to chew on. But as stated, banning guns doesn't solve the problem. It just leads criminals and criminals-to-be to acquire them through nefarious means, or find other means to get what they want. You've stopped nothing.

Many shootings come from gun-owners who have never committed a crime before in their lives.

I want you to prove this assertion.

Gray, it's a general statement. What is the converse? That no shootings come from gun owners with clean records, or so few that it's negligent?

Basketball player Jayson Williams had never committed a crime when he accidentally gunned down his chauffeur. I had a high school classmate with a clean record who kept a gun in his car, got in some trouble and ended up killing someone with his gun, and is now doing time. Oh, and Columbine. Many others can come up with example after example, some in the public eye that I'm not even thinking about.

Can you prove that every robbery, every hold-up, murder or shooting is a product of a gun owning convicted criminal?

Thanks to those of you that understand. You know that look when you're a target and the other person KNOWS you're not going to win, and that's a scary look. It's one I wouldn't wish on anyone.

To those of you that say I would not have been better off, that I would have to have had faster reflexes, or that I would be trading in the risk of random muggings to the risk of being shot in the back, I say this: Until you have experience in a situation like this, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN.

As it turns out, my reflexes are pretty good. I'm 25 years old and in good shape. And even more important than that, I'm a good shot. I deployed to Iraq last year (I'm a civilian, not military, but some government jobs do send people to places like Iraq) and I received weapons training before I went and I carried a rifle or a pistol EVERY DAY and I know how to use them. Any firearms instructor will tell you that it is more important to be a good shot than to be fast BECAUSE MOST CRIMINALS ARE NOT VERY GOOD SHOTS. They don't practice. They're under stress. They're not focused on shooting you. They're focused on scaring you. So if you have the opportunity to shoot, and you AIM, that will bring you more success than reflexes.

So if someone pulled a gun on me (and I DIDN'T live in DC and could therefore legally have a gun myself) YES, I WOULD PULL MY GUN AND SHOOT THAT PERSON IF IT WAS AT ALL POSSIBLE.

Yes, maybe I'd get shot too. Maybe. More likely that they would decide I was not worth the risk and would run away. If I got shot, the odds are that it would not be a well-aimed shot, and I would likely live through it. After my training and experience, I can honestly say that it is likely that my assailant would not and I make no apologies for that. Anyone who (for any reason, I don't care if they are drunk or high or just plain crazy)threatens another innocent person with a lethal weapon should be removed from this earth before they have the opportunity to harm another person.

Yes, I understand that my experience may be different than others. I agree that people who don't know how to use guns and who don't PRACTICE using guns SAFELY and SANELY shouldn't have them. No, there is no way to write a law to mandate that, but there IS a great thing called evolution. People who figure that out, live. People who don't figure it out, don't.

Is killing a person a rational response to being mugged? It sounds like you would be a proud murderer because in your mind, Megan, there are people who deserve to die and you are the person to make that decision.

As a final note, I would like to remind everyone of the church shooting in Texas - last year? The good citizenry shot back and killed a 9 year old girl in their cross fire.