It will be an interesting world when the blame is shifted completely to the actual offender. A weapon has no rights and therefore will be really easy to convict. Incarceration will also be easier since you can just keep the offender on a shelf or something, unless it's a banana. Green bananas will be easier, but ripe bananas just don't last.
And everyone knows that it's not the banana that kills, it's the banana peel.

You can have my guns, as soon as you 100% guarantee me those that want to do harm do not own any, or have access to any.

Outlaw guns just like we did booze! You see what happened there. Old man Kennedy along with others became a millionaire.

You can kill someone with a carrot. Just chew off the end to make it a sharp point, shove it into someones mouth, and with the palm of your hand, ram it through their throat and the back of their neck. I just watched Clive Owen do it on "Shoot Em' Up".

Here are my responses:

1. According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.
Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

-continued-

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

-continued-

Since 1-1-2010, there has been 7,208,697 gun defense incidents.

2. Banning certain gun types, large magazines, etc. is useless. Criminals obtain weapons through illegal channels. Making a crazy take an extra 2 seconds to change magazines has no impact on a shooting incident.

3. Forget knife/gun. You can just as easily kill many people with a semi-auto handgun as an assault rifle, especiall in close quarters.

4. I firmly believe that anyone who owns a firearm should be a responsible owner. Just as we prosecute someone driving recklessly, anyone who does not secure their firearms, keep them out of the reach of children or a relative with known mental health issues, should be charged with a felony, making it impossible to own a firearm forever.

5. Banning weapons is silly. See my answer to #2.

6. See my answer to #3. How much would it cost to confiscate EVERY SINGLE firearm? I will also reiterate: Criminals and crazies will just get them illegally.

7. I actually agree with you on this one. Until I can build a nuke in my basement, the government can kick my rear end in a moments notice, so if this is your reason for arming yourself, you're an idiot.

When Brian and his minions from the Obama Administration come for my guns, I am going to shiv them with my toothbrush.
I didn't stick ya Brian, the toothbrush did it. Hell it even sharpened itself on the front porch.
Feel free to search the place, I ain't got no guns here.
By the way can I have some Obama bucks too?

It's a large blog you have presented here, so I will limit myself to just a few points.

1. Guns don't kill people, people do. This is a absurd philosophical debate on both sides. People with guns kill people, as do people with knives, cars, poison, bombs, etc. If someone really wants to do damage, they will find a way.

2. The best argument here is the licensing one. It doesn't make much sense that we will license and register cars and drivers, but not military grade weapons. In regards to using vehicles as weapons, it really doesn't matter what the original use of the car was, if it is being used as a weapon.

6. Weapons collection. Impressive article, except for "about one-fifth of Australia's estimated stock of firearms". A 20% success rate is really only good if your a weatherman or defense attorney. Combine that with the greater number of firearms here, and our long standing tradition of civil disobedience, I doubt a program here would be more successful. I am not saying a buyback program wouldn't be good to get rid of unwanted or neglected guns, but I oppose anything that would be compulsory.

7. Your premise, which we have discussed before, is predicated on one assumption, and in this unlikely situation, you assume that our military and law enforcement will be "all in" on the government side of it. Maybe not.

I consider myself a responsible owner, of military grade weapons. I don't see a need to change that.

Greg...Let me be sure you didnt enter a typo up there... No one dies from illicit drugs in this country? You didnt mean that...
I am not jumping past any tax idea either... I do think some types of guns should be banned among several changes that I think would improve our world.

So...are we looking for some new talking points? Or do you still believe guns and bananas are essentially the same as weapons...guns are not in need of regulation since bananas arent? Actually there probably are regulations on bananas...maybe someone can research that. See we dont want to eat bad bananas.... someone could die.

One other point gunones.... In Wisconsin, I am sorry to tell you, short barreled shot guns and rifles are ILLEGAL! OMG! That is a total invasion of your second amendment rights! Call the lawyers, take to the streets! Even worse, the gubment wont let you boys have machine guns! Heil Obama....they are coming to get you guys. How can you defend yourselves adequately? After all...the bad guys (US Armed Forces) all have machine guns. Why arent you rallying? They are taking away your rights!!!

Greg, I appreciate that banana factoid and will try it the next time I encounter one. All quiet on the Port Washington front. Must be the snow.

Here are 7 items of advice for you, not necessarily in order:

1. Stick with your "Visual and Performing Artist, Human Rights Activist, Arts Educator, Non-aligned Observer" venue if you excel at that. For a "non-aligned observer", you certainly have some rather strong and biased opinions.

2. Continual repitition of the same theme under different blogs makes you more annoying and less convincing each time.

3. Give up your US citizenship and move to Australia if you feel threatened here.

4. If #3 doesn't fit your forte, then run for federal office and put your pair out there with your agenda.

5. Stay inside and have no societal contact so you can remove yourself from any armed threat.

6. If 5 doesn't work for you, practice and improve your famous stare so that no armed perp will ever stand a chance against you.

7. If none of the above don't work, just "shut" up and quit using the first amendment trying to take down the second.

How about this: in my opinion, I don't feel it is worthwhile to eliminate or severely restrict the freedom of the individual in this particular fashion in exchange for a hypothetical increase in not my safety but the overall average safety of other members of society.

We have surrendered many personal liberties in the name of increased security already. As you well know, there is a delicate balance to be struck between individual freedoms and security/order/the-greater-good. The only intelligent discussion on this topic would be where people feel we might best strike that balance, and why they feel that way. Dismissing other's feelings and sense of values out of hand doesn't achieve anything but enmity.

I don't own a gun or a car, like millions of Americans, depsite your insistence that the latter is a necessity of life. But I don't see a compelling threat to our nation's existence that demands curtailing freedom further. When considering far-reaching national policy, we have to put aside purely-emotional reactions to isolated events and think of the price of security versus the price of freedom. I know where I stand but I don't believe there is a clear right or wrong position here.

Heres an interesting link for Conservatives interested in a partial weapons ban....
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-burns-assault-weapons-ban-20121220,0,6774314.story

"Even worse, the gubment wont let you boys have machine guns".

Brian, I know you were in somewhat of a rant mode, so I won't hold you to your usual standard of fact checking. But I should point out that it is legal for civilian citizens to own "machine guns", and there are more of them than you would suspect.

The difference is that you never hear from them. The hoops, licensing, background checks, and special tax stamps required for this tend to ensure that these weapons, and their responsible owners, are a bit better secured and vetted than a more "standard" gun or gun owner.

The fact that you never hear of these people shooting a place up is perhaps indicative that the problem is not the weapon itself, and that we should perhaps be looking elsewhere for a solution.

I'd like to agree with Brian, but then we would both be wrong!

Brian, you were in of those deep thinkers back in the sixties who'd say "Ban the bomb" while you were exhaling, right?

Mental health should be what your blogging about not gun control. Guess mommy was working on getting him committed and he found out. I read another blog from some guy that claims to have baby sat him and he was told not to take his eyes off him, don't even go to the bathroom. WTF ???? Just shy??? There's a lot more to this story

Slaves can't own guns .. And i am not a slave, i would rather die on my feet then live my life on my knees .... I and many like me have drawn the line in the sand to Authoritarian oppresors and thier useful idiots ... You want to start a civil war, lets go, the tree of liberty needs to be cleansed

I see two major things missing from this"biased" article. No mention was made of the positive benefits of owning a firearm. Suppose you are on a fixed income, elderly, and living in a not so desirable part of town, and have a pistol. Some crackhead breaks in with ill-intentions and this person is able to repel the attacker. Self-defense happens a lot more than you hear about, it's just not spread throughout the media like a mass shooting or airline crash.

And secondly, read item two of the Bill of Rights. What does it say?

in·fringe.
verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass

eventually we are going to have to get back to the point of taking personal responsibilities for ones actions. This is a country where one can sue for their coffee being too hot and burning their lip and 2 days later complain that their coffee was cold and win a suit there as well. Laws to try and make sure we are allowing responsible adults to own Guns are fine. But making something illegal on a piece of paper will not do the trick. In 1994 The Federal Ban on assault weapons, mags was implimented and 3 yrs later a couple guys in LA used full auto AK-47's with high cap mags to get the job done. Most of these incidents are not immediate crimes of passion. They are thought out, planned out acts of violence that most of us can comprehend or understand. One extreme is to take away all guns....why not then consider the other extreme of every body carry? Why not let teachers carry. Every classroom of every school....good luck now Mr. Active Shooter! This arguement has just as much merit as making guns illegal. Too many variables in this Country for one GOOD answer, but No argument that we need to come up with something

JB, Is that a quote from a cartoon in Soldier of Fortune mag? Can you give a link to that line? Channeling Charlton Hestons ghost speaking from his blue lips? What.... tell me you didn't write that yourself.
Slavery comes in many forms... one can be a slave to puerile mentality, a slave to the propagandists who profit enormously by scaring people and selling them guns, a slave to a violent zeitgeist and, above all, a slave to Fear itself. I dont know you but your words suggest some of the latter to me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nfa_faq.txt
I am going to look through these links for my answer. I THOUGHT it was illegal to own bazookas...fully auto weapons (machine guns), etc... Perhaps not...at least in Federal Law. State to state there are restrictions on various classes of weapons and destructive devices (bazoookas are destructive devices evidently) and silencers and what not. I put the links here to give everyone the same opportunity to look this up.

Some useful definitions of categories of weapons...
The National Firearms Act of 1968 (NFA) defines a number of categories of regulated firearms. These weapons are collectively known as NFA firearms and include the following:
Machine guns—this includes any firearm which can fire more than 1 cartridge per trigger pull. Both continuous fully automatic fire and "burst fire" (i.e., firearms with a 3-round burst feature) are considered machine gun features. The weapon's receiver is by itself considered to be a regulated firearm.
Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)—this category includes any firearm with a buttstock and either a rifled barrel under 16" long or an overall length under 26". The overall length is measured with any folding or collapsing stocks in the extended position. The category also includes firearms which came from the factory with a buttstock that was later removed by a third party.
Short barreled shotguns (SBSs)—this category is defined similarly to SBRs, but the barrel must be at least 18" instead of 16", and the barrel must be a smoothbore. The minimum overall length limit remains 26".
Silencers —this includes any portable device designed to muffle or disguise the report of a portable firearm. This category does not include non-portable devices, such as sound traps used by gunsmiths in their shops which are large and usually bolted to the floor.

more categories....
this will help us, me first of all, speak more accurately...
Destructive Devices (DDs)—there are two broad classes of destructive devices:
Devices such as grenades, bombs, explosive missiles, poison gas weapons, etc.
Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes. (Many firearms with bores over 0.50", such as 12-gauge shotguns, are exempted from the law because they have been determined to have a "legitimate sporting use".)
Any Other Weapons (AOWs)—this is a broad "catch-all" category used to regulate any number of firearms which the BATFE under the NFA enforces registration and taxation. Examples include, among others:
1) Smooth-bore pistols 2) Pen guns and cane guns 3) A firearm with combinations smooth bore and rifle barrels 12 inches or more but less than 18 inches in length from which only a single shot can be made from either barrel. 4) Disguised firearms 5) Firearms that can be fired from within a wallet holster or a briefcase 6) A short-barreled shotgun which came from the factory with a pistol grip and no buttstock is categorized as an AOW (smooth-bore pistol) rather than a Short Barrel Shotgun (SBS), because the Gun Control Act describes a shotgun as, “…designed or redesigned to be fired from the shoulder…” 7) Handguns with a forward vertical grip.
[edit]

The NFA regulates a certain class of weapons, as I understand it, which were originally deemed to be "gangster weapons." The act was put in place in 1934.

"The National Firearms Act ("NFA"), 72nd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as 26 U.S.C. ch. 53, is an Act of Congress in the United States that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The Act was passed shortly after the repeal of Prohibition. The NFA is also referred to as Title II of the Federal firearms laws. The Gun Control Act of 1968 ("GCA") is Title I.
All transfers of ownership of registered NFA firearms must be done through the federal NFA registry. The NFA also requires that transport of NFA firearms across state lines by the owner must be reported to the ATF."

The purpose of the NFA[1] was to regulate what were considered "gangster weapons" such as machine guns and short barreled shotguns.[2] Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.

I guess gangster weapons are fine now...

The United States Supreme Court, in deciding the case of Haynes v. United States in favor of the defendant, effectively gutted the National Firearms Act of 1934. As one could possess an NFA firearm and choose not to register it, and not face prosecution due to Fifth Amendment protections, the Act was unenforceable.

NFA categories have been modified by laws passed by Congress, rulings by the Department of the Treasury and regulations promulgated by the enforcement agency assigned to firearms known as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives or BATFE.

I find legalese a difficult language to sort through and frequent acronyms add to the trouble. It seems to me, from a gloss, that all these NFA categorized weapons have a taxation aspect, in some cases fairly steep, and an up to six month waiting period, registration with ATF, etc. True or not true? What do you understand from these links?

@Brian

The reason we all called Jason ignorant, stupid, etc, is because his statements were exactly that. He refers to a semi-automatic as some magical weapon that breaks apart and bounces of bone, has a 100 round magazine, etc.

In reality, almost every gun out there is a semiautomatic - pistol, revolver, most hunting guns. What's NOT a semi-auto? A bolt-action rifle, like the ones used in the 1890s, some shotguns too.

And Jason wanted anyone who has a semi auto, probably 99% of gunowners, to be instantly thrown in jail.

If that's not an ignorant stupid list of statements, then what is, Brian?? You are defending such statements as ignorant and false as they are!?

The second link, an article by a conservative federal judge, ends with what I believe is a very well reasoned statement. I, like him, believe this is an important conversation we are having.
"It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action."

@Brian, again:

#4, regarding having a gun in the house. There are dozens of accounts of citizens protecting themselves from criminals every month, if you look for them. I guess you want these people be weak and unprotected, lambs for the slaughter in their own homes?

To disregard or shush upon these accounts makes your posting rubbish and carry very little weight.

@Brian... When posting long strings of related cut and paste information,.you might consider nesting all of it, so it doesn't get separated by new posts, using the reply button/function.

Brian, you really need to work on your vocabulary.
Profound: having intellectual depth and insight ( Merriam-webster.com )

All you have done is try to minimalize the great points that the NRA and other gun owners have made when Liberals attempt to limit firearm ownership. Lets look at some of your more "profound" comments:

"...We can start sending our soldiers state of the art Bananas, and they can sneak up and stuff them down Al QUEDAS throats..."

"...a set bear trap is a lump of metal, but I certainly wouldn't leave one in my car, under the seat, in my house where my kids might think it is a cool looking lump of metal or carry one around on a Friday night while I was drinking with my buds..."

This all or nothing thinking is one of the greatest bubbaisms of the pro-stasis set... Rewriting Lincoln, "You can stop some of the nuts all of the time but you can't stop all of the nuts all of the time..."

"If you think this sentiment is limited to campfire talk in the woods of Michigan or to survival retreats in the badlands somewhere, you need to read the threads in these gun discussions ..."

You are basically using silly arguments to try and make a mockery of Gun owners rights:
Rules for Radicals #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

Guns don't make peace, people do.

Yeah but I wish we were fighting with bananas Steve. And, as to those people .... Any ideas about how we can encourage them to lighten up on going for guns so often????

@Brian Carlson..... You might find this opinion piece of interest. The author identifies the tipping point towards the cultural abyss.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324461604578189411325231422.html?mod=WSJ_article_comments#articleTabs%3Darticle

Guns are fine tools in the hands of the right people. One of these days something will happen and our society will break down and I pity the people who do not have guns. Our country was started by angry white men with guns and I have a feeling it may end the same way. God help us all when it hits the fan. I fear this attack today of the 2nd Amendment is a prelude to the next American civil war that will almost certainly come in the next 2 or 3 generations.

Brian ... from your response intending to diminish the greater statistical support offered by Avenging Angel ... "On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor vehicle theft."

In my opinion you've made the case for those advocating gun ownership. It appears there are a significant number of citizens who found gun ownership helped them in a violent situation.

If it were fewer numbers ... hundreds instead of thousands, I could not dismiss the value of gun ownership for the "few" women that were able to stop someone from violating them, or the other citizens that were fortunate to have the ability to thwart criminals that would do them harm.

You seem to believe that extreme satire is an effective rebuke of those that disagree with you. I might agree that some cannot, or do not, present their opinions in opposition to yours as eloquently as Bill Buckley might have, yet it doesn't dismiss the reality that gun ownership does have value for many law abiding citizens that would have been victimized if they had forfeited that right.

For you, or any, to decide which victims are more important is at the very least an arrogant position.

Further, your attempt to "win" the discussion cleverly ... regardless your belief ... diminishes my respect for your opinion.

People suffer and die every day ... I doubt you believe you have the answer that would prevent that from continuing to be reality.

Hey Brian

Check out the Patch article from yesterday on the NRA news conference. You can be the first to stir that pot.

If you want to make a dent in crime start demanding we enforce our laws. (Now, that would be a powerful blog.) If we continue to overlook those breaking current legislation, new laws are meaningless.

Regarding the death of the young man in the article you read (I couldn't find the article ... but I'm sure something remotely akin to your offering exists somewhere)... if he wasn't shot due to legislation you believe would remove that possibility (and I haven't read your articulation on legislation you believe would have applied), is it then ok that a woman was brutally raped and murdered because legislation made it difficult for her to access able defense?

As a side note ... you need not offer such empty apologies to me, I'm sure that there are many regularly subjected to your nonsense off this blog ... consider a true apology to them.

You might enjoy this threader ...

http://polysyllabicprofundities.com/page/2/

Meandering lofty writing seems to be of interest to you ...

Brian, I am noting with some amusement your discussion with AWD above (because I usually cringe when he joins a discussion on a side I support).

It appears to me that you seem to be merging two sorts of "preppers" together, perhaps inappropriately. The first group, are the ones preparing for some futuristic war with a tyrannical government that turned on its own citizens(or race war as AWD has claimed before). I agree with you that this is the least plausible counter argument to gun control. Providing that some absolutely bizarre events have occurred for that to come to pass, to include dissolution of the constitution, it would also need the military and law enforcement to go "all in" on supporting that tyrannical government, which given the relatively conservative nature of the law enforcement and military communities is extremely unlikely.

The other sort, those desiring to be prepared in the event of a breakdown of society, are driven by concerns a bit harder to dismiss. And before you do dismiss it, consider that you have a real world example of how fragile that veneer of civilization can be, even in this country.

Hurricane Katrina took a major American city and devolved it to a "Lord of the Flies" study all but overnight. A lot of really bad things happened behind that curtain, and it showed that in a major disaster you just might have to fend for yourself a bit, to include defending yourself and your family. Don't dismiss those concerns too lightly.

BC: Just to let you know. Anything the gov't has you can have,but you;ll have to be vetted a little more then currant pres. Yup F-22 Raptor,Abrams M-60 tank you name it. Hell there was a rumor years ago that John Wayne was going to buy the U.S.S. Missouri

Can you provide a link for that fact? I hope you are wrong but would like to know.

The way I see it is guns don't kill anymore people than liberals and lefties do. They voted for Obama, he has been using drones to kill and assassinate people from afar for his entire presidency. He has kept Gitmo open and he has not taken us out of Afghanistan as he said he would. How many lives has he cost in total?
Besides the Azana shooter was a Democrat, makes you wonder if there is a grand conspiracy. Like terrorists use the mentally ill, and mentally challenged for suicide bombers, is the left using them to be mass shooters to further their agenda? Just saying.....

May I ask, with all respect, if any of you need weapons because you are concerned about a ZOMBIE Apocalypse?

This is as smart as Orwells radio broadcast, War of the. Worlds, where he faked reporting an alien invasion of the planet. People believe this crap!!! STUPID MOVE CDC!!!! So I saw a documentary about a group socking away a broad array of weapons so they can blow away infected neighbors, family, friends etc. Any of you out there????

Again Brian:

http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1237.html

absorb the content.

There is a great deal of money to be made in GUN RIGHTS; there is absolutely no money to be made from GUN CONTROL!

That said, I suspect one aid in reducing gun violence, would be to have all purchased firearms registered, and the name, address, and type of weapon purchased publically posted on the internet and in the newspaper where the purchaser resides. [Hard to believe, but many people who do own firearms legally, also possess illegal firearms and ammunition.]

A concurrent list could be created whereby anyone ever treated for a mental illness would be listed, along with his or her current address.

Querying these two databases would surely reveal some very interesting data.

For those of you suspecting privacy concerns, please do not go there, as you effectively gave up the last vestiges of privacy with the Patriot Act, “to feel safe.” Surveillance is imposed upon you endlessly, in phone conversations, email, Skype, videotaping, wherever you go in malls, driving down the highway, GPS in your vehicle & cell or walking down the street. They also have access to all your, and your children's, healthcare data through your bank, credit card company, health insurance company, and doctor.

The only privacy remaining is “your thoughts.”

Now, before your neighbor comes over to confront you about your 85 pound Pit Bull pooping all over his lawn, he will know a) you are being treated for schizophrenia, and b) you have a Bushmaster AR-15 and (2) XM-15s.

"For those of you suspecting privacy concerns, please do not go there, as you effectively gave up the last vestiges of privacy with the Patriot Act, “to feel safe.” "

Whoa there Wilson, pardner. Many of us do not agree with the so called Patriot Act and have voiced our opposition to it ever since or feel safer (actually threatened). This was a federal power grab to limit constitutional freedoms based on the ignorance of the bobble head masses . I for one have hammered on Senslessbrenner, Kohl, Petri, Feingold and Johnson about this and there is no courage among these dolts to repeal this act of treason. They won't (didn't) respond because they know they are all guilty.