It Was the Gun's Fault

L.A. Now reports on an incredible crime committed by Joseph Hyungmin Son, seven years before the 1997 movie "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery."

The fact is I don't blame the gun and I find it extremely tedious to be continually accused of that by the pro-gun folks. In this brutal crime, for example, I actually feel the gun was superfluous.

What the story made me wonder was, would the victim have been able to save herself had she been armed too? I think not.

When sudden, random violence strikes, like in this case, a concealed weapon will rarely help. In spite of all the claims to the contrary, true DGUs are extremely rare.

The problem is the pro-gun folks use stories like this to push their agenda. Convincing people that they need to protect themselves is a disservice to those they want to help and to society at large.

The proliferation of guns for personal protection is a bad deal because the chances of your gun being used to save your life are extremely low while the possibility of it being MISused in some way is greater. It's a bad decision, a fear-driven mistake, that's all.

The solution to the problem of violence is to take sensible precautions and not give into the fear.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Arizona Dealers in Death

The Douglas Dispatch reports

According to a recent article in the Arizona Republic nearly 125,000 people went through federal background checks in the first six months of 2011 in order to obtain a concealed weapon.

That puts the state on track to exceed the record of more than 215,000 background checks in 2009.

That avuncular looking gentleman pictured above is Lynn Kartchner. Like all the other FFL gun dealers in Arizona, he may appear innocent and harmless, but the truth is he's a dealer in death, and I'll tell you why.

First of all let's set one thing straight. Those numbers of background checks, which the pro-gun crowd like to use as synonymous with "new gun owners," are misleading. Most of those background checks are not performed on first-time buyers. Most of those people already own one or more guns. This is an example of the mendacious spin-job the pro-gun crowd is continually trying to pull. They attempt to normalize guns by inflating the numbers of gun owners. Studies have shown that the actual number of households with guns has diminished.

Back to the original premise, "dealers in death," it works like this.  In Arizona, hundreds of thousands of guns per year are being sold to folks who passed the background check, so far so good. But from there it's like a free-for-all. Since no licensing of gun owners is allowed or registration of guns to those licensed gun owners, there are absolutely no controls beyond the initial sale. Those folks who bought guns legally in Arizona, can do anything they want with them with no accountability at all.

This is how the majority of guns used by criminals get there. Straw purchases, gun traffickers with clean records, and private sales account for most. Theft accounts for the rest.

What's your opinion?  Do you think Arizona is vying to take the crown back from Florida? They certainly compete in the gun part, and they've got a pretty outrageous governor, but without the prescription drug business I;m afraid Florida remains The Most Baneful State.

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Violent Crime Declining

The pro-gun folks seem to think their predictions are all coming true.

Yet, they just cannot explain this.

What's your opinion? Is it possible that overall violent crime has declined due to the many factors that play a part in that complex dynamic and it would have declined still further if not for the tremendous availability of guns?

Please leave a comment.

Road Rage in Tacoma

Seattlepi.com reports on a frightening incident of road rage.

TACOMA, Wash. -- Tacoma police hope the parents of a 2-year-old girl wounded in a road rage shooting can remember details to help them catch the shooter.

Police spokesman Mark Fulghum says investigators Monday only know that the suspect fled in an SUV, believed to be a black Ford Explorer.

The wounded girl was treated at Mary Bridge children's hospital for a wound in the thigh and is expected to recover.

Fulghum says she had been riding in a back seat car seat in a car driven by her father with her mother in the front passenger seat.

Fulghum says one car cut off another in traffic, hand gestures were exchanged and the driver of the SUV fired into the family's car.

I guess there are other countries like this, but the United States has definitely become one in which you dare not confront someone lest you get shot for your trouble.

What's your opinion? Are road rage incidents that turn violent with guns so rare that we need not worry about them? Or do you feel we're heading in the wrong direction as far as gun proliferation?

Please leave a comment.

Struggle Over the Gun: One Dead

Al.com reports on a terrible incident that took place in Birmingham.

One man was killed and another injured as the two struggled over a loaded gun in the 800 block of 20th Street Ensley this evening, according to police.

The man with the gun got into an argument about 5:30 p.m. with another man at Life Styles Detail Shop, a car wash less than a block from Avenue I.

The two struggled over the gun, the gun went off and both men were shot.

The man who brought the gun to the car wash was killed. The other man was taken across the street to a Birmingham fire station and then to UAB Hospital. Police did not know the injured man's condition.

This took place in gun-friendly Alabama. It illustrates the problem with gun proliferation, concealed carry laws, lax gun control generally. The presumption on the part of the pro-gun crowd is that they are somehow above these incidents, that they avoid confrontation rather than go out looking for it. Although I have no doubt this may be true for the majority, it certainly does not apply to the minority. Some gun owners cannot be trusted with guns, it's a simple as that. The more guns we have out there, the more incidents like this we have. It's a simple and obvious proportion.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Another Rough Night in Newark

NJ.com reports on another violent night that transpired in Newark.

The first shooting took place around 9:30 p.m. Sunday on South 11th Street. a city man suffered multiple gunshot wounds in that incident, authorities. said.

A few hours later, shortly after 1:30 a.m., a caller informed police of a shooting at Frelinghuysen and Victoria Streets. The exact site of the shooting was established by the city's gunshot detection system, said Det. Todd McClendon.

Police found the unidentified victim suffering a gunshot wound to the stomach, and he was taken to University Hospital in critical condition.

A third person was shot in the stomach at about 2:30 a.m. near the corner of Clinton Avenue and Van Ness Place. The 23-year-old man was taken to University Hospital in stable condition, authorities said.

What's wrong with that city? They've got what must be some fairly sophisticated equipment in that "gunshot detection system," yet the violence keeps rolling along.

Where do you think the guns come from? I realize we don't know, but I'm just asking based on common sense, where do you think they come from?

My guess is they come from out of state, where, number 1, they're easier to buy, and number 2, they're easier to steal because more homes contain weapons than in NJ. We saw it recently in Queens NY. What this means, very simply is the strict gun control laws in New Jersey work extremely well, because they force criminals and young gang members to get there guns from outside, and it means that if the other states with lax gun laws would get in line, there would be a major lessening in gun violence.

What's your opinion? Does that make sense to you?

Please leave a comment.

Accidental Shootings

Every single day people die from accidental shootings in the United States. This is America, the land of the free and the home of the brave, the country that all patriotic citizens consider the greatest country in the world. How can this continue?

The Examiner-Enterprise from Bartlesville Oklahoma reports on another tragic accidental shooting death of a teenager. The deaths of young people his age are usually written off as being gang related, as if that makes some kind of difference. But, this one sounds like a straight accident.

A Bartlesville teen is dead following what police believe was an accidental shooting Thursday evening.

Reports indicate Tyler James Teague, 17, was killed when he was accidentally shot at a residence in Bartlesville.

According to a press release issued by the Bartlesville Police Department, the BPD Communications Center received an emergency 911 call at 6:44 p.m. Thursday. The caller reportedly stated that there had been an “accidental shooting” and that his friend was lying on the floor of a garage.

The problem is that accidents, which would be the first class of gun violence to benefit from fewer guns, are only a small drop in the bucket. Suicides are in first place, closely followed by homicides. Only then do we have gun accidents accounting for comparatively few of the total approximately 30,000 lives lost per year.

How people can continue to say that more guns make us safer is mind boggling to me. Are the pro-gun folks so short-sighted that they cannot see the whole picture? I agree with them that in certain circumstances it's good to have a gun, but the furious proliferation that they demand is doing more harm than good. Can't they see that?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Accidental Shooting at Gun Show

The East Valley Tribune reports on an accidental shooting at a Phoenix gun show which sent one woman to the hospital.

Witnesses reported that an accidental shooting occurred Saturday at the Crossroads Gun Show at Mesa’s Centennial Hall.

The gun show on Center Street saw hundreds of sellers and buyers milling around in the noisy venue until the loud crack of a solitary gun shot.

The show, packed with an estimated 200 to 300 people, fell silent about 11:30 a.m., and then came the screams of a woman who was grazed in the neck by a bullet witnesses said was accidentally discharged by a vendor.

I realize this doesn't happen very often, but it does illustrate the problem with gun proliferation. When more and more people have guns legally, the chances of accidents and mistakes increases proportionately, as does the chances of other types of misuse.. That's exactly why people, non-gun-owning people, favor gun free zones. And this is exactly what's wrong with the seemingly increasing movement to expand gun rights.

Witnesses, some of whom were standing at the table of an unidentified vendor said, his weapon accidentally discharged. They said the vendor was crouched below his table when the gun went off.

The identity of the woman who was injured was not available late Saturday, but witnesses reported that she was taken away by ambulance. The vendor was escorted from the venue “and banned for life.”

What do you think that means? Was he banned from this particular gun show for life? Do you think that's sufficient? Are people who handle guns all day long every day allowed a certain number of accidents? Should the sanctions for an accident that injures or kills someone be more severe than one which doesn't? Are we to understand that this particular vendor is still in business, just not at this venue?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Sebastian on Glock

On his wonderful blog, Snowflakes in Hell, Sebastian makes an interesting observation about the Business Week cover story on Glock that came out the other day.

It raises some questions about the business structure and profits of Glock, but I’m not sure what they are describing is illegal.

I very well may have missed something or misunderstood, but it seems to me the Business Week article is rife with allegations of not only intrigue and the usual dirty shenanigans that go on in business, but plenty of illegal activity as well.

Among the Glock-related material the IRS allegedly is examining: boxes of invoices and memos provided by the company's former senior executive in the U.S., Paul F. Jannuzzo. Once one of the most prominent gun industry executives in America, Jannuzzo said in a federal complaint he filed last year that Gaston Glock used his companies' complicated structure to conceal profits from American tax authorities. "[Glock] has organized an elaborate scheme to both skim money from gross sales and to launder those funds through various foreign entities," Jannuzzo alleged in the sealed May 12, 2008, IRS filing, which BusinessWeek has reviewed. "The skim is approximately $20.00 per firearm sold," according to the complaint. Glock's U.S. unit, which generates the bulk of the company's sales, has sold about 5 million pistols since the late 1980s, Jannuzzo estimates in an interview.

Jannuzzo is currently being prosecuted by the Cobb County District Attorney's Office for siphoning corporate money into a Cayman Islands account. Jannuzzo, who left the company in 2003, claims he's the victim of a vendetta.

In the U.S., Jannuzzo and another former Glock executive, Peter S. Manown, have claimed that for years they distributed company funds to their wives and Glock employees with the understanding that the money would be donated to congressional candidates—an apparent violation of U.S. election law.

The Glock company seems to have more than its share of intrigue and internal turmoil. Beginning in 1987, the Austrian industrialist had employed Charles Ewert to head up the sales end of the business.

Ewert, a mustachioed Luxembourg resident now in his late 50s, it turns out was a purveyor of shell companies: paper corporations that can be used to shield income from taxation—sometimes legitimately and sometimes in questionable ways. Ewert designed a network of shells to lessen the gun empire's exposure to product liability and potential taxation, according to documents filed with the Luxembourg court.

Perhaps those questionable ways were within the letter of the law, but one wonders about the integrity of Mr. Ewart when it turns out he tried to have Mr. Glock killed.

Over time, Ewert transferred ownership of some of the Glock-affiliated shells to himself, according to Luxembourg court judgments. Suspicious of Ewert, Gaston Glock sought an explanation in July 1999. On the afternoon of a meeting scheduled at Ewert's office near the tony Rue Royale in central Luxembourg, Glock was attacked in an underground garage. The hit man, a former professional wrestler and French Legionnaire named Jacques Pecheur, bashed the businessman on the head with a rubber mallet, a technique apparently aimed at making it look like the victim had fallen down and fatally injured himself. Glock, physically fit from daily swimming—often in the frigid lake abutting his home near Klagenfurt, Austria—fought back. When police arrived, they found Glock bleeding from gashes to his skull. Pecheur, 67, was unconscious.

Luxembourg investigators found Ewert's business card in Pecheur's car and determined that the two had met at a gun range in Paris in 1998. Both were convicted of participating in a conspiracy to kill Glock. Pecheur received a sentence of 17 years, Ewert 20.

My overall reaction to this story is to have admiration for Gaston Glock. His rise to prominence in the international gun manufacturing business is impressive as is his personally beating off a would-be assassin. But to say "I’m not sure what they are describing is illegal," as Sebastian did, I just don't understand.

The Business Week article is a chronicle of illegal activity, granted it's the kind that many big businesses engage in, but it's certainly illegal.

What's your opinion? Is there a problem with American law enforcement doing business with a shady company like Glock? Or is that beside the point, the point being their product is superior and that's all the clients need be interested in?

I'm sure Sebastian can explain what he meant, but why do you think he would defend the Glock company like that? Is the pro-gun position to give the benefit of the doubt to gun manufacturers even in the face of all those allegations? Do you think the dirty dealings which may go on within the manufacturer's company somehow taint the consumers of the product, the gun buying public in this case?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Plaxico Burress Indicted

Because I always try to do what Il Principe says, I'm linking to this story in Reuters.

Former New York Giants wide receiver Plaxico Burress was indicted on Monday on two felony counts accusing him of criminal possession of a weapon and one misdemeanor count of reckless endangerment, prosecutors said.

Burress, 31, who caught the winning touchdown in the Giants' Super Bowl victory in February 2008, was released by the team after a November 2008 incident in which he accidentally shot himself in the leg at a New York nightclub.

When we talked about this last time, I quoted Bryan Miller lamenting the fact that Burress hadn't been suspended. In today's report it says he "was released by the team." Is that different?

Under New York's strict gun laws, Plaxico is charged with possession of a gun, possession of a loaded gun outside the home or business, and possession of a loaded gun with the intent to harm another. If convicted he'll probably do some time, which could range from a year or two all the way up to 15.

What's your opinion? What would be wrong with putting him in the same category as the white collar criminals? For them I usually recommend strict supervision and heavy fines but no jail time. Wouldn't this guy be better able to contribute as a professional athlete than as a convict?

What's your opinion? For me the question is this, does society need to be protected from Plaxico Burress to the point that he needs to be locked away? What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Trouble in Newark - Mayor Booker Speaks Out

NJ.com reports the latest spate of shootings in the frequently beleaguered Newark.

But on Monday, a spasm of violence jolted the city in daylight shootings that took the lives of three people, including a mother of two described by authorities as an innocent bystander. Seven other people were injured in the three episodes of gunfire.

One of two men killed Monday was awaiting trial in a slaying last year but had been freed when his bail was lowered because of a "witness issue," according to Paul Loriquet, a spokesman for the Essex County Prosecutor's Office.

Yesterday, Mayor Cory Booker said there is no indication any of Monday's three shootings are related.

Police director Garry McCarthy said there was no evidence of gang involvement, which is interesting. I thought any inner-city shootings were considered gang related.

"There appears to be no common thread except for the proliferation of firearms," he said.

Mayor Booker decried the number of firearms coming through the city and said the flow is driving the violence. He cited one of Monday's shootings in which two brothers fired upon each other.

"It's a great example. They were illegal guns. They didn't buy them in a store. Too many people here have access to too many guns," said the mayor, who called for tougher enforcement of gun laws.

Why do the pro-gun guys disparage the opinion of mayors of large cities who make these claims? Wouldn't these men have a lifetime of experience in dealing with municipal problems? Wouldn't their opinion be a valuable one?

Why do the pro-gun guys disparage the opinion of police chiefs and directors of large cities who make these claims? Aren't these generally men who have come up through the ranks, men with a lifetime of experience in dealing with municipal problems? Wouldn't their opinion be a valuable one?

Do you think the fact that there is gun violence in a state like NJ which has strict gun laws proves those laws do not work? Or do you think the never-ending violence in places like NJ proves there is gun trafficking from out of state?

Please leave a comment.

What They Really Think of Obama

Max Blumenthal reports on The Daily Beast (h/t The Gun Guys) that not everyone is celebrating Obama's first 100 days the same way.

On April 18 and 19, I attended gun shows in Antioch, California, and Reno, Nevada, to probe the culture of gun enthusiasts at the onset of the Obama era. I came away from these events with a portrait of a heavily armed, tightly organized movement incited by right-wing radio to a fever-pitched resentment of President Obama and his allies in Congress.

I believe if I were a gun owner, I'd want to disassociate myself from the folks in this video. How about you? Can anyone explain to me what the connection with Hitler is and how widespread it is in the gun world? Do any black people go to these things? Or Jews?

What about the modification of weapons to make them legal? Are gun owners generally law abiding except when it comes to laws they disagree with? Isn't there something wrong with claiming to be a "straight shooter" but encouraging these practices of skirting the law?

The sniper rifle that can be disassembled and stored in a backpack or briefcase, is for what exactly? This was the 50 calibre one that was banned because supposedly it could shoot down an airplane. Is there some reason for being able to transport it so surreptitiously?

What's your opinion? You know the old expression, a picture is worth a thousand words? Well, after many thousands of words, after all the discussions on this blog about guns, about why they're good for society, about how we're better with them, I think this video says it all.

What do you think? Please tell us.

Church Shooting in Illinois

CNN reports on the tragic church shooting which took place yesterday in Maryville, Illinois, which left the pastor dead and three others wounded, including the shooter.

The pastor of a Maryville, Illinois, church was shot to death during a service Sunday in front of horrified parishioners who then tackled the gunman, state police said.

Fred Winters, the pastor of the First Baptist Church, was shot and killed during the 8 a.m. service, and the attacker and two parishioners suffered knife wounds in the attack, authorities said.

The gunman entered during the service and walked up to the pulpit.

Winters and the gunman apparently exchanged words before the 27-year-old man fired four shots, hitting the pastor's Bible and then the pastor.

This is the first major incident of its kind since Jim Adkisson killed two and wounded six in the Knoxville Tennessee Unitarian Church. In the Tennessee case, Adkisson pleaded guilty last month in a deal that allowed him to avoid the death penalty and will face life in prison without parole.

The motive in the more recent killing is unclear at this point. You'll remember that Adkisson was driven by an obsessive hatred of liberals. Sometime after the Tennessee killings, the State of Arkansas erupted into a legal battle over whether parishioners should be allowed to carry guns in church. Apparently in that state it had been forbidden. In Illinois, I've been told recently, there are much stricter regulations about carrying guns anywhere, not just in church.

Do you think if the other parishioners had been armed they would have been able to prevent this tragedy? I don't see how? Perhaps arming the church-goers, or the teachers for that matter, might help in very limited circumstances. They might be able to prevent a drawn-out stand off with hostages and force a quicker bloodbath, but I agree with Paul Helme, who said on one of our recent videos, these killers are looking to get killed, they're not afraid of death nor are they deterred by armed security. What's your opinion?

What do you think about the difference between the immediate reaction of the parishioners who subdued the gunman in this case and the inaction on the part of the passengers on the bus with the Canadian Cannibal? What could account for such a difference?

Please feel free to leave a comment.

Another Shooting in Miami

The Miami Herald reports on another tragic shooting which took place yesterday.

Just weeks after the Liberty City shooting, four people were shot in a North Miami neighborhood by a man who police say wounded three young men and an 8-year-old boy. All were seriously injured.

Witnesses said that a young man pulled out a rifle and shot at the group as they stood outside a duplex at 1345 NE 127th St. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue took the victims to the Ryder Trauma Center.

North Miami police spokesman Lt. Neal Cuevas said the suspect was a man in his 20s whose dreadlocks were held in a ponytail with a rubber band. Police did not find the shooter, who may have had an accomplice.

Cuevas said each victim had been shot several times.

About 20 ammunition cartridges were found scattered across the duplex's courtyard, including AK-47 and pistol rounds, according to officials.

Obviously this has nothing to do with law abiding gun owners who simply want to protect their families, nothing directly, at least. I say it has a lot to do with them indirectly. As vehemently as gun owners deny any responsibility for these criminal acts, I say they are complicit for the simple fact that guns are so available. If it weren't for the powerful gun lobby, supported by the numerous gun owners of America, we'd already have had the the necessary restrictions to lessen the flow of guns into neighborhoods like Liberty City in Miami and there would be less bloodshed.

In a nutshell, that's my position on guns, gun availability and gun laws, but I can't help but wonder about some of the things reported in the news. Does the Miami Herald like to use the term "AK-47" too freely, perhaps as a sort-of buzz word of the anti gun movement? In describing the last major shooting, they used the terms "AK-47" and "assault weapon," yet one eyewitness report had the shooter pulling the gun out of his waistband.

I'm opposed to that kind of sensationalism, not only because it's dishonest, but because it's unnecessary. There are enough common sense arguments for gun control without giving the entire movement a bad name by resorting to cheap tricks.

What's your opinion? Can spent cartridges recovered at the scene identify the gun as having been an AK-47? Where does a kid in Miami get such a gun? Are there places where one of those can be purchased legally? Gun owners like them for protection and for fun, but is it worth it? I say no. I say legitimate gun owners deny the "flow" theory in order to continue their unconscionable denial of involvement in the problem.

What do you think?

The Flow of Guns

Here's how it happens, among other ways, of course.

Cass County prosecutors have charged a Kansas City man with stealing 30 guns, including six assault rifles, in the burglary of a Harrisonville gun shop.

Donald L. Bennett, 21, was arrested Friday after a brief standoff at a house in Greenwood in Cass County.

Prosecutors alleged that Bennett was one of three suspects seen on video surveillance who broke into Gunslinger Firearms on Jan. 12. A total of 24 semi-automatic handguns and six semi-automatic AR-15 rifles were taken in the burglary.

One handgun and one rifle were recovered from an apartment on Monroe, but the rest of the stolen firearms were believed to have already been sold, according to court documents.

What's to be done about this? Is this the price we pay to maintain our 2nd Amendment Rights? Do we just shrug and write this off as the cost of doing business?

What kind of security are gun stores supposed to have anyway? In this case three young delinquents drove up to the place, broke in, filled their car up with weapons and took off. It seems too easy. Then, of course, they sold most of the stuff before getting caught.

I say, just like the gun-loving father whose 15-year-old son stole his guns, the gun store owner in this case should be responsible. In the case of the 15-year-old, no harm was done with the stolen weapons. I'm afraid the final results in Kansas City won't be so innocuous.

What's your opinion? Is the gun store owner responsible for the improper security which allowed this to happen? Could this be one of those common-sense gun laws we keep calling for? What if the sanctions for allowing your guns to be stolen were so severe that all licensed gun sellers had to invest in proper safes? Wouldn't that make sense?

Please let us know what you think.

Dallas Gun Buy-Back Program

On the fascinating pro-gun site, Say Uncle, there's a post about the gun buy-back program being proposed by the Dallas City Council. This is a bit different from the Los Angeles program in which they offered food coupons for the guns.

Dallas police and churches have sponsored gun buyback programs in the past with relative success, paying from $50 to $200 per weapon surrendered.

"Folks can feel comfortable about bringing those guns in without going to the police station and feel threatened to be arrested," said Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Dwaine Caraway.

Caraway, speaking during a taping of Inside Texas Politics, said the goal is to get as many guns off the street as possible.

Commenters on both the Say Uncle site and the WFAA.com site he linked to were unanimously critical of the program, which I find surprising. Several people said the guns being turned into the so-called "buy-back" program are often not in working order, one person said 95%. I don't believe that. It was suggested that a program like this would encourage thieves to break into people's homes to steal their legally-owned guns in order to redeem them for the cash. Another idea was that the criminals use these programs to recycle their junk guns and upgrade them using the money.

What do you think? Why are legal gun owners so against a program like this? How does it hurt them?

The way I see it, the only problem here is it's only a drop in the bucket. The problem of gun availability is so vast that these few guns being removed is sadly inconsequential. But how about this for a motivation: let's say a junkie turns in his cheap gun for the $50 or $100 they offer, goes out and shoots dope till the money's gone. The next day he tries breaking into someone's house, gets busted and because he has no gun, goes to jail kicking and screaming. He's kicking and screaming because he knows he's going into withdrawals and will be kicking the dope that night. But no one got shot - not him, not the cop, not the homeowner, no one. Now, wouldn't that be worth it?

What's your opinion? Please let us know.

Why Is McCain Silent on Guns?

Politico.com has a fascinating article about John McCain's having missed an important opportunity by not pushing the Second Amendment agenda.

Guns are a potent force in American politics. As I have pointed out before, had Al Gore won Tennessee, Arkansas or West Virginia — all winnable states — in 2000, he would not have had to win Florida, and he would have become president.

But Gore lost all three states, and guns had a lot to do with it. Gun owners simply didn’t believe Gore when he said he was not going to take their guns away. (They did believe Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996 when he said the same thing, but Clinton sold his “Bubba” image effectively and was far more trusted in small-town and rural America.)

The article makes a convincing argument for the benefits of a Republican campaign using the gun control issue to its benefit, but it doesn't offer much to explain McCain's not doing so.

What do you think could explain it? I was thinking the reason is it's not that important in the big picture, but those examples about Gore tell a different story.

What's your opinion?

School Shooting in Arkansas

CNN reports on the latest school shooting, this one in Arkansas.

Two people were killed and one wounded in a shooting at the University of Central Arkansas on Sunday, according to a hospital spokesman.

The shooting prompted a campus lockdown.

One suspect was in custody and three others were being sought, police said in a recorded message.

Even with these sparse details, I think the questions we've often discussed can be raised again. Is this kind of incident preventable? How? Should the gun-free status of universities be changed and licensed gun owners encouraged to carry on campus? Or would that solution move us into an area of even greater problems?

The UCA site will hopefully contain some updated information later today.

Road Rage - Pistol Drawn

How rare is it?

On the Philly Dot Com site the other day we can read the report of an Upper Darby man who drew down on a woman for honking the horn at him.

A 24-year-old Upper Darby man, infuriated that a woman had honked at him in an intersection, pulled a gun on her and her 2-year-old daughter and said, "You're dead," police said yesterday.

Deaone McNeal, of the 1600 block of Garrett Road, was arrested near his home Saturday after the victim called 911 from her car, Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said. McNeal denied having a gun, but when police searched his vehicle, Chitwood said, they found a .45-caliber, semiautomatic pistol loaded with 16 hollow-point bullets.

Police also found McNeal's 7-year-old daughter terrified in the backseat, Chitwood said.

McNeal was granted a permit in January to carry a concealed weapon, Chitwood said. McNeal stated self-defense as his reason for needing the permit.

The article goes on to recount another incident in which a driver was actually shot. Maybe it's not as rare as some people say. It makes me wonder about the wisdom of allowing certain people to carry guns. What gets me even more, is the way responsible gun owners seem to delineate between themselves and the irresponsible ones, the same way they do between the good guys and the bad guys.

Isn't it true that in any large group, take for example, gun owners, a certain percentage will have problems like any other group? What do you propose we do about that? I put the question to the gun proponents. I personally do not favor gun bans, but I also don't favor gun folks talking like this is not their problem. I say it is.

What's your opinion.

The Great Gun Survey Results and Conclusions

I thought we'd have something more transparent and trustworthy in taking our own little poll and analyzing our own stats, but now I don't know. I tend to think we're going to see what we want to in these numbers just like we do in any other survey. And, speaking for myself, when I don't see what I want, I discount the whole thing as the product of someone's bias. I'm sure none of you do that.

My Column A is now without Tupac. As Weer'd suggested, stopping at the same traffic light in Vegas is pretty a flimsy connection. But, I have had a few dramatic events up close and personal. I'm convinced the gun made the difference.

I wondered about what Weer'd said: two people he knew killed themselves with guns. Now, I understand the guns didn't do it and I understand they could have used other means, but doesn't anyone see that the gun is so unforgiving as a means of taking one's life that its availability is a major factor? That's my idea anyway.

Bob's two Column A entries weren't all that dramatic and certainly shouldn't offset his Column C.

Although Thomas didn't provide details about his single Column A entry, even if it were an awful tragedy it would be hard to offset his Column C. His is one autobiography I'm looking forward to, as I mentioned before.

Conclusions not only from the Survey but for all the posts and comments:

1. Gun Bans or extreme gun control laws will never work and I do not support them. This is for two reasons: most gun owners won't stand for it and the criminals will continue to do their thing anyway. Yet, I do support some sort of registering and background checks, but they should be only enough to inhibit the criminals from acquiring guns easier than they can now.

2. Guns in the possession of people like Bob, Weer'd, Nomen (no survey ?) and Thomas pose no threat whatsoever and in fact increase the security of their immediate environs. But, I'm afraid that's not the case with all legal gun owners. I believe you guys have exaggerated in describing the exemplary responsible behaviour of the gun owners you know and you have downplayed the fact that in any large group of people you've got some unstable ones and some violent ones, some with anger management problems, etc. I think this is only human nature. The percentages are up for debate.

3. The fact that almost all guns are manufactured legally means that the ones in the hands of criminals are to some extent coming from the pool of legally owned guns, the number of which according to Bob S. is 65 million. Some people might want to increase that number to 100 or 200 million in order to arm not only the teachers in Texas but many more of the good guys. For me, this is wrong because the more you increase the one the more you increase the other. The percentages are up for debate.

4. The small percentage of crimes committed with guns compared to the huge numbers of guns out there, the famous 65 million, is not the point. The small number of murders is ONLY 20,000, we were told. Only? Every single one of them is serious. I think we've become numbed by the numbers. The point is, not that there's an acceptable small percentage of killings, but rather that the killings have nothing or next to nothing to do with you guys - see conclusions 1 and 2.

5. Firing weapons is one of the most thrilling and exhilarating things I've ever done. The fact that you guys, to a man, have tried in various ways to deny that makes me wonder what's up. I think it's defensive manoeuvring. Thomas said strapping on a gun was no different than attaching a flashlight to a utility belt and that there was no "exhilaration" at all involved in shooting. Yet, he said one hasn't lived until he has hunted his own steak. The latter statement sounds more believable to me.

6. Philosophically, I think Ghandi had it right and the gun enthusiasts have it wrong.

What's your opinion? What conclusions have you drawn from our little Survey or from our debates?