I don't mind digging up data. Since most of it I have already read, I can usually find the info again rather quickly, although sometimes I get frustrated when certain pieces are moved, or disappear from the net.

A good example is the vote for cloture on the assault weapons ban.

Some of that government information can be found at RENSE, it was pasted there, but the original document, which should be at the Congressional Record, seems to have disappeared.

Do Individuals Have The Right To Bear Arms?

Very frustrating indeed.

If anyone can find the original document, please share it here, as I would like to save it in my files.

thanks

Suicide, of course, is never done impulsively, so the easy availabilty if firearms is no factor, and all suicides, as well as drug users, are worthless anyway.

In other words, no, you made it up

You're not supposed to extrapolate local studies, thats why they're local, and definitely not without making any allowance for local factors whatsever, unless of course you're a gun advocate on a mission.

If by that you mean make up your mind first then go back and cherry pick data to "prove" yourself later, no thanks, I'll leave that valuable skill in your capable hands

How dare we fools ask you to back up anything you say. I'm expected to trust you and every joe blow on the planet with a Thompson, I guess taking everything you say at face value should be easy

Your countries inability to keep up has no bearing on my right to bear arms in my country.

Alsoplustoo - by the time you find someone to shoot in canada - you've probably had time to calm down...

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

Well, if no national data is available, then using local data is about the best I can do.

Maybe you could share some of your research with us.

As to the figures, unless you count alcohol, most of the people were not on drugs. Of course, I consider alcohol a drug, don't know if you do, or not.

As to suicides, if someone wants to kill themselves, they will.

So, what do you want to do?

Do you want to ban handguns so people will not kill themselves?

Do you want to ban ALL firearms?

Here is some suicide data, if you are interested.....

U.S.A. SUICIDE: 2004 OFFICIAL FINAL DATA

Here is some really interesting data.....

In 1990, firearms were the most common suicide method among females in all three age groups examined, accounting for 55.2% of suicides in the group aged 10--14 years, 56.0% in the group aged 15--19 years, and 53.4% in the group aged 20--24 years. However, from 1990 to 2004, among females in each of the three age groups, significant downward trends were observed in the rates both for firearm suicides (p<0.01) and poisoning suicides (p<0.05), and a significant increase was observed in the rate for suicides by hanging/suffocation (p<0.01). In 2004, hanging/suffocation was the most common method among females in all three age groups, accounting for 71.4% of suicides in the group aged 10--14 years, 49% in the group aged 15--19 years, and 34.2% in the group aged 20--24 years. In addition, from 2003 to 2004, hanging/suffocation suicide rates among females aged 10--14 and 15--19 years increased by 119.4% (from 0.31 to 0.68 per 100,000 persons) and 43.5% (from 1.24 to 1.78), respectively (Figures 1 and 2). In absolute numbers, from 2003 to 2004, suicides by hanging/suffocation increased from 32 to 70 among females aged 10--14 years and from 124 to 174 among females aged 15--19 years. Aside from 2004, the only other significant departure from trend among females in these two age groups during 1990--2004 was in suicides by hanging/suffocation among females aged 15--19 years in 1996 (Figure 2).

Hmmmmmmmmmmm, maybe we should ban ROPE?

As to firearms in general, what should we do about them?

If we ban them, sure, it will lower violent crime somewhat in the long run and maybe even lower suicides, in the long run, but at what cost?

Any criminal who owns a gun will know that any law abiding citizen doesn't have a gun and will be able to do whatever he wants to his victims. He could rape your wife in front of you and make you watch. Then kill the both of you.

Sorry, but that's not America.

If you want to feel sorry for all the victims of gun violence, then that is fine, you have a lot of company. It sickens all of us when an innocent person is killed by firearms, but how do you feel about innocent people killed by Cops?

Ever look at any of those stories?

I bet the answer is no.

What about all the people killed by medical mistakes? By bad reactions to medication, from traffic accidents, from drowning? Do all of the drugs we are prescribing children these days play a part in the homicide and suicide rates for minors?

What about deaths from huffing?

According to Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) Medical Examiner data, inhalants were a factor in over 500 deaths in the United States from 1996 to 1999. Medical examiner data provided by DAWN cover only 40 metropolitan areas in the United States; thus, many inhalant-related deaths across the country are not reflected in DAWN data.

Should we ban Scotch Guard and Freon? What about the other hundreds of products which can be used for huffing?

Where does it end?

Any caring person is concerned about the many homicides and suicides involving firearms.

HOWEVER, Maybe we should try to fix the causes of the deaths, instead of trying to ban a tool used by those who wish to harm others and themselves.

Why are so many children killing themselves? When did life become so bad that children are willing to hang themselves?

Ending the war on drugs ALONE would lower firearm related deaths significantly, in the long run. Of course this is just opinion, but it is obvious to all thinking people that drug prohibition has contributed significantly to violent crime.

Anyways, guns are not the problem. Guns are a tool, like a knife, or a crowbar. They can be used for good, or for evil. If they are being used too often for evil, then it is not the fault of the tool, it is the fault of the society.

I don't have any data on what motivates most murders either, as only 26% of all murders are even solved I don't see how anyone could, however, I'm not saying I do.

Yeh, ok, if we dont' have guns we can be victimised by crimianls who do. But criminals cannot, as the NRA and most people seem to think, simply pluck guns from the air. All guns have to come from somewhere, they have to have been legitimately owned at some time in their existence.

A criminal could kill me and my family in this room if he manages to have his out first

If we don't have millions of guns in legitimate hands you won't have this huge pool of weapons which criminals target and have considerable motivation to get. True, the law abiding citizen will be vulnerable to armed criminals until law enforcement can get all, or most all, of the the guns out of criminal hands but we are even more vulnerable to criminals now because we persist in arming them

O.K., let's say it takes 100 years, but now all firearms have been taken out of private hands.

Now, what was the main reason the founding fathers included the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights?

oh yeah.....as a last resort, to protect Americans from tyranny.

Look at what happened under Hitler, Mao and Stalin.

Look at China.

What happens if the US government ever decided to squash fee speech, the right to a trial? What if Americans were no longer allowed to decide their vocation and had to take a test and then the government decided what job each person would do to benefit the nation? What if the government decided to raise taxes to 90% of income?

Many closed minded people would say, "THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN."

Of course, these people will usually admit that it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE, but the rub is, that if it did happen, it would not affect you and me, it would affect people in the future. We would be gambling with the liberty and happiness of future generations.

Our government has already done some things in the past which are very questionable. The Patriot act, non-consensual human experimentation, no-knock drug raids, asset forfeiture laws, abuse of eminent domain, the prohibition of hemp and marijuana, the list is quite long.

Call me crazy, but it is difficult for me to place a lot of trust in a government which has done testing on it's own soldiers, veterans and civilians.

Oh come ON will you

a. the 2nd amendment was NOT included as a "last resort against tyranny" it was included as a way to provide for a national defense w/o a standing army. I don't care how many quotes out of context you provide or from who, the FF did NOT go to all that trouble to give us a stable govt and then make provision that we should be able to murder them and their families if we ever really disagreed with them enough.

(And that's the other question, WHEN do we get out the deer rifle and go off to snipe at policemen and WHO makes that detemination? If you're going to say it's up to the individual gun owner than haven't you just abnegated the whole idea of even having any govt at all?)

b. the time to fight against tyranny is when they're STARTING it, by the time they're doing what you say its too late anyway. It really rankles me how most of the people, (maybe not you, I dunno) who make this argument also support the Patriot Act.

c. If you're relying upon me, you and Uncle John to stand up to the 101st Airborne with our deer rifles you just don't know anything about how the military works. An Army is a LOT more than just a whole bunch of people with guns. Examine history, find me ONE revolution against any major power in modern times that succeeded without either outside support or the govt itself basically going along with it.

d. If an armed populace is necessarily free then Iraq under Saddam was a bastion of democracy. AFAIK there was basically no gun control and full auto weapons were commonplace.

Look, govts don't oppress all of their citizens equally at the same time. The process of oppression is not, as it's been sold to us, a matter of having the police and/or Army go around and systematically beat people up, rather you rob Peter to bribe Paul, and in the end the people oppress themselves far more effectively than you ever could. What makes you think that this sacred armed populace will somehow always be automatically on the side of FREEEDOOMMM? Have you ever considered that Comes The Revolution you might have to fight lots of armed people who are FOR the government? and I don't mean just soldiers and police.

I'm sorry, I've heard this a dozen times, but that dog don't hunt.

It's funny. I agree with everything you've said and see it as the reason people should be armed.

__________________
During the journey we commonly forget its goal. Almost every profession is chosen as a means to an end but continued as an end in itself. Forgetting our objectives is the most frequent act of stupidity.
-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Wanderer and his Shadow

All good socialists have villas in Southern France. That's not the point.
-Eurosocialist

The statement in bold PROVES you know little to nothing about the views of the founding fathers.

You don't care about any quotes from the founding fathers, because you don't agree with them, so you simply dismiss what they had to say.

So typical.

You only believe what you want to believe, no matter what the evidence shows.

As to the rest of your post, almost every possible scenario has occurred to me. A civil war, riots, a race war, UN troops on US soil, I doubt there are many scenarios that have not occurred to me. An invasion of the US from another country is one of the few scenarios I believe is highly unlikely, at least in the near future. The distant future is way too far off to make any type of assumptions.

James Madison, the father of the constitution.........



Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe... -- First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

You may also want to read The Federalist Papers No. 46.

JFK

“By calling attention to ‘a well regulated militia’, the ’security’ of the nation, and the right of each citizen ‘to keep and bear arms’, our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason, I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.”
John F. Kennedy, April 1960


HUBERT HUMPHREY

"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
- Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, MN, campaigning
for the 1960 Democratic Presidential Nomination


OF COURSE HUMPHREY AND JFK were not founding fathers, but I guess they were just morons who nothing about the writing of the founding fathers.............right?

Noah Webster:

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (Noah Webster, 1787)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

"... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

— Richard Henry Lee, Senator, First Congress, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.


"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." ---Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29

NOW, LET'S LOOK AT SOME QUOTES FROM THE DARK SIDE.........

Benito Mussolini: “The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all, the elimination of the so-called subversive elements. ... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results.” (address to the Italian Senate, 1931)

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

Mao Tse Tung: "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." (Problems of War and Strategy, Nov 6 1938, published in "Selected Works of Mao Zedong," 1965)

/////////

WELL, I SEE YOU ARE IN GOOD COMPANY WITH OTHERS WHO WISHED TO DISARM THEIR OWN PEOPLE. .....

Hitler, Mussolini and Chairman Mao.

You should feel proud.

Look, either answer the points I made in my argument or admit you can't. Stop shooting back cherry picked and mostly irrelevant quotes from the NRA handbook, or have they brainwashed you so badly you simply can't think for yourself at all anymore?

I can't speak for everyone, but I sure as hell wouldn't rely on you.

__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron

Alright, I will address your points.

a) You are wrong, as I showed in my last post. More quotes available on request.

a.2) Of course it is up to each individual. This is a moronic question. If the founding fathers used your logic, or lack thereof, we would still be an English colony.

b) If you had read my entire post that you were replying to you would know that I do not support the Patriot Act. Did you read the examples I gave of the Government abusing their power? I DO ADMIT YOU HAVE A POINT THOUGH ABOUT FIGHTING TYRANNY WHEN IT STARTS. If ti comes down to needing our firearms to stop government tyranny, we are in trouble. Still, just knowing that the population is armed will limit how much tyranny the government is willing to try to enforce. No one is being dragged out of their homes in the middle of the night to be questioned by the Gestapo. Also, it is not guaranteed that in the case of a rebellion that the US military would fight on the side of the government.

c) There is more than one way to have a revolution. Considering that the US is the only major power where the people are allowed to have arms, it is impossible to give an example of this, unless we have a rebellion. Why do you assume the military would fight against their own brothers, fathers, uncles and sons?

d) Now you are comparing a dictatorship to the USA? Saddam tortured people on a whim. His rule was ruthless. Having firearms doesn't guarantee freedom. The people who are armed must actually believe in liberty and be willing to fight and possibly die for said liberty.

You then ask.........

What makes you think that this sacred armed populace will somehow always be automatically on the side of FREEEDOOMMM?

Why do spell freedom like a person who spits on the word?

If you don't believe in the principles this country was founded upon, then that is your choice, but don't expect many people here to agree with you.

As to gun owners, almost all of the ones I have ever met actually believe in freedom. They do not spell freedom with 3 MMMs. They do not compare the US system of government to that of Saddam's Iraq.

If there is ever a revolution in this country, I seriously doubt it would be the American people against the US army. It is more likely that the American people would be fighting a foreign army, say from the UN, while the US army is busy all over the globe installing so-called democracy at the end of a rifle.