Gun-friendly laws sweep South, West

what does gun ownership have to do with voting rights? That's silly. You're equating gun ownership with personal power.

If people aren't armed, but the government is highly armed, why would they ever need to listen to 'voters'?

because we employ them?

"because we employ them?"

Seems less and less like that every day.

I've never been pulled over at a traffic stop and had the cop say, "Jee Golly, I just wanted to say thank you for that paycheck." When was the last time the American people had direct say in what their representatives do? The electoral college made your vote irrelevant long ago.

Bombastinator you just wrote a lengthy comment on how individuals with guns have more power to kill others. How does this not give an individual power? If there is a group of people asking you to do something you do not want to do don't guns make that an easier decision? It is an ugly thought, but the point of the second amendment is to protect our rights against our government. Was not one reason for the revolution the fact that guns were being taken from individuals during search and seizure to protect the monarchy?

Yes, FallenMorgan, I agree completely. It's the gun-free zone that is inherently dangerous, which is why the most brutal massacres occur in such places. Many of my friends elect to conceal carry in gun free zones (such as banks, college campuses, parks and in states where guns must be left inside one's car, restaurants and other public places) to protect themselves and those around them in case of an incident with an armed robber or criminal. It is sad that so many blame and punish the tool for the actions of deranged persons. After guns were made illegal in Japan, criminals just started using sushi knives to brutally cut up their victims. The point is, there will always be criminals. It's our job to protect ourselves, know our rights, exercise our rights and, if placed in a situation, exercise our training and help others.

A decent Barrett .50 cal costs $5,000 for the bolt action version and $10,000 for the semi-auto (the Serbu is cheaper at only 3,000 but the kickback is so bad it's not worth it). I think it's fair people own those. It's healthy for the government to fear its citizens.

In the case of the Uzi (a stupid gun, imho), to get a full-auto one, as stated above under the mac-10 and street sweeper comment, one must obtain a tax stamp from the government which is quite expensive for most Class 3 weapons. Don't ever let a person talk you into a Class 3 weapon! It gives up your right to search and seizure, and gives police authority to enter your home (or car) at any time and check to see how you're storing your guns (and anything else, while they're at it). I know a lot of young people who have been talked into some cheaper class 3 weapons (like the Serbu super shorty shotgun, for example, which has the lowest tax stamp price of all class 3 weapons at something like 500 or 700 dollars) and were not even aware of this stipulation.

Has a 50 cal. ever been used in an illegal crime? I am pretty sure that is a negative. These guns are extremely unwieldy and heavy. They could not possibly be used in that type of environment. They are more for setting up in one location for a sniper interception. Most people who own the guns rarely even shoot them as the left has made the bullets almost $20 each (not per box I mean each bullet). They are also not allowed at most ranges. A person spending $15,000 on a gun is purchasing it as a collectible for it's historic significance. Thy are not purchasing it to hit an armored truck lol!
The uzi you mentioned creates another problem. There are very few fully automatic uzis left in the world and to purchase one you must get the tax stamp. This makes the gun reach a price range of around $20,000 and relinquishing your rights to search and seizure. There of course is a bolt action version of the gun you are speaking of (meaning it can only fire one round for each pull of the trigger). This version is still expensive as it is around $1,500. This is actually a useless firearm as it is used for clearing rooms and is not accurate by any means. Therefore, the bolt action gun serves no purpose but target practice. Individuals against gun rights have no clue what they are talking about. They make insignificant guns illegal and continue to fight for stricter laws when they are strict already. If you want to stop illegal guns from going into the wrong hands than maybe you should investigate the individuals selling them on the black market. Turn your attention away from responsible gun owners as they are just abiding by the laws of our constitution which was set into action by our founding fathers.

If most of the mexican cartels use american firearms bought in America let's just ban them, I'm sure they'll find another way to get guns but at least there will be a small change. But I see your point about giving hand-guns only in particular situations, that would be a good compromise between the people against and the people for firearms.

Maybe we should stop allowing drug smuggling to be such a lucrative business (cartels won't have much to fight over.)

why schools? that seems kind of random.

Um...no one can get those guns (especially in California, lol! you all have the most unfortunate guns in the whole country) unless they get them illegally or submit to a tax stamp which gives up your right to search and seizure. So basically, if you own those guns (I don't even know if a citizen can get a street sweeper at all, but in the case of the mac 10) the police can come into your home whenever they want, search it, and make sure your firearms are stored properly. The same applies for your car. It sounds like you're talking about illegal gun owners, which is something no one can do anything about. A person who's paid all the money to train, get fingerprinted by the cops, and get their license to conceal carry doesn't want to lose all those privileges 'just because they get a hot head on the road one day'. That's just silly.

You were fighting a war!!! Of course they became violent when they were handed m16s. I am not in a war so an ar15 means something completely different. When I have one in my hands that means I am going to shoot at a paper not a person. And as far as street sweepers, we can't own one even with a class three license. Mac 10s require quite a bit of money and the relinquishing of a right to search and seizure. Do you know how hard it would be for an untrained individual to hit a person in a moving car? Do you know how rare this type of crime actually is? It is far more common for a person to try to hit or throw something at the other persons car when road rage related violence occurs. Maybe we should just eliminate driving so that people can be protected.

If one man has a gun, he instantly has the power.

Unfortunately a pistol is so easily concealable that someone can bring it onto campus without the slightest problem. This one man could pull out the pistol in a lecture unload a clip in less than 30 seconds. Killing 6, 7, or 8 people (depending on clip size and his shot.) If he's adequately prepared, he'd probably drop that clip, load another (10 seconds.) And continue to unload.Let's give the campus police the benefit of the doubt, and say they can get anywhere in one minute, 15 people could already be hurting/dead.

I feel if we adequately train people in gun use before they get their concealed weapons permit, another man with a gun in this situation could save lives from this imaginary lunatic.

I'm only 19 years old but have grown up around guns (gun safety nut) and I know I have as good of a shot as most officers. I hate to be judgmental but just by looking at half of the police officers I see, I would trust my 14 year old brother to make the necessary shot over them. I go to school at the University of Florida and do not feel completely safe in a lecture hall of 300 people however the odds are not bad. I would feel safer if well trained people could conceal a weapon in the class, even though I would not know who has one on their person.

Unfortunately guns are here to stay. We should not allow anyone to instantly gain power just because they have gun.

LOL it is so hard to own a gun. You must be crime free and relatively wealthy in order to purchase a gun legally. It is harder to get a gun than to get a license to drive a car and much more expensive. If you have never had experience with guns how can you even discuss the topic?

someone mentioned once iirc that the country with the heaviest concentration of fully automatic and heavy weapons in the home is Switzerland and they have incredibly low gun violence statistics, largely because they are combined with mandatory lifelong training.

I respect people's right to carry arms as an artifact of their personal freedom rather than as an intent to do violence, just as I respect a person who favors abortion rights even though they would personally never have an abortion. It's so hard to appreciate the rights of one without the other in fact that the democratic party dropped it's anti-gun plank.

Still. The gun hating anti-abortionists will eventually out breed the gun loving pro-choicers.

LOL, okay slimpunk... but at least they have comparative figures and not just numbers, which by themselves don't tell us much, at least not meaningfully in terms of comparing figures to anything else.

I will look for some better data to be sharing.

Owning a gun increases your risk of being shot in the same exact way owning a swimming pool increases your risk of drowning. In all seriousness only a hypocrite or someone that hasn’t considered the issue could honestly argue against that simple basic truth.

I love how the liberal news attacks the tool instead of focusing on why the crime happens. Very typical media spin. It's just a tool unless improperly stored or until someone decides to commit a crime with it.

what "liberal news"? It's the AP wire.
Do these people complaining about liberal media ever notice that over the entire world basically every news organization that isn't government controlled qualifies as "liberal" in their eyes? The whole 95% or the planet are extremists except us who are normal Thing belongs in an episode of Family Guy, not reality.

It was in reference to the misleading graphic in the above New York Times article. Is the NYTimes not liberal? Did I miss something in my mainstream media classes in college?

FTR, I'm not a member of any party, though I voted for Obama this election (regret it) and Ron Paul in the run up.

it's an AP article. Look at the URL.

Oh, you mean the bullet graph thing. How exactly is it misleading? All they did is break it down by age and use a cluster graph. As for the NY times being "liberal" They're just about the most carefully neutral news source in the United States.

This is so ridiculous. I don't care what people think about gun laws. It is the second amendment to our constitution. Obviously it was important when the country was created. If nothing else tradition should allow us to carry guns as it is a huge part of our culture and as law abiding citizens don't use their guns unless necessary. I understand people think that you should just give your money to the man robbing you but what if he then wants to kill you so there are no more witnesses. I see all the reports of gun related deaths but what about the instances of people who have eliminated crime using guns. For example, at 3:00am we had two individuals knocking on our windows and trying to get our front door open. A simple cock of the shotgun was all they needed to hear. No bullets fired. just the thought of a gun owning law abiding citizen sent them away.

A pool is not dangerous if your child knows how to swim and is responsible. This is the same with guns. Even if you do not like them, teach your kids what to do if they find one in another persons house. Take them to the range and show them how serious it is to fire a gun. This would severely limit deaths among children.

Required by who? The same guy who fostered the libertarian economic theory you seem to follow? I went to a religious high school and I've had classes that were very indoctrination oriented, so perhaps my background is swaying me, but it may be your professor wasn't exactly neutral.

What did he class as being in what category?

Odd. The NYT runs more retractions for even minor inaccuracies than almost any other newspaper. They are famous for being utterly scrupulous about it to the point of fanaticism. Perhaps they are considered inaccurate because they admit more of their mistakes. I dunno.

exactly what i was thinking

But then those of us who carry at all times have to leave our firearms in our cars when we go to a bar, which makes it that much likely to be stolen from same and used by actual criminals for actual crimes.

It's always more complex than we think at first, isn't it?

You can't drink and carry a firearm. Your argument is moot.

You can't be drunk and carry firearms. You can have a drink and carry a gun. As long as you are not over the legal limit it is fine. Do some research before you comment.

well.. the way i look at it, especially in a public place.. if your going to get robbed, get robbed and thats the end of it. Now if your carrying a gun, pull it out, risk being exposed to being shot back, and also risk starting a gun fight in which other innocent people, especially children, can get caught up in.

Also, people who cant handle large amounts of stress (a traumatic situation happens), or suffer from PTSD or even psychotic disorders where their outlet is revenge or built up hatred. Will most definitely feel empowered to use a gun vs any other form of control. Of course itll be easy for them to get a gun if they know how. But theres a difference in having the gun present right away, then trying to get a gun in a week. Your mind can shift thoughts in a matter of minutes, hours, days etc. to the right state of mind and a bunch of that stress could be alleviated in a given time.

That is so funny! The man who teaches me to use guns has PTSD as he was in special ops and deployed in Afghanistan. He has many guns and has not killed himself. I wonder how this rare occurrence happens......(besides if anyone wants to kill themselves, I promise there are more ways than a gun which will work out fine).

dude, it;s a law not a religion.

@ bombastinator: what the heck is that supposed to mean?

Morgan is right. there are people (especially on the left) who dont' "believe" in the constitution--you've heard 'em, the ones who say it was written by a bunch of hating white men, guns should be banned, etc etc etc.