Good luck trying to get any gun control laws enacted  in this gun-crazed state and nation. Even sensible laws such as a ban on weapons of mass destruction(assault rifles)are battled strenuously by the NRA and its supporters.Then these folks wonder why there is so much senseless violence in our gun-crazy state and nation. 

I’m also tired of these Pro-Life advocates who supposedly support life,but don’t hesitate to fight against sensible laws that would end some of the needless killing in our nation.

Well, I’m pro-life and anti-gun control, so I suppose I’d be one of the “hypocrites” in question here. I don’t believe limiting the ammunition purchases of Joe Smith from Tioga County would make a single, solitary dent in the gun violence of Philadelphia County. If you believe I’m wrong, please show me the evidence to the contrary. However, I could provide you with boatloads of evidence that shows stepped-up enforcement and more aggressive policing measures aimed at the sources of urban violence actually REDUCES the number of incidents in those areas. Shocking, I know. I tip my hat to Mayor Nutter for recognizing this. “Stop and frisk” certainly has it’s enemies, but to a large degree, it works. Some claim increasing penalties on those who commit crimes involving guns is just “too harsh”, but it helps keep the most violent in society off the streets. Most importantly, government should support youth treatment and mentoring programs that can actually show a success rate. As many recognize, gangs tend to fill voids left by absence of family and friends in the lives of violent youth. One of the best actions we can take is to support successful programs that keep at-risk kids off the street. Some act like the guns themselves are the source of the problem. The root of the issue lies in the cultural disparities in some of our communities. Until we adequately address the absence of fathers and other positive male influences in communities ravaged by gun violence, Washington or Harrisburg could pass all the “gun-control” legislation they like and we’d still wake up to violence-soaked headlines the next morning. I honestly feel that they could get more political mileage out of working to ban guns than addressing the root causes of violence in the first place, and that’s a true shame. On the street, a gun is an instrument and a symbol. Some use it as a means of expressing themselves, because they have no constructive outlet. Some use it as a symbol of pride, because they can see no other source. If we couple working to provide constructive outlets of expression and attempting to instilling a sense of pride in our at-risk youth with increased penalties for gun-related crimes and other enforcement mechanisms, those measures and actions would go much further in reducing gun violence on our streets than any misguided “gun-control” law ever could. Although, it’s easier (and more politically-expedient) to just stand in front of a camera and ramble on about the need to “get guns off the street”. Sad.

Gent –

You aren’t wrong on many of your points. However, you miss one important one; most of the programs to help young man in urban areas leave the violence behind are just the sorts of things that the Right has so strenuously opposed! The Bush admin can spend multi-billions of dollars on a failed occupation of Iraq, but we can’t stop the shooting in Philly, much less Fallujah.

I believe there are deep social ills that need to be addressed, and new programs aren’t always the answer. More money isn’t always the answer. But until someone steps forward with a better solution, it’s a least giving some kids a fighting chance. That’s the same thing with guns. Limiting gun ownership doesn’t solve the WHOLE problem, but nothing will do that. We need to chip away at this problem from every angle, not just wait for the silver bullet…which will never arrive.

Pilt

Would the the gentleman from PA agree to ban the possession of hand guns in neighborhoods of color only?
That would keep Joe Smith happy and that is what’s important here…right?

I would agree with Pilt on all counts and the Gent on some. Gent, you are hardly a hypocrite, but rather someone with true feelings about an issue. I just don’t agree that while working vigorously to solve social ills, we should allow handguns and assault weapons to flood our city streets. We all know that the hunter’s shotgun is not the target here, but it is used quite often to make a point and to heat up the debate, just as our right to bear arms is so often violated and misused to falsely place some legitimacy on the anti-gun control argument. No one would argue that our inner city youth are screaming for help and get none. But as Pilt highlighted, the money being spent on Crusades would be better spent on our social problems and eliminating handguns is only one of many things we must do.
JP

The only places guns are a problem are munincipalities controlled by powerful Democratic machines.
They have destroyed economic opportunities in their cities by one insane plan after another, none of which have worked.
To paraphrase Ann Coulter, “Democrats just aren’t bright enough to run things.”
But, they’re good at raising taxes to enrich themselves and their friends.

I appreciate the feedback I’ve gotten on this. To Pilt and JP’s responses specifically, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of daylight between our responses to the root causes of violence, which is a good thing. The difference is that you guys see a place for limitation of gun ownership in the solution, while I believe the gun-control measures currently being debated would do nothing to limit the availability of guns to those who truly want them. That’s why I suggest attacking the problem at it’s roots. Let’s work to make at-risk youth never want to pick up a gun in the first place. Usually, where there is a demand, there is a supply. Gun control laws, as well intentioned as they might be, never adequately root out the underground trade, where many of the guns we see on our streets emanate from. You’re not entirely wrong, Pilt. The Bush administration has done some good things in terms of support of prison rehabilitation and youth mentoring, but I’d like to see more support thrown behind programs that actually work. To Anonymous’s implicit suggestion that a racial component exists here, that’s simply not the case. We can “keep Joe Smith happy” and better serve our urban communities through the methods I’ve mentioned here and in my first post. Knowing there are those in our communities that are underserved, and realizing that is at the core of the violence, should force action on the part of everybody. Call it the “Roots and Boots” strategy, I suppose. We need “boots on the ground” in communities where too often violence seems like the only answer. In my opinion, passing laws that will have an impact on nobody but those who abide by existing gun rules and regulations is simply political posturing. A gun truly doesn’t become a weapon until somebody decides to pick it up. Our time, money, and energy would be better spent telling our children to just let the guns sit.

The Big City Democratic machines responsible for the economic destruction of inner city residents (all for bus drivers and teachers, nothing for the people) could solve the problem in a stroke by simply legalizing drugs.
Keeping drugs illegal keeps the profit margins high. So, the only way inner city residents can make money is to sell drugs. Then, they get put in jail to provide jobs for Democrats.
Too bad the Democrats didn’t care enough to have phonics and math drills in schools so the kids could have learned to read and write, and wouldn’t have jobs in drug dealing the only career path open to them.
Every problem in every big city is caused by liberal Democrats.

Your arguments are so ridiculous, it’s not worth commenting on them. I’m sure any rational argument would not affect your irrational thinking.

Gent, JP –

What an absolute joy to actually use a forum for smart, informed discussion — despite the mindless trolls, who are easily ignored.

The decline of our cities IS part of this problem. A big part. And that is anything but a political issue. Many well meaning people, on both sides of the spectrum, have tried to hold back the tide of seemingly ceaseless decline within the borders of our cities, but mostly, to little avail. And that’s because the issues are vast and many of them are outside of local control, or they are problems that have never been encountered before so there is no proven solution.

I understand all the arguments about making drugs legal, I just can’t get my heart around it. Perhaps this is a failing of mine….

Pilt

Pilt, you’re only failing is having the capacity for rational thought. In trying to comprehend the absolutely ludicrous posts by some on this thread, you’ve clearly dropped the ball. You should hang your head in shame, bud – or not. Thanks to you and JP for actually taking this issue seriously.

The problem with cities is Democratic machines. They destroy everything they touch. The poor things can’t help it. They tax and spend and tax and spend, and when things start to collapse, they tax and spend some more.
When that doesn’t work, they pillage outlying areas. Things still get worse. So, they get even more money, and waste that, as well, always saying “we want to help”.
Democrats just can’t help it. As Ann Coulter says, they just aren’t very bright.
But, they want to be. Oh, how they want to be.
Would 70% of any inner city’s problems go away if drugs were legalized? Yep. But, Democrats need crime to provide jobs, so their policies are always “pro-crime”.

Pilt and Gent…I guess I have to say it is a pleasure to have a conversation where respect rules the day. As strange as I find the “problem with cities” view, they are someone’s views and they are to be respected. The question of legalizing drugs to stop the bloodshed has been around for 40 years and it has a fair amount of reasoning behind it. But it would be hell of a gamble if it didn’t work and the drug dependent population exploded. It’s one person’s theory opposite someone elses.
JP

We can’t keep illegal drugs out of our country or cities (even though they’ve been banned for a lot of years). How will more laws keep the guns out of cities and out of the hands of criminals?

By definition, criminals don’t care what the law says. The law says “No drugs” but people still use/import/grow/sell them. A law that says “No guns” will be ignored by people who want to get them.

The only people who will really be affected are the law abiding citizens (the folks that aren’t a real threat in our neighborhoods).

None of my guns have been used to kill anyone!

However….guns laws do keep guns out of the hands of people who aren’t, by definition, “criminals.” Like the guy who has too many beers and shoots someone in a rage, or the person who is mentally unstable and shoots someone when they go off their meds, or the person who leaves their gun around carelessly and some kid shoots his buddy with it while the two of them are playing.

Restricting the sheer number of firearms will lower the number of stupid, pointless, rage-related killings every year. Incidents which might have once let to fights…but now quickly escalate into shootings. And I don’t see any downside.

Mind you, I grew up hunting and still own long guns, so I don’t fit what I guess you would consider to be the classic liberal “do-gooder” mold.

One other point. When I grew up, kids were taught to respect firearms, but I’m not sure that’s happening today. Indeed, because of the amount of gun violence portrayed in TV, movies and video games, children are essentially desensitized from a very early age. By the time they get their hands on a real gun, they’ve probably already killed thousands of virtual people… That makes taking the next step much easier.

I think parents, even solid folks, are fighting a losing battle against that.

Pilt

It comes down to the question of what does an open and civilized society do with a terrible affliction that is for the most part an American phenomenon. Guns kill people. They were invented to do just that. Target shooting is a fairly new practice, but the truth is they were meant to kill and they do. There is the argument that guns don’t kill…people do, but at some point you have to get serious about this. It’s a mistake to group all guns under a single gun control law when not all guns are the problem. The hunter’s shotgun or deer rifle are not the weapons murdering our youth, but the proliferation of hand guns in our cities cannot be ignored or disputed. Do I have an answer? Of course not. But control of these hand guns, starting at the manufacturers is certainly the place to start. That opens up a whole new problem with the huge $$$ support of the NRA from COLT and Smith & Wesson. The NRA makes no apologies for their support of the anti-gun control simply on the grounds that their biggest money source are the guys that make the guns. NRA members are not the big source of money or are they the benefactors of the power the NRA wields. It is the gun companies that profit directly from the anti-gun coalition’s actions. It seems as though I’ve wandered into another question…How much is a 14 year old kid’s life worth? The gun companies and the NRA can give you an exact figure.
JP

You both make good points again, Pilt and JP. On JP’s arguments concerning the manufacturers, I don’t necessarily argue with his storyline but I’m wondering what his ultimate conclusion is? It’s common knowledge that the NRA bigwigs and the gun industry are “natural” political allies. I’m not sure lifelong NRA member Joe Smith from Tioga (he comes up in this debate yet again!) cares much about the inner workings of Washington (i.e., who speaks at what dinner, etc.). Frankly, he might not even line up with the NRA 100% of the time. To be honest, I don’t line up with the NRA 100% of the time. I favor common-sense safety measures, such as trigger-locks and comprehensive background checks at gun shows. These are safety valves that don’t fundamentally infringe on 2nd amendment rights. I agree with Pilt that am lot of problems in the area of gun safety begin at home (a premise along the lines of which I argued earlier in the week). It should be incumbent upon gun-owning parents to educate their children on safety measures, and it is difficult for parents to keep their children’s views on weapons in perspective when they have to compete with the latest “shoot-em-up” gore-fest in video games and movies. Pilt is right on with the statement that, for some kids (especially those with psychological problems to begin with), the leap from fantasy to reality is more of a skip. The question is: what to do? JP seems to suggest that handgun manufacturers may be to blame? I suppose my question would be: what exactly are we blaming gun manufacturers for? In the case of, say, a school shooting: are we placing blame for an incident such as that squarely at the feet of the gun industry? Let’s say the shooter’s parents didn’t have the guns locked up? Do we absolve the parents of the shooter of any responsibility? What if a counselor or teacher got wind of the student’s plans and said or did nothing? Does government step in and confiscate every handgun in the country because of the irresponsibility and carelessness of one family or one school administrator? Again, the issue of political expediency seems to rear it’s head here. It’s much easier to go after the gun manufacturer than to go to gun owners who happen to be parents and say “with rights come responsibility”. Most gun owners that I know of don’t need to be told that, but as they say, one bad apple upsets the entire cart. Unfortunately, some gun-control advocates use such tragedies as an attempt to depict gun owners as a whole as being irresponsible and campaign against the very concept of a fundamental right to gun ownership. You will never convince a majority of the country that they are “bad” people because they happen to have a gun in their house, for whatever reason. That’s a complete waste of time and a non-starter for the movement. Gun-control advocates can either go to war with the gun companies (which they have – and have lost) or they could focus on common-sense measures like those I’ve previously listed. Another option would be a more strenuous campaign against TV and video-game violence, and a vigorous campaign concerning safety measures for gun-owning parents. In fact, the gun-control movement would find natural allies in some socially-conservative circles on that score. I think some common ground can be found (and perhaps has already been found) on the issue of gun safety.

Once again, Gent, as I read your comments I agree with so much of what you say. I suppose what knaws at me most, though, is the inner city violence made so easy by the access these young and not so young people have to handguns. I’m not blaming the gun companies for the bad deeds of others in connection to one of their products. Kinda like me blaming a grille company ‘cause I burned my steak. I’m suggesting that gun manufacturers look at a product that is killing hundreds of people in each of our big cities every year and work with the NRA (the mouthpiece of the gun industry and owners) and big city governments to find a way to limit the availability of these guns. I don’t have an answer…God I wish I did, but perhaps the very source of the guns may be a place to start. Right now that source is working very hard to protect a market and not those on the wrong end of the barrel. I was a member of the NRA when I was younger, as all my brothers and father, but the much too strong connection with the gun companies over the years chased me away. I do have to ask a question because I do not know the answer…does the NRA hold gun safety seminars in the inner city or just hunter safety seminars in the suburbs? This is for my own education and would appreciate any feedback. Thanks
JP

As a Texan, I find these comments interesting, and so different from how we would look at it. All the comments seem to ignore the whole concept of liberty and your responsibilites to the law and to your community. They also assume that all violence is equal and evil.

If you took EVERY gun off the streets, it would not limit criminal action one bit. They’ll use knives, clubs, or numbers to do what they want. All this does is remove any chance the victim has of equilizing the fight. Look at Britain… after a decade of total confiscation, and punishing citizens who resist violent attacks by thugs, they now have the crime rate of a third world country. If you were to take all of the anti gun posts above and replace guns with cars, and change from crime to reckless driving, you’ll see what I mean. No one seriously suggests sueing Ford because the thugs used one as a get away car. No one suggests limiting car ownership as a way to stop get away cars or car theft. We punish the individual, NOT the object.

Gun ownership is widespread down here. You have gun violence, but for the most part, it is all drug gang related. The rest are the usual domestic violence things. Concealed carry has worked. Violent crime has dropped every year since it has passed. Concealed carry holders violate the laws about 10x less than the general population. There are numerous cases on record of us stopping crimes, coming to the aid of officers in trouble, and making it much harder for the average thug to know he isn’t picking on the wrong person. I suggest you open up the number of citizens being armed and see what happens. It couldn’t get any worse, and at least the few good people remaining would be able to hold their own against the thugs.

Look, a gun won’t solve all the problems, and it isn’t guarantee you’ll never be hurt, or that you’ll even have the chance to use it in every situation. But, it is like life insurance; you don’t know when you’ll need it, but when you do, you won’t have time to get it.

For all of you who feel I am a gun nut, that is fine. Prove your conviction by putting a LARGE sign on your front door and your car saying: “This is a Gun Free, Violence Free Zone”. On your clothes, wear a large white or yellow ribbon. We’ll spread the word that this means you are unarmed and won’t resist, or even mind, if violence is used against you. I suspect none of you will do any of these, but if you won’t because you fear the result, imagine the fear if you are the victim. Imagine sitting there while your family is assaulted and you can’t do anything. Imagine your wife facing four or five gang members with only her fists? Tell me again why it is morally superior to be murdered in the ditch than to use a gun to stop evil? Tell me again why you have ANY right to tell another citizen why they have to live, or die, by your misguided philosophies.

My uncle, the Colonel, always told me, “There are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous men.” A dangerous man with a gun, who supports the Constitution and our laws is a citizen, the sheepdogs of our society. They are to be encouraged. A dangerous man who doesn’t is a criminal, and like the wolves, they feed on the weak and helpless. Those who stand in the middle are sheep, and if you won’t choose to be a citizen, then you’d better hope to hell you live next door to someone who has. Otherwise, when the wolves come calling, you will be helpless, and all the crying and whining about violence will do you no good. Life is tough as a sheep.

Scott

Gun violence in our cities is a multifaceted problem. Restricting the amount of guns flooding the streets is but one part of so many ways to try to stem this tide of murders. 99% of all murders are on city streets between two people arguing over drugs. And in most cases, both of them have guns. It’s just one’s a little faster than the other. A burglar breaking into a house in the suburbs to steal somebody’s DVD player results in very few murders. I think we’re talking about two different things here and putting guns in every hand in a city is just crazy. Take a look at Dallas. For cities with populations over 1 million, Dallas is ranked No. 1 in crime in 2007. Maybe you should put 2 guns in every hand.
JP

i did watched smart talk on witf debated about gun issue one thing they leave out is victims murder by guns in PA and USA everyday living, many said they have the RIGHTS , guns DEALERS said: they have rights to sell many guns to one person over over “one gun every month” LAWMAKERS refused to pass gun control laws all they said is “sorry for those that killed by guns” instead they can do much more. what we could ask a lawmaker is how many guns one person can owned is ENOUGH so call: “PROTECTION”? GUN OWNERS said: they have the right to own many guns they want to….. so my question to all of you is DO YOU THINK THE VICTIMS KILLED BY YOUR GUNS HAVE THEIR “ RIGHT “ To “ LIVE “?? remember guns killed others innocent people, guns killed people NOT by acident! all i HOPE is next time if “ SMART TALK “ can invite : 1 LAWMAKER, 1 GUN DEALER, 1 GUN OWNER and least but not last 1 GUN VICTIM FAMILY to joint the issue on GUN DEBATE, keep in mind owned a GUN is not the same as owned a CANDY. MAY GOD BLESS USA and those that KILLED by GUNS look around people on tv on news GUNMAN??? ring any bell? SHOOT?? = GUN? guns not just used to shoot by criminals but also normal people used it too, many shooting on the news are not by bank robbers nor criminals but very NORMAL people like you and me did it!

Rational or irrational arguments alike, the Gun Rights people and the NRA are never willing to listen. Anytime anyone other than one of their own even makes a comment or suggestion on gun violence, they turn a deaf ear. This is a powerful demographic and they know it. That’s why every canidate running for public office at any level always makes a point to be seen posing with a firearm. I hate to admit it, but as a society we need to prepare for more guns and more gun violence.

...And if you believe Americans are immune to this…
Remember “Starship Troopers”?

Where did you’ve seen before that flashy Uniform the Scientist was wearing?

Ah, yes, it was IRONY, sure, keep on believing that…

Disarming the masses is nonsense. We need to concentrate on arming the masses. Imagine all the petty arguments that can be solved with one shot. Imagine the added element to road rage incidents. Political disagreements-solved! Religious disagreements-solved. There may even be an economic stimulus with the increased purchase of guns and ammo. There will no longer be a need for the media to sensationalize school shootings or drive-bys as they will be commonplace. How is it that gun rights people know nothing about anything but gun rights? There seems to be a total lack of any rational thought. Personally I don’t have a problem with the actual guns, it’s just these gun rights fanatics for which I have no patience.