Supreme Court overturns DC ban on guns

[pinky]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20080626/Scotus.Guns/

[Sasha Reigne]

I really feel the SC is getting it right a lot lately.

[db44]

Is that right or Right?

If right, you think people should be allowed to own guns, not necessarily for sport or safety?

[Sasha Reigne]

I mean "right" as in the "right" thing to do. I am not some gun totting hilly billy NRA member; but I feel that law was unconstitutional. If you are going to put a cap on some part of the constitution I believe it has to be for a very good reason.

[db44]

And I believe that that part of the Constitution is outdated, and that it should be ammended. It was included so we could have militias in the event of an attack by his majesty the king.

Now the militias we have are more of a danger than a help.

Add to it we just make it easier for people, militia or just criminals, to get guns, it's time to get over that. Besides, tell me why anyone needs a semiautomatic pistol for anything other than overkill.

[SparkleHugs]

Honestly, the types of people they don't want to have a gun (i.e. the violent ones) are going to go out and get it on the black market anyway. I thikn at this point banning guns completely would work as well as prohabition did. and as much as i wish they would ban cigarretes, the same argument applies. it just wont work and would probably even create more crime.

I havent read the opinion yet, but it isn't like the SC overturned all gun laws, right? just made it so DC could legally obtain them.

[pinky]

And I believe that that part of the Constitution is outdated, and that it should be ammended. It was included so we could have militias in the event of an attack by his majesty the king.

Now the militias we have are more of a danger than a help.

Add to it we just make it easier for people, militia or just criminals, to get guns, it's time to get over that. Besides, tell me why anyone needs a semiautomatic pistol for anything other than overkill.
"That part of the Constitution" is the Bill of Rights, and that's why I don't support an amendment reversing the right to bear arms.

But the right is not universal. I couldn't, for example, go out and get myself an anti-aircraft gun, which would be far more likely to help me in case of a government crackdown on liberties than any handgun. I probably can't argue successfully for owning a bazooka, hand grenades, or small tactical nukes, even though all of them come under the category of "arms."

This leads me to believe that handguns can be legitimately regulated by state and local governments, and still be in line with the Second Amendment.

I haven't read the decision in full, so I don't know what justification the majority used to allow private ownership as opposed to militia. But it seems logical that the Founding Fathers included the wording about "a well-regulated militia" for a reason. They were extremely careful in their words in every other instance.

[tiger_rascal]

I thought this current ban was specifically concerned with hand guns? :scratch:

[pinky]

It was.

[tiger_rascal]

Oh, ok. Just making sure. :crazy:

[SparkleHugs]

what exactly makes a gun a hand gun? are they ususal legal?


looking back, i feel this question is stupid. lol But I dont know what guns are typically legal and what guns are not typically legal.

[ConnieB]

And I believe that that part of the Constitution is outdated, and that it should be ammended. It was included so we could have militias in the event of an attack by his majesty the king.

Now the militias we have are more of a danger than a help.

Add to it we just make it easier for people, militia or just criminals, to get guns, it's time to get over that. Besides, tell me why anyone needs a semiautomatic pistol for anything other than overkill.Criminals will get guns NO MATTER WHAT...they buy them off the black market so even if guns were banned..criminals WILL still get them. So where does this leave the law abiding citizens...they have nothing to protect themselves if needed and we can't depend on the police to always be there.So yes, I want my gun in the house just in case and that is MY right which no one will take away. Plus we go hunting and target shooting all the time.

Remember, it's not the gun that kills...it's the person behind it, so go after the criminals and the black markets. Right now it takes a law abiding citizen almost 3 -5 days to get a gun with all the regulations..for a criminal it takes less then a day.

[pinky]

I hear and understand your position. My sister feels the same way, and has had a gun in her home for about 20 years, even though she lives in a very safe neighborhood.

However, I have problems with the logic in your argument, for the following reasons: if there's an intruder in your house, you need to be able to get to your loaded gun quickly in order for it to be of any use. But, if you have small children in the house, you can't leave a loaded gun laying around. If you have teenagers, and their friends come over to visit, you shouldn't have an easily-accessible loaded gun around, because teenagers do stupid things. Even if YOUR kids know about gun safety, maybe one of their friends has not been educated in this area. You are also assuming that YOU will get to your gun before an intruder, which is not always the case if you're asleep, in the shower, or in your back yard when the intruder arrives.

All of these factors figure into the statistics that show that a person is significantly more likely to be a victim of an accidental shooting with your own gun than to use that gun against an intruder.

If it makes you feel safer, by all means, keep your legal guns. But personally, I think it's a false sense of security, much like having gotten Saddam out of the picture.

[LesterX]

Right now it takes a law abiding citizen almost 3 -5 days to get a gun with all the regulations..for a criminal it takes less then a day.

No it doesn't. Anyone can go to a gun show and buy from a private seller with no background check.

Not to mention that asking "law abiding citizens" to wait 3-5 days for a gun is hardly unreasonable. If you're so desperate for a gun that you can't wait that long, you probably shouldn't have one in your possession.

Plus we go hunting and target shooting all the time.

You hunt with a hand gun?

[pinky]

You hunt with a hand gun?
Exactly! That was the point I was making in my earlier post. The government puts restrictions on lots of categories of "arms" without violating the Second Amendment. Why shouldn't handguns be restricted, given the actual human toll they take?

If anyone attacked our country, and took as many lives as are lost each year because of handgun violence, we'd be looking for a country to attack in response.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

And let's not forget about all the accidental handgun deaths in this country. Little Johnny who gets hold of his dad's .45 and shoots his little brother.

[LesterX]

I hear and understand your position. My sister feels the same way, and has had a gun in her home for about 20 years, even though she lives in a very safe neighborhood.

However, I have problems with the logic in your argument, for the following reasons: if there's an intruder in your house, you need to be able to get to your loaded gun quickly in order for it to be of any use. But, if you have small children in the house, you can't leave a loaded gun laying around. If you have teenagers, and their friends come over to visit, you shouldn't have an easily-accessible loaded gun around, because teenagers do stupid things...


I've never understood this logic either. If you're a responsible gun owner, the gun will be locked away. I don't think you can tell most gun-toting criminals to hold on a sec while you retrieve your weapon from a locked storage cabinet.

[db44]

Criminals will get guns NO MATTER WHAT...they buy them off the black market so even if guns were banned..criminals WILL still get them.

Doesn't seem to be the case in Europe. :o

Besides, if guns are not available on the open market, demand goes down, which means supply goes down, which means less guns to be had. Brad tries to tell us all the time about supply-demand in backing up his arguements. Now that it puts a wrench in the machine, that arguement doesn't hold water?

[Richard Tafoya]

I recall a statistic from a government study and I'll try to find it... someone with a gun in their home is three times more likely to die from a gunshot than someone without a gun in their home.

[pinky]

That was the number I was thinking, but I wasn't sure so I didn't mention it.

[Richard Tafoya]

Here's some info from the Brady Campaign website:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home
Does a Gun in the Home Make You Safer?
No. Despite claims by the National Rifle Association (NRA) that you need a gun in your home to protect yourself and your family, public health research demonstrates that the person most likely to shoot you or a family member with a gun already has the keys to your house. Simply put: guns kept in the home for self-protection are more often used to kill somebody you know than to kill in self-defense; 22 times more likely, according to a 1998 study by the Journal of Trauma.[1 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#1)] More kids, teenagers and adult family members are dying from firearms in their own home than criminal intruders. When someone is home, a gun is used for protection in fewer than two percent of home invasion crimes.[2 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#2)] You may be surprised to know that, in 1999, according to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, there were only 154 justifiable homicides committed by private citizens with a firearm compared with a total of 8,259 firearm murders in the United States. Once a bullet leaves a gun, who is to say that it will stop only a criminal and not a family member? Yet at every opportunity the NRA uses the fear of crime to promote the need for ordinary citizens to keep guns in their home for self-protection. Furthermore, the NRA continues to oppose life-saving measures that require safe-storage of guns in the home.

Keeping a Gun in the Home Can Be Deadly
Because handguns and other firearms are so easily accessible to many children, adolescents and other family members in their homes, the risk of gun violence in the home increases dramatically. Consider this: The risk of homicide in the home is three times greater in households with guns.[3 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#3)] The risk of suicide is five times greater in households with guns.[4 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#4)] What's more, tragic stories of accidental or unintentional shootings from the careless storage of guns at home are all too common. The statistic noted above bears repeating: a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shooting than to be used in a self-defense shooting. [5 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#4)]

A Gun in the Home: Key Facts

From 1990-1998, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse murder victims were killed with guns.[6 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#6)]
Guns are the weapon of choice for troubled individuals who commit suicide. In 1999, firearms were used in 16,599 suicide deaths in America. Among young people under 20, one committed suicide with a gun every eight hours.[7 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#7)]
A gun in the home also increases the likelihood of an unintentional shooting, particularly among children. Unintentional shootings commonly occur when children find an adult's loaded handgun in a drawer or closet, and while playing with it shoot themselves, a sibling or a friend. The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.[8 (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=home#8)]

[tiger_rascal]

My best friends dad is a cop. When we were teenagers he had guns in the house. Also, my best friends mom had a handgun for personal protection. Nobody was ever hurt with any of the guns. I also know many, many families with rifles and such for hunting. Nobody has ever been hurt, yet, and hopefully it remains that way.

I wonder what the statistics are for gun owners? Take the number of gun owners in the country and then find out how many have had a relative or friend hurt by their gun.

[tiger_rascal]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/30/guns.suicides.ap/index.html

ATLANTA, Georgia, (AP) -- The Supreme Court's landmark ruling on gun ownership last week focused on citizens' ability to defend themselves from intruders in their homes. But research shows that surprisingly often, gun owners use the weapons on themselves.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

There was nothing unique about that year -- gun-related suicides have outnumbered firearm homicides and accidents for 20 of the last 25 years. In 2005, homicides accounted for 40 percent of gun deaths. Accidents accounted for 3 percent. The remaining 2 percent included legal killings, such as when police do the shooting, and cases that involve undetermined intent.

[LesterX]

I wonder what the statistics are for gun owners? Take the number of gun owners in the country and then find out how many have had a relative or friend hurt by their gun.

I'm sure it's a very small percentage of all gun owners, but apparently a larger percentage than use their weapons in self-defense, which is the point. The article Richard posted cites the key statistic: a gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a criminal, unintentional, or suicide-related shooting than to be used in a self-defense shooting. Setting aside the different interpretations of the 2nd Amendment and philosophical differences about gun ownership, the logic that you are protecting yourself and your family by keeping a gun in the home is simply false.

[tiger_rascal]

Of course if you count people who do not own guns that makes it look a lot worse than what it really is.

Accidental deaths from guns are not as common as some of you make it out to be. Its not as though it is a certain fact that if you own a gun its merely a matter of time before someone accidentally gets their head blown off.

In WV the biggest concern is accidental deaths from gun shot wounds during deer hunting season. Its horrible! When I was in high school a classmate was killed from a gun shot wound while hunting. His friend said he accidentally shot him. But, it was investigated because the boy was shot at point blank range and from what we were told it blew a large hole in his chest. :( It was later ruled an accident.

But I dont think teens should be in the woods hunting by themselves.

[SparkleHugs]

Criminals will get guns NO MATTER WHAT...they buy them off the black market so even if guns were banned..criminals WILL still get them. So where does this leave the law abiding citizens...they have nothing to protect themselves if needed and we can't depend on the police to always be there.So yes, I want my gun in the house just in case and that is MY right which no one will take away. Plus we go hunting and target shooting all the time.

Remember, it's not the gun that kills...it's the person behind it, so go after the criminals and the black markets. Right now it takes a law abiding citizen almost 3 -5 days to get a gun with all the regulations..for a criminal it takes less then a day.

While I am not necessarily on the other side of your argument, I have to say that the gun really has something to do with it when people kill eachother. It's rare when a punch in the face kills people.

I do agree that the people who want guns to commit crimes and do bad things, will certainly find a way to get their guns. While that may not be the case in Europe, it really is the case here. People here are different than they are overseas, and this is just one of those areas we differ. I think that the plethera of already illegal guns out there signify that even with the laws and restrictions we do have, people will get them no matter what.

[Richard Tafoya]

Accidental deaths from guns are not as common as some of you make it out to be. Its not as though it is a certain fact that if you own a gun its merely a matter of time before someone accidentally gets their head blown off.

Accidental deaths from in-home guns are a small part of the issue. Guns used for suicide and grabbed as weapons during arguments are a much larger problem.

Still, as the data points out... The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.

[pinky]

My best friends dad is a cop. When we were teenagers he had guns in the house. Also, my best friends mom had a handgun for personal protection. Nobody was ever hurt with any of the guns. I also know many, many families with rifles and such for hunting. Nobody has ever been hurt, yet, and hopefully it remains that way.

I wonder what the statistics are for gun owners? Take the number of gun owners in the country and then find out how many have had a relative or friend hurt by their gun.
I've looked into the eyes of a couple whose teenage son was killed in a handgun accident.

It hurt me to see them.

[tiger_rascal]

Still, as the data points out... The unintentional firearm-related death rate for children 0-14 years old is NINE times higher in the U.S. than in the 25 other countries combined.

Well, if you compare it to other countries, yes. It sounds worse that way.

[LesterX]

Of course if you count people who do not own guns that makes it look a lot worse than what it really is.

I don't understand what you're saying. Include people who don't own guns in what? How can you count people who don't own guns in a statistic about the likelihood of a gun being used in self-defense vs. the likelihood if it being used for another purpose?


Accidental deaths from guns are not as common as some of you make it out to be. Its not as though it is a certain fact that if you own a gun its merely a matter of time before someone accidentally gets their head blown off.

Please show me where anyone here has claimed that it is a certain fact that if you own a gun it's merely a matter of time before someone gets their head blown off. I don't think anyone would claim that 99% of guns in the home will result in some tragic accident. By the same token, the odds of having someone break into your home brandishing a weapon also are incredibly small. So why own a gun?

The point is that statistics show that something other than a self-defense shooting is far more likely to occur than a self-defense shooting. In light of those statistics, you cannot make a rational argument that the average person is protecting their family by keeping a gun in the home.

[Richard Tafoya]

Well, if you compare it to other countries, yes. It sounds worse that way.
It is worse. How does that invalidate the comparison?

If a statistic noted that states with higher highway speed limits had more highway collision fatalities, should that be tossed out because it looks bad for the states with higher speed limits?

[tiger_rascal]

It is worse. How does that invalidate the comparison?

I thought we were discussing statistics for the United States?

If you throw in statistics for the world it looks far worse.

[tiger_rascal]

What are these other 25 countries? Countries where gun sales are n/a? Countries with stiff gun restrictions? Countries with a far less population than the United States?

[Richard Tafoya]

Here's the report --Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries -- from the CDC.

Give it a read and let me know what you find that proves any of your theories.

http://www.cdc.gov/MMWR/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm

[DoubleEdgeSword]

My 25-year-old daughter committed suicide with a handgun. Walked into a pistol range, rented a gun, was shown how to use it, took a few practice shots and while the staff was busy, walked out with it and went home and shot herself.

How easy was that?

[tiger_rascal]

Give it a read and let me know what you find that proves any of your theories.

The only theory that I have is that guns (legal ones, not machine guns and such) are a freedom and a choice and people will continue to want them for "self defense" or hunting.

People die in car accidents every day. Should we ban cars? If you get in a car you are at high risk of getting in a car accident, simply because you get in the car. Where is the cry to pull cars off the roads?

[tiger_rascal]

I think education is far more important at helping this problem rather than eliminating guns. And gun owners are probably more willing to listen to increasing education and gun safety training before they would listen to an arguement about eliminating all guns from the country.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

People die in car accidents every day. Should we ban cars? If you get in a car you are at high risk of getting in a car accident, simply because you get in the car. Where is the cry to pull cars off the roads?

That's a bad argument, Chad. Cars are not designed for the purpose of killing something or someone as are guns. No one gets in a car and goes out for "target practice" to see how many targets she can hit. Cars aren't advertised to protect you against home intrusions, to take down a deer or hit a clay pigeon.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I think education is far more important at helping this problem rather than eliminating guns. And gun owners are probably more willing to listen to increasing education and gun safety training before they would listen to an arguement about eliminating all guns from the country.

Gun safety classes tell you to unload your firearm in your home, or at least keep it out of reach if you have children in the home. Now, how effective will a hidden, unloaded handgun be to someone who wants to stop an armed home invasion at 2 a.m.?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

That's a bad argument, Chad. Cars are not designed for the purpose of killing something or someone as are guns. No one gets in a car and goes out for "target practice" to see how many targets she can hit. Cars aren't advertised to protect you against home intrusions, to take down a deer or hit a clay pigeon.

Although, in West Virginia... :p

[pinky]

CNN is reporting that the CDC has released a statistic that 55% of gun deaths are suicides.

I'm quite sure their families are glad they had a gun in the house for protection.

[pinky]

The only theory that I have is that guns (legal ones, not machine guns and such) are a freedom and a choice and people will continue to want them for "self defense" or hunting.

People die in car accidents every day. Should we ban cars? If you get in a car you are at high risk of getting in a car accident, simply because you get in the car. Where is the cry to pull cars off the roads?
No one that I know is advocating a ban on hunting rifles. Most people who support stricter gun control will argue against private ownership of handguns, particularly semi-automatic ones. And, for the life of me, I don't understand why ANYONE feels the need for one of those.

And the car "analogy" is false, as DES has already said. Cars are designed for purposes other than to shoot holes in things.

[Sinister]

CNN is reporting that the CDC has released a statistic that 55% of gun deaths are suicides.

I'm quite sure their families are glad they had a gun in the house for protection.

Yeah, I was just reading about that. Sad.

Suicides accounted for 55 percent of the nation's nearly 31,000 firearm deaths in 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=2008-06-30_D91KOD500&show_article=1&cat=breaking

[tiger_rascal]

But the fact remains, many people die in car accidents. People dont buy a car with the intent to speed or drive drunk and accidentally kill someone, but it happens. I say ban them! Gas is far too high right now anyway, its the perfect time to restrict driving.

I'm quite sure their families are glad they had a gun in the house for protection.

But does it state that those suicides were specifically from their own guns in their home intended for self defense?

[Richard Tafoya]

You want to add anymore data filters? Purchased on a day with an 'r' in it? By a person with more than one pet?

[tiger_rascal]

I dont get it.

My point is, I dont believe your arguement that people kill more often or more people are accidentally killed by people who have a handgun in their home for self defense. The statistics show a percentage point for suicide deaths by guns, and then pinky makes a comment about handguns for self defense in the home being the probable culprit and that just may not be the case.

But whatever makes you all feel comfortable about your arguements, go ahead.

[Richard Tafoya]

People will shoot themselves or others with much higher frequency in the presence of an available, loaded handgun. In fact, the ONLY way they can shoot themselves or others is to get their hands on a loaded gun.

If a gun exists in a house, there's a much higher chance that someone will be injured or killed by a gun than if no gun existed in the house.

Whether the gun was purchased or indefinitely borrowed or even stolen doesn't change those statistics. Whether it was acquired with self-defense in mind or because someone was a collector or someone just bought it in a spur-of-the-moment purchase at a gun show doesn't change those statistics.

[tiger_rascal]

And I get that.

But I dont get how anyone can assume what the statistics mean behind the numbers. Each crime has its own story.

[LesterX]

The statistics speak for themselves. It has nothing to do with "feeling comfortable" with an argument. You are the one making the silly analogy to car ownership to defend your position, since you can't defend it with data.

I'm still waiting for the pro-gun crowd to explain, using data to support their argument, how a rational person can conclude that having a gun in their home makes them safer than not having one.

[tiger_rascal]

Maybe it has made them safer? How do we know what those statistics are?

And besides, its each individuals peace of mind. What you consider comfortable and safe another person may feel differently.

[tiger_rascal]

My car analogy may be silly, but it works. People dont buy a car to kill someone, but it happens. Some people have used cars to kill people. And not everybody who buys a gun intends on killing a person with it, but sadly it happens sometimes.

[LesterX]

No, the car analogy doesn't work. It's way beyond an apples and oranges comparison. Maybe apples and elephants.

[tiger_rascal]

Whatever floats your boat. Or sinks it.

[LesterX]

Maybe it has made them safer? How do we know what those statistics are?

And besides, its each individuals peace of mind. What you consider comfortable and safe another person may feel differently.

I have no idea what you mean by "how do we know what those statistics are?"

Still waiting for an argument, borne out by data, that shows that a gun in the home is likely to make a person safer.

Feeling safe and being safe are not one and the same. A father with young children might feel safer with a loaded gun under his pillow, but the fact of the matter is that such an action endangers his children.

[tiger_rascal]

And that is their choice Richard.

[Richard Tafoya]

Yeah, it's really about feeling safer, not being safer. And some people feel safer surrounded by weapons that can be easily used to kill them.

[tiger_rascal]

Wow, a lot of judging going on in this thread.

You all have the choice not to have a gun in your home. I have that choice and I choose not to have a gun in my home. But I will not tell someone else what they can and can not do.

[tiger_rascal]

And at least its only 3% accidental deaths and 55% suicides. That is, an innocent life is not being murdered or whatever, but a person is taking their own life. And yes, its sad, no matter how that person takes their life or with what.

[LesterX]

You're right, I feel horribly judgmental saying that a father with young children who keeps an unsecured, loaded weapon in the house is an idiot who is endangering his family. How could anyone dare question such a "choice"?

Are we allowed to be judgmental about any other "choices?" Say, for example, driving drunk and killing someone because you "felt" that you were okay to drive, when in actuality your blood alcohol content was twice the legal limit? Is that a choice worthy of criticism?

[tiger_rascal]

Theres that pesky car analogy again. I thought we were passed that?

And there you go again assuming the worst. Why do you think the father would have the gun loaded and in open sight of the children? Very judgemental indeed.

[tiger_rascal]

All the families I know who own guns have the guns unloaded. The guns are locked in a gun cabinet. The shells are locked in a different cabinet. Both locks have different keys. The keys are kept in a secured location where only the adults know where they are.

[pinky]

And so how, exactly, do those locked up guns and locked up (in another place) bullets help the homeowner in the event of an intruder?

[tiger_rascal]

Im not sure. I dont know anyone who has been in that situation. That kind of stuff rarely happens in WV. :)

But it is a good example of how a gun can and should be kept in a house. It also gives the home owner the peace of mind and safety feeling. :)

[tiger_rascal]

You see, there are other scenarios. Its not always hand gun, check, loaded, check, cocked, check, pointed at little innocent starving children, check. :rolleyes:

[pinky]

I agree, that's how guns should be kept in a home.

But the feeling of security is a false one, because if there's an armed intruder in your house, before you unlock your gun and ammunition, you're already dead.

[tiger_rascal]

Maybe. :susp:

[tiger_rascal]

One time, when we first moved into our house, we had an intruder. He thought we werent moved in yet, so he walked in the back door and thats when I grabbed the butcher knife from the kitchen drawer and ran after him! And let me tell you, he ran fast! :eek:

[pinky]

Very likely. I doubt that someone would just wait for you to get your gun and load it.

If you've seen the person, you're a witness. And in Philadelphia and lots of other big cities, if you're a witness to a crime, you stand a good chance of ending up dead.

[pinky]

Did your intruder have a gun?

[tiger_rascal]

That depends. If the person is not armed and see you grab for a gun or break the glass on the gun cabinet, chances are he will run. Its doubtful he would stay and fight and take his chances.

[tiger_rascal]

Did your intruder have a gun?

I dont know. He was never caught. But I never saw him again.

[tiger_rascal]

You see, there are far too many different scenarios.

[pinky]

Notice that in post #65 I specifically said an "armed intruder."

My guess is that your intruder didn't have a gun. He thought the house was unoccupied, and didn't think he'd be challenged.

[LesterX]

Theres that pesky car analogy again. I thought we were passed that?


No, it's not "that" pesky car analogy again. Our analogies are completely different. The logic of my analogy is as follows:

According to you, if a gun in the home makes someone feel safer, even if there evidence to support the fact it actually doesn't make them safer, we shouldn't judge someone who makes the choice to keep a loaded weapon accessible to family because they made a choice based on how they "feel."

So I'm asking whether the same logic applies to drunk driving. If you don't "feel" that you are drunk when you have had XX drinks in XX time period, despite the fact that statistics show that the average person of your weight who consumes XX drinks in XX time is impaired and should not drive a vehicle, then does it follow that when you cause a fatal accident as a result I shouldn't judge you, because you didn't "feel" drunk?

And there you go again assuming the worst. Why do you think the father would have the gun loaded and in open sight of the children? Very judgemental indeed.

Gee, I don't know, because those tragic accidents do happen and it is therefore a legitimate scenario?

Damn right I'm judgmental, and proud of it. If your nephew and his friend were playing at his friend's house and found a loaded weapon lying around, are you seriously telling me that would be okay with you because it's the parents' "choice?" I find that attitude terrifying.

[pinky]

I have no problem at all being judgmental about what happens when a 4-6 year old child finds a loaded gun and accidentally kills a sibling. The child may never recover from that trauma.

[tiger_rascal]

Im not saying you all cant judge someone for having a loaded gun in the home with children. What I am saying is that you cant make that assumption about all gun owners or the majority of them, which I get that feeling in this thread.

I dont agree with having a loaded gun within reach of children. But Im not assuming that most gun owners do this. Thats not my place to judge them. The gun owners I know do not do that. So unless you know for certain that of the millions of gun owners in this country the majority of them keep loaded guns with children in the house you cant cling onto that one scenario over and over again.

[tiger_rascal]

Lets take children out of the equation. Would any of you be fine with a grown responsible adult keeping a loaded handgun in their home with easy access in case an armed intruder were to burst in, with no children in sight?

[DoubleEdgeSword]

When do we make a law to benefit all even when it inhibits some, Chad? This is the baisis of law-making. This is why we have seatbelt laws, for example. Statistics show that without seatbelts, people die or get seriously injured in car crashes. Sure, there are responsible people who are responsible drivers, never had an accident, but we don't exempt them. You cannot go before a "seatbelt board" and make your case for not wearing your seatblet.

Let's take the analgoy further. In cars, we interact with others who may not be as responsible as we are. We wear our seatbelts to protect us from irresponsible drivers. So too with handguns, if we are claiming to use them for personal protection. While we may think ourselves responsible, what about the person who breaks into our home? In that situation, the person we confront with a handgun may have a handgun of his own or overpower us and use our against us. We definitely cannot put our trust in the responsiblity of the other in that situation. Furthermore, are we to trust a burgler not to steal our weapons?

I know the argument coming; that is: if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Most likely true for a while. Strict laws and policing would have to be instituted along with very severe penalties for possessing a gun. Gradually, if done correctly, this country could see a relatively gun-free society.

So, to answer your question, the question is irrelevant. Laws are enacted for the protection of all, regardless of circumstance. A ban on handguns, just as the seatbelt law, protects everyone, the responsible and the irresponsible.

[db44]

Wow, a lot of judging going on in this thread.

You all have the choice not to have a gun in your home. I have that choice and I choose not to have a gun in my home. But I will not tell someone else what they can and can not do.

So if you're neighbor snaps, and comes over for a little gun party, you'll be okay with that.

Or if somebody breaks in and takes their gun, and then comes to your house...

Or if your neighbor's kid accidentally (or intentionally) kills themself, it was his or her right and you won't feel remorse, or that something could have been done?

Just curious, what is the crime rate where you are? How much safer do you think the neighborhood is because people may or may not have their own handguns?

[LesterX]

Im not saying you all cant judge someone for having a loaded gun in the home with children. What I am saying is that you cant make that assumption about all gun owners or the majority of them, which I get that feeling in this thread.

I dont agree with having a loaded gun within reach of children. But Im not assuming that most gun owners do this. Thats not my place to judge them. The gun owners I know do not do that. So unless you know for certain that of the millions of gun owners in this country the majority of them keep loaded guns with children in the house you cant cling onto that one scenario over and over again.

We're not "clinging" to one scenario. I'm still waiting for you to give me a rational, data-based argument for how a gun in the home makes the average person or family safer given the existing statistics. You haven't done so because you cannot make such a factual argument.

It has nothing to do with whether the "majority" keep loaded guns within reach of their children. DES' seat belt law analogy is perfect.

Excerpts from a Rand study:

Methods. We analyzed data from the 1994 National Health Interview Survey and Year 2000 objectives supplement. A multistage sample design
was used to represent the civilian noninstitutionalized
US population.

Results. Respondents from 35% of the homes with children younger than 18 years (representing more than 22 million children in more than 11 million homes) reported having at least 1 firearm. Among homes with children and
firearms, 43% had at least 1 unlocked firearm (i.e., not in a locked place and not locked with a trigger lock or other
locking mechanism). Overall, 9% kept firearms unlocked and loaded, and 4% kept them unlocked, unloaded, and stored with ammunition; thus, a total of 13% of the homes with children and firearms—1.4 million homes with
2.6 million children—stored firearms in a manner most accessible to children. In contrast, 39% of these families kept firearms locked, unloaded, and
separate from ammunition..

http://www.rand.org/news/Press/588-594.schuster.pdf

If you think having firearms accessible to millions of children in this country should be legal because God forbid we "judge" anyone, then I don't know what to tell you. Let's break that down. Say a school has 500 children. 35% live in homes with firearms. That's 175 children. Of those, 13% live in homes where firearms are accessible. That's 23 children per 500. That is unacceptable to me and should not be legal anywhere.

[tiger_rascal]

I think its fine having a gun in the home. But, it should be unloaded and locked up.

I have my opinion and you all have yours.

I disagree that all guns should be banned or outlawed. I doubt that would ever happen in this country anyway.

[db44]

I think its fine having a gun in the home. But, it should be unloaded and locked up.

I have my opinion and you all have yours.

I disagree that all guns should be banned or outlawed. I doubt that would ever happen in this country anyway.

So again, if the argument is one of safety, how do you protect yourself from a home intruder if you have to unlock the gun and load it? Presuming it's in the same room you are in the first place. Or do you think there are other reasons people should have guns, and if so, what are they?

[tiger_rascal]

Just curious, what is the crime rate where you are? How much safer do you think the neighborhood is because people may or may not have their own handguns?

The crime rate where I live is like .01%, Im serious.

I dont know if my neighbor has a gun. They might, I dont know. And I dont know that having a gun would make my neighborhood safer or not. Its already really safe.

I do know that a lot of people around here hunt. So its very likely that almost half, or at least a quarter, of the towns population owns some type of hunting rifle.

[tiger_rascal]

So again, if the argument is one of safety, how do you protect yourself from a home intruder if you have to unlock the gun and load it? Presuming it's in the same room you are in the first place. Or do you think there are other reasons people should have guns, and if so, what are they?

Hunting rifles.

I already stated how to protect yourself from a home intruder. I used a knife.

Why does this discussion have to only be about loaded unsecured handguns? :scratch:

Some of you appear very one sided, quite obtuse, about this issue.

[tiger_rascal]

Wait. All guns are evil. Never have a gun in the home. Thats the arguement. No room for debate. Got it. End of discussion.

[pinky]

NO ONE has said that, Chad. Not one of us.

[db44]

Why does this discussion have to only be about loaded unsecured handguns? :scratch:


Becuase the Supreme Court arguement was about handguns, and because you just said that's the way they should be stored.

Also because the issue of safety is where this thread went. You're unlikely to be able to defend yourself in your home with a .22 rifle, or you'll destroy your home, and maybe hit you "opponent" with a bulky, inaccurate shotgun...

[LesterX]

Why does this discussion have to only be about loaded unsecured handguns? :scratch:


Maybe because the Supreme Court ruling that was the impetus for the thread relates specifically to handguns? And because handguns are most likely to be used for "protection," not hunting rifles?

Some of you appear very one sided, quite obtuse, about this issue.
Talk about being obtuse...I've asked repeatedly for someone to give me a rational explanation for how one is safer with a gun in the home than without one in light of statistics showing that the opposite is true. No one seems able to do it. "It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it" is not a rational position.

[tiger_rascal]

There are plenty of sites that have plenty of data showing statistics and facts about gun ownership and the safety and responsibility of those permit holders. You could easily find that information.

[tiger_rascal]

NO ONE has said that, Chad. Not one of us.

But some of the posters are using words like "firearms" and "guns" rather than being specific. So I have to assume that they mean guns in general.

[tiger_rascal]

Back to the original topic.

Im fine with the ruling. I think its fair. There is not enough evidence to warrant the banning of all handguns.

Statistics that show only 3% of accidents happen from guns and 55% of suicides happen with guns is not enough evidence to warrant such extreme measures.

[db44]

There are plenty of sites that have plenty of data showing statistics and facts about gun ownership and the safety and responsibility of those permit holders. You could easily find that information.

It's your point, it's your place to provide the resources to back it up.

Until you do, it's moot and you are just wasting our time with stuff you are making up. As Leslie or Claire I think said, saying because you "have an opinion" doesn't make your point a fact.

[tiger_rascal]

And nobody in this thread has stated enough statisitics to back up banning handguns.

So I have an opinion, as do the courts, that handguns should not be banned at this time. And you all think they should. That is what you call an opinion.

[db44]

Posts 21, 34, 41 and 43 all have numbers, from various reports as cited and noted, that show pretty good reasons why it may be better to ban handguns.

But if you are fine with unnecessary deaths, that three-percent of accidental deaths are acceptable or 55-percent of handgun suicides is okay, then there's no reason to debate it.

I never thought you were the type to be happy with death Chad.

[LesterX]

There are plenty of sites that have plenty of data showing statistics and facts about gun ownership and the safety and responsibility of those permit holders. You could easily find that information.

I'm perfectly capable of finding information. In fact, I posted results from a research study in this thread so obviously I'm able to find data. You have not posted one iota of data to contradict the statistics cited in this thread. Therefore, I can only conclude that you and your fellow gun fans are not capable of making an argument in favor of keeping handguns in the home that is based on fact.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

And nobody in this thread has stated enough statisitics to back up banning handguns.

There are plenty of statistics to say that handguns cause thousands of deaths each year. They do. There is no argument there.

So I have an opinion, as do the courts, that handguns should not be banned at this time. And you all think they should. That is what you call an opinion.

The reasons given by the SCOTUS for upholding the Second Amendment has nothing to do with handgun dangers; rather, the arguments have to do with the interpretation of the Amendment itself. Even Justice Scalia agrees that we might all be better off without handguns, but that isn't what the Consitutional challange was all about. This issue is by no means black and white, nor is this decision the final word. There will be more debate and at some point down the road, I imagine there will be an amendment proposed to outlaw handguns.

[tiger_rascal]

But if you are fine with unnecessary deaths, that three-percent of accidental deaths are acceptable or 55-percent of handgun suicides is okay, then there's no reason to debate it.

No, you simply have not provided any proof or evidence that states that those deaths would not happen at all if there were no handguns in the house. Or, if handguns were banned that those numbers would decrease to zero.

[tiger_rascal]

Therefore, I can only conclude that you and your fellow gun fans are not capable of making an argument in favor of keeping handguns in the home that is based on fact.

Well you must be right at home assuming, so thats fine. But I am not a gun "fan". In fact, I've stated in this thread that I do not own a gun and I will never allow a gun in my home, but that I am for the right to choose and keep the freedom of having a handgun if one so chooses.

And you, for that matter, have not provided any facts, other than current statistical numbers, that if handguns were banned that those numbers would decrease at all.

[LesterX]

I'm not "assuming" anything. I'm drawing a reasonable conclusion based on the content, or lack thereof, of your posts.

I'm sorry if you are unwilling or unable to understand what the statistics say. Obviously, I cannot "prove" what will happen in the future. I, can, however, make reasonable projections based on an understanding of the available data. All it takes is a smidgen of logic.

[tiger_rascal]

I dont buy it.

You have your opinion I have mine. Why is that so hard to understand? No harm.

[tiger_rascal]

Correct me if Im wrong, but the article I posted on page 2 from CNN with statistics from the CDCP states that accidental deaths from guns (3%) and suicides from guns (55%) were from "guns". It says nothing about what type of gun and it does not specifically point the finger at only handguns. Therefore, handgun deaths may even make up for less than 3% of accidental deaths and less than 55% of suicides.

[tiger_rascal]

My next question, if you all are ready for it, is what makes up the other 97% of accidental deaths and 45% of suicides and what do you all plan to do about it to stop them from happening?

[Richard Tafoya]

I don't think we've tackled what to do about reducing gun deaths yet. The Supreme Court ruling emboldened the NRA to announce that they intend to sue to eliminate gun restrictions in every possible jurisdiction.

So we're looking at a potential upswing in gun availability and purchasing. Lots of people who never held a gun before and didn't grow up around them suddenly holding a loaded weapon.

How do we keep those people from harming themselves or others?

[tiger_rascal]

I dont like the NRA. And I think we need gun control. I may not think that we need to outright ban all handguns, but I think we need some kind of control, and we do have laws that are supposed to help eliminate criminals from getting guns, background checks and stuff like that. I think gun shows should be banned.

[LesterX]

I dont buy it.

You have your opinion I have mine. Why is that so hard to understand? No harm.

I have no idea what the "it" is that you don't buy. If you don't buy the idea that reasonable projections can be made based on existing data, then you might want to take some statistics courses because that is done all the time.

It's not hard for me to understand why someone has a different opinion, if that opinion has a rational foundation. .

[tiger_rascal]

I see no proof that suicides and accidents with guns would decrease dramatically if all handguns were banned.

[pinky]

My next question, if you all are ready for it, is what makes up the other 97% of accidental deaths and 45% of suicides and what do you all plan to do about it to stop them from happening?
You've misunderstood the article, Chad.

The article included a statistical breakdown of all deaths from firearms (their term, not mine). 55% of those deaths were from suicides, 3% were from accidents.

That's not 55% of all suicides, it's 55% of all deaths from firearms. The only thing 45% would refer to is the remainder of all deaths from firearms. And of those, only2% are legally justified killings (mostly self-defense and shootings by police).

[tiger_rascal]

Well I have to wonder what kind of guns they are talking about. How many handguns were involved and so on.

[LesterX]

I see no proof that suicides and accidents with guns would decrease dramatically if all handguns were banned.

I give up. You cannot "prove" that which has not yet happened. You can only project what is likely to happen if a specific set of actions takes place using the current data available. It's not voodoo. People use projections to make decisions every single day in a wide variety of fields.

[tiger_rascal]

Just because I was asked, here is one site with fancy numbers.

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html

[tiger_rascal]

I give up. You cannot "prove" that which has not yet happened. You can only project what is likely to happen if a specific set of actions takes place using the current data available. It's not voodoo. People use projections to make decisions every single day in a wide variety of fields.

And sometimes they are wrong.

[tiger_rascal]

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds.

From the site I just posted.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I see no proof that suicides and accidents with guns would decrease dramatically if all handguns were banned.

Do you think the incidents of making PB&Js would dramatically decrease if peanut butter was banned?

Same principle here.

[SparkleHugs]

DES, if a person wants to kill themselves, they are gonna do it with a gun or some other means. I dont think the lack of availability of a gun will suddenly make a person stop wanting to die.

[tiger_rascal]

If handguns were banned, another type of gun would be used.

And I agree with Sparkle.

[pinky]

I have never handled a gun of any type, but it seems to me that it's a lot harder to point a rifle or shotgun at your head and reach the trigger.

And I was just looking (unsuccessfully) for something I read yesterday about the "success" rate for suicide attempts. It said that attempts with a gun are 9 times more likely to result in death that any (or all?) other methods. So gun availability is definitely a factor in death by suicide.

[tiger_rascal]

I would hate to sound morbid, but a gun would be the best way to go if someone wanted to kill themselves, if done properly.

Without that handgun, or another gun, they would probably have a much more painful end to their life and suffer.

[SparkleHugs]

I would hate to sound morbid, but a gun would be the best way to go if someone wanted to kill themselves, if done properly.

Without that handgun, or another gun, they would probably have a much more painful end to their life and suffer.


I was thinking the same thing. I figure go with the quickest, least painful way rather than something that might just leave you a perpetual vegetable.

[pinky]

So, let's just help the depressed get themselves out of the way? :scratch: ?

[LesterX]

So, let's just help the depressed get themselves out of the way? :scratch: ?


Exactly. I have a friend whose daughter tried to commit suicide by downing a bottle of pills with a nice bottle of red wine as a chaser. She called her husband in an incoherent haze, who in turn called the paramedics who were able to track her location based on her cell phone signal. She now is being treated for serious mental health issues and has not attempted suicide since. Had there been a gun available to her, she most likely would have left three very young children without a mother.

There's a false assumption being made here that someone who is suicidal once will always be suicidal, so it's just a matter of time before they manage to kill themselves. That is simply not true.

[SparkleHugs]

I am rather insensitive when it comes to suicide. I think its rude and selfish.

But i do think that death is better than a life of being a bed-ridden vegetable.

[LesterX]

I am rather insensitive when it comes to suicide. I think its rude and selfish.

But i do think that death is better than a life of being a bed-ridden vegetable.

I guess then that you do not believe in mental illness? What about drugs such as Zoloft which are prescribed to help with depression and anxiety but have the lovely side effect of causing some people to become suicidal? How is a horrific reaction to medication that one has been prescribed because they sought help for their problems "rude and selfish?" You're assuming that someone in that situation is acting rationally.

In the example I cited, I guess my friend's three grandchildren would have been better off without a "rude, selfish" mother? A woman who, when under psychiatric care and taking medication, actually is a very good mother who loves her kids dearly. (I won't even go into what happened to her as a child which probably caused her mental health issues. Let's just say that she was adopted by my friend as an older child after her birth mother's parental rights were permanently revoked.)

[tiger_rascal]

I think we are missing the bigger point. If a person truly wants to kill themselves they will find a way, with or without a gun. Maybe its taking too many pills, maybe its jumping off a bridge. But I think its a false assumption that if no gun is available they will not still try another way. In fact, they could end up still alive, but in a far worse state.

[LesterX]

No, you are missing the bigger point. Not everyone who attempts suicide truly wants to kill themselves and will eventually find a way. Access to guns increases suicides. How you can argue that's a good thing is beyond me.


People who live in communities with a lot of guns are more likely to kill themselves, a new study says.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
More Vital Signs Columns »
Web Link
Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States (Journal of Trauma)

The findings, the researchers say, add weight to the argument that when people have less access to guns, they are less likely to commit suicide. Earlier research raised the question of whether people intent on suicide would simply switch to another equally lethal method if unable to find a gun.

In the new report, in the current issue of The Journal of Trauma, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health said they had found evidence that “the ready availability of firearms is likely to have the greatest effect on suicide rates in groups characterized by more impulsive behavior.”

The researchers, led by Dr. Matthew Miller, compared statistics on gun ownership by state with statistics on suicide. They also took into account factors like poverty, mental illness and drug abuse.

When they looked at the 15 states with the highest firearm ownership, the researchers found that twice as many people committed suicide as in the six states with the lowest firearm ownership. The population in each group of states was about the same, the researchers said.

In 2002, more than 30,000 Americans killed themselves, with just over half using a gun.

Firearms are used in only 5 percent of attempts, the study said, even though, with a 90 percent fatality rate, they cause more than half the deaths. So even a small decline in the number of attempts involving guns could mean many fewer deaths, the researchers said.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/health/17risk.html

[tiger_rascal]

If guns were banned there would still be suicides. To even attempt to argue otherwise is ridiculous.

[LesterX]

Well, since I didn't attempt to make such an argument, I won't worry too much about the "ridiculous" comment. It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. Do I need to define the word "increase" for you, since what I said was that access to guns increases suicide, a statement that is supported by research? Thus, less access to guns will decrease suicides, not eliminate them.

[tiger_rascal]

It will eliminate the success rate, thats for sure.

[LesterX]

Huh? How do you "eliminate" a success rate? The rate can increase or decrease, but it can't be "eliminated." If 0 out of 100 people attempting suicide "succeed" in killing themselves, that's a success rate of 0%.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

The term "suicide" implies success, Chad.

What Leslie posted points out that suicides increase with easy access to guns. If guns were not so easily accessible, sucides by guns would decrease. In 2002, that was 15,000 people that may have not died. If handguns had not been so accessible for suicide, my daughter may have not been one of them.

[pinky]

There's a member at the BSB board whose father attemped suicide while on an overseas job assignment. He's back home now after a short hospital stay, and he's seeing a counselor and making progress in working through his issues.

Had he had access to a gun, probably not.

[tiger_rascal]

:nc:

Should I?

No, I think Im actually done. I cant keep going into insanely deep detail and have to further explain my posts only to continue to be misunderstood.

[SparkleHugs]

I guess then that you do not believe in mental illness? What about drugs such as Zoloft which are prescribed to help with depression and anxiety but have the lovely side effect of causing some people to become suicidal? How is a horrific reaction to medication that one has been prescribed because they sought help for their problems "rude and selfish?" You're assuming that someone in that situation is acting rationally.

In the example I cited, I guess my friend's three grandchildren would have been better off without a "rude, selfish" mother? A woman who, when under psychiatric care and taking medication, actually is a very good mother who loves her kids dearly. (I won't even go into what happened to her as a child which probably caused her mental health issues. Let's just say that she was adopted by my friend as an older child after her birth mother's parental rights were permanently revoked.)


I can see why my statement made you think that, but no. I am very well aware of mentall illness. As a person who has always struggled with depression, when life seems really not worth living, i just think of what that would do to my mother and my family. my issues aren't so severe as to require medication, because every time its been offered i say no thanks as soon as they mention the possible suicide risk. While I know that probably most people don't have the luxuary of being ok without the medication. I think in the situations that the medication is inciting such reactions certainly isn't selfish and rude, however when its someone who is just unhappy with their lives, or wants to get out of a situation is only thinking of themselves and not the effects that it has on others, i think that's selfish.

I guess I just view banning guns for the risk of suicide in the same light that they do not ban certain prescription drugs. THere is a process to go through for those who want the prescription so they aren't given to the masses who might misuse them, the same argument could be said for guns. I think obtaining a gun should be heavily regulated, but not banned altogether.

[DoubleEdgeSword]

I guess I just view banning guns for the risk of suicide in the same light that they do not ban certain prescription drugs. THere is a process to go through for those who want the prescription so they aren't given to the masses who might misuse them, the same argument could be said for guns. I think obtaining a gun should be heavily regulated, but not banned altogether.

But they do, and they have. Certain drugs, such as cocaine and opium, used to be available with a prescription. They are no longer. Now, I'm not sure if the risk was suicide, but it was certainly due to abuse. Guns, however, are not the same as a prescription drug as there are other uses and abuses. So, I'm not sure that is a good comparison.

Japan closely regulates gun ownership. If I remember correctly, one can only own certain types of rifles and air rifles and only for sport shooting. These must be registered with the local police and owners must be recertified every few years.

[pinky]

Can't we at least administer an intelligence test before we allow someone to buy a gun?

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-odd/20080709/shoots.self.mice/

:roll:

[db44]

This is worthy of a Darwin Award honorable mention.

[pinky]

A 44 Magnum to kill a mouse????

[db44]

What about it? You can't win a Darwin if you live through the ordeal.

[LesterX]

For those keeping score, I believe that would be:

Mice --1
Idiotic Human -- 0

[pinky]

Actually, I think it's mice -- 2, because she got herself and her friend.

Or possibly her former friend. ;)

[db44]

Hey, if what-his-face can stay friends with Cheney after quail hunting, why can't they still be best buddies?

[LesterX]

Actually, I think it's mice -- 2, because she got herself and her friend.

Or possibly her former friend. ;)

You are, indeed, correct. Guess I shouldn't be scorekeeper. ;)

[pinky]

Hey, if what-his-face can stay friends with Cheney after quail hunting, why can't they still be best buddies?
Cheney didn't hit him in the groin. My understanding is that those of you who are of the male persuasion are rather protective of that area. :]

[db44]

He's a friend of Cheney, right? That means he's head is synonimous with the veep's first name, and therefore it's the same as his being shot in the groin.