who has a Hand Gun ?

[THETRIOUXPER]

Again, BRADYCAMPAIGN.ORG. Lots of credible information to be found there. Nothing stupid about it.

Legal gun owners have no problem with gun laws. Legal gun owners are not the ones committing violent crimes with guns. All of the laws in the world will not stop those who illegally obtain a gun for the purpose of committing a crime. And, I hope for the last time, it is in no way, shape or form the guns fault for the crime being committed, please understand this dave, it is the people who perpetrate the violence that need to be dealt with.

[Sioux-cia]

...smug and arrogant young coach any less wrong to put a Pee Wee on a Squirt team and allow him to conduct himself like a little a-hole out there on the ice.

Yeah, right....

[STS]

Dave,

The fact of the matter is, you're willing to trample the rights of law abiding citizens over some IRRATIONAL fear of an inanimate object. You post "facts" from questionable and unquestionably biased sources and refute anything else submitted as "right-wing, gun nut spin jobs." You ignore any argument that is detrimental to your cause and then accuse other of being ignorant and stubborn. You're probably the 'belle of the ball' in your middle school speech and debate organization, but when you grow up you'll learn that arguing is as much about listening to and learning from your opponents as it is putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the same old tired argument again and again.

What you have chosen not to see is that while so called "gun control" has a dismal history of success, at best. Stripping the right to bear arms from a populace is a historically bad sign, and in my opinion would put us on a slippery slope ending with the abolishment of many of the rights Americans are accustomed to. Don't see how it could happen, "well yeah, the first amendment guarantees free speech, but it's pretty dangerous to have everybody running around saying whatever they want, what we'll do is pass some 'common sense' legislation to restrict so called free speech to, I don't know, lets say elected officials, I mean the people elected them right." "And freedom of the press, I mean what is the press really, we'll just pass a law requiring journalists to be licensed and registered with the federal government, that's reasonable, right?"

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." Plato

This is my last word on the subject, I refer all inquiries to www.nra.org.

[administrator]

Unless you saw the game in question you are not qualified to have an opinion about it.

Please avoid attacking each other. Disagreeing with Dave, or anyone, on the topic (i.e. gun ownership) is great; letting that disagreement turn into personal attacks or badgering makes the board much less inviting for everyone.

[Goon]

Now, if you will all excuse me, I have to go get some nummy food like Red Pepper or a sandwich from Dakota Harvest Bakers and eat outside because it's a gorgeous day and we should all take advantage of it.

You have like 4 days like this left this year before it starts snowing.

[Sioux-cia]

Please avoid attacking each other. Disagreeing with Dave, or anyone, on the topic (i.e. gun ownership) is great; letting that disagreement turn into personal attacks or badgering makes the board much less inviting for everyone.

I apologise and will avoid posting anything that is not relevant to the topic at hand.

[Slamdance]

Just like you were annoyed, upset, etc. that the CHOICE was being taken away in Fargo for smokers, why would you want to remove anyone's choice to legally possess a firearm?

No one is forcing you to own a gun. I happen to enjoy owning guns. I happen to have enjoyed being taught by my father and grandfather responsible gun ownership and I am looking forward to teaching my children the same. Why would you want to take that from me?

I suppose it is kind of egotistical to quote oneself. Mea Culpa.

DaveK,

IMHO when you don't address the questions directed towards you, you just prove the point of those who disagree with you. You want to state comments made by Bill Hicks (whom I think is effin' insightful and hilarious) and direct people to the Brady website.

You don't seem to want to put the effort into giving information as much as getting into a internet argument. (As the "new" saying goes, "Arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. It doesn't matter if you won, you're still retarded.") I'd apologize to any I've offended, but I direct their angst to the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

If you don't want to own firearms, cool. That is your choice. Just like you want to be able to smoke in a bar in Fargo. That choice has been taken from you. Don't take my choice to LEGALLY own a gun.

As Voltaire said (somewhat), "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."

[Goon]

I find it incredibly ironic that I am on the same page here as Goon and the Triouxper, being as we have had philosophical differences in the past. Just proves no reasonable person is 100% conservative or liberal.

Ah that's alright I find out in my day to day life that people of all political persuasions can find a consensus on something.

I have quite a few friends of mine that ploar opposites of me.

[Goon]

You don't seem to want to put the effort into giving information as much as getting into a internet argument. (As the "new" saying goes, "Arguing on the Internet is like winning the Special Olympics. It doesn't matter if you won, you're still retarded.")

[HockeyMom]

You have like 4 days like this left this year before it starts snowing.

I know! That's why I took advantage of it.

[BringDeanBack]

Regarding gun control, the extremists at both ends of the argument are the real problem. A complete ban of all guns is ridiculous, but saying that you need a fully automatic assault rifle for protection is just as ridiculous. If the government ever turned evil and wanted to come after you, a few farmers in a field with assault rifles isn't going to stop them. Personally, I'm not a hunter, but anyone driving down a ND highway at night understands the need for hunters to "harvest" a great deal of deer every year, so fire away. Regarding hand guns, they do have their place as a self protection tool and should be accessible to those that feel the need. That being said, when you make the decision to purchase such a potentially dangerous item, you should darn well have your background checked out and expect to be looked at under a microscope. Bottom line, if you can prove that you are a law abiding citizen you should have access to a firearm that serves your "reasonable" needs of hunting/protection.

[Nodaker]

If the government ever turned evil and wanted to come after you, a few farmers in a field with assault rifles isn't going to stop them.

Glad they didn't have that attitude back around 1776.

[BringDeanBack]

Glad they didn't have that attitude back around 1776.

Back then, technology was a little different. It was possible for the most part for a private person to have similar firepower to the government. These days with tanks, spy satellites, experimental weapons that we probably don't even know about, etc, things have changed.

[Siouxtimestwo]

To answer the original question, no, I don't own a hand gun. My uncle owns many, many guns, including some handguns that I've shot before at the family farm back in North Dakota. Now that I've got that out of the way, I read this article yesterday on CNN.com that I think pertains to the conversation. (I know that using data gathered scientifically from a reliable media source is an irrational thing do to on these boards and could potentially lead to my banning, but I'll take that chance. )

I'll editorialize the numbers from the study a little bit, partially to keep my profile from being deleted, and say that some of the suicides could be murder/suicides. The article doesn't tell us whether or not murder/suicides were included in the suicide rate, the murder rate, both, or excluded altogether.

Since someone else brought up smoking, I, as a non-smoker, have a greater chance of dying from lung cancer as a result of second-hand smoke than I do of dying from gunshot wounds. If you are sitting next to someone who owns a gun, the chances are remote that he or she will end up shooting you. If you are sitting next to someone who is smoking, you are almost guaranteed to inhale harmful chemicals, so anyone worried about safety while smoking two packs a day is someone who can't be taken seriously.

[Sioux-cia]

China does not allow private citizens to own or sell guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/0...ref=mpstoryview

A man wielding a knife broke into a Shanghai-area police station Tuesday, killing five police officers and injuring four others, authorities said.

[THETRIOUXPER]

China does not allow private citizens to own or sell guns.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/07/0...ref=mpstoryview

Yes but according dave, murders with knives don't count because you have to be close to kill someone.

[BringDeanBack]

Yes but according dave, murders with knives don't count because you have to be close to kill someone.

In all fairness to Dave (and flashing back to a scene in original Idiana Jones movie) if necessary, I would rather take my chances fighting off a knife versus a gun. Also, you rarely hear about drive-by knifings.

[Sioux-cia]

I would rather take my chances fighting off a knife versus a gun. Also, you rarely hear about drive-by knifings.

In countries with gun bans, there are higher murder rates than there are in the U.S. The people are murdered with knives, bludgeoning, strangling, etc. There are less people killed with guns but NOT less people killed.

[Bison Dan]

Finally a voice of reason. Thank you!!!

Apples and Oranges DaveK!

[Sioux-cia]

Apples and Oranges DaveK!

Absolutely!

GUN BANS DO NOT DECREASE THE NUMBER OF MURDERS. THERE ARE MORE MURDERS IN COUNTRIES WITH GUN BANS THAN IN THE UNITED STATES!!

[Sioux-cia]

I believe that in the United States we are more civilized and peaceful as a society than some of those other countries with higher murder rates.

[BringDeanBack]

Those numbers have more to do with the countries than the guns or lack of guns. I believe that in the United States we are more civilized and peaceful as a society than some of those other countries with higher murder rates. That is the most likely explanation for the lower murder rate in the United States. If the countries with higher murder rates had guns those murder rates would likely go even higher than they already are, while the lower murder rate in the United States without guns would go even lower than it already is.

Although it is impossible to either prove or disprove that theory, basic logic and common sense tells me it is very likely. Add one more potential weapon to a country with a high murder rate and that high murder rate will likely go even higher, take away one potential weapon from a country with a low murder rate and that low murder rate will likely go even lower.

God I can't believe I'm doing this, but I gotta side with DaveK again. It's no secret that a large chunk of crime can be attributed to poverty. For the most part, the US doesn't have much poverty, or at least not poverty to the level experienced in most countries. The stable US economy has more to do wtih low crime rates than guns do. A recession in the US means some job losses (unfortunate), less spending on entertainment, less eating out, etc. A recession in some other countries means near anarchy.

[Sioux-cia]

That being the case, why oppose the Supreme Courts ruling?

we are more civilized and peaceful as a society than some of those other countries with higher murder rates

I think that's a very arrogant statement and statements like those may be one of the reasons other countries can't stand the U.S. But, never the less, if you believe that, why do you oppose our owning whatever weapon's we're legally allowed to own? We're more civilized and peaceful....

You do know those countries with higher murder rates include England, Australia, China, countries with gun control that other countries (other than the U.S.)consider more 'civilized' than the U.S.?

[Oxbow6]

Because, although we may be more civilized and peaceful than some countries are, we still aren't as civilized and peaceful as we could potentially be. I think that the risks of owning a gun outweigh the potential benefits. I mean, especially in North Dakota, what percentage of us will have an intruder break into our home at any point in our lifetime? How often do you hear about somebody shooting an intruder that broke into their home? Not as often as you hear about gun related accidents, that's for sure. Again, having considered both the pros and cons of having a gun I just feel like the risks outweigh the benefits by a substantial margin.

How do quantify the risk Dave? By potential or stupidity? And the risk is on who? You say the risks of guns is troublesome, but you advocate smoking. You want to strip the rights of gun owners, but you can't see the overall harm done by smoking in society. Smoking kills tens of thousands more people in this country each year than do guns and that is not even debatable. By the way, are you Nancy Pelosi's brother??

[GeauxSioux]

Since smoking has become part of the conversation regarding guns, how about we throw in trans fats. NYC restaurants have banned their use as of yesterday. New York bans trans-fats