Both sides of the gun debate are dominated by extreme fanatics. One side demands that an individual right to own a fire arm should extend to carrying in public any weapon a person deems fit, no matter how absurd; and the other side whines that no one should have the right to own any fire arm under any condition, which is equally outrageous. The happy medium would be to allow law abiding citizens to own and keep guns in their homes while ratcheting up the penalties for criminals who possess guns illegally, and make them serve that time without early release.

Peter, just because it was done by the NIH under the Bush Administration, does not mean tha no one can claim bias. Fact remains, that that states with very difficult laws to procure a weapon, occuoy 3 of the top 5 spots for death by gun. The last thing we need are more gun control laws. They do nothing to criminals, but allow them a pass at resistance from a crime. I can tell you, as a legal gun owner, I will not hesitate to use my weapon if an intruder enters my home. Just as with Taxes, bad laws make good people do "bad things". By that I mean, Stricter gun controls will make honest procurers of weapons somehow seem like criminals. A society can not dis arm itself as there will be no way to ever defend the freedom we enjoy should the need arise. Rememeber, the laws enacted today, are in effect longer than we exist. As the Gentleman i met in the Airport a few weeks ago pointed out, "No doubt, a reveolution will be coming in 10-20 years when Amercia has had enough of this crap". Wether or not that is the case, a key ingredient in the way to stop tyranny or defend youself from it, is to maintain your right to bear arms.

Perhaps its time you focus on longer term prison sentences for criminals that use guns. Even better, perhaps focus on criminals themselves and leave the law abiding gun owner alone.

I'm pro-self defense whether its ground and pound, a samurai sword, or a gun. I believe my mindset is more important than having a gun because I'll use whatever it takes to survive.

Peter, I'd suggest you spend more time editorializing about saving lives in Baltimore with stiffer laws that don't allow repeat offenders out to kill again.

That will save more lives in Baltimore not more gun control.

As a social worker, I try to help the many disempowered folks stand up for themselves. Gun control disempowers folks. Case in point, we have lots of gun control in BMORE, and it hasn't stopped the killings. Guns were banned in DC, and people still killed others with guns. Criminals will always get guns no matter what laws are on the books.

And, if you mess with MS13, you'd only be so lucky to get a gunshot to the head because they usually roll with machetes.

People in this city are victimized and traumatized enough; I've worked with several clients that have been victimized and sleep with a gun by their side.

You want to take that away while the authorities don't protect us IE: Dawson, Zach Sowers, Councilman Bell? Self defense is important as well as therapeutic. You can tab that under health and mental health.

Bull!

I can't even believe we're still talking about this. More guns = more violent crime. End of story. It turns nonviolent crime into deadly crime. It turns bored, hapless youngsters into armed weapons. The debate is not dominated by the extremes. Most people want stricter gun laws out of sheer common sense. The 4th Amendment is just as important as the every other law in this country. Most pro-gun commenters cling to the false belief that gun control advocates want all guns off the streets period, probably because that's an easy stance to oppose. However nothing could be further from the truth. The gun laws in place in some states such as New York are perfectly fair and constitutional, and are extremely effective (especially considering the starkly rural-and-urban state NY is) at minimizing violent crime without so much as denting any constitutional rights. They should be mandated federally. Since they aren't, they are far less effective. Interstate gun trafficking is an enormous business, and an easy way to side-step state laws. Stricter federal gun laws would have one, and only one, actual consequence... a dramatic decrease in violent crime. You gun nuts will still be able to "compensate" to your hearts' content (assuming you're not a felon, etc). This is an easy fix, bogged down by stupidity and people arguing points the other side isn't even contending. Stricter federal gun laws = everything stays the same for honest, good people who want a gun (oh, excuse me... it might take a few days to file the paperwork... what a hardship; what a terrible price to pay), and people who shouldn't have guns will have an exponentially harder time getting their hands on one. Common sense.

Oh please! What percentage of these 600 "victims" were criminals? Obvioulsy among those who get shot, the criminals are going to be more likely to have guns. The fact that they had guns on them didn't make it more likely that they'd get shot. Instead, the fact that they were criminals to begin with made it more likely they'd possess a gun on their person or in their vehicle, and more likely that they'd get shot, armed or not.

Who but an anti-gun nut would fail to mention such an important contributing factor, as the victims being or associating with criminals?

Yeah. I always go to the epidemiologists for my facts on guns and gun control. Ludicrous. Speaking of Ludicrous, I bet that most of the "folks" studied in Philly were living in the ghetto an great fans of a rapper with that name, or some semblance of that name. Seems the "study", which I'm SURE is not biased in ANY way, does not differentiate between criminal THUGS who own a gun abd keep it in the home, and LAW-ABIDING citizens who do so. hence the nature of this virtually WORTHLESS pile of crap "study" designed to CONTINUE the ill-conceived, unfair, and UNTRUE attack on our 2nd Amendment rights by the gun-grabbing Clinton admin using thier CDC to shine a non-existent "light" on the "health" hazard of guns in our society. As then, we in the know that value our 2ndf Amendment RIGHTS say - BULLSHIT. This is yet ANOTHER lie designed to help gun-grabbing legislators convince as much of the public as possible of the societal "benefits" of more and more gun CONTROL (Heil Hitler!).

Yeah. I always go to the epidemiologists for my facts on guns and gun control. Ludicrous. Speaking of Ludicrous, I bet that most of the "folks" studied in Philly were living in the ghetto an great fans of a rapper with that name, or some semblance of that name. Seems the "study", which I'm SURE is not biased in ANY way, does not differentiate between criminal THUGS who own a gun abd keep it in the home, and LAW-ABIDING citizens who do so. hence the nature of this virtually WORTHLESS pile of crap "study" designed to CONTINUE the ill-conceived, unfair, and UNTRUE attack on our 2nd Amendment rights by the gun-grabbing Clinton admin using thier CDC to shine a non-existent "light" on the "health" hazard of guns in our society. As then, we in the know that value our 2ndf Amendment RIGHTS say - BULL. This is yet ANOTHER lie designed to help gun-grabbing legislators convince as much of the public as possible of the societal "benefits" of more and more gun CONTROL (Heil Hitler!).

Yeah, the more likely scenario, based on using a survey technique and question format for virology survey's.

Never mind that the people who performed this study are also funded by the Joyce foundation, the most virulent anti gun organization in the US. So yes, the study was performed by anti gunners on the Joyce Foundations payroll ya moron.

So why wouldnt they determine an outcome to please their masters, otherwise they wouldnt get funded.

Besides, based on the numbers, 700,000 physicians, 100,000 deaths due to their bad decision per year, you are over 4,000 times more likley to be harmed by your personal physician than a concealed carry license holder. Guess we should ban all personal physicians!

Maybe, just maybe you should actually look at doing something that actually effects crime. Back in 1997, Richmond Virginia started Project Exile, that in tandem with Federal Authorities, targeted those criminals found with firearms. The results in one year were a dramatic reduction in violent crime for that city. Yet authorities throughout the US dont seem to have taken note or followed up with identical efforts throughout the US.

Maybe cause too many of the politicians staunchest constitutents were being put in jail.

Yeah Peter, basing your position on a study that doesnt ask all the questions for a true comparitive study with a real control group is real ethical, and pathetic, just as your position is.

Look at where they get their research info..from the inner city gangbanger neighborhoods. You don't think that might skew the results just a little bit??

"600 shooting victims in Philadelphia from 2003 and 2006 and compared their experience with a control group, mostly people drawn randomly from the neighborhoods where the shootings took place." --- What the author is implying through this study is that black neighborhoods (and cities) should forbid guns because the residents are not competent. --- WOW, now I detect Peter Jensen's hidden racism is emerging and cannot hide the bias!

This is a flawed study. One would find the same in a study that finds that car riders are much more likely to be killed in car accidents. Of course its safer with a weapon to defend oneself. Ask the 2 million uses of firearms nationwide every year to prevent crime. 98% of which mo shots are fired.

Blaming guns for crime is equivalent to one blaming a fork for being over weight.

no real social worker believes evryone should have a gun

Let's see now. They preselected their sample group from victims who had been shot. That alone excludes anyone who due to being armed avoided getting shot. Then they called a "random" sampling of residents in high crime areas and asked them if they had a gun. Just how reliable do you think that information was?
I highly doubt that this so called study would pass the most basic of peer reviews by statisticians. Looks more like they started with the answer they wanted and backed into the data that proved their goal.

Everyone should take the time to read the actual study (found here: http://works.bepress.com/dennis_culhane/88/).

Basically, the study looked at police reports for over 3000 shootings in Philadelphia and selected 677 for the study group. The researchers looked over the police reports and talked to the police and witnesses to see if the victim was carrying a gun, had a gun near them, or had one stashed somewhere nearby at the time they were shot.

94% of the people shot DID NOT HAVE A GUN. Let me repeat that: 94% of the people shot DID NOT HAVE A GUN. 80% of the gunshot victims were out of their homes when shot.

The control group was called identified by calling people in Philadelphia at random, then matching those who answered by race and age to the study group. The control group was then asked two questions: (1) "were you shot on or about (the same time as a study group shooting), yes or no?" and (2) Did you have a gun on you at that exact time?"

Based on the answers to those two questions, somehow we get this "4.5x" ratio.

I guarantee you that you could get an equal or greater "more likely to be in a crash" ratio regarding seat belts and car accidents. But I'm still wearing my seat belt.

Poor Daniel, you like children? If yes, Daniel likes children = pedophile! Thats using the same flawed causality reasoning you use, so it must be true!

The gun laws in NY are fair and constitutional, ROTFLMFAO, boys and girls we have a world reknown constitutional and law scholar amongst our midst that has nothing to support his position!

Daniel, the second amendment affirms the right to own a firearm for self defense. A pistol is the number 1 choice for self defense. Those who are lciensed to carry concealed are 10 times less likely to commit any type of crime than the unlicensed, yet a ban on handguns in NY is constitutional and effective? See you been drinking that Obamalamdindong Prozac Koolaid again!

Have you been watching the news, about the newest case, McDonald vs Chicago, that by all accounts since the sitting US Supreme Justices are the same ones who ruled on Heller, will rule that the BOR is indeed incorporated and applies to the states soemtime in June 2010?

After all, we have a US Supreme Court ruling that there is a caste system in the US whereby all those people from the states, who are federal employees have different levels of rights just because they work for the government right?

Uh no we dont, so you will need to explain logically how since there is no caste system, no laws differntiating rights if you work or dont work for the federal government, how then if the US Constitution applies to the Federal government that it doesnt then apply to the states?

Hey Daniel, how is that poster child of gun control laws, the Brady Background Check doing? Well, if one actually read the USDOJ Background Check & Firearms Transfer report 2008, you would see the simple facts that it is an abysmal failure.

Since 1994, 99 million checks, 1.67 valid rejections, 58% were felons, and since 1994 a reduction of 68% of felons attempting to buy from a licensed source.

Yeah, we also see between 2000-2008 only 13,024 of those rejected were prosecuted, or less than 1%. Yeah 933,000 plus felons, a normal slam dunk case and the prosecutors only prosecuted less than 1%.

That is phenominal how effective that gun control law is enforced, and that trend is normal throughout the nation, prove otherwise. Yet you are certain more laws are necessary?

By the way, how many of those unprosecuted rejections then went on to buy a firearm from an unlicensed source? There are 1.66 million plus answers eh Daniel? Yeah we see how succesful all those laws are eh?

Oh my, in 1994, the Clinton era of gun control fantasy, the rules on being a Federal Firearms Licensee was changed dramatically. See before the McClure Volkner Act 1986, many curio and collectors were openly and succesfully prosecuted by the ATF for selling more than 2 firearms. Well many of those curio and collectors then applied for and got a Type 1 FFL license, essentially making them a kitchen table business.

The new law changes in 1994 was intended to drive all these licensed people out of business as there was a 40 times increase in license fee; ATF requirement for full house inspections whenever, and other stringent reporting requirements.

This then drove what was an over 70% reduction in FFL license holders between 1994-2004. By default, your vaunted government created more private sales outside of a licensed environment where reporting of the sales and such already were documented.

Now they are not, such a wonderful unintended consequences of the ATF bullying law abiding Type 1 FFL holders. Yet you never hear the guberment types looking at changing this law or system to make it "EASIER" for people to be federally licensed again, no that would make too much sense, morons!

Lest we forget that the same USDOJ a government agency who is respected for its survey and data accuracy performed a survey in 1997 on where felons got their firearms, 80% street buy, 12% retail, 2% gun show/flea market! Yeah that 68% reduction in attempted buys from a licensed source only means .68 x .14 (licensed sources) = a 9.52% increase in street sales, which the Brady Background Check does NOTHING to stop.

Of course we also see that from the FBI UCR database, another government agency, that ever since the reduction of gun control laws that there has been a consistent downward trend in violent crimes, even before the useless AWB1994-2004 that has no identifiable effect on reduction of any violent crime.

We see our neighbors, England, who banned guns in 1997 go from 445,000 reported violent crimes to 1.4 million in 2008 per their Home Office Crime Statistics database (same as the US with 20% of our population). All without a drop in murders. P.S. Make sure you compare proper categories of crimes as England doesnt like to include all the crimes the FBI UCR database does.

That trend continues in Australia, Canada, and the socialistic gun control paradise of Mexico, prove otherwise.

You reference sublimely that the Tiarht Amendment restricts traces of firearms by the police agencies.

Here, read the law and support that claim again!

PUBLIC LAW 109-108 [H.R. 2862]
NOV. 22, 2005
An Act
Making appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
General Administration
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Salaries and Expenses

That no funds appropriated under this or any other Act with respect to any fiscal year may be used to disclose part or all of the contents of the Firearms Trace System database maintained by the National Trace Center of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or any information required to be kept by licensees pursuant to section 923(g) of title 18, United States Code, or required to be reported pursuant to paragraphs (3) and (7) of such section 923(g), to anyone other than a Federal, State, or local law enforcement agency or a prosecutor solely in connection with and for use in a bona fide criminal investigation or prosecution and then only such information as pertains to the geographic jurisdiction of the law enforcement agency requesting the disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or a review of such an action or proceeding, to enforce the provisions of chapter 44 of such title, and all such data shall be immune from legal process and shall not be subject to subpoena or other discovery, shall be inadmissible in evidence, and shall not be used, relied on, or disclosed in any manner, nor shall testimony or other evidence be permitted based upon such data, in any civil action pending on or
filed after the effective date of this Act in any State (including the District of Columbia) or Federal court or in any administrative proceeding other than a proceeding commenced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to enforce the provisions of that chapter, or a review of such an action or proceeding;

Yeah, too bad you dont have didley squat to support your position that stricter laws prevent violent crime, that NY laws are consitutional, that causality guarantees that a crime will occur do to close proximity to an inanimate object.

You aren't very good at this, are you Daniel?

Ironic, Baltimore has the most stringent gun laws and the most crime...when will people learn. Whenever you are evaluating liberal policies view them through the lense of power. They want to control the masses, and armed citizens get in the way of that. They don't object to government employees being armed, just not regular citizens. This study is fails to explain how carrying a gun causes harm to you, am I going to shoot myself. 2 Million crime are prevented every year by simply drawing a firearm or threatening to do so.

A gun in the hand is much better than a cop on the phone because when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

If violent crime could be stoped by the passage of laws, violent crime would have ceased to exist tens of thousands of years ago

Oddly, people who wear parachutes are more likely to die in sky-diving accidents than those who don't.

Reading all this in Arizona, I can only say how pleased I am that so many in Maryland have common sense and support the 2nd Amendment. It goes to prove that Maryland, contrary to a perception held by many in the West, remains true to its beginnings. This, despite the wrongheaded thinking of the Sun's editorial board.
Thank you for that, Marylanders!

This study is just as "unbiased" as the Kellerman study that found people were "43 times more likely...". IIRC, that was funded by the CDC... and has been THOROUGHLY debunked as junk science at best. Fraud (of the Michael Bellesiles variety) appears more likely.

The entire methodology is upside down and inside out. First of all, if you called me at home and asked if I carried a gun, you wouldn't get an affirmative answer (because it's none of your business). Other gun owners are similarly unlikely to answer such nosey questions. That skews the number of people carrying guns and not getting shot.

Second, the majority of people shot in this Country are criminals. [If we were really serious about reducing the number of gun-related deaths, we'd legalize drugs and take away the reason for the conflict.] Do we really care if criminals kill each other? Shouldn't a study like this, at the very least, differentiate between an innocent woman walking home from work with a gun in her pocket and a drugged-up gang-banger out with his hommies looking for a confrontation with another gang?

Third, there's no measure of the up-side to carrying a firearm. How many people were NOT killed, raped or robbed because when the criminal closed on them they simply presented their gun and said, "Go away!" Estimates of the number of encounters of this tyoe are as high as 12,000 a DAY.

Also not clear in this summary is whether the person shot needed shootin'. Were they the aggressor (with a gun) shot by an innocent citizen (also with a gun)?

Lastly, the lack of federal funding doesn't mean no one can do research on the subject. It just means that political hacks can't get federal money to support their attacks on the Constitution.

If you want to step into my trench, you better be ready to survive not just mentally but also physically.

I help my clients deal with the real life scenarios of survival. I didn't say everyone should own a gun, but I do believe everyone especially victims of violent crime need to be empowered by self-defense training, counseling, and if need be, training on how to use a firearm.

What would your solution be Larry G? Let vulnerable clients be sitting ducks because thats tends to be standard set by social work. The signs are there for months before the spouse kills. Then they kill. Happens everyday.

Say I'm not a "real" social worker. Whatever. I don't hesitate to follow my conviction to empower my clients no matter what grain I cut against. And, from what I've learned over the past decade or so, most clients want a social worker like me working on their behalf.

You know its wrong to limit the right of any American especially victims of violence to use a firearm to protect themselves.

I stand with a free society, and you stand with the likes of Hitler.

Remember the nazis took away firearms from the Jews before they systematically slaughtered 6 million of them? Hitler did it the same way you propose to do it---through "legislative reform."

Let's see, 4.5 times more likely to be shot. OK, I'll still take my chances with my gun in hand. It's better to go down fighting than to just stand there and be shot. Of course we all know most liberals would just stand there.

To Jarhead... thank you os much for your near nonsensical, unrelated rantings and completely immaterial statistics. You should time reading the Constitution (don't worry you don't have to be a scholar, it's pretty self-explanatory) instead of burying your head in fiscal year lisence holder statistics.

You are proving my point. You are arguing against statements no one is making. You have manufactured an argument when no one has proposed anything you argue against. Just because you're passionate doesn't mean your comments are in the slightest bit relevant to the gun control debate.

Why does NYC have a fraction of the violent crimes and gun offenses that Baltimore has per capita? Why do people get arrested every year with dozens of cheap handguns they bought in the midwest (since all you need to buy a gun out there is a smile and a wad of money at a gun show) and drove back to the street of Baltimore to sell illegally for profit? If only everone at Columbine had a handgun... there would have been absolutely no violent incidents in that school, ever. Because everyone is very mature and acts on reason and never gets emotional. Yeah, that would be great. I want to live in a world where we all pack heat, so when our tempers flare we have easy access to a tool built for one purpose... to instantly kill other humans. To fight terrorism, I think the world would be a lot safer if every single country had nuclear weapons. That would make us all safe. Absolutely brilliant.

Gun control works. It has worked, it is working, it will work even better if it is more effectively enforced. No one will ever get in your way to buy as many guns as you want, if you're a respectable citizen (in your case I use that term loosly). Gun control laws will never infringe on any of your rights in any way, beyond perhaps forcing a waiting period between purchase and receipt. What a horrendous, socialist, nazi tyrany we live in, for a suburban family man to have to wait 3 days before we can bring home our precious killing machines. The King of England might invade at any minute.

STOP BEING PARANOID and look at the BIG PICTURE for once.

Pro-gun groups may not be happy with its conclusions, but they can't claim bias: The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health during the Bush administration, not by organizations favoring gun control.

How ridiculous a quote, the NIH is a agency of doctors. It is like asking the Vatican for an unbiased opinion of the death penalty.

Hank said: "No one will ever get in your way to buy as many guns as you want,"

Factually incorrect in MD and many other states. You are limited to one regulated firearm a month in MD. Just another violation of our civil rights.
And your other misinformed statement of a 3 day waiting period is factually wrong.
It is a 7 day waiting period that mostly turns into a 10 day period due to weekends.
So if you got those 2 well known facts correct, I will give the rest of your post the credibility it deserves............................NONE!

Calculating the % of crime deterred by lawful gun possession is a daunting task. However, given a choice, I prefer to defend myself with my 9mm Ruger over Peter Jensen's idle babble. Really! Peter, do you really feel safer walking unarmed in Charm City? If so, you really need to re-prioritize..........

The most violent cities are those inhabited by Blacks and Latinos.

Anybody have the courage to debate that fact?

Otter: "Gun control works. It has worked, it is working, it will work even better if it is more effectively enforced. No one will ever get in your way to buy as many guns as you want, if you're a respectable citizen (in your case I use that term loosly)."

I guess you know better than the National Academies of Sciences and the Justice Department (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42167). Both institutions tried VERY hard to show that some form of gun control worked. They were unable to find any gun control measures that reduced crime.

Maybe you should tell them what they did wrong.

Banbi, Hank, Dan, MDR and Balz- Thank you! It is so nice to see that Baltimore is NOT ALL DRONES!! Jarhead--That was the mmost ridiclous thing I have read yet--

Remember Guns dont kill people--people kill people--

I hope that the Sun does a little more homework before printing such junk afgain. Then tehy wanna know why peopl think the media is liberal and almost "state run"...No wonder FOlks turn to FOX news--

Peter--Your journalism license is herby supended!

NYC's gun control laws have been basically the same since 1911. So the rise and fall in crime there has ZERO to do with "gun control."

NYC is "safe" because one in seven of its residents residents is either (1) subject to an active arrest warrant or criminal summons or (2) stopped, frisked and questioned on the street, and their personal information subsequently entered into a crime database, all without any charges laid.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_us/us_stop_and_frisk/print

No thanks, I'll stay here in America.

So, my question to Otto, and Peter is this: What happens when a journalist, a professional peer, in a state with CCW licensing concedes the point that CCW DOES INDEED REDUCE crime?

http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/10/20/opinion/072op01hardlessonsy09.txt

"Posted: Tuesday, Oct 20, 2009 - 05:19:07 am CDT

Felons learning hard lesssons
By The News Tribune

Felonious behavior is becoming more dangerous, if two recent incidents are any indication.

During a home invasion on Oct. 5, one of the intruders was shot and killed by one of the occupants of the mobile home.

And an armed assailant is recovering from wounds after he was shot Oct. 13 by one of the people he was attempting to herd into a building housing law offices on East Capitol Avenue.

In the first case, the weapon was kept in the home, which always has been allowed to defend people and property.

In the second incident, the assailant was shot by someone who qualifies under the conceal and carry law.

Sheriff Greg White is a proponent of the conceal and carry law, passed by lawmakers in 2003 after Missouri voters rejected a similar law in 1999.

The law requires people to attain a standard of proficiency with weapons before they are permitted to carry a concealed gun. Proponents of the law believe it offers a greater sense of security and decreases crime by prompting felons to consider the consequences of armed confrontation.

We confess to harboring some reservations about the concealed carry law. Our fear was an increase in guns in public would result in more guns being displayed prematurely and/or more accidents.

White said recently: “All the fears over conceal and carry have never manifested.”

We concede the point.

Anecdotal evidence does not suggest an increase in accidents or unprovoked gunplay.

The evidence, however, does show people defending themselves from harm.

The message being sent to felons is don't bring a weapon to a crime unless you're prepared to accept the risk."

Everything in life, boils down to a risk, reward relationship, and unfortunately, the study here, failed to even substantiate the reward (positive impact of having a gun).

Three highest crime areas in the USA (Washington DC, Baltimore, Chicago) all have the most stringent gun control laws in the USA. NYC often abridges people's rights (as shown above) but they also actually follow through on the punishment of their law breakers.