Oh the Irony

[Trinidad]

Fair enough. Do you think decreased legal gun availability would be helpful? If so, why and how?

Yes.

 

For one thing many illegal guns in the USA once were legal guns, somewhere else in the USA. It is very easy to "make" an illegal gun: Just take a legal gun and cross the state line. And that is not the only way.

 

I remember how the USA was putting pressure on The Netherlands when they decided to condone soft drugs (cannabis). It would certainly lead to an increase in the use of hard drugs (heroine, cocaine,...). Well, it didn't. But, then again, it is not easy to make cocaine from marihuana.

 

I am wondering why the same people who see a link between the use of legal and illegal drugs (that are chemically completely different) cannot see a link between legal and illegal guns (that are chemically exactly the same).

 

Rik

[billw55]

Wandering a little, I think there will be a difficulty keeping these new laws in place (if indeed they are passed to begin with). With so many weapons already in circulation, there will likely be a long lag time between banning particular items, and a decrease in activity with those items. And of course, as the effective date approaches, sales will skyrocket. So, I would expect availability (albeit illegal) will continue without extreme difficulty for .. five years? Ten? Twenty? In the meantime, incidents will continue to occur, which will be used to support the gun lobby's contention that the bans don't work. This kind of argument can be very persuasive with the general public, and a likely result is that the laws will be overturned or allowed to expire.

 

Any suggestions on how to deal with / counteract this progression?

[Phil]

Wandering a little, I think there will be a difficulty keeping these new laws in place (if indeed they are passed to begin with). With so many weapons already in circulation, there will likely be a long lag time between banning particular items, and a decrease in activity with those items. And of course, as the effective date approaches, sales will skyrocket. So, I would expect availability (albeit illegal) will continue without extreme difficulty for .. five years? Ten? Twenty? In the meantime, incidents will continue to occur, which will be used to support the gun lobby's contention that the bans don't work. This kind of argument can be very persuasive with the general public, and a likely result is that the laws will be overturned or allowed to expire.

 

Any suggestions on how to deal with / counteract this progression?

 

Yes, if the feds institute a buy-back program where the arms are melted down (and can't be sold by a crooked bureaucrat). The price needs to be greater than the street value of the weapon, although arguably, as the supply gets tighter, the value of these things is going to increase.

 

In the 1990's, I worked for a private trust that owned and operated a foundry in LA County. I distinctly remember a sheriff's vehicle showing up with a huge cache of weapons that were effectively turned into cast iron plumbing fittings.

[blackshoe]

I believe that the United States government has the legal authority to regulate fire arms.

"The right [of individuals] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unless of course the government wants to infringe it.

 

It is impractical to try to confiscate these [300 million] weapons. Therefore, any kind of gun control is off the table.

 

I don't believe that this is a valid line of argument. Guns are widespread, however, guns require ammunition and ammunition has a half life. Relatively few people have the equipment necessary to reload cartridges.

People seem fond of hyperbole, so allow me a little: the vast majority of those 300 million guns are not in the hands of criminals or whack-jobs.

 

That said, I agree that it's not a valid line of argument. Besides, when did a government ever give a damn about practicality? B-)

 

You'll probably want to ban reloading equipment then.

 

Why do governments ban guns? Fear. Not fear of whack-jobs or criminals. No, those in power fear "the shot heard 'round the world".

 

That ammunition can be expended does not suggest it has a "half-life".

[dwar0123]

Why do governments ban guns? Fear. Not fear of whack-jobs or criminals. No, those in power fear "the shot heard 'round the world".

 

The government bans guns because they fear the people will vote them out of office if they don't. Which is a right and good reason.

 

The government has absolutely no fear of the wack jobs who talk about overthrowing the government should it try to take their guns away. They fear the NRA because the NRA has money and money can buy influence with people, people who will vote to keep them in office if they support guns.

 

This delusional idea that arming the public is a check against government tyranny is astoundingly absurd. First of all, the 2nd amendment was meant to allow the state's to arm a militia to keep the federal government in check with respect to the states. Which worked not at all in the 1860's. It was never meant to arm the public at large against a democratically elected government. The notion is absurd on so many levels.

[barmar]

Fair enough. Do you think decreased legal gun availability would be helpful? If so, why and how?

I'm not sure that gun control really has a huge effect on inner-city violence, although there are probably some effects as described in the other responses. This is an example of the adage "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." These areas have a larger than normal proportion of criminals and criminal activity, hence the increased number of guns and gun violence.

 

But that doesn't mean that gun control is a waste of time -- it just means it's not the only solution. This thread was prompted by gun accidents. That's a completely different problem from areas with rampant crime problems. Most of the people arguing for gun ownership rights don't live in areas like this, they don't need guns to protect themselves from street gangs.

[barmar]

"The right [of individuals] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Unless of course the government wants to infringe it.

Isn't it telling that you needed to insert your own words in those brackets? Isn't that the crux of the argument over the intent of the 2nd Amendment, whether the framers actually meant individuals?

[mike777]

People are confused, the 2nd amendment did not allow or create the right to bear arms.

That right preexisted. It was a check on central govt powers. We can debate on how much of a check.

 

The Bill of Rights are checks on the power of the central govt and states and a check on the power of the majority over the minority.

 

Sometimes it seems posters think all power comes from the central govt and whatever they allow the people.

 

 

"The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property"

 

"Locke expounded on the idea of natural rights that are inherent to all individuals, a concept Madison mentioned in his speech presenting the Bill of Rights to the 1st Congress."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

 

----

 

 

 

"But I confess that I do conceive, that in a Government modified like this of the United States, the great danger lies rather in the abuse of the community than in the legislative body. The prescriptions in favor of liberty ought to be levelled against that quarter where the greatest danger lies, namely, that which possesses the highest prerogative of power. But it is not found in either the executive or legislative departments of Government, but in the body of the people, operating by the majority against the minority."

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

[dwar0123]

Isn't it telling that you needed to insert your own words in those brackets? Isn't that the crux of the argument over the intent of the 2nd Amendment, whether the framers actually meant individuals?

The funny thing is that his argument is flawed on both ends.

 

1. The framers made it very clear what they meant in other writings.

2. The framers also made it very clear that society should adapt the Constitution to their own needs, that it is not a suicide pact. Hence the ability to amend it and for the supreme court to interpret it.

[blackshoe]

This delusional idea that arming the public is a check against government tyranny is astoundingly absurd. First of all, the 2nd amendment was meant to allow the state's to arm a militia to keep the federal government in check with respect to the states. Which worked not at all in the 1860's. It was never meant to arm the public at large against a democratically elected government. The notion is absurd on so many levels.

Uh huh.

 

”A free people ought to be armed.” ~George Washington

 

”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” ~Richard Henry Lee

 

”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. … and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” ~St. George Tucker

 

”[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ~James Madison

 

”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” ~George Washington

 

”One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” ~Thomas Jefferson

 

”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” ~Alexander Hamilton

 

”The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.” ~James Earl Jones

 

”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

 

”If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.” ~Senator Orrin Hatch

[PassedOut]

Since I was 12 years old, firearms have been part of my life. Last Saturday two of my sons and I were at an outdoor firing range in Arkansas where my eldest sighted in a new rifle and we all took some target practice with both handguns and rifles. One of my sons has a keen interest in reloading ammunition to ensure accuracy and reliability.

 

My dad taught me both marksmanship and firearms safety. Had I ever been careless with my first single-shot .22 or any subsequent weapon, the consequences from my dad would have been swift and serious. But I never was careless with firearms, nor were any of my young friends that I shot targets with. I did plenty of irresponsible things in my youth, but never with firearms.

 

Although I've never hunted as an adult (my failure to get a clean kill one time early on turned me off of hunting permanently), I do prefer to keep firearms to practice marksmanship and to defend my home. We live in a large rural county in Upper Michigan, and it takes quite awhile for the sheriff's office to respond to calls here.

 

My sons and I reviewed Obama's executive orders as soon as they came out, and we saw nothing in those orders that we disagreed with. They were all reasonable and probably should have been in place already. And I certainly do not think that I, nor anyone else, should own weapons with greater firepower than the police or the military.

 

For my part, I'd be willing to accept more restrictions on firearms and clips to begin the long process of reducing gun violence in the US. Had I been one of the Newtown parents with a murdered child, I can't begin to imagine how I could have handled it. Not well, for sure.

 

On a lighter note, I'm often reminded of how times have changed since I was a boy. When I was in 7th grade, Mr. Anderson, the principal of the school, took me aside to offer some advice.

 

"Young man, don't spend so much time reading books. Spend more time outdoors with your .22."

[barmar]

People are confused, the 2nd amendment did not allow or create the right to bear arms.

That right preexisted. It was a check on central govt powers. We can debate on how much of a check.

You're right, the wording of the amendment presupposes that the right exists -- it says that the government may not infringe it. But it's still in question to whom that right is assumed to belong. It says "the people", which is a collective; that doesn't necessarily imply that individuals have this right.

 

As an earlier posting explained excellently, people and institutions don't have inherent rights, rights are granted by society. There are some rights that are often described as "inalienable", but that's a result of common morality. And these aren't absolute -- if you ask people in different societies or at different times, you'll get different opinions about what rights are inalienable. There was a time when much of white American society believed that blacks had fewer rights than they did, now most of us no longer believe that. There are still societies where the right to free speech or religious practice are not assumed.

 

So while the Bill of Rights didn't necessarily create the rights, it enumerated the rights that we believed to exist. By implication, rights that aren't enumerated can't necessarily be assumed. An example is privacy -- many people believe that this should be as strong a right as the ones in the 1st Amendment, but because it's never mentioned explicitly we can't force most companies to keep personal data private (contrast this with the EU, which does have such privacy provisions). Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say that the government can't infringe a right, then it means it CAN; and if a right can be infringed, it's not really much of a right.

 

That shouldn't be taken absolutely, either. There are some rights that are considered so obvious they go without saying, such as the right to life (although abortion and capital punishment debates show how complicated this is).

[mike777]

You're right, the wording of the amendment presupposes that the right exists -- it says that the government may not infringe it. But it's still in question to whom that right is assumed to belong. It says "the people", which is a collective; that doesn't necessarily imply that individuals have this right.

 

As an earlier posting explained excellently, people and institutions don't have inherent rights, rights are granted by society. There are some rights that are often described as "inalienable", but that's a result of common morality. And these aren't absolute -- if you ask people in different societies or at different times, you'll get different opinions about what rights are inalienable. There was a time when much of white American society believed that blacks had fewer rights than they did, now most of us no longer believe that. There are still societies where the right to free speech or religious practice are not assumed.

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html An example is privacy -- many people believe that this should be as strong a right as the ones in the 1st Amendment, but because it's never mentioned explicitly we can't force most companies to keep personal data private (contrast this with the EU, which does have such privacy provisions). Basically, if the Constitution doesn't say that the government can't infringe a right, then it means it CAN; and if a right can be infringed, it's not really much of a right.

 

That shouldn't be taken absolutely, either. There are some rights that are considered so obvious they go without saying, such as the right to life (although abortion and capital punishment debates show how complicated this is).

 

 

It may be clearer if you quote me in full. In any case I think this issue has been ruled on.

 

in fact this whole discussion of natural rights vs society rights was taken on by Madison, Locke and many others. You raise the whole issue of the tyranny of the majority and the whole debate over a democratic form of govt and its limits.

 

Often the whole issue of infringing on a right is really a discussion of competing rights. Much of what the Supreme Court does is rule on this whole issue of competing rights. The gun violence issue is one example.

-----

 

 

"http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html

 

I would encourage you to read this link of Madison presenting the Bill of Rights, for one this whole point is often expressed and Madison forsaw people claiming this point.

 

"So while the Bill of Rights didn't necessarily create the rights, it enumerated the rights that we believed to exist"

 

 

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow, by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution"

[blackshoe]

And I certainly do not think that I, nor anyone else, should own weapons with greater firepower than the police or the military.

 

For my part, I'd be willing to accept more restrictions on firearms and clips to begin the long process of reducing gun violence in the US. Had I been one of the Newtown parents with a murdered child, I can't begin to imagine how I could have handled it. Not well, for sure.

 

On a lighter note, I'm often reminded of how times have changed since I was a boy. When I was in 7th grade, Mr. Anderson, the principal of the school, took me aside to offer some advice.

 

"Young man, don't spend so much time reading books. Spend more time outdoors with your .22."

It would be difficult to own weapons with greater firepower than does the military. How do you feel about equal firepower?

 

"It's for the children" is certainly an emotional appeal, but is it really a justification?

 

Mr. Anderson's advice echoes Thomas Jefferson's. I grant you it's difficult to apply in most cities, though.

[blackshoe]

That shouldn't be taken absolutely, either. There are some rights that are considered so obvious they go without saying, such as the right to life (although abortion and capital punishment debates show how complicated this is).

Two men are adrift in a boat. They have enough food and water for both for 15 days, or enough for one for 30 days. They expect to make landfall in 29 days. Which one's right to life takes precedence?

 

As for the Second Amendment, this report may help.

[mikeh]

Uh huh.

 

”A free people ought to be armed.” ~George Washington

 

”To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” ~Richard Henry Lee

 

”The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits. … and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” ~St. George Tucker

 

”[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” ~James Madison

 

”Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.” ~George Washington

 

”One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.” ~Thomas Jefferson

 

”The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” ~Alexander Hamilton

 

”The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose.” ~James Earl Jones

 

”Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Thomas Jefferson (quoting Cesare Beccaria)

 

”If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying — that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime.” ~Senator Orrin Hatch

The historical references should be viewed within the context in which they were made.

 

The social and political realities of the world have changed. For example, there were very few formal police forces in colonial or immediately post colonial America. New York, for example, didn't have a police force until the mid 19th century.

 

Self-help and self-protection were far more important then than now.

 

In addition, even the most obstinate observer might have to recognize that the early US leaders of what was an armed insurrection might not have been completely objective in their views :P But more to the point: what may have been reasonable in one set of circumstances may not be reasonable in another set. Which is why anyone who feels the need to resort to statements from people who lived hundreds of years ago, in fundamentally different circumstances, reveals the limits of his or her intellectual abilities.

 

Intelligent people recognize that when circumstances change, our attitudes may need to change as well.

 

As for more recent conservatives, the fact that they say things doesn't make what they say valid. Appeals to authority, whether that authority be ancient or current, again reveal a profound intellectual weakness. An argument stands and falls on its logic and its relation to observable facts. Its validity is not demonstrated by simply quoting people saying it is valid.

 

The James Earl Jones statement, for example, is a ridiculously illogical argument. The bad guys, with guns, don't 'win', and aren't stopped from winning only by making sure the good guys have guns. Most people in Western Europe or Japan or Australia or New Zealand, for example, don't have guns and the 'bad guys' do a lot less harm there, per capita, than they do in the US. Indeed, if we want to draw inferences between the 'good guys' having guns and the prevalence of murders, the evidence suggests that the only valid inference is that the more guns the good guys have, the more people are murdered.

 

It is, of course, more complex than that. The Swiss have a high rate of gun ownership, tho I believe somewhat regulated and less to do with handguns than the US, and they have a low crime rate. But, you like simple arguments (as to all libertarians and most conservatives) because that way you can avoid dealing with messy reality.

 

There are cultural and historical reasons for the Swiss approach. There are cultural and historical reasons for the US approach. But the whole of the evidence suggests that restricting access to firearms saves lives. Lives can also be saved, even with widespread guns availability, if adequate restrictions are imposed upon the type of gun, and the use of it. A rule that one cannot, without a permit, take one's gun out of one's home, and that it must have a locking mechanism and safe storage such that kids can't get hold of it, would greatly reduce accidental and outside of the home rage incidents.

 

These are undenial realities, against which all you can come up with is the relatively rare instance in which a rational criminal would choose not to mug someone out of fear that that someone has a gun, or the even more remote chance that a perfectly law-abiding citizen will face a home invasion that could have been prevented by having a loaded firearm always within reach (of kids, angry spouse, distraught visitor, etc).

 

I don't expect you to respond substantively to this post, just as you have failed to respond to the other posts I made in this thread. People like you refuse to deal with objective reality; preferring to live in your bubble world in which your beliefs have the force of fact.

[PassedOut]

It would be difficult to own weapons with greater firepower than does the military. How do you feel about equal firepower?

 

"It's for the children" is certainly an emotional appeal, but is it really a justification?

 

Mr. Anderson's advice echoes Thomas Jefferson's. I grant you it's difficult to apply in most cities, though.

When rights conflict, something has to give. Yes, I do think that protecting the lives of innocent children (and adults) trumps my unrestricted access to firearms.

 

The police and the government act to protect the general welfare of the citizenry, and both should have greater firepower. Mr. Anderson would, I'll bet, get some flak if he offered the advice he gave to me to a 7th grader these days.

B-)

[kenberg]

It's in the nature of constructing a society that there is some restriction on what people can do. My own experiences with firearms have at least a general equivalence to PassedOut's. I no longer hunt, but I am not out to stop others from doing so. Otoh, an arrow came within a foot or so of my head, coming from some guy practicing archery in a park I frequented as a kid. Maybe we could restrict that a bit. I don't feel the need to have a gun for protection, but I once lived in a place where I considered it. I didn't get one, but I considered it. As in the case of PO, the issue was very substantial isolation.

 

I suspect that there are far more than just a few who see this matter in a way that PassedOut and I would both be comfortable endorsing.

 

 

A lot of lives are lost, a lot of lives are ruined, a lot of people live in fear. Not every problem can be solved, life can be tough, yada, yada, but I think we can do better. A lot better. But people who occupy the vast middle ground between total banning and total arming need to speak up. Some things, equal housing opportunity is one example, were very controversial until they were passed. After they were passed, we all wondered what on Earth took us so long. I think gun control will be seen to fall into this category.

[mike777]

It is a good reminder that throughout our history, including today, when the public has been polled on the Bill of Rights it is often voted down in part or full. :)

 

---

 

 

btw I like Ken's post.

[Phil]

I think we found our guy: Last Line of Defense

[hrothgar]

 

It is, of course, more complex than that. The Swiss have a high rate of gun ownership, tho I believe somewhat regulated and less to do with handguns than the US, and they have a low crime rate. But, you like simple arguments (as to all libertarians and most conservatives) because that way you can avoid dealing with messy reality.

 

 

The Swiss have a VERY high rate of gun ownership.

Ammunition... that's another story.

 

Here's the relevent quote:

 

Up until October 2007, a specified personal retention quantity of government-issued personal ammunition (50 rounds 5.56 mm / 48 rounds 9mm) was issued as well, which was sealed and inspected regularly to ensure that no unauthorized use had taken place.[4] The ammunition was intended for use while traveling to the army barracks in case of invasion.

 

In October 2007, the Swiss Federal Council decided that the distribution of ammunition to soldiers shall stop and that all previously issued ammo shall be returned. By March 2011, more than 99% of the ammo has been received. Only special rapid deployment units and the military police still have ammunition stored at home today.

 

...

 

The sale of ammunition – including Gw Pat.90 rounds for army-issue assault rifles – is subsidized by the Swiss government and made available at the many shooting ranges patronized by both private citizens and members of the militia. There is a regulatory requirement that ammunition sold at ranges must be used there.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

[ArtK78]

I think we found our guy: Last Line of Defense

Phil:

 

Go back to post #52.

[mike777]

Switzerland — Gun Facts, Figures and the Law

 

Useful link on Swiss gun facts.

 

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/switzerland

 

---

 

 

btw there are reports that the ammunition from shooting ranges is often brought home on a massive scale, this seems to be an open secret if the reports are correct.

I have no idea how long ammo can be stored and still be be workable in Switzerland.

[kenberg]

Criminals have stated, over and over again, that the possibility that a potential victim is armed gives them pause - they would much prefer to let that one alone, and go find someone safer to rob. So if I (or anyone else) am carrying, and the criminal knows it, I'm likely "never to get robbed in the first place".

 

You paint me as some slavering gun nut that goes around looking for excuses to to kill people. I suppose that fits your agenda.

 

You do realize an alternative here? If you look to be the best source of cash, and there is reason to believe you are armed, he first shoots you, then takes your cash. I realize that the old argument is that a guy does not have to run faster than a bear, he only has to run faster than the other guy. But if one guy looks particularly delicious, this logic may not apply.

 

But really, do you spend a lot of time in places where getting robbed at gunpoint is a serious possibility? I, very possibly delusionally, think I am pretty good at sizing up strange surroundings. If I am in a strange city and things don't look right, I don't analyze my reasons, I hit the road. If I had a gun in my pocket, I would still hit the road. Perhaps having a gun somehow makes some people feel safer. Slightly safer maybe, but only slightly. I feel a lot safer when I am somewhere else, and I don't want anything in my pocket that might lead me to believe that it's ok to ignore my instincts.

Not to mention that going out for a walk but first stuffing a gun in my pocket seems really weird.

Maybe you live in a (much) rougher neighborhood than I do.

 

I sort of hate to mention it, but my wife recently learned that a friend of a friend was shot and killed by her husband. I suppose the wife could have kept a pistol in her bra or something, but really I just don't have much faith in this approach.

[mike777]

Ken not sure how to stop that unless you want to go into homes and take away guns as an option.