Really? A load of crap? You give me credit for an entire load? I thought I might be in line for a half load... but now I'm thrilled.

Another compelling pro-gun viewpoint.

Like I said Lenny, I've learned to live with it. I don't at this time feel strongly enough about it to actually relocate overseas, but I have given it some thought. If I could make the money I make here somewhere else, I'd be out of here in a heartbeat. The country's going to hell in a handbasket. Way too many serious issues that negatively impact the average American, and not enough solutions to go around.

You're not quite right though. Countries with tougher gun laws do have a lower instance of violent crime. It's a fact. Really. Look it up if you don't believe me.

We'll always be fundamentally opposed on this issue. You who have your guns are ok with the level of violence in this country so long as your particular household is protected. I however am not satisfied with our level of safety around here, and will continue voting for those that want to make it better while paying my local and federal taxes for the law enforcement that I trust to protect me.

Maybe we should just become a free-state society, issue everyone a handgun to protect themselves, and see how that goes. I bet you would be ok with that.

If by passion you mean selfishness, then I at least agree with the basis for what you're trying to make your point on. Selfishness is the motivation behind probably 75% of violent crime. Someone wants what someone else has and they attempt to take it... whether it be a material possession, intellectual property, or the affections of another person.

I dare one of you to fire back at me that my assessment is wrong; that if guns were harder or impossible to own, that violent crime in this country would go down. And I never, ever said that guns were the sole factor in violent crime. One of the worst crime scenes I've ever seen involved the loss of a life using a garden shovel. A criminal will use whatever they can. The point I am making is that gun ownership to the general public makes violent crime too easy to carry out. I don't see how anyone can argue that.

Don't get me wrong. It will never change. I know that. I have learned to live with the fear that I could be the victim of a gun crime at most anytime in most any location.

I hope that your comfort in being able to own a gun far outweighs my fear of you having it.

I respect your opinion, and I know I am in the minority regarding my viewpoint, but from where I sit (which does happen to be in a suburban home) there doesn't appear to be any real deterret to violent crime. Seems to me a person prone to criminal behavior has his run of the place. His (or her) reign may last a short time, but it's long enough to destroy the lives of thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens every year. What kind of deterrent would be better than to make it illegal for them to have the weapon in their possession in the first place?

hilda... I won't patronize you by saying I understand how you feel because I don't. I can only imagine how it feels to be a 70 year old female, so you go right on toting your handgun, especially since it's legal for you to.

All I'm really saying is it's way too easy for someone having a bad day, or someone who just plain snaps, to alter my life permanently. There's really nothing more frightening than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

So I ask the question... at what point do the actions of the majority outweigh the rights of the few? I'll look for the statistics, but I'll be floored if it's not a 3-1 or 4-1 ratio of violent acts of aggression versus violent acts of protection. Wasn't this country founded on the principle of "majority rules"? Shouldn't the laws be written in the best interest of the majority?

Just my thoughts. For what it's worth mikeg... I never intimated that changing the law would end violent crimes. But I would be willing to bet several years' salary that it dramatically cuts it. I understand you have the right to bear arms. A laws a law. I don't like it, and my opinion is that the problem of violent crime is only going to get worse. Not sure how any of that is a weak argument, but then again you and I will obviously always be fundamentally opposed anyway. It's just a shame that there are several stories every day in this great country of ours that prove my point; that we as a society can no longer collectively handle the right to bear arms. And thanks to our constitution, that will never change.

Hmmm... remind me again why we have guns? Oh yeah! Because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms. Another good idea whos time has probably passed.

All you gun-rights activists who argue based on the right to own self protection... what's the ratio of violent crime to violent defense? Pretty one-sided still I bet.

My sympathies and thoughts to the family of the man killed.

Well, here you all are again. It's amazing how any story on this site that remotely deals with oil drilling brings the same people in with the same stances. But I have to say, you guys have taken this particular debate to a whole new, much more entertaining level.

I won't get into the back-and-forth with you people because I don't stand a chance... but I did want to pipe up and ask a relatively serious question.

Which is better... a politician who keeps the same stance on an issue regardless of the amount of updated information they get, or a politician who changes their stance on an issue when new information becomes available, even if they'll be labeled as a flip-flopper?