DaytonDailyNews.com

By scott

August 31, 2007 8:05 PM | Link to this

in todays world you have to protect your own because you can not depend on the government or local police to be there when you need them

By scott

August 31, 2007 8:03 PM | Link to this

i’ve had a gun in the house since i was 18 and i’m 40 now, 2 shotguns, 2 blackpowder guns, 2 pistols, 2 high power rifles and i am getting ready to buy my wife and myself each a handgun and both of us are going thru the concealed carry course. if we as a people give up our rights to own guns without a fight then you can bet i would not be long until the government started taking some of our other rights as well.

By Joaniesgarden

August 31, 2007 8:03 PM | Link to this

Ron, I’m in total agreement, more than one police officer has made the comment that they were sorry they could not be there in time to stop an offender. We have to do what we can:witness as much as we can, protect ourselves if we see our life is in danger. It doesn’t matter if the person is holding a hammer, a lead pipe or a knife, but I would rather bring a gun to a knife fight. The best battle won is when a neighborhood sticks together, watches for ‘unusual’ comings and goings. That’s the key.

By preacher,franklin.ohio

August 31, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this

we,shouldnot,be,able,to,god,bless,you,all.

By Ron

August 31, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is not to protect us from each other. It is to protect us from our Government; just ask any “dissident” in China. Also, law enforcment doesn’t stop crime, it investigates and brings criminals to justice after the fact. If you want to stop crime you must lock up criminals. We don’t; which is why we have a high crime rate.

By Bar Staff

August 31, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

To Dot: So you would shoot someone for stealing a kettle from your yard or do you think that owning a gun would make sure people left you alone? Why not try campaigning for funding of local law enforcement?

By jim

August 31, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

I am not a proponent of gun control for a variety of reasons. What I don’t understand is why gun control is such a hot-button issue and drunk driving is not! I haven’t seen any statistics, but I would tend to guess that there are as many or more deaths from drunk driving than from guns each year. Yet, you get caught drinking and driving and you pay your lawyer a couple grand and wham, you are back on the street, no problem. Not the same if you get caught carrying a gun improperly.

By dot

August 31, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

We take law enforcement forgranted, but I once lived in an Ohio county where there was none because the county commissioners refused to fund the sheriff’s office. They only had a skeleton crew to operate the jail; no road officers. I lived 20 minutes out in the country. My home which was largely secluded on a hill was vandalized several times and a copper kettle stolen out of my yard. I believe it was Clark county’s sheriff department that almost didn’t get funded recently. What ya gonna do?

By Michael

August 31, 2007 2:12 PM | Link to this

Alice: The problem with your proposal is that we would have to ask the government for permission to keep and bear arms. In a free society, a person does not ask the government for permission to exercise a right. Keeping and bearing arms is not a privilege - it’s a RIGHT. Seeking permission is necessary before you’re allowed to exercise a right.

By Michael

August 31, 2007 2:05 PM | Link to this

“US had about 4 times the homicide rate of England/Wales” I don’t care… I would rather have the crime rate stay exactly where it is than give up my inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

By christine

August 31, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this

2005 murder/homicide rates

England and Wales had 765 homicides in a population of about 52 million people. (www.crimestatistics.org.uk, www.statistics.gov.uk)

United states had 16,692 homicides among a population of about 299 million (www.fbi.gov, www.census.gov).

England & Wales are about 1/6 the population of the US, so if they were equivalent in size they would have about 4590 homicides. So the US had about 4 times the homicide rate of England/Wales (who have gun control laws).

By alice

August 31, 2007 1:14 PM | Link to this

isn’t it true that gun control could mean any measure of control from complete prohibition to simple restrictions? I am a moderate liberal, believe in the right to bear arms but I don’t go along with whatever goes. I don’t know of any reason to own an assualt weapon, and there should be waiting periods, background checks and thorough registration. They shouldn’t be sold like candy. I also think it would be a good idea to be tested in knowledge and safety of a firearm before selling them.

By Michael

August 31, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Joe:

While you and I are in agreement that gun control is wrong, evil, immoral, and unconstitutional, I must point out that there’s no evidence Hitler ever uttered those words. It’s a popular but falsely-attributed quite.

By Michael

August 31, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Joanie:

I’m not sure if gun control increases or decreases crime; statistics can be used to prove either. Personally, I do not think gun control decreases crime. But you want to know something? Even if gun control DID reduce crime, I would STILL be against it. The existence of my right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on “crime statistics.” Given a choice, I would rather have a high crime rate – and my rights left intact – than a low crime rate and my rights forever stripped from me.

By Joe

August 31, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

“This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!” Adolf Hitler 1935

By Joanie

August 31, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Liberal+gun control. You need to clarify your statement and check your facts. “England has a higher crime rate.” What kind of crime? Murder? Violent crime? White-collar crime? Are you sure about the crime rates? You are not at all convincing.

By Chris

August 31, 2007 11:14 AM | Link to this

The show sounds interesting. I think it takes an open mind and a strong heart for someone to do something like this for 30 days. I’ll put the show on ‘to see’ list. What other kinds of subjects do they have in mind? Maybe a Vegan working at a meat market? A PETA member working at a pet shop?

By Michael

August 31, 2007 10:42 AM | Link to this

It is my opinion that I have a natural right to keep and bear arms. This right did not come from government, or the Constitution, or our Founding Fathers - I believe it is a natural, inalienable right. Because of this, I am completely against any and all gun control laws. The government is my servant, and does not have the authority to infringe upon my right to keep and bear arms.

By longdon

August 31, 2007 9:39 AM | Link to this

I consider myself a liberal. But first and foremost I believe in individual liberties. I favor decriminalization of marijuana. I’m pro-life, but believe that ultimately it’s the woman’s choice. I have no problem with gun “control”, as long as non-felons can still own just about any kind of weapon that they choose to.

Gun control is never going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. It’s also not going to keep them out of the hands of the citizens, it’s only to make more criminals.

By scott

August 31, 2007 9:19 AM | Link to this

The debates on gun control are a waste of time and our tax dollars. back ground checks are a good thing, but it still falls back to the criminals are not going to walk into a gun shop and fill out paperwork anyway. And if someone wants to kill someone else a hammer works just as good, but you will never see advocates or back ground checks for everyday items that can be just as deadly. IMO if we brought back public hangings and executions it would stop alot of the crime, instead of babying them.

By Doug Clem

August 31, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

This all changed when “liberalism” was hijacked by activists in the 60’s and 70’s. Now the phrase “liberal” describes folks who belive that if something does not suit them it should not be. All of their objectives result in opposite intent. Affirmative action intended to end discrimination by reverse descrimination. Gun control meant to curb crime gives criminals the advantage. Welfare meant to help get the less fortunate “back on their feet” creates a dependancy and KEEPS them off them.

By hello

August 31, 2007 9:01 AM | Link to this

Not that I don’t agree with what was written by James, but since when are metal disorders are listed on a background check. HIPPA would prohibit this I would think.

By Jim

August 31, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

I don’t know what makes these gun control advocates think that criminals will somehow obey these laws. The bad guys will ignore the law, (like all the others they do) and still have guns to commit crime. All gun control does it take away guns from law abiding citizens which makes it easier for the criminal. Bad idea IMO.

By Liberal = Gun Control

August 31, 2007 8:59 AM | Link to this

Since when does liberal mean being free with one’s personal choices, communism / socialism which are part of the liberal agenda do not promote personal choices. Liberals like O’Donnell, Moore, and many democrats all are for gun control which is why it is a liberal issue. Further more gun control does not stop crime, England which has outlawed guns has a higher crime rate then the US.

By James

August 31, 2007 8:31 AM | Link to this

Since when is gun control a liberal advocacy? Being liberal means being free with one’s personal choices, which includes owning firearms. I guess I am more moderate because the current gun laws work fine when applied. Throw in a little common sense, that is, don’t sell to people with mental disorders (via background check), and bingo, problem solved. Besides, gun regulation as proposed by gun control advocates only promote criminals having weapons and not law abiding citizens.