This comment area is closed to new submissions. Visit ITVS.org to continue the conversation about this film.
San Jose, CA
I recently saw a re-run of this show. While the show tried hard to be fair it was ultimately biased towards gun control. For example the argument was made that the Second Amendment applied only to the military. The counter arguments to this therory were not presented. Both of the "experts" in suits and ties were pro gun control. There were no suited "experts" or academics presented on the pro Second Amendment side. A little bit of John Lott would have gone a long way towards making the presentation fair and balanced.
I was delighted to see that the vast majority of the published feedback was pro Second Amendment. This is yet another verification that the gun control faction is a small but vocal minority.
Now that we have a fair Supreme Court with Roberts and Alito I am sure we will see good progress in the disolution of the massive gun control legislation forced up us by the liberal minority.
We speak about this issue across a cultural divide with an incredible difference in our assumptions.
When I see the film, I see the violence in the inner city as a result of cultural issues - you have no idea of how horrific the idea that as children and adolescents people "punched each other" and then became friends. I grew up in a culture where such conduct would result in immediate consequences from my parents. This shows a dangerous level of cultural isolation in the Black community, one caused by poverty, lack of an adequate educational system, and discrimination.
This failure to teach children internal controls in certain American subcultures, not all of them inner city nor minority, has serious repercussions for everyone. A society that expects external controls to modify human behavior will either fail or become a police state.
Most of the victims of violence were not children; they were in their middle to late teens, adolescents or young adults.
Another reality is that gangs can only flourish where parents tolerate them; if adolescents and young adults living at home are permitted to roam without parental control over whom they are with, or where they are going, it is not surprising that violence and disruption are the result.
It is a cultural divide, and I suspect that outlawing firearms will be as ineffective as outlawing drugs. The lack of insight into the underlying issues was apparent in the idiotic statement by the one academic on how firearms used in New York crimes came from outside New York - when the real question is why crimes are committed in New York.
There were factual errors - the argument that the Second Amendment pertained to a government militia has even been debunked by Lawrence Tribe. A problem with the idea that the "firearms come from outside, is that many firearms involved in crimes are not traced. And the question was not raised as to why the firearms don't cause problems in other areas.
The problem is inner city violence. The root causes need to be examined - racism, poverty, discrimination, and a cultural isolation that has led to the acceptance of violence as the normative response to others.
This whole gun control thing is stupid. Making a law restricting guns will only affect law abiding people, who use their guns appropriatly anyway. Criminals will find ways to get guns, whether there is a law or not. In fact, this law will make it EASIER for criminals to break in and steal what they want.
This scheme isn't even about our safety. The first step to creating a communist gov. is to take away the guns. This is just a big plan for power, don't fall into it!
Having guns in America may affect our safety, but you can't have safety and freedom. I'd rather have freedom!
We have people living in the middle of the desert starving. I have one word of advise for them...move to where the food is. We have young people living in poor urban areas being killed in gang related incedences. I have one word of advice for them...move to where the crime isn't.Why not move to a smaller more peaceful town and not put yourself in that kind of situation?
I feel that there should be gun control.Despite what the NRA feels on the subject.Gun Control is necessary.We should be able to feel safe.Should we be able to purchase a gun for our own protection?Yes.That should be a decision that we make,not someone else can decide for us.I believe that where you live can play a part in shaping how a person would feel about possessing a gun.
If you live in a safe neighborhood,the idea of "owning a gun",does not even enter your mind.In fact,the idea of even owning a weapon sickens you.
On the flip side of this issue,if you live in a poorer section,guns are a way of life.You need to protect not just yourself,but your family as well.
I do not want to sound cynical, but in Baltimore, MD, if you review the murder of most of the men who were killed by handguns you will find that majority of them were of a certain element, which was either criminal or drug related. Not many of the murders were committed by random acts of violence. Not many of the murders were committed on innocent bystanders or random robberies. In Baltimore, most of the murders were committed by men who knew each other, and were of a criminal cultural. Most of them did something to someone and was retaliated against. The average criminal will not apply for a legal firearm. It's legal to manufacture the materials to make firearms; it's legal to sell firearms; and it's legal to purchase a firearm, so why try to make it illegal for a law abiding citizen to own a firearm. Children taking firearms to school is not an everyday occurance. There is somethings and some people you could never protect society from. The average kid do not shoot up their school. The kid(s) who do that are the one(s) who have some kind of personal problem that they can not deal with in a rashional way. All responsible critizens who choose to purchase a firearm should not be punished for the actions of the criminal of the sick of mind.
Why is that mothers can travel all the way across the country to attend a march, yet can not keep their children away from situations that cause them to get killed? Lets face it; the gun is a prime suspect NOT!!! We here in Canada have been subjected to very heinous laws regarding ownership and usage of firearms in such a way that our rights have been REMOVED without recourse� It is also costing us 1 Billion dollars� To put that into perspective, Canada is around 10% the size of the US, this project if it were funded the same way would be 10 Billion dollars in the US... More than a bit extreme.. Think of the stuff you could do with that...
I think that socially there are problems in both our countries, and it is easier to blame a piece of metal with wood or plastic rather than try to deal with the issues Violence begets violence. If the communities and citizens starting looking out for each other, and stop whining why the government isn�t helping them, the world would be a better place. We have the tools, the resources and we certainly have the intelligence to sort ourselves out, stop blaming guns, stop blaming me and the other law-abiding people and start looking deeper!!!!
I assume you're not aware that it's not legal to buy a handgun under Federal law until you're 21, long guns until 18?
Or that in most of the states that allow street carry of a defensive weapon, people have to pass both a heavy background check plus a class that includes the "legal use of deadly force" standards (and the extreme penalties for screwing that up)?
If you did know that, you're simply projecting your own unfounded fears.
If you didn't, you're simply speaking out of total ignorance. I don't know which, and I quite honestly don't care.
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
You seem confused. We are talking about law abiding citizens, adults, having guns for personal protection - NOT children at school.
Of course you would teach your children to handle their disagreements in a different manner. And that same idea applies to two adults having a disagreement - they should not have to even resort duking it out.
Now image this - you are stopping at a convenince store to pick up a gallon of milk on the way home from work and you are unfortunate enough to walk smack into an armed robbery in progress. The thug threatens to take you hostage and brandishes a huge knife, as you realize they've beaten the clerk, who is laying bleeding on the floor. Quick, what do you do?
Hold up you dukes? Whip out a cell phone and call 911? Pray the police happen to come by at the nick of time? Submit to the criminal's demands and pray he doesn't rape and/or kill you? Would you really rather do that? All because you gave up your right to own a gun - instead of teaching the fundamentals gun safety and responsible gun ownership to all adults and children? Wouldn't it be better to be demanding that criminals be blamed for violence instead of an inantimate object?
If we have the right to carry a gun and a child gets mad at school or on the street what is he/she going to do whip out the gun shoot the person. We are trying to keep the murder rate down yet some people want to have guns because they say they want to be protected. If you dont have guns and 2 kids or adults get in a fight let them duke it out instead of bringing a gun into it.
Park Slope, Brooklyn
Women as a whole, not just mothers, are fast becoming a major voice in the gun culture. Once an extreme minority.
Their message as parents to "choose" gunownership and take an active role in the protection of their families is something to be commended.
The issue of women and gun control policy has nothing to do with gender. Owning powerful, "scary looking" guns is the birthright of an american. With the intention of keeping government tyranny at bay and preventing genocide, which is the nature of government, by an armed citizenry.
Whats disheartening about this film is the debate itself. It lacked very significant voices... the criminal and those politicians that seek to disarm the people in the name of "safety" (if only the government would profile itself). For this reason I felt it to be unfinished.
Determined criminals dont obey law and gun control is the myth that threatens every freedom we have under the sun. We need to wake up and take responsability for ourselves, our families and nation and s
top being herded like cattle by those in power.
Though I really do feel for the poor lady on the film who lost her sons, I do have a serious question. She lost all three of her sons and two of her nephews (she mentioned this during the film) at "different" times to violence. Any loss of life is regretful but I seriously doubt that these were all "good" boys caught in the wrong place. Come on!! This cannot be a coincidence. Her entire part testified more to serious social issues than gun-control. Focusing on guns only takes the spotlight off the "real" questions here. The real problems would be much more difficult (and uncomfortable) to solve.
San Jose, CA
"The simple truth is that pro gun rights supporters are organized, determined, consistantly put their money and votes where their mouth is and raise thier families to do the same. This is why they will win in the long run."
Actually, the simple truth is that the pro gun rights supporters are self-reliant, and are averse to having the government be the sole source of protection. They will put their money/votes where their mouth is, and raise their families to be self-reliant as well.
The anti gun rights supporters are the ones that would like to be a peasants, protected by the force of arms held by their noble lord.
Colorado Springs, Colorado
To the person who posted this:
"...it is important to note that guns are made with the sole intent of killing, cars are not." and this, "In supporting one's right to carry a gun, you are in favor of supporting its intentional use, which is to kill another human - which I do not support."
This is faulty logic. Guns are an implement of war and have evolved into an implement defense. In warfare, the best tactic is to take as many enemy combatants off of the battlefield as possible. One of the BEST ways to get that result in close combat is to INJURE the enemy combatants and subsequently take the injured and those that come to their aid off the battlefield. Injure one, and three or more will be taken out of combat. This is a well known military tactic. The statement that guns are made with the sole intent of killing is incorrect. Guns are designed to propel a projectile at high velocity, period. A hammer is designed to drive and remove nails, period. Either one can injure or kill depending on the person operating the device.
With that said, I can't understand the logic behind depriving the lawful citizen, male or female, the most effective means of defending oneself. It only gives the unlawful, those who respect no law, firearm or otherwise, the upper-hand in the commission of their crimes. Females, being the physically smaller of the species, naturally benefit more from the equalizing effect of the defensive firearm.
Guy B. Meredith
San Ramon, CA
I note the comment that guns are made only for killing. This often repeated comment is incorrect. Unfortunately many people pass up very challenging and enjoyable sports because they limit firearms to self defense and criminal use.
An entire industry is built around firearms designed for competition and recreation only. People involved in some of these competitions shoot thousands of times more rounds than criminals and irresponsible individuals, but not one of the bullets is designed to be an efficient killing tool.
Firearms were designed to kill at one time in history, but like the baseball bat and culinary knives many are now created only as a test of the user's skill.
If removing firearms from the citizens is supposed to stop the intentional or accidental killing, and suicides that totals just under 30,000 in this country annually, what of the 2 million defensive uses with firearms that occur each year also?
Each year armed citizens draw their weapons 2,000,000 times in this country to prevent a crime from happening to themselves or to someone else. Lets say just one tenth, no, one twentieth of those instances would have resulted in an innocent victim of crime being killed (while being robbed, raped, assaulted, etc). That would equal out to 100,000 lives being saved each year because of responsible armed citizens. Even if it was one out of 100 20,000 lives have been saved.
Can you tell who is a potential victim or armed citizen? Neither can criminals. Lets keep them guessing.
San Francisco Bay Area, California
You're absolutely right. The violence levels are massively concentrated in a few urban areas.
Ever asked why that is?
Gun control in the US has always been directed primarily at minorities, especially blacks. Until fairly recently (1950s forward and even then spotty), black-on-black crime wasn't taken seriously at all; so long as no white bodies turned up, racist inner-city cops didn't care. The actual police slang term for violence in the black areas of town circa 1890 to well into the 20th century was "just another niggertown Saturday night" which is where the gun-banners get the term "Saturday night special" for low-end handguns. NOT an accident, that.
While gun control laws appeared to be written in a race-neutral fashion after the passage of the 14th Amendment of 1868, the reality was different. As Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in a 1941 case involving a white guy *freed* despite packing without a carry permit put it:
"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." � Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941) from Clayton Cramer�s �Racist Roots Of Gun Control�:
(Note: Buford partially lied. What happened in 1893 was that a Klan raiding party tried to hit a black township just outside of Gainsville. The "brothas" shot the bejeezus out of 'em with leverguns and revolvers (yea!). Gu
ess which guns were specifically targeted for permits in Florida in 1893? Yup. Leverguns and revolvers.)
So here's what's happening today: the cities with the highest black populations also have the heaviest gun control: New York, Boston, Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles and similar, and until very recently (2001) Detroit. The cities with the least gun control such as Dallas, Seattle, Portland OR and similar have the lowest minority populations.
You think this is an *accident*?
When gun control is enforced in a poverty-stricken area, the result is to provide criminals with easy LOCAL access to unarmed victims. When Florida reformed their gun control in 1987 and allowed anybody able to pass a background check and training to pack on the street, the state average percent of such "packers" was the typical 3% or so, but in inner-city Miami people locked'n'loaded at a greater rate, up to about 15% in some areas. That drove the criminals out and for a while they preyed on tourists until renta-car
bumper stickers and other insignia was outlawed. (Got that? They protected the tourists by blending them in with the armed population. Other than that one issue, crime has dropped steadily in FL since '87.)
Want hard stats? Here's a breakdown of the number of gun carry permits issued in each California county in 1997, and a racial breakdown of the counties. The data is crystal clear: if you live in a county with less than the state average black population (6.7%), your odds of having a permit in your pocket and a gun legally concealed is FIVE TIMES HIGHER than the residents of the "blacker counties" (regardless of your race). A five to one disparity ain't accidental:
Or take Fresno County: in 1995, the Fresno Bee newspaper got ahold of the list of all 2,500 permitholders. They sorted out what percent had Latino surnames: 3%. The county is FOURTY FOUR PERCENT HISPANIC per US census data!!! The unedited article:
Gun control isn't the solution. IT'S THE CORE OF THE PROBLEM. Well, admittedly, one core - the other is the idiotic "drug war", see also the movie "Traffic" for all that needs to be said on that one. The various drug bans ALSO started out as "minority control" in the 1930s plus they needed to give the former Revenuers something to do (sheesh).
End the drug war, you yank the money to the gangs and remove the "greed factor" (turf wars, etc.).
End gun control, you allow the honest people still in the "hood" to complain about crime, work with the police and in general help restore order as responsible adults, instead of the "I didn't see 'nuthin" of scared sheeple.
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
Your facts are wrong - Maria Heil DID NOT grow up on a farm in rural PA, she just happens to live there - she's from Chicago. Stop spending time being pissed for the wrong reasons and open your mind and ears.
You do not have to experience gun violence in an urban setting; it happens in rural, remote areas and suburbs, as well. The point is being able to defend yourself and being able to choose to use a gun as one tool to do that with. If there had been an armed guard or teacher at Columbine - lives could have been saved.
Please do yourself a favor and read the Federalist Papers - the militia is people like you and me, NOT an organized standing army.
911 or 9mm? You choose your 9 and I'll choose mine.
It seems that most people who are pro-gun-control are those who did not grow up learning proper possession, handling and safety techniques, and have had no experience with correct usage of weaponry. Many others seem to have their own personal agenda for being on the pro-gun-control bandwagon.
What good are any of our other rights if we don't have the right to defend ourselves and family?
I will now join Second Amendment Sisters.
IF you take guns away from the law-biding citizen then only criminals will have guns. Do you like those odds?
IF the , city, county, state or federal goverment wants to take what is mine and what is my inalienable right under the second amendment then they can come and get them but they can't have my guns until they pry them from my cold dead hands.
Now does the goverment want the blood of Americans on their hands after they realize their "gun control" turned innocent Americans into "criminals"?
S. A. Martinez
Fort Myers, Florida
We teach our children to stay away from caustic chemicals, to cross the street only at the light, put little skull & crossbones on poisons, safety locks on our cupboards, etc.
Teach them GUNS are LETHAL WEAPONS of defense & sport. And for every action in life, there is a reaction and a CONSEQUENCE.
If gun ownership laws are enforced, the ONLY ones who will comply, are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. Criminally intentioned have already made their choice to NOT ABIDE BY THE LAWS.
I've heard it all. Over and over, again and again.
Your film emphasizes the "pro-gun" side. But, the problem is that basically, everything (or almost everything) that both sides say is right!
Guns are dangerous -- guns (with proper care) are safe; guns kill; -- guns save lives and limbs; guns in the house endanger -- guns in the house protect, etc.
Both sides are right. Almost all of the arguments and noise are a waste and distraction. For that matter, this is also true for your documentary -- which I found tedious.
The real issue is choice (like in the abortion issue) -- Freedom of Choice. Each person (or household) should be able to make the choice of gun ownership and carry for themselves. The government and the loudest voices or the majority should not dictate to all.
America is supposed to be the land of the free -- freedom for everyone, not just for the majority or those making the most noise.
If both sides could recognize and accept the truths the other side claims, then maybe we could have a more intelligent debate about the details of registration, oversight, restrictions, etc. that the "anti-gun" side feels is necessary to protect them from illegal gun use, but that the "pro-gun" side fears will lead to the loss of their rights of ownership and carry.
To Independent Lens;
The thing that REALLY PISSED ME OFF about that Heill woman is this; She has spent her ENTIRE LIFE on a FARM in RURAL Pennsylvania!!! Drive-by drug shootings,gang-bang warfare,and ALL manner of URBAN crime,is something you experience in a MAJOR urban city,like the Black and Chicano ladies interviewed in this film!! They live with GUN VIOLENCE EVERY DAY of their lives!! You DO NOT experience GUN VIOLENCE in a AFFLUENT WHITE SUBURB,or on a RURAL farm in Pennslyvania!! EVER!! The show's producers were RIGHT; It IS going to take ANOTHER COLUMBINE,before"WHITE" America FINALLY GETS THE MESSAGE!! Hey,..it's YOUR KIDS,and THEIR FUTURE(If,...they HAVE any!). And,finally,to the Second Amendment Sisters,CHANGE YOUR NAME!! If you fight for GUN rights,FINE,but...STOP TWISTING the Second Amendment to suit YOUR OWN ENDS!! The Second Amendment guarantees the RIGHT to BEAR ARMS to the MILITIA!!!!! Not to the Private citizens,Male or Female!! Our founding fathers NEVER DREAMED of Semi-automatic rifles,machine guns,and repeating pistols with the FIREPOWER you have in the 21st Century!! And,finally,to the RELIGIOUS HANDGUN ZEALOTS out there,if you EVER pray for anything,DO NOT pray for stopping GUNS from being TAKEN from you,You had better PRAY that NONE of YOUR SONS or DAUGHTERS ever DIE NEEDLESSLY by a GUN!! IF...THAT happens,would it MATTER if it was a CRIMINAL or, a NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR?!! THINK ABOUT IT!!
the bottom line is this...........guns will always be around and so will criminals!!!
if you take my gun from me how the heck could i protect my family if a criminal enters my home with an illegal gun? maybe if i ask him nicely hell say o.k. and walk away. i don't think so!!! i'll be dead,my wife raped and my child kidnapped. so all i have to say to anyone that thinks taking guns off of the law abiding citizens will somehow stop crimes with guns is ....do you beleive in santa claus?
mesa , az
Why is it that I have had constant access to guns from the age of six, yet I,ve killed no one, I,ve robbed on one. I guess it is because my parents put more time and effort in raising me than your average bastard childs parent,"singular".
You can live your immoral live anyway you want, this after all the U.S.A.,and have as many children as you can,t afford to take care of. Then when they see something I have, and they are willing to rob and kill me for it, after I,ve worked my whole life for it, please don,t tell me it is a gun issue. It is social and lack of community issue.
People are killed with knives, bats, choked to death with ropes and bare hands, run down with cars. None of this is a gun issue,when you say I,ts the guns fault you should look in the mirror deep in your own soul for the failure to find the right partener. Your only goal is a cheap fling and you think is my job to support your sorry butt? Think again. Why don,t you accept some of the blame? If your child didn,t have a
gun he would kill some other person with a knife! Maybe we should have all the knives sold with a background check? And cars too.
San Francisco Bay Area, California
I'm a political activist in California, specializing in exposing the official misconduct in the handling of gun permits under this state's "discretionary" permit process.
Sheriffs and police chiefs have total control over who gets a permit, with no oversight. The system is rife with corruption, cronyism, racism and gender bias.
I use the state's version of the FOIA (the California Public Records Act), public campaign finance disclosure documents, corporate filings and the like to dig into the abuses, as is my right. But without the ability to legally pack, all of these "sunshine laws" serve only to put my life at risk if I actually dare use them and then uncover anything really nasty. I personally press on while keeping my address very low profile, but I've had reporters start to dig into this with me and then get scared off when we find six-digit payoff amounts and worse.
This is why the Bill Of Rights is a unit: while it's perfectly proper to do non-violent political reform and research, and th
e laws are well designed to facilitate it, if you don't have a basic right to self defense you can get killed if you actually excercise your political rights as a citizen.
The founders understood this.
The "Mommies" don't.
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page
The simple truth is that pro gun rights supporters are organized, determined, consistantly put their money and votes where their mouth is and raise thier families to do the same. This is why they will win in the long run.
I though the program presented both sides fairly. The God-given right of self-protection for women prevails in reasonable thinking people. Only those who have buried a child, as I have, can know the pain of such a loss. Gun control shifts the balance of power to the criminal and predator. I work in a prison and the inmates LOVE the idea of gun-control. Most convicted felons with tell you that they would avoid victims who they believed to be armed.
Louisiana State Coordinator
SECOND AMENDMENT SISTERS
If we take the guns away ppl will continue to kill each other.
Im not for or against gun control, but i think it is futile.
People will just use knives.
Probably the most accurate and credible source for fatality statistics
is the CDC and it's online inquiry system at
It provides the most comprehensive access to these data (numbers and rates by means, intent, age, sex, race, state and year -- and probably
several I've forgotten -- with user-defined subsets and parameters). If any source for such statistics is listed, this one should head the list.
(you have several CDC ones, but not this one)
(I'm a pro-control advocate, and have no affilitiation with CDC whatsoever -- but this is a totally objective assessment.)
The following is a true story. I'll try to be brief.
I am the mother of six children. We live in a rural community and last year, my husband was an over the road driver and not home often.
I was home alone with my children when I heard someone trying to break in to my home at 1am. I went to our gun safe and retrieved my firearm, went upstairs where the children were sleeping, grabbed the cordless phone, and woke up my two oldest children (ages 17 and 15) and called 911.
Then, I called out the window where I couldn't be seen, "I hear you, I know you are down there. I am armed, I am in fear for my life...and I'm a good shot."
I could hear the would-be criminals scurry away. My oldest son could see their flashlights bobbing up and down as they ran through the field behind our house.
The police arrived as soon as they could, but after surveying the damage to our windows, it wouldn't have been soon enough had I not been armed and able to avoid the home invasion.
I have the right to protect myself and my family. I have been forced by those with criminal intent to exercise that right and, thankfully, the outcome was a good one.
By being responsible and legal firearm owner, my husband was able to come home to his family, not to possibly come home to make funeral arrangements for them.
Do guns (or people with guns) save lives? Yes.
Do guns (or people with guns) take lives? Yes.
What is most interesting is how some will claim guns save lives, but it's the people with guns who take them. The more honest answer is that guns facilitate both. And, if we could get beyond the soundbites like "Guns don't kill peo-ple, people kill people," we'd be able to move on to more constructive issues relating to the relative frequencies and shift the balance to maximize net benefit to society.
It would best serve the public if the upcoming show focused on the causes of rancor in the debate -- if those can be exposed and defused, PBS will have done a service to promoting a constructive dialogue; otherwise, I fear, they will have done little but fuel the destructive one.
I am a co-founder and member of the board of directors of Second Amendment Sisters. I bring the perspective of the older woman to the debate.
As we women age, usually we become physically weaker, and slower. Older women are very often the target of criminals, as they figure we are "easy picking".
Well, it doesn't take a lot of strength and agility to train yourself to be an accurate shooter, which I have done. I now feel that the playing field has been leveled, and that I can take care of myself, if the need ever arises, God forbid!
It's very hard for me to understand why anyone, especially another woman, would want to deny me the right to defend myself.
To the person who compared guns killing and drunk drivers killing: While I agree in both situations it is the person who is killing, it is important to note that guns are made with the sole intent of killing, cars are not. Most drunk driving deaths, although irresponsible and abhorrent are not intentional. Most shootings are intended to kill, or injur. Therefore I think it more logical to remove something that is intended to kill. There are lots of things that can unintentionally kill, household cleaners for example. We can't ban everything that could kill someone. In supporting one's right to carry a gun, you are in favor of supporting its intentional use, which is to kill another human - which I do not support. Good intent is good karma:-)
I hope that the producers of this show really do show both sides of the picture and don't edit the program to reflect their own opinion, one way or the other. Don't let this be another "Bowling for Columbine" disaster.
I am so tired of guns being blamed for what people do with them. Guns do not kill. People using guns Kill.5/8/03
If we used the same analagy with the great loss of life from drunk drivers there would be a rush to make cars banned. Since most peeople drive cars no one would dream of taking all the cars off the roads. Cars don't kill. Irresponsible drivers kill.
When will will the those pro gun control people wake up and smell the coffee
YOU are correct. No one should have to give up the right of self defense no matter what. If a person loses someone to "Gun violence" its all the more reason for that person to WANT to be able to protect themselves against an attack.
Guns do NOT cause crime. Bad parenting skills do.
I think we should ban all handguns just like New York City it has worked so well there and now there is no shootings and everyone can live happily ever after!!!!
I think some guys feel threatend having women armed in our society. This may deter many of the violent crimes women find themselves victims of such as rape, domestic violence, etc. Just having a gun can prevent a tragic situation.
Kevin E. Stroud
I look forward to a well-balanced presentation and encourage the producers/directors to carefully *verify* any supposed statistics and, if related, to give them in proper context. Too often in this debate spurious facts/figures are bantered...
I'm with Y'all 100%!!!! It feels good to see the women of the USA want to be armed!!! My wife chooses to be- so- Y'all GO!!!!!
I am the Executive Director of Armed Females of America a national no-compromise,pro-gun womens organization (but not to the exclusion of men) and former Pres/Chairwoman of Second Amendment Sisters. My 12 year old son Joey was murdered, he was shot in the head in front of his two brothers and two other friends.
The killer that took my sons life said less than an hour before Joey was killed that "wouldn't it be neat to kill someone, you could get away with it so easy". And he did!
A gun was used as the tool to take Joey's life, but it was the person behind the trigger that is the KILLER and the one RESPONSIBLE, NOT THE GUN! The gun was merely a tool, it didn't go off by it's self.
Each of my children were taught the safe handling of guns. My grandchildren are being taught gun safety.
A gun is the great equalizer for women!!
self-defense is a basic human right. If I am a woman without a "man' to protect me, I want the RIGHT to own and use a firearm for my own protection. Is that too much to ask??? I am small, weak, and vulnerable. Why do I have to be a victim? NO!