Sorry, all the anti-gun ranting aside, I still don't believe this is a gun problem. This is a problem with people not respecting life, not respecting others' right to life, even when we disagree. The vast, vast majority of gun owners never use them in anger or malice toward another, yet a story like this will make everyone yell "no more guns!"

Sorry, that isn't going to make the problem go away, they'll just club some kid with a tire iron, run him over with a car, or kick the ever-loving-shit out of him out of sight of others. Of course, no one will call for a ban on knives, autos, or tire irons - but they will call for it on guns. And all the while, the real issue remains unresolved.

I agree, Andy, that it's a "not respecting life" problem, but nonetheless, throughout Europe, where public ownership of firearms is generally not allowed, there are far fewer deaths of this nature.

The argument that "they'll just club some kid with a tire iron" is a bit bogus. When you beat someone with a tyre iron, you don't instantly kill them. You have to go at it with a purpose, and it probably takes a lot of effort. More likely, someone being beaten would just end up severely injured, not instantly dead, like with most shootings.

A tyre iron is a tool to work with tyres. It can be used as weapon, but that's not it's primary purpose. A handgun is for killing. It has NO OTHER PURPOSE. That's the problem that I have with them.

Regardless of "how careful" responsible gun owners are, it still begs the question, why do you - a civilian, not at war, not part of a militia - need a gun? I've never owned one, I've lived in some fairly rough parts of London and Liverpool, and yet I've never had any time in my life where I've genuinely thought, "I'd be happier if I had a gun".

I know Libertarians, like yourself (Andy), hold a "I should be able to do what I like" view on everything in life, but I feel that there are some areas in life, such as the ownership of instruments of death, where, quite frankly some members of the public aren't responsible enough to be unsupervised. I mean, if they kill themselves, you could argue that it's just natural selection kicking in, but with a gun, they have a very real chance of killing an innocent bystander.

What Max said, basically.

I really want to know whether pro-gun people think they're living out the second amendment to the US constitution, and in that case whether they really believe that they are part of a well-regulated militia. You seem sane, Andy. Do you know what's going on in peoples' minds?

Secondly: there seems to be this common fantasy, based on the 2nd, that gun owners are somehow standing as a bulwark against a possible future government which might act unconstitutionally.

In which case: where are you all now? Your government is knowingly lying to you about Iraqi posession of WMDs.

How far over the line does a government have to step to make all these imagineers rebel? Will they all simultaneously detect when that happens?

(I know: you could tell me but then you'd have to kill me. What the heck, at least I might die satisfied.)

It's time you face it. You are living in a fantasy world. Several rednecks are no match for a government. If you don't believe me just replay your tapes of Gulf Arms Fair II, and watch what your recent taxes have been spent on. Then bear in mind that the Iraqi military were about as well armed as you (albeit more organised).

Didn't mean to bum you out none.

timM.

Tim - in light of the statement regarding a well-regulated militia, you'll find that is why I am not against gun registration, mandatory firearms training for gun owners, and closing gun show loopholes. I'm also not dumb enough to think that the people armed with their normal weapons are enough to stop a government hell-bent on oppressing them with the latest military hardware; however, it would give them pause, as gun ownership in Iraq has (leading to the confiscation of weapons from individuals).

Must run as I am currently suffering from a lovely bout of food poisoning, most likely obtained at the Old Chicago restaurant on 120th Ave in Thornton. Just so you know.

If you think Adams City students are toting guns because they feel they have a constitutional right to do so, you're delusional. They don't know word one about gun laws, because they don't adhere to them. They don't care. The laws mean nothing. Stricter gun laws will not make it more difficult for them to get guns, only more difficult for US to get guns to legally defend ourselves.

Changing gun laws and concealed carry guidelines won't keep assholes like this from toting firearms. Are you that out of touch that you believe these guns were obtained under current legal guidelines?

Do you think they walked into a Gart Brothers and filled out their application, then waited the mandatory 3 day cool down period before taking home their new pistol in a shiny new box? Hell no.

The laws in place are sufficient, Max. Are you even familiar with them all?
I have a gun, and a concealed carry permit. I know the laws and read what the NRA has to say.

You know I love ya Max, but you're uninformed on this one.

Danelle, I'm not so stupid that I think that outlawing public ownership of guns would make problems like this go away.

BUT, if the general ownership of handguns were made illegal (after all what reason does anyone have to own a handgun except to kill another human being), and there was an amnesty, where people could hand in their guns, then a general reduction in the number of guns in society, would almost certainly reduce the number of gun deaths.

I only brought up the "right to bear arms" thing in response to Andy's comment. Not in regard to these students.

You said, "Stricter gun laws will not make it more difficult for them to get guns, only more difficult for US to get guns to legally defend ourselves." - by shooting another human being? What is this, The Wild West? Sorry but in what situation do you invisage needing to start shooting people? The majority of burlgars will run away when confronted by householders, even those that don't aren't necessarily going to be armed. Frankly, if they ARE armed, then it's likely they'll be more than happy to fire back at you, and where does that leave you? Dead.

You said, "Are you that out of touch that you believe these guns were obtained under current legal guidelines?" - It's possible that they could have gotten guns from their parents' house, or at least grown up seeing guns around, and accepting them as part of life.

Throughout most of Europe, handgun ownership is heavily restricted. Throughout most of Europe, handgun deaths are in the single digits. In the US, handgun ownership is rife, and so are handgun deaths. Maybe that's a simplistic way of looking at it, but it's a start.

Lord knows I love you guys, but Americans are pretty much the ONLY western nation, who have this "having a gun will stop me getting shot" outlook.

I fully respect the right of people to have a different opinion or approach to life from mine. I'm happy to disagree. But don't tell me I'm an idiot, just because I (and the millions of people in Europe) have a different opinion.

My roommate (whose opinon differs from mine) has just made the comment that, whilst she may or may not agree with my opinions, she would never say I'm ill-informed, out of touch or ignorant.

Max ... uhmmm ... marry me?

I do apologize for my vehemence. I do love ya, you know. I should have been more diplomatic.

No, it's not the Wild West, but sometimes this place..(America..? Society..?) is a scary place to be. A poll of teachers at Columbine showed that over 80% wished they'd have had a gun "that day".

The need/appropriateness of having a gun at any given "right time" is admitedly rare, but if and when that time arises, it becomes critical.

I'm not up on the gun laws in the UK, and Mark wasn't sure either, but like you, believed they are "stricter". Personally, I feel that the way children are raised there has a lot more to do with the lower homicide rate than anything else. You and I have agreed more than once on the differences in parents here and parents there.

I like guns the same way I like knives, and you know how I am about my knives! I delve way past the need/right/want to own one, into the intricities of the designs, the shape, the color, the weight, the sound, and even the power.

But beyond that, I do believe there is a purpose, a reason for people to own guns for protection, and for sport if they so choose. I believe the laws in place should be strictly enforced, and that people who leave guns around to be found by children should be castrated. Likewise for people who let their guns be carelessly stolen.

This is a topic rife with opinions..and I love it!

Thanks for saying that Danelle. You're so right that this topic draws a lot of comments (and, frankly, website hits - yes I'm a hit count whore! (Well, not really, otherwise I'd be writing about J-Lo every day))

Jodi... Yes, I'd love to marry you! I just re-checked that picture of you and your legs, and I think we'll be a good match!

Top of the wedding list... new coffee appliances. My espresso maker broke recently, and whilst moving house I managed to leave behind a Capresso coffee maker and (equally sodding expensive) burr grinder. These then "disappeared" whilst the house was being renovated, prior to new tenants moving in. :(

> A poll of teachers at Columbine showed that over
> 80% wished they'd have had a gun "that day".

I bet 100% of them wished that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold DIDN'T.

I used to lean anti-gun. I remember arguing with my gun collecting roomate about the topic. Then the riots in L.A. after the Rodney King verdict happened. I watched some store owners sit helpless while thugs burned their stores to the ground while other store owners protected their buildings by sitting on top of them with gun in hand. I saw the police say "good luck store owners, you're on your own, don't ask us for help." I'll never again argue for disarming law abiding citiens.

Max,

This is my first blog ever. Strange yet intriguiging nonetheless.

Loving your hilarious insightful astute commentary about Denver. I'm originally from N.Y. I've lived here for 5 years now. I won't spoil the fun...cause it only gets better.

Coloradans love their guns. Ask them the statistics on how many peoples lives were saved by gun ownership.

Not the most prolific writer myself I will be looking forward to reading more.

Danelle said:-

"BUT, if the general ownership of handguns were made illegal (after all what reason does anyone have to own a handgun except to kill another human being), and there was an amnesty, where people could hand in their guns, then a general reduction in the number of guns in society, would almost certainly reduce the number of gun deaths."

In Britain, the general ownership of handguns IS illegal and we've had an amnesty.

Guess what, since the banning of handguns (in 1997), followed by SEVERAL amnesties, gun murders, and indeed gun crimes generally, have increased, by around 50%. Handgun crimes have increased by a similar amount.

Fully-automatics (machine guns, sub-machine guns etc), which were banned in 1937 (that's about 65 years ago) are STILL being used in crime.

If firearms that were outlawed SIXTY FIVE YEARS AGO are still available (many hadn't even been designed in 1937), what hope is there of the 1997 handgun ban having any effect?