President Bush Talks Human Cloning, Stem Cell Research in Address Email this article Printer friendly page by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor February 3, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In his State of the Union address, President Bush reemphasized his commitment to a pro-life approach on the issues of human cloning and stem cell research. While expressing his support for moving science forward, the president said he would not advance research by destroying human life in the process.

"Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life," the president explained.

"Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities, and I thank Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health," Bush said.

"To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others," the president cautioned.

Bush renewed his call for a ban on all forms of human cloning -- legislation Congress will likely address this year.

"I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity," Bush said.

"America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical," the president concluded.

Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson reacted positively to the speech.

"The president delivered a powerful, moving speech this evening, speaking to the most important issues of the day with forcefulness and confident cadence, the pro-life leader said. "We especially appreciated that he reaffirmed his commitment to the culture of life."

Reverend Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council agreed and said the president "plainly put our important principles on the national agenda and announced that they would guide his policies over the next four years."

"We look forward to supporting and encouraging the President in this direction for the betterment of our country and our world," Schenck added.

-- - (David@excite.com), February 03, 2005

Answers

..

-- .... (.@....), February 03, 2005.

Many will take great comfort in these words. Thank you for sharing them.

Of course until they are put in action they are just that, words. And they need to be taken in context.

Lets take his words seriously, when he says: Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life.

American women? Sadly, while it was signed by the States 17 years ago, they still haven't ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

American children? The US government shares the dishonour of being one of only two countries that have not ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Who do they share this dishonour with? Somalia.

It has been speculated that one reason this ratification has been delayed has to do with Captial Punishment for those under the age of 18. Lets hope that President Bush holds true to his words and at least removes this group from those potentially killed by the government. The American Supreme court is considering this in the 2004-2005 term.

(See http://www.unicef.org/crc/faq.htm#001">the Unicef Web site for details. And thankfully it appears that they have ratified the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict and the Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.)

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 04, 2005.

Thanks, David.

Pat, are you a Canadian or other non-U.S. citizen? I noticed that you spelled "dishonor" with a "u" ("dishonour").

Please be very careful about "UNICEF." According to what I've heard on several occasions, UNICEF, like so much else about the U.N., it has areas of pro-death corruption. It is not the perfectly innocent organization that people think it is.

Also, Pat, there is not much point in your introducing debate on the "Convention on the Rights of the Child" in a thread on President Bush. The Convention was approved by the Clinton administration, but has not been ratified by the Senate. President Bush is not standing in its way, to my knowledge. But should he be? "Yes," said Dr. Diane Sabon in 2001, a writer on U.N. political and cultural issues, who holds a Ph.D. in literature and philosophy from Emory University. Here is what she wrote about the Convention, in answering that it should not be ratified.

It will subvert U.S. sovereignty, undermine parents, and sabotage religious teachings.

The Bill Clinton administration signed the U.N.-sponsored treaty called the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1995. Hidden beneath its benign-sounding name, however, is a radical agenda of social engineering that saps national sovereignty, weakens the parent-child relationship and undermines religion in every country. Unfortunately, abstaining from ratification may not be enough to prevent the CRC from becoming binding international law everywhere in the world -- including the United States -- unless swift action is taken.

Customary international law is created through uniform, consistent international practice among states. Cheerleaders for UNICEF are quick to point out that the CRC represents "a universally agreed set of non-negotiable standards and obligations," since 191 of the world's eligible countries have ratified it. The United States is the only stable government holding out -- and for good reason.

Parties to the CRC surrender a portion of national sovereignty to a UN committee of 10 experts who then monitor implementation of the treaty. The committee tells the representatives of any sovereign nation how its domestic laws must comply with the committee's notions of raising kids. One Canadian commentator called the committee "a roving Gestapo." And the committee bows to no higher court of authority than itself: UNICEF's Implementation Handbook asserts that "the Committee is considered the highest authority on interpreting the Convention."

The CRC committee outrageously intrudes upon the domestic affairs of sovereign nations as if it were an imperial judiciary. For example, the committee scolds government officials of myriad nations for not legislating criminal sanctions against parents who spank their children, even though corporal punishment has only a veiled reference in Article 19 of the treaty itself. But as one committee member said recently: "If it is not permissible to beat an adult, why should it be permissible to beat a child?" Spouting such pronouncements, the committee urges implementation of its own standards and policies on a vast array of countries. The committee has recommended that the practice of corporal punishment be prohibited by law in Japan, Fiji, Luxembourg, Ireland, Libya, Australia, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Canada, Togo and others.

The CRC places a wedge between parents and children. The CRC committee lets kids know their protectors are the United Nations and their national government, not their parents, by often recommending the establishment of an office for reporting violators, e.g., parents. In "Abandoning Children to Their Autonomy" in the Harvard International Law Journal Bruce C. Hafen and Jonathan O. Hafen repeatedly reference the United Nations 1994/95 Publications Catalogue because it underscores the truth of the CRC: The treaty promotes a "new concept of separate rights for children with the Government accepting [the] responsibility of protecting the child from the power of parents" (italics added). Such rights are not part of mainstream U.S. law and do not appear in earlier U.N. declarations on children.

Article 42 of the treaty urges that the principles of the CRC be incorporated into school curricula. These CRC principles include adult-style rights -- freedom of speech, privacy, information, association and thought -- that could be used legally to subvert parental authority. Actively intruding itself into these family matters, the committee, for example, instructed the government of Japan to "guarantee the child's right to privacy, especially in the family."

Hardly any area pits children's rights against those of parents more so than reproductive health. Highlighting latent areas of conflict with parents, a UNAIDS press release says: "In the name of morality, culture or religion, young people are often denied the right to education about the health risks of sexual and other risk behavior." UNICEF's Implementation Handbook states that "respect for the views of the child needs to be built into individual health care." The child's right to privacy, to access health care (including family- planning education and services) and to receive information -- all can work together to enforce reproductive goals.

Plainly, education about their "rights" under the CRC "empowers" kids to stand up to their parents' authority and values! As a UNICEF document at the February World Summit for Children puts it, young people must be "agents of change." Kids must know, for instance, that should their parents object to their receiving information and services on birth control and abortion, they have a "right" to make their own decisions about their bodies, subject only "to [their] evolving capacities."

All of this means that in 1995 the CRC committee was logically consistent in charging the United Kingdom with violating Article 12 (the child's right of expression) for allowing parents to remove their children from public-school sex-education programs without consulting the child.

Though the Implementation Handbook claims to leave it to states to sort out when life begins, the CRC may one day throw its weight toward enforcing abortion on demand as a fundamental human "right." While the CRC decrees "the inherent right to life of each child [Article 6]," in practice its committee members convey double messages regarding the unborn. One member told the government of Nicaragua, for example, that "consideration [be] given to changing some of the prevailing social attitudes toward abortion."

It is time that opponents stop imagining problems in the CRC and ignoring the needs and hopes of children and that our nation instead starts looking at it as the opportunity it is: an opportunity to join the civilized world by ratifying the convention rather than enduring the continued humiliation of being a virtual pariah nation on this human-fights issue. We have an opportunity to use the CRC to draw attention to the compelling needs of our children -- the poorest and most vulnerable Americans, the Americans in many ways worst treated by our health system and the Americans who increasingly are the greatest victims of our growing violence. The convention's provisions may be more aspirational than mandatory. But we need those aspirations -- that moral framework -- to imagine and build a nation and world fit for every child.

According to the handbook, "The child's right to receive legal counselling without parental consent is clearly vital to the enforcement of many rights guaranteed under the [CRC], including some where the child's interests are distinct from, or may even be in conflict with, those of the parents." Thus, the committee wrote to the government of Belize on May 10, 1999, of its concern that its "law does not allow children, particularly adolescents, to seek medical or legal counselling without parental consent, even when it is in the best interests of the child." Of course, the United Nations ultimately interprets "best interests" in such cases.

Rachel Hodgkin, co-author of the Implementation Handbook, addresses this issue of consent in Children's Rights: Turning Principles Into Practice: "There are some medical interventions, such as abortion, where it is inconceivable that doctors should be permitted to act against the expressed wishes of a `competent' child of any age (and given that pregnancy only occurs in older children, this means virtually all of them)." According to such reasoning, a pregnant child of any age may obtain an abortion without parental consent.

The CRC undermines religion. The new "rights" being asserted through the United Nations -- rights to abortion, contraceptives and homosexual behavior -- invariably subvert the moral standards demanded by sacred texts of the world's great religions. When new rights conflict with religious tenets, problems arise. For instance, will the children of believers be taught in public schools to accept as moral and even to emulate lifestyles that they believe are sinful? CRC Article 13 states that the child can decide what information he will seek and receive. Will parents be able to send their children to the religious school of their choice?

Significantly, CRC Article 14 mandates that ratifying nations "shall respect the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion." The handbook maintains that Article 12 clearly includes matters of religion and choice of religion: "[T]he Convention's general principles certainly do not support the concept of children automatically following their parents' religion until the age of 18." Moreover, the handbook recognizes outright that the CRC departs from earlier human-rights documents that give parents authority for determining their children's values. For example, Article 26.3 of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, adopted in 1948, states: "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." The handbook, on the other hand, states that parents' rights in the CRC must "operate within the framework of the child's own rights and freedoms" and that to so ensure these rights "arrangements for moral and religious education must be reviewed."

The reader of the handbook senses the voice of Big Brother government in calls for out-of-school monitoring of students to ensure respect for human rights: "Children's attitudes and behavior in the school should be appraised as carefully outside the classroom as in it." How school personnel would appraise these attitudes and behaviors is a frightening thought! Article 29 directs education, among other things, to teach peace, tolerance and respect for human rights. But these are loaded terms. Many so-called human rights touted by U.N. documents would undermine the precepts of orthodox religions.

And there can be no doubt that beliefs in absolute truth collide with the notion of "tolerance" and the idea that all religions are equally valid. Since "religious intolerance" is a root cause of conflict, notions of absolute truth no doubt may be found to clash with educating for "peace." The American Bar Association has even suggested in Children's Rights in America that the curriculum requirements of Article 29 could render religious schools in the United States illegal.

The George W. Bush administration should register an official statement with the U.N. secretary general that it does not intend to become a party to the CRC. The administration also should stand on the side of nations that have resisted the intrusions of U.N. committees. Last August, for example, in response to harsh criticism by a U.N. human-rights committee on its treatment of aborigines, Australia announced its intention to refuse to cooperate with U.N. reporting systems. In short, the United States needs to take quick action to counter the CRC and its hidden agenda.

I stand with Dr. Sabom, Pat, and I urge you to reconsider your flawed position, in light of the educational information she has provided.

-- (Pro@Child.com), February 04, 2005.

To answer your specific question, I am a Canadian, yes.

I saw the point of this thread directly connected to a focus on "the culture of life", and how the US "treats the weak and vulnerable". I don't see this just a problem in the US either, it is not my intention to point fingers and suggest other countries -- including Canada -- don't have a long way to go as well.

My point was that although his State of the Union Address contained good news about important issues, there are more basic issues that are being greatly neglected.

You raise good issues about my example of the UNICEF Conventions. I will have to learn more about the solutions it suggests, and the potential costs involved. On the third reading I don't agree with many of the points in the article you quoted, but as I said, I have a ways to go to better understand it.

If the UNICEF solution is flawed then we need to find others; the problems exist; a speech such as this is important, but until there is actual change, change that improves people's lot in life, the "culture of life" is not improved.

How about some statistics from the Children's Defense Fund:

- - - From http://www.childrensdefense.org/childwatch/041201.aspx:

In 2002, infant mortality in [the US] actually increased for the first time in 44 years, and America lags behind 22 other industrialized nations in keeping our babies alive in the first year of life.

- - - From http://www.childrensdefense.org/data/childreninthestates/us.pdf

• A child in the United States is abused or neglected every 35 seconds
• A child in the United States is born into poverty every 40 seconds
• A child in the United States dies before his or her first birthday every 19 minutes
• A child or teen in the United States is killed by gunfire every 3 hours

(See http://www.childrensdefense.org/data/childreninthestates/sources.pdf for the sources for this information.)

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 04, 2005.

So Pro how do you explain that EVERY other country has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child, including the Vatican and staunchly Catholic counries like Poland, Malta, Portugal etc? Apparently they weren’t worried that it would “subvert their national sovereignty, undermine parents, and sabotage religious teachings. “

I don’t care what nationality Pat is, he/she is perfectly welcome to comment on any issue. Pat is OTM re Bush and pro-life issues. Bush talks it up big with lots of pretty pro-life words, but the record of what he has DONE is woeful.

And btw the UN was right on the money in criticizing Australia’s treatment of its aboriginal people. If democratic countries like the US and Australia refuse to allow UN investigation of their abuses of human rights on the grounds that it is “intrusion”, then they don’t have a leg to stand on in condemning countries like Communist China, Burma etc when they also resist this so-called “intrusion”.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 04, 2005.

I fully agree with "Pro@child" on this issue. A little yeast works it's way through the whole dough. While on the surface, much of the treaty appears needed and good, there is sufficient imbedded evil to disqualify the whole thing - and the committee's actions have already proved the point. Protecting children in the world is a top priority of my own, but I will not surrender my right as a parent to discipline my children as I see fit. And I won't submit to the authority of the UN under any circumstances.

David

David

-- no-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com), February 04, 2005.

President Bush Promotes Pro-Life Judges in Interview, State of the Union Email this article Printer friendly page by Steven Ertelt LifeNews.com Editor February 3, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- In his State of the Union address on Wednesday and during an interview leading up to it, President Bush discussed the kind of judges he will nominate for the Supreme Court, as soon as there is an opening.

Before the speech, President Bush conducted an interview with pro- life syndicated columnist Cal Thomas.

The noted writer asked the president how he will ensure that Supreme Court justices he appoints will respect the rule of law and not disappoint pro-life advocates.

"We will do the very best we can to glean from writings and from, obviously, interviews, the way a person would interpret the Constitution," the president responded.

"We haven't had a Supreme Court pick yet, but my record is pretty clear when it comes to picking judges for the circuit bench," Bush said.

In fact, a pre-election analysis of Bush's judicial picks from leading abortion advocacy group NARAL found that virtually all of them are pro-life.

According to the group, only two of the more than 200 people Bush has nominated to federal judicial positions show any hint of supporting legal abortion.

"So I think people ought to take a look at the appointments I have made and the nominees I've suggested to the Senate," Bush told Thomas. "And there will be a consistency. One, they're very capable of doing the job; and, two, there's a philosophical consistency."

The president expanded on his interview and the issue of judicial nominees during the State of the Union.

"Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench," the president explained during his national address.

"As president, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy and are well qualified to serve on the bench, and I have done so."

Those comments drew praise from Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council.

"President Bush's strong and assertive view on judgeships and the basic purpose of the Senate was clear and without question," Perkins said. "I am pleased in the president's insistence on an 'up or down' vote for each judicial nominee."

President Bush also chided Senate Democrats during the State of the Union speech for filibustering many of his pro-life picks for federal appeals courts.

-- - (David@excite.com), February 04, 2005.

To David - non-Catholic Christian (no@spam.com): It is excellent to hear that protecting children in the world is also a top priority of yours. I'm interesting in learning more about what is and could be done, and would appreciate it if you (or others) could provide any examples of relatively high level plans there are in place to work towards this goal. As I said above to Pro@child.com, if the UNICEF solution is flawed then we need to find others; the problems exist.

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 04, 2005.

I'd be a little more impressed with his statement about a "culture of life" if he hadn't allowed mentaly retarted people to be executed or napalm to be used in Iraq.

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 06, 2005.

I'd also be a little more impressed with his statement about a "culture of life" if he hadn’t appointed a whole string of anti- life judges to State judiciaries, which hold the real power re matters like abortion.

“I won't submit to the authority of the UN under any circumstances.” As Christians we are called to respect and obey temporal authorities except to the extent that they command us to do something sinful.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 06, 2005.

I've heard the statistic of a child or teen (the teen part gives it away) before. Every 3 hours = 8 per day, or about 3000 per year.

But what isn't mentioned is that most of these involve teens (19 year olds) being gunned down in drug-related or gang-related violence, NOT children finding and fiddling with Daddy's shot gun or pistol.

In a land with 300 million people, a mere 3000 deaths caused by firearms pale in light of 1.5 MILLION abortions, and the tens of thousands of people killed in auto accidents per year.

Banning guns isn't the answer. Catholic morality is. Seek first the kingdom and all the rest will be given you...

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 08, 2005.

The UN is one of the biggest pro-abortion, pro-feminism, pro- contraception organizations in the world -they have no moral ground to stand upon...

If you want to support them -do some research in addition to seeing exactly why Bush will not fund some of the UN activities before you pat yourself on the back...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 08, 2005.

They are also one of the biggest pro-helping the poor, pro-peace, pro-democracy, and pro=human rights groups in the world. You take the good with the bad. The solution is to work WITHIN the UN to change it, not give them the finger and ignore them entirely. If we don't listen to what they have to say, why should they listen to what we have to say?

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 08, 2005.

Anti:
You sound as if you'd worked within that kind of organisation. If the U.S. ''works'' as we have been doing over 50 years, and there's 4 or 6 members in the UN Security Council with veto power over anything the U.S. attempts to accomplish-- What good are 50 more years of having VETOES in our nation's face and never any gratitude from your ''allies'' --?

Some of the most atrocious governments on earth curse us on the floor of the UN because we stand up for justice and equality. The ones who demand the destruction of countries like Israel, but love and support totalitarian regimes like China Iran, Russia and Cuba?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 08, 2005.

“Banning guns isn't the answer. Catholic morality is. Seek first the kingdom and all the rest will be given you. (Joe) That’s fine for those who can be convinced to practise Catholic morality. What about the rest? To take the example of another evil, home burglary, do you have locks and burglar alarms on your home? Or do you just put up a sign saying ‘thou shalt not steal”?

And yes a large proportion of those deaths ARE caused by kids playing with daddy’s gun. Statistically a gun in a private home is more than ten times more likely to kill person living there than to kill someone attempting a crime.

Eugene, it was the US itself who insisted that the “Great Power” allies of WW2 have veto power in the UN Security Council, and the US uses its veto power far more often than the other 4 countries do. And it is ONLY in the Security Council (which governs only decisions on war and military action) that there is a veto. There is no such thing as a veto in the rest of the enormous apparatus and agencies of the UN. The US has achieved a great number of things which it has pushed through the UN. And a newsflash for you – Russia hasn't had a totalitarian regime for 15 years now.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 08, 2005.

Steve, please show us the "statistics" you cite about the deadliness of gun ownership. The stats I've seen show accidental deaths by guns at the hands of children who are NOT TEENS and thus aren't involved in drugs or illegal activities, is extremely low - lower than deaths by drowning involving buckets.

My reply stands... Catholics who have solid front doors ($130), who have appropriate warning labels ($2), who know their neighbors and participate in Neighborhood Watch (free), and who sure, either have that alarm system ($50/mo.) or a loaded Mossberg 590A1 ($300) ought to NEVERTHELESS continue to seek A LASTING SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM OF CRIME, which is the establishment of the Kingdom in as many hearts as possible.

Crime has gone up in the last 50 years not because of guns but because of the drop in Church attendance and above all, the degradation public morality. The demise of marriage and a Christian friendly culture leads to abused and poor children who grow up to become criminals.

I advocate two angles of solution: the immediate and local and the longer-range and indirect.

The immediate solution to crime isn't to ban gun ownership by those who obey the law, but to allow those who are law abiding to arm themselves AS WELL AS take all the OTHER prudential measures needed such as strong doors, locks, warning labels, Neighborhood watch programs, alarm systems, and finally, if they deem it appropriate, also firearms (with the appropriate training and safety devices.).

No one is talking about leaving loaded revolvers laying about the house for little children to play with!

Oh and Steve, you DO KNOW the difference between a revolver and a magazine fed pistol right? Hint, the revolver has at most only 2 safeties (one is the trigger) whereas MOST magazine fed pistols have 3 to 4 safety devices AS WELL AS THE NEED TO RACK A ROUND.

If you pick up a loaded .45 1911 pistol and pull the trigger NOTHING WILL HAPPEN unless the first round has been racked into position.

Even if a round has been racked, on most models NOTHING WILL HAPPEN unless one, two, or three safety levers have been disengaged in the right order.

Naturally, if said pistol is in a safe or has a trigger lock, NOTHING WILL GO BOOM.

Also, unlike with Revolvers, most little children simply don't have the strength to rack a pistol round much less rack a round into a full sized Shotgun.

Chemicals and electricity are dangerous too...but we don't ban them because a couple hundred poison or get electrocuted per year do we? Instead we use common sense, keep the hazardous chemicals out of reach, behind child locks, with safety caps and we also EDUCATE children to stay away from these things...

Those families who own firearms AND TAKE FAMILY AND CHILD SAFETY COURSES AS OFFERED BY THE NRA AND OTHER GROUPS HAVE extremely low numbers of accidents at home.

The statistics prove - not just show but PROVE that the degree of home invasions goes DOWN in proportion that home ownership of firearms goes UP because from a cost/risk analysis that burglars make the risk to their life and limb simply isn't worth the few hundred dollars they usually take from home invasions.

Criminals aren't all stupid - most crime isn't home invasion robberies BECAUSE in most states people can be armed - but in those countries (UK, Australia) and states or cities where private ownership of firearms is hard to get or banned (Washington DC), home invasions for robbery or rape are statistically HIGHER because the criminals have reasonable assurance that their victims won't be armed.

But the statistics also show that crime goes down permanently to the degree that people become better Christians.

So again, as husband and father of my family, directly and personally responsible for their safety, I propose that passive defense (*strong doors, locks, alarms, and labels) as well as active participation in the community (neighborhood watch, HOA, block parties, knowing my neighbors...) are essential to the immediate safety of my family.

Should someone break into my home anyway...then I can only assume they are up to no good and will have to have the active and effective means to repel them from my home.

Like any good Christian I don't like thinking about it - and certainly won't shoot to kill - and would certainly call 911 and an ambulance while giving First Aid... but I don't feel that it would be prudent for me to disarm myself entirely because by doing so I will be letting my family down.

But the LONG TERM SOLUTION is not the creation of a police state, or the creating a Swiss type militarization of society. The long term solution is EVANGELIZATION on an effective cultural level which includes public and private education in true human values AND VIRTUES necessary for public happiness via truely productive public morals.

One thing is true: no matter what gun laws you have, if you don't seek the Kingdom, you won't find social peace either.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 15, 2005.

Just because google is there, here's a link for you Steve: http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/states_deaths.asp?National

Their stats come from the CDC, so I think they're authoritative.

In 1997 a whopping 306 children aged 1 to 19 died from accidents involving firearms. In 2002 the number had dropped to 167 DESPITE more guns and more access to them.

Now in a population of some 280 MILLION people, if you only have 167 children and teens dying of firearm accidents, this means that your children have a better chance to die from drowning in a pool, being killed in a car accident or dying by fire than they do from guns.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 15, 2005.

If you pick up a loaded .45 1911 pistol and pull the trigger NOTHING WILL HAPPEN unless the first round has been racked into position

Of course one should always treat every gun as if there was a round in the chamber, and that it WILL fire when the trigger is pulled. I'm sure you agree, but am being "Mr. Safety" today. Also, if you do not leave a round in the chamber, you should probably practice racking one every time you pick up the gun so that in an emergency situation you will do so automatically, and not forget to because of stress. That could be bad.

It's also the beauty of a revolver, they are always ready to go and if a round doesn't fire, another is waiting at the next pull of the trigger.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2005.

Most Americans have no clue as to the history of gun ownership in their own country..ignorant of the facts. In the 1920's and 30's in this country, ANYBODY could purchase a machine gun in a hardware store..yes, a hardware store.

All across the USA,people owned all kinds of guns..hand guns, shotguns, rifles, you name it and it was common. What wasn't common was to use them to shoot at people..unless you were a criminal..gee, that hasn't changed has it? The only thing that HAS changed is that at some time, somebody came up with the concept that if there are no guns around, people will stop being evil..

I did a simple search one day a few years back..asking various big city police departments for statistics on homicides committed using weapons OTHER than firearms..you know what? They said they didn't have any compiled. LOL..Amazing. I sure wish I had the money to compile that data myself. Do we outlaw knives, and hammers and crowbars and all kinds of things used to do evil by people? Or just firearms?

Foolishness. I can sit in my wheelchair and fire my 9mm with great accuracy..and I can handle a 12 gauge as well. Can't seem to swing a hammer too well though.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.

Not to mention getting your guns in the mail. Order your rifle or handgun from the Sears catalogue, and voila! it's there with your $10.oo, and without 8 pages of forms.

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 15, 2005.

Yeah in those days you could legally buy heroin and cocaine in shops as well as guns. That’s no argument.

Here’s some scientific peer reviewed stats for you Joe. http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm

I admit I was a bit conservative saying “ten times”. A gun in a private home is actually 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. I agree the other measures you mention are important, but buying a gun for “self-defense” is madness. It will not affect your chance of being robbed and will greatly INCREASE the chance that you and your family will be victims of murder, accidental killing, and especially, suicide.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 15, 2005.

Amazing..if that is true then why weren't there all of those deaths from guns in the previous decades when MORE people had guns in their homes? This is totally illogical. The possession of guns has zero to do with anything at all. It is the PC whipping boy of society..We have LESS guns per capita than ever before..what we DO have more of is senseless violence of all types..including the use of firearms. Take away the firearms and you'll have what? No murders? No violence? No deadly crimes? poppycock.

All you will have is the criminal element of society being very well- armed and the rest of us being held hostage..Read the Australian newspapers for the details. Are there no guns "Down Under"?

Could it just be that years ago when people made a choice to commit a crime with a firearm, they actually went to prison and stayed there? My goodness..what a novel idea. and how terribly politically incorrect..

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 15, 2005.

“If that is true”? IF? Sorry Lesley but it’s a statistical fact. It’s not comparing the old days with today but comparing houses with guns today with houses without guns today. You can’t go back to the past to become safer but you CAN remove the guns from your home to become safer, from murder, suicide and accidental death. Your attempt to overstate my point “No murders? No violence? No deadly crimes?” in order to ridicule it, is crude. No-one is claiming there will be NO crime or death. Just that death by gunshot will be far, far less likely to happen to YOU if you remove the gun from your home. That’s all, and it’s a fact you can’t deny despite all the red herrings you just dragged in.

Btw even the red herrings are quite false. There were actually fewer guns per head when you were a girl. And they were mostly shotguns and others that took a long time to load and were far less accurate and deadly than the high-powered, semi automatic modern military style weapons which plague the US today. Australian criminals are in fact far LESS well-armed than their US counterparts, and Australia is one of the safest countries in the world. Thanks largely to the Australian government "biting the bullet" a few years ago and introducing a range of measures including abolishing the possession of guns for personal self-defense.

Of course people who commit a crime with a firearm should go to prison. If you think I’m “politically correct” you couldn’t be more wrong. But “Stay there”? What, life sentences with no hope of parole for everyone who commits even the most minor offense with a firearm? A little extreme, I’d say.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 16, 2005.

Yes, I will be much safer. we all will be..when the goverment bans the import of semi-automatic weapons..something it chooses not to do. During the Clinton administration, I wrote to the President, asking him why he permitted the import of Russian semi-automatic weapons into the country, while crying out for "gun-control" ..never received an answer.

The Republicans are no better, BTW.

Unlike politicians, I am not a hypocrite. Semi-automatic and fully- automatic weapons are nonsense IMHO..I see no need for them in a civilized society. Others who collect them disagree. Yet to raise a hue and cry against all firearms because of the deadly use of SOME of them is foolish and irresponsible. The same mentality which dictates expelling a child from school for bringing a fingernail clipper in a book bag to kindergarden bans all guns from everyone. It excuses people from dealing with the problems behind the violence.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 16, 2005.

Steve (sigh) please give us the hyper link or url backing your "fact" that guns kill their owners 43 times more often than intruders.

Please when you do supply the link make sure its from a reputable source, like something governmental and NOT a partisan website.

Thanks.,

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 16, 2005.

''Most Americans have no clue as to the history of gun ownership in their own country..ignorant of the facts.'' I really doubt that. Americans definitely know. You know.

In the 1920's and 30's in this country, ANYBODY could purchase a machine gun in a hardware store..yes, a hardware store.''

So? I could go to a shoe store today and buy a shotgun. Cowboys were carrying loaded weapons into the early 20's here in America. I know why, too. They NEEDED arms for protection.

Americans STILL need protection. If all we can do is dial 911 when somebody is breaking down our door, might as well call the coroner. This subject is over-cooked today in our country. It's a real no-brainer. The right to keep arms is guaranteed every citizen by our Constitution. It means just THAT. Firearms. No one has a constitutional right to kill another person without just cause. But you can hold a gun on that person until the police arrive. What have you got against that? As for accidents in the home; why don't we outlaw swimming pools and staircases? You can get killed coming down the stairs, by accident. Kids drown every year in their back yards. Dogs have mauled people to death, too. In fact, if I see a dog mauling somebody's child, I'll run for my pistol and shoot that dog NOW! I might save the kid's life. If I can't keep a gun I'll have to rope the dog, I guess. But what if the rope breaks? Oh, shucks. I'll keep my gun.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.

I'm with Eugene on this one...if you ban guns, criminals will still get them illegaly...it's only going to stop the honest, law-abiding people from getting them.

Besides, a government will think a little harder about screwing with its people when they know there's a population out there that's armed to the teeth...

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 16, 2005.

I think I found the site Steve is probably is using: it's a Media company that uses FBI STATs in a typically twisted and stupid way: they confuse homicides with ACCIDENTAL DEATHS, when in reality, homicides = criminal use of weapons in 90% of the cases, NOT ACCIDENTAL USE. The other 10% are police or home defense cases - but the government and states clearly define which is what.

The people who keep the numbers differentiate between homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. If Steve and this Media company were right, there wouldn't be a difference between homicides, suicides, and accidents.

"The Self-Defense Myth

In 1997, for every time that a civilian used a handgun to kill in self-defense, 43 people lost their lives in handgun homicides. (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)

In 1997 there were 15,690 homicides, of which 8,503 were committed with handguns. Only 193 (2.3 percent) handgun homicides were classified as justifiable homicides. (FBI Supplementary Homicide Report data, 1997)"

Got it? Almost half the people who died in 1997 by weapons weren't killed by handguns... so who were these people? Children? spouses? friends and family members?

Earth to Steve and all those who misread numbers...the people killed were civilians gunned down by CRIMINALS. Mostly strangers who broke into homes and used weapons (including guns) to kill people they were attempting to rob.

That huge number of deaths WEREN'T people related to the gun owners!

But again, of course, it takes "intellectuals" to misread data like this. I doubt that Steve or the Media folk have visited this site: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm

This site has some extremely interesting studies which correlate the rise in gun ownership across the country, coupled with more liberal purchasing and carrying rules with a consistent DROP in crime!

Had KQED journalists visited the official site and actually taken the time to read the various categories they'd not have made up the myth that 43 more people die FROM THEIR OWN FIREARMS!

The real picture is that CRIMINALS KILL LAW ABIDING PEOPLE 43 MORE TIMES THAN LAW ABIDING PEOPLE KILL CRIMINALS!

Criminals obtained guns illegally - just like they obtain drugs illegally. So banning legal ownership of firearms isn't going to touch the statistics or actual number of criminals using firearms at all!

The famed ban on "assault weapons" didn't do diddlysquat either as the actual numbers prove since rifles aren't used in MOST crimes - in fact, KNIVES killed more people than rifles during the last couple of years even though rifles exist by the millions and they are still available to NON-FELONS.

If Steve's numbers were right, there'd be a huge number of civilians dying at their own hands in accidental deaths - recorded BY AUTHORITIES AS ACCIDENTAL DEATHS RATHER THAN HOMICIDES! But the actual numbers as recorded by state and federal agencies just don't bear that hypothesis out.

When you compare the number of inhabitants in the USA (281 MILLION) with the absolute number of people killed by guns used in crime (almost 30,000) and then look at the number of children ages 1-19 (which includes teens) and see a number of 167... you see how statistically insignificant accidental gun deaths are.

In Virginia, where I live, any one who is not a felon can get a firearm - including a permit to carry a concealed pistol. However, if you carry opennly (as in on your hip, visible to all) you don't even need the permit.

Now let's see...I haven't actually seen any one do this...but it's perfectly legal.

It's also legal for Virginians to go out and buy those semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15....legal, but it'll cost you about $700 to do so... and a pistol? $400 to $500!

The best gun control in the world is the price! Who can afford to plink down that kind of money? No wonder most guns sold are the shotguns...but even then MOST CRIMES aren't committed with shotguns!

So Virginia is awash in guns...yet the murder rate by firearm in Virgina is nowhere as high as it is in Maryland and New Jersey where firearms are severely restricted.

In 2003, a total of 402 people were killed by criminals using weapons. Firearms were used in only 16.6% these crimes. (cf. 2003 report from the Commonwealth of Virginia www.vsp.state.va.us/Crime_in_Virginia_2003.pdf)

On the other hand, Virginia is EXTREMELY STRICT when it comes to the improper use of firearms - just waving one at someone can be a cause for the police to arrest you.

One interesting thing is that it's easy to find the actual number total for deaths in Virginia whereas Maryland buries their numbers.

We do know that in Maryland in 2000 some 617 people died because of guns: 353 were homicides, most of the rest were suicides. Guns used BY CRIMINALS and not by law abiding citizens in their homes account for nearly all of these deaths.

How is that possible if the guns themselves are the problem?

I encourage everyone to do some google searches on this issue: more concealed carry permits leads to LOWER numbers and rates of homicide and crime!

According to the CDC, there were almost 30,000 homicides in the USA in 2001. But only 167 people ages 0-19 died of accidental gunshots.

Thus STATISTICALLY you have a far greater chance of being killed by a criminal armed with an ILLEGALLY OBTAINED HANDGUN than you do of being killed by your own LEGALLY PURCHASED SHOTGUN, RIFLE, OR PISTOL.

But that's not very sexy is it? Why those kinds of statistics won't lead us to draconian new government mandated dis-armament drives will it? So people that Steve listens to simply ignore the data and keep claiming that private ownership of firearms is a grave threat to civil order and health.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 16, 2005.

Are we done with the "gun" thing yet?

Can we move on to the quote:

In 2002, infant mortality in [the US] actually increased for the first time in 44 years, and America lags behind 22 other industrialized nations in keeping our babies alive in the first year of life.

Does anyone care that America is #22 on that list?

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 16, 2005.

Again, you have to provide the raw numbers from reputable sources otherwise it's suspect.

Who exactly judged the US to be #22? What factors are involved?

I suppose one factor to be looked at is the apples to oranges issue of a mostly ageing population in Europe where most couples have only 1 child as opposed to larger families in the USA.

Then you have to factor in the largely UNREPORTED problems among European poor such as Africans and Muslims populating the slums of most big EU cities.

Do this research and you'll no doubt see that the USA isn't some horrible place compared to other places...

You'll also see that the problems are the same for everyone: they boil down to morality and crime, and morality and law abidingness comes mainly from RELIGION, not a nanny-state or socialist economic system.

So my proposal (really echoing the Church) that we seek the Kingdom first and all the rest will be taken care of, stands.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 16, 2005.

Just getting back to Steve's assertion that guns cause homicide.

We have seen from the raw data (the numbers, not some group's studies) that most of the people killed by guns in the country are killed by criminals who invade their home - already armed.

Indeed, 43 times more innocent civilians are killed than criminals. BUT, surprise, surprise, places were civilians are armed have less crime.

We have seen therefore that just owning a firearm itself doesn't increase risk of armed robbery from the outside! Steve would have us think that somehow criminals magically know who has weapons at home and who doesn't! And that they break in, steal our weapon and then use this to kill us with!

That's some mental gymnastics based on the numbers.

Until Steve et al. can pin down where they get their numbers and how they interpret these numbers to make the claims they do... we're going to go in circles.

But my numbers and analysis I think, IMHO, are correct.

To solve crime requires many levels of commitment...ONE level of commitment MAY involve the prudential purchase and training in the use of firearms. Should some Catholic adult make that investment of time and treasure, I don't think the numbers show that this immediately raises the risk of that family being gunned down with their own weapon.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 16, 2005.

Btw even the red herrings are quite false. There were actually fewer guns per head when you were a girl. And they were mostly shotguns and others that took a long time to load and were far less accurate and deadly than the high-powered, semi automatic modern military style weapons which plague the US today. Australian criminals are in fact far LESS well-armed than their US counterparts, and Australia is one of the safest countries in the world.

It isn't very often you hear about someone committing a crime with an ak-47, and the media reports every one. Care to post the number of people who are shot each year with "assault rifles" and compare that to say knife deaths? BTW, if I had to choose between running away from some untrained street criminal with an "assault rifle" and running away from that SAME street kid with a pump action 12 gauge shotgun, I'd choose the assault rifle any day. If you don't think a 12 gauge loaded with buckshot is lethal, you've never been to deer season in the midwest. 300,000+ deer per year will tell you a different story. Finally, both Great Brittain's and Australia's violent crime rates have been **increasing** since their gun grabs, how could that be?

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 16, 2005.

"Steve (sigh) please give us the hyper link or url backing your "fact" that guns kill their owners 43 times more often than intruders. Please when you do supply the link make sure its from a reputable source, like something governmental and NOT a partisan website." Well I gave you an address, sorry I don’t know how to create a hyperlink but you can just cut and paste it. There are countless police and other government sites which confirm the fact that guns in private homes are far, far more likely to kill an occupant than an intruder.

"if I see a dog mauling somebody's child, I'll run for my pistol and shoot that dog NOW! I might save the kid's life."(Eugene) Or you might shoot the kid dead. I'd say the kid's chances are 50/50. OTOH I'd say if you kicked the dog or hit it with a shovel, stick etc there is a 99% chance the dog will drop the child and either run away or turn its attention to you. Yes I have personally done this.

“they confuse homicides with ACCIDENTAL DEATHS”(Joe) If you’re dead you’re dead. It makes no difference whether it was done deliberately or accidentally. Yes I know there is a plethora of gun lobby sites on the net which try to obfuscate the facts. Just like the abortion industry, there's plenty of profits to be had in the gun industry by ceaselessly talking up the "need" for guns, and they unblushingly obfuscate the facts and even claim to be “defending rights” to help increase their profits.

Joe, no “interpreting” or “mental gymnastics” is required. A gun in a private home is 43 times more likely to kill an occupant than an intruder. It’s got nothing to do with whether criminals know the gun is there or any other of the irrelevant emotional slogans you try to drown this simple fact with. Britain's and Australia’s homicide rates have gone DOWN since they restricted guns, in fact there is a VERY strong correlation between strict gun laws and low homicide rates, despite the gun industry propaganda mindlessly cut and pasted above.

But to get back to the point, not even the gun industry can twist the exponential increase in guns into some sort of evidence of "building a culture of life"!

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 16, 2005.

Accidental deaths of any cause are a liberal red herring in the debate. Automobiles also facilitate accidental deaths -so what? A culture of life positively prevents or attempts to prevent that which can be prevented e.g. non-accidental abortions...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 16, 2005.

Pat,

Did you factor euthanasia and abortion into your infant mortality statistic?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), February 16, 2005.

“Automobiles also facilitate accidental deaths -so what?” Surely you can’t be serious. That’s exactly the reason why we have a massive raft of regulations and restrictions on the use of automobiles. You think we’d be better off with no traffic lights, drivers licenses, automobile registration, road rules, everybody drive wherever you like whenever you like however you like, as fast and as drunk as you like? I don’t think that’s a “culture of life”. YOU are dragging a red herring, not me.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 16, 2005.

Steve!
You won't concede even the most reasonable scenario. ''You might shoot the kid dead. I'd say the kid's chances are 50/50''. WHAT?????? --I have more sense than to stand 20 feet away and shoot at a dog who's biting a child. I didn't think it required an explanation. The dog has to be pulled or beaten off, clear of the victim. If you kick at him, he might get you down on the ground. Any shot at him is taken when you know it can't hurt somebody. Why belabor the obvious?

''I'd say if you kicked the dog or hit it with a shovel, stick etc there is a 99% chance the dog will drop the child and either run away or turn its attention to you.'' --WHY?

I would never harm a dog for nothing, don't worry. But a handgun in your home IMO, is something 100% worth keeping, with its required safety measures. I know from experience, not conjecture. You cannot leave your family defenseless. Not in the city, not in suburbs, and not in the country. Even law enforcement officers will concede the point.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 16, 2005.

[In 2002, infant mortality in [the US] actually increased for the first time in 44 years, and America lags behind 22 other industrialized nations in keeping our babies alive in the first year of life.]

I just recently read about the harm that formula can do to infants. And you must know how much America loves Similac. Some of the dangers include contamination of the formula (not a freak accidental contamination but an actual concern because of they way formula is manufactured);

the lack of flora in formula that is present in breast milk;

"Babies that are fed formula are 14 times more likely to be hospitalized in their first year. These babies are more prone to respiratory illnesses, ear infections and diarrhea.";

It’s commonly said that formula feeding does not risk lives in industrialized nations where education and medical advances prevent increased deaths. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Some insist that the blame for the United States’ relatively high infant death rate lies with underprivileged communities. Again, it has been shown that elevated death rates among U.S. blacks cannot be attributed to poverty. Hispanic Americans rank similarly to African-American populations for socio-economic factors, but they match non-Hispanic whites in their lower infant mortality rates. The difference is not socio-economic; rather, the difference is in rates of formula use versus breastfeeding.

And I'll stop here because anyone can google this info up under "dangers of formula." In fact, I did come across some research and studies but I used a different phrase when I googled those and I forgot what phrase I used. I know this seems unrelated but I'm using the above quote to push my agenda :) Oh, one more thing, it's possible that formula leads to a higher risk of SIDS... I don't believe the way your baby is laying in bed is such a big factor, after all, they keep changing it every five years. The answer is "lay the baby on her back" now in case you're wondering.

On a side note, from personal experience, the breast fed babies I encounter really don't get as sick as much as the formula fed ones. The formula fed ones are in the hospital much more with ear infections and respiratory problems. Some of these sites claim that there are a lot of SIDS cases that were actually proven to be deaths by some sorts of infection and not so mysterious after all.

Perhaps the infant mortality rate in the above quote is not so misleading after all if this formula issue is actually true. I'll go find actual statistics and real research on this in the near future.

-- Rina (emailmarina@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.

Eugene, “the most reasonable scenario”? You gotta be joking. “The dog has to be pulled or beaten off, clear of the victim.” So you only shoot the dog AFTER it is no longer attacking the kid. To punish it? Because it’s a danger to others? Sure occasionally you get a rabid, mad or rogue dog that needs to be put down. But by a cop or an amimal control officer, not by an individual vigilante. It certainly doesn't justify an individual keeping a gun in their home for the 1 in 1000 chance that they'll meet a mad dog.

“You cannot leave your family defenseless.” You also put false words in my mouth. “without a gun in you living room” does not equal “defenseless”.

“But a handgun in your home IMO, is something 100% worth keeping…. Even law enforcement officers will concede the point.” No they don’t, as I said, look up the police sites. they are the ones arguing strongest for guns for supposed “personal protection” to be removed from homes. It’s the cops who every day have to pick up the pieces of the tragic results of the US’s lethal gun fetish.

-- Steve (555555@aol.com), February 17, 2005.

Um, and how does this man propose to “build a culture of life” when his mental outlook is so habituated to violent (non-)solutions that he even wants MEDICAL RESEARCH to be “aggressive”?

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 17, 2005.

Come on Steve let's not parse words here.

"A gun in a private home is 43 times more likely to kill an occupant than an intruder. It’s got nothing to do with whether criminals know the gun is there or any other of the irrelevant emotional slogans you try to drown this simple fact with." (Steve)

The point of the statistics I took NOT FROM A PRO-GUN SITE BUT FROM THE US GOVERNMENT'S NUMBERS... is that the guns used in the deaths of most people who are robbed at gun point DON'T BELONG TO THE VICTIMS BUT BELONG TO THE CRIMINALS!

But the way you are misinterpretting the numbers (by cleverly avoiding reference to WHOM the gun in question belongs), you suggest or believe that thousands of people where being shot by their own weapons, which simply isn't true.

Private ownership of firearms has PREVENTED VIOLENCE more times that they provoke violence. Rape especially has dropped in places were women have CCW permits.

Look at the Bureau of Justice statistics again Steve:

1) "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993" 2) "Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2002 and 2003"

All this happened while handguns, shotguns and even the supposedly evil semi-automatic rifles were being purchased by more and more law- abiding people.

If guns are so inheritly unsafe and just are ticking time bombs ready to explode at the slightest touch, there would be stats showing an INCREASE in accidental deaths, not a DECREASE.

The rise in private ownership and CCW permits in states around the country has contributed to a drop in the number and rate of criminals using guns in crimes as well as them picking on people.

Now you have two options Steve. You can admit to being mistaken in your use of the number and go on to argue against private ownership of firearms from some other source, or you can persist in manifest error.

On most matters involving strictly the Catholic faith, you are rock solid and I've praised and seconded you...or just not bothered posting because your posts on those theological or doctrinal issues are pretty much insuperable - at least I don't see where my two cents would help...

But on political or prudential matters you tend to formulate opinions based on either faulty reasoning or simply faulty data.

I wouldn't argue if I didn't think you have the intellectual honesty to admit error and accept the truth.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.

According to a January 5, 2000 special report by Geoffrey Dickens, Senior Media Analyst of the Media Research Center, "In 1997, criminologist Gary Kleck estimated that over 2.5 million people a year defend themselves from an assailant or burglar by exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. Yet how many times did television networks report such acts? In the past two years, out of 653 gun policy stories, exactly 12 times. By making a blockbuster story out of several school shootings—while leaving out the millions of times citizens use guns to stop crime each year—they presented a very misleading picture to the average viewer that firearm use brings more harm than good, and thus should be limited or even banned."

The study further went on to document that instead of reporting on firearms in anything approaching an objective manner, "In 653 gun policy stories, those advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 357 to 36, or a ratio of almost 10 to 1, while 260 were categorized as neutral. Anti-gun soundbites were twice as frequent as pro-gun ones—412 to 209—while 471 soundbites were neutral. Gun control advocates appeared on the morning shows as guests on 82 occasions, compared to just 37 for gun-rights activists and 58 neutral spokesmen."

If this is so...and I haven't found any evidence that it's not...this would explain the KNEE-JERK way Steve and company speak about private ownership of guns as though it were common knowledge and thus uncontestable that the mere presence of guns in a home vastly increases the risk of death or injury to innocent children and bystanders.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.

Dear Steve:
If your replies had some semblence of impartial consideration to show, folks like ME-- admittedly hard to budge, --wouldn't waste your time fencing words with you for 20 posts or more. Let me just finish here saying,

No objection of yours is ever debatable. You give zero balance to any of your arguments. And so; skip you and whatever you think.

We're still going to be friends and allies in cases where (happily) we can make the same points.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), February 17, 2005.

Google is an amazing thing.

Lo and behold I've further pinned down where Steve's original factoid came from...

But I had to go through an eeeeeevil pro-gun site to do it...

"Statement: "A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone you know than be used against an intruder." Truth: This is a misrepresentation of a meaningless comparison from a limited and poorly done study. This study was performed over a 6 year period in one single county in the USA. As this study is was done in just one county, that makes its results useless for saying what happens anywhere else. Scientists and researchers call this "a sample size of one". The comparison is meaningless because it is an apples vs oranges comparison. 37 of the 43 are suicides, 4.6 are classified as criminal homicides, and 1.3 were classified as accidents.[5]

5] "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home," Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay, The New England Journal of Medicine 314, no. 24 (June 12, 1986): 1557-1560

It looks like to me that when it comes to facts backed up by real studies, the anti-gun people are at a serious disadvantage to the pro- 2nd amendment people.

You may FEEL that guns are "icky" and come from a family culture that never hunted and thus doesn't care for them.

Fine.

But don't turn around and throw out factoids from God knows where trying to justify your FEELING as though it's actually a CONCLUSION.

When dealing with the real world and real Americans, most of whom are NOT Catholic, and many of whom are addicted to drugs, porn, and other "lifestyle choices" which promote slavish obedience to urges and passions and less and less self-control, we can't afford to live in a fantasy world where wishful thinking and positive feelings take the place of prudence.

Because millions of Americans have taken precautions - passive and active measures to obtain security of life and limb, crime has decreased. But the decrease isn't a function of nice feelings and wishful thinking. It's a function of these defensive measures!

And sure, at the end of the day, we ought to evangelize so as to prevent the next generation from growing up as thugs...but in the intervening 20 years or so, we have to deal with people who are already pretty hard in their ways - hardened chemically and psychologically.

Like just war theory, this means proportionality, just cause, self- control, diplomacy, etc. walls & warnings ought to come first, before weapons...but there is a place for weapons whether we like them or not.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), February 17, 2005.

Rina, thank you for the answer... more statistics would be interesting, especially with all the 'noise' here about the WAY over-done issue of guns.

Thankfully I'm smart enough not to ask: "Did Jesus own a gun?" :) (although "Did Jesus ever use a weapon?" makes a good question!)

-- Pat Thompson (pat.thompson.45@gmail.com), February 17, 2005.

Joe, thanks for your complimentary remarks re other issues. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Yes you’re right Pat this issue is over-done and I won't mention it here again. I just wanted to make a simple point but Joe and Eugene want to write a thesis about it. Obviously they have got a huge emotional investment in this issue and are determined to drown the facts (and yes they are facts not “Steve’s factoids”) in a mountain of pounding statistics and rhetoric , 5% of it false and 95% of it facts which no- one here has disputed but are irrelevant. (eg I never denied that IF an intruder does enter and try to kill/rape/rob you, he is less likely to succeed if you have a gun [though usually he is not killed]. The problem is the far, far higher number of deaths in the household which are NOT related to any attempted crime by an intruder).

Eugene, I DO try to give balance to my arguments (as opposed to some of the things which I DIDN’T say but which other people pretend that I said for the sake of ridiculing it.) And no I wouldn’t get info on the safety of guns from a gun lobby site, just as I wouldn’t get info on the safety of smoking from a tobacco industry site.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), February 17, 2005.

There are multiple reasons why statistically, the USA has a horrid record for infant mortality: ONE of the number one reasons is related to adolescent pregancies. In our country, a high number of pregnant teens do not seek prenatal care until the third trimester. Premature births are very high in this age group. Morbidity and mortality in premature infants raises those statistics significantly. Add to that group the large number of infants born to substance abuser mothers and they also have an high incidence of lack of prenatal care and subsequent morbidity and mortality.

Add to those groups the growing number of mothers who have zero health insurance coverage, or inadequate coverage..they too do not seek prenatal care until the third trimester.

Add to THOSE groups the LARGE numbers of illegal immigrant mothers in the Southwestern states who cross the border from Mexico , sometimes literally in labor so their babies can be born in the USA. (I worked in Texas with them for 5 years). MOST of these mothers also do not EVER seek prenatal care..they cannot afford it.

When there is no prenatal care early on, there is no ability to practice any preventive medicine, or to diagnose any pregancy- related diseases, such as gestational diabetes,or cardiac disease,renal disorders, or to evaluate the nutritional status of baby or the mother ..by the third trimester it is way too late to intervene in many cases. The baby is either born way too early and dies, or is born with an overwhelming infection and dies, or some other complication which MAY have been prevented with adequate prenatal care.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

The United States has a higher infant mortality rate than Cuba...isn't that sad? What kind of "culture of life" allows this kind of thing to happen while spending half of the budget on killing people?

-- Anti-Bush (comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), February 18, 2005.

Anti-Bush..it is sad..and if you did some research on just how long the USA has had one of the highest infant mortality rates among the "industrialized" nations of the world, you may be prompted to change your name to anti-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Reagan-Carter-Ford-Nixon- Johnson-Kennedy.

-- Lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), February 19, 2005.