Oh, I forgot to add that we should also ban prescription drugs! These are frequently misused by children and cause much death and sadness in our country.

"This also includes training which I assume instructs people on how to stow the weapons"

I'm sorry, but when it comes to guns in the home of children we need to do more than "assume" people have been propery instructed on where to store their guns, and just because they have been instruction doesn't mean anything.

I believe that the requirements in effect now are more than enough. This also includes training which I assume instructs people on how to stow the weapons so that it doen't get into the hands of children. I like the idea that more people have concealed weapons. That will make the criminals a little more leary to attack to bother law biding citizens.

My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car.

"rbeardsworth on Mon, 06/08/2009 at 7:33 pm.
There sure ought to be restrictions on liberal Democrat congressmen, senators and presidents taking our personal liberties and rights away!"

And just what rights and personal liberties have those nasty liberals taken away?

Home invasions are rare, very rare in population areas where it is known the public is well armed. I grew up in the Pacific NW where just about everyone has at least one if not more firearms - and they know how to use them. Criminals don't dare come around when people are home and rarely, very rarely, are people attacked or robbed on the street too. A great deterrent to crime is a well-armed and well-trained citizenry IMO.

Heck, Gertz, you driving your car has as much if not more potential to kill an "innocent" person. Let's take your car away and ban you from driving, based on that logic!

There sure ought to be restrictions on liberal Democrat congressmen, senators and presidents taking our personal liberties and rights away!

Is placing each bullet fired, precisely where I intend for each to go.

"Why must people try to put restricitons on law abiding people that choose to bear arms for what ever reasons?"

While I can think of many reason, let me hit you with this one: every gun sold is another gun that has the potential of being stolen, and used to kill an innocent person. That's reason enough for me.

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.

This is all I ask for.

All I can say is..... "Veritas vos liberabit"

As to your contention that guns protect far less than they "kill children": how do we really know? I can speak from personal experience that having a gun in my house was the only sure form of protection available to my wife & me during an aborted home invasion attempt not long ago. Now way could the cops get there while it was in progress. Since the perps didn't succeed in breaching the door; just cracking it before running away, the cops wrote it up as "maybe just some teenagers pulling a prank." (Norfolk city government dictates they do things this way so visitors won't think we have the amount of crime that we do.)
As a result, it didn't make the papers & is not on the Crimes Database. Thus, how does one really know how often guns have provided protection; directly or otherwise?
Certainly, it is incumbent on owners to ensure their guns are safely stored so kids can't get at them, but not having them can be just as problemmatic.

re: bev1799 "if they did why would there be so much crime and gun violence in poor urban areas, surely everyone has guns, but that doesn't stop the criminals from trying to prey on them."
Aren't Liberals (which I'm assuming you are by your overall anti-gun sentiments) supposed to avoid making sweeping judgements like you did w/ respect to those living in those poor urban areas ("surely everyone has guns")?
Reminds me of some of our hypocritical luminaries who believe only those of a certain celebrity or financial status (e.g. Rosie O'Donnell, Sen. Diane Feinstein) are worthy of using firearms for personal protection. (cont'd)

with what Miss Bev says. I am a constant observer of the news and whenever someone is shot it is on the news, ad nauseum. In contrast, defensive uses of handguns are very rarely, if ever, reported. When one uses a gun to defend oneself or even another; do we run and tell the media or the police? No, we just go about our business thanking our lucky stars we had the forethought to be able to protect ourselves. The statistics might be different if there was a way to anonymously report a defensive use and I think Miss Bev would be astonished. The correct stats have already been reported in previous posts. As I told a prospective politician in the area, before you make statements or judgments, go down and go through the process of getting a CHP and I think your ideas will be different.

A university study done a few years ago by Gary Kleck estimated that guns are used 2.5 million times every year to stop a crime, without ever being discharged. Compare that to guns being near the bottom of reported deaths of children by the CDC, way below car crashes, drowning, poisoning, etc.

While I think the intentions are honorable of the writer,
"...where a gun accidently shoots say a 6 yr old whose parents had the gun in the house for protection.", let me point out that it is impossible for a gun to go off without someone being attached to the trigger.
It is clearly a tragedy when a child gets a hold of a gun and discharges it leading to someone being injured or worse. The problem lies with the caretaker that keeps a weapon where a child is present. They must keep the weapon secure from such possibilities.
Why must people try to put restricitons on law abiding people that choose to bear arms for what ever reasons?

Criminals will always be able to get their weapons of choice no matter how many laws are on the books. Look and NYC, LA, Detroit, Chicago whom have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. Purchasing a gun and carrying permit by law abidding citizens is an a choice. Some people feel that they are able to protect their lives when necessary, other don't - you make the choice. There are people whom can not defend themselves such as disable, elderly and the weak. These are normally the victims of the parisitic crimal. Some will say that guns do not deter crime. Based on my experience, when a criminal hears the clicking sound of arming a weapon they think twice, if not then they will have a "spiritual experience." Preventing law abidding citizens from purchasing, owning and able to carry (where appropriate) will not reduce nor rosolve criminals using guns. It will allow for these parasites "great pickings."

Added restrictions to Concealed Gun Permits, or any gun permits for that matter, is quite simply a covert ploy by government to ban guns altogether. Look at the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution for guidance.

Crazy thing is everyone wants to be able to carry more guns, but acknowledges criminals don't bother following gun laws, so let's just leave the criminals out of the discussion. How often do you hear of a person successfully defending themselves with a gun versus a horrific accident where a gun accidently shoots say a 6 yr old whose parents had the gun in the house for protection. I venture to say far more often they kill accidentally than protect in the hands of normal law abiding citizens. Surely both get media coverage when someone successfully defends an intruder as does when a child accidentally shoots his friend or sibling with mom/dad's gun. Having the gun or the right to have the gun doesn't stop the criminals and the criminals don't care if their victims have guns, if they did why would there be so much crime and gun violence in poor urban areas, surely everyone has guns, but that doesn't stop the criminals from trying to prey on them.

Just think about it for a second.