"In Texas and five other states, there is no legal age for carrying a gun."

You sir are a liar!

from:TITLE 37 PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS
PART 1 TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
CHAPTER 6 LICENSE TO CARRY HANDGUNS
SUBCHAPTER B ELIGIBILITY AND APPLICATION PROCEDURES
RULE §6.11 Eligibility for License To Carry a Concealed Handgun

(2) the applicant must be at least 21 years of age;

Did you actually do any research at all?

From North Carolina's
SUBCHAPTER IX. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PUBLIC PEACE.

Article 35.

Offenses Against the Public Peace.
§ 14‑269. Carrying concealed weapons.

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person willfully and intentionally to carry concealed about his person any bowie knife, dirk, dagger, slung shot, loaded cane, metallic knuckles, razor, shurikin, stun gun, or other deadly weapon of like kind, except when the person is on the person's own premises.

"In 48 states, citizens can legally purchase an assault weapon"

Define "assault weapon". Fully automatic weapons are illegal (without MAJOR $$ and influence) to own according to NFA laws right now, so what are you talking about? Do you even know? If you are not talking about fully auto weapons then you are talking about cosmetics and that is deceptive on your part.

Getting a NFA (title II) weapons license is difficult to get and is highly regulated. If you have $8k to $10k lying around and a friend at the BATFE then go for it.
The National Firearms Act (NFA), cited as the Act of June 26, 1934, Ch. 757, 48 Stat. 1236, as amended, currently codified as Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 5801–5872, is a United States federal law passed in 1934 that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of all Title II weapons and mandates the registration of those weapons.

This article is an abuse of the first amendment

"Homicide rates in the US are two to ten times higher than in other developed nations."
WRONG!
Check Wikipedia:
Actually the USA is 42nd on the list.
Just a sampling -
Homicides per 100K
Russia 19.8
Brazil 30.38
Mexico 13.04
Thailand 8.47
Ukraine 7.42
USA 5.64
I'd rather be here than 42 other countries.
Now should we think you have a bias?

Thank you to Charlz and zaraster for your comments. Charlz, you in particular have raised a number of valid points. Indeed, I admit that I made a mistake in citing the Soros Foundation report's statistics because that study, it turns out, is eight years old.

When I found it, I did not originally see the date of publication, but your comments inspired me inspect it more closely.

This is not the first time a journalist has made an error, and it won't be the last. With the wealth of information that exists in the world, and the nature of the World Wide Web, a certain margin of error is inevitable.

As such, I would like to stress that my intention with this article was by no means malicious. I was not "lying" because I did not realize that I was making an erroneous claim. I was merely using outdated statistics without realizing it, and that was sloppy of me. For that, I apologize. As a journalist, inaccuracy is one of my greatest foes. Especially when that inaccuracy suggests a political bias, an all-too-common problem in contemporary political journalism.

Zaraster, I am curious how you define "abuse of the first amendment." Is the article an abuse because it, as I admit above, is flawed? Or is it an abuse because it critiques the use of guns in the United States and this goes against your personal politics?

Dear DavidA,
It is honorable for you to admit that you are in error. For that I thank you. My one problem is that you chose to go to the Soros Foundation in the first place for info on gun control, an organization that admits their anti-gun bias. That would be like going to the NRA for the same info if you had the opposite bias. Should I go to the Republicans to get unbiased info on the Democrats as well? David you know better! Shame on you.

"being the president of the NRA did not make Heston responsible for that girl's death.

Or did it?"

I suspect then that he would be also responsible for all of the many thousands and thousands of lives saved using a firearm in self defense...or does it only work one way?

Another error:
In North Carolina, a 12 year-old needs parental permission to play Little League baseball, but not to carry a firearm.

Wrong.

North Carolina General Statute § 14-269.7 provides that it is a misdemeanor for any person under the age of 18 to possess or carry a handgun.
This prohibition doe snot apply to the following:A. officers and enlisted personnel of the Armed Forces of the United States when in discharge of their official duties, or acting under orders requiring them to carry handguns; B. a minor who possesses a handgun for educational or recreational purposes while the minor is supervised by an adult who is present;C. an emancipated minor who possesses such a handgun inside his or her residence; and D. a minor who possesses a handgun while hunting or trapping outside the limits of an incorporated municipality if he/she has on his or her person, written permission from a parent, guardian, or other person standing in loco parentis.North Carolina General Statute G.S. § 14-315 prohibits any person from selling,offering for sale, giving away, or in any way transferring to a person under the age of 18,any pistol cartridge, brass knucks, Bowie Knife, dirk, shurikin, loaded cane, or slingshot.Any person who violates this law is guilty of a Class 1 Misdemeanor and, in addition, shall forfeit the proceeds of any sale made in violation of this prohibition.This statute further provides that it is a Class H Felony for a person to sell, offer for sale, give, or in any way transfer to a person less than 18 years of age, any handgun as defined in N.C.G.S. § 14-269.7. Additionally, an individual guilty of this offense shall forfeit the proceeds of any sale made in violation of this section. This law does not apply under the following circumstances:A. when the handgun is lent to a minor for temporary use if the minor's possession of the handgun is lawful under N.C.G.S. § 14-269.7 and G.S. §14-316 and is not otherwise unlawful; B. when the handgun is transferred to an adult custodian, pursuant to Chapter33A of the North Carolina General Statutes, and the minor does not take possession of the handgun except that the adult custodian may allow the minor temporary possession of the handgun in circumstances in which the minor's possession of the handgun is lawful under N.C.G.S. § 14-269.7 and N.C.G.S. § 14-316 and is not otherwise unlawful.
----

I have found that those that simply think that inanimate objects can jump up and cause harm, also are the ones that fail to research things properly.
While I wont touch on the other errors in your posting, as others have, please do your research correctly, and get it from the source, other than anti gun sites that tend to be as bias as all get out.
There is indeed a gun problem in this country. The problem is not that of gun ownership, as most of us will never fire a shot in anger, or in defense, but the problem is that no ones figured out a good, sure fire way to keep them out of the hands of the criminal, the wolf that will come knocking on a sheeps door...
Until you can show me a proven way to keep Johnny Crackhead from stealing a firearm, or buying one ILLEGALLY, and then going out and knocking off a few innocent law abiding citizens, Ill stick to my guns as it were, and carry as often as I can, and continue my training in handgun carry and use that far and away exceeds that of local law enforcement on most any level.
You be the sheep. Ill be the sheepdog. Rest easy at night knowing that there are those of us that still respect life, and as such, carry a weapon.

Docdc,

I think you missed the point of my rhetorical question. I was not implying that Heston was responsible; I was suggesting that in a culture that allows guns at all and, indeed, encourages violence, where does one determine responsibility? In Alain Resnais' film about the Holocaust, Night and Fog, several members of the SS are shown giving testimony, claiming, "I am not responsible" because they were merely following orders, or performing one minute task, and should thus not be held accountable for the the Holocaust overall. Resnais' voiceover asks, "Who is responsible, then?"

He was making an existentialist point: Unless you stood up and protested the killing in those camps, you were responsible simply because you were complicit. I was posing a similar question. Was Heston responsible? Are films that glorify gunplay responsible? Are the manufacturers of BB guns responsible?

You tell me.

CBHVAC,

As I have already admitted, my research was faulty. For that I apologized and will do so again now. Inaccuracy and sloppiness are not values I hold in my work, and I regret the mistake I made in citing a report that is eight years old. But again, mistakes like this do happen -- especially in Web-based research and journalism. Not only is there an overwhelming amount of material out there, but we publish our work at such a rapid pace that errors sometimes leak through. Not everything is researched as thoroughly as it could be, and occasionally this results in egregious errors.

The same is true in daily newspaper journalism, and even monthly magazines -- though with less frequency in the latter case. Even at the New York Times, which employs a rigorous fact-checking process for the majority of its articles, mistakes are made and errors are published. Hence the "Corrections" page in each issue of the paper.

I will certainly make a point to continue checking my facts before publishing posts, and I hope that I do not make more errors in the future. But I also know that as a human, I am prone to do so. And as a human, I can also admit my mistakes and learn from them.

Docdc,

I think you missed the point of my rhetorical question. I was not implying that Heston was responsible; I was suggesting that in a culture that allows guns at all and, indeed, encourages violence, where does one determine responsibility? In Alain Resnais' film about the Holocaust, Night and Fog, several members of the SS are shown giving testimony, claiming, "I am not responsible" because they were merely following orders, or performing one minute task, and should thus not be held accountable for the the Holocaust overall. Resnais' voiceover asks, "Who is responsible, then?"

He was making an existentialist point: Unless you stood up and protested the killing in those camps, you were responsible simply because you were complicit. I was posing a similar question. Was Heston responsible? Are films that glorify gunplay responsible? Are the manufacturers of BB guns responsible?

You tell me.

CBHVAC,

As I have already admitted, my research was faulty. For that I apologized and will do so again now. Inaccuracy and sloppiness are not values I hold in my work, and I regret the mistake I made in citing a report that is eight years old. But again, mistakes like this do happen -- especially in Web-based research and journalism. Not only is there an overwhelming amount of material out there, but we publish our work at such a rapid pace that errors sometimes leak through. Not everything is researched as thoroughly as it could be, and occasionally this results in egregious errors.

The same is true in daily newspaper journalism, and even monthly magazines -- though with less frequency in the latter case. Even at the New York Times, which employs a rigorous fact-checking process for the majority of its articles, mistakes are made and errors are published. Hence the "Corrections" page in each issue of the paper.

I will certainly make a point to continue checking my facts before publishing posts, and I hope that I do not make more errors in the future. But I also know that as a human, I am prone to do so. And as a human, I can also admit my mistakes and learn from them.

David, if your apology is truly sincere, and you truly believe that you used faulty (read: false) information gained from a highly biased source, then why haven't you made corrections in your original post?

You call yourself a journalist, yet you fail to make corrections. Still waiting for the retractions.

One thing I'd like to point out is this: Your quote:

"The remaining four impose a one-gun-per-month limit as a precaution against gun trafficking."

Shouldn't that read ILLEGAL gun trafficking? Because I wasn't aware that guns were illegal in this country. You've equivocated guns with cocaine or sarin gas. And you're not biased? Give me a break. This is just one of many examples I could bring up.

I predict you will continue to receive scolding replies as long as you continue to persist in allowing your article of misinformation (read: lies) to remain uncorrected.

Still waiting for retractions.

It's interesting that you use the New York Times' retraction process as a way to establish your own credentials, as if making errors in a blog post somehow proves you are a journalist. Oh, the irony.

So tell the rest of us...what journalistic credentials do you have in common with "real" journalistic entities such as the New York Times, OTHER THAN a tendency to commit numerous errors?

David,
Looks like you are taking a beating here. To be compassionate I must admit I have some "urban" friends that have made similar mistakes. Since their only experience with guns is what they see on TV they accept the Soros sources as fact. You say "Gun control is our problem, and it's up to us to do something about it." You believe that somehow the legal ownership of guns is a direct factor in crime. Since you accept this presupposition you would of course accept the Soros source as fact. BUT, think what if the first equation is wrong? Mexico has strict gun laws and you are twice as likely to be murdered there as anywhere in the USA. Many "Urbanites" have gone down this path and had an unexpected epiphany. Before you start profiling me as a angry, white, conservative, Christian, Republican, I am actually a Jewish, vegetarian, environmently concerned, well educated, etc. in other words not a redneck. Just for the record. Go shooting, handle a gun, read more. Dude this a challenge.

Fossten,

I would appreciate it if you would cease trying to insult me. In no way did I suggest that making errors proves that one is a journalist. To the contrary, I stated clearly that journalists should strive for accuracy. I merely said that journalists, like all humans, make mistakes. And ideally they can admit to them when this happens.

Moreover, I dispute your claim that I have made "numerous" errors. I made one error: citing a faulty source. The source I cited, the Soros report, may have made numerous errors, but I did not.

Finally, retractions and corrections take time. As you said yourself, research is important. This does not happen in an instant.

If you want updates that cannot be contested, I ask that you wait patiently. I have spent some time researching the matter and found that conclusive "facts" on this issue are very hard to find. And what "facts" I have found are often at least a few years old.

It's not an easy task.

Fossten,

I would appreciate it if you would cease trying to insult me. In no way did I suggest that making errors proves that one is a journalist. To the contrary, I stated clearly that journalists should strive for accuracy. I merely said that journalists, like all humans, make mistakes. And ideally they can admit to them when this happens.

Moreover, I dispute your claim that I have made "numerous" errors. I made one error: citing a faulty source. The source I cited, the Soros report, may have made numerous errors, but I did not.

Finally, retractions and corrections take time. As you said yourself, research is important. This does not happen in an instant.

If you want updates that cannot be contested, I ask that you wait patiently. I have spent some time researching the matter and found that conclusive "facts" on this issue are very hard to find. And what "facts" I have found are often at least a few years old.

It's not an easy task.

One thing I think we all can agree on -- the Charlton Heston chariot scene in "Ben-Hur" is one of the greatest scenes in all of cinematic history.

Hey guys, let's lighten up a little bit. Unlike most journalists, David has admitted his error and apologized. Let's try to be more positive.

David A: First, you need a good source of information. I suggest GunCite.com. Despite what you may think of the name, you will find it chock full of statistics and arguments from both sides. You will likely realize that the pro-gun rights side has the best arguments, but at least you will see why...in detail...with a minimum of emotional bull.

Second, one thing you will find is that guns are used by average citizens several million times per year to avert crimes, almost always without pulling the trigger. These are lives SAVED, and far outweigh lives lost to criminal behavior.

Third, to see a running total of crimes averted, see keepandbeararms.com. This site features newspaper accounts of self defense activites (these generally DO involve pulling triggers, as the newspapers would otherwise not be interested).

Fourth, you ask why "America Still Loves Guns". The simple answer will be apparent once you follow the steps I mentioned above: TO PROTECT US.

Finally, PLEASE avail yourself of the offers to go shooting or simply take some firearms training from a good range nearby. If you're ever in Houston, I'd be glad to show you the ropes. Once you replace your fear of guns with a RESPECT for guns, you will be better equipped to comment on gun control in general.

David,

You tell me to wait patiently while you carefully research this subject, which you have newly discovered to have "found that conclusive 'facts' on this issue are very hard to find."

Yet you did not do the requisite research before you assumed the erroneous details were correct, nor did you hesitate to post them with an obviously negative slant in your tone. You even implied that Charlton Heston's presidency at the NRA was responsible for a little girl's death. That is known as dancing on someone's grave.

I still await your retraction. I trust that you are, as you claim, busily researching the true facts of the matter before you post again.

Fessten,

Instead of wailing on me, maybe you should check the post: I did print a retraction. It's there now.

You are not reading my words carefully, and are missing the points I'm making as a result. I did not state that Heston was responsible because he was the NRA president. Michael Moore, whose methods I openly disagreed with in the post, did. I merely re-opened the question of responsibility.

Again, I thought I had found accurate data and I was mistaken. Now that I realize that, I'm trying to find solid facts. They are not easy to come by.

Why are you so irate?

DavidA,
You have apologized. I accept that. Personally I feel as though the issue is opened here and may get much better coverage by you in a much more balanced view. It is also a lesson in how our pre-suppositions affect our acceptance of "facts". This is cultural [although we often find "social engineers" in media, politics etc. that play on these pre-suppositions.] I look forward to your next installment on this issue once the emotions have abated. Come to Tennessee and I will teach you to shoot safely and legally.

Thank you, Charlz. I appreciate your insights and agree with what you say about pre-suppositions.

Indeed, that is largely what this issue can be boiled down to. I read some information that resonated with what I wanted to believe, and as a result made an error in judgement as a journalist.

I teach journalism, and one of the big questions we often discuss is whether true objectivity is ever possible. Because information is always filtered through an intelligent being with emotions, a past, and deeply-entrenched beliefs, how can the packaging of information ever be fully objective?

Sometimes bias is more clearly seen than others, as in the case in point here. But often it's obscured behind what seems like thoroughly researched data, and "expert" testimony.

This exchange has done a great deal to illustrate the problems and complications of our media landscape, of which we're all a part thanks to the Internet.

Open exchanges like this couldn't have taken place, and the public was left to believe, as Charles Foster Kane put it, what journalists told them to think.

This is the true value of Blogs, provided they elicit civilized debate and not vitriolic comments that do nothing to further the quest for clarity and truth.

I meant to write, "Not long ago, open exchanges like this couldn't have taken place..."

I suggest he listen to Cam and company on Sirius Patriot 144 tonight, or on www.nranews.com and see if he even gets an honorable mention.
I sent the post to Cam Edwards and he just MIGHT chose to pick it apart, and find the "hard to find" facts that this gentleman has failed to find, altho any of us can find them in about .00045seconds, according to Google.

Sir, you have stated that mistakes are made especially when you are turning out as many articles as you do. Might I suggest that it is better and would make you more credible If you were to publish One good, Credible article as opposed to 5 inaccurate sloppy ones.
And would make your career a longer and more prosperous one.

I did not publish five sloppy, inaccurate posts. I published one with a faulty source.

I am a professional journalist who made a mistake.

You can continue attacking me if you wish, but I've said what I feel is necessary. I won't get into a spitting match with anyone on this.

Blogs are great when they open the door to positive exchange of ideas, but this is no such exchange.

I thank Charlz for being open-minded enough to review the comments and consider them intelligently, and to revise his opinion once new information was in.

This is clearly a complicated issue, and such new information will be coming for some time. There are no hard facts, from a singlularly reputable source. Everything has the chance of being skewed and biased. The hard part is discerning fact from spin.

Look to England or any of the other countrys where there have been total gun bans. Crime has not gone down. The old are being abused by hooded thugs some with guns. The bad guys have guns and have no fear of the good citizens for they did all follow the law and turn in there guns.
.
.

You state you are a professional journalist.
What paper do you wright for I would love to read your other stories?
.
.

You should consider that one of the first things Hitler did after taking power was to take all the guns from the people for there own good.
And after that he started killing unarmed citizens to create the master race
The facts are very easy to check on that one.

DavidA
We "pro-gun" people are quite emotional because we are often blamed by association for murder, crime, etc., when in fact we have had more background checks, fingerprinting and goverenment clearance than most law enforcement officials. We fight bad data everyday. Please understand that this is a bigger issue than your blog. We feel attacked and slandered and sometimes we are emotional. I found your retraction refreshing and unusually mature. Now let's move on. Please consider the following:
1) what would you do if your home is being invaded and the police in your community are 45 minutes away?
2) you are a farmer and your income depends on a flock of sheep and wild dogs are tearing them apart? You are watching as your life's investment is being eaten alive. (I have seen this with my own eyes)
3) A woman is being raped in a field and you happen to be the loan witness to this event? The guy is a muscle bound maniac and has a large knife.
4) It is 1 am. You are paying for your gas in a station and 3 gang members close the door and make their intention to rob very clear. (this happened to me. Simply showing my pistol saved my life and the clerk's. Thank goodness I did not need to shoot anyone. They fled into the night, which was fine by me.)

I know these little events are not statistically sound (although many can be supported statistically) but we gauge our lives by our experiences. You do realize that you have a book in the making with this blog?

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/4.2/GunFacts4-2-Screen.pdf

There is a link that should put to rest most of your concerns. It is recent as well.

Gun bans dont deter crimminals, they attract them.
Walter Mondale.

DavidA,
Consider this;
Let's say for arguments sake that a gun ban and confiscation is a good idea. How would a government do this? Would force be used? Would people die? Would government agents use guns to confiscate guns? Would the loss of life and property be worth it? Looks good on paper but could turn entire regions into giant Waco-esque blood bathes. The road to Hell in paved with good intentions. Just gather up all the guns and we will be safe...right? There would be an insurgency that would make Iraq look like a square dance. The black market would be incredible. Making a gun is not a big deal to a basement machinst. It ain't rocket science. How many guns do you think there are in this country tucked in basements and attics? These liberal anti-gun groups know not what they do. This is not what we want for our country regardless of your politics.

Any more post here is just a waste of time. I will say it is shame that you used Mr. Heston’s Death to grab a headline and grab attention to your self.

Any more post here is just a waste of time. I will say it is a shame that you used Mr. Heston’s Death to grab a headline and grab attention to your self.

Three days and still no corrections made. That "google" thing must be more difficult than I thought.
Censorship is our problem, and it's up to us to do something about it.

Is this guy a journalist or did he just stay at a holiday inn express last night.
I think he slept at the hotel

Is this guy a journalist or did he just stay at a holiday inn express last night.
I think he slept at the hotel

Really David you should make some statement here. After talking to you on the phone I believe you are a reasonable person. The point is to bring facts to the surface not to cheer for our own sides. As we discussed the stats can be daunting but the issues that have been presented need to be addressed. If you throw down a challenge then the honorable thing to do is to follow through. It seems like the mode operation of the leftist propaganda machine is to try to paint the American gun owner as a white, redneck, ignorant, racist. This of course is not the case. It is now your duty to address these issues to show that you do not embrace the sterotype that has been used to abuse and silence us. Prejudice is prejudice. I don't think you embrace prejudice. Its only right and proper to come back and talk to us.

Charlz,

please check the blog for a post I published yesterday titled "Awareness is Not a One-Way Street" and comment at will. I hope this will help bring about a positive and constructive exchange, which is really what blogs are all about.

best,
David