Regarding an Armed Citizenry

Paul Leitner-Wise, a firearms designer and manufacturer (the man who founded LWRC), Leitner-Wise Defense and most recently Leitner-Wise Mfg. LLC wrote an excellent op-ed piece about the value of armed response and the advantages of an armed citizenry.

This is his op-ed in its entirety. In it he cites several (though by no means all) incidents in which the response of an armed citizen (and in one case an off duty LEO) stopped an active shooter style massacre.

I have placed the incident names in bold print for those who wish to do further research. As before, if you are aware a well written and technically accurate article taking the opposite stance to this issue, please advise.


The Value in an Armed Citizenry

Paul Leitner-Wise

For those who do not consider value in an armed citizenry, or consider such a thing dangerous, I offer the following. I apologize in advance for the length, I have tried to summarize as briefly as possible.

The first incident began on the morning of October 1, 1997  when Luke Woodham fatally stabbed and bludgeoned his sleeping mother, Mary Woodham. At his trial, Woodham claimed that he could not remember killing his mother.

Woodham drove his mother’s car to Pearl High School [Pearl, Mississippi]. Wearing an orange jumpsuit and a trenchcoat, he made no attempt to hide his rifle. When he entered the school, he fatally shot Lydia Kaye Dew and Christina Menefee, his former girlfriend. Pearl High School assistant band director, Jeff Cannon, was standing five feet away from Dew when she was fatally shot. Woodham went on to wound seven others before leaving, intending to drive off campus and conduct another shooting at the nearby Pearl Junior High School. However, assistant principal Joel Myrick had retrieved a .45 pistol from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued Woodham inside his mother’s car. Then Myrick demanded “Why did you shoot my kids?” to which Woodham replied, “Life has wronged me, sir”. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

James Eaves-Johnson wrote that there were “687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss. and of those, only 19 mentioned that ”Myrick had used a gun to stop Woodham“, four-and-a-half minutes before police arrived”.

The Parker Middle School dance shooting was an incident that occurred on April 24, 1998 at a restaurant in Edinboro, Pennsylvania. 14-year-old Andrew Jerome Wurst fatally shot 48-year-old John Gillette, and wounded another teacher and two students at Nick’s Place (a nearby restaurant) during an 8th grade graduation dance.

Prior to the shooting, Andrew Wurst was described as an average student, and somewhat of a loner. One student noticed that he had become curt and unfriendly prior to the shooting, and had told others that he wanted to “kill people and commit suicide”. He had no history of mental illness prior to the shooting.

Wurst showed up late to the dance, with his father’s .25-caliber pistol in a holster belt under his jacket. He had previously left a suicide note under his pillow, and stated to investigators that he planned to go to the dance and kill only himself. The shooting began on an outdoor patio, about 20 minutes before the dance was scheduled to end, around 9:40. He shot John Gillette after he asked Wurst to come inside. Wurst proceeded to enter Nick’s Place, where the dance had been held, and subsequently fired and wounded Edrye Boraten, a teacher and two students, Jacob Tury and Justin Fletcher. The shooting ended when the owner of Nick’s Place, James Strand, intervened and confronted Wurst with his shotgun, ordering him to drop his weapon and later holding him at bay for eleven minutes. Strand later got Wurst on the ground and searched him for weapons, finding a dinner fork in his sock. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

On January 16, 2002 a student with a grudge, 43-year-old Nigerian Peter Odighizuwa arrived on the Appalachian School of Law campus in Virginia with a handgun. Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him. Odighizuwa returned to the school around 1:00 p.m and proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with the handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range. Also killed was student Angela Dales, three other students were wounded, one in the chest, one in the stomach and one in the throat.

Many students heard the shots. Two who did were Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges. Mikael was outside the school having just returned to campus from lunch when he heard the shots, Tracy was inside attending class. Both immediately ran to their cars as each had a handgun locked in the vehicle.

Bridges pulled a .357 Magnum pistol and he later said he was prepared to shoot to kill if necessary. He and Gross both approached Odighizuwa at the same time from different directions, both were pointing their weapons at Odighizuwa. Bridges yelled for Odighizuwa to drop his weapon and when the shooter realized they had him cornered he threw his weapon down. A third student, unarmed, Ted Besen, approached the killer and was physically attacked by Odighizuwa, but together the three students were able to restrain him and held him for the police. Odighizuwa is now in prison for the murders he committed receiving three life sentences plus 28 years, his killing spree ended when he faced two students with weapons. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

The shooting was cited by John Lott and others as an example of the media’s bias against guns, describing how the use of a firearm in a defensive role was not reported in most news stories of the event. James Eaves-Johnson wrote about this fact one week later in The Daily Iowan. He wrote: “A Lexus-Nexis search revealed 88 stories on the topic, of which only two mentioned that either Bridges or Gross was armed.” This 2002 article noted “This was a very public shooting with a lot of media coverage” but the media left out information showing how two students with firearms ended the killing spree.

On February 12, 2007, at 6:44 PM MST, Sulejman Talović began a deadly shooting spree in Trolley Square [Salt Lake City, UT] resulting in the deaths of five bystanders, as well as the wounding of at least four others. Talović was described as wearing a white shirt, a tan trenchcoat and a mullet. He carried both a shotgun with a pistol grip and a 38-caliber handgun as well as a backpack full of ammunition. The mall was a self-declared “gun free zone” forbidding patrons from carrying weapons.

According to local TV station KTVX, several witnesses reported that most of the shooting took place on the ground floor near the Pottery Barn store, though the majority of the dead were found in Cabin Fever, a card store. One of the victims, having been shot, apparently entered the nearby Hard Rock Cafe and told customers to lock the doors. Several victims were transported to local hospitals, some in critical condition.

One of the victims was a 16-year-old boy, A.J. Walker, found in his car with a wound to the side of his head; another, Cedric Wilson, an employee at Rodizio Grill, was fired at twice but suffered only a graze on his head.

The gunman’s rampage was stopped after trading shots with off-duty police officer Kenneth Hammond of the Ogden City Police Department, who had ignored the signs informing patrons they must be unarmed to enter the mall and Sgt. Andrew Oblad of the Salt Lake City Police Department. The final confrontation, in which Talović was killed, occurred in the Pottery Barn Kids home furnishing store. Hammond was at Trolley Square having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his pregnant wife, 911 dispatcher Sarita Hammond, when they heard gunshots. Sarita Hammond borrowed a waiter’s cell phone to call 911. Talović was cornered and was shooting at officers, until an active shooter contact team composed of Salt Lake City PD SWAT team members arrived and shot him. Salt Lake City police officials on February 13, 2007, thanked Hammond as a hero for saving countless lives. There would be no further victims that day, thanks to armed resistance.

In each of these cases a killer is stopped the moment he faces armed resistance. It is clear that in three of these cases the shooter intended to continue his killing spree. In the fourth case, Andrew Wurst, it is not immediately apparent whether he intended to keep shooting or not since he was apprehended by the restaurant owner leaving the scene.

Three of these cases involved armed resistance by students, faculty or civilians. In one case the armed resistance was from an off-duty police officer in a city where he had no legal authority and where he was carrying his weapon in violation of the mall’s gun free policy. What would have happened if these people waited for the police? In three cases the shooters were apprehended before the police arrived because of armed civilians. At Trolley Square the shooter was kept busy by Hammond until the police arrived.

Consider the horrific events at Virginia Tech and Aurora, Colorado. Again an armed man enters a “gun free zone”. He freely kills his victims because no armed resistance is met.


Those few paragraphs sum up everything I wish I’d been articulate enough to express. I would, however, like to add just one thought to this, and that is determination. If you look at the video of the Detroit PD precinct shooting in January of last year, you will see officers that do not quit fighting. At one point an officer picks up a small metal trashcan and hurls it at the shooter – he doesn’t just curl up or run away. He stays in the fight. Read some background on Cincinnati PD officer Kathleen Conway, who apparently didn’t have any quit in her. She managed to draw her weapon and put two rounds through the same hole in her assailant’s skull after he’d shot her multiple times through the window of her police car with a .357 (which, incidentally, cracks off at a decibel level at the threshold of pain). Those are just two examples of course, but it’s a mindset issue and it’s one we need to not only develop in ourselves but in our children and our friends and comrades, especially the civilians who may never have heard of stress inoculation.

Don’t be a victim. Stay in the fight.

(The author’s website is at:

99 Comments on "Regarding an Armed Citizenry"

  1. This was a great article. "Gun free zones" like the mall, movie theaters, schools, etc are a joke. I hate say this but us law abiding citizens need to ignore these laws and go to these so called safe zone on high alert with our CCW. You cant do much damage to the attacker fast enough if you have to leave the "gun free zone" to go to your car to get your weapon, then come back into the killzone. That time wasted leaving the "gun free zone " to get your weapon could result in other people getting killed or wounded because you were not there to end the problem fast enough. Plus I have yet to here about a story where a mass shooting happened in a non gun free zone.

  2. William Crosby Prent | July 25, 2012 at 8:13 am | Reply

    Great analysis. The Aurora guy had ninety seconds between the time someone called 911 and the first LEO arrived on scene. He killed 12 and wounded 58 in that time. The only thing that could have saved the day is an armed citizen who would have ignored the posted prohibition on concealed carry at the theater – too bad it didn't work out that way.

    Private businesses post their establishments against concealed carry because either they or their customers might feel "uncomfortable" if people inside were armed. I wonder how many of the people sitting in that Aurora theater might have been carrying but for that posting. I wonder if the theater owners and managers believe that their customers were safer as a result.

    It is better to be free than safe.

  3. I've heard the 90 second response time thing a lot, but other information says it was 10 minutes after the shooting started before cops arrived.

    I don't understand how 90 seconds fits in with 10 minutes.

  4. Aurora Colorado wants to be an entirely gun-free zone (city bans anyone from CCW – in 2003 the Colorado state legislature passed a preemption bill, but Denver is suing to kee their idiotic laws – one ass-u-mes Aurora supports this).

    It was fight or flight in that theater and the people chose flight and died / got shot. If the entire audience had rushed him would the caualties have been greater?

    Speed and violence of action. Chose "fight", not "flight" and end the threat or go down trying. Being a bleating sheeple doesn't save you, it gets you dead.

  5. Daniel Beard | July 25, 2012 at 10:29 am | Reply

    Thank you for this posts. I have already cited it to many people who wrongly advocate gun/ammo control.

  6. DC2 jennings | July 25, 2012 at 10:58 am | Reply

    First and foremost I agree with Major Mike. You have a choice to flee or fight. Some people left their entire family to die during this seige.

    Second, who is to say there wasn't someone in there armed? Do you think afterwards they raised their hands and said they could have fired back but chose to run instead?

    Third, unless you are tactially proficient in using your weapon (that doesn't mean popping of rounds at the shooting range) I don't think it would have mattered in this case. You are talking about a man armed with an assault rifle with a large magazine and wearing body armor firing rounds in a smoke filled, dark room with people running all over the place. The last thing I would want would be a range ranger (or two) taking pot shots at this guy. This doesn't even consider local law enforcement walking in on something like that going down. Who do they return fire against? Especially when the assailant is wearing SWAT style gear.

    I am all for concealed carry and people's rights to protect themselves. I am not all for being able to go online and purchase body armor or large capacity magazines for assault rifles. What could a group of these formerly law abiding citizens do?

    Also, I believe law enforcement was on the scene quickly because they were already there providing security.

  7. Great story! Thanks for sharing!

    It's critically important for those that support gun rights to be educated and have facts at hand. It often shocks, silences and causes some introspection to the individual who blindly supports the anti-gun agendawhen confronted with facts and statistics that counter the emotional positions of the anti-gun crowd. THOSE are the hearts and minds "we" need to be influencing. Some vote. Some are too far gone. Lowering oneself to the same illogical, emotional mess they are just reinforces the stereotype we're nuts.

    A comment on determination, my gut tells me many (but not all) that support the anti-gun agenda lack that quality in themselves and embrace a strategy of unrealistically believing they can isolate themselves from any threat. Food for thought as I try to understand why anti-gun people think the way they do because I know the way I think is as alien to them. Then again, I've seeen plenty of crim growing up in a B'klyn ghetto, been denied a CCW as an active duty infantry officer in NY (facepalm), was almost carjacked (after being denied the CCW because "I didn't need one") and relatively recently deterred a robbery because I was carrying (the perp hadn't pulled but realized he couldn't see my hand which was on my pistol and had the balls to ask TOTALLY out of the blue, "you going to shoot me?" Mind you, he couldn't see I was carrying or that my hand was on my pistol. I replied, "only if you need shooting", and smiled. (Not a hero mind you, I got the shakes much later.)

    We can choose to ignore gun free zones but keep in mind you are potentially taking on the full weight of "government" by breaking the law. They can legally restrain you, confiscate your property (gun) and have legal resources that can easily bankrupt you. The decision to ignore a law can't be taken lightly. I knew a major who despite military regulations exercised his CCW rights on post after 911. He suspected his superiors knew and ignored his disobeying of a general order likely because they felt it wasn't such a bad idea and they weren't "determined" to protect themselves. The individual was taking his career/pension in his hands. Not an easy decision.

  8. You claim that one person fighting would of saved lives, I agree… however ladies and gentlemen we must realise that most of the population of our countries are not fighters. Instead I would say that they are the sheep and we, the men and women in our respective law enforcement and military's are the sheep dogs… It is our job, our duty to do the things that most people would find unpalatable, that is kill the bad guys.

  9. "The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
    — Judge Alex Kozinski, 9th Cir. Ct. of Appeals


  11. Good article, but reference to the Korean shop owners using rifles to protect their property during the 1992 LA Riots, would help explain the usefulness of semi automatic rifles.

  12. An interesting observation- I was in southern California during the 1992 LA riots. Right after the the court decision that set it off, it began to spread in all directions very rapidly. I went to a local gun shop to see a friend after work and it was 8 deep at the counter for the entire length. Every one there were screaming about the waiting period and why they couldn't have it now when they believed they needed a gun. It was insane. Yes, these people were sheeple. It is amazing how people react when confronted by violence, let alone mindless mob violence. All one can do is prepare for the worst and pray for the best. Just make wise decisions in your preparations.

  13. Strange, isn't it…that the US…the most heavily armed nation on earth…has the highest gun murder rate in the western world. If gun ownership STOPPED murder then we should have the lowest, shouldn't we? The OTHER countries, with strong gun control, should be easy prey for the much vaunted 'guy who will get a gun regardless of controls'. There should be slaughter and mayhem daily in those countries, and peace and butterflies and leprechauns in US streets.

    Instead we have slaughter after slaughter. 10,000 dead last year. Gun owners telling us crime is SO bad you have to be armed merely to get the paper from your front lawn. And THAT, they claim, proves they're right!

  14. Pete Sheppard | July 26, 2012 at 5:56 am | Reply

    No body armor; a 'tactical vest'. The company he bought it from issued a statement that he spent $306 on the vest, two pouches and a knife. When I find the link to the company's statement, I'll post it.

  15. Billye Jackson | July 26, 2012 at 5:58 am | Reply

    I'm a retired First Sgt. for 23 years I was trained to Fire while being Fired at and moving to the Threat. I still have that Ability. I Have a CCW and If I go out I'm Armed(as well as always having a Gun close while at Home). When I go out to Local Business I look for any Gun Free Sings, if they are There that Business just lost my Money. Its more about the Family's Safety.I assure you that when that 45 Hollow Point hit hem,whether he Had Body Armor or Not,He would have stopped Shooting and Started thinking right up till the 2Nd and 3rd shot brought a Ended to his Sorry Life. And Yes its a Colt 1911 Cocked and Locked with 2 backup Mags. I'm not Paranoid just Prepared, I Pray every time I go out that it will stay in its Place and I never have to Pull it bit if I do He will go down, and if I do to so been it if I stop someone else from Dieing.

  16. As the ole saying goes, its better not to need the weapon than not to have it.

  17. Russ Withrow | July 26, 2012 at 6:55 am | Reply

    The 2nd Ammendment could one day mean freedom or tyrany for the American people and it''s way of life. I say that because the number of American citizens that have guns are the equivalent of a standing army. Private ownership of fire arms could one day prevent another country from occupying the US and give our citizens a means to resist. Who know what the future holds, the immediiate future looks grimm but disarming Americans will not happen without a fight.

  18. A gun free zone is we're "everyone" has to walk threw a metal detector to enter…'s not fool proof…but if a sign says " no guns allowed" and that's it, the only one to follow the rule are the sheep.

  19. While I'm a firm supporter of gun rights (I own numerous types of firearms and have CC permit), I do believe there should be common sense approach to gun rights. Gun rights advocates actually got lucky with this psycho in Colorado. if he'd bought a brand name 100 round mag and actually practiced with it, the results would have been far worse then they were (thank god for cheaply made 100 round mags). No ordinary citizen has any logical reason for owning a 100 round magazine. There is a reason the military only issues 30 round mags for assault rifles. 100 round mags are for automatic weapons and suppressive fire. It's sole purpose is to give someone the ability to shoot multiple targets (doesn't fit into typical home defense scenario). I don't care about the argument of "I want one because I can have one" no one should be allowed to own that type of equipment. As for mental health exams for assault rifle ownership, I'm all for it 'cause guess what, I'd pass and still be able to own one.

  20. DC2, can you provide proof that he was wearing body armor?

    It was my understanding he just wore a Blackhawk load bearing equipment style vest, which is not bulletproof.

  21. I've got a couple of answers to that one. Just no facts to back it up. I don't see how you can use that question as an argument. Gun laws in the US are for the most part local, in other countries they're national. Aren't Swedes pretty heavily armed? What's the murder rate there? What are the murder rates like in DC or Detroit?
    I know it's cliche but guns don't kill people, people kill people.

  22. @Jennings….

    Albeit everyone is entitled to their opinion…I woefully disagree with your position in its entirety. Your wires are crossed somewhere becuase this is the same garbage that pours out of every one whos head is buried in a hole somewhere. You may not believe you are anti-gun and ****, maybe you own a few shooters yourself but who are you to say how I should exercise the liberties that I am entitled to. The mentality you are leaking out here is the same BS that is used to strip more kit from us every day….especially in my ************* state.

  23. Which, of course, has NOTHING to do with my point, does it? If guns stop crime why is our murder rate so high? Guns stop crime except when they don't? Who knew!

    I certainly agree poverty is a factor. But it's ludicrous to pretend we can be like an arsonist standing knee deep in gas. We have a violent society AND high levels of gun ownership? It staggers the mind!

    Norway? They've had 1 mass murder in how many decades? We've had 1 in how many weeks?

    And I make a choice to go swimming or drive a car. I do NOT make a choice for someone else to get a gun and blow me away. People with guns take away MY freedom.

  24. Relying on others? Well, yes. If I have to rely on you to control your gun for me to live then the logical choice is for you not to have a gun, isn't it? If gun owners can't control themselves then it's responsible of me to control their ownership. And the evidence bears that out, with our high gun homicide rate. If you need a gun when you walk the streets, you're not living in freedom, you're living in a prison.

  25. @ DC2 jennings

    1. Not "anti-gun", anti-2nd-Ammendment. If you dislike the language thereof, do what "Liberals" refuse to try and ammend it.

    2. Therapists are overwhelmingly "Liberal", which means that in their opinion, everyone reading this blog is crazy, including you. Which means all of us would be denied our 2nd Ammendment rights.

    3. Making something illegal does nothing to "keep the bad guys from buying it", because "the bad guys" don't follow laws. We've already established that. You've fallen into the Anti-2nd-Ammendment crowd's trap, just as majrod stated. If you make body armore illegal, you will only prevent GOOD GUYS from owning it.

  26. And someone's not a criminal until he is. Holmes had NO record whatsoever until he slaughtered.

  27. Setting aside the sneering pedantic comment about democracies vs republics, you haven't addressed the point. None of these countries is in danger of becoming dictatorships. The constitution has been wrong before and the 2nd is obsolete now. This is not an agrarian frontier society. It's an industrialized, urbanized high population density country, which was NOT the case 200 years ago. And if I have to have a gun to protect myself in a country then that is not a country of laws, it's a country of vigilantes.

  28. And the possession of a gun just took 12. And it takes 10,000 each year. I simply don't see an argument here. Again, we have the highest murder rate in the western world. Any reason that's NOT a source of concern?

  29. Ever had a course in stats? Depending on your assumptions you can get them to bend in a number of different ways. As to the work at CMU (where I spent part of my education), start here…!

  30. Then you better call for the prohibition of the automobile, bob, because cars kill a **** of a lot more people than guns, and there is no Constitutional right to own a car.

  31. Heh, heh. The notion of a 'gun free zone' is about as fatuous as the City of Toronto's pronouncement, years ago, that we are now a 'nuclear free zone' (yep, really…we're about as intelligent as the silly libs in CA). Of course, the first thing you might think about is how well that works in deterring a tactical nuke. How about this: smoke detectors use beta particles, emitted from a radioactive source, to do their thing.

    So much for 'nuclear free'.

    So you guys with your guns…keep up the work but get better at it!

  32. We are allowed guns but on every turn there is something preventing us from intimately familiarizing ourselves with them. We have less places to shoot them, ammo shortages, magazine restrictions, lack of public and private training training facilities, inability to reduce the noise, etc etc etc…the list goes on. We can have guns but we are trained to fear them and their employment…we are domesticated, complacent and ignorant becuase of the "media". How can we become a gunman/woman without the means to exercise a healthy intimate relationship. Just becuase I have a ***** doesnt make me a good lover….we need training, and if the training is not available or its hidden or too expensive then its just another swinging richard with no purpose.
    I believe gun owners want more but the truth needs to be evident and not tainted by people pretending to be on the same team. We need to keep educating each other and stop feeding the trolls. DC2 its up to you to get right, all the knowledge is available thanks to places like this, SS, Bolo report and a host of other places dedicated to getting the right information out there. In this game, you are hot or cold, there is no room for warmth.
    Excuse the rant.

  33. I'm a retired BostonPD Det and I believe my job would have been easier and safer with more armed citizens out there. Sometimes you just can't wait for the police to come to help you by setting up swat teams, communication posts, and more bosses etc.. Sometimes you need instant on the spot response and justice.

  34. You're just plain wrong.

    "The International Crime Victims Survey, conducted by Leiden University in Holland, found that England and Wales ranked second overall in violent crime among industrialized nations.

    The United States didn't even make the 'top 10' list of industrialized nations whose citizens were victimized by crime."

    Now, explain why concealed carry has INCREASED throughout the US, but violent crime has DECREASED at the same time.

  35. "why can’t we rely on them to create sensible legislation?"

    Seriously? Apparently, you haven't been paying attention.

    "you can either make sure they can’t get these weapons"

    That's exactly the problem; you CAN'T "make sure they can't get these weapons", regardless of what law you pass. They'll either obtain them illegally or make bombs illegally, which Holmes did, by the way.

    The best one can do is make sure that law abiding citizens are capable of defending themselves.

  36. Let’s make a new law. If we emphasis it enough the criminals will surely obey it because it will be in the media that we did it.

    I vote for Armageddon. The only individuals affected by any increase or change in the laws for purchase or owning a firearm regardless of type are LAW ABIDING CITIZENS.

    Just in case you were wondering. They are called Criminals because they Break the Law. Not because they obey them.

  37. DC – I posted the link above for where t6e nut bought a tactical vest> I have seen no reports he bought body armor on ebay. Source?

  38. This is why the anti-gunners and 2nd amendment supporters will never create sensible gun laws. Both groups only see black or white, my way or the highway. Both sides have very valid arguments but any deviation from either agenda and infringement on each others human rights.

    Frankly both sides disgust me with the far left and far right perspective on the issue. Like most things in life, this isn't a black and white issue, it's gray because there is not such thing as an absolute especially in a matter like this.

  39. Bob – You only said one thing that's true. We do have the most gun ownership.

    I question whether we have the highest gun murder rate. There's plenty of places where people are dying. BTW, 10k dead last year? Where did you get that number?

    I also reject your correlation between gun deaths and gun ownership. Switzerland has a littlet more than half the gun ownership per capita than we do and the gun murder rates are drastically different. There are numerous factors that impact murder by gun, e.g. culture and judicial/penal system. Making the case that there's a correlation between guns and murder is the same as making a correlation between the number of schwantzes out there and rape. Should we remove those from the public also?

    You're free to your own opinion, just not your own facts.

  40. hmmm, interesting. no references, the link to references doesnt work, and they attacked concealed carry, which is a small part to do with defensive gun use.

    for somebody who was educated at CMU, have confirmation bias much?

    here's another if you're not satisfied with lott.

    Despite arguing about statistics, which never can be perfect, the advantages of gun ownership, particularly in defense, far outweigh the disadvantages. You still havent offered a counter to my defensive gun use numbers. Please, indulge me.

  41. please provide a link again.

  42. "Gun free zone" signs are becoming increasingly popular in Wisconsin, which has recently adopted concealed carry and has a strong Constitutional right to open carry.

    I find I hesitate to enter such establishments. I recognize that they are private property and the owners have the right to determine whether or not they want firearms on their property. But I always ask myself "If I go in there, will I become a target? Will some kook decide he's found a group of targets who won't shoot back because they can't?"

    I truly feel much safer at the gun store, surrounded by men and women packing all sorts of sidearms, than I do in the "gun free" Post Office.

  43. OldEagleEars | July 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm | Reply

    Folks, arguing with Bob is like trying to stab a stone: you won't do a thing to the stone. But rub that stone with your knife and it becomes sharper; as your arguments will when honed on the Bob-rock! But Bob, two things for you to ponder: in Europe there is a nation where it is the law that every able-bodied man have a firearm in their household, mandatory ownership and training. By your reasoning one couldn't walk the streets for all the perforated bodies piled around and paranoia would cripple their ability to socially interact! But the people of Switzerland seem to manage to be simultaneously armed and productive and peaceful. They also suffer from having two languages spoken by different groups of the population; something that has caused riots in "gun-limited" Belgium so homogeneity of the population is not a reason. So maybe it's something that everybody who frequents events with large numbers of armed persons notices: that everybody is very polite and considerate. Probably because exercising the "freedom" to **** someone off is regulated by the possibility of retribution!
    Another point to consider is that there are areas of every city in this country, even the ones that trumpet their draconian anti-gun regulations, where finding oneself on foot an alone might be a terminal condition for no good reason. I am wondering if explaining to the persons you might meet there that they are citizens of a modern, non-agrarian society with no need of personal defensive tools would do much to assure your getting home, much less unscathed. It isn't impossible, a bad GPS reading; a issue with the ignition electronics of an automobile; a wrong turn; might lead to such a situation in a "non-agrarian" society. What then Bob? Make a call on your cell and hope you can explain to the dispatcher where the **** you are and they can get help there before you become a statistic! This stuff happens. Those early Americans knew that depending on others for your personal defense has limits, just like today. The constables then and the police now are far more effective at reacting to personal criminal action than to its prevention. Until that SciFi world of official mind-reading for preventing criminal activity becomes a reality, that's just the way it is. And remember, Bob, being "paranoid" doesn't mean you don't have real enemies.

  44. Uh, what about our 5,000 nuclear weapons and 11 aircraft carriers, 54 nuclear attack subs, etc. If those are ignored, well, I don't think a .38 is going to stop anyone.

  45. "Relying on others? Well, yes. If I have to rely on you to control your gun for me to live then the logical choice is for you not to have a gun, isn’t it? If gun owners can’t control themselves then it’s responsible of me to control their ownership. And the evidence bears that out, with our high gun homicide rate. If you need a gun when you walk the streets, you’re not living in freedom, you’re living in a prison."

    It must be a hard concept for you to follow. Some people choose not to be reliant on a law enforcement agency, which has no legal obligation to protect you, for their own personal safety. This is reckless and stupid.

    That is the problem. Over 100 million gun owners controlled themselves with no incident. There's no mayhem in the streets (perhaps with the exception of Chicago), no anarchy, no hordes of criminals taking over. The evidence bears out (which i have previously provided) that the advantages of lawful gun ownership outweigh the disadvantages. Please provide this "evidence".

  46. RICHARD ZIMMERMANN | July 26, 2012 at 2:35 pm | Reply

    MY FELLOW AMERICANS: 1st. the Police ARE NOT MANDATED to Serve and Protect You.only the town,City,State or federal area they were Hired to protect. 2nd. The Media has Glorified the Police as FIRST RESPONDERS,they are NOT they are Second Responders,the Vivtom or anyone in close proximity is and always will be THE FIRST RESPONDER. Police are called and for one reason or another take forever to get to a situation.this means that the Criminal has done his best and either leaves or stays for death by cop once they get there, 3rd. The common man does not have any rights left "GUN FREE ZONES " were created by OVER EDUCATED IDIOTS,because they really believe that someone else should protect them, instead of HAVING A BACKBONE and PROTECTING THEMSELVES AND OTHERS FORM CRIMINALS. i grew up in the City of Chicago,was and forever will be a United states marine and a Patriotic member of this United states, I learned at an early age ,from books,tv,and the Issues at hand at that time to Protect Yourself,Your loved ones and the Citizens of the USA form all who try and harm them, FOREIGN OR DOMESTIC.. "WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE REST OF YOU"?????

  47. Sure I offered a disproof. Other countries have crime levels similar to ours. If guns stop crime, why doesn't it stop crime? Why are our crime rates similar to theirs EXCEPT for murder? You haven't told me how guns STOP murder when it's apparent that's not true.

    Go ahead.Try again.

  48. "Sure I offered a disproof."

    Please provide a link to this "disproof". Im curious. Provide evidence to substantiate that gun restrictions reduce crime. The only half assed rebuttal you attempted was a attack on Lott, which I provided several other statistics for your viewing pleasure.

    "Other countries have crime levels similar to ours. If guns stop crime, why doesn’t it stop crime? Why are our crime rates similar to theirs EXCEPT for murder? You haven’t told me how guns STOP murder when it’s apparent that’s not true."

    They do stop crime wise guy. Im not going to read the links to you. Countries similar to ours have always had traditionally lower crime rates; this doesnt change the fact that theirs are rising and ours is declining. Is it because of firearms? impossible to say. I can tell you that their low crime rates arent there because of their new gun restrictions, coupled with the fact that their crime is rising.

    "Go ahead.Try again."

    Likewise. Can you spin in a faster circle?

  49. "Killing or wounding dozens in seconds is a WMD. You don’t like it? Gee….that’s a shame."

    "Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD" Enjoy. But im sure you know better than the DOD on what the definition of a WMD is *****!!!

    "And where do terrorist go when planning a slaughter? To an FBI informant. You really don’t know how these things work, do you?"

    So what evidence did they have that he was planning a slaughter? none. Apparently the piece of paper with the threat was found after the incident, lost in a maze of the student mail system. Tragic.

    If he wrote on a blog, facebook, twitter, etc etc that he was going to do this horrendous act, the FBI and local law enforcement would have squashed it, as they have squashed other incidences like this.

    My point, which for all practical purposes refutes your asinine "solution" to the problem, is that if somebody is going to obtain a otherwise "illegal semi-automatic" they wouldnt go to a federal firearms license dealer to ask for one when they can obtain one from a criminal that wouldnt inform the FBI. that is Problem Solving 050.

  50. "The EVIDENCE is that guns do NOT stop crime."

    Wrong. Refer to the article above.

    "They do NOT stop murder."

    Wrong. Refer to the article above.

    "The FACT is our murder rate is the highest in the western world. Not a peep from the gun side about THAT fact."

    Nope. Wrong again.

    Dude, if you think guns to not prevent murders or crime, you need to read the article above. This is getting a little bit ridiculous.

  51. canada is a interesting case!

    they found out that canada's gun registration did nothing to lower crime, though was expensive and couldnt be adequately enforced. imagine that!

  52. crackedlenses | July 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm | Reply


    "The truth is that gun owners argue anecdotes. Anti-gunners argue evidence"

    Wrong. Anti-gunners throw statistics around and then call their opponents Creationists for not listening to their diatribe. You need to work on your insults.

    Gun owners give first-hand accounts of why it works. If the majority of the gun owners in this country get similar results, then I would say that it works. The issue then is not disarming those who are armed, but arm those who are not. Only a really crazy killer would want to shoot someone when it's break-even that he'll walk out of the resulting gun-fight alive.

    Besides, you miss most of the point of having guns anyway. The point of having guns is because governments can turn criminal in an instant, police are not on every corner to catch every crook and thug, and the collapse of society for any reason means the field is level and we are back to the biggest aggressor ruling the roost. Arming yourself is taking responsibility for yourself and your loved ones. Restricting that ability will only make you an easier prey for the predator, legal or otherwise…….

  53. The only way to win an argument with people like bob is to have it in person…

  54. Bob – You feel so safe without a gun? Fine. Publish your address, number of big screen TVs, total value of cash, jewelry and other valuables and the times where only your wife and or kids are home.

    Anti-gun nuts will readily sacrifice your security but not theirs. Even Rosie O'Dumbass has an armed body guard.

  55. Gee that makes sense. Let's kill everyone. That'll stop crime, right? The fact other countries don't find it necessary to stop crime with guns is irrelevant, right?

    Remarkable. You guys admit we have a slaughter here and that proves guns are needed to prevent a slaughter? That the argument you're making?

    Crime rates are decreasing. Yep. So what. The fact remains. We slaughter people regularly. The Europeans don't. ANd the US gun crowd says that's irrelevant to the argument guns stop slaughters.

  56. Use our govt against us? Do you READ what you write? We defeated the 3rd largest army on earth…Hussein's…in a matter of weeks.You know, when I read this I wonder what the gun folks are thinking

    You're saying a bunch of untrained people carrying .38's can defeat the largest army on earth? Why not stop the defense budget then? Who needs the Marines when you can rely on the NRA?

    God, the logic is deadening.

  57. Comparing the US marines to the Russian army? And your argument is we dont NEED the Marines since we have the NRA?

    Why are we spending 500 Billion on defense then, if the NRA is so effective?

  58. leftoftheboom | July 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm | Reply


    Question. Do you believe that criminals will voluntarily surrender their weapons if you ask them? Will they do it because of a new law? New York and Washington D.C. have some of the toughest gun laws on the books and also have murder rates in the top of the chart. The criminals have guns.

    I worked in the area of Force Protection. The equation is simple. The perpetrator will take the weakest target. Criminals are opportunists. They do not profit, if I may take the liberty of calling it that, by taking on citizens in an evenly matched confrontation. If the perpetrator believes they cannot succeed without loss or damage, they will rarely attempt the crime.

    Don’t believe me? Do some research on the subject.

    As to gun ownership and the “highest murder rate” nation, what do guns have to do with it? If we indeed do have the highest murder rate then that speaks to the citizens of the nation not gun ownership. Do you blame the vehicle for speeding or the driver? Do you blame the homeowner for the burglary or the criminal?

    Your point is that guns are the problem. A gun is an inanimate object formed of metal and plastic. It does not have a mind, a soul, or intent.

    If we have the highest murder rate it is because there are people in this nation with questionable morals, little consideration for the wellbeing of anyone but themselves, and a lack of compassion for their fellow citizens, and a bunch of them are just outright thugs.
    Guns are nothing but tools. They are not good or bad. People are. Instead of new laws we need to enforce the ones we already have. We need to stop excusing the criminal acts and punish. Prison is not punishment. Prison simply takes them out of circulation temporarily.

    When we start to punish criminals and permanently remove them, we will create deterrence.

    Let me add a statistic for you. Over 50% of all violent criminal acts are committed by habitual criminals who have previously committed violent acts. You want the murder rate to drop? Let’s start by stopping the litany of excuses that are used to stay the hand of punishment. Let’s start by executing violent offenders.

    Stop finding reasons to empathize with thugs and violent criminals and punish them, permanently, for their crimes. How much do you want to bet we stop having the highest murder rate if we start executing them before they can commit another crime?

    Until we restore CONSEQUENCES for violent behavior, we are not going to stop or even slow violent behavior.

  59. Oscar, when you learn to read, by all means, c'mon back.I never once said the US had the highest murder rate in the world.


  60. leftoftheboom | July 26, 2012 at 7:17 pm | Reply

    I support open carry. Forget concealed. Everyone sees what everyone is carrying.

  61. maljob, a thug response is no response at all. If you can't defend your position with facts, snarling about how much your feelings are hurt is a poor substitute.

    If guns stopped crime why doesn't the US have the LOWEST murder rate in the western world vs the HIGHEST? Notice how you don't even address that question. Certainly treats your argument like the iceberg treated the TItanic.

  62. xcalibr…uh no, they're not They're DEVELOPING countries. Don't you guys know ANYTHING? ANYONE here consider S. Africa a modern industrialized democracy like Canada or Germany? Special Pleading is a poor way to make an argument!

  63. Golly NY has ALOT of illegal immigrants too. Oh, and do illegal immigrants increase crime rate? Well…no.,8599,17


    Safest big city in the country? El Paso, TX. Where does it sit? On the US/Mexican border

    But it sure is convenient to blame them, isn't it?

  64. crackedlenses | July 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm | Reply

    "Use our govt against us? Do you READ what you write? We defeated the 3rd largest army on earth…Hussein’s…in a matter of weeks.You know, when I read this I wonder what the gun folks are thinking."

    Yes; fact is, many of us do not trust the government, even the ones we elect. We would not be here if it were not for the British government turning hostile. Just imagine the US military having to fight several million of their own countrymen in a highly charged environment. Still think the US military would win as easily?

    "You’re saying a bunch of untrained people carrying .38′s can defeat the largest army on earth? Why not stop the defense budget then? Who needs the Marines when you can rely on the NRA?"

    If there is several million of them (and don't forget hunters, survivalists and former military to throw into the mix), then yes, I'd say they stand a fair chance. You obviously don't know squat about insurgency warfare and tactics. I don't know much, and even I'm appalled at what you don't seem to know. Pathetic, to say the least.

    "Comparing the US marines to the Russian army? And your argument is we dont NEED the Marines since we have the NRA?

    Why are we spending 500 Billion on defense then, if the NRA is so effective?"

    Willfully missing his point, again. This is getting old…..

  65. crackedlenses | July 26, 2012 at 8:54 pm | Reply


    Golly NY has ALOT of illegal immigrants too. Oh, and do illegal immigrants increase crime rate? Well…no.

    Your quoting of Time and Huffington-Puffington Post has destroyed the last shred of your credibility. Xcalbr is more liberal than many of us, and even he disagrees with you. You are clearly nuts.

    "Safest big city in the country? El Paso, TX. Where does it sit? On the US/Mexican border"

    How heavily armed are they? From what I have read the people living on the border tend to be better armed than elsewhere. Just throwing that factoid out doesn't actually prove much.

  66. DC2, "you can’t spend $15,000 on four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammo"

    I sure as **** can.

  67. ok. i tried to be nice and respectful, but most importantly empathetic.
    now you are just being a ******* troll.

    re-read my previous ******* posts. you said that nukes and aircraft carriers and whatnot will be overwhelmingly effective to deter potential armed resistance.

    I offered you irrefutable proof that isn't the case. In grozny, the nuclear arsenal of the Russian army did nothing to deter Chechen separatists from badly mauling the Russian army in a urban guerrilla war. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan have inflicted considerable losses on the US military, despite the latter having overwhelming advantages in stealth bombers, icbms, and nuclear submarines. We are still in afghanistan, 10 plus years later with no end in sight.

    Also, the DOD has a defense budget of 707 billion, not 500 billion. Get the facts straight if you are going to throw out numbers. The total "defense establishment" has a budget of 1-1.4 trillion total (counting all war/security related defense).

    Im not going to get into the reasons why the US has a unsustainable military budget, I have argued about that on here plenty of times and am not going to get into it.

  68. you claim to not be a socialist, yet you feel inclined to take away a person's constitutional right for perceived improved safety when there is no empirical evidence to substantiate that. Sounds to me like you're a statist *** hat.

  69. Bob, people keep pointing out that firearms prevent a number of crimes (you can disagree with any number thrown out there that you dont like, be it 200,000, or 4.7 million), which counts as keeping otherwise counted crime rates from being added to the statistic, thus they do lower crimes. That is deductive reasoning, sorry if you dont like it.

    dont be underwhelmed by gun violence in europe or specific nations in europe. I have kindly provided the statistics for that too (so your claims of 10-20 is a ******** point).

    Since you bring up Texas, here's a present for you

    "In the early 1990s, Texas’ serious crime rate was 38
    percent above the national average. Since then serious
    crime in Texas has dropped 50 percent faster than for the
    nation as a whole. For example, during the 1990s Texas’
    murder rate dropped 52 percent compared to 33 percent nationally, and the rape
    rate fell by 22 percent compared to 16 percent nationally. In light of Lott’s research, it is likely that Texas’ concealed carry law has contributed to the declining crime rates."

    take it for what it is. But im sure it is easier to keep screaming pandemonium and panic because those evil guns are turning our streets into a warzone LOL.

  70. "Oscar, when you learn to read, by all means, c’mon back.I never once said the US had the highest murder rate in the world."

    jesus christ bob, you cannot even keep up with your arguments. Oscar responded to a previous post you made that asked, "How does having a gun make us safer when it’s obvious we have the highest murder rate in the western world?"

    I have a suggestion. quit while you're ahead.

    "If guns stopped crime why doesn’t the US have the LOWEST murder rate in the western world vs the HIGHEST? Notice how you don’t even address that question. Certainly treats your argument like the iceberg treated the TItanic."

    I think this is hilarious. you continually move the goalpost and expect people to answer the above question, which is frankly a stupid and naive question. Obviously guns stop crime, with varying statistics from the hundreds of thousands to millions of defensive gun uses. Since we havent achieved a utopian society yet, there will be no "lowest murder rate" for the United States, as long as we maintain our current poverty rate, continued economic unrest, and failing education system with our 313 million strong population.

    The fact is that guns are also subject to market variables, meaning if you restrict them, it becomes extremely profitable to trade them illegally, which exacerbates the problem by funding criminals, similar to the gargantuan failure known as the war on drugs. I would rather the funding go to legal, federally certified firearms dealers than gun smugglers. Just like the War on Drugs utterly failed, regulation on firearms utterly fails. There's always a demand.

    You still havent provided jack **** that increased regulation results in lower crime rates and Ive been patiently waiting all day. But of course, ill count on you to do a quick google search on it.

  71. right, we (us military) are devastatingly effective against standing armies, though why are we still in afghanistan? could it be that a few lightly armed insurgents are continuing to inflict losses on NATO troops? (Ill give you a hint: yes).

    I suggest you do some research on these matters before you make yourself look like a bigger idiot. Look into works by H John Poole.

  72. My contention stands.

    and you are talking about purchasing power parity. The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world concept was largely rendered irrelevant after the end of the cold war. I am not saying south africa, brazil, or mexico is equivalent to countries with the highest human development index (stop assuming), though they are hardly poorly developed.

  73. because crime and tyranny sure as **** dont happen in those beautiful utopians you call industrialized, urbanized high population density countries…LOL

    We may have access to energy and technology, though we are still in the same economic paradigm as we were since venice flourished. Human nature, subsequently, still hasnt changed. You are being childish and naive.

    As soon as the police are capable of protecting me 100% of the time from all criminals, ill gladly melt my guns into industrial art. until then, ill hang on to them.

    Btw, having a gun to protect yourself is abiding by laws, meaning you cannot just shoot somebody just because. Of course, you seem to be one of those chuckle ***** that thinks one should be prosecuted for defending his wife from a intruding rapist with deadly force. Or that senior citizens should not be able to defend themselves from younger, healthier, stronger criminals. Or a 120 lb woman. all because "guns have no place in a wealthy, industrialized country because it is so civilized"; your arrogance is astonishing.

    Tell me how those martial arts will fare when you're opponent wants to kill you. Ill hang on to my gun when somebody tries to kick my door in. My preparedness also allows me to get superb sleep at night.

  74. @DC2 jennings

    Have you ever looked at the 2nd? I mean really looked into it? Do you know why we have it? It is not for hunting, or sport. It is at last resort to defend against a tyranny in government. A so called "assault weapon" does not function any different than a deer rifle 30-06. Just because it looks scary it must be bad. ****. Swap out a stock on a 10/22 with a folding stock, and it become a so called assault weapon. Stricter gun laws do not lower crime. People like you are what gives the anits ammunition. First they want to do away with so called assault weapons. Next they want to do away with handguns. Limit the ammunition. They will never stop.
    You will probably wish you had an AR if the government ever comes for our guns.

  75. I am glad that the Major's CO didn't go after him for disobeying a general order. That major probably had his firearm with him but didn't publically tell anyone. (just keep it and only use incase of emergency). If he had been open about it, he probably would have been in trouble.

  76. Let's hope that BoB doesn't get into any of the situation above. Unfortunately, there will always be criminals in our country. They will get the tools that they need to cause harm. It could be a gun, knife, or a chemicals to make explosives. You don't see media focusing banning knives or chemicals. It's always the gun. Any type of gun too….."deadly" 9mm rounds or the "tactical shotgun". Or the High capacity magazine that makes people believe that it makes the gun shoots faster because it's "modified". I am for having the tools for defending myself and family. I am also for mandatory training required for CCW holders. (The training I mean is more than a trip to range.)

  77. You keep saying we have the highest murder rate in the western world. Here is the truth.

    The majority of those countries are in the western world and we don't even make the list.

    I personally have used a firearm to defend my family and others more than once. In none of those instances was anyone killed or even injured.

  78. DC2 jennings | July 27, 2012 at 6:04 am | Reply

    Here is the link:

    Here is the excerpt in the link from the Aurora PD:

    "The gunman, wearing what Aurora Police Department officials described as nearly head-to-toe “ballistic gear,” including a throat protector and leggings, plus a gas mask and a long black coat, came in through a parking lot exit door near the screen of Theater 9."

    Now go ahead and tell me how wrong I am again……

  79. DC2 jennings | July 27, 2012 at 6:12 am | Reply

    So based on your first statement you consider preventing convicted felons from owning a gun an abuse of power?

    And I am not asking for guns to be banned, which I have stated here 100 times. I am asking for the mentally ill to not be allowed to own an assault rifle. Is that asking too much? It is regulation not banning. But if anyone says anything about regulation you guys throw everything under the bus you can. The military takes away a soldier's weapon now if they feel they are suffering severe PTSD or mental distress (because of incidents that have occurred), I guess they shouldn't do that according to you? Or should we just lock these guys up too?

    You don't get it. I am not asking law abiding citizens to lose their right to bear arms.

    Funny you would rather lock up every mentally ill person (at what cost) even if they aren't a threat than making sure they can't own an assault rifle.

  80. List of OECD countries homicide rates:

    THe US is number 1

    AND if you want to move the goalposts, you ain't no Joe Paterno.YES, the UK's CRIME rate is higher than the US

    BUT MURDER RATES are the topic. I suggest you first learn to read. THen you might learn about the damage guns do to society


  81. Bob, I hate to have to tell you this but wikipedia is not a authoritative source and this article is not even related to the point you are attempting to make. Read the article and read the disclaimer, the table does not show what you are supposing it does. Considering what the article actually says, I would say that the per-capita rate of gun ownership pointed out by Ted could easily be true.

  82. If this debate proves anything, it is that Americans are the problem. ;)

  83. bob, You present OECD crime stats that show US with highest homicide rate (By the way it does not say homicide by gun, but put that aside for now) and Switzerland with the lowest homicide rate.

    You reference a wikipedia article that shows guns in a country compared with the countries population (does not take into account guns per owner and says so). In this article US is 1st and Switzerland is 4th. By your logic Switzerland should have the 4th largest homicide rate but far from it they are the lowest in the OECD table you referenced. In fact while many people in the US own no guns, all Swiss males from age 20 to 30 possess firearms and many Swiss keep their guns after leaving service. The Swiss have a very active gun culture shooting ranges are everywhere. A criminal in Switzerland knows that almost everyone can fire back.

    The problem here is not the gun, it is the culture. Lack of personal responsibility, failure to teach ethical and moral behavior, and the promotion by certain groups of the criminal as a role model lead to a society that places little value of human life.

    I could go on but I don't think you will take anything to heart. You will probably still believe an inanimate object can be responsible for the actions of the person in possession of it.

  84. jynko, technically you are right when pertaining to "west" geographically. The idea of using the term "westernized" to compare the development index and purchasing power parity is completely wrong anyways.

  85. to Bob. We do not have the highest violent crime rate. England is a good example, so is Italy. They are much higher then ours. I also find it interesting as our gun ownership increases violent crimes decreases. You argument only works if you only look at gun violence and ignore all other forms of violence. That is some tight blinders.
    You are much more likely to be bludgeoned to death then shot.

  86. The number of guns in the US is estimated at 270 million today per Switzerland's small arms survey.

    Crime trends since 1960:

    If more guns = more murder, then you should have conclusive proof that the number of privately owned firearms in the early 1960's was also around 270 million, increased in the late 1960's through the early 70's, stayed roughly constant between 1975 and 1994, and has dropped through today. If you do not have proof that the number of privately owned firearms in the US between 1975 and 1994 was greater than 270 million then you should retract your claim or state that it is an unverified opinion and not backed up by real data.

  87. bob. where do you get your stat's. Not from the justice department.

  88. DC2 jennings | July 27, 2012 at 11:59 am | Reply

    xcalbr so was Obamacare……..

  89. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or PPACA, was indeed ruled as constitutional by supreme court. Im sure as **** not saying it was. Just because I dont like something, doesnt make it "unconstitutional". I may not agree with PPACA, but it was still ruled constitutional. That is a fact.

  90. 1.) a average citizen cannot even get a assault rifle; those are NFA items
    2.) The mentally ill are already not allowed to own a firearm of any type. research your state and federal laws.
    3.) there are already 20,000 local, state, and federal laws pertaining to firearms.
    4.) there is no correlation between increased firearms regulation and decreased crime.

    that is why "gun regulation" is not the issue here DC2.

  91. Jennings- Who sets the standards by which the therapist must go by? You know it is very interesting, when I did work as a Range Safety Officer at a indoor range, we had some one rent a pistol to commit suicide. We later consulted with a clinical psychiatrist and a forensic psychologist; both work very heavily with law enforcement, both agreed that for even them to quickly diagnose that some one was intending to commit suicide as EXTREMELY difficult. For us, at the range it is near impossible. My point is, if the subject has not shown that he is a danger to himself or others, how can you judge he is safe or a danger and PROVE IT IN COURT???

  92. leftoftheboom | July 28, 2012 at 10:18 pm | Reply

    Then why don't you concentrate your issue on the identification, tracking, and marking of the certified mentally ill. They are already not allowed to buy guns. So the issue is not about the gun.

    How about a nice cattle tag in the ear. If you are bipolar you can have two colors.

  93. Seems that all of these incidents began with some guns being used to kill many people…the control would be the guns not being available…and there is a correlation for gun laws and violent crime..just look at Great Britain and Australia..

  94. I used to post here using just my first name; Oscar. However, some other dude also posted with the same handle, so I will ammend mine.
    In the Philippines, owning a firearm, one has to jump through a lot of hoops. I will enumerate hopefully a full list.
    1. National Bureau of Investigation Clearance for purchase of firearms.
    2. Police Clearance for purchase of firearms.
    3. Court Clearance for purchase of firearms.
    4. Mayor's permit to own firearms.
    5. Income Tax return.
    6. Neuro-Psychiatric examination for the purpose of owning a firearm.
    7. Drug test.
    8. Gun safety Seminar.
    9. Gun Club membership if the weapon he intends to purchase is a; .357, .40,.41,.45cal.
    This is not a comprehensive list, this is just what I remember the requirements to be at the top of my head. For a Permit to Carry, the individual applying for such permit has to prove that he has a credible threat against his life. If approved, he must carry his weapon unloaded inside a clutch bag. He is also limited as to the the number of ammunition he can carry legally. ( Last time I remembered, it was 50 rounds. Again, not sure.) The individual can choose to comply with the requirements himself and endure the red tape that follows, or he could pay the gun store where he intends to buy the firearms, to let them process the requirements for him. He has to comply withe psych, drug test, gun safety seminar. All these at another very hefty sum.
    And to make matters worse, there is a hefty tax levied on imported firearms. A Glock here would cost twice than a Glock purchased in the US.
    These requirements were put into place to make sure that only responsible citizens could own and carry firearms. Also it was supposed to lower the number of crimes that involved firearms. However, it is a failure.
    The price of guns is way above the spending power of ordinary citizens and the ownership of guns has been limited to the elite who can afford to purchase and who can afford to take the time off from work to comply with the requirements to purchase.
    As a result, only a select few can own firearms to protect themselves. This has also elevated gun ownership as a status symbol.
    Government employees also can purchase and own firearms with less requirements than the ordinary Juan. Politicians, being government employees took advantage of this loophole. Most of them own more than one firearm.
    Did all of these lower crimes in the Philippines that involved firearms? Very sadly, NO. Criminals being criminals, will always find a way to acquire tools of their trade. Crime in the Philippines is still high.
    To add insult to injury, the city or municipal police chief can coordinate with their respective mayors to implement a Gun Ban on their municipalities or cities. This has restricted legal gun owners with permits to carry from legally carrying their firearms. This has also curtailed sports shooters activities.
    Has this also lowered crimes involving firearms? Again, NO.
    The result of all this is a cowed citizenry, a citizenry who fearfully respect the police because of their guns. And a citizenry fearful of government.
    Beware America, this is what will probably happen to your country if gun-control politicians will have their way.

  95. I agree with the major. Excellent comment. We as Americans need to change our culture. Instead of acting out in violence, stop and seek help instead. The gun in made of plastic (polymer) and metal. Anti Gun people are always making the gun out to be a "person" and has a mind to kill.

  96. @Bob
    If you don’t like the US Constitution and Bill of Rights giving a 2nd Amendment right to the people to own and use firearms. And you actually think the Constitution is an out dated document. You my friend are very uneducated (but we already know that because you have no idea what a Constitutional Republic represents, as you think you live in a Democracy) and know very little about World History and the threat of a tyrannical Government. Why in the world would someone like you want to live in and around the likes of a free society where particular freedoms are defended by a Constitution? Move! And ease your worries; you don’t have to live here among us crazy freedom loving people. I guess Bob never heard the parable about living in a Democracy…. For your information Bob, it is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner!
    I am glad I am alive to argue with people like Bob, however there are 50-60 million who are not alive to argue with him. And 50-60 million who might not be figured into his, ("fact the US has the highest murder rate in the western world") murder victims’ tallies or whatever he is spewing at the mouth about.
    But civilian disarmament has consequences even greater than those of a lone gunman attacking people in a movie theater. Some years back, Alan Rice of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) wrote, "Since 1900 at least seven major genocides have occurred resulting in the murder of 50-60 million people:

    • Ottoman Turkey, 1915-17; 1-1.5 million Armenians murdered;
    • Soviet Union, 1929-53; 20 million anti-Communists and anti-Stalinists murdered;
    • Nazi Germany & Occupied Europe, 1933-45; 13 million Jews, Gypsies, and Anti-Nazis murdered;
    • China, 1949-52, 1957-60 & 1966-1976; 20 million anti-Communists murdered;
    • Guatemala, 1960-1981; 100,000 Mayan Indians murdered;
    • Uganda, 1971-1979; 300,000 Christians and Political Rivals of Idi Amin murdered;
    • Cambodia, 1975-1979; 1 million murdered."

    Rice continued to say, "In all seven of the genocides summarized above, gun control laws were in force before the genocide occurred, in some cases decades before. In five of the seven genocides, the lethal law, the gun control law was in force before the genocide regime took power."
    Rice also said, "Gun control laws are usually enacted during a crisis or a perceived crisis." He then said, "Government officials, not hate groups or common criminals, were responsible for these seven genocides. In most of these cases the murder victims outnumbered their murderers; yet they were powerless to defend themselves because they were disarmed."

  97. Look at the second chart on that page … true, the U.S. has has a higher murder rate, but it also has a lower violent crime rate than many countries with a more restrictive gun policy…


    Kennesaw once again was in the news on May 1, 1982, when the city unanimously passed a law requiring "every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition." After passage of the law, the burglary rate in Kennesaw declined and even today, the City has the lowest crime rate in Cobb County.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.