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: http://www.leitner-wisemfg.com/)

{ 197 comments… read them below or add one }

clarecne July 25, 2012 at 8:13 am

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.

Reply

William Crosby Prent July 25, 2012 at 8:13 am

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.

Reply

TomcatTCH July 25, 2012 at 9:03 am

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.

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 25, 2012 at 9:25 am

AIUI, there were uniformed officers on-site to direct traffic. Likely 90 sec for Dispatch to alert them, 10 min for back-up to arrive.

Reply

Major Mike July 25, 2012 at 9:16 am

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.

Reply

M. Amado July 25, 2012 at 10:22 am

I agree Major Mike, one armed citizen refusing to rush out the door with the crowd and stand his ground for the safety of others would possibly have saved alot of lives. Armed citizens IS the answer and not the problem. HUGE changes in gun law enforcement/punishment is the key, i.e., capital punishment (immediate death sentences) and public viewings of such is a start.

Pete S., regrading the time lapses of the police response, I can say by occupation that the news is always wrong…I'll bet it must have been AT LEAST 5 minutes before the first unit arrived on scene, waited for a couple more units 2-3 mins, and entered the theatre. The number of undocumented BOGUS calls to police agencies these days regrding threats or acts of active violence is incredible! Agencies often wait for multiple reports/callers in order to "upgrade" their response levels. So there you have it. No officer in the world could have prevented what happened that night. Unless theatres are willing to pay armed security to be posted 24/7. Its what it is….a travesty and my prayers are for the vicims and their families.

Reply

Daniel Beard July 25, 2012 at 10:29 am

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

Reply

DC2 jennings July 25, 2012 at 10:58 am

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.

Reply

majrod July 25, 2012 at 11:55 am

Jennings – Disagree. Let me correct some of your misconceptions.

You said you weren’t supportive of buying body armor or high capacity magazines. You are repeating the anti-gun position based on erroneous facts.

First, Holmes didn't have body armor. You can't buy "body armor", ammo pouches and a knife for $306 at tacticalgear.com. He had a "tactical vest" not body armor. In effect a vest with pouches sewn on it or with molle. http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/24/a-statement-… His vest wouldn’t have stopped harsh language. It's already illegal for felons to own body armor and this case doesn't make the case that body armor is a bad thing. In this case a tactical vest just provided the pretext for the anti-gun crowd to further erode other's rights.

High capacity magazines? The reason he didn’t shoot more people was because his high capacity mag failed. Hardly a case for banning high capacity mags! Might as well ban propane tanks becauise of what can be done with them.

Secondly, I immediately reject any argument that definitively states a CCW would have or wouldn’t have made a difference. One wasn’t there nor does one know the capabilities or any other of the myriad of variables that would have impacted the situation. Even SWAT doesn’t train with innocents running in front of them on the range.

IMO anyone that owns a gun has a PERSONAL responsibility to be trained on it. Considering the gov'ts approach at banning assault weapons based on cosmetic features and the anti-gun crowd's propensity to use any legislation to restrict gun rights as much as possible, gov't has demonstrated it's incapable of setting up realistic standards for CCW issue. All that said, even an untrained dweeb is better than a nut shooting people limited by how much ammo he's carrying, his marksmanship and the time he has to inflict horror. Finally, risking one’s life because you may be confused with the bad guy is the price you pay anytime you draw. Expecting perfection in situations like this is just unrealistic. Even cops shoot each other, SEALs have been known to kill the hostage and the Israelis killed hostages at Entebbe. Philosophically, I’m more a “he who dares wins” than a “proceed with caution” kind of guy.

In trying to sound “reasonable” you fell right into the anti-gun camp. Not an uncommon mistake and not attacking you personally. It just sounds in your frustration you’re letting the narrative dictate your thought processes.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 25, 2012 at 12:40 pm

First and foremost I am not in the anti-gun camp. I am in the common sense camp. I definitely believe in a persons ability to protect themselves. But at what point does our belief in civil liberties cause potential harm to others? You should not be able to buy body armor period (whether this guy had it or not). If you feel you need it then you either need to move to another location, get on meds, or stop being antagonistic to your fellow man. Assault rifles should be sold with very strict guidelines (possibly including a mental health exam) and large capacity magazines should not be sold at all unless you are a LEO.

Again, I understand in certain situations it makes sense to draw your weapon and defend yourself. Doing so in a crowded theater is not that time. Trained personnel are trained not to fire unless you have a clear shot in these circumstances. And what sort of civil legal situation (i.e. you get sued) do you place yourself in if you hit an innocent person? Trained personnel (LEO's) have an accuracy rate of around 20% to 25% during these situations so what do you think the accuracy rate of said dweeb praying and spraying would be?

I agree that it is the personal responsibility to be trained to use the weapon you carry. However, I believe that for every trained person there are 10 Plaxico Burress' whose idea of training is going to the range.

As long as you understand your philsophy will usually end in a big ball of flames with the possibility of harming others then have at it. You don't always have to use a gun to do the right thing. It is just the easy answer.

And again, I firmly believe there was somebody in there with a weapon and they chose to run instead of fight. Which is what most people choose to do. That is why the military trains to fight and kill over and over again so no thinking is involved when you have to act.

None of the instances listed above involved someone defending themselves with an assault weapon or donning body armor.

Reply

crackedlenses July 25, 2012 at 7:01 pm

@DC2 Jennings

"You should not be able to buy body armor period (whether this guy had it or not)."

Why should you decide that for people? It's not like you can currently buy anything that will stop anything larger than a handgun. If someone feels the need for it, they should have the freedom to purchase it. If you are so worried about a crazy getting it, get one yourself and even the odds.

"If you feel you need it then you either need to move to another location, get on meds, or stop being antagonistic to your fellow man."

Using your reasoning the West never would have been settled until the US Army had eradicated the Indian and criminal threats. Many people in this country are not gunning for a fight, but will stand their ground when presented with one. They should have the freedom to do so.

"As long as you understand your philsophy will usually end in a big ball of flames with the possibility of harming others then have at it. You don’t always have to use a gun to do the right thing. It is just the easy answer."

Understood. In the scenario we are discussing, shooting back would have been the right thing to do. Easy? No. Safe? When is getting in a gunfight ever safe?

"And again, I firmly believe there was somebody in there with a weapon and they chose to run instead of fight."

Not saying you are wrong, but the theatre was a gun-free zone. Highly unlikely that a CCW carrier was present.

"None of the instances listed above involved someone defending themselves with an assault weapon or donning body armor."

None of those instances were home invasions. A recent issue of Guns and Ammo had an article on using ARs for home defense. As for body armor, if it is your home and family on the line, why would you want it?

Reply

majrod July 25, 2012 at 7:35 pm

DC – You say you aren't anti-gun but then you say, "Assault rifles should be sold with very strict guidelines (possibly including a mental health exam) and large capacity magazines should not be sold at all unless you are a LEO."

Uh, those are not congruent statements. It's like saying I'm socially conservative but I believe in abortion, same *** marriage and legalizing pot. You may want to call yourself “common sense”, to the rest of us you’re anti-gun.

You also want to ban body armor because YOU can’t imagine a reason. I can imagine quite a few reasons folks may want to buy body armor, collector, post disaster, PMC, nostalgia or just because they want it. MANY things can be used for the wrong purpose like the propane tank on your gas grill. It isn’t gov’ts role to protect us from every threat out there. I’m a live let live kind of guy.

BTW, The same logic you used stating none of the incidents above involved body armor could be used to counter your argument. The nut in Aurora wasn’t wearing body armor.

Your stats are suspect on what law enforcement can or can’t do. Keep in mind that CCW dweeb might actually shoot more in a year than your average cop. You’re focused on the spray and pray anti-gun narrative. Three of the four stories mentioned CCW holders were not cops nor did they spray/pray. You’re just repeating the anti-gun narrative.

You characterize my approach as ending in a “big ball of flames” and throw in “You don’t always have to use a gun to do the right thing” when we are talking about an active shooter scenario. Nah, you’re not anti-gun. Thanks for clarifying.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 26, 2012 at 5:32 am

the nut in Aurora (as the Aurora police deptartment has clearly indicated) was in fact wearing body armor purchased from ebay. you can't spend $15,000 on four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammo. he even had a kevlar helmet.

shooting is one thing. shooting accurately under stress, which the military trains for ad nauseum, is a different story. all four stories referenced involved well lit areas where there were not large crowds in confined spaces. i stand by my typical LEO accuracy statement.

the other nutjob that shot gabrielle giffords was stopped not by a bullet but by someone going after him. in the military you are trained to confront the danger not run from it. that was my point. once that round leaves the barrel you can't take it back.

Chewy 0311 July 25, 2012 at 9:48 pm

@ DC2 Jennings- As for body armor, what about a family jeweler, should they be able to have it? How about a pharmacist who works late nights in rough area of town, because they believe in serving the needs of that community? Or even, a family owned food truck operator who work a tough town? Should they have the choice to be armed too? Yes, these people do exist and they should have that choice, because it's their life, not yours. FYI- Oakland, California, a Food Truck operator was saved by body armor and his pistol turning a armed robbery into an attempted robbery, February this year.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 26, 2012 at 3:59 am

it is funny that i am anti-gun when all i want is to make sure that if you are seeing a therapist (as this shooter in colorado was) that you at least get their therapist to sign off on them owning an assault rifle. if you see me as anti-gun then that is ok. i see myself as siding with the majority of Americans on this issue. and the more instances you have of mentally ill people (like the schizophrenic that went and bought an AR-15 in Tampa and killed a cop with it) doing these things the more you will hear this cry. i am not saying that you should not be able to own an assault rifle. i am saying you need to prove you are mentally fit to own one. otherwise it will end up that these weapons will be outlawed again.

i understand some people need or feel they need to wear body armor. again, there needs to be regulations involved to keep as much as possible the bad guys from buying them. especially when you end up looking like law enforcement.

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 8:20 am

By your logic, you should also see a therapist for a pump action shotgun. With 00 buck you can put a lot of firepower downrange, certainly faster than what a select-fire submachine gun can fire.

majrod July 25, 2012 at 11:19 am

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.

Reply

Mike July 25, 2012 at 2:33 pm

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.

Reply

Stormcharger July 25, 2012 at 4:20 pm

That is the nature of sheep and sheep dogs. However, it is not limited to only law enforcement and military, the whole point of Concealed Carry is to allow more sheep dogs to be available to do what sheep cannot. I also hope that I'm not the only one who noticed that only one of the articles presented resulted in the death of an active shooter. The vast majority of incidents involving a citizen using a firearm to protect themselves or others, results in everyone surviving.

Reply

NEC338x July 25, 2012 at 6:37 pm

There's nothing wrong with sheep. The problem is domestication. Sheepdogs work for the master (state) and the wolves are ferae naturae. Stop letting the master ******** male lambs everytime one dares to show up (through "educational socialization" and pharmaceuticals) and I'm sure the herd members can continue the species. Let the rams and ewes keep their horns and stop letting the master select for polled sheep. It was a successful strategy for millions of years before domestication.

I don't want a country where all the rams have been culled. Unlike most nations of the face of earth, we have (fortunately) inherited a system by which we are both master and sheep. We can change our path through the ballot box.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 5:51 am

Quite frankly I'm comfortable in doing what I'm trained to do. I'm a chemical engineer. I'm comfortable building and maintaining chemical process facilities. I'm a volunteer EMT. I'm comfortable treating and transporting the sick and injured.

I am NOT trained to defend the country. I am comfortable leaving that in the hands of those who are…the police and the military. It works well in 100 other democracies. Why are we so paranoid?

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 8:23 am

its not a matter of being "paranoid" bob, its because the right to bear arms is enumerated by the US Constitution.

Really? it works well in other democracies?

First of all, the US is not a democracy.
Second, leaving the defense of the "democracy" to military and police is enforcing mob rule, though you can see how well Europe's "democracy" is being protected.
Third, the police are not legally obligated to protect you or your family. I would rather be the first echelon to my defense rather than rely 100% on a police officer that is under no legal obligation to protect me.

Reply

Tomaso July 26, 2012 at 8:36 am

Relying of protection of life and liberty by others is a fools game…time is not always on your side….bob being an EMT should know this….yet he fails conceptual thinking when it comes to defending ones self.
…ie: bobs loved one get mortally wounded in an accident…he is an EMT and know just what to do..and does it..saves a life…we're if he waited the 10 to 15 for an ambulance his loved one would be dead.
Selfdefence with a firearm can be just like the above situation……..drives me nuts on how some fail at conceptual inteligence.

Reply

Robbie July 25, 2012 at 4:57 pm

"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

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 5:49 am

If 10,000 people have to pay the price every single year for something that may never happen, then the 2nd amendment has already created a doomsday.

Reply

Cannon 12pounder July 26, 2012 at 7:44 am

Well Bob that is a **** of a lot cheaper than a government putting millions of its citizens in concentration camps to work at forced labor and starved to death when they don't RE-Educate.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 8:24 am

10,000 people are not paying the price because of liberty or rights already enumerated. they are paying the price because of criminals.

Reply

RON July 25, 2012 at 5:10 pm

ONE OF THE FIRST MASS SHOOTING HAPPENED IN TEXAS 1966 . A SHOOTER TOOK GUNS AND AMMO INTO A TOWER AT A UNIVERSITY THAT SUMMER .I THINK I WAS 18 AT THE TIME. THE GUNMAN SHOT, WOUNDED, AND KILLED A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DAY.
WISH I COULD REMEMBER MORE OF THE DETAILS OF THAT DAY.
P.S DON'T COUNT ME AS A SHEEP!! AND I'M MORE THAN JUST DOG A SHEEP DOG !!
I'M A BUFFLO SOLDIER.

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 25, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Citizens pulled rifles out of their trucks and returned fire, pinning him until police (led to the top of the tower by another private citizen) could take him down.

Reply

Bill July 25, 2012 at 6:07 pm

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.

Reply

Chewy 0311 July 25, 2012 at 10:14 pm

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 5:42 am

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!

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 26, 2012 at 6:39 am

Studies place the number of times a firearm is used to prevent or stop a crime between 800,000 to 2,500,000 times a year. This means that the number of lives *saved* through the use of a gun is incalculable!
You may as well disarm LEOs because of the extremely few times they killed an innocent person.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 6:49 am

I don't know what 'studies' these are. The only ones I've heard of were from John Lott and they were disproven a few years ago by studies at Carnegie Mellon. If guns stopped crime why does the murder rate in the US stagger the modern world?

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 26, 2012 at 7:24 am

That's why I mentioned a range; low ones were br anti-gun groups.
Not too long ago, the number was close to 20,000 deaths per year. one of the factors in the decline was the relaxation of gun-conrtol laws; where laws were relaxed, crime went down.
Considering the US has a population of around 300,000,000, I'd say we're making pretty good progress.
BTW, what if the possession of a gun saves *ONE* life?

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 8:16 am

"disproven" by Carnegie Mellon? please provide a reference. How do you "disprove" a statistic when statistics aren't meant to "prove" anything to begin with? (facepalm). remember, correlation does not equal causation.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 8:34 am

"Strange, isn’t it…that the US…the most heavily armed nation on earth…has the highest gun murder rate in the western world."

You are also conveniently leaving out the fact that violent crime is dropping to 1960s levels. Dont take my word for it, visit the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"If gun ownership STOPPED murder then we should have the lowest, shouldn’t we?"

Not necessarily no. I dont recall anybody claiming that it will stop all murders and all crimes simply because you cannot control human behavior. You are dismissing the US poverty problem compared to other industrialized countries; there is a correlation between poverty and increased crime.

"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.""

They are easy prey. You seem to have missed the shootings in Germany and Norway to cite a few examples. of course there's always england http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/crime-

"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!"

slaughter after slaughter? stop being emotional. There is always a chance of being shot in the street, but I take it you never drive anywhere, go swimming, or go to the hospital if you're sick. Oh boy, stay away from those hospitals!

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 26, 2012 at 5:56 am

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.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 26, 2012 at 6:13 am

he purchased the body armor from ebay. this guy spend $15,000. i agree he did not purchase it at the same location he purchased the tactical vest. aurora police clearly indicated he had body armor including kevlar helmet.

Reply

Billye Jackson July 26, 2012 at 5:58 am

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.

Reply

Mgunns July 26, 2012 at 6:38 am

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

Reply

Russ Withrow July 26, 2012 at 6:55 am

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.

Reply

Tomaso July 26, 2012 at 8:25 am

A gun free zone is we're "everyone" has to walk threw a metal detector to enter…..it'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.

Reply

CSLBMK July 26, 2012 at 8:38 am

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 8:38 am

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.

Reply

Joe Tisdale July 26, 2012 at 8:44 am

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.

Reply

BLACK July 26, 2012 at 8:46 am

@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.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 26, 2012 at 9:33 am

Here is what the 2nd Ammendment actually says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Constitution gives further clarification on the use of the Militia:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"

So I ask, when was the last time the Militia was called into action to defend the United States? The basis for everyone here calling for the right to bear arms is to defend themselves from bad guys or even the government itself. When in reality the 2nd Ammendment was created to allow people to own weapons for times when the government calls on their service to fight and defend the homeland.

There is nothing in there that allows the mentally ill the right to own a weapon. I am not trying to say how anyone excercises their rights. To the contrary I am tryin to make sure law abiding people who are of sound mind have the ability to exercise their rights while also keeping our kids who go the theaters, colleges, and malls safe when there isn't anyone with a CCW permit available.

Reply

majrod July 26, 2012 at 11:07 am

DC – Yourinterpretation of the second amendment is fundamentally flawed.

First there's a couple of comma's between "militia" and "people". They are separate AND related.

Second, "security of the FREE State" (Emphasis added) does not specify an extrenal threat. It also specifies the condition of FREE.Your limiting the 2nd amendment to apply only when the "state" (note I left out "free") needs help.

Third, the reason that the CCW wasn't available in the theatre was because the THEATRE restricted the 2nd amendment right of patrons. One can argue that THEY and NOT THE STATE incurred responsibility for the safety of the patrons. More gun regulation isn't the answer.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:25 pm

The 2nd amendment was ruled as a individual right (alongside the other amendments in the bill of rights). DC vs Heller. I cannot believe we are still discussing this. Move on.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 8:48 am

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.

Reply

Tom July 26, 2012 at 8:59 am

Where do you live, Chicago, where guns are illegal? Nationwide the murder rate is down.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 9:01 am

Irrelevant. The murder rate IS down. We STILL have a much higher murder rate than other western countries. If guns stop crime, where's the proof?

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:45 pm

its completely relevant. Europe has always had traditionally lower crime rates than the United States, especially the UK, even after most gun control legislation. In fact England's gun violence rate is rising, doubling over the past 10 years, even after the gun ban. Ooops…

The fact is that reducing guns does not reduce gun violence. Sorry.

Reply

majrod July 26, 2012 at 11:36 am

You're being ridiculous. If you are hit by a car and killed you obviously didn't choose to drive the car that killed you, someone else did.

Brilliant!

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:58 pm

They don't have lower CRIME rates. They have lower MURDER rates.BIG difference. Hand waving doesn't help. Doubling over the last 10 years? Golly. They went from 10 to 20?

That's the number Dallas has on a good weekend. If INCREASING gun ownership stops crime, where's your proof? Our gun violence is higher by a factor of SEVEN than the OECD average. A factor of 7 would be a disproof of ANY theory, EXCEPT for gun owners, who seem to ignore evidence

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 12:41 pm

"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!"

? it has everything to do with your point. we are simply comparing classes. Im taking the class half full approach that our murder rate is declining to 1960s levels, despite the 1960s US population being 179 million versus 2012's 312 million.

That still doesnt change the fact that there are approximately 1 million (400-800k in some conservative studies and 2 million by other estimates) defensive gun uses annually. Unless there is less than 10,000 defensive gun uses (to fall under homicide by firearms) in the US, which is damn sure not true, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

"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!"

Poverty is not only a favor, it is a significant one. Its interesting that switzerland, with its record low poverty, has very seldom instances of gun violence, despite the population being heavily armed. The truth is that our society is no more violent than others. Its interesting how the top 10 states with highest gun homicides also have a pattern of high wealth disparity and poverty. We do have high levels of gun ownership (official 80 million though unofficial figures are easily over 100 million), though its rather astonishing that there are 3.7 deaths per 100,000 despite literally over 100 million citizens owning guns.

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

Yeah and he killed 77 people. its nothing to scoff at. The truth is that no nation is immune from mass killings by nutters.

"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."

You also do not make a choice for somebody to hit your car and cause a vehicle collision, possibly killing you.

Like I said before, if you are concerned about somebody blowing you away with a gun, then you must be even more terrified of driving or swimming; but i doubt it, since you use guns to jump on your soapbox and shout out your petty emotional knee jerk reactions.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 1:54 pm

If guns stop crime as you contend…where's the evidence? America has little gun control and massive slaughter. So, I ask again: Where is the evidence guns stop crime. If gun owners followed logic, what data could be used to DISPROVE your contention? If we had slaughters here AND high crime, well that would do it wouldn't it? Except if you're a gun owner, in which case no amount of data…none…will disprove your case. IOW there's no logic, just assertions. And hysteria seems to be common to gun owners. Few things betray desperation and despair than the paranoia someone's out to kill you so you have to get a gun.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:22 pm

on the contrary bob. I have provided citations on defensive gun uses in the US. You have failed to provide any counter evidence besides a university's ******* contest against Lott (without any counter evidence on what "their real" gun use would be ((fascinating)).

America has plenty of gun laws and regulations. 20,000 state and federal laws to be exact. Two of my best friends that are FFL dealers would argue with you that there is "little gun control".

Your hysteria to "prove" that guns dont contribute to any meaningful to society is also incorrect. It is painfully obvious you also didn't read the article that you are posting about. But im sure Paul Leitner-Wise is just talking out of his *** *****!!!

Like I have said before, if you are that concerned about gun homicides, then dont drive your car, dont go swimming, and dont go to the hospital. You are just standing on your soapbox for attention.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:00 pm

I have provided evidence that the US has a higher level of gun violence than any other western country. If YOUR view is true, then that should not be true.

I await your response.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm

"I have provided evidence that the US has a higher level of gun violence than any other western country. If YOUR view is true, then that should not be true."

And where have I argued against this?

If my view is true, then the advantages of gun ownership outweigh the disadvantages.

Can you move the ******* goalpost some more?

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 8:51 am

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.

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 8:51 am

@ 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.

Reply

BLACK July 26, 2012 at 8:51 am

+1000

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:46 pm

It's not up to me to pay with my life to make you sleep better at night. Sorry. I'm not a socialist. You have no right to my life for your benefit. I don't care how many gun owners were safe. The fact we a level of deaths roughly equivalent to our highest losses in Vietnam tells me guns need to be controlled. If we don't control THEM what DO we control?

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 8:52 am

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

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 1:01 pm

and what would have stopped him bob? please tell me.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm

If possession of a weapon of mass destruction, say an assault rifle or semauto handgun where, in and of itself a crime, then the attempt to acquire one would have tipped someone off that a crime was in progress. Moreover this is larger than just the weekly massacre in the US. it's about homicide

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 3:04 pm

*** are you talking about?

Do you know what a weapon of mass destruction is? here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2744411.stm

They are not semi-automatic rifles, nor are they the military and law enforcement variant of a Assault Rifle, which is a select fire rifle.

If you are going to argue about guns, at least get the basics right.

"say an assault rifle or semauto handgun where, in and of itself a crime, then the attempt to acquire one would have tipped someone off that a crime was in progress"

how does this asinine idea relate to the Aurora shooting in colorado? If a criminal wants a illegal semi-automatic, do you think he's going into a FFL gun store, which wouldnt sell such a illegal semi-automatic to begin with, and ask for one??? ****.
NO! he's going to another criminal, who would not report him or tip anybody off.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm

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

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

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 8:54 am

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.

Reply

Tomaso July 26, 2012 at 10:27 am

Conceptual thinking….can't be taught……
It's plane and simple Bob. If all law abiding citizens give up thier weapons…who is left? I won't bother arguing if you don't get it …you don't get it.

It's funny how knowing how to save a life just in case …doesn't equate to you when someone might be tring to take your life.

I'm out befor the law of arguing with an idiot comes into play

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 1:45 pm

Someone's law abiding until they're not. Holmes was completely law abiding until he committed mass murder. I'm tired of the bogeyman of criminals being used when you have no evidence to support your contention that guns stop crime. They don't. They don't. Read those words, because, as a gun owner, sometimes you're conceptually impaired. Guns do not stop crime. If they DID the US would have a low murder rate. You guys keep saying guns stop crime

Prove it.

Reply

Ted Dentay July 26, 2012 at 2:13 pm

You have to love this debate…one that will NEVER have a resolution so we might as well get used to it. Meantime, reasoned dialogue and debate are the way to go! The American Way!

Here are a couple of thoughts to contribute to that:

Believe it or not, Canada (y'know, those gun control freaks) have had a higher per-capita rate of gun ownership than the US for decades. (Something like 9.79% vs. your 9.5%…or something akin to that).

The next thought, and one that no one has mentioned: Deterrence. The reason CCW-enabled states have had uniform decreases in violent crime is that you don't know who the **** is going to shoot your *** if you **** them off. A cheap way of doing the job your highly-paid cops are supposed to do but…guess what…simply don't. Cops are a necessary evil with the emphasis being on the latter point. Here they are simply stupid, violent, lying, thieving thugs, masquerading as being otherwise, licensed by the state and protected by that same state. Do I know of a better solution? Sorry, but no. So we have to do the best we can with what we have. Therefore the notion of having an armed citizenry works for me…until such a time that the cops actually do their jobs of 'Serve and Protect'.

Sorry if I sound cynical but age has a way of clarifying life.

One more comment, if I may:

Having spent quite some time in England I can tell you that there's no better place to be when you have a gun in your hands and have skulduggery in mind. No one will shoot your ***!

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:11 pm

Wrong. Canada's not even in the top 10
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_c

And if CCW stops crime why does TX have a higher murder rate than NY? Why is the murder rate in London far less than any major city in the US? Vigilante justice may have worked for the US 100 years ago, but this ain't then.

All the macho crap hides the fact: Guns do NOT reduce the murder rate.

Reply

crackedlenses July 26, 2012 at 3:30 pm

Texas is sitting on the border of a country that has gang wars and similar violent unrest often occurring only miles from the Texas border. Combine that with a large number of people walking into the country from who-knows-where, and a higher murder rate suddenly becomes clear….

bob July 26, 2012 at 8:56 am

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?

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 9:00 am

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
http://www.network54.com/Forum/4227/message/97439…!

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 9:00 am

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 9:03 am

Cars have a use. And I CHOOSE to use cars. Many countries have banned guns with no deleterious effects at all. I'm not sure why gun owners think this is an argument. We used to have Conestoga wagons, too. Just as useful as guns.

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 10:49 am

1. Do you deny that the people who stopped the killings listed in the article used guns to do so?

2. You stated that the price of our 2nd Ammendment rights is too high. The price of car ownership – not protected by the Constitution – is far higher (over 40,000 killed per year). Why are you concerned about the lower price and not the far higher one?

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Cars have a use. Guns do not, except to kill. Why you guys think the cliche of cars makes sense is beyond me since it's so easy to refute. I'm willing to do a cost/benefit analysis. Cars contribute to society, but not a single major western democracy…not one…has a 2nd amendment. It's useless and does nothing but kill

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:17 pm

so if something's "useful", then its okay if it kills more numbers of people?

nice logic. Im sure deaths due to medical malpractice are acceptable because they are "useful".

But why would such a useless object, like firearms, contribute to significantly less deaths than "useful" things?

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:53 pm

Yeah, if it has a use it's OK if it kills. We can't eliminate death nor risk. There is no 2nd amendment in ANY country save the US, Guatemala and Mexico. No other democracy needs it so it's not necessary for any reason than the delusional assertion guns stop crime

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 3:08 pm

"Yeah, if it has a use it’s OK if it kills. We can’t eliminate death nor risk."

even if it kills MORE people? LOL. This was getting better and better until you said we cant eliminate death nor risk. Sorry…you owe me a new keyboard after I laughed and spit coffee all over my screen.

"There is no 2nd amendment in ANY country save the US, Guatemala and Mexico. No other democracy needs it so it’s not necessary for any reason than the delusional assertion guns stop crime"

1.) the US is not a democracy
2.) We dont give a baker's **** what other countries do; that is why we fought for independence.
3.) Guns stop hundreds of thousands of crimes annually, if not millions, depending on what statistics you trust. Defensive gun use my friend.
4.) Guatemala and Mexico clearly abide by their "right to bear arms" LOL

seriously dude. you owe me a new keyboard.

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 3:10 pm

@ bob

"Cars have a use. Guns do not, except to kill."

You still haven't answered my questions.

1. Do you deny that the people who stopped the killings listed in the article used guns to do so?

2. Why are you concerned about the lower price and not the far higher one?

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:29 pm

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

The EVIDENCE is that guns do NOT stop crime. They do NOT stop murder. The FACT is our murder rate is the highest in the western world. Not a peep from the gun side about THAT fact.

Reply

Ted Dentay July 26, 2012 at 9:03 am

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!

Reply

BLACK July 26, 2012 at 9:07 am

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.

Reply

Dan Donovan July 26, 2012 at 9:14 am

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:10 pm

Perhaps we should just eliminate the police and rely on vigilante justice. That'd do well for a country of laws, wouldn't it? What do we need YOU for if we can do the job ourselves? And AGAIN…the DATA shows more guns does NOT produce a drop in crime. There's NO evidence..>NONE to support that.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:13 pm

"Perhaps we should just eliminate the police and rely on vigilante justice."

LOL nobody is suggesting that, stop putting words into people's mouths.

"And AGAIN…the DATA shows more guns does NOT produce a drop in crime. There’s NO evidence..>NONE to support that."

Actually there is such evidence. A good example is switzerland. On the opposite side, there's no evidence that less guns result in a drop in crime either.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:08 pm

Sure you are. Everyone's armed.That'll stop crime, etc etc. That's the DEFINITION of vigilante justice. It's mob rule. And you keep IGNORING the fact the US has the highest murder rate in the western world

Any reason you ignore that?

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Because it isn't true.

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 3:34 pm

south africa is not "western" or industrialized? Mexico? Brazil? LOL. The US doesnt have the "highest murder rate in the western world".

im not suggesting vigilante justice. i am suggesting justifiable homicide to deter felons.

Will a shotgun be useful for a 57 year old to defend herself against a rapist? sure. She cannot use a blunt instrument, martial arts, or harsh language to deter him otherwise. A 67 year old senior citizen cannot also apply a blunt instrument, martial arts, or harsh language to keep from getting bitten and assaulted by a intruder in his house. Im not trying to be dramatic. These are examples of defensive gun use.

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 9:19 am

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."
http://www.kc3.com/news/britt_aussie_crime.htm

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

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 9:33 am

"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.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 26, 2012 at 9:41 am

Again with that frame of mind I ask: So why make speeding laws when everyone speeds? why make drugs illegal when the war on drugs is a farce? a drug addict is going to get their drugs legally or illegally.

And again, I have no problem ensuring law abiding citizens are capable of defending themselves. I think we should do everything we can to make sure those who are not cannot cause massive harm.

I cannot understand how I am anti-gun when I believe the normal law abiding citizen can own an assault rifle. Because I want to do something to make sure the mentally ill cannot? Give me a break.

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 11:01 am

1. I already told you: Not “anti-gun”, anti-2nd-Ammendment. If you dislike the language thereof, do what “Liberals” refuse to try and ammend it.

2. You really don't get it, do you? Speeding laws prevent no law abiding drivers from driving (which is not a Constitutionally protected right). Gun control laws DO prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their 2nd Ammendment rights.

3. "why make drugs illegal when the war on drugs is a farce?" Good question. Maybe the Federal Government should butt out and allow adults to make their own decisions.

4. "I think we should do everything we can to make sure those who are not cannot cause massive harm." Then stop supporting laws that only apply to those who follow the law, thereby preventing them from defending themselves and others from "those who cause massive harm".

5. "I want to do something to make sure the mentally ill cannot [own an assault rifle]?" The only thing you can do to accomplish that is lock up the mentally ill. How about you work on that instead?

Reply

nbg2d July 26, 2012 at 9:44 am

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.

Reply

majrod July 26, 2012 at 10:41 am

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?

Reply

Roecar July 26, 2012 at 10:58 am

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.

Reply

majrod July 26, 2012 at 11:31 am

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:03 pm

It used to be the CDC until the NRA put pressure on Congress because they were afraid of the numbers. CDC doesn't publish those anymore. Another NRA victory. But go here, to an FBI website
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/offenses/expande

The rate of gun ownership is not the ONLY cause of a high murder rate but it certainly contributes. The US, with high ownership, has the highest murder rate. You reject it? Sorry, I'm not going to do your homework for you. It's a basic fact. If you don't know even this basic fact, perhaps you shouldn't be discussing guns in the first place.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:47 pm

you are incorrectly correlating america's high gun supply with its "high" rates of murder when compared to other westernized countries. Like I have said before, you are drawing to wrong conclusions.

The crime rate in europe has always been traditionally lower than the US.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:52 pm

Ill also add DC Vs Heller http://www.davekopel.com/Briefs/07-290bsacreprint… (warning PDF)

Hmmm, but im sure the supreme court are also NRA shills making up numbers for defensive gun uses. Dont take my word for it, dig into some homework.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:01 pm

Wrong. The crime rate in Europe is pretty much like it is here, in fact, often higher. The MURDER rate is NOT. BIG difference. Handwaving doesn't help.

Reply

Ted Dentay July 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm

Oh, woe is me that I'm compelled to continue with this dialogue! Maybe I can introduce another (compellingly controversial) element:

We have an ever-increasing level of gun violence here in Toronto, Canada's largest city. Problem? Well, the 'media' is quick to march to the beat of the PC drummer. "All these guns are coming up from the States". Problem? They don't mention the fact that well in excess of 95% of these gun crimes are being committed by blacks against blacks, mostly Jamaicans -with a seasoning of Trinidadians and other folks. Ten percent of the population committing more than 90% of the violent acts.

Here we have a problem that can't be mentioned for fear of creating a negative atmosphere against immigrants in general. But the problem is real. The culprits are real. The guns are only a sideline to this entirely ludicrous business. Sort of like the narcos: "Senor, we wouldn't have a problem if you didn't create the market for that problem".

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 3:23 pm

"Wrong. The crime rate in Europe is pretty much like it is here, in fact, often higher. The MURDER rate is NOT. BIG difference. Handwaving doesn’t help."
http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonn

No so much. The overall crime rate has always been traditionally lower than europe and is rising while the US' is lowering. Interesting. I guess all of that gun legislation in Europe didn't reverse their "misfortunes".

Keep that PDF.

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 3:16 pm

It's not "a basic fact". It's not a fact at all. Nor does the link you provided claim it's a fact.

Your link, however, does prove you wrong: "Cars have a use. Guns do not"

In FACT, the link you provided includes a table of justifyable homicides in which armed civilians killed criminals in the act of comiting a crime.

In other words, they USED (there's that word) guns to defend themselves and/or others.

So, once again I ask; Do you deny that the people who stopped the killings listed in the article used guns to do so?

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 1:00 pm

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?
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Search/SearchResults.as

here's another if you're not satisfied with lott.
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JQC-Cook
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/165476.pdf

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 1:10 pm

please provide a link again.

Reply

Titus Oates July 26, 2012 at 1:49 pm

"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.

Reply

OldEagleEars July 26, 2012 at 1:51 pm

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Old Eagle thinks an insult in lieu of an argument is an argument. Well, such is the logic of the desperate. Switzerland has universal military training for those who own guns. They also have one of the higher murder rates in Europe. And if you have to be armed to walk the streets of your city then you live in the 3rd world, not America. That's not freedom, it's slavery.

Again and again gun defenders think the evidence doesn't matter. It's no accident Americans don't accept evolution either. Americans, especially conservatives, are resistant to evidence.

Evidence is what matters. And gun owners just ignore it.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:57 pm

1.) you dont have to be armed to walk down the streets of your city. Thats absurd. Many choose to do so because they are exercising their freedom to be allowed to protect themselves.
2.) Some americans do accept evolution. I am one of them.
3.) I have provided evidence to support my pro gun position. Buy you have provided no evidence that suggests more gun restrictions result in lower crime rates.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:05 pm

How does having a gun make us safer when it's obvious we have the highest murder rate in the western world? Uh, what, exactly, would it take to convince you you're wrong? Your main assertion is that guns decrease the homicide level. That's wrong, but you say it's right. Proof? Well, you offer none except repeating it's true.

Gun ownership in most European countries is lower than in the US. We are the most heavily armed nation on earth.Our murder rate shows it, excluding those for whom evidence is irrelevant.

Reply

Oscar July 26, 2012 at 3:18 pm

@ bob

You keep claiming we have the "highest murder rate in the world". That's false. I offered evidence refuting your "fact", yet you keep ignoring it.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:08 pm

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:23 pm

did russia's nuclear arsenal prove advantageous in the streets of Grozny? I rest my case.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 3:07 pm

You're saying the US wouldn't use nukes if we were attacked? then why do we have them? It's a proof of how bizarre the pro gun side is that they think the US would sit back while we're attacked and NOT use our nukes if our existence was threatened. Ever hear of the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Oh…uh…how many nukes do the Chechens have? Zero, I think…

Reply

crackedlenses July 26, 2012 at 3:26 pm

How about if the invaders come from the inside and are using our government against us? That is essentially what happened with the British and their American colonies; all the nukes and aircraft carriers won't save you then….

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 3:28 pm

so the US would nuke its own cities and land, covering it in radioactive fallout, in order to suppress a few rebels???

of course the Chechens have zero nukes. try to follow along (it has been difficult i can see). Russia had a nuclear arsenal that was useless when chechnya separated just like our nuclear arsenal was useless in Afghanistan and Iraq (but were still fighting there!?!?!?!?)

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 2:28 pm

"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".

Reply

RICHARD ZIMMERMANN July 26, 2012 at 2:35 pm

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"?????

Reply

ExNavRM July 26, 2012 at 2:51 pm

RZ – You are correct. According to a SCOTUS 2005 Ruling, there is no Constitutional obligation for Police to protect those to be in known danger:

(Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278)

It is my swore obligation to protect my family. It is also my duty to ensure that we never have to place an article such as this:
http://www.twinbuttebunch.org/misc/i/british_ad.g

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 2:55 pm

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 3:14 pm

"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?

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 4:11 pm

"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" http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/ 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. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Vote2008/story?id=61

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 4:13 pm

"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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 4:21 pm

canada is a interesting case!
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dkcgc.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/02/

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

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 5:04 pm

Canada ranks 13th in gun ownership

We rank 1st. We rank 1st in murders by guns

And the gun crowd says CANADA has a problem!

Reply

Jynko July 27, 2012 at 8:20 am

Again you are not accurately applying your own presented evidence.

Reply

crackedlenses July 26, 2012 at 4:36 pm

@bob

"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…….

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 5:00 pm

THen where is your analysis of the fact the US has the highest murder rate in the western world. No response at all except to say 'yeah, but my dad's barber's neighbor used a gun to scare the neighbor's cat'.

Call me unconvinced

Reply

crackedlenses July 26, 2012 at 8:39 pm

And you completely missed my point; I'm convinced you are willfully blind now. Good day.

Reply

Jynko July 27, 2012 at 7:01 am

bob I want you to know you are not alone in your gun control opinions. Mao, Stalin and Hitler all agree with you that gun control works. The largest mass murderers in this world have all been governments by an unimaginable margin. With that fact in mind I think we should be more worried about enacting government control than gun control.

Reply

Zach Miles July 26, 2012 at 4:39 pm

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

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Ah, yes, the traditional, thug mentality of the gun crowd. Get buried in an argument. Show how macho you are by being a thug.

Reply

crackedlenses July 26, 2012 at 8:57 pm

If you cannot tell the difference between an armed man and a thug, I recommend you not leave your house. The law enforcement will not appreciate the stereotyping….

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 9:41 am

the only way to win a argument with them is to love and bless them like anybody else. Their opinions to disarm other people are misguided to say the least, though they may not be terrible people.

Needless to say, I hope you are confident enough in your martial arts skills to defend your family.

Reply

majrod July 26, 2012 at 4:50 pm

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 4:51 pm

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 4:55 pm

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 4:56 pm

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?

Reply

leftoftheboom July 26, 2012 at 7:12 pm

Bob,

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Again and again the gun crowd attempts to avoid evidence. Let me cut to the chase

US: most heavily armed country.

Gun theory: This should lead to the US having the LOWEST murder rate in the western world since criminals are afraid of guns. We should be LOWER than countries with strict gun controls.

Test: Are we lower?

Answer: not only are we NOT lower, but we're higher, often by an ORDER OF MAGNITUDE.

Gun crowd: See! I KNEW we were right!

Hard to argue with THAT logic

Reply

leftoftheboom July 27, 2012 at 3:03 am

Again and again the anti-gun crowd attempts to avoid the evidence. Let me cut to the chase.

The gun did not jump up and shoot someone. A person did. If guns are removed from the equation do you honestly believe that we will lower the crime rate?

The individual is responsible. Not the Gun. I guess its the Sun's fault when you get a sunburn. The stoves fault when you burn your hand.

Your logic is to blame the tool. I blame the individual.

You say that guns make it more likely that a violent crime is committed. Then guess what? The guns are already out there. You cannot turn back the clock and make them go away. The only choice left is to attempt to ensure that citizens can protect themselves.

The problem is individuals like you want to blame anyone but the criminal for their behavior. You excuse them so they feel justified in hurting people because "it's not my fault."

Start executing them and you Stop Repeat Offenders.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 7:16 pm

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.

Regards

Reply

leftoftheboom July 26, 2012 at 7:17 pm

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

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 7:18 pm

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.

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 7:20 pm

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!

Reply

bob July 26, 2012 at 7:29 pm

Golly NY has ALOT of illegal immigrants too. Oh, and do illegal immigrants increase crime rate? Well…no.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,17

and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/immigrat

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?

Reply

crackedlenses July 26, 2012 at 8:50 pm

"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…..

Reply

crackedlenses July 26, 2012 at 8:54 pm

@bob

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.

Reply

Dan July 26, 2012 at 11:01 pm

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

I sure as **** can.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 11:08 pm

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 11:11 pm

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 11:21 pm

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 http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324/

"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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 11:34 pm

"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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 11:39 pm

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 26, 2012 at 11:51 pm

My contention stands. http://www.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/9/979/papers/Buonn

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 12:00 am

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.

Reply

Calvin July 27, 2012 at 2:36 am

@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.

Reply

Go Navy! July 27, 2012 at 4:29 am

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.

Reply

Go Navy! July 27, 2012 at 4:41 am

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.)

Reply

bob July 27, 2012 at 6:41 am

Xcalbr ignores the facts

1. the US is the most heavily armed nation on earth
2. The US has the highest murder rate in the western world
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/oecd-c

Golly. Imagine…evidence

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 9:20 am

"Switzerland (surprisingly they have liberal gun law as well, like US), Austria and Sweden are among the countries which have least homicide cases occurred."

Thats what it says in your statistic. so you pointing out those two "facts" is really irrelevant, since you are trying to paint American guns as the reason for its comparatively high homicide rate.

Lets forget little details like poverty, poor education, the war on drugs, and many, many other variables when it comes to the high murder rate and just blame guns. Simple, easy solution (give me a ******* break).

Reply

Jynko July 27, 2012 at 5:48 am

You keep saying we have the highest murder rate in the western world. Here is the truth. http://worldnews.about.com/od/crime/tp/Top-Murder

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.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 27, 2012 at 6:04 am

Here is the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/shooting-at-

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……

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 9:29 am

how the **** did i say you're wrong? overreact much?

I simply asked for a link. I appreciate it. And you can buy body armor easily through ebay.

Reply

DC2 jennings July 27, 2012 at 6:12 am

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.

Reply

crackedlenses July 27, 2012 at 7:24 am

@DC2 jennings

I think that the response you are getting is more a testament to the distrust of our government and mental health officials than it is a desire to allow mentally ill persons to own "assault" rifles. Many people simply do not trust the government to not arbitrarily declare whomever it chooses as "mentally unstable".

That being said, the same characteristics that apply to criminals also apply to the mentally ill: if they are determined to kill, they will kill en masse regardless of the availability of "assault weapons". No one seriously thinks that an insane person (or a convicted felon for that matter) should have access to "assault weapons"; but many do not trust the government to unbiasedly and accurately identify crazy people.

The purpose of the 2nd Admendment, after all, was so that the people of this country could protect themselves from their government…..

Reply

bob July 27, 2012 at 6:44 am

List of OECD countries homicide rates:
http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/05/17/oecd-c

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

GUNS DO NOT STOP MURDERS. THEY CAUSETHEM

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 9:25 am

no, the topic is if guns stop crime.

Clearly they do. YOU WOULD KNOW THAT IF YOU READ THE ACTUAL ******* ARTICLE ABOVE.

Reply

Jynko July 27, 2012 at 8:05 am

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.

Reply

Jim July 27, 2012 at 8:29 am

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

Reply

Jynko July 27, 2012 at 8:58 am

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.

Reply

majrod July 27, 2012 at 10:00 am

You wasted your time with Bob but an excellently written response.

Reply

Jynko July 27, 2012 at 11:33 am

majrod, thanks for the comment, I appreciate it.

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 9:32 am

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.

Reply

Kirk July 27, 2012 at 10:58 am

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.

Reply

Tim July 27, 2012 at 11:27 am

The number of guns in the US is estimated at 270 million today per Switzerland's small arms survey. http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Y

Crime trends since 1960: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

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.

Reply

Kirk July 27, 2012 at 11:27 am

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

Reply

DC2 jennings July 27, 2012 at 11:59 am

xcalbr so was Obamacare……..

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 1:47 pm

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.

Reply

xcalbr July 27, 2012 at 6:52 pm

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.

Reply

Chewy 0311 July 27, 2012 at 11:57 pm

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???

Reply

leftoftheboom July 28, 2012 at 10:18 pm

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.

Reply

ssssteak July 29, 2012 at 2:32 pm

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..

Reply

oscar d July 30, 2012 at 3:38 pm

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.

Reply

Go Navy! July 31, 2012 at 7:59 am

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.

Reply

Johnny GT August 1, 2012 at 8:01 am

@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."

Reply

fsaavedra August 3, 2012 at 12:36 pm

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…

Reply

Oline Wright September 21, 2012 at 7:03 pm

http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/ http://rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5c1b6a72-c5eb-11df-b53e

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.

Reply

Pete Sheppard July 26, 2012 at 4:15 am

DC2 Jennings–respectfully, who writes the regs? Then, who enforces them?
The old saying was, "The power to tax is the power to destroy" The modern version is, "The power to REGULATE is the power to control." The old USSR used mental health issues quite effectively to control dissenters. Since most anti-gunners already think gun owners have mental issues, I shudder to think where this would lead.
IOW, quit helping the antis; even though that's not your intent!

Reply

DC2 jennings July 26, 2012 at 6:09 am

Pete – then why have speed limits? why make drugs illegal? i drive perfectly fine doing 100 and i am not addicated to heroin. but isn't this regualtion that most people would say makes sense? and comparing a totalitarian government in the USSR to a democratically elected government that defeated them gives no credence to your point.

obviously the democratically elected leaders of this great nation writes the regulations. you know, the same group of people that sends our volunteer military to fight and die. if they have the capacity and we have the faith (including current and former military members that have offerred our lives) in them to do that why can't we rely on them to create sensible legislation? the problem i see is we let special interests (which should be regulated) and the fringes of society dicatate to these people how our country should be governed…… but that is another story.

the majority of these types of crimes making national and international headlines were caused by someone who has real mental health issues (VA tech, gabrielle giffords, the dude in the Netherlands, columbine, etc). you can either make sure they can't get these weapons or you can wait until the majority of Americans get fed up with these events happening and outlaw assault weapons again. that is my point. i am actually trying to make sure you get to keep your assault rifles while taking them away from those that are truly unstable and dangerous. a paraonoid schizophrenic with no felonies can legally go into a gun shop and purchase whatever they want. that should not be the case.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: