Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Chalk Up Another One for Gun Owners

Chalk Up Another One for Gun Owners

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Last Thursday in Salt Lake City, Utah, a gun toting citizen single-handedly ended the stabbing spree of a knife wielding maniac. The incident happened in a grocery store in the downtown area of the city. The suspect apparently purchased a knife in the store and used it as a weapon to stab two people in the foyer of the store. Before he could find a third victim, the man with the concealed gun pulled it on him and told him to drop his weapon or he would shoot him. The assailant dropped the knife and the grocery store’s employees restrained him until the police arrived.

By all accounts the gun toting citizen prevented what could have been widespread carnage. In fact, Salt Lake City Police Department Lt. Brian Purvis said, “This was a volatile situation that could have gotten worse. We can only assume from what we saw it could have gotten worse. He was definitely in the right place at the right time.”

Bravo for the Second Amendment! The reason injuries were prevented and lives saved is that as Americans we have the ability to defend ourselves and others through the Second Amendment right to own guns. You see, it is impossible for the police to be everywhere at all times protecting us from bad guys. Given that we are supposedly still a free society, why would we want cops to be present on every street corner anyway?

But, even with this logic there are still plenty of anti-Second Amendment rights activists out there who want to pass restrictive gun laws that would leave more Americans vulnerable to the violent appetites of homicidal maniacs. They claim, among other things, that more people carrying guns make us all less safe. Their concern is that when a volatile situation develops, a law abiding gun carrier’s zeal to put an end to the bloodletting could result in more innocent bystanders being gunned down accidentally by the law abiding citizen. The incident related above refutes that concern.

And how often are there stories of gun owners accidentally shooting innocents while attempting to prevent bloodshed with their firearm? I can’t recall a single story, yet I am aware of many incidents of gun owners saving life and property.

Another such incident was the Tucson shooting in which Jared Lee Loughner shot and killed six people and wounded thirteen others, including U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords. 24 year old Joseph Zamudio, who himself was carrying a 9mm semi-automatic pistol at the time of the attack, heard the shots outside the Safeway supermarket and immediately rushed to the scene to help. While most bystanders hit the deck or ran in the opposite direction, Zamudio insists his carrying a gun emboldened him to act. But he didn’t shoot his gun off wildly and endanger others. As a matter of fact, he ran into the face of extreme danger and didn’t fire a shot, instead physically helping others subdue Loughner until the police could arrive.

To be sure there are many other stories of gun owners being at the right place at the right time to prevent injury or even save lives. Back in 1995 the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology at Northwestern University School of Law published a study that indicated that law abiding gun owners use their weapons for defensive purposes as many as 2.5 million times a year. This calculates to guns being used 60 times more to protect innocent lives than being used to shoot in the commission of a crime. Thus, loosening gun laws will make us safer because they will give responsible gun owners more of an ability to intervene in crisis situations like in Salt Lake City and Tucson.

Most folks who own guns understand the enormous responsibility that comes with it. The Salt Lake gun carrier and Joseph Zamudio were empowered by their guns to act to save lives. They are indicative of most gun owners: ready and willing to act in time of emergency while maintaining the utmost care for public safety.

Powered by

About Kenn Jacobine

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And if 2010 – the least violent year in decades – is any indication, the same day in which one person with a firearm stopped a person from stabbing a third person after stabbing two others (which may or may not have killed the victims (the link provided doesn’t work)), TWENTY-FOUR people in America were killed by gunshots.

    On average, twenty-four people are killed EVERY DAY by gunfire…and rare indeed is the incident where it was a case of self-defense – certainly not every day!

    Kenn, the self-defense argument is a strawman, a chimera. If you had a gun and wanted to kill me, NOTHING would be able to stop you. Even if I carried a gun on me 24/7, you’d simply wait until the right opportunity and I wouldn’t stand a chance. And the converse is every bit as true because if I really wanted to shoot you dead, the best, most powerful, most accurate guns in the world wouldn’t help you.

    One or two – or heck, let’s make it even FIVE – might have been saved by that person with a gun. BUT twenty-four were killed, probably all of which were murders. NOT self-defense, but MURDERS.

    Kenn, as always, the vast majority of Democrats do not want to ban guns. We want (1) registration of all firearms, and (2) background checks on ALL buyers (including at gun shows). And as for myself, I want to include mandatory safety training for each new gun owner (even if it’s by the NRA), and responsibility of the gun owners for anything that is done with their firearms – in other words, if it’s stolen, they’d BETTER report it ASAP.

    These are not onerous requirements – they’re common sense requirements, and the only reason you don’t like them is because you can’t see the 24 men, women, and children murdered every single day because you’re blinded by the occasional story of successful self-defense with a firearm.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Glenn is right. You’ve got to stack up the handful of lives potentially saved by the one shopper who happened to be carrying a gun that day against the many more lives lost and injuries caused – whether deliberately or accidentally – simply because there are so many guns around in the United States.

    The more guns there are, and the less regulation there is, the more people who don’t know how to (or don’t want to) handle them responsibly are going to have access to one and the more tragedies there are going to be. It’s simple math, and it beggars belief that some gun advocates don’t see this.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    “leave more Americans vulnerable to the violent appetites of homicidal maniacs.”

    Fear once again trumps logic.

    “The incident related above refutes that concern.”

    Lovely story and we are all grateful for the outcome but there was no trace of “refutation” in this article. I once managed to get a sofa to my apartment with a Volkswagen. That hardly proves that it is a truck.

    Like Contrarian, much as I would like to see actual gun control, I realize how unrealistic that is. I still don’t understand resistance to comprehensive background checks, waiting periods, registration, mandatory training, etc. Any law-biding gun owner would certainly have nothing to fear.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    Another example of a writer so desperate to make a point that he works backwards and doesn’t pay attention to what he’s writing.

    First off, the title does fit since Kenn offers up two examples (The Salt Lake gun carrier and Joseph Zamudio), not one, to chalk up.

    Then, he brings up gun-owner Jared Lee Loughner yet (intentionally?) fails to account for the fact that JLL disputes the point he’s trying to make since the gun likely empowered JLL as well.

    Back to the drawing board

  • zingzing

    heh. “chalk” probably wasn’t the best choice of words here. for every one you can chalk up, a chalk outline surrounds the argument against guns.

    your “2.5 million” stat is a bit suspect. that’s a whole lot more than i’ve ever heard. i know, i know, you’ll claim there’s underreporting. of course, to get to such a number, you’d have to have 10 people reporting defensive gun use for every one that actually reports it while making a statement to police. next thing you know, you’ll have people claiming to have shot suicide bombers in grocery stores. obviously, every defensive use of a gun isn’t going to be reported to police. it just isn’t. but gun owners may also be claiming they used their god-given gun to protect home and family when they really did nothing of the sort. or that one guy’s study is a bunch of phooey.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    The fact remains that the gun carrier in Salt Lake City saved lives with his gun and if it were up to you guys he wouldn’t have a gun and more people would have been hurt.

  • zingzing

    alright kenn. if that’s true, you’re responsible for all the kids who accidentally kill themselves with their pop’s gun. pathetic, kenn.

    and those lives could have been saved with a well-placed jar of peanut butter or a trip to the cutlery aisle.

  • Zingzing

    Also kenn, read the last few paragraphs of glenn’s comment. Most of us realize that getting rid of all guns is impossible. If the guy who pulled his gun out at the grocery is an upstanding citizen, he can have a gun.

    You’re railing against something no one has called for. Such a victim, you are… Know your enemy, kenn, or at least argue against something people are arguing for. Don’t just make up silly bogeymen.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    zing,

    I am not arguing criminals should be allowed to have guns. I am arguing that in a free society the law-abiding have a right to defend themselves.

    I would guess that more kids die in auto accidents than in accidental shootings? Thus, should we prevent parents from owning cars or kids from driving in them? You can’t prevent every bad thing from happening. But you can make it worse if you take away the right of people to choose and be able to defend themselves properly.

  • Jordan Richardson

    if it were up to you guys he wouldn’t have a gun and more people would have been hurt.

    This “logic” is really tiresome.

    You’re constructing your philosophy entirely around how a scenario could play out. What if more people were hurt because the guy who pulled the gun out at the grocery store sucked at shooting? What if the gun went off accidentally and the bullet ricocheted around to kill three four-year-old kids? What if the knife guy got hold of the gun and starting firing, discovering that you can kill an awful lot fucking faster that way? And so on.

    This isn’t the movies. It’s not fucking Die Hard. These situations can go horribly wrong and this “hero” shit is no reason to advocate for (or against) guns. It’s simply bullshit, not an “argument” in the least.

    But yeah, if it was up to me the guy wouldn’t have a gun and more people would be stabbed. I’m a big fan of that shit.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Thus, should we prevent parents from owning cars or kids from driving in them?

    Maybe some sort of system of controls should be in place…?

    Oh wait.

  • Zingzing

    Kenn, I never said you were arguing that criminals should have guns. Sheesh. Now you’re just making stuff up. And as Jordan pointed out, kids have to be taught, tested, and licensed by the state in order to legally drive. So do adults. No, that doesn’t keep people who shouldn’t be driving off the road at all times, but it is a damn good idea, don’t you think. I, who have never fired a gun in my life, can walk into a gun show and buy myself a semi-automatic weapon with bullets aplenty. Good idea?

  • Zingzing

    And suicides and homicides are in the top 5 causes of death for teenagers.

  • JohnCap523

    The NRA and their zombie supporters are hardly about the second amendment. They’re about anarchy.

    The truth is not many people are against the second amendment of the right to own guns. What many sane people ate against is the right to own assault weapons, automatic weapons, and other equipment that is hardly about self protection or hunting. In addition reasonable waiting periods and background checks, and the loophole that is flea markets where straw purchases are made daily. ALL of this cookin sense us opposed by the NRA. Hence it places people seeking reasonable gun laws on the other side, then painted as being against the second amendment. It’s BS.

    Ask most law enforcement and. Urgent trends towards wild west gun laws scare the hell out of them. We just had a local chief talk to us about PA and FL concealed gun laws and he’s disgusted by it all.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    I am not arguing criminals should be allowed to have guns.

    No, but you’re refusing to agree to measures that would PREVENT many criminals from getting guns.

    It’s the same old conservative argument – just because criminals can go out to buy guns on the street, that means we should make it easy for them – all they have to do is go buy them at a gun show!

    The measures I showing you, Kenn, are NOT onerous and do NOT prevent any sane and law-abiding citizen from buying and carrying a gun. What the measures do is they make it somewhat more difficult for criminals to get guns. Why make it easy for them with the complete and utter deregulation you keep wanting????

  • http://mad-duck-training.blogspot.com/ The Duck

    Gary Kleck’s study arrived at 2.5 million times guns are used for self defense, ST Louis Public law review concluded 1.2 million times a year citizens stop or deter crime. Research also shows of America’s 20,000 plus gun laws not one has prevented a criminal from obtaining a gun, so unlikely passing more would be any more effective. Approx 1/2 of 1% of crime guns come from gunshows. It is also interesting to note that the cities with the most gun control laws have the highest gun crime rates.

  • Clavos

    No, but you’re refusing to agree to measures that would PREVENT many criminals from getting guns.

    Nuts. Prohibition and the ongoing War on Drugs, utter failures both, disprove that claim.

    You’re beating a dead horse with that dumbass remark.

  • uncommon_sense

    Over 300,000 people have concealed handgun carry permits in my state. None of them harmed or even endangered anyone yesterday, the day before that, or the day before that, and so on. And the remaining 2.2 million citizens who own firearms (but don’t have concealed carry licenses) in my state didn’t harm anyone yesterday, or the day before that, or the day before that either. How can this be? Almost all of the 24 or so criminals who will murder someone every day with a firearm have previous criminal records. Stop equating the armed citizenry with criminals!!!

    As for concerns that armed citizens will shoot bystanders, IT DOESN’T HAPPEN!!! If such an event happened once, the lamestream media would be all over it … not to mention the media response if it were commonplace. The TRUTH of the matter is if you can successfully point your finger at a person that is a few feet away, you can successfully point a pistol at a criminal who is a few feet away. I say “a few feet away” because that is how close virtually all criminals are when they attack armed citizens.

    As for “common sense” gun laws, please explain how registration will prevent any violent crimes. And while explaining, please also tell me how it would be impossible for a government agency or foreign power to use that registry to disarm our citizens.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    Apples and oranges – there you go with a false equivalency again. You CANNOT compare alcohol and drugs to guns. Why? Because the normal person cannot manufacture guns in his house, whereas any idiot can manufacture drugs and alcohol in his house. Next time please try to use a comparison that works.

  • Charlie

    No law ever passed has prevented a criminal from getting a gun. No law will. They don’t obey the laws. That’s why they are criminals. It’s tragic that 24 people die each day. Yet, how many of them would not have died had they had the means to protect themselves. 2.5 million defensive uses a year. That is over 6,000 a day. 6,000 potential new murders overted while 24 were completed. Those who seek to make self-defense and gun ownership more difficult are still on the losing side.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “Charlie”

    No? Perhaps you should ask STM, a BC regular who lives in Australia, about how things have changed since they instituted stricter gun regulation. And perhaps you should check and see what the gun death rates are in certain places where guns are banned, like Singapore and Hong Kong.

    Or you could see what the gun death rates are in nations where guns are much more strictly regulated – like Israel and Switzerland.

    But no, you’ll ignore all that. You’re paying too much attention to obviously made-up numbers like that “2.5M defensive uses a year” to ever use enough common sense to figure out what that would require in order to be true. Let me guess – you’re a birther, too.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Charlie, what does it mean to “overt” a “potential new murder?”

    And isn’t there a more sensible way to make your case than to rely on imaginary gun heroism?

    I won’t even bother with your ginormous “defensive uses” digits. I think that’s crap.

  • Jordan Richardson

    None of them harmed or even endangered anyone yesterday, the day before that, or the day before that, and so on

    How could you possibly know this?

    Also, are people really still saying “lamestream media?”

    As for concerns that armed citizens will shoot bystanders, IT DOESN’T HAPPEN!!!

    Bull. You can’t possible know that either. Accidents happen.

  • Igor

    That “2.5 million defenses a year” claim is unsound. I investigated it several years ago and it’s not based on actual counts, which are meager, but on tricky statistical extrapolations.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Nuts. Prohibition and the ongoing War on Drugs, utter failures both, disprove that claim.

    No, they don’t. They only prove that just because you outright ban something it doesn’t mean people will stop wanting it. It simply means that criminal enterprises will move in to meet the demand since law-abiding businesses can’t.

    Professional criminals aren’t really the issue here. If a pro wants to use a gun in the commission of a crime he will most likely either find an unregistered one or steal one, just as he does if he wants to use a car.

    There are regulations governing the distribution, sale and use of alcohol and tobacco, and while black markets in both substances do exist, they are not accompanied by massive and destructive crime waves as the narcotics business is.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    6,000 potential new murders overted while 24 were completed.

    Charlie, exactly how does one go about compiling statistics on crimes that never took place?

  • jwoodatty

    Far more children die from accidental drownings than from accidental shootings. So we should license swimming pool owners…

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    @ #27: It would be interesting to watch you try to steal a swimming pool in order to drown someone in it…

  • Cannonshop

    #28 can’t steal a swimming pool…but you can steal a car, and I suspect (I could be wrong, mind) that statistically, if you want to kill people…

    and all the statistical tossing is just tossing off. Hurling statistics and ‘what ifs’ is just, well, as the brits say, tossing off.

    We already HAVE some pretty strong laws regarding firearms acquisition-that is, LEGAL firearms acquisition in this country, and at state and local levels, some pretty strong additional restrictions in troubled places like D.C., Detroit, and San Francisco. (not to mention Washington State). Is it a Leftist wet-dream? no.

    But it is already pretty well balanced…when the enforcement agencies aren’t subverting it to serve Political ends as ATFE did in their big supply run to the Mexican Cartels.

    We HAVE laws, we NEED enforcement OF those laws, not MORE laws that won’t be enforced evenly, or can’t be practically enforced without suspending the REST of the bill of rights.

    As for the comparisons to Prohibition and the War on Drugs-both were externalities to the gun debate in all save one key thing:

    Both created large amounts of public violence as the black marketeers involved fought over territory, supplies, and fought the law.

    Both also generated huge enforcement bureaucracies that wield vast discretionary powers and rather a lot of firearms, and both have proven to be erosive to freedoms and corrosive corruptors of the very institutions they claimed to be protecting.

  • Jarhead1982

    Love all these made up self defense occurences which have occurred since 3/6/12

    One can actually go to the web site (Keep & Bear Arms) where these are all collated from police and media reports, so any claim of bias is the rant of the insane.

    There are multiple other webistes KC3, Armed Citizen, American Rifleman, Guns save Lives, and multiple others where on average 80 of these successful self defense incidents occur per month.

    But flat earthers like Glenn wont believe these government/media supplied facts eh.

    • 13-year-old suspect killed during robbery (AL)
    • Police investigate home invasion, burglary in Lemay area (MO)
    • Man in His 70′s Shoots 1 of 2 Early Morning Home Invaders (CA)
    • Two men injured after altercation including a gun and a knife (TX)
    • Another Ohio homeowner exercises self-defense right by shooting would-be robber during home invasion (OH)
    • Store Clerk Shoots at 3 Would Be Robbers (PA)
    • Man buys knife, stabs 2 at Salt Lake City store (video available) (UT)
    • Police: Homeowner shoots intruder (KY)
    • Homeowner Shoots Prowler With WWII Rifle
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Always Packin’ Edition (GA)
    • Off-duty sheriff’s officer scares off, shoots at burglar (IL)
    • Resident Shoots and Kills Armed Home Invader (TN)
    • Victim of attempted robbery shoots, kills suspect in Detroit, police say (MI)
    • Resident Shoots and Kills 2 Home Invaders (NC)
    • No charges filed in Ringgold shooting (AL)
    • Homeowner Shoots Machete Wielding Home Invader (TN)
    • Bakersfield police: Robber shot, killed in self-defense (CA)
    • Store Clerk Shoots Knife Wielding Robber (NC)
    • Police: Santa Barbara homeowner shoots intruder, suspect in custody (CA)
    • Renton homeowner fires shots at burglar, suspect at large (WA)
    • Chief Monroe: home-invasion shooting “clearly a case of self-defense” (NC)
    • Homeowner Shoots Suspected Burglar as His Family Sleeps Nearby (OH)
    • Dallas, TX Homeowner Shoots 1 of 3 Teens Kicking In His Door In Broad Daylight (TX)
    • Detroit, MI Woman Shoots and Kills Armed Teenage Home Invader (MI)
    • Vidor shooting possible self-defense (TX)
    • Two Intruders Break In, Woman Finds Gun, Kills One (MO)
    • Redford woman claims self-defense in shooting (MI)
    • Sheriff: Leesburg man may have killed guest in self-defense (FL)
    • Officials: Shooter may have acted in self defense (MS)
    • NY Convenience Store Owner Chases Off Armed Robber With Pistol (NY)
    • Two Separate Instances Of Homeowners Using Guns For Self Defense in Pierce County, WA Last Night (WA)
    • Retired Police Officer in WA Shoots and Kills 1 of Multiple Daytime Burglars (WA)
    • Female Store Clerk in FL With Carry Permit Shoots and Kills Armed Robber (FL)
    • Homeowner Shoots Late Night Home Intruder In The Hip (IN)
    • Couple Shoot and Kill Crazed Man Who Confronted Them in Their Bedroom (WA)
    • Elderly MO Couple Shoot, Kill Home Invader Who Violently Attacked Them (MO)
    • Slaying may have been self defense: ‘This was over a girl’ (IL)
    • Detroit senior kills break-in suspect: ‘As long as I can fight back, I will’ (MI)
    • Michigan Homeowner Fires Shotgun at Would be Thief (MI)
    • Neighbors: Drop charges against man, 80, in shooting of burglar (IL)
    • BSO: Man shot dead in Pompano Beach appears to be case of self-defense (FL)
    • Conceal Carry Permit Holder Stops Shooter at Church (SC)
    • Shooting of spouse deemed self-defense (MA)
    • Store owner shoots teen in self-defense, killing him (FL)
    • Retired cop turned security guard shoots and kills armed robber (MI)
    • Pawn Shop Customer With License to Carry Chases Off Would Be Robber (TX)
    • Elderly NE Homeowner Fires a Warning Shot at Home Invader Who Is Then Captured By Police (NE)
    • Homeowner Shoots At, Scares Off 3 Burglars (MI)
    • Las Vegas, NV Homeowner Shoots and Kills Burglary Suspect (NV)
    • 78 Year Old Kentucky Man Shoots 1 of 2 Home Invaders with Antique Walther and Shotgun (KY)
    • Store clerk fires shot, scares off would-be robber (IL)
    • Montgomery County man kills alleged home invader (TX)
    • Police: Attempted Robbery Suspect Shot By Shop Owner (CA)
    • Robber killed, owner hurt in mini-mart heist (PA)
    • Homeowner Shoots Sword Wielding Home Invader (FL)
    • Police say witness shoots way out of encounter with suspects (FL)
    • Homeowner Shoots Intruder in His Home (NM)
    • Man shot, killed in St. Augustine (FL)
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Lucky to be Alive Edition (PA)
    • Store Clerk Shoots and Wounds Would Be Robber Who is Then Captured (NC)
    • Homeowner in AZ Confronts and Shoots Daytime Burglar (AZ)
    • Check Cashing Business Owner Exchanges Fire With 2 Armed Robbers (CO)
    • Store Owner Fires Warning Shot at Armed Robber Scares Him Away (MN)
    • Father arrives home to hostage situation, is shot and still manages to return fire and stop his attacker (OH)
    • Citizen Shoots and Wounds 1 of 2 Burglars (TX)
    • Cleaning man fatally shoots burglar at Queens grocery store (NY)
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Vance West (MO)
    • Homeowner Exchanges Gunfire With Truck Thief Who is Shot, Captured (TX)
    • Rural IL Homeowner First 5 Shots At 2 Home Invaders (IL)
    • Homeowner Shoots and Kills Daytime Intruder (SC)
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Parking Lot Edition (MI)
    • Video: SC Convenience Store Owner Shoots, Kills Career Criminal During Armed Robbery (SC)
    • Woman Shoots and Kills Home Invader (NC)
    • Off-duty deputy shoots two dogs for allegedly attacking turkeys (UT)
    • Homeowner Shoots Knife Wielding Burglar Several Times (AR)

  • Jarhead1982

    Oh you want data, hey lets review the following.

    FBI UCR Database

    You know, the government database showing in 2008 that 1.38 mil violent crimes were reported and that of those 381,000 involved a firearm

    Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 ….

    Oh whats that, another government report showing that of the violent crimes committed by criminals, they admit in only 15% of them they fired a shot.

    USDOJ National Victimization Report 2008

    Oh whats this, its the US government agency sub annual report showing in 2008 alone that 4.8 mil violent crimes were not reported. An average that hasnt changed.

    Oh wait, whats this, annual firearm discharge reports that show the police only hit their targets 15% of the time, such a common trend.

    Uh just an fyi there were approximately 12,252 murders and 70,000 injuries by firearms in 2008.

    Here is some reading material for you einstein, care to do a better analysis and provide better data as obviously you are God and know EVERYTHING!

    Follow that up with a famous and knowledgable anti gun expert who can’t refute Kleck & Gertz’s study, methodology or data

    Then follow that up with another anti gun effort to refute the study, paid for by the anti gun Joyce Foundation and sponsored by the Clinton administration.

    anti professors paid to refute, admit that DGU’s occur. (PDF)

    Funny how if you actually read this study, and then review the arbitrary decision that they would not use data where an attack was prevented, because no physical attack did not occur, sounds just like you einstein.

    [Comments Editor note: various non-working URLs deleted from this comment]

  • Jarhead1982

    Now lets do the math, something we doubt you were ever good at, even simple math!

    See in that Firearms use by Offenders report, the criminals are identified as firing a shot in 15% of the crimes where they used a firearm to commit the crime.

    The police firearm discharge reports say the same % when they have to engage a criminal or perp with their firearms.

    The police firearm discharge reports at best show 15% of the times a shot is fired is the target hit.

    Since no one can prove criminals are better shots, will use this as the standard for the math as using a lower percentage will just inflate the numbers worse for the anti gun zealots.

    The FBI UCR database 2008 shows 381,000 violent crimes reported with a firearm.

    So 381,000 x 15% of shots fired = 57,150 times shots were fired
    57,150 x 15% of times targets hit = 8,573 total deaths and injuries that should have occurred from all the violent crimes reported as no OTHER violent crime EVER occur right?

    But oh wait, there 82,252 deaths and injuries from shootings/violent crime sin 2008.

    WOW, such a coincidink eh einstein.

    Hey, the actual math means you will have to work off the ACTUAL number of deaths and injuries to figure out how many incidents and times shots fired occurred.

    So 82,252 / 15% = 1% x 100 equals number of times shots fired =548,346

    548,346 / 15% = 1% x 100 equals number of incidents where firearm was used to commit a violent crime = 3,655,644
    Uh dude, there were only 381,000 violent crimes reported involving a firearm, oh woe is you, how can that be.

    Oh wait, the government actually acknowledges that 70% of all violent crimes don’t get reported (National Victimization report 2008)

    Wow, einstein, you are so brilliant, you have all that government data, and proper statistical probabilities to refute ALL those facts and show how EVERY single incident gets reported to police and it is IMPOSSIBLE that ALL those incidents where no SHOTS were fired, never, ever do not get reported, lol.

  • Jarhead1982

    We see from US Census, and an average of NSSF & PEW surveys, that in 2009 40% of households have a firearm. That is an increase since 1997 of 9 million households to 80 million law abiding gun owners as recognized by the BATF.

    We see that since 1997 per FBI UCR, that violent crime has gone from 611 VCR (Violent Crime Reported) per 100k people to 429 VCR per 100k people in 2009.

    That is a 30% reduction in violent crime. Did we forget to mention that the same data shows a 20% reduction in murders?

    All while at the same time we see 13-16 more states reinstated concealed carry to 49 states total, and 35 states reinstated concealed carry in eateries that serve alcohol. 4 states and 72 universities reinstated concealed carry.

    All without the predicted and much cried about blood baths predicted by such pundits as ta few bloggers suggest for oh what, something like the millionth time, yep.

    Those anti gun soothsayers really suck at predicting violence and mayhem from the law-abiding citizen, every single time. Hope they aren’t trying to make a living as a soothsayer they are starving if they do.

    So much for more guns in law abiding citizens hands equals more crimes BS people like Glenn like to have you believe.

    Of course there are other countries that have recently tried gun bans, what effect did that have on their violence?

    1997 Australia, Canada, England

    Australia 1997 629 VCR per 100k 2007 1,024 VCR per 100k, a 32 person reduction in murders by firearms, exactly replaced by murders with knives. Funny how that trend was mirrored in England

    Canada 1997 980 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,324 VCR per 100k people, murder rose from 560 to 610 (Ref Statcan)

    Canada $2 billion dollar plus registry, that hasn’t solved one crime, such a common trend. It was recently abolished for rifles, and the government cant even confirm 50% compliance to begin with, imagine that, but hey, we see how many crimes were prevented by such ka ka, uh NONE!

    England 1997 820 VCR per 100k people 2009 1,667 VCR per 100k people, murders have reduced to 1997 levels after a 25% increase. (ref Home Office UK)

    So much for less guns in law abiding citizens hands equals less violence, a trend found in every single gun ban country, prove otherwise. Oh, use government data to try if you want, the above references ARE their government databases.

  • Jarhead1982

    Yet here people like Glenn are, placing a plea to the 80 million law abiding, when you should be talking to the two groups responsible for more than 92% of the deaths from use of firearms. The career criminals/gang members and the crazies who commit suicide.

    The government acknowledges in USDOJ National Gang Threat Assessment 2009 that 80% of all violent crimes committed in the US each year are committed by career criminals/gang members.

    Suicidal people kinda speak for themselves, and yes, suicide is still a felony.

    Shall we review police studies in Chicago (PDF) and NYC (PDF) where between 76-80% of those involved in shootings, both shooter and injured were both involved in criminal activity at the time of the incident (PDF).

    So when are you going to address those two groups responsible for over 92% of all deaths using a firearm as frankly it is rather stupid not to address the largest reason for a problem, then again, we are talking about progressives here.

  • Bolts Fan

    Where does gun owner Junior Seau fit in?

  • Jarhead1982

    But hold on, arent the police responsible for protecting the individual citizens, uh NOPE!

    The courts have ruled the police have no duty to protect individuals:?

    Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection)
    Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
    Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)
    Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
    Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
    Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)
    Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

    etc, etc, etc, etc, etc,…..

    Oh whats this, more rulings by the courts, over 43 years ago proving the gun control laws only affect the law abiding, and not the criminals.

    Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 1968 where the US Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Haynes that any law requiring a felon to self incriminate themselves and violate their 5th amendment rights was not enforceable as a charge for prosecution. Hence criminals don’t have to follow 85% of the existing gun control laws that do so, e.g. your stolen weapons, registrations, etc….

    Amazing how the criminals don’t have to obey these laws yet only law-abiding citizens do?

    This just validates the hypocrisy that laws affect only the felons!

    After all, 20,000 gun laws and we see how effective a piece of legislation is at stopping violence because if it did, there wouldn’t be ANY VIOLENT CRIME.

  • http://rwno.limewebs.com Warren Beatty

    Kenn, Bravo!!! In your excellent article you say, “Most folks who own guns understand the enormous responsibility that comes with it. The Salt Lake gun carrier and Joseph Zamudio were empowered by their guns to act to save lives. They are indicative of most gun owners: ready and willing to act in time of emergency while maintaining the utmost care for public safety.” Gun ownership and responsibility are inseparable. I was taught, both by my father and the Army, that gun ownership comes with enormous responsibility. A person should NOT condemn the 2nd amendment just because he/she refuses to exercise that responsibility. And, Jordan, getting trained and becoming a proficient shooter is part of that responsibility. Can you cite a study revealing a link between poor shooting skills and concealed carry laws. If not, then your comment # 10 is your opinion, as valid as mine or Kenn’s.

    Kenn, you will see that most commenters will either nit-pick or try to change the subject. Comments # 7, # 10, and # 13 are good examples.

  • Jarhead1982

    Junior, rest his soul, appears to have committed suicide, and may be a victim of the same syndrome that exists when to many blows to the head affect the brain such that they become a type of manic depressive state who only view or escape is to commit suicide.

    We will wait for the autopsy and investigation.

    In the end, Junior, committed a felony, and that is the 80 million other law abiding gun owners fault how again?

    Lets us know when the BATF, the agency responsible for maintaining, managing, running, and enforcing the background check and gun control laws in the US is put under the direct control of the NRA.

    Then the NRA can be held responsible for the following failures we see from the USDOJ Background Check & Firearm transfer report 2008. (PDF)

    Brady Check report that of the 99 million checks for purchases from licensed sources only, since 1994.

    We see a total of 1.67 million valid rejections, a 68% decrease in felons attempting to buy from a licensed source, and 58% of those rejected being felons.

    We see that between 2000-2008 only 13,024 were prosecuted, or less than 1%.

    We of course see how the anti gun lobby claims such effectiveness of this pathetically useless law with the hard data they can present that the 1.66 million plus who weren’t prosecuted then didn’t go and buy from an unlicensed source?

    We also see how the USDOJ survey in 1997 where felons identified purchasing their weapons from 80% street buys, 12% retail stores, 2% gun shows.

    Then that 68% reduction of attempted buys from licensed sources puts the street buys/theft at 95.52%, 3.64% retail stores, .64% gun shows in today’s numbers. Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001.

    Amazing how ineffective that poster child of futility is and this trend is similar with ALL gun control laws. Yet more laws will prevent criminals and terrorists from getting a firearm, ROTFLMFAO, uh yeah, right.

    Oh wait, whats this, more failures by the BATF, heaven forbid.

    Undercover congressional investigators using fake IDs were able to skirt mandatory background checks and purchase guns in all of the five states where they tried, according to a report issued Wednesday.

    The General Accounting Office study concluded that the national background check system for purchasing guns “cannot ensure that the prospective purchaser is not a felon.”

    The system checks only whether the gun buyer had a criminal history but does not require any check to see whether the name or identification being used by the buyer is real.

    Funny how that is a repeated trend for any similar study.

  • Jarhead1982

    Oh geez, we never did review how effective the police are at protecting people, oh sorry, enforcing the law on violent crime have we, well here ya go.

    Why is it, that the police, whose best response times are 4 minutes, avg 15-20 minutes can only solve 8.06% of all violent crimes committed on a yearly basis?

    FBI UCR 2008 1.38 mil VCR (Violent Crime Reported) 45.1% solved to prosecution, 80% success rate.

    But oh wait, we have to remember those 4.8 million violent crimes the government recognizes that were not reported USDOJ National Victimization report 2008 (PDF).

    So based on that (1.38 mil x 45.1%) x 80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.06% of the violent crimes committed are solved each year.

    Yeah, people like Glenn need to prove to everyone how having life, car, home or medical insurance is insane as being prepared for the worst case scenario is insane to them eh?

  • Jarhead1982

    Hey, lets compare someone everyone thinks is a safe person to be around to the 8 mil cpl licensee’s in the US, say a DOCTOR.

    BATF Max 8 million CPL’s US, approximately 186 million age 21 or older or 4.3% of the people licensed for CPL.

    Possible deaths from CPL holders in 3 year time span from Violence Policy Center report 2009, 137 or 45 per year equals .00000562 per concealed license holder.

    You can also review Florida’s data on CCW it says the same thing.

    JAMA 700,000 doctors in US kill 44,000 to 98,000 by medical malpractice every year or .065 to .14 per physician.

    Physician is .065 or .14 /.00000562 = 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to harm you than a CPL holder.

    So where is the risk from concealed carry holders and why aren’t you antis crying to ban doctors?

    Funny thing though, we see how violent those anti gun extremists have been.

    Past experience with gun control leaders such as Annette “Flirty” Stevens (Illinois Million Mom March president caught with drugs and a de-serialized handgun), Sheila Eccleston (Mothers Against Violence, imprisoned for possessing a sawed-off shotgun), James Kelly (Seattle Urban League anti-gunner caught brandishing a handgun during an argument), Bart Stupak (champion of mandatory federal trigger locks whose son later committed suicide with dad’s unlocked gun), and Barbara Graham (DC Million Mom March activist convicted of a revenge shooting of an innocent person who HADN’T killed her son) suggests that frustrated gun control activists tend to go out with a bang rather than a whimper.

    The moral is, if you ever happen to come across Dennis Henigan, and based on the number of unsubstantiated rants from Glenn, good possibility he too should be another one in this world to take cover from. You don’t want to be at Ground Zero when they go postal and its not a matter of if, its a matter of when!

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    @ #30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40:

    Don’t you just love these Gish gallops?

    Jarhead knows perfectly well that few people have the time to spend refuting such a volume of… well, let’s pick a neutral word: stuff. He/she, on the other hand, apparently has nothing better to do than amass every pro-gun story, stat and opinion he/she can find, presumably to regurgitate on every gun-related thread on the internet.

    Since he/she mentions Australia, Canada and England, however, let’s look at some more numbers:

    United States: gun deaths per 100,000 people 10.27; guns per 100 people 88.8
    Canada: gun deaths per 100K 4.78; guns per 100 people 30.8
    Australia: gun deaths per 100K 2.94; guns per 100 people 15.0
    England & Wales: gun deaths per 100K 0.46; guns per 100 people 6.2
    (Source: Wikipedia)

    Tell us again how the number of gun deaths in the US is in no way related to the number of guns there are in the US.

  • Jarhead1982

    Yeah, all that government data showing all those government failures and no proof the law abdiing gun owner is the root cause of all that violence a few unenlightened individuals are scared of.

    We even see how failure to show a gun ban country starting point of data when they implimented the ban, to todays data to prove any effect in reduction of violence, which of course there never was.

    Hey, maybe you can answer the question on ENgland, how is it in 1898, the first year they recorded murders, that their murder rate was 1.0 per 100k people, with no gun control, and their murder rate in 2010 in 1.3 per 100k people with all that gun control eh?

    So when you einsteins can prove that an inanimate object has suprenatural powers (a fetishism) to load, aim, and fire all by its lonesome, and then use its voice, and or esp abilitities to command a person in close proximity to commit a violent act, we will need you to forward a NObel prize application to the mental Health community.

    Reason being is that you wiil have proven that EVERYONE is schizophrenic, and not just the few unenlightened cuckoos who for the most part are locked up, that an inanimate object is the root cause of all that violence.

  • Ken Warner

    You do realize of course, that the lawful use of firearms by potential crime victims most often goes unreported, therefore there is a skew in the earlier statistics.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    …Which may or may not be related to why the US homicide rate in general is at least double, and in most cases four or five times, that of any other First World country.

  • Jarhead1982

    Hey. lets review what happens in countries where gun bans have occurred, and they have a less than stellar human rights record.

    By the way, all these reports from know anti gun media outlets, how fitting.

    For example:

    On August 8, 1973, C.L. Sulzberger in a Times op-ed piece, Arms and the Soviet Man, reported that “underground gun factories had been discovered” in several Republics within the Soviet Union. “Machine tools have been stolen from government factories” and used to make guns, “including pistols disguised as fountain pens” and there are “considerable quantities of explosives and firearms” in four Republics.” Noted Sulzberger, “The interesting thing is that Soviet society, with its known predilection for discipline and supervision should be suffering at all from this kind of ailment.”

    Other newspapers have echoed these reports. On December 11, 1988 England’s Manchester Guardian reported that “the number of weapons held illegally in Azerbaijan [then a part of the USSR] is clearly formidable.”

    The Times has reported several times on the illegal manufacture of firearms in that most brutal and effective of police states, Maoist China. On February 10, 1980 its Peking reporter, Fox Butterfield, described a recent Peking bank robbery and stated that during Mao’s rule “many workers in factories are said to have fashioned knives and guns.” In June of that year Butterfield reported on another Peking bank robbery in which two criminals carried four homemade guns. Other news articles in the Times have described gang wars and other criminal acts in China where such bootleg weapons were used.

    In these two highly regimented Communist police states even the ownership of machine tools by private individuals was strictly forbidden, as was their use for private purposes. Yet in both nations, during the height of Communist power and despite omnipresent informers, bootleg guns were made either by stealing the machinery outright for use in underground factories or were used to make guns in state owned factories under the noses of authorities.

    The Times archives provide many other examples of the ease with which guns of any sort can be fabricated quickly and in large numbers even in primitive conditions. On may 7, 1987 Times correspondent Seth Mydans reported on Philippine gun bootleggers who manufactured to order “sophisticated copies of European and American handguns complete with nickel or silver plate and counterfeit brand markings.” In the town of Danao “3,000 gun makers provided a livelihood, directly or indirectly, for 60% of the residents.” A portion of their products are “periodically discovered” being smuggled into Japan.

    Mydans described a typical gun maker, Benjamin Barriga, who produced these copies “on a hand turned lathe in a pigsty that abuts his thatched home…” And another manufacturer “whose five-man assembly line shares a thatched workshop with wandering pigs and chickens.”

    The Times reported on August 18, 1980 on fighting between Moslems and Hindus in the Indian state of Kashmir “where the manufacture of so-called country guns is something of a cottage industry.” On April 27, 1987 the Times reported widespread gun bootlegging in the Indian state of Bihar, where “even an old truck’s steering wheel can be fashioned into a gun barrel at one of dozens of makeshift factories.”

    Thus, experience proves that even in the violently repressive police states or under primitive conditions the most sophisticated and varied kinds of weapons can be bootlegged.

    In the U.S. there are of course no restrictions on the private ownership of machine tools; anyone with a little cash can buy a lathe and milling machine, and the necessary skills are readily acquired or hired. With millions of available machine tools and millions of garages and basements in which bootleg factories can be established, the number of guns that can be illegally produced is unlimited.

    Predictably, the tighter that firearms restrictions would become, the greater would be the rewards for bootlegging. Thus, the only way to enforce such laws would be to emulate, and go much further than, the Communist dictatorships which themselves failed to stamp out gun bootlegging.

    It would be laughable to attempt enforcement without first prohibiting the private, individual possession of the machine tools. Those remaining in factories would have to be carefully monitored and controlled. Naturally, few Americans would willingly obey bans on ownership of tools. To enforce those bans the guarantees under the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure would have to be abandoned in order to permit random inspection of homes and shops suspected of harboring machinery or machinists.

    So let us suppose Holder’s Fast and Furious conspiracy had succeeded in mobilizing public support in such a way as to satisfy to the fullest the gun banning desires of Chicago Democrats. The evidence from Mao’s China, the USSR, the Philippines, et al. via the NY times makes it obvious that the only way to enforce such a ban would be to abandon our long held Constitutional protections of personal freedom, property, and privacy. And that would require a fundamental transformation of American society.

    Ah, but of course. That fundamental transformation is exactly what has been declared as the goal.

  • Jarhead1982

    Well start proving dr cracker jack as we really dont care what you believe or infer, the government DATA STATES THAT SPECIFICALLY.

    But warn us when you have that government data to refute that government data as well will have to dress warm for hell freezing over.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    My numbers come from government data, Jarhead, unless you believe that somehow data from other countries’ governments is automatically less valid than data from the US government.

    Being from England myself, I would say that an increase of only 0.3 homicides per 100,000 of population over more than a century is (1) not too shabby (2) statistically insignificant and (3) likely to have nothing whatsoever to do with whether guns are readily available or not.

  • Jarhead1982

    Funny, if you would have read that other data on Australia, England, and Canada, our violent crime rate in the US is 2 -3 times less than theirs, but how can that be. Oh too bad for you, that data comes from all four countries violent crime databases.

    Shall we even (giglle) talk about Mexico, Russia, Brazil, Columbia man, those arent third world countries are they?

    Hey maybe you can explain how Japan, a country with no guns except for the police, military, and the Yakusa, a country one third our size, still has more successful suicides with no firearms? I thought suicides were supposed to end when firearms were eliminated eh?

    Any other gun ban countries suicide rates you want to compare?

    Hey maybe, you can explain what the survival rate of suicide methods are, we know that firearms use in 90% fatal for suicides, the next closest is around 70% and falls dramatically after that by method.

    So what are the consequences of removing a tool from a suicide method, oh thats right, more people survive in a physically or brain damaged stae. Forever for the rest of their life being a financial and emotional drain on their family, if not the state.

    Wow, that really is more morally accpetable a result, lol, uh NOPE!

    Care to find and interview any family who has endured the targic result of failure of their loved one to complete the suicide?

    Yeah, but that 20% to 50% increase in survivors were firearms not available is many more incrementally who would survive in a damaged an unable to care for themself state is just peachy keen eh?

    Such are unintended consequences.

    But hey, you seem to infer it is the 80 mil law abiding gun owners and the NRA who are in charge of the US Government Mental Health Crae system, oh uh what system?

  • Jarhead1982

    Yeah, love how your murder rate has always been low, showing no causality or effect of gun control upon violent crime rates in general, thank you for proving one of my points.

    You know, Hitler accussed an innocent group of people for all of Germany’s societal ills in the 1930’s to 1940’s. How did that turn out for the 6 million dead Jews eh [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    So rather than you continuing to misrepresent government data to infer that the 80 mil law abiding gun owners in the US are responsible for all that death and violence, how about you [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor] provide GOVERNMENT DATA to refute all those GOVERNMENT DATA AND STUDIES referenced properly abiove, SHOWING SPECIFICALLY THAT 92% OF ALL DEATHS BY ILLEGAL USE OF A FIREARM were committed by career crimnals/ gang members, and suiciders.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Jarhead, your #48 is largely meaningless. I’m not surprised that I missed the data on violent crime that you claim is present in my sources because (a) it isn’t and (b) that’s not what we’re talking about.

    Since you’re a newcomer to Blogcritics, let me make my position on this issue clear, not that you’re likely to pay any attention since you seem inclined only to hurl insults at those who dissent from your point of view.

    1. I’m not in favour of guns being BANNED. I opposed the draconian controls that the UK government put in place after Dunblane.
    2. Even if I were in favour of a ban in the US, it wouldn’t do me the slightest bit of good because the Second Amendment says exactly what it says, in spite of the efforts of some to apply the “militia only” interpretation.
    3. It is blindingly obvious that the more guns exist, the more accidents and crimes involving guns there will be.
    4. I don’t think it unreasonable that there should be mechanisms in place to ensure as much as possible that people who can’t or won’t use guns responsibly aren’t able to get their hands on them.
    5. The proper attitude to have toward a gun is that it is a machine designed to accomplish a specific task. There is nothing inherently more significant about a gun than there is about, say, a lawnmower.
    6. That there are people who are defensive to the point of extreme unreason about their guns is to me highly disturbing. I’ve argued with someone who thought that even maximum security prisoners should be able to “keep and bear arms”.
    7. The noteworthy thing about the above people is that they are ALWAYS American. Gun owners in other countries that have widespread proliferation, such as Canada and Switzerland, have a much healthier attitude. They don’t obsess about them. To them guns are, as I remarked, just machines.
    8. It is (to me at least) also blindingly obvious that (7) has something to do with the high incidence of gun crime in the United States.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    You know, Hitler accussed an innocent group of people for all of Germany’s societal ills in the 1930’s to 1940’s. How did that turn out for the 6 million dead Jews eh

    I was wondering how long it would take for Godwin’s law to take effect. Probably time to finish up, then.

    So rather than you continuing to misrepresent government data to infer that the 80 mil law abiding gun owners in the US are responsible for all that death and violence

    At no point have I said or inferred anything of the kind.

    Let’s try an analogy. If you put a group of small children in a room, and you keep introducing quantities of prescription pills into the room, the chance that some of the children will swallow some of the pills increases.

  • Jordan Richardson

    For the record, I agree with all of Doc’s points in #50.

  • Stu Chisholm

    Gun control proponents are confused: crime doesn’t rise in proportion to the number of guns in circulation. It increases in proportion to the number of CRIMINALS. Looking at statistics beyond the scope of this article, guns are used between 4 and 6 times more often to stop a violent crime than to commit one. This is the point the author is trying to make, using these two real world examples. No law can prevent every abuse of our rights; no law can stop every misuse of a firearm. Yet charges of unfounded fears by gun owners can just as easily be turned around toward those who fear legally armed citizens. Statistically, their behavior is far more exemplary than any other segment of society, including police.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Jarhead –

    This retired Navy man took a look at your comment #30 – you know, the one where you included the following as examples of “self-defense”:

    • 13-year-old suspect killed during robbery (AL)
    • Police investigate home invasion, burglary in Lemay area (MO)
    • Two men injured after altercation including a gun and a knife (TX)
    • Man buys knife, stabs 2 at Salt Lake City store (video available) (UT)
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Always Packin’ Edition (GA)
    • Vidor shooting possible self-defense (TX)
    • Sheriff: Leesburg man may have killed guest in self-defense (FL)
    • Officials: Shooter may have acted in self defense (MS)
    • Store owner shoots teen in self-defense, killing him (FL)
    • Man shot, killed in St. Augustine (FL)
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Lucky to be Alive Edition (PA)
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Vance West (MO)
    • Defensive Gun Use of the Day: Parking Lot Edition (MI)

    Now I don’t know about you, but I’d be looking very closely at someone who claims that killing a 13 year-old was self-defense. Maybe it was, but we’ll never know since you included ZERO links. And then I see “may have killed in self defense” and “may have acted in self-defense”. Do you know the difference between “WAS self-defense” and “MAY have been self-defense”? One’s an absolute statement, and the other’s a MAYBE OR MAYBE NOT statement.

    And THEN there’s the “parking lot edition” and “lucky to be alive edition” and so forth – perhaps you could explain to me how I’m supposed to see those unlinked claims as any kind of proof.

    BUT HOW ABOUT I TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD without any argument whatsoever about how sketchy your details are! How about I agree that we absolutely DO have an average of eighty instances of self-defense each and every day! You know what that means? It means that if we use stats from 2010, then there were 80 instances of self-defense each and every month – many or even most of which did NOT result in a death – but we had 744 instances of people killed by firearms. Let’s say even half of your list was true, that forty bad guys were killed in self defense – that still leaves SEVEN HUNDRED AND FOUR who were MURDERED by firearms – which is a ratio of a little over SEVENTEEN TO ONE.

    Seventeen to one. Now I don’t know about you, but saving one does not justify enabling the murders of the seventeen. But then you’re apparently a Marine and math may be problematic for you (I’ve got a sad/funny story along that line, but it can wait).

    Jarhead, I don’t want guns to be banned. Most liberals (including former Republicans like myself) DON’T want guns to be banned. What we DO want is full registration of all firearms, background checks for all buyers before they get their hands on the guns, and full responsibility on the part of the owners for what their guns are used for, including prompt notification of sale or theft. We can’t ban guns – Pandora’s out of the box and she ain’t gettin’ back in. But we CAN use common sense as has the rest of the First World nations. Oh, but I forget – you probably don’t think that anyone outside of America even knows what freedom is.

    And as I’ve said before, the self-defense argument is a strawman argument, a false excuse to encourage unregulated gun ownership. Why? Because, Marine, if you really wanted to kill me, there’s no way I could stop you no matter what kind of gun I carried. Right? Right. Conversely, if I wanted to kill you, it wouldn’t matter what kind of gun you carried, or how many. Why? Because both of us have the intelligence and training to know better than to give your target an opportunity to shoot back. Yes, there ARE some cases of true self-defense, but they are FAR outnumbered by the sheer volume of outright murders using firearms.

    But I’m just wasting my time – you’re a gun nut, and all the common sense and plain statistics in the world won’t change your mind. And people will continue to be murdered simply because people like you don’t have the COURAGE to reject the fear tactics of the NRA and its legions of gun nuts.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Stu –

    Looking at statistics beyond the scope of this article, guns are used between 4 and 6 times more often to stop a violent crime than to commit one.

    Got any reliable stats to back that up – I mean, any links to something other than far-right gun-nut sites? How about ones from the Heritage Foundation or the Cato Institute – they usually have reliable stats (even though they normally have no clue how to properly interpret those stats)

    No, I didn’t think you did. All you’ve got is what you think, with zero hard data to back it up. But made-up numbers like yours are good enough for you. Why? Because they sound good to you.

    Tell me, Stu – if liberal governance is so bad, why is it that when one looks at statistics by state, that RED states (and particularly the Deep South where I’m from) generally have significantly higher murder rates than BLUE states? And btw, generally speaking, in RED states life expectancy is lower, teen pregnancy rates are higher, educational levels are lower, and birth mortality rates are higher, income levels are lower. (Links to the statistics (all reliable sites) are included in this article) Why is that, Stu?

    Here’s a clue – and one that you probably won’t understand – it has NOTHING to do with whether a state is red or blue, liberal or conservative. I just thought I’d leave you with that little puzzle.

    Good night.

  • Jarhead1982

    In order for a gun to commit a crime, it must be a sentient being. If any person believes that, for the good of the public safety, please someone let the boys in white know here he is because the only people who believe guns cause violence, are locked away for being the loveable schizophrenics they are!

    Uh dude, you have some serious attention disorder so I will post the response again IN LARGE LETTERS AND READ IT VERY SLOWLY.

    I RFERENCED THE WEBSITE I PULLED THE INFORMATION FROM (KEEP & BEAR ARMS).

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    As for the little 13 yr old robber had a gun, like so many gang bangers he was probably making his bones or street cred to get entrance to a gang. So maybe you should read all those incidents instead of blaring off on an unintelligent tangent.

    Geez, #48 has a lot of inconvenient truths you refuse to answer, so does oh so many others.

    Just because you refuse to look doesnt mean it does not exist, and the links above for those 3 wonderful gun ban paradises goes DIRECTLY to their government web sites.

    Its blindly obvious that the CDC data base shows in the 1930’s where there were 100 million less firearms, 112.8 million people how there were over 2,500 accidental deaths by firearm discharge.

    Yet in 2007, 302 mil people, 100 mil more firearms, 613 total deaths by accidental firearm discharge, 0-116 age 0-18 years old.

    So what is blatantly obvious about a 75% reduction in accidental firearm discharge deaths when you infer they should have increased at the same 167% population increase eh?

    Yet low and behold, our violent crime rate has dropped 30%, murders dropped 20%, all while millions more firearms have been sold to law abiding civilians since 1997.

    Yeah, we REALLY SEE how more firearms in law abiding citizens hands has never equaled more violence or accidents, but hey, government facts dont mean anything eh?

    Then again, you still seem to believe that you can remove stupid from the human race, much less free will!

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    The BATF Background Check, less than 1% of 930,000 felons caught attempting to buy from a licensed source since 1994, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT?

    95% plus of felons dont even attempt to buy from a licensed source, WHOSE FAULT IS THAT.

    750,000 others denied since 1994 which includes all those crazies you people complain about, but you infer the 80 mil law abiding gun owners are responsible and should pay for GOVERNMENTS FAILURES TO ENFORCE THE EXISTING LAWS.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    All those GOVERNMENT STUDIES & DATA with links!

    The 1968 Gun Control act that was amendmended to include 2 more categories to 10 of people who through due process have lost their rights! Do you need a link for this also?

    20,000 existing gun control laws and 85% OF THEM DONT APPLY TO FELONS. HAYNES VS US 390, 85, 1968

    CoBIS, a registration scheme of fired shell casings from firearms practised in NY, NJ MD for 11 years at a cost of $4 mil per year, and they traced two firearms in that time and proved, yep, they were stolen. Wow, that was an average cost of $22 million fof the tax payers moneys for each firearm stolen.

    Of course you have heard the Canadian long gun registry was shutdown just ;ast month (their total registry has cost over $2 billion to date since 1997) has solved how many crimes? Oh geez, not one dang thing!

    Hmm, do you think there will be better than the Cannucks 52% compliance to registration here in the US, lol?

    Uh How you going to get the criminals to register, oh darn, theres that problem with the 5th amendment thingy again. You will also have to remove the 5th amendment from the US Constitution and rescind the Haynes vs US 390, 85, 1968 ruling before the existing laws actually apply to criminals.

    So explain again how a registration scheme, which doesnt apply to felons, BY LAW, would keep guns out of their hands oh brilliant ones ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO.

    So if you want to create employment for your buddies, you better look at a whole lot better justification than because you feel the tried and true adage of insanity by repeating the same failure over and over called gun control will be believed, it wont especially as you will have to justify the tax increase from EVERYONE to pay for it!

    All those incidents reported, yet you fail to eliminate and refute all those police studies, government studies and such that say the same thing about all those incidents NOT REPORTED. Unless of course you ballistics and weapon experts can prove that EVERY SINGLE SHOT HITS ITS TARGET AND IS FATAL. Much less EVERY SINGLE CRIME IS REPORTED, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, ROTFLMFAO, uh yeah right.

    All those studies you cant refute.

    You want to know multiple factors contributing to why crime has fallen over the last several decades?

    Many of the crackheads have died.

    We are working on the methheads and some of the burglars, rapists, would be robbers and carjackers, etc, etc, etc,…

    The largest population age group (baby boomers) which is also a proportional number of criminals has gotten older, dead or in prison, e.g. there are less of them.

    White collar crime with computers stealing identity and money without direction confrontations has incresaed dramatically reducing the risk for the smart criminals, replacing a significant portion of violent crime with white collar crime.

    Al those violent crimes still not reported, because everyone REALLY TRUSTS THE GOVERNMENT EVEN MORE THESE DAYS!

    Oh so many other variables, and gun control has never, ever, been one of them!

    So refute with more than your ka ka beliefs. But as you have no data to support your unsubstantiated beliefs, because you are anti gun zealots, you are afraid of the mythical boogeyman created in your mind that the law abiding citizen is to be feared more than the criminals.

    We will continue to resist the lies and fear tactics of these anti freedom/anti gun zealots as their numbers dwindle, and dwindle as the truth and facts take their inevitable toll on the lie that gun control works.

    So tell me this, on June 17th, 1984, where were the police to protect my mother? Oh thats right, they were nowhere to be found, but I was. Funny how that .44 mag made that 6’2″ 300+ lb burglar breaking in on my normally alone 5’1″ 100 lb mother run.

    Funny how we found out later he had a violent history of assaults on women. So dont patronize me as to what my right to choose has saved me, My mother is STILL ALIVE TODAY.

    My friend in the sheriff;s dept. wisely informed us not to press charges as what would he be charged with, trespass? What with the legal system, doesnt do squat. Next time, I will wait till the burglar steps in the house as dead men cant sue or call the cops on you for them attacking you, can they!

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Jarhead, I hope against hope that your screen name is just a nickname and not a reference to your past or current vocation, because you’re not doing much to uphold the values and reputation of the US Marine Corps.

    You’re also either paranoid or have not being paying attention at all to anything except your own self-righteousness, because you’re accusing me of a whole host of things I never said, argued or even hinted at.

    Add to that the fact that invoking Hitler is the biggest copout in debating and we have (what for want of a better word I shall call) a discussion not worth continuing.

  • http://cinemasentries.com/ El Bicho

    If you believe anyone is going to read #56 in its entirety, you should consider holding off on who you are going to diagnose as insane

  • Kat

    My issue isn’t the second amendment, it’s the kinds of guns now protected by it. You want to wield a shot gun or rifle – please bare arms. However, I can never support the right to bare semi-automatic any kind of gun or hand guns. These are made to kill people. Period. I believe we should hold tight to the second amendment – and all the amendments in the constitution for that matter. But as inventions come about and the world changes, we have to allow for that. I spent 6 hours sitting outside a fingerprinting office in Salt Lake City, Utah while waiting for my clearance to submit a home study to adopt my son. That office is next to the window where you apply for a concealed weapons permit, which is next to a window where you go to check and ensure your criminal record is expunged. If you aren’t sure where you stand on concealed weapons and hand guns – I would recommend this exercise of sitting of watching and listening to the conversations happening on any random day in government buildings where these licenses are granted. Then let’s talk. American’s should have a right to bare arms and defend their homes – but not with concealed hand guns or semi-automatic weapons.

  • Kat

    Grrrr….. I spelled Bare Arms wrong! I do realize that I should have written “Bear Arms” Apologies – although I would also seriously consider the right to “Arm Bears” but that’s another story.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hey “Jarhead” – watch out! We liberals have a Secret Weapon! We’re got a gun that doesn’t shoot bullets, but it shoots a Gay Ray! We’re going to use it on you and turn you queer so you’ll be nice and pliable and all friendly with us Navy types! Next time you hear a helicopter, look outside, because if it’s painted black and the guys inside are wearing hot pink leisure suits, it’s us coming after you so we can turn you GAY!!!!

    BTW, “Jarhead”, the above paragraph is only slightly stupider than that comment #56 of yours. The difference is, when I post something stupid, I know it’s stupid and I’m not afraid to say it. You, on the other hand, don’t see the stupidity in your comment. And what’s really sad is that you don’t really understand what I’m telling you. It’s not because you’re conservative, because most conservatives on this site – even Warren – know better and wouldn’t post such a comment (and one of the conservatives on this site is a Vietnam Vet Marine who deserves and gets my respect).

    Post with respect, and you’ll get respect. Post with scorn, and you’ll get scorn. What goes around, comes around, good or bad, sooner or later. Your supposed time in the service should have taught you that.

  • Clavos

    unless you believe that somehow data from other countries’ governments is automatically less valid than data from the US government.

    Actually, I do believe that. Bad as the US gummint is (and I believe parts of it are surpassed by most third world governments), it’s still better at data collection than all but a handful of other first world countries.

  • Clavos

    And no way do I consider the government’s proficiency at data collection to be in the citizens’ best interests.

    There is too strong a propensity on the part of bureaucrats to use collected data to the detriment of those whose data it is.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Kat @ #60: It may be of interest to you to know that a constitutional historian recently discovered a long-lost letter from James Madison in which he apologizes for the confusion caused by a spelling error he made in the final draft of the Bill of Rights. In it, he states that the subsequently contentious phrase in the Second Amendment should have read “keep bare arms”.

    As you know, dress conventions in the 18th century typically demanded that much more of the body should be covered up than is the case today. Shirts were almost invariably long-sleeved. In order to scandalize and shock would-be invading armies into abandoning their fiendish plans of conquest, the Founding Fathers wanted all citizens to be able to uncover their arms without fear of offending against any state or local public decency statutes – sending to the enemy the message that Americans had their sleeves rolled up ready to defend their nation at all times.

    The word “keep” was inserted to guarantee that no American would have to suffer amputation of an upper limb as punishment for offenses such as theft, as was (and is) the case in certain Islamic countries. An armless man would not, after all, be a very effective warrior.

    As for the weapons that the militia were to use, it was taken as read that they would be the usual pitchforks and flaming torches.

    Madison explains that a clerk, in preparing the draft for final approval by Congress, assumed that the word “bare” had been spelled incorrectly and inserted “and” in order to effect what he thought was the correct syntax.

    😉

  • Clavos

    A refreshing interlude, Doc! :)

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Thanks, Clav. A little levity is often a good thing.

    Incidentally, the scholar who uncovered the letter mentions that towards the end, Madison seems to have become angry and his handwriting deteriorates markedly. Nonetheless, there is a section in which he seems to identify the wayward clerk as “that twat Hamilton, who’s going to come a cropper one of these fine days, mark my words”.

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com baritone

    The paranoia verging on hysteria that gun lovers use to defend the ownership of their precious toys is ridiculous. Chris Matthews recently – a few months ago, at any rate – interviewed a guy who was upset that he was not allowed to pack his particular heat to a gathering of some sort on the Washington Mall. He stated that he felt naked and unable to defend himself or his family from whatever evil he was certain that lurked around every corner. This was in broad daylite. Thousands of people were attending whatever the gathering was, but this fellow was fearful that someone was undoubtedly plotting his and his family’s demise as he spoke.

    I am nearly 66 years old. I have lived in urban and suburban areas most of my life. I have never owned a gun. Never felt the need. Never had the desire. When my kids were young we took them to any # of large gatherings with no fear. Never were we accosted beyond perhaps some homeless person shilling for some “spare change.”

    I lived in NYC for nearly 2 years. I drove a cab there for a year for crap’s sake. I somehow managed to get out alive and unscathed.

    Just yesterday a great fellow, a neo-nazi, I believe in – where was it? Oklahoma City? managed to kill like 6 people, happily including himself, with one of his no doubt treasured armaments.

    Depending on whose figures you like, we Americans kill each other to the tune of somehere between 16 and 20 thousand citizens every year. Most are done in with guns. How many of those people might still be around if there hadn’t been a gun handy? Some might have been stabbed like the unfortunate folks at the grocery. Some might have been bludgeoned with a marble statue, or beaten to death with a vintage cell phone. Some might have been poisoned with Draino or hung by the yardarms. But, it’s hard to refute that a significant # of those sad people just might still be drawing breath if a gun hadn’t been part of the proceedings.

    Give some thought to the fact that the NRA encourages anyone and everyone to have as many guns as they can possibly acquire. Why? Are they really interested in you or me and our safety? Or, are they themselves encouraged in their efforts by the good folks who manufacture and sell guns? Could that be? Surely not.

  • Igor

    But the F&F policy originated in the Bush era, didn’t it?

    “So let us suppose Holder’s Fast and Furious conspiracy…”

  • http://indyboomer46.blogspot.com baritone

    One other thing. While I think they are largely unnecessary, I am not fool enough to believe, or even hope, that any substantive ban on gun ownership will ever take place in the U.S.

    However, a reasonble and consistent set of laws regarding the sale and purchase of guns, and required training and certification is hardly out of the question. There is no reason to believe that the fellow who saved the day at the super market would have been weaponless under such a system. I know it’s an old argument, but it remains relevant: We require more training and licensure to own and drive a car or to be a barber than we do to own a gun. The sole purpose of most guns is to kill. What other commodity do any of us have or encounter in our day to day lives that that can be said of? None that I know of. Yet, if the NRA and others had their way, we would all be toting Uzis and have 50 cal machine guns mounted in the beds of our pick-up trucks.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    The critical thing in any system of gun ownership is that the guns should be forensically identifiable.

    All weapons should have ballistics records made before being sold so that any shooting can be tracked to a specific gun owner.

  • Clavos

    All weapons should have ballistics records made before being sold so that any shooting can be tracked to a specific gun owner.

    Ballistics records would certainly track a shooting to a specific weapon, but not necessarily to its owner.

  • Kenn Jacobine

    Can we get back to the original point of the article? A private citizen with a gun thwarted a bloodbath in a supermarket without even firing a shot!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    (from somewhere south of Chicago on board the train they call the City of New Orleans, and she’ll have gone five hundred mile when the day is done)

    While I’m not a fan of mandatory ballistics tests – I think that gun barrels could be changed to invalidate such – I’m all for holding gun owners responsible for whatever is done with their guns…which means that they would be required to promptly notify the BATF whenever their guns are sold, lost, or stolen. Seems to me that this would be common sense.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Kenn –

    Such incidents are the exception to the rule. Even by “Jarhead”‘s inflated numbers above, guns kill 17 innocents for every act of self-defense. Maybe you think that’s just fine, but to most people such a ratio is inexcusable.

  • Jordan Richardson

    A private citizen with a gun thwarted a bloodbath in a supermarket without even firing a shot!

    Holy cow!

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Jordan, I believe the citizen in question was neither bovine nor blessed by any bishops.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Where are you off to, Glenn? Going to Manila the long way round? :-)

  • Zingzing

    There already was a bloodbath, kenn… He did prevent it from getting any larger, but bloodbaths are noticeable and people are intelligent enough not to walk into them after all the screaming and blood bathing and knife wielding maniancs become rather apparent… I’m glad the guy stepped in, but it’s not like it would have turned into a slaughterhouse without him.

    And I notice you still haven’t addressed the patent bogusness of your inflated defensive gun use figures.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    The problem with Kenn’s argument is that he is inflating the gun in the Utah incident to the status of a magical talisman.

    The knife-wielding maniac was stopped because a courageous citizen took action using the resources at his disposal – which in this case happened to be a gun.

    There’s no reason to assume that another tool, resource or tactic would not have worked just as well: for example a fire extinguisher, a can of mace, rushing the guy or simply standing his ground and telling the maniac in a firm voice to put the knife down.

    A gun is not necessary to take down someone intent on causing mayhem, as was demonstrated by the passengers of United Flight 93.

  • Cannonshop

    #79 That’s right, Doc, guns are not magical talismans of either benign, nor malign, nature-they’re just a tool, and you’re also rather correct in stating that other means are possible.

    But are they as likely?

    not as likely to succeed-ninety percent of stopping mayhem is the will to do so, even at personal risk-the problem comes in that will to do so, and the physical means to back that willingness up.

    Ad copy from the 19th century notes what one may consider a bit of a truism:

    God made all men, Sam Colt made them all equal.

    With a gun, and the will, an 85 pound granny can stop a 300 pound weightlifting boxer from looting her home (it’s happened), the other means you listed are somewhat…less likely…to be effective at balancing physical might and aggression against persons of somewhat less physical might.

    Unlike melee weapons or improvised blunt objects, a gun doesn’t care if you’re a rhoided-out-football-player on PCP, expert knife fighter, master martial artist, etc. it works against ALL of those, pretty much equally.

    as it did in the Utah case against a psychopath with a blade, where it may be argued that any means unable to kill from a distance with minimal physical achievement and no extensive, years-long-training combined with superior physique would have done as well.

    Simply put, a firearm is a tool that makes anyone the combat equal of Bruce Lee, or your local PCP’d out 300 pound formerly incarcerated violent felon.

    No other tool compares in that situation. This DOES have an effect-it enables typically timid persons to stand up to big, violent, dangerous people with some confidence that they can, in fact, come out of the confrontation in some semblance of “alive and unmaimed”.
    \
    Flight 93 was a special condition-the passengers had numbers and no other options available, including survival of the experience win-or-lose…and nobody ws armed with a firearm, because nobody on a plane is ALLOWED to be armed with a firearm, and further, firearm presence likely would have had minimal impact on that aircraft at that time, under the conditions of the september 11 hijackings.

  • http://www.RosesSpanishBoots.com Christopher Rose

    Nice try, Cannonshop, but no sale!

    Firstly, quoting ad copy from a gun manufacturer is hardly likely to be an objective source of information.

    Secondly, it isn’t even true. If everybody was armed, dominance would belong to the most proficient weapon user. We saw this in the USA’s cowboy era when gunfights were more common than they are now.

    There is also a difference between owning a weapon and having the determination to use one.

    Despite the brutalisation of America through its militarist streak, its aggressive police and security forces, its ridiculous drug laws and, of course, its fondness for state sanctioned killing, aka the death penalty, there are still many people that would be reluctant to actually shoot. Criminals, psychopaths and the PCP enraged don’t have that reluctance.

    I think that if a “typically timid person” was armed and had to confront armed “big, violent, dangerous people”, they are quite likely to wind up dead, regardless of their level of “confidence that they can, in fact, come out of the confrontation”.

    I really wouldn’t like to live in a country where everybody was armed. For a start, one would have to go about one’s daily business at a military level state of alertness, which is really not a good way to live.

    Violent crime is in fact decreasing all over the Western world, which shows that it is unrelated to the level of gun ownership in a country.

    Studies show that reducing poverty is a major factor in the levels of violent crimes of all kinds.

    Perhaps the fact that the USA is rather more resistant than many countries to looking after its poor is something worth considering?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    So I guess all police officers should simply carry a fire extinguisher or can of mace to enforce the law? How ridiculous! The maniac in Utah instantly put down the knife because he knew he could have been blown away otherwise. No other injuries were sustained.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    So I guess all police officers should simply carry a fire extinguisher or can of mace to enforce the law?

    Works where I come from.

    The maniac in Utah instantly put down the knife because he knew he could have been blown away otherwise.

    In this case, yes. Instances in which the production of a firearm has had no such effect on enraged or drugged perpetrators are, however, abundant.

  • Cannonshop

    #83 yes, the brandishing of a weapon without the will to use it tends to fail, on the other hand, Doc, you have to admit that the delivery of the bullets tends to stop most maniacs, including drug-crazed ones, rather quickly…though not without bad emotional impacts to the person whom has to deliver said bullets.

    (that being, most normal, non-psychopathic people generally don’t enjoy or desire killing, and will have feelings of remorse, guilt, or other traumas if/when they have to actually do it. This is a feature, not a bug.)

  • Igor

    Crooks are very good at taking weapons away from non-killer citizens. They even practice it among themselves.

    But for all the gangster movies people watch (and movies are where most people get their information, which accounts for the gross ignorance of the population) you won’t see criminals doing what criminals really do.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Cannon, the only guaranteed way to stop a crazed maniac is to take out his central nervous system, which is very hard to do since it is protected by an arrangement of bad-assed hard tissues.

    There’s a reason why soldiers in battle only use their sidearms in close combat situations or when they have run out of ammo for their rifles. Handguns have poor stopping power, partly because their relatively low energy and velocity makes them less than ideal target weapons and partly because even a well-trained sharpshooter’s accuracy plummets in a real-life situation.

    Couple that with the human body’s extreme lousiness at recognizing when it is dead, and you have an overrated (though still useful) tool.

  • Zingzing

    Kenn seems to live in a “law & order” universe, and not in a good way…

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    In the Blogcritics Politics section, the community is composed of two separate but equally important groups: the writers who publish articles, and the commenters who talk about them.

    This is their bullshit.

    :-)

  • Igor

    True.

    So?

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    [sigh] Knew I should have put that last one in quotation marks…

    Smileys just don’t cut it any more.

  • Zingzing

    Igor, it’s a reference… Maybe you got it, I dunno…

  • Cannonshop

    #88 Doc, you almost owed me a keyboard for that-if I hadn’t already finished my coffee, I’d have hell of a mess to clean up.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Cannon: by my count Warren, Jet, Kenn and Dave between them owe me several dozen keyboards by this point. I’ll let you have one for free once they pay up. Stingy bastards.

  • door king

    Pretty good. I’ll just send this URL to whatever group whenever the subject comes up and tell them to read the comments. The hero of the story is lucky the person causing the injuries wasn’t carrying a gun.

  • door king

    I read in the new scientist instruments are available right now that can detect, pinpoint and count gunfire over an entire city. Some of our towns might have them. Anyway, it’s possible to actually answer some of these questions, but who is going to pay. You can pinpoint drug use by using sewer samples, too, but it’s never caught on. Wonder why?

  • Regina

    Baseball bats can be used as a weapon. Should we ban those if we ban guns? When is everybody going to grow up and realize that guns are just an instrument used to injur or kill someone. The person that pulls the trigger is the one responsible. Same for the baseball bat. The person that swings the baseball bat to injury or kill someone is the one responsible not the baseball bat. I will not visit England or Australia because of there gun bans. I would feel very unsafe in those places.

  • http://www.rosedigitalmarketing.com Christopher Rose

    Hands can be used as a weapon. Should we ban those too?

    The preceding comment shows exactly why some people should not be allowed access to weapons – you just can’t legislate for stupidity!

    Regina, on behalf of the British and Australians – we don’t want you to come and visit, we would feel less safe while you were here…

  • Igor

    In Oakland recently they’re getting a number of deaths from stray bullets, some fired by crooks, some by police. I don’t know of any case of death by a stray baseball bat or by rogue hands.

    I considered getting a gun recently, since I seem to be spending solo time regularly in a remote place. I have weapons experience and was considering a somewhat discreet handgun for personal defense, maybe that 5-shot revolver that takes .410 shells. But decided against it since my customary pose of dishabile is enough to send crooks looking elsewhere for easy pickings. What self-respecting criminal wants to rob a guy who drives a 27 year old car? A dusty 27 year old car.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Regina –

    I will not visit England or Australia because of there gun bans. I would feel very unsafe in those places.

    That simply shows the depth of your ignorance. FYI, I grew up in the MS Delta where everybody and his brother has guns. These days I spend quite a bit of time in the Philippines. And you know what? Manila – a city of fifteen million people all crowded into a space perhaps half the size of the MS Delta (and with poverty beyond anything in America) – has a homicide rate lower than that of Mississippi, and much lower than those of Tennessee and especially Louisiana.

    You should do something different and travel overseas for a while, in both third-world nations and first-world nations. If your eyes are really as open as you seem to believe, you’d find there’s a grain of truth in the last sentence of Chris’ comment #97….

  • Colt

    Approximately 1,441 people are murdered by guns each year.

    Approximately 2,800 people are killed by guns under the category of justifiable homicide each year.
    An additional 600 people are killed by police officers each year.

    Of the 26,000 murders a year, around 23,000 are committed without the use of guns. An additional 48,000 deaths are attributed to motor vehicles.

    Finally 60,000 violent offenders who are convicted of a violent crime are not sentenced to a moment in jail each year.

    I rounded the numbers all obtained from the Department of Justice.

    Case Study:
    Since Florida relaxed gun laws in 1987, 22% decline in murders.

    40% of all criminals in a survey funded by the department of justice stated the fear of a victim carrying a gun was the motivation to not commit at least one crime, additionally 34% state they have been shot at by a victim during a crime.

    Statistics tell the story.

  • Colt

    We cannot compare ourselves to other nations because the culture is vary different.

    1,441 is not a large number in comparison to the millions that live in the US. Ensure statistics are compared by percent of the total population. Additionally ensure the murders represent gun use only and not all murders.

    Also look at the increase in other types of crimes due to the lack of individual protection.

    Almost all guns are bought without the intent to kill, just as cars or knives or chemicals yet sometimes they are utilized by bad people to take others lives. We need to ensure stiff penalties, not because it will prevent them from committing a crime but keep them behind bars. Prevention would be best but at times that is not always applicable.

  • Colt

    Question, if murders where the criminal used a gun are reduced by say 50% per year due to an increase in gun regulations (note the majority of murders are not committed with the use of a firearm) does this justify the increase on violent crimes (i.e. rape, assault) by over 200% which has been the unforeseen result of strict gun regulations in countries such as the UK?

  • Kenn Jacobine

    If just the principal had been trained and armed in Newtown chances are real good she would have completely thwarted the attack saving 26 lives. Instead the assailant had free rein over the school grounds and the pupils inside.

  • Dr Dreadful

    If just the principal had been trained and armed in Newtown chances are real good she would have completely thwarted the attack saving 26 lives.

    Actually, they aren’t that great, according to this analysis. In the vast majority of instances where a spree killer has been stopped by an armed citizen, the person in question has been a professional: an off-duty cop or member of the military, or someone trained in that field.

    Even if the principal had been armed, I don’t share your confidence that she would have been able to stop Lanza as he had the element of surprise in his favour.

  • Dr Dreadful

    does this justify the increase on violent crimes (i.e. rape, assault) by over 200% which has been the unforeseen result of strict gun regulations in countries such as the UK?

    Colt, it’s highly unlikely gun control has much to do with crime rates in the UK since guns have never been part of the culture there. Even prior to the strict firearms regulations that were introduced following Hungerford and Dunblane, hardly any British citizens other than farmers kept guns at home, and habitually carrying one in public, even concealed, was almost unheard of.

  • Rudeclouds

    And the people who own the guns use them to kill others, and if they didn’t own them they wouldn’t kill any one! Lol, maybe there should be a law to where u can only own 1 knife per household, & register it, perhaps criminal ideas would be harder to perform, how about rocks…