Some Serious Questions I Have For All Those “Good Guys With Guns”

Some Serious Questions I Have For All Those “Good Guys With Guns” February 13, 2016

Y

So, you’re a good guy with a gun. I get it. I’ve seen the bumper sticker, heard the slogan a million times, and I even used to be one of you. I’m retired military, was an expert marksman, and was even awarded the Bronze Schützenschnur by the German army.

I was a bonafide good guy with a gun for most of my adult life thus far. But even in my most pro-gun days, the entire American motif of a good guy with a gun made me ask some hard questions– and left me feeling less and less comfortable with the whole concept.

I appreciate the basic sentiment of it all, really. I want my family to live in safety as well, and my desire-meter ranks precisely zero for how badly I’d like to die while standing in line at the deli.

However, this idea that the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun is really over-simplified. In fact, I think it is dangerously over-simplified and should really invite some hard questions for those would-be good guys with guns.

The first question this invites is, where will you keep it? Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood that someone will get shot. Further, we have a growing problem in America of toddlers shooting people with guns they stumble upon. Will you at least keep it locked up in a gun safe where kids can’t access it?

I hope you’ll be that reasonable. But, if you do keep it locked up in a safe because you don’t want your kids getting their hands on it, that invites another question: What good would that do you in an emergency? I mean, having it inconveniently out of reach under lock and key sorta defeats the entire point, no?

But let’s say you resolve that issue– perhaps you’ll be one of those good guys with a gun who carries it everywhere. You strap it safely to your hip, have a hollow point in the chamber, and you’re locked and loaded. That too invites a whole additional line of questioning.

Perhaps the biggest question it invites is this: What qualifies you to be a good guy with a gun who is ready to end a human life at a moment’s notice? Is there some special qualification, or is the mere fact that you think highly of your personal character all the qualification you need?

Some states (like my home state of Maine) require no training at all to be a good guy with a concealed gun, while others require some sort of basic gun safety training. Let’s say you took one of these basic courses: Does a few hours or even a few days of training qualify you to be making life or death decisions in a split second while shopping in Walmart?

If it does, why do the military and law enforcement constantly train? Why not give our professional good guys a few hours of training on a Saturday, hand them a gun, and call it good?

Let’s give the benefit of the doubt for a moment, and consider that you’re an expert on gun safety and an expert marksman. That still leaves a bigger question: Have you taken “kill or no kill” training? Like, lots and lots of it where you decide if someone lives or dies, on the spot and in less than a second? Because that’s what you’ll have to do in real life as a good guy with a gun.

It’s one thing to be a decent person who owns a gun and is trained on the mechanics of how to use it, but what about split-second judgement calls when a human life is in the balance? This is why professional arms bearers repeatedly take kill or no kill training– it’s not enough to be ready to shoot, one needs to have the ability to decide if to shoot at all.

Let me ask you a hypothetical: let’s say you’re standing in the movie isle at Walmart and you hear gunfire and people screaming. You quickly remember that you’re a good guy with a gun, so you draw your weapon and run to the end of the isle. Once you get there, you see a guy with his own gun drawn, and is pointing it in the opposite direction as you.

Do you kill him while you have a clean shot?

How do you know he’s the shooter and not good-guy Jeff who is trying to save the day? You only have a second to decide, so is Jeff a terrorist or one of the good guys? Should he live or die? What if you hesitate too long and he kills another person? What if you shoot too soon and find out that Jeff was the father of four kids and a super nice guy with a gun?

Are you really comfortable deciding who lives and who dies with limited information, surging adrenaline, and total chaos? 

And what about the cops? Let’s say they arrive at this active shooter scene, and they see you in aisle number 4 with your gun drawn. Do you expect them to just intrinsically know you’re a good guy with a gun? They only have a second to decide too– and now your life hangs in the balance.

So, you’re a good guy with a gun. I get it.

But have you wrestled with these questions? Politicians and gun makers like to simplify the entire aspect of being a good guy with a gun, as if the average good-hearted Joe is qualified and has the ability to make life or death decisions on a dime. And, if it really were that simple, I’d understand.

But the reality is, it’s not that simple.

Guns, when used properly, end life. Once you pull the trigger there’s no taking the bullet back. There’s no do-overs in this game, and not the slightest room for even partial error.

While I appreciate the sentiment of wanting to protect one’s family, I hope you’ll at least ask yourself some of these hard questions– because being a good guy with a gun isn’t as simple as they’d lead you to believe.

The Daily Show recently took on this issue, and tried to find out if basic gun training was enough to be a good guy with a gun. Here’s what they found out:

Stay up-to-date! Like Benjamin L. Corey on Facebook:


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Progressive Christian
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Thumb Billie Mama

    The good guy with a gun philosophy, leads many to believe there is only one way to solve problems and that is with weaponry whether it is on the individual or national level.

  • Wendy Cameron

    Well said. In truth, if I saw anyone carrying a gun around, I would just assume they are a bad guy. In my mind, good guys don’t need to carry guns.

  • Hannah

    I don’t believe there is such a thing as a good guy with a gun. There are only flawed humans with dangerous weapons. Most of those are delusional men who want to play cowboy. But nobody is truly a good guy with a gun. Even the mistakes of the most trained armed professionals, like police and soldiers, where innocent people get killed by their guns, prove even they aren’t good guys with guns. I trust no one with a gun (I trust no one on principle, but that’s another issue).

  • Norman Stolpe

    I did some reflecting on the “we don’t have a gun problem, we have a heart problem” which I posted at http://nstolpepilgrim.blogspot.com/2016/01/guns-in-your-heart.html

  • Tara Dockery

    Well said. I believe there’s a lot of magic thinking when it comes to guns.

  • Kaye

    Good questions. And I’ve been thinking of one other… Are you prepared to spend the rest of your life in prison? We know someone who is doing just that – because he killed a man he believed was a danger to innocent children. And he had had all of that training of which you speak, but was still convicted for murder because of his alleged bad judgment.

  • Zach Marshall

    Alright. It’s final. No good guys with guns. So now I’m a bad guy with a gun. (good way to paint your opposition). Are you willing to come and take it? Or are you going to enlist the help of other bad guys with guns to do that for you? That’s the thing. Guns are going to be in peoples hands no matter what, and they are a force to be reckoned with. Disarm yourself if you feel the moral compulsion, but this liberal BS won’t be well received when you come knocking on doors of people who DO want to keep themselves protected from a tyrannical government or a home invasion.
    Here comes the part where you censor me because you don’t have the testicular fortitude to stand up to sound reason.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Stupid post. The entire scenario (which is the bases for his view) that he lays out in the Walmart store is a fantasy. Maybe he could link several reports where his scenario has actually happened and a bunch of “good guys with guns” ended up shooting each other or several reports where the cops came in and shot a “good guy with a gun”. On the other hand, I could link tons of reports and videos showing those “good guys with guns” protecting other unarmed civilians from being assaulted or killed by “bad guys with guns”. It’s the difference between forming conclusions based on reality rather than hypothetical fantasy. It’s also why the police support having “good guys with guns”.

  • Danny Wade

    “Tyrannical governments” show up at 3 a.m. with 20 guys in body armor. Bit naive to think the shotgun under the bed will do you any good in that situation.

  • Andrew Barloq

    Ben doesn’t tend to delete posts around here, so good luck with the whole martyrdom thing.

  • Martha Anne Underwood

    Could you list where we can find those tons of reports and videos where good guys with guns save the day? You criticize Benjamin for not linking his beliefs with facts, yet you expect me to belief what you say just because you say so? Benjamin is former military and he knows that it takes more than one measly course on using firearms safely to make one an expert with a gun. You need to know when to shoot and when not to shoot. All I can say that if a good guy with a gun kills me by mistake, he/she better get charged with murder.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnL05eLaTjQ

    There that took about 2 seconds. You can find TONS of news reports of armed “good guys” defending themselves and others. Just go google it. Now go google Benjamin’s scenario and see how many news reports you find. I think the answer becomes pretty obvious when you do this.

    Secondly you use a false straw-man comment by using the statement “expert with a gun”. No one is claiming to be an “expert” based on a class and minimal training. But you don’t need to be an “expert” with a gun to be able to protect your home when someone is breaking in with your family inside. It’s not that hard to figure out who to shoot at.

    Third, if a “good guy with a gun” shoots you by mistake they will be charged with murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstance. You don’t have to worry about that. But again, google it and see how many of these instances you will find.

  • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

    The real question here is, how the hell do you identify someone as a “good guy” or “bad guy” at a moment’s notice? Are normal passersby just supposed to assume that the person carrying the gun around is a “good guy” and not about to go shoot at a classroom full of children or open fire in a movie theater lobby? By your logic, and the logic of every other firearm apologist in history, that’s what everyone is supposed to do.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    One, it’s easy to identify an intruder in your home. You know whose suppose to be there at night and whose not.

    Two, the “bad guy” would be the person who just shot someone in front of you. It’s not to hard to figure that out.

    Third, it’s why it’s called a “concealed carry” license. It’s not to be seen so passerby’s don’t have to worry about it. If it is seen, then you can call the cops and report the individual that you are worried about and let the cops handle it. Better to be safe and report them than be sorry.

    Fourth, you use the word logic twice in your final sentence but don’t use basic logic in any other part of your statement.

  • Shea

    Tyrannical government? You do realize they have bigger guns than you and more of them? And I for one am scared in a store of these “good guys with guns”.

  • Don Lowery

    For that matter…something Ben didn’t mention was how are you going to feel when your actions cause your spouse or children to be killed because you are the one holding the gun? Say it won’t happen…you are the one the other shooter sees and if you pull the trigger…you are the one who will endanger you and your family. Think it’s improbable? Look at the mistakes that military shooters make around them when they are in danger…just because a child or innocent bystander was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

    Try again to make yourself out to be the “good” guy. You’re just someone else who is endangering those around you…as well as yourself.

  • Don Lowery

    Not only guns…but other non-lethal devices which can do funny things to a human body. For instance…the military has had a crowd dispersal device which “cooks” flesh. Then…you have the sonic device which will make you sick enough to defecate or throw up on yourself. This doesn’t include some of the other devices which we don’t know about right now.

  • Kobukvolbane

    Please do so. Its awesome that somebody had the quick wits to get that on video.

  • Don Lowery

    Also has to do with what Freud said about firearms as well. Must be the reason that you have so many policemen and those who carry are ill-equipped to deal with others and be able to make to deal with others.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    First, this is just another hypothetical fantasy in order to support your belief. But reality/facts show that your scenario is the extreme rarity while those that end up protecting their family from hostile people breaking into their homes are the norm.

    Second, you seem to be saying your scenario ends with a happier outcome with the intruder in your house being the only one with a gun. Not sure how that logic works.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Just do a simple google search. You will find 1,000’s of 911 calls and surveillance video footage. How can one not be aware of this?

  • Don Lowery

    Sorry that your version of reality is warped toward that of loving to hurt and kill others because your fantasies are better than the life you live. Too bad that carrying your external penis makes you feel just like the policemen who are more than willing to kill others to feel like a man. So happy that your fantasies are dangerous to those around you.

    Don’t even bother with replying about your external penile fantasies. You kill someone or your loved ones…you are going to be the one who has to live or die by what you did.

  • CroneEver

    “Proof that Concealed Carry permit holders live in a dream world, Part One”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s

  • Reader Yesterday

    Thanks! Great post, very thoughtful.

  • Police officers train about 15 hours a year. Source: cops I know, and Google (https://www.policeone.com/training/articles/3738401-Police-firearms-training-How-often-should-you-be-shooting/)

    So, you were saying… ?

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Lol. Typically when you’re living in a fantasy world that deny’s the facts of reality and then are shown those facts, people respond with vulgarity and insults in order to avoid dealing with reality. Thanks for providing a perfect example of this behavior.

  • Don Lowery

    There you go…unable to follow directions. Believing I have insulted you with vulgarity…especially since a first year psychology student would be laughing at you because of your fantasies…is rich…very rich. If I would have actually insulted you and used profanity…you would have known…but would never have understood outside of your fantasy of being “Rambo” with your external penis(es).

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Thanks for the video.

    So of the 4 students they put through the scenario, none of them shot any of the other student even with them running all over the place which is what everyone complains about is the biggest danger of people carrying a gun. So all 4 died just the way they would have without a gun. So no disadvantage or advantage. At the same time, each time the guys walked in the room and started shooting ,the first person after the teacher they went after was the student who had the gun even though they had never even pulled it out. Unrealistic.

    So I would say since the video shows no advantage or disadvantage for the person carrying or those around them then the deterrent of a “bad guy” knowing there might be armed people is a net positive.

    Also, remember the most beneficial results of gun ownership (for those that due) is in instances of home invasions.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    And there goes the typical insulting of the intelligence in order to try to cover the fact you don’t provide facts or answer questions you just give emotional arguments based on a fantasy world. It’s like text book responses. Lol.

  • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

    And this is the same person who goes on and on about “hypothetical fantasies”…SMH.

  • Zach Marshall

    Spoken like a true sheep.

  • Zach Marshall

    That’s one thing I don’t mind being wrong about.

  • Jerry Lynch

    Just google how many homeowners accidentally shot a friend or family member thinking it was an intruder. Not so easy to identify an intruder in your home. What the article is saying, at least how I read it, that if you want to be a good guy with a gun be a good guy and give it very serious thought. Think through home invasion or intruders thoroughly. Know gun safety. Train and by close attention. That’s all that is being said by the author: use your head.

  • Danny Wade

    If you think guns give you power, you don’t know the meaning of power.

  • Bones

    Our whole country has given up it’s arms due to sound reason and that was with a conservative Christian leader.

    We all agreed – no more mass shootings.

    And we haven’t had one since.

    There’s your sound reason.

  • Yes!

  • Bones

    Actually the fantasy world is called Australia.

    One shooting here makes national news because like it’s rare and people don’t have easy access to guns.

  • Bones

    It’s funny that we don’t need to pack guns in Australia.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    You also don’t have the 2nd Amendment.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Notice you don’t refute any of my points.

  • Jason Kovalik

    To the first question, I have a biometric combination safe, that I can have opened in 5 seconds for my pistols. As for my long guns they are either disabled or has a cable lock through the receiver. So my guns are both safety stores and accessible in the event I need them.

    As far as training, most departments only require firearms certification semi-annually, and everyone I know that carries, is at the range at least quarterly if not monthly. But, firing a gun is more like riding a bicycle. The basics are unlearnable.

    As far as your other questions. I don’t carry a fire arm to kill, maime or destroy. I carry a firearm in the event someone poses an unforeseen threat to the safety of my family. I would never fire my gun to kill someone, but rather to stop a threat.

    Finally, I know having a firearm doesn’t mean I would automatically win a gunfight. I expect 8 out of ten times I would lose, but I. Would rather have a fighting chance regardless.

  • Larry TheKeyboardist Blake

    The only “point” you’ve made is that there are people on this site talking about guns in “hypothetical fantasies”, as you put it, and here you are literally using a “hypothetical fantasy” of your own to try and convey that statement.

    You can’t have it both ways, Scott. It’s no less hypothetical that you’ll be robbed at gunpoint than it is that you’ll accidentally shoot yourself or someone else whom you didn’t intend to.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    I have no clue what you are even talking about at this point. I don’t think you even know what you’re talking about. What hypothetical did I use???

  • Bones

    Thank God.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    And you also don’t have numerous large cities that have been ravaged by progressive policies and politicians for decades where they people now kill each other in the street on a daily basis. It’s sad.

  • Jesse485

    A lot of these hypothetical questions I’ve seen about being in a situation ignore one very important thing: Just because I carry a gun doesn’t mean I’m going to use it, even when it’s appropriate to do so. We can sit there like a sitting duck just like everyone else. We have that option too. But guess what, we also have the option not to, and that’s an option that non-carriers don’t have.

  • jaydeezy

    “Guns are going to be in peoples hands no matter what”…

    Well, no, that’s just simply not true. I live in a country where guns are banned, and SURPRISE, guess what, nobody has guns. Not even the bad guys. And, oh sure, people who get mad enough to hurt somebody can still stab people to death, but hey, good luck trying to knife an entire movie theater full of people or killing a bunch of schooldchildren with rocks.

    By the way, I think your post makes you a bad guy, not your gun.

  • jaydeezy

    “Police support having good guys with guns”…

    Oh, really?

    http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

  • Wise Guy

    What if you hesitate too long and he kills another person? What if you shoot too soon and find out that Jeff was the father of four kids and a super nice guy with a gun?

    Good questions, Ben. I would answer the first question by saying I’m not responsible for the other guy’s actions. Neither are you or anybody else. If he shoots others, he shoots others, and he will bear full responsibility for it in this life and the next. Law enforcement have the job of patrolling places. The good guy with the gun does not bear that responsibility. If he’s seeking to protect his own family, it’s pretty obvious that you shoot Jeff only when he has a gun pointed at your family. The second question is the better question because the “good guy with a gun” needs to realize he is not the policeman and that he had better only use that thing if he knows how to use it, has scanned his surroundings and understands the situation properly, and is using it to prevent an evildoer from harming unarmed people. He shouldn’t just sit back and watch. Nor should he think of himself as Robocop whenever he goes out. If one sees the situation clearly enough, then he knows not to shoot Jeff because he is simply trying to stop the shooter also. The continued training would certainly be a benefit, though.

  • Chris Fisher

    ///The first question this invites is, where will you keep it? Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood that someone will get shot.

    By how much? There are more guns than people in the United States. Pretty much all houses have them. What is the per capita accidental shooting rate among houses with guns? Is there any reasonable evidence to suggest that having a gun in the house makes an accidental shooting anywhere near likely? Having a dog in the house increases dog mauling, but do you write articles against owning dogs? You probably realize that the increased chances in being mauled still dont make mauling likely.

    My guess is that statistical ignorance is driving this post. You are making a problem over something that is not a problem.

    https://xkcd.com/1252/

  • John Sizemore

    As someone with a lot more gun training and experience than most (and a Schützenschnur, too), I’d be a lot more comfortable in a world where everyone had a gun, regardless of training, than in one where only the bad guys and government employees had them. But that’s just me. The great thing about liberty is that all of us “good guys” get to live the way we want to. I’m actually very sympathetic to the Anabaptist view, but I don’t think this is the best way to put it out there.

  • Charles

    Corey, as usual you demonstrate that government is your god. Why not have an article call Some serious questions I have for all those good guys with cars? Or and even more dangerous substance: All those good guys with votes!!! The state is the most irresponsible institute with not only firearms but WMDs!!! And yet, you’d have us live under such an abomination completely unarmed!? How many good guys kill with guns compared to the police? How many good guys kill with guns compared to the military?

  • Daura2

    shocking! you’re still here and no one has censored you yet! Perhaps its because most here are ok with opposing opinions.

  • Brandon Roberts

    um statistics don’t always equal reality people aren’t numbers on a chalkboard (btw i’m not pro gun)

  • Nerdsamwich

    Spoken like someone who’s never heard of infantry training.

  • Bones

    You mean like easy access to guns.

    No we don’t.

  • Bones

    In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, coppas don’t even carry.

  • Nathan Aldana

    Not many because they mostly piss themselves and run the second actual danger occurs.

  • Nathan Aldana

    thats the thing though. In the dark, you cant always tell who is in your home. More than one shooting has occured because its dark, someone assumed it was a home invasion, then found out they just gunned down their own daughter. Secondly, why is home invasion the first scenario you leap to? Theres lot of /other/ places where people insist a good guy with a gun will fix everything with even more risk factors involved in them than some fantasy of beating up a single burglar.

  • James Quinn

    And as usual, here you are accusing Corey of worshipping the government any time he talks about guns or nonviolence.

    I’m guessing he didn’t write an article about cars since cars are designed to drive you somewhere and are already highly regulated.

    But hey, do us all a favor and point to the part where he wants the abomination of government to disarm all of you. We’ll wait.

  • Either the US is the only western industrialized country that is so dangerous that everyone needs to be armed or all those guns are responsible for the higher rate of gun deaths. I know which I would prefer to believe.

  • Third, if a “good guy with a gun” shoots you by mistake they will be
    charged with murder or manslaughter depending on the circumstance. And this makes you less dead, HOW?

  • Or Canada.

  • Don Lowery

    True…but also you have relics here in America from a former age who are attracted to any job where they can hurt people and know they will get away with it. I have a feeling that in all the countries you mentioned and more…the reason you don’t have daily/hourly reports of some idiot gunning someone who’s not a white person is the police departments refuse to hire whoever because they screen these idiots out before they’re even hired and refuse to put up with this behavior if they do get in. In many instances…the only differences between the cops here is…the skin color of the criminals…wearing a uniform and being able to hurt/kill others.

    Where I grew up in the Bible Noose…you see people who become cops because they’re too stupid to be allowed in the military (unless they had some relative to get them in)…they wanted to carry a gun to make themselves out to be a man and they were too lazy to dig ditches or do any type of manual labor. For instance…if you look at our home-grown terrorists who just got their meal ticket stamped in Oregon…these types are the ones who are drawn to be cops where I grew up. Most of those idiots were on welfare/disability because they didn’t (not couldn’t) want to work and they spent every last penny they had to buy their guns and everything else they wanted…rather than taking care of their families.

    Don’t get me wrong…there are good cops out there doing a great job…but when you have these types of idiots with a “license to kill”…you get the police problem America has.

  • Don Lowery

    I have no idea where you got your conclusion…other than listening and living with right-wing terrorist radio on the Internet. It’s not Ben or myself (we’re both Anabaptists and having met and spoken with Ben before)…the abomination you speak of is created by those like you who are so scared of anyone else (including yourself) that the world you imagine is already here and sits in your mind. Turn off the hate radio and learn to get to know people and your tiny world won’t be so tiny anymore. I don’t need a gun to protect myself or to prove that I’m a man because I can kill you if I get scared.

  • Wendy Cameron

    I am always curious to how many times people have been in a situation that required them to have a gun to survive. Have there been instances in your life that you needed to protect your family or yourself with a gun? And I mean this as a genuine question.

    I don’t live in the US and the way people talk, it is as once a week someone is trying to break into their house with the goal of raping and killing the inhabitants. I actually find it very sad that people are so fearful in your county.

  • Wendy Cameron

    How very sad for everyone involved.

  • Herm

    “The great thing about liberty is that all of us “good guys” get to live the way we want to.”

    That statement intrigues me. Liberty and justice for all didn’t quite mean, to me until now, no regulations restricting me from doing some things I might otherwise want to. Interesting thought, thank you.

  • Herm

    Do you mean those progressive policies that attempt to keep the impoverished locked in the inner city or prison? Are you perhaps talking about those progressive policies that insist one tenth of one percent of the nation has 75% of the wealth? Wait, I know, it’s the progressive policies that make certain the poor have the worst healthcare, education and least chance of being employed to survive without a gun. Your stripes are showing.

  • Herm

    The facts are all the numbers for murder and suicide are much, much less in western industrialized nations without the USA’s second amendment. Your examples are hypothetical for the most part ignoring the valid 3% figure mentioned in the video.

  • Herm
  • Herm

    Charles, are you implying that “good guys (determined by you) with guns” are going to be even close to be able to stand down your abominable government? What abomination are you living under? Who is your God and what does He have to say about this?

  • Jason Kovalik

    Under my sink, I have a fire extinguisher. I have it there, not because I expect a fire, or am fearful a fire might break out. If I thought I would start a fire I would order takeout. Likewise, I don’t carry a fire arm out of fear that something bad was going to happen (I would stay home otherwise) but rather to deal with the unexpected. And yes, the unexpected happens, don’t believe me? As the workers at Charlie Hebdo, or those attending a certain concert in Paris last year. Or any number of people who suffer a home invasion.

    I don’t have a gun out to f fear, but recognize my responsibility as a husband and father to provide certain things for my family. A home, food, protection….

  • seashell

    Here’s your statistics: Active Shooter Incidents in the United States Between 2000 and 2013. Out of 160 active shooter incidents, 5 shooters were taken down by non-law enforcement people (3%). One of the five was an armed citizen with a valid gun permit. The other 4 were armed security guards. Meanwhile, in 21 incidents (13%), unarmed citizens “safely and successfully restrained the shooter”.

    Ever hear the story of Keith Ratliff? A specialized fire arms permit holder, Ratliff was killed by one bullet in the side of his head while sitting in his office in the factory where he assembled custom guns. He was surrounded by loaded weapons. The case is still unsolved.

    The police are as divided on gun control as everyone else, usually along the same lines of urban and rural. The PoliceOne Survey was a self-selected group of cops answering questions, not a controlled random survey.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    First, yes there are examples of people shooting the wrong person in the dark in a home evasion but it’s also the exception not the norm.

    Second, the reason you first jump to the home invasion scenario is because that’s where almost every instance of personal protection is played out.

    Third, you present a straw-man argument by stating “good guy with a gun will fix everything” which invalidates your statement.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Not my comment. I was responding to someone else stupid comment.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Hey Herm, have you noticed that all these big cities that are in complete shambles have all been under the control of Democrats for decades? You can come up with all sorts of cute little saying but the truth is found in reality. I grew up in Detroit and lived it first hand. All the promises yet nothing ever gets better. Just a continual downward decline as the politicians keep promising to fix the same problems year after year after year and blame everyone else for the problems. But you probably grew up in the suburbs or country so the cute little party lines sound good to you.

  • Herm

    Oh, right, just like Flint, Michigan! Thanks for the heads up!

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Active shooter scenario’s are a extreme rarity. Go research the stats on home invasions and personal assaults/protection. That is the reason most people carry. Not for active shooter scenario’s.

  • Herm

    Now, Scott, go research the stats on shooting during domestic violence. Check out the numbers and you might just find they occur much more often than the dreaded home invasions … and much more deadly.

  • Herm

    … and that helps how?

  • Herm

    How many tyrannical governments can you point to exactly? How armed are you relative to the armament of any tyrannical government? I know, you can parlay a .22 right up to and including a 55 mm canon towed by the tank of your choice. Oh, who is protecting your rebellious community’s water supply from the tyrannical government simply putting you all to sleep?

    Shootings occur much more often in house by domestic disputes than from home invasions.

    If I wanted your guns I can take them for I have the offensive opportunity of surprise to overcome when your vigilance is relaxed. Relax, I don’t want them, they’re just too much responsibility.

  • Wendy Cameron

    I also have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. The difference between a fire extinguisher and gun is that it is relatively simple to determine whether there is a fire or not. And if I inadvertantly use the fire extinguisher on something that I think is a fire or if some kid finds it and sets it off by mistake the worst case is I have a mess to clean up and I would be royally pissed off about it. No one has died. Fire extinguishers are not designed to kill.

    And I disagree, you can say you carry a gun to ‘deal with the unexpected’ but if your definition of the ‘unexpected’ means situations that put your life or the life of the people around you in danger, then I would call that fear. Do terrible things happen in the world? Of course they do. I think someone would be an idiot to not agree that the world can be a dangerous place. I guess whether we chose to deal with that in a like manner (ie. with violence) or not is a personal choice. However, I see too many posts and news stories about kids getting hold of guns and killing themselves or someone else by accident to ever think having a gun around is a good idea. There just seems to be more risk of having gun than not having a gun. I think a really good lock and a security system would be more effective.

    Thanks for responding, really appreciate your response.

  • AlMart

    Well stated. An inanimate object, even a deadly one, is secondary to individual rights. If you wish to live in a free society you can not give up your right to self defense. I don’t have any toddlers so I have a gun, but I also have no need to carry it around. It’s a different circumstance for a woman who could be a vulnerable target of attack. Freedom is the most valuable thing we have. That is why the 2nd amendment exists. As Mr. Franklin said, those who value safety over liberty deserve neither.

  • seashell

    There’s no need to ‘carry’ for home invasions, is there?

  • David Cohen

    When I was young the NRA had a saying “teach your kids about guns, before television does.” It was a sensible slogan, emphasizing the difference between the reality of guns and the fantasy. It also emphasized that the NRA was on the side of reality when it came to gun ownership.

    Now fast forward to the modern age and we find that the NRA has a new saying “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” Any adult worthy of the name knows that the real world does not break down into good guys and bad guys, but the world of television does. The NRA has abandoned the reality of guns in favor of endorsing the fantasy. Its not hard to figure out why this is: the fantasy of guns sells more product than the reality.

  • seashell

    Apparently, people living in other advanced civilizations, aka free societies, have not been made aware of this requirement and are living freely nonetheless. It’s a wonder.

  • otrotierra

    Yep. And Jesus is a colossal failure among ammosexuals. Those who live by the sword understandably aren’t fond of Jesus’ teachings.

  • seashell

    Yes! Sounds like the same people who believe the Bible is a ‘live’ document, while the Constitution is a dead one. How does that work, I wonder?

  • seashell

    You call us the sheep when Wayne LaPierre earns about $100 for every person murdered in America? Baaa.

  • seashell

    Profits for the NRA (they’re called surpluses in non-profits) soared to $57 Million tax exempt dollars in 2013, one year after the Sandy Hook massacre. Wayne LaPierre personally makes about $100 for every single person murdered in America, per year. Seems obscene to me.

  • Ron McPherson

    And also notice that the ‘good guys’ are defined as those living the way ‘they want’ to lol. Yikes!

  • Charles

    Apparently, many people do not understand the word “free” as in freedom of which the said “free” societies have none of. The word “freedom” means that people can do things that you don’t approve of as long as they don’t infringe on your freedom. Owning guns doesn’t, in any way, infringe on your freedom. Being offended or paranoid because your neighbor owns firearms doesn’t qualify as an infringement of your rights.

  • Charles

    My God is the God who gave His one an only Son Jesus Christ who was murdered on a cross by the power and authority of the state, and it is the state to which Corey (and most likely yourself) kowtows to solve the problems of evil.

  • Andrew

    They soar every time our president threatens gun control. It wouldn’t surprise me if he owns stock in every gun company in America

  • Herm

    Charles, what abomination are you living under? What arms are you carrying that can stand up to defend you and yours from your apparently abominable government? Are you carrying your cross Charles?

  • Andrew

    If your worried about toddlers getting a gun then how about putting it somewhere out of their reach. Or just put it in your bedroom and lock the door so they can’t get in.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Yea Flint. Flint is more of a Hell hole than Detroit and again been run by Democrats for decades. And it was the city council (all Dem’s) that voted in favor of the Emergency mangers recommendation for the water change that has led to the issue. And it was the Department of Environmental Quality that didn’t treat the water correctly and caused the actual problem. And it was again the city council and ex-mayor that were on TV telling the people all was good and drinking tap water on the local news to convince everyone that it was fine. My in-laws live there.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    “Go research the stats on home invasions and personal assaults/protection.” There is a reason to carry for personal assaults/protection.

  • Jason Kovalik

    Wendy, your typical ABC type fire extinguisher works by basically replacing all of the O2 in a given area with intent chemicals, and it is this process by which the fire is extinguished. Unfortunately people, typically young children have died inadvertently setting off fire extinguishers. With regards to fire arms, fire arms are not designed to kill, they are designed to send a small projectile down range at a high velocity. This just happens to be an effective means of killing someone at long range.

    With regards to the risk factor, there is no risk of my child getting any of my fire arms. My Pistols are stored away in a biometric safe, and my long guns are all disabled, either by having the bolt physically removed and secured in one of my biometric safes or, has a cable lock through the receiver.

    So your argument is nothing but a gigantic false assumption (that a firearm cannot be safely stored and yet accessible for adults).

  • Herm

    Is this what FOX News is reporting? You do know that all cities in Michigan with a majority Black population have been under total emergency management by Governor Snyder beginning four years ago. The water supply lead poisoning in Flint is solely and directly the responsibility of Governor Snyder’s administration. No city council or mayor in any city or community under Governor Snyder’s non-democratic emergency management has any vote or say in what happens in their community, none, zero, zilch. Your in-laws are completely wrong if this is what they are telling you. It was the ex-emergency manager and Governor Snyder that were on television telling Flint the water was safe to drink against the advice of the powerless elected mayor who has been there throughout.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    I’m assuming you are for the banning of all alcohol products then, correct?

  • Zach Marshall

    Whew! Here I was worried that you were going to “come and take it”. Glad to know that you can’t be bothered by the responsibility.
    Glad we could come to an understanding.

  • Zach Marshall

    And that’s one thing that I don’t mind being wrong about :-)

  • Zach Marshall

    Lol! You don’t even know me.

  • Zach Marshall

    I never said that.

  • Herm

    Did you just go all in or all out on me? Do you understand that no one is calling for banning all guns?

    Perhaps “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” should be better written. We do regulate who legally can purchase alcohol, can drive a car on our highways, can vote, and much, much more according to their abilities to be constructive, and not destructive, to the citizen’s of our nation. Maybe, if we paid attention to “well regulated” and where the commas were placed we wouldn’t have to rewrite the second amendment. What do you think?

  • Herm

    Now that I’ve relaxed your vigilant defense… I mean, I’m just saying… don’t worry, because (if you are a citizen of the USA) we’re both responsible members of our government of the people, by the people and for the people. I’ve already told you that you don’t have to be concerned about me, right?

  • Wendy Cameron

    Fortunately I don’t think I have ever read of a child being killed because they inadvertantly set off a fire extinguisher. And for that matter stoves can kill, the frequency with which both of those kill compared to guns makes any compaison laughable.

    I have no idea how you store your guns at home and am pleased to hear that they are in such a state that if a child somehow gets their hands on one, it would not be usable. How you carry them in public when you are prepared for the ‘unexpected’ and still keep them completely safe, I have no idea. I really don’t know anything about guns and am perfectly content with my lack of knowledge in this subject area.

    You say “With regards to fire arms, fire arms are not designed to kill, they are designed to send a small projectile down range at a high velocity. This just happens to be an effective means of killing someone at long range.” The whole point of creating a device that sends a small projectile at a high velocity is in order to kill, whether it is an animal or a human. I am unaware that historically guns were created for any other purpose. If you think otherwise, you are only fooling yourself. You do not own guns because you like to shoot small projectiles at high velocities, you have them for protection so that you can shoot someone if they threaten you or your family.

    While I trust that you are doing everything in your power to ensure your guns are safe and that you are not randomly shooting them at people, it does not change the fact that not everyone is like you. The number of accidental and impulsive killings that occur prove that there are people who should not have guns. I am always completely perplexed that responsible gun owners don’t want increased restrictions and safety regulations to ensure that everyone is as safe as you. I would think of all people, responsible gun owners, who know the critical skills associated with owning a gun safely, would want to make sure that people aren’t put at risk because of negligent gun owners.

  • Danny Wade

    Then you know I am no sheep.

  • Herm

    Do you have any idea what a confessed “bad man with a gun” calling another, who just called him out for his powerlessness against 20 armed guys in body armor, “a true sheep” is saying? You said that and “you don’t know the meaning of power”!

  • Charles

    You need to explain what YOU mean by cross.

    I live as free as possible under the current regime and I preach a live and let live philosophy of love and freedom. I don’t not endorse the state to infringe on people rights even if I’m offended by what others do as long as they are not infringing on people’s rights.

    Allowing people to own guns takes no government enforcement. Not allowing people to own guns must have government enforcement which means government thugs WITH guns forcing other people not to have guns.

  • Herm

    Charles, you still haven’t told me the abomination that the government thugs have forced on you. What restrictions to your freedoms are you so upset about? What exactly are those rights that the state infringes on that you won’t endorse.

    You are only calling names without telling us why you hate so.

    No, I don’t need to explain what I mean by, “are you carrying your cross?” By your ignorance you have answered my question, thank you.

  • jdkl

    There’s no doubt that being the “good guy with a gun” opens you to the possibility of making a lethal, unchangeable mistake. That being said, my understanding is that it is VERY rare for concealed carry permit holders to be involved in any sort of shooting, especially an unjustified one. I agree that if we exercise our right to keep and bear arms we must at least do our best to keep them from falling into the hands of criminals, children, and potentially unstable people. I live in a house where everyone is over 21, no convicted felons, and no suicidal folks, so I feel like I have partially fulfilled my responsibility by keeping my long guns in my room unloaded behind at least one locked door. They are more historical edge and not likely to be used in a mass shooting or violent assault. If I had kids, this would be a challenge. I might keep them locked up or do like my dad did and not have any guns when we were kids.

  • Jeanne Fox

    Protecting oneself from a tyrannical government sounds great in theory, but it doesn’t work well in practice. Partisans in France and other countries took up armed resistance against the Nazis, but they didn’t do well against them. The Nazis burned to the ground any villages suspected of having partisans.

  • David Cohen

    As they say in the marketing game, “Fear; It works!”

  • Charles

    You’re just making noise to cause trouble. You are the very definition of a troll.

  • David Cohen

    “Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.”
    – Matthew 26:52 (KJV)

    Jesus spoke those words to the disciple who was leaping to defend his life

  • otrotierra

    Indeed, what Jesus actually taught about weapon culture is radically offensive to ammosexuals.

  • otrotierra

    No Christopher, Jesus is not calling you to deliberately misinterpret scripture in order to justify your desire to live by the sword.

    What Jesus actually said about weapon culture is more interesting than your misinterpretations, and therefore, I’ll stick with Jesus.

  • Herm

    Charles, you seem to be only capable of name calling. I gave you facts in reference to your commented instructions you did not refute nor agreed with facts of your own. I have been here, in discussion with many folks, for over two years now. You came and inserted your observations while refusing to back them up. You are brash, inconsiderate and quick to put down others as obviously, to you, they are too inferior to your self assessed brilliance. What is the definition of a troll?

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Oh Herm. March 2013 the city council voted (7-1) to switch the water supply from Detroit to a new pipeline that was to be completed in 3 years. The State Treasurer Andy Dillon and City Mayor Walling THEN gave final approval since the city was under State control. Even when they are under State control they still work with the city council and mayor to make decisions just like they have in Detroit. When they did that Detroit jacked the rate on for the water in retaliation and Flint then switched over to the Flint river (which has been their backup supply for decades). When they switched over to the Flint River, State officials failed to properly treat the water to ensure the pipes from corrosion which then lead to the water issues.

    On July 9th it was Flint Mayor Dayne Walling (a Democrat) that went on the morning local news drinking tap water to assure everyone it was fine.

    Herm I don’t know where you get all your information but it would help if you had correct information.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    Good to see that you could write the Constitution better than the writers themselves. If only we had you around back then, then everything would be perfect now.

    “We do regulate who legally can purchase alcohol, can drive a car on our highways, can vote”

    And gun ownership is regulated the same way. Based on age (like alcohol, driving, and voting) and with a basic skills test and training (like driving).

    “according to their abilities to be constructive, and not destructive, to the citizen’s of our nation.”

    False. The things you list are strictly based on age (all 3) and/or basic training (driving).

    If you’re concern is that some innocent people get hurt due to peoples ability to own a firearm than you need to also shut down the sale of alcohol and driving a vehicle.

  • Jon Boudreau

    Jesus was a man of nonviolence and we seen what happened to him. now the poster lives in Maine where you have a higher chance of being attacked by a bear then a gun or knife wielding crook. personally i wouldn’t strap on a gun living there and i’m there a lot living in NB. but how about someplace like New York, Montgomery Alabama, and Toronto or any other truely major city that has a population of thugs some of them organized, places where there is parts of the city you just don’t go, or that home invasions are a common thing? and yes there are stupid people that don’t use gun safes and trigger locks.
    Let me ask you a hypothetical: your in a store and some thug comes in with a gun and lines everyone up on the back wall , you go stand with the group and have a concealed weapon the clerk tripped the silent alarm, the cops show up and now your all hostages. this freak decides if he is not getting away people will die and tell police to pull back or people will die she shoots and kills the first person the clerk. he then say the cops have 5 mins to get or someone else is going to die.
    this whole time the thug has not been truely watching the hostages because he is focused on the cops, the next people he has to pick from is a mother with her 3 kids and you, do you volunteer to be next and hope the cops clear out , let him shoot who ever is next or do you at least take the chance to shoot him? and don’t strawman this by saying the chances are not likely because its the same for all your examples. many people that have AAA or CAA still have booster cables just incase.

  • Herm

    False. The things you list are strictly based on age (all 3) and/or basic training (driving).

    Scott, all 3 are regulated for the common good of our nation and are removed from those who prove before or after issuance, at any age, of being incapable of being constructive in their use in regard to our society. Two of them are more enforceable than alcohol but all three are regulated by our laws and enforced by our judicial system.

    We are talking regulation here, like other nations with excellent results for most and no resulting government tyranny for any, not all out banning.

  • Herm

    Scott, I will not argue the exact sequence of this issue. I will argue that the state of Michigan’s emergency management removed all power and voice from any local governments that that management took total responsibility for.

    The most significant sentence in your comment is:

    When they switched over to the Flint River, State officials failed to properly treat the water to ensure the pipes from corrosion which then lead to the water issues.

    The State officials alone chose to switch over to save money and did not properly treat the water, which was known to do, by their authority alone. Since then Governor Snyder has first resisted doing anything about the problem when brought to his attention a year ago and is now, after apologizing, is dragging his feet to resolve the problem with the least damage to anyone.

    It has never been a Democratic party or Republican party problem for who manages our city’s in need but is our problem to support our own. The resources have been available to Governor Snyder to alleviate his directly reporting manager’s error and has yet to commit all necessary to do so after months of being aware of the problem.

    Both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders are gaining support from those of our nation because neither wants backers with a self centered profit motive to be beholding to. I do believe that socialist and capitalist values are under review and both leading candidates from both parties are presenting their considered balance between the two.

    In the Flint, Michigan, or any city problem keeping people from their unalienable Creator given rights, I believe in everything do to (for) others as I would have others do to (for) me. The fruit of Governor Snyder’s office does not live up to what I believe any manager of our nation must do to keep us from once again having to declare and enforce, armed but hopefully not, our Declaration of Independence against such despotism:

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

  • seashell

    Not long ago a guy with a gun paraded around a children’s softball game saying ‘See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there’s nothing you can do about it.’ The guy had a permit to carry and there was nothing the cops (after 22 calls came in to 911) could do about it. End of children’s softball game. This guy’s right to be an asshole trumped a kid’s softball game?

    But as long as you’re so into liberty, can we also assume that even if you don’t approve of it, my right to an abortion in no way infringes on your freedoms?

  • seashell

    Unarmed people have stopped active incidents plenty of times. What makes you think only a firearm could stop that guy, or any other guy for that matter?

  • Herm

    Jon, you wrote, “Jesus was a man of nonviolence and we seen what happened to him.

    Perhaps you are not aware that there are many here who understand the prerequisite for becoming a committed student of His.

    Large crowds were traveling with Jesus, and turning to them he said: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:25-27 (NIV2011)

    The only weapon I carry concealed today is a cross. In your hypothetical, and I’ve been in similar situations to know, I would wield that cross, in full knowledge of potentially sacrificing my life, that all my fellows of mankind that can might live.

    There were just recently three unarmed guys in France, a few months back, who attacked and disarmed a shooter in a train. I am an old surviving combat vet. I know from experience that, as Jesus did, a good honest up front timely unexpected offense is better than a timid wait and see defense. Jesus wasn’t timid and He was on the offensive.

    The difference today from the war days of my youth is that I have no room to carry anymore than my cross supported by the sword of my mouth to offensively defend those I love. Make no mistake, I am ready to go down trying. Does that make me a better or worse guy than any other guy? I don’t know, I’m not the Judge who does.

  • Herm
  • Scott Zimmerman

    “Scott, I will not argue the exact sequence of this issue.” LOL

    “I will argue that the state of Michigan’s emergency management removed all power and voice from any local governments that that management took total responsibility for.” LOL

    You have no clue what you’re talking about.

    “It has never been a Democratic party or Republican party problem for who manages our city’s in need but is our problem to support our own. ” Ummmmm…… Look at cities in the nation that are a complete mess in every area. Which party has exclusively run them for decades???? Hint: it’s not Republicans or Conservatives.

  • Herm

    http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/gov-political-party-success-president-governor-congress-mayor.html

    Scott, oppression in a state in the USA does not come primarily from city mismanagement but from the State manager’s dictates and legislation. Who has healthcare, education and jobs is first and majorly managed by the State and not the city.

    The economy, health and education potentials of all our locales resides mostly by the direction of our federal representatives who control the national purse strings. It remains primarily from the directives and constraints of the State officials that determine the criteria within which each county and city must work within.

    You think you see the crux of the problem but you miss the whole picture. Until we, as a nation, invest in the shoe strings of equally adequate education, food, shelter, healthcare and employment opportunities throughout all states, counties, parishes, cities and rural areas we leave way too many people too weak to pull themselves up. This is what all our politicians, of all parties, have tabled in an effort to respond to the latest controversial emergency before them while sacrificing the ultimate solution because there just isn’t enough time to solve those problems and get reelected, also.

    Perhaps we both can remove those barriers by supporting Democrat and Republican socialists rather than continuing to answer to the democratic and republican capitalists seeking a higher profit and lower taxation. What possible good is our economic boom when the majority of our people are sliding down in their share of the pie? What good is a national government of the people, by the people and for the people with certain Creator given unalienable rights if our incarceration rate is per capita higher than any other nation on earth? It is not a Democrat or Republican city management problem first, it is our problem to solve as a people of the entire USA. Why is it that destitution in the USA is much more State oriented than city oriented?

  • Scott Zimmerman

    And so are firearms Herm. You seem to think that a 4 year old can go buy a gun. Just like voting, a felon isn’t suppose to be able to purchase a gun. Just like alcohol, you’re suppose to be 21 to purchase a gun. Just like getting a license, you have to have some training. So everything you seem to want or are concerned about is already being done in regards to firearms.

  • Scott Zimmerman

    “Scott, oppression in a state in the USA does not come primarily from city mismanagement but from the State manager’s dictates and legislation. Who has healthcare, education and jobs is first and majorly managed by the State and not the city.”

    As I said earlier at some point, you obviously have not lived in the city limits of a major city. If what you say were true than the entire State would suffer the same issues across the board. Yet that’s not how it works. I grew up and lived in Detroit for 30+ years. The city officials ruined the city. They were ALL Democrats since the late 60’s. The rest of the State and suburbs did fine. It’s the city owned and run by the Democrat/liberals that turned into 3rd world countries while promising the people the world.

    “Perhaps we both can remove those barriers by supporting Democrat and Republican socialists rather than continuing to answer to the democratic and republican capitalists seeking a higher profit and lower taxation.”

    Brilliant!!! Give the Federal government even more power and money. So take the most corrupt place in the country and put more money there to have them pass it around. And what would happen? They would all become much richer due to corruption, more money would get lost and wasted due to the bureaucracy, and everyone else would struggle even more. Can you show me examples of where the Federal Government runs something well and uses THE PEOPLES money effectively??? Socialism only works in utopia, in the real world it always leads to everyone being mediocre or worse, it leads to a tyrannical government or leader. Study history.

  • Herm

    Strange Scott, I have been in most of our large cities. I have been in many of the large cities around the world. I never noticed tyrannical government in Amsterdam, Stockholm, London, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Reykjavik, Oslo, or Bern. I did notice in each of those cities none of them had the inner city down and out that we have in each of ours. Study the world today for better examples in socialism, please.

  • seashell

    OK. So I Googled ‘personal assaults/protection’. Mainly I found all the stuff that every woman knows when trying to prevent stranger assault. Aggravated stranger assaults are pretty rare, however. Somewhere around 4.3 per 1000 people.

    But if the whole neighborhood or town hates you, or if you walk the shady side of the street often, those circumstances may be different and gun permits were routinely given for the latter. In other words, there’s no real reason to carry if you’re going to WalMart and back.

    I’m not trying to take your guns. I’m just wondering why they can’t be regulated a lot more than they are now. Seems like that would be better for both of us.

  • seashell

    So everything you seem to want or are concerned about is already being done in regards to firearms.

    Not exactly or even close. 25 States Will Let You Carry a Concealed Gun without any kind of training or proof that you know how to use one. And with the concealed carry agreements between states, people with no training whatsoever can legally carry in 44 states.

  • seashell

    This comment was deleted.

    Something we said?

  • jennasix

    I appreciate this article and the questions you ask. I am curious why you didn’t mention how abandoning this idea that only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun affected you as a gun owner. Do you still own firearms?

    I can see logic on both sides of the gun debate. I certainly agree with your point about a situation in which you’re in a store and you hear shots and you see a man holding a weapon. Regarding weapons at home, however, you and I both know there are fingerprint activated safes that allow gun owners to retrieve them in seconds, should the need arise. Responsible gun owners consider these options and go to firing ranges on a regular basis so that they can be prepared and be safe. To answer your question about what gives me the right to be a good-guy with a gun: when my life or the lives of my family are being threatened.

    My ONLY problem with the anti-gun movement is that we still haven’t discussed the point (which has also become an annoying cliche’) that if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Annoying as it is, it’s true. How do we get around this? How do I protect myself (a single, childless, adult) in the event of an intruder?

    If your purpose is to cause people to seriously rethink gun ownership and what it requires, I’m right there with you. Otherwise, I think there are a couple of questions that you neglected to ask.

  • jennasix

    Those three unarmed men on a train were three men against one. What would you tell a single father whose children have no one else?

  • Herm

    Do you understand how out gunned those 3 men were in a tight train? They charged the shooter rather than hide. What would you tell a single father with children to do in inside United Flight 931 on September 11, 2001?

    I would expect a single father to do the best he can with what he has to work with. My children have families of their own and know they may be called on anytime to react to save them or someone else. My children know that there are no good or pat answers to what one should do to save their own and/or someone else’s life. There is never exactly the same threat ever to lives. Freezing or over reacting is hardly ever the best response to any threat to life or limb.

    There are far more possible threats to each of our, and ours, lives and limbs daily than any shooter situation. None of us can be prepared with a formula that will guarantee survival. The most difficult times of my adult life is when I was called upon to make triage decisions as to who might survive and who might not.

    The peace I have is that I know I have not survived nor have my children because we were capable. There are times to react to gives us each the best chance of survival. There are more times to relax and savor the moment without any concern that something bad is about to happen.

    What I would tell any person, child, mother, father, adult or elderly faced with decision in any disastrous situation is to do the best they can given whatever resources are at their disposal. Timid wait and see defenses very rarely work for when we trust time to make our decisions for us it is too often more destructive than any decision that we make and act upon ready to modify as the situation unfolds.

  • Herm

    One of the regulations the President and many in congress have tried to legislate is sufficient background checks to keep felons and the certified insane from purchasing guns at trade show and from personal sellers.

    As is Ben I am trained and was qualified expert in us of firearms, including survival training classes to know when I am under attack and when to fire. My carry permit has lapsed from several states because I found that the situation to use my weapons were too few and far between to warrant the responsibility for carrying. I have only killed in combat and every one I saw drop from my sight I still remember … with grief and they were the enemy.

    All that is being asked for is better regulations to be at least as sound as driving is regulated. A vehicle has many safe and constructive purposes but the only purpose for a gun is to kill. I would want the same gun laws for the USA as is in Australia because of their results.

  • seashell

    Not so fast, Scott. State Treasurer Andy Dixon gave his approval to the city council’s resolution that they would switch water sources from Detroit to Genesee County’s new system from Lake Huron when the system was ready. Using the Flint River was never talked about.

    Then the emergency manager, Ed Kurtz, tried to cut the water rates while waiting for Genesee County by commissioning a study of the Flint River. An engineering firm said it would be problematic, but doable.

    The next manager, Darnell Early, decided to go ahead with using the Flint River and the Michigan Dept. of Environment Quality issued permits based on wrong readings of lead and copper rules, which allowed the pipes to leach lead. And the rest is history.

    Series of Mistakes Tainted Flint Water

  • Charles

    Did anyone die? Did the guy with the gun wig out and start shooting children? Was the kids game even canceled!? Dang, lets make everything that scares us illegal!!! Your paranoia is you problem, go see a shrink. Don’t impose your warp “morality” on others.

    By you view, cops are ok having guns because they magically become righteous when a pot-metal badge is pinned on them. Seriously, I’d be more afraid of the cops then the average Joe carrying guns with recent evidence of police misbehavior.

  • seashell

    Don’t impose your warp “morality” on others.

    I’ll take it as true then that you’re good on women having abortions.
     

  • seashell

    How do we get around this? How do I protect myself (a single, childless, adult) in the event of an intruder?

    Start with realizing that nobody is calling for an outright gun ban, including Ben. Nowhere in this post does he call for banning guns. The NRA, the now wealthy purveyors of fear porn, are the only ones spreading that rumor.

  • Paul Joe G

    What is your definition of an outright gun ban? Dems have repeatedly proposed banning all sorts of different firearms. That assault weapon ban you guys want so bad includes banning some of the most popular rifles in the country. Just because they haven’t succeeded doesn’t mean they’re not trying.
    BTW: The NRA is non profit. Their tax forms are just a google search away.

  • David Farris

    Ya know, its becoming increasingly evident that Progressives should rename themselves Regressives. You idiots are pushing it to where we will be little more than feudal tenants on the manor lord’s land. You’re no different than the idiot Conservatives you rail against and know absolutely nothing about actually being free. We are living on the verge of a full Police-State in this nation and if its not the morons on the Right calling for the Cops to have tanks, its half-wits like all of you calling for every citizen to be disarmed because you lack any sort of logical reasoning. You rely on appeal to emotion to push your hoplophobia.

  • Rob

    “If it does, why do the military and law enforcement constantly train?”

    And STILL screw it up. But for qualified immunity, most would go to prison. But you’re ok with them for some reason.

  • Rob

    Actually, it was the ones wanting to do the banning that spread it. They’ve made no bones about their intent over the years; only recently have they slipped into an innocent cooing “moderation,” professing “nobody wants to take your guns” while pushing and supporting every incremental harassment measure they can to that end. Sell the BS to the fertilizer people, we ain’t buying.

  • Bones

    You mean like Australia.

    Yeah you’re right we gave up our guns to make us safer.

    And it worked.

    You would rather have your guns than stop nutters shooting up schools.

    Most of the world think you’re plainly insane.

  • April Kelsey

    There was one question that wasn’t asked:

    If you’re one of those good guys who owns guns in order to defend against government tyranny, how much good do you think that .45 handgun is going to do against GPS-guided missiles, tanks, fighter jets, nukes and drones? You really think the government is going to send live people, equally armed, to come kill you? LOL.

  • Jason P. Levy

    While its true that there are steps that one can take to make their home safer from guns, not all of them are readily available. Take fingerprint access safes for example; those safes are substantially more expensive than combination or key safes, and as a result, its likely that many gun owners will choose to eschew the added cost.

    As for the “outlawing guns” argument, while I’m sure you didn’t mean to do this, you’re kind of making a straw man argument there. No one is talking about banning guns. They’re talking about commonsense precautions to minimize the risk of people hurting each other with guns.

    When you talk about restricting access to guns though as being ineffective because criminals will just get guns anyway, why bother making anything illegal then? Criminals will just break the law anyway. Its like saying that we shouldn’t bother making insider trading illegal, because unscrupulous business people will just trade on insider information anyway. The whole “criminals will get guns anyway” argument makes perfection into the enemy of the good. It ignores the fact that gun restrictions will at least stop SOME bad guys from being able to get guns. It will keep SOME tragedies from happening, which I think is well worth the price.

  • Tony Prost

    Boy, it must be fun living in a Bruce Willis action movie.

  • Tony Prost

    Do you have children?

  • “I’m retired military, was an expert marksman, and was even awarded the Bronze Schützenschnur by the German army.”

    So you didn’t actually choose your gun, but rather you were given a gun by your government in order to make sure that enemies of the state did not have guns?

    “The first question this invites is, where
    will you keep it? Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home
    increases the likelihood that someone will get shot. Further, we have a
    growing problem in America of toddlers shooting people with guns they stumble upon. Will you at least keep it locked up in a gun safe where kids can’t access it?”

    Studies show that the presence of an automobile in the household increases the likelihood somebody will be in an automobile accident. Or the presence of a knife in the home increases the likelihood that somebody will get cut (same with the presence of paper). Red Herrings. There is no ‘growing problem’ of toddlers shooting people. There is a ‘growing problem’ of people calling older and older children ‘toddlers’ in order to push their agenda. Whether or not a firearm should be ‘locked up in a gun safe’ depends on the age and responsibility of non-adults in the household. Non-adults that know firearms and firearm safety, and practice it, do not negligently shoot people.

    “But, if you do keep it locked up in a safe
    because you don’t want your kids getting their hands on it, that
    invites another question: What good would that do you in an emergency? I
    mean, having it inconveniently out of reach under lock and key sorta
    defeats the entire point, no?”

    The author is obviously entirely unfamiliar with the current state of gun safes. A biometric gun safe can be opened in seconds, and only by those authorized to open it.

    “Perhaps the biggest question it invites is
    this: What qualifies you to be a good guy with a gun who is ready to
    end a human life at a moment’s notice? Is there some special
    qualification, or is the mere fact that you think highly of your
    personal character all the qualification you need?”

    It is called the natural right of self-defense. The same thing that qualifies you to raise your fist against somebody who is attacking you.

    “why do the military and law enforcement constantly train? Why not give our professional good guys a few hours of training on a Saturday, hand them a gun, and call it good?”

    They don’t. Police in general don’t train, they QUALIFY. Which means they can hit a piece of paper X number of times at X range, with plenty of time to do so and no pressure or simulation of pressure. Most concealed pistol training courses have higher bars than most police qualifying tests. The military train because it is their job to hit their targets, and do so reliably, and under pressure. The military trains as they fight, and fight as they train. But if there was government-sponsored monthly training in firearm safety and accuracy I am sure gun rights activists would be all for it. But I suspect the author here would be against it.

    “That still leaves a bigger question: Have
    you taken “kill or no kill” training? Like, lots and lots of it where
    you decide if someone lives or dies, on the spot and in less than a
    second? Because that’s what you’ll have to do in real life as a good guy
    with a gun.”

    It’s called ‘fear of your life’ and nobody has to be ‘trained’ to know if they are in fear of their life or not. Either you are or you are not.

    “Let me ask you a hypothetical: let’s say
    you’re standing in the movie isle at Walmart and you hear gunfire and
    people screaming. You quickly remember that you’re a good guy with a
    gun, so you draw your weapon and run to the end of the isle. Once you
    get there, you see a guy with his own gun drawn, and is pointing it in
    the opposite direction as you.”

    Uhm, no. You don’t go running to the end of the isle. You seek cover or escape just like any other normal human being would and you draw your gun to use against anyone who is seeking to do you harm. The above is a strawman argument. Ammophobes think gun owners are ‘Rambos’ looking for some excuse to kill. Lawful gun owners generally are not. We carry to protect ourselves and our loved ones first and foremost.

    “And what about the cops? Let’s say they
    arrive at this active shooter scene, and they see you in aisle number 4
    with your gun drawn. Do you expect them to just intrinsically know
    you’re a good guy with a gun? They only have a second to decide too– and now your life hangs in the balance.”

    I challenge the author to point out a handful (5 or more) incidents within the past 12 months where a lawful gun owner was shot by the police when they responded. This simply does not happen. It is another Red Herring.

    “But have you wrestled with these questions? Politicians and gun makers
    like to simplify the entire aspect of being a good guy with a gun, as if
    the average good-hearted Joe is qualified and has the ability to make
    life or death decisions on a dime. And, if it really were that simple,
    I’d understand.”

    It actually really is that simple. It happens hundreds of thousands of times per year, if not millions (Source:Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence – 2013; CDC). Over 90% of the time not a single shot is fired when stopping the criminal (Kleck).

  • Ask the Iraqis, the Syrians, ISIS and the Afghans how well those GPS-guided missles, tanks, fighter jets, nukes and drones have worked against them. Then ask members of the military if they would willingly go door-to-door to illegally confiscate firearms.

  • Brandon Savage

    Ever heard of Guerilla Warfare?
    Gonna be really hard for a government entity to use drones against it’s citizens without other citizens watching where that drone eventually goes back for fueling.

    You don’t have to be effective against the drone, only it’s operator.

  • Brandon Savage

    Might wanna check your statistics. There was no causal link between your homicide rates and firearm restrictions.
    The homicide rate was relatively low, and dropping, before Australia enacted it’s gun control measures. After they were enacted their homicide and violent crime rates spiked, then dropped. What’s never mentioned is that Australia then increased it’s police force rather significantly.

    So was the dropping homicide rate simply maintained ignoring that spike, or did it resume after law enforcement was increased? It was all ready dropping before the firearm restrictions and showed no significant deviation from it’s original downward trend.

    The US on the other hand had a higher homicide rate before Australia enacted it’s gun control and only saw a downward trend that was equal, or higher, then the downward trend Australia had and all we did was loosen gun control. Right now our homicide rate is the lowest it’s ever been since we’ve been actively recording it.

    If it’s the firearms, why did both the US and Australia show negative homicide and violent crime trends when one enacted stricter laws while the other loosened them?
    You can claim it worked but the truth in statistics shows 0 correlation.

  • Heartland Patriot

    And right near the top of the article, I ran across this: “Further, we have a growing problem in America of toddlers shooting people with guns they stumble upon.” Well, the last year the CDC posts complete data for is 2013. They show that ALL AGES, 505 people died as a result of accidental discharge of firearm. 505 out of a nation of 319 MILLION people, with over 300 million firearms in the hands of over 100 million citizens. Accidental falls killed over 30 THOUSAND people, and even drowning killed over 3300. Now before you start in with that “if it saves just one life” business, I ask when are you going to get swimming pools banned? They kill more Americans, especially little kids, every year than firearms do. Oh, and anyone who wants the link to the data, here it is: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

  • So all police officers are bad guys. In your opinion. Good to know.

  • Elmar17

    I see this all the time. You’re lack of understanding of how asymmetrical warfare is engaged leads you to think you know more than others. You think you know what war is so you think you know how it will be fought.

    In such a situation the civilian force almost never directly attacks the military force. They wouldn’t be in a situation where they could be targeted by all of that. The tank commander next door would wake up dead or never come back from their nightly walk. The refuel supply would never make it to the aircraft meanwhile all the repair crew seem to have just vanished leaving planes and pilots and ammunition with nothing to do. The base commander and his hooker for the night are both found dead in a ‘drug deal gone bad’.

    This is how asymmetrical warfare is engaged. One doesn’t attack the enemy where they are hard but where they are soft.

  • Elmar17

    Benjamin, isn’t the wonderful thing about your right to speak is that it isn’t conditional on what worries other’s have about how you exercise it?

    Isn’t that the wonderful thing about rights in general?

  • Robert Ries

    Mr. Corey, your intentional ignorance is not an approved replacement for facts and evidence. Your angst-ridden cluelessness is handily deconstructed here: https://www.facebook.com/LGBTforGunRights/posts/786463171485651

  • Robert Ries

    Ms. Kelsey, the terms of art you are ignorant of are ‘asymmetrical warfare’ and ‘guerilla warfare’. You’d do well to look up and research the concepts, and to read a lot more world history as well.

  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries

    “Start with realizing that nobody is calling for an outright gun ban”

    You haven’t been paying attention.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/

    http://thewriterinblack.blogsp

  • Robert Ries

    Actually, the NRA still does all the safety training that is available. You can look this stuff up, if you don’t want to appear to be an utter clown.

    http://training.nra.org/

  • Robert Ries

    “Profits”? On what product, exactly?

    And your linkage of LaPierre (not my favorite person, for the record) to profiteering from murder is what is truly obscene. Cite your evidence or retract your slander.

  • Elmar17

    Hi Pave!

  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries

    Being prepared for self-defense is not ‘living in fear’.

    Your psychological analysis is….. badly faulty.

  • Robert Ries

    Please cite to some stats that are comparable to the ones I’ve given you. Since defensive uses far outweigh criminal or negligent misuses, the math works in our favor.

  • Robert Ries

    How many of those incidents took place where it was unlawful for Citizens to be armed?

    And what is the relevance of the Ratliff incident?

  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries

    “Do you understand that no one is calling for banning all guns?”

    You haven’t been paying attention, or are intentionally lying.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text

    http://thewriterinblack.blogspot.com/2014/09/nobody-wants-to-take-your-guns.html

    As for “well regulated”, your emphasis is incorrect.

    It is “the right of the people”, not a right of the militia.

    “well regulated” applies to the militia, not “the right of the people”.

    Membership in a militia is neither a requirement nor a prerequisite to exercise the Right, through simple grammar, history, legal precedent or intent of the authors.

    http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

    http://www.largo.org/literary.html

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

    P.S. The militia still very much exists.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

    When called up, you can regulate the hell out of it. (And we do so.)

    Also, SCOTUS has a 240-year history of defining it as an individual Right.

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

  • Tina

    No one talking about banning guns, really? Bannie Sanders, Feinstein, KIlliary

  • Tina

    They are calling for an outright gun ban, hell Bannie Sanders said it plainly

  • Robert Ries

    “One of the regulations the President and many in congress have tried to legislate is sufficient background checks to keep felons and the certified insane from purchasing guns at trade show and from personal sellers.”

    All they need to do is open NICS to civilian access. They refuse to do this.

    “…the only purpose for a gun is to kill.”

    Bullshit. You are lying.

    “I would want the same gun laws for the USA as is in Australia because of their results.”

    Please cite to studies for these results.

    In the meantime, Article 5 awaits your action, please post regular progress reports.

  • Robert Ries

    May I please see your First, Fourth, Thirteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendment Permits, proof of background checks, training, and receipts for fees paid to the government?

  • Elmar17

    I can divide your income by number of people murdered and make the same calculation. Doesn’t mean you profit from murder anymore than it means LaPierre does. It’s just a very dishonest way to engage in a logical fallacy. Thank you for showing you have no interest in a discussion though and no ability to hold yourself to the civilized discourse of adults.

  • Robert Ries
  • Elmar17

    Appeal to popularity fallacy says what?

  • Robert Ries

    Please cite to stats?

  • Robert Ries

    Your psychological projection is insufficient evidence for restricting lawful people.

    And your obsession with other people’s genitalia, and your fetishistic delusions, are noted. Get some counseling.

  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries

    French Partisans weren’t nearly as well armed as U.S. citizens, and the U.S. military isn’t nearly as large as the German Army was then. And if the U.S. Military ever gets as ruthless as the Germans were then, we’ll be well past time for a revolution.

  • Robert Ries

    So, resistance to tyranny is always futile?

    You never read any history, did you?

  • Robert Ries

    How do you suggest confiscating +300 millions guns in civilian ownership in the U.S. without starting a war?

  • David Cohen

    I am well aware of that. It makes the NRA’s hypocrisy of promoting the fantasy of guns even more biting,

  • James Quinn

    Nothing in this article said anything about “calling for every citizen to be disarmed.” If that’s what you read, you’re the idiot and have no room criticizing someone’s logic after committing such a straw man offense.

  • James Quinn

    Pot, meet kettle.

  • Herm

    Not this resistance:

    If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters—yes, even their own life—such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:26-27 (NIV2011)

    Partnered with this acceptance:

    If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

    Matthew 7:11-12 (NIV2011)

    Perhaps you haven’t read history far enough back.

  • James Quinn

    Just to fill in some blanks for you: Corey is an Anabaptist/Mennonite which is the general theme of his blog. I’ve never heard him call to disarm everyone, but he does teach nonviolence from a pastoral standpoint.

  • seashell

    Cite your evidence or retract your slander.

    Aggressive, aren’t you? I cited my source through that invention that we call hypertext markup language (html) aka ‘links’. But here it is, again:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-nras-profit-soars-as-deaths-from-gun-massacres-mount-2015-10-02

  • seashell

    Wow. I no had idea that other countries were so popular…

    Did you just discover the language of logic recently? It needs work.

  • If we did regulate guns the same way we regulated cars:

    1. No background check would be needed to purchase a firearm
    2. No minimum age would be needed to purchase a firearm
    3. Anybody could purchase any firearm in any state without restriction, so long as they have the money
    4. No background check would be needed to carry a firearm in public
    5. The ‘test’ to get a license to carry a firearm in public would be exceptionally simple
    6. A person would be able to get a license to carry a firearm in public at age 15 or 16
    7. A license to carry a firearm in public would be recognized in all states and territories and be acceptable as identification

    I’m glad that you find all of the above acceptable.

    Edit: Oh, I guess he doesn’t actually find it acceptable to regulate firearms like we regulate cars, to the point of deleting his own comment. I guess maybe he should have researched it first.

  • seashell

    Tina, got a credible source for that? Bernie has a D- from the NRA. Clinton has an F. And neither one of them has called for banning guns.

  • seashell

    You have been delving into fear porn.

  • Andrew

    I’m twenty so no. That being said when my brother and I were kids my dad kept his guns in his bedroom and kept the door locked so we couldn’t get in. And a real funny thing happened, wait for it… we never came across them. In fact we never even touched guns until he thought we were old enough and responsible enough to start learning how to handle them. Responsible parenting.

  • seashell

    Can you please explain what you are talking about here? Thx.

  • Jeff

    This will be a suitable comparison on the day that misusing a word or speaking inarticulately is sufficient to kill a person.

  • Don Lowery

    Sorry that your lack of education and your concern that I am applying psychological reasoning to morons and idiots with no penis or a way to use it is a problem with you. Get bent…hopefully in a prison cell with your new boyfriend when you believe your gun made your lack of ethics/morals show what type of murderer you really are. Don’t bother replying…since your gun fetish shows all of us that you are the one with penile issues with needing a gun to fulfill your wishes in the first place.

  • Jeff

    We’re talking about swords now? Did we resolve the gun thing?

  • Elmar17

    Orders kill people all the time. Orders caused a poor black man in NYC to be choked to death. If that isn’t misuse then I don’t know what is.

  • Tony Prost

    I was twenty once, and had dreams of an orderly world. However too many Americans are killed by toddlers with guns that their parents were certain were safe.

  • Robert Ries

    My apology, the link wasn’t showing for me. Now it is. Thank you.

    And that was certainly an interesting way to lie with numbers.

  • Andrew

    Well I’d agree but I would also say too many Americans die in car accidents each year because of irresponsible driving . Would you also like to outlaw driving while we are at it?

  • Jeff

    And anybody who issues orders can expect them to be followed, right? Any man, woman or child, of any age and of any state of mental awareness, can bark out orders and they’ll be followed?

    What you’re describing is a misuse of *power*, not a misuse of *words*.

  • seashell

    Ratliff, a self-described gun nut, gun manufacturer and the brains behind FPSRussia (First Person Shooter), a YouTube channel with 3.5 million subscribers, also wanted to be the good guy with a gun. Shortly after the Colorado Batman movie shooting, Ratliff tweeted:

    I went to the movies with my pistol in my pocket the whole time I was praying that somebody would try to pull a Batman!

    Four months later Ratliff was found sitting at his desk dead of a shotgun wound to the side of his head, even though he was surrounded by loaded weapons. He couldn’t protect himself, never mind anyone else.

    Everyone thinks they can be the hero if only they had a gun and want to write off the Ratliffs of the world as anomalies. After all, how hard can it be to shoot a gun and be a hero? “I don’t need no training with a gun, I just point and shoot and – boom – I’m a good guy!” I wouldn’t have nearly so many problems with guns if the duties of owning one were taken more seriously than the ease of buying one.

  • Amy Zucker Morgenstern

    Thanks, Mr. Corey. I wrote about my own family’s experience of violence and what a “good guy with a gun” meant, or could have meant, in our tragedies. Your perspective as a well-intentioned gun owner adds a lot.

    https://sermonsinstones.com/2013/06/03/deadly-myth/

  • Amy Zucker Morgenstern

    We do have a lot of laws governing swimming pools. What is wrong with similar laws governing guns?–keeping them out of the hands of children, making the adult owners criminally liable if someone is killed by them “by accident” (read: by the negligence of the owner), requiring them to be locked and left unloaded, etc.

  • Elmar17

    Your attempt at a pithy reply doesn’t change the fact that majority doesn’t have any causal relationship to correct action.

    You might try learning what the fallacy actually states before you embaress yourself more.

  • Tony Prost

    well, I am persuaded. Guns for everyone!!!!

  • I’ve been reading through this comment stack, and I think it perfectly illustrates why sensible people no longer try to have discussions with gun-lovers. I’m sure this comment will attract the same response as this article: furious attacks using good logic, bad logic and no logic, without discrimination. Can you pro-gun folks see that it’s no longer worthwhile to talk to you?

  • Robert Ries

    “fantasy of guns”? What do you mean by that?

  • Robert Ries

    Hey, how you doing?!

  • Robert Ries

    Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Mao.

    Got a lot of people killed with words.

  • Robert Ries

    Really? Actual quotes of government officials, and proposed legislation are “fear porn”?

    What goes on inside your head? Get some counseling.

  • Robert Ries

    Anyone can be ambushed. So what? That does not prove that guns are never a viable defensive tool.

    And your strawman is worth less than what you stuffed it with.

    http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/

    http://www.reddit.com/r/dgu

    https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen/

    http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/category/defensivegunuseoftheday/

  • Robert Ries

    Sorry, I don’t take my guidance on freedom, liberty and defense from fictional works.

  • Robert Ries

    Your homophobia is noted.

    Also, most people lose your type of obsession with genitalia around age 5 or 6.

    Try it.

  • Robert Ries

    The point is that all your other Constitutional Rights transfer from state to state without government permission. Second Amendment Rights should as well.

  • Jerry Lynch

    Why? I am simply repeating your allusion to stats that may or may not be damaging to the point of the article. It was you who said “Just google…”

  • Bones

    How many mass shootings have we had since Port Arthur?

    Prior to Port Arthur there were a number of massacres including Hoddle Street.

    The US has had hundreds.

    There’s your key statistic.

    You people are so ignorant of other countries it isn’t funny.

  • Jeremy Lanphere

    Here is my logic and my argument on this matter and they are plain and simple. I own a gun because it is my right as an American to own a gun since I am not a felon. It’s not a matter of adding safety or anything of the sort. I am a law abiding citizen who owns a gun because 1 it is a family heirloom and 2 because it is my second amendment right that has been in place since December 15th,1791.

    Now that being said are you allowed to have a problem with guns??? Do you have the freedom to say you don’t believe guns add safety??? absolutely your right to free speech was the first amendment also ratified on December 15th 1791. But does anyone in this country have the right to take away the second amendment right??? No absolutely not, because if that is allowed what is going to stop them from taking away our freedom of speech or any of our freedoms???

    If you are a proud gun owner or proud that you don’t own a gun, good for you be as proud as you want but don’t try to force someone that doesn’t want a gun to have one and do not try to take away law abiding citizens right to own one unless you are okay with every single right you have as an american to be stripped from you at any second. I don’t think there is a way to be any more logical than that about it.

  • Charles

    Au contraire! Inalienable rights are for *all* human beings whether they are in the womb or out. Thou shall not murder is an absolute.

  • Charles

    I suppose I should tune into NPR like you, eh. lol

  • Charles

    James, gun control is not a individual choice. That would be completely a moot point. Gun control and/or banning can ONLY be accomplished via law enforcement. It is Corey’s desire to persuade a majority of voters to motivate change through legislation. He sure is heck not going to persuade good guys with guns to change their minds.

  • Don Lowery

    Must be nice to be that extremely fearful of someone who doesn’t need an external penis (like a gun) to feel like a man and is not so fearful as to need to carry that penis around with him to show other men that he can be a man.

    As for homophobia and genitalia…not me…but you to need to carry around yours in public. What a famous man once said…screw you/all of you gun nuts and the horses you rode in on. Don’t bother replying with your BS! As a matter of fact…you and those like you are the reason Ben wrote the article in the first place. Don’t know why you feel the need to feel superior in trolling a blog where you know Ben and I will make you feel inferior by your use of your external genitalia and the need to show it to other men. Must be a very pitiful life to keep doing that pissing contest over and over.

  • Don Lowery

    With more likes and better arguments…NPR…rather than the Missouri Child molester would actually improve the IQ and make it that you don’t need that tin foil hat. Other than being a troll…have no idea why anyone would want to come over here…other than wanting to show what 20+ years of Rush LImbaugh and the like would do for someone.

  • Charles

    It’s very clear that the liberal left has a very poor understand of the word “freedom.” Freedom means that people can do things and own things that you may not agree with. Being offended or paranoid because of what your neighbor owns is in no way an infringement on your rights. But demanding of your neighbor to relinquish his property because of you are offended or paranoid *IS* an infringement on your neighbor’s rights.

  • Don Lowery

    Freud talked extensively about the reason why they troll over here. That pissing contest of carrying their external genitalia is no longer fun…since they refuse to realize that someone somewhere is always going to have a bigger “gun” or be more crazy in their logic. Trying to feel “human” brings them over here to attempt to prove their inferiority.

  • David Cohen

    It is a fantasy to think that guns can be used in real life the way they are used be heroes in action movies. The hero in an action movies never drops his gun, never has his gun taken away, never freezes at the prospect of ending a human life. The hero never accidentally hits a bystander or shoots a harmless individual mistaking them for a “bad guy.” Action movies promote the fantasy that anyone can be a hero when they carry a gun, and that fantasy is useful for selling guns.

    If you dispute this, note how sales of .44 magnums spiked after Dirty Harry was released. The fact that relatively few people can use a .44 magnum effectively was irrelevant. The spike in sales was promoted by a fantasy, not reality.

  • seashell

    Au contraire! yourself. Only religion views abortion as murder and Congress and the states may not make laws that express or promote religion. Laws must have a secular purpose, inside the womb and out.

    But you have revealed yourself as a rank hypocrite.

  • Andrew

    I didn’t say “guns for everyone.” If you don’t want to exercise your constitutional right then you don’t have to. That’s the beautiful thing about America. With that in mind if others want to exercise theirs’ then you have to respect that.

  • ahermit
  • Charles

    Look up the phrase “non sequitur” please because it is the logical fallacy you are using.

  • ahermit

    There are reasonable limits to all freedoms though; you can’t yell “fire” in crowded theatre, and you shouldn’t be able to carry a gun in one either… https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/26/man-who-feared-mass-shootings-brings-gun-to-movie-theater-accidentally-shoots-woman/

    All rights come with responsibilities; this is the part the gun fondlers like to leave out of the discussion. Own a gun if you want, but handle it responsibly, in accordance with rules of safe use (and those rules can and should be encoded in laws) or forfeit that right.

  • ahermit

    It’s actually against the law to threaten violence, incite murder, make a false 911 call…there are all kinds of reasonable limits on the right to free speech, and there are reasonable limits to the right to bear arms as well. That’s why the words “well regulated” are there right at the start of the second amendment…

  • ahermit

    No fallacy here. You don’t think someone getting shot by a self styled ‘good guy with a gun” is relevant to a discussion about “good guys with guns?”

  • Korou

    We infringe on people’s rights all the time. You don’t have a right to drive your car over the speed limit, you don’t have a right to have sex with people under a certain age, for example.

  • seashell

    Sorry, Eva. The concept of personhood at conception, complete with a soul, is a religious viewpoint and not a biological fact. Atheists etc against abortion are basing their opinion on a religious concept whether they know or it not.

  • carbonUnit

    When one brings a lethal weapon out in public, it becomes a legitimate safety concern.

  • Robert Ries

    Huh?

  • Robert Ries

    Yes, you CAN yell ‘Fire’ in a theater.

    And if there actually IS a fire, you very much should.

  • Robert Ries

    You are quite deluded. Your fixation on genitalia is not healthy. Get some professional mental care, as soon as possible.

  • Robert Ries
  • seashell

    It’s been found that whenever gun nuts find a discussion against guns, they immediately react, shoot down and take over any parts of the discussion they don’t like. This can happen consciously or unconsciously on their parts. The crew that joined us here yesterday has ostensibly and recently made an acquaintance with logic terms, hence the sprinkling of ‘phallicies’® throughout their comments.

  • yes! trying to feel human when one has become inhumane is a challenge! the loss is deep and goes beyond one’s recognition of one’s insanity. the fear of not being able to defend oneself with a gun leads one into ever darkening vortex of emptiness and paranoia IMHO. I have the feeling, sometimes, I am no longer encountering a real person & some class of demon is speaking for the person that is no longer there. It’s like the lyrics of Bob Dylan when he says:
    ‘here’s your throat back thanks for the loan’.
    *iiii):-o

  • seashell

    And here’s reality for you.

    INFORMATION ON DEFENSIVE GUN USES

  • Herm

    Just how much freedom can you expect restricted to a gravitational planet dependent upon the quality and quantity of your air, food supply, shelter and rest? … plus the added restricting weight and responsibility of the gun that you have less than a one tenth of one percent chance of ever having to use to protect what pitifully little you have unless you, of course, are the offender? What’s it like having to be always vigilant never free to skinny dip in the pool of life for fear of getting your ammo wet? That was rhetorical, I’ve been there.

    How much scope do you hope to achieve to do as you please (liberty) when always dependent which side the line you’re on to keep the odds down that someone will be driving around the next bend, in your lane, at you?

    How certain are you that your defenses will hold to save you and yours from the restrictions imposed by the next airplane or asteroid falling out of the sky?

    If in everything you do not do to others as you would have them do to you, by your example, you encourage others to restrict your freedom and liberty as you restrict theirs by attempting to defend yours.

    We, each with a maximum of 120 years to savor, live in a cosmos already eons old, with more solar systems than this earth has grains of sand, and with most of those grains older than all of mankind put together.

    Just the idea of your fictional Christ saved me from the futility of having to spend so much of my valuable flicker of cognizant life having to choose who I will shoot and who I will not. He taught me, by his example, how standing up, appearing defenseless, in love and honesty before those self indulgent, taking and protecting theirs with a sword/gun, frees me to savor this moment more fully not having the distraction of that extra burden of weight and responsibility. He taught me that if I stand to protect me and mine by carrying my cross rather than the sword there is never any residual target of vengeance on my back or on the back’s of those in my name who survive.

    Feuds are always futile in the long run. Swords, other than from the mouth alone, encourage feuds because they keep people at a distance, further apart with guns, further with a howitzer, and even further with WMD to blind us to our opponents’ motives, which serves only to fear them more.

    I did Vietnam and I know first hand the restrictions to my and their freedom and liberty by over whelming forces with no way to empathize, be compassionate, or be forgiving. I carry faces of way too many of our 50,000 lost before me without stop. I grieve for all who served in country with me because we all know those scars are forever tangible. I decompressed slowly from always having to carry some weapon to today, 50 years later, where I know the peace and joy only found in carrying my light cross with no more room for my heavy gun or blade.

    Fiction? Not to me any longer but I don’t expect you to believe me without knowing Him.

    Take the short time you have to project, as humans can, on how many guns, training and vigilance it might take to increase your, and yours, safety to be acceptable. In that equation include how many you know personally who threaten your survival and would then have an equal access to that stockpile of weapons to enable their self indulgent pursuit of increased worth. Multiply that number by how many you don’t know but do believe could be conspiring to enhance their self indulgent worth by the use of their weapons to take your freedom and liberty. To make a long fictional story short; By all those weapons now available to all those people did you enhance or diminish your pursuit of freedom, liberty and defense for you and yours?

    I can parlay my “I don’t care about you and yours” attitude (that would actually be untrue fiction but you might believe it) by the surprise of attack when I know your guard is down to increase my arsenal while simultaneously depleting yours. If you survive, by your math today, you would then have to increase your arsenal once again to stay at least equal to mine. Unless you’re the attacker you then have to increase your vigilance against surprise attack which noticeably decreases your freedom and liberty.

    The equalizer of having a weapon is only beneficial if you are equally trained, experienced, as fast, as sure an aim and motivated to use it as is your opponent. The aggressor always has the added edge of surprise over the defender.

    Our freedom and liberty is dependent only on the defensive measures we invest in by our attitude and not by having to always accumulate the most resources before those evil others get them first. My attitude today is that I am willing to die trying to save your life, even as my opponent, than take your life trying to save my own. It is the cross I carry that is so much lighter and less restrictive than any other carnal weapon of choice. If my opponent carried his/her cross there are no physical barriers of mystery to promote fictional conspiracy theories, for our motivations are clear, so that we are both most at liberty, free to savor this oh so short moment in time together, or separately, without fear of vengeance or reprisal from each other.

    I know that is pie in the sky fiction in today’s world. But if we don’t try, in Jesus’ example, the arms race will remain feudal and futile to all those contestants, who are certain to die anyway, until mankind ceases to exist after finally having chosen to defend its fictional pursuit of freedom and liberty with one last big destructive bang. The worst attitude of all is if I can’t have liberty to do as I please then I will make certain you don’t get yours.

    It takes working together to build the most freedom and liberty we find in our Interstate highways regulated by the lines of acceptable speed and direction. We all give up a little of our liberty (the power or scope to act as one pleases) to have the most freedom (the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint) for all. Just the Constitution of the United States of America alone, standing to protect our liberty and freedom for all, is a hindrance and restraint to acting as we please for each one of us. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an effort all together to promote the value of each equally. No amount of armament brings us together to do so but an attitude of sacrificial love, as had my comrades at arms in Vietnam to freely lay down their lives for us (no matter how awfully wrong and destructive the war against the domino theory was), does and that is the attitude perfectly understood by the story of the cross.

  • ahermit

    Try it when there isn’t a fire and see what happens…

    The point is that the right is limited when it is used in ways that can directly cause harm to others; inciting violence, making threats, planning a criminal act, falsifying the benefits or dangers of a product, libelling someone etc.

    Given the hazards inherent in letting people walk around carrying a weapon that can end another person’s life in a split second it is not unreasonable to place limits on who, how an when that can be done.

  • ahermit

    Seems to me if you feel you need to carry a deadly weapon at all times you’ve gone way beyond “being prepared” into the realm of living in fear.

  • Nimblewill

    You will never know who the “real” good guys with guns are.

  • Nimblewill

    But I do have the right to drive a car and have sex.

  • gimpi1

    Not always. Where I live, in Seattle, we had a case a few years ago. A woman had been in a traffic-accident after dark. She was concussed and in shock. She knocked on the screen-door of a home near the accident. An elderly man answered with a gun. He was afraid of her for some reason, and shot her through the screen-door, killing her. He claimed she was “acting erratically,” not an unusual thing for someone concussed and in shock. He was convicted, (of manslaughter, I believe) and went to prison for what will most likely be the rest of his life.

    So,a woman is dead, a man is in prison, and their families have suffered all the resultant trauma, because the man in question believed he could tell who belonged on his doorstep. People make mistakes. Firearms can amplify those mistakes tragically.

    If you choose to take the power of owning a firearm (and I do) you have the responsibility to learn not only how to use it, but when not to use it. You have a responsibility to police your attitudes, to avoid paranoia or over fearfulness, to be responsible for your mind as well as your weapon. In my experience, far too few people take that responsibility.

  • Herm

    … unless my neighbor’s lead is seeping into my only source of living water. I find such most offensive portrayed by the self indulgent fictional premise of an incontestable constitutionally guaranteed right to liberty and freedom protecting my neighbor’s ownership! Which is most paranoid: My fearing that the known lead projectile next door might accidentally encroach destructively into my home or my neighbor’s fears of protecting him/her self from an enemy (s)he does not know, but such might imaginatively happen?

    Personally, I don’t waste my valuable time worrying about what might happen either way. I do prepare for the likelihood of the grid going down to save as many people as possible during natural disasters. I don’t prepare to protect those life saving resources from self centered human animals because I wouldn’t want to live if that is all we have to look forward to. I bring in my stores and wood for the winter and bask in the warm summer days not at all worrying that my neighbor may shoot me in rage and/or attempt to rob me of my responsibilities. That’s worked for the greatest part of 71 years when the opposite didn’t for my most highly armed friends. Why?

  • gimpi1

    Australia actually has a low violent crime-rate, lower than the U.S. What are you talking about?

  • gimpi1

    Seattle has been under the control of Democrats for decades. We’re doing fine. Ditto Portland, San Francisco, L.A. and San Deigo. again, what are you talking about?

  • Herm

    … only as long as you’re not destructive to the equal rights of others to their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you are intimidating, manipulating or subjugating others in your pursuit of driving a car or having sex you have no constitutionally protected or God given right to do so.

  • Nimblewill

    Thank you. I teach middle school and said this basic thing the other day.

  • Herm

    Do you have any idea how many swimming pools are highly regulated and how many lives have been saved from accident by those regulations?

  • David Cohen

    “carefully selected and filtered statistics prove. I can be a hero!”

    My point has been proven

  • “All” police officers? Are you aware there are multiple countries where police rarely carry firearms, and even more rarely use them?

  • Brandon Savage

    So an outlier event should be the basis of laws?
    Also Australia has had mass murders since then, raw numbers not many but per capita numbers they are significant and show no trending difference before and after their gun control.

    But ya wanna know the biggest difference between mass murders in the US and mass murders in any other country. Our news outlets are the only ones that turn mass shooters into instant celebritys. Australia will hear about them before they even finish their killing spree, the news outlets will cover every facet of their lives 24/7 for weeks even months. Someone commits multiple murders in Australia like the Cairn’s Stabbings, The Quaker’s Hill Arson, the Hunt Family massacre, and the Logan Shooting and the world only hears about them a year later while digging through older news articles.

    Canada has had 2 mass murders I can think of off the top of my head, they refused to name the perpetrator. They refused to give out details. Their media was basically “A bad thing happened, this many died, it was bad”

  • who are attracted to any job where they can hurt people and know they will get away with it.

    Probes have confirmed that white supremacists are attracted to police positions because they confer the ability to abuse their power against minorities with little repercussion.

  • Honestly, with our current economy, I think a large number of those guns could be obtained simply by offering a buyback program.

  • Bones

    Dude if someone gets shot over here its national news.

    The fact you have to find arsons and stabbings to justify your argument shows how ridiculous you are.

  • Actually the norm is that the gun winds up being used on someone in the family, but it’s not an accident at the time. Home invasions are far less common than heated arguments and suicidal ideation.

  • Good to see that you could write the Constitution better than the writers themselves. If only we had you around back then, then everything would be perfect now.

    1) Think critically about the words “second amendment” and what they mean. Reflect on the existence of 27 amendments and the implications thereof. Take time to consult the Constitution and its provisions on creating or altering amendments.

    2) The writers never conceived of a world in which nearly every person had access to multiple firearms capable of discharging several shots in a very short span of time without reloading, jamming, or blowing up in the operator’s hands. I can’t imagine what would have happened if they did, though given some of their writings, I suspect they would have written the amendment to have more stringent requirements for gun ownership, fearing a mass revolt against their authority and a subsequent descent into anarchy (they didn’t have much faith in the common man).

  • Bones

    That’s what we did.

  • Not the U.K. They have police that carry submachineguns.

    So you definitely assume all U.S. police officers are bad guys. In your opinion. Good to know.

  • Not the average officer in the UK. They have specialized officers who carry firearms, and their deployment requires special authorization, and their actual use is very rare — there were five such uses in 2011-2012.
    So you definitely assume all U.S. police officers are bad guys. In your opinion. Good to know.

    If your position is so air-tight, why do you feel the need to be so dishonest?

  • Brandon Savage

    No it’s evidence that mass murders occur regardless of access to firearms.

    Also I named 2 shootings but conveniently ignore them.

    Which news outlets? I didn’t hear a peep about any of them on any US news outlets.

  • Korou

    Because there are good reasons for you to have those rights. What are you going to do with a gun except kill someone?

    If your answer is “protect my loved ones” then I think the OP has already covered that pretty well.

  • Charles

    I don’t agree with speed limit laws either. A truly free society can only work with reactive justice not proactive.

  • Charles

    So are scissors. America is supposed to be a *free* society, not a safe one. If people are so concerned about their children’s safety then maybe they should homeschool.

  • Charles

    Owning a firearm and shooting someone are two completely different creatures. Again, NON SEQUITUR!

  • carbonUnit

    Scissors? What kind of argument is that?? Scissors are a tool whose primary function is not a weapon. They are a miserable weapon compared to a gun. (Don’t bring scissors to a gunfight!)

    America is supposed to be a *free* society, not a safe one.

    I believe the goal from the start has been to strike a balance:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    I submit that Tranquility and/or Welfare count as safety – a government owes some degree of that to its citizens.

    If people are so concerned about their children’s safety then maybe they should homeschool.

    Well, actually, teachers being armed is a real danger. It’s just the law of large numbers at work. Get enough teachers armed at enough schools and suddenly that very small chance of a screw up becomes multiplied up to inevitable tragedies. The odds of a screw up exceed the odds of having a shooter show up and be defeated.

  • seashell

    If there’s no speed limit in the first place, it follows that there can be no reactive justice as no law has been broken.

    Perhaps reactive justice doesn’t mean what you think it means.

  • Chris Eq Zorakj

    I can’t see the original comment, but I’m guessing most people don’t take “regulate guns the same way we regulated cars” to mean literally and exactly the same, but rather “regulate guns, the same way we regulate cars” as in, we do regulate them.

  • Robert Ries

    Riiiiiiight. Because that’s worked so well where it’s been tried?

  • spunkets

    “What qualifies you to be a good guy with a gun who is ready to end a human life at a moment’s notice?”

    Self defense and the defense of freedom are the only “qualifications” needed. The right to self defense derives directly from the right to life and the right of sovereignty of will of every sentient rational being. Rights are simple declarative statements identifying essential characteristics of any sentient rational being, that if violated, diminish the very essence of that being. That’s why there are rights to life, sovereignty of will and property, but no right to health care or any other service, because a service is not an essential element or characteristic of that individual person.

    Freedom is the condition where folks honor and respect the rights of their fellows, including the right of sovereignty of will, from which freedom of religion, conscience, property and effective self defense derive, in conjunction with the right to life. Fighting for freedom and one’s rights are the only justifiable reasons for fighting and war, which is simply a clash of wills involving violence. Neither rights, nor freedom can be forced upon someone, unlike all other reasons for the use of force. That is why every other justification for fighting simply amounts to no more than forcing one’s will upon another in violation of their rights. That includes by proxy, such as might be justified by some democratic process, which in that case amounts to nothing less than mob action.

    Your scenario is simple. Anyone that makes a decision to challenge an active shooter, a bad guy, whether they’re wearing a badge or not, are acting lawfully only to protect innocent life. That means they have a duty to protect the rights of everyone else absolutely. Discovering a shooter with their back turned to you means that you must determine absolutely what their intent is before you ever fire. If they move to take aim at anyone, you can also see the faces and whether they are armed or not. If the move is to shoot one with a terrified face, unarmed or back turned, then take out the threat immediately.

  • spunkets

    “We infringe on people’s rights all the time”

    Speak for yourself. I don’t infringe on anyone’s rights and I don’t support doing so, because it can not ever be justified.

  • spunkets

    “You know what else infringes on someone’s rights” Accidentally shooting them in the back at a movie:”

    That is not an accident; that is gross negligence, and may be criminal negligence and if the person dies, it’s manslaughter.

  • spunkets

    “I submit that Tranquility and/or Welfare count as safety – a government owes some degree of that to its citizens.”

    Both refer to when the rights of the citizens are being honored and respected. You have no right to “feel safe”, which justifies forcefully denying your fellows’ right to effective self defense. Tranquility is not a condition that can be imposed by force, and any “tranquility” that’s imposed by force is nothing more than subjugation–which is certainly not welfare.

  • spunkets

    “I’ve been reading through this comment stack, and I think it perfectly
    illustrates why sensible people no longer try to have discussions with
    gun-lovers.”

    I see your sensibilities have mastered the art of the ad hominem.

  • carbonUnit

    A friend of mine almost died when some idiot had his gun fall out of his coat pocket at a restaurant. It hit the floor aiming right at my friend. Fortunately, it did not go off. The danger caused to innocents by the increasing number of guns being toted around in public places is a legitimate issue.

  • carbonUnit

    I’ve always thought that was a stupid example, because your rights are much more constrained in a theater. Generally, you can’t yell at all (except for things like “BRAVO!” at a curtain call, etc.) Try getting up during a play or movie and giving a political speech or sales pitch!

  • Bones

    Which shootings were they?

    Let me guess family shootings.

    It does happen on farms where guns are allowed that farmers will commit murder/suicide.

    Your examples are pretty dumb comparing arson attacks and a woman’s knife attack on her own children.

    I live in Australia, dude.

    We don’t need to walk the streets carrying guns.

  • Korou

    What do you mean by that? That you don’t agree with preventive measures? That anyone should be allowed, say, to drive as fast as they like anywhere they like, and only be stopped when they actually hurt someone? Do you think that negligent parents who put their children at risk should not not be penalised?
    Do you really want to live in a truly free society? Wouldn’t that be a society in which anyone is free to do anything they like?

  • Korou

    How about freedoms, then? Do you agree with laws which limit people’s freedoms to drive at any speed they like, at any age they like, in any place they like?

  • Bones

    Not with 10 year olds……

  • Bones

    Hi AMy.

    When I was a kid I used to sit in the back seat of the car with my dad’s 22 under my legs in case we were ever attacked.

    My dad wanted to be the good guy with a gun who protected us..

    Sadly the only person he ever shot with it was himself.

  • Bones

    Australia doesn’t have guns and we’re not a police state.

    Why do people need automatic weapons for crying out loud.

  • Bones

    You are dumb….

    You people are so scared of regulation.

    So can Muslim Americans and blacks stack up on machine guns and rpgs and maybe the occasional dirty bomb…..

  • Nimblewill

    Of course Herm. I am a law abiding citizen.

  • ahermit

    Did you look at the link? The discussion here is about ‘good guys with guns” and the idea that those good guys are the best defence against shooting. But here’s a “good guy with a gun” who took his gun to a movie theatre because he was worried the film being show there (the one about Benghazi) might be the kind of thing that would attract an attack and he wanted to be prepared to defend his fellow movie goers. Instead he clumsily shot one of them in the back.

    Here’s another “good guy with a gun” in a movie theatre…

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/09/florida-theater-shooting/12414365/

    I don’t know about you, but somehow the thought of one of those “good guys with guns” sitting behind me in a theatre doesn’t make me feel safer. Quite the opposite in fact…

  • Herm

    How about white lines?

  • carbonUnit

    Anarchy. Guns are good in anarchy.

  • I don’t know. Let’s find out.

    @Bones , did it work well when your country tried it?

  • Brenda Finnegan

    I have been noticing recently the number of shootings that involve intoxication. It appears that the proverbial “good guy with a gun” is only a six pack away from being a bad guy with a gun.

  • spunkets

    “How about freedoms, then?”

    There are no such things as “freedoms”. Freedom is a condition where folks respect and honor their fellows’ rights. Driving on a public road is not a right, it is a privilege, subject to the contract conditions agreed to. The ability to travel is a right and that right must temper the requirements imposed in the DL contract so that the minimum amount of difficulty is imposed on all drivers equally.

    The full right of sovereignty of will is not recognized until a person reaches the age of reason, which is 18 or 21 for various puposes. The justification for the age of reason is both obvious and trivial.

    The right to self defense, effective self defense, derives from the fundamental rights of sovereignty of will, right to life and right to property. It is not something to permitted by some sovereign or exercised per contract, it is a right which is entitled to be respected and honored by all as a fundamental human right.

  • spunkets

    “Anarchy. Guns are good in anarchy.”

    Rights are never respected under anachical conditions. The only justifiable reason for the creation of government is to protect everyone’s rights equally, and that only happens when the condition of freedom exists, because it is the only condition where everyone’s rights are respected and honored equally. That means the only justifiable use of force is to protect rights and freedom, which can never be imposed.

    Note that anarchy is just that and it is in no way equivalent to freedom.

  • spunkets

    Nonsense. The lack of values and respect for the rights of other people that such a person holds exists prior to any consumption of alcohol. Alcohol never creates those character flaws; it can do no more than to make them more notable.

  • Spunkets — Okay, I could be wrong. What should we call people who own more than one gun, and are quick to argue in comment stacks like this?

  • Charles — A person who owns a gun but never takes it out of the house, and keeps it locked away from his kids, is of course perfectly harmless. But the people we’re concerned with own guns and carry them. It’s not the gun ownership that’s a problem, it’s having guns in a public setting.

  • spunkets

    What should we call people that have more than $10 in their pocket and prefer chocolate?

  • Spunkets — I don’t understand your answer.

  • Jim Breiling

    No right is unqualified.

  • spunkets

    How is the number of guns a person owns logically connected to any other decision they make, such as whether or not to comment when explicitly invited as both a person who cherishes their values and believes in exercising their right to mount an effective self defense or, as the author of the article explicitly asks, the defense of the rights of others?

  • spunkets

    Rights never have to be “qualified”, nor is it ever justifiable to require qualification or certification to exercise a right. Such requirements are no more than a denial of rights. Also, a right is not the equivalent of privilege.

  • Spunkets — I’m just looking for a word. You’re talking about people who “cherish” their values and “believe” in their right to carry guns. About 117 million people in the US own guns, and there are about 270 million guns, which indicates that people who have guns average out to a couple of guns each. “Gun-lovers” seems descriptive to me, not an ad-hominem attack.

  • spunkets

    The ad hominem was given in your introductory statement, when you clearly implied that “gun lovers” were not sensible people.

    It is a fact that I own more than one hammer. Am I a hammer lover too? Does your analysis also applies to pairs of shoes, underwear, socks?

  • Spunkets — I’m not implying that, I’m saying it directly: gun-lovers are not sensible people, and the demonstration of that is right here in this comment stack.

  • spunkets

    That’s simply an ad hominem and no more than that, because there is no logical analysis, only a subjective appeal to your “sensibilities”.

  • spunkets

    “How about white lines?”

    If 2 of them appear, one above the other, and they merge as one is travelling down the road just before passing them, it’s just another indication that you need to pull over and take a nap.

  • AuntMei Wan

    Sky daddy isy here

  • patriotz

    I won’t anguish too much over your questions if someone breaks into my house and doesn’t immediately obey my orders to leave and takes one step towards me or my loved ones. Read the “Armed Citizen”–a collection of stories from news media of

    all the reported stories (so many more unreported) of people STOPPING murder and carnage because they had a gun.

  • patriotz

    Now let’s get totally hypothetical and magically remove every gun from the country, the world, 100%. No bad guys with guns. No good guys. Utopia? No, then every fight becomes a karate fight of hand-to-hand combat. Personally, I like my chances against a gang of people bigger and more depraved than me better if I’m armed even if they aren’t.

  • patriotz

    Legal, law-abiding owners are inherently and statistically safer and less involved in incidents than the lawless. Kind of common sense.

  • patriotz

    If they’re using logic, why do you call them nuts?

  • patriotz

    You don’t need a bigger gun. Once in South Africa a man brought his legal gun to a church even though he wasn’t supposed to. Terrorists with machine guns came in and started spraying, mowing down the rows. From under a pew further back, he started shooting and they all left. He saved hundreds of lives. Thanks be to God that the terrorists fled when they thought someone was fighting back or his bullets would have been quickly spent and every last person there would have died. So way to go saving life!!!!

  • patriotz

    Liberal left is increasingly autocratic and totalitarian. You’ll do what they want, agree with them, or you’ll be gone. No compromise. No understanding. Definitely no freedom, unless you agree with their precepts lock step.

  • patriotz

    Buy your neighbor some hollow points for Christmas, and then you’ll know they won’t come into your home.

  • patriotz

    Perhaps we should be talking about “inalienable rights?” That’s what protecting life, sacred life, is all about. It’s only forfeit when someone tries to wrongly take a life. Hence the death penalty.

  • patriotz

    I wish the people in San Bernadino had some lethal weapons with them when 14 of them were slaughtered. People in Paris could have used some lethal weapons, too. But now they’re dead. I wish they weren’t.

  • patriotz

    Do you see how many knife attacks there are in China? Guys regularly killing kindergarten classes with knives. Sick stuff. Easier to stop the guy with the knife when you’ve got a gun instead of with your bare hands.

  • patriotz

    But wouldn’t you want a gun in a public setting, at the pizza parlor, say, that’s full of kids and all kinds of regular, normal, innocent people? So many psychos prey on places that are “gun free zones” and that’s why I avoid them at all costs. So here’s a solution: you don’t like armed citizens–I do. So you hang out at all the malls and movie theaters and movies that are gun free zones and I’ll hang out at the ones that are not, definitely not!, gun free. We’ll both be supporting our beliefs with our dollars and we’ll both feel safer. Works for me!

  • patriotz

    Some movie theaters are gun free zones and others are not. Patronize the ones that are gun free. Vote with your dollars and your feet. I know i will.

  • Herm

    I’m not certain I understand your point, it seems to be hollow.

    My neighbor prefers hydroshocks.

  • Jen

    The cons on this thread are missing the point. Since when did a random “good guy with a gun” prevent a massacre? And no, the cops don’t count. They shoot to kill often when there is no need to kill, just happened a couple weeks ago in the Oregon desert, they shot one of your fellow conservatives who had his hands up.

    Secondly, you guys miss the larger point, that being in countries with some common sense gun laws, very, very few people die from gun violence and accidental shootings compared to the US. Facts don’t lie.

  • cken

    I can only say when faced with a bad guy with a gun, I wished I had had more than a pocket knife. So after having been shot and nearly dying, as soon thereafter as I was able I got a conceal carry permit and bought a gun. Shooting to kill won’t be a question in your mind when somebody is shooting at you, nor will you feel like you violated your moral code. Unfortunately there is no such thing as sensible gun laws that will keep guns out of the hands of bad guys and the mentally ill.

  • cken

    Yes there is such rights: the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are the unalienable rights. Arguably the pursuit of happiness to the harm of others has qualifications, but life and liberty do not.

  • spunkets

    “They (the cops) shoot to kill often when there is no need to
    kill, just happened a couple weeks ago in the Oregon desert, they shot
    one of your fellow conservatives who had his hands up.”

    Your statement is false. All of the thugish criminals that broke into the fed wildlife building were committing multiple felonies in additon to their commission of those crimes concurrent with armed violence. They were in no way justified in anything they did and are not “conservatives”. LaVoy Finicum, the man that was shot by the FBI in self defense, did not have his hands up and was clearly not surrending, because he reached for his gun in a clear attempt to fight and kill people. The hands up was a simple feint and nothing more.

    “Since when did a random “good guy with a gun” prevent a massacre?”

    * Uber driver in Chicago
    * Naval officer in TN recruiting center
    * Joe Wilcox prevented cops from being ambushed as they entered a Walmart in AZ by a husband and wife murder team that had just killed two cops eating lunch across the street.

    * more: http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

    “…countries with some common sense gun laws, very, very few people die from gun violence”

    Like France or Norway? Plenty of folks died, because they were rendered defenseless. Perhaps a medieval form of killing is more suiting to you as occurs in England or elsewhere? Japan… is suicide by train preferable?

  • Patriotz — Actually, I agree with you. If we can divide up public places into gun-friendly zones and gun-free zones, you can go to the one and I’ll go to the other. You’re worried about “psychos,” which seems like a very remote threat to me. I’m worried about legal gun-carriers, who seem like a much more plausible threat. We could both be satisfied with that kind of segregation.

  • spunkets

    “Which is most paranoid: …”

    Paranoia is a disease state where no real quantifiable risk exists as the basis for some percieved threat or the perception of threat and resultant fear far outweigh the quantifiable risk. One can easily determine that the risk of home invasion, robbery and serious injury or death by looking at crime stats under various conditions and note that it is quantifiable, and that the probability of being hit by a stray or over penetration resulting from self defense shootings in any of those in those instances is a function of the area of a person divided by a much larger area and adjusted by the probability of the shots being fired in that particular direction. That risk is at least 2 orders of magnitude less than the probability the crime and gun fight occur.

    If one concludes that the person that has chosen to mount an effective self defense is paranoid, because the risk is insignificant and then justifies preventing the neighbor from mounting that effective self defense, because the risk to them from a stray is significant; more than a logical error is being made. Paranoia is suspect and more, because that kind of delusional construction manifests a pathological self centered worldview.

    “I don’t prepare to protect those life saving resources from self centered human animals because I wouldn’t want to live if that is all we have to look forward to.”

    Other folks want to live and they want whatever resources that belong to them or their neighbors protected from looters. If you’d rather be dead, why is it that you think and/or feel that others should think and feel the same way?

  • Merrill Clark

    1.Myrick didn’t stop the shooting in the school. He detained Woodham out in the parking lot.

    2.Strand was the owner and de facto bouncer and he used a shot gun-not a concealed or open carry hand gun.

    3.Bridges and Gross were an off duty county sheriff’s deputy and police officer. They both had to go to their vehicles to get their hand guns.

    4.Assam was “volunteer church security personal”.

    5.Moore was an off duty Rome police officer.

    6.Carlyn Gudger was a Sullivan county sheriff’s deputy.

    7.Face off. No shooting involved.

    8.Meli claimed to have brandished his weapon at Roberts but Roberts shot himself in a stairwell.

    9.Baer was a bouncer.

    10.More of an altercation between a foreman and a fired employee than a concealed carry hero.

    11.A security guard and two corrections officers who were there for something else.

    12.This is the only one that’s legitimate. A doctor shot a crazed patient in his own office.

  • Nimblewill

    How about killing animals for my protein based diet? You know, squirrels, possums, ground hogs.

  • Korou

    I’m sorry, I didn’t really understand that.

  • Korou

    So you wouldn’t agree with a person saying “I am free to buy things, but not to buy whatever I like?” A person saying “I am free to drive a car, but not to drive wherever I like at whatever speed I like?”
    There’s nothing wrong with limiting the amount of freedom that people have. We do it all the time, with perfectly good reasons. Yes, you have a right to defend yourself; no, saying “you are not allowed to own a gun” does not infringe that right, any more than saying you are not allowed to drive a tank into a supermarket would.
    Owning a gun is not an inalienable right. Guns are dangerous weapons which most people should simply not be allowed to own. If this can’t be enforced then, at the very least, there should be strict guidelines and regulations governing them.

  • Korou

    How about it?

  • Korou

    “Liberal left is increasingly autocratic and totalitarian. You’ll do what they want, agree with them, or you’ll be gone.”

    Uh, we’re not the ones who take pride in how big our guns are.

  • Korou

    Well, Jim Carey had some interesting opinions in his song “Cold Dead Hand”.

    http://lybio.net/tag/jim-carrey-cold-dead-hand-lyrics/

  • spunkets

    “Yes, you have a right to defend yourself; no, saying “you are not allowed to own a gun” does not infringe that right”

    False.

    “There’s nothing wrong with limiting the amount of freedom that people have.”

    False. As I said, freedom is the condition under which everyone’s rights are respected and honored and as such, it is the only justification for fighting and war that exists. It is not anarchy. Anything else is no more than authoritarian rule with its total disrespect for the rights of man.

    As far as regulations and guidelines goes, there already are laws forbiding rights violations, such as gross negligence, murder battery, assault, ect…

  • Bones

    We seem to have stopped bad guys and the mentally ill getting guns……

    I can’t believe people think it is so hard.

  • spunkets

    LOL! In each case the person stopped the crimes, as indicated with a gun and even if it was a cop, they were off duty. You will not admit that or you can not grasp it. The fact is that more tragic events would have been prevented if the law of the land was not ignored and folks weren’t thretened with felonies for daring to mount an effective self defense.

  • ahermit

    Read the link. That WAS a ‘gun free’ theatre. This is the problem with so many “good guys with guns”, they think their right to carry their surrogate penis outweighs my right to safety.

  • Nimblewill

    Not your reasons, that’s what!

    Because there are good reasons for you to have those rights. What are you going to do with a gun except kill someone?

    If your answer is “protect my loved ones” then I think the OP has already covered that pretty well.

  • Bones

    You’re kidding.

    Are you telling me you have theatres we’re you’re allowed to take guns?

    I cant believe that. It sounds like a science fiction. The US still thinks it’s like the Wild West.

  • Everett Kier Jr

    your alternative?

  • Bones

    It actually cleared guns out of at least half the homes in one year.

    We’ve had no mass shootings since beside tragic family suicides and our fatalities by guns are falling every year.

    We are just amazed by the US need for guns and the ridiculous arguments.

    And that includes our conservatives.

  • Bones

    Ok. So how come Australia (and most other western countries) and the US are so different?

    Did we cure our heart problem?

  • Merrill Clark

    For every justifiable homicide in the US, guns are used to commit 34 murders and 78 suicides.

    http://www.thenation.com/article/combat-vets-destroy-the-nras-heroic-gunslinger-fantasy/

  • Hey, it should be obvious. The only defense against “bad people with a nuclear arsenal” is “good people with a nuclear arsenal”.

    And what would happen to the economy without trillions in weapons markets and wars to jack it up?

  • Herm

    The numbers, worldwide, demonstrate with certainty that the numbers of looters, per capita, do not go up or down based on the numbers of guns within a household. The numbers do demonstrate a much higher injury and death rate to the looted when a gun is present within the household being invaded.

    I have been shot at and I have killed by a gun. Considering all the numbers within my lifetime my longevity has not been due to my arsenal and ability to use it but by the grace of God. I grieve for those I have known who carried but were not saved because they carried.

    Most households in the USA do not have a gun within. There are estimated to be at least one gun within our civilian masses ownership for every man, woman and child in our nation. The numbers, per capita, of deaths, tyranny and injuries are not lower than any nation with stricter gun regulations, exactly the opposite.

    You were saying about paranoia?

    Do you understand the significance of catch 22? … such as, if you know you are insane then you cannot be insane.

  • spunkets

    ” The only defense against “bad people with a nuclear arsenal” is “good people with a nuclear arsenal”.

    That’s referred to as mutually assured destruction and works to prevent war by tempering the the authoritarian ambitions and intents of intelligent tyrants. It no effect on folks whose only intent is the defense of freedom, because one can not impose freedom–the gift folks extend to each other where they respect the rights of their fellows– on anyone and it is therefore impossible to hold any authoritarian ambitions and intents. It simply makes it clear that no imposition will be tolerated or succeed.

    “what would happen to the economy with out trillions in weapons markets and wars to jack it up?”

    It depends on the details, but the immediate result would be a significant loss of jobs and for the US, the country would opn itself up to be dominated by tyrants, like red China or the Soviet Union.

  • spunkets

    The suicides are irrelevant, because the intent of the person is to kill themselves, which is independent of any method at hand. The rate will also not change by treating everyone as if they were the least common denominator of suicidal person, murderous criminal or psychotic. In fact, treating folks as that least commn denominator is a cause of suicide and violence, not the respect that a person extends when they honor another’s rights.

    The murders are caused by criminals. How many are you willing to kill via proxy to deny your fellow’s rights to effective self defense and how many have already been killed as a result of the success of prior efforts? Those are the questions you should be asking, not posting irrelevant data in an emotional appear in a campaign to deny someone else their rights.

  • “intelligent tyrants”?

    Which side of the equation does that apply to?

  • Merrill Clark

    “The suicides are irrelevant, because the intent of the person is to kill themselves, which is independent of any method at hand. ”

    Bullshit.
    Having a gun makes a snap decision irrevocable.

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

    “The rate will also not change by treating everyone as if they were the least common denominator of suicidal person, murderous criminal or psychotic. In fact, treating folks as that least commn denominator is a cause of suicide and violence, not the respect that a person extends when they honor another’s rights.”

    WTF?
    So you think people commit suicide because they are denied their second amendment rights?
    LOL
    What a word salad pile of nonsense

    {“… in states where guns were prevalent—as in Wyoming, where 63 percent of households reported owning guns—rates of suicide were higher. The inverse was also true: where gun ownership was less common, suicide rates were also lower….”}

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/

    “The murders are caused by criminals.”

    Mostly with guns.
    And of course, “good guys” with guns who get angry at someone.

    {“…Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3….”}

    http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

    “How many are you willing to kill via proxy to deny your fellow’s rights to effective self defense and how many have already been killed as a result of the success of prior efforts?”

    No idea what you’re talking about now.
    Are you afraid of guns being banned outright and completely?
    Not gonna happen.
    Explain to me what a program to confiscate 200 million guns would even look like.
    No one is coming for your guns. The NRA is lying to you.

    “Those are the questions you should be asking, not posting irrelevant data in an emotional appear in a campaign to deny someone else their rights.”

    Horse shit.
    My questions and posted data are completely relevant while yours are barely coherent red herring. (Google that term if you don’t understand it.)

    Universal background checks aren’t going to hurt you in the slightest.

    Preventing convicted domestic abusers and convicted felons from owning guns will not hurt you in the slightest unless you are one or the other.

    Preventing certified sociopaths and psychopaths from owning guns is going to be good for you and everyone else-unless you’re one or the other.

    And if you’re so paranoid and frightened that you have to carry a gun to Walmart or McDonald’s on the off chance (with a probability so low it might as well be zero) that you will be accosted by a gunman I can only pity you.

  • spunkets

    “Do you understand the significance of catch 22? … such as, if you know you are insane then you cannot be insane.”

    This is completely false and you should not be attempting teach folks about mental illness, becasue you have failed to grasp this fact.

    “The numbers, worldwide, demonstrate with certainty that the numbers of looters, per capita, do not go up or down based on the the numbers of guns within a household.”

    This is true, but it’s also trivial and does not address the fact that effective self defense works and it is a basic human right that folks be allowed to mount and exercise an effective self defense.

    “…my longevity has not been due to my arsenal and ability to use it but by the grace of God.”

    God does not play favorites, nor is He a puppeteer. Effective self defense involves not only the power and skill to deploy it, but probabilities. IOWs, there are no guarantees that one will be successful in any endeavor. God has gifted folks with the sensibilities and funcitonalities of His image and He came to teach what He did and accomplished through the exercise of that image. He never blessed anyone with more than that, such as fundamentally unfair results.

    All one can say regarding both you and your friend is that God blessed both of you with the gift of life and honored and respected your rights. I can never be said, that He favored, per His grace, one over the other, nor that He allowed one to die for some purpose, but not the other. Both will die, but will not and that’s, becasue He gifted both equally.

  • No, he stated that he would be fine with regulating firearms the same way we regulate automobiles. Apparently he didn’t realize that firearms are already much more strictly regulated than automobiles.

    To give the inverse, if we regulated automobiles the same way we regulated firearms:

    1. Purchasing an automobile from a dealer would require a background check. Most of the time the check would be ‘instant’ (a few minutes) but sometimes the check might take longer. If the check is still not complete after three business days, the automobile dealer MAY sell you the car (but does not have to). In some states the background delay may be longer, and in some states there is a mandatory delay of 10 days.
    2. Purchasing an automobile from a private party (not a dealer) would be illegal in many states. In other states it would be illegal to sell an automobile to a person that the seller has reason to believe is a felon; or has ever (in their entire life) been found guilty of any misdemeanor crime with a sentence of one year or more; or ANY domestic violence crime; or ever been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital; or is a controlled substance user or abuser.
    3. You would have to be 21 or older to purchase an automobile that can be driven on public streets; or 18 or older to purchase an off-road vehicle
    4. In order to drive a car on public streets you would have to obtain a license after undergoing training and testing in proficiency; but that license shall not be issued if you have ever been convicted of a felony; or a misdemeanor with a sentence of one year or more; or any domestic violence crime; or ever been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital; or are a controlled substance user or abuser. In some states you may not be issued a license for any reason the government officials deem and you have to prove that you have a good reason for owning an automobile (transport to and from work, school, or other places would not be a sufficient reason, especially not in D.C. or Massachusetts).
    5. If you are ever so much as charged with a felony; or a misdemeanor with a sentence of a year or more; or any domestic violence crime your license to drive on public roads would be REVOKED. If you are found guilty you may never have a license nor own an automobile and you must turn your automobile into the police or immediately sell it to a dealer. In some states, they will send police officers to confiscate the automobile(s) (and motorcycles also).
    6. Cars in bright colors such as red or yellow, or any color with ‘race’ in its name, or cars with ‘spoilers’ or ‘air dams’ or ‘mag wheels’, or with engines above a certain displacement (1.5L, but 1.0L in New York, Connecticut, California or D.C.), or with fuel injection, or with gas tanks that can hold more than 5 gallons would be banned in many states as ‘race cars’. Race cars belong on the track and have no place on our streets. You don’t need a fuel tank larger than 5 gallons to hunt.
    7. Driver’s licenses would not be recognized by another state unless there was a ‘reciprocity agreement’ between the states; generally requiring the states to have near identical automobile control laws. If you have an automobile that is banned in a state and you attempt to take it into that state you could be arrested and charged with a felony, and your automobile confiscated with no compensation.
    8. At some points an automobile that you legally purchased may become an illegal ‘race car’ and you will no longer be able to drive it on public roads, legally sell it within the state, nor pass it on to your children as an inheritance. In some states there would be calls to just confiscate these dangerous ‘race cars’.

  • Willie G

    Not that impressive of a read.
    The entire article is filled with logical fiction.
    I.E All the “what ifs” try to paint a narrative that all possible situations where a firearm would be an important tool are just too complex and troubling to warrant the risk.
    Kind of like…if you had a 38 revolver and had to confront a bad guy driving in a heavy vintage car… wouldn’t the risk of firing at the heavy car and thus causing a ricochet into a Day Care playground outweigh the need to stop the badguy?

    You could apply this kind of logic to any topic that involves some level of risk…such as driving automobiles that have over 90hp…or owning dogs over 50lbs.

    If you want to question firearm ownership in today’s society a more logical argument might be made by asking the question if social breakdown and lack of unifying morality justify removing the 2nd Amendment.. along with the entire Constitution.

    In other words; could owning guns be wrong, simply because we can’t trust each other due to social breakdown and collective hedonism.

  • spunkets

    Intelligent tyrants: Obvious: Putin, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, the N Korean dictators.

    Unintelligent tyrants: suicide bombers

  • I never said ‘the average police officer’, you are the one being dishonest. Use of firearms by the police in the U.S. is also rare. But yet they still carry them.

    If YOUR position is so air-tight, why do YOU feel the need to be dishonest?

    Ammophobes like you maintain that guns are ONLY for killing, thus there is no reason for police officers (even ‘specialized’ officers in the U.K.) to carry them. Not unless they are some sort of government assassins out to kill. After all, EVERY person that carries a gun is a ‘bad guy’, right?

  • Patriotz — the stories in “Armed Citizen” are highly selective. Aside from suicide, the most common cause of death by shooting is domestic disputes. “Armed Citizen” never reports those.

  • spunkets

    Murder is not self defense, that’s why the “Armed Citizen” only reports domestic disputes involving self defense. Including those domestic disputes where the person protected themselves with their firearm from beating, bludgeoning, cutting or hacking attacks, which are the more prevalent method used in such attacks. You seem to think folks should abandon effective self defense entirely and just hand over their rights, health and safety to any tyrant that demands them.

  • spunkets

    “Bullshit. Having a gun makes a snap decision irrevocable.”

    You know nothing abut mental health. There is absolutely nothing”snap” about suicide decsions. The decision to commit suicide is made long before the act itself. The motivation for the method chosen to comit the act is always going to be compatible to with that for the act itself, which is to end the pain one is experiencing.

  • Merrill Clark

    “You know nothing abut mental health. ”

    And you do? Where did you get your psych degree?

    “There is absolutely nothing”snap” about suicide decsions.”

    You’re talking nonsense and you know it.
    A tipping point is reached. The final decision is that tipping point and the line being crossed with easy access to a gun is what matters.
    The statistics don’t lie, dude.

    “The decision to commit suicide is made long before the act itself.”

    Citation needed.
    I’m not really interested in your self serving opinions here.

    “The motivation for the method chosen to comit the act is always going to be compatible to with that for the act itself, which is to end the pain one is experiencing.”

    I have no idea what that means.
    You’re employing ad hoc reasoning here so I’m not sure I care.

  • spunkets

    Re: “”How many are you willing to kill via proxy to deny your fellow’s rights to effective self defense and how many have already been killed as a result of the success of prior efforts?”

    “No idea what you’re talking about now. …No one is coming for your guns. The NRA islying to you.”

    I’m the NRA and I don’t believe you, nor do I trust you.

    “Universal background checks aren’t going to hurt you in the slightest.”

    False. They are registration schemes that replace good judgement between friends with the bureaucrats of an authoritarian police state that is fully intent on disarming everyone but them.

    “And if you’re so paranoid and frightened…”

    I fear nothing and will not hand over control of my decision making or any other right to you or any forces you authorize, per your benevolence and good judgment.

  • spunkets

    Bottom line Clark is that you don’t care. If you did, you’d already have learned about suicide, it’s causes and the requisite solutions which always involve addressing the causes of the pain they’re experiencing and never attacking other folks or their rights that have nothing to do with it.

    “Where did you get your psych degree?”

    I got it out of a box of curiosity I was born with during a search for the truth.

  • spunkets

    “Explain to me what a program to confiscate 200 million guns would even look like.”

    Once registration is well enough established, the reign of terror begins. Guns are banned arbitrarily, per some scary characteristic, as in NY, NJ, MD, IL, Chicago, CA and elsewhere and then the raids against folks on the list begins, generally at night by militarized tactical teams to arrest and imprison folks who comitted no objective crime other than to to value lives, rights and freedom. It’s a terror program run by the state, carried out by all those thugs that enjoy the pay checks and the rush from being a member of the fraternal brotherhood of police state thugs. There’s also, no where for folks to escape to, such as a free country like the US.

  • Korou

    Oh, I see.
    Well, if gun owners bought their guns so that they could shoot for the pot, you might have a point. Of course, statistically speaking, they don’t.

  • Herm

    I’m afraid, if you reread what you just wrote, that you might notice how you spoke in circles without any real facts.

    A clear example is when you I told me that I shouldn’t teach mental health (my major in college) when what I said was completely false because I didn’t grasp the fact of what I wrote, “The numbers, worldwide, demonstrate with certainty that the numbers of looters, per capita, do not go up or down based on the the numbers of guns within a household.” … and then told me right off that was true.

    I rest my case, thank you!

  • Merrill Clark

    “…Once registration is well enough established, the reign of terror begins.”

    Bullshit.
    You have a license to drive a car and are required by law to have insurance.
    Cars aren’t designed to kill-guns are.

    “Guns are banned arbitrarily, per some scary characteristic, as in NY, NJ, MD, IL, Chicago, CA and elsewhere….”

    Scarier than San Bernardino and Sandy Hook?
    Get back to reality, son. You’re running on paranoia.

    “…..and then the raids against folks on the list begins, generally at night by militarized tactical teams to arrest and imprison folks who comitted no objective crime other than to to value lives, rights and freedom.”

    Complete horses hit.
    Not. Gonna. Happen.
    Weapons grade fear mongering.

    “….It’s a terror program run by the state, carried out by all those thugs that enjoy the pay checks and the rush from being a member of the fraternal brotherhood of police state thugs.”

    LOL
    Those thugs are all red neck gun owners, son.

    “There’s also, no where for folks to escape to, such as a free country like the US.”

    Nope.
    That is a fever dream the NRA has planted in your poor little head.

    Let me tell you how it’s going to play out.
    Households with guns went from 51% 30 years ago to 33% today. More guns purchased, yes, but by fewer and more paranoid gun hoarders. You will lose another 20% or so over the next 30 years-mostly through attrition from old age, and at that point you will cease to matter as a political entity.
    Sorry, but that is the reality of it.

  • Bones

    Wow you make it sound like Stalinist Russia.

    You can come and escape to Australia but you’ll need to leave your guns behind.

  • spunkets

    A clear (of my circular logic) example is when you I told me that I shouldn’t teach mental health (my major in college) when what I said was completely false because I didn’t grasp the fact of what I wrote, “The numbers, worldwide, demonstrate…”

    You need to improve your reading comprehension. I placed the quote from you htat I was referring to as a headine. Again:

    “Do you understand the significance of catch 22? … such as, if you know you are insane then you cannot be insane.”

    (to which I responded): This
    is completely false and you should not be attempting teach folks about mental illness, becasue you have failed to grasp this fact.

    If you really did understand mental illness, you’d know that for instance, schizophrenics, bipolar and depressed folks know full well they are ill and that “insane” is not a legitimate medical term, nor does it respect those folks that need help and not be catagorized with such a derogatory and demeaning slur.

    You failed to even know what I said about paranoia and didn’t even try. As far as the stats you posted, I said they were true and were completely irrelevant regarding self defense measures taken against looters. That’s, because looters are never deterred, until faced with a deterrent. The disaster itself removes the normal deterrents and the only one left is the folks defending against their pillage.

  • Merrill Clark

    “Bottom line Clark is that you don’t care.”

    I care-I’m just not a raving paranoid.

    “If you did, you’d already have learned about suicide, it’s causes and the requisite solutions which always involve addressing the causes of the pain they’re experiencing and never attacking other folks or their rights that have nothing to do with it.”

    You have no idea what I know about suicide.
    And you’re still trying to bullshit about what you “know”.

    {“Where did you get your psych degree?”}

    “I got it out of a box of curiosity I was born with during a search for the truth.”

    Like hell.
    It came in the same cracker jack box you got your militia insignia out of.
    You have no interest in the truth whatsoever as far as I can tell. All your talking points come from gun nut/NRA sites.
    One sided disinformation stream.
    That’s why you’re paranoid. The NRA is playing you for a fool.

  • spunkets

    I will add that the person that shot all those folks in the gun fre zone of the Aurora, CO movie theatre, knew full well he was psychotic and going further down hill, instead of seeking treatment, he chose to inflict as much pain on the world as he could in response to his own misfortune and his chosen values. Those values were priors, chosen before he became psychotic, not during, after or as a result of.

  • spunkets

    “You have no idea what I know about suicide.”

    You posted it. It amounts to nothing.

  • spunkets

    “Cars aren’t designed to kill-guns are.”

    Nevertheless, they are driven on the roads not by right, but by permssion. They are also used to kill, especially in the Middle East.

    “…you will cease to matter as a political entity.”

    Politics is just the relationship between people. I honor and respect other folks rights and support the only condiiton where they are respected and honored–freedom, you do not.

  • spunkets

    What you say is true regarding std. US Army weapons training.

  • spunkets

    “In other words; could owning guns be wrong, simply because we can’t
    trust each other due to social breakdown and collective hedonism.”

    No. The reasons are that the only breakdown possible is where folks don’t respect rights and that means the destruction of freedom has occurred. SInce rights are inherent and unalienable, one can not be refferred to as a hedonist for cherishing and defending them. The hedonist is the rights violator that seeks to destroy freedom, impose their own tyranny and use folks to satisfy their own self centered desires. An effective defense of rights and the freedom under which they flourish is always going to involve an arms component.

  • Bones

    You got it right.

    From one who’s had a clean up a suicide of a loved one.

    Your family gun is far more likely to be used on one or more of your family than on people breaking into your house.

  • Bones

    Do you have the right to own an rpg?

    Do you have the right to own tanks and nuclear weapons?

    Why/why not?

  • Bones

    Its weird because legislation and condtitutions are amended all the time.

    The rest of the world is just gobsmacked by your devotion to an amendment which was created to form a militia force and shoot Indians.

  • Merrill Clark

    And arm slave patrols.

  • spunkets

    Tanks and nukes are crew served weapons, but are rightfully created and owned by the folks, “the crew” that see a need to have them for some defensive purpose, the only legitimate one is the defense of rights and of course the freedom wherein they flourish.

  • Merrill Clark

    {“Cars aren’t designed to kill-guns are.”}

    “Nevertheless, they are driven on the roads not by right, but by permssion. ”

    And so should guns be owned, son. It’s common sense.

    “They are also used to kill, especially in the Middle East.”

    And here-automobile homicide is a thing.
    Do you have a point?
    in the middle east they are generally packed with explosives which is a different thing-and you know it.

    {“…you will cease to matter as a political entity.”}

    “Politics is just the relationship between people.”

    Semantical bullshit.
    Politics is also about power and sometimes about cooperation.

    “I honor and respect other folks rights….”

    Do you open carry?
    If so you do not respect my family’s right to pursue and insure our domestic tranquility.
    Impossible to be tranquil when some yahoo might decide at any moment he’s Dirty Harry and start spewing bullets in every direction as judge, jury and executioner.

    “…..and support the only condiiton where they are respected and honored–freedom, you do not.”

    You’re kidding yourself,son.
    You’re simply making excuses for your paranoia and your gun fondling fetish.

  • Merrill Clark

    No, son.
    I just pointed out that you were spinning crap out of thin air.

  • spunkets

    Your concern for the truth is overwhelmingly heartwarming.

  • spunkets

    Love seems to one of your strong points; it’s so touching.

  • Bones

    Dude you just had an armed insurrection in your own country.

    Of course the result would have been different if the good ol boys were black or Muslim.

  • Merrill Clark

    Says the guy who sleeps with a gun by his bed he’s so filled with fear?

    Love and fear can’t coexist, guy.

  • Korou

    No, not false, I’m afraid.
    You are, of course, allowed to defend yourself; but there’s nothing wrong in saying that you are not allowed to carry a murderous device around with you, as is the law in many countries.

    There are plenty of ways in which society limits our freedoms, ways that we agree with. The laws don’t allow you to drive above a certain speed in certain places. Maybe you can do it and nobody would be hurt, but the danger is too great to be countenanced, and so the law forbids it. Quite rightly. There’s plenty of other ways in which the law says our freedoms must be limited and we agree, because those limits protect us. Laws regulating guns would be just like this. And this is not an extraordinary thing to suggest; plenty of countries do it. The USA doesn’t and, as a consequence, pays a horrible price.

    How would you feel about living in a society in which each and every person walked around carrying a submachine gun? Not comfortable? Because it (a) makes it much too easy for criminals and insane people to get their hands on lethal toys and (b) it makes the chances of accidental or mistaken shootings much too high for us to risk, right?

    Well, the situation in the USA is getting pretty close to that. The USA leads the civilised world in gun deaths. This is a terrible state of affairs and it urgently requires fixing. Why not join the rest of the civilised world in saying “Guns are dangerous, and should be strictly regulated”.

  • MyLovelyNose

    How many dead people constitutes acceptable risk?

  • MyLovelyNose

    There’s a very good case to be made for institution of Federal law based on NRA gun-handling and safety guidelines. Federal law should cover all states, all guns. No more easily evaded state and local laws. If it’s a Constitutional right, let Federal law administer it.

    Then, make any unsafe handling or reckless handling of a gun, or illegal purchase or sale, A FELONY. If you injure someone playing with your gun, you go directly to jail, charged with FELONY endangerment. If you kill someone, it’s MANSLAUGHTER automatically.

    No. More. Accidents. That won’t change everything overnight–after all, we’re talking legislation and changing a culture, not capping a perp. But it WILL change the cultural attitude toward gunplay (and “play” is what 98 percent of these gun-toting Ramboids are about) just the way stiffer laws against drunk driving made drunk driving less of a personal idiosyncrasy and into what it was, criminal anti-social behavior.

    If you are TRULY a law-abiding safety-conscious gun owner, these laws wouldn’t touch you. Punish reckless and unsafe gun handling as a felony. Anyone who sells a gun illegally, or purchases it illegally, is a FELON.

  • MyLovelyNose

    So what were you doing that you ended up in a situation with a gun pointed at you? What neighborhood were you in? Isn’t it really YOUR fault for going where you might get a gun pointed at you? Did you dress sexy? Did you brandish your money? Did you get in a road-rage incident? That ends up killing a lot of “responsible” gun owners. I think we’re up to half a dozen legal gun owners killing themselves in pairs over road rage.

  • MyLovelyNose

    You’re so sucking wrong. People prevented from committing suicide do NOT go on to other methods. Suicide is often an impulsive act and can be prevented when the MEANS isn’t there. You’re such an ignoramus–typical gunsucker.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Oh, go massage your pathetic penis to your gun fantasies.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Sure they can. “I wuv you because I can show you my gun and you bring me a beer and a sammich.”

  • MyLovelyNose

    “Good judgment between friends”? Do you realize what you just said? You’re supporting the BUDDY SYSTEM of government. The same kind of thing you think is arrayed against Poor You with taxes and eminent-domain and the danged ol’ ‘vironmentalists. Stupid stupid stupid, but that’s par for the course with gunsuckers.

  • MyLovelyNose

    You’re full of shit. You know FUCK-ALL about mental health OR suicide. Go back to sucking your gun.

  • MyLovelyNose

    You were born masturbating yourself, spunkets. Must be the reason for your name.

  • MyLovelyNose

    The same could be said for your fact-free gunsucker love notes.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Your fantasies are highly colored and must give you lots and lots of wet thrills between the sheets. Do you have large laundry loads?

  • MyLovelyNose

    You really have some strange expectations of domestic life.

  • MyLovelyNose

    You’re so full of it you’re tipping over and spilling. Show us these “statistics” and we’ll tear them apart. You won’t like it, though, and you can’t make us go away by brandishing a gun, can you?

  • “I suggest you look into game theory; it’s well established that that was why the doctrine of mutually assured destruction worked.”

    It didn’t work. The game is nowheres near over.

    Ask your great-great-great-grand kids how it all worked out.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Tooo da doooo . . . tooot da DOOOO . . . cue the sad trumpet, spunkets about to cry.

  • MyLovelyNose

    How many desperate weenie-pulling gun fantasies do you have, anyway?

  • MyLovelyNose

    Mostly because they’ll never out themselves with a stupid prank. Until they do. They’ll never get murderously mad in a road rage incident like SIX “good guys with guns” did (they’re all dead, by the way. Decimating the “good guys with guns” THEMSELVES). Until they will. They’ll never use their gun against another family member. Until they do.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Tell us your FAVORITE Gun Fantasy Starring Spunkets. You KNOW you have one. What’s your favorite “I’m gonna shoot you now” sarcastic line, the one you KNOW you have all swaddled in bubble wrap in the back of your mind? The one you’re SURE gonna use when YOU become Gun Hero. Come on, tell us. You’re in a safe space.

  • MyLovelyNose

    You poor delicate tenderskin, spunkets.

  • MyLovelyNose

    You have no “logical analysis,” spunkets. Just childish whingeing and word salad about rights.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Because they’re so STUPID they think their opinions constitute logic. They don’t. But you’re stupid, so of course you don’t know that. That’s just logic.

  • “Obvious”? How so?

  • MyLovelyNose

    You want to make America over into something more like South Africa? And you call yourself a PATRIOT?

    I’m sure the clang of irony didn’t make it through your child-safety helmet.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Or the ones threatening legislators with a “Second Amendment solution.” Such pathetic benign-prostate-enlargement drips.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Most guns in this country are purchased and stockpiled by old fat white males living in rural areas with low crime.

    And such gun collections do absolutely ZERO to convince criminals that they’d better not touch Ol’ Jeeter’s Bass boat. In fact, such collections, and the spitdribbling morons who brag on them, just present a perfect theft opportunity. Because even if you’re a retiree living off the government with nothing to do but watch Fox News from your aromatic La-Z-Boy, you still can’t be on guard 24/7. You’ll have to go to the Sue-Bee grocery and pick up some more baloney and hot-dog buns and Metamucil.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Ooh, watch it. Spunkets got God, a gun, and a low IQ.

  • MyLovelyNose

    He “knew full well”? In what universe did you go and depose him? You live in a total fantasy world. Are there little pink ponies with silky hair in your world too?

  • MyLovelyNose

    The death penalty is not practiced in most countries and in most states of the US. I guess you’re a BIG death-penalty huffer, since you think you’re entitled to be judge, jury and executioner.

    A degree in mental health? Are you also a liar? You couldn’t be that sucking stupid about suicide if you’d ever studies mental health. You’re probably one of those drips from the 70s. EVERYONE was getting a BA in psych in the 70s.

  • MyLovelyNose

    “Freedom is a condition where folks respect and honor their fellows’ rights. ”

    Really? What steaming haired orifice did you pull that piece of shit from?

  • chrijeff

    “Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood that someone will get shot.” What studies? When were they made? I’m a historian and a writer of historical fiction, particularly in connection with the Old West. In the 19th Century, most Americans lived on farms or ranches or in small towns (it wasn’t till 1920 that the census found even half of us to be city-dwellers). And most of them had guns–at the very least shotguns or rifles, usually for game and to protect the chicken coop, and sometimes in case of bank robbers or the boy next door being found in the hayloft with one’s daughter. Yet in 50-plus years of study, I have yet to find that large numbers of us died of accidental gunshot inflicted by guns in our homes. (Exception: people going West on wagon trains–who were nervous about Indians, and therefore prone to accident.) Young kids in those days were taught to properly respect a gun, and usually to shoot it properly as soon as they were big enough to keep both ends of it off the ground.

    “What qualifies you to be a good guy with a gun who is ready to end a human life at a moment’s notice?” The fact that under any rational system of law (although I admit ours isn’t, particularly, but there are means of changing it), any person in commission of a felony is bought and paid for. He chooses to commit that felony, and therefore anything that happens to him is entirely his own fault. Now I grant that in a situation where you are (as suggested) in Walmart, you should identify yourself in some way. But in fact a bad guy with a gun is likely to just shoot without doing so. Therefore, the guy who *doesn’t* identify himself is by definition the bad guy. And cops, generally, wear uniforms. When you see them charging onto the scene, you put up your weapon, and they know you’re not one of the people they were called to deal with.
    I agree that if you want to carry a gun, you should be willing to take training in the proper use of it. On the other hand, there are many things Americans own (chain-saws, stoves) which are, or can be, dangerous to themselves and to others. They aren’t required to take training in the use of these things. Isn’t that inconsistency?
    I don’t doubt that our various police agencies do the best they can. But haven’t we all read stories about terrible delays in 911 dispatchery? What if the police are occupied elsewhere when the call comes in? What if the officers responding get stuck in traffic? Are we all going to just fold our hands (or try to find a place to hide) and hope we can survive till they get there?
    There’s an old saying that God helps those who help themselves. That’s what being a good guy with a gun is really about.

  • Bones

    “There’s an old saying that God helps those who help themselves. ”

    Yeah that’s found in Hezekiah 3:6.

    Now we have people making up their own verses.

  • chrijeff

    “We seem to have stopped bad guys and the mentally ill getting guns…”
    I have two words for you: Dylann Roof.
    That he was/is a racist I admit. But in a country with a population of over 300,000,000, I’m sure there must be millions of racists. Most of them do not go around shooting up churches full of people they’ve never met, even if those people happen to be of a race they don’t like. Therefore, Roof was insane. Yet he got a gun.
    And then there’s Sandy Hook, and Aurora, and I could go on and on.
    Somewhere online there’s a great infographic which shows clearly how mass shootings have gone way up since about 1980. It was in the 1970’s that we dumped thousands of mentally ill people out on the streets and made it (in many states) nearly impossible to get anyone committed no matter how crazy he seemed to be. Cause and effect. The mentally ill do get guns–entirely too often.

  • Bones

    “Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood that someone will get shot.” What studies? When were they made?”

    This was pretty easy to find mr historian

    Obviously the Wild West didn’t have google cos they was out shootin injuns.

    http://m.aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

  • chrijeff

    All right, I just looked at it, and as I suspected, these studies were made in *modern times*.
    This doesn’t cancel out what I said about youngsters of *historic times* being taught the proper use and respect of firearms.

  • Tom Jablonski

    @ Bones. That is not true. The first ten amendments have a preamble, just as the Constitution does. The bill of rights were made part of the Constitution so that we can protect ourselves from a government which might distort or overreach the provisions of the Constitution. Google the “preamble to the bill of rights” to see for yourself. Don’t google the “bill of rights”, because the preamble probably will not be displayed. Bottom line, the Founders recognized the tendency of those in power to become corrupt over time, seeking more and more power.

    Note that none of the amendments in the bill of rights grants us any power. The Bill protects the natural rights we already possess. This is important. It follows that any violation of those rights is, by nature, a human rights violation.

  • Merrill Clark

    LOL

  • Good piece. I’m not anti-gun, but America has a serious unaddressed #LosersWithGuns problem, which concern solid-citizen gun owners and the anti-gun folks alike. Somewhere there is middle ground and it is profoundly UnAmerican after every other public health problem we have mitigated through science and engineering, to go along with the idea that “there’s nothing to be done.”

    I’ve noticed that if we charted the decline in military service and the rise of fascination with guns and gun culture they’d form a very big X on the chart. And (after a decade as a cop and a military career myself) that the wannabe factor is massive. Everybody seems to want to play Army or play cop but none will actually put themselves on the line & discipline themselves to training and service. Instead, they’re fascinated with the toys and imagine, to use the old Phillip Marlowe line, “that a gat in the hand means the world by the tail.” More interested in “feeling safe” than being safe.

    To most citizens, unknown people of unknown stability carrying guns in public are as alarming as crazies armed with guns to most of us. And not being able to tell the difference infringes on the rights of the unarmed public just as much as cutting off access to guns is to the gun loving.

    It’s unfortunate that guns are at once a sign of freedom to some and the last semblance of manhood for psychotic grudge collectors who blame their failures on every one in society but themselves: women, blacks, Hispanics, “the gov’ment,” bosses, coworkers, white folk, Muslims, religious poeple, anti-religious people. The Oppressor of the day.

    While the number of guns in America are increasing, the number of households with guns has been steadily declining for decades, with just a slight bump up recently. Gun owners need to get serious about doing something to control the #LosersWithGuns problem before the non-gun owning pubic outlaws them completely. After all, Miller was a 5/4 decision and your strongest supporter on the SCOTUS died last week.

  • SammyJankis

    Or could it be that the population was smaller, so there was a lower incidence? And when it happened, it didn’t go into the local paper, much less get blasted across 24/7 news media and social media? When it did happen, the family gathered up the body, took it out to the family cemetary, and then went on with trying to scrape their way in life.

  • piggypiggy

    One point you are ignoring is that towns were outlawing guns in city limits.
    We both know this is due to “Loose Cannons” carrying weapons and shooting willy nilly.
    Kinda like the situation we have now.

  • piggypiggy

    Yep, and they kept those guns on the farm.

  • Tdawg

    Its amazing how patriotic americans are about their country, yet you all seem terrified to live there. You are the only country i the world that equates having a gun to safety. If you are serious about the safety of your family, and you are so scared that only a fire will provide that safety, move. Change country because you are living in fear. Being responsible for your family is making the choice that they are more important then your patriotism.

  • spunkets

    “Yep, and they kept those guns on the farm.”

    False. School kids rode to school on the bus with them in the cities.

  • spunkets

    “Suicide is often an impulsive act and can be prevented”

    False and you have no justificaiton to treat other folks as if they are the least common denominator of suicidal person.

  • Norman Stolpe

    My essay on what guns tell us about our hearts was not aimed at public policy but as a spiritual director asking questions to help people get at what their thoughts about guns tell them about what is in their hearts. I suppose there could be a social consensus arising from the hearts of people, but hearts are not repaired by policy. It starts with what AA identifies as the fourth step: Making a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

  • chrijeff

    Or in the house, if they lived in a small town–which, as abovementioned, most of us did until well into the 20th C. But the point is, they were there, without any “trigger locks” or “gun safes,” and people very seldom shot each other by accident (on purpose, of course, being another thing entirely).

  • chrijeff

    Actually, gossip probably got it around quite adequately. Say you live on a farm in…oh, Ohio, in 1855. You have a hired hand (most farmers east of the Missouri did). Your six-year-old son (too young to be taught to use the family gun) accidentally shoots his 12-year-old sister. You bury the kid at home and tell your wife, “We’ll say that she died of fever” (many 19th-C. diseases involved fevers, and were often so called). Then your farmhand goes into town on Saturday night–and the next thing you know, the truth is all over.

  • chrijeff

    There were indeed such ordinances. And very often they were enforced loosely or not at all. They were “paper laws”–much like the laws which almost every town enacted to forbid or restrict prostitution, and then preferred to ignore, using selective fines as a supplement to local taxes.

  • spunkets

    “Miller was a 5/4 decision and your strongest supporter on the SCOTUS died last week.”

    Miller was a decision from the 1930’s that upheld that said the guns referred to in the 2nd Amendment were military weapons. The statement of the law is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The recent court decsion, Heller, affirmed that the people really are the people and not the govm’t, because it makes absolutely no sense to include in a bill of rights belonging to the people, a law that says the govm’t has a right to have guns that shall not be infringed by the govm’t. Heller also incorporated the 2nd to all lower jurisdictions via the 14th Amendment, which was added to prevent the rights violations against minorities by the majority mob rule of democracy.

    The 2nd Amendment was added, because it was the defense and protection of freedom itself that was important to them, not the king and his or anyone else’s oppression.

    “unknown people of unknown stability carrying guns in public are as
    alarming as crazies armed with guns to most of us. And not being able to
    tell the difference infringes on the rights of the unarmed public”

    You have absolutely no right to demand other folks give up their rights so your minority feels safe. None whatsoever, and folks are not obliged to act according to your demands to comfort you either.

  • spunkets

    The gun related deaths in those bogus safety studies of guns in the home include all deaths and suicides predominate, but include anyone shot committing a felony also. The real comparison should be with all other forms of accidental death/injury, because that is the only intelligent comparison. Comparing gun deaths/injuries to nothing is ridiculous. Nevertheless, it’s never justified for anyone other than the individual to make a decision that rightfully belongs to that individual alone.

  • spunkets

    Re: Korou: “”Yes, you have a right to defend yourself; no, saying “you are not allowed to own a gun” does not infringe that right”

    False.

    “No, not false, I’m afraid. You are, of course, allowed to defend yourself; but there’s nothing wrong in saying that you are not allowed to carry a murderous device around with you, as is the law in many countries.”

    Your claim is false. Self defense means effective self defense, not what you or anyone else decide to limit it to. The countries you refer to are police states, and nothing less.

    “freedoms”

    I already explained to you that there are no such things as freedoms. There is only freedom, which is a condition where folks respect there fellows rights. Freedom does not exist where petty tyrants, disrespect their fellows’ rights and instead, “benevolently” issue permissions, which is all you’re really referring to by the word “freedoms”.

  • cken

    It is almost funny you won’t accept an incident at face value. What is worse you want to justify the shooter. You would probably justify a rapist also since you asked what I was wearing. Very sad.
    For what it is worth I was delivering pizza in a neighborhood I had delivered many times before. The guy just wanted to kill somebody to get into a gang. He didn’t even take any money or the pizza. He is serving 45 years now, not that the justice helped me at all.

  • patriotz

    Hi, I sadly feel the same way, at least with many I’ve encountered in this discussion. Little logic, facts, or exploration but a lot of anger, vitriol, and name calling. I wish you all well–Christ’s peace and love.

  • patriotz

    I was invited here by a Christian group. But I didn’t really find a place to have a conversation. God bless you.

  • patriotz

    Because the story of a man stopping gunmen who wanted to kill Christians (and were doing so) in the rows of parishioners happened in South Africa doesn’t imply that I want to make the USA more like there any more than if the story happened in Ireland would mean I wanted us all to be Irish. Poor leap of illogic on your part, but does a good job preventing you from having to address my point: that a person with a handgun was able to thwart a multiple person automatic weapon attack and save a bunch of lives. Thanks be to God for that man!
    Oh, and why the insults? Does it further your argument or make you look weak at discourse?

  • patriotz

    Sounds accurate, but in states that are adopting concealed carry laws, crime is decreasing. Works for me!

  • patriotz

    If we can save even one life by having a gun and stopping someone who was going to commit a crime and harm people, I’m good.

  • patriotz

    Glad you are well. I wish the girl who applied for a concealed carry permit in a state unfriendly to it and that was dragging its feet had gotten one before her ex who was stalking her killed her. Why is no one on this site talking about the lives that are saved daily because someone had a gun and stopped a bad guy??? So I appreciate your post.

  • patriotz

    Poor criminal, we must try to understand him and his poor upbringing as to why he tried to kill you. I only hope he stays in jail the full time.

  • patriotz

    A guy stopped a massacre–you can read it in the book, “Shooting Back.” Also, the killer at the law college in VA–the news reported he was stopped by other students–was only stopped by the “other students” who ran to their cars to get their guns, and they held him at gunpoint till the police came. If the guns had been on their persons, maybe fewer people might have died. But at least they stopped him. Without them, he would not have stopped killing until he ran out of bullets or the police get there. But I bet he could have killed a lot more people before the police got there.

  • patriotz

    Why do you have so much hate when you write to people who are trying to discuss an issue? Did something happen to you? If so, I am sorry and pray to God for you.

  • patriotz

    Great point. Now what do you think a world without any guns would be like? What would a small or elderly person do when people broke into their houses? It would be like Lord of the Flies. If you care to answer that, I’m listening, if you only care to insult with no effort at conversation, please refrain or I’ll refrain from interacting with you.

  • patriotz

    But what’s also highly selective is that so few of these stories are reported, or they’re on the last page. You’re probably right about the other points you brought up.

  • Obviously a typo, meant Heller. You should be more generous in your interpretation.

    And you’re not in the majority of Americans regarding guns. Far from it.

    And your man Scalia also wrote in Heller that other forms of gun control were acceptable, including time & place restrictions.

    Finally, your history of the Bill of Rights is in error. Stare legislatures sent Madison 112 proposed rights for the BoR. He condensed them down to those he took to Congress (there were actually several more that were not ratified). Of the many that referred to what would become the 2nd, they all concerned the State Militias & only one mentioned private arms of defense or hunting.

    The NRA, to my knowledge, has been SCOTUS shopping since the 80s at least, actively discouraging any cases from floating up for fear of a bad interpretation of the Miltia question. And if you actually read all the opinions in Heller, particularly the descenting ones, and even some of the concurrences, the militia question loomed large.

    And while you do have a right to own guns, you have absolutely no right to carry guns in public, around my wife & kids, unless you can prove you are sound of mind, trained, licensed & insured.

  • bwweinstein

    Excellent commentary. As one who has owned guns for 60 years, with a concealed carry permit, I totally endorse the points made in the article. I know personally 5 individuals, or their families, killed with a gun and 4 more injured. I know personally exactly zero times someone has used a gun in self-defense. I wouldn’t go to a theater full of armed “good guys”. And in the context of a college classroom it’s even more likely there will be a tragedy in the course of split-second decision making.

  • cken

    Because the liberals don’t want to believe it, good guys stopping bad guys, happens; so the news media, all liberal, won’t carry it.

  • Wendy Cameron

    Of course I am being judgemental, I did not claim to be otherwise in this case. I am making assumptions about someone walking around with a gun. If you have a gun, then in my mind you primed and ready to use it and I don’t want to be around you when you decide to. Because as good as you think you might be, the risk of me getting shot has increased significantly by the fact that you are carrying a gun around. I am not taking the chance that you aren’t a good guy…my life is too important to me.

  • Wendy Cameron

    That is a ludicrous statement. Police are carrying guns around as part of their job, though I question what some police are doing, they are trained to use them only in times of dire necessity. Seeing some random person walking around carrying a gun on the streets or walking into a restaurant with a gun is completely different and if you don’t see the difference than you have a problem. And if I saw a police officer walk into a store or down a street with his/her gun drawn, I would be making my way as far from them as I could get.

  • Bones

    I’m talking about Australia.

    You guys let your nutters have military hardware then blame it on someone else.

    Pretty sure we have the same rates of mental illness over here.

  • Wendy Cameron

    And yes, of course context matters. My comment below indicates that. I am not referring to people out in the woods hunting, or police who are carrying weapons. But if I see some random person walking down the street with a gun or entering a restaurant with a gun, I am likely going to get as far from them as possible.

    It is unfortunate that your experience if Christians is that they think only in terms of black and white. I can assure you that is not the case for every Christian (just as I am sure every person with a gun is not a bad guy).

  • spunkets

    “Obviously a typo,”

    Yeah, sure. Your grasp of the Bill of Rights is just as poor as your grasp of the 2nd Amendment. The people does not refer to the states, nor does the states refer to the people. If the intent of the founders was to prevent Congress from legislating rules for state militias, they never would have explicitly included the power to do so in the main body of the US Constitution. They also would have used the word “states” explicitly in the 2nd, not “the people”. Your readings regarding the Bill of Rights, the 2nd in particular are selective.

    Note that the Taney court recognized the right to keep and bear arms as the people’s right, and that if Dred Scott was a free man, then he had the right to bear arms. The hisotry of gun control in the US is one of laws passed to prohibit blacks from owning and bearing arms. The laws then were passed to limit the bearing of arms to corrupt politicians, as in the Sullivan laws passed in NY.

    “And while you do have a right to own guns, you have absolutely no right
    to carry guns in public, around my wife & kids, unless you can prove
    you are sound of mind, trained, licensed & insured”

    The right that shall not be infringed, includes the right to bear arms. No right shall be licenced, as that applies only to mere privilege. No one owes you proof that they are a mind suitable to you or anyone else to exercise a right, and insurance shall never be required to exercise a right, regardless of your demands and derogatory slurs about folks that choose to mount an effective self defense.

    You should be more generous in your respect for your fellows and their rights and honor them, as you have a duty to, instead of demeaning and making demands on them.

  • spunkets

    “As one who has … a concealed carry permit, … I wouldn’t go to a theater full of armed “good guys”. And in the context of a college classroom it’s even more likely there will be a tragedy in the course of split-second decision making.”

    I’ll bet you’ve heard that little voice saying that you were a special little snowflake.

  • spunkets

    Exercising ones rights has nothing to do with fear, nor does having a gun equate to safety. The decision to engage in effective self defense simply means that the person has decided not to submit to any demands that they hand over control and exercise of their rights, whether it be their life, loved ones, decisions, property, whatever, to someone else, including any mob. The motivation is not fear, it’s a love of right and defiance of the demand that one abandon their own life and rights to immoral force, AKA evil!

  • piggypiggy

    Nope. My dad was a farm kid in 1920’s Oklahoma. They left the guns at home

  • Nicole Chojnacki

    I found this a very insightful and interesting article. It seems like too many gun owners just leave it at “I’m a good guy with a gun.” How do I know you are? I don’t necessarily know you personally. Frankly, if I saw someone with a gun out in public, I’d be very scared because of all the shooting stories I’ve seen on the news. I can’t just take someone’s say-so as far as my own safety and that of my family goes!

  • spunkets

    “My dad was a farm kid in 1920’s Oklahoma. They left the guns at home”

    They left them at home only if they wanted to. If they wanted to take them out and transport them for any reason, they did and there was no law preventing them from doing so. I said that kids in the cities transported their guns on the bus, which they did, regardless of your “nope”. They took them to school and tshot them there in extra-curricular activities. All that ened with the gun grabbing campaign of the ’60s and recently for rural schools.

  • spunkets

    “I can’t just take someone’s say-so as far as my own safety and that of my family goes!”

    Maybe you could call ahead to the grocry store to have everyone strip searched and interrogated before you arrive. Just so you feel safe around all those folks you don’t know personally.

  • Korou

    “Your claim is false. Self defense means effective self defense, not what you or anyone else decide to limit it to.”
    So, how about if we let every single man, woman and child carry a loaded machine gun everywhere they went? Would you agree with that?
    If not, why not? Would you agree that the horrific risks would outweigh the potential benefits?

    By the way, I’m British, and we don’t have a “police state”.

  • It’s fair enough to point out the individuals that have a fantasy of playing Rambo: the loons who eagerly hype themselves up at the notion of mowing down black hat wearing bad guys while wearing their own big white hat. Yet there’s still some significant hand-waving and goalpost-moving going on here in the article. There are plenty of people– not nearly enough out of the percentage of total gun owners but they do clearly exist in big numbers– who do own firearms for protection that don’t plan on charging in brainlessly in active shooter situations. They have actually thought these things out. It’s not that hard to get a grip over.

    The absolute vast majority of defensive gun uses in the first place, by far, involve either merely threatening to shoot (often with folks still having their gun in their holster, not even drawn) or even merely threatening to get the gun in the first place (often with folks having it nearby but not on their person even). That has to be kept in mind. A hypothetical Bob, say, in a shopping mall where he hears gunshots will– if he’s responsible– either stay where he is since he doesn’t know the situation (but being armed he can at least defend himself where he is as well as those around him, should he not be alone) or leave for safety (but being armed he at least has a fighting chance should the active shooter suddenly show up right besides him).

    That’s also not even getting into the fundamental moral question of banning something when it’s known damn well that there are multiple uses besides self-defense. We already know it: collecting, paper target shooting, clay pidegon shooting, big game hunting, etc. In anticipation of follow-up comments, too, yes I get it. The NRA is horrible. Open carry nuts that do things like deliberately walk around with firearms in their hands, pointing them at various people, are sickening. Reasonable gun control is common sense. I still think that it’s important to be totally rational here.

  • Those are some good points. I think a fundamental thing is that more and more people that, well, wouldn’t be allowed to join Benito Mussolini’s inner circle– from LGBT Americans to Jewish-Americans to other such groups– should be getting involved in gun politics and should be arming themselves. People who take the responsible view on personal firearm ownership really have to be louder and all around more vocal especially now, criticizing the ability of rapists, murders, career criminals, and the like to get weapons with nothing but cash and handshakes as well as condemning the pure idiots that do things like open carry pointing around their rifles at various stunned people as if they were squirt-guns or something.

  • eddantes56

    You appear to be uninformed of the history of the second amendment and why it was placed as the second right in the Bill. You surely have heard of the Magna Carta, English common law and the primary sources where our Founding Fathers spoke to the tyranny of governments that own all the weapons? Have you every lived overseas? I don’t mean visit, but lived in a third world country where the citizens are basically unarmed and they live behind high walls and barred doors and windows. The criminal element and sometimes the government element prey on them at will. Governments by nature devolve in grabbing more and more power; this is not an anti-gov screed, it is a historical fact..

    Equally as disturbing to me is your implication that unless one has a law enforcement or military background/training, then one should not have a weapon. That is the exact type of thinking the second amendment was instituted to counter. What an arrogant view! And I’ll leave it at that.

    As for not carrying guns in public around your wife and kids unless I prove I am of sound mind, trained and licensed and insured…….there you go again. You know best and I’ll bet that licensing and insurance will be set by people who believe in the specific right of the people to own weapons.

    Sorry pal, you don’t decide who can carry a weapon; if you had your way, there would be a small cadre of weapon carriers…..oh wait, that would be the gov. Policemen and military personnel.

    Finally, throwing out an emotional statement using your wife and kids as a strawman is very lazy reasoning. I mean very very lazy reasoning. The chances of your family being harmed by an illegal alien are much greater than by an armed non LE/military civilian.

    I do agree that it is an ugly proposition that a civilian could open fire on the public; in almost every instance, they had criminal, psychological and/or behavioral issues. Funny how in most instance, with a little parental responsibility or neighborhood alerting authorities, most of these incidents would not have happened.

    While it might be tough for some to balance these decisions, it is clear in my mind that the wide bearth granted by our FFs in the second amendment must and will stand.

  • spunkets

    “I’m British, and we don’t have a “police state”.”

    I knew you were a subject, at least in heart, and you most certainly do have a police state. You always did.

    “So, how about if we let every single man, woman and child carry a loaded machine gun everywhere they went?”

    Children have not reached the age of reason, but you know that and have just chosen to be obtuse. As far as the rest goes, they’ll not be bothered and you’ve provided no legitimate reason they should be, such as the onslaught of murderous terrorists on Israel or some other violent invasion. Otherwise, here in the US, folks in many if not most states can pay the $200 tax and carry full auto if they want. They simply don’t do it, because they’re more sensible than Brits, who imprison old men and old ladies for daring to defend themselves against home invaders and rapists with their canes or whatever else the king hasn’t taken from them.

  • spunkets

    “he killed a man he believed was a danger to innocent children. And he
    had had all of that training of which you speak, but was still convicted
    for murder because of his alleged bad judgment.”

    He was convicted of murder, because he killed a man that was no threat. There is no “alleged” bad judgment, it was confirmed to be that and worse. He is a criminal, not a victim.

  • spunkets

    “Open carry nuts that do things like deliberately walk around with
    firearms in their hands, pointing them at various people, are sickening.”

    This is completely false. Pointing a gun at anyone, loaded or unloaded is a crime and it has not been done other than during the commission of a felony, It has not been done by any people simply open carrying rifles anywhere.

  • piggypiggy

    I’m sorry but you are wrong, but you won’t admit this.
    Guns were left at home.

  • Daniel Ruben

    I wonder how many mass shootings have been prevented thanks to all the good guys with guns out there. Considering how many still happen, that must be an awful lot – the USA must be one really violent, sad, messed up country given there are still so many shootings in spite of all the good guys with guns.

  • Bones

    Lol Australia and Britain are police states.

    You obviously don’t het out much.

  • Korou

    Oh well, I can’t be angry with someone who comes out with such amusing nonsense. Obviously you don’t know anything about the UK if you think it can be described as a “police state”, that we have a king and that this king is the person in charge.
    As for children, letting them carry machine guns sounds barely more nonsensical than permitting any adult who wants to have one to do so. After all, what about the children’s right to self defence? Are you saying that because they are too young to know better they would be a danger to themselves and others? If so, then why aren’t you worried about the danger that adults pose to themselves and others when they carry guns?
    The statistics speak for themselves. People in the USA are in much greater danger of being killed by guns than people in the UK, or in most other first world countries around the world, because we don’t make guns freely available to anyone who happens to want one.
    In the USA people are quite happy to have a speed limit. They know that driving a car fast does not necessarily mean anyone will be killed but they realise that it makes the risk of death unnecessarily high, so they put limits on people’s freedom (which is how the word should be used in this case) to drive fast. What’s wrong with regulating guns in a similar manner to make sure that the risks inherent in having a gun are at least minimised?

  • That’s the kind of detachment from reality that worries me about gun people. In truth, we have never been more safe or less violent than we are today. People who are responsible gun owners should stand with the anti-gun crowd on the problem of #LosersWithGuns. Many more Americans have been killed by nut jobs with guns than have been killed by terrorists, yet we fail to see the problem of domestic terrorist as an issue at all if ISIS isn’t associated with them.

  • Actually, we spent the bulk of our military careers overseas, mostly the Far East. And we know lawlessness firsthand. And comparing American life to Life in Somola or some other 3rd world hell hole is lazy reasoning itself.

    And we do get to decide on who gets the right to own & carry guns. The SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that all rights can have time & p,lace restrictions. The old yelling fire in a crowded theater…

    Actually, we should model guns on the American experience with driving. We have increased billions of miles driven over the decades while decreasing deaths: education, practical training, testing, licensing & insurance are the key.

  • You are, of course, only reading your history to bolster your own argument. There have been as many rulings limiting the 2nd amendment. Even in Heller Justice Scalia wrote that The 2nd amendment was not an unlimited right & could be regulated.

  • Korou

    Didn’t you say kids shouldn’t have guns because they “hadn’t reached the age of reason”?
    I have to say that if any untrained, unchecked adult is allowed to carry a lethal killing device then I can’t see what reason there is for forbidding children from doing so.
    I’m not saying they should, of course. I’m saying that giving a gun to any adult who wants one without asking questions makes about as much sense.

  • Korou

    He’s 100% right in that the rest of the world is laughing at you.

  • Sorry….I’m speechless…completely stunned at how ineffectual my comment was in the face of … whatever this syndrome is.

    As for the “Bible” business, you’ve got me mixed up with someone else.

  • spunkets

    Neither the govm’t nor anyone else has any justification to be “giving” permission to exercise ny right. Your grandfather gave your dad permission to be around and have access to his gun, because it was his right to make the decision. Neither you, nor anyone else is my father and your grandfather’s right of control over your dad ended when he reached the age of reason.

  • spunkets

    The truth is singular and logic applies. Neither democracy, nor presenting any abitrary quantity of falsehoods are logical operations. The rulings that say the 2nd does not apply to the people, when the statement clearly says, “the right of the people” are liars. So are those that say, “shall not be infringed” means “can be infringed”.

  • Rhkennerly — You know, if I were suddenly made King of America I believe I’d bring back the draft. (I was RA myself, and served in the Army starting in 1967.) The Army (1) taught me a respect for weapons you just don’t get as a civilian, and (2) brought together a lot of young men from all over America I would never have met otherwise.

  • Spunkets — If the Second Amendment allows you to pick and choose the parts of a sentence you like, it’s the only law that ever did. Please don’t quote half of a sentence and say that’s the Second Amendment.

  • spunkets

    Felons and mentally ill folks aren’t allowed to buy or have guns and the govm’t is not allowed to permit anyone before they exercise a right, especially effective self defense. The govm’t is also prohibited from creating or holding registration lists or the equivalent, to prevent them from confiscating –infringing– on the right to keep and bear arms.

    You have a queen and millions of petty little kings. You failed to say anything at all about the UK, (K stands for kingdom), has made it a crime for anyone to fight and injure a home invader or rapist. Your country has lawless yobs running around attacking and injuring folks, disabled and the elderly, and you imprison them for standing up for their rights against such tyranny. You live in a police state. You need to face the fact that when your king ordered the confiscation of arms from his “subjects” in “his” colonies, his forces were met with lethal fire, as is appropriate for such a disrespectful act. When you no longer imprison pensioners from defending themselves from home invading thugs and muggers, then you’ll come closer to being able to claim that you do not live in a police state.

  • spunkets

    “Please don’t quote half of a sentence and say that’s the Second Amendment.”

    Half of a sentence is an incomplete thought or equivalently an incomplete statement. I gave the whole sentence, which was the complete statement of the law. The subject is the right to keep and bear arms, The right belongs to the people. The verb and modifier is shall not be infringed. The reason is to preserve freedom–the free state. The militia is the people, not any state or the Union of states. There you have the whole thing analyzed in the only logical way possible, with the full singular and unique truth manifest.

  • spunkets

    “The Army (1) taught me a respect for weapons you just don’t get as a
    civilian, and (2) brought together a lot of young men from all over
    America I would never have met otherwise.”

    You needed to learn a respect for rights, because weapons are merely tools. Respecting a weapon makes as much sense as respecting a hammer or a can opener. Rights are things that identify those things that are an essential element of life and not some inanimate object.

    A person that respects rights abhors such disrespect for life as the draft, because it rests on the claim that you owe unconditional allegence to some significant force whose sole purpose is to kill folks and break things for some abitrary cause of which the draftee has no alternative to refuse other than to be imprisoned and have their rights forfeited. An officer can resign, neither the draftee or the enlisted are extended that respect, because they are considered to be persons less worthy of the honor.

    The only justification for fighting is to protect rights and freedom, because they are the only things that can not ever be imposed upon anyone by force. The force of violence can only be used to take life or destroy it in slavery or imprisonment. If the cause for that aciton is insufficient to attract folks that hold life and life’s rights dear enough to protect and support them, there remains no justification whatsoever to turn the force against them.

  • Me, too. Got off the tractor, hitchhiked into town & joined a shooting war. Better than plowing & my number was coming up anyway. Then I policed awhile but went back & finished up with the Navy.

    The problem is that everyone has rights in America, but nobody has any responsibility. I agree, the shared experience of service is a unifying principle that we are now lacking.

    We’ve become a nation of extremely frightened, and frightening, Chickenhawks. Too quick to use a gun or commit the troops, as long as it’s somebody else’s kids.

    I just think it is noteworthy that the rise of gun culture corresponds to us ending the draft. It’s not nearly as romantic after you’ve been in a few firefights. Nor are you as frightened to wander around without a gun. You know how quickly & unexpectedly things can unravel, before you can react & duck, much less use a gun. You learn to be safe, instead of fantasizing that you can shoot your way out of every situation.

  • No, you just don’t want to believe the truth.

  • spunkets

    “I just think it is noteworthy that the rise of gun culture corresponds to us ending the draft.”

    That is false. The gun culture dates back to antiquity and played the central role in the creation of the US and is about life and rights, not your claims of romanticism. At no time did you ever put yourself in harm’s way without being armed, nor were you ever placed there without being armed and covered with overwhelming firepower. Your claims are hypocritical and it’s unlikely that you were ever in a firefight.

  • Spunkets — The Second Amendment is one sentence long and here it is: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    You DON’T get to pick and choose which parts you like. It’s all the law (“the law” is a Latin phrase meaning, “You gotta do this even if you don’t want to.”).

  • Spunkets — I’m curious — were you ever in military service, or served as a policeman or fireman?

  • spunkets

    Your analysis sucks Ott. Why not just splash ink on the sidewalk and declare it to be a living law to celebrate progress?

  • Not true at all. Fewer people than ever in the US have access to a gun in their homes. And you bet I was armed, because I went into harm’s way voluntarily.

    And I have a Bronze & the citation to prove it. Between my wife & myself we have 53 years of military service. I’m also An NRA life member & a state of Texas certified police firearms trainer.

    You, on the other hand, are just an over entitled, wannabe, blowhard. At least I use my real iD & don’t cower behind a pseudonym.

    Feel free to have the last word.

  • After all, EVERY person that carries a gun is a ‘bad guy’, right?
    You are apparently unable to differentiate one person from another, which says very little for your cognitive abilities. You are attempting to append what someone else said to me simply because I contradicted a false claim.
    Ammophobes like you maintain that guns are ONLY for killing

    Ah, so guns actually detain criminals until they can be apprehended by the proper authorities? It’s news to me that a device designed to shoot pieces of metal into flesh with maximum lethality serve a purpose other than to kill before being killed. But the best defense is a good offense, I suppose? Pity for the hundreds of thousands of people killed by them every year — clearly this is outside their intended purpose as a peacekeeping device.

    Use of firearms by the police in the U.S. is also rare.

    If you think so, then you’ve never taken the time to look at the alternative, which I find very likely.

    You were so eager to use the United Kingdom as an example. In 2014, police in the United Kingdom shot and killed… a person. One. Single. Person. In the entire year. In the United States, police killed 1112 people, averaging three per day, every day of the year.

    This isn’t an outlier. Most countries of similar development levels don’t have even a fraction of as many deaths at the hands of police as the US. While countries like Germany and Australia and China are reporting deaths in the single and low double digits, the United States is boasting quadruple digit numbers.

    “Rare” by comparison to third world countries and corrupt governments and outrageous compared to our neighbors. Is that something to boast about?

  • Bones

    Now what do you think a world without any guns would be like? ”

    (Hand up) I know sir. You would be like Australia.

    You should come and live over here.

  • Bones

    Lol. Come over here and argue to remove gun restrictions.

    You’d be laughed at real quick.

    Poor NRA has no influence in Aussie Land.

  • Bones

    They’re also stockpiled so you can take over government property when the government does something you don’t like, like making you pay your taxes or your mates went to jail for starting fires.

    This also doubles up as male bonding.

  • Bones

    Lol. Australia and the UK have self defence laws which revolve around the use of reasonable and proportinate force.

    Shooting a black kid running away is an example of unreasonable and disproportionate force.

  • Bones

    Yeah.

    When Martin Bryant gunned down over 30 people in a restaurant we didn’t think if only everyone was carrying a semi automatic.

    We said how do we keep these weapons out of society.

    Ffs is it that hard to understand.

  • Bones

    Two things about knife attacks in China.

    1. Knives are unregulated and easy to get hold of.

    2. Stabbing is a traditional method of fighting.

    Not quite sure what this has to do with guns as you seem to want them to have guns instead.

  • spunkets

    Nonsense and irrelevant. The issue is the respect and honoring of folk’s rights and protecting freedom, not what any particular percentage of people chose to do. The US was in fact created by a minority of the population and they gifted almost all with a free country.

    The draft ended in the 70’s. The 1968 GCA occurred prior to that and I saw the rise of the gun grabbing movement before that and the trampling of rights that occurred in the ’60s and beyond.

    “I was armed, because I went into harm’s way voluntarily.”

    I was unarmed involuntarily, because the govm’t ignored the highest law of the land, made it a crime to be armed and I went into harms way to protect other people anyway. Other folks I know, were unarmed involuntarily and died, including women who fought back with all they had–their bare hands.

    I really do not care about your prior occupational awards, certifications and your NRA membership is mere occupational bling, not an indication of your wholehearted support for the rights of your fellows. You also support forcing them to fight unconditionally for some objective, regardless of the details and morality involved as if they were owned.

    Your #LosersWithGuns problem is a figment. The murder rate has been continually declining and so has the accident rate. The NRA runs educational programs and Congress supported increases in mental health funding, including for records transfers to the NIC database. Both opposed by DemLosersInOffice as being too effective, along with private party acccess to the NIC database, because it would prevent the creation of a registration database. That’s, because the objective is disarmament, nothing else.

    There’s a losers holding political office problem feuling your figment with bogus data and statistics. There’s a losers with exec office positions and badges problem, feuling your figment with such gun running ops as fast and furious and the CA Senator’s Chinese armament project to boost his campaign fund. There’s an education problem. There’s losers practicing psychiatry problem, as in Sandy Hook and VA Tech. All those loser problems and they’re compounded by losers disrespecting both logic and rights problems.

    “You, on the other hand, are just an over entitled, wannabe, blowhard.”

    What is it that you think I wannabe that I’m not cupcake?

  • JA Myer

    Guns frighten me. I served my country as an infantryman and I know what guns are for they are not a “tool” they are a weapon. And people who think everyone should carry a gun are scarier still. I want to live in a civilized country not in somebody’s fantasy wild west.

  • Korou

    “Neither the govm’t nor anyone else has any justification to be “giving” permission to exercise ny right.”
    And yet there are plenty of people who are authorised to tell you that you may not do plenty of things you are capable of. They tell you that you can’t bring your gun into a school or on a plane, that you can’t drive your car over a certain speed in certain areas, that you can’t go to certain countries unless you have a visa. Many of your rights are constrained in many ways. Do you disagree with this? Or do you always drive below the speed limit and comply with airline safety regulations because you would make the same regulations yourself?

    The fact is that your rights are limited and proscribed in a myriad of ways, most of which you agree with. Why shouldn’t society also make a rule saying that dangerous toys should be regulated?

  • Korou

    Well, I’m starting to think you understand the USA as little as you understand the UK. Or history. Or logic.

  • Bones

    It sounds like he thinks the UK is in the Middle East.

    He obviously hadn’t heard of Dunblane.

  • Don’t be ignorant. Look at actual footage of the open carry nuts doing what they’ve been doing. Don’t put your head into a bubble world where you refuse to accept factual information that doesn’t fit your agenda.

  • Korou

    Exactly. Tragic indeed. But hey, at least nobody’s rights to self defence were threatened.
    Spunkets seems to think that if he doesn’t have a gun, King George is going to come back from the grave and make him pay a tax on tea.

  • chrijeff

    “Most countries of similar development levels” don’t have the historical background of the US. They didn’t have to stand, mostly unsupported by formal military, against enemies attempting to destroy or conquer them (see the French and Indian Wars, and the guerrilla/terror that accompanied them–or, for that matter, Santa Anna and the Runaway Scrape during the Texas War for Independence in 1836; he wanted to literally erase all Anglo presence). They didn’t have to fight to free themselves from a government they considered tyranical. (About the only successful revolution prior to the Russian one, in 1917, was the French. All others were crushed. See 1848, for example.) They didn’t have large, dangerous animals (bears, wolves) to protect themselves against. (Most such creatures, in Europe, had been exterminated or driven way into the back country well before the 19th C.) They didn’t have wild frontiers (all frontiers attract the Lawless Element), except for Australia (which, remember, was long a dumping ground for convicts, some of whom undoubtedly escaped and went on doing what came naturally). The American relationship with guns is entirely the natural outgrowth of the fact that for something like 300 years, our citizens *had* to be armed.

    Moreover, said countries don’t seem to have the kind of violent crime that the US is prone to. If cops don’t have a great likelihood of facing violent criminals, it makes sense that most of them don’t have to be armed.

  • chrijeff

    Are you saying that there are no bad guys? What about ISIS? No good guys? What about a man trying to defend his family against home invaders?

    And just as a footnote to this and my other posts: I am not a “gun nut.” I have never owned a firearm or belonged to the NRA.

  • spunkets

    “Look at actual footage…you refuse to
    accept factual information that doesn’t fit your agenda.”

    I’ve seen pics from various news sources, some flicks and none of them shows them “pointing their guns at various people”, which is as I said, a crime. Given the medias’ agenda and their penchant for drama, I probably would have seen it.

    As far as what my agenda is, it is to respect and honor rights and protect freedom, not promoting hooliganism.

  • spunkets

    “Shooting a black kid(anyone) running away is an example of unreasonable and disproportionate force.”

    That’s correct and that’s only been done in the US by cops. 1 in SC and 1 in Chicago.

  • “After all, EVERY person that carries a gun is a ‘bad guy’, right?
    You
    are apparently unable to differentiate one person from another, which
    says very little for your cognitive abilities. You are attempting to
    append what someone else said to me simply because I contradicted a
    false claim.”

    So you are NOT maintaining that EVERY person that carries a gun is a ‘bad guy’? What IS your position?

    “clearly this is outside their intended purpose as a peacekeeping device”

    You aren’t making sense. Either firearms are intended only to kill or they are intended as a “peacekeeping device”. Which is it?

    “Use of firearms by the police in the U.S. is also rare.
    If you think so, then you’ve never taken the time to look at the alternative, which I find very likely.”

    So you are saying that use of firearms (as in actually pulling the trigger) in the U.S. is NOT rare? What color is your Unicorn?

    “Most countries of similar development levels”

    How are you rating “development levels”? Gang penetration per capita? Drug use per capita? Diversity? Poverty level? Child poverty level?

    “outrageous compared to our neighbors”

    Apparently Mexico is not our ‘neighbor’ but China and Australia is. Righto.

  • Wendy, is it the job of the police to shoot and kill people?

    Or are you saying that guns have a purpose OTHER than killing?

    Which is it? How do you know that the ‘random person’ you see walking around carrying a gun on the streets or walking into a restaurant is not a police detective or undercover police officer? How do you know they are not a federal agent?

  • Tdawg

    Defiance and or fear seem like bad motivations to own deadly weapons.And, if Im not mistaken, sure, it is a right, but isnt the right to beear arms horribly misconstrued? It should only be for militia, witch simply doesnt exist in this day and age. The way i read the right, it should mean that only law enforcement and military should be allowed to own firearms. In any case, stating that you want to own guns in defiance… Once again, all I can see is a hipocritical wish to own a gun because you WANT a gun.

  • So what you’re saying is that people who moved in and killed everyone in the path of their territorial dominance and then established a system of racial discrimination for hundreds of years caused a lot of violence to fall back upon themselves, and the only solution to this is to stand by and wait to see what happens as they continue killing each other? As opposed to, I don’t know, at least trying to reign in the violence by some means other than killing anyone who looks at you funny?

    except for Australia

    From 1989 to 2011, Australian police killed an average of 4.7 people per year. Today about 19% of homicides involve a firearm and total about 250 people a year. Not bad for a nation founded in an inhospitable region with thousands of extremely dangerous animals by a people made up of dangerous convicts. They credit it to stricter gun control.

    Moreover, said countries don’t seem to have the kind of violent crime that the US is prone to. If cops don’t have a great likelihood of facing violent criminals, it makes sense that most of them don’t have to be armed.

    In short, the apparent solution to an armed and hostile public is to have armed and hostile police, never mind how many unarmed, fleeing suspects are shot and killed on a routine basis, or how many times police have broken in and shot someone who turned out to be the neighbor of the suspect’s home. “Shoot first, ask questions later because the public is dangerous and unpredictable” has done us so many favors, hasn’t it? And so many of them walk without any form of accountability for their actions, too! What was that you were saying about a tyrannical government?

  • SamHamilton

    It’s really a waste of time to argue against bumper sticker-style slogans. Just like “Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries” or “Forget a job; just vote Democrat” or any other political bumper sticker this gun one is based on emotion and supposed wit rather than logic. Bumper sticker-style slogans aren’t meant to convince someone who disagrees but to signal one’s affiliation with a particular group or cause or to mock those who disagree.

  • SamHamilton

    I live in America. I consider myself patriotic in that I love my homeland. I don’t know anyone who is terrified to live here. Most of them love their homeland too. Of course, I don’t live in a rough neighborhood with a lot of violence. Perhaps if I did, I’d feel differently.

    If it helps you understand Americans any better (at least those that own guns for self-defense purposes) I think they’d say that owning a gun is like keeping a fire extinguisher in your house. Just because someone keeps a gun or fire extinguisher close at hand doesn’t mean she is living in fear or terrified of the place she lives.

  • So you are NOT maintaining that EVERY person that carries a gun is a ‘bad guy’? What IS your position?

    Why would I be maintaining it when I’m not the person who said it? Wendy Cameron said it. You are not arguing with Wendy Cameron anymore.
    My position is that firearms are a device with the primary function of causing serious injury to another living creature. I’m relatively neutral on the position of using firearms for hunting or to defend one’s self from an animal. When it comes to using a firearm on a human, I believe it should be a matter of last recourse, not the primary method of incapacitating a potential threat. If any other option exists, I believe it should be utilized first, or at least considered and eliminated as appropriate. This is what people of most other countries do, and in most other countries, it has worked well.

    You aren’t making sense. Either firearms are intended only to kill or they are intended as a “peacekeeping device”. Which is it?

    … You are apparently unable to recognize sarcasm, in addition to not realizing that when one person’s name does not recognize another person’s name, that means they are two people and not the same person with two names. Okay. You’re trying damned hard to insult me while coming across as a complete idiot yourself, just so you’re aware.

    So you are saying that use of firearms (as in actually pulling the trigger) in the U.S. is NOT rare? What color is your Unicorn?

    Rare in comparison to what? I just proved that firearm use in the US is literally hundreds of times higher than most other developed countries. When one country has tens of thousands of firearm deaths a year and another has five or six, are you really seriously telling me that firearm use in the first country is rare?

    How are you rating “development levels” Gang penetration per capita? Drug use per capita? Diversity? Poverty level? Child poverty level?

    All of the above, actually, in addition to wealth per capita, establishment of medical and scientific standards, representation by the government, education (prevalence and accessibility as well as by standards thereof) and other sociopolitical and cultural markers of development. There are multiple international organizations who study these markers and compare them as a measure of developmental growth, and the US tends to rate in the lower top ten on most lists.

    If you’re curious, Norway tends to rank #1, and Norway’s firearm incident rate is considered to be about a tenth of ours per capita, with around 106 deaths per year, most of which were suicides. Firearm homicide rates average about 10 a year if discarding 2011’s terrorist attack as an outlier, or about 12 a year if counting it. Norway’s police made the news in 2014 as having only fired two shots in the entirety of the year, with neither shot resulting in a fatality.

    This is what I think of when the word “rare” is used. Not “three people killed every day by police and 30 people killed every day by fellow citizens.” That is not rare. That’s happening so often that it disappears into the background and becomes assumed to be a natural part of life. But it’s not. For most other countries, it’s not.

    Apparently Mexico is not our ‘neighbor’ but China and Australia is. Righto.

    Mexico is a geographical neighbor, but life experiences in Mexico are significantly different from other nations. On the same charts where Norway ranks 1 and the US ranks 8, Mexico ranks 74, due to lower overall health, education, scientific and health standards compared to other countries.

    On the other hand, Canada ranks 9th, just below the US, and their homicide rates hover around an average of 175 a year, or a fifth of the US by capita, with police shooting and killing an average of 25 people per year.

  • I’d be fine with people owning guns as long as they also registered to be conscripted in national defense. That’s what the Constitution says the right to bear arms is for. “Well-regulated” no less.

  • I’m not ‘arguing’ with anyone. I am having a conversation.

    “When it comes to using a firearm on a human, I believe it should be a
    matter of last recourse, not the primary method of incapacitating a
    potential threat. If any other option exists, I believe it should be
    utilized first, or at least considered and eliminated as appropriate.
    This is what people of most other countries do, and in most other
    countries, it has worked well.”

    False, there are over 100 other countries with a higher homicide rate than the U.S.

    “You’re trying damned hard to insult me while coming across as a complete idiot yourself, just so you’re aware.”

    The only person throwing any insults here is you. You fail to be able to address the question, so you resort to an insult. How ‘progressive’ of you.

    “I just proved that firearm use in the US is literally hundreds of times higher than most other developed countries. When one country has tens of
    thousands of firearm deaths a year and another has five or six, are you really seriously telling me that firearm use in the first country is rare?”

    We weren’t talking about ‘firearm use, were were talking about firearm shootings by police officers. I know reading is difficult for you but try to keep up. As far as firearm use goes, firearm are used in a very small percent of crimes in the U.S. That means by definition it is RARE. Firearms are fired by police exceedingly rare. Firearms shootings are so rare that they represent a small fraction of one percent of deaths in the U.S.

    “‘How are you rating “development levels” Gang penetration per
    capita? Drug use per capita? Diversity? Poverty level? Child poverty level?
    “All of the above, actually,”

    Then you wouldn’t be comparing the U.S. to the U.K., France, Germany, China, Japan nor Australia, because on those demographics they are not comparable to the U.S. Norway has almost no gangs, almost no drug use, is practically homogeneous in regards to ‘race’, and has very little poverty in comparison tot he U.S.

    3 people killed every day by police? Where are you getting your numbers from? Is your unicorn talking to you again? 1,095 people killed by police every year? 2015 was a record year and it didn’t even come close to that.

    Mexico has far more in common with the U.S. than Canada does, look at demographics, look at poverty rate (especially child poverty rate) and look at gangs. Shoot, many of the worst gangs in the U.S. have come from Mexico.

    Canada has virtually no gangs, is almost entirely white, and doesn’t even allow new immigrants to be covered by their ‘free healthcare’.

  • If what you say about Australia were true then their crime and homicide rates would have gone DOWN after they passed their strict gun control. Instead they went up, and have remained almost the same rate they were before they pass their gun ban.

    The reason is because Australia has never had a lot of violent crime. Comparing the U.S. to Australia is comparing apples to radishes.

  • False, there are over 100 other countries with a higher homicide rate than the U.S.

    Countries in states of civil war, countries with fragmentary governments rife with corruption, countries where large portions of the populace live in isolated wilderness with little oversight where thousands of people live without access to vital resources, places where the criminal element controls much of the country. You’re saying you’re proud of being better off than that? Our homicide rates are significantly better than the Congo and that’s what matters? Not places like Britain or Germany, but places like Bolivia, Columbia, Guyana? That’s what you want to be compared to?

    Then congratulations, the US is better than abject hellholes, although it falls far behind nations with functional government.

    The only person throwing any insults here is you.

    I guess that’s true if you ignore your own posts.

    We weren’t talking about ‘firearm use, were were talking about firearm shootings by police officers. I know reading is difficult for you but try to keep up.

    “I addressed both,” I say to the person who read an obviously sarcastic post and thought it was completely serious and has demonstrated no capacity to differentiate between which two people they address…

    As far as firearm use goes, firearm are used in a very small percent of crimes in the U.S. That means by definition it is RARE. Firearms are fired by police exceedingly rare. Firearms shootings are so rare that they represent a small fraction of one percent of deaths in the U.S.

    Comparing nonviolent crimes to violent crimes to prove our rate of violence isn’t high is not an honest use of statistics, much less comparing the rate of violent crime to rate of death by other causes. In no event are these objective claims, only relative at best — as in the rate of death by firearms committed by crimes versus the rate of death otherwise is relatively low, but objectively very high compared to other countries. Certainly, you’re more likely to die from heart disease than being shot, but that doesn’t change the fact that if you lived in Canada, for example, your chances of being shot would decrease significantly.

    Much like the earlier claim that we compare very well to undeveloped countries, I suppose if you’re happy with comparing your odds of being shot to your odds of contracting cancer, then it’s possible to say that we’re doing very well. In comparison to other people, however, we’re not doing very well at all.

    Norway has almost no gangs, almost no drug use, is practically homogeneous in regards to ‘race’, and has very little poverty in comparison tot he U.S.

    Aside from racial homogeneity, what this is saying to me is that the US has problems which can’t be solved and are only exacerbated by the ease of access to firearms. Our culture continually draws emphasizes looking out for number one, and the prioritization of firearm access over others’ lives is a part of that.

    3 people killed every day by police? Where are you getting your numbers from? Is your unicorn talking to you again?

    I get my numbers from sites like this which maintain a list of police shooting incidents with cited reports. I have to, since police are under no obligation to report deaths to any oversight agency, so there is no official organization gathering these statistics. Even the FBI admits they don’t have a full scope of the number of deaths which take place every year at the hands of police.

    And when you look at the page, just think: these are only the ones with citation. There could easily be more that took place that no one was able to record or report and which went down as nothing but a footnote on a piece of paperwork.

    (For those reading along, the unicorn comments are made from the fellow who claims I’m the only one throwing about insults…)

    Mexico has far more in common with the U.S. than Canada does

    Again, if you’d prefer we be compared to countries whose governments are struggling to keep order — then sure, we’re doing very well compared to countries that could easily fall apart within the next century. Mexico has described itself as being at literal war with its criminal element, struggling to keep a corrupt police force under control, politicians being bought out or executed at the hands of drug cartels. That’s who you’d rather compare yourself to? Then sure, we’re doing great, in much the same way stomping on a nail is great when compared to having it sawed off, and we can comfort ourselves with that while looking at the many other places where people barbarically get pedicures. Because freedom! is more important than creature comforts.

  • Bones

    That is complete and utter nonsense.

    But yeah we are a pretty safe country to live in.

    We stopped semi-automatics and nutters and bad guys getting their hands on guns.

    Something you don’t want stopped because it’s every persons right to blow people away.

  • Bones

    Lol. Australia’murder rate at record low levels.

    http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/02/05/national-murder-rate-hits-record-low

    Why do you people have to lie so much?

  • Instead they went up, and have remained almost the same rate they were before they pass their gun ban.

    Actual statistics:

    Homicides by any method:

    2013: 216
    2012: 287
    2011: 243
    2010: 258
    2009: 272
    2008: 251
    2007: 216
    2006: 256
    2005: 199
    2004: 164
    2003: 278
    2002: 291
    2001: 300
    1999/00: 340
    1998/99: 341
    1997/98: 312
    1996/97: 319
    1995/96: 358 ** Gun control enacted 1996
    1994/95: 342
    1993/94: 342
    1992/93: 360
    1991/92: 331
    1990/91: 351
    1989/90: 331

    Homicides by firearms:

    2013: 35
    2012: 42
    2011: 32
    2010: 39
    2009: 37
    2008: 27
    2007: 26
    2006: 41
    2005: 19
    2004: 17
    2003: 54
    2002: 45
    2001: 47
    2000: 57
    1999: 50
    1998: 57
    1997: 79
    1996: 104 ** Gun control enacted in 1996
    1995: 67
    1994: 76
    1993: 64
    1992: 96
    1991: 84
    1990: 79
    1989: 80
    1988: 123

    What we can actually see is that homicide rates surged briefly in the years immediately after 1996 and then began decreasing, so that future surges were still less than years prior to the gun control legislation. It’s important to remember that the results of the new laws weren’t going to be apparent overnight; there were still many guns in circulation in the years following the ban. As time went on and the laws were tweaked and illegal firearms were confiscated, the rate of firearm death plummeted and homicide rates gradually decreased.

    The reason is because Australia has never had a lot of violent crime. Comparing the U.S. to Australia is comparing apples to radishes.

    So what you’re saying is that we’re addicted to killing each other and the best thing to do is not try to impede that in any way? I’d hope not. I think it really is going to be like combating an addiction, and whether we do that by gradual steps or by dramatic action, one thing is certain- you don’t end an addiction by feeding it.

  • Bones
  • Bones

    But apparently we’re a police state……

  • spunkets

    False Bones, and that site is complete junk, because it doesn’t distinguish between justifiable or otherwise. The Michael Brown shooting that occurred in Ferguson, MO was justified, because the cop gave him 2 opportunities to surrender and he attacked the cop twice. Attack a cop, expect to get shot. That also applies to strong arm robbers, rapists, home invaders and every other kind felonious perp. That’s the bulk of that sites poor unarmed dead–felonious perps that died per self defense.

  • spunkets

    DId it ever occur to you that this fantasy wild west thing was all in your head and that in order to have any semblence of civilization, folks rights must be honored and respected, not your fears?

  • Bones

    No the problem isn’t with everyone else.

  • spunkets

    Of course not. One would have to be completely selfish to concern themselves with their rights in preference for anyone else’s fear and their demands arising from their figments.

  • spunkets

    False. It’s as I said. That site is junk, as it makes no distinction between justifiable shootings in self defense and unjustifiable which are few.

    The Michael Brown shooting, that occurred in Ferguson, MO, was justifiable, since the cop gave him 2 opportunities to surrender and instead Brown attacked the cop twice. Attack a cop, expect to get shot. It does not matter if the felonious attack is on a cop or anyone else. That’s why strong arm robbers, rapists, home invaders, muggers, ect… can be justifiably shot.

  • patriotz

    My point was that if psychos want to rampage, they will and will kill with whatever they can get their hands on. It’s not the gun, it’s the psychopath.

  • patriotz

    Would to God that someone there had a gun and could have stopped him! Was that in a state with little concealed carry or in a gun free zone?

  • patriotz

    I wouldn’t want to change your country, as you’ve all democratically voted on it. My country was founded on the right to protect your life, liberty, and property. Why do you want to impose your country’s opinions on mine? Isn’t that illiberal?

  • patriotz

    Didn’t you just have a terrorist plotting a knife attack and a terrorist attack with hostages and people killed? I also saw that knife attacks are on the rise in Austrailia. I don’t want to be attacked by a guy with a knife, and if one attacks me and won’t back off, all and all I’d rather shoot him than die.

  • Bones

    Nah. That’s not how we think.

    Would to God that guns weren’t so easy to get hold of, those people would still be alive.

  • Bones

    Yeah sure.

    A psychopath armed with military hardware.

    Thankfully not many of ours go on killing sprees whether with knives or forks.

  • Bones

    You’re more concerned about your rights to own a machine gun than the rights of people to be safe.

  • Bones

    A terrrorist with a shotgun or more likely a nutter. Prior to our gun laws he could have got some real fancy killing machines like you guys have and which we’ve now banned.

    Is that all you could find in what 20 years.

    Compare that with what happened before.

    The Port Arthur masacre was the end of a line of mass shootings by nutters pissed off with the world.

  • Bones

    Your country is pretty dumb.

    I mean look at your stupid arguments about rights to blow people away and becoming a police state.

    Thats the mentality you have there.

    Its just minboggling to people around the world.

  • spunkets

    There is no right to be safe. There’s only fundamental rights to life, sovereignty of will and property. There is no right to other folks services. That includes demanding that they give up their right to effective self defense, which includes the defense of freedom itself that applies equally to all.

    Their safety comes from the fact that other folks that cherish rights, effective self defense in particular, cherish the fundamental right to life as paramount. That means that they would never jeopardize the safety of their fellows either by accident or deliberately. They do however realize that there are folks that have no concern for rights and are determined to trample them for their own intents and purposes and they have neither an obligation nor will, abandon their rights and be treated as the least common denominator of criminal or psychotic per demand of either the fearful, that can’t handle living in a free society and depend on the tyrant and the tyrant that demands folks bow to them. In reality, both are the same, just the details are different.

  • Robert Ries

    Right, I’m going to sell a $1200 gun to the government for a $100 gift card and some government cheese….

  • Robert Ries

    Link doesn’t seem to work….

  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries

    Your bigotry is noted.

  • spunkets

    “It should only be for militia,”

    It is the right of the people. The idea that the Bill of Rights was created to give the Govm’t the power to keep and bear arms is purely ridiculous. The militia is the National Guard, the Army reserves and the unorganized militia is every able bodied male between 18 and 45.

    “all I can see is a hipocritical wish to own a gun because you WANT a gun.”

    There is no wish. I wanted it, own it and will not hand it or any of my other rights over to anyone that demands them. Peace does not exist, because folks have submitted and abandoned their rights to a tyrant or a mob acting as a tyrant. Peace is not surrender. That is the condition of hell and in hell. Peace is when folks recognze, respect and honor the rights of their fellows. It’s also the condition of freedom. They both describe the equivalent condition and are therefore synonymous. Peace=Freedom.

    Notice that you can not impose freedom with force, because it is a respect and honor for other folks that must come from within. It is fundamentally the basis for love. Without respect for one’s own life and rights, one can have none for anyone else.

    War is simply a clash of wills involving violence. If both parties are trying to impose their wills on the other, then there is no respect for rights at all in either side. They are simply both offensive and without objective justification. If there is respect for rights on both sides, there can be no war. If there is respect for rights on only one side, then they must be defending rights and freedom from a tyranical offense. The only objective justification for fighting in the defense of rights and freedom itself, which is the defense of all in that common cause. Note that defense, as described, is defiance in the face of the offense, an evil act.

    Now if you don’t think a woman has the right to keep and bear arms to defy a rapist, home invader, robber, mugger, or any other kind of vicious animal, then you’re being offensive, not defensive and she should rightly defy you too!

  • Robert Ries

    Constitutional Rights do not required camouflage.

  • Robert Ries

    Citation, please?

  • Robert Ries
  • spunkets

    The purpose of the 2nd Amendment it to protect the free state, not just national defense, because there’s no guarantee the nation will respect and honor rights, which is essential for the condition of freedom–the free state. Conscription is an anathema to freedom, it respects no one’s rights and no torie was conscipted to establish the free state. It was volunteers only and a minority of the population.

    The draft was created during the Civil War, because they gave a war and not enough came. The Republican party was created by abolitionists, which were a minority. That fact played out again in time with the development of “separate, but equal” in both North and South, per democratic majority, and was blessed by Plessy v Ferguson, despite the 14th Amendment. That development of separate, but equal also saw the first gun control laws. They were instituted to deny the blacks, both self defense and the defense of their rights.

  • Robert Ries
  • Robert Ries

    Your obsession with other people’s genitalia is noted, and is quite Freudian. Sadly for you, Freud has left the building, and his ideas have been nearly universally discredited.

  • Robert Ries

    Minimal restrictions on self-defense is a VERY American ideal.

  • Robert Ries

    Rights are things that do not cause harm to others. My ownership of an inanimate object does not harm you.

  • Korou

    Nor would your ownership of a nuclear weapon. But you’re not allowed to have one because your doing so would simply cause too great a risk.
    If you were to drive a car at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street, wouldn’t you be behaving recklessly? You might say that you hadn’t hurt anybody, but that’s not the point; the point is your behaviour was putting other people at risk.
    Now you might reasonable say that you are allowed to own a car, so why not be allowed to own a gun? But a car has many uses and is only dangerous to people unintentionally. A gun has no purpose other than to kill people. Just like a nuclear bomb. Which is why most civilised countries, with the notable exception of the USA, make sure that strict limitations are put on the ownership of guns.

  • Bones

    “There is no right to be safe.”

    Huh.

    Says who.

    The guy with the gun of course.

    You have the right to be safe at home, at school, at work or on the street.

    That’s why we have laws for the public good.

    That is a fundamental right for everyone.

    It’s ridiculous that I have to point that out.

    But hey if your right to shoot people overrides the right to be safe then it shows what sort of a mentality you have.

  • Homicide RATE. You do understand RATE, correct? It appears you do not, although then you go on to admit it: “What we can actually see is that homicide rates surged briefly in the years immediately after 1996 and then began decreasing” before returning to what they were, the ban had no actual effect other than possibly causing a surge.

    “So what you’re saying is that we’re addicted to killing each other and
    the best thing to do is not try to impede that in any way?”

    I never said any such thing. Certainly we should do something about the gangs, the drugs, the poverty. But the fact is that with over a hundred countries with a higher homicide rate than the U.S. and ALL of them have fewer firearms per capita and stricter gun laws. So it isn’t the guns.

  • The U.S. homicide and violent crime rates are the lowest that they have been in almost half a century. Not the 25 or so years you are referring to in Australia. Why do YOU people have to lie so much?

  • “Countries in states of civil war, countries with fragmentary governments
    rife with corruption, countries where large portions of the populace
    live in isolated wilderness with little oversight where thousands of
    people live without access to vital resources, places where the criminal
    element controls much of the country. You’re saying you’re proud of
    being better off than that? Our homicide rates are significantly better
    than the Congo and that’s what matters? Not places like Britain or Germany, but places like Bolivia, Columbia, Guyana? That’s what you want to be compared to?”

    What’s with all of the conditions? Is it the number of firearms per capita and the strictness of gun laws or isn’t it? You start crossing off countries for arbitrary reasons. Why, specifically, are you discarding Bahamas? Brazil? Argentina? Russia? Jamaica? South Africa? Columbia? Trinidad and Tobago? Saint Vincent and the Grenadines? Greenland? Mexico? Panama? Madagascar? Peru? Philippines? Costa Rica? Bermuda? Camaroon? Ukraine? Fiji? Aruba?

    Many of those are considered Tropical Paradises. Odd that you consider them “abject hellholes”. But I suppose it shouldn’t be surprising that you consider countries not in your ‘select few’ as to be beneath notice.

    “Mexico has described itself as being at literal war with its criminal
    element, struggling to keep a corrupt police force under control,
    politicians being bought out or executed at the hands of drug cartels”

    And the U.S. isn’t? Are you aware of California State Senator Leeland Yee? And his buddy Raymond “Shrimp Boy” Chow? Are you aware of how many politicians have been recently indited and/or found guilty of corruption in the U.S.? It’s a bi-partisan list, btw.

    “Aside from racial homogeneity, what this is saying to me is that the US
    has problems which can’t be solved and are only exacerbated by the ease
    of access to firearms. Our culture continually draws emphasizes looking
    out for number one, and the prioritization of firearm access over
    others’ lives is a part of that.”

    So now you are saying that gang violence, poverty and income inequality “can’t be solved”?

    “demonstrated no capacity to differentiate between which two people they address..”

    You stepped into a conversation started by somebody else, apparently to say something completely unrelated and I have shown no confusion at all between your ignorance and the original posters ignorance.

    “Comparing nonviolent crimes to violent crimes to prove our rate of violence isn’t high is not an honest use of statistics”

    I wasn’t comparing non-violent crimes to violent crime. Again, your ignorance shows brightly:

    According to the FBI, in 2014 (the latest year they have numbers) 1,165,383 violent crimes occurred. 741,183 were aggravated assaults. 326,307 were robberies. 83,907 were rapes. 139,845 were murders. Firearms were used in 166,766 aggravated assaults 131,501 robberies and 94,954 murders (so firearms were used in 393,221 violent crimes); Or about one-third. Which is RARE. In two-thirds of violent crimes no firearm is used. This is just counting ‘used’ as in carried the firearm during the crime. Actually firing the firearm is even more rare, consisting of a very small fraction of the non-homicide violent crimes.

    “I get my numbers from sites like this which maintain a list of police shooting incidents with cited reports.” yeah, here is one of their cited ‘police shootings’: http://www.wpbf.com/news/deputy-found-at-fault-in-fatal-crash/28229774#ixzz3ELRecp1L

    Oddly enough, not a police shooting at all, but an automobile accident. It is not the only like that. Of course, part of the problem is that YOU are misrepresenting your source. They are listing ‘police killings’, not shootings. Of course, that accident doesn’t really fall into the ‘police killing’ category either. Of course, some of them don’t even involve the police (for instance: http://www.waff.com/story/24113045/grand-jury-to-decide-case-in-jailer-involved-shooting ). Some of the ‘citations’ are 404 errors. Some of them are news stories about other incidents. Some died of a heart attack while in police custody ( http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-news/20131030/man-54-dies-while-being-restrained-by-police-in-greenport ). At least we know your unicorn has a name. Do you think pointing out that your information is inaccurate and/or wholly made-up is an insult? Maybe you should use better information.

    “Because freedom! is more important than creature comforts.” wow. Yes, freedom actually IS more important than creature comforts. Ask anyone who has moved to the U.S. from China. Your failure to understand that makes me wonder why you haven’t moved to Japan or China.

  • The 2nd Amendment doesn’t say anything about a free state. It says that the right to bear arms is grounded in the need for a well-regulated militia.

  • When Australia did it, they budgeted $500 million dollars and paid out an average of $750 for each gun. You can’t tell me there aren’t a lot of people out there who’d make that trade to put food on the table for a few months or pay off a debt or an unexpected bill.

  • spunkets

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” The people themselves are the militia and they are the one’s that defied the king’s troops, abolished the king’s reign and created a free state–the free republic, not another kingdom, dictatorship, democracy, or any other form of police state as is common everywhere else on earth. The militia is not the king’s troops, it is the people. The armed people are “necessary for the security of the free state”, not from foreign invaders, but to protect freedom within, whether it be from the threats against rights posed by the criminal or the mob in whatever form it takes–including the police state.

  • Robert Ries

    No, in my experience, there aren’t.

    And those people would be better off going hunting for food anyway.

  • How many people are going to be hunting food when they live in the middle of a big city and have no reliable transportation, not to mention their only firearm is a pistol?

  • Robert Ries

    “But you’re not allowed to have one because your doing so would simply cause too great a risk.”

    Bullshit, of course, but I suspect you know that. There is almost no risk involved, as long as the item is properly designed and constructed, and stored safely. Just as with firearms.

    “If you were to drive a car at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street, wouldn’t you be behaving recklessly?”

    Correct. But that is USE, not OWNERSHIP. It’s perfectly legal for me to own a car capable of driving 200 mph. (In fact, I have one nearly able to do that. If I win the lower tier of the lottery and can afford about $15K in mods, I can get there…)

    “You might say that you hadn’t hurt anybody, but that’s not the point; the point is your behaviour was putting other people at risk.”

    Mere ownership puts no-one at risk.

    “A gun has no purpose other than to kill people.”

    Again, bullshit, and you know it. Hunting, Sports/Recreation, Defense.

    “Which is why most civilised countries, with the notable exception of the USA, make sure that strict limitations are put on the ownership of guns.”

    Restrictions on people who are not harming others is in no way “civilized”.

  • spunkets

    If you had a right to be safe, then it would have been inherent in your being, instead of sovereinty of will. Safety is something you achieve per your own decisions and the goodwill of others. If you don’t want to be shot, don’t attack cops, old ladies, anyone else, rob, invade homes, mug or commit any other crime/rights violation, it’s really that simple.

    If your laws violate rights, then they are immoral and null and void objectively. Safety is found in self defense, not in rendering folks defenseless against offense.

  • Robert Ries

    “Appeal to authority is not a valid argument…”

    A statement of fact is NOT an “appeal to authority”. Check your terms, and cite to the Constitution for a requirement to conceal the exercise of Rights.
    (Edit: Even if we do assume AtA, the Constitution is very much the highest Authority appealable to. So it would still be a valid argument.)

    “…and the second amendment was originally designed for militias.”

    Citations required, please. But you won’t be able to provide them, because this argument has been debunked ad nauseum.

    It is “the right of the people”, not a right of the militia.

    “well regulated” applies to the militia, not “the right of the people”.

    Membership in a militia is neither a requirement nor a prerequisite to exercise the Right, through simple grammar, history, legal precedent or intent of the authors.

    http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

    http://www.largo.org/literary.html

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

    P.S. The militia still very much exists.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

    When called up, you can regulate the hell out of it. (And we do so.)

    Also, SCOTUS has a 240-year history of defining it as an individual Right.

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

    “A lot of early militias would actually keep their weapons together and locked at one central location.”

    Perhaps their “militia” weapons, if provided from public funds. And not all that frequently, unless you can cite evidence otherwise…? Certainly not their personally owned arms.
    https://www.saf.org/journal/16/ColonialFirearmRegulation.htm

    “So sorry, history isn’t like the movies.”

    No, it isn’t. And you should actually read some.

  • I do take my former objection back. The language of the 2nd amendment does say “free State,” but you forgot to quote the first part of it:

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

    The militia can’t just be your average Joe wandering around with a gun. How is that well-regulated? In your opinion, what does the 2nd amendment mean when it says that the reason the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State?

    I mean, the colonist soldiers in the Revolutionary War were regulated. There was a General and everything. It wasn’t just, “Hey, everybody with guns, if you see British soldiers, it’d really help us out if you killed some of them.”

  • Snooterpoot

    So you definitely assume all U.S. police officers are bad guys. In your opinion. Good to know.

    What a ridiculous straw man argument. Neither person you’ve replied to said anything of the kind.

  • Robert Ries

    “far right wing sites”? How so?

    Can you address any of the information I gave you?

    And no, sorry, I’m not familiar with JSTORs.

    “just because a a statement is “a statement of fact” doesn’t mean that it isn’t fallicous.”

    Then surely you can explain how it is fallacious, yes? With supporting facts and evidence?

    “one must ask that if the concerns and reasons faced during that time are valid today, and how we should intpret and apply those values today if we still hold them.”

    Self-defense is still very much an individual responsibility. Hunting is still a valid activity. Recreation and sporting purposes are still valid. The ability to form a militia is still needed in times of emergency, or to resist government tyranny.

    “Their is no reason you need to open carry your weapons around.”

    Constitutional Rights do not require camouflage, not even invite it. Your disapproval is irrelevant.

  • Bones

    Yes we saw the militia work really well against government tyranny a couple of weeks ago when the good ol boys occupied federal land.

    Only in the USA……(and the Middle East)

  • Korou

    “Bullshit, of course, but I suspect you know that. There is almost no
    risk involved, as long as the item is properly designed and constructed,
    and stored safely. Just as with firearms.”
    Bullshit, eh? Take a look at the statistics on gun-related deaths in the USA compared to other countries with more sensible rules regulating firearms. When guns are freely available, people die in accidents, moments of passion, suicides and murders. I imagine you’d say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” so I will say: when guns are freely available, people die.

    “Correct. But that is USE, not OWNERSHIP. It’s perfectly legal for me to own a car capable of driving 200 mph.”
    Sure it is, and it should be. But I take it you agree with the regulations making sure that you drive carefully in places where driving too fast would put others at risk? So what’s wrong with legislation to make sure that the people who buy guns are checked up on, and only certain types of guns are made available?

    “Mere ownership puts no-one at risk.”
    Of course it does. If a toddler was in a house with a loaded gun lying on the table, would you say that toddler was at risk? Perhaps what you mean was “mere ownership doesn’t necessarily hurt anybody”?

    “Again, bullshit, and you know it. Hunting, Sports/Recreation, Defense.”
    Perhaps you’re right. Never the less, hunting and sports take up a tiny percentage of gun-owners, and defense has been pretty well dealt with in the OP. Guns are a danger to society. Their presence produces negative effects much greater than positive ones.

    “Restrictions on people who are not harming others is in no way “civilized”.”
    Just like it’s so uncivilised to prosecute people who are driving their car down a busy street at 200 miles an hour, eh?
    We put restrictions on people all the time, for the sake of society – and most of the time you agree with them as much as I do. Tell me, how would you feel if an untrained teacher were allowed to work in your children’s school? Or a teacher with a history of sexually abusing children? He might object that he’s served his prison time and paid his debt to society; but the fact is that his presence would put people at risk. Just like guns do.

  • Bones

    “Safety is something you achieve per your own decisions and the goodwill of others. ”

    Really.

    Obviously these people were being unsafe by going sight seeingt and some nutter wanted to exercise his rights in shooting up a whole group of people.

    Port Arthur Massacre: The Shooting Spree That Changed Australia’s Gun Laws

    “In 1996, Martin Bryant entered a café at the site of a historic penal colony at Port Arthur, Tasmania.

    The 28-year-old ate lunch before pulling a semi-automatic rifle from his bag and embarking on a killing spree. By the time he was apprehended the next morning, 35 people were dead and 23 had been wounded. Bryant had become the worst mass-murderer in Australia’s history.

    “There were people everywhere — bodies,” witness Lynne Beavis told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation after Bryant opened fire. “It’s just so indescribable what had happened in there.””

    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/port-arthur-massacre-shooting-spree-changed-australia-gun-laws-n396476

    We’ve made our country more safe……by eliminating semi-automatic weapons and making sure only people who need a gun (for sport/employment after enduring a long registration process) has one.

    That was the decision our country made with unanimous backing.

  • Trouble with reading? “Well said. In truth, if I saw anyone carrying a gun around, I would
    just assume they are a bad guy. In my mind, good guys don’t need to
    carry guns.”

    In the U.S. all police officers carry guns, so the original poster MUST assume that they are all bad guys.

    Tell me, why do police officers need to carry guns? Aren’t guns “only for killing”? Is it the job and duty of police officers to kill for the government?

  • Bones

    In your mind – yes. Especially if they come to take your guns away.

    That would be war wouldn’t it?

  • Elmar17

    Good for the most part, yourself?

  • Non-sequitur.

    How would they come to take anyone’s guns away if they do not have guns? Are they just going to start killing everyone who has ever purchased a gun? Are they going to start by shooting themselves since they have guns?

  • Snooterpoot

    Congratulations. You managed to include an ad hominem attack, a straw man argument, and a false equivalence in one comment. I rarely see that many logical fallacies in one comment.

    Again, no one said that all police officers are bad guys. Some are; there’s no doubt about that, but being a law enforcement officer is not what makes them bad guys. They abuse their authority and the public trust as a cover for their evil.

    Law enforcement officers have to carry guns mostly for self defense, simply because there are too many firearms in this society, and it’s often difficult to determine if the person who is carrying the firearm is a good guy or a bad guy.

    What well organized militia do you belong to? Now that Justice Scalia’s seat on the Supreme Court is vacated we will have a chance to have a Justice confirmed who will remember the part of the Second Amendment that literally speaks to the need for militias and will help to overturn the decision stating that the Amendment guarantees individual ownership of firearms.

    After all, he was a strict constructionist, except for when he wasn’t.

  • Tdawg

    Im not talking about wars or tyrants here, Im talking about domestic ownership. Stop trying to overcomplicate an essentially simple deabte. I understand the concepts of peace and war, but what I want is not for guns to be taken away by force (tyrant), I want Americans to surrender that right freely, of their own will 9freedom)So I will skip over all justifications and ask you this: hasnt the US, as a nation, demonstrated that they cannot handle firearms? Lets not jump into ‘if’ scenarios here, lets just look at the facts over the last decade. Gun violence in the US, per comparision to comparable countries, is ludicrously out of control. The fact that there are many responsible gun owners doesnt justify, in any way, all the irresponsible ones that will lead to gun violence, accidental or not. You can even use a comparative with Australia, whos rigurous firearms legislature (sparked by a public shooting) has paid extremely noticeable results.

    I beleive that if Americasn are truly serious about freedom, equality, and safety, they should, by themselves, accept to say no to guns, for the good of the whole. Keeping a right jsut because you ahve it seems like another hypocritical reason to own firearms, again.

    Sorry if my english is sub par, second language.

  • spunkets

    “I understand the concepts of peace and war”

    You do not. Peace is never attained by surendering one’s rights. Peace is attained when one’s rights are respected and honored by their fellows and visa versa. That is also the condition that is freedom. Freedom is not anything else, including what one often hears, that it is some arbitrary set of privileges. That arbitrary set of privileges is all one is arbitrarily allowed in a police state and it is completely different from freedom and peace in every way.

    ” hasnt the US, as a nation, demonstrated that they cannot handle firearms? ”

    No.

    “You can even use a comparative with Australia, whos rigurous firearms legislature (sparked by a public shooting) has paid extremely noticeable results.”

    Australia’s crime rate increased and the only folks that can defend themselves effectively are wearing a badge. Australia is a police state.

    “I beleive that if Americasn are truly serious about freedom, equality, and safety, they should, by themselves, accept to say no to guns, for
    the good of the whole.”

    You don’t know what freedom is, nor equality, nor safety. You think tyrants are some sort of dictators that are different from the each member of the multitudes that compose the democracies that trample on rights and destroy freedom. You think there is some sort of “whole” that exists that is more important than any individual, which is false. Th “whole” is a figment used to deflect focus and attention from the myriad of petty tyrants that are intent on and trample the rights of their fellows for their own selfish purposes.

    Your English is good…

  • Wendy Cameron

    It is the job of the police to keep the peace. I would prefer they didn’t have guns at all but I am not surprised when I see them with a gun.

    Guns have no other purpose to to hurt and kill….that is all they do. The threat of their use can be seen as a deterent to ‘crime’, not that that seems to be working so well.

    If the only people allowed to walk the streets with guns were those individuals trained and working in law enforcement than I would have no trouble knowing that someone with a gun is a good guy. The fact that in many of the US states anyone can walk around with a gun means that I can’t tell the difference between a bad guy with a gun and a good guy with a gun.

  • Robert Ries

    Yeah, those idiots are not particularly representative of the vast majority of gun owners, but your ignorant stereotyping and bigotry are noted.

    Now, can you actually address anything I said?

  • Robert Ries

    “Take a look at the statistics on gun-related deaths in the USA compared to other countries with more sensible rules regulating firearms.”

    Please, present your stats.

    “So what’s wrong with legislation to make sure that the people who buy guns are checked up on, and only certain types of guns are made available?”

    The former is to vague and useless, and the latter isn’t similar to cars at all. List the restrictions you want and justify them with facts and evidence.

    “If a toddler was in a house with a loaded gun lying on the table…”

    Negligent storage practices are not the same as “mere ownership”.

    “and defense has been pretty well dealt with in the OP. Guns are a danger to society. Their presence produces negative effects much greater than positive ones.”

    Nope. The O.P. is incorrect, defensive uses far outweigh the criminal uses.
    http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/guns-and-crime-prevention/

    “Just like it’s so uncivilised to prosecute people who are driving their car down a busy street at 200 miles an hour, eh?”

    Again you maliciously conflate ownership with harm. Present stats or other evidence to support your claim.

  • Robert Ries

    Getting by. Need to get off my ass, end my vacation, and get a job.

  • Robert Ries

    Now it’s working.

    “What is also interesting is that the study notes that “In most cases victims who used firearms to defend themselves or their property were confronted by offenders who were either unarmed or armed with weapons other than firearms.” Specifically, only 35% of those who used a firearm in self-defense actually faced an offender who had a gun.”

    That does not invalidate a defense with a firearm.

    The rest of the ‘critiques’ are similarly spurious.

  • Robert Ries

    What, no response?

  • Robert Ries

    Would you apply similar bigotry to any other group?

  • Bones

    Yes that’s what happened in Australia?

    Paranoid much?

  • Elmar17

    I hear that, best of luck and hope your vacation was a good one.

  • So the police in Australia do not have guns? Oh wait they do. The police are also not going door to door and shooting gun owners? Why is that? Aren’t all gun owners bad? The police in Australia are also not shooting themselves because they are bad, dirty gun owners?

    Imagine that.

    You prove my point.

  • So you are saying that carrying a firearm helps to keep the peace?

    Is it the job of the police to hurt and kill?

    The violent crime and homicide rates in the U.S. are at the lowest they have been in almost half a century. At the same time the number of firearms per capita and the number of concealed weapon permits per capita are at the highest they have ever been.

    The vast majority of the time a firearm is fired it results in a hole in a piece of paper or a mark on a piece of steel (and the steel target being knocked down). When a firearm is actually used to kill it is used 20,000 times more often to kill an animal than it is to kill another human.

    The only people LEGALLY allowed to walk the streets with guns are those individuals who can legally own and carry a firearm. Individuals who have NEVER committed a felony, a misdemeanor crime with a penalty of one year or more, or ANY domestic violence crime. Individuals who have NEVER been involuntarily committed for mental health issue and have NEVER been diagnosed as a danger to themselves or others.

    According to the secret service criminals don’t walk around with their guns visible, they conceal them; usually in their waistband on their strong side without a holster.

    According to the FBI firearms are only used in about one-third of violent crimes.

  • Congratulations, you have manged to show that you don’t understand what an ad hominem nor a straw man argument attack actually IS. An ad hominem is an attempt to show that the persons argument is wrong purely because the person is a moron, or has some other unredeeming characteristic. I have done no such thing. I have only called out that you seem to have trouble reading.

    A straw man argument is arguing against an argument a person did not make. It is not possible to create a straw man argument by directly quoting the person and then arguing against the exact quote.

    Wendy said that she assumes that all persons that carry guns are bad guys, and in the U.S. police carry guns, thus she must assume that all police are bad guys. Now she is backpedaling on that.

    “Law enforcement officers have to carry guns mostly for self defense”

    Why does a gun work for self defense for law enforcement but not for everyone else?

    “it’s often difficult to determine if the person who is carrying the firearm is a good guy or a bad guy.”

    No its not. It’s easy: Person A is pointing a gun at people and demanding money, or shooting unarmed people. Person A is a bad guy. Person B has a gun holstered. Person B is not a bad guy.

    “What well organized militia do you belong to?”

    quote
    10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
    end quote

    quote
    MICHIGAN MILITARY ACT (EXCERPT)
    Act 150 of 1967
    32.509 State military establishment; composition; organized and unorganized militia.
    Sec. 109.
    The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be
    known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.
    end quote

    “well organized militia” isn’t even in the constitution or bill of rights. You really DO have difficulty reading.

    “A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to a healthy lifestyle, the right of the people to keep and use eggs shall not be infringed.”

    Your flawed interpretation of the second would make the above mean that eggs would only be able to be used to make breakfast. Scalia was not the only supreme court judge that disagreed with your type of interpretation. Four others did, and they are still there. Nor will any nominee that believes eggs can only be for breakfast be confirmed to the bench.

  • Snooterpoot

    Well, you certainly have the logical fallacies down to an art.

    You seem to be incapable of civil discussion, and I choose not to waste my time with people who are antagonistic for its own sake.

    Have a nice life.

  • dionC

    Talk about rhetoric, first off, very few people and I mean very few actually own a machine gun. Those who do must first file for that privilege, pay enormous fees and undergo an extensive background investigation. Either you are attempting to use fear to persuade the unknowing to your perspective, or as I would guess, you know nothing about the subject. Secondly, you do not have a right to be safe or even feel safe, especially when you wish to deny others of their enumerated rights. My owning a firearm is no more, and likely less a threat to you than my owning an automobile.

  • I see that in your world facts and realty have no place in a ‘civil discussion’. You came here and tried your trolling, it is SUCH a shame you were shown to be demonstrably wrong.

  • Bones

    Are you mental?

    To have a gun in Australia it must be part of your occupation. My in laws are gun owners and sporting shooters. So yes they have a range of guns.

    You cannot get a gun simply because you want to shoot things – whether things are kids or not.

  • Bones

    I wonder why it’s difficult to own a machine gun?

    Any ideas?

    As for the rest of your nonsense it blew away when over 30 people were gunned down while having breakfast and left a whole nation in shock.

  • Korou

    Stats:
    http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list
    See how the countries with fewer guns have fewer gun-related deaths? Take a look at the USA, then compare it to Australia or England, two countries which have strict gun regulations.
    Here’s some of the consequences:
    https://www.americanbar.org/groups/committees/gun_violence/resources/the_u_s_compared_to_other_nations.html
    The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight
    times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of
    the world.
    Kellermann AL and Waeckerle JF. Preventing Firearm Injuries. Ann Emerg Med July 1998; 32:77-79.
    The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children
    younger than 15 years of age is nearly 12 times higher than among
    children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 1997;46:101-105.
    The United States has the highest rate of youth homicides and suicides among the 26 wealthiest nations.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    Rates of homicide, suicide, and firearm-related death among children: 26 industrialized countries.
    MMWR. 1997;46:101-105.

    There’s nothing more to say than this. America is shamefully leading the way in killing its own citizens because of the idea that it’s some kind of “right” to own dangerous toys.

    “The former is to vague and useless, and the latter isn’t similar to cars
    at all. List the restrictions you want and justify them with facts and
    evidence.”

    You’re obviously not even interested in trying to make it work, so why bother talking to you about it? Let’s just say that plenty of other countries have done it, and the consequence has been that life for their people is much safer. If you ensure that guns are limited and regulated there’s much less chance of people killing themselves or others with them.

    “Gunfacts”, eh? Yes, that certainly sounds like a sane and unbiased website.

    “Again you maliciously conflate ownership with harm.”
    Nothing of the sort. Actually, I’m agreeing with you: owning a gun does not mean that anyone will be harmed by it, just as driving your car over the speed limit does not. What both mean is that the risk of lethal damage is enormously raised, to a level which civilised countries – except America – find unacceptable. You find this reasonable in the case of cars but, for some reason, not in the case of guns.

    Basically, it comes down to this. Other countries reacted to gun massacres by regulating guns to the point where such massacres don’t happen any more. The USA does not react to gun massacres at all, but just keeps on having more and more of them. Well done.

  • John Jones

    Why is it that only law-biding citizens are under continual verbal assault by the liberal intelligencia? I’ve never seen an article entitled “Some serious questions for violent criminals.” Eighty million American citizens who have assumed personal responsibility for our safety and well-being are sick to death of being vilified. We did not create the violent society in which we live – we only react to it in a way in which we see fit (within all constraints of the law). Perhaps all of the intellectual energy being expended lecturing us could instead be devoted to eliminating violent crime in America? And should that day come, “magically” there will no longer be a need for individuals such as myself to make the serious decisions that we do regarding our safety. As for firearms being some all-consuming threat to American society, 99.7% of the people in this country who die each day do so from a cause other than firearm-related violence. As tragic as all death may be, this particular moral crusade is disproportional (to say the least) and proceeds at the potential expense of those would-be victims of violent crime who have prepared themselves adequately (a prospect the author seems to have discounted out-of-hand … i.e., that some of the people he’s generalizing about can in fact answer his questions). While the author claims to “get it” and “appreciate the sentiment” the manner in which he has chosen to pose some of his questions strikes me as somewhat naïve and judging by the content of some of the comments, has only managed to propagate some inaccurate and unfortunate generalizations. But, I guess that’s much easier than tackling the root cause of societal violence.

  • “To have a gun in Australia it must be part of your occupation”

    False: http://www.ssaansw.org.au/index.php/safe-shooting/applying-for-a-firearms-licence (you even immediately contradict yourself “My in laws are gun owners and sporting shooters.”)

    Why is it that the Australian police are not using their guns to kill all of these “bad guys with guns”? Your in-laws are “bad guys with guns”? You are saying that the Australian police should shoot your in laws because they want to shoot kids?

  • Darrell Beam

    What a load of hoo hoo. Grow a set of guts.

  • Dee

    This situation can leave you a hero for stopping the bad guy or going to prison for homicide while living with the fact you killed an innocent person or worse dead when police cannot tell the good guys from the bad. It can go from hero to tragedy in seconds.

  • Dee

    People who openly carry guns can get themselves and others killed if they are willing to take a life and freeze in a crisis. This has happened. They really only wanted a gun to look macho and feed their ego. Anyone who carries a gun has to be willing to kill because that is what a gun was made for. Telling themselves they can and doing it is entirely two different things.

  • Anne Fenwick

    There was a very reasonable emphasis on whether the good guy can actually handle a gun in this article, but much less on whether he’s actually a good judge of his own or other people’s character and intentions. Actually, research shows that people systematically overrate themselves and it seems very certain that many Americans are not good at evaluating the character and intentions of their fellow citizens in an unbiased way. Also of course, in the chaos of a real shootout, the ‘good guys’ will all be shooting themselves. Which goes back to their character. They’re using this idea of themselves as lone hero because it feels empowering, but you know, objectively, they’re a bunch of very average guys toting deadly weapons around for the lulz.

  • Snooterpoot

    Trolling? Hardly. I called you out for your logical fallacies. That hardly makes me a troll.

    You, on the other hand, have been nothing but antagonistic and accusatory. I don’t think you joined this discussion to have an honest conversation.

  • Bones

    I was including sporting shooters as an occupation derp.

    You obviously have mental issues.

  • Myrtle Linder

    Why are you afraid of a gun? How many have you ever seen move a fraction of an inch by themselves. I do not think I need to carry on and have never done so, or personally knew anyone who did. It is true, a gun can be used to kill a human, it is also true you can save your life and the life of your entire family, if you have a gun at the right time. There are very few people who will break into your house, for any reason, if they know there is a gun there, even if there is nobody with a lot of gun handling experience. In millions of homes in the USA there is a gun as a safety device.

    I do not care one little bit if liberals do think they should not have a gun and that is his right. Who cares? What is not his right is to tell others what they should have or not have in their possession.

    We also keep JESUS CHRIST close to us in our lives and liberals protest that, too. What they do approve of is murdering little babies, by the million before they get their first chance to cry for a bottle of milk. Now somebody, out there should be able to explain this to me, because I do not understand such insane reasoning. Anybody reading this can explain the good sense in this, please let me know, I’d like to hear the reasoning of how they are so concerned about one bunch and those who need the most care singled out to be unnecessary chattel!!

  • Myrtle Linder

    What percentage of Americans own a machine gun, .01% and what is the percentage that a person will be harmed by one of those machine guns, perhaps .000000000000001??? Don’t be more of a fool than you need to.

  • Bones

    What is it with you people shooting people who break into your house?

    You’re far more likely to shoot on of your own than on some random stranger stealing your TV.

    Any Christian outside the US knows you are talking complete and utter bs.

    You people are lucky that the black civil rights movement didn’t take on your ideology or there would’ve been massive bloodshed in your country.

    King’s words still echo being a true prophet

    : “By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim, by allowing our movie and television screens to teach our children that the hero is one who masters the art of shooting and the technique of killing, by allowing all these developments, we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.”

  • Snooterpoot

    We also keep JESUS CHRIST close to us in our lives and liberals protest that, too. What they do approve of is murdering little babies, by the million before they get their first chance to cry for a bottle of milk.

    That’s a damned lie. Shame on you.

  • Myrtle Linder

    Oh dear me, I am a superb shot! I would not fire at a whim, only if he was firing at me, I’ll get the one who aimed at me, before he get me, so don’t try it. GOD HIMSELF gives me the right to defend myself!!

    By the way what would you do, if you were sitting there reading your newspaper when someone started to breaking your front door down?? Mess your pants I’ll bet!!

    By the way I never had a problem with a black, once in my life. I do have many who are my friends.

  • Myrtle Linder

    I was referring to abortioners murdering their babies. Evidently they do not find that a problem.

    What is a damn lie, do you give them a bottle of milk before you murder them?? and how do you know it is a lie, unless you have killed some babies?

  • Bones

    Um if he was firing at you then you’re probably already dead.

  • Bones

    What’s bizarre is your hypocrisy about rights.

    We can use the same argument about you.

    You’re the ones who enable mass shootings and nutters with high powered semi automatic guns to run rampant.

    You give them the gun and say go for it.

    Christians around the world think you people are mad.

  • Bones

    You can bet that any house in Australia doesn’t have a gun.

    Yet we’re pretty safe from robberies, murders and home invasionsunless you’re dealing with that sort of crowd.

    You people watch too many movies.

    The one Stat which is concerning is domestic violence which shows that you’re more likely to be attacked by your spouse than a black guy stealing your TV.

  • Snooterpoot

    Liberals are not protesting keeping Jesus close; that’s the first, and most egregious, damned lie. I am not a liberal despite being a Christian. I am a liberal because I am a Christian.

    No one approves of killing babies! You do the pro-birth cause no good by continuing to tell this lie.

    If you really want to talk about killing babies, then let’s talk about the refugees from Syria who have left war and barbarism to try to find better lives. Babies are dying from hunger, from violence and sometimes on the journeys away from the horror. Are you concerned about that?

    What about the babies who have passed through the birth canal? Do you advocate for more spending for food, health care, housing and education for those babies born into poverty?

    You vomit up these accusations against liberals when they have no basis in fact. Are you a hypocrite like so much of the pro-birthers in the USA who demand that every pregnancy be carried to its natural conclusion but who don’t want a single dime of their taxes to pay for supporting those postpartum babies?

    You have lied about liberals, and you did it when you invoked the name of Jesus. That, Myrtle, is despicable.

  • Charles

    As suggestive guidelines, no problem.

  • Charles

    It doesn’t matter if you are offended or paranoid, have a gun on one’s person -even in public in front of children- is not violating anyone’s rights. What if I was offended or paranoid about people dressed in martial art uniforms? What if one was offended or paranoid about black people being in public? Do you not see the reasoning?

  • Nick

    You are completely wrong in your understanding of the second amendment.

  • Charles — It’s not about being offended. Quarrels that would end with insults or fistfights otherwise, end with death if a gun is available.

  • Herm

    I would suggest in consideration of on coming traffic that you both freely honor the proactive law to avoid the reactive justice of collision the fruit of which is injury and death. A restricted healthy live person is so much more free, independent, constructive and productive to self and society than an injured or dead person. A truly free society for each individual is not a society dependent upon each other through unity, more or less ordered but always ordered. The second our nation adopted the Constitution of the United States of America each citizen gave up some freedom and some independence to order founded on a more perfect union for all to pursue life and happiness. Liberty in a society of the people, by the people and for the people is a pursuit of less oppressive restrictions, not abolishing all restrictions.

    Charles, what you don’t agree with is society dependent upon in everything doing to others as you would have others do to you that all may thrive to be free to learn and savor all there is by the end of eternity.

  • spunkets

    K.

  • You don’t have to be employed as a sporting shooter in order to own a gun in Australia. Do you not know what ‘occupation’ means?

    You obviously have reality issues.

  • No, you falsely accuse me of using logical fallacies while demonstrating that you have no idea what logical fallacies even are.

    YOU have been nothing but antagonistic and accusatory. You fail to back-up any of your statements with factual evidence, and deny the factual evidence that has been presented that demonstrates you as being wrong. You are a textbook troll.

    Once again:

    Wendy said that she assumes that all persons that carry guns are bad guys, and in the U.S. police carry guns, thus she must assume that all police are bad guys. Now she is backpedaling on that.

    “Law enforcement officers have to carry guns mostly for self defense”

    Why does a gun work for self defense for law enforcement but not for everyone else?

    “it’s often difficult to determine if the person who is carrying the firearm is a good guy or a bad guy.”

    No its not. It’s easy: Person A is pointing a gun at people and demanding money, or shooting unarmed people. Person A is a bad guy. Person B has a gun holstered. Person B is not a bad guy.

    “What well organized militia do you belong to?”

    quote
    10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
    end quote

    quote
    MICHIGAN MILITARY ACT (EXCERPT)
    Act 150 of 1967
    32.509 State military establishment; composition; organized and unorganized militia.
    Sec. 109.
    The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known
    as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.
    end quote

    “well organized militia” isn’t even in the constitution or bill of rights. You really DO have difficulty reading. Most likely you are also a member of both the federal unorganized militia and your state’s unorganized militia. IF you are actually a citizen of the U.S., and aren’t too old (or too young).

    “A well-balanced breakfast being necessary to a healthy lifestyle, the right of the people to keep and use eggs shall not be infringed.”

    Your flawed interpretation of the second would make the above mean that eggs would only be able to be used to make breakfast. Scalia was not the only supreme court judge that disagreed with your type of interpretation. Four others did, and they are still there. Nor will any nominee that believes eggs can only be for breakfast be confirmed to the bench.

  • Robert Ries

    Moving your goal-posts and deflecting to personal attacks are not winning debate tactics.

  • Korou

    Facts, PavePusher, undeniable black-and-white facts. They’re the reason I’ve won this debate.

  • Bones

    No kidding.

    You have to be a registered member of a club.

  • Bones

    Nah these guys have their own facts such as Australia and the UK are police states.

  • Bones

    I’m trying to find the personal attack in there.

    Maybe it was the facts……

  • MyLovelyNose

    So that’s your pinheaded reading of “shall not be infringed.” Typical.

  • MyLovelyNose

    Only losers who aren’t sure of their argument post nothing but links. Links prove nothing by themselves–in fact, I often find that the links provided either do nothing to prove what they were posted to prove, or they actually provide context that contradicts what they were posted to prove.

    Like the guy who provided a link to the fbi stats about defensive gun uses. He claimed it “proved” that “200 possible mass shootings every year are stopped by an armed private citizens.”

    Of course, it did nothing of the kind, once anyone looked. It just said that there were 200 legitimate self-defense gun uses a year, not that there were “200 possible mass shootings” stopped by Citizen McShootyshoot.

    So that’s why I dismiss not only your arguments, but your command of actual factual information, when you do the loser thing and post a link. A link is just a string of characters, like this one: gunsuckersarelosers.com.

    There. See? I just proved you’re a loser–with nothing but a link.

  • Korou

    I think saying I was moving the goalposts is a bit rich, considering he asked me to show him the stats…

  • Korou

    That’s why I didn’t mention that I live in China…

  • Thanks, Benjamin. My thinking process precisely, but hadn’t read any articles expressing it in this kind of important detail!

  • John Jones, maybe your objections are pertinent in a broader context. However, your comments do not speak to the issues raised in this article. They are valid and important concerns… ones that should be pretty obvious. But I don’t find articles dealing with them by those advocating for a lot of “good guys with guns”. If you have good answers, please share them, especially for the complex problems raised in the active shooter example (which is not only feasible but such incidents are all-too-common these days). Otherwise, merely general objections just obscure genuine problems.

  • “You have to be a registered member of a club.”

    Again, FALSE, you only need a letter from somebody that owns the appropriate parcel of land, and the person applying can also be the owner of the appropriate parcel of land:

    “Do I have to provide a letter from a property owner giving me permission to shoot on their property?
    “Yes, a recreational shooter under Section 11A(2)(c) of the Firearms Act 1973 requires written permission from a property owner to satisfy the genuine reason for an applicant to use a firearm for hunting or recreational shooting.
    “If the applicant is the owner of a suitable property for the category of firearm being sought then the property letter is still required in order to verify details provided.”

    Even the genuine need test for handgun allows virtually anyone in Australia to own a handgun, so long as they ‘need’ to destroy vermin with it:

    “Genuine need test for Category H:
    The applicant is required to satisfy the Commissioner that a firearm of category A, B, or C would be inadequate or unsuitable for the purpose for which the firearm is required.
    A person does not have a genuine need to acquire or possess a firearm of category H because it is required for:
    (a) hunting,
    (b) recreational shooting, other than by a person described in paragraph under the heading “Restrictions for category H”, and for a purpose described in that paragraph; or
    (c) destroying stock or vermin.”

  • Robert Ries

    “Show us these “statistics” and we’ll tear them apart.”

    I linked DIRECTLY to the state annual report pages for the stats you asked for, i.e. criminal rates for CCW-holders.

    Your mendacity is noted.

  • Robert Ries

    How would YOU “read” it?

    P.S. What did you mean above by “You want to make America over into something more like South Africa? “?

    Don’t you support self-defense?

  • Bones

    “Even the genuine need test for handgun allows virtually anyone in Australia to own a handgun, so long as they ‘need’ to destroy vermin with it:”

    Yeah good luck with that.

    This is a reason why most gun owners live on regional properties including my in-laws. Good luck if you live in the town or city and wish to own a recreational gun licence or shoot vermin. I’m not sure what they consider recreational shooting as ranges on properties are forbidden but that does seem seem to indicate hunting as well as sporting shooters.

    And it sure ain’t gonna happen for city and town folk.

    And do you know what Category H weapons are? Air guns and deactivated handguns.

    In Australia the states regulate gun licences and the states have slightly different interpretations. In Qld, you have to be a member of a shooting club before applying for a handgun licence.

    How do I know?

    Because I looked at applying for a gun licence……

    If you’re thinking of lying, the cops will make random checks that your guns are properly stored in a gunsafe and being used for the reason you applied. If you think you can just carry on the pretext that you are destroying vermin you are sadly mistaken……

    And it will be goodbye guns……as well as a criminal charge….

  • “And do you know what Category H weapons are? Air guns and “deactivated handguns.”

    Do you do anything other than lie? Category H weapons are handguns (including air pistols and revolvers):

    “(1) A firearm, including an air pistol and a blank-fire firearm, under 75 cm in length, other than a powerhead, is a category H weapon, regardless of whether it has been rendered permanently inoperable;
    “(2) A conversion unit is also a category H weapon;
    “(3) This section does not apply to a powerhead or category C, D or R weapon;
    “(4) In this section– “conversion unit” means a unit or device or barrel that is capable of being used for converting a category H weapon that is a firearm from one calibre to another calibre.
    “For schedule 2 of the Act, each of the following comprises a class of category H weapon—
    “(a) an air pistol;
    “(b) a centre-fire pistol with a calibre of not more than .38 inch or a black-powder pistol;
    “(c) a centre-fire pistol with a calibre of more than .38 inch but not more than .45 inch;
    “(d) a rim-fire pistol.”

    https://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/weaponsLicensing/licenceApplication/weapons/categories/categories.htm

    Category A includes lever action shotguns like: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/11802348/Australia-to-allow-controversial-rapid-fire-shotgun-after-political-trade-off.html (according to that article already 7,000 have been pre-ordered).

    “In Australia the states regulate gun licences and the states have
    slightly different interpretations. In Qld, you have to be a member of a shooting club before applying for a handgun licence.”

    In the U.S. different states also have different regulations, but that doesn’t change the fact that ‘in Australia’ you don’t HAVE to use a firearm as part of your occupation to legally own a firearm. Queensland is not ‘all of Australia’.

  • Robert Ries

    Feel free to provide YOUR interpretation.

  • Robert Ries

    Crickets, eh?

  • Robert Ries

    Those idiots are not relevant to this discussion.

  • Bones

    “Those idiots are not relevant to this discussion.”

    How?

    They are exercising their rights against tyrannical government….

  • John Sizemore

    Yeah, that’s pretty much what “liberty” means — lack of regulation, or the freedom to do that which I believe to be right. It’s a beautiful thing!

  • Herm

    John, you are describing self-government and not liberty for all by “the freedom to do that which I believe to be right“. How does that play with, “in everything do to others as you would have others do to you”?

    I can see where you might be “very sympathetic to the Anabaptist view” as long as they do to you as you would have them do to you. As long as everyone does it your way no problem, right? “It’s a beautiful thing!

    This is the Anabaptist view:

    And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple.

    Luke 14:27 (NIV2011)

    I subscribe to no view other than what Jesus teaches me directly in my heart and mind. The view I hold today is that until we change our attitude of self indulgence we will be maintaining a barrier between us and those others who just won’t do as we please. The disciple Judas had that barrier even when sympathetic to Jesus’ view.

    Judas didn’t like that Jesus didn’t have the Father call in 12 legions of angels to straighten out those other oppressive people who didn’t realize Jesus was the promised Christ. Instead, the Messiah chose to be the least among us by picking up His own cross to include all others as He would have all others include Him in the bond of unmerited love. The love Jesus teaches His disciples is that of empathy, compassion and forgiveness for all, including our enemies.

    You are fighting a losing battle by believing your arsenal of weapons will save you and yours from those oppressive regulations life imposes, not too unlike like those your parents forced on you in your childhood. It is truly freeing to concentrate on loving your merciful neighbor (no matter the ethnicity, faith, gender, sexuality or age) as yourself rather than vigilantly securing your weapons to secure your absolute liberty to remain self indulgent.

    All of us and ours will die. Doesn’t it make more sense, knowing what we know now, to go out as Jesus did than did my 50,000 well disciplined (oppressively regulated) comrade at arms did (in Vietnam) to preserve your liberty to be oppressed by the 1/10 of one percent who believe it is right that they compete for 75%, and more, of our nation’s wealth? Are you going to shoot them in defense of your liberty? They can afford mercenary armies to trump your entire arsenal and disciplined civilian militia. They’ll gladly cough up 30 pieces of silver to protect their liberty at the cost of you and yours.

    Love you!

  • Noah

    Grow a set of logical responses that address the points made.

  • Noah

    Because, as ‘you’ like to point out, those who break the law……break the law.

    As Howard addresses, I’d suggest you tackle some of the points made here.

  • Noah

    So you’d wait until someone shoots you before shooting.

    I fail to see why you’d arm yourself in the 1st place.

    If this person had a break in, they’d likely handle it the way everyone without a gun handles it.

    Why are you so afraid? Don’t trust God to handle things?

    ‘never had a problem with A black’

    Holy cow.

    (also, you completely missed the point, it had nothing to do with your relationship with the blacks)

  • Noah

    Hey, when you can ignore that he carried for 60 years but is saddened by the losses brought about by guns…..and not once used in self defense.

  • John Sizemore

    Hi, Herm, thanks for responding. Yes, I am sympathetic to the Anabaptist point of view in that I believe there is a strong case to be made for Christians, as part of the taking up of the cross, to refuse to commit violence of any kind. I don’t personally believe that Christians must subscribe to this point of view, but that’s a topic for another time. I do think it has merit, and I admire people who choose to live that way.

    To live that way, honestly and completely, though, we must also not rely upon other people to use violence on our behalf. Of course we can’t control the fact that the federal government has an army, or that the state hires executioners, and we must pay our taxes. But true pacifism would require that, when I do have some measure of control, I do not call upon others to commit violence for me.

    So when I see, for example, my wife being beaten and raped, I can’t in good conscience call the police about it. The police will show up with guns, and they will use force to stop, capture, punish, or kill the rapist on my behalf. Unleashing the violence of a third party is certainly not any more Christlike than would be acting violently myself, so to be a true Christian pacifist, I cannot call upon the police to defend myself or my family. To pretend that I can afford to be a pacifist because there are armed men who will defend me when I call them would be hypocrisy. It seems to me that this half-measure of Christian pacifism is sometimes sold as the genuine article, and I want no part of it.

    None of this, of course, has any bearing on the article above, which prompted my original message. The article above essentially says that only a fool could believe that he can be “a good guy with a gun”. And my answer was and is that I’m quite comfortable dealing with the kinds of situations described in the article. I’m quite comfortable living in a society where others around me, trained and untrained, have the same freedom that I do to deal with those situations. I don’t believe God, His wisdom, or His grace will desert me because I allow myself to be prepared for a situation that I dearly hope will not arise, nor do I believe that the act of preparing for such a situation will deprive me the opportunity to display the love and mercy of Christ should that situation arise. You and the author of the article may feel differently about it, and that’s fine by me.

    My mention of liberty was in reference both to the liberty we have in Christ and also the civil liberty we enjoy as citizens of a free society. As a Christian, I believe that my conscience, guided by the Holy Spirit and a humble submission to Scripture, is sufficient for me to know what God wants from me. And I believe your conscience, similarly guided, is sufficient for you, even though it may lead you to choices different from my own.

    As a citizen, I do not attempt to use the government to bend the will of my neighbor, even to do what I believe he ought to do. And I expect that my neighbor will also refrain from using the government to force me to do what he thinks I ought to do. This article, whether it was so intended or not, has been cited by people who would use the power of government to force others to live in the way that makes them feel comfortable and secure. That is not liberty, and I do not wish to live that way.

    Thank you for taking the time to engage with me on this issue. I love you too, brother!

  • Averette Calhoun

    Put down the liberal coolaid. If you are in a legal state, put down the doobie. Okay now. First of all, the purpose of the gun is to protect oneself and family, first and foremost. There is a discipline to that. There is responsibility to that. If one chooses to legally carry a gun on one’s person, that does not make you a vigilante protector of all innocents out there. It is to protect yourself and family. Were I in the Walmart movie “isle” aisle, and concealed carrying, I would seek cover. I would not go seek out the shooter and get in a gun battle. Were I confronted by the shooter and my life were in danger, I would use my gun. At home, i don’t have kids running around so my home defense weapon is not sealed away in a safe. Be careful driving, those roads are dangerous and crashes take lives. Drunk drivers take lives. Impaired drivers take lives. Distracted drivers take lives. Criminal with no regard for laws take lives.

  • There is a reason the right to keep and bear arms is the second amendment right after free speech. The founders of our great country knew tyranny first hand and the first and second amendment were specifically in the bill of rights to protect us, the citizens, and to limit the power of the government over us. Today, it is obvious, that our government seeks to grow and involve itself in ways never intended. That is why those of us who see out of control government in action resist its constant pressure to limit our rights and seek to limit it not expand it. Your message is well intended but naive in the extreme. Our society is bubbling over with discontent as it becomes more obvious that God is being systematically eliminated from all forums and discussions. The eroding of our rights makes the process easier for those in power. Never has it been more apparent that there is no justice in the land. Isaiah chapter 59 is a good reminder of what is happening and verse 4 is right on point.

  • Snooterpoot

    Our society is bubbling over with discontent as it becomes more obvious that God is being systematically eliminated from all forums and discussions.

    Oh, please. I’ve been hearing this since I was a child and the Supreme Court ruled that prayers led by public school teachers or administrators were unconstitutional. If God is omnipresent, and omniscient, how can he be eliminated anywhere?

    Besides that, the fact that you were able to read a blog about Christians and comment on it demonstrates the foolishness of your comment.

    Regulation of firearms is not a violation of the Second Amendment. Let’s look at the precise text:

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

    What National Guard unit do you belong to? Because the Guard is now the militia that is referenced in the Constitution.

  • If what you said about the Militia were true the government would have already taken our guns. The Second Amendment is not interpreted that way nor was it intended to be. When society asks God to leave their public forums he withdraws his protection and blessings not His omnipresence. Foolishness noted and back at you…

  • Snooterpoot

    So, God is not omniscient and omnipresent? Who knew.

    And, like most people who think firearms should be unregulated, you seem to think that the first twelve words of the Second Amendment were written as some kind of joke or something.

    I just love conservatives who love the Constitution, except for when it’s inconvenient for you.

  • Most Christians on this site do not accept the bible as written. They analyse everything from what they “feel” Jesus would say or do. God has said many times and many places that blessings abound to those who love Him and keep his laws but not to those who despise Him. Let me know if you accept all of the bible?

  • Snooterpoot

    Then you must think that God stopped talking to us 2000+ years ago, and that nothing we have learned in the meantime means anything.

    Frankly, I think that is limiting to God, as he has revealed himself through the millennia.

    I accept the Bible as an anthology of books that were written by fallible men and that reflects the times in which they were written.

  • Robert Ries

    “It is a fantasy to think that guns can be used in real life the way they are used be heroes in action movies.”

    Actually, your point has been soundly DISPROVEN.

    Your attempt at moving goal-posts is noted.

  • David Cohen
  • God talks to us everyday in many ways. Some hear better than others.Many do not hear at all because they know nothing about God. But yet the bible survives waiting for anyone who cares to start reading it. If the bible were not the Word of God then it would not have survived; written by men but inspired by God.

  • Bones

    Do you say the same about the Koran?

  • The Koran, and the Book of Mormon are but two examples of man made books.

  • Bones

    And the Bible isn’t…….

    Fact is we don’t have the originals which God destroyed or is hiding.

  • Then what do you say about the Dead Sea Scrolls where the surviving copy of Isaiah was verified as word for word. This shows that the transmission of the books were preserved by exact copies passed down over the millennia. And why would God hide his Word?

  • Bones

    Aaaaand

    We’re finding very early copies of the Gospels of Thomas and Judas. That doesn’t mean they were divinely inspired.

    Btw according to the dead sea scrolls Goliath was about 6 foot.

  • Snooterpoot

    Do you mean the Bible as assembled before the Council or Nicea, or afterward? The King James version, or another?

  • Robert Ries

    Link doesn’t work….

  • Robert Ries

    From your own ‘source’:

    “EDITOR’S NOTE: The original story identified a source as a combat veteran and former Navy SEAL. A records search has since revealed that he significantly exaggerated his military record. His comments have been removed from the article, and the headline has been changed. We apologize to our readers.”

    The rest of the article is similarly flawed and erroneous.

  • Robert Ries

    http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

    “There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU’s annually.”

  • Robert Ries

    We aren’t talking about other countries.

  • rvnc

    This is a great article, but it won’t matter. The gun nuts are like the anti-vaccination crowd. They are so certain that they are “safer” — because they feel more in control — that any amount of arguments that they are not safer are quickly dismissed. It’s not a logical decision. It’s a religion, and they get to play the god.

  • Gina

    “gun nuts”? really? my daughter just got her conceal carry permit not to long ago and has been training and takes it seriously. and has also taken a self defense class, I feel better knowing she can protect herself, nothing is guaranteed but at least she has a chance if someone comes at her. now waiting for my other two daughters to get theirs! I’m a proud mama, and my husband has a gun, he is a hunter, got deer meat in the freezer to proove it,LOL…we are not “gun nuts”, we are taking control of our lives and refuse to be a victim.

  • Gina

    very well said!! we stand ready!!

  • Gina

    God is everywhere but He has never forced himself on anyone, this country CHOSE to get God out, we can pray anywhere we wont but more and more the government is trying to stop that. God says,ok I will step back and you will see what happens…well what we have now is a growing government more and more in our personal business and a supreme court who seems to think they are God and riots and racism against EVERYONE!! we are a nation divided(thanks Obama), a house divided can not stand. God is here, He is watching and He sees the result of what we as a country wanted and it’s not good. but time is running out and God WILL make himself known to all, this time not as a babe in a manger but as a King going to war!

  • Gina

    God is omniscient and omnipresent!

  • Gina

    “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6) the book of mormon and the nwt the JW’s use are in direct violation of this.

  • Gina

    God has promised to preserve His word and he has through the King James Bible. God always keeps his promises.1 Peter 1:23 “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever.”Psalm 12:6-7 “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever.”Is. 40:8 “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”Ps 119:160 “Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.”

  • Jim

    Yes, everyone should see to themselves that they’re trained properly, and everyone should secure their weapons away from children. With the millions of gun owners and guns out there with the good guys, if this were really a problem, we’d have much more of an issue. The bad guys with a gun are the ones I’m worried about. They’re the ones we read about in the news doing drive-by shootings and killing each other.

  • Jim

    Well said!!

  • Gina

    those are forgeries written by the Gnostics which is a false religious sect from back when the church first started spreading . they are not divinely inspired.

  • Jim

    Sounds more like you’ve been fooled by the liberal media. It’s not the “gun nuts” that are causing the problems. No, it’s not a religion, but my church has a lot of cops who carry as well as private citizens who also carry. BTW…it’s the cops that want the rest of us “good guys” to carry in the first place.

  • Jim

    Sorry…the Supreme Court disagrees with you about who the melitia is referencing.

  • OldCorpsEd

    You can shoot targets accurately (bronze qualification)? Retired military (probably Air Force). BFD.

    What counts is knowing how, and when, and why to shoot. Give credit to training. No, it’s not simple, but it is necessary. Do you just let the bad guys with guns go unchallenged, go unstopped?

  • OldCorpsEd

    Everywhere in the Constitution that it says “the people” it means an individual. “The people” are the militia. As for “well regulated”, it did not mean “controlled”.

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.”

    Therefore, the Founders intended that THE PEOPLE have the fully functioning ability to ensure the security of the freedom of THE PEOPLE against any oppressive government. The immutable individual right to keep and bear arms puts the teeth in that right.

  • Bones

    So…..

    The point is that apparently if something is old and survived it’s protected by God.

    It would be great if God had’ve protected the original manuscripts of which we have none from even a hundred years after.

  • Bones

    The KJV doesn’t even get the name of God correct. It’s not Jehovah.

  • thanks Gina. It’s nice to see there are actually Christians on this site.

  • Snooterpoot

    The National Guard is the militia. Try to twist it any way you want, but the Amendment says what it says.

    I think the founders didn’t think of well regulated to mean what you said. If it did they’d have said “well functioning” or something to that affect.

    Where would you stop at citizens owning weapons? Bazookas? Surface to air missiles? RPGs? Nuclear weapons (and I am not using that as hyperbole)? Where? Can the government regulate any weapon under your interpretation of the Second Amendment?

  • Snooterpoot

    The Supreme Court disregarded stare decisis with recently decided cases. If the decisions had gone the other way you’d probably accuse the Court of making its own laws.

    Precedent is always meaningful to conservatives unless it’s inconvenient.

  • Snooterpoot

    Thank you. An omniscient and omnipresent God cannot be eliminated from anything. The great sturm and drang about God being thrown out of public schools or other government entities is just some Christians whining because they can’t force their own orthodoxy on the rest of us.

    Lots of us Christians fully support the separation of church and state.

  • Snooterpoot

    God is everywhere but He has never forced himself on anyone, this country CHOSE to get God out, we can pray anywhere we wont but more and more the government is trying to stop that.

    Please excuse my vulgar language, but that’s just total bullshit. Would you care to tell us precisely and explicitly how the government is trying to stop people from praying?

    I won’t hold my breath.

    We are a nation divided because the political parties are behaving like petulant toddlers who pout and stomp their feet when they don’t get their way. It has nothing to do with President Obama. It started when Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House, and it’s only gotten worse as time has passed.

  • Ed Sigward

    Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.

  • OldCorpsEd

    The National Guard is a state function. The “Militia” is the “We the people”. That’s what they wrote, that’s what they meant.

    They should have said “well functioning”. No, that’s the language of today.

    “The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    Don’t put words in the Framers’ mouths or change their meanings.

    Other writings of the Framers make explicitly clear that they meant for the people to have the ability to counter, with arms, an oppressive government. They intended for us to have the un-infringed ability to have a subsequent American Revolution.

  • Snooterpoot

    If the National Guard is a state function why can the president order the guard to activate?

    Where do you draw the line, if any, on the armaments American citizens are permitted to own? You ignored that question completely.

  • Bingo

    Get a life and do the math !!! Where am I going to put it ??? You think we are idiots !!! I know where I will put it !! And…..You don’t want to be there !!!

  • Bingo

    Great where do you live !!

  • Bingo

    I am one !! And I am a private American Citizen !!! 2nd Amendment Supporter !!!

  • Bingo

    SICK PUP !! Sorry !! Truth be told !!! BY THE PEOPLE !!!

  • Bingo

    PERFECT !!!!!

  • Bingo

    So…..Dump the Constitution ? Pootersnoot !! Backwards….hang on…I’m making another pitcher of Coo-Aid !!

  • Bingo

    Thank You !!

  • Bingo

    National Gard is a State Function !!! And “NOT” by the people !!! Is that so hard to comprehend !! That IS the difference !!

  • Bingo

    You are so cynical !!…..At least people have to think before they put you back on the shelf ! I’m pro gun all the way !!!

  • Bingo

    Myself I do !! I love my 1953 American Standard….it helps me understand King James version. I realize some of the new wording of our present age is to acknowledge our changing culture (I really don’t care for it )….But I try to cross reference early scripture to make sure it is on track ! There is power in the name of Jesus !!! I know first hand !!

  • Bingo

    Agreed!!! yet with all my reading I think it is easy to decipher the truth……It is always in your heart and you know !!

  • Bingo

    Just listening to David Crowder right now !! “You Never Let Go” !! Need I say more !!!

  • Bingo

    If you are talking to me…..I am NOT a biblical scholar !! I appreciate how you dig for truth and in my opinion yet never come to any solid conclusion. Witch I believe is why you are cynical about every little difference you can use to keep You from Landing in the Lap of Jesus Christ !!

    When I was saved (TOTAL TRUTH !!) I was moved by Him that very day !! I’m so thankful my best friends younger brother had the ability to speak the right words to me ! My world was very screwed up and I knew a change had to be coming real soon either good or bad!! I always believed in God but never truly understood Jesus and His life here with us until that day ! I was an awesome few hours to say the least !! And I will never forget some 36 years later !!!! I was on a very crumbly edge of life and He led me away from that edge !!
    No…I didn’t turn into a bible thumper on some rant…I Just Knew and Believed something Good Happened to Me! Because of Jesus Christ and what he did for me on the cross !! It was awesome…..and He hasn’t stopped motivating me since.
    Your worried with choosing The “Right” Jesus Christ and pick apart your decisions with questions!! Shut off your distractions, focus !! And with your TRUE HEART Just ask Him into your heart !! Believe!! and ask him to lead you!! Take a break from all of your indecision. Shut off the noise for a while and just You a Jesus get together ! Read the new Testament (The Bread Of Life) nourish your soul !!! Pray !!! :0) And remember there is Power in the name of Jesus !! The simple utterance of the name of Jesus will send satan and his demons running for cover !!

  • Bingo

    So you doubt and don’t believe ?? That is your excuse ?? What year is it ?? 2016 A.D. !! That’s right After Death !! Whos death ??….Hmmm ?? Let’s see…Jesus Christ ???…It seems we have some pretty deep history here !!

  • Bingo

    Yep through the ages and writings the names may have changed…yet all mean the same !

  • Bingo

    Agreed !!!

  • Bingo

    Your point ?? Davis was a midget ??

  • Bingo

    OK Gina, Bones and I’m sure other people. Look !! I know Christ changed my life !! I also know there is power in the name of Jesus !! I have witnessed it first hand many times !!!….Truly !!
    Thank God for Biblical Scholars that keep things honest and real in my opinion !! Yes I know there are tweaks and twerks that are questioned and challenged ! That is good !! It keeps focus !! So…pick as you may !! Just don’t let it get in the way of you believing in Christ !!

  • Bingo

    And SO MANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES !!!!!! Be smart and be prepared !!!

  • Bones

    Is that Sammy Davis Jr?????

    Or Jefferson Davis?????

  • Bones

    Do you know how stupid you sound to other Christians around the world?

    But I see you’ve meshed American culture with Evangelical Christianity.

  • Bones

    Or move to Australia….where you don’t need a gun….

  • Bones

    AD does not mean After Death. It is short for the Latin, anno Domini which means in the Year of the Lord. By the way most scholars believe they got the dates wrong.

  • Bones

    Yeah like Allah……

  • Bones

    You mean like you kept rights away from gay people and still seek to do that.

    Maybe it’s a shame they didn’t rise up and blow your sorry arses away when you were denying their rights, like you intend to do….

    You’re another one who thinks he’s some sort of Evangelical John Wayne.

  • Bones

    Yes…..the gays are coming to getcha…..

    Is America still like the Wild West over there?

  • Bones

    If you’re going to follow the Constitution instead of the Bible at least be consistent.

    You should arm yourselves with muskets and stop your enormous spending on a Federal Army.

  • Bones

    Yeah we just saw the Oregon militia do it’s thing…..

    It’s basically just a bunch of good ol boys with guns who think they can do what they want…..

  • Bones

    Which is why you don’t need a massive Federal army.

    I’m watching Ken Burns Civil War now.

    It’s a great example of states rising up against an oppressive government so they could keep slaves…..That Lincoln was so oppressive…..

    Maybe one day you guys’ll join the 21st century instead of hiding behind a revolution which was fought by local militia and muskets.

    Come to think of it, why don’t you drop your good ol militia into Iraq and Afghanistan….

  • Bones

    That’s a shame.

    I’m pro-Jesus all the way.

  • Bones

    Nah…we’re cynical about the likes of you who say how much they love Jesus but love their guns more……

    Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition…..

  • Bones

    Be consistent.

    Arm yourself with muskets…..

  • If by gay people rights you are referring to the Bill of Rights they are protected as are all US citizens. Not being in the legislature nor law enforcement I don’t limit people rights.

    Advocating for a special interest group to kill US citizens over gay rights? I believe the Islamic terriorists are already trying that approach to limit the First Amendment.

  • Bones

    It’s people like you who think giving gay rights is the end of the world and who want to go back to the days when gay people were arrested, put in mental homes and worse.

    YOU’VE been torturing and arresting gay people for centuries and now YOU’RE moaning about them doing YOU harm.

    For generations in your country it was #gaylivesdon’tmatter

    Maybe MLK should have joined with the Black Panthers to create open racial warfare given your logic. If anyone was entitled to it was the coloured people of your country. But nah, he preferred non-violent resistance without a gun. Oh and let’s not forget how people like you turn a blind eye to the native Americans…….

    Oppressive governments..pffffff

    You’ve been oppressing people for years…..

    Just that they’re more Christlike than you are.

  • Bones

    She probably doesn’t believe Mary was Immaculately Conceived and Assumed into heaven and the Pope has to tell her how to live.

    I’d say she’s sensible and finding her own way in the world.

    Btw according to your own catechism, Snooterpot’s still going to heaven.

  • Bones

    He’s happy doing that and is retiring. Good for him. He found his path in life. He sure as hell wouldn’t be siding with Evangelicals though. He can’t stand them as much as liberals.

    So as a family we don’t talk religion or politics unless you want to start a fight.

  • Bones

    How do you know she isn’t leading a ‘good life’? So whether she believes in a ‘devil’ is neither here nor there.

    Heck there’ll be plenty of Christians who believe in a devil who won’t be going up to the Spirit in the Sky according to the catechism.

    You have no idea but are tittle tatting to other posters here.

  • Bones

    So once again your whole comments are just nothing really.

    You tittle tattled like a little schoolgirl craving attention. And I’d say your statement about not believing in the importance in the Bible is most probably a lie.

  • Ok. I’ll play. This started around the 2nd Amendment. Not sure where gay rights entered the conversation? Gay is a sexual preference not a race like black and white. By the way coloured is considered racist – black is the preferred descriptor.

    What country are you from? Your knowledge of the United States seems dated.

  • Bones

    So she disagrees with you.

    Well big deal and get in line.

    To liberal Christians, the Bible isn’t pivotal to our faith.

    Christ is.

  • Bones

    Oh so it was ok to deny rights to people in the past who didn’t rise up in rebellion against an oppressive government supported by the likes of you. Because gays were evil and blacks were inferior.

    You’re fighting against the rights of other Americans including the right for them to marry as if it’s any of your business. And you’re asking the government to intrude into their lives and take their rights away.

    The only thing dated is your attitude.

    You people are so hypocritical.

  • Bones

    It’s certainly a big deal to you hence your original nasty comment.

  • Bones

    Btw I thought Ireland had strict gun laws.

  • Bones

    The fact that it’s none of your business.

    But you just had to let your conservative mate know that this is a bad person according to you.

    Btw I don’t believe in a devil either.

    So sue me.

  • Bones

    This is a thread about gun control.

    I wonder if owning guns to blow people away is as bad as not believing in a devil and then distorting the words of Jesus.

  • Bones

    It’s still none of your business.

    Just like I couldn’t give a toss if you think the Virgin was Immaculately conceived or the Pope is infallible or that people go to hell for using contraception.

    But you type can’t control yourself when gay people are involved.

    Meh conservatives are so revolting….and they think they know Christ.

  • Bones

    That’s right.

    You’re far more concerned with attacking a gay lady.

  • Read your reply a few times. Not sure what it has to do with the subject? Did it ever cross your mind that Liberals are always unhappy? Unhappy about their government, unhappy about the lives of other people whom they don’t even know (native Americans), unhappy about any issue that doesn’t “feel” right to them. It must be hell being in a constant state of irritation where you have to take out your frustration on a Christian website. Try some Xanax.

  • Snooterpoot

    I think a faith that cannot withstand questions or scrutiny is a faith that is not worth having.

    Here’s the truth. I was saved when I was seven years old. I’m now sixty-four years old. I have questioned, and I have studied, and my conclusion is my first sentence of this comment.

    How dare you tell me to “shut off [my] distractions!” Here’s another truth. People like you, who espouse a belief other than Jesus loves unconditionally, are the distractions! You chase people away from God, but you’re too blind and arrogant to see it.

  • Snooterpoot

    I agree! The truth is always in my heart. The truth is that God loves unconditionally. He didn’t send Jesus to the world to spread his hatred of his creation.

    So, yes, the truth is always in my heart, and I am so grateful for that!

  • Snooterpoot

    Cynical? Try realistic.

  • Snooterpoot

    Then answer my question, Bingo. You conveniently failed to do that. Twice.

  • Snooterpoot

    My screen name is Snooterpoot. Get it right.

    I am not in favor of dumping the Constitution, however, I believe people like you do favor dumping everything but the Second Amendment.

  • Snooterpoot

    Stop shouting. It makes you look immature and unsure of the validity of your comment.

    Not to mention it is very rude. My mother raised me better than that.

  • Snooterpoot

    You are one what? A Guardsman? Which unit do you belong to?

  • Bones

    Dude you’re the ones wanting guns in case the big bad government comes for ya.

  • Snooterpoot

    Don’t presume to speak for me. I don’t believe God stopped talking to us 2000+ years ago as some evangelicals seem to believe. And I do not believe the Bible is the literal word of God.

    I do believe that hell is a human creation that was and is used to control people. After all, fear is one of the best methods to control.

    I worship the loving, compassionate and merciful god who gave us Jesus not because he hates his human creation, but because he loves us. All of us. Not just the human beings who meet your approval.

  • Bones

    So you’re just gossiping and bearing false witness.

    You people are unbelievable.

  • Bones

    Yeah you’re a great witness.

    And you wonder why people don’t like conservatives.

  • Bones

    “Australia’s crime rate increased and the only folks that can defend themselves effectively are wearing a badge. Australia is a police state.”

    That’s a lie.

  • Donald N. Mei

    Clever, witty, sarcastic but ultimately irrelevant.

  • Snooterpoot

    But, Snooterpoot doesn’t believe in the devil and she doesn’t see the importance of the Word of God.

    This is most certainly an attempt on your part to speak for me, insofar as you are saying that I believe or don’t believe something. If you want to reference what I believe then your proper role is to ask me, not to just blindly state that “Snooterpoot believes…”

    So, stop it.

  • Snooterpoot

    Okay. I’d be more careful in the future when referencing other people’s thoughts, beliefs or ideals. People get rightly upset when they are misrepresented.

  • Snooterpoot

    You preached at me, but you didn’t answer my questions.

  • Svetlana

    Eva , so good to see you again :))

  • Snooterpoot

    That’s how the comment was presented, Eva. And you did misrepresent my beliefs.

    If someone lets me know I have misrepresented their beliefs, or that this perception is that I have spoken for them, I apologize. It’s what polite people do.

  • Svetlana

    I am on a busy side of life Eva, thank you. Doing fine, being busy is my normal state. How are you?

  • Svetlana

    Night. :)

  • Bones

    Are you still trying to justify your own sin?

  • Bernie Carpenter

    How about this, idiot, if none of the law abiding citizens have guns, but criminals always find a way to get guns, what are you gonna do when someone robs a bank or a store? Run, but the guy with a gun wins. The point is if I have a gun, I’m gonna hide it where I can access it quick, and if something happens, I’m gonna use it as a warning to the criminal or shoot him. If I had a child, I’d put the gun in a glass case or simply hide it from my child until he’s of age. If I need to access it, I will find a way to quickly access it. You are a total idiot for wanting only illegal stupids to have guns, GET REAL??? Really?? And that stupid picture above, well, you look stupid with that ugly 80’s sunglasses and UGLY hair style!! If that’s really you LOL! SCREW YOU!! I’m keeping my gun, I don’t give a rat’s ass what Obozo or Killary says!! Stupid liberals!!

  • Bernie Carpenter

    God what idiot liberals, I’m so sick of their stupidity!! The second amendment was put there for our protections, not over stupidity! Just had to post again, I’m getting a gun and a concealed carry permit to protect myself and others if something happens, I’m not a sissy fool that’s gonna whither away like a dying animal if someone wants to kill me or someone else. STUPID LIBERALS, GET REAL!! GOD YOU PEOPLE ARE STUPID!!

  • James O’Connor

    Another bad guy with a gun massacres a lot of people and yet you still feel the need to question people who have not killed innocent people with their guns? This is quite the article of “what ifs” and hypothetical situations. The fact is there are more than a handful of bad people with bad intentions and a combination of legally and illegally acquired firearms. While you may think this article is going to magically make us gun enthusiasts forget these people exist, it doesn’t. While there may be “Good guys with guns” who are untrained in critical situations, there are “Bad guys with guns” who are trained in creating these critical situations. Perhaps you could just come right out and ask us all to convert ourselves to sitting ducks?

  • “Another bad guy with a gun massacres a lot of people and yet you still feel the need to question people who have not killed innocent people with their guns? ”

    might have something to do with the fact that we can’t tell the difference between you and him until it is too late. You’re both black boxes, totally unknown, until you act or don’t act.

  • Telemonian Ajax

    That’s a pretty amusing perspective. Most gun owners I know train way more than military or LE. I think you’re terribly exaggerating how much those people train.

    What qualifies me to give a summary judgement with a gun? The fact that someone is killing people. I’m not waiting til they’ve emptied all of their magazines into people just so they can get a trial. Sorry for being so selfish.

  • Sailorcurt

    “Tweeeeet” [throws flag]. “Logical Fallacy: begging the question….5 yard penalty, loss of down”.

    We don’t know who are the good guys and who are the bad guys until one of them commits a crime and the other doesn’t, so no one can be trusted until they “prove” themselves…but no one can prove themselves because it only takes one crime to prove yourself a criminal, so by definition, one must continually prove oneself until death to be deemed a “good guy”.

    I guess your view is that only posthumous concealed handgun permits should be issued.

    By the way: with your jaded view of mankind, how can you ever drive on public highways? All it would take is a flick of the wheel and one of those possible murderers on the road with you could steer you into a tree or bridge abutment. How can you possibly trust all those “black boxes” to operate 2 ton lethal weapons in public when you never know for sure whether they are worthy?

  • Andrew

    “Pretty sure we have the same rates of mental illness over here”. Based on your comments I would say there are much higher rates of mental illness down in Aussie land. Or is it just you?

  • Bones

    I’M surprised there’s not more incidents over there given you think your government is some tyrannical dictatorship.

    The level of delusion in the US is bizarre.

  • Andrew

    Given that there seems to be a great fear of inanimate objects in Aussie world, I’d say that the land down under has the highest level of delusion that I’ve ever encountered. Or is that just you?

  • Bones

    wtf are you going on about now?

    Oh please don’t make laws hard so that nutters can’t get high powered semi automatic weapons.

    F#ck me, no wonder US police shootings outstrip the delusional UK, delusional Australia and even delusional Germany all added together.

    The US college education system is clearly f#cked if you’re a product of it.

  • Andrew

    “Oh please don’t make laws hard so that nutters can’t get high powered semi automatic weapons.”

    Like I said there seems to be a great fear of inanimate objects down in Aussie Land. If you’re really a teacher than I feel sorry for those poor kids. They’re really getting fucked over.

    “F#ck me, no wonder US police shootings outstrip the delusional UK, delusional Australia and even delusional Germany all added together.”
    How did we even get on the subject of police here? Geez you lefty nut jobs really just hate police. Nothing in the conversation here involved cops and you suddenly drop that in a sentence meant to demonize them. I guess love thy neighbor doesn’t count if they wear a blue uniform.

  • Bones

    I’m not the one who’s scared in and of his own country, that’s how f#cked up you are.

  • Andrew

    I’m not afraid. Hell I actually feel quite secure here in America (Probably because unlike you leftist nutters I don’t freak out around cops). You’re the one that’s afraid of objects that can’t move an inch on their own. Hell you seem particularly afraid of the ones are in a country on the other side of the globe. That’s how screwed up your demented leftist mind is. I worry it’s how screwed up the minds of those kids you’re teaching are going to be to.

  • Bones

    Funny, because another right wing gun toting lunatic wrote how scared he was when he dropped his kids at school.

    You’re thinking is pretty screwed but given your level of retardation that’s to be expected.

    I mean who’s scared of inanimate objects like rpgs and machine guns They’re easy to get hold of in the US aren’t they? You mean they aren’t? Fmd. You mean to tell me some inanimate objects are f#cking dangerous.

    What a moron.

    I mean anyone can get those in the US right

    Cops are pretty safe over here and don’t go around shooting up black people.

    Seems to be more of an American thing.

  • Andrew

    That entire comment is perhaps the most incoherent thing I have ever read, but then again it is you bonehead. You continue to amaze with new levels of stupidity. I think that taking idiotic arguments to new heights is your talent.

    “I mean who’s scared of inanimate objects like rpgs and machine guns They’re easy to get hold of in the US aren’t they? You mean they aren’t? Fmd. You mean to tell me some inanimate objects are f#cking dangerous”
    Yeah actually rpgs and machine guns are pretty hard to get in the U.S. Unless of course you buy them on the black market (oops shouldn’t have said black market, you’ll probably think that’s racist). I know quite a few gun owners, and have been to several gun shows, but I have never actually seen anyone with an automatic weapon. But then again I doubt that you even know the difference between a semi-automatic and an automatic. Hell, I could probably point a Nerf gun at you and you would piss/crap yourself. There must be a real screwed up strain of leftism down in Australia. Or is that just you?

  • Kathy Ruth

    You do NOT know gun owners that “train way more than military or law enforcement!” (WAY more? What are you, 12?)
    You’re one of the reasons​ this country is so messed up!

  • Jan Westbury

    New student in the Visually Impaired program I work in: wonderful 13-year old boy blinded by his 11-year old sister when their dad put a gun in her hand at a shooting range. Lots of stories like this–read the back pages of the Metro sections of your local newspapers!

  • Telemonian Ajax

    I don’t think you know any gun owners or law enforcement. “During a poll taken during this class which represented about a half dozen Florida law enforcement agencies, I asked how many train more than twice a year. No hands went up. When asked how many train or qualify with their duty guns only once a year. Everyone raised their hands.” – Dave Grossi, Police One article entitled “Police firearms training: How often should you be shooting?” Most gun owners are hunters or enthusiasts. They train way more than this. The military situation is similar but less dramatic.

    Funny you replied to a 9 month old comment to jerk yourself off.

  • Maura Hart

    amen amen amen. these 2nd amendment people won’t be happy until we live in the united states of the ok corral and are ready to draw down at any moment. particularly a moment of their choice, in particular if your skin is too dark, you have an accent or do not buy into their mythology and religious fables

  • Richard Lambert

    I hate guns, but I’ve said it once before somewhere….I’m not actually for gun control, but I am for gun regulation. That is, I think it should be a lot harder for ANYONE to get a gun. It’s too damn easy right now. Go to the right place, there’s absolutely no checks or balances for a person to go through when buying a gun. My parents last year bought no less than 6 guns, I know for damn fact my mother does not have gun license and her experience with a gun extends as far as a few trips to a firing range. My dad was in the air force but I’m pretty sure he didint either. Bottom line, as some who does know my parents better than any gun shop could without some kind of check….growing up I know my mother to have trudged through a long mire of severe depression and sucidal tendencies, and my dad was quick to anger and violent…I am not afraid of a civilian possessing arms, but I greatly uneased that my parents do, both for their sake and that of others. You simply should NOT be able to just walk into a place that sells guns leave with one without so much as check to see if you really even know how to use it properly. It’s completely absurd to me!

  • monokuri

    wow all the comments here don’t make me feel safe at all. you guys don’t seem like “good guys with guns” but “prideful guys with guns”.

    Being a good guy is relative anyway. How I can be truly sure you are a “good guy”? Especially with how lax it seems when it comes to getting a gun.

    If you are going to handle something as deadly as a gun, better be thoroughly checked for backround AND pyschologically. I especially don’t want someone who is mentally unstable to handle a gun, for their own safety, and the safety of others.

  • Narby1

    Excellent article!

  • Brandon Kling

    To solve the issue of keeping the weapon safe while at home and easily accessible: biometric safes. I have one, it doesn’t add a whole lo of time on (maybe one additional second).

    Now, what qualifies me to own a firearm? Easy. The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution ( you know, that document you swore to uphold and defend, against all enemies, both foreign and domestic).

    What qualifies me to be a good guy with a gun? Having served this nation for over a decade in the military, with actual combat experience and being qualified to fire pistols, carbines, rifles and machine guns. How about how I still continue basic drills with a pistol, despite no longer being active.

    Not all gun owners without official military training are idiots. I’ve me guys who are pretty well trained because of the training they seek out individually.

  • Thom Clark

    Speaking as someone who has been both Military AND Law Enforcement, he is correct. I know a LOT of Civilians who go to the range every chance they get.
    In the Military and in Law Enforcement, we are only required to go once every year.
    Oh, we CARRY our weapons around with us….in the Military’s case, unloaded most of the time. Even as an Army MP, we weren’t allowed to have a round in the chamber.
    You’re commenting on something you have NO clue about, obviously.

  • rick1716

    Unless they have been adjudicated mentally incompetent they have a right to keep and bear arms period just because you don’t like your parents or you have a different political bent than a does not mean that they are mentally incompetent

  • rick1716

    And its people like you is why we have the second Amendment

  • rick1716

    So you judge the blinding of a child, a singular incident, for your whole life perspective. You need more perspective

  • rick1716

    Kathy, have you never heard of three gun competitions. Do you know actually how many thousands of gun ranges there are out there. Yes there are a few people who do not train like they should period but as a majority they do

  • otrotierra

    That’s not what Jan wrote. You need to read what she actually wrote, and then respond to what is actually written. That’s how adult dialogue works.

  • rick1716

    Obviously you are not well schooled. The National Guard did not come into existence till the early 1900s

  • rick1716

    I will arm myself with muskets when you get your ass off of the computer. Remember First Amendment does not include computers.

  • rick1716

    Obviously you do not remember what happened in New Orleans period during Hurricane Katrina. They confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens. but liberals like you don’t understand that

  • rick1716

    Do you not realize sir that most of what come out of the Constitution came out of the Bible. but anti-god people like you don’t know that

  • Jan Westbury

    It’s not my “whole life perspective” but I do take note of statistics that show guns kept in homes for protection from intruders end up being used unintentionally to slay or injure the owners’own family members or friends far more often than they do to shoot robbers. Think young children playing with their dads’ guns, or that guy a few years ago here in Atlanta who shot and killed his own son as he was coming through the yard late at night.

  • BasqueCO

    Military and LE here as well. Civilians often shoot way more than we do. Maybe once or twice a year we do range time in those professions. I shoot WAY more on my own. Sometimes once a week. I know guys who do more than that. I know some who only go once a month. Either way its better that 1-2 times a year in service training

  • Dan Roberts

    I actually DO KNOW, and he’s 100 percent correct in his statement.

  • Dan Roberts

    NEVER was. The “Wild West ” is largely a myth fabricated by Hollywood. Now how about you mind your own business and worry about your country and don’t be telling us what to do in ours

  • Dan Roberts

    FALSE!! Refer to CURRENT Fed Law, USC Sec 3.11 and the ” unorganized militia” as well as several SCOTUS rulings pertaining to the same

  • JAMES “SGT. ROCK” WHITE

    And Yet, according to the CDC, in 2013, they found that on average, between 800,000 and 2.5 Million times a Year, Crimes have been stopped by Private Citizens with their Own Legally Owned Firearms, But You never hear about those stories in the Main Scam Media, only in Local Coverage. Sounds like Only bad Shit involving guns is covered by the Leftist News, as the Leftists continue to push for more and more Stringent Control. It’s not about the Guns, it’s about who has them. Gun Felony Deaths have been going down consistently over the last thirty years, Except in the High Felony Democrat Ran for Decades Ghettos, which for the most part are also the Strictest when it come to ”Gun Control”‘. Strange about that, huh ? With the SCOTUS ruling in a number of Cases , including Warren VS. Wash. DC, 1976, That Police have NO Responsibility to Protect Citizens, That it is totally up to the Individual Officer To do so or Not. And knowing that Police take minutes to respond, when every second counts, But that never gets mentioned either By Leftist pushing for more “”Control””.

  • Gregg T Jenkins

    The Daily show? Really? The fact that you are citing that, negates everything you’ve said here.

  • James Gibbons

    You mean statistics that have been thoroughly debunked? Statistics that assume correlation=causation? Those stats?
    Why is it you feel a dead unarmed woman is morally superior to an armed woman who shot her attacker?

  • Bones

    Lol….someone doesn’t like free speech…

    Which is pretty ironic from a country which spreads its weapons to extremist Muslims.

  • Bones

    Lol……the US constitution was heavily influenced by libertarian movements of the 17th and 18th centuries and many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Ignorant people like yourself don’t know that.

  • Bones

    You poor thing…how did you survive without your gun….Probably like most of the world’s population.

  • Bones

    Lol…..I’m sure that made sense to you….

  • Heartland Patriot

    Any article that spews the worn-out notion that “guns in the home equals dead children”, I summarily dismiss as anti-2A propaganda.

  • LibertyDwells

    You have to wonder where they dig these shills up? Is it even actually a vet? or just another idiot leftist assuming it say any stupid thing and get away with it? The Daily Show? “dead children”?

  • LibertyDwells

    You don’t know anything at all about military or police training, Kathy. That’s so often the problem with leftists in general and anti-gun zealots in particular. You have no clue yet you shout your opinions from the rooftops. Then you get upset when everyone eviscerates your bogus claims.

  • C.J. Broz

    What planet are you on where law enforcement “constantly train”? A lot of the cops I know go to the range once or twice a year for qualification, and that’s the only time they ever use their guns. The military is no different — if you’re not in combat arms, you get to go to the range maybe once or twice per year. Civilians who are motivated enough to get a concealed carry license probably spend more time on the range than average cops or military do.

  • Jan Westbury

    So much boils down to which news outlets report the truth. I try to stick with the ones that check their facts and who fire reporters who knowingly distort facts. I’m also careful to look closely at sources for statistics. If a “study” comes from an organization that I know to be rabidly either right or left wing, I take it with a grain of salt. I tend to trust studies from reputable organizations like the CDC, Johns Hopkins and other institutions that would lose their good reputations if they reported falsehoods merely to confirm their biases. I’m afraid some new sources knowingly report falsehoods (Breitbart, for one) and the uneducated eat it up.

  • otrotierra

    Indeed. White evangelicals following Trump (81%) in particular display their deep hatred for facts, material reality, and truth.

  • Jan Westbury

    The thing is, each side thinks they alone know the “facts”. We call each other “crazies” and curse each other, as evidenced on this comments page. Our country is in bad shape.

  • Chris Bergen

    Actually, I have had these thoughts, and I have decided that my safety, and the safety of those around me, are worth the risks that carrying a deadly weapon insure.

    I also, however, do not presume to decide for any other person whether they should or should not. That’s the beauty of individual rights. I get to decide for me, and no one else, and none else gets to decide for me.

    Those that wish to impose their will upon others should take heed.

  • Dan Roberts

    BWHAHAHAHHAHHAH, wrong again moron. Im all for free speech, That DOESNT mean I have to tolerate foreigners sticking their noses into My Countrys rights and laws. But hey, if you enjoy publicly making yourself look like an idiot, knock yourself out

  • Dan Roberts

    And of course you have verifiable, credible evidence to support your claims yes ? Cause without that, its nothing more than your opinion

  • Michael Spagnuolo

    You’ve never met most of us. Nevertheless, you feel entitled to call us “2nd amendment people” racists and biased based on ethnic background and religion. BTW: Most of the friends I shoot with are atheists, Freethinkers, etc…

  • Snooterpoot

    What does the Second Amendment actually say, Dan? What is the precise wording? We’re talking Constitution here, not statutory law.

  • Snooterpoot

    Obviously you’re citing your own version of history. The National Guard simply put state militias (well organized militias) under federal control.

  • Thank you, Richard. I don’t own any guns (saw more than enough in ten years of military service), but I have many friends who do, veterans and non-veterans, and who see it just as you do. It is always helpful to hear from people who actually own guns to get some perspective on the situation.

  • Dan Roberts

    You can try ( and fail) to play semantics all day long, The Founders own words, as well as numerous SCOTUS rulings ALL SAY THE SAME THING. The Founders understood the “militia” to refer to ALL able bodied Citizens able to answer a call to defend the Country, their State or their Community, The Founders own words ALSO say that militia service was NOT the ONLY purpose or reason for the 2A. Multiple English Language Experts and historians with impeccable credibility, some even on the left ( but possessed of character) have ALSO confirmed the historical context referred NOT only to militia service but ALSO to defense of self and others. Let me save you some embarrasment, I’ve studied, written about and taught this topic for over a decade. I’ve seen EVERY SINGLE type of argument ever used by gun control fans, I even have a copy of their Official Playbook ( yes, its a real thing) You WILL NOT WIN this argument.

  • Dan Roberts

    I’ve always been particularly fascinated by people like you attempting the laughable argument that the Founding Fathers were referring to the National Guard ( which wasnt formed until the early 1900’s) when they ratified the Bill of Rights ( including the 2A) in 1789, A full 100 years BEFORE the Guard existed, My 12 yr old is capable of making a better, more credible argument than that

  • Dan Roberts

    Furthermore , its hysterical that you and others like you attempt to argue that the word “people” really does mean Individual Citizens” in EVERY other context in the Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but it magically changes meaning to ONLY referring to a “collective” of people when it comes to the 2A. Its an intellectually bankrupt argument

  • a_bone_2_pick

    Nonsense.

  • Barry

    “I hope you’ll be that reasonable. But, if you do keep it locked up in a safe because you don’t want your kids getting their hands on it, that invites another question: What good would that do you in an emergency? I mean, having it inconveniently out of reach under lock and key sorta defeats the entire point, no?”

    There are these things called “gun safes.” They open in seconds without a key.
    This level of stupidity caused me to stop reading. These are the same anti-gun arguments that get debunked over and over and over. Nothing new here.

  • OHJonesy

    Yep, saw that too Barry, and stopped there as well. Plus,this is the same author that wrote “No, Christian Pacifists Are Not Cowards (But Christian Gun-Slingers Might Be)”, in effect calling Christian gun owners “Cowards”. This guy is just another gun-control-nut.

  • Jan Westbury

    This is what I’m talking about, as reported today in the Atlanta Jornal -Constitution about a man in Louisiana:

    http://www.ajc.com/news/national/man-charged-with-shooting-wife-after-mistaking-her-for-intruder-police-say/xbA5ZyVYLy0qWxqyjZyC4M/?ecmp=socialflow_ajc

  • Horatio

    Of course they have no evidence.

  • saltysailor

    The article and the ammophobes that are praising it are charlatans.
    They dismiss the notion of people being able to make decisions on their own and exercising Constitutional rights that the ammophobes abhor.
    They cloak in quasi-Christian terms with the usual cliches and then wonder why their logic and sanity are questioned.

  • TuskyRazorbacks

    Theirs is a classic case of projecting. They can’t trust themselves
    around inanimate objects and therefore project their weaknesses onto others.
    The OP especially steps in it because She/he/it assumes LEO’s qualify more than the average firearm owner.
    Such has never been the case.

  • TuskyRazorbacks

    Absurd is your belief that people should have to jump through YOUR hoops to exercise a right.

    “I hate guns..”

    That says it all. Projecting an animate emotion on an inanimate object.

  • Bierwagon

    Could stuff a reasonable facsimile of the Scarecrow with this one..

  • Geralt_0f_Rivia

    Actually, you’ve got that kind of reversed. Many believe that they can talk their way out of almost anything and that almost anyone can be talked out of harming others, but this is an irrational position since there exist people who see negotiation as weakness and only comprehend naked violence.

    When it comes down to it, there are only two options available to motivate an individual or group to do something, or more relevantly to this discussion, stop doing something, persuasion and force; a prudent individual keeps both options available. If one is dealing with an unreasonable individual/group who are all about violating the rights of others and cannot be persuaded through discourse to stop, the only alternative to stopping them is meeting force with equal or superior force. Indeed, if an aggressor has directly attacked another, then discourse itself is not even an option in the moment.

    One could submit to an aggressor in the hope that they will not be harmed, but hope itself is not a survival strategy, nor is it a reliable path to halting aggression, quite the opposite in fact.

  • Geralt_0f_Rivia

    I’ve always felt that way too, especially towards those gun-control proponents who express concern about gun owners “having a bad day”; this strongly suggests that such proponents themselves would resort to violence for trivial perceptions or negative experiences, which in turn may well go a long way to explaining the irrational fear and paranoia exhibited by gun-control advocates.

  • John Crawford

    The author writes, “Have you taken “kill or no kill” training?” Police take no such training. Infantry takes a form of such training, which reads something like, “how shall I kill this one”. The author apparently knows little about the subject, and yet supposes he has some insight?! Hilarious.
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    So, if it isn’t a “good guy with a gun”, who is it?? Please, enlighten us.
    Semper fi

  • David Cohen

    You missed the point Mr. Semper Fi

    Everyone with a gun imagines themself to be the good guy, and the people they are mowing down to be the bad guys. It is, in part, the reduction of complex social issues by groups like the NRA and Hollywood to such simplistic terms that makes mass shootings possible. And both the NRA and Hollywood are equally unconcerned with this fact, as long as their product is sold and profits are made.

  • David Cohen

    Yes, when you have a gun, you ultimately decide who gets killed and who does not.

    I don’t know about you Mr. Semper Fi, but I understand that some people are not qualified to make that choice.

  • John Crawford

    Utter nonsense. The other guy ALWAYS gets a vote. It is a Murphy’s Law truism. If the bad guy does nothing evil, he will NOT be killed.
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    I missed no point. Answer the question please. If it isn’t a “good guy with a gun”, who is it?
    Semper fi

  • David Cohen

    Evil people always get killed? They never get away? I realize that’s how it works in comic books but, again I must tell you Mr. Semper Fi, reality does not work like comic books, or Hollywood moves,

  • John Crawford

    Of course they don’t always get killed. They do often escape. I don’t understand your confusion on that score. But when they are stopped, who stops them, if not a “good guy with a gun”????? Please be specific.
    Semper fi

  • David Cohen

    Oh I am not confused. Remember, I pointed out to you that the “bad guys” often escape. I also understand that the world does not break down neatly into “good guys” and “bad guys.” That’s the kind of comic book mentality that you seem to buy into. But then you seem to think that you lend weight to your position by chanting “semper fi.”

  • David Cohen

    The answer to that question does not matter much to the people who have been killed, does it?

  • John Crawford

    Please answer the question. The people who are harmed by the evil persons are not germane to the discussion. Who stops the evil persons, if not a “good guy with a gun”??
    Semper fi

  • John Crawford

    Actually, the fact that they sometimes escape is immaterial. When they do not escape, who stops them, other than a “good guy with a gun”??
    Semper fi

  • cargosquid

    Oh BS.
    The NRA has continued to stress safe marksmanship and education.
    The NRA became politically involved when attempts were made to infringe on 2nd amendment rights.

    Every adult DOES know that there are bad guys out there. Those are the ones trying to harm you.

  • cargosquid

    He didn’t miss the point.

    Everyone that isn’t attempting to harm innocents IS a good guy with a gun. It isn’t complex.

  • cargosquid

    Actually it does…because some of those people could have been the good guy with the gun and defended themselves except for laws restricting ownership and/or carry.

    Stop avoiding the question. Who stops the bad guy?

  • cargosquid

    Let’s examine some of the premises:
    “The first question this invites is, where will you keep it? Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood that someone will get shot. Further, we have a growing problem in America of toddlers shooting people with guns they stumble upon. Will you at least keep it locked up in a gun safe where kids can’t access it?”

    Studies show that if you are around water, you have an increased chance of drowning, around fire…chances increase of burning. It is an idiotic observation that “studies” use to scare people. What is not said is what is the PERCENTAGE increase of said chances. Is the person that owns a gun in an attic going to have an increased chance of getting shot? No. Unless you use the debunked Kellerman studies where this idiotic statement comes from.
    As for “locking it up,” that could be a good idea, unless you want access for defense. The BEST way to protect your kids is to educate them from around the age of three on safety.

    “What good would that do you in an emergency? I mean, having it inconveniently out of reach under lock and key sorta defeats the entire point, no?”
    He gets this point. And then he goes completely Batsh#t.

    “Perhaps the biggest question it invites is this: What qualifies you to be a good guy with a gun who is ready to end a human life at a moment’s notice? Is there some special qualification, or is the mere fact that you think highly of your personal character all the qualification you need?”

    Um…YES. Because self defense is a human right and that includes justified homicide using ANY weapon available.

    “Does a few hours or even a few days of training qualify you to be making life or death decisions in a split second while shopping in Walmart?”

    Since the real question is about making life or death decisions in a split second… are you qualified to operate a car? Take care of a baby? Defend yourself AT ALL?

    “If it does, why do the military and law enforcement constantly train? Why not give our professional good guys a few hours of training on a Saturday, hand them a gun, and call it good?”
    Here, he shows that he’s an idiot.
    The military trains to do their jobs. That includes effectively destroying an enemy. Cops “constantly train?” Since when? They train to effectively and legally enforce the law and then they get put on the street. They do not “train” to shoot people. They train to shoot people under color of law. And they don’t train very often.

    “Have you taken “kill or no kill” training? Like, lots and lots of it where you decide if someone lives or dies, on the spot and in less than a second? Because that’s what you’ll have to do in real life as a good guy with a gun.”
    Why? Can you not determine who is threatening your life or threatening you with serious bodily harm? That is the only time you can shoot, unlike cops. And cops don’t train all the time, if at all, on shoot/don’t shoot. And the military doesn’t do it at all.

    “It’s one thing to be a decent person who owns a gun and is trained on the mechanics of how to use it, but what about split-second judgement calls when a human life is in the balance? This is why professional arms bearers repeatedly take kill or no kill training– it’s not enough to be ready to shoot, one needs to have the ability to decide if to shoot at all.”

    Except that they DON’T. You are making stuff up.

    “You quickly remember that you’re a good guy with a gun, so you draw your weapon and run to the end of the isle. Once you get there, you see a guy with his own gun drawn, and is pointing it in the opposite direction as you.”
    Cops would demand that he drop the gun or get shot….regardless of whether he is a good guy.
    The answer to that depends on the individual. So, I can answer for myself. I don’t hunt bad guys. I defend myself and those around me. If I see a clear threat, then I defend myself.

    “You only have a second to decide”
    Unless you are being shot at…you have all the time in the world. Perhaps the author should stick to writing what he knows about.

    “And what about the cops? Let’s say they arrive at this active shooter scene, and they see you in aisle number 4 with your gun drawn. Do you expect them to just intrinsically know you’re a good guy with a gun? They only have a second to decide too– and now your life hangs in the balance.”

    Well, in YOUR scenario, they have trained over and over and know to demand that I drop the weapon and get face down one the floor NOW. In your world, cops would always know what is going on.

    The ONLY thing of value that this author wrote is the true statement: “Guns, when used properly, end life. Once you pull the trigger there’s no taking the bullet back. There’s no do-overs in this game, and not the slightest room for even partial error.”

  • cargosquid

    Since you are talking about self defense, everyone is qualified to make that choice if need be.

    That said, people get it wrong.
    And it is not always guns.
    The gun is a tool. That’s it.

  • cargosquid

    You better stay home then. You are surrounded by people with guns.
    At least 15 million concealed carriers with permits and more without.

  • Turtler

    Well, I’m going to take this in all due earnestness and answer truthfully.

    “The first question this invites is, where will you keep it?”

    First Answer: where I’m not going to tell people who don’t need to know. That includes over the internet.

    The best defense against tragic gun accidents is proper training in them.

    The SECOND best defense is keeping it away from those who might not be able to handle it properly.

    In general, I keep the weapon I’m using at present on me when possible, so might be able to tell if someone is going for it and prevent them. Otherwise I hide it in one of several places known only to me and those I deem worthy, to gradually be introduced to whatever young people I have contact with when I think they are ready.

    “Studies show that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood that someone will get shot.”

    Cargosquid’s response to this is perfect.

    “Studies show that if you are around water, you have an increased chance
    of drowning, around fire…chances increase of burning. It is an
    idiotic observation that “studies” use to scare people. What is not
    said is what is the PERCENTAGE increase of said chances. Is the person
    that owns a gun in an attic going to have an increased chance of
    getting shot? No. Unless you use the debunked Kellerman studies where
    this idiotic statement comes from.”

    It’s hard to drown without liquid and particularly water. Does that mean we should be afraid every time we drink a cup of agua or take a bath? Or is there a problem in not being able to control it?

    “I hope you’ll be that reasonable. But, if you do keep it locked up in a safe-”

    Again, this goes back to what I said before.

    The safest safe is one that people do not know to look for, let alone where it is. You can’t crack what you can’t find, or better what you don’t know about.

    Suffice it to say, my hiding places are not impenetrable, but they are secure enough as long as nobody else knows and I take precautions.
    “What good would that do you in an emergency?”

    Go to hiding place, unsecure secures if need be, take gun.

    It’s worth noting that this can be done relatively quickly, and that most crises don’t happen in a flash. They develop over time where you can perceive the danger. So if it’s relatively quick to respond to flash crises, it’ll be relatively predictable to deal with some super strong midget ramming through my door.

    “Perhaps the biggest question it invites is this: What qualifies you to be a good
    guy with a gun”

    This part is relatively easy.

    I am a good guy who may or may not hav a gun at any given time (but usually does) by dint of being a much, much better person than virtually any criminal is, and generally TRYING to be good. I make no claims to sainthood or any sublime moral superiority, but that isn’t the relevant point, because you don’t have to be one in order to be a good guy, and you need even less to be a relatively good guy.

    To use a historical analogy, the Second Polish Republic was- prior to WWII- a racist, bigoted, authoritarian junta that had institutionalized discrimination against minorities.

    But when it gets compared to the freaking Third REICH and Soviet Union, Yeah it’s easy to see which of the two sides is less of a disappointment to God in this scenario.

    Likewise here.

    “who is ready to end a human life at a moment’s notice? ”

    This is the trickier one, and I would honestly say that I am NOT prepared to end a human life at a moment’s notice. Or at least I do not know if I am ready. I don’t think one ever truly is until one has to put that into a test, no matter how much one may prepare. And I have had the good fortune not to yet.

    As for preparation, I train constantly and can probably start hunting (which I never have), but I have not yet gone into much in the way of military training or the like.

    “Is there some special qualification,”

    Being a previously law abiding citizen who has not been convicted of anything, and who trusts their responsibility and judgement Just Enough.

    Not that special now?

    “or is the mere fact that you think highly of your personal character all the qualification you need?”

    No matter how much of an ego I had, it takes a lot more than that to get permits.

    “Does a few hours or even a few days of training qualify you to be making life or death decisions in a split second while shopping in Walmart?”

    They can. But in general that’s why it is preferable to go way farqing more than that.

    “If it does, why do the military and law enforcement constantly train?”

    A: LEOs train constantly, but not on the range. In general their training emphasizes more how to avoid shooting and when to shoot rather than how.

    and B: Because the military is a high intensity, high demand, high complexity task where you can expect you WILL need to shoot sooner or later. Unlike here. And you’ll be against similarly driven organizations. Therefore, there’s a race to the top that exceeds even that of the most dedicated crook.

    “Why not give our professional good guys a few hours of training on a Saturday, hand them a gun, and call it good?”

    Yeah, I’m totally farqing sure a few hours of training at the range will be ALLL that radar operator and submarine captain need to competently do their jobs. I am sure that they will never, not once, have to deal with any gadgets you don’t deal with at a range.

    Oh, my Sarc Tag broke.

    In all due seriousness: the truth is that what sets professional armed forces apart is not people brandishing weapons. Just about any half wit can brandish a weapon. We know this because “gangstas”, Third world child soldiers, and in a few tragic cases toddlers can do it.

    What sets militaries apart is what they do OTHER than brandishing weapons.

    But I’m not going to need the knowledge to repair a radar or manage artillery any time soon. They do. Hence difference.

    “Let me ask you a hypothetical: let’s say you’re standing in the movie isle at
    Walmart and you hear gunfire and people screaming. You quickly remember
    that you’re a good guy with a gun, so you draw your weapon and run to
    the end of the isle. Once you get there, you see a guy with his own gun
    drawn, and is pointing it in the opposite direction as you.

    Do you kill him while you have a clean shot?”

    Depends. If there is any doubt, take cover and see further development. If not, go for a kill shot.

    “How do you know he’s the shooter and not good-guy Jeff who is trying to save the
    day? ”

    Oh, let’s see here….

    Audio cues( you can usually tell where shooting is coming from roughly, for instance, people tend to call things out when in action), whether or not the dude’s gun shows indication of being fired, insignia like whether they have Islamist paraphernalia or obvious gang colors, their posture… lots of hints the situation can give you.

    “You only have a second to decide, so is Jeff a terrorist or one of
    the good guys? Should he live or die? What if you hesitate too long and
    he kills another person?”

    See above

    “What if you shoot too soon and find out that Jeff was the father of four kids and a super nice guy with a gun?”

    Was he the criminal or not? Because if he was, it’s sad and all but still justified.

    But again, this is why you only shoot if you can be VERY sure.

    “Are you really comfortable deciding who lives and who dies with limited information, surging adrenaline, and total chaos?”

    I don’t know, and frankly I think most people should not be.

    But that doesn’t mean they should not act if they have to.

    “And what about the cops? Let’s say they arrive at this active shooter scene, and
    they see you in aisle number 4 with your gun drawn. Do you expect them
    to just intrinsically know you’re a good guy with a gun? They only have a
    second to decide too– and now your life hangs in the balance.”

    Going back to the above, Cops are not trained to have hair trigger tempers. They are trained to avoid firing their weapons if at all possible, and to only do so if there seems to be no other option. Yeah, it sucks for them because of the risk they suffer, but that is why they are heroes. Because they decide to put on the badge that obliges them into that kind of “Gentlemen of France, fire first” schtick so that we can avoid having not-so-little-old-me gunned down over a tragic misunderstanding.

    I don’t expect them to intrinsically know I am a good guy with a gun, but I do expect them to hold off on the trigger long enough to find out and for me to act reasonably when confronted with just authority.

    “But have you wrestled with these questions? ”

    Yes.

    “Politicians and gun makers like to simplify the entire aspect
    of being a good guy with a gun, as if the average good-hearted Joe is
    qualified and has the ability to make life or death decisions on a dime.
    And, if it really were that simple, I’d understand.

    But the reality is, it’s not that simple.”

    Then the correct remedy is to MOVE the standards for what constitutes average until it does become that simple, or at least close enough.

    Get the average Good-Hearted Joe to take more training, study up on precautions, and prepare themselves so that they ARE qualified and have the ability. Or at least that we tried.

  • Bones

    Not where I live….It’s bizarre that even trying to keep the guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable is a threat to gunlovers.

    Maybe they won’t have anyone to shoot….

  • Bones

    We don’t….

  • Bones

    You’re doing a pretty good job of making yourself look like an idiot.

    Welcome to the internet.

  • Bones

    Wow….someone got t-r-i-g-g-e-r-e-d by a question.

  • Bones

    Just as well someone trained Adam Lanza on gun safety………

  • Jubal Durden

    Where do you live… Pakistan? Here in the U.S., you can’t walk into any place of business that sells firearms and purchase one without background checks. You’re just making that nonsense up. The “gun show loophole” fiction is nothing but a left-wing lie told often.

  • David Cohen

    Yes, I realize that schools filled with dead children are not relevant to you, as long as you can carry your guns everywhere and think “Me am good guy! Spmper Fi!”

    Look, I am not against gun ownership. I was merely commenting on the descending quality of the NRA’s message, from realistic and sensible when I was young to Hollywood-inspired drivel. If you prefer the simplistic, comic-book quality message, you are free to do so.

  • Turtler

    “Just as well someone trained Adam Lanza on gun safety………”

    ….. WHICH goes RIGHT BACK to my point about secrecy and safety in where you store firearms, since Lanza stole his mother’s weapon and used it to kill her before going off to Sandy Hook.

    Ultimately, Lanza learned the rules but he made a choice to break them. That’s a product of free will and willful human evil (along with maybe the arsehat’s mental issues) and cannot be erased so long as that exists. Which is why it’s all the more important to use judgement with who you train and where you place weapons or items that can be used as a deadly weapon.

    Ultimately, in the case of people like Lanza the fact that he was taught gun safety was one fo the Secondary problems with this mess.

  • Bones

    Lanza was a trained shooter.

    His mother had an arsenal of weapons.

    Good luck secretly storing those.

    Mind you my Dad thought his gun was safely hidden but we always took it out when he was out.

  • Matthew

    “if one is dealing with an unreasonable individual/group who are all
    about violating the rights of others and cannot be persuaded through discourse to stop, the only alternative to stopping them is meeting force with equal or superior force.”

    Are you sure you really meant to say this?? Some might say that the religious right is violating the rights of LGBT people and have not, to date, been persuaded to stop. Does that mean those who think the religious right are being unreasonable should then use force to stop what they believe is an injustice??

    I certainly hope that´s not what you meant.

  • Geralt_0f_Rivia

    You spoke of the good guy with a gun philosophy, which in context is about individual self-defense and my words were well-chosen to that effect. We can talk about something else if you like, after we finish that discussion.

  • cargosquid

    You apparently do not realize that those adjudicated to be mentally incompetent and a danger to themselves or others are prohibited.

  • John Crawford

    Of course you’re against gun ownership. You intently avoid answering my question. By whom are evil people stopped, in the commission of their crime, if not by a “good guy with a gun”? You are avoiding the question as hard as you can, which is proof-positive that you are opposed to gun ownership.
    Semper fi

  • jarhead1982

    Since the BATF is proven to not to be able to stop anyone from using afake id much less a straw buyer at the point of sale, and have since 1997 allowed over 3.14+ mil of these bad guys to pass the background check allowing said criminals to buy over 7.3 mil guns from licensed sources, , one wonders just witf your point is sweety….

    Here’s a short list of highly-publicized shootings in which the shooter passed their background checks when purchasing their weapons:
► Elliot Rodger (2014)¹
► Ivan Lopez, Ft Hood (2014)
► Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard (2013)
► Paul Ciancia, LAX (2013)
► Wade Michael Page, Oak Creek, WI (2012)
► James Holmes, Aruora theater (2012)
► Ian Stawicki, Cafe Racer coffee shop (2012)²
► Jared Lee Loughner, Tucson, AZ (2010) 
► Nidal Malik Hasan, Ft Hood (2009)
► Seung-hui Cho, Virginia Tech (2007)

    __________________________________________________
¹ Elliot Rodger passed three background checks.
² Not only did Stawicki pass his background checks, but the Seattle police and Kittitas County police both issued Stawicki gun permits!

  • jarhead1982

    Isnt it amazing how even the CDC put out a study proving how many self defense incidents occur eh!

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354?dopt=Abstract

    Estimating intruder-related firearm retrievals in U.S. households, 1994.

    R M Ikeda, L L Dahlberg, J J Sacks, J A Mercy, K E Powell

    National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA.

    Violence and Victims (Impact Factor: 1.28). 02/1997; 12(4):363-72.

    Source: PubMed

    ABSTRACT To estimate the frequency of firearm retrieval because of a known or presumed intruder, the authors analyzed data from a 1994 national random digit dialing telephone survey (n = 5,238 interviews).

    Three mutually exclusive definitions of firearm retrieval were constructed: (1) retrieved a firearm because there might be an intruder,
(2) retrieved a firearm and saw an intruder, and 
(3) retrieved a firearm, saw an intruder, and believed the intruder was frightened away by the gun.

    Of 1,678 (34%) households with firearms: 105 (6%) retrieved a firearm in the previous 12 months because of an intruder.

    National projections based on these self-reports reveal an estimated 1,896,842 (95% CI [confidence interval] =

    (1) 1,480,647-2,313,035) incidents in which a firearm was retrieved, but no intruder was seen;

    (2) 503,481 (95% CI = 305,093-701,870) incidents occurred in which an intruder was seen, and

    (3) 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm.

    WOW, 497,646 incidents where the bad guys was seen and scared away by the law abiding armed citizen, typical result!

    WOW it has been 22 years and to date, not one single anti gunnutter has ever proven the data source and variables wrong….

    WOW it has been 22 years and to date, not one single anti gunnutters has proven the methodology wrong!

    WOW it has been 22 years to date, not one single anti gunnutter jhas proven this has changed….go figure!

    WOW it has been 22 years to date, not one single anti gunnutter has ever proven attacks only occur at home…go figure!

  • jarhead1982

    If you rely on the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) for numbers of justifiable homicides, the numbers will always be significantly under reported.

    First, in many years, many states simply do not submit numbers 45% on average yearly don’t, so they are not counted, hence an undercount.

    19,335 agencies in US x 45%= 8,701 police agencies who did not report

    There is no requirement for police agencies to update files on cases in progress, their ruling and such, hence another inherent undercount.

    The definition of justifiable homicides vary from state to state. What is reported is often politically determined, hence an undercount by 80%.

    Here is the FBI UCR definition for justifiable homicides, from pages 17 and 18 of the Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook:

    https://ucr.fbi.gov/additional-ucr-publications/ucr_handbook.pdf/view

    Justifiable Homicide

    Certain willful killings must be classified as justifiable or excusable. In UCR, Justifiable Homicide is defined as and limited to:

    • The killing of a felon by a peace officer in the line of duty.

    • The killing of a felon, during the commission of a felony, by a private citizen.

    NOTE: To submit offense data to the UCR Program, law enforcement agencies must report the willful (nonnegligent) killing of one individual by another, not the criminal liability of the person or persons involved.

    The following scenarios illustrate incidents known to law enforcement that reporting agencies would consider Justifiable Homicide:

    15. A police officer answered a bank alarm and surprised the robber coming out of the bank. The robber saw the responding officer and fired at him. The officer returned fire, killing the robber. The officer was charged in a court of record as a matter of routine in such cases.

    16. When a gunman entered a store and attempted to rob the proprietor, the storekeeper shot and killed the felon

    NOTE: Justifiable homicide, by definition, occurs in conjunction with other offenses. Therefore, the crime being committed when the justifiable homicide took place must be reported as a separate offense. Reporting agencies should take care to ensure that they do not classify a killing as justifiable or excusable solely on the claims of self-defense or on the action of a coroner, prosecutor, grand jury, or court.

    The following scenario illustrates an incident known to law enforcement that reporting agencies would not consider Justifiable Homicide:

    17. While playing cards, two men got into an argument. The first man attacked the second with a broken bottle. The second man pulled a gun and killed his attacker. The police arrested the shooter; he claimed self-defense.

    By this definition, 80% of justifiable homicides will and never are reported to the FBI as such as all the 41 plus stand your ground and castle doctrine laws havent been implemented into the descriptive control of the data standards.

  • jarhead1982

    Oh you want data, hey lets review the following.





    http : // www . fbi . gov / ucr / ucr . htm

    FBI UCR Database





    You know, the government database showing in 2008 that 1.38 mil violent crimes were reported and that of those 381,758 involved a firearm,

    



Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
November 2001 http : // bjs . ojp .
usdoj . gov / index.cfm?ty=pb….

    where it shows how 15% of the incidents were
 shots fired.





    http : // www . data . gov / details / 1526

    

USDOJ National Victimization Report 2008 





    http://www.gun-control-network.org/Scotland%202011-2012.pdf

    Heck even gun ban paradise Scotland shows the majority of incidents a gun is used no shots are fired, page 9, chart#3

    You know, the government agency sub annual report showing in from 2001-2011 that an avg. of 73.95% of all violent crimes committed each year were not reported.





    Funny how we see Canada & England perform this same study and get the sameresults, go figure eh!





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





    http : // www . virginiacops . org / Articles / Sho…




    http : // www . theppsc . org / Staff_Views / Aveni…




    http : // www . nyc . gov / html / nypd / downloads / p…




    http : // www . nyclu . org / files / nypd_firearms…





    Uh make sure you dig a little further on the police firearm discharge reports though, they have taken to listing whether or not the target was hit, not the numbers of shots fired as 
it was too emberassing to admit how many times the police missed their target!





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



So using the standard shooting percentages, and hit %
provided by all that government data these antis cant refute, lets calculate and see how many people self defense has
 saved the US per year, and we will only concentrate on the law abiding to start with. 

Even though the anti’s wont admit that even felons, who are citizens, have the right to defend themselves.



    Self Defense saves lives





    FBI UCR 2010



278 documented justifiable homicides and since there are oh 2.5 people per household per US Census, almost 6 injuries per death we will calculate from that point.



    Since the FBI doesn’t receive data from 45% of the 19,335 police agencies we will adjust the number unless you have govt. data proving the rate of DGU’s being reported is different in that 45% not reporting….no…..

    278/55 reported = 1% x 100 = 100% = 505 justifiable homicides

    Since the FBI doesn’t categorize justifiable homicides that are due to political wording where only 1 of 5 that occur are actually reported, we will adjust for that as well…

    505/20 = 1% x 100 = 100% = 2,527 justifiable homicides

    Now we all know as per the CDC that not every shot kills, so we must include those who didn’t die but were shot…

    
2,527 + (6 x 2,527 = injured) = 15% of shots hit
 target /15 = 1% x 100 = # of shots fired = 117,939 incidents shots fired by law abiding citizens.





    117,939/15 = 1% x 100 = total number of self defense 
incidents just of people not involved in a criminal activity =786,260 incidents.





    786,260 x 2.5 people per household = 1,965,650 people defended or defending themselves.





    Now we know that of 381,758 violent crimes in 2008, there were 12,252 murders, and 70,000 injuries, and assuming the same rate of injuries = 3.2% deaths 18.4% injuries.



    Since the FBI UCR data shows over 3 decades that only 26.8% of incidents is a gun used in a violent crime, the same rate should apply to defensive gun uses unless you have govt. data to prove otherwise eh, no, typical cumchin…

    12,252/381,758 = 3.2% 
and 70,000/381,758 = 18.4%


 


    (786,260 x .268) x .032 = # of deaths saved 6,743

    (786,260 x .268) x .184 = # of injuries prevented 38,772



    Oh darn, we forgot that 68% of killings use a gun so that means that the number of injuries and murders prevented by gun use should be equal to all methods used, so…

    6,743 = 68% therefore 6,743/68 = 1% x 100 = 100% = 9,916 murders prevented

    38,772 = 68% therefore 38,772/68 = 1% x 100 = 100% = 57,018 injuries prevented

    So sad we can using this government data show law biding civilians prevented since 1960 over 1.131 MIL murders and prevented over 6.5 mil injuries.





    If it saves just one life, it is justified.

  • jarhead1982

    Anyone with any experience in surveys and statistics knows that when one has such a disparaging range of numbers, that the mean/average is always somewhere in the middle of the range…..right around the 1.5 mil mark per year….LOL!

Feel free to google the surveys identified below, if you dare!



    SURVEY AREA ESTIMATED DGUs

    

Bordua Survey, 1977, Illinois— 1,414,544 


    DMI(a) Survey, 1978, U.S.— 2,141,512 


    DMI(b) Survey, 1978, U.S.— 1,098,409 


    Hart Survey, 1981, U.S.— 1,797,461 


    Ohio Survey, 1982, Ohio,— 771,043 


    Mauser Study, 1990, U.S.— 1,487,342


    Gallup Survey, 1991, U.S.— 777, 153 


    Gallup Survey, 1993, U.S.— 1, 621,377 


    NIJ-CDC Survey, 1994, US—-497,646 (in the home only survey)

    L.A. Times Survey, 1994, U.S.— 3,609,682 


    NSPOF Survey, 1994, U.S.— 2,730,000

    
Tarrance Survey, 1994, U.S.— 764,036 


    Police Foundation, 1994, U.S.— 2,730,00

    Ntl Self-defense Survey, 1995, U.S.— 2.500,000

    
Ludwig & Cooke 1997, US— 1,500,000


    Field Survey, 1997, California— 3,052,717

  • jarhead1982

    Hey, lets review how many mass shootings in gun free paradises we have eh!

    Location Number killed Date



    Garissa University Kenya 147 4/2/2015

    Pakistan Military school 142 12/15/14

    Paris France 128 11/14/15

    Norway attacks 77 7/22/2011


    Westgate Mall, Nairobi Kenya 67 9/21/2013


    Grozny Chechnya 60 2/5/2000

    Gyeongsagnam-do, South Korea 57 4/27/1982


    Agricultural College, Potiskum Nigeria 50 9/29/2013


    Boipatong S Africa 45 6/17/1992

    Ayotzinapa teaching college, Iguala Mexico 43 September 26, 2014

    Yobe State Boarding School Nigeria 42 2/25/14

    Zhaodong China 42 11/18/1995

    Nightclub Istanbul Turkey 39 12/31/2016

    Port Aurthur, Australia 35 4/28/1996

    Marikana S Africa 34 8/16/2012

    VA Tech 33 4/16/2007


    Bacha Khan University Charsadda Pakistan 30 1/20/16

    Cave of the Patriarchs, Hebron Israel 29 2/24/1994


    Bisho, Ciskei, S Africa 29 7/9/1992

    Sandy Hook 28 12/14/2012


    Tunisia 28 6/26/15

    Kampala Uganda 26 6/26/1994

    Offa, Karwa Nigeria 26 12/21/2013

    Mubi Adamawa Nigeria 25 10/3/2012

    Luby’s Cafeteria 24 10/16/1991


    Beijing China 23 9/20/1994

    Splendid Hotel Ougadougou Burkina Faso 23 1/16/2016

    Taizz Yemen 22 3/25/1994

    San Ysidro Massacre 22 7/18/1984

    Tunis Tunisia 21 3/18/2015

    Aureti Uganda 21 4/15/1983

    Igbo Town Hall meeting Adamawa Nigeria 20 
1/7/2012

    Mogadishu Somalia 20 1/22/2016

    Baluchistan Pakistan 20 04/11/2015

    Dhaka Bangladesh 20 7/1/2016

    Johannesburg S Africa 19 3/28/1994

    Dunblane, Scotland 18 3/13/1996


    Erfurt, Germany 18 4/26/2002


    Trincomalee Sri Lanka 17 8/4/2006

    Hungerford, UK 17 8/19/1987


    Cuers, France 17 Sep-95


    Nshii Rwanda 17 11/6/1995

    Kandahar, Afghanistan 16 3/11/2012


    Texas Tower Sniper 16 8/1/1966


    Winnenden, Germany 16 3/11/2009


    Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal 15 12/6/1989


    Columbine High 15 4/20/1999


    Edmond, OK 15 8/20/1986


    Zug, Switzerland 15 9/27/2001


    Meet Al Attar Egypt 15 8/21/2013

    Yueyang & Xima China 15 11/18/2004

    Dayukou China 14 10/26/2001

    Aramoana, New Zealand 14 11/13/1990


    Binghampton, NY 14 4/3/2009

    Luxiol, France 14 Jul-89


    Kamwenge Uganda 14 12/26/1994

    Fort Hood 13 11/5/2009


    Cumbria, England 13 6/2/2010


    Buenos Aires Argentina 13 6/20/1973

    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 13 4/7/2011

    Velika Ivanca, Serbia 13, 4/8/2013

    Allaipiddy Sri Lanka 13 5/13/2006

    Bahir Dar Ethiopia 12 5/15/2013

    Liuhe & Tonghua China 12 9/24/2006

    Bamako, Mali 12 8/8/2015

    Aurora, CO 12 7/20/2012


    Azerbaijan State Oil Academy 12 4/30/2009


    Paris France 12 1/7/2015

    Emsdetten Germany 11 11/6/2006

    Cologne Germany 11 6/11/1964

    Cape Town SAfrica 11 7/25/1993

    East London S Africa 11 2/9/2002

    Chassarda Pakistan 10 4/5/2015

    McClendon, AL 10 3/10/2009


    Kauhajoki, Finland 10 9/23/2008


    GMAC, FL 10 6/18/1990

    Bait-al-Aqari Yemen 10 5/30/2008


    Red Lake, MN 10 3/21/2005


    Adelaide, Australia 10 9/6/1991

    Lyon France 10, 3/19/2009


    Siakago Kenya 10 11/6/2010

    Pakele & Gogonya Uganda 10 3/9/2013

    Nanterre France 9 2/27/2002

    Port Harcourt Nigeria 9 4/4/2015

    Jerusalem, Israel 9 6/6/2008

    Maiduguri, Nigeria 9 6/8/2013

    Tatarstan Russia 9 5/4/1992

    Uhersky Brod Czechozlovakia 9 2/24/15

    Seapoint S Africa 9 1/20/2003

    Ladysmith S Africa 9 1/20/1992

    Murisuvil Sri Lanka 8 12/20/2000

    Toulouse/Mounteban, France 8 3/11/12 to 3/21/12

    Mor Hungary 8 5/9/2002

    Edmonton Canada 8 12/30/14

    Sana’a, Yemen 8 3/30/1997

    Auchi Nigeria 7 11/27/2012

    Tuusula Finland 7 11/7/2007

    Naples Italy 7 9/18/2009

    Turin Italy 7 10/15/2002

    Gomarankadawala Sri Lanka 6 4/23/2006

    Alphen aan den Rijn Netherlands 6 4/9/2011

    Liege Belgium 6 12/13/2011 (125 wounded)

    Pesalai Sri Lanka 6 6/17/2006

    Belgorod Russia 6 4/22/2013

    Moscow Russia 6 12/11/2012

    Belgrade Serbia 5 7/1/2016

    Berlin Switzerland 5 5/10/2015

    Touluse France 5 3/19/2012

    Moscow Russia 5 11/7/ 2012

    Moscow oblast 5 12/4/2013

    Gangwon Province S Korea 5 6/21/14

    Brussels Belgium 4 5/27/2014

    Tours France 4 10/29/2001

    Espoo Finland 4 12/31/2009

    Carmen de Patagones, Argentina 4 9/28/2004

    Beirut, Lebanon 4 1/25/2007

    GROSSPRIEL, Austria 4 9/18/2013

    Balashinka Russia 4 4/23/2007 (home made pistol)

    Ottawa CA 4 1/22/2016

    Bamrungsart Pondock Scool Thailand 3 Mar 18, 2007

    Nenzig Austria 3 5/22/2016

    Aarhus Denmark 3 4/5/1994

    Liege Belgium 3 12/13/2011

    Rotterdam Netherlands 3 4/11/2009

    Freising Germany 3 2/19/2002

    Geneva Switzerland 3 2/17/2013

    Daillon Switzerland 3 1/3/2013

    SeeJong City S Korea 3 2/25/15

    Gothenburg Sweden 2 3/19/2015

    Dawson College shooting, Quebec Canada 2 9/13/2006

    Café shooting Sydney Australia 2 12/15/14

    Bucharest Romania 2 3/5/2012

    Montessori Daycare Quebec Canada 1, April 15, 2013

    W. R. Myers High School in Taber, Alberta, Canada 1 April 28, 1999

    The world 2,157 dead in 124 incidents = 17.395 dead per

    Why is it the average number of dead in mass shootings in gun free zones in the world, is higher than in the US….hmmmmm

    Funny how this is only the tip of the iceberg for all those mass shootings in all those gun ban paradises eh!

    If we included all the mass attacks in those gun ban paradises where guns were not used…..its rather frightening how VIOLENT those gun ban paradises truly are…….

    Based on you anti gunterds claims guns are the root cause of violence, and those countries have 1/7th the number of guns we do, then why aren’t your incidents and deaths not 1/7th of the US eh MORONS?

    A quick perusal by even the most numerically challenged shows that the US only has 3 of the top 25 shootings. And out of the top 36 we only account for 11 incidents and 17.3% of the dead.

  • jarhead1982
  • jarhead1982

    Another study that debunks his proposal is “The False Promise of Gun Control” by Daniel D. Polsby, which is easily found on the web. He states, “Guns don’t increase national rates of crime and violence but the continued proliferation of gun-control laws almost certainly do.”

    It has been reported that the federal assault-weapons ban, when in effect, was National Institute of Justice (NIJ). They could not clearly credit the ban with any reduction in gun violence. According to the NIJ report, written by Christopher Koper, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/aug/16/20040816 -114754-

  • jarhead1982

    1,080 deaths/injuries in 65 gun free zone mass shootings since 1982 avg. 16.615 per incident Google Mother Jones Mass shootings as they surprisingly have the details!

    91 deaths/injuries in 36 incidents in gun free zones since 1991 where armed self defense occurred, avg. 2.56 per incident!

    12/17/91 Shoneys Alliston AL


    10/1/97 Pearl High Pearl MS


    4/24/98 Edinsborough PA


    1/16/02 Appalachian Law School VA


    11/20/05 Tacoma WA


    2/12/07 Trolley Mall UT


    12/9/07 New Life Springs CO


    6/6/08 Winnemuca NV


    1/25/08 Makor High School, Jerusalem


    6/11/09 Holocaust Memorial D.C.


    5/4/09 College Station GA


    6/11/09 Golden Market Richmond VA


    1/4/10 Federal Court House Las Vegas NV

    
5/27/10 AT&T store New York Mills NY


    8/7/10 The Wall Jerusalem 


    8/30/10 Sullivan High TN


    2/28/12 Colorado Springs CO, Urological Associates office

    3/25/12 Southside Freewill Baptist Church Boiling Springs SC

    4/24/12 New Destiny Church Aurora CO


    8/15/12 Family Research Council D.C.


    12/11/12 Clackamas Mall OR


    12/19/12 San Antonio TX


    1/1/13 NightClub Sacramento CA


    1/31/13 Middle School Atlanta GA


    2/1/13 High School Detroit MI


    10/20/13 Party-Glendale AZ

    12/13/13 Arapahoe HIghSchool CO

    1/11/14 Portland OR Strip Club

    5/1/2014 Austin TX Construction Yard

    6/3/14 Reynolds High School Troutdale Oregon

    6/14/14 East Peoria IL High School Reunion

    7/25/14 Darby PA Mercy Fitzgerald Wellness center

    11/16/14 Club Khaos, Elpaso TX

    7/24/14 Doctor Stopr Murderer at Philadelphia Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital

    5/25/15 Philadelphia Barbershop shooting

    4/29/15 Uber Driver Hero in Chicago

    5/31/15 Conyers Georgia Magnet Bottle Shop shooting

    30 plus years trying it the anti gun nuts way isn’t working, and armed self defense had it occurred in those 65 gun free zone incidents where no defense occurred, could have prevented up to 893 deaths/injuries!

    16.615/2.528 = 7.1 times more people killed in a mass shooting where no armed resistance occurs!

    We challenge the anti gun nuts to go to the families of those 1,080 victims, look them in they eye, and say you supported disarming their family members when the data clearly shows armed self defense could have saved up to 893 people from being injured!

    My money bet is they don’t make it out of the 3rd home before being re-educated Gulag style!

  • jarhead1982

    Speaking of armed self defense, we see that 40% of incidents occur outside the home so the CDC data adding in outside attacks prove near 1 million defensive gun uses a year, just with GOVT. DATA…

    Google some of the many websites that collate the media & police incident reports of defensive gun uses, and danr how 75% of the incidents, arent repeated on the other sites, ROTFLMFAO…

    http://bearingarms.com/category/guns-saving-lives/

    http://www.easybakegunclub.com

    defensivecarry.com

    http://www.americanrifleman.org/the-armed-citizen/

    thehighroad.org

    usconcealedcarry.com

    the firingline,com

    http://keepandbeararms.com


    http://www.cato.org/guns-and-self-defense

    https://www.gunowners.org/self-defense-corner/

    http://gunssavelives.net/category/self-defense/

    It is just horrible how law abiding gun owners defend themselves without asking permission first, and are so successful at doing so…

    The following are from just ONE of many web sites collating the DGU’s, Gunssavelive.net..

    Feb 2012 to Dec 12, 2016

    1,287 Total Incidents


    3,505 Total People Defended


    2,041 Total attackers


    11 Attacked in car


    246 Attacked at Business


    810 Attacked at Home


    209 Attacked Other

    
62.9% % of attacks at home


    2.5126 Avg attackers when more than

    62.9% % of incidents 1 attacker


    37.1% % of incidents more than 1 attacker


    62.1% % of bad guys armed


    799 # of Attacks bad guy armed


    488 # of Attacks bad guys unarmed


    197 Women defending themselves


    15.31% % of DGU’s women successfully defending themselves

  • jarhead1982

    http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/cjsc/publications/candd/cd13/cd13.pdf?

    Here are the summary totals for felony arrests in california 2008-2013…

    2,707,083 felony arrests and based on national data, 26.8% of those would be for violent crimes with a gun!

    2,707,083 x .268 = 725,498 who you anti gun trolls claim are lawful gun owners prior to their committing the felony crime they got arrested for…….

    Still waiting for you anti gun trolls to demonstrate much less prove those 725,498 were lawful gun owners…….

    Do we need to hold your hand and walk you to each crime so you can prove you aren’t lying…………

  • jarhead1982

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent

    Gun rights advocates have long defended their right to bear arms out of a need for self-defense. And now they have a new report from the Centers for Disease Control that says they make a darn good point.

    The $10 million study commissioned by President Barack Obama as part of 23 executive orders he signed in January says “self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.”

    “Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies,” the CDC study revealed.

  • jarhead1982

    Now jan will squeal in impotent rage and spew some inane inferrences while proving nothing….all while she cant point to any proper govt. data proving lawful gun owners as the problem she infers……why is that sweety…

  • jarhead1982

    Pathological lying snowflakes are the actual reason this country is so messed up……

  • jarhead1982

    You mean the police report showing the jacked open gun safe in the Lanza home doesnt mean anything sweety, why is that….

    http://www.ct.gov/csao/lib/csao/Sandy_Hook_Final_Report.pdf

    http://nypost.com/2013/11/25/chilling-photos-of-sandy-hook-gunmans-lair-released/

  • jarhead1982

    Getting rather tired of hearing the lies that no right is absolute, when in fact the exercise of any right by a law-abiding citizen is indeed absolute.

    What the fear mongering anti gunnutters cant discern is that it is the ABUSE of the right that is constitutionally restricted!

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. Scalia’s statement is what is called a DICTA!

    http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d047.htm

    The part of a judicial opinion which is merely a judge’s editorializing and does not directly address the specifics of the case at bar; extraneous material which is merely informative or explanatory.

    Dicta are judicial opinions expressed by the judges on points that do not necessarily arise in the case.

    “Dicta are regarded as of little authority, on account of the manner in which they are delivered; it frequently happening that they are given without much reflection, at the bar, without previous examination.

    As one judge said, ‘If general dicta in cases turning on special circumstances are to be considered as establishing the law, nothing is yet settled, or can be long settled.

    What I have said or written, out of the case trying, or shall say or write, under such circumstances, maybe taken as my opinion at the time, without argument or full consideration; but

    I will never consider myself bound by it when the point is fairly trying and fully argued and considered.

    And I protest against any person considering such obiter dicta as my deliberate opinion.’

    And another said it is ‘great misfortune that dicta are taken down from judges, perhaps incorrectly, and then cited as absolute propositions.'”

    From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333.

    So all those private citizens who had frigates and field artillery batteries and such during all the wars from the revolutioanry war to the spanish american war in the 1890’s were criminals, do tell!

    For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884).

    Oh wait, that is no longer elevent, as all 50 states have concealed carry now…

    Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26

    Reading this exact excerpt from the Heller ruling, dont see any mention or claim that additional laws were constitutional, or that additional laws were consitutional upon the law abiding, or any confiscations much less a limitation on the common use firearms in existance which this ruling did not in fact repeal Miller VS US 1939 which established the two pronged test for what is an acceptable fireamr, and geez, semi-auto weapons in common use for over 100 years are indeed qualified.

    Oh darn, that footnote #26 states what?

    And I quote: We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive”

    Examples, of restrictions upon the abuse of a right, hmmm, not specific, not ruled upon, not qualified or ruled as constitutional against the lawful exercise of a right….

    But hey, FEEL FREE TO POST ALL THE GUN CONTROL LAWS YOU INFER WERE MADE CONSTITUTIONAL IN HELLER AS THEY WILL BE IDENTIFIED BY PROPER NAME AND NUMERIC REFERENCE IN THE SUMMARY, here is the link sweety, point out where your claim isnt a lie, we are waiting…

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

  • jarhead1982

    Then of course, here is the logic failure the anti’s always have.

    They always fail to prove, that the militia existed before the armed individual.

    See the anti gunterds always claim the individual is armed because of the existence of the militia, but that can only be true if the militia existed PRIOR to the armed individual….

    10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    So since guns were invented in their basic form in China in the 12th centruy, please demonstrate where the Militia identified in USC10 311 existed in the 12th centruy, NO….

    Did the individuals being armed exist PRIOR to the USC 10 311…YEAH THEY DID….

    The anti’s always fail to prove that a collective right can exist without the individual right first existing, DOOOHH!

    The reality is that the unorgnaized Militia only exists because the armed individual exists, end of story….

  • jarhead1982

    Maybe you removed that original draft of what became the second amendment. You know, the one that was clearly written as a collective right, but then was changed to what exists today.

    original proposed draft 
of 
the right to keep and bear arms 
of the 
BILL of RIGHTS 
(17 TH of 20 amendments)

    on display at the Karpeles Manuscript Library 
Santa Ana, California

    “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”

    Why did our founding fathers change the amendment draft if it was what they wanted?

    Oh that’s right, actions do speak louder than words. Ref Karpeles Museum, CA again.

    http://www.wemett.net/2nd_amendment_(original_draft).html

  • jarhead1982

    Lets see, have you removed the 44 plus references from the congressional writings 1774-1789 & the federalist papers showing well regulated as to meaning well trained in the arts of war? Much less all those dictionaries that say the same thing? No, you haven’t. Reference Karpeles Museum, CA.

    So reality is, the only regulation that really is allowed by the govt., is to the unorganized militia. But as govt. is responsible for the call up and muster of the unorganized militia, we see they are consistent in their failure to do their jobs in not doing so.

    http://www.rain.org/%7Ekarpeles/

  • jarhead1982

    http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

    [Schulman:] “(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to ‘a well-regulated militia’?”

    [Copperud:] “(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.”

    [Schulman:] “(2) Is ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right ‘shall not be infringed’?”

    [Copperud:] “(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.”

    [Schulman:] “(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’ null and void?”

    [Copperud:] “(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.”

    [Schulman:] “(4) Does the clause ‘A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,’ grant a right to the government to place conditions on the ‘right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?”

    [Copperud:] “(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.”

    [Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”

    [Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”

    [Schulman:] “(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.”

    [Copperud:] “To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: “Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.’

    [Schulman:] “As a ‘scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

    “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’

    “My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

    “(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and

    “(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”

    [Copperud:] “(1) Your ‘scientific control’ sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

    “(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.”

    Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: “With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion.”

    So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

  • jarhead1982

    http://www.libertygunrights.com/4pg2A%20Diagram.pdf

    http://www.largo.org/literary.html

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

    http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm

    http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/35FinalPartOne.htm

    Quoting the second site below:

    “The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

    1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

    1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

    1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

    1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

    1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

    1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

    The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.” — end quote.

  • jarhead1982

    Founding Fathers intent & English Composition

    https://archive.org/details/2575061R.nlm.nih.gov

    Unfortunately for the anti gunutters, the only version of the second amendment ratified by the states, is the 1 comma version.

    http://www.occasionalplanet.org/2012/08/28/confusion-the-wording-of-the-second-amendment/

    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

    Maybe you can explain how for the entire history of English language, that the independent clause, a complete sentence capable of conveying a clear meaning, and must first exist for a dependent clause to have meaning, has always set the meaning of the complex sentence. (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”)

    Yet some now infer the dependent clause, an incomplete sentence, incapable of conveying a clear meaning (A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State) is now the determinator of the complex sentence meaning and history and English scholars have all been wrong throughout the history of written English. Have at it, but warn us when Hades will be freezing over for you actually having data to support your claim.

    http://grammar.about.com/od/c/g/complexsentence.htm

    http://www.writingcentre.uottawa.ca/hypergrammar/sntstrct.html

  • jarhead1982

    Now we will watch the impotent rage of the triggered snowflake ranting and raving in 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…..

  • jarhead1982

    You dont lie worth a schiite…

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

    10 USC § 311 – Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

    (b) The classes of the militia are—

    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

  • WaltDizzy

    Trying to have a reasonable discussion with ideological myopics is an exercise in futility. It’s like trying to get a straight answer out of Kellyanne Conway. You just wind up wanting to slap the other person and frustrating yourself .There are other forums where real people genuinely have thoughtful discussions. But, hey! It’s your dime. :-)

  • Snooterpoot

    What does the Second Amendment say? It says “A well organized militia,” not the unorganized militia that you write about in your second point.

    Your ad hominem attack is duly noted. It is futile to try to have any further conversation with you, so I won’t.

    Don’t try to bait me. I won’t bite.

  • Snooterpoot

    What does the Second Amendment actually say, Dan?

  • jarhead1982

    Pointing out the irrefutable error of your lie isnt an ad hominem attack, its just facts and reality, now go cry to your mommy on getting data whupped yet again, she will change your diaper..

  • WaltDizzy

    Stacey (jarhead1982) is just a 55 year old carpenter who can’t keep a job. Don’t waste your time with this sorry POS. He’s just lonely and posts stupidity to get attention.

  • Michael Spagnuolo

    You ask some good questions. However, you appear to be arguing that if there’s an assailant killing innocent adults & even children none of us should have a gun. Given that many shootings have been stopped by armed citizens & many civilians have greater expertise in marksmanship & firearm technical knowledge than many police officers this antigun position is unwarranted.
    Regarding your question, “Are you really comfortable deciding who lives and who dies with limited information, surging adrenaline, and total chaos?” Hopefully no cop, no soldier & no citizen are “really comfortable deciding who lives and who dies.” Nevertheless, many shootings have been stopped or at least limited by citizens willing to risk their lives in order to protect the innocent. For those of us who lawfully carry a pistol, the best case scenario is: the knowledge that citizens may be armed deters potential assailant(s) from committing any assault. Sadly, there are circumstances (e.g., children at risk of being killed) were ending a life of an assailant is the ‘best’ option. Some of my friends & I have accepted this responsibility & none of us take it lightly (it was stressed in my concealed pistol class that even a justified shooting of an assailant will affect your life forever). It’s for good reason that one firearm personal protection manual is titled “In the Gravest Extreme.”
    I’d like to thank you for your military service: As a retired military officer you have my highest respect & gratitude.