This week, as people continue to debate gun control in the wake of the Colorado movie theater shooting, some have argued that guns make people safer. So we wondered: Will having more guns offer people more protection?
Some people’s buying habits certainly suggest they may think having a gun will provide more safety. The weekend after the shooting, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm, which was a 43 percent increase over the previous weekend and a 39 percent increase over the first weekend in July. Similar spikes in potential gun purchases have occurred after similar tragedies.
But what is the likelihood people will need those guns to protect themselves, such as from a home invader or a robber? Studies and surveys show that people often say they own guns for protection purposes, but it’s very rare that they use them in self defense, according to the National Institute of Justice. In fact, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found that where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for homicide.
It’s not just true for the U.S., but other developed countries as well. Where guns are more available, there are more homicides. We’re not saying that people shouldn’t be able to legally purchase guns. But we want to make sure the starting point for discussion about gun control is framed correctly: Having more guns does not necessarily make people safer.
Using guns for hunting or target practice, clearly, is fine, but too often guns are used for illegal purposes. In 2005, about 11,300 people in the United States were killed by firearms, and about 477,000 were victims of crimes committed with firearms. Most murders in the U.S. are committed with guns, especially handguns, according to the National Institute of Justice.
The U.S. has far more guns and gun-related deaths than other countries. Among industrialized nations, the U.S. firearm-related death rate is more than twice that of the next-highest country, according to the Firearm & Injury Center at Penn State, which collects data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System. The U.S. has the most weapons per person out of any country in the world, with 90 guns for every 100 people.
The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in self defense will occur perhaps once or never in a lifetime, according to information provided by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. More opportunities arise for regular people with guns to use them inappropriately.
How to reduce the rate of gun violence, while preserving people’s right to bear arms, is a larger discussion involving how to stem firearms trafficking, more aggressively prosecute prohibited people who illegally possess guns, provide background checks for all gun sales, better educate owners about proper use and storage and better educate teens about related issues, such as dating violence and bullying.
But if the U.S. is ever going to work to reduce the number of deaths and injuries associated with firearms, it would be helpful to have a base point of agreement: Too many guns are used for the wrong purposes. Producing and buying more of them is not the answer.
Could someone please post one law, or even a suggestion for a law that a criminal will obey! Background checks, waiting periods, even limits on capacity will NOT be followed by criminals. Since we can’t have a cop next to us constantly, why would we voluntarily disarm?
OMG, you’re so right. Let’s just get rid of all our laws because criminals don’t obey them so why are we bothering?
A very intelligent response to Joe McCullough, keep them coming.
When you criminalize things that aren’t real crimes (no victim), you still make real criminals.
It’s true that, although we have laws against bank robberies, people still rob banks. So, would you make bank robbery legal just because people rob banks?
Voluntarily disarm? That sounds like some intentionally deceptive NRA talking point. Nobody is coming to take your guns away, and nobody has asked you to voluntarily disarm.
But there must be some way to keep huge clips of ammunition out of the hands of nut jobs who are out to shoot as many innocent men, women, and children as they can.
What’s wrong with stopping the internet sale of weapons, requiring that all weapons and ammunition sales go through licensed dealers, and reducing the size of these ammunition clips? — the victims of these shootings often have to wait for the gunman to reload before they can subdue him.
Most firearms bought online from reputable companies and/or persons have to be shipped to a registered/licensed dealer, where the purchaser must complete a background check, provide ID and other similar things before they get their weapon. And, magazine capacity is restricted in many states.
So we agree that the 2nd Amendment allows us to restrict magazine capacity.
As you point out, it is easy to buy guns over the internet, and so state laws about the size of magazines are easy to circumvent. Therefore, we need a federal law that restricts magazine size. That, it seems to me, is one small reasonable way to make it a bit easier to tackle the crazed gunman when he stops to reload.
I never said the 2nd Amendment allows anyone to restrict anything, I merely said that states do it. I think the 2nd Amendment was written in a time when the world and this country was a different place. I find it hard to believe the people who wrote the Bill of Rights and The Constitution could forsee their magnificent creation reduced to what it is today. The federal government is finding ways to circumvent our “rights” on a daily basis. Right to privacy is one I could argue very easily. Its hard to say exactly what it does and doesn’t allow, especially in this case where magazine fed weapons were not in existence when it was written. Personally, I dont think they should be regulated. Also, in most states where high cap mags are illegal, the guns that take high cap mags are also illegal. They make high cap and low cap versions of the AK47 for this reason. Anyway, you cant punish a country of people because some number of individuals do something morally questionable. I also personally feel that people who default to “the 2nd amendment argument” to support their pro-gun stance really have little else to hold the water of their opinions. Its hard to find someone with a rational, logical belief system, most often its just “the 2nd amendment says so”. Citizens of a country should be allowed to own weapons of any sort to protect themselves and their families. And by weapons of any sort, I should clarify that (because you seem rather quick to push it to the absurd) this does not include: explosives, destructive devices or atomic bombs. Basically, simply put, firearms.
As far as magazine size is concerned, any decent marksmen, anyone who’s done any hunting or is even slightly sportsman like would tell you that you dont need 50 bullets. You need one. It only takes one to cross the line and do something dumb. Sure, perhaps some crimes could be prevented with limited magazines, but really, not many criminals use large capacity weapons. Most of your violent crime occurs with pistols, because they are easier to get, transport, hide, use and dispose of. All your large capacity weapons are assault rifles. The majority of gun related crime doesn’t involve AR-15’s with Beta C-Mag’s. Also, most people who commit violent crimes with weapons are not skilled in those weapons. Most people who use guns to commit violent crimes know little about the guns they use. High cap mags in the hands of the unskilled are meaningless. I would hate to see what would happen if someone with training and a good understanding of modern weapons of war decided to go Charlie Whitman on an innocent town… oh wait, Charlie Whitman, thats right. You know what he used for his murderous rampage that claimed the lives of 16 people and injured dozens more? Nothing with a magazine that could be considered large, even by your conservative standards.
And, as logical as it might seem to you to restrict magazine size so you can tackle someone on a mass murdering spree, personally, i’ll forgo such an act as to me, tackling someone with a gun who is intent on murdering people doesn’t seem to bright.
Long answer to my short suggestion about magazines! Whew!
It seems to me that, as important as the Bill of Rights is (it makes us a free and great nation) we do put some restrictions — you can’t shout “fire” in a crowed theater when there is no fire, despite the “freedom of speech” guaranteed in the First Amendment.
If we can say the “right to bear arms” doesn’t include atomic bombs and the Abrams tank, then maybe we can also say it doesn’t include some of the huge magazines that are unnecessary for deer hunting or even self-defense.
I know that the gun manufacturers, and their employees at the NRA and Fox News — yes, I’m being sarcastic, but it sure seems that way — suggest that no restrictions on the Second Amendment are acceptable. But isn’t there some kind of reasonable common sense gun control that we can agree on?
Do we really have to have so many people armed to the teeth?
How many mass killings do there have to be before the NRA folks get a little less dogma and a little more common sense?
I’m a gun owner and a 2A advocate that’s not a member of the NRA. What it comes down to to me is this. The 2A was not put into place for hunting, collecting, or target practicing. It was put into place to protect ones rights, freedoms, and property from those who would attempt to take it whether it be your neighbor or the government. I do my best to look at things from what I think is a common sense point of view and it often engages me with people with whom I don’t agree but can promote a logical argument free of emotion which can cloud the issue. Since you seem to be someone who’s more willing to discuss than attack I’ll tell you that for me, high cap mags are a safety blanket that I like. If someone broke into my house would I need 15 or 30 rounds to end the altercation? I would certainly hope not but I’d rather have too much ammo at my disposal rather than not enough. When I choose to carry in public I do so with an extra mag just in case it would be required for a given circumstance. I hope and pray that I never, ever have to expend one round on anything other than potential food in my freezer or paper targets but at the same time with the way the world is going I believe the safety of myself and my family is in my hands and it’s a responsibility I take very seriously.
I’ve never had the need to use 15 or 30 rounds on someone breaking into my house. I’m 64, married, raised a child, and have experienced a lot of life, but never had that problem. I’ve honestly never had the need to carry a weapon in public. I did some small game hunting when I was young, but have no need for any kind of firearms today.
Dianne1 writes on this page, “So what do you suggest I should do if a drug crazed psycho breaks into my house and is threatening my family?”
Sorry, that’s really never happened to anyone I’ve ever met in my entire life. It might be a common occurrence in Dianne’s life, but not in mine or in the lives of anyone I know on this planet. Maybe she watches too many bad movies.
So the idea that I have to have a huge arsenal with incredibly large magazines to protect myself from drug crazed psychos is just not on my map of reality.
The likelihood is that you or someone in your own family will be shot with your own weapon is much higher (statistically) than the possibility that you will use that weapon to protect yourself from an intruder.
Do you have the right under the Constitution to waste your paycheck on unnecessary armaments? Sure.
As long as there are no apparent limits on the arsenals and magazines that people can just buy over the internet, we will continue to have, from time to time, shootings like the recent one in Colorado. Statistically, I’m unlikely to be in that movie theater when he opens fire. And I hope you won’t be there, either, because when you return fire in a dark theater, more innocent people are likely to die.
It just seems to me that there’s something sad and a bit nutty about the desire of so many people in this great land who think they need to be armed to the teeth.
First, your claim that someone in my own family will more likely to be shot with my own weapon is straight out of the brady bunch’s propaganda. Many, including my family. have maintained firearms in the family for generations without any such adverse actions.
It is unfortunate that you swallow the propoganda from Carolyn McCarthy whose husband and son would be alive today if some person on the Long Island railway had been in possession of a weapon to stop the deranged individual who killed them! If that had been the case we could have been spared the uneducated nonsense we continually get from such individuals who blame the gun (an inanimant object) rather than the human who wields it!
Statistically, you are unlikely to ever use your gun against an intruder. It is a higher statistical probability that someone in your own household will be shot with that gun. I’m simply citing the statistics — you are unlikely to ever use that gun against an intruder. I think you know that’s true. Break-ins by drug crazed psychos happen a lot in bad movies, but not much in real life.
statistics can always be manipulated to support either side of an argument. I know many many people of varied levels of experience and firearms training; hunters, competition shooters, former M&P, and weekend plinkers. I have never known anyone in ME,NH,PA three states I have lived in to every have been shot with their own weapon on accident and definitely not involved in any suicide or homicide. However, I also don’t know anyone who has been the victim of a home invasion or strong armed robbery.
Home invasions are not that rare these days – even in Maine and they are getting more frequent! And I will bet my life or that of my family on my Kimber 1911 45ACP rather than your “statistics” anytime!
At 64 you grew up in a completely different generation than we have now. It’s sad but true. I don’t know how many times my 72 year old grandfather has told me that growing up today is much harder than it was when he was young because the world is so much different. Statistically will someone ever break into my home, well that’s rather hard to say. Rite Aid’s in this state are being broke into on an average at one per day. I’m not sure what stats say but I’ve got to believe eventually the odds are going to add up that someone is going to be harmed during one of those robberies. If it’s happening in the broad daylight out in public it’s going to happen in peoples homes when they’re found to be holding prescriptions in there. It’s the law of probability.
I grew up with firearms in the home, behind the bedroom door of my parents room and had the shotgun I began hunting with behind my own door at 13. My family stressed education when handing firearms, as in doing other things. Today my guns are secured in a safe because the world has changed so dramatically. Kids think they have more knowledge about firearms and repercussions because of what they see on tv and play in video games and if were going to look at a solution for many of these shootings we need look no further than the imagery we’re allowing our children to soak into their minds when they’re still developing and can’t understand. But I digress, this discussion is not about the psychological damage we’re doing to our kids it’s about firearms.
You’re one of the lucky ones. Someone very close to me is a rape victim, more than one friend has had someone enter their home uninvited, and I went to school with someone who was arrested for wigging on bath salts. The stories of violent confrontation seem to be a daily occurrence in this very newspaper. I’m glad that you have made it through your 64 years without any sort of incident that involved firearms but many others aren’t that lucky. The truth of the matter is I like to be prepared and I view my first job in this world to protect my family. Some may call it nutty, some may call it paranoid, but I call it being a realist. The world is not a nice place and for me to place the safety of my family on the back of someone else is not only unreal but dangerous as well.
you are way out of touch with the real world. maybe you should go back to your soaps and leave the thinking to people who live in the real world. we pass gun laws to lower crime rates but what happens is that only the innocent people follow the law.
A little over the top there Josh. Penz is sincerely open to discussing the issue without resorting to attacks.
X 2!
Pro 2A, non NRA.
Let me protect my family.
Penz, I also agree that you seem willing to talk these things out. If I’ve offended you with my posts I apologize.
Like you I also wish there were some way to get these weapons away from the criminals, but nobody has figured that out yet. That may remain the great mystery for quite some time. Maybe if we made punishment so unbelievably brutal for a violent crime we could slow things down, but then the other rights activists will be in an uproar and push things back to where they are now.
Bottom line, I’m as stumped as you are about how to change things. In the meantime I want the freedom to protect my family.
……”But isn’t there some kind of reasonable common sense gun control that we can agree
on?”…….
Short answer: NO!
If government could “guarantee safety” none of these mass shootings would have happened.
YOU are ultimately responsible for YOUR own safety. If you do not wish to have the tools to do so, that is your choice. Good Luck!
We have the means to defend ourselves and our family. We belive in taking care of our own self-defense, always!
Government is a very poor servant and totally unable to protect its citizens. Citizens who care about themselves make preparations for everything they can think of, besides their own personal safety.
Govt doesn’t give a cheet if I can take care or myself or not. So why am I going to put my fate in their hands?
Can you say stupid?
Wow, Penzance is asking to have a reasonable discussion and because his/her viewpoint is different than yours you have to throw out “stupid”? The inability to even have a discussion without insulting each other is what’s wrong with Congress and the reason nothing gets done in Washington. Living in any society other than the most dictatorial requires compromise between opposing views and the starting point is discussion, listening and an exchange of ideas. Although understandably that discussion may be heated at times that is never an excuse for insulting someone.
And before you try to insult me, I have guns, plural, in my home and expect that I always will. I am also willing to talk to my fellow American.
The police can’t be everywhere, nor can they always predict what people will do (can you say stupid?).
Therefore, my question is whether there is some other way to prevent these mass killings. In a crowded theater, in the dark, a man comes in and sets of a smoke bomb and starts shooting randomly into a crowd of men, women and children. Your answer seems to be for everyone to be carrying a gun, so that others (in the dark, in the smoke, in the midst of the crowd) return fire. That’s a recipe for an even bigger disaster, with many more deaths.
Government — we the people — is not “a poor servant and unable to protect the people.” You are wrong. We are, for the most part, quite safe. The crime rate has steadily gone down in most categories over the last 30 years.
I appreciate the work of our local and state police. I am very safe in my home, thank you, and in 64 years I have never had to protect myself from a break in by drug crazed psychos (as Dianne1 suggested was a likely problem). I don’t even lock my doors unless I leave the state for an extended vacation.
And I don’t waste my paycheck on an arsenal of weapons that I don’t need. Gun owners are statistically more likely to be shot by their own gun (or someone else in their household will be shot by that gun) than they are to ever use it to protect themselves from an intruder.
unless you try tackling some one who is tactically reloading and has one in the pipe still…
I think the third world $*it holes have banned rock throwing because to many people was throwing rocks killing people. Some are accused of having extra pockets to carry said rocks. Those extra pockets will become illegal, as they should be.
So if I understand you correctly, you are against all laws because some people break some laws.
Nope not even close, care to guess again?
If you write something sensible, it’s likely that I’ll understand what you have to say.
Please read my previous post.
Nope. I’m only against laws that take away my ability to defend my family.
Again, the reason our founders wanted us to be well armed was so we could protect ourselves from government. Government passing gun laws is just the fox guarding the hen house.
And yet “we the people” are the government.
Are you against all laws because “the government” passes them, or just some laws?
I’m in favor of laws against murder, theft, rape, fraud, assault, etc. Everything else is just unnecessary.
Me too, especially ETC.
It seems to me your list is a bit short, although you got many of the
basics. Many laws (like laws against identity theft) are covered under
your short list.
But what about drunk driving? Driving the wrong direction on a divided Interstate Highway?
Sexual abuse? Assault and battery? Polluting the river to the point that the water becomes unsafe for fishing or swimming? Dumping toxic chemicals that seep into your neighbor’s field? Selling toys that are likely to make children sick? Maybe you haven’t fully thought this through.
All of those things you’ve listed are are correct. I only meant to cover the basics to give an idea.
Only those laws that oppose the constitional previleges of US citizens! If we do not prevent the congress from passing unconstitional laws, we then have to fight all the way to the supreme court to get them reversed!
It goes without saying that all laws must be Constitutional, and if they are questionable, the Supreme Court is the final court of appeal.
We know that there are certain limits to Constitutional guarantees — we are guaranteed freedom of speech by the 1st Amendment, yet it is still illegal to shout “fire” in a crowded theater if there is no fire. First Amendment free speech has some limits.
So, is the 2nd Amendment unlimited? Does everyone have a right to arm themselves with an Abrams tank or an atomic bomb? If not, we draw a line somewhere between what is allowed and what is not. I’m trying to determine where that line is.
Can we ban extremely large magazines, for instance, like 30 rounds of ammunition?
2nd amendment is not about hunting or target practice. It really isnt even about personal protection from other individuals. It is about having the capability to stand up to an oppressive tyrannical government.
We live in a constitutional republic not a democracy. We have some democratic processes for some things that are less important such as town budgets dot projects bonds things like that. But the true purpose of our system of government is to ensure that the very important things are as close to unanimity as possible.
I think that most people today can agree that sensible laws surrounding firearms is fine. However sensible is the operational term there.
Some people thing a complete ban is sensible. Some people have the less is more approach.
I find more and more people are becoming well versed and educated about firearms. You can go ahead and limit magazine size but it really doesn’t matter for several reasons.
1. a little extra training can provide the over lap needed for smaller magazines. I shoot a 1911 (8 round capacity) and can put as much lead on target as my dad with a glock 17 (17rnd capacity) with 2 reloads in virtually the same time and I am an average combat handgunner.
2. Unless the bureaucrats and politicians want to commit to a COMPLETE recall/ban/confiscation of high cap magazines there are enough grandfathered in to still be easily obtainable if you have cash. During the clinton years AWB “pre-ban” magazines were easy to come by but because of the lack of production and supply all it did was drive up demand and line the pockets of retailers and punish citizens. Also not those years saw the highest gun violence in modern history.
3. Confiscation by the government has never worked and only really square people have turned in w/e was illegal at the time… booze, gold, drugs, etc.
Sensible in my opinion is as follows: We as responsible law abiding American citizens should have access to the same small arms our military employs. Including fully-automatic magazine and belt fed weapons manufactured post 1986 (repeal Hughes amendment.) This is what the second amendment originated as and no one disputed it until after the first world war when the american empire started to really grow. Private citizens owned all sorts of military hardware including functional explosives and there were no domestic terrorist threats.
I am not saying everyone should have a machine gun… but the system in place now already prevents that but should it? Gun violence has steadily risen since 1934 though it is falling again now.
There is a snack food commercial that says; “nobody can eat just one. . .” That same tendency applies to gun laws that are passed by gun hating congress members. When they start to limit 2nd amendment rights, they don’t know when to stop! And some (like Chuck Schummer would only stop when we are all completely disarmed.
Finally, american voters have repeatedly drawn the line using the ballot box. That is why the current congress and the president have not tried to advance any anti-second amendment provisions (to the dismay of many democrat liberal/progressive individuals!)
How many of us have the financial resources to take the struggle all the way to the SCOTUS? Not many! And I believe the congress passes laws with unconstitutional provisions every year.
If only that were still true penz.
I think if this Holmes fellow only used his shotgun and handguns instead, people would be saying the same kinds of things. The slurry of anti gun editorials would still be out and so on.
Actually he DID use his shotgun for most of the killing spree. His AR jammed after a couple of shots and he dropped it.
FYI all internet gun sales have to be shipped to a GUN dealer that then has the buyer fill out the paper work and the dealer calls atf and gets a background check for said buyer, unless the sale is made on something like craigslist and the buyer and the private seller meet face to face and cash changes hands.
You should add that the buyer and seller must be in the same state! And (I believe) the buyer must be a resident of the state where the transaction takes place.
Actually NO they don’t. The FFL dealer, who receives the interstate shipment, and the buyer must be in the same State. The seller can be anywhere in the US.
Correct, but many FFL’s will only take shipments from another FFL.
not true if your going through an FFL.
they are called magazines. clips is not the correct nomenclature.
(QUOTE)Nobody is coming to take your guns away,(QUOTE) YET!
(QUOTE)But there must be some way to keep huge clips of ammunition out of the hands of nut jobs who are out to shoot as many innocent men, women, and children as they can.(QUOTE)
Let the rest of us know when you figure that one out penz.
(QUOTE)What’s wrong with stopping the internet sale of weapons, requiring that all weapons and ammunition sales go through licensed dealers,(QUOTE
Already is regulated. It is illegal to ship any firearm to a private citizen. ONLY Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) can receive firearms by interstate transport.
(QUOTE)and reducing the size of these ammunition clips?(QUOTE)
And limit the ability for ALACs to defend themselves and other innocents? The BG WILL have all the capacity he wants.
(QUOTE)– the victims of these shootings often have to wait for the gunman to reload before they can subdue him.(QUOTE)
The victims are already down and most of the rest of the crowd will be hiding or running away. And statistically they simply don’t “rush” a shooter since we’re trained to call for help and then die while the LEOs respond. Put an end to Gun Free Zones so a few prepared ALACs can take care of him for you.
I would submit that law breakers cannot help but obey the law of physics. That would be the particular law where a bullet through the head of those who commit murder would have forfeited the right to participate in society and should be summarily removed from it immediately. Unfortunately there are those with liberal beliefs that tend to believe that the taking of life is acceptable because they will not support the removal of those who disregard that same right for others. i/e the shooter at fort hood should have been shot immediately but instead it will cost taxpayers millions and he will get off because of the wimps who are afraid to stand up to the criminal element. Or, closer to home, the person who sabotaged the US submarine Miami. A totally treasonous act for which execution should be the punishment. He will probably get off by pleading some stupid defense which will not pass the straight face test but that a carefully selected jury will acquit him on mental grounds. Start showing the public that crime has permanent consequences and crime will diminish. It works contrary to the opinion of some.
Some day, if you get stopped for a D.U.I., I hope the police officer won’t just shoot you. Maybe he’ll believe that we are a land of laws, and you’ll get your day in court.
But if you were in charge, we wouldn’t need courts, juries, or any laws at all. We could just shoot all speeders, no need for judge or jury. That would teach them a lesson! Just shoot them all. Why bother with the Constitution? Let’s throw out that liberal Bill of Rights. Oh, oh, that would mean no Second Amendment!
” Could someone please post one law, or even a suggestion for a law that a criminal will obey! ”
DuH!
Laws “create” the criminal!
They would be ordinary citizens otherwise!
Yes and no………………I could expand on this but it will just become a circular political firing squad so why bother. Ready……. aim……………………
Actually the command is “ready, fire, aim!”
I thought, statistically, Maine is one of the safest states in the Union, and that there are almost as many guns in the state as there are people. Maybe that saying: “An armed society is a polite society” has some merit.
Afganistan, Somalia, Iraq, Columbia….. all well armed countries that are not polite nor safe.
Japan, Great Britain, the Scandanavian counties… all countries with strong gun control that are both safe and polite.
Having guns in the hands of the population does not make a country any more safe nor polite than not having guns in the hands of the people. A countries safeness or politeness is more dependant on the country’s values than on armament .
Actually, per capita Great Britian has more violant crimes than the USA. Also the USA is number 1 in the amount of firearms.
Guns per 100 people
Iraq 34.2
Somalia 9.1
Colombia 5.9
Afganistan 4.6
Japan .6
England and Wales 6.2
Scotland 5.5
USA 88.8
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Violent crime for 100,000 people
United Kingdom 10,477.829
USA 3,782.05
Japan 2,237.70
Suicide rate for same countries
Japan 23.8
USA 11.8
UK 6.9
typically homicide and suicide tend to be anticorollary to each other.
If you like those county’s with gun control why don’t you pack your little back and skip on over there.
The countries you label as “safe and polite” all have a very homogenious population! Could there be a correlation?
The problem is lack of funding for prisons causing lowered sentences … and … lack of adequate mental health care and facilities.
These items cost elections. They’re expensive and first on the chopping block.
However, mention GUNS and pull all these unsubstantiated emotional triggers and now one has a topic that SELLS!
How stupid can we be?
Shall we promote banning hospitals because people die in those places?
How about the right to free speech? Can we Repeal the First Amendment? Look at the garbage that is spewed under the guise of free speech and religion. Do religious fanatics kill people?
Let us work to ban BDN from publishing these biased articles that pass as journalism.
The Constitution … the Bill of Rights … let us repeal the whole thing because those old f-rts did not have a clue what current times and events would come to this state of affairs. They were a bunch of idiots. Right?
We all want to be safe and cuddle together in perfect safety and security and our government will do everything they can to make this happen … right?
How stupid do they think we are?
Enforce what is enacted now. We can’t even do that, so making more regulations will solve this?
Wake up.
I own several guns and even if there was a nationwide ban, my guns would not be going anywhere. Like the late, great Charlton Heston would say – “From my cold dead hands”. You can educate the world about guns all you want, but it’s not going to stop the criminals from having them and using them. And as long as they have them, I’M going to have them.
And where do you think the criminals get their guns from?
The ATF.
And don’t forget Eric Holder
Funny but wrong. The vast majority of guns used in crimes were legally bought by US citizens
As directed by the head of the DOJ and (probably) by BHO!
Well, they sure don’t all come from legal gun owners. Weapons are smuggled into this country every day. There are also illegal gunsmiths who make them, so no, not every gun that criminals possess would have originated from a legal sale. Anyway, if some bath salts crazed psycho was breaking into my house I wouldn’t be spending my time worrying about where his gun originated from.
They get them on the streets from others who steal them from law abiding citizens who have their homes burglarized by the dope heads who find that an easy way to survive rather than work for a living!
Yes, law abiding citizens who didn’t properly secure their weapons or they were bought legally at gun shows.
Yes, lets all have all the weapons we can get our hands on. When everyone has their own atomic bomb, surely we will all be much safer.
So what do you suggest I should do if a drug crazed psycho breaks into my house and is threatening my family? Maybe ask him to hold hands with me and sing kum ba yah? Also, I hardly think that someone who wants to protect their family is the same as a maniac who wants to own an atomic bomb.
If you don’t want to own a gun then don’t. But don’t begrudge the responsible people who do. If you want guns banned altogether then fine. It makes no difference to me. Banned or not, I’ll always have my guns and I (and my husband) will be ready to protect our home and family no matter what comes down the pike.
When drug crazed psychos break into my house and threaten my family, a problem that I have frequently, I simply set of my atomic bomb. Problem solved.
despite your sarcasm the cold war never became a hot one because everyone had nukes…
In answer to the title question, it may make some gun owners feel safer, but it doesn’t make me feel any safer, just the opposite.
That’s because you live in fear.
Sadly you do not realize you live behind the protective umbrella of those who believe in the 2nd amendment!
You will note that stricter gun control laws have never
stopped a criminal. Some say that if we where to ban private ownership of guns
in the US altogether then that would prevent the bad guys from getting them. Other
countries have done it successfully right? Japan has done it and the criminal organization
the Yakuza don’t have guns, right? Wrong they do! So there you have it. It has
been done to the most extreme you can get and low and behold. It still does not
work.
This is just faceless anti gun propaganda bullshit. Let’s
look at some real facts. Like how the states with the highest crime rates in
the country are also the states with the strictest gun laws.
Top ten most dangerous states in 2010.
1. Nevada
2. New Mexico
3. Louisiana
4. South Carolina
5. Tennessee
6. Florida
7. Delaware
8. Maryland
9. Arizona
10. Arkansas
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/04/05/most-dangerous-states-crime-rankings-for-2010/
Lot of states with lax gun control laws on that list.
lots of states with lax gun controls not on that list.
Lots of states on that list that are close to mexico…
I was responding to Anthony Rea’s comments that states with strict gun control laws have the highest crime rates which is obviously incorrect.
There is no corelation between increased crime and rate and illegal immigrants. In fact many border comunities are safer than some communities far away from the border.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-29/justice/arizona.immigration.crime_1_sen-russell-pearce-illegal-immigration-immigration-law?_s=PM:CRIME
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-6703953.html
http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime
Made her safer…
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-04/justice/justice_oklahoma-intruder-shooting_1_affidavit-walters-ill-husband?_s=PM:JUSTICE
Or maybe this citizen helping an officer while taking fire…
http://www.brownwoodnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9180:authorities-release-information-regarding-deadly-peach-house-rv-park-shooting-video&catid=35:news&Itemid=58
Damn right it makes me feel safer and would make any home invader feel unsafe. Besides if there is ever a zombie or Chinese invasion because we dont pay them back, everybody will want a gun then.
There is no easy solution to this problem or to the overall debate. Banning something, locking up more people for more reasons or other knee jerk solutions will solve nothing. The entire issue is the result of many different social problems. One principal that for almost always works is when people take PERSONAL responsibility for doing SOMETHING. Personally advocating for a new law that puts more responibilty on someone else ( government/police) does not count.
Answer this trick question. What law or penalty ever prevented a gun being used to kill someone? The answer is NO LAW CAN EVER PREVENT A CRIMINAL OR MENTALLY DISTURBED PERSON FROM BREAKING THAT LAW.
Yes, some laws might make breaking a law more difficult, but complete prevention of bad behaivour via legislation is not possible.
I do not believe it is possible that any government, police agency or law can make everyone 100% safe all of the time.
You might remember the massacre in Norway last year. Something that really stands out to me are the pictures of multiple victims that did nothing but beg the guy for mercy after witnessing him shoot other begging people for mercy. Maybe some of them thought “I can beg for my life better than the other people that I just watched this guy shoot”.
Where where any adults that could have lead others to overwhelm the shooter? CNN interviewed one adult who hid under a bed as he heard the gunshots and prayed for the police to arrive.
When Congresswoman Giffords was shot, the gunman was subdued by other citizens, who had the opportunity to jump him because a woman knocked the magazine from the gunman’s hand before he could reload.
What the BDN conspicuously fails to report on are the many times that regular citizens prevent crimes BY DOING SOMETHING.
Yes, it is unpleasant to consider being in a situation where you might have to do difficult and unpleasnt things.
Of course, not everyone can or would step up and act, but it only takes one person.
The BDN article is correct that the likelyhood of actually using a firearm in self defense is remote. I have carried a firearm almost daily for the last 30 years and I have never shot anyone. The vast majority of police officers never have to use their firearms. Most people beleive that arming police officers is reasonable even thought most will never use a firearm.
Again, there are NO QUICK AND EASY solutions to complex social problems.
If you beleive that everything can be made safer with just one more law, please remember that
When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
As the saying goes, ” criminals prefer unarmed victims ”
Many things in this world are illegal to have and lawbreakers aquire and possess them every day. From drugs like meth and bath salts to stolen property. Gun control would simply disarm law abiding citizens.
I possess several firearms, none of which has ever been used for anything illegal or harmed anyone. All of my children have been taught(as I was at their age) that a firearm is not a toy but a dangerous tool that must be respected at all times.
“Never Forget, even for an instant, that the one and only reason anybody has for taking your gun away is to make you weaker than he is, so he can do something to you that you wouldn’t allow him to do if you were equipped to prevent it. This goes for burglars, muggers, and rapists, and even more so for policemen, bureaucrats, and politicians.”
Alexander Hope.
Thank you sir, I just love it. And I am going to steal that last line and use it in other places. That ought to be etched in granite someplace.
The liberals, and their political flunkies have nearly destroyed America but those of us who can think rationally about all of this, are finally waking up, and it is about time!
I got an old Colt, it is maybe 80 years old, family gun, it is mine. I am terrified of our US Congress, and Senate, and Supreme Court, on what these morons will do, but no matter what they do, I got an old Colt revolver and IT IS MINE.
The answer is Yes: http://townhall.com/columnists/johncgoodman/2012/08/04/the_truth_about_guns/page/full/
I can pick up an Uncle Henry’s, respond to an ad, set up a meeting behind the local P.D., and pay cash for a gun within an hour. No waiting period, no back ground check, no questions asked, and no laws broken. Why would I shop at a gun shop?
Wrong question. The right question is “Do gun control laws make people safer?” and the answer is that it’s exactly the places with restrictive gun control laws that have the highest violent and general crime rates. And before someone suggests that it’s the crime rates leading to the gun control laws and not vice versa, in every jurisdiction where gun laws have been relaxed in the last thirty years the crime rate has either gone down or, at worst, stayed the same.
Ten most dangerous states in 2012. None of which have strong gun control laws.
10. Mississippi
9. South Carolina
8. Arkansas
7. Texas
6. Missouri
5. Arizona
4. Florida
3. Nevada
2. Tennessee
1. Louisiana
http://247wallst.com/2012/04/26/americas-most-and-least-peaceful-states/
What other common denominator characterizes these states?
Fried food is a favorite? They could have filmed Deliverance in 7 of them. I don’t dare go any further
A good start! How else would you characterize a very large part of their population?
Southern Baptists, baggy pants, wife beater t-shirts.
They all look like Conservative Red states to me.
pbmann, that is cherry picking!
Now for the rest of the story:
The Brady Campaign gives California a rating of 80 out of
100 for its gun control laws, and they had a homicide rate of 5.3 per 100,000
in 2009, and their total firearms homicides was 1,360 and 1,811. Nationwide the homicide rate is 5.0 per
100,000 in 2009 and 4.8 in 2010 .
The Brady Campaign views Vermont as the worst case scenario,
and they give Vermont a score of 6 out of 100 for its firearms laws. Even though citizens in Vermont are free to
carry firearms both openly or concealed without a permit, and despite the fact
that they are free to carry their firearms in restaurants that serve alcohol and
even while consuming alcohol, the homicide rate in Vermont was 1.3 per 100,000
in 2009 and 1.1 per 100,000 in 2010. Of the
eight homicides that were committed in Vermont in 2009 none of them were
committed using firearms, and of the seven homicides committed in 2010, only
two were committed with firearms.
Utah received a score of 0, but its murder rate was 1.9 in
2010. North Dakota also received a score
of 2, and their murder rate was 1.5 per 100,000. Montana had a score of 2, and their murder
rate was 2.6 per 100,000, and Idaho received a score of 2 and their murder rate
was 1.3 per 100,000. All of these states
have much “Less restrictive laws” and
lower murder rates.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_04.html
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/stateleg/scorecard/2011/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf
How is it cherry picking? I listed the 10 most dangerous states, I didn’t cherry pick those states.
Your implication was that states with less restrictive firearms
laws are more dangerous than states with less restrictive firearms laws. California
has the most restrictive firearms laws but a homicide rate higher than Arkansas. Pennsylvania; Illinois, Michigan, and Delaware
have more restrictive firearms laws than both Texas and Arkansas but higher homicide
rate as well. Maryland has much more
restrictive firearms laws than any state on you ten most dangerous list but has
a higher homicide rate than all those states except Louisiana.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/stateleg/scorecard/2011/2011_Brady_Campaign_State_Scorecard_Rankings.pdf
I meant to say states with less restrictive firearms laws are more dangerous than states with more restrictive firearms laws.
“Studies and surveys show that people often say they own guns for protection purposes, but it’s very rare that they use them in self defense”- So, we ALWAYS use firearms less honorably?
“The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in self defense will occur perhaps once or never in a lifetime”- So, we should eliminate ALL firearms? It will rid us of all firearm violence?
Both of these statements are in a discussion about gun control. So, we need to control these people?
Creating more laws and regs results in one thing- controlling THESE types of people. The law abiders, or the “regular” peeps, as the Harvard Lib Big Heads call us.
An old crusty stat from 2005 reflects that 11,300 people died from firearms.
An old crusty sensus from 2005 should reflect a population of at least 300,000,000.
That’s 300 million, subject to dying all day long from disease, car crashes, old age, and a variety of other plights.
What % of 300 million is 11,300? It’s a rate of 1 in how many?
.0037%, or 1 in 27,000 of us are involved in gun deaths… in a year. Not every minute, or hour, as all the hype suggests.
Looks like we got 99 problems, but a gun ain’t 1.
This is possibly the most biased thing I have ever read.
Nice job.
The article says…….The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in self defense will occur perhaps once or never in a lifetime”………Isn’t once enough? I mean if you don’t defend your life a first time , you’re dead, that’s the end of your lifetime. So that would be the reason that there could be no second opportunity to defend yourself with a gun . Hence,”once in a lifetime”.
http://www.gunauction.com/news/article/20120802-Armed-Utah-salt-lake-city-citizen-stops-knife-attack.cfm
As quoted:
” In 2005, about 11,300 people in the United States were killed by firearms”
In the last decade, on average 43,000 people die in automobile accidents. And there are less cars in the US than guns.
“The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in self defense will occur perhaps once or never in a lifetime, according to information provided by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center”
This proves that people with guns are safer, because they don’t have to use them for protection.
Guns to not make people safer in and of themselves. It takes a person behind the trigger. Of course, the gun is only a means. People make people safer. With guns, with bows, with swords, with clubs. Whatever.
No-one is focusing on the fact that the USA is the most violent country on the planet. This is what strikes me as interesting. Why, I wonder? People might say its because we have so much blood on our hands, historically, or that we have always been a violent culture. If thats true and blood begets blood, why isn’t Germany awash in blood and violence? Its always the same gun debate. Keep guns! Take them away! From my cold dead hands! Down with NRA! Make ammo illegal or regulated! Everyone has said the same things many times over. How many times can this redundancy go on before someone says something new? If you take away guns or knives or whatever people who intend to do harm are still going to do it.
When are people going to stop being blind and start thinking about what creates these kinds of problems.
I think that a lot of the violence in this country is related to our media. It desensitizes people to violence. Most news is about murder, war, rape, drugs, whatever. All super negative stuff. It overshadows any good news that might be on…. “today, John Doe murdered his pregnant wife. we’ll be back after this important message…” “RESCUE PUPPIES!” “And in other recent news a 23 year old woman from (place) was caught today with 4,000 lbs of Bath Salt. When police tried to arrest the subject, she fled, leading them on a highspeed chase which resulted in her death. Police suspect she was headed to a local elementary school where there is a serious drug problem. and, we’re going to cut to commercials again.” “BIG SALE TODAY AT #1 EVERYTHING SHOP! COME GET ALL THE GOODS AND PRODUCTS YOU”LL NEVER NEED! PAY NO MONEY FOR 5 YEARS! HELP RUIN THE ECONOMY BY BUYING THINGS YOU CANT ACTUALLY AFFORD ON CREDIT!” “And, in other world news, Japan was just hit by a massive earth quake that killed hundreds of thousands of people and tilted the earth and messed up our rotation. But, the US Government says everyone should be ok, so long as they go buy lots of water, food and a gas mask.”
Of course, the above paragraph is just one example of how I believe America creates violent people. Lots of other countries have lots of guns. Countries that historically are much more violent then America. Yet, as a country we are obsessed with violence. We have the most mass murderers, the most serial killers, the most gun related violence. I see a pattern here. Its not guns that are the problem but it is guns that make for an easy scapegoat for Americas fascination with violence.
Cars kill more people than guns. Of course we do not outlaw cars. We outlaw drunk driving, driving to endanger, and vehicular homicide.
It is interesting the way we behave. Humans have the capacity to ignore some facts while creating others.
It is funny that one study cited was done at Penn State. Have they still got any credibility? Some while back they endorsed a study paid for by the Coca Cola Company which found Coke to be a healthy breakfast food.
Need a study to say what you want it to? Pay P.S.U.
I don’t know about anybody else but my gun makes me feel safer!
Do guns make people safer? Probably not, but you know I feel a lot safer knowing I have a few guns just in case i might need one. Kinda like asking “Do fire extinguishers make people safer?” Probably not,but i feel safer knowing i have a few and they are nice to have if you ever need one.
The NRA would let millions of guns be sold with no background checks, absolutely no controls.
The Left Wing would ban ALL gun sales.
Anyone see why both sides fear the other?
Signed: Gun owning, 30 and 50 round clip using, 2nd amendment defending, Obama voter, raise taxes on the rich voter, and believer in National health care. Yeah, let everyone marry.
Freedom causes pain. Lack of freedom causes death.
Not if you shoot yourself in the foot.
Do explain to us, then, why places like DC, Chicago, LA, and NYC have much higher crime rates then Maine, VT, and NH. Also, don’t restrict what I can and cannot own because of what some nut job does. Historically speaking, if there’s one group that shouldn’t be trusted with guns, it’s governments.
Besause there are more people?
I don’t mean more total crime, I mean crime rates, as in more violent crime per X number of people.
Consider Switzerland. While I’ll concede that Swiss culture is probably somewhat different than American culture, every household contains a semi automatic rifle yet violent crime is virtually nonexistent.
I know for a fact that the only reason that I have not been robbed, is that the crooks in my neighborhood here in Belfast know that I am armed, and that I am not afraid to use them in defense of my home and possessions. The crooks think I am crazy, and it scares them, LOL!
What other common denominator characterizes these states?
Studies and surveys show that people often say they own guns
for protection purposes, but it’s very rare that they use them in self defense,
according
to the National Institute of Justice. In fact, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center found
that where there are more guns, both men and women are at a higher risk for
homicide.”
False!
Criminologists have found that U.S. citizens use firearms
for self-defense 2.5 million times a year.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm
My sister is an example.
When she lived in Tennessee she advocated gun control, and she stated
that she supported a total ban on handguns.
When she moved to Atlanta
with its high rate of violent crime her views changed, and she got her firearms
carry permit, took up shooting as a sport, and became an excellent marksman. In two separate incidents attackers tried to
force their way into her car while she was stopped at traffic lights, both
times, she brandished her Glock pistol, and both times the attackers fled.
“Where guns are more available, there are more
homicides.”
False again!
It has also been
found that there is no correlation between firearms ownership and homicide and
suicide rates, and many of the countries with the strictest firearms
prohibitions have higher homicide and suicide rates than nations without such
restrictions.
According
to Smallarmssurvey.org, the United States ranks first (88.1) in per capita civilian
firearms ownership per 100, so the casual observer would believe the U.S. would
be in top 10 in murders, or at least the top twenty. However, the U.S. is not even in the top
30. The U.S. ranked the 35 in the World murder
rate. In 2009 that came to 5.0 per
100.000 in 2009, and 4.8 in 2010.
Switzerland
ranks third (45.7) civilian firearms ownership per 100, and it unlikely that
military weapons kept in Swiss homes are included since they are property of
the Swiss Government. Yet, their murder
rate was an extremely low 0.66 per 100,000 in 2009.
By
contrast, El Salvador ranked 92nd in civilian firearms ownership
(5.8) per 100, so the casual observer would believe that they would not be in
the top fifty murder rate. However, they
ranked first in the world murder rate at a staggering 71 per 100,000 in 2009, second
in murder rate in 2010 with 66 per 100,000 in 2010, and second in 2011 at 71
per 100,000. Honduras ranked 88th in firearm ownership per 100 and
they were first in 2011 world murder rate at a staggering 86 per 100,000.
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/A-Yearbook/2007/en/Small-Arms-Survey-2007-Chapter-02-annexe-4-EN.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_rate
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
“More opportunities arise for regular people with guns to
use them inappropriately.”
Combine the 2.5 million times firearms are used for
self-defense along with the hundreds of thousands of time a day for other lawful
purposes like hunting, competitive shooting, recreational shooting, and
collecting is clear that the majority of guns are used for lawful purposes.
“Producing and buying more of them is not the answer.”
Wrong again!
Our right to Keep and BEAR arms have been increasingly
restored over last several years and more citizens are now free to carry
firearms in more places since the year 1900.
Yet, homicides, including homicides with firearms, as well as all other
violent crime have been decreasing since 2006.
Moreover, after a dramatic increase in firearms sales and ownership
after the last Presidential election including an increase in first time
firearms purchases and an increase in firearms carry permits, citizen
disarmament zealots and organizations predicted that there would be a
corresponding increase in homicides and other violent crime. However, the U.S. homicide rate decreased
from 5.0 per 100,000 in 2009 to 4.8 per 100,000 in 2010 and all other violent
crime decreased as well.
Preliminary data from 2011 shows all Violent Crime was down
6.4%, Murder down 5.7%, Rape down 5.1%, Robbery down 7.7%, and Aggravated
Assault down 5.9%.
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl04.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/december/crime-stats_121911/crime-stats_121911
By contrast, The United Kingdom enacted extreme firearms
bans years ago, and gun crime in the U.K.
has double in a decade.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6438601/Gun-crime-doubles-in-a-decade.html
It is no wonder that a Gallup Poll of October 26, 2011 found that 60% of those surveyed
supported enforcing current gun laws more strictly and NOT pass any new laws
while only 35% responded to enforce current gun laws more strictly and pass new
gun control laws.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/Record-Low-Favor-Handgun-Ban.aspx
Citizen disarmament zealots and their organizations ignore
these inconvenient facts because they debunk their propaganda, deception.
willbill51,
Thank you for the excellent and informative piece of writing in response to this “ignorant liberal diatribe”! Your response was very factual in the process of destroying any and all credibility that the writer ever had, and pointed out how bereft of real knowledge that many people are who try to write imformative pieces on firearms ownership and usage.
When you get your information from places like Harvard U, you are going to get the liberal line, with little to no basis in fact. Rather then printing what the TRUTH really is, they always shamelessly publish what they think it ought to be!
After I got into the third paragraph of the editorial I was determed to respond as you did. Thank you for beating me to the punch and doing it much better than I could have done.
this should be the real editorial here.
My son and his future wife during a trip though the south to the Big Bend area of the southwest camped in a public campground in Texas. During the night a vehicle with a loud “whomping” sound pulled up beside their tent. My son’s girlfriend – not a friend of firearms – asked: “do you have one of your guns?” My son said; no because you did not want me to bring one! The moral: “There are no gun haters in a tent at night!” Fortunately, the vehicle moved on – possibly because they doubted that anyone would be so dumb as to camp there unarmed!
When you only have seconds to make a life and death decision; the police are only minutes away. I’ll keep my firearms thank you.
If I wanted to make a nation where I had total control of the people, where they cannot defend themselves from me and my military I would try to convince people that this country has more gun related death then anything else, any other country in the world.
firearms death have steadily decreased in the last 10 years…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE
Demanding a restriction on magazine size for law-abiding people is akin to demanding that pickup truck manufacturers limit the size of their trucks simply because a single smuggler last week killed 13 illegal immigrants packed into one vehicle while trying to out-run police. Where is the outrage at that crime scene? There are 40,000 deaths annually here as the result of motor vehicle accidents and another 250,000 are hospitalized annually in wrecks. Should we respond by banning cars? Or do we respond by cracking down on the people who abuse our highways? Similarly, the vast majority of domestic violence incidents result from alcohol use. Do we ban alcohol that is peacefully enjoyed by so many others or instead crack down on the abusers themselves? On a more practical level, what really results from instituting a 10 round magazine limit? Rather than the bad guy carrying a single 30 round mag, he carries three 10-round mags instead. What has been accomplished? It only takes a second for someone proficient to change magazines. Shouldn’t we concentrate on the underlying real problem rather than applying this knee-jerk bandaid approach to social problems? Someone, somewhere knew Mr. Holmes was not stable. His own psychiatrist warned campus authorities (but apparently no one else) that he was a grave concern. Who took action? Why is the focus not on those who knew, but failed to act? Instead, a trainload of people want to impose restrictions on everyone else because the guy lost his marbles. Is that a reasoned response? People who desire to kill will always find a way to accomplish that goal. The truth is our society broke down in Colorado because someone who was in a position to know something about Mr. Holmes did not take the time to raise the red flag for the rest of the citizens. Oh, on a sidenote, I see those “gun free” zones have really worked well to stop the carnage. If memory serves me correctly, all of the recent time mass executions have taken place in locations where firearms were not allowed. The only thing those laws and restrictions accomplished is making sure the good guys were disarmed so it would be easier for a nut to achieve a greater body count. Someone intent on murder is going to laugh at that little sign on the door that says “no firearms allowed. Violators will be prosecuted”.
(QUOTE)But what is the likelihood people will need those guns to protect themselves, such as from a home invader or a robber? (QUOTE)
Probably less than the likelihood of needing a fire extinguisher to fight a small kitchen fire, but we still have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers “just in case”.
(QUOTE)The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in self defense will occur perhaps once or never in a lifetime, (QUOTE)
And some people never experience home kitchen fires, but… Also lets bear in mind that an ARMED LAC is less likely to NEED to use a fire arm simply because (s)he IS armed. Criminals don’t like going after armed targets, they want soft, easy sheepeople who will surrender and hand over the goods.
ALSO lets use more current data, shall we? 2010 for example. <9400 firearm murders