Two women defend themselves with a gun

[Popol Vuh]

Two women defend themselves, escaping being a murder victim or victim of serious injury, thanks to the right to defend one's self with a firearm.

Woman #1:
Austin woman attacked. Attacker ends up in the hospital. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t_htoRmJIw << ((News Clip))



Woman #2:

Bleeding and weakened from the bullet wound in her chest, Susan Gonzalez aimed her husband's .22-caliber pistol, the one she hated, and emptied it into one of the robbers who had burst through the front door of her rural Jacksonville home.

Those shots ended the life of one robber, led to a life prison term for another and became an epiphany for Gonzalez, a 41-year-old mother of five who runs a photography studio.

Gonzalez had always feared guns, never wanted a gun and argued with her husband, Mike, to please not keep guns in their home.

"I hated guns, all of them," she said. "I was that scared of them that I didn't want them around."

That all changed that terror-filled night nearly three years ago when Susan Gonzalez fought for her life inside her family's home near Jacksonville International Airport.


http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/susan_gonzales.htm

Yay for the Constitution! :)

[trumad]

1. For every story like this

I betcha there's double the stories where a kid got his dads gun and accidentally killed his friend.

Yeah for the constitution.

[Pavulon]

4. I bet not.

Dad would be a criminal then as well.

Difference between responsible driving and drunk driving.

There are facts out there too. Google, you will find data.

[struggle4progress]

59. NRA has pushed hard for years to ensure gunowners aren't liable if their kids hurt somebody

with their unsecured guns -- and it's not that hard to find news stories showing so

[samsingh]

61. of course they would. hide the lies and the misery so that there

is no accountability.

btw - the nra directors are well paid. are they defending an interpretation of a Constitution or protecting their money and high paychecks?

[aspergris]

107. Far more kids die- here's actual STATS vs. emotions

from drowning, from falling, from car accidents, etc.

While it may not be that hard to find news stories, since the MSM in all its wonderful bias reports every accidental firearms death, the statistics show that unintentional firearms deaths are very rare. And those with children are very rare.

Kids are way more likely to die from 10 other accidents causes before they did from accidental firearms incidents.

Deaths per 100,000 for young children

Drowning 2
Car accidents (passenger) 1.3 to 2.2
Hit by car while walking 1.3
Fire (not including house fire) 1.2
House fire 1.1
Suffocation .6
Fall .2
Bicycle .1
Unintentional struck by or against .1
Firearm .1

[jody]

108. aspergris, it's not fair to use facts against fiction. n/t

[samsingh]

62. i respect your position and we probably have more in common

with each other's views because you're on this site.

However, arming everyone leaves a lot of guns out there. Everyone is not balanced or sane. Innocent people have and will be killed because of people using guns. What about bullets that go through windows and walls, while the person in side, regardless of the arsenal they could have in their house, would be hit by a bullet before they could get to their weapons.

Yes, some people are saved by guns. But many, many people are killed by them because of some lunatic that went off with a gun in their hands. i just don't understand why people don't care about these innocent victims.

So many things are licenced and controlled. Cars, drugs, even knives in many places.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

176. Who wants to arm everyone?

I haven't seen anyone put forth that proposal.

David

[aspergris]

106. not necessarily

SOME states criminalize leaving your gun out where the kids can get to it.

Others don't, including my own.

So, your statement that dad would be a criminal is not true in many jurisdictions. Is it true in yours?

[MullenBank]

164. Ditto

What he said.

[exothermic]

5. I betcha you're just pulling stuff outta yer butt.

How's that grab ya?

[iverglas]

175. I betcha

your own butt's a bit warm these days. Hot down there?

[Esra Star]

17. I'm with you Trumad

Gun culture is the culture of the tombstone.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[katandmoon]

20. Or successful suicide attempt because a gun was in the house

Stories like this one do NOTHING to address the real issues of sick, violent, crazy people easily getting their hands on guns because of all the cracks in the system thanks to congress bending over for the moneygrubbing NRA. Nor do they address the sickness of gun-obsessed people who think regulation-free gun ownership is more important than human life.

[samsingh]

63. i agree with you completely. it's about money and salaries

made by nra employees and their supporters. they have fooled people into believing its about the Constitution. It's not. I don't think the founders could have anticipated machine guns, assault weapons, high powered sniper rifles and high calibar bullets that can penetrate walls. All legal because of the NRA.

it will be interesting to hear the NRA's arguments when ammunition becomes laced with nuclear technology and see if they think these be freely available.

btw - terrorists can also get these weapons.

[NickB79]

69. "I don't think the founders could have anticipated machine guns"

Ah, that old line.

If I said "I don't think the founders could have anticipated the Internet and phones, so it's ok to wiretap citizen's conversations and read their e-mails", would you agree?

[samsingh]

80. i think the principle of privacy and muskats is very different

it's not an old argment because they're is not reasonable response.

it's a true statement.

[Popol Vuh]

84. Ah, yes I've heard that old line several times too

One thing I point out to folks who try that line is this. The constitution allows for personal weapons. On the other hand they, the founders, didn't say anything about owning crew served and/or indiscriminate weapons, ergo, IMO this means that the constitution doesn't support the right to own rockets, grenades, artillery, flamethrowers, machine guns, etc., you get the picture.

So I see no conflict with owning any of the weapons which are lawfully available to the public today.

[jeepnstein]

104. NFA 34

You can get just about anything you want if you are willing to pay for the tax stamp and go through the paperwork. You would then be the lawful owner of a machine gun or destructive device. The thing about it is criminals don't bother with the paperwork or have to pay the high prices.

[samsingh]

120. i don't follow that logic - the line is 'to bear arms' where is it

that broad.

[gorfle]

111. I disagree.

i agree with you completely. it's about money and salaries made by nra employees and their supporters.

There are currently some 4 million NRA members, and some 40-80 million firearm owners. I assure you, most of us don't get any financial benefit out of owning firearms or being NRA members.

We are NRA members because the NRA is the 800-pound gorilla that has demonstrated it's ability to defend our interests related to firearms.

they have fooled people into believing its about the Constitution. It's not.

It most certainly is. Now we have a SCOTUS decision that makes it even more so.

I don't think the founders could have anticipated machine guns, assault weapons, high powered sniper rifles and high calibar bullets that can penetrate walls. All legal because of the NRA.

Where to start.

First of all, while the founders may not have been able to see into the future for the specific technological advancement of arms, they most certainly anticipated such advancement. This is why they speak to "arms" rather than specific weapons.

Further, if you read contemporary documents you will see that the intent of the founders was to enable The People to either replace or at least counter the federal army. In order to do this The People must be similarly equipped to the federal army.

Finally, it would be ludicrous to limit the rights enumerated in the Constitution to only technologies of the founders time, and the SCOTUS addresses this point:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding"

Also, you've tossed out a lot of red herrings in your statement. Machine guns have been highly regulated for decades, and their ownership is very rare and crimes are almost never committed with them. "high powered sniper rifles" cover just about every hunting rifle ever made for the last 100 years. And just about any bullet can go through a wall, and have been able to do so since the founders' era.

it will be interesting to hear the NRA's arguments when ammunition becomes laced with nuclear technology and see if they think these be freely available.

I have often wondered what will be the fate of new advancements in weapon technology. Let us suppose, for example, that "ray guns" are developed and become standard infantry weapons. Should The People be allowed them? I would say that we use the metric that our founders intended - The People must be able to counter federal military power. So I would say that The People should indeed have access to such weapons.

Bear in mind that neither I, nor most other pro-firearm people are likely in favor of weapons of mass destruction being in the hands of civilians. Thus the "everyone will have nukes" argument is flawed from the beginning.

[samsingh]

121. the scotus decision?

the same scotus that canceled Democrasy in 2000?

they mean nothing, and will not, until some future President replaces them.

Bear in mind that neither I, nor most other pro-firearm people are likely in favor of weapons of mass destruction being in the hands of civilians. Thus the "everyone will have nukes" argument is flawed from the beginning.
- either the Constitution allows hand-held weapons regardless of their power or not. if we're going to accept heavily powerful handhelds with powerful shells, then why not let people have nuclear shells. Then the imperialistic government can be watched by the population.

Acually, in light of the bush regime, it may not be a bad thing to have a heavily armed citizenry to fight their fascism back.

[gorfle]

137. Remember...

the same scotus that canceled Democrasy in 2000?

they mean nothing, and will not, until some future President replaces them.

Two things to bear in mind here:

1) All of the justices, even the liberal ones, agreed unanimously that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. What was debated was whether it is an enumerated right or not.

2) Your position seems to be that because they were wrong on one thing that they cannot be right on another. This hardly seems logical. Have you not been both right and wrong about things over the course of your career?

- either the Constitution allows hand-held weapons regardless of their power or not. if we're going to accept heavily powerful handhelds with powerful shells, then why not let people have nuclear shells. Then the imperialistic government can be watched by the population.

It does not seem that you have a firm understanding of the intent of the founders, nor do you seem to have read the Heller decision which describes what constitute "arms".

Acually, in light of the bush regime, it may not be a bad thing to have a heavily armed citizenry to fight their fascism back.

Exactly so. This is precisely the intent of the founders.

[SteveM]

143. WOW! You hit it on the head! Thank you...

"Actually, in light of the bush regime, it may not be a bad thing to have a heavily armed citizenry to fight their fascism back."

I have been saying to gun-controllers some time: "If you think fascism is a real threat, how can you support gun control?"

If someone supports gun-control, yet warns us of impending fascism, then their's is a make-believe argument best suited for happy hour at the local pub. But if one is SERIOUS about the impending threat of fascism, you can no more turn over to the government the ability to seize your arms than to turn over to the government the right to enter your house.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. I really don't even know where to start.

Well, let's start with high-capacity weapons. The 1784 Girandoni Repeating Rifle. It's a 20-shot compressed air rifle. Used by the Austrian military, carried by Meriwether Lewis during the Lewis and Clark expedition. Same caliber as a musket, which often came in .46 and .50 caliber. So there's your 'assault weapon', available on the market and fielded by one nation in battle before the 2nd Amendment was ratified.

High powered sniper rifles are hunting rifles. Anything you can kill a deer with, you can slaughter a human with. To say nothing of actual big game, like moose, elk, rams, bears, etc.

Pretty much any firearm can penetrate a wall. Most can penetrate multiple walls. Even a .22 has been able to penetrate an exterior wall of a home with enough remaining force and mass to kill a human being.

Machine guns are tightly controlled, and have been since 1934. In some states they cannot even be purchased. Everywhere else, they are registered, people applying for them pay a $200 tax, are subject not to a NICS check, but a full background check, are subject to periodic verification they still own the weapon by the BATFE, etc.



If a terrorist amongst us can obtain weapons, I certainly want one too.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

177. Machine guns are legal?

Legal for whom? How did the NRA get that law passed?

David

[Irreverend IX]

24. Is that so?

The absolute lowest estimates for the number of defensive gun uses per year are around 100,000, much more than the number of yearly gun homicides.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[The Doctor.]

54. Not true.

The number of defensive gun uses in America every year is very high.


http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck1.html

Marvin Wolfgang, the late Director of the Sellin Center for Studies in Criminology and Criminal Law at the University of Pennsylvania, considered by many to be the foremost criminologist in the country, wrote in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995:


"I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police ... What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. <"Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, published in that same issue of The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology> The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. ...I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart Studies. ... the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ... The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well."

http://hematite.com/dragon/gunclock_stats.html

[Greyhound]

90. Thanks for the links, got 'em bookmarked for when I have the time. n/t

:kick:

[eridani]

98. Data on defense incidents are unreliable because of the definition problem

Just because someone says an incidence was defensive doesn't mean that it was. I had a friend from grad school who liked to go camping alone. She went armed for safety, and on one occacion a couple of men turned off the trail toward her campsited. She got her gun and aimed it at them, making herself very visible. They turned around and left.

Defense? How could she have known it was an attack? Not criticizing her--better not to take the chance. They might have been looking for directions and concluded that it would be dangerous to ask a crazy person. Or they could have had much worse intentions.

I say "had" because she during her last year of life she was dealing with some serious depression, and committed suicide with that gun.

[The Doctor.]

147. Then you didn't read what Wolfgang, a major control advocate, said about the study.

Please read these things before making unqualified statements. These surveys employ meticulous methodology. Even under the most stringent criteria, there are Defensive Gun Uses numbering in the several hundred thousands per year.

[emilyg]

55. Yes.

Stories as that are all too common in Atlanta. Children killing other children or themselves.

[SteveM]

145. No:

See #141 above. The best way to avoid "children killing other children" is to not only keep firearms stored safely (the reason for the continuing drop in firearms accidents among kids), but to train children in how firearms work; their safe use, differences among different types, loading, unloading, capabilities, etc. This will take some of the vulgar, T.V.-driven "mystique" out of guns and allow kids to become responsible about gun use, even if they never choose to obtain one.

[HughMoran]

78. The problem with that argument

...is that you are making a statement without facts behind it, so it's more of a "belief" - which is fine, but don't be surprised that you got taken to task on this.

[Jack_DeLeon]

83. I dont think there are more cases of kids being killed

but there are probably more "stories" about kids being killed than there are about criminals being killed since that probably makes for a more emotional story.

[samsingh]

87. emotion is important.

[aspergris]

105. if you actually looked at statistics vs. emotional rhetoric

you'd realize there are far more stories of kids drowning, and dying from falls than dying from unintional firearm incident.

Iow, they are exceedinly rare.

So, before you bet, it might behoove you to actually look at reality.

[SteveM]

140. Have any data for this assertion?

"I betcha there's double the stories where a kid got his dads gun and accidentally killed his friend."

From Outdoor Life, May, 2007, p. 12: "A new report from the National Safety Council indicates that accidental firearms-related fatalities remain at record lows, and accidents involving youths (fell 40% between 1995 & 2005) continue to decline significantly."

Whatcha got to show?

[aquart]

2. Big whoop. A tall cast iron candlestick is really good, too.

[Pavulon]

6. with a sucking chest wound?

probably not. Guns even the playing field in encounters involving women and men.

Karate, judo, all that stuff is a joke.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

22. Karate is a joke?

So I guess those 5 guys that I used my years of Karate training on, to get them off of the one guy they had hammered into Corned Beef Hash, were really just doubled over with laughter.

As ghod is my witness, I never even thought of that possibility. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[exothermic]

25. We are so fortunate to have Mr. Walter Mitty in our presence!

:silly:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

28. No, it really happened.

Now, you can blow me to apologize.

[exothermic]

30. Well, I dunno...which head is the scheiss on?

:shrug:

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

34. You know...

Jerks like you really bring this place so far down.

[Bonobo]

26. I want to hear the story. Please.

I have been training for 4 years. I want to hear your story if you wouldn't mind sharing publicly or in PM.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

32. I was bouncing in a bar.

5 guys set upon one of our regulars in the parking lot, had him down, and were making much of his face. I ran out, lifted one off the pile by his windpipe and tossed him, he came back, grabbed me in an attempted guillotine, another kicked me in the ribs, I threw the grabbing one over my back, sent a yoko geri in the direction of the kicker and he took off, stood my ground, and it was over.

I hurt for a month after from the kick, as a rib was cracked and intercostals bruised. But they stopped beating up the guy and that was the point.

[Bonobo]

38. Good going.

Took a lot of balls to run into the parking lot with those numbers!

He grabbed you in the guillotine because you had your head down or he was really tall?

I forgot what style you do. Was it Shotokan? Kyokushin?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

39. Tall.

Isshinryu

[AtheistCrusader]

136. So you were seriously injured.

If they had pressed the point, what would you have done? Assume these people had similar hand to hand combat skills as your own. Exactly how screwed would you have been?


Granted, most people with real training aren't cheap parking lot thugs, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.

[The Doctor.]

159. You were very, very lucky.

Well done though.

I'm not a big fan of Japanese-style striking... just too rigid, and only ever good for one opponent at a time.


Usually during a scuffle like yours, others would be coming out of the bar too. I have little doubt that helped them make up their mind to piss off.

Either way, that was brave, stupid, and nonetheless your duty at the time and you did well.

Kudos :thumbsup:

[Pavulon]

36. Chuck Norris

if 5 guys want to hurt you the playing field is not leveled by karate.

That is why police carry sidearms. Infantry training does not focus on judo or hand to hand.

The comment was "if you are using this, someone has really fucked something up"

Given a 5'2" woman with a 38 and your training 12 feet away, you will be in the dirt every time.

A 5 on 1 beating meets the requirement of deadly force.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

40. Ya, Da. Ya. Da.

And sometimes you just don't have a gun handy and you have to act.

And you would be amazed how much one motivated person can accomplish.

[spin]

52. My daughter trained for years in judo...

and fortunately her instructor was one of the best in the country.

Ed Maley holds an 8th degree black belt in judo and black belts in other martial arts.
http://www.floridaschoolofjudo.net/

I've heard him say that a man with a gun is a 9th degree black belt. He also would agree with your assessment that you would have little chance against 3 or more opponents.

He did teach methods of disarming a person armed with a gun at a distance, but warned that you would probably get shot. He always recommended that if you were faced by a bad guy with a firearm, that you look into his eyes. "The eyes are the mirror of the soul", he would say. "If you believe the person intends to shoot you, use the techniques I teach. If all he wants is your money, just give it to him. You can always replace your wallet and everything that's in it. You can't replace your life".

Real life bears little resemblance to action movies.

[samsingh]

66. yes, but the Karate way, no one died. with the gun way, some

people would have been blown away.

[tburnsten]

110. The thing about guns is

When a person or group of people, like that case, is presented with a victim or good samaritan with a gun, they know that their numbers and physical advantage has just shrunk to a very small quantity, and that the consequences of continuing their threatening behavior are very serious, and will be to their dteriment.

And not everyone is Steven Segall.

[samsingh]

123. that's true

[gorfle]

113. I have no problem with this. n/t.

[samsingh]

122. chuck norris is a repug asshole.

[JNelson6563]

41. Karate is good, one finger karate even better

Since I've not had years of training in karate I'd fare better with a gun. Since I don't own a gun if I were up against someone with a gun it'd be all over for me. An assailant with no gun, well, they'd have a chance but, I was abused as a child so it's not easy to get the jump on me. I can take a beating and still fight back. Ask my brothers, poor bastards. ;)

Julie

[Irreverend IX]

44. I've studied unarmed combat for years...

And one thing I've heard repeatedly from people who've been there and done that is that the only time you should fight unarmed is if you're naked in a big empty room with one foot nailed to the floor. The usefulness of hand-to-hand fighting techniques drops precipitously when one of your opponents has a knife or a chunk of rebar. Beating up drunken dumbasses is good fun, but entering any remotely serious violent situation with nothing but your bare hands is suicidal.

[The Doctor.]

157. Very true.

As one Sifu, Barry Blair, once said to his class; "If they're bigger than you, you lose. If there's more than one of them, you lose, if they're armed and you're not, you lose."

Then one 12 year-old girl in his class stood up and said; "Yeah, but what if I'm very well trained?"

Standing 6'4", Barry looked down at her and said; "I'm very well trained."



I can say this though; with my training, I have a hell of a lot better chance of dealing with a moderately armed opponent than without it.

Better to have than not I would say.

[Sanctified]

45. How well does Karate work for the physically disabled. n/t

[spin]

53. Some martial arts techniques can still work...

There is an excellent program on National Geographic Channel called "Fight Science" that's well worth watching.

Of course, a lot depends on the extent of the disability.

[samsingh]

65. also, people who learn Karate and martial arts not

only learn to defend themselves, but also learn discipline and philosophy, so they tend to use their knowledge more wisely.

how long does it take to purchase a gun, learn to use it, and then in a fit of anger, pull the trigger indiscriminately?

[benEzra]

165. Guns and other martial arts are NOT mutually exclusive.

They are complementary, IMO. And to be really good with a gun, you have to approach it in a zen-like way. Shooting is not like Hollywood action movies, any more than the martial arts are like a kung fu flick with actors sailing around on wires.

[gorfle]

112. Good for you.

I also had fairly extensive martial arts training. But even my instructor said - martial arts training is no match for a gun.

Martial arts are great, and I applaud those who are good at them. But there are many who never will be. Firearms provide deadly defensive capabilities to anyone with hardly any training.

You know the old saying: "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

It goes doubly for fists.

[The Doctor.]

156. "Years of Karate training"....

TS, I've studied hand-to-hand and full-contact martialism for decades.

I studied Hung-Gar Kung fu under Ting-Fong-Wong at the Golden Dragon Academy... most people can't handle that level of training.
I studied Kodokan Judo under Mel Ginter, a guy that rises to all of 5'4" and could turn 6'4" HtH Marine Specialist into a pile of broken bits even at the age of 75.
I've studied various forms of Tae-Kwon-Do, Grappling, Boxing, Mui-Thai, and even a little Chi-na.

And I can tell you one thing for damn certain; One guy does not defeat five aggressive opponents with ANY level of training, even if he gets the drop on them unless;

- That one guy is the luckiest bastard on the planet at that moment.
- Those opponents are drunk as all fuck.
- A more likely combination of the above.

Seriously, such a thing strains credulity. I did deal with two assailants once HtH... barely, and my level of training (though I'll admit I've let myself go a bit soft) rivals or matches that of anyone who isn't at least at the UFC level.

Even the guys in the UFC know they couldn't take on five aggressive opponents.


Now, you know damn well that you'll always be cool in my book :thumbsup: ...

-But I'd love to get some details on the incident so I can figure out how you did it, and I'd really like to know about your training.

If you want to talk throws and strikes and stuff too... I'm all about that. :D



So what went down?

[trumad]

8. Really---

I found many hits for accidental shootings and just a few for stories like the OP.

[Pavulon]

12. Most are crimes. No such thing as accident.

there is negligent discharge, which is an article 15. Guns do not go bang without human intervention.

If you leave a weapon where a kid gets to it you are a criminal. End of story.

Suicide is the majority of gun death.

[samsingh]

67. what about the guy who just killed some people in a Church using a gun?

don't people have the right to pray without the worry of being shot?

[Name removed]

173. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Popol Vuh]

18. Really...

It took me all but two seconds to just find this Link

Also, if you search my post history you'll find that I myself am alive today because of the right to keep and bare arms. I had two individuals who were breaking into my previous house. I was on the phone with the 911 operator and the police got to me pretty quickly, but, it wouldn't have been quick enough if I hadn't had a gun which luckily I didn't have to pull the trigger. The moment those two guys saw me they stopped and after a brief moment of eye contact between us they looked at my gun and ran away.

Guarantee you that 90% of the people who have your opinion would change their minds on this issue if they ever found themselves in this kind of situation. Because let me tell you when you're facing a situation like this it is EXTREMELY scary on top of it being very deadly.

[samsingh]

68. that is compelling. i'm glad you're okay.

[Popol Vuh]

82. Thanks samsingh

And believe it or not I am glad I didn't have to hurt either one of them. Although if either one of them would have take one more step toward me it would have been a very bad day for him.

[samsingh]

85. being in your place, i would have done the same.

[exothermic]

3. My mom ran off a burglar years ago when she was 80 with a six-shooter

that I gave her in 1960 and taught her to shoot. She didn't actually have a clear shot but put 2 bullets into the wall near him and he got away.
Unfortunately. But she was unharmed...a few months earlier an old couple in her neighborhood was home-invaded and beaten severely then robbed.

[DesertFlower]

7. my husband and i own several

handguns for personal protection.

[trumad]

9. What---one in every room.....

Where do you live??? Iraq?

[DesertFlower]

14. we have separate bedrooms.

we each keep one in our nightstand. i used to carry 1 in my glove compartment. hubby has a "concealed carry" permit. our total is 5. 2 are mine -- 3 are his.

i like the idea that if someone were to get passed our security system we could defend ourselves. i'm seriously considering getting a taser -- they are legal here. i really don't want to shoot anyone. i'd rather give them a "jolt" while waiting for the police to arrive.

we're originally from queens, new york where only the bad guys had the guns.

[samsingh]

70. but what's got us to the point where someone needs

a security system
five guns
and potentially a taser

to feel safe in their home? what's happened to sociey?

Most other industrialized countries have a much lower level of violence.

[DesertFlower]

118. don't know.

my son was born in 1961. my grandmother (a devout catholic) said to me "child, don't have anymore children -- the world is not a nice place anymore". well i thought it was pretty good in the 60s. i felt safe walking in the streets at night. i felt safe in my apartment. i often wonder what would grandma say about the way things are today.

[SteveM]

148. Since you asked...

"...to feel safe in their home? what's happened to society?

Most other industrialized countries have a much lower level of violence."

Most other societies do, because those societies are different than ours. In the U.S., we have very poor social services and tens of millions without health insurance (I'm one of them). Ours is rampant capitalism which now has both political parties on the take, thereby preventing any significant changes to correct: poor education, crappy family life, poor (or no) jobs, discrimination, etc. Since the "liberal" tradition of the Democratic Party has jettisoned itself of any meaningful attempts to correct these problems (the Great Society era being the last), most post-LBJ progressives have chosen to fixate on various forms of prohibition, esp. guns and drugs.

BTW, in England where a government-enforced gun-ban is in effect, the crime rates have traditionally been low, even when there were very few laws controlling guns (gun control started in earnest in the early 20th Century). Of course, England's violent crime rate has been expanding rapidly in the last few years, laws or no.

[The Doctor.]

170. What I've been saying for years... dead on the money.

It has little or nothing to do with 'the number of guns' in our society or even 'lax gun laws' and everything to do with 'culture' and economics.

If one looks at the number of crimes per gun in America, it is astonishingly low. Also, between 1991 and 2004, the rate of gun deaths went down by over 30% while the number of guns rose by 70 million.

What happened during that period?

Prosperity and security.

That seems to be the key.

[Schema Thing]

10. That second story is a lousy voucher for arming people.

It turned out really badly.


Might it have been worse w/o a gun? Maybe. Probably not though. The men were masked, meaning they meant to not be identified. Dead people don't identify.


For guns to make sense in practical (not constitutional) terms, they must save more lives than they take.


I always wonder in a case like this "what did this woman learn?". I mean seriously, was she not aware that this could happen back when she was opposed to guns? That's just stupid.


Why hasn't she become an advocate for guard dogs, or super strong security doors and locks on houses?

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DesertFlower]

16. bullshit.

i don't know what you're problem is. if you don't want one fine, but don't put down those who do.

[samsingh]

71. there is something about a balance of power

the more people that have guns, the more will need them for defense.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. And how does that theory work out in Switzerland?

I consider them pretty civilized, and a very safe place to visit. Possession in the home of real Assault Rifles I cannot even purchase in the US is mandated in that country. Yet it is a very safe country.

Granted, other countries with higher rates of firearm ownership than the US have serious crime problems.

There are factors at work here, beyond the simple possession and ownership of firearms that drives criminal behavior.

[SteveM]

150. I don't see the balance...

"the more people that have guns, the more will need them for defense."

Where is the logic in this?

The Brady Bunch has for some time been saying: "more guns equals more crime." This is totally unfounded since over the last 10 - 15 years the number of firearms in U.S. civilian hands has gone up by nearly 100,000,000; yet the homicide rate by guns has fallen.

[spin]

23. I've known a lot of people who own guns...

none of whom I would describe as "chickenshits".

Please explain your derogatory comment with an intelligent reason for your statement.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Retired AF Dem]

37. Why dont you call the

600,000+ cops in the USA chickenshits for carrying handguns? I carry a handgun everyday, why don't you come on down here to where I live and call me one? People are such tough guys on the internet. Go away and get back to your video game.

[Lyric]

81. What are you gonna do if he does? Shoot him?

Are you insane? WTF?

That kind of threatening macho posturing is exactly why handguns should be banned. If people with your attitude are armed, other people should have the right to see you (and your gun) coming.

Jesus.

[tburnsten]

128. He'd probably just spank him

and send him crying home to mommy. If telling someone to stop smearing great swaths of their fellow citizens for no particular reason other than the fact that he's never gotten a chance to shoot before, and thinks everything is just the way hollywood portrays it is "macho posturing", then how do you classify someone calling at least a million fellow citizens "chickenshit" because they happen to have one more tool in their pocket than he does?

[SteveM]

151. How 'bout a sock on the jaw? Quit trying to ban, ban, ban...(nt)

[DerekG]

57. Atomic bombs are for lunatics

Posters sporting Harry Truman avatars chastising gun owners. Rich.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Popol Vuh]

117. Oh looks like we have a keyboard commando over here

Internet tough guy. LMAO @ U...

[DesertFlower]

119. with all due respect

you don't know WTF you're talking about.

[tburnsten]

129. Actually mine is a highly effective

anti-paper armament, that sees regular use dispatching the vile silhouettes of evil!

Why do you insist on showing how ignorant you are? Depending on your location, I bet you see people every day who are a part of your life and carry than you would ever know. We are not all ninjas, we are not all Jet Li, we are not all twenty and at the peak of fitness. And some of us have others to take care of, so running off wouldn't be an option, regardless of how effective it might be for our individual safety. You only have to outrun the slowest member of your family right?

[NickB79]

64. Agreed. We should replace them all with 12-gauge shotguns

That's what worked for me last time.

[Lyric]

79. Yep. My Dad always said the same thing.

He told us that the only excuse for owning a handgun is to kill a person. At least rifles and shotguns can be used to procure food. He believed that handguns were for cowards who wanted their firearms to be kept a secret.

I personally would like to see the demise of any firearm that can be easily hidden.

[Tejas]

99. Why?

"I personally would like to see the demise of any firearm that can be easily hidden."

Because someone said so? You're gonna need to bring a whole lot more than that.



"My sister said that people who despise handguns are cowards."


See how that works?

[SteveM]

153. With respect, your Dad is wrong...

In our family, we had rifles, shotguns and handguns; the first two categories were for hunting, the latter was for target practice and self-defense. He is quite right about wanting a handgun "...to be kept a secret," especially from anyone who should choose to break-and-enter my home. I don't tell anyone outside of long-trusted friends that I have a handgun. It is easy for any troll to call someone on these threads a coward (which should throw another light on the meaning of "cowardice"). Try listening to folks when they explain WHY they have handguns.

Your personal likes concerning guns are not constitutionally-protected, BTW.

[Name removed]

149. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

19. Guns probably save many more lives then they take...

statistics are often unreliable on both sides of this issue.

I've personally never had to use a weapon for self defense, however both my daughter and my mother used handguns to stop attacks. My mother was returning from work many years ago and a man rushed her from some bushes. She fired two shots over his head and he ran. My daughter pointed a large caliber revolver at a man making entry to our house by prying open a sliding glass door. We did have a large Labrador Retriever in the house and the burglar alarm was blaring. The sight of the large revolver discouraged the intruder.

As in most cases of self defense with a gun, these incidents never were recorded for statistical purposes.

[Schema Thing]

29. I find that highly unlikely

I would love to see a well researched study on the issue though.

[spin]

33. Although I'm on the opposite side of the issue...

so would I.

Like too many other issues, finding reliable statistics is a daunting task.

[samsingh]

72. i don't think there are any statistics to show that guns save

more lives then they take. i think incidents like Columbine really push the numbers up on the guns take lives side.

i do agree that guns save specific lives and so its not fair to say that they don't help in situations.

but, it's also true that the more guns there are, the more innocent people will die either through accidents or lunatics using them. Also, people who are depressed, in their lowest times, could also use them.

[Irreverend IX]

109. Did you read my guncite link?

If not, here it is again:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

The vast majority of defensive gun uses are never reported to authorities, because they involve no shots being fired and the sight of the weapon is enough to scare away the aggressor. Columbine-like shootings are no more than statistical noise; the bulk of gun murders in the US are gang members killing each other, and the best way to eliminate those deaths would be to legalize drugs.

[samsingh]

124. i despise the use of words like 'bulk'

they don't mean anything, and by their nature, suggest that there are incidents where innocent people are being killed.

don't we care about them?

[spin]

135. I think we all care about innocent people being killed...

There are different approaches to solving this problem. Draconian gun laws fail mainly because criminals by nature don't obey laws. Honest citizens do and consequently lose the ability to defend their innocent lives.

Until we can reduce the root causes of violence such as drug related crime, gun ownership by honest people will be important. While reliable statistics proving that gun ownership by responsible people can save lives is unavailable, I believe that anecdotal evidence proves beyond a doubt that firearms do deter some human predators.

I personally believe that guns save more lives then they take on a yearly basis, but let's assume that they only save 1/2 as many. Would it be better that those lives would be added to the total.

[spin]

130. So maybe what we need to do...

is first to insure that only honest, responsible and sane individuals can legally purchase firearms.

Then we need to work on the root causes of violence with include poverty, lack of education, lack of opportunity, racism and addiction and abuse of both legal and illegal drugs including alcohol.

Finding solutions to problems like these will prove extremely difficult and expensive.

We need to face up to the fact that our "War on Drugs" is an abysmal failure. Drug gangs engage in turf warfare and not only kill other gang members but also innocent bystanders. We need to find a way to take the profit motive out of drug dealing. Perhaps some drugs should be legalized.

Our education system is failing our children. Perhaps we need to move education into this century. Why do we continue to teach as we did 100 years ago. Interactive computer programs that allow students to move at their own pace might revolutionize education. Watch how involved teenagers are in games like World of Warcraft https://signup.worldofwarcraft.com/trial/
It should be quite possible to develop interesting interactive computer programs that teach basic skills in order to advance to higher levels.

We need to encourage companies to keep good paying and rewarding jobs in the United States. Not much sense in investing the time and money to become an engineer when your job may get outsourced to India.

If we can solve some of these major problems, we may find violence decreasing and less demand for firearms.

I grew up in the late 50's and early 60's. Our society was far different then. Few people owned firearms for self defense or felt any need to. Hell, we used to leave the doors to our house unlocked.

We probably will never be able to reduce violence to the levels of that time, but we can try.

[tburnsten]

131. Not really

As awful as events like school shootings are, they are statistically almost insignificant. Drug killings and robberies where the robber for whatever reason decides to murder his victim are far more common, and I don't mean like four or five times more common, but so much more common that they don't even make local news in the places most awash in violence, while any "random" shooting will make national news, such as the church shooting in tennessee. Firearms do not cause violence, and their presence does not cause violence. Violent crime is a lifestyle choice made by career criminals, and the only way to deal with that is to take the money out of the career choice, and the prestige out of the lifestyle. Instead of glorifying that sort of nonsense why not make examples of the jackoffs who FINALLY achieve life without parole after years of catch and release sentences? Such as the character who killed the officer in Killadelphia after robbing a bank, who was released shortly before the robbery 44 YEARS before he was set to finish his sentence.

And many "gun accidents" are actually suicides, that is almost always what "gun discharged while he was cleaning it" means. It's a way to be more gentle on the family members.

[SteveM]

154. Well, the data are out there...

Just how many people have been killed in Columbine-type shootings?

"but, it's also true that the more guns there are, the more innocent people will die either through accidents or lunatics using them. Also, people who are depressed, in their lowest times, could also use them."

This is a variation on the Brady "more guns equal more crimes" bologna. We have had a big increase in the number of firearms held in civilian hands, but the homicide rate in the U.S. has dropped significantly over the last 10-15 years. Their bumper sticker slogan holds no water. People in their "lowest times" could indeed use guns and do. They could also use other means. In Japan, where guns are nearly non-existent -- except in the possession of criminals and the government -- the suicide rate is much higher than in the U.S. How do you think they accomplish suicide?

[benEzra]

166. "Incidents like Columbine" are so rare as to make national news when they happen.

Most gun violence in this country is committed by career criminals who could not legally own a gun if they wanted to. Case in point, in Chicago so far this year, 97 percent of murderer suspects had prior arrest records.

http://egov.cityofchicago.org/webportal/COCWebPortal/COC_EDITORIAL/March08CrimeStats.pdf

The person with no record going out and killing a bunch of people is the rarest of all gun crimes, and in many cases it turns out they had committed acts of violence before and were just never prosecuted (as in the UU church shooting) or had been involuntarily committed and never entered into NICS.

[east texas lib]

13. Mrs. Gonzales chose survival. Glad she had the will and the tools.

Sooner or later a criminal will meet up with someone that wants to live a lot more than they do.
Home invasion is a very risky activity, and eventually someone will pull your card.

[baldguy]

15. And the Constitution has to do with this how?

A handful of people "defending" themselves with a gun - including the nuts who shoot anyone who rings their doorbell - does not make up for the 10,000 people murdered with firearms each year.

[spin]

27. Do you honestly feel that it would have been better...

if the woman had not had a gun and died?

If you do, that's truly sad.

[exothermic]

35. Believe it or not, there actually are some people here who believe exactly that.

They think the concept of self-defense is either anachronistic or Republican. There is no explaining that kind of insanity.

[spin]

48. Unfortunately very true...

and there is little chance that any argument can change their mind.

It's worth the effort to try and it's a hell of a lot more challenging and entertaining to post here rather than some pro-gun site where everybody agrees with you.

[samsingh]

75. they would be in the minority. i believe in strong defense

[bowens43]

97. the insanity is that there are those

who think that because once in great while someone manages to defend themselves with a gun rather then kill themselves or a family member that gun restrictions should not exist. The fact is that a p0erson is better off using a big dog for protection in the home than a gun.

[tburnsten]

132. How'dja come up with that little claim?

How exactly is a big dog, IE an animal easily neutralized by either a piece of meat, a blunt object, or a (gasp) GUN that may or may not take the initiative to clamp down on a home invader better than a firearm, an object that YOU train with, instead of attempting to train IT, that YOU make the ultimate determination of IF and WHEN with anyway? And I don't know about you, but I've never seen a shotgun fall asleep before. They just go dormant.

[baldguy]

42. Do you honesty believe that public policy should be determined by anecdotal stories

rather than real evidence? With 200 million weapons in circulation, its inevitable that one or two such incidents will not end in tragedy. But its also inevitable that thousands will.

Remember, thousands of Americans are murdered every year - men, women & children - for your "right" to keep your gun porn.

[Pavulon]

43. Propose a fix

ban it all , like drugs. That worked well.

Most gun death is suicide, many more are drug related killings.

Shootings in churches and malls make up the very rare outliers.

More die in er "accidents" and in car "accidents".

[samsingh]

76. other countries don't have the same problem. why is it different here?

[benEzra]

167. Our insanely militaristic approach to the drug issue, our lack of access to mental health care,

our inner city economic blight, our utterly dysfunctional urban schools in many areas, largest income gap of any developed nation, and extreme distrust between some of the most-victimized communities and the authorities who are supposed to be protecting them.

The fact that Americans work the longest hours with the least time off, and the least family time, of any First World nation (including Japan) probably doesn't help either.

Having said that, the sky isn't falling quite as badly as some on the ban-people's-guns side might suggest:





At least things are moving in the right direction...

[spin]

47. Many of those people are murdered by irresponsible,...

criminal or extremely insane people. I would like to see efforts directed toward eliminating or reducing gun ownership by those classes of people.

While it is totally impossible to prevent all misuses of firearms and equally impossible to ban all firearms, perhaps wise legislation can help reduce needless violence in our society.

Of course, there are extremely difficult problems that we face that lead to gun violence. Poverty, education, opportunity and criminal gangs that fight turf wars to gain a bigger share of the illegal drug market are merely some examples.

Seriously, I believe that guns prevent far more violence than you do. I also agree that my evidence is anecdotal. I personally have heard many stories from friends and relatives in which they used a firearm to avert violence. These stories rarely appear in any statistics, but they more than likely are based in fact.

It is indeed possible that the intruder who was breaking into my home would have raped or killed my daughter had she not pointed a revolver at him. I have no regret that I had taught her how to shoot at an early age and that I had payed for years of judo training which allowed her to control her fear and end the event without anyone being injured. I now have two wonderful grandchildren to enjoy. You may feel that this story is merely an anecdote, but let me assure you that's it's true.

To me a gun is not "porn", but merely a tool to at least give me a chance against a person who has no respect for my life or for the life of those I love. Yes indeed, thousands may die each year because of criminal and foolish use of firearms. Even if, as you assume, fewer people use weapons to thwart criminal attack, their lives are valuable and the life of an honest individual who is making a positive contribution to society is well worth saving. Taking the right to own firearms for self defense from honest people would only result in an increase in crimes and murders committed.

My daughter and myself are not irresponsible, criminal or insane. We both have concealed carry permits, which means we have had the training and the criminal background check necessary to obtain this license. Reliable statistics, not anecdotal stories should that the chances of our using a weapon to unnecessarily injure or murder someone is extremely remote.

Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,346,000 permits in twenty years, has revoked only 165 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4200 permits for any reason. <45>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

And from a more reliable site than Wikipedia:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

[baldguy]

49. Registering firearms & licensing gun owners is a far cry

from the wild-west lunacy advocated by gun nuts.

[spin]

56. Registering firearms accomplishes little...

for example in Florida as well as other states, gun registration is not required.

Licensing gun owners may be a good idea. A program similar to the concealed weapons permit program that requires a background check and firearm training might be useful. Many NRA members will disagree, but I believe it would at the minimum reduce tragic accidents.

The wild west wasn't quite as wild as the movies portray.

Though movies and television would like us to believe otherwise, it was very rare when gunfights occurred with the two gunfighters squarely facing each other from a distance in a dusty street. This romanticized image of the Old West gunfight was born in the dime novels of the late 19th century and perpetuated in the film era, to such a point that this fictional version is the what our mind’s eye quickly conjures up when we hear the word “ gunfight.” In actuality, the “real” gunfights of the Old West were rarely that “civilized.”

In fact, there are several misnomers about these “romaticised” gunfights , the first of which is that very rarely, did the gunfighters actually “plan” a gunfight to occur, “calling out” their enemy for dueling action in the street. Instead, most of these many fights took place in the heat of the moment when tempers flared, and more often than not, with the aide of a little bottled courage. They also didn’t occur at a distance of 75 feet, with each gunfighter taking one shot, one falling dead to the ground, and the other standing as a "hero" before a dozen gathered onlookers.

with one or the other falling dead to the ground. Instead, these fights were usually close-up and personal, with a number of shots blasted from pistols, often resulting in innocent bystanders hit by a bullet gone wild. Much of the time, it would be difficult to tell who had even “won” the gunfight for several minutes, as the black powder smoke from the pistols cleared the air.
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/WE-Gunfights.html

[SteveM]

155. Please let me correct you...

Actually, there are probably 290,000,000 firearms in U.S. civilian hands; yet the homicide rate has dropped over the last 10-15 yrs.

"...one or two such incidents"? Check out the data (I won't do it for you) where studies have shown that civilian self-defense with a firearm is quite wide-spread -- and effective. "...inevitable that thousands will " I have given a cite in #141 above, indicating the decrease in accidental shootings of children.

What's this 'right' to keep gun "porn" business? Why do so many folks, advocating prohibition of this or that, compare the object/practice-to-be-banned with pornography? Is it a hold-over from the days of vulgar puritanism and its association with unhealthy sex practices and thoughts?

[samsingh]

73. of course not.

[samsingh]

74. of course not. but i could also ask you

if you are happy that someone took some guns and shot up innocent people (Columbine)? (of course you aren't).

[spin]

89. I am always distressed when someone misuses...

a firearm.

But there is the possibility that if some trained individual would have had access to a firearm, the Columbine incident might have ended differently.

For example these school shooting incidents:

Pearl, Miss. A 16-year-old sophomore entered Pearl High with a hunting rifle under his overcoat. He opened fire, killing two students and wounding seven. The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, ran to his truck and retrieved the .45 automatic he kept there. Running back, he spotted the shooter in the parking lot. Ordering the teen to stop, the vice principal put his gun to the shooter's neck and held him until police arrived.

Grundy, Va. At Appalachian Law School, a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension entered a school building and shot and killed the dean and a professor. He then shot four students, killing one. Hearing the shots fired, two students, Michael Gross and Tracy Bridges, ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. With guns aimed at the shooter, Bridges ordered him to drop his weapon. When the shooter turned and saw Bridges' gun, he laid down his weapon and put his hands in the air.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=44078

Gun free zones merely attract killers with mental problems. To these extremely disturbed individuals, the fact that guns are not allowed on campus merely makes the school a shooting gallery. The same concept may apply to other areas that restrict weapons without providing adequate security.

[samsingh]

125. there is not fact to substantiate that more guns would have made

the outcome at Columbine different.

the fact is that firerms were used to kill a lot of kids at Columbine.

[tburnsten]

139. Had teachers been allowed to carry at work

provided they followed the same rules everyone else who concealed carries does in the state of Colorado, and had at least one teacher at work that day been carrying, then yes, just one more gun in that school would have made a huge difference. At the very least it would have made absolutely no difference, or only made a difference for a single classroom or gathering point. It still would have been a hell of a lot better than those two maniacs having the run of the place to use as a shooting gallery.

[Imagevision]

46. All M$M discount this as a non-story...!

[flvegan]

50. Nothing wrong with using a gun to defend oneself (or another)

from great physical harm or death.

[Popol Vuh]

51. Apparently to some it is

Some people would rather you just die instead. Those same people, with respect to this topic, think the constitution is just a gawd damned piece of paper.

[samsingh]

126. not true. we just don't understand why the innocent people

who are killed by guns don't appear to be of any concern. this is the flip side of how you must feel when you think people would rather have someone die instead of using a gun.

[AtheistCrusader]

134. We do care.

We are of the opinion that private firearm ownership keeps MORE innocent victims out of that 'killed by guns' column. Yes, they can be misused by some people, but they are for the protection of human life. Same reason a Police Officer carries one.

[Dr.Phool]

58. Years ago, I used to study kung fu from a little chinese guy in his garage.

He only took on a few students. He kept a whole collection of ancient chinese weaponry displayed in his garage, that we would eventually would have to learn to use.

One evening another student asked him if he wasn't afraid that someone would steal all his stuff in the garage.

He said "No, I have .44 magnum in house".


Another story.

Two years ago, I was working the Publix parking lot, getting signatures to get a friend of mine on the ballot for Congress. I was approached by this big redneck, who looked like Grizzly Adams.

He came over and started bitching about Democrats taking away his guns. I said that we had no problems with guns, in fact I have several at home.

In his most intimidating voice he said, "I'm a 9 millimeter in the belt republican". I had to laugh at this big guy and say, "Just what in the fuck are you so scared of"?


Submitted for your enjoyment.

[samsingh]

60. a lot of lunatics shoot first and kill innocent people who have guns they

can't get to.

[Lyric]

77. Coincidental that this thread subject pops up on a day when someone

shoots up a church?

I think not.

Propaganda and damage control. You haz them.

[WhollyHeretic]

86. Just what I was thinking

One story was 3+ weeks old and the other a week and a half old and they get posted today

[Popol Vuh]

88. Not as coincidental as the irony of your choice of avatars

:P

[Lyric]

91. No irony there.

I don't believe for a moment that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own whatever *kind* of weaponry that we want. Limitations on types are perfectly acceptable--otherwise civilians could own fully automatic weapons, after all.

The SCOTUS agreed with the other side. For now. We'll see about that when the court isn't stacked with right-wingers.

:P

[Popol Vuh]

92. I don't believe anyone here advocated owning "whatever kind" of weapon without limitations

Refer to my #84 post above: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3686304#3687609


;)

[NickB79]

93. Civilians already CAN own fully automatic firearms

http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/162/2/Guns/Rifles/Class-3-Rifles.htm

Civilian-legal fully automatic firearms have been sold for almost a century in the US.

[Lyric]

95. According to Wikipedia:

Class III dealers may sell fully-automatic firearms manufactured prior to May 19, 1986, and other federally registered firearms and devices restricted under Title II of the Gun Control Act, to individuals who obtain approval from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury after payment of a tax and clearance following a criminal background check.

So...the fully-automatic weapons can't have been manufactured after 1986, and you need governmental approval, to pay a special tax, and submit to a background check before being permitted to purchase one. Sounds pretty restrictive to me, although I'm surprised that civilians are permitted to own them at all. Still--I could live with it if handguns were subject to those exact standards, along with severe increases in the penalty for committing a crime with a firearm. Including the crime of owning one illegally.

And of course, that doesn't count the individual states that have their own bans in place. It certainly isn't legal to own an automatic weapon *everywhere* in the USA. If states are permitted to pass their own gun regulations in regard to automatic weapons, the same should be permitted in regard to handguns.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_law_in_the_United_States

[Tejas]

100. clue:

For those that "think" they know the subject of firearms laws, "governmental approval" is already mandatory when buying through an FFL and some FFL's charge "a special tax" (up to $50!!!) for you to aquire that approval.


Now go Wiki all of that.

;)

[tburnsten]

142. Why do you dislike handguns so much?

And why do you feel they are such a hazard to the life and limb of all?

So you think that the only people who should be able to effectively defend themselves are those with an above average income? You sir are a jackass.

[gorfle]

114. fully automatic weapons.

I don't believe for a moment that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to own whatever *kind* of weaponry that we want. Limitations on types are perfectly acceptable--otherwise civilians could own fully automatic weapons, after all.

You are aware that civilians can own fully automatic weapons today, right?

The SCOTUS agreed with the other side. For now. We'll see about that when the court isn't stacked with right-wingers.

You are aware that all nine justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, right?

[samsingh]

127. the scotus's opinion on anything is meaningless

most of them are political hacks. they don't uphold the Constitution as a hole, only the pieces that they are wined and dined or paid to do.

[spin]

138. In your opinion the SCOTUS is meaningless...

Did your high school offer civics classes?

I would suggest that your opinion and indeed the opinions of 99.9% of the posters on DU or FreeRepublic are indeed meaningless. The Supreme Court's opinion, while many will debate it, is extremely meaningful.

Consider for example, Roe v Wade.

[samsingh]

144. i only think this SCOTUS is meaningless

[spin]

146. Fair enough...

If you are correct the decision will be reversed in the future with a more liberal court.

[DrCory]

171. Meaningless On Anything?

What about the SCOTUS decision on Boumediene v Bush? Do you reject that as well?

[tburnsten]

141. Civilians can own full autos

You really should do some more research, lest you make yourself appear dumb.

Any citizen who undergoes the ATF paperwork and gets their chief law enforcement officer to sign off on it, and pay a $200 tax for EVERY time the weapon is transferred, and is approved, and can afford to pay the ridiculous prices that the registry closing of 1986 have caused may purchase any full auto weapon they please, provided it was manufactured before 1986, or they are a licensed dealer who is getting a "demo" model for use in gaining government contracts.

[SteveM]

160. Correction: 2A doe not "give us the right," it recognizes our right (nt)

[SteveM]

158. Hang around, you'll see plenty of gun-control agit-prop. SEE: archives (nt)

[iverglas]

94. why do I feel

Like I'm sitting at the wrong end of a toilet?

[krispos42]

96. Your plumber is Australian?

:hide:

[Tejas]

101. Is your hair wet?

Did you have a point?

[SteveM]

161. A fixation with blind eels? (nt)

[jody]

102. It's pathetically sad that gun-grabbers will not support Obama, Dem Party, & We the People who say

the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense as in this instance.

[iverglas]

115. my my my

Susan Gonzalez. What a good citizen.

At home, they live behind burglar bars. The doors and windows are always locked. And there's the ever-present pistol.

"That's sad to have to live that way, but it's the only way I can feel comfortable," Susan Gonzalez said.

Her fears were only heightened when she and her husband were crime victims again in March. Burglars used an ax from their shed to break down the burglar bars on the back door while they weren't home. Among the items stolen -- the Ruger .22 she used to shoot Waters.

Police are still recovering weapons taken in the burglary -- a 9mm turned up in Virginia last week -- but the Ruger remains missing.

Someone needs to explain post-traumatic stress to her.

Also that old personal responsibility thing.

[iverglas]

168. be that crickets

I hear?

[AtheistCrusader]

172. Pretty extreme occurance.

Not like she left her door wide open, and flew to Tahiti. I do recommend a Safe, but even that can be defeated by a determined invader with enough time to work on it.


Fortunately, serial numbers are tracked, and can be traced, so if the gun turns up anywhere, it will be confiscated. Unfortunate that it is in the hands of criminals. I would feel terrible if any of mine were used to harm another person, because they were stolen from me.

[tburnsten]

152. Two women defend themselves with a gun...

And it burns some asses on DU :dunce:


Great post Popol.

[Indenturedebtor]

162. Man smokes cigars and drinks whiskey yet lives to be 103 n/t

[SteveM]

163. Kept gun on his night stand (nt)

[Indenturedebtor]

169. LOL n/t

[JoshC]

174. Ugh..

Wasn't this dated in 2000 of July? Political Timing... that is all.