Knee-Jerk gun control reaches new low

What is as predictable as a threatened snowstorm bringing Atlanta to a standstill?  Answer – gun control advocates taking advantage of every shooting incident as an excuse to further restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights.  The recent shooting incident in Tucson, Arizona — involving a clearly deranged individual who shot Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge and several other innocent people – is no exception. 

Doctors had barely announced that Rep. Giffords had survived the shooting, than gun-control legislators in the nation’s capitol began trotting out their latest anti-gun schemes. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrat of New York, was in the forefront of this effort.  Close behind Ms. McCarthy was her Empire State colleague, Republican Peter King.  While most anti-firearms proposals emanating from the Congress are simply ineffective or unworkable; King’s most recent proposal is utterly idiotic. 

In response to the Tucson shooting — in which the gunman showed up at a public, outdoor town hall meeting hosted by Rep. Giffords in the parking lot of a local shopping center — King has proposed what has to be one of the silliest pieces of federal legislation in many a year.  He has suggested the federal criminal code be amended to incorporate a new provision making it illegal for a person to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress. 

One might suppose that – were King’s proposal to actually become law — Members of Congress would have to walk around at all times with some obvious form of identification readily discernible to everyone within 333-1/3 yards of their presence; something that identifies them as a “Member of Congress.”  Perhaps it would be required that every Member at all times wear a large hat with the congressional seal emblazoned thereon; or a distinctly colored sweatshirt with the words, “MEMBER OF THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,” printed thereon in a bright, contrasting color.  

In the absence of such clearly identifying garb, it would be impossible for every individual to know for certain they were within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress; in order to ensure they moved beyond the protective zone or so they could dispose of any firearm they might lawfully be carrying at the time.  Because such scenario would be unworkable in the real world, perhaps the alternative is what King and others really have in mind – forcing everyone to assume at all times that a Member of Congress might be lurking somewhere within 1,000 feet of them, and insofar as every such Member is not necessarily known to every other citizen, one would be forced to presume at all times that such person might be nearby and therefore it never would be safe to carry a firearm. 

The King legislation also would preclude a Good Samaritan lawfully carrying a firearm from using their gun to stop a deranged shooter; such as actually happened in Tucson. 

These possibilities illustrate the idiocy of even considering a federal law to prohibit the carrying of a firearm within a certain number of feet of a Representative or Senator; but it is unlikely King or other gun-control advocates in the Congress engaging in typical, knee-jerk reaction to a shooting incident, will be deterred. 

That it already is a violation of federal law to threaten a Member of Congress or other federal official with a firearm, or to use such a weapon, or even to attempt or conspire to do so, seems irrelevant to King and his anti-gun colleagues.  But in their world, the response to every problem is always to propose more laws rather than simply to recognize that not every deranged person can always be stopped before they commit random or premeditated acts of violence.  In their world also, better and more consistent enforcement of existing laws is secondary always to proposing more laws; no matter how idiotic.

 -by Bob Barr, The Barr Code

166 comments Add your comment

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
11:54 am

From my link in the above post:

Boyd said there are 15 to 20 security people at the church. All are volunteers but the only ones armed are those who are licensed to carry weapons.

MarkV

January 17th, 2011
12:09 pm

mountainpass@11:37
If Mr. Pangloss’ post was the reason for your comment, then you argument is incomprehensible. Dr. Pangloss was essentially right, while you have only introduced the fact that another person, in possession of a gun, in the end participated in holding the killer, ignoring that the gun possession had nothing to do with his help, and ignoring the admission of that person of almost killing an innocent person.

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
12:17 pm

MarkV

Mr. Pangloss left out the FACT that an armed citizen ran to help. If it there had been a law like the one this article is based on then one less person would have been there to help, as the armed citizen would have left the area as he is a law-abiding person.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
12:18 pm

MarkV – If i’m following you, then i believe you’re trying to make something out of an ‘almost’ ‘what if’ statement. Ok so you say the guy had initially identified a good guy who had taken the gun from the assailant as a target and he ‘almost’ shot them. But obviously he did not, so whatever argument you’re trying to make regarding this person failure in judgment for ‘almost’ shooting an innocent person is the same as me going to jail for ‘thinking about’ robbing a liquor store. I really don’t think there’s a lot to argue about there. I don’t think anyone here is trying to make the case that the armed citizen swooped in and saved the day or anything, just the point was made that if the proposed law of 1000 feet barrier had been in place, then an individual who helped restrain the shooter would have either had to retreat instead of assist or would have been charged for a crime for doing nothing other than putting himself in harms way to help another human being. That’s all.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
12:19 pm

So who here thinks that if the 1000 ft. barrier between an armed individual and a congress person was in place, that it would have been an effective deterrent to stop Loughner? Kinda silly now that you think about it like that, isn’t it?

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
12:20 pm

MarkV

Here is a quote from Mr. Barr’s article:

The King legislation also would preclude a Good Samaritan lawfully carrying a firearm from using their gun to stop a deranged shooter; such as actually happened in Tucson.

John

January 17th, 2011
12:25 pm

@mountainpass

“And since he was armed he thought he might could stop the shooting, much like the licensed carrier Mrs. Jeanne Asam helped stop an active gunman at a church in Colorado Springs.”

You left out that he claimed he thought about shooting and had he did, he would have shot at one of the other heroes.

You also mentioned Ms. Asam used to be a police officer which means she has been trained with guns, on gun safety and how to react in such situations.

I believe in one’s rights to guns as given in the 2nd amendment…but the Supreme Court has also ruled the freedoms doesn’t mean unlimited. Most responsible law-abiding gun owners I know believe in sensible gun laws. One of the problems that happen, anytime a sensible law, such as the restriction on large capacity clips, the gun rights lobbyist claim “they’re coming to take our guns away”. We saw that when President Obama was elected, even though there was not evidence to suggest such a thing. Just look at Georgia Carry’s website…the first thing on the page (in large bold letters) it states “GeorgiaCarry.Org is Georgia’s no-compromise voice for gun owners.” No-compromise whatsoever. Just under that, it states “GCO believes that citizens of Georgia and the United States have the right to own and carry the firearm of their choice for any reason other than to commit a crime. ” Notice, it doesn’t not say anything about law-abiding, non-mentally ill citizens right to carry…it says citizens. Felons are still citizens, as well as those with mental illness. Does carrying the firearm of their choice includes bazooka or other “arms” private citizens are currently banned from owning under federal law?

John

January 17th, 2011
12:44 pm

@Dave from Rome

Just as you asked, “So who here thinks that if the 1000 ft. barrier between an armed individual and a congress person was in place, that it would have been an effective deterrent to stop Loughner? Kinda silly now that you think about it like that, isn’t it?”

Who here thinks the same number of people would have been injured or killed if the ban on large capacity clips had not expired? Keep in mind, he was stopped after unloading one clip and was trying to get another clip. Kinda silly letting that ban expire now that you think about it like that, isn’t it?”

John

January 17th, 2011
12:50 pm

mountainpass, do you support sensible gun laws or do you believe that any citizen should be allowed to own any type of “arms” they want?

mountainpass

January 17th, 2011
1:11 pm

John wrote=”You left out that he claimed he thought about shooting and had he did, he would have shot at one of the other heroes.”

I addressed it earlier.

I don’t speak for GCO, but in my opinion:
If these former criminals can become police officers : http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2008/10/12/atlanta_police_academy.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab
Then why can’t a man that served his time have all his rights back?
I mean they let him have a drivers license(privilege not a right), they let him vote(privilege not a right), so if he intends on leading a crime free life, why forbid him the ability to protect himself. If he intends on going back to a life of crime, the law against him owning a firearm will not stop him from procuring one.

Our other rights don’t require training. How much is the training going to cost? Who is going to provide it? How long will the wait be to get it? Show me where the training made a difference in an armed citizen encounter. Where are all the accidents occuring with licensed folks? I like training, it’s a lot of fun, but I don’t think it should be mandated by the government to exercise a right.

Gun Control is a flawed premise, the criminal never follows the law as Mr. Barr has pointed out.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
1:21 pm

John,
is your position that the institution of a ban would have somehow encouraged Loughner to turn in his 30 magazine capacity clip to the nearest police officer? Or kept him from buying one illegally if he chose to? Laws are not deterrents to the unlawful, they are only a means of applying an agreed upon punishment after the fact. Again, it’s silly to think any law would have stopped Loughner. His rhetoric before the incident, at least in my mind, leads me to believe he thought he was going off to his death. What law could stop a man like that? In my humble opinion, there isn’t one. It’s gun control advocates’ belief that these types of weapons and accessories can be removed from America with a law. They cannot. They will remove them from the hands of the lawful, i agree. But gang members will not turn over their weapons. Sick individuals will not turn over their weapons. Criminals will not turn over their weapons. Individuals who know there is a buck to be made selling illegal weapons won’t disappear, they’ll flourish. Look at drugs. Look at prohibition. Those who intend to have the upper hand on the innocent will not turn over their weapons and they won’t be dissuaded to obtain them illegally. The common idea seems to be that these guns, and the owners, will somehow disappear over time. I realistically disagree. It will not take 1 or 2 or 5 years, or even 10 or 20, to remove those people and guns from the population. That element will never be removed. So you end up with an unarmed populace and a well armed and unchallenged criminal opponent. Please review the numbers i posted earlier regarding gun ownership numbers and crime numbers. To suggest this is an anomaly i think would be to disregard a substantial argument for the private ownership of firearms. Violent crimes plummeted when gun ownership rose. 7.1% for murder is a huge number that should be applauded, not disregarded.

MarkV

January 17th, 2011
1:35 pm

Dave from Rome @12:18

If you read my posts, you and mountainepass would have realized that I was not writing about the nonnsensical Peter King’s proposal. I was addressing the issue that has been raised a lot in the past as well as recently, the argument that the presence of armed people would prevent killing like the one in Tucson from happening. The Wild-West mentality of many gun owners.
Your argument that ” this person failure in judgment for ‘almost’ shooting an innocent person is the same as me going to jail for ‘thinking about’ robbing a liquor store” is a total nonsense, there is no comparison. We are talking about a split second decision in the former situation, not “thinking about commiting a felony.”.

John

January 17th, 2011
1:43 pm

mountainpass,

“Our other rights don’t require training. How much is the training going to cost? Who is going to provide it? How long will the wait be to get it? Show me where the training made a difference in an armed citizen encounter. Where are all the accidents occuring with licensed folks?”

Show me where other rights were safety is concerned? As I have previously stated, the Supreme Court has ruled that rights does not mean unlimited. As far as paying for training, an individual who wants a gun can pay for the training…just as some states charge for permits to carry, hunting license, ect. As far as accidents with guns…didn’t Dick Cheney accidentally shoot someone? Was there an accidental shooting a few years ago at a private Republican fundraiser? How many people are accidentally shot each year…from kids and adults playing with guns, hunting accidents, etc.?

I also noticed you talked about rights but didn’t address my point that the 2nd amendment doesn’t use the word guns but uses the word “arms”. Does that mean any citizen has the “right” to own any type of “arms”? Can I own nuclear weapons, bazooka, or other arms with are currently banned for private ownership?

John

January 17th, 2011
1:46 pm

“Gun Control is a flawed premise, the criminal never follows the law as Mr. Barr has pointed out.”

This would conclude that all laws are flawed since criminals never follows the law. Then why have DUI laws, laws banning texting while driving, the list goes on and on.

old shoes

January 17th, 2011
1:51 pm

bummer! getting shot on mlk jr drive on mlk day.

Mary Waterton

January 17th, 2011
2:01 pm

We are not going to ban guns because the Second Amendment protect gun ownership.

We are not going to ban talk radio or FOX news or Tea Party rallies because the loony left wants to use this tragedy for political gain. We are not going to ban heavy metal or rap music on the grounds that lyrics drove Loughner to violence. The First Amendment protects all these.

Rather than waste time on this junk, why don’t democrats introduce some legislation to balance the budget??? Answer: Because democrats don’t give a rat’s rear end about balancing budgets or creating jobs!

John

January 17th, 2011
2:03 pm

“is your position that the institution of a ban would have somehow encouraged Loughner to turn in his 30 magazine capacity clip to the nearest police officer? ”

No, but he did buy these clips legally after the ban had expired. I find it strange that the same people who say sensible laws and bans would not stop criminals from getting guns are the same who believe border fences will stop illegals from coming into the country…I agree in both cases, it will not stop it completely. But there are some bans on types of gun are so heavily regulated, that works. As I stated before, I’m not against a law-abiding citizen’s right to own guns but can you tell me what are these large capacity clips used for other than to kill lots of people in a quick amount of time? How many hunters, for instance, hunt with large capacity clips? Or for defense purposes? Does it take someone 30+ rounds to defend themselves from an intruder?

Congress is the problem, not the solution

January 17th, 2011
2:10 pm

Bullseye – I like the Ruger LCP for a pocket pistol but the Walther PK380 is my favorite.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
2:15 pm

MarkV,
If I’ve failed to make my point thru my illustration then let me just put it this way: I don’t think it’s a legitimate argument to point at something and say it’s wrong when nothing happened. Simple as that. Our individual made a split second decision, and he made the right one. Will everyone always? No. But to say, “Look at what almost happened here!” I think isn’t a firm ground for argument. You want to hold him accountable for what could have happened and didn’t, and you can’t do that. We could ‘what if’ each other to death, if that were the case.
As far as the ‘wild west’ mentality of gun owners, it’s my belief that we’ve been unfairly misrepresented in the media (imagine that?). I don’t know anyone who has the wild west mentality. the ones i know are generally just people who aren’t afraid of guns but respect them and are aware of what they can do in the wrong hands. We love our families and believe in our rights to defend them and ourselves, and we’re generally realists when it comes to what we believe bad people are capable of.

John

January 17th, 2011
3:02 pm

@Dave from Rome

“If I’ve failed to make my point thru my illustration then let me just put it this way: I don’t think it’s a legitimate argument to point at something and say it’s wrong when nothing happened. Simple as that. ”

Just as it is not a legitimate argument to say if more people would have been armed, it would either not have happened or it would have been less sever. But that’s what gun right lobby groups argue. That was immediately said after this incident before it was reveled one guy did have a gun.

I don’t think people question your love for your family or your right to defend them and yourself. Bur for some reason, we don’t seem to be able to have a sensible, rational discussion in this country when it comes to guns. For instance, what is the purpose of large capacity clips of 30+ rounds? Do you carry a gun loaded with 30+ rounds to protect yourself and your family? Do you carry, or is there a need to, carry a gun capable of shooting down an airplane to protect your family? Does yoru right under the 2nd amendment include your right to use cop killing bullets? So called plastic guns, claimed to be capable of being undetected via metal detectors are banned. I understand some argue there are no such thing, still it is banned. It the technology exist, should they be banned? While I support rights to protect yourself and your family, I also support sensible gun laws, which include bans on mentally ill from owning guns, felons from owning guns, bans on some types of guns and other “arms” as well as certain types of bullets.

Daniel Boone

January 17th, 2011
3:37 pm

I guess the members of congress must figure they got a good reason to be afraid of folks with guns.

Dave from Rome

January 17th, 2011
4:17 pm

John,
No one can say what would or would not have happened in there were more armed civilians in that crowd. I only wish that someone could have done something to spare that waste of life, especially that little girl. I don’t care if it was a baker with a concealed rolling pin put upside the assailants head, if it would have saved lives i would wish it so. Same with my belief in a responsible law abiding citizen who carries a gun. If that person could have saved one life, it would have been worth it.

I, personally, do not own a 30+ capacity magazine for a pistol. What about a firearm that supports a 17 + 1 capacity? Do you think that is excessive? I understand your point is that there has to be some practical line in the sand between no guns at all vs. a world where folks can purchase their own nuclear missile for self defense. But the point is we don’t have people with nuclear missiles now, or anti-aircraft guns, or bazookas. So you’ve sort of won that already, and we’re not hassling you over it. That’s not what people are fighting about. What constantly fuels the debate is where that line should be drawn, and the left’s consistent push to redefine the line to their liking. I’m willing to wager that most people who lean left would consider a 17 + 1 round capacity on a firearm excessive as well. And i’m also willing to wager that if we left it up to these same people to make the rules, it wouldn’t be long before we’d have complete gun control in action. They are afraid of guns and want them to go away. I can understand that fear, but i’ll argue it’s an unhealthy one. Would i personally agree to a plan where felons and the mentally ill aren’t allowed to own weapons? I guess i would, i’m living in that now and i’m not complaining to anyone about it. Would i surrender the black talon armor piercing bullet too? I guess i would, i’m living in that world now. They are currently illegal and i haven’t complained to anyone about that either. I guess what i’m saying is, when will the gun control lobby be satisfied? I think we both know the answer to that one, and that’s why they continue to be my opponent.

BOBFROMBC

January 17th, 2011
4:54 pm

MR. KING YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY.
IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO FUND MEDICAL HELP FOR THE TREATMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS FEDERALLY.
YOU COULD LINE UP A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP IN YOUR 1,000 FEET.

BOBFROMBC

January 17th, 2011
4:56 pm

MR. KING YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY. A THOUSAND FEET,
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN SEE ONE THOUSAND FEET.
IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO FUND MEDICAL HELP FOR THE TREATMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS FEDERALLY.
YOU COULD LINE UP A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP IN YOUR 1,000 FEET.

BOBFROMBC

January 17th, 2011
4:59 pm

MR. KING YOU ARE AN EMBARRASSMENT TO YOUR REPUBLICAN PARTY. A THOUSAND FEET,
I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU CAN SEE A THOUSAND FEET, POLITICALLY SPEAKING OF COURSE.
IT WOULD BE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE TO FUND MEDICAL HELP FOR THE TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS. FEDERALLY FUNDED OF COURSE.
YOU COULD LINE UP A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED HELP IN YOUR 1,000 FEET.

Gregg Pyka

January 17th, 2011
5:04 pm

As a certified (Mild) schizophrenic I know for a fact that I should not have a gun.
This guy in Arizona is both schizophrenic and mentally retarded and has no concept of his
retarded state to undestand his schizophrenia. I am sure his parents tried to accept him as normal without help but anyone can see that he was trying so hard to find acceptance in a world that was being forced opon him by the irresponsible (all the surrounding contacts , parents etc.) It is sad to watch this guy’s video’s as he is struggling to have a concept of what is real and what is not all by himself. Gun control is not the answer but to understand the fact that this guy with what his surroundings was commiting him to which was a point of no return is the thing American’s do every day by walking past and not understanding that these sick people like myuself have no where else to turn but needing to live with constant support financially SSDI and understanding. The fact that he is in prison with that feeling of awe , I am finally free of society is the smile on his face. as it is the relief of all of us walking past him that made him SNAP. Wake up and care or be killed !!! watcher .

mike sacco

January 17th, 2011
5:41 pm

If we must own assault weapons,must we allow 31 shot clips.Just curious to hear the justification.

John

January 17th, 2011
6:01 pm

@Dave from Rome

“I guess what i’m saying is, when will the gun control lobby be satisfied? I think we both know the answer to that one, and that’s why they continue to be my opponent.”

That’s the problem…just as you ask when will the gun control lobby be satisfied, the same can be asked about gun rights lobby. As I pointed out earlier…Georgia Carry believes that ALL citizens should be allowed all types guns with no restrictions even on where they should be allowed to be carried…and NO COMPROMISE. Look at what happened when Obama was elected President…the gun rights lobby said he was coming to take our guns away. Gun sales shot up. Show me where, at any time, did President Obama say he was coming to take away everyone’s guns?

Reid

January 17th, 2011
6:14 pm

When carrying a gun within 1k feet of a congressman / high-capacity magazines / gun ownership are outlawed, then only the outlaws will do / have / own these things.

[...] making it illegal for a person to possess a firearm within 1,000 feet of a Member of Congress.-[source] January 17th, 2011 | Tags: America, Arizona, Congress, firearms, gun control, legislation, New [...]

OSCAR .

January 17th, 2011
9:44 pm

EVERY BODY IS MISSING THE POINT?
GUNS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE IS TO STOP TRIANY.
IF THERE IS 1 IN A MILLION WHO ARE MORONS,
LIKE THE ONE WHO SHOT THAT NICE LADY THERE ARE AT
LEAST 300 OF THEM.
THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT LAW OR ANY THING OTHER
THAN THEMSELVES.
ANTI GUNERS KNOW THIS.SO I HAVE TO ASK
WHAT ARE THESE GUNGRABERS REALY AFTER?
I FOR ONE WILL NOT BE INTIMIDATED BY MORONS,AND
I WILL NOT BOW DOWN TO TYANY.

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
10:58 pm

Maybe you are not smart enough to actually research who is responsible for running, managing and operating the background check, yep, the government.

So knowing that now, why aren’t you screaming bloody murder at the BATF and government employee’s have since 1994, prosecuted less than 1% of the 1.67 million valid rejections, 50% of which involve those same crazies you are so frightened of. USDOJ Background Check & Firearm Transfer report 2008.

US Congressional review, 2001 100% of felons buy a firearm using fake ID 100% of the time.

Funny how the government even acknowledges they fail to enforce that law.
You do know that both federal & state supreme courts have ruled 10 separate times that the police are not legally liable to protect the individual citizen.

We see that in the US, per FBI UCR 2008, we had 1.38 million violent crimes reported, 49% of those were closed to prosecution, and with an average 80% conviction rate for both federal & state cases we have……..oh wait, we have forgotten something. In 2008, there were 4.8 million violent crimes not reported, USDOJ National Victimization report 2008.

So for you math illiterates that is….
((1.38 mil x 49%) x80%) / 1.38 mil + 4.8 mil = 8.75% of all violent crimes committed in the US in 2008 were solved.

So lets see your police forces show a better rate of solving ALL crimes. But since 75% are not reported to the police because of apathy and disbelief in that the police will not be able to solve anything, we can understand completely how they really, really, really suck at protecting the individual citizen!

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
10:58 pm

Funny thing, if a gun had intelligence, they would be utterly devastated to realize that almost 99.8% of the time, they failed to do the only thing they were built for, killing.

Don’t believe me, well you can review the FBI UCR database in conjunction with the CDC & Hospital databases, we see that per government reports, 15% of times a gun is used in a crime shots are fired (first failure to kill 85%, really sucks). USDOJ Felons Firearms Use survey Nov 2001

Then as referenced in police shooting studies, we see that only 15% of the time do any of those shots hit their target (same average as the police). NYC & Virginia Police Firearm Discharge reports
So 15% of 15% = 2.25% of the original times a gun was used in a violent crime is any body shot.
Now we see how many deaths and injuries were found in the CDC & Hospital databases 12,252 homicides and 70,000 injuries.

So roughly a 7 injuries to 1 death.
1/8th x 2,25% = .28% of the original times a gun was used in a violent crime did a death occur.

Wow, it is simply amazing how bad those guns suck at doing the only thing they were designed for, failing to kill 99.72% of the time.

That’s why the suicide rates for guns are so high, the guns keep killing themselves!

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
11:05 pm

Care to go to one of many websites that actually compiles the actual police reports ove rthe last month and start counting how many lives were saved? Oh darn, that would hurt your position, too bad.

One other thing, since you can not prove the NRA is in charge of all the police departments in the
US, so good luck proving these police reports compiled at this and many other sites are biased.

Keep & Bear Arms

Latest Armed Self-defense News Stories:
• Armed homeowner shoots at would-be burglars (MO)
• Intruder was shot after warning, police say (MD)
• Man shoots attacking dog (FL)
• Bar employee shoots robbery suspect in SW valley (NV)
• Pistol-packin’ manager answers robber with hot lead (GA)
• Robbery Victim Fatally Shoots His Attacker (FL)
• Police: Intruder Shot By Homeowner Dies (MD)
• Woman, 64, guns down intruder (TX)
• HPD: Homeowner shoots suspect allegedly stealing roofing materials (TX)
• City Survey Crew Opens Fire on Would-Be Robbers (FL)
• DA: Man Killed Son-In-Law In Self-Defense (PA)
• Slain burglar had recent break-in (KY)
• Break-in ends in a fatal gunshot in Warner (NH)
• Armed homeowner shoots home invader in self defense (MI)
• Priceville police say self-defense led to shooting of teen (AL)
• Woman says she shot man in self defense (WV)
• NH Rep. Holds Home Intruder at Gunpoint (NH)
• Police: Boy, 14, ends burglary by shooting suspect (AR)
• Man holds accused burglar at knife point in his underwear (FL)
• Couple Shoot Dog In Canine Attack (MS)
• Beaufort Man Shoots Intruder (SC)
• Man shoots pit bull, ending attack — Attacking dog shot by passerby licensed to carry )TX_
• Cow attack leaves Florida man critically injured: report (FL)
• ‘Fed up’ 82-year-old held alleged thieves at gunpoint (DE)
• 2 suspects caught in northwest Harris Co. after car failed them (TX)
• Homeowner shoots man breaking in dog door (OK)
• Homeowner Shoots Suspected Kidnapper (TX)
• Judge Floerke thwarts suspect after home break-in (MN)
• Police: Legless Baldwin Man Shoots, Kills Teen Intruder (PA)
• Blount County woman shoots husband in self-defense (AL)
• DA: fatal Lowell, Ore., shooting was self defense (OR)
• Robbers vs. Clerk: Texas Shootout Caught on Videotape(TX)
• Armed Robbery Spree Ends in Fresno (CA)
• Concealed carry enables robbery victim to stop 3 violent attackers (FL)
• Homeowner Shoots and Kills Intruder in Putnam County (WV)
• Marine, wife attacked by teens after showing of “Little Fockers” (FL)
• Security Guard Shoots Strip Club Patron (AZ)
• One Dead after Barber Shop Shooting in Asheboro (NC)
• Diner owner shoots robber in self defense (IN)
• Amherst Bank Robbed, Shots Fired (NY)
• Man with sword acting in self-defense (IN)
• Roy police call death act of self-defense (UT)
• Deputies: Man shot in road rage incident could be the one to face charges (FL)
• Armed 11 year old Girl Defends Home from 3 armed Burglars: Armed Citizen (video)(AZ)
• Threatened store owner fights fire with gunfire
• Violent home invader shot by armed resident (KS)
• Woodbridge clerk becomes robbers’ worst nightmare (VA)
• Dormont Auto Shop Owner Shoots, Kills Alleged Intruder (PA)
• Police: Houston store owner kills 3 would-be robbers – ‘The man was clearly defending his business, clearly defending his wife’ (TX)
• Video game store robber shot in self defense (CA)
• 3 charged in Jackson home invasion (MS)
• Did you hear the one about the Anti-Gun Senator shooting an intruder? (NC)
• Machias man killed in early morning shooting in Eastbrook (ME)
• Man shoots, kills alleged attacker (CA)
• Attempted Robber Shot and Killed (CA)
• Parking lot robber shot in self defense by armed citizen (GA)
• Caught On Tape – Burglar & Homeowner Draw Guns (MO)
• Robbed pizza deliveryman fatally shoots gunman (TN)
• GB stabbing leaves one hospitalized (WI)
• Police: Man stabs 2 in Griswold home and is shot to death (CT)
• Update: Dogs That Attacked Children Found (NE)
• Tahoe man kills 500 lb. bear in self-defense (CA)
• Prescription drug seeking burglar shot by armed homeowner (AR)
• Town ‘N Country confrontation with jogger ends with fatal shooting (FL)
• Coffee shop robber shot by armed employee (OR)
• Armed wife saves her husband from a violent home invader (TN)
• Ohio concealed handgun licensee thwarts violent armed robbery (OH)
• Evening burglar fatally shot by armed homeowner (TX)
• Police: Man who stabbed attacker in Anza east of Temecula acted in self defense (CA)
• 2 armed robbers shot in self defense by armed victim (GA)
• Armed grandfather saves his family from violent home invaders (Malaysia)
• Bar owner shoots violent robber in self defense (South Africa)
• Armed homeowner stops a violent copper thief (LA)
• Investigators: Man Kills Brother In Self Defense (WA)
• Police: Man stabs 2 in self-defense (AZ)

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
11:11 pm

Doctors in the US are 12,000 to 25,000 times more likely to kill you than a person carrying a licensed concealed weapon. JAMA Medical Malpractice report 2001 700k doctors kill 44,000 to 98,000 people a year due to medical malpractice, VPC 2009 report on 8 mill licensees and total deaths over 3 years, you do the numbers!

W Eugene Hollon and another historian, using government records and death certificates, reviewed the wildest west towns during the wildest days of the cowboy between 1870-1885. Their review is documented in “Frontier Violence Revisited”. Funny how their totals show over that 15 years, only 45 deaths by gunfire for a death by firearms rate of 1 per 100k people.

Now fast forward to 2008 and a review in the FBI UCR in those socialistic paradises and their firearm death rates Chicago 12.3 per 100k, NYC 4.3 per 100k, Washington D.C. 23.2 per 100k.

Government data and history, showing the wild west, wasn’t wild and is much safer than such gun ban paradises.

So much for your dime novels and hollywood fantasy!

Jarhead1982

January 17th, 2011
11:29 pm

Oh wait, lets review some countries that actually implemented strict gun control in 1997.

Australia, Canada, England, referencing their own government databases, we see murders didn’t reduce, violent crime increased 30% to 150%. You do know that is 2 o 5 times the violent crime rate in the US today eh?

Wow, guess less guns doesn’t equal less crime afterall.

Wow during the same time frame, US Census and two separate reports (NSSF & Pew) assessing how many households in the US show an average of 40% equaling a 9 million household increase in owning a firearm since 1997. We see reviewing the FBI UCR database a 30% reduction in violent crimes, 20% reduction murders, 12-15 more states implementing concealed carry to 48 total, 30+ states implementing concealed carry in eateries serving alcohol, all without the accompanying law abiding bloodbaths. What is that, like the millionth time the anti’s have made those claims and it didn’t happen, uh YEAH! Glad those anti’s don’t try to make a living making predictions as they would starve, QUICKLY!

Yeah, we see how Haynes vs US 390, 85 1968 US Supreme Court ruling makes 85% of all gun control laws not applicable to felons.

Shall we continue showing more and more government developed and referenced facts showing how gun control doesn’t solve anything?

January 18th 2011 | Rebellion News

January 18th, 2011
1:07 am

[...] Knee-Jerk gun control reaches new low [...]

[...] Congressman Bob Barr wrote yesterday in the Atlanta Journal and Constitution that, “gun control advocates (are) taking advantage of every shooting incident as an excuse to [...]

Carlos Navarro

January 18th, 2011
6:23 am

Callers on an NPR talk show maintained that mentally-ill individuals prone to violence cannot be held accountable for their actions because they don’t know what they are doing. As with any sick person, they should be treated and cured, not punished.
Well, those callers should consider that only a minute fraction of the mentally-ill, outright psychotics even, are violent. Some sane individuals, on the other hand–hired assassins, gung-ho mercenaries, and such–kill without compunction. Thus, it would appear that the proclivity for violence is not a function of insanity or sanity. Nor does environment seem to be a factor. Some individuals, obviously, are born killers.
Those callers might also ponder this point: psychologist and psychiatrist might be able to diagnose a mental illness (actually any lay person can tell in five minutes if someone is mentally unstable) and couch their findings in scientific jargon. After all, it’s their livelihood. But do they command the science to treat and cure the mentally ill? Is there any hard evidence that they have ever cured anyone, much less a born killer?
I, for one, hold that for the good of society, the violence-prone, insane or otherwise, should be incarcerated for life, or executed, as the law allows. The trade-off should not be hard to accept: Better to make life safe for innocent people at large than to worry about the rights of a few individuals bereft of a normal conscience.
If someone broke into my house to harm my family and I had a gun handy, I would shoot first and mull the moral issue and legal consequences later. I thank our Founding Fathers for our Second Amendment rights.

Duh

January 18th, 2011
8:28 am

Mountainpass, I’m with you. If only there were laws against murder this tragedy wouldn’t have happened.

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:11 am

John,
This is a copy/paste from
http://www.ontheissues.org/domestic/barack_obama_gun_control.htm

Not only do i find his answers disturbing, but also i am compelled to believe he wasn’t truthful about how the answers got onto the page. That’s just my opinion, i have no facts to back that up. But i think most folks would agree it doesn’t sound all that genuine.

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, “No, my writing wasn’t on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns.”

Actually, Obama’s writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Obama’s campaign said, “Sen. Obama didn’t fill out these state Senate questionnaires–a staffer did–and there are several answers that didn’t reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn’t reflect his views.”

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:22 am

Wow Jarhead.
I copied and pasted all of that to a saved document for my own research. That was impressive. Thanks for your posts.

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:25 am

John,
Also:
Keep guns out of inner cities–but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer’s lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there’s a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006

Dave from Rome

January 18th, 2011
9:33 am

John:
Also
Bill HR-45, introduced by Illinois rep Bobby Bush and co-sponsored by Obama’s Chief of Staff at the time, Rahm Emanuel.

I think it’s pretty clear where my current president stands on the issue of gun control.

mpercy

January 18th, 2011
10:26 am

A 30-shot clip is not necessary to inflict a log of damage, if that was my desire. Even when the larger clips were outlawed, 10-round magazines were legal, and ten shots (plus one in the chamber) is quite a bit and would have had almost the same outcome in Tuscon (although I haven’t seen any shot-by-shot accounting, I understand that the Congresswoman was shot first, most of the dead were killed by the first few rounds fired. Even with 11 shots, he could have simply dropped that weapon and fired a 2nd weapon rather than try to reload.

Someone intent on doing damage like Tuscon is not limited by any magazine capacity–Charles Whitman proved on 1 Aug 1966 just how effective a minimal amount of planning and a bolt-action rifle is when he killed 16 people and wounded 32 others (although of the 16 he killed, he stabbed two people, clubbed one person, and shot two others with a sawed-off shotgun, the other 11 were almost certainly killed with his bolt-action Remington 700 hunting rifle (I am not sure weather he had 3 or 5 round magazine, but this was definitely not a high-capacity semi-automatic weapon).

“Whitman began facing return fire from the authorities and armed civilians who had brought out their personal firearms to assist police, he used the waterspouts on each side of the tower as gun ports, allowing him to continue shooting largely protected from the gunfire below but also greatly limiting his range of targets. Ramiro Martinez, an officer who participated in stopping Whitman’s rampage, later stated that the civilian shooters should be credited as they made it difficult for him to take careful aim.” [WIkepedia]

Big Jim

January 18th, 2011
10:42 am

What’s worse than gun control advocates calling for gun control?
How about kunservatives declaring “This man was a madman,this shooting has nothing to do with us!”
I personally think the people who created the enviroment are the ones responsible. Gun control talk should NEVER supercede the initial instigation!

mpercy

January 18th, 2011
10:54 am

After you ban guns, you’ll need to ban pointy kitchen knives, like they’re calling for in the UK. Seriously.

Folks calling for the law are using language very similar to some of the above complaints about large-capacity clips, etc.

A&E doctors are calling for a ban on long pointed kitchen knives to reduce deaths from stabbing.

A team from West Middlesex University Hospital said violent crime is on the increase – and kitchen knives are used in as many as half of all stabbings.

The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

The study found links between easy access to domestic knives and violent assault are long established.

An individual has to demonstrate that he had good reason to possess a knife, for example for fishing, other sporting purposes or as part of his profession (e.g. a chef) in a public place.

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4581871.stm

R. Lopez

January 18th, 2011
12:19 pm

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

I believe that we should not register our guns but we should have to register ourselves as gun owners in order to have the regulated militia the 2nd amendment starts our with.

Ronald D. Weddle, MD

January 18th, 2011
12:52 pm

The idiocy of those who advocate ANY restrictions on inanimate tools, whether that is guns, magazines, etc. amazes me. Crazy people will do crazy things. Criminals will commit crimes. Laws do NOT prevent such occurrences. My freedom should not be curtailed by such mindless efforts to regulate THINGS. My freedom to “keep and bear arms” whether for my personal protection, sport, or, the actual reason for the freedom: to deal with a tyrannical government, is not the property of some left-wing social engineer to tinker with. Thank God for the wisdom of our Founding Fathers who recognized our inherent (NOT government granted) freedoms and specifically included them in our Constitution.

Ronald D. Weddle, MD

January 18th, 2011
12:55 pm

It is equally idiotic to try to link the behavior of an obvious paranoid schizophrenic with no coherent political philosophy to those who voice legitimate opposition to the policies of a politician, office-holder or branch of government. No politician, talk-show host or political figure had anything to do with the irrational behavior of this crazy loon in Arizona.