Leaderboard

This "debate" is pointless until facts or other evidence are presented supporting the claim that innocent people are at risk because of legally-armed citizens. Discussing “feelings” may be fun on Dr Phil, but this is not the place nor time for it, so either put up some facts to support your clams, or shut up. Here are mine... The “fear” (in quotes because it is unfounded) that a law-abiding armed citizen could cause more deaths in such a situation as Tucson has been disproved numerous times. It is anti-gun hyperbole much like claims that allowing people to conceal carry will increase “shootouts” in public. That was a “fear” raised when Suzanna Huff--who lost both her parents in the 1991 Killeen Luby’s shooting--fought to get Texas to issue concealed handgun licenses. She was in the Luby's during the shooting, and testified that she had several opportunities where she could have easily stopped the shooter had she been armed; but under Texas law at the time she was unable to carry thus George Jo Hennard was able to kill 23 (to include her parents) and wound an additional 20 before comitting suicide. But in 1995 Texas became a “shall issue” state, and in the 15 years since there has not been one instance that I could find where an innocent victim was injured or killed by a CHL holder intervening during a crime. However, in 2005, Felix Vigil was attacking his ex-wife with a knife behind a Albuquerque Walmart deli counter where she worked when a 72-year-old armed customer named Due Moore intervened and shot him, saving the woman’s life. Also, just last week here in San Antonio, a CHL holder intervened when he saw a pit bull attacking a woman on the side of the road. He shot the dog and was credited by the police for saving the woman’s life. And, as stated, there was a armed citizen who wisely chose not to use his firearm in the incident in Tucson. Most states require training in the legal use of lethal force as well as weapons qualification before issuing a permit. Claims that they are “Dirty Harry wannabes” are utterly ridiculous, as evidence proves that given the millions across the country that have been issued conceal permits, these alleged events do not happen. They are the result of an overactive imagination, and have no basis in reality. As a matter of fact, Texas tracks crimes committed by its CHL holders versus the total population, and it has been found across the board that the former are far less likely to commit a crime. Here are some more “facts,” courtesy of Gun Facts: Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates (source: Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001). Brazil has mandatory licensing, registration, and maximum personal ownership quotas. It now bans any new sales to private citizens. Their homicide rate is almost three (3) times higher than the U.S. (source: Homicide trends in the United States, U.S. data: Bureau of Justice Statistics, September, 2004. Brazil data: Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 2005.). Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the criminal (source: Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, Gary Kleck, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, 1991). Every year, people in the United States use guns to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times – more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds. Of these instances, 15.6% of the people using firearms defensively stated that they "almost certainly" saved their lives by doing so. Firearms are used 60 times more often to protect lives than to take lives.. In 83.5% (2,087,500) of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first, proving that guns are very well suited for self-defense (source: Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995). Washington D.C. has essentially banned gun ownership since 1976 and has a murder rate of 56.9 per 100,000. Across the river in Arlington, Virginia, gun ownership is less restricted. There, the murder rate is just 1.6 per 100,000, less than three percent of the Washington, D.C. rate. (source: Crime in the United States, FBI, 1998). So go ahead and “feel” all you want, the “fear” of someone being accidentally shot or killed by an intervening armed citizen are unfounded. There has been little to no evidence of that ever happening, and statistically it is so remote that it would make more sense not to let you family ride in a car because they are much more likely to be hurt or killed doing that!

It's not that I don't wear it properly...it's that I don't wear it at all.

That's what Kevin's family thought they were getting... and we all remember how that turned out.

I think while this particular quote was nothing out of the ordinary, it's one data point in a clear trend toward a less "special" relationship with the UK. The actual quote: ...is nothing but standard platitudes the way I read it. The article linked was written by a Brit with his panties clearly in a wad over the whole thing. However, the point is the same that perhaps our "special" relationship with the UK is changing. I think a better discussion of this is in the latest issue of Armed Forces Journal.

I know he's the President, but at this point does anyone give a crêpe?

:shrug: Praising a foreign leader while in their capital. Pretty standard conduct.

every officer in the room who allowed him to do it failed as a leader.

Dude, you're a huge tool.

Thought this was a really interesting article...actually surprised me. Robert Levy, the chief financial backer for DC v Heller and the chairman of the CATO Institute, giving a few quotes about how in his view, the Heller case supports some common-sense limits to gun ownership such as restrictions on hi-cap magazines. He said, in part: Now, I know how folks around these parts feel about guns and I expect there to be more middle-fingers flipped and youtube videos of epic gun collections posted, but I thought it'd still be worth it to post this. Try not to pre-judge what my opinions on gun control may or may not be when responding I guess is all I ask...