Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics

July 31st, 2012   Submitted by Davi Barker

Firearm prohibitionists love to use tragedy to leverage their agenda. So, it’s important for gun rights advocates to stand their ground and fire back (proverbially) whenever this happens.

I posted a graphic on Facebook claiming the average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 18.25, and the average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by civilians is 2.2. I based it on 10 shootings I found listed on some timeline somewhere. I honestly don’t even remember where. I presented the case studies in a blog post on the Silver Circle blog and I did the math myself.

The graphic was met with great enthusiasm and much skepticism. Leave it to Facebook users to demand an audit on a meme. So, I started over, only much more meticulous this time. I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data. But here’s a spoiler… It’s not that different.

The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

I was so close! Here’s what I think accounts for the difference. In the first sample there was likely a selection error based on what grabs headlines. Larger shootings get more press, so if you take a small sampling you’re going to be working with a data set of the worst shootings. As for the consistency of the civilian statistic, it makes perfect sense if you think about from inside the mind of a heroic civilian with a concealed carry permit. It goes something like this:

“Holy crap! that guy shot that other guy.”
“He’s just going to keep shooting people.”

And the shooter goes down.

Quite a few cases went something like that. In fact, I found only one example of a shooter stopped by civilians who killed more than three people. Jared Loughner killed 6 people in Tucson, Arizona before he was tackled by two civilians. An astute reader informed me that at least one of the civilians that helped stop Jared Loughner was carrying a concealed weapon, but he did not use his gun out of concern for innocent bystanders.

I want to be perfectly clear. I am not much of a firearms enthusiast. I don’t own a firearm. I’ve only ever been shooting twice. For me it’s not an issue of gun rights. It’s about property rights. A person has a natural right to own a hunk of iron in any damn shape they want, and they shouldn’t be criminalized until they use that hunk of iron to harm someone. People can argue crime statistics ’till they’re blue in face. I frankly don’t care about people’s ideas for managing society.

What I am is a math enthusiast. So, without further delay, here’s how I arrived at these numbers.

Step One: Amassing a data set

I searched for timelines of shootings and selected 5 that appeared the most comprehensive.

  1. Info Please
  2. CNN
  3. Denver Post
  4. News Max
  5. TruTV

While doing this I learned some important vocabulary. A “spree shooting” is when a killer murders in multiple locations with no break between murders. As in the Virginia Tech killer who began shooting in one hall, and then walked across campus and continued shooting in another hall. A “mass shooting” is when a killer murders multiple people, usually in a single location. As in the Fort Hood shooter who killed 13 people at one military base. A “school shooting” can be either of these as long as one or more locations is a school. As in the Columbine shooting, which is also classified as a spree shooting because they went from room to room. The term “rampage shooting” is used to describe all of these, and does not differentiate between them. So that is the term I’ll be using from here on out.

As many have pointed out, none of the weapons involved are “automatic weaponry” or “assault rifles” but they are often misreported as such by media outlets that lack knowledge of firearms.

I selected these lists because they were the most comprehensive of those that I found, and I was seeking as large a data set as possible. I combined them all, including the first 10 from my previous post, and removed all redundant data for a total list of 100 shootings.

Step Two: Trimming irrelevant data.

While the list was comprehensive, the details about each shooting were not. In each shooting I had a date and a location, but often important details, like the number of people killed, or how the shooter was apprehended were missing. So, I set to the long task researching each incident to fill in the missing data. I didn’t incorporate the number of wounded people because so many were not reported. But the reason they call a single death a shooting rampage is because there were many injuries. All relevant data is contained in the links in the finished list below or in the timelines linked above. Most of the data came from either Wikipedia, a mainstream news article about the incident, or a handy resource I discovered called Murderpedia.

Next I removed incidents that did not fit within the scope of this analysis. Even though every incident on the list was a shooting, not every incident was a rampage shooting. So, I selected for incidents that included at least some indiscriminate targeting of bystanders. I removed incidents like Dedric Darnell Owens who shot and killed his classmate Kayla Rolland and then threw his handgun in a wastebasket (*meaning I removed incidents where the shooter killed all he was going to kill and stopped, because neither police or civilians actually reduced the deaths at the scene.) And I removed incidents like Michele Kristen Anderson who killed her entire family at a Christmas Party. So what remained were specifically rampage shootings in which a killer went someplace public and began firing at random people.

Suicide presented a tricky variable in the analysis. Roughly half of the remaining rampage shooters ended their own lives. So, I removed all incidents where the shooter killed themselves before police arrived reasoning that they had killed all they were going to kill and police had no impact in stopping them. Theoretically these incidents could have been stopped sooner by a civilian, but let’s not speculate. What I left in were incidents where shooters commit suicide after engaging the police, either during a shootout with police, or after a chase. I included, for example, Jiverly Wong, who witnesses say stopped shooting and killed himself as soon as he heard sirens but before police arrived, crediting the police’s response time with stopping the murders. But I did not include the shooters themselves in the total number of people killed.

I also removed cases like Edward Charles Allaway who shot up a library, then fled to a nearby hotel and called police to turn himself in, and cases like Darrell Ingram who shot up a high school dance and fled the scene only to be apprehended later after a long investigation. I was only looking for incidents when intervention from police or civilian saved lives.

What remained was 32 cases of gunmen firing indiscriminately whose rampage was cut short through the intervention of either a civilian or a police officer.

Step Three: The List

I divided the remaining cases into two categories, those stopped by police and those stopped by civilians. I included both armed and unarmed civilians for reasons that will become clear in the final analysis. I also removed cases like Dominick Maldonado and Charles Joseph Whitman. Moldonado went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, and ultimately surrendered to police but was confronted by two legally armed civilians who interrupted his shooting. They did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders. Whitman climbed a tower at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas and began shooting at other students and faculty with a sniper rifle. The police who stopped Charles Whitman were assisted by a civilian with a more powerful rifle. I’m calling incidents like this an assist from civilians and removing them from the analysis as anomalies.

  • 9/6/1949 – Howard Barton Unruh went on a shooting rampage in Camden, New Jersey with a German Luger. He shot up a barber shop, a pharmacy and a tailor’s shop killing 13 people. He finally surrendered after a shoot-out with police.
  • 7/18/1984 – James Oliver Huberty shot up a McDonalds in San Ysidro, California killing 21 people before police shot and killed him.
  • 10/16/1991 – George Hennard entered Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and began indiscriminately shooting the patrons. He killed 23 people in all. He committed suicide after being cornered and wounded in a shootout with police.
  • 12/7/1993 – Colin Ferguson brought a handgun into a Long Island Rail Road car and opened fire at random. He killed six people before passengers Michael O’Connor, Kevin Blum and Mark McEntee tackled him while reloading.
  • 11/15/1995 – Jamie Rouse used a .22-caliber semi-automatic rifle to fire indiscriminately inside Richland High School in Lynnville, Tennessee. He killed two people before being tackled by a football player and a coach.
  • 2/2/1996 – Barry Loukaitis entered Frontier Middle School in Moses Lake, Washington with a rifle and two handguns. He killed three people before the Gym teacher, Jon Lane grabbed the rifle and wrestled the gunman to the ground.
  • 10/1/1997 – Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed three students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.
  • 12/1/1997 – Michael Carneal brought a pistol, two rifles and two shotguns to his high school in Paducah, Kentucky and opened fire on a small prayer group killing three girls. His rampage was halted when he was tackled by another student.
  • 4/24/1998 – Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed one student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.
  • 5/21/1998 – Kipland Kinkel entered Thurston High School in Springfield, Oregon with two pistols and a semi-automatic rifle hidden under a trench coat. He opened fire killing two students, but while reloading a wounded student named Jacob Ryker tackled him.
  • 4/20/1999 – Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris were the killers behind the Columbine shooting in Littleton, Colorado. The two both commit suicide after police arrived, but what many people do not know is that the school’s armed security guard and the police all stood and waited outside the library while executions happed right inside. Fifteen people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 – Mark Barton was a day trader who went on a shooting rampage through two day trading firms in Atlanta, Georgia. He killed 12 people in all and after a police chase he was surrounded by police at a gas station where he commit suicide.
  • 1/16/2002 – Peter Odighizuwa opened fire with a handgun at The Appalachian School in Grundy, Virginia. Three people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by three students, Mikael Gross, Ted Besen, and Tracy Bridges with handguns without firing.
  • 8/27/2003 – Salvador Tapia entered an auto parts store in Chicago, Illinois and shot and killed six people with a handgun. He then waged a gunbattle with police before a SWAT team fatally wounded him.
  • 9/24/2003 – John Jason McLaughlin brought a .22-caliber pistol to Rocori High School in Cold Spring, Minnesota. He killed two people before PE teacher Mark Johnson confronted him, disarmed him, and held him in the school office for police to arrive.
  • 2/25/2005 – David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. opened fire on a public square from the steps of a courthouse in Tyler, Texas. The shooter was armed with a rifle and wearing body armor. Mark Wilson fired back with a handgun, hitting the shooter but not penetrating the armor. Mark drew the shooter’s fire, and ultimately drove him off, but was fatally wounded. Mark was the only death in this incident.
  • 3/21/2005 – Jeff Weise was a student at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota. He killed seven people including a teacher and a security guard. When police cornered him inside the school, he shot and killed himself.
  • 11/8/2005 – Kenneth Bartley, Jr. brought a .22 caliber pistol to Campbell County Comprehensive High School in Jacksboro, Tennessee and killed 1 person before being disarmed by a teacher.
  • 9/29/2006 – Eric Hainstock brought a .22 caliber revolver and a 20-gauge shotgun into Weston High School in Cazenovia, Wisconson. He killed one person before staff and students apprehended him and held him until the police arrived.
  • 4/16/2007 – Seung-Hui Cho was the shooter behind the Virgina Tech shooting in Blacksburg, Virginia. Police apprehend the wrong suspect allowing the shooter to walk across campus and open fire again in a second location. He eventually committed suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed two people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing two more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and committed suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed six people, including a motorist shot during a high speed chase with police. He eventually surrendered to police.
  • 3/29/2009 – Robert Stewart went on a killing rampage armed with a rifle, and a shotgun in a nursing home in Carthage, North Carolina. He killed eight people and was apprehended after a shootout with police.
  • 4/3/2009 – Jiverly Wong went on a shooting rampage at a American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York where he was enrolled in a citizenship class. Thirteen people were killed before the shooter killed himself. Witnesses say he turned the gun on himself as soon as he heard police sirens approaching.
  • 11/5/2009 – Nidal Malik Hasan was the shooter behind the Fort Hood shooting at a military base just outside Killeen, Texas. The shooter entered the Soldier Readiness Processing Center, where personnel are disarmed, armed with a laser sighted pistol and a Smith & Wesson revolver. He killed 13 people before he was shot by a Civilian Police officer.
  • 2/12/2010 – Amy Bishop went on a shooting rampage in classroom at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama. She killed three people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed her out of the room and blockaded the door. Bishop was arrested later.
  • 1/8/2011 – Jared Lee Loughner is charged with the shooting in Tucson, Arizona that killed 6 people, including Chief U.S. District Court Judge John Roll. He was stopped when he was tackled by two civilians.
  • 2/27/2012 – T.J. Lane entered Chardon High School in Chardon, Ohio with a handgun and started shooting. Three students died. The shooter was chased out of the building by a teacher and apprehended by police later.
  • 4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. Parker killed one person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.
  • 7/20/2012 – James Holmes went into a crowded movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and opened fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Twelve people were killed, before the shooter surrendered to police.
  • 8/5/2012 – Wade Michael Page entered a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin and opened fire killing six people. He committed suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 – Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a rifle, going room-to-room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and committed suicide after police arrived.

Step Four: Final analysis

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29. With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33.

The first point I want to draw your attention to is that roughly half of shooting rampages end in suicide anyway. What that means is that police are not ever in a position to stop most of them. Only the civilians present at the time of the shooting have any opportunity to stop those shooters. That’s probably more important than the statistic itself. In a shooting rampage, counting on the police to intervene at all is a coin flip at best.

Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians. What’s amazing about that is that whether armed or not, when a civilian plays hero it seems to save a lot of lives. The courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas was the only incident where the heroic civilian was killed. In that incident the hero was armed with a handgun and the villain was armed with a rifle and body armor. If you compare the average of people killed in shootings stopped by armed civilians and unarmed civilians you get 1.8 and 2.6 but that’s not nearly as significant as the difference between a proactive civilian, and a cowering civilian who waits for police.

So, given that far fewer people die in rampage shootings stopped by a proactive civilian, only civilians have any opportunity to stop rampage shootings in roughly half of incidents, and armed civilians do better on average than unarmed civilians, wouldn’t you want those heroic individuals who risk their lives to save others to have every tool available at their disposal?

* Updated 12/15/2012 – This article was originally posted shortly after the Dark Knight premier shooting in Aurora, Colorado, but I have continued to refine the data set and update the statistics. I am especially grateful to all the knowledgeable commenters who have helped correct my errors. I was also contacted by a college professor who I supplied with all my research notes, so they can be peer-reviewed and perhaps published in a more academic setting. So, in light of the recent tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut that has left 27 dead, including 20 children, I updated this article to reflect shootings that have occurred since the Aurora, Colorado shooting, and corrected the errors that readers brought to my attention. I have preserved the integrity of the original analysis and have only updated the raw numbers and a few factual errors.


Tags: , , , , , ,

12,779 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

    It amazes me that people will criticize me for a small sample size and they base their argument one a single instance.

    • EarlNo Gravatar says:

      Maybe it’s because they are so narrow minded and feel threatened by logical / statistical comments.

      I for one thank you for your data.

      I agree that a citizen stepping in is the best way to end a killing spree. Yes an armed response is best in my opinion.

      One life lost is too many, but stopping the madness by whatever means is better then just hiding and letting it continue. During a time of crisis when seconds count your saving police response is only minutes away. Also remember the first officer on scene will usually wait for back-up before entering and his back-up is usually farther away, so more minutes before your help arrives.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        They ALWAYS wait for back-up.A few years ago my Legion Post was burglarized.Our incompetent Keystone Kops waited for not one,but TWO sheriff’s departments to respond before entering the building ,after being notified by the alarm company,and the burglar was long gone.We changed our policy with the alarm company,so officers from the legion are notified,and we can provide our own armed response.In another sterling example of their incompetence,a few years back,we had an armed robbery,two blocks from the PD.The sheriff’s department,40 miles away,beat them to the scene-and were met by armed citizens who had the situation under control.

  2. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “What Penn researchers found was alarming – almost five Philadelphians were shot every day over the course of the study and about 1 of these 5 people died. The research team concluded that, although successful defensive gun uses are possible and do occur each year, the chances of success are low. People should rethink their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures, write the authors. Suggestions to the contrary, especially for urban residents who may see gun possession as a defense against a dangerous environment should be discussed and thoughtfully reconsidered.”

  3. DarforNo Gravatar says:

    A View from a Critical Journalist: …This is all quite typical. Every time one of these horrible shooting sprees occurs, countless voices in the media declaim that (1) we need a debate on gun control, and (2) the other side’s views are despicable, stupid and unworthy of consideration. The “debate” they say they want is a one-sided one. Of course, they are conducting just such a “debate.” What infuriates them is that the other side refuses to cooperate and disappear… A central reason these gun debates tend to be futile is that gun owners and gun-rights supporters think advocates of gun control will not settle for reasonable restrictions but want to deprive them of their constitutional rights altogether. They are right to think so, and Frum’s essay illustrates the point… Maybe there would be fewer mass shootings if there were no Second Amendment. But the same can be said of the First. A Washington Post story over the weekend crystallizes the point… Our point here is that the medium is the motive: If these killers seek recognition, it is available to them because the mass media can be counted on give extensive attention to their horrific deeds. They are, after all, newsworthy, and they do raise important questions of public concern, not only about the availability of weapons and the vulnerability of “gun-free zones” but also about the treatment of mental illness. We journalists often proclaim high-mindedly that the public has a right to know–and we’re right. But as in the Garden of Eden, knowledge is dangerous. An industry devoted to serving the public’s right to know gives twisted and evil men the means of becoming known… (This is excerpted from a lengthy essay, to which Taranto gave the entire space yesterday for what is normally a quite varied column.) 41273952.html

  4. M smithNo Gravatar says:

    You are using cherry picked data to justify a conclusion you had already reached. In fact mass shootings have been analysed and it is far more rare for them to be prevented by armed civilians.

    Including data where the guy drops his clip, and is tackled by the onlookers is a case in point.

    There is a massive correlation between gun ownership and death by gun. Worldwide this is seen. The USA tops the gun per capita stat, and tops the gun death stat. Also note most gun deaths not not mass shootings, and significant numbers are in fact accidental. 31 000 deaths per year, most of which won’t be prevented by allowing more guns, but will be prevented by restricting access to guns.

    From a slightly better researched article on mother jones magazine

    More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.)

    Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed “students” who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him.

    • AnthonyNo Gravatar says:

      Here – this should debunk your worldwide statistics on the correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates. -worldwide-statistics/

      We also do not top the gun death or homicide states. We are actually fairly low on the most homicides PER CAPITA scale when compared to the rest of the world.

    • TaepoNo Gravatar says:

      My understanding of this study is that when an armed civilian is present, the death toll is much less. The armed citizen is ‘on scene’. It may be rare, but if we allow or if more citizens would carry, it will become less rare and the death toll will drop as well. The difference is almost a factor of 7 times between a citizen stop vs. awaiting a police response/stop. Gun control or limiting possession is only going to raise the death toll, not decrease it. These criminals already like to choose targets that a) have a lot of people as targets and b) gun free zones such as malls or schools where there is no effective resistance until the police get there.

      • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

        The death toll only appears lower because Davi has conflated mass murders, small scale shootings, police presence, and civilian handguns into a mushpot of whirling statistics shored up by a definition of his own devising that allows him to control what the cherry-picked data subsets say.

        • JoeDNo Gravatar says:

          You’re right, Jill. Armed citizens would never shoot a mass murderer on the scene. They’d sit and relax while it took 15-30 minutes for the police to respond. Try to use that brain you were born with and make an attempt at common sense – if facts don’t do it for you. The facts are there if you’d take the time to look and consider them. No where, in the history of the world, has the confiscation of guns from citizens resulted in a less violent, or less criminal society.

          • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

            “You’re right, Jill. Armed citizens would never shoot a mass murderer on the scene. ”

            And again, you try to put words into my mouth. I simply commented on what was shown in the data the author presented. And what he presented was that UNarmed civilians were effect in 2/3 of the presented situations.

            “Try to use that brain you were born with and make an attempt at common sense – if facts don’t do it for you. ”

            Actually, facts DO work for me – when they are presented properly. This article doesn’t do that. It’s called ‘critical reasoning.’ Basically saying “are the premises presented true?” “Do the presented premises (if they are true) support the conclusion?” “Does the argument, as presented, conform to industry standards in terms of vocabulary and assessment?” I did that legwork for myself, and came to the conclusion that it didn’t meet the criteria for reliable, credible analysis. I used my brain, as you suggest. Just because you don’t like my conclusion does not mean that I’m stupid.

            “No where, in the history of the world, has the confiscation of guns from citizens resulted in a less violent, or less criminal society.”

            And nowhere have I advocated for the confiscation (wholesale or otherwise) of anyone’s guns. What I have done is said that the conclusion this author reached is not supported by the data he presented.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            She’s not getting paid for common sense.She’s posting because her employers seek to disrupt forums such as this.

      • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

        To add – outside of the 2 instances where a “civilian” (off duty police and a security guard) shot (killed/wounded) the shooter, there were only 3 other instances where firearms are mentioned as playing a roll in capturing the shooter. In all, out of 17 cited incidences, only 5 had firearms present/mentioned as playing a positive roll…less than 1/3. How does that prove that “when an armed civilian is present, the death toll is much less”?

        • JoeDNo Gravatar says:

          And if it were up to you we’d never know – would we? Every citizen would be disarmed. Which is more than likely what occurred at these shootings. People no longer feel they CAN carry so the public, as the government wants it, is defenseless. It’s people like you who have shamed the populace into believing that carrying is primitive and low-brow. Moral judgments means a lot when they’re laying dead on the ground.

          • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

            “And if it were up to you we’d never know – would we? Every citizen would be disarmed.”

            Actually, I never said what my views on gun control are. I’m saying that this analysis is fundamentally flawed, proving nothing other than the author knows how to manipulate data.

            “It’s people like you who have shamed the populace into believing that carrying is primitive and low-brow.”

            Not at all. My parents have concealed/carry permits and do so when traveling. “People like me” take exception to being lied to – even when we like what’s being said. (I don’t, in this case, but that’s beside the point)

        • fsteeleNo Gravatar says:

          To add – outside of the 2 instances where a “civilian” (off duty police and a security guard) shot (killed/wounded) the shooter, there were only 3 other instances where firearms are mentioned as playing a roll in capturing the shooter.

          In those other 3 instances, is it confirmed that the shooter was aware of the civilian’s gun? How many had even drawn their guns? In a confused situation, the shooter might not hear or see the threat.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        There was a case in Isreal,back in the late ’80s,when a Hadji terrorist cell attacked a market square,well away from any Isreali military or police,expecting unarmed victims.Numerous civilians drew concealed pistols and shot them to pieces.

  5. tom swiftNo Gravatar says:

    Point of correction: I believe Nidal Hasan used a 5-7 pistol, not a revolver

  6. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Couldn’t have said it better myself:

    Notes & Errata by Mark Morford

    “Here is the truth: Guns are pain. Guns are impotence masquerading as virility, shame masquerading as valor, the devil disguised as an outrageously misinterpreted chunk of the Constitution that was never meant to suffer what the fat lords of the gun lobbies have made it suffer.

    Do you wish to speak of false gods? Things virulently anti-Christian? The antithesis of everything a peaceful, advanced country is ideally supposed to be founded on? Because guns are all that and more. Jesus would be disgusted.

    Perhaps you think guns and the current cluster of feeble laws on the books are generally fine, and it’s the mental health industry that needs the help? Perhaps you think Sandy Hook, Aurora, Colorado, Virginia Tech, et al could be better prevented by improved treatment for the mentally ill?

    Maybe. But a culture of gun fanaticism feeds insanity. Put the other way: insanity loves guns. They are interlinked and inextricable. Too-easy access to guns is a huge part of the problem, but even bigger is the gun fetishism so brutally interwoven into our society and popular culture, from childhood on up, that provides the hateful lie that guns aren’t just macho and all-American, they’re downright required for ensuring your sadism is remembered forever.

    Sandy Hook isn’t just about mental illness. It’s about mental illness shot through with endless images of ultra-violence and 300 million guns currently in American hands. It’s about insanity allowed to multiply its destructive powers by a factor of 61 mass murders in the past 30 years. It’s about gun-loving survivalist mothers of mentally ill kids stockpiling weapons for herself, teaching her kids to shoot, preparing for society’s collapse, all surely fed by right-wing fearmongers and idiots.

    Do not misunderstand. I’m well acquainted with the sporting thrill. I know the supposed nobility and beauty to be found in ethical and honest hunting (which I believe still exists, despite the canned hunts and the repulsive Texas exotic game preserves). I know the outright fun to be had shooting beautifully made, powerful weaponry at paper targets, clay pigeons, bottles and beer cans out in the woods. I get it.

    Do you know what else is fun? Piloting tanks into buildings. Shooting meth. Driving my car 150 MPH through busy streets, drunk. Throwing bowling balls off of skyscrapers and watching them demolish parked cars 300 feet below. Smashing windows with metal bats. Joining a Venezuelan rebel militia.

    This does not mean we should indulge in them, or that they deserve a prized place in society. This does not mean the tiny adrenaline rush afforded by gun sports is worth the overall cost, or is in some way unique or precious, and therefore must be defended by men so terrified of losing their thin hold on masculinity that they must strap firearms to their giant bellies to go to Wal-Mart, just in case the terrorists want to steal their ‘97 Corolla.

    Shall we ask the NRA and the gun lobby to prove it? If they have any evidence that guns are the slightest bit helpful or necessary to human development, progress, industry, spiritual development, love, family? Has any culture in the history of the civilized world ever evolved toward more munitions and antipathy, and flourished, healthy, calm and full of love?

    Of course not. There is no single argument for guns that holds up, that makes any sense whatsoever, that cannot easily be disproven by fact, ancient spiritual wisdom, or common sense.

    Guns do not protect more than they destroy. They do not save more lives than they kill. They do not safeguard more families than they devastate. They do not add security more than they add fear, suspicion, antagonism and hate. As has been pointed out again and again: Guns, by there very existence, insist on their own use. And their use is, singularly and without reservation, death.”

    • DarforNo Gravatar says:

      What a crock of steaming bovine excrement….

    • AnthonyNo Gravatar says:

      Mark – Up until now you were somewhat formidable in your responses. Talk about fear mongering…you didn’t present anything in this response other than you philosophical flaws.

      If guns are the problem and we have more than any other country then we should have the highest homicide rate per capita. The FACT is that we DONT have the highest homicide rate per capita. If guns were the problem Switzerland would also have one of the highest homicide rates in the world. Switzerland ISN’T EVEN CLOSE.

      The NRA has an entire website/column devoted to showing example after example of guns saving lives. Look it up sometime.

      The fact, Mark, is that you are grasping so hard for something to help prove that you are right that you are failing miserably.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Just presenting some different views. This one is from Mark Morford of SFGate and San Francisco Chronicle. Choose to dismiss it if you must but there is sound reasoning. The guy is also a masterful writer.

        • 12rmp123No Gravatar says:

          I’m sorry, I just don’t see any masterful writing here. This article is very one sided, not thought provoking, and draws very lopsided parallels. Open debate and opposing viewpoints are welcome, but that is not what this is.

    • JoeDNo Gravatar says:

      Yeah – not sure if there could have been a dumber post added to this discussion so we’ll have to give you, Mark, the medal. The world would be a lot better place if we had outlawed sticks, as well, when people started smacking each other over the head with them. Problem is, the first guy who realized that no one else would smack him back just picked up a stick and started smacking everyone. Once you stop living in fairy land and join the rest of us in reality we’ll start paying attention. Until then keep this kind of stupidity out of rational, human conversation.

  7. sharonNo Gravatar says:

    This information has been really interesting. It boils down to at the fact that the crazies only target the helpless. I choose for my child or grandchild in a school to be defended by someone or anyone who RTC’s than to be slaughtered helplessly. I’m a 68 yr. old Grandmother of 3. If I remember correctly there were no weapons to defend themselves in the Hasan case. Dumb.

  8. DavidNo Gravatar says:

    What is the number of attackers who were shot by civilians carrying weapons?

  9. AdrianNo Gravatar says:

    So would it be okay in your eyes if would own an atom bomb – all in all its just a piece of metal. Weapons are not just pieces of metal – they are tools of power. And real anarchists are against power. Keine Macht für niemand. So you are not a real Anarchist in my eyes – you propably dont know nothing about the movement and its history.

    • Rob FisherNo Gravatar says:

      You can not stop non-anarchists who want to wield power over others from obtaining guns. It is a fantasy. The only way to stop that concentration of power is to allow everyone access to guns. That is the only way to stop the strong having power over the weak, and is perfectly compatible with anarchism.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Really? You are going to be able to stop tanks, artillery, drones, bombers, and trained soldiers with automatic rifles? One line of thought about the second amendment was that it was put in place to allow the government to protect itself from uprisings and takeovers, not to protect citizens from the government. Thinking you can fight off an army is insane.
        That line of reasoning seems to make more sense.

        • AnthonyNo Gravatar says:

          If you actually read the constitution and declaration you would know that the reason for the 2nd amendment was to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.The federal government gets its power from the people. They are not a benevolent source of power that we must obey at every turn. That was not what our forefathers fought for, it was not the way the constitution was designed and it was not the forethought behind the declaration of independence.

          Come on Mark, at least know what you are talking about before you speak on it.

        • Matt HNo Gravatar says:

          Mark, just in case you missed it – we went through this in the 18th century. The second amendment is in fact to allow the People to regain control of a government that has ceased to reflect their will – by force if necessary.The constitution made law what the Declaration proclaimed to the world:

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

          I understand that you do not like guns. I get it. They can be scary. The “facts” that you posted in reply to Anthony though?

          not likely
          Not sure
          Sure, yea

          Those are all part of your sentences, and well, they aren’t part of fact based sentences even if you did form these opinion after researching on Wikipedia. I respect your desire not to own a gun, but to argue that the Constitution doesn’t say what the Constitution says or that the Declaration didn’t mean what it clearly meant is just insulting. Despotism is always just around the corner. Freedom is not passed in the bloodstream. These are truths that our founders understood, and it would do well for everyone to understand. Read the Federalist Papers, the Declaration, The Constitution, and some of the authors that our founders referenced such as John Locke and Alexis de Tocqueville. There is context there that is invaluable.


          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            The second amendment is an antiquated piece of legislation that is woefully behind the time. To consider it a sacred document is foolishness.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              You are free to leave this United States.

              Those of us who have served in the Armed forces of this nation have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Many of my brothers and sisters in uniform have died defending that “antiquated legislation”. Many more bear scars from the struggle with the enemies of this nation.

              You both challenge and insult everyone who has honorably sworn that oath. Right now I cannot think of an obscenity sufficient to convey my disgust for you.

            • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

              “The second amendment is an antiquated piece of legislation that is woefully behind the time.”

              I completely agree. Let’s follow Jefferson’s advice and scrap the Constitution from time to time and start over. Frankly the second amendment didn’t go far enough. This time, let’s make the right to own weapons more explicit and more difficult to chip away with semantic debates.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Sounds like fun. How about putting some specific and suitably severe punishments in place for authorities deliberately violating the Constitutional rights of citizens?

        • JJRNo Gravatar says:

          Mark said:

          “Really? You are going to be able to stop tanks, artillery, drones, bombers, and trained soldiers with automatic rifles? One line of thought about the second amendment was that it was put in place to allow the government to protect itself from uprisings and takeovers, not to protect citizens from the government. Thinking you can fight off an army is insane.”

          Ireland, 1916-1922. Civilians with rifles, revolvers & shotguns against one of the most advanced military machines of its day.

          US dropped x2 as many bombs on N. Vietnam than in all of WW2. Guess who still won.

          Armed insurgencies are damned hard to suppress, even when they lack tanks, drones, etc.

          Following Mark’s logic above, the Iraqi and Afghan resistance should just realize the futility of their position and give up immediately. Yet somehow they don’t. Hmm.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:


            I am not sure if Mark knows about this tidbit of history or not. From his postings, he is just a rabid anti gun person so he may be ignoring it.

            Anyone hear of the Liberator during WWII?

            It was a single shot 45 cal pistol that was dropped into Europe. With that 45, anyone could approach a better arm enemy soldier and shot him and ‘liberate’ the weapons of that now dead enemy. The program was a huge success in areas held by the Nazis. The Warsaw Ghetto was also a huge success for the Jews. While barely armed, the Jews helf off a heavily armed Nazi army for months.

            Never underestimate the determination of a people wishing to be or remain free.

            • MikeNo Gravatar says:

              …or alive.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Rabid anti-gun? NO. You haven’t been paying attention. Responsibility is what I have been advocating. You want a gun? YOU are responsible for it. Somebody uses your gun to commit a crime? Well, you now have a problem. There should be jail time and fines for such a thing. Have all the guns you want, but if you are irresponsible with them then, no, you CAN’T have them.

              Armed citizens are not going to overthrow a tyrannical U.S. government. If it gets bad here, you better leave if you can. You need look no further than our last little kerfuffle in Iraq to see what superior equipment and firepower can do.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Those troops have sworn to protect and defend the Constitution, not the current occupant of the White House. Since they’re already suspected terrorists (proclaimed so by homeland security) where do you think their loyalties will lie?

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              As I recall, that type of gun took longer to load than it did to make.

          • JoeDNo Gravatar says:

            I love you guys.

        • JoeDNo Gravatar says:

          Gee, Mark, the Afghans did it against a superior force now didn’t they? History is littered with “untrained” and “unequipped” people defending their homes and coming up victorious against a superior force so don’t give us this shit.

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          Ask the Viet Minh,or Tito’s Partisans.Or the JFO in Warsaw,who held the Germans off longer than the entire French army did.

    • DaviNo Gravatar says:

      “So would it be okay in your eyes if would own an atom bomb – all in all its just a piece of metal.” Still mulling that one over. But it occurs to me that only people who want nuclear weapons are States and sub-national groups determined to retaliate against States. I’m not sure there would be any market for an atom bomb without a State.

      “You are not a real Anarchist in my eyes” Be sure to file a complaint with the bureau of anarchist affairs to revoke my membership

      “you propably dont know nothing about the movement and its history.” Assumptions, assumptions… double negatives and assumptions.

  10. MylesNo Gravatar says:

    I like your article a lot but there are some facts to clean up (at least according to my wikipedia searches of the names you listed). David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. killed his ex-wife with a shot to the head. She is the one he was there to kill, so he wasn’t exactly a crazy mass murderer who was stopped by the brave man with the handgun, bless his heart.

    • rocinanteNo Gravatar says:

      A not-so-small correction: David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr. had already wounded his son, David, Jr. and was aiming at him (presumbably with the intent of killing him) when Mark Alan Wilson intervened at the cost of his own life. Wilson didn’t stop the elder Arroyo but, by distracting him, clearly saved the younger man’s life.

      This is one of the many misrepresentations I spotted in the otherwise well-researched article in Mother Jones to which commenter Mark referred. They classified Wilson’s intervention a “failure” because he didn’t personally fire the shots stopped the gunman, though Arroyo, Sr. did not kill anyone else that day.

      Mark Alan Wilson feasts with the honored dead in Valhalla tonight.

  11. JasonNo Gravatar says:

    Spectacular work! Thank you for your time and commitment to the numbers.

  12. JohnNo Gravatar says:

    Everyone, I found that guns are not the problem, they might be the solution.

    I am an engineering senior and I did a statistical analysis. Assuming, non-negative deaths with integers would be best for a Poisson distribution, I found that the estimate for the death rates would be 14.3 and 2.3 (like the picture)

    With 95% confidence I can claim that for kill sprees,
    Police stopping leads to 8.4- 23.5 murdered/time
    Civilians stopping leads to .6- 7.2 murdered/time

    Civilians need to be the heroes if we want less tragedies to occur!

    There is a statistically significant difference (P<.05) between civilians stopping murderers and police stopping murders. This means that civilians must be trained how to protect themselves and others!

    We need to be prepared someday to be a hero for ourselves and others

    Source: atistics/

  13. JohNo Gravatar says:

    I would like to present some questions we should ask before really advocating for a complete gun ban.

    Complete gun ban (Guns vanish from the united states, only police posses them):

    A part of me wants this to be the solution, because it would be great if it worked. It seems simple enough, no guns means no mass shootings right? The general belief is that with no guns, someone who just snaps can’t just go grab one willy nilly and kill a bunch of people.
    However, think about our knowledge of the insane people who were responsible for these shootings. The most terrifying ones have involved careful planning on the part of the gunman. The colorado gunman had all sorts of equipment, and even had the forethought to set booby traps for police at his house. The columbine students also engaged in careful planning of their attack long before they carried it out. The Virginia shooting, from what I read on the man, was something that was developing in him for years. He even left videos and pictures of himself armed, and a videos explaining why he believed he was forced to do this terrible thing.
    My point is that these things do not happen as suddenly as we like to think. They were masterminded events. Guns were the means, but they are not the only means. If we ban guns does that means crazy people won’t plot to kill large numbers of people for media attention, or sadistic pleasure? Last I checked, bombs are incredibly easy to make from household supplies. There are also other weapons that can be made or attained. There are also other sadistic ways to kill and hurt people (serial killers, serial rapists ect.).
    I am not solidly claiming that a complete gun ban would just switch the methodology of murder to other weapons and there will be just as many deaths. I just wanted to point out that these people will still exist and we should really consider what happens to them after they no longer have access to guns. Guns do not cause them to exist, so they will NOT disappear if we rid ourselves of guns. They’ll release there aggression, anger, or repression in other sick ways. What those ways will be once there is no gun outlet is hard to tell. This is why gun control is a scary experiment for a whole country to engage in. You may end up having a different method of violence except that fewer people have the means to defend themselves. I understand why people are hesitant to try it.

    After all, as many of you have previously mentioned, places like Canada and switzerland have boatloads of guns, but very low murder rates. We have boatloads of guns and higher murder rates. That would suggest to some extent that murders are independent of guns. If we remove guns the mental instability of these sick individuals and the society that generated them will still be here. The difference is that normal, sensible people won’t go through the trouble of making weapons to defend themselves against crazy people who are making weapons and bombs to kill innocents. I fear by removing guns we undo what is already a leveled playing field. Everyone has guns, so we keep others who go crazy in check with our own guns. Without guns, the insane murderer mastermind has all the initiative, because he will go through the trouble of planning and making weapons while you will not plan reciprocally for you safety. You will not be planning your escape routes and know all the exits in buildings you walk in on a normal. The crazy murderer will when he strikes though.

    I am not trying to really prove anything one way or the other.
    I am simply asking the question:
    Will the banishment of guns simply create more serial killers, more bombers, more rapist, more axe murders where there were once gunmen?
    Are we just trying to treat the symptoms of a problem instead of the cause?

    I am open to comments. This is really a question I’m asking.

    Please refrain from using language like ‘libtard’ or ‘jesus says this’.
    1. calling people names makes you seem 12 years old.
    2. Saying jesus believes this or that (in this case, jesus thinks we shouldn’t have guns) is unhelpful in two ways. Firstly, it does not help your argument to cite god when discussing law in a nation that clearly separates church and state and secondly, it offends people, christians, muslims, and jews alike, when you claim that you speak for god.

    I do not mean to offend those who have used that language in previous posts. I understand that this is a very sad and heated issue, especially now, so it completely excusable that some people get angry and say these things. We should just try not to, because it doesn’t help.

    Closing remarks:
    I do not think guns are good things. They are bad. I just feel that if a man in this day and age is so mentally sick that he really has the intention to kill dozens of children, does it really matter if there are guns or not?

  14. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Anthony, you act like I just make this stuff up. I rarely post anything anywhere without checking sources. I certainly don’t cobble together “statistics” like the one above when I know better.

    Look on wikipedia for some of the reasons for the second amendment:

    deterring tyrannical government;
    >>M: not likely…not gonna win against tanks

    repelling invasion;
    >>M: slightly more plausible. Maybe if Antarctica tries to invade we can shoo them off

    suppressing insurrection;
    >>M: what I have been talking about. Also more plausible that going against the army.

    facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
    >>M: what everyone here thinks it is about.

    participating in law enforcement;
    >>M: Not sure how much the cops appreciate this if at all.

    enabling the people to organize a militia system.
    >>M: Sure, yea…

    • AnthonyNo Gravatar says:

      1st . Tanks were not invented when the constitution was written.
      2nd. With the largest amount of firearms held per capita I dont think any country is going to attempt a ground assault.
      3rd. When the constitution was written our forefathers were the insurrection and the reason for our freedom.
      4th. We do have the natural right to own what we will and that is only part of the debate albeit one of the most if not the most important.
      5th. Participating in law enforcement only has to mean stopping someone from shooting up a school full of kids.
      6th A the term organized militia is actually used in the 2nd amendment.

      indeed if you do not read the declaration and understand why our founding fathers did what they did then you could guess, although you would be wrong, that they did it because they wanted to protect their new found power.

      The beginning of the declaration says WE THE PEOPLE, not we the government.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        1. Thank you: Point taken
        2. Thank you: Point taken
        3. Thank you: Point taken
        4. Responsibility comes with ownership.
        5. Seems like a logical extension of self-defense
        6. Yet so few gun owners are members of the National Guard.

        ” — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” _ The Gettysburg Address

        • rocinanteNo Gravatar says:

          The original Militia Act of 1792 includes every “free, able-bodied … male citizen” in the “militia” and the Militia Act of 1903 (the Dick Act) specifically *excludes* the members of the National Guard from the militia.

          And the courts have ruled that the power of the Federal government over the 54 National Guards is “plenary”; i.e., “full, complete, absolute, unqualified”.

          Just sayin’.

          “That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat
          or labourer’s cottage is the symbol of democracy.
          It is our job to see that it stays there.” – George Orwell

      • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

        I would like to remind everyone that zombies do just fine against tanks

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      *”not gonna win against tanks”
      There is a reason that tanks are accompanied by dismounted infantry, that being they are vulnerable to just about anything that is not another tank.

      The remainder of your arguments are just as ludicrous.

      • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

        The Kuwaiti resistance destroyed 100 Iraqi tanks during the invasion,with small arms and improvised weaponry.

  15. CPNo Gravatar says:

    Joh….that’s an interesting framework for debate you have presented. One thing to remember is that guns will never ever vanish. That genie is out of the bottle and no one can ever put the cork back in. Accepting that as truth let’s consider who would be affected by a total ban of firearms. I would suggest that only the law abiding citizens would turn in their weapons. Gun smuggling (remember Prohibition?) and burglery would increase dramatically as criminals try to get guns to do their business. The criminal element simply won’t care about a ban on guns. However, what the ban would accomplish would be a dissarmemant of the general population who whose need for protection would grow because of the ban. Crimes are often committed by people who feel they have an advantage of power over their victims. And a ban would vastly increase the population of powerless citizens. Mexico’s present situation is very illuminating because gun ownership is illegal. So only the army, the corrupt police and the druggies have guns. The murder rate there is beyond belief these days. In my opinion guns are ony an extension of the evil resident in the persons wielding them. However, most gun control laws do not address this group. Again, the good folks are going to be punished for the actions of the crazies. In a society that strives for fairness how can that be justified? And could it ever be expected to be effective? As sad and unbelievable as the tragedy in Newtown, CT is I simply cannot see what good would come from prohibiting gun ownership. For the overall fund of general knowledge “assault weapons” are illegal in Connecticut and the law specifically bans the gun used by the shooter. Mom is to blame for that one. What was she doing having one in her home? And two pistols? I would think that one Glock would be sufficient for self protection. Perhaps we need to adopt rules that prohibit keeping guns in one’s home when a mentally ill or unstable person resides in that home. Turn the guns into the police and if/when the situation changes they can have their guns back. It seems to me that these horrific mass killings have been acts of mentally ill people who managed to gain access to firearms. How do we address that problem?

    I hope this adds and extends the debate. In the immediate wake of this tragedy there will be certain parties with agendas who will use the pain and sadness to advance said agendas. And since the ONLY agenda on a politian’s agenda is getting re-elected you may count on most of them to climb all over each other to author new gun control bills that likely won’t addess any relevant issues so they can wave the bills they authored or supported to their constiuents during their next campaign. I’m probably whistling in the dark here but I am hopeful that maturity, objectivety and common sense will ultimately prevail.

  16. DonnNo Gravatar says: -else-had-gun.html

    I don’t think the solution is banning weapons. That cannot work.

    However, we can reduce their easy availability (yes, we can) through a comprehensive system if registration, tracking, (destruction of non-registered firearms every time they are found), ensuring that the law abiding have access through said system, strict enforcement of the violation of *any* firearm law; there are so many things we can do.

    Yet we do nothing, because we have accepted the false argument that, since one thing cannot solve this problem that nothing should be done.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      *”a comprehensive system if registration, tracking, (destruction of non-registered firearms every time they are found), ensuring that the law abiding have access through said system, strict enforcement of the violation of *any* firearm law;”

      Yes, that worked so well in 1925 Germany.
      “”On this glorious December evening, in the year 1933,” he continued, “I, Herman Grundig, wish to thank these men seated besides me. Helmut Bunder and Franz Koenig helped lead the Weimar assembly’s efforts in 1925 to pass the German National Gun Registration Act, then helped to pass the National Security Act of 1929. The 1929 Act required all Germans, and especially Jews, to turn in all guns or rifles they owned to the authorities. Through their efforts in the Weimar Assembly, these men helped remove all guns owned by German citizens and Jews, thereby helping us make a more secure Germany, a more peaceful Germany. They made it possible for German police and security forces to enforce the just laws of the nation without fear of attack by citizens or extremist groups who opposed these laws.”

      “These men also helped influence the legislative assemblies in Austria, Poland, Hungary, Denmark, France, Italy, Russia, and Czechoslovakia to also pass gun registration and confiscation laws. As a result, all of Europe is now disarmed . . . I mean, a safer place to live for all its citizens.”……..

      …….”And we have these courageous Weimar Assembly leaders to thank for this. For now, all Jews are disarmed, even in the Warsaw ghetto, a hotbed of Jewish plots. They will have no means to resist our just laws against them. Also, all citizens in France, Austria, Denmark, Holland, Poland, Italy, Russia, and Czechoslovakia are now disarmed by their own governments. As a result, we will now convince these countries to agree to German demands for repatriation of lands and money taken from us by the World War I armistice agreement they forced on us. If they do not agree, we will convince them with our just might. Because they are disarmed, we will have little resistance.”

      You do recall the unpleasant events of 1939-1945, don’t you?

  17. JNo Gravatar says:

    That’s interesting work. Setting aside the pro/anti gun stuff, those numbers seem to suggest that the best way to prevent/end a killing spree is for the victims to attack with whatever they have, be it guns, knives, or fists.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      That worked real well in the recent killings in Sandy Hook, didn’t it? The absence of suitable weapons rendered the adults helpless.

      • EarlNo Gravatar says:

        I am totally behind properly trained / licensed school staff having access to firearms. If it be a principal / teacher / security / custodian / or lunch lady who carries or they are better yet locked in a gun safe in the said persons office / classroom I feel would have most likely stopped the carnage in Sandy Hook sooner.

        That said, I am very sad for the loss of anyone but am very proud of the adults who did actively react and attempt to distract / subdue the gunman. How many children did they save? For me, I believe they saved several.

        I am licensed to carry concealed and do. If I am somewhere (like a school) where I can not carry, I would not hesitate to confront a shooter. But to me any confrontation is better then none.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Locked in a gun safe? When was the last time you needed a fire extinguisher, and did you have to open a safe to get to it?

        • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

          What good would the guns do,locked in a safe?During the Luby’s massacre outside of Fort Hood,in ’91,there were dozens of police-in the next building,with their weapons securely locked in the trunks of their cars.A Bell County Narcotics Task Force unit,several miles away,had to be dispatched.

  18. Jill ENo Gravatar says:

    You know, out of the 17 ‘civilian stopped’ incidents you describe, only TWO meet the FBI’s criteria for ‘mass murder’ (4 or more killed – al-murder-1#two). Of those 2, neither was stopped by a gun-carrying civilian, and both, it appears, were tackled by civilians while attempting to reload.

    Out of all 17 incidents, only in ONE was the shooter shot and killed by a civilian – who happened to be an off-duty police officer. Not just your ‘average citizen with a gun’.

    The only other incident where the shooter was shot (injured) involves a volunteer security officer – we can assume that some training with firearms went into that position. Again, not your ‘average joe’ with a gun.

    I haven’t forgotten the case of Mark Wilson, though. You claim that he ‘drove off’ the shooter – but even a Wiki reading of the incident will show that he actually interfered while Arroyo was already engaged with police/sheriff officers – Arroyo eventually shot Wilson from a distance, then walked to his fallen body and pumped 3 more rounds into him. Not until at least 116 rounds had been exchanged did Arroyo attempt to flee the scene.

    By contrast, every single incident you listed involving police qualified (by FBI criteria) as ‘mass murder.’ Of the 15 mass murder incidents involving police, 7 shooters committed suicide before they could be apprehended; 3 were killed by officers, and the rest were taken into custody.

    You cherry-picked data and came to conclusions that you had already determined to be true. Not valid, reliable, or honest way of portraying the ‘facts’.

    Slate has a really good article here:  /can_armed_citizens_stop_mass_shootings_examples_of_armed_interv entions.html

    and MotherJones has another here:

    • Davi BarkerNo Gravatar says:

      I’ve said this a half dozen times already. But this is not a analysis of mass shootings. It’s an analysis of rampage shootings. The criterion is indiscriminate firing at innocent bystanders, not the number of people killed.

      Thanks for the tip on the Arroyo shooting. I’ll have to reexamine it, maybe reclassify it the next time I update.

      • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

        There is no legal definition for ‘rampage shooting’ that I could find – leaving you open to defining the term for your own use and picking specific subsets of data that will generate the results you want to see. Using established lexicons for behaviors is part of what generates results that are consistently reliable. And your facebook meme specifically states “MASS murders”. Of course, a correction would be meaningless at this point – if it was ever meaningful to begin with.

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          You’re right Jill. I’d say even 17 deaths is not a mass murder. Only governments have been capable of mass murders. You know, murders that number in the millions?

          • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

            When doing analysis, it’s most consistent, reliable, and comparable to use established terms. I was not disputing the definition of ‘mass murder’ (which was provided via the FBI), simply pointing out that making your own term, using your own self-crafted definition for that term, and then running cherry-picked data through your very own ‘black box’ to generate results you ‘happen’ to agree with is not exactly how statistical analysis is done.

            • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

              If you hadn’t noticed, this is an anarchist website. In other words, we don’t give a shit about what the F.B.I. thinks.

              • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

                However, if you want to communicate honestly with others who do NOT hold your point of view, you should (ethically) communicate in ‘standard’ terms (ie ‘mass murder’ using a common definition and concomitant scenarios…not ‘rampage killings’ with a definition made up by some guy and defined any ol’ way you want).

                • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

                  Do you understand the concept of “target audience?” Because you’re not in it!

                  • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

                    Yeah, I get it. But this was posted publicly, has made it to MY facebook page via friends, and it only seemed sensible, since I try to debunk terrible information when possible, that I find out where the meme came from, what it was based on, and how that information was generated.

                    Fact is, the data selection was poor, the selection criteria was highly biased/slanted, the methodology was poor, and the conclusions reached were not supported by the data presented.

                    Be an anarchist – burn the world to the ground in the name of your liberties, I don’t really care….but don’t blow sunshine up my butt and tell me you’re doing it for me and mine.

                  • SkippyNo Gravatar says:

                    LOL. Right, it’s an anarchist website so you’re allowed to just make crap up. Nice.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Socialists are professional sophists, masters at ‘redefinition’. Their words have infinite and ever mutable meaning, but any who dare dispute their arguments have no such right.

        • fsteeleNo Gravatar says:

          To decide if an incident would have been a mass murder (or whatever term we decide to use) — look at how much ammunition he brought.

        • DaviNo Gravatar says:

          “There is no legal definition for ‘rampage shooting’ that I could find”
          That matters to me why? There’s no legal definition for most things, yet somehow language keeps moving on.

          “leaving you open to defining the term for your own use and picking specific subsets of data that will generate the results you want to see.”
          You’ve rightly identified precisely why legal definitions always produce the results the States wants to see.

          “Using established lexicons for behaviors is part of what generates results that are consistently reliable.” No it’s not. Using consistent lexicons is what generates consistent results. Good analysts and debaters often get very precise as to how they are going to use a specific word, intentionally departing from the established usage, to arrive at more accurate intellectual frameworks.

          “your facebook meme specifically states “MASS murders”.”
          No it doesn’t. Maybe other people have created facebook memes based on this.

      • fsteeleNo Gravatar says:

        “It’s an analysis of rampage shootings. The criterion is indiscriminate firing at innocent bystanders, not the number of people killed.”

        This is a category worth study, whether anyone has defined a name for it yet or not. If there is such a name established, then that can be substituted later. If not, someone may suggest a better name to define to apply to it. In the meantime, it’s good to be polishing the content.

        If a random shooting can be stopped before it reaches 4 victims, all the better. If such an incident, on closer examination, turns out to have not been random, still we can look at who stopped it, how, did the hero damage other by-standers, etc.

      • SkippyNo Gravatar says:

        Arroyo was camping out to kill his ex-wife and son. This isn’t a rampage shooting, it’s just a murder that occurred in public.

  19. DarforNo Gravatar says:

    Here’s a link to a site which provides many examples of armed civilians intervening. There are links to each report so you can evaluate if it fits a personally held criteria or not.

    Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens ed-citizens.html

    • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

      If you’re going to talk about ‘mass killings/murders’ then, for the information to be credible/comparable to existing data, you have to be talking about incidences where 4 or more people were killed. I saw ONE of those instances in your link.

      2/3 of the civilian-involved instances in the article above were stopped by UNarmed citizens. TWICE as many as were stopped by armed citizens.

      Of course, we are hearing about more and more of these ( ete-pizza-joint-had-been-complaining-about-slow-service/1266589) lately as well. Welcome to legislated anarchy.


      • DarforNo Gravatar says:

        Based on your logic if a killer open fired on a group of people, whether it be 4 or 40, and is himself shot before he can score at least 4 deaths, then the situation doesn’t rise to your definition of a mass shooting. In essence, the act of stopping the shooting successfully determines that it can’t be counted as a successful stopping of a mass shooting. Makes perfectly good sense!

        I guess it’s incumbent on people carrying guns to pass the word that if they happen to stumble onto a mass shooting to wait until the requisite 4 deaths are either confirmed or highly likely so that non-hoplophobia people can actually calm that an armed citizen stopped a mass shooting in progress.

  20. Jill ENo Gravatar says:

    Then go out and see how many officers (police/sheriff) stop a shooter BEFORE he shoots 4 people and work with THOSE numbers for comparison.

    • DarforNo Gravatar says:

      No, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’ll let you reign in your intellectual victory bought with circular logic. I already feel comfortable with my beliefs and the real life experiences which brought me to those beliefs. All of these games regarding what is or isn’t a legitimate use of force, whether or not it stopped a mass murder or just cured a hangnail, are all exercises in mental masturbation as insecure people struggle to justify their worth and advance their sacredly held ideologies.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      As long as you’re going with that logic, add in the bystanders shot by police in these incidents.

  21. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    This is the kind of bullshit your armed citizenry gets you: randall-white-little-caesars-pizza-restaurant-claims-stand-your

    “Jock and White began to shove each other. After White allegedly raised his fist, Jock pulled out a .38 Taurus Ultralight Special Revolver and fired a shot into the White’s torso. A second shot also hit White in the torso.

    When police arrived, Jock told them that the shooting had been justified under Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law, which says that gun owners do not have a “duty to retreat.””

    • DarforNo Gravatar says:

      And this is the kind of BS you get with your “Gun Free Zones” — they would be more appropriately called “Ready Made Victims for Armed Assailant Zones.”

      20 children among 26 victims of Connecticut school shooting x.html

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Yep, an irresponsible gun owner let a gun get loose.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Oh, yea, gun free zones… like Congress.

        • DarforNo Gravatar says:

          Do you really believe that Congress is a “Gun Free Zone?” I would bet thousands of dollars to donuts that there is incredible firepower throughout the building (buildings when you include the office structures) beneath the coats and jackets of highly trained body guards who are serving as aides and other staff members. Those are in addition to the actual security staff and occasional Secret Service detail present.

          If I were you I wouldn’t accept that bet. I spent a few years in DC and know that to be fact. People would be amazed at the levels of security that politicians and above-middle management bureaucrats have stuffed into every nook and cranny available. These are the same politicos who preach to us that we should not be armed.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Then by your own admission, there are other solutions to armed violence other than putting guns in teachers hands and the general populace.

            • DarforNo Gravatar says:

              No, it takes a gun to stop a gun as demonstrated by the armed security of all of the anti-gun politicians. Laws only affect law abiding citizens, not the criminal ill. Pick your choice of the cities with the most restrictive gun control laws — they’re all at the top of the list for the most gun violence and their political leaders won’t even go to the head without armed escort. But the same leaders proclaim (from behind their multi-man armed security staffs) that the citizens don’t need guns. They have their guns around for any crisis.

              Of course, we are told by gun control culturalists, to believe that ordinary civilians can’t do anything in such a crisis except wet their pants and hope that the SWAT team doesn’t get stuck in traffic.

              So no, I don’t admit there are alternatives as you suggest. It takes a gun to stop a gun.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Your argument has already been refuted by the courts.

      “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction pon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”

      [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

    • cavtrooperNo Gravatar says:

      And fully justified.He had every reason to fear death or great bodily injury.I’m a 52 year old combat wounded disabled veteran.If an assaillant makes move that indicate a threat to me,I will draw a weapon-wether or not I shoot is up to him.

  22. Jill ENo Gravatar says:

    No…the examples given above show that in 2/3 of the cases, the ‘guns’ were stopped by people who were unarmed. It does not necessarily take a gun to stop a gun.

    • DarforNo Gravatar says:

      That worked well for the principal at Newton. Also in question is the determination of the shooter to kill as many as possible, ammo supply and opportunity for the unarmed to safely react. Personally, I would rather rely on a gun and not be left to wonder at the time about those other elements. Please do feel free to react when unarmed if you believe that to be best.

      • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

        “That worked well for the principal at Newton.”

        Actually, it worked well for a statistically significant number of the situations in Davi’s article – twice as well as the ‘get ’em with a gun’ approach.

        • DaviNo Gravatar says:

          Twice as many, not twice as well. If you want to go by quantity, the majority of rampage shooters shot themselves, so by that logic arming rampage shooters is the way to stop rampage shooters.

    • fsteeleNo Gravatar says:

      Second, within the civilian category 11 of the 17 shootings were stopped by unarmed civilians.

      Which leaves 6 stopped by armed civilians. But how many of those fired and hit the killer? How many fired and missed? How many just drew their gun? And most important, how many (aside from the one that hit him) actually got the attention of the killer?

      Aside from the one who actually hit the killer, we can’t be sure that any of the other guns was instrumental in stopping him, other than perhaps giving the civilian confidence to attack quicker. (And weren’t some of those in fact off-duty police or military, whose training would have encouraged them to attack, even if they had left their guns at home?)

      With those breakdowns, we’re not looking at 1/3 vs 2/3, but at sample sizes way down in the margin of error.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        So many here are discounting the info because the sample size is so small. Do you want there to be more attempted mass shooting so that we can get a definitive result?

        • Seth KingNo Gravatar says:

          Ssshhhh!!! Don’t bring up the fact that mass shootings are statistically a rare occurrence! That doesn’t fit the narrative!

          If these people really gave a shit about saving lives(which they clearly don’t) they would get working on the fact that ~82 people die every day on American highways, many of whom are children.

          Ahh, but you see, the GOVERNMENT runs the roads, so no need for improvement there! Ha!

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Ray, yes, Davi keeps saying no one is telling him what is wrong with his “statistics” yet we keep pointing it out. The random selection process is also flawed. Generally most of the defences here rely on single instances extrapolated to cover the general. Untrained, un-regulated masses of people armed with concealed carry weapons may solve some instances but the overall effect will be more deaths. Why do I say that? No I don’t see proposals for changing anything else. More regulation means the Nazis have won and we are just inches away from everyone’s guns being taken away (never mind the fact that there are regulations in place already). No one seems to want to have a conversation on responsibility. Instead we get irresponsible memes on facebook feeding the fearful.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You said, “but the overall effect will be more deaths.”

            Okay hotshot. Now where is your data to back up that ridiculous claim? Cops shoot more innocent people than do ordinary citizens.

            Then you go on to say, “Why do I say that?”

            That is the question. It is not true. You have nothing to back up that claim so why exactly are you saying it? What is your agenda and why do you resort to lies to promote that agenda?

  23. SeedzNo Gravatar says:

    Ahh, Jilly, can you breathe atop your soapbox? One would think the air is thin up there.

    Bored? Join the fun here fellow anarchists: election_2012

    They think they know everything. Let them know they’re wrong.

  24. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Jill, you can tell when you are getting under their skin when they start calling names and mocking. “Jilly”, so adult.

    If you don’t know who Nate Silver is you should find out. Here’s a link showing where all the fear and paranoia comes from (SURPRISE!): (REAL statistics by the way). hip-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/#more-37925

    “Gun ownership has declined over the past 40 years — but almost all of the decrease has come from Democrats. By 2010, according to the General Social Survey, the gun ownership rate among adults that identified as Democrats had fallen to 22 percent. It remained at about 50 percent among Republican adults.”

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      To fit the mold of “needing a gun” you should be a:

      Married w/children,
      Evangelical Christian,
      Weekly church attending,
      Military veteran

      • DarforNo Gravatar says:

        And if I don’t fit that mold am I still “allowed” to be armed?
        Republican,……………………..libertarian, despise both Reps & Dems
        Male,…………………………… that
        White,…………………………….half fit that (mixed race)
        Southern,…………………………born and raised in the North
        Rural,……………………………..big city all my life
        Middle-aged,…………………….fit this
        Middle-class,…………………….business owner, make over $300k annually
        Undereducated,………………….1 BA, 2 Masters
        Married w/children,…………….yes, but children long gone
        Evangelical Christian,………… this
        Weekly church attending,……..definitely don’t fit this
        Military veteran………………….fit this

        Since I only fit around 42% of your profile, why do I feel I need to be armed in our rather violent and chaotic society? Could it be because I believe I have a Natural Right to self defense?

  25. Jill ENo Gravatar says:

    A Natural Right to Self Defense is not the same as the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It’s a philosophical difference that rarely gets any discussion because it doesn’t allow for one side to cry over the dead, nor does it allow the other side to scream about getting their guns taken away.

    As for the profile of the ‘typical gun owner’ – do we really need to explain that ‘typical’ does not mean “everyone who owns a gun must fit these criteria”…. it means that “a large proportion of people who fit these criteria own guns” – again, a difference that is rarely recognized (as evidenced by your post), but one that is important.

    • DarforNo Gravatar says:

      I pretty much agree with your 1st paragraph. But you cloud the issue with your second paragraph.

      Regarding the first we’ll never find truly common ground because each person is going to be arguing their worldview and will probably never bend to one that opposes that view through verbal debate — in other words, you have designed a stalemate.

      The second paragraph can only be answered again by one’s world view and experiences. My view toward carrying a gun didn’t come from my years in the Army — 42 months in combat, Nam — but from experiences in civilian life long after I left the military. In my late 30s I walked into a liquor store being robbed and was shot twice, spending several weeks in the hospital and subsequent rehab. In my mid forties I was carjacked and again shot. I now carry a gun for self defense as I have experienced the seamy side of man’s inhumanity to man. I refuse to cower behind closed doors nor will I wait and hope that the local LEOs can intervene in a potentially deadly situation. I take the responsibility for both my own self defense and the maturity to use a gun both prudently and effectively.

      As much as we would all like to have a society where there was no need for guns or self defense, reality teaches us that there is a lot of evil in the world. There are many people who have no regard for the lives and or property of their fellow human beings. We don’t have a problem with gun control, we have a problem with control and treatment of the mentally ill and criminal elements which our society is almost intentionally breeding though relative morality and lax enforcement of existing laws. Instead of teaching kids a faux, unearned self esteem, we should be teaching them that there is a right and a wrong in their dealing with others, and that they have a responsibility to be law abiding and productive citizens.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Darfor, I am sorry you have been the victim of violence and that guns were involved. That has to be a life-changing event. I wonder why after the first time you didn’t take up having a firearm from that point on. I would have. It’s a perfectly natural reaction. I, on the other hand, have lived my entire life (I’m probably about the same age-range as you), have never been around any gun play or violence like this. What can be said about both our experiences is that they are anecdotal in nature. Taken as a population though (and without any sources on my part) I think I can safely say most people have not had your experience.

        Taking exceptions and the using them to justify Davi’s meme is irresponsible. I have been proposing more responsibility with gun ownership yet it seems to not be recognized. Is being responsible really so hard? Is being responsible for owning a killing device really such a stretch?

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Here’s a few historic statements you might contemplate:

          “We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.”- Mr.. Nelson T. Shields, III. “Pete” founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which became Handgun Control, Inc. quoted from July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker Interview “A Reporter At Large – Handguns”, page 53.
          “I don’t care about crime, I just want to get the guns.” Senator Howard Metzenbaum 1994
          “Gun registration is not enough.” – Janet Reno (Attorney General) December 10th, 1993
          “[the United States] can’t be so fixed on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” – President Bill Clinton, Piscataway, NJ March 1, 1993
          “We’re here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true! We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” – NY Representative Charles Schumer November 30, 1993
          “The American people must be willing to give up a degree of personal privacy in exchange for safety and security.” – Louis Freeh 1993 (FBI director)
          “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so.” — Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942. [Hitler’s Table-Talk at the Fuhrer’s Headquarters 1941-1942], Dr. Henry Picker, ed. (Athenaum-Verlag, Bonn, 1951)
          “Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I’ll pull the trigger. We’ll see who wins.” — Former Mafia hit man turned informant Sammy “the Bull” Gravano

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      There are any number of Constitutional scholars who would disagree with you on that score.

  26. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    I have to say this though it is somewhat off topic.

    While the subject is mass shootings, most shootings are one on one incidents and none of us know when or if we might get caught up in such a situation. It is already well documented that firearms are used successfully to defend or end an attack an estimated 2 million times a year. Given that, why would any rational person denigrate one’s choice to be armed? Horrific as they are, mass shootings are relatively rare, certainly not even close to 2 million times a year. I prefer to have my gun and not need it than to not have it and desperately need it.

    • DarforNo Gravatar says:

      Amen, brother, amen…I was an unarmed victim twice — I never want to be in that position again and, I really hope and pray I’m never forced to use my gun again, but I will if I have to.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      That 2 million (sometimes 2.5) statistic has been refuted many times but it keeps showing up. Again, the victim of more bad statistical methods.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        The 2 – 2.5 number stays alive because it is a real number with real people defending themselves. But for the sake of argument, let’s say that it is only a million or even a half million. Are the lives, safety, and property of those half million more valuable than the life of a miserable cretin who wants to deprive them of it?

        But you know what? If it only happens once a year that a person defends himself by using or brandishing a handgun, isn’t his or her life worth it? Why do you stand with criminals who want more people to be defenseless and with politicians who don’t want challenges to their power?

  27. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    Has anyone noticed that these professional quibblemeisters never offer a viable alternative or use the data provided to refine the study?

    I’ll bet these paid trolls and useful idiots have never faced or even contemplated any of the situations that they are so blithely ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’. Their only experience with violence comes through participation in video games.

    I’ll offer an edit to an old axiom:

    Those who can, do
    Those who no longer can, teach,
    Those who never had the ability quibble and nitpick.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      We “paid trollers” are looking for solutions. What is your basis for those accusations?

      Look at what people are googling for. le-search-pattern-happened-this-year?c=upw1

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Ah! So you admit! Thanks!
        My source:  /

        As to ‘google search patterns” I’d trust Pravda more than google, and besides that the link you provided isn’t there any longer. Not even a 404, it just doesn’t exist.

        Yesterday the Walmarts in five states sold out of semi-auto rifles. I hope those buyers were purchasing real rifles and not those over sexed .22s . It has been my experience that AR15/M16 rifles are delicate and prone to jam.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Not sure what accusing some of us (those that disagree) of being paid trolls does for your argument. How did you come to that conclusion?

          Based on the quotes you cited, it seems that basically you are afraid someone is going to take your guns. This is not a all-or-nothing debate. You seem to be unable to entertain reasonable restrictions that still allow individuals to own guns. If I took guns you own and shot up a school are you blameless?

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            You steal my property (guns) after presumably breaking into my home to do so and then go on to commit a crime with it (rape, robbery, or murder) and then you want to make a case for it being the fault of the gun owner whom you stole from? Are you insane?

            Ideally, you’d be caught in the act of committing the burglary and be terminated on the spot.

            You try to come across as some high minded concerned citizen but you reveal your true agenda with each irrational post you make.

    • Jill ENo Gravatar says:

      1. I’m not paid by anyone.

      2. Want ideas? They’ve been floated around for a long time: require a regular registration of each weapon you own – much like the yearly registration on your car. Gun-related injuries cost the public almost $4billion/year; registration fees would help offset that amount. How about some kind of liability insurance to be carried on EACH gun one owns – again, like car insurance, it would help offset some of the expenses of gun-related injuries, with premiums raised in accordance with each unlawful or accidental use of the gun in question.

      You have the Natural Right to protect yourself, but the right to own a gun is GRANTED by our Constitution….not by our nature, our place on the food chain, or whatever God you believe in. Own as many guns as you like under the ‘ideas’ I listed – just be sure you can afford regular registration fees and insurance….just like you can own as many cars as you want – as long as you can afford the registration fees and insurance.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        If you’re not being paid then you are one of the useful idiots and willing dupes.

        Those ideas have been floated for a long time, and with a specific end in mind.

        Quote: “We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily – given the political realities – going to be very modest. Of course, it’s true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.’ And it’s also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we’d be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal – total control of handguns in the United States – is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition – except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors – totally illegal.”- Mr.. Nelson T. Shields, III. “Pete” founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which became Handgun Control, Inc. quoted from July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker Interview “A Reporter At Large – Handguns”, page 53.

        The right to own weapons is not GRANTED by the Constitution, it is recognized as a right of the citizens, not to be abrogated by the state or federal governments.

        I provide these court decisions:

        “To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
        [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

        For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]

        ” ‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the milita, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

        “The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)]

        “The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.” [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)]

        “The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and ‘is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

        *”Own as many guns as you like under the ‘ideas’ I listed – just be sure you can afford regular registration fees and insurance”

        And if some niggling bureaucrat happens to (deliberately?) misfile a paper I can expect to have my doors kicked in, my property seized, my rights ignored, my accounts frozen, and be incarcerated until the (in)justice system decides to put me on trial, with government employees as witnesses who are coached in perjury, if I’m not murdered outright during a ‘no knock’ raid on the wrong address.

        “A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.” – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

        Negotiating with a liberal is incremental surrender.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Clearly you are not interested in meaningful debate. You’ve already labelled us as idiots, dupes, and liberals who can’t be negotiated with. Good luck with your fears.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            You’re just miffed because I’ve seen thorough your sophistry.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Naah, I just realize that when one starts believing their own bullshit it is pointless trying to engage them.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:


                Mark, you wrote, “Naah, I just realize that when one starts believing their own bullshit it is pointless trying to engage them.”

                How ironic. That fits you to a T.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              And speaking of sophistry; you *do* realize that name calling (ad hominem) is a fallacy.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        I won’t have to write everything that I planned to because Huapakechi already said it so well but I will say this, not in an attempt to educate you or change your mind but just to point out two major flaws in your argument for anyone who might read your BS and accept it as true.

        1] Your solution to the costs of gun ownership is to tax (through registration and mandatory insurance) a gun owner who has done no wrong in 99% of the cases. The person who stole the handgun will not bear those costs so why do you want to punish the innocent person.

        1A] What if one of kitchen knives or baseball bats are stolen and used to kill someone? Should those items also be registered and insurance required for them?

        2] The Constitution GRANTS NOTHING! Got that? That document is not a guide for governing the people. It is a guide for limiting the power that WE THE PEOPLE have delegated to the government. Our rights exist because we do. We are endowed with them by our Creator. The Bill of Rights was written to remind future government officials not to infringe on our rights.

  28. Jill ENo Gravatar says:

    They are court decisions that simply affirm a right that has been granted by a legal document – they do not affirm that owning a firearm is an inalienable right. “constitutional right” (granted by our Constitution), “secured by the constitution” (our Constitution established such a right on a legal foothold), “constitutional privilege” (whoops – ‘privilege’, not ‘right’)…that’s just a small sample of the wording used in YOUR examples.

    “And if some niggling bureaucrat happens to (deliberately?) misfile a paper…”

    Well, then I imagine you’d have your ‘tags’ to prove otherwise – just like you do with your car tags. There may be some tracking down of what happened, but I doubt that SWAT and the Secret Service will come after you like a bad episode of COPS.

    I’m neither paid, stupid, blind, nor ignorant. I simply disagree with you. The fact that you have to resort to such name-calling says something.

    Handing out guns to every Tom, Dick, and Jane who wants one is not a good idea. The absolute minimal regulation we’ve employed has become more and more ineffective as the years pass. I’m not suggesting that we go door to door destroying everyone’s guns, only that we find some way of enforcing the responsibilities that come with gun ownership with something stronger than simply assuming that everyone who owns a gun will behave responsibly (“I promise…cross my heart” is NOT a great – or even decent – way to enforce those responsibilities).

    • DarforNo Gravatar says:

      Your opinion that the right to bear arms was a “grant or privilege provided” by or from the government conflicts with an objective study of the supporting documents (i.e., The Federalist papers and a preponderance of private letters) and debates of the period. The right of self defense was considered a Natural Born Right, not a right granted, but one acknowledged and protected by a document. In order to avail one’s self of self defense he needs the same tools available to any possible enemy. The 2nd Amendment mentions firearms as that is what the government had at the time and it was the intent of the authors that the people be as well equipped as the government in case of a tyrant coming to power and attempting to re-enslave the people. That is still concern for many, many people. The Constitution mentions nothing about sporting or hunting purposes of guns.

      Gun registration actually goes against the grain of the Constitution as it provides a ready made list of all gun owners in the event that the government decides to ban and/or confiscate all guns. The only guns readily confiscated would be those registered by relatively law abiding citizens. It would make criminals out of many who rightfully objected to confiscation, or even registration. And, of course, hard core “professional” criminals will always retain their weapons and use them for nefarious purposes regardless of any laws passed by the government — that’s why they are called criminals. And tell me again how outlawing drugs has stopped the drug trade and it’s accompanying violence in this country.

      Taking guns and weapons away does not prevent mass murderers from committing their acts of violence, it only prevents the unarmed people from properly defending themselves against such people. Connecticut has some of the most oppressive and strict gun laws in the United States, and still the massacre happened there, not in Alaska or Wyoming where gun laws are minimal.

      There was an Assault Weapons Ban that started in 1994 and ended in 2004 that prevented the sale and manufacture of certain types of guns and magazines. There is also the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968, but none of these laws prevented Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from committing mass murder at Columbine High School in 1999. In fact, they broke multiple federal and state laws in the planning and executing stages of their killing spree. Not a single one of the man made laws stopped them, or prevented them from killing twelve children and one teacher that day. But had the teachers and staff been following their Natural Born Rights to self-protection that day, maybe things would have turned out differently.

      If new gun bans or registration laws come into effect, be prepared for dealing with the law of unintended consequences. Wishing for a nonviolent world where everybody holds hands and sings Kumbaya is a nice wish — but it is only that, a wish, a fantasy. Bad or evil people do exist and they will find a way to commit the crimes and carnage regardless of well intended but misguided feel good laws. Disarming the innocent is not a realistic goal when they are confronting armed evil.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        It seems it’s always “just one more gun” that would have saved the day. Columbine had an armed resource officer on duty.

        • DarforNo Gravatar says:

          Yes, they had ONE armed resource officer. Unfortunately, he was outside when the shooters were inside and he didn’t reenter to engage them. Consider if there had been multiple armed and trained “first responders” (as in teachers or other faculty, administrators, etc.) spread throughout the school. The one armed potential guardian would have been reenforced with multiple armed responders with the ability to approach and engage the shooters from many different angles.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Having a gun does not guarantee anything but the CHANCE for a better outcome. It doesn’t mean that you will always win. The trouble with a uniformed security guard is that they are readily identified and easy to avoid, In a school as big as Columbine, one guard simply cannot be everyone at once even if he wanted to be.

          Since cops on the beat cannot stop most crime from happening, would you argue that we shouldn’t bother having cops or arming them?

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      *”They are court decisions that simply affirm a right that has been granted by a legal document – they do not affirm that owning a firearm is an inalienable right. “constitutional right” ”

      You quibble.
      Amendment II. 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.

      *”Well, then I imagine you’d have your ‘tags’ to prove otherwise – just like you do with your car tags. There may be some tracking down of what happened, but I doubt that SWAT and the Secret Service will come after you like a bad episode of COPS.”

      Just like armed agents of the epa didn’t stage swat type raids Gibson Guitar Co, TWICE, seize computers and inventory, and not file charges for months?
      Do a search on no knock raids. You’ll find the atf and dea involved in too many. The atf operates on intimidation. They do not care if the raid is based on bad information, they want everyone in fear of them.

      *”I’m neither paid, stupid, blind, nor ignorant. I simply disagree with you. The fact that you have to resort to such name-calling says something.”

      Well, if you don’t fall into any of those categories, you must be totally indoctrinated.
      You have every right to eschew arms, but you have no right to seek to have me disarmed. Given the likelihood of increasing incidents of gang violence and terrorist attacks who knows, I might even be in a position to stop someone from shooting you some day. Wouldn’t that be ironic.

      *”The absolute minimal regulation we’ve employed has become more and more ineffective as the years pass. I’m not suggesting that we go door to door destroying everyone’s guns, only that we find some way of enforcing the responsibilities that come with gun ownership with something stronger than simply assuming that everyone who owns a gun will behave responsibly ”

      What part of GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK do you not understand?
      The ever more restrictive state and federal restrictions on gun owners do nothing to deter crime, in fact the obverse is true. Disarming law abiding citizens emboldens criminals, for they far outnumber law enforcement.

      Think for a minute. (I know it’s difficult for you) In the occasions where someone starts blasting at unarmed innocents, would you rather wait for a cop (response time ~10 minutes, and then he’ll wait for backup) or would you rather have someone in the crowd armed and willing to shoot back? (response time 750-1500 FPS once the target is identified and the bystanders are clear).

      You don’t have to expect everyone who owns a gun to behave responsibly. They’ll be disarmed or shot by responsible gun owners.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      You said, “Well, then I imagine you’d have your ‘tags’ to prove otherwise – just like you do with your car tags. There may be some tracking down of what happened, but I doubt that SWAT and the Secret Service will come after you like a bad episode of COPS.”

      Don’t bet on that. SWAT (and the FBI, DEA, BATFE) have all pounced on people over paper work errors and also based on false claims of ‘informants’. It happens all the time.

      “I’m neither paid, stupid, blind, nor ignorant. I simply disagree with you.”

      Your disagreements are based on false premises, BS, and feelings, rather than fact. You also totally ignore our rights and want to punish gun owners simply for exercising their rights.

      “Handing out guns to every Tom, Dick, and Jane who wants one is not a good idea.”

      Here is another of your false premises. No one is handing out guns to anyone, let alone every Tom, Dick, and Harry. Most gun crimes are committed with stolen weapons anyway and not by people who buy them legally.

      “The absolute minimal regulation we’ve employed has become more and more ineffective as the years pass.”

      Yet again, you misstate the facts. Do you seriously consider 20,000 guns laws to be minimal? At what point will there be enough laws to satisfy you? There are 2 real reasons why such laws do not work (and I am embarrassed for you to have to explain this in a public forum). First is that no law has ever been written which can prevent a crime. The most that you can hope for is that the punishment will act as a deterrent for the person contemplating that crime. And this is where the 2nd reason comes into play. Prosecutors fail to file charges for a lot of gun crimes. Often when they are filed, they are used as bargaining tools and are dropped or plea bargained away. Judges also routinely do not impose the sentences that the laws call for for those crimes. But rather than blame the lawmakers, prosecutors, and judges, you want to focus your attention on the 85 million legitimate gun owners who did not commit any crime at all. As for the deterrent effect that we hope might stop a crime, you probably are among those who believe that the death penalty is not a detterent so we should eliminate it. If so, I have to ask why you think that a law will work to deter crime if the ultimate penalty for the worst crimes doesn’t deter anyone.

      You are emoting your way around this issue without the courage to confront the real issues and the real solutions head on and, like Mark, you sit on your high horse and denigrate those of us who believe in the rule of law and the rights of man.

  29. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    A lot of information that totally deflates the Davi assertions.

    One of the more telling statements:

    “Susan B. Sorenson, a professor of Social Policy at the University of Pennsylvania, is convinced the Lott data is weak (for example, she said, if you take the outlier Florida out of the mix, the results change remarkably). But more important, she said, is that there is simply a dearth of good data.

    “We really don’t have answers to a lot of the questions that we should have answers to,” Sorenson.

    In part, she said, that’s because the gold standard for scientists — a randomly assigned study in which you gave one group of people guns, and another none — is simply not possible.”

    • Eric HepnerNo Gravatar says:

      Actually, you have something close when you compare Chicago to other large cities. Chicago essentially bans guns, yet can account for 425 gun homicides this year. How does that compare to other cities with a similar demographic makeup where CCW is legal?

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Mark, You do realize that when John Lott began his efforts, he was a committed anti gunner and was hoping to statistically prove that he was right, don’t you?

      Do you also know that despite Sorenson’s claim that the evidence is ‘weak’, he got his statistics from EVERY county in the US. His book, More Guns, Less Crime is the result of his study and he documents everything.

  30. timNo Gravatar says:

    the one thing that i am going to reply with is the fact that the author states in his article that in only one case did the shooter stopped by a civilian(s) kill more than 3 people and goes on to state the az shooting. when i looked at all of them, i found more than that listed in the details. i am not going to say the author is wrong or pick on his statistical sample, just saying that when i find such a glaringly obvious mistake in the article, it calls into question the validity of the statistical analysis.

    the reason i found this at all is i am trying to find statistical evidence that the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines currently being called for will do any good. for those of you who forgot, they had this legislation called the brady bill which did just that in the wake of jim brady getting shot in the reagan assassination attempt. it expired in 2004, but any kind of statistics on whether it helped is hard to find. i guess i can just use the fbi gun violence stats.

    any attempt to use anything aside from raw data in a statistical analysis is inherently unsound. if you spout your views and then try to back them up with science, you are doomed to, if not failure, ridicule at best.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      When you examine subjects like the AWB against the state or national murder rate, you must take other factors into consideration. For instance the drop in the murder rate in California was markedly steeper during the ban than the nation as a whole. Three Strikes was implemented in 1994-1995, and Brady was inflicted in 1994 (shock) the same year. Murder rates had been trending downward in the years prior to implementation of both laws.

      Locking up career criminals has got to have some effect on all crime categories.

      Fire extinguishers and handguns have no substitutes.

  31. Eric HepnerNo Gravatar says:

    Here’s another civilian ended shooting to at least consider adding to the list. Sept, 2012 Unnamed 14 year old draws a handgun and is tackled by a teacher before he can shoot anyone Number of dead or injured: 0. l_n_1864888.html

  32. KyleNo Gravatar says:

    I don’t necessarily believe that using this argument alone is basis enough to justify having an armed or disarmed population. The fact that there are so few shootings of this nature or caliber do not reflect accurately on how well armed or disarmed citizens can react to a potentially dangerous situation. Most people who do carry a weapon do so for their own protection, as well as have piece of mind. Not because they’re worried about intervening on a large scale public shooting. I’m going to remain neutral in this debate and leave my own personal opinions out of this, and leave it with just this one comment, but this is something to think about…

    • timNo Gravatar says:

      i think you have hit the nail on the head here: there are few of these instances. true, they suck balls when you’re the one involved in them, but to say that we need to do anything radical to prevent more of them is insane. that’s like saying you can’t drive a car because people get killed by them. there has to be a solution, but damned if i know what it is.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        To put it in very understandable terms, when more people are armed, crime rates drop. More guns in the hands of honest citizens means more guns closer to any ‘mass shooting’ incident. This would end such an incident rather quickly… Coroner’s verdict of suicide, when he’s been shot 14 times. Reasoning being he was suicidal to pull a gun and start firing at an NRA convention.

  33. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Davi, Nate Silver called, he wants your math license back.

  34. RSNo Gravatar says:

    Does anyone know for sure how many of these killers were raised by a single mother and single father?

    Thank you

  35. cherylNo Gravatar says:

    The hell with stats. One person attack by an assault rifle is too much, and any hunter that says he needs this to hunter animal is a liar because the animal would be shot to piece and would not be edible

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      You don’t know anything about guns, do you? You are parroting talking points and are making revealing that ignorance.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Most of the ‘assault rifles’ are underpowered for deer, short range, not very accurate, and in the case of the AK47 noisy as a bag of scrap. They can be rebuilt and accessorized to bring them up to near the quality of a good deer rifle, but it’s cheaper and faster to just buy a good rifle to begin with.

      Again you display your ignorance. How could a semi-auto rifle shoot an animal to pieces when it fires one shot with each pull of the trigger, just like most deer rifles? Blowing an animal to pieces would take many shots. Deliberate shots.

  36. DarforNo Gravatar says:

    I don’t know what you mean by that, but I can tell you this with all the authority of a lifetime of study and observation:

    This is a cultural problem about the existence of values. None of this is — at this point — a dispute over which values to hold, but about the very existence of values to begin with: what they are and why they are necessary to human life.

    Taking Adam Lanza as only one extreme example of the cultural psychosis, now: that kid was somehow brought to an adult age without ever having been taught what values are. There are teeming tens of millions of specimens like him, now, at the dead-end of a cultural procession that began long before he was born. Not all, or even many, will run to the extent that he did, but their lethality is every bit as real over the long run, in their casual nihilism.

    You don’t understand: Adam Lanza is “the end game”.

    Whether you or anyone else likes it or not, that is the problem in its entire scope. That’s how big it is, and that’s why these complaints about the guns is just so much rubbish. If cars were the social menace here, you people would be arguing about what colors to prohibit.

    There is no way that resort to non-essential trivialities is going to address this matter.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Which is why “more guns” will not change values. One value I would like to promote is personal responsibility. One that gun owners seem unwilling to embrace on their own.

      • DarforNo Gravatar says:

        I still fail to understand what you mean by “personal responsibility.” I own multiple guns and am very responsible for them. They remain locked up until I’m ready to use them. I would venture to guess that 99+% of gun owners are that way. Does that make them impervious to dishonest people stealing them — no, but the same mentality also motivates the theft from banks, cars, etc. Nothing is absolutely safe from theft. If you are violently carjacked, left lying on the streets unconscious and the theif runs over an innocent pedestrian, are you responsible for that death of an innocent?

        Will additional registration, licensing, etc., help — no. It would only encumber an already highly regulated (20+K laws on the books already) activity. Eric Harris and Dylon Klebold committed their atrocity while under the previous “Assault Weapons Ban.” They broke many federal and state laws while preparing for, and in the execution of their killing of innocents. No man-made law impeded them in any manner.

        Until society faces the lack of values which permeate the way of life in this country we will not find any remedies nor even remediation in the violence and loss of life. Even if you could magically snap your fingers and make every gun in the country vaporize, the sick and or criminal element intent on striking out and creating carnage will find a way to do it.

        You say that “more guns” is not the answer — I respond by saying that less guns isn’t an answer either as bad people will always be around and need to be stopped. Should we disarm our police and let them grapple with the criminal element — even that element without guns but only knives and clubs — by hand? Didn’t work very well in Britain as they have begun rearming their police.

        Your call for a mythical “more responsibility” is just as empty and vapid as the politicians proposing all manner of restrictions on the rights and freedoms of totally innocent Americans while choosing to not look at the underlying, core problems facing us. It makes for a great sound bite, but accomplishes nothing. The carnage will continue unabated.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          I have listed what more responsible is. It has basically been ignored. Please explain to me what you mean by values because that seems as empty a statement as a simple “more responsibility” statement is.

          • DarforNo Gravatar says:

            I’ve looked back through this entire thread — albeit quickly and may have overlooked something — and the only reference to “more responsibility” I find you making is to hold liable a gun owner if a gun is stolen or taken from them and used in a crime. While I agree that if someone knowingly gives someone a gun used in a crime he “may” be liable for it’s misuse, I fail to see how a gun locked up that is stolen and used in a crime is the fault of the owner. This falls in the same category as the question about a carjacking that I asked of you and was ignored.

            Outside of that all I see in your posts are ridicule of gun owners and gun rights which you don’t agree with in spite of historical studies, court decisions and modern decisions. In essence, everything I see you calling for is restrictions or bans — hardly what I would consider “more responsibility.”

            When you consider there is somewhere between 200 and 300 M guns in this country, with 85 to 100 M responsible owners who safeguard their guns and use them responsibly, I think we can safely say that the vast majority of gun owners are very responsible.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:


        You said, “One value I would like to promote is personal responsibility.”

        No, you do not. You want to imposes tines and restrictions on people who have committed no crime. You are trying to shift responsibility.

        “One that gun owners seem unwilling to embrace on their own.”

        When 85 million people own up to 300 million firearms, I would venture to say that is the epitome of responsibility. The way you talk, the body count is in the 100s of thousands. The death toll cited elsewhere included suicides and justifiable homicide where civilians and police defend themselves.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Agreed, the statement was poorly worded. I do in fact want to shift responsibility to gun owners rather than shift the responsibility for safety on the general populace. I think that is a perfectly reasonable request. I consider taking responsibility a value that gun owners should adopt but barring that legal means should be taken.

          1) Background check for everyone that extend beyond the individual
          2) Insurance for owning a gun
          3) The gun owner is partially responsible for crimes committed with a weapon registered to them. Loss and theft would need to be reported immediately

          I know those rules would not be popular with gun owners. Sorry, you want the guns, you pay the price for the problems they introduce, not me. In many ways they are no different than cars. I know that means you guns could be tracked, sorry, they know about all the cars I’ve owned and sold over the years, get over it. If they come to take your guns you are screwed for other reasons already.

          I have posted this before in response to assertions that more guns are better. It’s not that simple. Much like weather prediction, there are many interrelated variables and creating a model that supports ANY position is problematic at best. acts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

          I have been hearing the “values” thing a lot lately. Trying to promote something like this seems even more difficult than gun controls (NOT BANNING!). I have no idea how you promote something as nebulous as “values”. Whose values, what values, are they linked to religion, if so what religion?

          My original purpose in coming to this blog was to find out how that batshit-crazy meme got on Facebook. I now understand that one. I’ve been drawn into side discussions that many here obviously feel very strongly about. Seeing the seething reaction from the public, and even reactions from NRA members over the official NRA response leads me to believe most of the sentiments toward the status quo on this blog are in the minority.

          BTW: I own several guns and have for years.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            No, your comment was not poorly worded. You stated clearly what you wanted and it is to impose hardships and costs on people for exercising their rights rather than put the blame on the person who actually committed the crime.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Got it in one!

              • DarforNo Gravatar says:

                Nice try, Ray. However with the mindset of anti-gun, “my way or the hiway” progressives like Mark, factual logic is a foreign and abstract concept — they have their twisted faux logic based on outcomes they prefer, not the reality of the situation.

                According to his logic when I was car jacked — pulled fighting from my car by two scumbags, beaten and then shot while on the ground in hopes of keeping me there permanently (according to one of the scum later captured alive) — I am responsible for the death of two pedestrians that they ran over with “my car” a mile away during their escape. After all, it was my car that I was responsible for the use of on public streets.

                And if you give the “social justice” crowd which Mark so efficiently exemplifies, you are also guilty by the fact of living in a society which allowed two fine young upstanding individuals such as my assailants to grow up frustrated and driven to a life of crime as they lashed out at the cosmic unfairness perpetrated on them! So, shame on you two, Mark!

                People like Mark aren’t here to debate any more than the progressives in the news who are saying it’s time for a serious gun debate actually want a “debate.” They want a forum in which to exploit the atrocious deaths of innocent children to ram their wishes for gun — and people — control down the public’s throat.

                Merry Christmas, everyone! It’s time for me to move on to more realistic ventures….

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Darfor, you have once again chosen to ignore what I said and put up a straw man defence. I gave you an out for theft but you ignored that since it doesn’t play into your theme. Regarding factual realities, over the last 30 years there have been 68 mass shootings, about 2.3 per year. I have reviewed each one and can find only ONE instance where an armed citizen brought the shootings to resolution. That is a 1.47% chance of solving the issue by an armed citizen.

                  Right to carry laws have exploded over that same time Despite this the lone instance I found of a civilian solution was in 1982. Explain to me how things are getting better.

                  You have cited a dearth of “values”. I would posit you are correct. We stigmatize the poor and treat them as losers. We, in some twisted form of logic, become jealous of the “handouts” they get. We live in a Gunsmoke fantasy world where problems are solved in 30 minutes with a gun. If you are a loser it’s your own damned fault for not trying harder. I think the single most benefit we could reap is to invest heavily in education, something we have taken to destroying in an effort to reduce spending. Sure glad we have more military than the next 8 nations COMBINED. There’s a value for you! If you want to look for values, find out how your assailants fell through the cracks and how we have abandoned values that would have lifted them out of their situation.

                  Have I missed some factual logic on your part? So far all I see is anecdotal evidence.

                  — M

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:


                  You are correct sir. I respond to his comments but my intent is to put up a realistic rebuttal for others who read his crapola and might think it has any credence at all. I don’t harbor any foolish hope that I might change his mind.

                  • DarforNo Gravatar says:

                    I was pretty sure that was your goal, Ray. And I applaud you for your restraint and inclusion of honest facts in rebuttal. I’ve quit playing with the man as he is so quick to backtrack, spin what was said while attempting to camouflage his obvious adherence to the party line, I would imagine that he’s convinced even the novice that his arguments are without relevance to the real world. He’s resorted to the standard fallback tools of all ideologues when their intellectual quiver is emptied and they have to resort to deceit and ad hominem attacks while making up their own “facts” while floundering.

                    Best of luck to you and look forward to reading your thoughts in other forums.

                    And my final goodbye to this forum is my holiday wishes to all…

                    To All My Democratic Friends:

                    Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an
                    environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2013, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that America is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only America in the Western Hemisphere. Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wish.

                    To My Republican Friends:

                    Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ 2013! AMEN

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Nope, it’s a shared responsibility.

  37. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    And in your case you want to impose the hardships and costs on victims (including the shooter).

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Let’s see. Anytime someone is injured in any way, they are generally responsible for making themselves whole unless they can sue and recover for the damages.

      The shooter IS responsible for his and everyone else’s damages, but good luck collecting from him or his estate.

      Your solution is to make me pay the costs for something which is not of my doing. That isn’t shared responsibility. It is the equivalent of Obama’s wealth redistribution scheme.

      As for the rest of your excuse making for these poor souls who go out and commit crimes against their fellow citizen, that is just BS. Everyone has a free education available to them through grade 12 and it is up to each one to make the most of that education and pursue it further. Again, you want to take (more) from those who did the right thing (worked and became responsible citizens) and give it to those who failed to do so. More redistribution. Admit it Mark. You are every bit the socialist that Obama is. Maybe more so.

  38. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    9-10. Few criminals are shot by decent law abiding citizens

    Using data from surveys of detainees in six jails from around the nation, we worked with a prison physician to determine whether criminals seek hospital medical care when they are shot. Criminals almost always go to the hospital when they are shot. To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. But the data from emergency departments belie this claim, unless hundreds of thousands of wounded criminals are afraid to seek medical care. But virtually all criminals who have been shot went to the hospital, and can describe in detail what happened there. threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      From the same article:

      1-3 Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense

      We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use. We then try to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence. We find that the claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens is invalid.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        So what if it is not millions or even hundreds of thousands or even fifty thousand? Are the lives of 100 or a 1000 not worth it?

        Why do you want these people — whatever the number — to suffer at the hands of their assailants?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      4. Most purported self-defense gun uses are gun uses in escalating arguments and are both socially undesirable and illegal

      We analyzed data from two national random-digit-dial surveys conducted under the auspices of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Criminal court judges who read the self-reported accounts of the purported self-defense gun use rated a majority as being illegal, even assuming that the respondent had a permit to own and to carry a gun, and that the respondent had described the event honestly from his own perspective.

      Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah. Gun use in the United States: Results from two national surveys. Injury Prevention. 2000; 6:263-267.

  39. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    More avoidance and obfuscation from you.

    Most citizens do not have to shoot their assailants to end the attack. Merely brandishing the weapon cause most of the miscreants to turn tail and flee. Most good and decent gun owners do not want to shoot or kill anyone. Most do not have the means to pay for the legal defense for pulling the trigger. Most good and decent gun owners will not shoot to kill. They will, however, shoot to stay alive and if killing these bastards is what it takes . . . Well, you can read those stories in the newspapers every day too if you are honest enough to open your mind and read them.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      “Most citizens do not have to shoot their assailants to end the attack.”

      So you agree.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        No, I don’t agree with you.

        They don’t have to shoot in every instance and that is why the body count isn’t higher and why the hospitals are not reporting more wounded bad guys, BUT, it is better to have the gun and not need it than to need it and not have it.

        If you are of the opinion that guns aren’t necessary, why do you own guns?

  40. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    More anecdotal evidence and ad hominem. Here’s hoping you are all successful in your next encounter with a bad guy.

    — M

  41. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    And even more evidence:

    Myth: A gun in the home increases personal safety.

    Fact: A gun in the home make homicide 2.7 times more likely.


    Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      “Family” = estranged ex-husband coming to kill his ex-wife, and succeeding, which she bought the gun to protect herself from, but didn’t train enough. “Someone they know” = rival drug dealer, known to the victim and competing for a lucrative account or sales location. The fact that estranged ex-spouses sometimes kill their former spouse is not a reason to restrict gun ownership to the other ex-spouse. The fact that criminals kill each other is not a reason to restrict gun ownership to non-criminals. (Who will get guns anyway.) The study also fails to account for reverse causation. (It implies that the mere presence of the gun increases one’s risk of homicide, but neglects the possibility that the people who decided to get guns, did so for a very good reason, namely, they were correct in thinking that someone was going to try to kill them.)

      Do you suppose having insulin medication increases one’s chance of dying of insulin shock, or reducing it? You might think medications would always reduce it, but then again, only the diabetics have such medication, and they are at vastly increased risk than the general population. So nearly everyone who dies of insulin shock has some sort of insulin medication. But this isn’t the medication’s fault. That’s reverse causation for you.

  42. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:


    That has been debunked every time that it pops up.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Yea, well that’s your usual response Ray. Nu uh! Nothing to back up your assertions.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        You post and repeat lies yet you ask me for proof? That’s rich. Throughout this thread you have been presented with evidence and facts and you choose to ignore it all. You are not interested in honest debate. You are interested only in promoting your anti gun agenda for everyone but yourself and the government, and of course, by default, the criminal element in our society.

        From your comments, you just do like America (the idea of America) in all its greatness and opportunity. Overly capitalistic? So you prefer more socialism. No, I am not surprised.

        Let me save you some time on your next reply. You will now accuse me of personal attacks

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Yes, surprisingly Ray when people make claims, they are often asked to prove those claims. If what I am saying is a lie the burden of proof is on you to prove so. Saying it is a lie or offends your sensibilities is not a counter argument. I am interested in promoting more gun responsibility, not anti-gun.

          Being opposed to overzealous capitalism is not the same as socialism. Black and White thinking is another form of fallacy I am seeing a lot here. Having something bad to say about capitalism does not make one a socialist. That’s black and white thinking. I don’t want to take your guns, I *do* want you to incur more of the cost of ownership. Some have made the claim that video games and violent movies are a contributing factor. They may be. Businesses that make the movies and games are in it for one reason, profit, that the capitalism aspect. It’s just market demand, don’t blame the businesses, they just make what we buy. Capitalism is very good at that and very bad at taking responsibility when there is no profit motive.

          “Let me save you some time on your next reply. You will now accuse me of personal attacks”.

          Unless you start name calling it can hardly be a personal attack or saying I am wrong because I’m a “liberal”, “socialist”, “Fox-News hater” etc. That is not ad hominem. Saying I am a liberal and just towing the partly line is a fallacy. It basically means “I got nothing so you are a doo doo head!”

          All this railing and flailing around is indicative of the weak rebuttals submitted.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            I don’t have the time to debunk every lie you post nor do I have the inclination to do your homework. You will ignore it anyway, as you always do.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Calling something a lie is proof of nothing. It’s *your* homework to back up that assertion with facts. It’s pointless simply calling what I say a lie.

              “You will ignore it anyway, as you always do.”

              As will you sir, as will you.

              — /\/\

  43. Ron NNo Gravatar says:

    Anthony, you’ve produced the worst analysis of firearm misuse, firearms murder, and firearm massacres, that I have seen anywhere. You have taken the view from the start of the analysis that you want to see all civilians armed, thus polluting the outcome.
    You’re like a detective who forms his opinion on who the murderer is, before all the relevant evidence is examined and analysed.
    The extrapolation of the NRA’s view, that everyone needs to carry a major deterrent, is – that on that basis – everyone should carry a suitcase nuke.
    After all, aren’t nukes the ultimate deterrent?
    In the case of armed civilians in a school – how do they nail the massacre gunman before he nails 20 kids? He’s dressed in a security uniform, or he’s wearing a cop uniform, or he’s wearing body armor.
    All gunmen with murder on their mind carry out ambush tactics – a word that obviously does not ever appear in NRA statements.
    In addition, highly trained people commit errors of judgement and aiming and weapons handling, and accidentally kill the wrong people – weekly.
    How does an untrained civilian come to automatically possess all the necessary training, judgement and split-second reflexes needed to take out an armed gunman?
    There is but one solution to America’s continuous massacres, school shootings, and multiple murders by disgruntled gun owners.
    That solution involves LESS firearms in civil society, the removal of assault weapons from civilian ownership, stricter firearms control, strict laws regarding firearms security, and intense scrutiny of anyone who wishes to purchase a firearm.
    Note – I’m not a tofu-eating tree-hugger who wants all weapons removed from society. I am a Vietnam Vet with extensive firearms knowledge, and I understand that firearms are needed for vermin extinction, hunting, and police and security work.
    But, America has an urgent need to address the rampant proliferation of high-powered firearms in its civil society, and a need to modify the 2nd Amendment so that it is brought into line with 21st Century civil society.
    This is not 1791 – and I’m sure the writers of the 2nd Amendment would be appalled at how their Amendment has been twisted and used by organisations backed by immensely powerful firearms manufacturers, to bring mayhem upon 21st Century America.
    Not one of those Fathers of the Constitution could ever have envisaged how modern firearms have developed and proliferated.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Yeah, disarming the civilians went so well for the Russians. And the Germans. And the Chinese. Have you read a treatise titled “Death by Gun Control”?

      We already have one of “o”boy’s good friends (ayres) eagerly suggesting that as many as 25 million citizens who resist ‘reeducation’ may have to be murdered in order to secure the socialist revolution they have in the works.

      Your ‘high powered weaponry’ is already illegal in most liberal enclaves, yet there is where the majority of those guns accumulate, in the hands of criminals and gangs. Your definition of ‘high powered’ is rather broad, since the majority of weapons used in criminal activity are pistol caliber, unless you are referring to the guns our own government supplied to Mexican crime cartels.

      You claim service in VN. When were you there, and where? Were you Navy or Air Force?

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      There are very few (if any) alternative solutions being offered by the “more-guns” proponents. There was some mention of “values” by Darfor but no follow through with specific items. I think this may be due to the fact that the values that would reduce crime and gun use is better education, a reduction in poverty, and less selfishness among an overly capitalistic society. The gun owners don’t mind making the externalities introduced by guns our problem, just don’t take their guns, they’re defending us from an oppressive government don’t you know. Self defence is problematic as well when you consider it being shot is 2.7 times higher with guns in the house. (Guess what, if I had snakes in the house I would be much more likely to be bitten by one…that’s just probability). Most of the responses I see is blathering about this and that exception and “yea, you showed me some statistics but those have been refuted” with no examples cited. Then again, being labelled a “liberal” and “libtard” (you people don’t really know me) means it’s an easy out to dismiss any facts or engage in meaningful debate. Facts don’t change on who said them. They stand on their own quite well.

  44. jackNo Gravatar says:

    Kellerman refused to release his data. When it was finally analyzed, it turned out that the people with guns that were killed, were killed w/guns that were brought INTO their house by the killers. Maybe they needed guns for protection? Maybe there were exercising some unwise choices? drug dealers?

  45. jackNo Gravatar says:

    If you saw a security guard/SRO shooting kids, how hard would it be to recognize what was going on?
    Armed civilians do NOT have to be trained to the level of LEO, they just need to be better trained than the killers – not hard to do.
    How often do you hear of civilians having their guns taken away and used against them? Almost never. More frequent for criminals to have their guns taken away. Also more frequent for LEO’s to be disarmed. Not a reflection on LEO, 1st., they open carry, 2nd their gun can become a target, 3rd, they cannot walk away from a fight.

  46. jackNo Gravatar says:

    Actually, we recommend doing away with the unarmed, defenseless victim, gun free zones, arming teachers. It’s the antis that do not have any solutions – just ban scary guns and regular magazines – stupid ideas that have already been tried – and failed.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Why should I pay for your need to have guns?

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Just pretend I’m wearing a ski mask and fork over everything you’ve got.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          And I’ll pretend I can get to a gun I can brandish and scare you off.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            But you’ve been advocating disarming everybody. Aren’t you going to call for the cops to protect you?

            Bang! Too late. Now I’ve got your money and any gun you might have ‘legally’ locked away.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Is there something keeping you guys from reading? No disarmament.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                You won’t come out and say it but everything you and your ilk suggest results in disarmament by making it tougher and more expensive to exercise that right. Every intrusion, every restriction, every ban on any weapon all work towards disarmament. You are either not honest about it or not bright enough to figure it out.

                ‘Saturday night specials’ were demonized and banned and that left many poor people – and many of them being black – unable to afford a weapon for self defense.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Ray, “my ilk”? What the hell does that mean? You know nothing about “my ilk”.

                  Let me point out that you are “disarmed” already. Do you have rocket propelled grenades? Do you have bazookas? Tanks? Jet fighters? Any aircraft carriers putting around the back yard? At least you have your nukes right? You really *need* those to fend off the bad guys who have them. And then there’s the coming revolution where you have to go up against the ultimate bad guy, the government.

                  You are putting forth the slippery slope fallacy. It has been used and reused many times in this blog. When assault rifles were banned did they come take your guns? What is your basis for claiming that this will lead to disarmament? Have I once said we should remove the 2nd amendment?

                  — /\/\

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    All the arm waving, and hyperbole do nothing for your arguments. The people here have already seen through your bafflegab and tire of you. Your every comment is an attack on the right to bear arms, in spite of your claims to the contrary.

                    The people running this forum need to install an ignore button for such as you.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Can you give me an example of hyperbole?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Ignore button… isn’t that infringing on my first amendment rights? How about taking on the responsibility of ignoring me on your own rather than using machines to do the dirty work.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Hey mark, this applies:

                      [hahy-pur-buh-lee] Show IPA
                      noun, Rhetoric .
                      1.obvious and intentional exaggeration.
             extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally,

                      MarkNo Gravatar says:
                      December 26, 2012 at 9:23 am

                      Ray, “my ilk”? What the hell does that mean? You know nothing about “my ilk”.

                      Let me point out that you are “disarmed” already. Do you have rocket propelled grenades? Do you have bazookas? Tanks? Jet fighters? Any aircraft carriers putting around the back yard? At least you have your nukes right? You really *need* those to fend off the bad guys who have them. And then there’s the coming revolution where you have to go up against the ultimate bad guy, the government.

                      You are putting forth the slippery slope fallacy. It has been used and reused many times in this blog. When assault rifles were banned did they come take your guns? What is your basis for claiming that this will lead to disarmament? Have I once said we should remove the 2nd amendment?

                      RE “The ignore button”
                      I would not interfere with your right to speak, but you have no right to force me to listen to your drivel.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      I’m not exaggerating if I ask what kind of arms Ray has. Truth is, he’s not armed with a bazooka or an aircraft carrier. Exaggeration would be to say he DOES have those. Believe me, I understand what hyperbole is. You obviously do not.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Here’s hyperbole:

                      “Fine Ray, have your tanks and grenades and battleships and nukes, you need them so badly to protect yourself”.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:


  47. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Because you are the one advocating ‘shared responsibility’, ie: redistribution. You don’t seem to like it much when you are the one being redistributed, do you?

    One more thing. It is our RIGHT to keep and bear arms. That right now is showing its true meaning and necessity as irrational calls for disarmament rise and government continues to grow. As government grows, liberty recedes. And that is the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

    You may not like it but that doesn’t change the fact that it is indeed our right.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I’m not asking for disarmament. The shared responsibility at present is gun owners get guns and everyone else get “it’s your own fault if you get shot by one”. That’s not sharing.

  48. jackNo Gravatar says:

    There should be some shared responsibility. If you are not willing to defend yourself, your family, if you do not have a gun, you should have to pay a fee – say $500 a year, to offset all the money we have to spend on LEO to take care of you.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I pay taxes every year for law enforcement already. More guns, more protection money, more guns, more protection money… hmmm.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Laws cannot stop crime. They can only provide punishment for those who break the law, but those laws have to be enforced.

        Blame the DAs who don’t prosecute and judges who will not apply the sentences that the law provides. When they won’t put the criminals behind bars, they remain free to inflict more harm and more costs.

        Once again, your target is the lawful gun owner, not those who are really responsible.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Ray, laws cannot stop crime? Then what makes you think punishment will? Isn’t it really bad prison food that stops crime? Maybe it’s those boring days sitting in a court room that stop crime. Maybe it’s being in handcuffs that stops crime. If laws don’t *reduce* crime why have them?

          Yes, my target is the lawful gun owner. I would prefer they take on more responsibility for owning them (liability for improper use). As it is what the NRA and others are advocating is I spend *my* tax dollars to turn public places into fortresses and for me to buy and carry a gun because “it’s my responsibility to protect myself from your guns”. You want me, a law abiding citizen, to bear that cost. Hell, why pool our resources and have cops to do that?

          — /\/\

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Criminals as a class do not fear the law. Neither do they fear the police. Any “punishment” is years delayed, if not plea bargained down to a slap on the wrist or a few years of comfortable incarceration (Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County AZ has the right idea).

          What criminals do fear are armed citizens, willing to deliver the ultimate punishment on the spot.

          Our resident sophist is quick with the pious hand wringing and hackneyed phrases challenging the right to bear arms, all the while denying the facts of his argument. ‘Just a little more regulation’, more government intrusion in our lives, all done with the purest of intent, all designed to destroy personal freedom. The only people I hear arguing like that are socialists, politicians, and lawyers, too often all three in the same skin.

          If you have a handgun, know the laws, train with it, and carry it. That is the best way to ensure you know where it is and who can put his hands on it.. If, Gods forbid, you should find yourself in a situation that your handgun is needed, you will not be wishing you had not left it in the car or safely secured at home.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Huapakechi, criminals do in fact fear the law, otherwise they would not be concerned about being caught or hiding their activities. Maybe they don’t fear it enough but they do fear it. Criminals do fear armed citizens but encountering one is more a roll of the dice and apparently a risk they are willing to take. Look at the states that allow concealed carry.


            Right now I am trying to work up some numbers on the probability that adding more concealed guns to the mix it would take to actually realize the dream of this fictitious cowboy western land being dreamed of.

            — M

  49. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    In California, when they banned the SKS rifle, it was accompanied by an order to turn them in or face the consequences. Disarmament? Yeah, a step in that direction.

    No you haven’t said ‘remove’. I’ve already said that you were not honest enough to do that but you do want to apply rules, restrictions, costs, and other obstacles in order to make it moot. Every pol says they support the 2nd Amendment but they also have their own definition of what it means.

    Ilk? Those who are like you in intent, tactics, and methods to remove the means to protect themselves against crime and government intrusion. You deny your intent but it is still obvious to those of my ilk who can see and smell you a mile away.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Ray, I guess you’ll just have to keep dreaming up whatever sinister motive you think I have. You can’t read my mind so communicating *my* intentions through this medium is about as good as it’s going to get. There may be evil thoughts lurking around in the crevices of my mind but I can assure that my conscious mind has no desire to disarm you. I *do* want to imply that the cost of freedom just went up. Gun owners, you are going to have to do better.

      As I have pointed out, you are already “disarmed”. Gun owners just choose to ignore that fact. Any incremental change in what you can and cannot have does not change the fact that there are MANY arms you are not allowed to own and never have been allowed to own.

      I’ve been rolling around some figures using Bayes’ Theorem lately. If I come up with some interesting numbers I’ll post them here. Hopefully they won’t be nearly as half-baked as the Davi “Shooting Rampage Statistics”.

      — /\/\