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:

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

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 3 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 shoot 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 commit 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 6 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 2 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 3 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 3 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 3 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 1 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 2 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. 15 people died, not including the shooters.
  • 7/31/1999 - Mark Barton was a daytrader 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. 3 people were killed before the shooter was apprehended by 3 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 6 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 2 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 7 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 1 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 commit suicide after murdering 32 people.
  • 12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.
  • 9/3/2008 – Isaac Zamora went on a shooting rampage in Alger, Washington that killed 6 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 8 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. 13 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 3 people before the Dean of the University, Debra Moriarity pushed the her out of the room and blockaded the door. She 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. 3 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. The shooter killed 1 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 opens fire with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. 12 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 6 people. He commit suicide after being shot by police.
  • 12/14/12 - Adam Lanza entered Sandy Hook Elementary School with two handguns and a riffle and went room to room shooting students and staff. He killed 27 in all including 20 children, and commit 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 less 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: , , , , , ,

11,538 Responses to “Auditing Shooting Rampage Statistics”

  1. I was wondering if I could link to/copy this to my site as it has quite the information in it.

  2. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark,

    Your ignorance is showing. A private citizen can ignore you or block you without any infringement on your freedom of speech but the government is prohibited from doing so.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Oh I know perfectly well they can block or ignore me with impunity, but wouldn’t you rather that I be free to exercise that same right here? I mean, we are espousing constitutional rights here aren’t we?

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        No, not really.

        You are an insufferable fool with an agenda and little regard to facts and truth. Besides, you have no right, constitutional or otherwise to speak on a privately owned forum. You are here only because the owner allows you to remain.

      • DaviNo Gravatar says:

        “I mean, we are espousing constitutional rights here aren’t we?”

        I’m certainly not. Burn the Constitution and sprinkle it’s ashes over the dust bin of history for all I care.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      We have the right not to listen to that ass.

      “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)]

      “I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.”
      Frank Lloyd Wright

  3. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Ok, I’ve been looking at some numbers. Here is one of my calculations.
    Based on 62 mass murders over the past 30 years I can find only one instance where an armed citizen stopped the assailant. That gives a 1.6% success rate. I then estimated the likelihood of more guns increasing that value. I gave a 75% chance that having a gun would reduce mass murders and a 1.2% chance that they would not reduce mass murders.
    Below are the results. These figures yield a probability of 50% that an increase would help. Only a roughly 50/50 chance.

    Prior Probability:
    Gun presence thwarts mass murder x 1.6%
    A New Event Occurs:
    Gun increases reduce mass murders y 75%
    Gun increases do not reduce mass murders z 1.2%
    Posterior Probability: 50.6%

    The formula is (xy)/(xy)+z(100%-x) Bayes’ Theorem

    Feel free to throw rocks.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      YAAAAWN!

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      “Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”
      - Mark Twain

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics.”

        Which kind of puzzles me. Why be on this discussion list if you distrust statistics? That’s the entire reason this thread of discussion was started.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          It’s your ‘statistics’ I mistrust most.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Fortunately your distrust does not change facts. Even the ones you choose to ignore.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              You’re free to quibble and obfuscate, I’m free to call you on it or just ignore you until I get a perfect shot.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Threatening. Wow, we’ve achieved a new level of desperation.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I think this response speaks to the core of the problem that gun enthusiasts have. They live in a world of fear. Guns aren’t there so much to defend as to lessen fear. It’s not that they want people to be “polite”, they just don’t want anyone shaking up their carefully crafted world view by disagreeing with them or forcing them to think and act outside the safety of their little box.

                Nate Silver’s finding on more gun owners being Republican speaks to this as well. Republicans, as a rule, tend to be driven more by the amygdala. It’s the fight or flight part of the brain.

                Fear is a powerful force that will make people do crazy shit. It’s no wonder gun enthusiasts cling so tightly to their weapons and shriek “disarmament” the moment anyone mentions anything about tightening up the rules.

                • DwayneNo Gravatar says:

                  So what is the difference in preparing for a natural disaster, owning health insurance, and other forms of preparedness? Do you see those as products of fear? I also found it interesting that the small gap between Democrat and Republican military vets very interesting. Is that because they’ve actually been exposed and trained with guns and they see and understand the benefit?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Natural disasters, failing health, etc are inevitable. Guns are a man-made problem where there is a deliberate act. Huapakechi is now using shooting threats. Is that really necessary? I know it’s an idle threat but at the core this is the way the fear works in their minds. How else can you get from regulating guns to banning guns? Fear. There are also levels of fear and at least a slight tip of the hat at statistics that I am much more likely to need a kidney transplant than getting shot.

                    I read “The Blaze”, a Glen Beck production, and I am struck with how often he is telling people to buy gold, learn this secret self-defence technique, stock up the bomb bunker with these essential foods, … It all speaks to a inordinate fear and the mistaken belief that doing those things is really going to make a difference.

                    People are TERRIBLE at looking at the world through statistical eyes and it shows. State-run lotteries take advantage of this weakness. When I become leader of the world statistics will be taught in every school and Las Vegas can go back to being a pile of sand.

                    • DwayneNo Gravatar says:

                      Guns are inanimate objects, tools, just like bricks or baseball bats. They only do what they are told to do. Why don’t you use your statistics and try to ban cars, which are related to more deaths than guns? Funny part is that, cars aren’t meant to harm, yet are related to many more deaths.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    There’s that ban word again. Cars are designed for transportation, Guns are designed for killing. There are externalities to both.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Dwayne, I think you’ve argued yourself into a corner here. Cars kill more people AND there are more cars. Cars are being designed every year to be safer and safer. Guns on the other hand get upgraded to easier loading, more accuracy, faster bullets, longer uninterrupted shooting time, etc. All designed to make them better killing machines.

                    It could very well be that cars, per-capita kill more than guns. We have weighed the benefits against the costs and decided to keep cars and work to make them safer. Not so with guns. The NRA wants more of us to be carrying them around in public. My personal OPINION is that this will make things worse rather than better. Did you see my Bayes’ Theorem stuff?

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark,

                      You continue to ignore the irony of the car vs gun angle. While cars were designed as transportation there are more people killed by them than a tool that you claim is only used to kill.

                      Guns, otoh, are used often enough to save lives — more lives than they are used to take, but you worship the car and blame the gun.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “You continue to ignore the irony of the car vs gun angle.”

                      You are going to have to slow down and think a little more on this one.

                      Cars are designed for transportation with the externality that they sometimes kill people. We strive to make cars safer.

                      Guns are designed for killing with the externality that they take unintended victims. But their single purpose is and always has been to kill, more efficiently and more easily.

                      There is no irony here. Guns were designed because spears had reached the limits of their usefulness. Cars were designed because horses were too slow and trains were severely limited in where they could go.

                      “Guns, otoh, are used often enough to save live”s:

                      Guns are used because guns are used. 10 thousand times a year they are used to take lives.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      One last thing regarding Davi’s “saving of lives”. You cannot say “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” and then turn around and say that “guns save lives”. The correct statement referencing the first is “guns don’t save people, people save people”. I hereby denote this entire discussion null and void.

                      Have fun with that one.

                • First, Republican often includes Libertarian Republicans, who are known for not being emotionally driven in fact libertarian minded people are often considered the psychos of the political spectrum because we almost always are cold and calculating.

                  Second, You should have some fear of what your government can do to you. In particular when you consider that we have recently been summarily executing people without trial, and that as an American, the president could put your name on a kill list, which is not only unconstitutional but essentially the definition of police state mentality.

                  Third, 60% of all owners identify as moderate or liberal.

                  Fourth, Have you noticed that the people pushing bans, are almost always the ones who carry illegally, know someone who does, or have ‘special privilege’ Such as Dianne Feinstien (last category who wants to ban handguns, but has a CCW permit herself and has said she carries), Michael Moore, whose body guard illegally carried… etc.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  You are very incorrect.
                  Gun owners have guns, and many gun owners carry their guns. What do they have to fear but those who would seize their guns, and rust?

                  “If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 – establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime.” —

                  Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington”

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Australia.

                    • Ron NNo Gravatar says:

                      Christopher – So tell me how this “fear of what your government can do to you” works, in the world of the gun-worshippers?
                      Does this mean that you – as a firearms-owner – can suddenly decide that the Govt of the day is being tyrannical? And that you can summarily execute any Govt official or representative who enters your property? – because you believe they are part of a tyrannical organisation that is infringing on your “rights”?
                      If so, that means you do not subscribe to civil laws, enacted by a democratically-elected Govt – nor do you trust anything but your firearm.
                      Sounds like total anarchy to me – and I can see why you prefer anarchist websites to post your message of summary execution, without any right to a trial by judge and jury – a current “right” of yours, that you would also prefer not to be infringed on, too?

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  What a total crock.

                  We don’t live in fear. We assess risk and take appropriate steps to protect ourselves. We are realistic enough to know that cops are minutes away when seconds count. We are responsible enough to plan to protect ourselves and our families.

                  The concern we have is that some do-gooder will disarm us. We know that many powerful people in the government want to do just that.

                  You think that we are crazy because we want to protect our families with the most effective means available to us. We think that you are more crazy for not wanting to do the same and dangerous because you don’t think that we should be able to.

    • I have only one question for you regarding your findings, there is a list above you with 7 of them, so your initial condition is flawed. Not every firearm has to be discharged to count as having resolved the situation. Even in home defense there are between 1.5 and 2 million times per year that a gun isn’t fired at all, just simply hearing someone say ‘i have a gun’ or showing it, or the click click that people hear when you chamber a round in a semi-auto or pump weapon. If you ran your numbers again what would you get?

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        BTW, I’d be happy to run other numbers. I will insist on a rational selection process and not anecdotal evidence. IOW, sources that can be verified.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          A few questions:
          1) How many of the 1.5-2million incidents go unreported each year?
          2) What do you think the likelihood is that more guns will reduce crimes?
          3) What do you think the likelihood is that more guns will increase crimes?

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            http://hotair.com/archives/2012/11/27/mystery-virginia-gun-violen ce-falls-as-gun-sales-soar/

            Read it and weep.

            This is the case everywhere in the country it is tried.

              • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

                In every state that has CCW, the number of permit holders is up. Gun sales since 1998 have been on a steady rise. I don’t know what method they used in their ‘research’ showing that ownership was down, but the numbers available from public records, and the industry would call into question the idea that ownership is down. In particular if you look at the average number of firearms owned, and add in the sales, ownership numbers (raw numbers of people who own) is up. In fact : according to this 90 million owned in 1960, and today averaging the two studies (not perfect but it makes the point) 115 million own, that is up. The percentage drop is easy to explain, when you consider immigration, and population bloom. A lower percentage may own, but the raw number of owners is up by 25 million, this is not a decrease.

          • SamNo Gravatar says:

            Ted Nugent was on a talk show with a crackpot liberal Brit (can’t now remember his name) and made this point: The lowest crime rates are in geographical areas where gun ownership is much higher per capita than in urban areas where the gun control laws are the strictest.

            The point is that gun related crimes are much higher where the gun control laws are strictest.

            When will the libs finally admit that there are only two possible solutions to gun related crime: 1) remove ALL guns from the hands of all but law enforcement and military units, which CANNOT happen, or 2) acknowledge and treat the root cause of gun crime, meaning the mentally and emotionally (use your own adjectives here), and not the symptom (gun ownership by stable and law abiding citizens). I have had a CCW permit for almost 17 years and have never had to pull my weapon, much less display or fire it. Am I to be required to give up my only way to defend myself and my family to satisfy those who have their heads firmly locked in the position where the sun doesn’t shine? I read somewhere that one shouldn’t mess with old people (like me). They can’t fight to defend themselves any more so they will use their gun.

            Methinks that political correctness and the urge to control are the real reasons that libs won’t see and admit what the facts prove beyond discussion.

            I recently saw the video of the lady who was in that fast food restaurant when a shooter entered. She was testifying before a legislature about the incident. She had a permit, but had left her heat in the car. She was barely able to escape, but her mother and dad were executed. Had she had her weapon with her it is likely that she would have iced the shooter and saved many lives.

            Libs are cying loudly that the ‘science’ of global warming is real, while equally loudly denying the science which proves that legally armed civilians save lives. Go figure!

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        My condition is mass shootings, not how many times a gun is used per year. My source is this and their selection method was fairly strict:

        http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

        Other people have tried to quantify the number you cite. What do we weigh the numbers 2 million number against? All crimes? Surely you are not claiming there were 2 million attempted mass shootings a year.

        • The problem becomes use of the term ‘mass shootings’ if as the article surmises armed and unarmed civilians keep the shooter from attacking more than 4 people (the requirement for it to be a mass shooting) although the definition is “The discharging of firearms multiple times by one or more parties into a group of unarmed victims” it is seldom considered a mass shooting, in fact never that I have heard of, with fewer than 4 victims.

        • No, I was making the point that if a shooting is stopped without the good guys shooting back, it is still an interrupted shooting.

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Overwhelmingly, mass murders occur in locations where armed citizens are prohibited to be. (Schools, the Aurora theater, shopping malls where carry is banned, etc.) Note that the shooters themselves choose the location where their rampage will be.

      It is beyond dishonest, and verges into evil, to count those massacres where armed citizens are prohibited to be, and then turn around and say that only 1.6% of mass shootings are stopped by armed citizens. If you has so much as an ounce of integrity, you would exclude all such killings from your analysis, and consider only those massacres that happened where armed citizens were permitted to be. Then consider whether armed citizens help or hurt public safety. But you didn’t, and others of your ilk don’t either. Which leaves us all thinking that it isn’t really about public safety at all.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Ray,

        That’s baloney. Most of the 68 shootings I listed did not occur in an opt-out location. I think it is perfectly reasonable for a business to be allowed to opt out of carry laws.

        Columbine had an armed guard, Virginia tech had a police force, and Ft. Hood had armed soldiers. Seeing that most commit suicide, I don’t think the unarmed nature of the situation plays much (if any) of a factor. There are plenty of places for gun owners to be the hero; that they are not is quite telling.

        Blaming the victims is not the answer. Keeping guns out of the hands of people who should not have them is. Figure out a way to do that and we’ll all be better off.

        – /\/\

        • BruceNo Gravatar says:

          The fact that Columbine had an armed guard doesn’t mean that armed citizens were allowed there: it is a felony to bring a gun to that school. The fact that VA Tech had police officers doesn’t negate the fact that the school had an express no-weapons policy. The fact that Ft. Hood “had armed soldiers” doesn’t mean that soldiers were allowed to carry their weapons into the room in which the massacre happened. Yet, you still seem to count those killings as ones which “weren’t stopped by armed citizens.” Which is beyond merely dishonest.

          To your other point, while it may be reasonable for a business to prohibit armed citizens, don’t cite the examples where such is the case (e.g. the Cinemark theater in Aurora CO) as examples “which weren’t stopped by armed citizens.”

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce, I see your point. I will revise my figures.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Bruce, I am in agreement with you that the “1990 Gun-Free Zone Act” increases the likelihood that schools would be selected. I am not sure how much it increases that number. The most attractive thing about malls, theatres, schools, churches, etc are the number of people assembled all in one place. It creates a lot of shock value. A large number of mass shootings end up with the assailant committing suicide so it’s not a survival motive.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Mark said:

              “A large number of mass shootings end up with the assailant committing suicide so it’s not a survival motive.”

              They may want to die but they want to live long enough to make a name for themselves first. They want to be remembered for their horrible deed and the bigger the death toll, the better.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Mark,

          You directed your comment to me so it seems that you are wrong again. In that post, you talk about armed guards, uniformed police, and armed military personnel. It’s been pointed out to you countrless times that unformed guards and cops are either easy targets to be killed first or easily avoided because they stand out from the crowd. Concealed carry by ordinary citizens is where the advantage is for the good guys.

          As for the armed military, are you referring to the MPs? I hope so because not even in combat areas are military personnel allowed to be armed in all cases. An MP ten minutes away is no different from a cop 15 minutes away. Our soldiers at Ft Hood were sitting ducks without the means to protect themselves.

  4. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    My condition is mass shootings, not how many times a gun is used per year. My source is this and their selection method was fairly strict:

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

    Other people have tried to quantify the number you cite. What do we weigh the numbers 2 million number against? All crimes? Surely you are not claiming there were 2 million attempted mass shootings a year.

    • Mark,

      I suspect you are un-insultable as am I. Do you think giving an insane person or a criminal your name address and the guarantee that you will not be armed will increase or decrease the likelihood of your safety? and why?
      I have a 12 gage shotgun strictly for defense in my home and I want the world to know that I have such a weapon and have owned a long gun since I was 10 years old. My grandfather told me that the only thing a pistol was good for was to shoot yourself in the foot. LOL The first time I fired one I decided he was correct. I was also taught that never to point a weapon at anything I did not want to kill and I live by this always. This weapon claims to be the fastest shotgun in the world and fire 5 rounds in less than one second. Unless you are SEAL trained, insane or both that will get your attention and put you running for your life. I will defend my home. Bet I will never need to if an intruder knows I am well armed and knowledgeable.

      Please answer my questions. Thank you. I love Ayn Rand, I am a Libertarian and I also believe in God. LOL

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Donald, I have a thick skin when it comes to insults. I have been on listservs since the dawn of the internet and have debated in some pretty heavyweight discussions. You learn quickly not to get emotional about it. I may not be perfect at it but I know bullshit when I see it. It’s still nice to see people able to play well together and not get in a snit when they are wrong.

        “Do you think giving an insane person or a criminal your name address and the guarantee that you will not be armed will increase or decrease the likelihood of your safety? and why?”

        Scenario 1: give an insane person or a criminal your name address and the guarantee that you WILL be armed.

        Answer: Pretty good chance he will be unlikely to show up. Why: I just told him I would be armed and he thinks I want an excuse to kill someone.

        Scenario 2: give an insane person or a criminal your name address and the guarantee that you WILL NOT be armed.

        Answer: Pretty good chance he will be unlikely to show up. Why: I just told him I would NOT be armed and he thinks that is an insane thing to say so it must be a trap..

        Caveat emptor: I am not a criminologist.


        I used to be a true follower of Ayn Rand until I started seeing what unbridled self-interest did to people and how it was used as an excuse to ignore those less fortunate. I am lucky as hell to not be one of them.

        I used to be a Republican. George Bush cured me of that. I live in a red state and am a long time gun owner. Like you, no pistols. Had one, got rid of it.

        Even though we appear to be on opposite sides of the fence the dialog without insults, and well-reasoned questions are refreshing.

        Did you look at my Bayes’ Theorem presentation?

        - /\/\

  5. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    I had pointed out that regardless of the mass shootings, there are 1 to 2 millions instances a year where a gun is used or shown to end a crime. Many of those intended crimes could very well end up in death or serious bodily injury to the intended victim and was more than enough reason to have and/or carry a gun. I don’t think that anyone suggested there each case was a mass shooting attempt.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I was measuring mass shootings. If you want to measure something else I would need more data and what it is you are trying to measure. In the 2-million case this is just noise for what I was looking at.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        The type of attack varies because of the number of targets involved but does not negate the need to carry a firearm for the far more frequent one on one attacks.

        You choose, once again, to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit your agenda. I don’t know from day to day what situation I might encounter so I carry always and everywhere.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Here is one of the papers questioning the over-reporting of gun use.

      http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

      • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

        Even in that report it claims anywhere from 65,000 – 150,000 which is still three to five times as many people that die from firearms, and one of the sources (which he didn’t like in his report for other reasons) gave an estimate of 700,000. And his requirements to get it down from this number or for that matter the 2.5 million number is to simply say ‘some people didn’t really defend themselves’. In other words doubting that people in the survey actually used the firearm to defend themselves, the problem with this elimination is assume someone had a ‘false positive’ as he calls it, there is almost no way to know one way or the other, if the person’s life was in danger when they drew down, or at home responded to what they thought was an attempted break in. I realize this is his argument as well, but my point is self defense in the moment is a subjective thing, and saying to someone ‘you didn’t really defend yourself there because there was no threat’ is simply not true, as we have no way of knowing what would have happened had they not drawn.

  6. barryNo Gravatar says:

    You’ve come up with a list of 6 shootings that were stopped through the use of a firearm by a civilian. 6. Against your own average-by-police, that’s about 70 lives effectively saved. And that’s over the course of years.

    The annual murder count in the US at the moment is 14k – even on an annual scale, 70 is an order of magnitude less than the annual variation.

    You’re basically arguing to saturate the population with firearms on a study with size n=6, that even if you’re right, will have negligible effect on the number of murders.

    Not to mention that your sources are news sites rather than criminology sources.

    Shoddy science all around, especially for someone who boasts that they’re a mathematician.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      I don’t know who or what you claim to be but to those mere 70 lives saved, they are 70 people who returned to their families. They aren’t just statistics, they are real people. Would you rather see 70 more dead victims? Isn’t it the left that says. ‘if it only saves one life’?

      Mass shootings are pretty rare. Guns in the hands of civilians save more lives than they take in one on one confrontations daily.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Fallacy: Appeal to emotion.

      • barryNo Gravatar says:

        “Would you rather see 70 more dead victims? Isn’t it the left that says. ‘if it only saves one life’?”

        er… isn’t it also the left that says ‘guns facilitate killing people, and the more there are, the more likely it is for a murder to occur’? Arming the entire population to save this handful of people is going to end up with far more murdered. Yes, I’d rather see those 70 people alive. But the argument is pointless given the sheer number of overall murders per year in the US, most of which are conducted with handguns.

        The US already has a murder rate (4.2) of triple other first-world nations (~1.0-1.6). Kleck suggested in his study that ‘defensive gun use’ happened 2.5 million times per year and saved 200k lives per year. That’s what he said – and it’s insane. Currently 14k people are murdered per year in the US. Kleck claims 200k lives saved by guns, meaning that without guns, the US would have 214k murders per year – which would give it a murder rate of ~64 per 100k population – higher than every other nation on earth except El Salvador and Honduras. As a comparison, Mexico with all it’s social troubles and gang wars has a rate of 16.7. Do you really think the social fabric of the US is really that bad and that guns save that ludicrous number of lives?

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          “..isn’t it also the left that says ‘guns facilitate killing people, and the more there are, the more likely it is for a murder to occur?”

          Yes Barry, the left does say that but there is nothing but fearmongering in that statement and nothing to back it up.

          For a moment, I will stipulate that 200k additional deaths will not occur if victims are unarmed. What if it is only another 14k? You decry the current death rate. Would doubling it bother you? There is no doubt that fewer guns in the hands of good people will increase the loss of innocent life.

          Why do you choose to ignore the safety that a gun provides?

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Your argument has more holes than a gill net. The sample was “mass casualty shootings”, you compare that to “all shooting deaths”? You also ignore the situations where showing a firearm dissuades a criminal from acting (often unreported).

      Be so kind as to explain the drop in criminal activity in those states where “shall issue” and “concealed carry” make carrying handguns by citizens completely legal.

      Explain the phenomenal example of Kennesaw GA.
      http://www.wnd.com/2007/04/41196/
      snip::Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

      By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city’s crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township’s crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

      This was not what some predicted.

      • barryNo Gravatar says:

        ‘more holes’? I compare it to ‘all shooting deaths’ because he’s advocating arming everyone, and the ‘all shooting deaths’ is relevant there.

        Besides, if concealed carry was so awesome at reducing the crime rate, why does Washington state’s crime follow that of its contemporaries since introduction of ccw in 1961?

        And how come ccw advocates never ever, ever, ever, ever, not once, never, ever talk about the concommitant massive rise in incarceration rates having a major effect on crime reduction? It’s always just the guns. The magical guns that reduce crime by themselves, all in a vacuum. It’s never policing improvements, social programs, runaway incarceration… it’s always extremely specifically selected cases. Whoop-o, you’ve selected two towns with an aggregate population of 50k – out of 310 million. How very representative.

        Picking and choosing small sample sizes. of single examples over short time frames is really bad criminology. Crime goes in waves, and to report X happened ‘just after’ Y doesn’t work in criminology. The classic example is Australia. Assault weapons ban in 1996. The “sky is falling” anti-gun control crowd pointed to a slight rise in murders in ’97-98 as proof that it was wrong. But since ’97, it’s been dropping steadily, well below the ’96 levels.

        Similarly, it’s always “you never show the stats for crimes prevented from the showing of a gun”, but in response, I’ll say “you never show the stats for crimes committed with the showing of a gun”. How many crimes are facilitated by those guns? Why don’t you show the stats for them?

    • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

      Most murders also happen in singular situations in private settings, not in public where an armed person could do anything. You have to account for only public murders, the numbers drop off significantly at this point, I haven’t crunched the numbers but I would guess to less than 1,000. Which means you are now talking about a percentage of the killings.

    • SamNo Gravatar says:

      Barry:

      Read about a young boy walking on the beach. A storm had washed ashore thousands of starfish. He was picking them up and throwing them back into the sea. Someone said to him that no matter how many he threw back, it would not matter. The boy replied that it mattered to the ones he threw back.

      So what is the number of murders prevented you would consider consequential?

  7. DwayneNo Gravatar says:

    The anti-gun crowd should spend some time in rural America, where EVERY house has multiple guns, the average income is way below the “poverty line”, the education kids get is below national average. These people are “under-served” and many don’t have insurance. Several are on drugs such as RX pain killers and meth. But you don’t hear of mass shootings, and you rarely hear of murder. It’s hard to explain to those people why you feel it is important to take away their guns just because some city kids go crazy or thugs feel the need to murder. They feel better about having guns because they know how to use them and know they have an increased chance of defending themselves in the event or a break in. In 2010, when a Memphis newspaper published the names and zip codes of concealed carry permit holders in Tenn., crime went down 18% on average in the areas with more guns and areas with fewer guns saw crime go up. So, for the anti-gun crowd, I recommend you try to learn something from the “ignorant hicks” that horde guns yet don’t seem to take human life with them as often thugs and gangsters preying on people who don’t have them.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Population density perfectly explains this. You would naturally expect there to be more shootings where there are more people.

      I’d be interested in reading the findings on the Memphis paper. Where can this be found?

      • DwayneNo Gravatar says:

        Mark,
        Murder and crime rate per capita is much lower, not just a lower number number relative to population. The violent crime rate and murder rate in the 2 counties I grew up in is lower per capita than most places in the world.

        As for the 18% stats, I didn’t verify the source, but a reference to it was published in the LA Times and the link is below : “Using the information published by the Commercial Appeal, they found burglaries in 2009 declined 18% in the city’s ZIP codes with the most concealed-carry permits and generally increased in ZIP codes with the fewest.”

        http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-newspaper-g un-owners-20121226,0,2883615.story

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          That is not surprising either. There are likely more driving factors than just population density.

          • DwayneNo Gravatar says:

            Sure, and that’s my whole point. People want to get rid of guns so quickly, but the opposing world view is one where everyone owns guns but people don’t just go around shooting people. There are other factors involved, one being, I believe, respect for human life.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Agreed. I looked at the article you cited. There does seem to be a strong correlation. Nationwide crime is down and gun ownership is down which seems to be a correlation in the opposite direction.

              http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jul/23/news/la-pn-crime-is-down- and-so-is-gun-ownership-20120722

              I’m not sure what conclusion can be drawn from these findings. As I have said before, with so many variables involved, finding the needles in this haystack is difficult.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                Complete BS. Gun sales are off the charts everywhere. Obama is an even better gun salesman that Clinton was.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                Gun ownership is down? Where did all the guns go? Within the last three days the local sport shop has sold out of every sort of semi-auto rifle smaller than .308. The news this morning is that Walmarts in five states are sold out of rifles. Probably more by now. Even Mosin-Nagants are selling for upwards of $150, and two months ago they could be had for $80.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Criminals usually have an extreme allergy to the possibility of bullet wounds.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Mark,

        If density accounts for increased shootings, why is the government pushing so hard to move people into the big cities and away from the safer rural areas? Is some level of increased deaths okay with the government if they accomplish other goals?

        • Ron NNo Gravatar says:

          New York citys record shows up the NRA propaganda. Increased removal of illegal weapons by stop and search is a more effective strategy than arming the populace to the teeth.
          I suppose you’ll come back and tell me that there’s some “anomaly” in the NY figures, or other major factors are involved, that produced the low shootings and murders rates.
          http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/murders-fall-record-city-arti cle-1.1229273

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            If you don’t want a gun, don’t own one but don’t tell me that I can’t have one. It is my right to keep and bear arms.

            New York has some very strict gun control laws so how are these people getting guns? Ya think maybe criminals don’t obey gun laws?

            Btw, don’t you have a problem with warrantless searches? No, I don’t suppose that you do.

            Chicago just hit 500. Well, that was yesterday. They are probably up to 505 or 510 murders by now. They have the strictest anti gun laws in the country. Tell me, if gun control works, are those 500, 505, or 510 people really dead?

  8. DwayneNo Gravatar says:

    I see what you’re sayings and agree as well. There are many correlations that indicate one thing or another. Out of curiosity, I looked up racial demographics on City Data for the 10 most dangerous and the 10 safest cities in the US and there were racial correlations as well. No one wants to bring that up, but if we’re looking for a real solution we have to face facts and process all the data. Hey, where I come from, we have the highest meth manufacturing in the country and one of the highest teen pregnancy ratings in the country, and they are all white. No matter how PC people try to be, if there is a trend within a culture, it has to be identified in order to fix it.

  9. RickNo Gravatar says:

    What would a shooting like the following do for your statistics?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakewood,_Washington_police_officer_ shooting

  10. TomNo Gravatar says:

    Davi,

    You seem to have missed the Clackamas Mall shooting in Portland, OR a few days before the Sandy Hook Elementary school. At least, it isn’t listed in your mass shooting incidents list.

    Reports there are that a CHL holder drew his firearm and aimed at the shooter, but didn’t shoot as he didn’t feel he had a clear shot and the risk of shooting an innocent person was too high.

    However, the shooter saw him draw and aim his gun at him and, at that point, retreated into a stairwell and shot himself. The argument could be made that, had the CHL holder not drawn his weapon, that shooting could have continued with more dead.

    http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shoote r-183593571.html

  11. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    More food for thought:

    Video: ‘If I Only Had a Gun’: Click Here for 20/20 Special abcnews.go.com

    http://abcnews.go.com/2020/video/defend-gun-7312540

    “This ABC news video from 2009 is important to watch! Unless you a training like police officers or military personnel your reaction to a high stress shooting will likely not be good, and may be worse if you have a gun. My conclusions: Flight will typically save more lives then fighting, so through evolution our bodies are more predisposed to those types of reactions to stressful situations. Reaction to a shooter is therefore hampered by having a weapon because it introduces indecision to flee the situation or solve the situation. Then, if the gun can be wielded, can the right target be shot?

    Guns don’t bother me. Hunting with guns doesn’t bother me. Shooting ranges don’t bother me. Video games, laser tag, paint ball, violent movies don’t bother me. It is guns in the hands of criminals, or would-be criminals, that scare me. It is guns in the hands of “I have to protect myself” people, who are untrained and overzealous, that scare me. Why? It is because of what these two drastically different people have in common; they are unpredictable and I cannot avoid them. More guns, carried around all the time by more people, means more situations where guns can be used.

    If the students who were shot in this training exercise didn’t have the gun would they have escaped? With the gun their likelihood of escape was ZERO, and their chances of taking out the shooter was I think 15%, maybe if that was a life threatening wound. And if they had gotten off more shots, would they only have shot the shooter or would they have shot their classmates?”

    • TomNo Gravatar says:

      Pitting rank amateurs, who have little to no firearms experience, against a highly trained tactical police instructor is asinine. The attacker KNEW who the armed person was and where they were sitting. The poor defender didn’t even have a chance. It’s like putting Diane Sawyer against Michael Jordan in a dunking contest; they rigged the contest to guarantee the outcome will be as expected. It was clearly evident this situation was set-up to purposely fail.

      I challenge them to try a real experiment with an attacker who has average marksmanship skills, similar to the shooters involved in the recent mass shootings. Pit them against a person who has a concealed carry license and has regularly practiced his/her skills, such as drawing from a concealed holster and shooting at moving targets. THEN you will have a more realistic scenario and a fairly level playing field that a person who is armed would likely face.

      It’s completely ludicrous to portray poorly trained students getting blown away by a trained cop with tactical knowledge as some kind of “fair” test.

      It’s almost like ABC had an agenda to push or something.

      I’d like to see this scenario recreated at one of the top tier gun schools, see how civilians with training react.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Seems like a state of denial. The intruders shoot the instructor first and then start around the room. They give our would-be savior plenty of time in EVERY instance. This plays out exactly the way I think most shootouts would go. The real world ain’t Gunsmoke!

    • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

      I have to admit I only watched so far up to the first event, but seriously the guy walked in shot the ‘teacher’ and his NEXT shot went to the only armed person in the room.

  12. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Want a much more effective and safe defence for your home? Get a dog. Preferably one that will bark its head off if it sees or hears an intruder.

    • TomNo Gravatar says:

      I have two of them. Very large (80+ lbs each). But I would not entrust the safety of myself and my family to my dogs. They can easily be shot by an intruder.

      My dogs are merely an early warning system for me. They are not the entirety of my home defense.

      But if you wish to entrust your and your family’s safety to a barking dog, you can be my guest. I am not trying to take away your right to do so. If you wish to not own guns, that is also your right. I am not trying to take away your right to not buy them.

      However, buying guns and using them to defend myself and my family is my right. You are trying to take that right away from me.

      I don’t understand people like you. When you don’t agree with a certain right, instead of simply not exercising said right yourself, you try to ban it so nobody can exercise that right. That, my friend, is the way of tyranny, and makes you and those who would also endeavor to deny my rights a tyrant.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Why do you even own a gun? You have your dog to protect you. Your gun(s) could be stolen and used against innocent people.

      • TomNo Gravatar says:

        If you had actually read and comprehended my reply, you would have seen that my dogs are not there for protection. They are an early warning system. I am the main means of protection for my home and family.

        And I promise you my guns will not get in the hands of criminals to be used against innocent people. You are welcome to come to my house and try to take them from me for that purpose if you wish, but you should get your affairs in order before you try.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Tom,

          My comment and question was directed at Mark, not you. His every post is to denigrate gun owners and question the usefulness of owning a gun but then he claims to own a gun (or guns) himself. I agree with your posts completely. Sorry if I caused the confusion. Molon Labe.

  13. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “However, buying guns and using them to defend myself and my family is my right. You are trying to take that right away from me.”

    No – I – Am – Not.

    • TomNo Gravatar says:

      EVERY comment you’ve made on here is pro-gun control. EVERY SINGLE ONE.

      You are arguing that people don’t need guns. That you think average citizens who carry are dangerous and you’re scared of them. The gist of your arguments is that only government needs the ability to carry guns outside the home.

      So, yes, you are. You wish to limit the types of guns I may legally purchase. You wish to limit the places in which I may carry my guns – or even the fact that I can carry at all.

      So, yes, you wish to take my rights away from me.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I don’t recall the “right to bear arms” covering “right to do anything I damned well please with them”. You’ll have to deal with the crazies that made this worse. Quit making that my problem. I’m not buying and carrying a gun just because you want one.

        • TomNo Gravatar says:

          Nobody’s trying to MAKE you buy a gun. You don’t want to? Fine with me. That’s your right.

          But preventing ME from buying one? That I’m not fine with. Because that’s MY right.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            If you haven’t broken any laws that would prevent you from having one then have a big time. Buy as many as you want. Nobody’s stopping you. Get this please: controlling access is not the same thing as banning. As I have pointed out, it IS NOT legal for you to own a bazooka or rocket launchers. In may cities it IS NOT legal for you to discharge a firearm withing city limits. You are following rules already. Quit whining about having some sanity added to the mix.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Hmmm. Jackass speak with forked tongue.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Insulting me makes me not want to listen to you.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          It’s your choice, just like being armed.

          A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government

          George Washington

  14. I suspect you are un-insultable as am I. Do you think giving an insane person or a criminal your name address and the guarantee that you will not be armed will increase or decrease the likelihood of your safety? and why?
    I have a 12 gage shotgun strictly for defense in my home and I want the world to know that I have such a weapon and have owned a long gun since I was 10 years old. My grandfather told me that the only thing a pistol was good for was to shoot yourself in the foot. LOL The first time I fired one I decided he was correct. I was also taught that never to point a weapon at anything I did not want to kill and I live by this always. This weapon claims to be the fastest shotgun in the world and fire 5 rounds in less than one second. Unless you are SEAL trained, insane or both that will get your attention and put you running for your life. I will defend my home. Bet I will never need to if an intruder knows I am well armed and knowledgeable.

    Please answer my questions. Thank you. I love Ayn Rand, I am a Libertarian and I also believe in God. LOL

  15. Ron NNo Gravatar says:

    Donald – Ever heard of the word “ambush”? If I was a criminal intent on carrying out a violent crime upon your person, I would reconnoitre your home, your armaments, your security systems – and take you out with a surprise attack, before you could even get your finger on the trigger of your beloved shotgun.
    Do you sleep with it in your bed, loaded and cocked, and your hand on it?? No, I didn’t think so.
    Do you sleep at all? You wouldn’t sleep ever, if you knew how, as a criminal, I could mount a surprise attack on you.
    According to your NRA-backed beliefs, no police trooper or soldier can ever be killed, because they are fully tooled-up. Nothing like fear-driven propaganda to sell firearms.

    • TomNo Gravatar says:

      You watch too many movies.

      • Ron NNo Gravatar says:

        This is not a well-structured refutation of my points. What’s the next well-written and well-structured response in your refutations? “Nah-Nah, Nah-Nah!”?

        • TomNo Gravatar says:

          No. My point is that criminals don’t act like that. They don’t dedicate several days staking out their next score. They don’t study the security system, or the habits and schedules of their marks.

          Criminals are lazy and take advantage of opportunity. They wouldn’t lie in wait after several days of planning and act as you generally described – except in the movies. Hence, my comment that you watch too many movies.

          How do I know this? I am a former police officer and corrections officer. I have spoken to and interacted with far more criminals than you will ever likely meet. I know how they operate and how they think. And what you described isn’t it.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Being armed does not guarantee that you will win but it does give you a chance of winning that is better than if you are disarmed.

      Why do you want to see more people die by disarming them?

  16. Ron NNo Gravatar says:

    Ray – The simple fact remains that unlimited and virtually uncontrolled access to firearms in the U.S.A. is not working. Ignoring any statistics, the bottom line can be represented by a simple comparative graph.
    The number of firearms in the hands of the civilian sector of the U.S.A is on a constantly increasing graph.
    In line with that constantly increasing number of firearms is a constant increase in the number of massacres, and the number of deaths via firearm (either accidental or on purpose).
    The position of the right-to-firearms people and the NRA is a position of non-negotiation, no compromise and a backs-to-the-wall position.
    Nothing is ever achieved by adopting a position of no negotiation and no compromise. It means nothing ever changes. Everything we do in this world involves compromise and negotiation – be it arguments with family members, right through to salary negotiations.
    That the NRA and firearms-lovers will never negotiate or compromise, when changes have to be made for the betterment of society, is indicative that there is a serious shortfall in the logic and thought processes of the NRA and the firearms-lovers.
    Firearms are just like any other dangerous “tool” in society (and I’m constantly reminded that firearms are “just a tool”). They need regulation and control, to prevent those with evil intent, from acquiring them rapidly and easily.
    Sorry guys, I don’t buy the argument that your “firearms rights” were brought down from Mt Sinai on stone tablets by Moses.
    Your “firearms rights” are modifiable by the Govt of the day for improvements in societys safety and wellbeing – and your constitutional website “notes to the Second Amendment” states this fact as well.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Great start. You begin with the nonsense that access to guns is virtually unlimited and uncontrolled is just BS. No other product — or right guaranteed by the Constitution — has more regulation and laws to control it. The fact that your laws don’t work means nothing to you. Criminals do not obey laws. D’uh!

      We need criminal control. We need to lock them up and keep them behind bars rather than plea bargaining charges away.

      Yes, firearm ownership is increasing but you anti gun guys should get together and decide if it is or is not increasing. What is not increasing is the number of mass shootings. We hear about them more and endlessly, but as someone else posted, rampage shooting are rare and decreasing.

      That’s 2 bits of BS from you so far.

      Next, do you even know what a ‘right’ is? It is by nature (endowed by my Creator) mine and you want to take it from me and you want to know why I won’t compromise? You enable both criminals and tyranny when you disarm me. Tell me again why I should give in.

      The Constitution of the US was written to protect the smallest minority of them all — the individual, not society. Society has no rights. People have rights and you want to take them away.

      You have no proof that your gun control schemes will do anything to control crime and criminals and you dare to call us logically flawed. Name me another tool that is mentioned in the Constitution. You can’t.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      1) Access to firearms has been increasingly limited and constrained by law and regulation since the 1860s.
      http://www.businessinsider.com/united-states-history-of-gun-contr ol-2012-12
      2)Negotiating with a liberal about anything, especially rights granted by the Constitution, is incremental surrender.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Apparently not constrained enough. Keep YOUR guns out of the hands of criminals and things will be fine.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Whassamatter Mark? The 20,000 or so laws already on the books aren’t enough to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

          Have you ever noticed that the most secure locks ever made merely keep honest people honest?

          Funny that when anti gun laws are repealed and right to carry is made law, criminals restrain their proclivities or move to areas with laws more favorable to their survival.

    • PaulNo Gravatar says:

      Ron, the NRA has the same far from a “no-compromise” stance although they should. The Second Amendment is second only to ensure no one will try to take the First. Maybe instead of trying to attack the guns themselves, which are like you agree “tools” (but they are also tools that the Constitution protects) , we may move more as a nation to study and fix what causes people to go out and massacre innocent people. The answer to reducing gun crimes is not to take away more Constitutional rights like Obama has already done with the NDAA 2012 and is looking to do again with the NDAA 2013. We can debate this all day long with how well the “War on Drugs” has been going for the last half century.
      We as a nation dissolved ties with a tyrannical government and our Founding Fathers all knew to prevent us falling once again under similar tyrannical rule we would need the means to defend our Constitutional rights. Nowhere does it say that the Second Amendment is for hunting and personal protection only! Our Founding Fathers made it very clear the need and purpose for the Second Amendment. I think President George Washington said it best, “A free people ought to not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” Sufficient arms to maintain a status of independence is not referring to 1/3 or less capacity magazines nor is it under-powered firearms than that government.

      “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people” Tench Coxe.

      “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” George Mason.

      “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” Thomas Jefferson

      “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” George Washington

      “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)]

      In other words if you don’t like my Constitution or the founding principles thereof, GET OUT! There are plenty of places out there that restrict gun ownership that would be happy to have you.

      More than 1.3 million Americans have given their lives and over 1.5 million have been wounded to ensure we keep these rights. The NRA God willing, should start to have an uncompromising attitude to defending these rights.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        BRAVO!!!

        Well said Paul.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        In other words lump it or leave it. The founders would be astonished with what modern warfare implements look like. Had they been able to foresee that thing might have been spelled out a little more clearly. Today’s pea-shooters are noting compared to what the government (we the people) have at military bases around the world. That tyranny thing played well 200 years ago but it’s outdated. Gun lobbies have convinced citizens that it’s their God-given right to own killing tools to protect themselves from the government. What a crock of shit. If nothing else, Waco Texas should have made that quite clear. It’s too bad the founders aren’t around to school people. We’ve been interpreting ourselves into the ground with this nonsense.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Those founders you disparage were some of the most intelligent and educated men of their era. To say that they could not foresee the evolution of weapon development is pure speculation on your part. Their stance on “gun control” was that the citizens must be armed at least as well as the standing army.

          “The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
          – Thomas Jefferson

          A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government
          George Washington

          “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
          Richard Henry Lee

          “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”
          George Mason

          “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants”
          Thomas Jefferson

          As opposed to this:
          “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)

          “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.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          The only thing that our Founders would school us on is to resist tyranny when it first rears its ugly head. We should have overthrown this government long ago before it was so huge and so entrenched.

          Sometimes, defeat and death are not the worst thing. Again, I ask, why do you own any guns at all? Surrender seems to be your ultimate fall back position.

          When Waco happened, did you party like the Palestinians did on 9/11?

  17. The fact is that access to guns is the ONLY thing that is working. None of the gun bans have done any good.
    What anti-gunners believe is what’s theirs is theirs and whats our is up for negotiation.
    Actually, the NRA has been willing to negotiate – too willing. Every time they give up something, the left comes back with what are you willing to give up next.
    When Obama says there needs to be a conversation BUT refuses to consider arming teachers, we are not having a conversation, we are getting a lecture.
    Actually, I could agree/accept pretty much any restriction you want – no more hi-cap mags, one gun a month, even no more ‘assault rifles’ whatever that is, PROVIDED we agree that that’s it. If it doesn’t work (and it won’t) you will not come back with more restrictions.
    WE know ( and the NRA is slowly getting to realize) that you do not care about the next restriction. You will not be happy until every last gun in America in private hands is gone (then you will start taking away knives).
    Fortunately, we do not have to ‘sell’ you that our fire arm rights are inviolate – the 2nd amendment says they are. :)

  18. Mark, did you even watch the video? The intruder shot the instructor and the armed student next. How did he know the student was armed? It was obvious he knew which was armed and where he was in the audience. The student never had a chance.
    I’d like to see this re-enacted when there were 2 armed students and the attacker does not know if, who nor where. :)

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      The question is did you watch the video. The rest of the people scattered like mad and only our would-be hero stuck around to take on the assault. I think it’s funny that people think they are going to react like something in a movie. They have very little knowledge of their weaknesses in both mind and body.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Mark apparently refuses to see anything that does not fit his preconceptions. The whole scenario was stage managed to ‘prove’ that arming students does not change shooting statistics.

  19. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Huapakechi apparently refuses to see anything that does not fit his preconceptions. The whole scenario at Waco managed to prove that armed citizens are no match for government forces.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      And Jonestown proved the efficacy of flavored drinks.

      Ya can’t stop a suicide cult.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        With enough swat teams and tanks apparently you can…

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Ya never heard of suicide by cop? Damn but you’re ignorant.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “On February 28, shortly after the attempt to serve the warrant, an intense gun battle erupted, lasting nearly two hours. In this armed exchange, four agents and six Branch Davidians were killed. ”

            Doesn’t sound suicidal to me. But then, if you think you can take on the feds maybe you are suicidal too. Your pea-shooters are no match.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Given the circumstances, 4 versus 6 seems a pyrrhic victory for the feds.

              The Jews in the Warsaw ghetto held off the German army for a month with pea shooters.

              The colonists took on the world’s mightiest armies with pea shooters.

              Hungarians took on the Soviet tanks with rocks.

              A Chinese student took on tanks at Tiannamen Square without a weapon at all.

              People will always stand for liberty, even at the cost of their lives. And then there are those like you who don’t value liberty at all and prefer to live on your knees.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              The county Sheriff had offered to serve the warrant or to pick up Howell/Koresh, but it seems that janet reno and the clintons went for theater rather than a simple arrest. The federales can’t have citizens ignoring their $200 tax stamps on anonymous reports of banned weapons now, could they? This was right after their stunning triumph at Ruby Ridge, wasn’t it? They only murdered a boy and his mother in that one. Over a shotgun that was 1/4 inch too short (when the recoil pad was removed).

              Those of us that take notes already know to take one shot and go doggo, and just wait for someone else to take a shot. The feds will chase their tails trying to catch anybody.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                The fact remains, the “government” has lots more killing power than the average gun owner with his pea shooters. The whole notion of having guns to “defend ourselves from an oppressive government” is specious. Gun owners have been brainwashed by the NRA and their own fears.

                • They got away w/killing David Koresh and Vickie Weaver – after all he was molesting kids and she was married to a white supremacist. Will they get away with killing your neighbor? The guy you go to church w/every Sunday?
                  A lot of GI’s/LEO will not come after handguns or even assault rifles. Those that do, will pay a steep price.
                  I think the ATF and FBI learned their lesson at Waco and Ruby Ridge. They won the battle but lost the war.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Surrender now and avoid the rush, eh? Nothing is worth fighting for?

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Ya gotta ask, is this the hill you want to die on? The EASE of buying and owning guns certainly isn’t worth it to me.

                    • We realize that.
                      What is ‘worth it’ to you?
                      The Constitution is worth it to me and millions like me. :)

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “The Constitution is worth it to me”. That’s a bit nebulous. I’m pretty sure the constitution will be fine whether you have guns or not. It has been changed rather infrequently. But, I will point out I am not talking about “The Constitution”. I’m talking about the ease with which anyone can buy a gun and the lack of consequences when those guns are used to commit crimes. Neither of these take away your right to bear arms. Making something harder is not the same as taking it away. A point that is clearly lost by the fear-riddled far right and the NRA who plays to their fears.

                      You’re changing the subject by talking about defending the constitution, whatever that is…

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        You’re not taking on the feds with your pea-shooters dude.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom… go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels nor arms. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” – Samuel Adams; 1776

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason.
          ~ Samuel Adams

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            It would seem that you just prefer to be governed rather than live as a free man.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              False dichotomy.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                That accusation, by a sophist? You might be better at stand up comedy.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  You should look up “false dichotomy” and you’ll see why this is one. BTW, you are back to ad hominem again. You can’t make points with falsehoods. So sorry.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  “You haven’t made an honest statement since you started posting here.”

                  If by “honest statement” you mean citing reliable statistics, examples that clearly refute second amendment defenders assertions, refraining from lapsing into the laziness of relying on fallacies, avoiding name-calling (a specific fallacy used here quite often), criticizing surveys that have been shown to be flawed, and trying to maintain a civil level of discussion, then guilty as charged.

                  If by “honest statement” you mean handing you your ass with each point then guilty as charged.

                  You may not like what I say but that doesn’t make it untrue. You’ll need to let go of your fears and trying to compensate for something in order to see where the status quo on gun ownership are getting us nowhere. Nor are you positing solutions of your own other than “more guns” which plays right into the gun lobbyists hands.

                  Labelling me a sophist, insufferable fool, idiot, liberal, dumbass, etc. proves absolutely ZERO.

                  - M

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    How predictable. Deflect, deny and denigrate.

                    You must be paid by the word, or you enjoy being humiliated.

                    According to you:
                    *There is nothing to be gained by arming ones’ self, or owning guns is tantamount to handing them over to any thief who breaks into the home where they are kept.
                    *We should never contest government edicts or force, because they always come with overwhelming force.
                    *Any crime that has been reportedly deterred by displaying a weapon is hearsay and inadmissible.
                    *Shooting sprees that are stopped with two or fewer victims murdered do not count as ‘mass murder’ or the attempt at the same crime.
                    *Any person who thinks to oppose the shooter in such a scenario is suicidal, even if he or she is armed.

                    I would guess that you have never been shot at. Those of us who have that experience know better. We’re not delusional cinema educated “Rambo”, “Death Wish”, or “Die Hard” types. Neither are we sheeple such as yourself.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Actually I have been shot at. It was a shotgun within city limits. I remember the sound of the pellets going through the tree leaves.

                      I’ll leave the deflection, denial and denigration to you.

                      - M

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          Not just me. I’ve got a few million friends and colleagues who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

          There will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          .17 cal., 2550fps and 300 yards effective range, maybe that’s a a ‘pea shooter’ ? 22-250, 7mm, 30.06, and I’m sure I have some mil surplus black tips around here somewhere.

  20. wagnert in atlantaNo Gravatar says:

    Excellent and painstaking work. Thank you

  21. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Crime Statistics > Murders with firearms (most recent) by country

    # 1 South Africa: 31,918
    # 2 Colombia: 21,898
    # 3 Thailand: 20,032
    # 4 United States: 9,369
    # 5 Philippines: 7,708
    # 6 Mexico: 2,606
    # 7 Slovakia: 2,356
    # 8 El Salvador: 1,441
    # 9 Zimbabwe: 598
    # 10 Peru: 442
    # 11 Germany: 269
    # 12 Czech Republic: 181
    # 13 Ukraine: 173
    # 14 Canada: 144
    # 15 Albania: 135
    # 16 Costa Rica: 131
    # 17 Azerbaijan: 120
    # 18 Poland: 111
    # 19 Uruguay: 109
    # 20 Spain: 97
    # 21 Portugal: 90
    # 22 Croatia: 76

    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-crime-murders-w ith-firearms

  22. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Business Insider:

    The United States has the highest gun ownership rates in the world and the second highest rate of gun deaths among industrialized nations.

    That’s not a coincidence. Looking at developed nations, the U.S. is the end point of a staggering trend where the higher the rate of gun ownership, the more people die from gun wounds.

    In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, Mark Reid, a machine learning researcher at Australian National University, has run a quick statistical analysis of gun death data in industrialized nations.

    His charts show how unique the U.S. is among its peers when it comes to the way the country handles guns.

    The first chart shows gun deaths per capita graphed against gun ownership per capita. Notice the upward trend — the more guns per capita, the more gun deaths per capita. The US has the most guns, ergo it has one of the highest rates of gun deaths.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

    • People that want to take your guns away like to compare gun deaths in the US w/gun deaths in other countries.
      The fact is that violent crime/murders in the US are LESS than in many other countries.
      Are you any less dead if you are beat/stabbed to death vs. shot?
      How are you going to defend yourself against a large aggressor w/a knife/club if you do not have a gun? Do you want to grab a bat and go up against Mike Tyson?

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Google this and see what comes up. Even those that partition the U.S. with only affluent nations come up with shocking results.

        “death by guns per capita”.

        There is a serious problem in the U.S.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Defence? Run. That’s what the majority of people in the ABC video did (except for our hapless hero who got shot). Then again, I wouldn’t pick on Mike Tyson.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          The elderly and the infirm don’t have the option of running. What does the hapless woman do when surrounded by a gang of males intent on rape?

  23. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “The three states with the highest rate of gun ownership (MT, AK, WY) have a gun death rate of 17.8 per 100,000, over 4 times that of the three lowest-ownership states (HI, NJ, MA; 4.0 gun deaths per 100,000). The relationship is a near-perfect linear proportion: on average, as G goes up, D goes up (r=+0.63). These data suggest that whether or not our society finds it desirable, gun safety/control is a plausible means of reducing gun deaths.”

    http://election.princeton.edu/2012/12/22/scientific-americans-gun -error/

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      What you ignore in the stats is WHO is getting shot / killed. Is it the criminal? If so, that makes our point that guns are an effective tool. Bringing a gun to a gun fight doesn’t mean that you will win but it tightens up the odds.

      Why do you want to see innocent people get killed by criminals by denying the right to KABA to good people?

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Quit putting words in my mouth. Again, not my job to do your homework.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Your partial truths are whole lies. I am just encouraging you to tell the truth.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          So you want me to:

          a) accept populations you have manufactured
          b) look on the internet for said statistics
          c) use those to prove I am wrong -so you can-
          d) show me how much I have been lying

          You running for a Republican Congressional seat by any chance?

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            I manufactured nothing.

            I just want you to post all the facts, not just those that you cherry pick to make it appear that you have the facts on your side.

            Without total murders, regardless of weapon and without suicides regardless of the means, and who got shot, your partial numbers are meaningless.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            I am only going to point out facts that I find that back up what I have been asserting. Do you not understand how debate works?

            If Romney did this in the presidential debates he’d be saying “here is an idea I have for the economy but you know what, it’s a lie because yours is better Obama”.

            The burden of proof that I am lying is on you.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              My statistic was guns per capita versus deaths. It doesn’t get more clear than that. You are implying that overall violent deaths in the U.S. are lower than in other countries. That may very well be true but hidden in that question is the implication that “guns made it better” and I think you will find it quite difficult to get accurate numbers on that. Let me save you some time. If this is in fact what you are driving at don’t bother, you won’t find it.

              Supposing gun presence reduced some violent crime, the remaining violent crimes would likely appear shifted, ironically, to shootings. Adding in other violent crimes does not change the number of dead. It just pollutes the calculations giving meaningless results.

              BTW, you mentioned something about suicides. While the U.S. ranks 4th among developed countries for gun deaths, it also ranks 34th for suicides (all forms).

              The U.S. is a glaring outlier when measured against other countries and even within the states there is a +.63 slope describing guns and deaths. There is one survey where ALL nations are figured in, some are apparently very violent, and in those surveys the U.S. drops to 27th but… among non-third-world countries we remain quite weird.

              • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

                The statistic of overall guns vs deaths, shows that this is a non issue, but let us say for the sake of argument that you felt that a less than .003 – .008% or if you want to talk about legal gun owners and not known available firearms, .009 – .024% of events is an issue. That is the numbers my friend, less than .024% of all known gun owners, or less than .008% of all guns including estimates for illegally owned guns, are involved in murder, sucide, or accidental death.

                When the numbers are that small, punishing the majority for what such a tiny fraction does, is rather dubious at best don’t you agree? Especially if you consider that other, more controlable things, cause more deaths with a far higher percentage of ‘issues.’

                In other news, gun deaths are not the only statistics that need to be considered, as possession of a firearm for defensive purposes has an impact on other crimes. Almost every nation that is used as an example of ‘gun bans work’ have statistically significantly higher amounts of rape, assault, and armed robbery, a few even have higher numbers of gun crime now that weapons are banned than they ever did before, so bad that in nations like the UK where the police were mostly unarmed 20 years ago, since the gun ban they have had to arm the police.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Chris, could you give me more of the figures you are using here? It’s unclear to me what you are saying. Is it this? U.S. figures of course.

                  (Deaths/Year by guns)
                  —–divided by—–
                  Guns

                  Is this it? So lets say 30k deaths / yr divided by 300m guns? Is that the calculation? The value being .01% of guns actually kill people?

                  • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

                    Essentially yes, the total number of deaths / gun owners (115 million ) or estimated guns in circulation. And yes my number was off, I had a number of 25K fatalities, there were 31K. But still, it doesn’t change the essential statement, that the number of fatalities by firearms is a non-iisue. In particular since this includes suicides, which as we all know many of which will still happen anyway. Keep in mind of the 31,000 deaths only 1/3 at the most that year were murders.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Chris, I agree with your inputs although I had the guns at 300m and the deaths at 31k. The numbers aren’t that important, they are not orders of magnitude off.

                      What I have trouble with is the value of time has been inadvertently introduced into your calculation.

                      As an example, let us fix the number of guns at your 115m and the deaths at 25k. The 25k is a per-year figure. The problem comes when you “pick” a time. A year is as arbitrary as a month, a day, a century, etc so the value you come up with varies based on this input.

                      Let’s extrapolate on the fixed numbers (because finding the actual numbers would be difficult or impossible to arrive at over some of the time periods)

                      25k deaths per year is:

                      Guns, Deaths, Time Period, Percentage

                      guns,115000000 deaths, 25000, per year, percentage=0.021739%
                      guns,115000000 deaths, 10.6, per day, percentage=0.000009%
                      guns,115000000 deaths, 2500000, per century, percentage=2.173913%
                      guns,115000000 deaths, 5925000, per age of U.S., percentage=5.152174%

                      This is because the deaths are a summation but the number of guns remains a relative (if somewhat changing) constant. Every year, another 25k are killed. 25k this year, 50k after 2 years, 75k the year after…

                      A second problem I have is with distribution.

                      Let us say that all 115 (or 300) million guns are distributed evenly among the population. As the NRA says “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. 115 million people now have guns. With my figure (300m) basically EVERY person, down to newborns, would have A gun. This would surely increase deaths; after all, criminals, the mentally ill, irresponsible youngsters, etc would have them. On the other side, say all 115 (or 300) million guns are owned by ONE gun mogul. Now the deaths would drop completely to zero for all practical purposes. Our mogul can’t commit 9 thousand (or so) murders a year (or 300m either).

                      Finally the leading causes of deaths in the US list murder in the top 10 to 15 causes. Granted, not all murders are committed with guns but you get the picture.

                      http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/top-15-causes-of-death

                      If I have misunderstood your numbers or formulas please show me how to correct it.

                      - M

                  • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

                    To clarify things: I used 115 Million gun owners, 310 million guns.

                    Keep in mind if you are going to count periods of time, the best would be generations (20 years) and you would have to consider that number as the best against a stagnant number of owners. Otherwise of the 115 Million who now own, how many are different from the 90 Million who owned back in the 60′s ( we could use actuary tables to determine a rough estimate for this ) You would then need to sum that up and use those numbers, in any case you will always have larger orders of magnitude of owners as compared to deaths. Again showing that ownership isn’t the crux of the problem.

                    It is true that most murders (2/3-3/4) are commited with guns in the US, however removal of firearms doesn’t decrease murders. In fact every nation that has banned guns sees a spike in murders the following year, and some never even see the decline we have been seeing over the last 20 years. Take for example Australia, whose murder rate has barely declined, down from 300 murders 20 years ago to about 270 3 years ago now (Source AIC). Whereas our murder rate dropped nearly 50% during the same time frame, and we have more guns in circulation with more lax ‘concealed carry’ laws. In addition to not seeing a decrease in murder after bans/restrictions are put in place every single nation that does pass such laws sees a major spike in every other category of violent crime, rape, assault, robbery etc. In fact the rates of violent crime overall (rape, assault, murder, robbery, etc.) are generally much higher in the nations that have complete bans, or excessive restrictions (Source, various compiled by UN, OAS, INTERPOL, AIC,)

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              That is exactly my point. You don’t want an honest debate. You lie. You misrepresent. You hide the whole truth and that makes you a total liar.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I provide honest statistics and you provide “nuh uh”. You are right, that isn’t honest debate.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Too late. You have already admitted that you only use stats that make your case. You are not telling the whole truth, nor do you intend to debate honestly or to advance the truth.

                  Lies. Damn lies. Statistics. That’s you Mark.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  That’s the way debate works. You present your arguments that support your position and the other side does the same. Why would I put forth supporting evidence for your assertions? That’s your job. Gathering support for my assertions is not “lying”. The support may be wrong but it’s YOUR JOB to drive that point.

                  What on earth are you talking about?

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    This isn’t high school. We are talking lives lost due to criminal activity and rights being usurped by an ever increasingly tyrannical government, aided by useful idiots such as yoursel.

                    When you put forth a partial truth, you are lying to bring people to your side. Most people here already know it. I am just pointing it out.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            You already know how much you’ve been lying.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Wow, it’s like the SNL skit “Point, Counterpoint”. “Jane you ignorant slut”. You guys should go into comedy. I’ll be the straight man and you can say “nuh uh!”.

  24. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    From the Right Off A Cliff blog:

    There’s a story making the rounds, posted mainly by Republicans, about a shooting at a restaurant and movie theater in San Antonio, TX. It’s a story on two levels because one it wasn’t picked up by any mainstream media (though most who share the story don’t mention that Fox News, Rush Limbaugh nor Beck spoke of this shooting either) and it involved a gunman who went to a restaurant to kill his ex-girlfriend then turned to a movie theater next door, opened fire but was gunned down by someone at the movie theater.

    While the story is meant to be a “see good people with guns are the only ones who can stop bad people with guns” it’s really a story that requires deeper thinking, which Republicans never tend to practice.

    Facts are that the gunman did in fact get taken down by an armed person at the movie theater….who was an off-duty police officer with a handgun.

    So, in Texas, a state where Concealed Handgun Licenses are everywhere, it wasn’t an ordinary civilian who took down this man…it was a well trained off-duty cop.

    Also, this story doesn’t support at all the need for ordinary citizens to own high-powered assault rifles with large magazines full of ammunition. It showed what one well trained person can do with a handgun.

    Also, and here’s the kicker the Republican sheeple won’t include in the story, the off-duty officer was working security for the movie theater. It wasn’t because some ordinary citizen had a CHL and stopped a mass murdering psychopath, it was an off-duty cop working security at a movie theater.

    So what the story really breaks down to is that an off-duty cop, working security at a movie theater, stopped a gunman.

    Yet they’ve spun the story into some conspiracy theory by the mainstream media to not report on stories that show armed civilians stopping gun violence.

    As always, Republicans just repeating what Republicans are told to repeat…without thinking for themselves.

    • PaulCNo Gravatar says:

      Mark,
      I live in New Hampshire where the previous Republican-led legislature took their mandate to mean they should remove any laws regarding right to carry, even promoting the carrying of concealed weapons in the State Legislature itself by any citizen. This latter was based on the theory that rather than keep all firearms out of a government building using metal detectors and pat-downs it was better to let any and all firearms in regardless of who brought them and more importantly without regard to any kind of training in the use of firearms in a highly charged situation. I’m sure I don’t understand the assumption that some of your readers and respondents have that anyone carrying will be able to successfully assess a situation and coolly pull the trigger to kill another human being, even if they just purchased the gun that day. Maybe their assumption is that no one would be crazy enough to do such a thing….

      • TomNo Gravatar says:

        Been doing this in Texas for years. In fact, there’s a special line for CHL holders at the State Capitol building where they walk right by the metal detectors.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        *”Maybe their assumption is that no one would be crazy enough to do such a thing….”

        Has anyone been crazy enough to do such a thing?

        • TomNo Gravatar says:

          No, sir. My guess is the people who are inclined to shoot places up tend to go where they know their victims are unarmed and they won’t be challenged. “Gun Free Zones”, if you will.

  25. PaulCNo Gravatar says:

    Mark,

    First of all, thank you very much for holding steady on using evidence and data to help shed light on what is clearly a complex subject. I appreciate your use of statistics, with the assumptions clearly laid out for all to see, to tease apart some of the factors that link firearms, people and death-by-firearms. And it does all depend on what one’s assumptions are. If this discussion can do anything to clarify how the assumptions we all bring to such a loaded topic color our conclusions that alone would be of great use.

    Second, have you seen the recent work by a Twitter user @GunDeaths who is “Tweeting every gun death in North America regardless of cause and without comment.”? He or she is using web tools to scour news feeds from all over the US to find instances of guns being used where a death is the result – whether this is a suicide, a “hero” taking down a “bad guy” or a “bad guy” killing one or more people. This started just after the Newtown shootings since there has never been any kind of registry anywhere to collect this kind of data. And Slate.com has partnered up with @GunDeaths to compile the twitter feeds into a running total of gun deaths since the Newtown shootings. They even provide a downloadable dataset with some limited demographic data. Not much, but the start of an actual ongoing registry.

    Third, it occurs to me that an analysis of this kind of data along with the difficulties in using surveys like the General Social Survey to collect verifiable and validated data would be a great case to be used in any statistics course.

    I look forward to reading more – if you continue to have the patience!

    Paul

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Thank you Paul.

      Did you see my application of Bayes’ Theorem I posted to the probability of a armed citizen resolving a mass shooting? There is at least one problem with it. The samples of mass shootings is small only 68 over the last 30 years and only one of them where a citizen stopped the shootings.

      - M

      • PaulCNo Gravatar says:

        I did see your application of Bayes’ Theorem; I’m familiar with the ideas behind it but have not used it in my own work up to now. But any dataset that has too few instances is hard to deal with. You mentioned that the cutoff for mass shootings is 4 or more people; perhaps it would be useful to expand the dataset with 3 or more?

        On a related note, have you looked at the discussions about survey methodology that emerged from the article published by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology about civilian defensive gun use? There is a review and rebuttal at http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm that addressed the issues of false positives when the total positive response to a question amounted to just 1.33% of all respondents. They extrapolated from a survey of 5,000 people they conducted to infer that this proved that there were 2.5 million cases of DGU per year (US population was 200 million in the early 90′s). This is a number that pro-gun sites everywhere repeat from other pro-gun sites. You’ll be interested in the finer points of how sensitivity and specificity are influenced by the survey methodological assumptions.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Paul, yes, I reviewed the http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm link a while back and cited the shortcomings of the 2.5 million statistic. The point of false positives is lost on those needing to justify gun ownership with faulty statistics.

          I obtained the 68 sample size based on another source selecting them based on the 4-or-more figure. I don’t know where to find data on numbers smaller than this.

    • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

      @gundeaths has been up since Aurora at least, but the media only caught on after Newtown. Pro-gun people are loosing the PR campaign big time, because MSM doesn’t tell the entire story. I suspect a new ban, not what Feinstein is shooting for, but something close I bet.

      • PaulCNo Gravatar says:

        Chris, thanks for the correction. I only just caught wind of it this last week.

        In the case of the role of firearms in our lives, it is my opinion that the story is incredibly complex and depends on a lot of factors that contribute and those that at least partially cause the use of a firearm in a specific situation. I’ve started to think that there are similarities between how firearms are being promoted by the pro-gun voices – if everyone has one then no one would think of using theirs improperly – to the approach the US and the Soviet Union had to nuclear weapons. Each side continued to build larger and larger stockpiles with the MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) paradigm in control since who would be insane enough to actually use one? Just food for thought.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          It’s difficult to say. On the U.S. and Soviet Union with nukes the sample size is 2. Maybe we should arm every piss-ant nation in the world with nukes and see if it’s a deterrent. The gunning of America seems, ironically, to be backfiring.

          Again, I do not want to ban guns. The cost of having that freedom seems to be heavily born by gun victims rather than gun owners. I’d like to change that.

          • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

            You say ‘the gunning of America seems to be backfiring’ but over the last 20 years gun ownership is up due to easier licensing and murder is down. Suicide is another issue and needs to be addressed seperately.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Crime as a whole is down. You should read “Freakonomics” for an analysis of other sources for the decline. No, gun presence is not the answer to the drop.

            The U.S. has the highest per-capita gun ownership in the world. (88 per 100 people).

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

            If guns reduced gun-related homicides how does that jibe with the findings that we have a higher per-capita death rate?

            http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12/us-gun-ownership-ho micide-rate-higher-than-other-developed-countries/

            Guns-deaths/year versus gun-owning-households is a meaningless figure as far as I can tell. I have looked for figures to back up your assertion but have found none. If you have a link to back up your claim I’d like to look at it.

            - M

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Mark,

              Once again you choose to ignore or dismiss the fact that a lot of those gun deaths are the bad guys who were killed during the commission of a crime, be it by a citizen or the police.

              What you brush off is an actual benefit of being armed and able to defend yourself.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                It’s your job to figure that out. Google “criminals killed by guns per capita by country”. Let me know what you find.

            • There are many factors that have an influence on our crime rates, in this nation we have always had higher rates of murder than other ‘western’ nations.

              Read the above statement, and take notice of the following: Gun Murders are down more than 50% from 1992 . Gun Ownership is up. What this shows is that either : a) Guns have NO impact on murder, so banning them as in other nations will have no impact (Sources listed in other posts) or b ) guns make people safer.

              Interview after Interview with incarcerated felons indicate they look for areas, and targets that they know ideally won’t be armed. This is from the words of the criminals themselves.

              As far as claiming the Deaths/household number is meaningless, I disagree, we can use any period of time you want and the numbers show that murder by firearm, indeed death by firearm is simply not a real problem that society faces. Murder will happen anyway, and as I have stated above we have always had more murder than the rest of the west meaning that we likely will not see any drop even if all weapons were banned. In fact if all firearms were banned, only ‘legal owned’ murders would stop and that accounts for less than 400 per year on average.

                • I apologize this is me not being clear, the % of people who own has indeed dropped, the actual number of people is up. These are two different stats, and both sides like to say their own version of them, and I should have been much clearer.

                  Depending on which survey you want to use, somewhere between 90 and 125 Million people own guns today. This however only accounts for those that admit it, and it is still a good number. In 1960 90 million gun owners existed according to the best resources we have. Since Gallup is the only poll to go back that far I used an average of the two polls when I give you a 115 million owner figure. In 1960 the population of the US was 178 Million, today it is 310 Million, with the above mentioned number of owners. The raw number is up, though the percentages are down, though as other studies have proved the demographics have hardly changed in the last 10 years.

                  The change in % is due primarily to two factors, immigration (legal and illegal) as well as where the population has been rising the most, this guy : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0 gets into it briefly.

  26. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Suicide rates for OECD countries. We don’t look so good this way. Still 18th which is quite a bit away from 4th for gun deaths per capita.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OECD_countries_by_suicide_ra te

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Mark,

      Your reliance on Wiki, which anyone can post to or change, and virulent anti gun sources (Mother Jones, etc) are no sources to be trusted by anyone with a brain.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Frankly your replies smack of being disingenuous.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Frankly Scarlet, I don’t give a damn what you think of me or my replies.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Ray, I am sure you are a fine person and in other circumstances we might even be friends. I am very close friends with an avid gun owner. I’m not criticizing you as a person, only some of the ideas being posited here.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Once again, you are wrong. I could never and would never befriend someone like you. I cannot and will not separate the person that you are from the ideas that espouse. Those pronouncements might even prove to you that I am not a fine person and that is okay with me. I neither seek nor desire your approval of who I am.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        In addition, attacking the source(s) (wiki and Mother Jones) is once again a fallacy. Ad hominem.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          When the source has a known bias, it is not ad hominem. It is just fact. You may not be familiar with the old saying, but the truth does indeed hurt. Especially for those who want to deny it.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[7]”

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

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        By that same logic Ray I can safely say the NRA has it’s own agenda and therefore I can dismiss it because it is biased. This is why ad hominem gets you nowhere.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Sure, you can say it because you only believe the partial numbers that support your agenda. That doesn’t make it true. You cherry pick your stats unlike the NRA. The last numbers that I saw them post were FBI stats.

          BTW, I am not a member or even a fan of the NRA.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Yea, the National RIFLE Association has no agenda. That’s rich.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              FBI stats. Do you not believe the FBI?

              So why should I believe Mother Jones or Wiki?

              The NRA has a stated purpose of defending gun rights. I don’t know that they live up to it or how effective they are but they are upfront about a stated purpose of defending our rights.

              You and your sources are dedicated to infringing on those rights and seem to have no problem lying to achieve your goal.

  27. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Which is exactly why it is a fallacy and irrelevant to your argument. Look up ad hominem to understand why attacking the source is pointless.

    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

      Mark,

      In your response to ‘Chris’, you stated:

      “This would surely increase deaths;”

      You are assuming facts contrary to all available evidence. Gun deaths have gone down everywhere when concealed carry and gun possession go up.

      “after all, criminals, the mentally ill, irresponsible youngsters, etc would have them.”

      Why? Why would you ‘give’ guns to those people that we have already deemed ineligible to own them? Sure they will steal them, but they are not available to them through legal channels.

      You can cite all the stats that you want. You can use all the fancy words that you want. You can lie and mislead all you want but you cannot change the facts.

      The bottom line is that my rights (all of our rights) are not subject to statistics, your whims, your fears, or your stats. Our rights cannot be changed by law or by your votes. These rights are not dependent on the inaction of good people or the bad acts of bad people. They don’t even depend on their usefulness in any given scenario.

      Our rights are ours by birth, endowed by our Creator. We were founded as a nation defending the right to keep and bear arms. Since then, many more good people have fought and died to defend that right and many more are still willing and able to defend it (despite your prediction of doom for those who try).

      The question is whether you have what it takes to try to take them from us. (despite your claim that that is not your intention)

      • ChrisNo Gravatar says:

        Ray I hate to be the guy who breaks this to you, but that is exactly the problem, our rights ARE subject to votes.

        At the end of the day that is what this whole debate is about, rights, and how permenant or impermenant they are. If the gun banners get enough of an upperhand they can actually vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment, and ban guns outright. Of course I am ignoring what gun owners would do in response, but honestly I doubt many of us would do anything other than grumble here or on facebook about it.

        A friend pointed it out to me recently: “There aren’t enough Americans left that actually believe, understand, and are willing to die for or kill for liberty, and with each generation there are fewer still.”

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Your delusion continues.

          With or without the 2nd Amendment, that right is mine. With or without the Constitution, it still exists. It predates the Constitution.

          Regardless of any law, it remains and woe to those who try to enforce any such law.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Some more interesting statistics.

      http://aphyr.com/posts/261-firearm-homicides-vs-gun-prevalence

      And from Nate Silver:

      http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/in-gun-owners hip-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

      “In 1973, about 55 percent of Republicans reported having a gun in their household against 45 percent of Democrats, according to the General Social Survey, a biennial poll of American adults.

      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.”

      • First link is rather useless, as his argument at the end can be summed up to be “we don’t know”. Once again the question becomes is it good to have more rape, assault, robbery, and a spike in murder just to ban guns? That is what you get when you do, there is no debate on that topic, and I notice that people who support tougher gun laws like to avoid the question.

        As far as the second set of data, we’ve seen it linked before, and it isn’t surprising. Cities are where more liberal democrats live, and cities are where you see more crime. In fact I linked previously someone who had done a study, most murders in the US occur in cities with over 250,000 people in them (New York, D.C., etc.) Republicans (and most Libertarians) view gun ownership as a civic duty, not just a right.

        Fact is you hate guns, good for you. You have the choice to not own, and to not be friendly with people who do if you desire. However should a gun ban ever pass, you will find that you didn’t get the utopia you thought you would, and you would have had to harm 115 Million people in order to not get the desired result, speaking as an engineer (Chem-E) this makes no sense to me. It simply isn’t rational to harm 1/3 of the population (upwards of 2/5*) in order to save less than 1/300,000 of the same (that is the number of people murdered by legally owned guns). There are several orders of magnitude here, and you’re not even ‘saving’ these people, as much as you would like to think so.

        From Sources such as (AIC, Homeoffice, UN, FBI UCR, etc.) :
        Facts that you can not simply ignore.
        1: Ban guns, murder goes up and doesn’t always go back down.
        2: Ban guns, assault, robbery and rape all go up and never go back down.
        3: Murder rates in western nations correspond much closer to the number of cities over 250,000 than they do to firearms ownership.
        4: Murder rates in the US have been falling steadily over the last 20 years, with easier carry laws passed in over 31 states (bringing the total to over 40)
        5: The U.S. has a lower violent crime index than most nations with strict laws, or bans. the UK has 6 times more violent crime than the US though we have many times more murder (one subset of violent crime.)
        6: Suicide rates tend to remain constant after gun bans.

        Those sir, are called facts, they are supported by research into the subjects:
        Key
        AIC = Australian Institute for Criminology
        Homeoffice = Statistics for England and Wales
        FBI UCR = FBI Uniform Crime Reports
        The UN has too many reports to list individually here so I am just going to be a lazy fuck.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “First link is rather useless, as his argument at the end can be summed up to be “we don’t know”. Once again the question becomes is it good to have more rape, assault, robbery, and a spike in murder just to ban guns? That is what you get when you do, there is no debate on that topic, and I notice that people who support tougher gun laws like to avoid the question.”

          In fact there is considerable debate on that topic. Crime is down. I think the question gets avoided (at least from my experience) because we never get past “oh my god, they want to take our guns”.

          http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-sho uld-you-believe/

          I think is is incorrect to solely attribute crime declines on guns when there are other contributing factors.

          • It took me a trip to the CDC website, and 60 mins of reading excels and web searches to find the relevant data, and this link you posted is wrong, I ran a comparison of data with sources from the CDC, and the USCB as well as the FBI.

            I am afraid the data doesn’t support what his claim is. After running the data, and comparing it to national averages, I found that only 18 states trend differently from abortion to crime rate.

            That is to say that some states have less of both, more of both, or less of one and more of the other. In only 18 cases are there cases where higher abortion state has a lower crime rate, or a lower abortion rate state having a higher crime rate. As states that both have higher crime and more abortions or less crime and less abortions would contradict his statement and these are the bulk of all states in the data set (32) it shows no clear correlation.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              mark will probably exhaust his entire dictionary of bafflegab, nitpick, and quibble answering that avalanche of fact.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Christopher:

              “Cities are where more liberal democrats live, and cities are where you see more crime.”

              A much stronger correlation follows lower socioeconomic conditions, but feel free to kick “liberal Democrats”.

              “Facts that you can not simply ignore.

              1: Ban guns, murder goes up and doesn’t always go back down.
              2: Ban guns, assault, robbery and rape all go up and never go back down.
              3: Murder rates in western nations correspond much closer to the number of cities over 250,000 than they do to firearms ownership.
              4: Murder rates in the US have been falling steadily over the last 20 years, with easier carry laws passed in over 31 states (bringing the total to over 40)
              5: The U.S. has a lower violent crime index than most nations with strict laws, or bans. the UK has 6 times more violent crime than the US though we have many times more murder (one subset of violent crime.)
              6: Suicide rates tend to remain constant after gun bans.”

              I nearly dismissed these 6 points outright due to the nature of the assertions.

              Items 1 & 2 are especially problematic. As I have stated before I am not advocating banning guns yet that seems to be the talking point that gun enthusiasts gravitate to when backed into a corner. Read the book “Thinking Fast And Slow” by Daniel Kahneman. http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/03742 75637 In it he addresses 1 & 2. When faced with a difficult question to answer, people invariably solve it by answering a different question. You are answering the question “does banning guns make crime go down?”. This is not what is in question here nor have I ever said so. Prohibition and the “War On Drugs” should make that point quite clear. Secondly words like “always” and “never” are unlikely with so many variables involved. Thirdly, you have cited the CDC at least once as your source. I find it amusing that the CDC has been suppressed for years now by the NRA who seemingly think their findings are a threat. Despite that you have chosen to use numbers from them. BTW, I don’t see any numbers or sources other than your initialisms so it’s difficult to verify formulas and inputs.

              Item 3. Socioeconomic predictors. http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/research/bulletins/200604.pdf
              Item 4. You have not illustrated a cause and effect with either data or graphs.
              Item 5. You have not illustrated a cause and effect with either data or graphs. Other findings (CDC-related) say otherwise. http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2008/04/26/Gun-ownership-correlate s-to-gun-deaths/UPI-65011209186884/
              Item 6. https://bepp.wharton.upenn.edu/files/?whdmsaction=public “A related body of research examines the effect of changes in gun control legislation. One study compares the suicide rate in Washington, D.C. before and after the passage of a law that banned the purchase, sale, transfer, or possession of handguns by civilians.14 The authors show that gun suicides occurring in the D.C. metro area declined by 23% following the passage of the law, and that non-gun suicides declined by a statistically insignificant 9%.” “Duggan – guns-suic-final3-1.pdf”

              • “A much stronger correlation follows lower socioeconomic conditions, but feel free to kick “liberal Democrats”.”

                Most right wingers that I know, Libertarian and Republican agree with that statement, we disagree with the left on how to fix it. But that is beyond the topic.

                As far as answering a different question goes, you can claim that is what it is, but when asked the simple question, “What is your solution to ‘this’ problem” the answer is invariably “gun laws that make sense” to which the question asked the 2nd time around is “in your mind, what would make sense” … You get one of two responses “bans” or a noncommittal non-answer. I have NEVER once had someone make a rational suggestion that doesn’t end up showing that the intent is to disarm civilians.

                As to counter 4&5 I don’t know how i can link graphs in here, but the data is available at the FBI.gov webpage under the UCR for number 4, and number 5 is at the UK homeoffice page, as well as some other pages linked in other parts of this discussion. I have in fact linked all relevant data at some point, if I haven’t I have at least listed my sources, which in any academic setting is more than enough.

                As to number 6… Do you read the studies? Do you read your quotes? I ask because I made a simple point ‘TOTAL suicides remain nearly constant’ while your study says clearly ‘gun suicides dropped’ … Yes, that is right lacking the ability to kill oneself with a gun, you use rope, poison, asphyxiation, etc. The fact that non-gun suicides declined as well, shows that some other factor was in play, better economic conditions, mental health care… etc.
                However this is not the rule, as the CDC reports and international suicide reports as sourced/linked earlier all show.

                I failed to address your problem with the words always and never, I have been having this debate since college, I have been doing the studies as a hobby (and proud gun owner) for decades. So successfully have I proven the point that my gun banning wife lets me keep mine. The Rates of robbery, assault, rape ie nonhomicide violent crime have had a steady uptrend since firearms bans in every nation that has banned them. I have yet to find a single nation that breaks that trend.

                With respect to item #3 Economic pressure test fails over the past 6 years, with our economy in collapse the logic says that murder should have gone up, but it didn’t it dropped steadily over the last 6 years despite harder economic times.

                You claim you are not advocating bans, then what exactly do you advocate?

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  Chris,

                  I do not, nor have I ever advocated a ban on guns. Buried in the blog up there somewhere are my recommendations. You may have missed them although I think I have posted them a couple of times. That whirring sound you hear is a couple of “gun enthusiasts” on this blog spinning in ever tighter circles with the mortal fear that I want to take their guns. I can’t relieve them of their delusions.

                  1) Registration for all guns. Transfers work the same as car titles.

                  2) Liability and criminal charges for illegal acts committed with guns you own. Loss and theft reported withing 24 hours.

                  3) Background checks for EVERY purchase / transfer. Background checks would extend to, at a minimum, those living at your place(s) or residence. Denial of registration to anyone in that check when mental illness, criminal background, etc found. If your status changes, you have to give the guns back or get the problem resolved.

                  4) If you pass 1-3 YOU HAVE THE RIGHT to own a gun and can consider yourself well-regulated.

                  **** And now for some comic relief:

                  Record Number of Firearms Confiscated at U.S. Airports by TSA in 2012

                  http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/12/27/record-number-of-firearms-con fiscated-at-u-s-airports-by-tsa-in-2012/

                  “Earlier in the month, it was reported by Skift that out of the top 11 airports that made the list for firearms confiscation, five of those airports were in Texas, two of them were in Florida and the number one airport on the list is Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport.”

                  Please “responsible gun owners”, tell me what part of “don’t bring guns on airplanes” do you not understand?

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    You are not talking about rights.

                    You are talking about government granted privileges.

                    You are talking about imposing costs and obstacles to exercising a right.

                    You are talking about imposing burdens on others who are not even purchasing a handgun.

                    You are talking about placing restrictions on law abiding citizens for the acts of others — the thief who stole your gun and the relative who may be debarred from purchase.

                    You are abusing the language of the 2nd Amendment by making laws to ‘well regulate’ firearms when that term, as used by people of that era had nothing to do with laws or rules or regulations.

                    It is your dishonesty and the misuse of facts and definitions that have caused most everyone here to disbelieve your claim of not wanting to disarm everyone or anyone.

                    As for the guns being confiscated at airports, are any of these people being prosecuted? If not, why not? I can think of two people whose guns were confiscated and both were democrat lawmakers. (One federal, one State)

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      You might also ask about the number of felons who have attempted to buy guns and NOT been prosecuted.

                      I just spent some time attempting to discover how many background checks were denied. This information was from 2009.

                      Bureau of Justice Statistics Statistical Tables
                      October 2010, NCJ 231679
                      Background Checks for Firearms Transfers, 2009–Statistical Tables

                      •From the inception of the Brady Act on March 1, 1994  , through December  31, 2009, almost 108 million applications for firearm tra nsfers or permits were subject to background checks. More  than 1.9 million applications were  denied. (Table 1)  
                      •In 2009, 1.4% of the 10.8 million applications for fi rearm transfers or  permits were denied by the FBI (67,000) or by state and  local agencies (83,000). The denial rate for application s checked by the FBI (1.1%) was lower than the rate fo r checks by state and local agencies (1.8%). (Table 2)   
                      •Among all state agencies, denial rates for instant che ck systems ranged from more than 4% to less than 1%. ( Table 3a)  
                      •A felony conviction or indictment was the most common reason for a denial by the FBI (49%), a state (39%),  or a local agency (22%) in 2009. (Table 4)    
                      •A domestic violence misdemeanor conviction or restrainin g order was the second most common reason for denial by  a state (14%) or local agency (16%) in 2009. (Table 4  )  
                      •Among all agencies conducting background checks, 55% of  applications  were denied due to reasons other than a felony convictio n in 2009. (Table 5)  
                      •In 2009 more than 33,000 denials were appealed (22% o f denials) and more than 12,000 appeals resulted in reve rsal of the denial (37% of appeals). (Table 6)  
                      •According to state and local checking agencies that re ported arrests, 1,512  denied persons were arrested in 2009 due to an outstandi ng warrant or  submission of false information on an application. (Table 7)  
                      •Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (AT F) field offices  investigated 4,681 National Instant Criminal Background Che ck System (NICS) denials that were referred by the FBI  in 2009. (Table 8)  
                      •Records of persons ineligible to possess a firearm due  to a mental health  commitment or adjudication increased 37% in the NICS Inde x from January 1, 2009, to December 31, 2009; overall,  the number of records in the index  increased 4%. (Table 9) 

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      There are already rules on the books for you to exercise your guns “right”. I just want some sane ones.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      To mark:
                      Unfortunately, your ‘sane’ rues amount to registration, taxation, and ultimately confiscation. After that, we can expect the ‘cleansing’ of those who cannot be reeducated. History provides the template.

                      “the man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others.” Dostoyevsky

                      You might also read this interesting article printed in Pravda.
                      Americans never give up your guns
                      28.12.2012
                      By Stanislav Mishin
                      http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-ame ricans_guns-0/

                  • Ok not taking the issues in order,

                    I must say I live in New England, and I know that #2 is the law up here in every state, I believe though I could be wrong that it is a Federal law already.

                    Number 3 is already required, and at least here in New England you need to have an FFL to transfer private party to private party, I am not sure about that being a federal regulation.

                    As to number 1, I don’t know, In MA where I used to live they actually try to do that, the state department for it is something like 4 years behind in registrations, meaning that government itself doesn’t do its part of the job, which TBH is the actual problem. Many gun owners have been complaining that we get blame, and take the fire of public opinion when a shooting happens that the government failed to stop, like Aurora.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      The gun advocates seem to always devolve the conversation back to “they’re gonna take our guns!”. Never do I hear the NRA get on television and offer solutions that involve gun owners being more aware of safety measures they could take to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. I never hear them discuss ways of curing domestic violence with guns. I never hear them talk about “if you live in a house with a crazy person or a felon you might want to re-consider having guns accessible”. No, the talk is always the fear side, taking guns away and protecting yourself. Never responsibility. The NRA Spokes Nut said “more guns”, and that getting shot is inevitable so take some responsibility and shoot back, in fact, if you see a guy with a gun, maybe you should shoot first just to be on the “safe” side.

                      If you are afraid of people taking your guns, do something about it. “More guns” is clearly NOT the answer.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Funny thing mark, just about every state that has passed ‘shall issue’ and ‘concealed carry’ has noted a reduction in violent crime. This has been noted in previous posts but you continue to ignore it.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Correlation is not causation.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Crime was going down anyway.

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Greeat post. Thanks.

          • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

            Hey mark, in regards to your previous two comments: Piffle and balderdash. You do not supply supporting information.

  28. I think the admin of this web page is in fact working hard for his site, since here every material is quality based information.

  29. WolfmanNo Gravatar says:

    I can’t understand why California voters keep on voting for this Feinstein woman as she has bankrupted the state of California and now wants to take your guns ?

    • Mark we have a good number of safety courses offered by many different gun groups, in fact they are the same safety courses that police are often taught.

      You can teach a person HOW to make a gun safe, you cannot MAKE them make it safe, though if it isn’t and they survive you could, i suppose, hold them accountable.

  30. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Here is an article from another individual that gets it too. Emphasis is mine.

    “If the federal government wants to get you, your basement arsenal will not be much protection.

    We spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world put together. If you get to thinking another American Revolution is in order, it’s a guarantee you’ll be outgunned.

    This would appear obvious. It’s apparently not. The nation’s debate on guns is forced to accommodate people who believe they are poised to stand up to an Obama-led reign of tyranny, egged on by interest groups claiming to stand for freedom but who are mostly interested in selling more guns.

    IN REALITY, THE LINE ON LEGAL WEAPONRY IS ARBITRARY. We could move it further out and allow people to buy backyard missile launchers. We could recognize the times in which the Second Amendment was written and restrict possession to nothing more advanced than what was available in the late 18th century. But it’s wrong to say anything permissible today is sacrosanct.”

    http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Hugh-Bailey-There-is-no-argume nt-for-doing-4168568.php

    • “We spend about as much on our military as the rest of the world put together. If you get to thinking another American Revolution is in order, it’s a guarantee you’ll be outgunned.”

      Military stats that might make you think twice:

      Active : 1,456,862
      Reserve: 1,458,500
      Total : 2, 815,362

      Total Number of police : 803,396

      Total number of government enforcement: 3,618,758

      Total number of armed civilians, 115,000,000

      The budget of the US military is mostly in the high tech stuff, however it should be noted that without basic infantry ALL the rest of the equipment is useless. No place to land, no place to fuel, no place to re-arm. While yes some of it could be done at sea, not enough.

      The idea that the billions we spend would make a difference if only 10% of armed Americans went to revolution is a logical fallacy. It shows a complete lack of understanding of basic military concepts. [I was an Army Intel Analyst that is my source.] In short the basic infantryman is the most critical component in territorial occupation. This has been proven in battle after battle throughout history since the invention of the air-craft and the tank.

      The other thing to ask is what % of the military will NOT fight and disobey orders, or defect. I bet that number is significantly higher than you think it is, IF the fight is over the constitution and not over something arbitrary.

      Also I should point out that number of soldiers above, is NOT the number of combat ready, infantry units. It is total military of which a large percentage (and I forget the exact number, but somewhere around 70%) is dedicated to logistics operations, not combat. The total number of combat capable units is only around 10% of that number at any one time.

      I do love the logical fallacy though that ‘the military has planes, helicopters, tanks, drones, and nukes so there is no chance’.

      Nukes?! Really, no government is going to deploy nukes in a civil conflict, even Egypt didn’t. If they did, they would loose world support, and popular local support.

      Drones are controlled from a limited number of physical locations, over run them, and they don’t matter, on top of that there are not enough drones to make a big enough, quick enough difference in the US should a general revolution break out. Yes there would be casualties, significant, but in the long run not enough.

      Tanks and Aircraft, need physical refueling and repair/rearming. Tanks require infantry support to move anywhere effectively. Counting for a small number of defections, or refusals to engage, and you get a very ugly situation very quickly.

      No, winning against the military is only a small problem in the long run, the real problem is the aftermath. If a general revolution were to occur, and it was done in the name of the ‘current constitution and system’ any revolution would fail in the final step. Simply holding new elections would yield the exact same conditions as before the revolution.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Occupy Wall Street
        Waco

        It is insane to think that 10% (or even 1%) of the population is going to simultaneously rise up, coalesce into a self-governed cohesive entity with a single purpose in mind, and create a revolution to establish a new government. Swat teams will have a bullet in your ass before even ten of you get it together. What do you think that “homegrown terrorism” thing is about? No, it’s not just about middle-east-looking people that sound funny. Plot to overthrow the government and tell me how far you get. Logical fallacy my ass…

        The American Revolution was quite a different circumstance. The Atlantic ocean was a formidable obstacle to quelling a rebellion. Times have changed, powers that be have become firmly entrenched, bombs have become “smarter”. Take nukes off the table. They’re still going to kick your ass. One thing is firmly drilled into every soldier. Obey orders.

        We’ve lost our right to assemble. The goon squad shows up when more that 10 people stand in the same place at the same time with signs. If you really want to be disturbed about erosion of our rights think about that one. Peaceable assemblies are broken up.

        You’re pissing in the wind thinking pea-shooters are going to effect a revolution.

        - /\/\

        • And I suppose it was so much easier for those in Syria, Egypt, Libya ?

          You are aware there are already 500-600,000 armed and organized civilian militia members including the anti-american ones? That means they already outnumber combat capable infantry. (Note this includes militia style hate groups in the total, Black Panthers, AN, etc.)

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “Waco and Ruby Ridge and the passage of the Brady bill were events that most people in the antigovernment movement, racist and nonracist alike, related to as evidence that ratified their worst fears about government. These events, transformed the antigovernment movement into an umbrella movement that now more or less accommodates disparate groups that were not previously aligned or united.

            I want to be clear about the fact that we are talking about a very amorphous movement. We are not talking about a professional association. There is no official structure or membership to the antigovernment movement. There are some groups which call themselves militias that are not militias at all in the sense of acting as the paramilitary wing of the antigovernment movement, while others that call themselves information groups or hunting clubs do in fact constitute such militias. The best way to identify the components of the militia movement is not to look at a group’s label, but at its characteristics.”

            http://www.rickross.com/reference/militia/militia57.html

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          You neglect the fact that there are millions of veterans with training, and hordes of hunters that will join the cause. We do not have to ‘organize’. That may be the worst way to face concentrations of homeland security goons. Those of us that spent time in VN know all about hit and run tactics.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            “Join the cause”, you mean volunteer to die. No, notsomuch… Like I say. This is going to be quelled LONG before it sees life. Crib death is imminent.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            Where’s their infrastructure, what are there lines of communication, who is their leader, what is the policy when encountering resistance, what is their goal, who can be trusted. You guys won’t know shit.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Those are the very things that enabled us to corner the NVA and hammer their units into bloody rags.

              The biggest problem the VC had was that theirs was not a popular uprising, and they still ran us in circles. After Tet of 68, there were no more VC. They had been sacrificed on the altar of communist revolution.

              You really should study up on guerrilla warfare. Your ignorance is showing.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Yep, it’s delusional to think going up against the U.S. armed forces and police force would ever work. Any revolution is going to have to come from the inside out. America is not nearly as exceptional as we’ve conned ourselves into believing.

              • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                *”America is not nearly as exceptional as we’ve conned ourselves into believing.”

                Not with the current leadership.

                You’ve finally outed yourself. Democrat SCUM (Socialist Communist Utopian Marxists) and globalist.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  “You’ve finally outed yourself. Democrat SCUM (Socialist Communist Utopian Marxists) and globalist.”

                  He tried to hide it, but he couldn’t resist showing his true colors. Despite his continued denials, he’s SCUM.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                It’s much more than the leadership, it’s the Kool Aid that we’ve been drinking that we are somehow ‘different’ and the defender of ‘liberty’ in the world. America jumped the shark with the advent of the cold war and the Red Scare. Pure hubris.

                “Outing myself”. You’re assuming I’m trying to hide something. Labelling me serves no purpose. I could call some folks here “repulsive reactionary republican racist ratbags” but it does no good.

                If the best you can do is to call me SCUM, then you really have nothing constructive to contribute.

                It will be interesting to see what comes out of the current call for changes to gun laws but I am not hopeful. We’ll probably end up, once again, trapped in this cowboy mentality world where guns solve problems in 30 minute episodes.

                On a positive note, I see that there is a pretty strong movement to push gun “shows” out of public buildings.

                – /\/\

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        You are casting pearls before swine.

        I was “ASA”. 509th Group, 313th Bn, 330th RRC. Pleiku. 1969-1971.

  31. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    And it happens again. Again and again and again…

    Police: 4 dead, including gunman, in Aurora, Colo., hostage situation

    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/05/16367150-police-4-dead -including-gunman-in-aurora-colo-hostage-situation?lite

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I’m definitely keeping the hell out of Aurora, Co.

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Want to bet the home occupants were unarmed? Of course, your first reaction is to blame the guns rather than the shooter, before any information is released.

      Them galvanic reflexes will get ya every time.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        Wouldn’t change a goddamned thing. But you knew that already…

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          The voices in your head tell you so? Why don’t you link to articles about criminals shot by people defending themselves in their homes? Those are fairly common, even of they do not make national media.

        • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

          http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-int ruder/nTm7s/

          http://personalliberty.com/2012/12/27/guns-save-lives/
          A nationwide survey of almost 5,000 households found that over a five-year period 3.5 percent of households had a member who used a gun to protect themselves, their family, or their property. This also adds up to about the same 1,000,000 incidents annually.

          The Clinton Justice Department identified 1.5 million cases per year of citizens using guns to defend themselves.

          Another survey found that Americans use guns to frighten intruders away from a home break-in about 500,000 times annually.

          Armed citizens shoot criminals more than twice as often as police each year (1,527 to 606).

          Each year about 200,000 women use a gun to defend themselves from a sexual crime or abuse.

          The Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32 percent were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3 percent of the attempted rapes were actually successful.

          Newer studies all point towards a figure of 2.5 million — that’s the new number for how many times Americans defend themselves from violent criminals each year. 2.5 million. Guns save lives.

          Now that we’ve polled the citizens, how about we see what the felons have to say:

          A survey of male felons in 11 State prisons across the USA found that 34 percent had been scared off, wounded or captured by an armed victim of their crime.

          40 percent of felons made a decision not to commit a crime because they feared the potential victim had a gun.

          69 percent of felons knew other fellow criminals who had been scared off or captured by an armed victim.

          57 percent of felons polled agreed that “criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.”

          Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms.

          These facts (and many more too voluminous to show here) prove that guns — in the right hands — defend citizens, families and children. In short, guns save lives.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            As has been stated earlier. The problems with “self reporting” cause an inevitable skewing of data that over-reports. I contend that measuring the “good” of guns is next to impossible. People are NOT going to be honest about it.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Another reason I recommend the ‘magazine dump’ response for those who don’t spend an hour a week at the shooting range.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Why do you own guns then?

              According to you, they are useless for the intended purpose of defending against tyranny and worse than useless for self defense against thugs and rapists and killers.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Hunting.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Hunting? Doesn’t that violate some leftist credo.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  I guess you’ll have to ask a leftist.

                  I had a pistol for a number of years but I have a son with mental disabilities and he was developing a disturbing obsession over it so I got rid of it.

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    If it walks like a duck . . .

                    You use left wing sources. You use left wing talking points. You share the goals of the left. But you claim that you are not a leftist. I will trust my judgment based on your behavior than on your own self serving description.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Deny, deflect, and denigrate. If the facts are contrary to your stance, you simply ignore ‘em. The world inside your head must be a wonderful place to live.

            • JohnNo Gravatar says:

              But you trust the statistics cited by government. How convenient!

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            I have signs on my doors noting video surveillance and an alarm system. In addition I have two dogs that provide early warning. Criminals hate that shit too. That and I don’t have to pretend that I’m John Wayne and will get the bad guys with my gun.

            • Dogs are easy to deal with, as are cameras. I lived in one of the worst cities in New England, before some major reforms it was on its way to being Detroit or worse. For a city with a population of just 100,000 it had more murders one year than NYC, it was the nations leader in car theft one year, and I wont bother to continue rambling off all the other crimes.

              Your cameras can tell the cops who to look for after you are dead, but they will not save your life, or your property.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                My cameras and alarms system will tell the bad guys that there is early detection. Much easier to find other pickin’s. My dogs, will bark at least enough to let me know there is a threat. Anyone who hurts my dogs is in a world of hurt of their own. Bad guys, knowing they are being recorded would NOT like that. I think you can figure out why.

                Guns OTOH are only going to work if you have some way of knowing that something bad is happening and you can get to them in time and have the ability to use them effectively. That’s a lot of variables. The guns aren’t working 24/7. Even when you HAVE them they likely won’t work. Remember, you aren’t in some cowboy western. Seems like a LAST line of defence rather than a first line of defence. Do you put signs outside that inform would-be intruders that you have guns inside?

                Bad guys don’t just hate guns, they hate anything that gets them caught in the act or sent to prison. Funny how that works.

                – Mark

                • I see, so you sit at home doing nothing but watching your security cams?
                  If your dogs are in the yard, they wont even bark, and likely wont be hurt either. Trained security dogs can be handled quickly without hurting the dogs in many cases, and this has been demonstrated. (cant find my source, but basically criminals befriend the dogs.)

                  And if you have cameras, and signs, it indicates that you at least think you have stuff worth protecting.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    They are set to record when they see motion. It’s a pretty easy setup. I don’t have to monitor anything. They also have these little blinky lights that let you know they are working.

                    Our dogs are inside dogs. They hear *everything*. It’s amazing. They know no friends other than our family and they are inside while the bastards are outside.

                    All better than a gun that may or may not be within reach, and my or someone’ elses capability compromised in a frightening situation.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  All that time and expense might delay a thug for a bit, unless he’s drugged up like the most recent Aurora shooter is suggested to have been. They’re testing his body for drugs right now. It apparently was never a hostage situation. He killed as he found ‘em.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              Unless you’re living IN the cop shop, you can expect to enjoy the attentions of the thugs then wait up to another twenty minutes before the cops show up, if they’re not on break.

              Enjoy.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                I suggest gun enthusiasts find a way to reduce the number of guns criminals can have.

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  Focus on the crime and the criminal, not the choice of weapon. Lock the criminals behind bars. Execute those who commit capital crimes, such as murder, rape, and child molestation.

                • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                  No, we need prevention. Figure out a way to keep the most deadly tools out of their hands.

                  • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                    You always focus on the tool, which would be totally harmless without the violent criminal or deranged psychopath, and never on the perpetrator.

                    I guess Freud was correct when he stated: “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.”

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    No, as I have mentioned before, we need better education and opportunities for the poor to get ahead. Instead we ignore them, let them grow up uneducated and desperate, give them guns, and then throw them in jail when they use those guns as the only equalizer they have left. From there we lock them in prisons (now for profit!) where we wanted them all along. If you are in the privileged class and you have no conscience I guess this makes sense.

                    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                      Just keep throwing up those clay pigeons. I just picked up 600 rounds of 12 gage.

                      Better education:We throw more money at ‘education’ than any other industrialized nation, and we have long passed the point of diminishing returns. We are seeing DIMINISHING returns for every dollar ‘invested’ in ‘eddykashun’, and the localities with the highest expenditures per student have the worst results.

                      Ignore the poor? We subsidize ‘em! Recall the war on poverty? Do you even realize how much of this nation’s wealth has been flushed down an ever bigger rat hole in order to KEEP the poor in their comfortably destitute status?

                      Give ‘em guns? Nobody gives a gun away. Ya have to buy ‘em, and the ammunition too.

                      Throw ‘em in jail? Here’s a hot flash:
                      Our “Criminal” Justice System
                      (September 13, 2010. Revised 12/28/12. http://justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp)
                      * Nationwide in 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 55% of aggravated assaults,
                      27% of robberies, 40% of rapes, and 64% of murders that were reported to police
                      resulted in an alleged offender being arrested and turned over for prosecution.[26] [27]
                      * Currently, for every 12 aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and
                      murders committed in the United States, approximately one person is sentenced to prison
                      for committing such a crime.[28] [29] [30]
                      * A 2002 U.S. Justice Department study of 272,111 felons released from state prisons in
                      1994 found that within three years of their release:
                      • at least 67.5% had been arrested for committing a new offense
                      • at least 21.6% had been arrested for committing a new violent offense
                      • these former inmates had been charged with committing at least 2,871 new homicides,
                      2,444 new rapes, 3,151 other new sexual assaults, 2,362 new kidnappings, 21,245 new robberies, 54,604 new assaults, and 13,854 other new violent crimes[31]
                      * Of 1,662 murders committed in New York City during 2003-2005, more than 90% were
                      committed by people with criminal records.[32]

                      At least they’re not committing new crimes when they are in prison, but it seems that once they’re let out they return to their criminal behavior.

                      In place of the ‘three strikes’ life sentence, how about a ‘three strikes’(violent crime) and execution? It’ll cut down on recidivism.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      If education and opportunity is the answer, then how do you explain the well to do who break the law or kill their spouses?

                      Why was the crime and murder rate lower during the Great Depression (government sponsored organized crime notwithstanding) than in more prosperous times?

                      Who is depriving anyone of a basic education? Everyone has the some opportunity to get an education but it is their responsibility if they want to go further but hard work is more important than education in achieving success.

                      I must admit that early on I had you pegged as a disruptor and would have preferred to have you blocked from posting your drivel. Now though, with each successive post you make, you reveal yourself more and more as a cliche driven, talking points spouting, high horsed, holier than thou elitist (probably liberal) and it apparent that you have nothing to offer that would work to achieve your stated goal. You just want to feel good about yourself and everyone else be damned.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      “If education and opportunity is the answer, then how do you explain the well to do who break the law or kill their spouses?”

                      That’s the Nirvana Fallacy, if you can’t have it perfect, why bother. It’s the same ridiculous argument made that says “criminals will still be able to get guns”. Wow, if we can’t make it perfect why bother?

                      “Who is depriving anyone of a basic education? Everyone has the some opportunity to get an education but it is their responsibility if they want to go further but hard work is more important than education in achieving success.”

                      Texas cut 4 billion dollars from education last year. Guess who suffers over that? Certainly not those that can afford to send their kids to private schools. So, no, they don’t all have the “same opportunity”.

                      “I must admit that early on I had you pegged as a disruptor and would have preferred to have you blocked from posting your drivel. Now though, with each successive post you make, you reveal yourself more and more as a cliche driven, talking points spouting, high horsed, holier than thou elitist (probably liberal) and it apparent that you have nothing to offer that would work to achieve your stated goal. You just want to feel good about yourself and everyone else be damned.”

                      I’m not sure what you are trying to prove. I came here because of that meme posted on Facebook. My sincerity of concern is real and just because you disagree with me does not make me a disruptor any more than you disagreeing with me makes me a disruptor. The things I am proposing are the same ones being brought up in conversations in other venues where they are taking those proposals seriously. You can not like it as much as you want but unless you police your own, somebody else will.

                      How do criminals get their guns?

                      – Mark

                  • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                    HELLO!

                    Laws cannot prevent a crime if a person is intent on breaking that law or doesn’t care about dying in the process.

                    Laws can set the degree and time of punishment. Your proposal of ‘ways’ (really, more laws) are your way of disarming innocent, otherwise defenseless, law abiding citizens.

                    It comes back to your (not so) hidden agenda of disarming Americans in a futile attempt to accomplish something that cannot be done.

                    That, or you are just as evil as those who want people to not oppose that evil.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Laws prevent crime all the time. If they didn’t why have them? It’s that Nirvana Fallacy again.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark,

                      If I could type it more slowly for you, I would. But since I cannot, you will just have to read it slower to comprehend what I said.

                      Laws cannot prevent a crime if a person is intent on breaking that law or doesn’t care about dying in the process.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark wrote:

                      “That’s the Nirvana Fallacy, if you can’t have it perfect, why bother. It’s the same ridiculous argument made that says “criminals will still be able to get guns”. Wow, if we can’t make it perfect why bother?”

                      Nice dodge, but it doesn’t address the question at all. It’s not a matter of making it perfect. It is a matter of people who are bent on committing a crime/murder. The wealthy and the educated commit crimes all the time and they should be punished like the poor and the uneducated but money and education ARE NOT the reason for crime. At best, that is excuse making for people who have evil in their heart,

                      Then you said:

                      “Texas cut 4 billion dollars from education last year. Guess who suffers over that? Certainly not those that can afford to send their kids to private schools. So, no, they don’t all have the “same opportunity”.”

                      What got cut? Did they eliminate K-12 education? Besides, more money in education — as has already been pointed out to you — does not make for a better education. In this country (and not your socialist utopia which is the fantasy world that you envision) we have equal opportunity not equal outcomes. Outcome is dependent on personal effort more than anything else.

                      This followed:

                      “The things I am proposing are the same ones being brought up in conversations in other venues where they are taking those proposals seriously. You can not like it as much as you want but unless you police your own, somebody else will.”

                      Those things that your and others of your mindset can talk about your fantasy world all you like, but reality will always intrude and prove you wrong. That doesn’t keep you from bringing up the same lame theories again and again.

                      Where do criminals get their guns? D’uh! More often than not, they steal them (or buy them from someone who has) but you want to blame the victim for not locking up his house enough to satisfy you.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      The rich doing crime is a red-herring.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      What got cut? Teachers. LOTS of them.

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Continue to deny your responsibility for having guns that criminals can steal.

                    • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                      Mark,

                      You claim poverty is a root cause of crime. Why do the rich commit crimes? Why do not all poor people commit crime? Perhaps, like the gun (and legitimate gun owner) being blamed for the acts of the criminal, you choose to blame something and someone else for a criminals bad acts.

                      Again, you blame me for someone breaking into my locked home and stealing from me. You are in a state of denial. At best.

                      Do Texas schools now have classes without teachers? How many teachers do you want per classroom?

                    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                      Poverty is a strong root of crime. To deny it by saying “rich guys do it too” is the fallacy of TuQuoque. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/tuquoque.html

                      You should study up on debate skills and especially fallacies. I see too many of them in your responses.

  32. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Quite humorous:

    “I may now be closer to believing the NRA is an organization of terrorists, however. I’ve been getting hostile telephone calls at all hours of the day and night for the past several days. Why would you call a stranger at 3 a.m. if you weren’t trying to frighten him? It’s what terrorists do — frighten people.”

    http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-bit-satire-earned -me-round-clock-abuse-and-threats-violence-gun-nuts

    • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

      Who would think that an ‘innocent bit of satire’ advocating elimination of Constitutional rights and threats of violence against members of government and citizens could engender such a response? Perhaps because his scribblings are too much in keeping with the current chorus of screaming monkeys populating the liberal press and even more liberal politicians?

      Usually it’s liberals that react in a blind incoherent rage when someone attempts to joke at their expense. I would suppose gun owners have been reviled and abused long enough that their patience and humor are gone.

      Perhaps the idiot should have included a ‘sarc’ tag in the heading or closing of his article. Oops. Actions have consequences.

    • Having read the original, it was not satire at all. This dude was quite serious, or he had put so much effort into making his satire seem serious, that he over did it and brought it on himself.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I think it’s funny seeing the reactionary nature of gun enthusiasts.

  33. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Colorful metaphors are sometimes needed to get some peoples attention.

    • Irrelevant, if the same amount of support was put on internet control, or censorship it would still be morally wrong. Second when they say support ‘bans on semi-automatics’ that is not actually how the researchers word the questions.

      Some stuff for you to peruse : http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

      As to your other posts, from salon and the photobucket, the photobucket image has already been addressed.

      As far as the NRA against the CDC… this link is older, but it remains the same : http://www.vdare.com/articles/cdc-study-rips-guts-out-of-gun-cont rol

      This is what the CDC found 10 years ago.
      Today they are trying to change their tune, but the long range data, doesn’t support their claims. It is why today you have a divergence in what data gets used. Pro-gun people go to the FBI-UCR, and foreign offices for similar reports, while anti-gun people go to the CDC.

  34. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Chris, you *do* realize that charts like the one below refute your claims about gun control and crime?

    In this chart the handgun ban went into effect and was trending neutral to down for the next 10 years. Then there was a huge spike (attributed to the influx of cocaine), peaking around 1991. Then there was a huge decline. Finally when the levels reached the pre-ban levels the ban was lifted. It is impossible to say what the results would have been like had the cocaine epidemic had not happened.

    http://www.justfacts.com/images/guncontrol/dc.png

  35. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    “As far as the NRA against the CDC… this link is older, but it remains the same : http://www.vdare.com/articles/cdc-study-rips-guts-out-of-gun-cont rol

    And within that article is the telling point:

    “What it didn’t bother to report is that while the *number of firearms in private possession* has exploded in recent years (gun sales have risen by 25 percent since 9/11), murder rates have fallen.”

    My chart is tracking households with guns, and the one cited to support “more guns means less deaths” uses actual guns… but ignores the fact that at most a person can only effectively fire one gun at a time. Remember, “people kill people, not guns” as the NRA is so wont to point out. So the claim that guns are increasing and crime is decreasing (because of it) is a meaningless claim. There are more Furbys in the world today than 20 years ago, but they didn’t reduce crime… oh wait, will we now claim that the crime reduction is due to family gun fights?…

    – /\/\

  36. HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

    I notice the cdc does not differentiate between gang war, criminal activity, or self defense. I guess if you’re going for the numbers it helps to combine all categories, and in the 2003 article you cited: (http://www.vdare.com/articles/cdc-study-rips-guts-out-of-gun-con trol)
    “In the current issue of The Rockford Institute’s magazine Chronicles, devoted to the gun issue, historian Roger McGrath notes what ought to be obvious—that crime has actually swollen as guns became more difficult to own.”

    You apparently did not read past the title.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      On the contrary, crime has been steadily declining. How can one say there are more guns and crime is down and then turn around and say crime has swollen? It boggles the mind.

      And speaking of differentiating, as I have pointed out the authors cite “guns owned” as if one can grow an arm and a set of eyes for every new gun. The fearful stockpiling guns in their house changes nothing. Individual households owning guns has been on a pretty steady and long decline.

      Again, the self-reporting problem with those claiming (much too high) numbers of problems have been solved by a gun are questionable, and I think unlikely to ever be accurately measured.

      – /\/\

  37. WolfmanNo Gravatar says:

    ban all the nut cases that walk among us and save the guns

  38. MarkNo Gravatar says:

    Gen. McChrystal: Assault rifles are for battlefields, not schools

    “Tragic shooting sprees aside, McChrystal also pointed to the more deadly and common gun violence—32 people die each day from gun violence—as another reason he believes gun control is necessary.

    “The number of people in America killed by firearms is extraordinary compared to other nations, and I don’t think we’re a bloodthirsty country,” he said. “We need to look at everything we can do to safeguard our people.”

    Even army guys get it:

    http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/01/08/former-gen-mcchrystal-assault-rifl es-are-for-battlefields-not-schools/

    • BruceNo Gravatar says:

      Of course government agents think they alone should possess the most useful arms. It makes their jobs so much easier. For some reason we citizens are told we don’t “need” such weapons, but for another reason the police universally choose such weapons when clearing a house of bad guys. What about the homeowner, clearing his own house of bad guys, because the police can’t arrive in time? The homeowner doesn’t come in packs of twelve, doesn’t have backup outside, and doesn’t have a chopper with a searchlight overhead, either. But for some reason he should have a revolver, but the police should have assault rifles? Sure. That makes a lot of rational sense – to a government supremacist.

  39. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark,

    It sounds like your general doesn’t know anything more about these so called ‘assault rifles’ than you do. These black guns are like any other weapon that fires one shot with each trigger pull.

    Bad guys do bad things including killing other people. Blame them, not the good guy. Bad guys also get killed by good people during their criminal acts. Again, blame them, not the good guy who stopped them.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I think he and I know more that you do.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        Then you are both keeping it well hidden.

        He’s using the same meaningless talking points as you. Is it ignorance, stupidity, or an attempt to disarm law abiding citizens?

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          Nobody wants to disarm anybody. However, those with irrational fears might want to consider bringing it down a notch or two.

          • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

            Nobody? That’s BS.

            Of course there are those in government openly claiming that is what they want. There are also groups like Brady and Cease Fire that are demanding it.

            You, personally claim that you don’t want it but you want to make it particularly burdensome with increased costs and regulations. Your fears are irrational. You think that everyone with a gun is going to kill you. If that was the case, everyone would already be dead.

            The amount of time that you spend here lends itself to the notion that this might be a paid assignment for you.

            • MarkNo Gravatar says:

              Nobody sane. You must be paid to be here as well.

              • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                My reason for being here is a passion for liberty and self reliance.

                All the dead bodies? But you want to make it more difficult for people to be able to defend themselves which will just add to the body count.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                My reason for being here is a passion for rational thinking.

                • BruceNo Gravatar says:

                  It is not rational for someone who claims concern for others, and who knows that the vast majority of killings happen in ‘gun-free’ zones, to seek to expand those zones on the feeling that it would somehow be a good thing to do, even though the factual evidence indicates that is that it is not.

                  • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                    Bruce,

                    I’m looking back over the 30 year record of the 68 mass murders and of those I can find maybe two that were in gun-free zones. You’ll have to show me your stats on “most” happening in gun-free zones (and I don’t think it is correct to count places with armed guards, if anything this would DISCOURAGE an attack right?). HOWEVER, As I have said earlier, I CONCEDED that you were correct in regarding gun-free zones as a bad idea. You guys don’t even read, you just react. So *score* one for rational thinking.

                    Do you guys even think past “they want to take our guns”. One can see the fear oozing from every pore in your body.

                    I’m trying to balance the impasse between businesses wanting to keep their stores free of people walking in with a gun strapped to their hip, and peoples desires to exercise their “right” (there is nothing in the 2nd amendment about concealed carry, either for or against).

                • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

                  It must be for reading it because you surely are not displaying it.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            It’s not my fears, it’s all the dead people left in the wake.

            • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

              By the suggestions you advocate, there will be exponentially more victims.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                Exponentially? Really? Sounds like you should start raving with Alex Jones… he can really push it over the top.

                • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

                  Alex Jones was picked to be the irrational and easily angered target for piers morgan. He fulfilled his role admirably. I have to wonder how they badgered him before the ‘debate’.

  40. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark,

    For you, this is an academic (and perhaps, a paid) exercise. For the rest of us, it is a life and death topic. Liberty or tyranny.

    As to poverty being the root of crime, try this on for size:

    http://www.city-journal.org/2011/21_3_crime-decline.html

    What has changed since the 1930s? The ‘War on Poverty’ and the entitlement mentality. People now believe that they are entitled to other people stuff, no matter how they get it. It isn’t poverty, it is the expectations that have been drummed into them.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I don’t know why in the world you think I’m paid to talk about guns. You’re being rather irrational.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      False dichotomy coupled with abstract concepts of liberty and tyranny. Neither will be established with your guns.

      • HuapakechiNo Gravatar says:

        Argue that point with stalin, mao, phol pot, idi amin, or any number of other murderous dictators. They didn’t begin their depredations until the victims were disarmed.

  41. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    What’s that phrase that you are so fond of repeating?

    Oh yeah, correlation is not causation.

    • Yes because John Stewart has no agenda. None at all. He is a trusted balanced source.

      • MarkNo Gravatar says:

        I trust Jon much more than the NRA. His words ring true. Twisting in the wind seems to be where the NRA is headed these days. Sane gun owners know the NRA is full of it.

        I’d like to point that saying I “have an agenda” does not change truth. You and the NRA have agendas too. You have been exposed to the term already but I’ll share it with you again.
        http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html You might want to quit stepping in that pile of shit.

        Here is some very interesting reading material. http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/32121_1.pdf

        • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

          Mark,

          Don’t you get it? You are not thought of as trustworthy. Your sources are not trustworthy. Your goals and objectives have been exposed.

          The truth has no agenda. You don’t speak the truth.

          • MarkNo Gravatar says:

            The truth is the truth. Assaulting my credibility proves nothing. Look at the facts and draw your conclusions. While you are drawing those conclusions please examine your own motives because it is very likely they are clouding your judgement. It’s called confirmation bias. I think about this constantly.

            • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

              Blah, blah, blah.

              • MarkNo Gravatar says:

                The sketch:

                Colonel: get some discipline into those chaps, Sergeant Major!

                Sargeant: (Shouting throughout) Right sir! Good evening, class.

                All: (mumbling) Good evening.

                Sargeant: Where’s all the others, then?

                All: They’re not here.

                Sergeant: I can see that. What’s the matter with them?

                All: Dunno.

                1st Man: Perhaps they’ve got ‘flu.

                Sergeant: Huh! ‘Flu, eh? They should eat more fresh fruit. Ha. Right. Now, self-defence. Tonight I shall be carrying on from where we got to last week when I was showing you how to defend yourselves against anyone who attacks you with armed with a piece of fresh fruit.

                (Grumbles from all)

                2nd Man: Oh, you promised you wouldn’t do fruit this week.

                Sergeant: What do you mean?

                3rd Man: We’ve done fruit the last nine weeks.

                Sergeant: What’s wrong with fruit? You think you know it all, eh?

                2nd Man: Can’t we do something else?

                3rd Man: Like someone who attacks you with a pointed stick?

                Sergeant: Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I’ll tell you something my lad. When you’re walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don’t come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit…

                All: We done the passion fruit.

                Sergeant: What?

                1st Man: We done the passion fruit.

                2nd Man: We done oranges, apples, grapefruit…

                3rd Man: Whole and segments.

                2nd Man: Pomegranates, greengages…

                1st Man: Grapes, passion fruit…

                2nd Man: Lemons…

                3rd Man: Plums…

                1st Man: Mangoes in syrup…

                Sergeant: How about cherries?

                All: We did them.

                Sergeant: Red *and* black?

                All: Yes!

                Sergeant: All right, bananas.

                (All sigh.)

                Sergeant: We haven’t done them, have we? Right. Bananas. How to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. Now you, come at me with this banana. Catch! Now, it’s quite simple to defend yourself against a man armed with a banana. First of all you force him to drop the banana; then, second, you eat the banana, thus disarming him. You have now rendered him ‘elpless.

                2nd Man: Suppose he’s got a bunch.

                Sergeant: Shut up.

                4th Man: Suppose he’s got a pointed stick.

                Sergeant: Shut up. Right now you, Mr Apricot.

                1st Man: ‘Arrison.

                Sergeant: Sorry, Mr. ‘Arrison. Come at me with that banana. Hold it like that, that’s it. Now attack me with it. Come on! Come on! Come at me! Come at me then! (Shoots him.)

                1st Man: Aaagh! (dies.)

                Sergeant: Now, I eat the banana. (Does so.)

                2nd Man: You shot him!

                3rd Man: He’s dead!

                4th Man: He’s completely dead!

                Sergeant: I have now eaten the banana. The deceased, Mr Apricot, is now ‘elpless.

                2nd Man: You shot him. You shot him dead.

                Sergeant: Well, he was attacking me with a banana.

                3rd Man: But you told him to.

                Sergeant: Look, I’m only doing me job. I have to show you how to defend yourselves against fresh fruit.

                4th Man: And pointed sticks.

                Sergeant: Shut up.

                2nd Man: Suppose I’m attacked by a man with a banana and I haven’t got a gun?

                Sergeant: Run for it.

                3rd Man: You could stand and scream for help.

                Sergeant: Yeah, you try that with a pineapple down your windpipe.

                3rd Man: A pineapple?

                Sergeant: Where? Where?

                3rd Man: No I just said: a pineapple.

                Sergeant: Oh. Phew. I thought my number was on that one.

                3rd Man: What, on the pineapple?

                Sergeant: Where? Where?

                3rd Man: No, I was just repeating it.

                Sergeant: Oh. Oh. I see. Right. Phew. Right that’s bananas then. Now the raspberry. There we are. ‘Armless looking thing, isn’t it? Now you, Mr Tin Peach.

                3rd Man: Thompson.

                Sergeant: Thompson. Come at me with that raspberry. Come on. Be as vicious as you like with it.

                3rd Man: No.

                Sergeant: Why not?

                3rd Man: You’ll shoot me.

                Sergeant: I won’t.

                3rd Man: You shot Mr. Harrison.

                Sergeant: That was self-defence. Now come on. I promise I won’t shoot you.

                4th Man: You promised you’d tell us about pointed sticks.

                Sergeant: Shut up. Come on, brandish that raspberry. Come at me with it. Give me Hell.

                3rd Man: Throw the gun away.

                Sergeant: I haven’t got a gun.

                3rd Man: You have.

                Sergeant: Haven’t.

                3rd Man: You shot Mr ‘Arrison with it.

                Sergeant: Oh, that gun.

                3rd Man: Throw it away.

                Sergeant: Oh all right. How to defend yourself against a redcurrant — without a gun.

                3rd Man: You were going to shoot me!

                Sergeant: I wasn’t.

                3rd Man: You were!

                Sergeant: No, I wasn’t, I wasn’t. Come on then. Come at me. Come on you weed! You weed, do your worst! Come on, you puny little man. You weed…

                (Sgt. pulls a lever in the wall–CRASH! a 16-ton weight falls on Jones)

                3rd Man: Aaagh.

                Sergeant: If anyone ever attacks you with a raspberry, just pull the lever and the 16-ton weight will fall on top of him.

                2nd Man: Suppose there isn’t a 16-ton weight?

                Sergeant: Well that’s planning, isn’t it? Forethought.

                2nd Man: Well how many 16-ton weights are there?

                Sergeant: Look, look, look, Mr Knowall. The 16-ton weight is just _one way_ of dealing with a raspberry killer. There are millions of others!

                4th Man: Like what?

                Sergeant: Shootin’ him?

                2nd Man: Well what if you haven’t got a gun or a 16-ton weight?

                Sergeant: Look, look. All right, smarty-pants. You two, you two, come at me then with raspberries. Come on, both of you, whole basket each.

                2nd Man: No guns.

                Sergeant: No.

                2nd Man: No 16-ton weights.

                Sergeant: No.

                4th Man: No pointed sticks.

                Sergeant: Shut up.

                2nd Man: No rocks up in the ceiling.

                Sergeant: No.

                2nd Man: And you won’t kill us.

                Sergeant: I won’t.

                2nd Man: Promise.

                Sergeant: I promise I won’t kill you. Now. Are you going to attack me?

                2nd & 4th Men: Oh, all right.

                Sergeant: Right, now don’t rush me this time. Stalk me. Do it properly. Stalk me. I’ll turn me back. Stalk up behind me, close behind me, then in with the redcurrants! Right? O.K. start moving. Now the first thing to do when you’re being stalked by an ugly mob with redcurrants is to — release the tiger!

                (He does so. Growls. Screams.)

                Sergeant: The great advantage of the tiger in unarmed combat is that he eats not only the fruit-laden foe but also the redcurrants. Tigers however do not relish the peach. The peach assailant should be attacked with a crocodile. Right, now, the rest of you, where are you? I know you’re hiding somewhere with your damsons and prunes. Well I’m ready for you. I’ve wired meself up to 200 tons of gelignite, and if any one of you so much as makes a move we’ll all go up together! Right, right. I warned you. That’s it…

  42. Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

    Mark,

    Why are you denying that shootings happen in ‘gun free’ zones? Every school has been a gun free zone for a long time.

    Chicago has the most restrictive gun laws and is the murder capital of the US.

    Gun control doesn’t work in any way, shape, or form. In fact, the exact opposite is true.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      I have (at least 3 times now) conceded that gun-free zones do not help although, to be kind to businesses, places of worship, hospitals, etc, I think it is reasonable to let that be their right.

      • Ray HorvathNo Gravatar says:

        And still you want Americans to be disarmed. Yeah, yeah, I know that you deny that but your posts betrays you.

        It is their right to request their place be gun free. It is stupid, but it is their right and no one that I know of is asking that they be denied their choice. What I and many others are saying is that we won’t do business with them.

        Ahh, the old mantra of the left, we just haven’t done enough of it yet. Again, you betray your stated intent when you let your guard down.

        SCUM!

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        It is not enough to concede that “gun-free” zones don’t work, although thank you for taking that step. You also need to stop citing instances of “gun violence” that happens within them, no matter how atrocious or horrible those instances may be, as any kind of reason to enact any sort of restriction on guns or gun owners outside of those zones.

    • MarkNo Gravatar says:

      Also, if gun control “doesn’t work” maybe we’re just doing it wrong. The Gun Show loophole that those wanting to circumvent the law adore seems like a good place to start.

      • BruceNo Gravatar says:

        Only a dishonest person would call a law allowing dealers (i.e. FFLs) to sell at gun shows, a “loophole” that “allows” private citizens to “evade” background checks that they were never required to perform. One could simply close this so-called, but non-existant “loophole” by prohibiting gun dealers from attending shows – just like it was in the past.

        • MarkNo Gravatar says:

          “dishonest person”. Ad Hominem again Bruce? It’s pointless you know.

          Guns should not be allowed to be exchanged without a background check. It’s just that simple. Those obtaining them without a background check are using a carefully crafted NRA loophole.

          http://gunvictimsaction.org/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-gun-show-loopho le-arms-criminals/

          Read this. Especially the part where people “think” they are being law-abiding citizens.

          http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/32121_1.pdf

          • BruceNo Gravatar says:

            Nope, not an ad hominem. When you are called on a dishonest act, and you persist in the act, you are being dishonest, just like the other people who call the “gun-show loophole” that. The law said, dealers have to conduct background checks and private individuals don’t. That isn’t a loophole, whether the sale takes place at a gun show or not. Since you falsely accuse me of using the ad hominem logical fallacy, let’s see what a “loophole” actually is: Wikipedia: “A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system.” There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about a law that says GUN DEALERS (i.e. people who are in the business of selling guns) must conduct background checks for every sale, whether at a gun show or not. There is also nothing ambiguous about the compliment, those who sell guns once in a while, primarily their own, previously-owned guns, DO NOT have to conduct background checks, whether at a gun show or not. If you continue calling it a “loophole” after this explanation, you have nothing else to claim other than that you are dishonest and being intentionally deceptive or misleading in your use of the term. That isn’t ad hominem, that’s fact. Do with this information what you will. (The same goes for everyone else who uses the term in the same way; you by far aren’t the only offender in this regard.)

Leave a Reply

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.