Gun Control

[Sandinista]

I know we've discussed this in many threads but I'm starting a new one so that it's a "clean" discussion.

Robin Hood, for one, and I have gone around and around about the prevalence of firearms in the US compared to Great Britain (where he lives). We've had some good discussions and I've enjoyed them

Thinking of those discussions this weekend driving home from a local range with another member of our Ward after a totally wonderful day of shooting a whole bunch of weapons, I was reminded of this "virtual" presentation given by a political commentator named Bill Whittle. He calls himself the "Virtual President" and uses that moniker to comment on social and political issues in the US by doing you tube videos and internet shows as the "Virtual President". It's an interesting approach to use other than the more common radio or television news/talk show or newspaper editorial. Any way, this is from 2013 and I think it bears listening to again. It captures what many of us have tried to less eloquently argue as to why we in the United States have the 2nd Amendment and why we are so passionate aobut it. Pay careful attention to some of the statistics he uses in his argument. I went to the FBI data base available to anyone on line and verified the data he is using. It is correct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5at0lBv0Zog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[David13]

"Gun control" is one of the most misused words anywhere.
Gun control is not a law, a piece of paper, a statute, and ordinance, nor a sign, such as "Gun Free Zone".
That is all just part of the false propaganda given by the "gun control" idiots, morons, people who can't think, and control freaks who make up the "gun control" agenda.
Gun control is the hand on the gun.
And when the psycho, dope dealer, or dope user, or ex-con who illegally, without a background check, without following any of the laws has his hand on the gun, he controls it.
And if he shoots you, you are s.o.l.
So if any of the "gun control idiots" can think their way out of that paper bag, they say, well, then we must ban guns, that will work.
Like they banned drugs and that worked.
Like they banned murder and rape, and that worked.
Like they banned insanity and that worked.
Like they started a war on poverty, and destroyed poverty, which now no longer exists?
Like they have a law against illegal immigrants and so they have none of them here.
So what do they want? Another law, because it will work.
How can you come closer to insanity?

Why does it never occur to people that unless you enforce the laws you have, you will never "solve the problem".
Why is there only solution always "pass another law".
Insanity.
dc

[Dave62]

The US does not have a gun problem. It has a deeper social/spiritual problem than no one is willing to face. It spans the political divide and all classes, ethnic groups and religions. In the glaring light of day banks repossess the houses of the widows and fatherless, and publicly grind the faces of the poor. In the full bright light of noon schools and universities extort students and restrict learning to the rich. In the blue sky fly hundreds of gay pride rainbow flags that celebrate the latest advances of adultery and lasciviousness. Even at night the White house is bathed in the colours of homosexual adultery. Under the harsh light of the surgical lamps babies are dissected for their body parts. Children are shooting children and students are shooting students. Your whole society groans under the weight of bad decisions. And yet! under cover of darkness, like a cluster of cockroaches, the Ten Commandments were removed from a public place! Don't you people see the irony of this? The only way out of this mess is obedience to God's commandments but Americans with their collective semantic ambiguity have confused secularism (no state established religion) with atheism (total rejection of God) So no, the US does not have a gun problem.

America, we love you all, we really do. You possess the Promised land and in times past have fought for our liberty as well as your own. But please do yourselves a collective favour. Read Helaman 4:11-13 and substitute the word "Nephites" with the word "Americans" before it's too late.

[Sandinista]

Thanks to Emmalee for forwarding the following article just published. Seems a Harvard study totally blows the "gun control" advocates out of the water, especially our British cousins!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/cr ... andcontent" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Robin Hood]

I probably won't participate in this thread.
We have gun control here and it suits us fine. We're very happy with this and really can't understand the American mindset. But that's ok because we don't need to. It's your mindset, not ours.

You guys don't want gun control and that's fine too.
You appear to understand and accept the consequences, so who am I to take issue?

While I won't participate, I will read. So please, one request. Don't argue (as some on this forum have in the recent past) that the reason there are so many shootings in the US is because there aren't enough guns! As Judge Judy says, "if something sounds ridiculous, it's because it usually is".
I shall read with interest.

[iWriteStuff]

The only way to enforce gun control is for a military with guns to come and seize them from ordinary citizens. This is necessary, of course, because the only group in the history of the world to never use guns inappropriately is the military.

Well, I certainly give them points for irony...

[Sandinista]

I probably won't participate in this thread.
We have gun control here and it suits us fine. We're very happy with this and really can't understand the American mindset. But that's ok because we don't need to. It's your mindset, not ours.

You guys don't want gun control and that's fine too.
You appear to understand and accept the consequences, so who am I to take issue?

While I won't participate, I will read. So please, one request. Don't argue (as some on this forum have in the recent past) that the reason there are so many shootings in the US is because there aren't enough guns! As Judge Judy says, "if something sounds ridiculous, it's because it usually is".
I shall read with interest.

Did you read the article? What do you say to the statistics about violent crime in Britain?

[David13]

I probably won't participate in this thread.
We have gun control here and it suits us fine. We're very happy with this and really can't understand the American mindset. But that's ok because we don't need to. It's your mindset, not ours.

You guys don't want gun control and that's fine too.
You appear to understand and accept the consequences, so who am I to take issue?

While I won't participate, I will read. So please, one request. Don't argue (as some on this forum have in the recent past) that the reason there are so many shootings in the US is because there aren't enough guns! As Judge Judy says, "if something sounds ridiculous, it's because it usually is".
I shall read with interest.

Did you read the article? What do you say to the statistics about violent crime in Britain?

"We" ignore that, because "we" are so happy. And "we" authorize ourselves to speak for "everyone", without regard to many others who do not feel like us. I suppose that is part of what makes us so happy.
dc

[Dave62]

Thanks, Sandinista, for that illuminating Harvard article that alludes to what I was saying; that it is not a gun problem but a people problem. But I do have a question. Would it contravene the US constitution to have a legal requirement for gun owners to be in control of their firearms at all times? By this I mean having the firearm in one's hands, in a secure holster, or stored under lock and key. Would it also contravene the constitution to have a warning on the firearm entitled, "Keep out of reach of children"? You see, I don't believe toddlers should have access to firearms. This article illustrates what I mean.
https://trove.com/a/People-are-getting- ... 4948569302" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ezra]

Thanks, Sandinista, for that illuminating Harvard article that alludes to what I was saying; that it is not a gun problem but a people problem. But I do have a question. Would it contravene the US constitution to have a legal requirement for gun owners to be in control of their firearms at all times? By this I mean having the firearm in one's hands, in a secure holster, or stored under lock and key. Would it also contravene the constitution to have a warning on the firearm entitled, "Keep out of reach of children"? You see, I don't believe toddlers should have access to firearms. This article illustrates what I mean.
https://trove.com/a/People-are-getting- ... 4948569302" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Any restriction on guns is a no no. But I see nothing wrong with a warning lable.
Just like the warning labels on a atv I'm sure it would be ignored. So 2 warning labels would be better,
One saying the warning and a 2nd saying if your too dumb to follow the first its your own fault and you cannot sue anyone for your own stupidity.

I kinda wish it was required to carry a gun and be trained to use it. I think people would be much kinder and respectful of others.

[David13]

An armed society is a polite society.
You would be surprised how less interested in a fight two people are if they are armed. It does happen, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Dave62
Ezra is correct. These restrictions on guns are in violation of the Constitution, which says the right is not to be infringed.
However, over the years all the requirements you mention have been enacted into law in many states, and particularly with my knowledge in California.
But also any responsible gun owner does much the same with his guns at any time.

There is a total ban on illegal drugs. There is a multi billion dollar per year war being waged on drugs. Yet, we know that we can obtain illegal drugs on most street corners throughout the entire USA. Why would the same not hold true if there were a total ban on guns?
Only no true law abiding citizen would have the life saving means to defend against those black market guns.
dc

[carbon dioxide]

The only way to enforce gun control is for a military with guns to come and seize them from ordinary citizens. This is necessary, of course, because the only group in the history of the world to never use guns inappropriately is the military.

Well, I certainly give them points for irony...

Of course if it did that that would make the military and our government no better than what is found in North Korea. Might as well go down shooting.

[Jason]

Thanks, Sandinista, for that illuminating Harvard article that alludes to what I was saying; that it is not a gun problem but a people problem. But I do have a question. Would it contravene the US constitution to have a legal requirement for gun owners to be in control of their firearms at all times? By this I mean having the firearm in one's hands, in a secure holster, or stored under lock and key. Would it also contravene the constitution to have a warning on the firearm entitled, "Keep out of reach of children"? You see, I don't believe toddlers should have access to firearms. This article illustrates what I mean.
https://trove.com/a/People-are-getting- ... 4948569302" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Would a written warning "Keep out of reach of children" really change anything? Obviously the toddlers aren't going to read it....

I've never known of a label to have any sort of effectiveness for someone with other intentions unless someone is actually looking for the information (like high fructose corn syrup). For that matter the laws as well. Only pertains to those looking to understand and obey the law. For example needing to be 21 to purchase alcohol with the intent of preventing under age drinking.

Take your article for instance - 2015 to date 13 toddlers have killed themselves, 18 injured themselves, 10 injured others, and 2 killed other people.

Now lets take underage drinking -

Underage drinking is widespread

According to the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 35.1 percent of 15-year-olds report that they have had at least 1 drink in their lives.
About 8.7 million people ages 12–20 (22.7 percent of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month (23 percent of males and 22.5 percent of females).

Young people drink a lot

According to the 2013 NSDUH, approximately 5.4 million people (about 14.2 percent) ages 12–20 engaged in binge drinking (15.8 percent of males and 12.4 percent of females).
According to the 2013 NSDUH, approximately 1.4 million people (about 3.7 percent) ages 12–20 engaged in heavy drinking (4.6 percent of males and 2.7 percent of females).

Underage drinking risks include:

Death – 4,358 people under age 21 die each year from alcohol-related car crashes, homicides, suicides, alcohol poisoning, and other injuries such as falls, burns, and drowning.
Serious injuries – More than 190,000 people under age 21 visited an emergency room for alcohol-related injuries in 2008 alone.
Impaired judgment – Drinking can cause kids to make poor decisions, which can then result in risky behavior like drinking and driving, sexual activity, or violence.
Increased risk for physical and sexual assault – Youth who drink are more likely to carry out or be the victim of a physical or sexual assault.
Brain development problems – Research shows that brain development continues well into a person’s twenties. Alcohol can affect this development, and contribute to a range of problems.

http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health ... e-drinking" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

People aged 12 to 20 years old drink 11% of all alcohol consumed in U.S.
https://www.edgarsnyder.com/car-acciden ... stics.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Founding fathers quotes are still accurate today...as they were then...

We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions, unbridled by morality and true religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

- John Adams, The Changing Political Thought of John Adams, Howe, p. 189

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious they have more need of masters.

- Benjamin Franklin, Speech at the Constitutional Convention, Sept. 17, 1787

Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

- Samuel Adams

Hence the increasing need for guns...because those whose manners are universally corrupt and vicious, unbridled by morality, fed by the passions of the moment, and with little to no respect for law...will also have them.

[Jason]

An armed society is a polite society.
You would be surprised how less interested in a fight two people are if they are armed. It does happen, but it is the exception, not the rule.
Dave62
Ezra is correct. These restrictions on guns are in violation of the Constitution, which says the right is not to be infringed.
However, over the years all the requirements you mention have been enacted into law in many states, and particularly with my knowledge in California.
But also any responsible gun owner does much the same with his guns at any time.

There is a total ban on illegal drugs. There is a multi billion dollar per year war being waged on drugs. Yet, we know that we can obtain illegal drugs on most street corners throughout the entire USA. Why would the same not hold true if there were a total ban on guns?
Only no true law abiding citizen would have the life saving means to defend against those black market guns.
dc

Amen! Brother-in-law in law enforcement that's had to break up many a bar fights alone and had a few stand offs with biker gangs that roll through town on the way back from Sturgis every summer...and every time the respect for the gun has paid off...if even only that they exit the bar and find someplace else to pick up their fight. And despite their lifestyle and career choices and general lawbreaking...its amazing how little shooting of each other they actually do....which just might have to do with the knowledge that the opposing side has guns too and is not afraid to use them. Thus mutual respect and relatively few entanglements.

[light-one]

Citizens of the United States have been brainwashed for decades to be mamby pamby cowards and complacent morons, like many other countries that have lost their freedom. Obama was trying to set a new world's record for the biggest lie when he stated that countries with strict gun laws have less crime. Pure and provable BS.

People in Britain sometimes fail to realize that in order to restore Christ's church, it was necessary to have a country with religious freedom which no country on earth had at the time so it was necessary to start a new country. Thousands of lives were lost in gaining our independence from tyranny.

As it turns out, the founding fathers were 100% correct in their assumption that the citizens must be armed in order to prevent their leaders from exercising unrighteous dominion or absolute dictatorship.

It is not about sport. It is not about hunting. It is about being able to ventilate the skull of any government official that attempts to decrease our freedoms. A government needs to be afraid of it's citizens in order to act appropriately. When the citizens are afraid of the government, freedom has already been lost.

It is difficult to explain to a non-American what freedom is because they have never experienced it. Americans are no longer free however and it will be necessary to use our firearms to get our freedom back.

It is estimated that the average citizen of the United States commits three felonies per day without even knowing it. That is because there are so many laws that nobody even knows what they are. God can rule the earth with only 10 laws and actually only two. Satan controls the earth and every single person that favors gun control is a disciple of Satan. David13 explains the truth about gun control at viewtopic.php?f=1&t=40254

Guns are the way God intends us to win this thing and that is why God inspired the founders to write the second amendment. He even said that people that are unwilling to kill to protect their families should gather in the mountains for refuge.

[Dave62]

Yes, yes and again, yes. You folks are preaching to the converted when it comes to the ability to own and use a gun. And yes, Jason, I'm with you on the same page with the underage drinking thing. But my observation stands, it would seem that Americans are not careful enough with gun handing and security. Take a seat while I tell you a tale...

When I first procured my long-arms my children were small. Knowing the nature of boys' fascination with guns, I embarked on a program of deliberate "de-mystification" with my son. I told him all about it, showed him how to use it, clean it, look after it, and took him shooting frequently. When I procured my revolver I did the same. Every time I finish with any firearm I lock it up so that it cannot be accessed by anyone but me. You see, I always trusted my son to do the right thing, but what about his friends? What if there was a bit of peer pressure to "have a go with your Dad's guns"?

There is something fundamentally wrong with keeping a pistol loaded AND cocked AND with the safety off in your handbag which is sitting next to your toddler in the shopping cart while shopping. I don't have a source for the details of this story but the little boy ended up killing his mother. (somewhere like Walmart if I recall) Why didn't the mother keep the firearm in a holster on her person where it belongs and where her child could not access it?

I hope you can get the point I'm trying to make. I think guns are an important part of our culture, be it for target shooting, hunting, and (heaven forbid) self defence. But ownership of what can be in good hands an effective tool and in the wrong hands a weapon of irreversible and sudden tragedy, carries a weighty responsibility.

[David13]

Yes Dave62, but why only emphasize this with guns. What about the toddler who bumped the car into gear (which was running) and ending up running over and killing his father.
What about the 1000s or millions of freak accidents that have killed people.
I agree with you, if I had kids and guns I would lock the guns. As I say it's law here in California.
It's also law the guns must be locked if you are not at home.
There is no such thing as "safe". That is another of the great fantasies in life that people think they can attain. There is no such thing. No one is ever safe from everything anywhere. Something can always get you.
That's why when they say "oh, we have to make it "safe" for the children" or we have to make the schools "safe" or we have to "do something" so this can never happen again, they are fantasizing. Because whatever it is will happen again.
It's just reality.
dc

[brianj]

Thanks, Sandinista, for that illuminating Harvard article that alludes to what I was saying; that it is not a gun problem but a people problem. But I do have a question. Would it contravene the US constitution to have a legal requirement for gun owners to be in control of their firearms at all times? By this I mean having the firearm in one's hands, in a secure holster, or stored under lock and key. Would it also contravene the constitution to have a warning on the firearm entitled, "Keep out of reach of children"? You see, I don't believe toddlers should have access to firearms. This article illustrates what I mean.
https://trove.com/a/People-are-getting- ... 4948569302" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can't speak for all states, but would it make you feel any better to know that all guns sold in Washington state must be accompanied with a brochure warning the purchaser of the criminal penalties for letting unsupervised children gain access to your firearms?
And nationwide, guns are sold with locking mechanisms so the firearm can be locked, even if the owner doesn't have a safe?

[Jason]

Yes, yes and again, yes. You folks are preaching to the converted when it comes to the ability to own and use a gun. And yes, Jason, I'm with you on the same page with the underage drinking thing. But my observation stands, it would seem that Americans are not careful enough with gun handing and security. Take a seat while I tell you a tale...

When I first procured my long-arms my children were small. Knowing the nature of boys' fascination with guns, I embarked on a program of deliberate "de-mystification" with my son. I told him all about it, showed him how to use it, clean it, look after it, and took him shooting frequently. When I procured my revolver I did the same. Every time I finish with any firearm I lock it up so that it cannot be accessed by anyone but me. You see, I always trusted my son to do the right thing, but what about his friends? What if there was a bit of peer pressure to "have a go with your Dad's guns"?

There is something fundamentally wrong with keeping a pistol loaded AND cocked AND with the safety off in your handbag which is sitting next to your toddler in the shopping cart while shopping. I don't have a source for the details of this story but the little boy ended up killing his mother. (somewhere like Walmart if I recall) Why didn't the mother keep the firearm in a holster on her person where it belongs and where her child could not access it?

I hope you can get the point I'm trying to make. I think guns are an important part of our culture, be it for target shooting, hunting, and (heaven forbid) self defence. But ownership of what can be in good hands an effective tool and in the wrong hands a weapon of irreversible and sudden tragedy, carries a weighty responsibility.

You can try...and more power to you on it...but my experience is....you can't fix stupid.

People do dumb things all the time....myself included (for example on my table saw more than once I've had close call or pushed the limit with near miss and had to ask myself what in the world was I thinking). Sometimes we are lucky...sometimes we aren't.

I don't believe labels help. Investigate any number of industrial accidents where labels, signs, and safety training is abundant...and I believe you'll come to believe as I do...sometimes people just do dumb things despite all efforts.

1 brief example - man running a shear which cuts steel plate...in this case 5/8" steel. Had hit the foot pedal to cut the sheet of steel with part of his hand under it. Smashed his hand horribly. With right hand bandaged and taped across his chest he was showing investigators how it happened. With machine running he put his other hand under the plate of steel then went to step on foot pedal to trigger machine but luckily one of the investigators realized what he was doing before he did and kicked it out of the way before he could step on it.

[Sandinista]

I've never seen a "warning label" that does anything other than placate the public into thinking that somehow they have done something. However, I can support taking responsibility for one's actions! Like others have indicated all of my weapons are locked in safes, all of my children are well trained in the function of and respect for firearms, I follow safety rules in the handling of all firearms, etc. That is my responsibility that I took upon myself when I chose to own a weapon, for whatever reason or purpose. Instead of "warning labels" I think we need to focus on getting people to take responsibility for their actions, something that has almost disappeared from our society (IMHO).

As far as keeping a weapon in a secure holster, under you direct control, or what ever? How can you legislate that? Like the underage drinking example, you can pass all the laws you want but that doesn't mean anyone will follow them. It comes back to people accepting responsibility for their actions. If you can tell me how to do that I can introduce you to just about 250 million parents in the US alone who would like to read your book!

[Jason]

Friend of mine keeps a loaded .22 rifle in the living room next to the front door of his home. He has several young lads. They know what its for and what it can do. Its a needed tool for coyotes and even the youngest (outside of the baby) has access to.

Another friend of mine raised a family with a dozen guns scattered throughout the house in various hideaways that all of the children were aware of. It was a necessary precaution as a result of his early life as a US asset carrying out extermination efforts around the globe. Guaranteed every one of them was loaded and ready to go at a moments notice.

People are making valiant efforts to prevent accidents and mishaps....from seat belts to firearm locks. While I appreciate the intent behind their efforts in looking out for each other...ya just can't fix stupid!

Also there is no end to these efforts....it starts innocent and ends with sterilization (and other nasty steps even to rationalized murder) in efforts to prevent stupid....thus taking agency away from people in the process. At the end of the day....Satan's plan!

[Jason]

Poll: More Americans oppose stricter gun control

Nearly three weeks after the latest mass shooting claimed the lives of nine people, 52% of Americans now oppose stricter gun control laws, 6% more than the 46% of Americans who support such laws. That’s a wider gap than in June when CNN last surveyed Americans on gun control, finding that the public was equally split at 49% on the issue.

The advantage of those opposed to stricter gun control laws over those in favor is outside of the poll’s 3-point margin of error.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/ ... index.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

....any wonder why??? Obviously the police departments aren't responding in any meaningful timely manner...

Since at least 1950, all but two public mass shootings in America have taken place where general citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, there have been no exceptions. Every mass public shooting — and there have been plenty of mass shooting in Europe — has occurred in a gun-free zone. In addition, they have had three of the six worst K–12 school shootings, and Europe experienced by far the worst mass public shooting perpetrated by a single individual (Norway in 2011, which from the shooting alone left 67 people dead and 110 wounded).

Mass killers have even explicitly talked about their desire to attack gun-free zones. The Charleston, S.C., church shooting in June was instead almost a college shooting. But that killer changed his plans after realizing that the College of Charleston had armed guards.

The diary of the “Dark Knight” movie-theater killer, James Holmes, was finally released just a few months ago. Holmes decided not to attack an airport because of what he described in his diary as its “substantial security.” Out of seven theaters showing the Batman movie premiere within 20 minutes of the suspect’s apartment, only one theater banned permitted concealed handguns. That’s the one he attacked.

Or take two cases from last year. Elliot Rodger, who fatally shot three people in Santa Barbara, Calif., explained his reasoning in his 141-page “manifesto.” He ruled out various targets because he worried that someone with a gun would stop his killing spree. Justin Bourque shot to death three people in Canada. On Facebook, Bourque posted a picture of a defenseless victim explaining to killers that guns are prohibited. Shooters have good reason to be concerned.

Here are some examples from the past few years:

— Conyers, Ga., May 31, 2015: A permit holder was walking by a store when he heard shots ring out. Two people were killed. The permit holder started firing, and the killer ran out of the store. Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said: “I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have [been] hit by a gun[shot]. . . . So, in my opinion he saved other lives in that store.”

— Chicago, April 2015: An Uber driver who had just dropped off a fare “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.” Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.”

— Philadelphia, Pa., March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barber shop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. Police Captain Frank Llewellyn said, “I guess he saved a lot of people in there.”

— Darby, Pa., July 2014: Convicted felon Richard Plotts killed a hospital caseworker and shot the psychiatrist that he was scheduled to meet with. Fortunately, the psychiatrist was a concealed-handgun permit holder and was able to critically wound Plotts. Plotts was still carrying 39 bullets and could have shot many other people.

— Chicago, July 2014: Three gang members fired on four people who had just left a party. Fortunately, one of these four was a military serviceman with a concealed-handgun permit. He was able to return fire and wound the main attacker while keeping the others at bay. The UK’s Daily Mail reported, “The night might have had a very different outcome had the incident occurred a year earlier [before Illinois’s concealed-handgun law was passed].”

— Plymouth, Pa., September 2012: William Allabaugh critically wounded one man inside a restaurant and murdered a second man on the street outside. Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Jarrett Ferentino said that without the concealed-handgun permit holder who wounded Allabaugh, “we believe that it could have been much worse that night.”

— Spartanburg, S.C., March 2012: Armed with a shotgun, Jesse Gates kicked in a door to his church. Concealed-carry permit holder Aaron Guyton drew his gun and held Gates at gun point, enabling other parishioners to disarm Gates. Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright called the churchgoers heroes. Though Gates was stopped before anyone was harmed, he was still charged with one count of kidnapping and three counts of pointing and presenting a firearm.

None of these stories received national news coverage. Many received only one or two local news stories. Yet, if a permit holder hadn’t stopped these attacks, these cases would surely have received national attention.

Bill Landes of the University of Chicago and I gathered data on mass public shootings from 1977 to 1999. We studied 13 different types of gun-control laws as well as the impact of law enforcement, but the only law that had a statistically significant impact on mass public shootings was the passage of right-to-carry laws. Right-to-carry laws reduced both the frequency and the severity of mass public shootings; and to the extent to which mass shootings still occurred, they took place in those tiny areas in the states where permitted concealed handguns were not allowed.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ry-laws-do" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...gun free zones work???

Comparing Death Rates from Mass Public Shootings and Mass Public Violence in the US and Europe

The CPRC has also collected data on the worst mass public shootings, those cases where at least 15 people were killed in the attack.

There were 13 cases where at least 15 people were killed. Out of those cases, four were in the United States, two in Germany and two in the United Kingdom.

But the U.S. has a population four times greater than Germany’s and five times the U.K.’s, so on a per-capita basis the U.S. ranks low in comparison — actually, those two countries would have had a frequency of attacks 1.96 (Germany) and 2.46 (UK) times higher.

Small countries such as Norway, Israel and Australia may have only one major attack each, one-fourth of what the U.S. has suffered, but the US population is vastly greater. If they suffered attacks at a rate adjusted for their population, Norway, Israel and Australia would have had attacks that were respectively 16, 11, and 3 times greater than the US.

http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/compar ... nd-europe/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...and take into account that more than half of the world's private firearms reside in the US...not even touching on the use of bombs...

[The ward heretic]

Yes, yes and again, yes. You folks are preaching to the converted when it comes to the ability to own and use a gun. And yes, Jason, I'm with you on the same page with the underage drinking thing. But my observation stands, it would seem that Americans are not careful enough with gun handing and security. Take a seat while I tell you a tale...

When I first procured my long-arms my children were small. Knowing the nature of boys' fascination with guns, I embarked on a program of deliberate "de-mystification" with my son. I told him all about it, showed him how to use it, clean it, look after it, and took him shooting frequently. When I procured my revolver I did the same. Every time I finish with any firearm I lock it up so that it cannot be accessed by anyone but me. You see, I always trusted my son to do the right thing, but what about his friends? What if there was a bit of peer pressure to "have a go with your Dad's guns"?

There is something fundamentally wrong with keeping a pistol loaded AND cocked AND with the safety off in your handbag which is sitting next to your toddler in the shopping cart while shopping. I don't have a source for the details of this story but the little boy ended up killing his mother. (somewhere like Walmart if I recall) Why didn't the mother keep the firearm in a holster on her person where it belongs and where her child could not access it?

I hope you can get the point I'm trying to make. I think guns are an important part of our culture, be it for target shooting, hunting, and (heaven forbid) self defence. But ownership of what can be in good hands an effective tool and in the wrong hands a weapon of irreversible and sudden tragedy, carries a weighty responsibility.

I agree you. We must be responsible. But accidents with guns are rare considering how many are out there. There are far more many things that we should worry about than guns. It should be very low on our list; if at all.