Guns battle: Attitudes about firearms after the Arizona tragedy

In the aftermath of last weekend’s tragedy in Arizona, we are left to wrestle with the question of how best to prevent these kinds of violent incidents in the future. Gun control advocates say that with 80 to 90 gun deaths each day in the U.S., the best answer is more regulations and fewer guns on America’s streets.  But gun rights advocates think just the opposite — that more guns make us safer.

Back in May, we introduced you to some advocates of what’s called the “open carry” movement. If you’re a gun owner you may already know the term. If not, the “open carry” advocates want the right to carry guns openly pretty much anywhere. And, as you might expect, they oppose many gun regulations. In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, we wanted to see if they’d changed their attitudes at all about guns, so our correspondent, John Larson, checked in with them again this week.

 

Comments

  • Ed

    This “update” was much more fair than the original piece aired last year. I thank you for that. Tell Jon that that those “things” are called “magazines” and not “clips”. Also.. his “personal opinion/commentary” was way off base. There are millions of magazines.. if you BAN them, only the bad guys will have them.

  • Carl

    The personal opinion/commentary was way off base. The call for a ban on the Glock 17 isn’t common sense gun control. It is a ban on a class of the post popular type of gun for self defense. This was noted by the supreme court in the Heller decision. What you are calling for is not common sense but a ban on a civil right.

  • Downzero8249

    Your story stated that AZ. law allows almost anyone to carry a handgun. couldn’t you just say that anyone that is legally allowed to own a gun can carry it? Is telling the whole truth that hard to do?

  • Arminius Tell

    What anti-firearm pablum. How transparent can a political aganda veiled as “we’re here to help you” be? It is no wonder they’ve lost credibility and the silent majority are speaking out and standing up. More power to ‘em now I say. Heck. Know what? This usurped Democratic Party politicization of a psycho fostering a tragedy has convinced me to look for a Tea Party group near me!

  • Sean918

    Just want to mention. Even if one does have their gun on them while near an active crime, it does not necessarily mean they will employ their gun while attempting to stop or help the situation. Some times you dont have a clear shot. Other times the situation can be resolved without you ever having to use it or show you have it. Despite liberal doctrine we are not all Yosemite Sams running around shooting our guns off at every little we see. No not even a few. Lord knows if that ever did happen the media would be ALL OVER it like vultures.

  • The Majority of Americans

    Jon Meachus’s commentary tonight on the need for common-sense gun control legislation was right on! It makes no sense for magazines carrying 30 rounds of ammunition
    to be allowed to be sold to anyone. The majority of Americans agree, despite all of the loud gun rights people who are so afraid that someone is going to take away their guns that they can’t even understand the need for common sense laws, such as closing the gun show loop-hole. Protecting one’s home and family with a firearm is one thing. Allowing mentally ill people to buy assult weapons and magazines with 30 rounds of ammunition is a totally different thing.

  • Mariadaq

    Common sense,a rare commodity in DC & media, yet common with the majority of American citizens, tells us what promotes safety. Given the choice of walking about an area where citizens carry, or walking about an area where only the “punks” carry, is a common sense choice for most. I say citizens carrying, help make “Make my day safe!”

  • opinionless

    Guns kill less people than cars, alchohol. Those are the companies that kill and we will never limit them as they are a part of life. Soon the Democrats will realize that guns are for defence and crime, if law abiding citizens have guns, how many criminals are going to want to get in a gun fight every time they commit a robbery or rape? None, they are cowards by definition preying on the weak. Gun owners are tired of being second class citizens, its in the damn constitution, its here to stay, and you will thank a gun owner the second he saves your life. Be it police, military or private citizen, you will be sending him christmas cards for the rest of your life when it happens. Think of that, and tell your democratic congress person to mind they’re own Fing buisness.

    I am a life long Democrat wondering why the 2 party system is my only recourse.

  • opinionless

    Its already illegal to kill someone. What happens when you are threatened by a 6’6″ 300lb criminal intent on just hurting you personally. The police are 6minutes away. Guns are for the weak, they equalize the situation as best as technology allows. The reason you see more people pro guns as they get older, is if you are ever a victim, you see through the rhetoric and know that the truth is in your personal safety.

  • Constitution_trumps_all

    The guy didn’t even know the difference between a “clip” and a “magazine”. The number of rounds in the magazine is an independant variable. It had no bearing on the outcome of what the loon did. The folks calling for bans again are suffering from an illogical fear of an inanimate object and deflecting the reason behind the killings to bolster their own agendas.
    The “gun show loop-hole” is another myth perpetrated by the emotionally unstable. These are private sales being conducted by private citizens.
    A glock 19 is now an assault weapon? Really? What magical number of rounds is satisfactory for you? Why?
    The 94 assault weapons ban did nothing to A)prevent crime and B)ban the sale of anything. The only thing it did accomplish was to raise the price or firearms parts.

  • okiebob

    I live in Dallas, Tx for now the vilent crime has declined too a level lower then it was in the 60′s. The only resone that can be drawn is that the crimals don’t know how have a weopen and how dose’nt. What would the press be repording if someone in the tragrdy in Az. had a weapon and stoped the the indiividual had to confount a armed citizen.

  • Anonymous

    Armed with the Glock 19 and the Walther P22, The Washington Post reports that in
    the attack at Virginia Tech the shooter used 15-round ammunition magazines for the
    Glock, and 10-round ammunition magazines for the Walther. He fired 174
    rounds, and killed 30 people in Norris Hall plus himself, and wounded 17. (Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech Addendum to the Report of the Review Panel)

    So how would banning 30 round magazines stop Cho (who killed more people)?

    And Loughner did not use an evil black rifle, he used a very common pistol used by many Law Enforcement Officers.

  • Downzero8249

    It is already illegal for mentally ill persons to buy firearms.
    If you buy a gun at a gun show from a dealer you still have to go throught the background check.

  • Ed

    The majority of americans DONT agree.. Jon simply TOLD you they do because HE is.. and HE is in Anti-Gun NY! I wonder if he LEGALLY has his guns in NY.

  • Bronco Bob

    Being A former Marine,I can say this,if it was’nt for guns and men who were not afraid to use them the people who say that we don’t need them could be speaking A variety of diffrent langauges,like
    German,Japan,Korean,Vietnam,etc.I think what this country should be looking at are the people who
    wake up every day hating the world and everyone in it,because A gun does’nt become dangerous until someone picks it up. Broncobob

  • Graham

    Once again, after watching the video and reading many of the comments above, I have to conclude: There are not too many gun ownership advocates in MENSA

  • Ellie

    Where does it end? If everyone needs to carry for his or her own protection, must our children carry on the way to school? Even kindergartners? Must I, when I go to the grocery store? If there can be no reasonable limits to the ownership and carrying of guns and ammunition, then the only way anyone can protect him/ or herself from nuts with guns is to carry arms. How, then, does any employer fire anyone? How does a teacher give a grade, knowing that any student could object violently? How do any of us say “no” to anyone? How do the police do their jobs? How does the rule of law, which is the cornerstone of our democratic form of government, work when everyone can take the law into their own hands? Respect for law, or even for one’s fellow citizens does NOT come automatically with the ownership of a gun. The only thing a gun provides is the power to blow someone’s brains out with the flick of a trigger. I thought we had left the “might makes right” mindset with the Declaration of Independence, which was a complaint against the tyrannical and arbitrary power of a monarch. We now have to summon the courage to complain about the tyrannical power of a neighbor with a gun. What about MY right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”?

  • Gewamser

    How come you fail to mention that as the number of guns has increased on the streets, that in the last several years, IN FACT…the violent crime/ murder rate with firearms has dramatically declined??? Whenever there is a mass murder, we all try in vain because of our emotions to make a “connection” with the weapon used in a futile attempt to “do something”…this is a human failing because emotions fail where rationality is required. If the shooter couldn’t find a proper firearm he’d simply use a bomb or a automobile or some other available weapon. Guns are inanimate objects and cannot shoot themselves. All this debate does is distract us from the REAL issue here; how we have treated and ignored the mentally ill in a deplorable disgraceful manner. It is almost impossible to commit, a seriously ill person, or even to compel them to take their proper meds due to so called “legal protections” of their rights. This can be heartbreaking for the family involved, and require extremely expensive legal moves, with no guarantee of success.
    Anti gun folks are so full of compassion they want to take away our second amendment rights, but have not a drop of concern about the true suffering of the mentally ill and their families. Nearly every year since 1980 funds for the mentally ill have been cut by administration after administration.

  • Constitution_trumps_all

    First off, it is a Constitutional Replublic. Emphasis on “CONSTITUTION” of which specifically states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. See, our founding fathers new the bleeding hearts would try to water down and widdle away our rights one by one.

    Second, why does your opinion of your “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” get to trump mine and go against the very foundation of the Constitution.

    Banning anything does not stop anything.

  • Constitution_trumps_all

    First off, it is a Constitutional Replublic. Emphasis on “CONSTITUTION” of which specifically states SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. See, our founding fathers new the bleeding hearts would try to water down and widdle away our rights one by one.

    Second, why does your opinion of your “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” get to trump mine and go against the very foundation of the Constitution.

    Banning anything does not stop anything.

  • Mal

    Standing on the outside looking in, it seems obvious that the USA needs to address this issue of widespread gun ownership. The question is when will the community be strong enough to do it, in 50 years, a hundred, two hundred? Until it does, citizens of other countries will continue to shake their heads and count their good fortune not to live in the USA.

  • Constitution_trumps_all

    And some prefer to be subjects rather than citizens like yourself.

  • Royalhillbilly

    Taking away my gun is not going to stop criminals from getting one. Taking away my gun increases my chances of becoming a victim. I am a 56 yr old woman who fishes, hunts, shops and lives alone. There have been several times when I have been in scary situations by men who don’t know their place. I used to say I don’t believe in carrying guns, let God be my protector. I still believe that but I now feel safer carrying my gun. Yes I carry it everywhere and some people make me feel stupid for doing so but I tell them if they can tell me when a criminal is going to attack then I will only carry it then! I don’t want to get kidnapped, raped, tortured or the like. It happens everyday! The people in Arizona went to the mall that day. My point proven!

  • Mugs

    I quit MENSA back in college. They’re good at solving puzzles, but they didn’t have much sense.

  • http://www.facebook.com/wmptaylor Wm Taylor

    Frankly I dont care if you sake your head, and truly dont care if you think your fortune is good you dont live here. I am lucky to live in this free country that honors the human right of self defense. God Bless the Republic!

    Molon Labe

  • Guest 5

    In all this debate above a major point is missing
    1) A gun is designed to Kill ( used without skilled training it is less effective and maybe only injures severely without doubt.
    2) Yes, (the second amendment ) not part of the original constitution gives individual gun carrying rights. So OK agree but restrict to the best type of handgun/rifle/shotgun available at that time and restrict to guns with a maximum of 6 rounds.
    3) The idea that gun carrying reduces risks to gun death is disproved by the statistics that America has the highest rate globally of death by gunshot wounds of any kind. All other ” civilised” nations that have restrictive gun laws have much less death by guns. Why because on crimes criminals do not always cayrry a gun
    4) Banning Lunatics and People with any kind of criminal record from having a gun license is common sense. Concealed gun carrying interferes with law enforcement of gun licensing laws.
    I have never seen such flawed debate as the NRA and gunlobby get away with.
    Arizona is classic, argue the shooter was an unregisred lunatic or idiot or that political extremism was his driver. Its almost never mind he killed 6 and injured 13 Just because he could own a gun that could conceivably shoot 30 rounds and then if time to re-load another 30, and kill or injure 19 more!?
    By the way we have to train our military and police to shoot properly and accurately where is the Law that requires a gun owner to undergo supervised traing to avoid killing an innocent bystander due to lack of training.
    The US is not the wild west any more.
    Regards,
    Guest 5

  • Ellie

    You have not established cause and effect, that more guns cause lower murder rates. In fact, the data points in the opposite direction. The five states with the highest per capita gun death rates (Louisiana, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, and Nevada) all have higher household gun ownership rates and weak gun laws. The states with the lowest per capita gun death rates (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York) have low household gun ownership rates and strong gun laws. In Louisiana, 45.6 percent of households own guns and it has the highest gun death rate in the country at 19.6 per 100,000 people. In Hawaii, only 9.7 percent of households own guns, and it has the lowest gun death rate of 2.6 per 100,000 people. So, there are 4.5 more gun-owning households in LA than in HI, and you are about 7.5 times more likely to be killed with a gun in LA than in HI. Looks to me like the more guns, the less safe you are by a wide margin! See http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm.

    A study has also shown that people armed with guns were in more, not less danger, than those unarmed. Those possessing a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not possessing. This makes sense, because the gunman has the advantage of surprise, and if he sees someone with a gun, he knows he has to use maximum force to overpower them. Plus, if there are lots of guns around, the bad guys know they need to bring more lethal weapons with them, so the death rate climbs. See http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/AJPH.2008.143099v1
    Arms races never end well, whether between nations or between individuals.

  • Seilertechco

    Right Bob, I think it is the continuing negative outlook for opportunity (you know, where only 2% of people prosper financially), creating a larger poor population in our country, that give more persons a feeling of hoplessness and despair.

    Courts and government are acting as businessmen and have become nihilistic, failing to give honest services without perceived gain, by many judges, lawyers and public officials.

  • Rongillis

    I’m a strange mix. Liberal in a lot of ways but still there’s the little voice inside of me that says” it’s for your own good” ……. damnit!!! thats what the old maid said on the way to the vet

  • John Kessler

    In the story you mentioned the guy who came out of the nearby Walgreens who was carrying a gun. When he saw the shooting he ran over to offer assistance.

    What you failed to mention was as he arrived on the scene with his hand on the pistol he was packing he was about to shoot the guy he saw with a gun in his hand. Fortunately someone was able to stop him from doing that because the guy with the gun had just taken it from Loughner. in other words, he was about the shoot one of the heros.

  • Imagoaler

    Where did anyone or anything state that they were taking away your gun? This is about reasonable regulation not confiscation.

  • Jared

    That’s a strange butchering of the facts. Joseph Zamudio has said in repeated interviews that he went out saw a man with a gun, drew on that man, and instead of shooing that person, commanded him to drop the gun. When other people pointed out who the shooter was, he changed his focus to the actual shooter.

    In other words, he used restraint and good sense to avoid escalating a situation.

    http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/video/video-guns-battle-attitudes-about-firearms-after-the-arizona-tragedy/6428/

  • John Kessler

    I saw him interviewed on the Ed Show. He basically said it was only because someone was able to warn him that he didn’t shoot the wrong guy. The video on this page was selectively edited to begin after he said that.

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/arizona-hero-tells-ed-schultz-tougher-gun-laws-wont-help-theres-no-shortage-of-firearms/

    Here is a more complete account;

    —-

    “I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready,” he explained on Fox and Friends. “I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this.” Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. “And that’s who I at first thought was the shooter,” Zamudio recalled. “I told him to ‘Drop it, drop it!’”

    But the man with the gun wasn’t the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. “Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess,” the interviewer pointed out.

    Zamudio agreed:

    “I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.”

    —-

    It was only by good luck and fast thinking that an armed citizen with good intentions didn’t further compound the tragedy.

  • db

    When they banned high capacity magazines for “assault weapons” in ’94. The weapons dealers brought in so many before it went into effect that they never ran out during the entire 10 year ban. The ban caused even more magazines at cheaper prices to make it to the market. They are still at rock bottom prices today.

    Bans don’t prevent crimes. They just change the methods used.

  • A Citizen, not a subject.

    “Where did anyone or anything state that they were taking away your gun? This is about reasonable regulation not confiscation.”

    The first step is government permission to purchase (“We can’t let just ANYONE buy one of those…the government must decide who is acceptable–and prevent those N_____s from getting them” as was the motive in the Reconstructionist South as discussed in the Heller decision).

    The second step is registration (“…common sense laws so the police will know where the guns are located–so we can get them all when confiscated later.”).

    The third step is government permission regarding the type of firearm available. (Current Australia law allows only single shot shotguns and long rifles, no repeating arms or handguns).

    The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. Click the video link on http://www.suzannahupp.com/

    Jurisdictions already banning &/or confiscating firearms:

    United Kingdom
    Australia
    District of Columbia (If you think the Heller decision changed anything, try to get a license)
    Chicago (laws found unconstitutional but still on the books, nothing replaces them yet)

  • A Citizen, not a subject

    What, no mention of banning knives?
    UK now has an epidemic of Knife Crime. Bobbies wear anti-knife vests but still have injuries and deaths on a daily basis. Read any front page of any UK newspaper to see the problem.
    Next in the UK will be bans on steak knives, pocket knives, pen knives.
    After that, bans on ball point pens, cricket bats, lumber, etc.
    The problem is the people committing the crime, not the instrument. That is why we fight drunk driving by policing the driver, not banning the vehicle or the alcohol.

  • Cwithers29

    But he didn’t. That’s where gun saftey and responsable gun owners come in. The majority of gun owners.

  • Cwithers29

    Do we really think gun laws will keep them out of the hands of crimminals? It will take the guns out of the hands of good citizans. That’s all.

  • Cwithers29

    This is more than a community. This is the U.S.A.
    Please, stay on the outside.
    God bless.

  • John Kessler

    But he didn’t? That justifies allowing everyone to carry a gun? Zamudio was well intentioned and apparently well trained, yet he himself says it was only luck that kept him from making a mistake. What about other less skilled or more impulsive gun carriers?

    I admit that I’m not in favor of open carry or concealed carry. However I also like to base my opinions on hard facts and those are hard to find. I’d love to see some good unbiased statistics on open/concealed carry. All I can find is either biased stuff from anti-gun sources citing the dangers and giving examples of where things went horribly wrong, or biased stuff from pro-gun sources citing examples of where lives were saved by lawful gun carriers.

    What is needed are some simple raw statistics rather then anecdotes. I want to know how many people were actually harmed guns in open or concealed carry areas vs how many people were saved or crimes prevented. We all know there are examples on both sides – but honestly, I want to know if open or concealed carry is a net positive or a net negative. I don’t know if anyone can honestly say.

  • John Kessler

    You can’t put the genie back into the bottle. Banning guns is not a good idea. But that isn’t to say that some intelligent regulation wouldn’t be helpful.

    I don’t believe 30 round clips serve any useful purpose – unless you consider killing the maximum number of people possible to be “useful”. I don’t think we need “cop killer” bullets – unless your interest is in allowing cops to be killed. I don’t think the public needs fully automatic weapons – or cannons.

    What would be best for the country is for people on both sides of this issue to sit down like adults and decide what will be allowed and not allowed based on legitimate needs – not more yelling at each other.

    I also believe gun control should be a local issue. Different areas of the country have different needs and the laws should reflect that. The citizens of New York City may not want guns on their streets, but in rural Vermont there are good reasons someone might want to carry a gun. The local laws should reflect those differences and needs.

    We also need to do more to prevent the wrong people from being able to easily purchase guns on a whim. It’s nuts that even someone on the terrorist watch list can buy guns at a gun show or that there is no way currently to prevent a person who is well known to be mentally unstable from buying guns and ammo. We should be smart enough to fix those problems.

  • Pboutilier

    People are only good citizans on the good days. Every one has mood swings” Every one”! With every one having guns means on the bad days they have the ability to make it a bad day for a whole lot more people. Your best friend, best guy you know never hurt a fly… comes home to a cheating wife, now whats going through his head is he still a good guy for the next 10 minutes 5 minutes??? Has a gun on his person, mind not right, his whole life may just go down hill. Think about it!

  • Pboutilier

    Your right! A gun it self offers no danger. Great then start controling the people that do. Wait you can’t because until they do some thing you do not know. So now what!

  • Anonymous

    It’s also true that if that had been a LEO the same thing would’ve happened. The person with the firearm in that confusing situation would be the target.
    I saw him interviewed on Hannity and he said that he noticed the firearm was locked back, which in a pistol would indicate it’s currently out of ammunition, so he didn’t even draw his weapon but was ready to.

  • Anonymous

    We had a situation in our city where a retired policeman shot up his ex-wife’s house and neighborhood with a so-called assault weapon.
    Anybody can snap, most people don’t go to that extreme, even if they are carrying a firearm.

  • Anonymous

    I’m a US citizen and turning constitutional rights into a patchwork quilt of laws is ridiculous.
    That is why most states have pre-emption laws.
    I mean you’re legal to carry that firearm and you cross the street into a neighboring jurisdiction and it’s suddenly illegal.
    Let the locals set parking regulations and quite frankly, if I lived in NYC, I would insist on exercising my rights to carry a concealed weapon.
    When seconds count, ploice are only minutes away.

  • Anonymous

    Really, 6 rounds in a weapon that’s designed to hold 15? Why not 5, why not 50?

    Did it occur to you that that fool could’ve had two guns?

    Parts of the US are worse than the old west ever was. It’s because of drugs and gangs, not guns.

  • Anonymous

    Your analogy to cars and drunk driving is great.

    My grandfather was killed by a drunk driver while crossing a street. Did my grandmother blame Ford for making such a dangerous vehicle that could be easily driven by a drunk?
    Did she blame Jack Daniels distillery or the bartender that dispensed drinks to that drunk?
    Or, did she rightfully blame the drunken killer who killed my grandfather and another man?

  • Richard Garcia

    It seems that this rather serious quagmire has polarized the citizens of this country so long that many have abandoned the logical thinking and the brainstorming needed to solve this problem. Most citizens have only chosen only one side be it (Republican vs. Democrat) or (Pro gun vs. Anti- gun). The only route to a effective solution is to find a golden balance. I have to say rather sadly that guns are here to stay as the standard of violence as well as criminals that intend to do violence against the innocent. We as citizens cannot just lock are arms away under lock and key and hope for the best in protection under are police forces. The police can only do so much and we as citizens have the constitutional right to arm for defense. However common sense dictates that not all citizens are responsible enough to have the right to bear arms. There are many who want to have and carry arms just for the fun of it or believe it that it empowers them due to their low self- confidence. I believe that if a citizen’s legal and mental history is properly checked and training is completed, a citizen should be able to have in the household either a handgun, shotgun, or rifle. Note that automatic and burst fire options should only be allowed to the police forces and the military as logically they must have a upper hand in case of rebellion. There is absolutely no reason for a citizen to have a machine gun or a weapon of higher magnitude. Now for handgun concealment, most citizens are not responsible enough even with basic training with a fire arm to be allowed to conceal a side arm in public. However if that citizen is a former officer of the law or former military then circumstances are different. They know the full consequences of such a powerful weapon that they under mandatory tests every few years just like with the driver’s license, should be allowed to conceal a sidearm in public. Times have changed since the establishment of the second amendment. Weapons are light years more powerful, smaller, and worst of all, more lethal. However we as citizens do have that right written as if written in stone however we must act too as caring and loving human beings and determine how we should treat our privilege to defend ourselves.

  • Dave

    You Americans are in real trouble.

  • Talbot

    “Logically they [state forces] need uphand in case of insurrection.” What?! That is the exact opposite of the founder’s intent. We need to have the uphand – not the lying, thieving govt swine. Have you not been paying attention? 15 trillion in debt? Nothing works right? Wars all over the place, freedom erroding faster than ever in history? You want the incompetant, venal clowns in Washington to outgun us? You need to rethink that pal. And it ain’t about republicans and democrats – show me any significant difference between those two gangs of trough feeders. I want those bums to leave me along. The second ammendment does not ‘grant’ us a right – it identifies a natural God given right and there can be no compromises. It is the reset button when freedom is imperiled. Every decent citizen should have an assault rifle in their home. I have lived in an environment where that was the case and it works.

  • Vlad

    This is probably the best book on the subject.

    http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660

    Even if you perceive the book as biased, it is for a simple reason – facts confirm that gun control never works. I mean NEVER. There is not even single example in history of any country where gun control measures lead to decline of violent crime.
    Honestly I do not see any credible statistics coming from gun control proponents that would survive even simple logic test. They play almost completely on feelings and ignorance of majority of the population. The rhetoric “assault weapons ban” is a perfect example of such play where majority of people were led to believe that “assault weapon” is what army uses when in fact so called “assault weapons” are no different from many hunting rifles and very different from real assault rifles.

  • PavePusher

    In other word, the armed Citizen did exactly the right thing, by being prepared and aware at the same time.

    What’s the problem here?

  • PavePusher

    Please define “cop killer” bullets… I don’t think you know what they are.

    And I’d be more concerned about being a victim of crime in NYC than in Vermont. Self Defense is a Civil Right unbounded by geography.

  • Guest

    “Its for your own good” is a statment that liberals use just before stripping another right from you. They will use this phrase right before a ban on guns is introduced.

  • Tim

    Go ahead and count your goodluck, keep shaking your heads, you evidently dont have the right to carry a gun. That gives your government more power over you than ours has over us. When your government comes for your property and land you will have nothing but rocks to throw so I will count my good fortune that I DO live in the U.S.A. and I will coninue to shake my head at all you non Americans who have no rights to self protection. So you go ahead and stay wherever it is that you are and dont worry about us her we will take care of ourselves, because we can SHOOT BACK!

  • Justinthacker2

    I used to think the same thing about automatic weapons but recently the government has given me reasons to think differently. What’s keeping them in check.

  • Justinthacker2

    I lived in Jamaica for two years where it is illegal to own a gun so guess who owned all the guns? The criminals. Look up the death rate due to gun violence there. The only thing they can do against their government is burn a few tires and run away.

  • Justinthacker2

    The hero that had the gun, something you did mention.

  • Justinthacker2

    You don’t need a gun to kill someone on a bad day. Think about it. Should we cut off everybody’s hands so that they can’t kill someone when they have a bad day. If it was God’s purpose to control and make us do his every will, I would think that he would have the power to do so. Without evil in the world we couldn’t know the good. Our founding fathers knew this when they wrote the constitution. They had lived in countries, including this one, that were oppressed by their governments. Our goverment needs to be held in check. Look at history and try to tell me that our goverment now would never try to gain total control of it’s people. History repeats itself. First thing Hitlor did was to take away the guns of the people.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_OGL57T64ZQAGRCHUJSUMSRITBU Michael Kelley

    “First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out– because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me– and there was no one left to speak out for me.” is just one of many variations of a poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group.

    It continues to amaze me how “willfully” ignorant many bleeding hearts are about our Constitutional rights!

    When the Nazi’s confiscated the weapon’s from good up standing Jews, the Polish citizens didn’t make a fuss. Then one day, they came for their guns.

    The TRUTH that we all subconsciously fear more than anything, is the “direction” that this is all going. No, they may not be knocking on your door and asking you to turn over all of your handguns; not yet at least, but we all know what is in their mind… and we can see the hand writing on the wall.

    Of course, like Martin Niemöller, we cowardly cover up our public voice because it’s the communist or the guy with a previous felony. It’s the socialists, that other guy… not me.

    The question we REFUSE to ask ourselves for fear of KNOWING what it would mean to our future… the future of our children and this noble nation which was built on the principles of “individual” freedom is… WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY COME FOR MY GUNS?

    The sad truth is… if/when that day should come, there will no longer be a need for a voice to speak out, because there will no longer be an ear to hear that voice.

    And that my friend, is a government that I fear above all things. A world I don’t ever want to live in, and one that I would not wish upon my worst enemy. GOD SAVE US!

  • Guest 5

    My point Mr Parker 1 Is that only guns with 6 rounds should be licensable to any individual. Hunting or otherwise without re-loading so when the insane person runs out you can become judge and jury and shoot him!!
    Second the Constutional amendement does not give a right to own multiple guns, the law should say one per household or over 20 person or whatever legal age is.
    If you tighten up gun laws to exclude ownership by druggies ex criminals and enforce checks sensibly on new applicants , Like must have a reference from say a school or professor or someone who knows him fot 5 years verified by a Lawyer or priest etc and reduce the sale of guns and Ammunition to fewer licensed outlets. Most of your comments become invalid.
    The argument about insane users is a hiding point, many multple killings are not by the insane ( disturbed /distressed is different) and I logically and intellectually find the analogy of its not the car that kills but the driver totally fallacious. Cars are not designed to kill guns are.
    If the law requires it to be On display not concealed when carrying and also to have yourlicense with you, police can reasonably monitor the streets and may be apprehend criminals carrying guns unlawfully.
    I do not want take away your constitutional right, but if even you ( others mainly) become mentally depressed or disturbed or a druggie, gang member convicted of a crime, I do want it to be possible under the law to take away your gun!
    The huge dabate is how to get back previously sold Ammo and unlawful from X date guns, big problem but has to be dealt with somehow.
    Regards,
    Guest 5

  • Doorslammer55

    I’m wondering where this debate would be going if Jared Loughner’s weapon of choice had been a Chevy Suburban other then a Glock 19. Using deaths of innocent people to push an agenda (the hallmark of American gun control) never ceases to make me sick.

  • KansasMustang

    And thinking like yours will get weapons taken from responsible people. It’s this kind of thinking that makes people sheeple. Read the treatise “On sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs” just google it. It may give you some insight. In the meantime walk out your door and say Baaaah.

  • Riverworld

    As a CCW carrier in WA state, I researched the fellow in question. Had I been in his shoes, I might not have acted as he did. However he followed good, if not best, practices. He assessed the situation, and realized that the gun being held had its slide locked back. That indicated no magazine in the weapon and no immediate capability of firing. He also listened to the folks around him. Then he helped restrain the suspect.

  • Pboutilier

    Thats what I am saying, most people are good thank god. Yes you can kill some one with many things. We all agree on that. The difference is they have a knife I personally would be quite willing to deal with that person. Now you go in to a store with your little girl (I have a girl) some one comes in shooting what can I do? Yes I know if I had a gun I shoot that person…well I left mine at home I am out with my girl for a bite not the range. Now if he came running in with a knife ,bat or what I could easly keep my child safe. Not so against a gun I am not bullet proof.
    Lets be honest they are very few willing to put their life out there for some one. And I will bet a whole lot less if that person has a gun. I have a gun just so you know not a pistol a shoot gun and I pray I would never reach the day that my mind is not right and I hurt some one. But we never know!

  • Anonymous

    Also read through the PDF book available at http://www.gunfacts.info
    It addresses gun-related myths one by one, with citations to & from research (there’s your facts & stats). In short, places which prohibit their citizens from self-protection have higher rates of violent crime: DC, Chicago, New York, CA. Places which do not infringe the right of self-defense have lower rates of violent crime: Vermont, Alaska, Arizona.

  • Anonymous

    “Yes I know if I had a gun I shoot that person… well I left mine at home I am out with my girl for a bite not the range”
    So you’re *_willfully_* unprepared to defend your child? (Or yourself.)
    Your life, and hers, don’t mean that much to you.
    You don’t wear a seatbelt, or make her wear hers do you?
    You don’t have a smoke detector, do you?
    You don’t have house or car insurance, do you?
    A gun is just the same – a way to keep a not-very-likely-to-happen bad situation from getting much worse.

    “Now if he came running in with a knife, bat or what I could easly keep my child safe”
    Really?
    After he smashed your head in like a melon (or sliced your throat) you could still prevent him from doing the same to your child?

  • Anonymous

    “(the second amendment) not part of the original constitution gives individual gun carrying rights”
    No, it doesn’t.
    It prevents the government from infringing on the NATURAL right of citizens to keep & bear arms.

    “restrict to the best type of handgun/rifle/shotgun available at that time and restrict to guns with a maximum of 6 rounds”
    Best type? Best for what?
    Look at any gun-related discussion board & there are almost as many opinions about which brand or model is ‘best’ for whatever purpose as there are users.

    And if you’re going to restrict ALL guns to 6 rounds, tell me how you’re going to get criminals to abide by that law. They don’t follow other laws (against murder, robbery, rape, etc.).

    Why don’t police carry 6-round revolvers any more?
    They’re (supposed to be) trained, usually travel with a partner, and have co-workers with guns just a radio squawk away when they need backup.
    Yet most carry semiautomatic pistols with regular-capacity magazines (in the 14-20 round capacity range).

    As a citizen who carries a pistol for my personal protection, WHY should I have anything less? (I carry a Glock 17, with 18 rounds.)
    I’m usually alone, going about my daily business. Nobody on call, and IF I can get to a phone, & IF they do respond to a 911 call, it’ll be 6 minutes + before someone (with another gun) gets there to help me.
    A criminal can do a lot of damage in 6 minutes.
    Or he can do a lot of whimpering and whining and pleading that I not shoot his sorry donkey, while I tell him to lie still ’til the police get there.

  • Anonymous

    “If you tighten up gun laws to exclude ownership by druggies ex criminals and enforce checks sensibly on new applicants”
    A) users of illegal drugs are already prohibited by Federal law from posessing firearms.
    In the Tucson shooting, if the Army had reported his failure of a test for illegal drugs, maybe he wouldn’t have passed his background check at the Federally licensed dealer where he bought the murder weapon.

    B) anyone who’s been convicted of a felony (punishable by at least a year in prison) is already prohibited by Federal law from posessing firearms.

    C) anyone who’s even *_accused_* (let alone convicted) of misdemeanor domestic violence is already prohibited by Federal law from posessing firearms.

    D) what other rights would you turn into gov’t-controlled priviledges, needing a license & registration in order to exercise them?

    E) how are you going to get criminals to abide by these laws of yours?
    Criminals are the problem, you know. They’re the ones who are harming innocent citizens.
    How exactly are you going to control them?
    How are you going to stop them from getting weapons?
    Because no law ever made has done diddly squat to stop crime.

    There are even “you’ve been really, really bad” laws called “felon in posession of a firearm”, which recognize that criminals who aren’t supposed to have guns WILL get them.

  • John Kessler

    Who is gunfacts.info?

    “Politics: Guy Smith (writer, songwriter, political provocateur) and has been referred to as a libertarian with a foreign policy. Because the 2nd Amendment is the only civil right under perpetual attack, Guy has chosen to make gun owner rights the focal point of his political activism.”

    So that source begins with a pro-gun viewpoint.

    Incidentally, saying “2nd Amendment is the only civil right under perpetual attack” is quite a stretch!

    This one is from Science Daily

    States With Higher Levels Of Gun Ownership Have Higher Homicide Rates

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070111181527.htm

    Who is Science Daily?

    “ScienceDaily is one of the Internet’s most popular science news web sites. Since starting in 1995, the award-winning site has earned the loyalty of students, researchers, healthcare professionals, government agencies, educators and the general public around the world.”

    This one is from The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

    Penn Study Asks, Protection or Peril? Gun Possession of Questionable Value in an Assault

    http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/news/News_Releases/2009/09/gun-possession-safety/

    So who are they?

    http://www.pennmedicine.org/health-system/about/

  • AJ

    Better than most police, truth be told.

  • AJ

    It’s a good thing the 70 million gun owners in this country never have a bad day, right? (Rolls eyes skyward).