Gun ownership
Dr.
Having gotten out of World War II with my personal 7.65mm semi-automatics, I had absolutely no desire to shoot at anything ever again, including paper targets. But in the allied country where I lived, keeping it even if only as a souvenir required a police permit. Like any citizen without a criminal or mental illness record, I, a 20 year old medical student, could have that permit for the asking and a small fee. It entitled me to carry the gun any way I saw fit — including concealed — anywhere in the country at any time, with no restrictions. And there was virtually no violent crime. I could walk a mile across a darkened city park at 2 a.m., alone and unarmed, with no risk. The gun was, unloaded, in my clothes drawer at home but no punk wanted to take the chance that a potential victim might be both better armed and a better shot than he was.
The gun stayed in that drawer until the time after the communist coup when the red cops only had to follow the registration lists to disarm the population so it could be enslaved for forty years.
The “progressive” “liberals” (even the self-descriptions are a fraud) will never get it through their heads that arms owned by the law-abiding population, even in their holsters, are the best protection ever invented against violence. Today’s anti-gun fanatics are just as deluded as the late Neville Chamberlain.
This letter has not been edited.
Remember Tom Mauser and his cronies
screaming that there'd be blood running in the streets if Colorado passed a "shall-issue"
concealed carry law?
Funny thing is, four and a half years after the law went into effect, there hasn't been a
SINGLE INCIDENT of misuse of one of these permits. Not one.
Why don't we hear the Tom Mauser crowd now screaming "we were wrong"?
Ed Stein is in serious denial of FACT, and it diminishes his legitimacy
substancially.
Where's the unhinged one in this debate? It's custom made for AN(ti) American to rant and rave...
Posted by on August 21, 2007 02:33 PMJust an FYI:
Home invasion gone wrong for criminals.
Two illegal aliens, Raphael Resindez 23, and Enrico Garza 26, probably believed they would easily overpower and rape a home-alone 11 year old Patricia Harrington after her father had left their two story home.
It seems the two crooks never learned two things, they were in Montana , and Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.
Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front door of the house. She quickly ran to her father's room and grabbed his 12 gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.
Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to catch a near point blank blast of buck shot from the 11 year'olds knee crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals. OUCH!
When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before medical help could arrive.
It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber handgun he took from another home invasion robbery, where the victim, 50 year old David Burien, was not so lucky, as he died from stab wounds to the chest.
Had this happened in CA, the ACLU would be out in force suing the 11 year old girl. (Not to mention the LaRaza groups claiming she was discriminating. )
Posted by on August 21, 2007 04:29 PMThe left does not like stories like these, where someone defended themselves with a gun... that is the police's job
now, let's see. The girl had 2 responses....
dial 911 and by the time they got there, the police could have started the search for her killers and put the outline around the body....
Shoot the snot out of them....
Good choice.
I wonder if that doctor in Connecticut would like a do-over in the deaths of his family and would this time have had a gun handy.....
I wonder if Kitty Genovese would have done better had she been armed....
And if one teacher at Columbine had been a CCW holder, what might have been different.
I am a CCW holder and I refuse to be a victim.
A fun test... call the piolice about an emergency and order a pizza... see which arrives first.
Posted by Dravur on August 21, 2007 04:37 PMGun control means having both hands firmly holding the gun and aiming at what you are going to shot. I would imagine nobody could provide a sound, logical argument against what Kitty Genovese did in defense of her own life.
While it's sad reality that we have to defend ourselves in this day and age in a "civilized" society, it is necessary. By design and necessity our police forces are reactive, not proactive in most situations.
Posted by Trinity on August 21, 2007 06:01 PMWe have far more gun deaths and gun violence than any other country in the world, Why is that? I'm asking a serious question, not trying to be sarcastic or anything else, I'm just curious if someone can answer this question rationally.
Posted by Mike D. on August 21, 2007 06:28 PMMike D
We were a country founded with guns and they have been intricately interwoven into our social fabric ever since. The conservative estimates show that we have almost as many, if not more, guns than we have legal population. You can never remove all the guns from our society.
Unfortunately, many of the guns are in the possession of people with less than honorable intentions. Quite often, as in the case above, honest citizens have to resort to gun use to protect themselves.
Then you also have the problem with irresponsible people being careless with guns which results in accidental shootings and kids, without proper training or guidance, getting their hands on guns.
I suspect that proper proper education about handling guns and gun safety would do more to slow down gun related accidents and deaths than trying to implement more restrictive and, essentially, unenforcable laws.
Posted by Trinity on August 21, 2007 07:03 PMMike D says... "We have far more gun deaths and gun violence than any other country in the world, Why is that? I'm asking a serious question, not trying to be sarcastic or anything else, I'm just curious if someone can answer this question rationally."
It's more of cultural thing than anything else. We glorify violence in movies, TV, and music. We make celebrities out of criminals (remember all the coverage Cho and his manifesto received after Virginia Tech?). It's really not so surprising we have a high crime rate.
If the ulterior motive of your post is to blame firearms for society’s ills, keep in mind Switzerland has a very high gun ownership rate just like the US, but their crime and violence rate is much lower. The difference is cultural.
Posted by Andy on August 21, 2007 07:21 PM
Trinity,
Thanks for your insight, I agree that guns will never be removed form our society and it is very frustrating to have dialogue or interaction about guns because it isn't as black and white as most try to make it out to be. I don't believe the pro-gun people want everybody to carry concealed weapons and I don't believe the gun-control group wants to take away all guns either. You can pull out as many instances of people protecting themselves with guns as you can those accidentally shooting others. I think people should have background checks for handguns, hunting rifles etc. But I think those wanting automatic military weapons such as AK47's is rediculious. Our police should be better armed than the average citizen..
Posted by Mike D. on August 21, 2007 07:25 PM-Several years ago I came home to find my front door broken and muddy footprints that went into the house about four feet then left. When the police came they explained that the burglar had seen the wall of awards and trophies next to the door. The awards were all for marksmanship. The officers laughed and explained that the burglars didn't know if anyone was home as the TV was on and the bathroom and bedroom lights were on and the doors closed. Not going to take any chances that the person who earned the trophies was there and still armed.
Result is the same here. WE, my husband is also a marksman although we can't agree on who's better, confronted a burglar with drawn weapons and turned him in to the police. Word got out fast. We bought our mobile home cheaply because the former tenant was constantly being bothered with break-ins and vandalism. We painted our shed white and it's still just plain white. Not one incident of tagging or other trouble. (We also have guard cats, no joke because they are half bobcat and I trained them myself. Even the Comcast guys won't come in until I lock them up.)
Simple answer is that criminals aren't as stupid as some think. Unarmed victims are the best kind. Look at how the crime statistics in Florida changed when concealed carry was enabled. The crooks started attacking tourists in rental cars because they were less likely to have a weapon. Perhaps the best description came from a cartoonist in Texas.
His multi-paneled strip started with some men in a bar. First panel top caption was: Your ex-wife got a restraining order against you"..The man just sipped his beer. Second Panel top caption was: "Your ex-wife installed an alarm system" The man kept sipping his beer. Third (last) Panel top caption: "Your ex-wife got a concealed carry permit." Man spills his drink and his eyes bug out.
Can't say it any better.
Posted by momma y on August 21, 2007 08:35 PMMomma Y-you might not be "Can I
Get An AMEN",but I'd give you a million of them!
I'm still waiting for some gun-grabber to try
to convince us that the blood is still gonna run in the streets because of Colorado's concealed carry law, it simply takes a while to start.......
Fact is our concealed carry law has been a success, and the gun control crowd can't stand that, nor will they admit it.
Posted by RickyLee on August 22, 2007 05:36 AMAccording to the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Volume 30, Number 2 more guns equal less crime. They note many countries that have no legal gun ownership and higher crime rates and many countries (many in Europe!) with high rates of gun ownership and low crime. Finland for example has a gun in 36% of its homes. How many drive by shootings there? Does the blood run in Helsinki's streets?
Posted by j on August 22, 2007 07:01 AMFirst of all Mike D.the AK-47s you can buy in gun shops in Colorado are not full-auto they are semi-auto.These fire at the same rate of speed as guns we have owned for over 100 years.Gun control groups "Do" want to take away "ALL " guns.They are just taking them one small step at a time.When they first started their goal was to ban all handguns.They found that united all gunowners so they backed off and decided to take one little step at a time.The reason they went after semi- auto assault weapons[they are not true assault weapons] is because they knew the public would think they were full-auto.The Democrats and the media pushed the big lie to mislead the public.This is why I do not trust the Democat party on the war or any issue.These guns are used in less 1% of murders.Professor Gary Kleck a liberal Democrat says that US citizens use guns to stop crime 2,000,000 times a year.The gun issue is black and white.It is a constitutional right both federal and state.The 11 year old girl Patricia Harrington that killed the two criminals ,assuming the story is true,has more guts than the Democrat leadership.
Posted by An American on August 22, 2007 09:04 AMEveryone has a God given right to protect themselves.
Sometimes it takes a gun.
Never show up for a gun fight with a knife. Never die for lack of shooting back.
Japan wouldn't invade the USA in WW2 because so many Americans owned guns.
Some of the nicest, most repectable people I have ever met were at a Hunters Safety course sponsored by the NRA.
Some of the other nicest folks I have ever met, rode Harley Davidsons.
Many of them have concealed carry permits.
Too bad the media likes to post about 99% of all gun stories with a negative slant, and almost never posts the stories where guns saved the day.
i am thinking of getting a concealed carry permit-recently i have seen two young men beat about the head with bats as they walked by a house in my town- now these thugy gang banger know better than to break my door down but it is not safe for people to walk on the sidewalk-maybe if all responsible citizens would use their right to bear aerms the thugs would not be as bold-i think judges need to be elected and re elicted and booted if they fail to follow guidelines-if a thug commits a crime and is charged while out on bail raise the minimum bail amount to 10 times what it was cash only-crime will go down.
Posted by ldp on August 22, 2007 11:59 AMi am thinking of getting a concealed carry permit-recently i have seen two young men beat about the head with bats as they walked by a house in my town- now these thugy gang banger know better than to break my door down but it is not safe for people to walk on the sidewalk-maybe if all responsible citizens would use their right to bear aerms the thugs would not be as bold-i think judges need to be elected and re elicted and booted if they fail to follow guidelines-if a thug commits a crime and is charged while out on bail raise the minimum bail amount to 10 times what it was cash only-crime will go down.
Posted by ldp on August 22, 2007 11:59 AMJay you are right about the media and guns.If someone uses a gun to defend themselves the story is suppressed.If someone uses a gun in a crime it may be on the front page.Why do I not see any Democrats on this page defending gun rights but see them on other pages defending terrorists rights?
Posted by An American on August 22, 2007 01:03 PMJoin the NRA.1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by Ron on August 22, 2007 01:06 PMAn American
You do see a Democrat defending gun rights in Mike D. Just because he doesn't embrace your concept of unrestricted open carry and your penchant for AK47s, he does acknowledge the right of responsible people to own and carry guns.
Be happy with a piece of the pie. He's not advocating taking your right of ownership away; he just wants responsibility combined with ownership.
As to you preferring an AK47 and him not understanding that desire, relate it to two people disagreeing on motorcycles. While one may not think them safe and shouldn't be on the street, the other may be an avid rider. The motorcycles are still on the street and nobody is deprived of riding one. Disagreement as to utility does not necessarily lead to confiscation.
Posted by Trinity on August 22, 2007 01:26 PMA few days after I had a near violent run-in with 4 mouthy teenage punks in front of my house this past June, I was telling my neighbor across the street about it. He advised me that he had the same type of run-in with the same 4 punks about a week earlier. They felt it was none of our business if they went down the street cussing and swearing at the top of their lungs, and felt it was perfectly acceptable for them to threaten to "beat our asses down" right then and there. Long story short, when he took his 2 year old into the garage to get him away from these punks, they took off, as they felt he was going inside to grab a gun.
It just goes to show that even the threat of using a gun for self defense will often stop a crime before it becomes one.
Mike,
I respectfully disagree with you on a number of points and you have some misconceptions..
The AK 47 that I can buy is a semi auto, just like a semi auto rifle like a Garand or the M1A. They just look "Evil" to people. It is not an automatic weapon or machine gun. In fact, the round the AK fires is far inferior to the round that the Garand fires.
As to the police being better armed, I disagree. The police state that we are fast becoming will require that we be able to fight the government. This is exactly what the second amendment was put in there for. We may someday need to be able to fight the police.
You also mention that gun-grabbers on the left don't want to take all guns.... You better look at the brady web site and left wing politicians statements about how they want us to "Turn them all in".
Also, firearms are used in approx. 2.5 million instances a year to stop a crime, according to the FBI statistics. This far outweighs accidental deaths by firearms. You can include me in that statistic as I held a burglar for the police once. Didn't have to shoot, but got the clown's attention right away.
So, I do know there are pro-2k Dems out there, but the leaders of your party are not. at all.
Posted by Dravur on August 22, 2007 02:18 PMMike D,
Your question is a good one. The answer is multi-facted but the conventional wisdom of liberals that guns are to blame is wrong. All one need do is reflect on the lower crime in gun friendly places with the higher crime everywhere guns are regulated so as to make them beyond the reach of the law-abiding.
When you think about it, there are only four possible scenarios of gun possession. The four possibilities are:
1. Everyone can have access to guns;
2. No one (except police) can have access to guns;
3. Only good guys can have guns; or
4. Only bad guys (and cops) can have guns.
While these four exhaust all the logical possibilities, as a practical matter only Nos. 1 and 4 are possible in the real world. Nos. 2 and 3 are so difficult to ever achieve that as a practical matter we should throw them out as possibilities. Even such places as the former Soviet Union and South Africa were not able to prevent criminals from being armed. Perhaps North Korea has effectively disarmed its citizens, but I doubt even liberals would want to live in North Korea just to realize their dreams of absolute gun control.
So as between Nos. 1 and 4, most of us would prefer that both good guys and bad guys have access to guns, as opposed to only bad guys.
Posted by Ken Willis on August 22, 2007 02:38 PMTrinity,I agree with almost everything you say.The reason I mention the AK-47 is I can show how the liberals have been brainwashed by the media and the Democrat party.If they realize that the AK-47 is no different than other semi-autos we have owned for 100 years people will realize that they have been lied to.The first step to changing your mind is when you find your sources have been lying to you.I believe the Democrats and the media are lying in much the same way about war.As you can see most of the Democrats that post are silent on this letter about guns.I believe they pick and choose what rights they feel people should have and do not care one bit about the real intent of the Constitution.This is what I wanted to expose and I think that most people will understand.
Posted by An American on August 22, 2007 03:55 PMZero Tolerence Watch:
'Student draws weapon at school, receives suspension'
Posted by KW on August 22, 2007 04:50 PMMy dad was a cop so I grew up with guns and have always been around them, I don't own one nor do I want to own one. I don't want to take anybody's away but I guess I just don't understand the wild west mentality of everybody being armed. Obviously we have not made the strides in our society to feel safe without a gun on us or in our homes. I appreciate all points of view and I think this is probably one of the most civil posts I have seen. I personally don't think guns are necessarily the problem or the answer, it is deep within our society as a whole. Those that are without want, and guns are a way to get that. Those that have want to protect and guns are a way for that as well. I do also believe an armed society does keep the government at bay, I think it would be terrifying to take all the guns away from the citizens of the US.. So here we are and I'm done rambling...
Posted by Mike D. on August 22, 2007 06:01 PMNice post Mike D. Respect your thoughts and ideas.
No I dont think we have made strides to get rid of the violence in our society. I think there are many reasons to numerous here to start breaking down. But I do not see it getting much better any time soon.
Posted by bwr on August 22, 2007 06:27 PMMike D Re your 06:01PM Post
What you concluded to be ramblings was an exceptionally insightful analysis. I believe that you very successfully summed up and defined this entire thread.
Thank you.
Posted by Trinity on August 22, 2007 06:47 PMMike D. said:
"Thanks for your insight, I agree that guns will never be removed form our society and it is very frustrating to have dialogue or interaction about guns because it isn't as black and white as most try to make it out to be."
Actually, it's mostly black. Blacks comprise of 50% of murders (and murderers) in this country even though they make up only 13% of the general population. I say this not to lambaste blacks (as some would like to believe) but to point out a specific problem that needs to be addressed.
The media would have you believe that most gun deaths are due to crazy white guys (and an Asian guy) shooting up schools. But, this is simply not the case. The situation two weeks ago when a black man shot a 7-11 clerk on 16th St. for no good reason is much more common than crazy white kids shooting up schools.
There are serious problems in our inner-city areas. Blacks and Latinos are killing each other. The media and white folks (conservative and liberals alike) do not seem to mind until the killing spills over into white neighborhoods.
We seem to have grown immune to daily violence that plagues blacks. When we had slavery, the fear was that if we freed the blacks, they would riot in streets and kill white people. But, as we know, this wasn't quite the case (although, I wonder if the blacks would have ever been freed if Mr. Lincoln was able to watch the LA riots on TV). What actually happened is that the blacks started killing each other. Over 90% of black murders are committed by black folks. How strange. We free the blacks and they proceed to kill each other.
Posted by John II on August 23, 2007 10:44 AM245 murder suspects were identified in Los Angeles in 2006. The population of Los Angeles is 50% Hispanic, 10% Black, and 40% Whites and Others, with 'others' being mostly Asian.
The breakdown of the identified murder suspects is as follows:
123 are Hispanic (50%); 25 are Whites and Others (10%); and 97 are Black (40%).
I don't know the comparable numbers for Denver. If anyone does, please post them.
Posted by Flash Gordon on August 23, 2007 10:48 PM