Very interesting article

[billvon 2,400]

>If I am ever confronted by an assailent, I intend to be
> stabbed/cut/shot and I will kill him with my car in the act or take a
> hit so I still have one good arm to F@ck him with his gun/knife/do-rag

Was anyone wondering about why we have so much violence here? See above.

[bobsled92 0]

I was taught that if you don't have the chance to get away, you will have to sacrifice getting injured at best.
My aggressive statement is basically from frustration of knowing people are victimized and so easily subdued by their attackers.
I have managed to get out of 3 situations in the last 4 years as a Phone Tech in bad sections of our City, all involving guns.
Drug task force in the City tend to pose as Phone Techs.
I do in fact prefer to leave the area rather than fall victim.

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[airtwardo 6]

Forcing a confrontation to escalate from a robbery to a gun battle only serves to polarize the situation. Than chances that someone will die in the confrontation go up. It may be the attacker, or it may not. It could be the person trying to defend their posessions.

I make the personal decision that a few belongings are not as important as my life. So far, I've never been in a situation where the only way to survive was by shooting someone. Neither have you. Chances are that neither of us ever will be, despite the fact that you are preparing for and almost welcoming the situation.

------------------------------------------------------------
Forcing a confrontation to escalate from a robbery to a gun battle???
The victim isn't 'forcing' anything! He has no idea what the perps cut off line is, robbery, murder...who knows. The bad guy is the one choosing to break the law, it seems rather dumb to hope he's only there to break it "a little".
There is no gray area here, some asshole planned, and put into motion a series of events that put an innocent citizen's life in imminent danger...
I'm glad to hear that you haven't been in that situation...I have. I have no doubt what so ever that had I not had a handgun and known how to use it, I, the young lady with me, or both would have sustained personal harm. I won't bore you with details but through no choice of my own I found myself the victim of a crime rapidly escalating from burglary...to robbery..to armed assault...I guess you would have waited to see if rape and murder were also on the menu...but I did not.
It may not be politically correct to say in our 'civilized' society, but we're still animals to an extent. Simplified, you are a sheep or a wolf...it's flight or fight.
and history is filled with examples of sheep "hoping" things will work out, 6 million of them ended up getting carried out of the showers. Many people have their lives changed forever each day because they believed it could never happen to them...and had no contingency plan if it did.
Well team, it can! I hope for your sake it never will...odds are in your favor. Many factors need to be considered if it does... if, what, and when action is to be taken for the sake of self-preservation.
Personally- take my material goods if you must, their replaceable...show an intent to harm me or my family in any way and I will fight you until one of us is dead. You are correct in that the good guy doesn't always win...but if he doesn't try, the bad guy always does! And in regard to fearing the possible legal ramifications of using deadly force to defend yourself- the harsh reality is, that law-enforcement should only be getting YOUR side of the story.
I wish it were a perfect world, I work daily toward that end...but it's not.
I would bet that Dave doesn't go around " hoping to use a gun to defend himself" any more than he jumps with a reserve hoping to use it.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I would bet that Dave doesn't go around " hoping to use a gun to defend himself" any more than he jumps with a reserve hoping to use it.

Exactly, but as with my handles, I practice practice practice...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

I would bet that Dave doesn't go around " hoping to use a gun to defend himself" any more than he jumps with a reserve hoping to use it.

Exactly, but as with my handles, I practice practice practice...

OOH RAHH Brother!

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[jfields 0]

Quote

Forcing a confrontation to escalate from a robbery to a gun battle???

Actually, yes. If you look at how many times the intent is simply to rob versus the "truly psycopathic" individuals who have premeditated killing, then it is safer to be allow yourself to be robbed. When you try to draw your weapon, you can force someone into a position of killing you so they won't be hurt themselves, even if that was not their intention.

The following are not actual proven statistics, just an illustration:

1 in 20 bad guys want to kill you, reason or not.
1 in 20 bad guys intends to rape or assault
12 in 20 bad guys want to rob you, but will definitely kill if provoked.
5 in 20 bad guys want to rob you, but wouldn't actually kill.
1 in 20 bad guys aren't actually bad, but you mistake them as such.

So, out of 20 hostile scenarios, 2 are likely to result in harm no matter what you do. Chance of passive victim being hurt/killed: 2 in 20.

Quick-Draw, the gun-owning target, sees the situations as justification to defend with deadly force. 6 bad guys would stop what they were doing without any violence. The other 14 end up in gun fights. If you win half of them, that leaves you dead 7 times in 20. If you are really good, well trained, say you win 2/3 of your fights, that still leaves you dead about 5 times in 20 encounters.

Quote

I have no doubt what so ever that had I not had a handgun and known how to use it, I, the young lady with me, or both would have sustained personal harm.

Without knowing the details of the situation, I have doubts. There are very few situations with no alternative but the use of firearms. When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Quote

Simplified, you are a sheep or a wolf...it's flight or fight.

You have neglected to look at the possibilities for flight. While not heroic, glorious, or a justification for owning cool weapons, flight works pretty well to keep you alive.

Quote

I would bet that Dave doesn't go around " hoping to use a gun to defend himself" any more than he jumps with a reserve hoping to use it.

Practicing certain actions over and over makes you more likely to repeat them when the situation arises. With skydiving emergency procedures, that is a good thing.

When it comes to rehearsing situations where you are drawing and firing your weapon, the same tendency is true. You are likely to perform the same actions, whether fully justified or not. The difference is that instead of saving your life or having an unecessary cutaway, you just shot and probably killed someone, or got yourself killed.

Quote

history is filled with examples of sheep "hoping" things will work out

History is also filled with cocky wolves scratching lions' balls.

[ernokaikkonen 0]

Quote

You have neglected to look at the possibilities for flight. While not heroic, glorious, or a justification for owning cool weapons, flight works pretty well to keep you alive.

Brave Sir Robin ran away
Bravely ran away away

When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled

Yes Brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out

Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat

Bravest of the brave Sir Robin

[jfields 0]

Erno,

Precisely!

[Guest]

Quote

It's worth following their example, I think.

Well said, Bill.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[scl 0]

Quote

Seriously, the practical reason for a RIGHT to bear arms has disappeared into history.

Even after the threat of British resistance disappeared, we might have preserved our right to CCW, but we created the need to regualte that right when we started using those firearms against fellow Americans in any situation we felt necessary.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Let's not forget that 226 years ago the militia was subject to military regulation
and could be called upon in time of emergency.

You sir, are wrong. The militia was then and still is every able-bodied man--"composed of the body of the people." Military regulation? So, like the Continental Marines came to everybody's house to make sure they were in accordance of standing regulations? Sorry. If you are making stuff up to suit your argument, please stop. If your reference material was Michael Bellesiles' book Arming America, please find another reference, because Bellesiles has been found to have been intentionally deceptive in his rewrite of American History.

On a lighter note:
Question: You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities. In your hand is a Glock .40 and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family.

What do you do?

Liberal Answer:
Well, that's not enough information to answer the question!
Does the man look poor or oppressed?
Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack?
Could we run away?
What does my wife think?
What about the kids?
Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand?
What does the law say about this situation?
Is it possible he'd be happy with just killing me?
Does he definitely want to kill me or would he just be content to wound me?
If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me?
This is all so confusing!
I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.

Conservative Answer:
BANG!

Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, he looks like he's still moving, what do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I saw it too..."
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy!

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[jfields 0]

Quote

On a lighter note:

Question: You are walking down the street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a little old lady asks you to help her across the street.

What do you do?

Liberal Answer:
Help her across the street.

Conservative Answer:
BANG! She deserves to die for being so old and weak.

Texan's Answer:
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! click... (sounds of magazine being ejected and fresh magazine installed)
Wife: "Sweetheart, looks there is a police officer coming to see what is going on. What do you kids think?"
Son: "Mom's right Dad, I see him too..."
Dad: "No problem. The NRA lobbied so I could have bullets that will pierce his vest!"
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Daughter: "Nice group, Daddy!



Gee. Sounds charming.

[mnischalke 0]

witty

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[billvon 2,400]

>Conservative Answer:
>BANG! She deserves to die for being so old and weak.

That's absurd. No conservative would claim that! They would shoot her because she turned and went into her handbag for her weapon without first declaring she was unarmed (which any reasonable little old lady would do, especially in texas!)

[Deuce 1]

You guys are brutal.

[aufreefly 0]

I recently found myself in a somewhat similar situation.

Last year I lived in Auburn, AL about 2 miles from campus. When I first looked at the condominium that I would be renting I was attracted to the low density of the units ( 4 per building) and the fact that the one that I would be renting had a private drive and trees surrounding. Next to my house there was a large section of low-rent (government) housing. I have lived in some "bad" neighborhoods in Charleston, SC and Orlando, FL and I subscribed to Andyman's notion that there was really nothing to be worried about.

I left the house one afternoon for two hours and someone climbed into my window and stole my playstation and several DVD's, this was very bold because my roomate's car was outside and my unit has three floors(one bedroom on top and bottom and living area in the middle) I called the cops and that was that.

Two weeks later I went to the DZ one weekend and returned to find that three out of the four units in my building were burglarized ( one had no tenant, nothing to steal) This time they just broke down the front door and entered to steal the rest of my DVD's 2 DVD players and various small things.

A few month's later a person in a building adjacent to mine was robbed at gunpoint.

I was told by the realtor that if I put more than the supplied deadbolt on the door I would be charged for another door when I moved.

A month later when I left for the DZ for a weekend I was burglarized again and they stole pretty much everything left of value that was in my house.

More than once these people would climb up the balcony of other apartments only to be suprised by the tenants.

Doesn't make you feel safe does it? (my roomates car was broken into twice and the neighbors were robbed at least two more times, I don't know I stopped sleeping there for the most part)

A short time later there was an incident where a resident surprised a burglar and was shot at, in their own home.

I wasn't able to sleep, I got a gun, I was able to sleep.

The criminals will (in this country) always have access to weapons, take away my right and I have a real problem with that.

I understand that it is not likely that I will ever have to use the handguns that I bought. I have a permit now and always have one with me.
But,
on the offhand chance that I do need it at least I will have a fighting chance of defending myself.
On the street I would only draw the weapon if I was ready to fire and had a clear indication that someone was going to cause me or my loved ones harm. At home it is a different matter, If someone is in my house I will ensure that the person is unknown to me and threatening and ask questions later. The person might have only wanted to burglarize me, but in my opinion they gave up their life the minute they stepped into the door.

[flyingferret 0]

Woo, I just saw a black cat and then another black cat. Was it the same black cat?

Well, these seems very similiar to another recent thread.
Therefore, I think most of this has already been discussed. As for theory the bottom line was nicely put:

Quote

The criminals will (in this country) always have access to weapons, take away my right and I have a real problem with that.

As for other matters than theory, airtwardo, just for your post, I owe you a beer if we ever jump.
mnischalke: awesome joke.

I just dont think people realize the dravity of some humans. And just like David said, they present a threat signature just as you do. You cannot even pretend that most criminals would not rather prey on the weak. In a perfect world, we would not judge..blah..blah, but we do. I ride a Harley and have had some amazingly intelligent conversations with guys that look really rough. Had I met them in different situations, I would have been very cautious. That is the key word folks, nothing about concealed carry suggests not being cautious, in fact it insists that you must be cautious. It simply give you a recourse if your cause for caution proves true.

I am still waiting to see an article about a guy who had a loved one raped or killed, and is still glad he did not have a gun. Because I tell you what, if someone displayeddeadly force against my life, or even more so, my gf's life, I would feel no reluctance to empty any ammo I had.

As for training, dangers, etc, etc. I find great irony in the fact that we are discussing this in a skydiving forum. A lot of whuffos think we are crazy and risk our life with calculating the odds. In fact I have read threads where this non-jumpers have been flamed and slammed for the ingorance when it comes to parachute safety. And yet now, you feel the same feelings toward gun owners? If you are smart/nimble enough to learn how to avoid risks in skydiving, you can be trained to shoot a gun. Are there risks? Yes, there are in both. Do you choose to save your own life? Yes, in both. Can you screw up, hurt others, kill yourself? Yes, in both. But you know that applies to life in general, and if I have an edge in a fight against a human being with no ethical convictions, I could use it. Because long before I entered their life, they almost certainly took precautions to give them an edge over not being caught.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I find great irony in the fact that we are discussing this in a skydiving forum. A lot of whuffos think we are crazy and risk our life with calculating the odds. In fact I have read threads where this non-jumpers have been flamed and slammed for the ingorance when it comes to parachute safety. And yet now, you feel the same feelings toward gun owners? If you are smart/nimble enough to learn how to avoid risks in skydiving, you can be trained to shoot a gun. Are there risks? Yes, there are in both. Do you choose to save your own life? Yes, in both. Can you screw up, hurt others, kill yourself? Yes, in both. But you know that applies to life in general, and if I have an edge in a fight against a human being with no ethical convictions, I could use it. Because long before I entered their life, they almost certainly took precautions to give them an edge over not being caught.

Beautifully put.

[flyingferret 0]

PhillyKev, thanks. I owe you a beer too.

I just saw this: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/wfaa030123_gp_dfw.4f9e887e.html

For those that dont want to register to view the news (which I refuse to do)

Quote

Two dead in North Dallas shootout
01/23/2003

By TANYA EISERER / The Dallas Morning News


A Far North Dallas resident shot and killed two would-be burglars in gated community in Far North Dallas on Thursday morning, according to police.

A 29-year-old man called 911 shortly after 9 a.m. to report hearing someone breaking in through the side door of his townhouse in the 15800 block of Knoll Trail Drive just off the Dallas North Tollway. The resident, who has not been identified, was home with his wife and children at the time.

Police Sgt. Ken Sprecher said the resident confronted a man in the living room, and the man opened fire.

The resident retreated into his bedroom, got a handgun and returned fire. The resident was shot in the shoulder and arm and was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital for treatment.

One man was dead inside the residence, and a second was found dead near a hedge outside the complex, called Kensington Square. The dead man outside was wearing a red vest, jeans and black boots and had a latex glove on one hand. Another glove lay nearby, and a handgun was lying about 15 feet away.

Police said they are looking for a possible third suspect who left the scene in a car. The dead men have not yet been identified.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Erand woman shoots would-be robber
South African Press Association
January 22, 2003

JOHANNESBURG Jan 22 Sapa - A 35-year-old woman shot and injured a man who apparently tried to rob her of her vehicle when she stopped at a petrol station along the R554 in Dawn Park on Wednesday, East Rand police said.

Captain Thobile Xakeka said: "While waiting for the petrol attendant the woman spotted two men standing next to the entrance of the garage shop. They started walking towards her.

"The woman alleged that one of the men pointed a firearm at her and ordered her to alight from her vehicle."

Xakeka said the woman drew her firearm and shot the man injuring him in the left shoulder. The other man fled.

Police seized a firearm which was found lying next to the injured man. He was admitted to a local hospital under police guard.

No one else was injured during the incident.

Quote

B'klyn dad under the gun after shooting intruder
New York Daily News
CITY FINAL ; NEWS ; 3
January 19, 2003

Byline: PATRICE O'SHAUGHNESSY; DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Ronald Dixon froze in fear when he saw an intruder enter his toddler son's bedroom, and his heart pounded wildly after he fired two shots in a confrontation with the stranger. Upset that he might have taken a life, Dixon shook as the wounded man lay in his driveway.

The encounter was only the beginning of an emotional upheaval for the soft-spoken Brooklyn computer engineer.

A month later, Dixon's feelings still swing from relief when he smiles at his son, to terror about what could have happened, to dread about possibly serving time because he used an unlicensed gun.

"The only thing I could think about was my family - there was no telling what he would do to my children or girlfriend," Dixon said in an interview last week.

"If I have to go to jail on the weekends, I couldn't work," he added, his voice cracking. "I couldn't pay my mortgage."

On Dec. 14, Dixon shot a career burglar who allegedly broke into his Canarsie house. Dixon used a 9-mm. pistol legally purchased in Florida that he says he was in the process of registering here. Long criminal record Ivan Thompson, 40, who has a 14-page rap sheet for burglary and larceny, was wounded in the chest and groin. He is being held on $75,000 bail in a mental observation unit on Rikers Island, charged with burglary and criminal trespass.

Dixon, who holds two computer jobs, was charged with misdemeanor gun possession, and the Brooklyn district attorney offered him a plea bargain that would require four weekends on Rikers.

But Dixon's lawyer said any amount of time behind bars is unacceptable.

"Mr. Dixon is clearly a victim, and his family continues to suffer from what happened, " said the lawyer, Andrew Friedman. "If necessary, we'll let a jury of his peers decide."

Dixon could get up to a year in jail if convicted.

District Attorney Charles Hynes is in the difficult position of prosecuting a hardworking, law-abiding Navy veteran for defending his family and home.

But there were 486 shootings in Brooklyn last year, and the borough remains awash in illegal firearms. A spokesman said Hynes cannot condone the use of an unlicensed gun.

"That doesn't mean the prosecution should go full steam ahead," said Friedman. "There has to be some common sense involved."

Dixon, 27, clutched a balled-up tissue, and his eyes filled at nearly every mention of his son, Kyle, who will turn 2 years old next month, and daughter, Brittany, 8.

"I work seven days a week. I have been doing it for three years, because I wanted a safe haven for my family," he said.

"Sometimes the kids are asleep by the time I get home, and they go to the baby-sitter and school before I get up. The great part is Mondays and Wednesdays, I pick them up at the baby-sitter's - my girlfriend goes to school - and I spend time with them."

Served in Navy Dixon came to the U.S. from Jamaica after graduating high school and served in the Navy from 1994 to 1997, in weapons ordnance.

He works as a network engineer at Carnegie Hall, Monday to Friday, and on weekends at a Wall Street financial firm.

He and his girlfriend, Tricia Best, and their children moved into the brick house in Canarsie in June.

"It was a very quiet neighborhood - maybe too quiet," Dixon said.

At 7:30 a.m. on a Saturday five weeks ago, Dixon was home in bed because he had called in sick. It was almost time for Kyle to wake up and run down the hall to his parents' room to watch his "Barney" video.

"I was supposed to be at work the night before, and would have gotten home about noon, " Dixon recalled. "I was not totally asleep, and I heard a squeak in the floorboard. I opened my eyes and see a person snooping around, peeping around outside my bedroom.

"The only thing I could think of was my family. I didn't want to move, until he went to my son's room, and he went in."

Dixon said Best called 911, and he got his weapon from a closet and slowly crept up to the room. He said he saw Thompson rifling through dresser drawers.

"I went in . . . I looked in his face, I didn't know this guy, I was so shocked . . . In a nervous voice I said, 'What are you doing in my house?' and he ran toward me, yelling, 'Come upstairs!' like there were other people with him. I shot him 'cause I thought more people were in the house." Shots and screams Dixon continued, "He ran to me, I shot him and he fell down the stairs. My daughter started screaming - she had thought I got shot. My son was not in his room, he had been sleeping in my daughter's bed."

After the police arrived, Dixon looked outside.

"I saw him lying there, I saw him looking at me, I was nervous, shaking. I've never been in any type of trouble. I only fired a gun in Navy training.

"I very much felt bad that he got hurt. I was worried if he died. I wasn't hoping for that."

Dixon was taken to the 69th Precinct, and then sped through Central Booking.

"Everyone I came across was sympathetic," he said. "The court officer said he would have done the same thing."

He found out that the intruder, Thompson, has a long record of break-ins and burglaries.

"This guy was allowed to roam the streets. At what stage am I protected?" Dixon said. Fearful at home He said the thought of someone invading his home still terrifies him and his children.

"When I'm in the house, I'm still looking behind me to see if someone's there, " he said. "My children are not comfortable being downstairs by themselves."

He shook his head and said that all he ever wanted was just a good life, and he thought buying the house was the first step.

"I wanted to give my kids a sense of warmth and stability," Dixon said. "I thought that house would give me a safe haven. Now I'm thinking if I didn't buy this house this never would have happened."

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[lowpullin1 0]

i totally believe in a person's right to own a gun. shotgun, handgun, whatever. taking our guns away is exactly what the government wants, them we have no means of resistence.

"It's hard to fly with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys."
My Website

[mnischalke 0]

I found this interesting. Yes, I know it is a commentary, but the figures aren't opionion.

Quote

COMMENTARY: Maryland Firing Blanks
Washington Post
Final ; Page B08
January 19, 2003
David Muhlhausen; Heritage Foundation


Gun-control advocates weren't happy to see Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. win the Maryland governorship. But are gun-control laws really effective at reducing violent crime?

Compare Maryland's record with Virginia's. Other than a one-handgun-per-month purchase law, the two states have little in common on gun control. Gun-control measures in Maryland include:

* A ban on the cheap handguns known as Saturday night specials (1988).

* A waiting period for the purchase of assault weapons (1989).

* Background checks and waiting periods for purchases at gun shows (1993).

* A ban on certain "assault" pistols (1994).

* A ban on "straw purchases," in which a buyer acquires a gun to give to
someone else (1996).

* A requirement that gunmakers provide a spent shell casing from each handgun sold in the state to provide law enforcement with ballistic "fingerprints"
(2000).

* A requirement that all newly manufactured handguns sold in the state have a built-in trigger lock (2003).

So are Marylanders a lot safer than Virginians? Quite the opposite.

FBI data show that in 2000 (the most recent year for which figures are available), on a per capita basis Maryland ranked third in murders and first in robberies among the states, while Virginia ranked 15th in murders and 27th in robberies. Maryland had a firearm-related murder rate of 5.9 per 100,000 residents, while Virginia's rate was almost 70 percent lower, at 1.8 incidents per 100,000 residents.

Maryland also doesn't stack up well nationally. Its firearm murder rate in 2000 was nearly double (190 percent) the national rate, while Virginia's rate was 42 percent below the national rate.

What has Virginia done that has made its residents safer than Marylanders -- other than not passing "progressive" gun laws? In 1995 it enacted a law that allows law-abiding residents to carry concealed firearms. After an initial increase in the rate of firearm-related homicides, by 2000 Virginia's firearm-related homicide rate declined by 22 percent.

It's a pattern borne out nationwide, according to John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute. His research shows that states that have adopted concealed-handgun laws have experienced sharp declines in every type of violent crime: murders, rapes, aggravated assaults, robberies.

No one is claiming that the difference between the crime rates in Maryland and Virginia can be attributed solely to their differing gun laws, but clearly these laws -- or the lack thereof -- have played a role and probably a significant one.

The primary flaw in Maryland's approach is that those determined to harm innocent people are the ones least likely to obey gun-control laws. Instead, these measures disarm law-abiding residents, making them more likely to become victims. Why make it easier on criminals?

* David Muhlhausen; is a policy analyst specializing in criminal justice in the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[billvon 2,400]

>I am still waiting to see an article about a guy who had a loved
>one raped or killed, and is still glad he did not have a gun.

I'll do you one better - a man who had a loved one killed who wished he had not had a gun.

---------------------------------------

A 37-year-old State College man was bound over for trial yesterday on charges of shooting and killing his 33-year-old wife, Amy, last week.

. . .

"The gun went off. I didn't want to do it," McGee said on the tape.

. . .

The night her daughter was shot, (the victim's mother said) McGee had been drinking. She also said he's had a drinking problem as long as her daughter had been married to him.

"His eyes were so heavy he couldn't keep them open," she said. "Just knowing him, when he is drinking and when he isn't drinking, you can tell in his voice."

[PhillyKev 0]

That's a horrible tragedy. But maybe you shouldn't be knowingly hanging around someone with a drinking problem and a loaded gun. I'm sure there are lots of wives who have died because they were riding with their drunk husbands driving the car. Better ban cars now.

[billvon 2,400]

>But maybe you shouldn't be knowingly hanging around someone with
>a drinking problem and a loaded gun.

Of course! That's a much better solution. But another good solution is to get a better door and lock so you don't find intruders in your living room, rather than spending your energy discussing the type of round that will blow his head clear off.

Someone previously asked for an example of someone who had a loved one killed who didn't wish for a gun. With a ten second search I found a dozen loved ones who had been shot by the gun owner. One killed his own son. Another shot his friend during a poker game; he meant to just scare him. Another shot his 13-year-old sister while playing with a rifle. Another was cleaning his handgun when it discharged, striking his wife in the face and killing her.

Could all of these been avoided? Of course. Were they? No. Did any of those people consider themselves inept gun owners, who got up that morning and thought "I think I may accidentally kill my son today!" Betcha they didn't.

They are all examples of how gun ownership carries a considerable amount of risk. Gun ownership also, of course, grants the user additional protection when circumstances are right.

>Better ban cars now.

The standard gun-rights reply. "Oh, why not ban parachutes." No one is talking about banning guns; maybe you could find a different snappy reply?