A few years ago in Miami there was a rash of people driving rental cars being assaulted. All the major rental cars took their names off cars so thugs wouldn't know they were rentals. Why? Because Fl. had just passed CC and thugs didn't know who was carrying a weapon, except for the people in rental cars. Residents of Fl. became too risky to bother. Tourists who flew down were known to be unarmed in all likelihood. Still think CC doesn't work?

i carry everywhere i legally can. Which in PA is almost everywhere.

Why I have to "Check my gun at the door" when i cross the bridge to the former "murder capital" Camden NJ blows my mind

we need national CCW reciprocity now!

The liberals want to take away our right to bear arms so they can to keep us from being able to overthrow their new fascist/socialist government. And by the way, if a criminal is shot while committing a crime, why should their family be allowed to sue? What happened to the rights of victims? What happened to the right to be somewhere without someone trying to rob you with a gun?

I seriously think it should be extended towards protecting your property from being stolen as well. Not just protecting your home. How many of you out there would want to put a round or two, or three on some thug breaking into your car in a mall parking lot?

CC permit holders do help. In Utah a couple of years ago when a immigrant went on a shooting rampage in a mall (it was later learned that his parents were trained terrorists) shooter was pinned down by an off duty officer carrying his concealed weapon until the swat team arrived and took him out. This story made national news. What the news did not tell you was that there were actually 4 people keeping this guy from getting up and shooting more people. 3 other civilian CC holders all drew down on this kid and kept him pinned down. If they had not been there there is no doubt in my mind this guy would have killed several more innocent people. One of the reasons I love living in Utah is that I know that even if I forget and leave my gun home I know my friend next to me is packing his. Should trouble arise we are at least prepared to defend ourselves and others. Of course the irony of the situation is that trouble never does arise because everybody is packing. I love it.

So Helms friends couldn't sue? Too damn bad, he shouldn't have been committing an ARMED robbery. Whatever happened to the rights of law abiding citizens?

And I'm sorry JW. I'm pro gun, but I don't think that makes me a bad person. I carry because I'm responsible and know how to use it and am trained, and you are not.

Liberals are the first to scream for help when they can't or won't protect themselves. I'm sorry, I'm not liberal, I don't believe all people are good.

JW... "They are anti-abortion and pro guns, doesn't make much sense." You are trying to equate what some consider an innocent child with an adult criminal. you realize what you said is utter nonsense right?

To make a statment is one thing, but also, lets be rational. To say this;

“I think a lot of senators did not understand that if Florida gives someone a concealed-carry permit and they have a criminal record a mile long, you’ve got to let them carry in your state,” Rand said.

Is to say there is no policy in the CC law, that "anyone" can walk in without a BG check, no waiting period, and just obtain a fire arm. That is not true. EVERY state, does a background check. Remember, these permits, at not just handed out, because you filled out a form. They are handed out after you have been found to have no prior CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS. So there is a huge diffrence, in what the above statment says, as they have been said, vs what is true. Kind of like when Nobama made that poor old woman who wasn't sure how her medical bills were going to be paid, a poster child for his HCR. Fact was, she was eligable to have her medical bills taken care of, with no worry about having to loose her home. That however is how these things are played out to win everyones vote for something, if it isn't the pity card, it's the race card.

Take me also for instance. I don't own a firearm, yet, if i wish to hunt, or if there ever is a time i feel that i am not going to be safe, and a weapon of choice would make me feel more safe, i have an option to obtain one, for my home personal use. I personally am ok with that, for the area i live in. Yet, if i were to move to let's say Milwaukee Wisc., well then i would be more apt to want to carry for my own, if not other's personal protection. I'm not sure if any are familiar with Milw., but at night it is common to hear a gunshot or more going off in the night. Pending what area i was working in at the time, you would see gang bangers driving around. Not just 1 car of them, but several, and every day. Doing their own turf patrols, and such. Quite honestly, the only time i felt safe was when i was in my workplace, and out of the Milw. area. You need $, you gotta work, and should be able to defend yourself, some what. Maybe my chances of surviving a gang type assault are slim if i was armed, but would be much slimmer if unarmed. The odds also increase the person(s) who did the assaulting would improve as well to them being caught...in a theory, leaving behind a bigger print other than just 1 bullet in my own head.

JW.

Get your facts straight.

Here is the makeup of the last three Congresses.

At the end of the 109th Congress, there were 49 republicans, 49 democrats and 2 independents in the Senate, and 202 republicans and 233 democrats in the house.

The democrats controlled the House. The Senate is a toss up.

At the end of the 110th Congress, there were 49 republicans, 48 democrats, 2 independents and a vacancy in the Senate, and 192 republicans and 235 democrats (and the remainder were vacant).

Again, the democrats controlled the House. The Senate is a toss up.

Now, in the 111th Congress, there are 41 republicans, 57 democrats and 2 independents in the Senate, and 178 republicans and 254 democrats in the house.

Democrats control both bodies of Congress now.

Yes, JW, facts are terrible things.

During my life I have been the victim of a brutal beating by a gang and an attempted armed robbery. That was years ago and I still carry the results of those encounters in scars. Relatives and friends of mine have also had similar attempts made on them. All of these happened before there were concealed carry permits being issued. Being on the bad side of these situations teaches you some important lessons. The chances of the police getting to the scene before it's to late is slim at best. I've talked with and have been trained by some fine officers and they will tell you that it takes time to get to a call, time that can leave you at the mercy of someone who has no respect for you or anything else. People passing by on these occassions will seldom do anything to help, including calling the police. Anything that gives these criminals pause before they attempt to accost someone is a determent since they are basically cowards who would never engage in their chosen profession if they knew they might get back what they are dealing out. The majority of us who do carry aren't looking for a gunfight, we realize we aren't the police and are not of the vigilantee mindset. We just want to get home safely each night. Lesson learned....there are people out there who will do you harm and think nothing of it. People who will kill you for the money in your pocket. Gangsters, drugged out idiots and professional criminals. They are out there and the laws seem to protect them more than their victims. I will protect myself and my loved ones if it ever comes down to that and pray to god that it never happens, but my experience tells me it can happen to anyone at anytime, especially when you least expect it.

As a resident of WI. I'm dumbfounded this state doesn't allow CC, especially since Deer hunting is almost considered a right. Dumb ass politicians here.

orbust - I'd be one who would not want to shoot some thief over stealing a pair of shoes out of, say, my car at the mall lot. We have a gun at home, but do not have a handgun. Some of my relatives are licensed to conceal and carry a handgun, and I've thought about it. Perhaps all Americans should, just in case some whacko militia tries to overtake our gov't. (jk - sort of.)

JW: - Republicans are funny quirky people. They are anti-abortion and pro guns, doesn't make much sense

Nothing quirky at all, You do realize the difference between Innocence and Criminal behavior don't you?

If we could stop the demand for drugs in this country, it would solve many problems, including people getting shot to death because of their need to support a drug habit. This is a very slippery slope we are on.

In Colorado, it's now legal to carry weapons into our national parks. A group of us had gone out one Saturday and picked up 1,280 shell casings. The targets were trees. No doubt many innocent creatures had lost their lives as well.

What makes people think it's about politics, I think like a democrat but I'm an NRA member and will soon be a CC so what has politics have to do with it ......

Buy a weapon ? ? ? NO . Why ? I just need my hands and nothing else.

Republicans are funny quirky people. They are anti-abortion and pro guns, doesn't make much sense. But then again they rail against this health care bill, and say they are for health care reform, if this is the case then why when you had control of the white house and congress for 6 of the last 9 years did you sit on your thumbs, pathetic?

Democrats are funny quirke people. They are pro abortion (killing innocent humans) and against guns (defending yourself against criminals.) They say they are for health care reform, but instead pass a bill that requires you to buy insurance but doesn't actually improve care, pathetic.

Do you see how stupid it sounds when you generalize?

"I get it now. I thought "protecting life" meant all life, but apparently you want to protect only the small ones. Thanks for the correction. (bozo)"

Tell you what. We can save both. I'll help the small innocent ones and you can take the big criminal ones that like to point guns at people. How's that?

good one RV

wcritiquing

Yep, heard that one before, in the old days now days that macho sh_t don't work, it's not about who's tuff-er ...... better hope you don't run into a gang of girl scouts ... LOL LOL LOL

"Is to say there is no policy in the CC law, that "anyone" can walk in without a BG check, no waiting period, and just obtain a fire arm. That is not true. EVERY state, does a background check"

.....First, I support the 2nd amendment, and I own 3 rifles. I oppose gun restriction, but not effective and reasonable gun control, they are two different things, i.e., we should not allow just anybody to be able to purchase a dangerous weapon. Several months ago, NY AG Cuomo sent out some teams of people to various gun shows to buy weapons. When asked by sellers to do BG checks, some said they didn't want to, others said they didn't think they could pass, yet they were sold the weapons anyway. Sorry, but I find that troubling. Also, when I see the way some people drive on our expressways, freeways and tollways, in very aggressive, irresponsible ways, cutting people off or tailgating, it bothers me that these same people might be carrying. Unfortunately, there is no BG check that can determine the psychological makeup of an individual, so I find it a bit uneasy not knowing what kind of people in my proximity might be armed, i.e., I don't trust people. Again, I am not anti-gun, I am an owner myself, but I am all for common sense.

1) Gun owner

2) Victim

Please select one.

HereAndGone, I believe in protecting MY life over the gangbanger thats waving a pistol around for a few bucks.

gun permits/ concealment/ licensing mean Nothing..when a desperado needs one, he/she will find one..then you could better believe there are networks/ organizations out there, that are supportive against a foul ill-fated social outcome..it's true; when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns..

Corley fired once into the robber's abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.

Good on Corley...one less POS stealing, beating, and robbing other innocent folks. One less POS on welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, etc. One less POS who produces illegitimate kids like popcorn (who grow up to be just like "daddy")...This needs to happen again and again...a thousand fold! If the police and courts won't do the job, it's up to the law abiding citizens to take back our streets. Actually, here in Idaho, our police do a pretty good job silencing the POS's!

HereAndGone: Tell you what. We can save both. I'll help the small innocent ones and you can take the big criminal ones that like to point guns at people. How's that?

Since you asked, firstly, life does not begin in the womb or at birth, it always was. Then, we don't get to choose whom to protect, we all need to protect each other--and not with guns.

Mozzie...

You can protect whoever you want with words...I'll use a gun.

Guess who offers more protection?

Fire a warning shot, assess the situation, call 911, try something before taking the kill shot.

Aside from practice, the ONLY shots out of a handgun (when involving other people) should be a kill shot. Warning shots are unacceptable, and in most cases (if I'm not mistaken) are illegal. Think about it... If you have time to fire a warning shot, you life isn't in danger. Pulling a firearm and shooting at nothing in particular when your life isn't in danger is a big no no. The steps should be: Assess the situation... If a life is in danger then pull the trigger. If it isn't, decide on some other course of action.

I am for carry concealed permits, with training and background checks. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away...

I've had it with all you coffee sipping, lib homos. if I can pass a background check, wait, there's a noise by the front door, just let me blow a few rounds thru the door... oh, it's the mailman, well he shoulda thought about that before he came onto MY PROPERTY! he probably has terrorist links anyway. where was I? oh yeah, background check and take a course... hold on, could swear i heard... ok, so I just shot one of the neighbor kids, well he should keep his ball out of MY YARD! little bastard had it coming! so if i take a few hours of training, I'll be able to roll over the hood of my car and blast all kinds of criminals while you lib homos wet your pants. for the love of, who's at the door? someone disguised at a police officer, not falling for that one...

wcritiquing - First, I wasn't actually saying that about democrats. I was actually saying that people sound stupid when they try to generalize.

Second, if you are going to pick on republicans for the war in Iraq, be sure to pick on the democrats who voted for it too!

The article states that the felon’s friends and relatives were left to mourn barred from filing a civil suit by the state’s castle doctrine.

This thug was in the act of committing an armed robbery when he was dispatched. I find it incredible that a civil suit can be contemplated, but never underestimate the ingenuity of a sleazy lawyer.

Drowning...

Just look at the statistics...'nuff said!

wcritiquing - "The problem is, while you say to be PRO-LIFE, republicans have not problem in KILLING INNOCENTS in Iraq. Put aside the fact that everyone know 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq because 9/11 attackers where from Saudi Arabia.

Why is different from abortion?"

If you don't understand the blatantly obvious difference, it will not do any good for anyone to try and explain it to you.

This thug was in the act of committing an armed robbery when he was dispatched.

It's interesting, words that killers use to distract us from the violent process of taking a life (human and animal): dispatched, harvested, put to sleep, euthanized--some of my favorites. They must think somehow it makes their activity socially acceptable. I wonder what they are afraid of.

"huy RV. I knew it. Even if Democrats vote against the bill and the TRILLIONS IN BLANK CHECKS for the corporations/warmongers, it would mean NOTHING.

Did you forget WHO WAS PLAYING OUR nationalism like a violin ?"

Were they playing it in 1998 and 1999? You didn't click on the link and actually read it otherwise you would not have made that comment.

Which bill are you referring to by the way?

BACK ON TOPIC. I understand keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, but taking them away from law abiding gun owners isn't the way to do it.

Criminals will always have the freedom to illegally carry a gun anytime.

Why shouldn't law abiding citizens be able to legally carry a gun?

jkrush

The liberals want to take away our right to bear arms so they can to keep us from being able to overthrow their new fascist/socialist government.

Legally elected government. Just because you don't like who is in power does not mean you have the right to go around shooting anyone. This administration has been no more socialist than the last. Bush expanded government and was spreading the wealth. He just took from the middle class and gave to the wealthy. If "socialism" bothered you so much where was your gun and your idea back then?

I do hope you don't plan on collecting any Medicare. That is a socialist program.

Here's a web definition for you of fascism

Fascism, , is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum. ...

Bush is the one that started spying on you and was handing out corporate favors left and right. He spent us into oblivion with no consideration for how to lay for any of it. Bush was the one who tried circumventing the Constitution to fit his radical corporatist attitude. After all he needed to figure out how to justify his war profiteering. Although, I believe Cheney was the true evil behind it all and Bush was more a puppet.

And by the way, if a criminal is shot while committing a crime, why should their family be allowed to sue? What happened to the rights of victims? What happened to the right to be somewhere without someone trying to rob you with a gun?

I totally agree with this. I can't believe anyone would even think of trying to sue after someone in their family terrorizes other people and tries to rob them. Makes it real obvious why their family member was out trying to rob people at gun point. Absolutely no regard for anyone else, no respect for laws and a "take what I want even if I am wrong attitude". People like this make me sick.

Knowing anyone could be packing makes a lot more people honest! You still have to worry about the real "crazy" people but the ones that just think they are crazy seem to snap out of it when CC is involved.

Besides, God is a woman.

that explains why She doesn't listen to me.

After I stopped laughing, I wondered why the shooter needed to use so many bullets. The gut shot was more than a debilitating surprise. But then, if homicide was the intent to keep the wanna be perp from being a drag on society, oh well.

I don't carry a gun because it's illegal where I live. I'm too wimpy but I'll get over it if everybody around me is carrying.

Wild, wild west: bring it on.

I understand the attitude and in some cases, the neccesity, but I guess it sadens me that that so much of the population of the greatest country in the world feels unsecure enough to have to arm themselves against each other. It makes me feel like I'm living in a third world nation.

I would like to see advocacy groups support more research so at least some good information can be developed about the effects of carry laws. Then people can decide and vote of the basis offact rather than the continual rhetoric spouted by both sides. I think expoiting unreasonable fears to sell more guns is reprehensible, but I believe responsible individuals with no criminal history should be able to obtain permits to carry.

I just think that access to firearms changes so many things. When I was young we would get into altrications or fights on occasion and the worst that would happen is we would beat the crap out of each other, now if a dispute occurs all to often a weapon is drawn and someone dies. I just don't know if the increase of gun ownership is an effect of a decaying society or one of the causes.

I have way more liberal leanings than I do anything else, but I also conceal carry a firearm at all times. After a gentleman tried to stick me in the throat with a knife at a stop light because he felt like I cut him off and my kids were with me, I will never be caught unprepared again.

If you threaten my life or, more importantly, the life/well being of my family, I will kill you. I will not take the chance that you will get out of jail to have another shot at me or my family. I will feel bad that I have had to take a life, but I will not hesitate to defend that which is precious to me.

Those of you who are so high and mighty about guns, about how we're cowboys or rednecks, ask yourself what lengths you'll go to to protect your family. Are you really going to let someone hurt you or yours because you feel it wrong to take a life. If you carry legally then you have been tested on the laws of when deadly force is acceptable. The people who carry concealed don't wave their guns around, and 99% of the time we're not the ones that are instigating road rage attacks or other idiocy.

Since my incident, I have yet to have to draw my weapon thank god, but like I tell everyone:

"I would MUCH rather have a gun on me and not need it, than to need my gun and not have it!!!"

JW....you're a schmuck. Where is the logic in your statement. If I take what you said..."They are anti-abortion and pro guns, doesn't make much sense"...I would have to say you shouldn't understand it as you are not capable. I will explain though.

Abortion, which I, as a Republican agree with in certain cases such as rape, is the killing of an innocent life. Being pro gun is a right that our forefathers gave to us. The two as you can see have nothing to do with each other.

I won't explain why I believe abortion is OK in a rape situation, but not an "I don't want to get pregnant yet" situation. This should be self explanatory.

Additionally, if you are sitting in a chair watching TV and you hear a window break, I hope you're local police department has a transporter so that after the 20 or 30 seconds it takes you to dial 911 and get an operator, they can beam a cop over to your house in time to stop the criminal from killing you. Maybe you could just throw the phone at him and get a lucky disabling blow.

Most people won't even dial 911 when they hear something. They get up and go look 1st. That is what I do, but I'm packing, so there is no need for 911 until that criminal is ready for the meat wagon.

Anti gunners are not really scared of the other guy , although they say they are. They really fear what they would do with a gun...accidentally kill there wife or kid or maybe they will commit suicide on a really bad day. But if there is no gun, this won't happen. How does it feel to run through life with your tale between your legs?

Hey, Kristen Rand ----- The article mentioned that the family and "friends" of the robber are barred BY LAW from filing a civil lawsuit in the death of the cretin, Mr. Helms. If anything, those who were present at the scene of the robbery should be able to file claims against the estate of Mr. helms for extreme mental anguish when confronted by SHEER TERROR of a thug showing a pistol and DEMANDING their valuables. Personally, I would be all for an establishment like the NRA to reward to any and all who confront AND KILL these mongrels of society with a cash reward and a plaque for achievement, that is, permanently removing a menace from society. Kudos to the shooter. Shame on the family and friends of the low life would be robber. An attempted robbery resulted in the removal (death) of an unwanted parasite. No arrest. No trial. No expensive incarceration. An outcome such as this should be on the FRONT PAGE of every newspaper and be a lead story for every news organization. This country needs to be rid of this type of human trash by any means possible and in a most expeditious manner.

Yes, national CCW reciprocity now!
I have a CC permit and it's good for life. I never have to suck up to some bloated bureaucrat ever again.

Liberals hate "America", but love "Amerika", Komrade.

Problem is - gun-toter haters won't know when crimes are thwarted because of the presence of legal toters around them. They'll live to hate until one of us saves them when a criminal doesn't think to look first before striking! Example: Why don't crimes happen when cops are cruising around in their highly visible cars and uniforms??

Count me in! Just got my CCW permit the other day. The way things are going in the country I may need to use it sooner rather than later.

A brief thought on someone's comment on the wild west. Looking back at those times they weren't as bad as they are made out to be. Not everybody walked around with a six shooter strapped on. People were more polite and honor actually meant something. I for one wouldn't mind if things went towards that direction.

DrowningGrover

I'm not against gun ownership, but to be fair, Kennesaw (Gun Town, where citizens are required to own a gun) has a population of ~5,000 people. What works in a community that size may not necessarily work in the community of, say, New York City where there are infinitely more people.

Switzerland would be another example, much larger where all are armed, with much more than we have here, and where there is little to no gun violence. It's about people's value of innocent life more so that their carrying of a plastic or metal tool. If you don't care about a human life, you're going to be more apt to kill them than if you are carrying two rocket launchers and actually care about people.

Fire a warning shot.

You NEVER do that. Reason - you are legally responsible for every round that comes out of the weapon you fire, regardless your intent. If you shoot up...it has to come down. You shoot down, it can bounce. You pull your weapon and alert the attacker of intent (if the ability allows it - in a life/death decision, you don't hesitate) but even THEN, if the bullet goes through the person and hits another one behind them, the shooter is STILL legally responsible for it and the damage that it did.

If I were a judge, and you came before me having shot and killed a 15 year old unarmed "thug" trying to rob your car stereo on a bet from his stupid high school friends.

Depends on the situation completely. If you are in your home and someone is stealing your car stereo, your life is not in jeopardy and you cannot shoot. If you are parked and walking to the other side of the car to get your child out of the back car seat and they jump in the drivers seat, now you have a situation where you can pull (as your child's life may be in jeopardy). If they refuse to stop what their doing and you fire...it will go to court and the judge/jury will have to determine if you felt your child's life was in jeopardy at the time. It's never that black/white.

After I stopped laughing, I wondered why the shooter needed to use so many bullets. The gut shot was more than a debilitating surprise.

Personally, I was surprised he didn't drop after three. All three would be best placed in the upper torso, but with nerves and a less than ideal situation for marksmanship, I can understand what happened. The guy was still a threat after the first shot, and could have easily pulled the trigger, even with a .32 in the gut.

I know I feel safer when I can protect myself. It's still a jungle out there so don't kid yourselves. "It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need it and not have it." (from True Romance)

Buy a weapon ? ? ? NO . Why ? I just need my hands and nothing else.
I have 10 years living in South Side Chicago. well, probably you are trying to said it because the wild beast you live with...I mean your wife!

Buy a weapon ? ? ? NO . Why ? I just need my hands and nothing else.

I have 10 years living in South Side Chicago. well, probably you are trying to said it because the wild beast you live with...I mean your wife!

No offense, but what does living in South Chicago have to do with anything? I guess if you are alone in life, then yes, you are able to try to defend yourself to the best of your ability with your bare hands...and that's great for you - it's the same belief that I had when I was alone as well.

But then when I had kids, something hit me. If someone has broken into my home and my child from across the room...what does being tough, knowing martial arts, or having grown up in Chicago have to do with the situation - answer...not a thing.

That's when I got my CWP and my couple guns. When there are others that are depending on you for their protection - then you will understand.

As I've said before...I hope and pray that I never have to pull and/or use my weapon, but the fact is, if someone cares less about my life or the life of my family beyond what they were able to take from my wallet, I will use it without hesitation or remorse.

DrowningGrover,

I am a gun owner and retired law enforcement officer so it may come as somewhat of a shock to you that I agree with "most" of your post.

The part I don't agree with is the "fire a warning shot" if you see thugs breaking into your car in the mall. Fire a warning shot where? Into the air? The bullet has to come back to ground somewhere. Into the ground? Most parking lots are paved and there is the danger of a ricochet and you never know where that round will go either. Bottom line is this and this is something most civilians do not know. Regardless of what some state laws may say about it, you do not have the right to use deadly force to defend your property alone. The U.S. Supreme court has said in

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)

that even you do not have the right to shoot someone unless a reasonable person would believe that if left at large, that person poses a serious risk to the lives of innocent people or they are threatening/attacking you using deadly force.

What this means to both law enforcement and the average person is that deadly force (like shooting someone) can not be used on the car thief that wants your stereo or even your car unless they use deadly force to commit the crime. If the armed citizen yells at them to stop and they come at him/her with a baseball bat, gun in hand, knife or other instrument that is likely to inflict great bodily harm or death then the person with the gun has the right to defend his or herself.

Bottom line is the only warning shot that should ever be fired is the one that unintentionally misses it's intended target. Warning shots are for TV and have no place in real life. I had to use my firearm twice in the 26 years I was a law enforcement officer. I do not regret doing so and would do it again. I am legal to carry in all 50 states and do carry my firearm most everywhere I go. I do so not with the hope that I will one day have to use it, but with the hope that will never again have a criminal put me in the situation to have to choose between him or me or some other innocent person. However that being said I carry my firearm safe and secure that I not only know how, but when to use it. I agree that there are just some people that although they can legally own and carry a firearm, should not be allowed to do so. Unfortunately the laws are made by people and people are not perfect. I know of no way to weed out the bad apples until they reveal themselves in one way or another. I am sure however that there are far more responsible gun owners and people with CCW permits than irresponsible people. Just be glad there are those responsible people around to take care of the irresponsible ones when they step over the line.

Personally I feel gun ownership and CCW permits are like health care: No one should be forced into it and it should be and individual decision left up to each person who can legally own a firearm to either purchase one or not. But that is just my opinion. I do know that where I live most everyone owns a gun and the crime rate is very low and has been for many, many years. Oh yes criminals do come here and gangs do try to form. But for some reason they never stay long.

I am not in favor of no permit requirement. i do want the mentally unstable, those prone to violent outbursts, and the criminals to be banned from legally carrying. Other than that I do not think there should be much limitation to carry. I would like to see strong encouragement for regular "training" in both the use and the legal constraints. Especially in any changes to the laws of the State. The owner must be competent with the weapon and the rules regulating its lawful use. (A well regulated militia). Another big part of responsible use is knowing when it is better to leave it concealed and holstered.

I am in complete favor of removing the right from anyone that shows irresponsible behavior with the weapon, long before an injury occurs if possible. Most legitimate gun owners take this very seriously, deadly seriously. It is the criminal and the mentally unstable that need to be restricted.

Folks are getting ready for the next civil war that we be coming soon enough.

That kind of statement ought to scare the crap out of almost everybody. These right wingnut teabaggers are making some very public statements with violent analogies. They talk like they are bringing on a an armed civil war, and rational people need to make sure they get scrutinized by the media so everyone knows what they are doing.

Mozzie-6, I've wrestled with the abortion issue for over forty years and still haven't come to a conclusion on the topic. However, it's easy enough to comprehend the pro-life argument as being one of advocacy for the innocent unborn. In the case of something like carrying a concealed weapon to protect yourself or others or in the case of whether to employ the death penalty, the issue is the value, if any, of the life of someone who intentionally presents an immediate danger to the lives or safety of others or of a convicted murderer. Surely, even you can fathom the stark contrast between what many feel is a life unblemished versus some scum whose dispatch to the nether regions would been a boon to all concerned.

Get your bra off your eyes and down where it belongs, and you'll perceive the difference here. Not all life under all circumstances needs to be or even should be protected. Some, by volitional conduct dangerous to others, forefeit their right to life. So sayeth the common and statutory laws for centuries, right up to the present in all 50 states (not one exception, sport).

I was with you until the healthcare analogy. That was very scum of you!

Mozzie6: I fixed that for you.

This thug was in the act of committing an armed robbery when he was killed.

Which was good for the country and justice for him. Since when is he the victim?

Topic Numb,

Sigmund Freud (1952) 'General Introduction to Psychoanalysis' - "Fear and loathing of weapons is associated with retarded sexual and emotional development."

I served 26+years in the USMC and swore a oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the USA. BHO, Pelosi, and Reid proved to the US Citizens/voter that it no longer exist....

I need to modify my comment about no permit requirement in #1.71. i can see reasonable justification for this in rural areas and wild areas like the back country of Alaska. It is not an issue of protection from crime but of protection from the wild.

As for those suggesting a link between carry conceal and protection at home, I have one comment. At home I prefer a 12 Ga pump shotgun loaded with buckshot. I want the spread, knock down power and the sound effect. There is nothing as intimidating as the sound of a shotgun being pumped. I live alone and don't have to worry about collateral damage to a loved one. I don't need a permit for the shotgun either.

Divide the people, while they are unarmed conquer and destroy the republic in the name of democracy.

Throughout history great societies have been lost to this very theory.

While we are waiting for the government to defend us, they will be to busy planning our demise to come to our aid.

Al Hoot: Not all life under all circumstances needs to be or even should be protected. Some, by volitional conduct dangerous to others, forefeit their right to life.

I somewhat agree with your statement, although we are not the judge. We pay people to do that.

Your other statements don't warrant comment.

AC Robertson: ...defend the Constitution of the USA. BHO, Pelosi, and Reid proved to the US Citizens/voter that it no longer exist....

I don't know how you can justify your statement. It was George W. Bush who said that the Constitution of the United States is "just a piece of paper".

I wouldn't trust myself with a weapon. The way these flaming a-holes drive here in NJ, you don't want me with a weapon, do you? Cut me off at high speed will you? Bang, bang. It seems so easy. I'd probably be a huge burden to taxpayers rotting away in some prison by now. For sure.

A criminal that has reason to suspect a potential victim is armed, is far less likely to act. It's all about incentives.

That said, whether or not there is a conclusive causal link or just a correlation between a drop in crime and the proliferation of concealed carry laws, the fact that there is no discernible increase in gun violence havoc is enough.

If it's not causing more problems, then we should side with liberty and freedom.

Everyone should the right to defend themselves and their family, with lethal force if necessary.

Gotta love how the MSN people point out that there have been a 130 murders by "law abiding citizens since 2007" that carried licensed weapons. So lets take the #s and see 130 murders divided by 3 years is a average 43 per year, there are 7 million license firearm carriers. That is 00.0000062%. Now the other numbers 300 million americans. Average of 30,000 deaths per year by guns in this country. Substract licensed holders and there deaths from there so we have 29957 deaths divided by 293 million. Thats 00.000102% hmmm so that basically means that you are 18 times less likely to be shot by someone with a license.

The real problem is not people who legally carry guns. When there are laws against carry guns the only people who will have guns are the criminals.

I issued this challenge a few years ago to gun controls nuts. They can a pistol on display that they claimed had killed 5 people. So I told them I would give them 10K if the could tell the gun to kill me. of course the gun by itself could not kill me only a person operating the gun could do that. People kill people. When there were no guns we used arrows and swords. People get angry and run other people over with their cars killing them. So should we stop driving cars because we could use it to kill someone. Guns themselve are not the problem, the people using them are.....

Mozzie-6

It was George W. Bush who said that the Constitution of the United States is "just a piece of paper".

Urban legend:
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

I'm all for Americans being able to bear arms for protection but ,this is going a little to far when these cowards and paranoid people who are talking mad crap on here are talking about using it for the purpose of intimating or threatening to kill a public official of the U.S. Govt is crazy, and that includes you AC Robertson!!! You call yourself a Marine!! I beg to differ.

Good for Corley! What people in the country are failing to realize is that victims have the right to protect themselves. If they don't then the good guys get robbed, beat, murdered, and raped, while the criminals wander around the street looking for their next victim. Prisons are a joke and too full (mostly of illegal immigrants) for them to handle all of the criminals so most do partial sentences and are released to commit more crimes. If this is going to be the norm for our society, then criminals better expect to see a lot more people protecting themselves.

What is a shame about this whole story is not that this young man died, but is the fact that this young man choose a life of crime by committing armed robbery which led up to his death. Maybe other criminals in his city will think twice before committing crimes because of this incident.

It just goes to show you that you never know who you are up against and I think now days people are tired of sitting back and just letting things happen.

I liked that Georgia town from the day I heard they made gun ownership manditory. I live in a state where "shall issue" CCWs were the norm in the '70s and '80s and even prior felons can get their gun rights back if they go through the legal process to do so. I never feared those felons who do this because they are the very people who are least likely to misuse that restored right. While at the same time no gun control law ever protected anyone in America. Because anyone can get a gun for criminal purpose if they want one. They can either buy it on the Black Market, steal it from a law abiding citizen or, if they have to make on in less than a day with minimal skill. This has been amply demonstrated in the United States and more importantly in Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia and other places around the world where gun availability is even more restricted than it is here. As long as the technology exists and the knowledge on how it works exists, anyone who wants a gun can get one. What I would rather see than a bunch of useless laws that punish Americans who wish to exercise their 2nd Ammendment right to possess a weapon of choice; is laws that punish the criminal misuse of firearms being rigorously enforced. PUNISH THE CRIMINAL USE, NOT THE POSSESSION.

Drowning Grover-If you shoot a 'warning shot' into the air you may be charged with brandishing. That is why if you are prepared to carry, you must be prepared to kill. That's what I've been taught my entire life. Guns are not toys. They are not for 'warning' anyone. They are tools for either hunting or protection...not 'scaring' someone.

I could not have said it better, all a warning shot does is give the "Bad Guy" the oportunity to shoot you before you get your second shot off. Or worse yet, shoot some innocent person because you failed to stop him when you had the chance.

I'll bet Michael Blomberg and his worthless ilk are having an apoplectic fit over that stats in this article, well as the article itself! One can only hope. CCW's and king of the castle laws forever!

You have the right not to be the victim-two cases-a lady had her husband shot down on a train and she felt all guns should be taken from the law abiding, she is anti gun-even though the killer didn't obey any such laws-she doesn't think her husband was capable of defending himself-pity-another lady had her family shot down eating in a cafe-she felt her family had a right to fight back-she lead her state into the right to carry laws-she believed in her family's ability to fight back -some feel they can't do anything- they are victims at heart, others feel they are not going to be sheep and have the right to live their lives without fear-carry concealed holders take classes-take tests-are screened by the police before they get that right-facts too many ignore-if you want to be the subject of the king-move-if you want to be an american stand up-criminals do not rule our lives unless we let them-carry concealed laws have taken back our streets....

DrowningGrover
If I were a judge, and you came before me having shot and killed a 15 year old unarmed "thug" trying to rob your car stereo on a bet from his stupid high school friends, I would send you to jail for homicide/manslaughter. I would hope most people would agree.

see 'Gun Town USA' if you think gun laws are effective.

I'm not against gun ownership, but to be fair, Kennesaw (Gun Town, where citizens are required to own a gun) has a population of ~5,000 people. What works in a community that size may not necessarily work in the community of, say, New York City where there are infinitely more people.

Gun control laws make no sense in rural areas but have some measure of merit in high population-density areas. I think any law-abiding citizen should be able to get a gun if they want regardless of where they live, but I have no problem with a 3 day waiting period and even serialized ammunition (especially in high crime communities).

How many of you out there would want to put a round or two, or three on some thug breaking into your car in a mall parking lot?

I would hope NO ONE "want(s) to put a round or two" into "some thug" as you call them. It's nonsense like this that gives gun advocates a bad name. Just because you own a firearm doesn't mean you should be excited to kill someone with it!!

Fire a warning shot, assess the situation, call 911, try something before taking the kill shot. If you are in mortal danger, take the shot. If your car property is in danger, think before you shoot.

LOL @ warning shot, you're an example of person that shouldn't own a gun or a CC, You pull your weapon better be a good reason. Im not giving someone the chance to pull their weapon on ME OR MY FAMILY. You act as if 15 year olds are so inoccent. They're the most dangerous ones. In a situation like that you dont know if the subject is armed or not. I'm not willing to take that chance, I dont care how old you are, if it's in my legal right to use force to protect my property regardless if the person is armed or not then you better beileve that person is going. Sorry but protecting my family, my self and my property doesnt make me a bad person regardless of the picture you paint. Best part is there isn't a single person that can do anything about it.

The liberals want to take away our right to bear arms so they can to keep us from being able to overthrow their new fascist/socialist government. And by the way, if a criminal is shot while committing a crime, why should their family be allowed to sue? What happened to the rights of victims? What happened to the right to be somewhere without someone trying to rob you with a gun?

First off, I am a liberal and I support "shall issue concealed carry" laws. I also support Castle laws.

Your stereotype of liberals is WRONG.

Many of us carry. I have a CCW permit and own a KT P3AT and a P-11 as well just for that purpose. Which one I carry depends on how I dress that day.

I also own a KT sub2K but it's awfully hard to conceal. Fact is, I don't even know for sure how many firearms I own, I would have to count them. It's around 12 or 13 pistols and rifles.

I need protection from RW loons. ;P /sarc

As far as the rest of your post goes, I agree with it 100%.

Russia & America are cutting back on nukes. Citizens in ever increasing numbers will carry hidden guns? Something is very wrong here.

Corley fired once into the robber's abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.

Good on Corley...one less POS stealing, beating, and robbing other innocent folks. One less POS on welfare, food stamps, Obamacare, etc. One less POS who produces illegitimate kids like popcorn (who grow up to be just like "daddy")...This needs to happen again and again...a thousand fold! If the police and courts won't do the job, it's up to the law abiding citizens to take back our streets. Actually, here in Idaho, our police do a pretty good job silencing the POS's!

Who are you trying to fool, my friend. I know Idaho very well and the other surrounding states. Percentage-wise, you have just as many or possibly more "POS" than most places in this country. I don't know what your "code" reference to "Obamacare" is all about, as well as your welfare, food stamp, illegitimate kids, etc., statement. Have you bothered to study the history of your state with regard to your hateful remarks? Maybe you should. On the "dole" is what we call it I believe. What do you call your farmers in your state collecting "welfare" and other subsistence. Just because it is not called "welfare" does not take away from what it is. There are also many college students faced with such spiraling tuitions that they are force to get food stamps. I live in one of the most upscale communities in America and I have seen folks using food stamps while their Mercedes is parked outside. Recession and job loss has effected many people and it is not biased. A mother has to feed her kids regardless of the status. People's pay checks have been cut in half over the past 15 years to allow the CEO's to have greater rewards. But on to the main issue of this forum.

You and the Police Departments there are no different than anywhere else in this country. When the "locust-like" gangs and drug cartels come to visit your great state, the effects will be the same, and that will be terror, fear, confusion and death. Yes, you will try to fight back, but you have not been confronted with this type of fight regardless how "tough" you think you are! Your police dept. will have to go back to school again. Your City Governments will be totally baffled by the onslaught. You will have corruption at every level of government because of man's greed for the green. That will weaken your state and local government. There will be kidnappings, rapes and other atrocities taking place just to add to the atmosphere of chaos. Many here commenting on this gun issue, speak of how they will handle life threatenings with the "weapons of destruction" and the type of firearms they own. I laugh when I hear these puffed up comments. The truth is that I don't care if you are "Wild Bill Hickock" or the "Lone Ranger", you and your 30 round clip will mean nothing when a gang of 5 or 6 thugs with guns too decide to jump you. It will be valiant to take as many with you as possible, but it will be just that, you going down, period. In no way am I trying to promote cowardice or apathy, but I am just telling it like it is, and then you have to make the decision as to whether you are man, or nowadays, woman enough to deal with it. I lived and worked around it for the Fed Gov't for many years throughout the world. I have seen the baddest of the bad turn into babies when confronted with this type of foe. The really bad guys aren't on here writing comments. They are the least heard, but use common sense and special tactics in dealing with the bad guys. Different agencies spend billions of dollars recruiting and training these men and women to deal with the thugs, so if possible, we should leave this new level of terror and crime-wave to them. Believe me, the majority of people boasting on how they will blow everyone away who mess with them, is just that, idle boasting. I can take any one of these people to places like sections of California, New York City, St Louis, Dallas and many other cities and see just how they will handle themselves. And if those places aren't bad enough, I would take them to places like Columbia, So. America, Northern Ireland, Russia, Mexico, the ghettos of Poland and East Germany and Albania. I guarantee you this will wake you up. You will meet people so crazed and fearless that you can shoot them and watch as they laugh and suck their own blood while they open fire, with cannons you don't even know about, on you and then stab you a hundred times just to make sure the job is done. You will have people look you in the eye and your inner spirit will be rocked to the ground. They will walk up to you and take your wife or girlfriend, car, money and whatever from you with such ruthlessness that you will be quaking in your boots. So forget all the Rambo and Dirty Harry movies you've seen, and the violent video games you play, for they are just that, Make Believe! The man carrying a gun will ultimately be confronted just for that reason. If you did not have that gun, more than likely you would conduct yourself and activities much differently. You would maybe not be at a certain place or maybe acting a little tougher than you need to. The fact is that he who puts his faith in these weapons, will eventually die by these same weapons. PEACE!!!

Pacifism is not a deterrent to violence and any opinion to the contrary can only be that of one who is detached from reality. If one out of every ten peopled carried a gun violent crime would be virtually unheard of and the cost of law enforcement would plummet... those who profit from running the prisons know it too.

Refuse to be a fool... don't think for a minute that a criminal will not harm you just because you have a kind face.

I'm not advocating carrying a weapon for everyone but I'm grateful for those that do.

Tystick...

Musta been some good stuff, there man. You rambled so much, I lost track of what you were saying. Whatever you want to say...folks here have guns, lots of them. We have a very low crime rate compared to the rest of the country...you figure it out.

AC Robertson You and USMC28 both swore to uphold the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. And while I do not advocate attacking the Government in any way, the remarks by officials in the Ministry, I mean Office of Reich, I mean Homeland Security have made it abundantly clear that they consider those who believe in and honor that oath to be enemies of the State. You do not have to actively engage in armed rebellion at this stage, but you certainly have to become politically active and begin taking back control of our Local, State and Federal Government. Or it is all too likely that you will have to chose between keeping your oath and honor or turning on your fellow citizens like the Vermacht did in 1930's Germany.

The Constitution is not, as George W Bush claims "just a piece of paper" it is an ideal enshrined on that piece of paper. And as long as there are "Oath Keepers" and those who will defend it, we will remain a free nation of citizens with God given Rights. History also points out that, those nations which allowed even one small portion of its citizenry to be disarmed, soon disarmed all and subsequently enslaved them all.

Jag...

Just to clarify one point...

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_president_bush_call_the_constitution_a.html

...urban legend

Fantastic! The people are absolutely heeding their "right to bear arms!" About time!!

Guns don't kill people--people do.

I have a nice Colt .45, a .44 Magnum, and a rather efficient .22 -- and the government will get 'em when they can pry 'em off my cold, dead hands.

How many of you out there would want to put a round or two, or three on some thug breaking into your car in a mall parking lot?

This attitude should be sufficient to prevent you from getting a permit. IT IS A CAR, A CAR. It is a material possession that can be replaced. If your loved one is in the car, that may be a different story and would depend on more information than given in this example.

There must be the real threat of violence against you or another person. This is the only time it may be justified. Any other circumstances are the responsibility of the police. CALL them.

If there's 6M CCs that leaves a *vast majority* who prefer not to carry. All the grandstanding, all the hoopla is about the CCs and the open carries. The bigger the boys , the more the noise.

Claims of self-defense have low percentage chance of being upheld by a jury. So if you have a gun and shoot somebody with it, chances are that you're headed for prison. You could even be executed.

Gun control advocates said concealed weapons would create a blood bath. Crime went down.

Semi auto banners said crime would go down with the so-called assault weapons ban. It had no effect on crime.

Violence policy center said the streets with flow with blood, but the only streets with blood flowing are those of illegal aliens and black drug dealers killing each other. Age doesn't matter.

The Brady campaign says it doesn't advocate the banning of handguns but was originally named the National Coalition to Ban Handguns.

Gary Kleck and other produced the only major study that showed without a doubt that more guns in the hands of the law abiding citizen = less crime. To date, no one have proved the study wrong.

Bottom line: The media and its leftist financiers can't handle the truth. There are 10's of millions of more guns today than when this witch hunt started and crime is down. And while there have been a few who have abused the right to carry, there is absolutely no trend that says the right has been abused by the vast majority.

Those who are anti-gun anti-freedom are the irresponsible few. They have now facts to stand on other than the fact that they are afraid of freedom.

I am sure that leftists who want total control by the government will whine about this response, but it is veterans like me who secured their right to do so. Those who aren't vets are riding on the coatails of others for their right to protest the anti_American bs they support.

Because the gun death rates parallel an overall drop in crime, Hemenway suspects that the decline “has nothing to do with concealed-carry laws.”

why didn't he wonder if the drop in crime was due to concealed and carry laws?

I have seen several references to the criminal being shot in the back by the second and third shots. Nowhere in the article does it say that. It says he turned after the firstshot and was shot in the torso and neck. That can just as easily mean the side and neck and since there is no intention to prosecute the lawyer that is most likely the way it happened.

Tim S.

Just a car, just my wallet, just my whatever....there is an old saying, "what's mine is sacred".

You have the right to defend your property. Call it God given, call it fundamental, self evident or decreed by nature, but it has been affirmed and reaffirmed by wise men and courts of law for all of recorded history.

I never, ever, want the heartache of knowing that I shot someone unnecessarily. I hope I never have to draw my weapon, but if I do, I will be damn glad I had one to draw.

wow, talk about an accident waiting to happen!

Lets see, do you have insurance in case you shot the wrong person? Do you have insurance in case you shoot the perp but then also wound or kill bystanders?

I can see it now, the same old person that drives his car into a crowd of people because he can't see will also be carrying a weapon?

And what about the drunk redneck at the bar looking for the dude thats been doing his girl?

Liberals are the first to scream for help when they can't or won't protect themselves.

I'm a lib and I want you to Keep believing that, please.

I'm sorry,I'm not liberal, I don't believe all people are good.

I'm sorry I not a republican. I don't think that everyone is bad and I do not have to carry a sidearm so I can feel better about my paranoia.

Having a side arm on your person is one thing, I'm not against that, you can be billy badass all you want but putting the responsibility of you being lawyer, judge and jury and killing someone in the heat of a firefight I find rather troubling. Are you folks on a testosterone drip?

You are locking and loading a big ass can of worms.

good post Wabo40

Thanks tyler.

"Gun Town U.S.A." you say? Go back and look at the people who produced that and you will see why what you were watching is not accurate. Don't believe everything you see or read without knowing the source first. There are two ways to communicate your opposition. If your opposition is based on fact then you simply state those facts. If your opposition is based on your opinion regardless of what the facts support you simply put out propaganda.

The article said quote: " No scientific studies have reached any widely accepted conclusions about the movements effect on crime or personal safety" OK, so then that could also mean that the scientific study has also not disproved any widely accepted conclusions.

I read one pretty good study just a few minutes ago that backs up the claim that carrying a gun can thwart crime - It is the article we all are commenting about! If you are commenting just off the paragraph about the number of people carrying guns at the top of this page then you need to read the source of that paragraph, the article!

If he had not shot the crook, then the crook could have easily took a few shots on his way out and killed innocent people. Instead he got shot and killed for armed robbery and the potential of something worse. Now there is one less criminal on the street to commit other crimes.

Some people are very naive in thinking that if you give an armed robber what he wants he will leave peacefully but not always so. In the town I live in a store clerk gave two armed robbers all the cash, fully cooperated like they tell you to do and one of the gunmen stopped and shot him in the head on his way out for absolutely no reason. There are bad people in this world that don't think like most law-abiding citizens and simply will kill you just to do it.

The article states the obvious, that when the crook with a gun threatened people with their life and was shot and killed by a citizen that the threat was gone. No charges filed, case closed.

For all the people that say to shoot them in the leg, go ahead and do that if you are ever in a situation like that and see what happens. I have seen combat, it isn't like T.V., the bad guy doesn't instantly fall down screaming if shot in the leg, he shoots back. I wouldn't take that chance with my life. If I had to draw a weapon it would be used for what it was designed for. Also, no sane person wishes to have to do that but if it's my life or his I know my choice.

"How many of you out there would want to put a round or two, or three in some thug breaking into your car in a mall parking lot?"

The above is one of the best arguments FOR limiting the availability of concealed weapons.

My son when he was 17, reached in an open car window and took a $5 cassette tape. He was detained by someone with a .22 rifle, who fortunately didn't want to put a round or two or three in him. He was tried and convicted, paid a fine and costs, did probation and community service. Today he is a family man and a teacher. Doesn't excuse his "thug" past, but ...

nogop4me...

You are simply foolish. I will protect myself, my family, and friends.

And yes, if some scumbag thug feels he wants some of me...I will be judge/jury/and executioner!

From jkrush "The liberals want to take away our right to bear arms so they can to keep us from being able to overthrow their new fascist/socialist government."

Wow, really? And this post is actually getting a lot of positive votes? It's frightening to think how shockingly ignorant the people who think this way truly are (especially when they apply political philosophies like fascism and socialism to the exact same group).

Speaking as a heavily armed "librul" I can tell you straight up that not all of us are anti-gun. In fact, the segment of liberals that are truly anti-gun is dwindling every day (to a point where the hardcore anti gun segment now numbers well below 50%). Not because of people like you, who only reinforce the stereotype of the hyper-ignorant and somewhat unbalanced gun owner, who only does more damage to the cause of gun rights than anything else. But because of other "libruls" who aren't afraid to point out how REPUBLICAN organizations like the Brady Campaign (yes, it IS a REPUBLICAN organization) have been misrepresenting the truth about firearms for many years now.

jkrush, if you want to really work towards securing the rights of gun owners, then you need to drop the ignorant crap you just spewed up there and start working with those who share at least one common goal with you, no matter what they're overall political philosophy may be.

I'm pro-2nd Amendment, pro shall-issue (or no permit required) concealed carry, and against any idiotic "feel good" anti-gun legislation that does exactly JACK to solve the problems of crime and violence, and only hampers the efforts of the law abiding who are trying to defend themselves. And yes, I'm a liberal.

I carry all the time. I've been through extensive fire arms training and am very comfortable with my carry gun. That said, I think everyone who carries a gun should be trained in THAT particular gun. I know a bunch of people that carry a pistol they've never actually fired! It's one thing if we're talking about a hammerless revolver (point and shoot), but something entirely different when it's a modern automatic with multiple safeties and a complicated loading sequence. It's all about the training and being intimately familiar with what you carry.

Oh, and for all of you people who are so quick to "shoot to protect my car stereo", you obviously have never killed anyone before, because if you had, you'd know that there is no piece of property more valuable than a human life. I will only kill to protect myself and my loved ones. If a thug wants my money and is willing to risk his life to get it, then he obviously needs it much more than I do and I will give it to him. If I think he is going to do harm to me or my loved ones, he is dead.

Moo,

I do not dispute your right to protect your property. I do question ones right to pop a few into the thug breaking into your car in a public parking lot. Part of that 'problem' is the possible irresponsible use of a firearm resulting in the injury or death of an innocent bystander. The other is the same restriction on the use of deadly force that the police must abide by. Taking a life is very different than taking a tape deck. Especially, when the perp is unarmed.

Sorry, right was the wrong word. My objection is an ethical and moral objection, not a rights question. Just wanted to clarify. As for historical justification, we used to allow for the legal ownership of other humans. Does that make it right? Traditions are only good if they can be regularly reviewed and scrapped if found wanting. That is not to be implied as support for the wholesale termination of traditions, but for genuine, thoughtful evaluation of the usefulness of any given tradition at any given time.

Waterdog: AMEN! LOL! I'd have to agree, even though I am not in Jersey! Thanks for the laugh!

I think too many people have an emotional response to the issue without really knowing much of the reality.

For example, in this story the criminal was shot 3 times before he ran away and died. I'm not a criminal, but I just know in my heart that if I were waving a gun around and someone shot me, and it didn't kill me immediately, I'd shoot them back. I suspect that in this case, the criminal was young and stupid and never meant for anyone to get shot, and reacted in shock. In other words, the man who shot him 3 times before he ran away was very lucky, indeed.

I also noted with some amusement that the writer of this story felt the need to inform us that the shooter smokes three packs a day.

Tim S.-560036

Sorry, right was the wrong word. My objection is an ethical and moral objection, not a rights question. Just wanted to clarify. As for historical justification, we used to allow for the legal ownership of other humans. Does that make it right? Traditions are only good if they can be regularly reviewed and scrapped if found wanting. That is not to be implied as support for the wholesale termination of traditions, but for genuine, thoughtful evaluation of the usefulness of any given tradition at any given time.

Are you aware of the fact that many of the gun control laws enacted were done so specifically to deprive African Americans the legal means to protect themselves from being terrorized. The fact that they could also be used to deprive whites of the same seems sort of incidental.

The Racist Roots of Gun Control

The Racist Origin of US Gun Control

Mariyam,

You make a good point, but that does not change my opinion of being open to sensible regulation in all areas, not just guns. The key here is that they are reasonable, based on real data, minimized inemotional overreaction in either direction, and living (continually evaluated and modified to balance personal and societal freedom and personal and social responsibility.

Those laws that were enacted to discriminate against or for one group over another need to be scrapped. That does not mean that laws that apply equally across all demographics should be.

You can find racial motivation behind the majority of our laws throughout our history. Gun control/regulation is no different or less contemptible.

nogop4me...

You are simply foolish.

Foollish? Maybe, but wise. It is within my capacity to think before I squeeze. And you didn't answer my questions.

there is only 1 reason for hollow points. one in the stomach, one in the neck (back) and another one in the torso (back). I am surprised he made it 100 feet. So we really do not need any police? Maybe you should run for a state office because with your philosophy you could save the state of Idaho a ton of money, no lawyers, courts, judges, jails or police. Or just hire judge Roy Bean.

I am thankful you live in Idaho.

Moo,

Tim S.

Just a car, just my wallet, just my whatever....there is an old saying, "what's mine is sacred".

You missed my point, I think. I have no problem with the right of a person to protect their property. I do not think that justifies the use of deadly force in every circumstance, like putting a couple of slugs in a thug breaking into your car. And my comment was directed more at the nonchalant attitude implied in the post I was commenting on. It seemed to me that the poster would enjoy putting a couple into the thug. I have a problem with that kind of attitude whether it is a knife, a gun, or a heart attack. I have a problem with the attitude of enjoying the pain and suffering of others.

As for protecting my property, I am well equipped mentally and physically to del with that after they get by my Australian Shepherds. By the way 2 of them ride with me where ever I go.

Tim S.-560036

Mariyam,

You make a good point, but that does not change my opinion of being open to sensible regulation in all areas, not just guns. The key here is that they are reasonable, based on real data, minimized inemotional overreaction in either direction, and living (continually evaluated and modified to balance personal and societal freedom and personal and social responsibility.

Greetings Tim - my point was not so much to change your mind but to highlight several points. First the fact that those who by law are allowed to make the decisions and provide the definition for what is deemed "sensible regulation" often have hidden and/or unhidden (as in the cases I linked) biases and agendas that they are attempting to implement.

The gun control groups know what the response will be if they launch an assault on the 2nd Amendment by attempting an outright ban so they disguise their ultimate desire by cloaking it as "only" wanting to limit who and under what circumstances that right can be exercised. I'm from California and our own Senator, Diane Feinstein has stated as much:

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it." -Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, discussing the 1994 "crime bill", one of the largest gun control bills of the last 30 years.

Those laws that were enacted to discriminate against or for one group over another need to be scrapped. That does not mean that laws that apply equally across all demographics should be.

Some of those laws were scrapped, others nullified by the enactment of the civil rights laws, but just as in the case of criminals who don't follow the laws (let alone any of the gun laws when so inclined), there are people in powerful positions today who ignore what is written in the U.S. Constitution and then create and pass legislation in violation of such. That's why any state that is not "shall-issue" or better assists in this infringement because it allows local law enforcement officials to decide who "needs" to have a permit based on what they determine is "good cause". Being black was sufficient "cause" for a lot of years to be denied many rights in this country including the right to lawfully bear arms. Though the laws have changed, the heart-felt beliefs and subsequent behaviors haven't always changed as well.

I hope you can discern that I'm not stating this to "play the race card" as some will accuse but to demonstrate the methodology employed when any group of people is targeted for relief of their rights.

No problem Tim, I can understand and respect your point of view.

Same goes for nogop4me.

And I totally get what you mean by people who seem to give the impression that they are just waiting for the moment to use their weapon on someone. I don't like that either.

I do not like to see others suffer, no sadistic tendencies here.

Where I live (AZ) it is perfectly legal to shoot someone to stop them from taking your property. There is no duty to retreat. That is not necessarily my position, it's just the local law.

There are too many variables in the world for me to sit here and say that in situation X I will do Y. I just deal with situations as they come. But I assure everyone that I am not in any hurry to ever shoot anyone. I hope it never comes to that.

But, lets face it, the world is not turning into a nicer place to live. I wish it was, believe me. Plus, I'm sure that as I get older, I get more aware of the bad things that can happen.

I do believe a person has the right to shoot to protect their property. But having the right does not always make it right. Every situation is different. I hope and pray that if I ever find myself in such a position, that I make the right call. I do believe in the "there but for the grace of God go I" theory.

Of course, my real concerns in this world are my wife and my child. No need to elaborate there.

People who carry I hope understand that merely having the gun is not all there is too this. I go shooting at least twice a month and I have for decades. I really enjoy it. I go out into the desert where no one else is around and just have a good time. I have a couple of steel targets I use and always bring some cardboard and a supply of "shoot n see" targets.

Moo: Where I live (AZ) it is perfectly legal to shoot someone to stop them from taking your property. There is no duty to retreat. That is not necessarily my position, it's just the local law.

There are too many variables in the world for me to sit here and say that in situation X I will do Y. I just deal with situations as they come. But I assure everyone that I am not in any hurry to ever shoot anyone. I hope it never comes to that.

And this is why I think the law has to be written to permit this response. There are too many variables as you state to require 10 minutes of deliberations and checklist analysis before one responds. This is where the training and social discourse come in. We should actively discuss these issues, not just in relation to gun use and ownership, so that we are able to act in a timely manner if the circumstances should ever present themselves. You need to make a decision and make it NOW in that situation. I would hate to be facing that without having given it serious consideration ahead of time. I also don't want the burden of worrying if this or that minute detail has been met.

As they say hindsight is 20/20. Unfortunately, the moment is nearsighted and suffers from tunnel vision.

Mariyam,

I share your concern about politicians that share Feinstein's views on gun control. This does not mean that I refuse to acknowledge that politics moves in pendulum swings. In order to find balance, one must pass back and forth through the balance point. I would hate for the use of fully automatic weapons on city streets to become legal. I would also hate for semi-automatic weapons to be equated to fully automatic. But, if you want to go to your shooting range and use a fully automatic weapon, I think you should not be hindered. Your shooting range is any responsibly select area where potential for injury has been minimized.

Variables. One variable for me personally. A gun in the hands of a bad guy. We had a holdup of a pizza guy in Des Moines a year ago. He carried...gave up keys,cash and the pizza to the bad guy. (BTW it was a setup...the pizza delivery call). The bad guy left the apartment common hall into the stairway. Then pizza guy heard the door reopen. He then drew and fired. Bad guy lives...sentenced. Pizza guy gets fired for carrying on duty.

Just announced! Shall Issue CCW passed both Iowa Houses!!!!!!!! On to the Gov!

Ruger has a nice .44 cal. auto, nice balance, and pointer. Tad heavy, yet easy to handle.

again, to be fair, one should always call 911 if given the opportunity before using a firearm. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own a firearm, but why do most of the "gun nuts" seem so eager to use them?!?

Okay okay, we get, your manly and stout. you can't wait to use your firearm (but will probably cry after you kill someone with it). Will you please holster it and be quiet now?

lol...grover. he was referring to the people who support the no firearms at all law, like when you try to call 911, and cant, being the other alternative, what are you going to do? Even if you call 911, it takes them how long to get to your house, vs, pulling a handgun out of your nightstand drawer?

"...Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away."

G, you might well be a highly responsible person, not prone to emotional outbursts or swiss cheese logic. But the attorney mentioned in the article went beyond self-defense when he shot the fleeing robber in the back. At that point, he was no longer in danger from the robber and had become the attacker not the victim. Not only did he shoot the fleeing robber in the back, he was loaded with hollow points and the first bullet would have, in all likelihood, been more than sufficient to bring down the robber. Corley did not act responsibly in this case and there are too many gun-happy people who, likewise, would go beyond the point of self-defense when adrenaline and testosterone get in the way of common sense.

And, please bear in mind, I am not a knee-jerk liberal who believes guns are all evil and anyone owning a gun is all evil. I have a 90 percent accuracy rating at 50 yards on the firing range and could likely give you a third eye and drop you on the run if called upon to do so. But that does not mean I carry a gun to work or believe they need to be all over the streets of America's major cities. Statistically, more people are killed with their own guns by burglars than with a weapon brought in by the criminal. For the most part, most weapons in the possessin of criminals are not legally purchased by them. Rather, those weapons were stolen from people who owned them legally and then fenced at - then purchased from a pawn shop or through their brother's, best friend's cousins uncle ...

The majority of illegal weapons on the street have been stolen from people who purchased them legally. What does that say about the security and safety of Americans under expanded CCW laws. Too many homocides (and many 'accidental' deaths occur through opportunistic situations.) People leave unsecured weapons lying around where nine year olds shoot and kill three year olds accidentally. Fourteen year olds kill twelve year old siblings in a fight over a video game. Husbands and wives kill their spouses and lovers kill their partners over minor disputes. Ex-lovers kill their exes because they cannot handle the break up.

Are these logical reactions? No. Of course not. But they are typical. These are actual situations where people would not have died had the guns not been available. Most people, law enforcement officers included, do not have the mental stability to be entrusted, carte blanche, with a loaded weapon.

(And, while I dislike the largest majority of rap songs, I hardly think the "rappist" deserves to be shot for the crime of bad music. If you are referring to rapists, most people would not be in a position where a firearm would be advantageous and the would-be victim is better off to have a strong training in martial arts which, under such circumstances, would be more deadly than a gun they could not get to.)

Drowning Grover: Do make a statement like "but will probably cry after you kill someone with it"

Nope, I went home and slept well. If a person is willing to commit the crime, then they should be willing to pay the ultimate price.

In my point a view who ever buy a gun is overcompensating. You know what they say. Bigger the gun, smaller the pistol. I just need my hands.

lol...grover. he was referring to the people who support the no firearms at all law...

Even if you call 911, it takes them how long to get to your house, vs, pulling a handgun out of your nightstand drawer?

and if so, fine. I don't agree with a "no firearms at all law."

Regarding the pulling the handgun from the drawer, many folks are killed in their own house trying to defend themselves. In the event of a home break-in, you're far safer locking your family in the bedroom with your fire arm and warning the criminal you are "armed, and 911 is on their way." If you have to get into a gun-fight, fine, I understand that and I agree with justifiable homicide. But don't go looking for one.

Guns have their place, but again, many people seem far to eager to use them.

Drowning Grover: Do make a statement like "but will probably cry after you kill someone with it"

Nope, I went home and slept well. If a person is willing to commit the crime, then they should be willing to pay the ultimate price.

Corsair, if I struck a nerve and offended you i'm sorry, personal insult was not my intent.

That being said, I think a great number of folks who come on message boards and say things like "I'm dialing c-o-l-t-4-5" would actually be in over their heads in the event they found themselves in a gun fight. I'm not saying all are, nor am I saying that you or G (the original poster) are personally.

The false bravado is very obnoxious for those in the middle of the gun-control politics who have no interest in taking your firearms, but get awfully sick of hearing about how well-armed the NRA nuts are...

No one should be "proud" when they kill another human being, even if their target "had it coming."

Grover & Critiqu: Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves! I am a WOMAN who was attacked in my home by a man who told me he was going to kill me and then my 4 year old child! I am not Compensating for NOTHING other than MY as well as my CHILDS right to LIFE. He actually TIED MY HANDS TOGETHER and went into my daughters room to get HER and bring her into my bedroom where he had me. Luckily I have a SMITH & WESSON 40 cal with hollow point bullets. He made a big mistake breaking into my home, tying me up and threatening the life of my child! When he came back and made my daughter come sit behind me I had already got the gun from under the night stand. He should have done a better job of securing me becuase...HANDS TIED I SHOT HIS AZZZZZ MULTIPLE TIMES AND NOT TO KILLLLL! I wanted him to feel what we were feeling....to know that I could have taken HIS LIFE had I chose to.....but I didnt and thats the DIFFERENCE! You have NO idea what its like to be in a position like that! Bet if you did you would have a gun yourself

Wordsmith, Nowhere in the article does it state that he shot him in the back. Even if he had he was still protecting the lives of others which is allowed in most states. If I am carrying and see someone else in imminent danger and the suspect is not facing me I still have the right to shoot them, even in the back to protect someone elses life. If this was not the case the article would have been written a lot differently, don't you think?

The fact is he did what was right and legal.

Exactly Damu Dame, people who have never been acousted will never know what it's like to be in that situation. I have and you have and we were lucky enough to survive.....some aren't, especially if they have no way to defend themselves. Good to hear you survived your ordeal. Criminals will always prey on those they deem the least likely to defend themselves.

"Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso."

Abdomen is to front as turned is to back...

Grover & Critiqu: Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves! I am a WOMAN who was attacked in my home by a man who told me he was going to kill me and then my 4 year old child!

Damu Dame, I am not ashamed of myself. If your story is true, I am very sorry that you had to experience that event in your life, and in no way, shape, or form do I think you are guilty or look upon you with any disdain for using force in that situation.

I have said repeatedly that I am not against gun-ownership nor do I want gun-control laws expanded. I'm just trying to be the voice of calm and reason in this debate so I have been doing my best to point out sober things like:

you're far safer locking your family in the bedroom with your fire arm and warning the criminal you are "armed, and 911 is on their way."

this is statistically true and inarguable.

In your case, you did not find yourself in a controlled situation like that described above, and so you acted differently. I applaud you for your resolve and strength in that traumatic event.

Bet if you did you would have a gun yourself

you're probably correct.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

wcritiquing said:

Damu Dame : you are overcompensating your ego and nothing more. What are you talking about, your replied would stated.

SHAME ON YOU and your uninhabitability to have a men. Why don't you go to France and learn the art of be a woman ?

sorry Damu, I can only speak for myself in this matter.

wcritiquing

Damu Dame : you are overcompensating your ego and nothing more. What are you talking about, your replied would stated.

SHAME ON YOU and your uninhabitability to have a men. Why don't you go to France and learn the art of be a woman ?

asking here.... and not to be offencive....but...are you retarded?

You're trying to play with words, Baffled. If you were correct then he would have been charged for shooting the gunman. He was NOT charged. It was justifiable.

Wordsmith lives in his own fantasy world. The felon was shot but retained possession of his firearm and could just as easily have turned and fired. Mr. Corley would have been foolish indeed to allow this felon respite. Wordsmith’s assertion that the use of one hollow point would have been sufficient to bring down the felon demonstrates he either did not read this article or didn’t understand it. The felon, now with three bullets in his body managed to exit the building and go another 100 feet before collapsing. Corley acted responsibly to protect himself and his colleagues.

Apparently Wordsmith is a knee-jerk liberal (read his entire rant) who would have us believe he is not one simply by stating so.

Megalodon 35: Here we go. Typical republican, once you lost some traction, the first thing is name calling. You republicans love to have it in both way which is immoral.

If it happen that was a democrat making this kind of comment you will call your friends to collapse my comment.

If you guys aren't able to sustained an adult conversation just do not come.

plus Boy, didn't nobody told you that is unpolite to get into others conversations?

Good point - the fundamental difference is who governs - the government governs the people or the people govern the government ... so if one is of the former - you may want to neutralize the press ... Obama has done that nicely, wouldn't you agree. As for guns, didn't stop the Democrats from pulling off a massive home invasion against the will of the governed ... so having set that agenda guns now are a problem - you can damn well bet the Dems will not meet it head on or "transparently" - be careful, be very careful you have let a thief into our homes ....

Why does everyone assume the robber was fleeing in the article? It says that he turned after the initial shot. Are you really going to say that you know the circumstances? You know jack squat. If you decide to use deadly force, you're not going to shoot once and then go make sure the guys okay. You eliminate the threat with finality, so there's no chance of them getting a shot at you. This is how most people get killed, they assume that they've shot the perp and that eliminates the threat. The attack isn't over until the perp has fled or he is dead. Those are the only two sane choices.

And for the record, I'm a democrat.

DrowningGrover....As said to JW above, you call 911 and wait for the 20 to 30 second process to happen and by the time they dispatch a cop, you will be screaming to the operator "OH MY GOD, HE HAS A GUN!" Then the operator will say calm down sir, police are on the way", which will be the last words you hear.

911 is great if you see someone else getting assaulted or a car accident, but when someone is entering your home knowing that you may have a gun, and he is still willing to break in, he will likely kill you. 911 is useless when you need help now.

And what is with these idiots that keep refering to testosterone. Many women carry and/or own guns too. You are all cattle waiting to be slaughtered. Sad but true. Gun ownership is a right. If you don't own one, then you are handing your right to bear arms over to the criminal. Testosterone....PLEASE! MOOOve along future victims. Cattle.

If you decide to use deadly force, you're not going to shoot once and then go make sure the guys okay. You eliminate the threat with finality, so there's no chance of them getting a shot at you

Exactly, if you draw it, be ready to use it, and if you use it, make sure you're no longer in danger.

Megalodon,

Even if you call 911, it takes them how long to get to your house, vs, pulling a handgun out of your nightstand drawer?

And laying low until put in an immediate life threatening situation. Let them come to you without giving away that you are aware of their presence. If they never come face to face all you lose are some possessions.

Grover....I apologize for coming off so upset but that is because its damn tramatizing to look into your childs eyes and see the look of helplessness & utter fear while some THUG is repeatedly yelling hes going to kill us. I re-read your post and hope you can forgive my quickness to jump I was pointing that frustration more at Crutiqe.

TO THE IDIOT WHO HAS NO IDEA WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT: AKA: CRITIQUE

Damu Dame : you are overcompensating your ego and nothing more. What are you talking about, your replied would stated.

SHAME ON YOU and your uninhabitability to have a men. Why don't you go to France and learn the art of be a woman ?

Ah but I do have a MAN. I know exactly how to be a woman. You married? If so you have NEVER left the side of your spouse? What if your elderly mother was at home at 1:00 in the afternoon when someone invades while your dad is at work? Or what about a WIDOW? hmmmm? Is it ok for someone to attack an old lady because of her INABILITY to have a man? OH and for the record..this happened to me in the MIDDLE of the day & my reply stated that I COULD have KILLED him and chose not to. I simply made him pay the CONSEQUENCES for his actions. Most would have killed him and wouldnt have gotten in any trouble. My child is my first priority even over MY own life. If i would have had to kill him and go to jail to save her...I WOULD! Just because you are scared to save yourself doesnt mean the rest of us have to be victims.

A .32 hollow point isn't my first choice. I prefer large large bore pistols at the very least 125 GR .357 with 20 gr of H110. In my pistol it is at about 2,000 fps and over 1000 ft pds at the muzzle. My prference is the .45 Win Mag for defense...

I have had a CC permit in PA for about 16 years and am trying to convince my wife to get one also. I guess us dumb country folk (Penn State, Mechanical Engineering) just keep sticking to our God and guns because we don't know any better.

Our founding fathers made mention of "God" and "our Creator" on occasion and they didn't argue with the British, they shot them. So, they also must have been dumb country folk.

I'm in great company!

again, to be fair (read: "stupid), one should always call 911 if given the opportunity before using a firearm. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own a firearm, but why do most of the "gun nuts" seem so eager to use them?!?

When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.

Do you or the other idiots posting against using guns in self-defense not understand that if someone enters your house, they're not going to stop at the entryway and decide then and there what they want to take? No. They'll check every room in the house. In my home, two of the rooms are occupied by teenage girls, one by a teenage boy, the other by me and my wife. You have no idea that the intruders will go through every room in the house until they find what they want and that will bring them in contact with unprotected members of my family.

Or unprotected until I make my (armed) presence known.

Let's say you dial 911. Average response time in LA county, when I was there, was around twelve minutes (my own figures, having had to call them twice.) Average time for me to reach my gun: about four seconds.) While four seconds may indeed be the difference between life and death, it offers infinitely better odds than 911, which with their time lag is the difference between life and death/rape/mutilation/robbery all in the same package.

If you don't want to fight back, that's up to you, but nobody has a right to tell me whether I should or shouldn't (or can or can't.)

Megalodon, Ruger 22/45 with hollow point rounds works just fine for me. Stable, accurate, easy to hold, and a great close range personal defense pistol.

Nationwide statistics aren't available
Rand, the spokeswoman for the Violence Policy Center, acknowledged that “we don’t have centralized data-gathering to know what people are doing with these licenses.”

“(But) anecdotally, we know they’re doing quite a bit of harm,” she said.

Why is it that those who want to take away our rights to protect themselves have nothing but a feeling that they know why we should embrace their desire to destroy our constitution, and put us and our families at mortal risk, while it seems that the NRA, and all others who are working tirelessly to protect those very same rights have actual undeniable statistics at the ready every time. If you don't want a gun, then don't buy one. Perhaps one of us who does will save your life someday, then you'll wake up.

SUREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something I have not seen mentioned here, is that even the Supreme Court says that the Police do not have an obligation to protect any particular citizen when they are threatened. There have been several cases where the police were in the immediate area when a crime was being committed and did nothing to stop it. When later sued over this failure, the courts ruled that they did not have to do so and could not be sued for failing to do so.

Isn't it wonderful for you anti gun liberals to know that the police have your back when you are in danger? Oh yeah, I forgot, they do not have to protect you. Sorry, my bad, I guess you are on your own.

A couple of nit-pics. I have never seen or heard of a Ruger 44 cal. auto. I would not rate a 22 cal weapon as a first choice for self defense (Ruger 22/45) and before anyone protests I know 22's can be quite lethal and if that is what you have access to that is what you use but a 30 grain soft lead hollow point does not pack near the punch of a 110 grain soft point or jacketed hollow point or even better a 185 grain hollow point.

Jagdtyger How true but isn't it interesting that so many still include "to protect" in their motto.

"again, to be fair, one should always call 911 if given the opportunity before using a firearm. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own a firearm, but why do most of the "gun nuts" seem so eager to use them?!?"

The term "gun nuts" Shows only thatb you are prejudice.

You said it right.

Linda - out of every 100 million wives in church in the past year, how many have been shot by their husbands while there?

>>>>>RIP>>>>>>>>

Careful Linda, the hot air you're spewing is adding to global warming.

"'m a 64 year old woman and not afraid of the punks just the cowboys.'

Sure you are not, but when you become the target of some, you will be giving it all away and complaining "someone else" should have done something.

Cowards do not carry guns, but criminals out to do you harm do.

I'm not a coward, Linda, but when I have two young punks pull one on me, I have to defend myself and my family. I have to defend people like you too, so I have been trained how to properly use one. REALLY is right, don't do the liberal thing and complain someone should have taken care of you.

Linda, to be fair, the media reports church and school shootings so one sees a disproportionate effect. All-in-all, church and school shootings are rather rare.

That being said, the cowboys scare me too. I do not begrudge anyone the right to own a firearm, but some of the gun nuts seem just a bit too eager to use them.

Cowards do not carry guns, but criminals out to do you harm do.

I hate this argument, but unfortunately it does hold a bit of water. the problem with this argument is that it assumes every law-abiding citizen is a personal Rambo, and makes people say dumb stuff like...

I'm not a coward, Linda, but when I have two young punks pull one on me, I have to defend myself and my family.

if two punks pull guns on you, you're better off defending your family by handing over your valuables and calmly remembering as much identifiable information about the perps as possible (for when you call 911 afterwards).

Starting a gun fight in the mall parking lot usually doesn't result in much "family defending" not to mention the risk to other citizens nearby. You hear stories in the media about folks defending themselves from armed robbers occassionally, but those stories also suffer from the "disproportionate media effect."

it wouldn't be a gun fight if the person defending themselves knows how to use a gun. all it takes is one shot. "you're better off defending your family by handing over your valuables"??? because after you hand it over they won't use their weapon?

it wouldn't be a gun fight if the person defending themselves knows how to use a gun.

again Rambo, maybe the two people robbing you know how to use their firearms as well! They might even be a better shot than you!

If you draw you're weapon, you're rolling the dice against a proverbial stacked deck. Good luck with that.

because after you hand it over they won't use their weapon?

often times no. Statistically, most armed robberies do not end in homicide. After the thief takes the victims valuables they often leave. It would seem that most robbers are not excited to kill people either.

Now, if you find yourself in a situation where multiple perpetrators seem intent on doing you bodily harm, and you have no option but to try and defend yourself with force, go for it. You have no other option. Just take note, more often than not, it is you that will end up on the wrong end of a very bad situation.

Unless of course you're Rambo...

Linda-Love how you deny facts to spew your emotional argument. It is an ABSOLUTE FACT that the crime rate is down. Even this slanted article acknowledges that.

This is America and you have the right to believe how you choose buy allowing emotion to override documented fact just makes you sound unreasonable and referring to people who carry guns snidely as "cowboys" is insulting to law abiding citizens like myself. I own guns and carry a weapon and make no mistake, if you threaten my family with harm I will not hesitate to use it, but at the same time I wholeheartedly pray that I never have to.

So you would rather cave in to a criminal and take a chance on weather they are going to kill your faimly or not then try to protect your family.

WOW that makes you either the biggest IDIOT I have ever known or the biggest COWARD.

I am not an idiot or a coward (it is I that made the original statement).

I stick by my assertion that statistically, most armed robberies do not end in homicide (I have been finding that these stats are hard to find. If you can point something out that proves otherwise, i will be open to it).

Every situation is different, and one has to be prepared to assess each situation as such. More often that not, a perp will flee after you hand over your valuables. If you encounter one who does not, well then force might be necessary.

Drawing your weapon and asking questions later is not always the best course. Sorry, that's just sober reality, and it doesn't make me an idiot or coward for pointing it out. I value my family's safety and life far more than I value my TV, wallet, or any valuable that can be taken from me. If I can avoid putting them in unnecessary danger, I will, armed or not.

I know women that have run over their husbands with their car, let's outlaw cars. I know of a guy in Europe that killed 8 people with a knife, let's outlaw knives. I know of people that have killed people with fire, let's outlaw fire. I know people that have killed with a baseball bat, let's outlaw baseball bats.

I know people were controlling the cars, knives, fire and baseball bats, let's outlaw people!

Liberal cattle idiots!

I know of a guy in Europe that killed 8 people with a knife, let's outlaw knives

Actually, a guy just did that in China, too! We should definitely have a background check before someone orders a steak; the knives some of these places give you are pretty solid!

Well if you want to take that chance be my guest but me I am going to shoot the bastard rather than hand over my hard earned money and take a chance they will not harm me or my family.

go for it Rambo. Be forewarned however, you increase your chance that they will harm you and your family if you pull your weapon brazenly (note, I have never said do not pull your weapon at any cost, just pull it with some forethought)...

While most may not recall the time in the Mid '70s when California Police departments and their State Police went on strike, I do. I was in the United States Air Force and went on leave at that time. I drove to my home state with a .44 magnum strapped on my side and a lot of other people went armed while the strike lasted. Needless to say, crime rate dropped radically and the police went back to work very quickly fearing that the people would notice just how little they needed them for most situations.

Criminals are predators for the most part, and like most predators, they will pick on the weak and sickly in the herd by preference. There is a reason for this, successful predators avoid getting hurt. those that do not, rarely have the chance to perpetuate their brand of stupidity. Only predators that have gone mad attack a strong opponent willing to defend itself and human predators follow the same rules.

Being armed is not a guarantee of safety, but it is a deterent for most predators in society. Whether or not an individual is willing to defend them selves is a matter for their own conscious. But they do not have the right to mandate that everyone else be the same level of coward that they are. Even less worthy are those who prey on those same moral cowards to try to disarm everyone else so they can have power over them.

so when i go to applebees for lunch i need to be unarmed and helpless?

going to a bar with a gun is 100% diffrent then drinking with a gun

KYLOMG if you are robbed in Applebees will they take responsibility for you? I doubt it, that is the problem with stores banning people with permits to carry.

KYLOMG if you are robbed in Applebees will they take responsibility for you? I doubt it, that is the problem with stores banning people with permits to carry.

I am sure they will not thats why i do :) The applebees i eat lunch at a couple times a month is just out side of cotesville. Prime for a daytime hold-up.

PA has a great law that it is legal to carry (with a permit) anywhere not federaly probibited, regardless of signage or local (township, HOA,) laws.

the worst they could do was have the cops escort me out if they discovered i was carrying. which of course my G26 makes that hard to uncover :)

Just remember " It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

In some states it is not legal to carry into a bar (an establishment whose primary income is from the sale of alcohol) but is legal to carry into resturants that serve alcohol as part of the dining experience. I know that is the way it is in my state. As far as going to bars and not drinking, I have known a number of people who do not drink who go to bars and drink cola or water then are the designated driver to take their friends home.

Mac,

Michigan??

nope the great state of Arkansas

Heavy. Michigan's is the same thing. Seems to work OK.

$$$$$

and the same reason General Electric wants to dump it.

Why did Microsoft attach itself to this loser network?????????

maybe because NBC didn't have billionaire Australians and Saudi princes to finance them...

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

http://www.aim.org/press-release/saudi-billionaire-boasts-of-manipulating-fox-news-coverage/

Yeah, they'll get there just in time to draw the chalk line around your body. And with any luck they might even figure out who did it.

your violating the code by calling us fools

Count me a fool!. Better a fool than to make a lethal mistake with a stray bullet (maybe killing a child). In fact, I would rather be a dead fool than to try and live with a tragedy like that.

Maybe we should just fire all the police officers and take the law into our own hands. Can you imagine what kind of country we would have then? But, a lot of these right-wing rednecks would think that's a good idea!

Not really KYLOMG, he is not calling out anyone on the vine. He is talking about American Society in General Terms, but if you want to paint yourself with his wide brush no one is stopping you.

"Can you imagine what kind of country we would have then?"

Yeah, we would have the United States of America or are you forgetting your History.

Linda that is your choice. I choose to take responsibility for the defense of my family(children included) and for others who may fall victim to the scum of society. I am a firearms instructor and have on more than one occasion prevented a person, who I did not feel was capable of safely handeling or deploying a firearm from getting a CCW. These people understood and took additional instruction and time...we are a responsible lot Linda and do not take the responsibility of strapping on iron lightly. We are not cowboys, rambos, or psychos. We are simply Americans taking responsibility for our own self defense.

Linda - look at some of these comments. Do you really want the good guys to be without guns? By good guys, I mean those who could defend us from teabagger militia types that keep on sayin' they are a'gonna take over the liberal, fascist, nazi (redundant, yes?), blah, blah illegal gov't. Sigh.

A lot of police officers should be fired. And as citizens of the United States- you can take the law into your own hands. Organizations like Citizens on Patrol. Ever heard of a citizens arrest?

Linda,

You are a lovely person. However, I must take a minute to point out a few things to you. First, you assert that right wing rednecks would think it is a good idea to do away with our law enforcement agencies. This just shows that you are an intolerant and ignorant person by using the word redneck. If there is such a thing as a redneck, he/she is probably a conservative/protectionist type of person. He/she would probably be extremely happy to see law enforcement agencies, courts, and penal institutions being funded properly by our elected reps so as to lock up criminals for longer/more appropriate lengths of time.

As for your stray bullet comments, how many citizens have killed or injured a child with a stray bullet while they are protecting themselves from a violent criminal? Now, how many criminals (or gang members) have killed or injured a child with a stray bullet when they carry out a cowardly drive by?

Linda suffers from dementia and needs to be ignored

Linda,

I am not a redneck or an idiot, I am an Electrical Engineer, but I have a Concealed Carry Permit.

I do not carry all of the time, but I have the permit that allows me to do so; It is up to the bad guys to guess when I am carrying it.

I was trained to shoot in the US Marine Corps and I am very good at it, but I also know that with the power I was granted by the CC laws also comes great responsibility. The responsibility to know what I am doing, know how to do it effectively, and know when and where to use it. I practice at the range regularly in the event that, one day, I may be called upon to use it.

Yes, I have killed people before. I was in Vietnam with the 1st Marine Div. It is not something that I want to have to do again, but I would rather do it again than have a friend or family member robbed, raped, or murdered by some of the wonderful souls we have on the street today.

In order to get a CC permit in my state, you must go through a very extensive background check, attend a class, demonstrate proficiency, and pass a test on the rules and laws along with being thoroughly briefed on what WILL happen to you if you screw this up (Jail, Lawsuits, etc.). Our CC law does not allow us to carry within 25 ft of an establishment that serves Alcohol.

When I carry, I carry an M1911-A3 .45 Automatic with "Soft load" rounds. This round will not penetrate a wall or car door or come out the back of the bad guy and kill someone else, but it WILL stop the person I hit. I don't carry a .357 or Dirty Harry .44 magnum that will kill an elephant or Ford Engine Block; there is no need. I have it for my and my families protection.

Now for the reason WHY I have a permit: - The gun control laws DON'T Work!

We lived in Miami (Miami Lakes) from 1997 to 2000. In 1997, a rust-bucket ship was boarded by ICE in the Miami River one Sunday evening. On board, they found over 20,000 "Saturday Night Specials" along with several Tons of ammunition. This stuff was not bound for a "legal" gun shop, but for the myriad of gangs that operated out of Miami. In 2000, A raid was made in Carol City (North East Miami over by Dolphins Stadium and only 4 miles from our townhouse). The found a couple of hundred automatic weapons (AK-47 / M-16) along with a bunch of Cop Killer rounds. Carol City is the home of the Dominican and Jamaican Gangs that will kill you just because you are there.

We lived in Toronto (Mississauga), Canada from 1993 to 1997. Canada has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, but even they are suffering from the smuggling that goes on. Some friends of ours in Canada are now telling me that the ethnic gangs are more heavily armed than the RCMP.

I now live in North Carolina. Just after I moved here, a wonderful young lady named Eve Carson was murdered in the college town of Chapel Hill. She was the Student Body President at UNC and had a lifetime of service ahead of her. She was murdered by two teenage Gang members who were already on parole for violent crimes. One of them was only 16 at the time and had been in trouble with the law since he was 12! She was murdered for a coupe of hundred dollars in her ATM card. The murderers bought their guns from some entrepreneurial fellow gang members.

Now, please tell me why the current gun laws work and why I don't need to carry something.

your violating the code by calling us fools

It's okay. As long as you're in lockstep with MSNBC's censors (like Tyler) you can get away with anything.

I read your article and it does not surprise me that one of the Darlings of the Left-wing Anit gun crows is such a hipocrite to hire armed body guards for their children. I guess it is ok for armed protection for the families of the rich and famous but not for the poor and otherwise underpriveledged masses who cannot afford to hire their own thugs.

Far better each and ever citizen takes the responsibility to defend themselves, their families and their fellow citizens.

Want to drastically reduce gun violence? We know how to do it, we have done it before. End prohibition. Take over these behaviors and run them as legitimate businesses. Take the profits/taxes and create real treatment programs. Most importantly from a safety and violence standpoint, take the tons of black market money out of the activities and the gangs that run them go broke. No profit in it, no criminals in it. This will end the border violence problem on the Mexican border.

Jag, you're exactly right. It blows me away at how all those ant gunners are usually Democrats who employ body guards, who are carrying. I'm like you, I guess, I'm not rich, I have to defend myself and my family without the help of my own body guards. Let them ravel on their own.

It blows me away at how all those ant gunners are usually Democrats who employ body guards, who are carrying.

If you think about it, do they require their 'employees' to leave their weapons somewhere when they are off duty? Chances are they are fine with those body guards carrying when not working (or don't think about it...) So what is the difference between them (off duty) and another person?

wcritiquing "In my point a view who ever buy a gun is overcompensating. You know what they say. Bigger the gun, smaller the pistol. I just need my hands."

I'm sure you do, but this is not a forum about how to achieve sexual pleasure.

Who said he is a Christian? And why does he have any responsibility to protect those who refuse to protect themselves?

Our Lefty Government and its supporters wants God taken out of and off of everything anyways so whats left Linda? They are going to breed the same people you are complaining about.

Remember! Linda has the right to her opoinion as the rest of us do. Having sad that, I'm a 63 yr. old woman who DOES hve a small caliber revolver in my nightstand. I WILL use it if someone comes into my home illegally ( Meaning I didn't invite them to do so.). And as of now, & retiring back to where my husband & I grew up, I don't feel the need-yet-to get a concealed permit to carry. But IF the time should come when I do, I will get it. No there are no kids here nor will there be. We lock up our guns when our neighbor's son ( he's a State Trooper) housesits for us when we are away. We are responsible. I just know that a bullett goes faster than a 9/11 call does.

Like the man said Linda-399775, who ever said Cowboy was a Christian? I have met a lot of people who wear that title like a shroud and armored vest, feeling that it justifies being judgemental and hating others who are not just like them.

You do have the right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to dictate to me whether or not I can defend my self, my family or any other citizen I see in danger. I have accepted the responsibility to do so and that includes knowing just when and where to do so and at what level of violence. I would far rather be sitting on death row than facing the mother of a child I failed to protect or face a child who's mother I failed to protect.

You do as your conscious dictates, and I will do the same. But as long as you do not want to have your course of action dictated to you, by me, do me the courtessy of not dictating my course of action, to me. Even though I have never met her, I think I would rather have V. Bevis as my neighbor. She at least, I think, would be the first to come to the defense of my kids or grandkids and would have a better chance of protecting them from harm than you would. No offense meant, but you would be, at most a distraction to a criminal bent on harming them.

Point 1 is a simplistic, prejudicial and erroneous argument. Maybe if you would rely on actual facts rather than just "thinking" about what the facts should be, you'd be able to add to the ongoing discussion rather than clouding the issue with faulty assumptions.

More legal guns on the street = more illegal guns on the street = more crime = global warming.

More legal guns on the street = more illegal guns on the street = more crime = global warming.

this is more correct then the OP's statement

I wonder if Theindependent thinker has ever been to Florida. If so, maybe he can tell us how many "...yahoos running around in bars and restaurants drinking and having a gun on their person..." he saw.

I think we should all base our decisions on what "could" happen instead of statistical evidence indicating what actually does happen.

Apparently, he was a good shot. Maybe the 18 year old shouldn't have attempted to rob those people.

There really isn't a problem with the carry and conceal law. Here's a question for you to "think" about, "How often do these criminals commit these violent acts when there are uniformed cops in the room?" They don't. Why? Their weapons aren't concealed. Now, if you're a thug, it isn't so easy to rob someone. You never know what "victim" will not be a victiim. I think the playing field just go leveled.

As for the yahoos with guns, are you okay with the criminals carrying guns? Criminals are going to carry weapons no matter what. Why shouldn't law abiding citizens?

Your theory about legal guns, illegal guns and more crime is absolutely wrong. The statistics don't support your belief. I'm no expert, so I think I'll just ignore your theory--at least until you have something in the form of proof. For the record, the reason this sort of data is collected and analyzed is to prove or disprove a theory. Why isn't it working for you? You read the article, saw the statistics, and within 15 minutes you chose to ignore them. What gives?

1) So if that holds true, then more boys born = more penises on the street = more potential rapists?

2) Bar owners can ban carrying of a concealed gun on their property, and most do in the states that allow it.

3) The guy was a good shot and he was educated about firearms. A .32 with hollow points was the best choice to carry in the situation in which he used it.

You can "what if" any situation. In this case, this man and the other non-criminals around him survived to tell the story.

What if the guy in this article wasn't a good shot or if his bullet went right through? Instead of losing a probably half empty wallet, he could have killed an innocent bystander. While that didn't happen in this instance, it easily could have.

I suppose this statement is based on some fear you have of being accidently shot. Try a little experiment ... How many things can you run through your brain in the 2-4 seconds it takes to sloowwwllllyyyyyy reach for your wallet in your back pocket. The guy in the article had time to think through all those scenerios 2-3 times before he chose to pull the gun or his real wallet.

Furthermore, most states don't just hand over a permit for $100 and two cereal boxtops. Extensive training courses and demonstrated markmanship are often part of the procedure.

TheIndependentThinker

1) More legal guns on the street = more illegal guns on the street = more crime.

Proof please. (Ben nailed it.)

2) I am not sure I want a bunch of yahoos running around in bars and restaurants drinking and having a gun on their person. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

I've been a bartender. I'm actually with you on this one. The last thing you need is some drunk idjit to decide to play O.K corrall, or someone to track down her husband two timin', or whatever. People are much more prone to violence without thought when you add alcohol. Not a good idea.

3) What if the guy in this article wasn't a good shot or if his bullet went right through? Instead of losing a probably half empty wallet, he could have killed an innocent bystander. While that didn't happen in this instance, it easily could have.

Are you kidding? 'Could have' just isn't much of an argument, especially when 'it didn't'. I know that if someone is standing less than 20 feet away from me I can hit them with a hand gun. Most people can. Even if you're scared and shaking, (which is why the criminal bothered to use one.)

More legally carried guns = fewer weapons left at home to be stolen by dirtbags = fewer illegal guns = less confidence in ability to rob someone without getting shot = less crime.

You are absolutely right, how did we miss this all these years, that explains why the crime rate in Arizona is SOOOOOOO much higher than the clean and safe city of Los Angeles.

I guess if we all turned out guns in we to could be the clean shining and safe metropolis like beautiful L.A. even new york huh?

What genius.

Spot on, Independent Thinker. No true liberal calls for a ban on gun ownership. To the contrary. A true liberal however, is likely to get highly exercised when a gun user abuses a firearm.

The vast majority of my liberal friends own firearms, know how to use them, AND are acutely aware of the damage they can do. Yes, a criminal with a firearm is quite a worrisome prospect, but if you want truly scary, picture one of these loudmouth, tough-guy gunners, amped up on an overdose of adrenaline firing at a "bad guy" in a crowded mall.

I can assure you that my liberal friends would love to see an armed thug dropped by a well-placed round. What we would NOT like to see is an innocent bystander dropped by some hotheaded jerk who thinks he can hit a target at ten-yards. A serious gunner knows it isn't all that easy to do, particularly under stress.

The story that prompted this thread had a happy outcome. As a true liberal, I like seeing bad guys get dead. On the other hand, if our hero had missed his target and killed a bystander, I'd be calling for his execution. Are you concealed carry types willing to live OR die with that? Would you sign a waiver to that effect as a condition of getting your permit?

"You are absolutely right, how did we miss this all these years, that explains why the crime rate in Arizona is SOOOOOOO much higher than the clean and safe city of Los Angeles.'

or Washington DC with the highest murder and crime rate (though our Congressman are the reason for the high "crime" rate) in the country and at the same time have the strictest gun laws in the country. As any good Gun Ban supporter, do not let facts get in the way of your assumptions.

Had nothing to do with the "probably half-empty wallet." If someone points a gun, you MUST assume they're prepared to use it, and react accordingly.

More legal guns on the street = more illegal guns on the street = more crime.... = global warming..... = Bush is responsible for the comet /asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

LOL!!!

David Walker if you had taken a concealed carry class you would know that your given situation is a specific training point. When an individual initiates an illegal chain of events and an innocent bystander is killed, it is the person who initiated the chain of events (and any accomplices) that is charged with murder, not the individual who fired the weapon.

Indenpendent Thinker.

Read the article again, He was carring a .32. The chances of this going thru anyone is slim to none.

"If you do not like guns move to England we sure will not miss you."

Move to England, are you nuts. They banned guns and their crime rate is now higher than it was before the ban. Seems only criminals are now able to arm themselves and the citizens of England that follow the law are easy pickings....

Just another fact a Gun Ban supporter closes their ears too.

Read the article again, He was carring a .32. The chances of this going thru anyone is slim to none.

hollow point no less. Unless you clip his jeans, that's not passing through @!$%#.

David Walker,

Please correct me if I am wrong, but 10 yards is 30 feet. When I go to the range for practice with my 38 special (about 1500 rounds of practice in the last year), I can guarantee you that I don't miss my target at 30 feet.

How many loudmouth, tough guy gunners, amped up on an overdose of adrenaline (by the way where do you get adrenaline so that you can overdose?) do you know? Maybe you have met some individuals with guns. Maybe you have met some individuals with guns that aren't afraid to speak their mind about their rights to own or carry. Does this make them a loudmouth? Even if it does, what difference does that make when they are faced with a deadly situation. I would be glad to have someone who has thought about the issue a lot, and practiced with their gun. These "loudmouths" aren't going around shooting innocent people by accident when they miss the "bad guy." If they have, people document with proof.

John Laz,

To equate practice at a range with a confrontation with an armed robber is ludicrous.

Numerous stories recount pitched gun battles at short distances leaving little more than empty clips and casings. If you live in a large metropolitan area, chances are you can find a cop with first-hand experience who can tell you this a frequent outcome. If not, watch one of the reality TV cop shows and you can see with your own eyes how frequent are the misses when shooters whose adrenal glands have left them shaky. (You know darned well what I meant about an adrenaline overdose.)

I know many people who own guns, many of them are my friends, and few of my friends are afraid to speak their minds. Some of them are opposed to concealed carry, others approve. I support concealed carry with the condition that ALL shooters accept full responsibility for the damage they do. In this case, the citizen who killed the robber has been dealt with properly. I have no problem labeling this self defense.

On the other hand, had he missed and shot my wife for instance, he faces a serious problem. He has no justification whatsoever for killing her, and Darrel who believes our good guy gets a pass in this case is dead wrong.

I also know too many people, who are not my friends, who talk the talk, but when the chips are down cannot or will not walk the walk. Again, you know exactly what I am saying about these loudmouths. You know about tough-talking cowards.

Some time ago, a little old lady was in a branch of Wells Fargo in Sacramento. Some idiot walked in an announced his intention to hold up the bank. This little lady was rather incensed, to the extent that she pulled out her .32 and let go with five rounds. Every round missed its mark. Good fortune intervened. No one was hurt and the would-be robber ran like hell. That's a great story, but there were other customers in the bank, and there could easily have been a horrific result.

What if the guy in this article wasn't a good shot or if his bullet went right through? Instead of losing a probably half empty wallet, he could have killed an innocent bystander. While that didn't happen in this instance, it easily could have.

Others have addressed this, but hollow points from a .32 aren't going anywhere. Imagining the situation, the robber had the gun in one hand (most likely with an improper grip, maybe even sideways) and had the other outstretched, palm up (so the victims could hand over their stuff). Unless he had them tossing thier watches/jewelry/wallets into a pile in the middle of the room, we was close enough to nearly ensure a hit.

On the other hand, if our hero had missed his target and killed a bystander, I'd be calling for his execution. Are you concealed carry types willing to live OR die with that?

So, if someone exercises their rights, and a bad situation caused by a violent criminal leads to a bystander's death, your solution is to execute the person that DIDN'T commit a crime instead of the one that did? Thank goodness there aren't many people like you making laws in this country.

TheIndependantThinker,

I'll give you the same answer that I gave Linda in posting 9.10, but I will also add that much of the reason for the explosion of CC Permits is because of the explosion of Gang Violence in even small cities. The liberal desire to rehabilitate the youthful gang offender has caused this problem. We are letting some real monsters out on the street with no fear of the law and only a slap on the wrist and no supervision. I would not have a permit to carry if I felt that the police had some semblance of control over the crime in even a small city like mine. If we could get control of the streets, lock away the incorrigible, and teach those that are not beyond help that this is NOT the way to go, I would gladly give up my permit.

David Walker you spout a nice opinion, or perhaps the laws in your state are different but in my state, yes the good guy gets a pass.

State code Title XVI Criminal Law and Procedure
Subtitle 1
Chapter 704

704.10 Compulsion.

No act, other than an act by which one intentionally or recklessly causes physical injury to another, is a public offense if the person so acting is compelled to do so by another's threat or menace of serious injury, provided that the person reasonably believes that such injury is imminent and can be averted only by the person doing such act.

If an armed diner at Luby's Cafeteria in Texas in the 1990s had inadvertently killed or wounded another patron while stopping the shooter, I would praise him/her. That gun man killed nearly 10 people. If others were carrying he may have been stopped sooner with less loss of innocent lives. So know I do not agree with the position that an individual coming to the assistance of others should be prosecuted. I do agree with Chris in that a weapon and load that is less likely to exit the first object it enters should be the preferred choice.

That said, when out in the wilds known to have bear and wild canines, I do want a weapon tht can stop them. The chances of collateral damage or minimal in these circumstances.

David,

What did the old lady's practice regimen consist of?

I know there is a difference between range training and the real thing, but it is the best solution that I have. I have incorporated movements and exercises to cause shortness of breath and fatigue before shooting at a target to simulate shaky arms, etc.

I have seen cops and robbers exchanging gunfire on TV and missing everything. Oh well, what do you want me to say to that? I train with more rounds per year that cops do (with exception of SWAT I guess).

As for the loudmouths, I don't hang out with them. If you mean walk the walk, as in shooting someone" then I haven't seen that personally. There is no problem with these "loudmouths" that you mention other than they are a little foolish. There is no reason to run your mouth, in fact is is better to keep quiet as you know. But if they are just a loudmouth that knows they won't back anything up with violence, then they will probably just be a loudmouth who is smart enough to avoid dangerous situations.

Tim S.

I carry a weapon for protection. That is why, when I carry (and that is seldom), I carry a .45 It will protect me form most anything short of a grizzly. Like I said, there is little reason to carry a .357 or .44 Magnum unless you are trying to defend yourself against a Semi.

If someone is going to get a pistol for protection, they need to get one for protection, not a "Hand Cannon," learn to use it CORRECTLY, get professional instruction, practice regularly and, most of all remember that John Wayne and John Rambo were actors; nothing more!

Testosterone poisoning can be lethal under the wrong circumstances.

I carry a weapon for protection. That is why, when I carry (and that is seldom), I carry a .45 It will protect me form most anything short of a grizzly. Like I said, there is little reason to carry a .357 or .44 Magnum unless you are trying to defend yourself against a Semi.

I beg to differ. Badger. You'd be amazed. Little buggers are tough as h***! But I always thought they'd give a grizzley (or a semi) a run for their money.

Chris,

We agree. I was only pointing out that choosing the correct weapon for the potential activities is part of responsible use. I think it is unwise to use the hand cannon technique in a populated area and it is just as foolish to use an undersized weapon on a bear (or wolverine, Morgan). The last thing you want to do is just piss them off.

Gee whiz

It was a joke Mister.

1. It was a badger not a wolverine (there is a difference, although it's academic which one is tougher).

2. I don't live in a populated area, and I wouldn't even carry that gun into one. Total collateral damage problem, besides, I'm 5 foot 3, and a buck ten. I look silly just holding it. I personally hate using that .357, (especially with .357 rounds... oof!) On another note, I think you're underestimating a grizzly (since apparently we're getting all technical). A .357, or a .44 might change a grizzly's mind (or just piss it off), but it probably won't kill it. Now, a .454 casull... that might do it. If you shot him inna' head anyway.

3. We don't have anything smaller that wouldn't have just pissed Mr. badger off, or wounded him to crawl in his hole and die slow, and I was on my own for that one. I wanted to be sure. My point was, they don't look like much compared to a grizzly, (or a semi) but they're little biological tanks. Maybe not a good joke... But still...

Colt Sigle Action Army FTMFW

40 cal. S&W M&P loaded with hollow points! I will stay safe!

the M&P's are nice

Still a sleep??

SHHHHH! You'll wake up the troll.

PP...Just to make the things a little more precise.

The second amendment does not grant any rights. It makes it illegal for the government to prevent us from exercising our inalienable rights. It is a restriction on government.

Very unfortunate incident, but it culminated in an appropriate ending. Fortunately the victims made it through and the animal was killed! Saves court time and years of appeals.

Xerxes: I remember reading about this incident. And it helped influence me to have a gun in my nightstand. ( My husband has one also)

"Vengeance is mine saith the Lord, but He subcontracts" lol

I didn't think that the authors of these stories ever actually read the vines. I'm glad to see that someone at MSNBC likes to hear what the average people think.

Gansta? Funny! Veiled or not, I know what you were saying!

BTW, ganstas are not the only idiots running around with weapons. The first time I was assaulted, it was by a non-gansta. I wish I had my CCW & Ruger then!

"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I shall repay. Isn't that how it goes?"

"It doesn't limit him to his choice of weapons, now, does it, Major?"

Lee Marvin and Telly Savalas, The Dirty Dozen.

dan: good use of statics, any statistic can be used up or down, you brought that out very well; as for the article, a.32, is small but does not have much stopping power, a 40 cal weapon is the best to carry

Dan, That is priceless!

Assuming your stat's are true and accurate, I appreciate the perspective they bring. Nice job.

Saxon - What you say is true regarding stopping power. However, a .40 cal is generally larger and, therefore, more difficult to conceal. Also, in the unlikely event that you actually have to draw and fire your weapon, the smaller .32 cal can be just as effective with a well placed shot. Furthermore, the smaller caliber decreases the likelyhood of a pass-through, thereby decreasing the likelyhood of injury or death to innocent bystanders. As the story was related in this article, it served to "take out the trash" and nothing more, which is just as it should be.

Step in; you are correct, however colt makes a .45 semi small , only problem grip is to small for a person with a large hand. However, small caliber weapons have gotten the person injured, unless they are well placed . a 45 is like a brick thrown against a window, everything goes down!

Dan, we need to do away with Bathtubs too. Too many people fall to their deaths in those little white boxes.

We could also do away with Vehicle Deaths if we banned all cars and trucks from the roads. Vehicles kill more people per year than guns, people use them in crimes, and people use them to purposely kill other people by driving them over. Vehicles - its the death of society. Ban them now before we fall into anarchy!

LMAO!

Great analogy.

We could also do away with Vehicle Deaths if we banned all cars and trucks from the roads.

They're already trying to do that too through various means ... Emission controls that make it tough to have gas guzzlers; transportation and development funding weighted heavily toward mass transit, bicycle, and pedestrian commuting.

lol, love it Dan. Just goes to show gun owners have more respect for the effects of their actions and sense of responsibility than Doctors.

Dan,

The statistics are interesting, but your analogy is flawed. Deaths caused by physicians are likely related to the groups while they are engaging in the practice of medicine. The gun owner's statistic appears to include a vast majority that do not regularly use their firearms, or not engaging in the practice. This can mean two things, either gun owners are3 not using their guns, or they are all terrible shots

Dave

While I think that gun ownership is fine, the motor vehicle ban analogy is trite and ill conceived. The main difference is that cars and other vehicles are not produced and sold solely to kill things. Deaths due to misuse of vehicles are generally a byproduct of an economically important and necessary activity, transportation. Given that the sole pupose of firearms is destructive changes the parameters of the argument.

Calling Dr Kill Patient, Calling Dr Kill Patient LOL

But you are right, there are far more common ways to die than by gun violence, why ban guns unless you are looking to make someone a victim of your own agenda.

Yep!

Well said, NH Dealer! One thing I'd like to comment on someone else above, think 'Linda', what if a shot goes astray and hits an innocent bystander. A couple of scenarios could be viable, one- that person was 'not' properly trained in the actual firing of the weapon and couldn't hit a target at 25-ft. or had too many misses at that target; Two- the firearm is too high in 'velocity' without enough 'grains' in the actual bullet. I think 'legal carriers' should consider #2 here a little more! Personally, I have a .45ACP as my 'main' choice, and my 'backup' is a 44-mag. with at least 200-grain rounds, both using hollowpoints. I'd use the 44-mag only in a given case where it was needed, and if nothing else just the 'sight' of it to a criminal can deter their ideas! Don't always carry the 44, just depends on what part of town or places I go. I am a CCW holder and have been the last 15-yrs., so I've seen a lot of happenings in both these scenarios, news and first hand. On #1, in the class I was in back in the 90's, we had '2' people that did NOT qualify on the actual firing. They had to re-take the firing part of the class at a later date, as they were denied their certificate. This meant they had to 'practice' until they could put the required number of rounds into the target at the 'specified' range that you would use in an actual case of 'having' to fire your weapon at an intruder(thug)! So just because they take the class if no guarantee everybody will get their CCW, for those like 'Linda's' beliefs! Not too many are perfect, I understand, but you must prove you can handle a firearm in given situations and hit the target. I've been shooting guns all my life and made it through the Vietnam war as well. In my state, you can carry legally both 'open' and 'concealed'. I prefer to carry concealed most of the time. I've only had to actually pull my .45 out of the holster once in all these years, and then it was 'down to my side' pointing down. Two other times all I had to do was moved my shirt back so the 'possible' thugs could see it. Out of all three times total, you never saw thugs make such a quick 90-degree turn or a 180 turn upon seeing my Glock!! On the 'Bar' issue, IF I ever go into a bar(which is rare anymore), I make sure I don't carry one in with me. Most likely IF it's in the vehicle at the time, it'll be unloaded, locked away in the 'gun vault', and ammo in another location not readily accessible. I don't want to risk losing my 'right to carry' for something that stupid. When we go out to 'eat', we sometimes eat in places that also serve alcohol, but I do NOT drink alcohol when eating out. These restaurants' main income is 'FOOD', NOT alcohol. I DO carry in these places unless they have a 'proper sign' on the doors entrance, and most likely I would NOT eat at that establishment any more! And to the ESTABLISHMENTS that do not even serve alcohol, IF you have such a sign, YOU will NOT get my business, either!! Sorry for your loss of income from me.

One last item, IF I had a neighbor(s) that were 'Anti-Guns', I would love to have this sign in MY yard (taken from the internet email floating around):

"My Next Door Neighbor want to BAN all GUNS!! THEIR house in NOT ARMED! Out of RESPECT for their opinions I promise NOT to use MY GUNS to Protect THEM..." I would buy one of these signs if I ever see one even if I didn't even put it up! Would make a great conversation piece...

bingo!

@karaokekid:

What's wrong with the Taurus Judge or Public Defender? They can be loaded with your choice of .45 Long Colt or .410 shotshells. When I get my CCW, I'm looking at one of those loaded with the .410. Less chance of overpenetration; excellent stopping power for the ranges I intend to use it; and less kinetic energy in each shell so even if I miss (thank you, Crimson Trace!) risk to anyone downrange is minimized.

that he first had removed.

only later was he forced to sign it

Exactly, how was he forced to sign it?

it was added to the credit card bill. which he politicly had to sign... read the freakin news

Why do they deserve to sue? So they can get money, the same thing the robber was trying to get?

Different kind of robbery, with the pen instead of the gun?

But none are so blind as those who will not see, especially if seeing would be damaging to a cherished preconceived notion.