The American Spectator : The Duty of Self-Defense

Text Size

The Duty of Self-Defense

By Jed Babbin on 7.23.12 @ 6:08AM

Ignoring the lessons we should have learned from the Aurora and previous massacres.

(Page 2 of 2)

I’ve heard a lot of “experts” (including Di-Fi) proclaim that if people in the Aurora theater had been armed, the massacre would have resulted in more deaths and injuries. Really? There reportedly were 71 people killed or injured. I can say with considerable assurance that if one or more properly trained and armed people were there, they could have shot and either incapacitated or killed the shooter long before he finished his killing spree. Even with a small concealable pistol a trained shooter could have knocked down, disabled, or killed the shooter despite his body armor. Had someone done so, the casualty list would have been much shorter.

The police won’t be there in time to save you. If the only thing you have in your hand is a bag of popcorn and a killer begins shooting the crowd you — and your spouse and children and friends — will probably die. Every American who is lawfully entitled to carry a weapon has a duty to do so. Part of that duty is to get the training and to continue to practice with the weapon so that you can shoot, quickly and accurately, under the worst stress you can imagine. If you don’t think so, read Dave Grossman’s essay, “Sheep, Wolves and Sheepdogs.”

Gun control advocates are pointing the section of the Heller decision that says that some restrictions on gun ownership can be constitutional. The liberals now are saying that “sensible” or “moderate” new gun control laws are the answer, reserving the definition of those terms to themselves. But no gun control law will stop the killers. Chicago has some of the most stringent gun control laws in the nation and it’s now the murder capital of the country.

Each of us can, and must, resolve ourselves to our duty of self-defense. We cannot rely on the government to defend us every minute of the day. We have to accept our duty and do our best to perform it.

Page: < 12

About the Author

Jed Babbin served as a Deputy Undersecretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He is the author of several bestselling books including Inside the Asylum and In the Words of Our Enemies. You can follow him on Twitter @jedbabbin.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (349) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kitty | 7.23.12 @ 6:26AM

To prove your point, last week The Right Scoop posted this recent story: "Older man shoots robbers at Internet Cafe in Florida"

http://www.therightscoop.com/a.....n-florida/

Kitty | 7.23.12 @ 6:54AM

I forgot to mention that there's a good video at that link of the man shooting at the robbers.

Jack in Wi| 7.23.12 @ 7:47AM

Kitty: Governments have killed over 100 million of there citizens in the 20th century alone. Lets abolish government. Aids has killed at least 50 million and 50 million hve been made sick. Lets ban homosex. Hollywood in the last 45 years ever since the production codes have been abolished, has produced many movies that make violence look like a a game. This idiot thought he was Batman. The author above mentions Psychiatrists. Well this guy and the guy in Texas were of that persuasion or studing to be one. Before they had psychiatrists they didn't have many crimes like this because the obvious nuts were locked up somewhere. Lets ban psychiatrists.

Occam's Tool| 7.23.12 @ 1:21PM

They were treated by psychiatrists, Jack. He was studying to be a neuroscience researcher, not a psychiatrist, Jack. Whitman wanted to be an architect.
The mentally ill need easier long term medication, as RCV states (we are in agreement on this one---living in CA, and seeing the unmedicated homeless is sure to make a believer out of anyone except an ACLU attorney).

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:01AM

Actually Whitman had no history of mental illness. The autopsy showed he had a brain tumor. Which did not appear to effect his aim.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.23.12 @ 5:07PM

The police have no definite rules on self defense, the police don't care who starts a fight; if you fight back, you considered guilty until proven innocent.

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:02AM

Where did you come up with that idea from?

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:08AM

Babbin is indulging in Rambo fantasies. When you're in a dark theater and someone is shooting at everyone, there is too much confusion to understand what to do in such a situation. Panic is the body's primary defense mechanism; it's telling you to get out of there.

It's clear that theaters need better security. This could easily have been a terrorist act. Security guards need to train for this sort of thing so they can take out the crazed shooters or determined terrorists.

In addition, we need to get over the 1960s view that mentally deranged people cannot be committed without their consent. Obviously, checks and balances need to be in place to prevent abuses, but many of our homeless problems, and our shooter problems would never arise if we stopped being hyper-libertarian in our treatment of the mentally incapacitated.

No, we don't need more Rambos; we just need some more common sense in our security measures and in our treatment of the mentall ill.

In addition, we should also recognize that there are evil people out there, and none of our efforts can prevent every evil act. It's just a fact of life we have to get used to.

RCV| 7.23.12 @ 11:03AM

Vern, you're spot on with your observation that we need to reverse the constraints on treating the mentally deranged among us, as I'm sure our friend Occam would agree. The protections against involuntary commitment and medication of the mentally ill have swung so far in recent decades that we are now consigning those unfortunates and society as a whole to a dangerous future.

CJW| 7.23.12 @ 12:21PM

Pennsylvania, like other states, passed a law in 1980 dealing with civil committments that favored out patient therapy, and required strict proof that the person was a danger to himself or others for committment.
I went to a seminar where we were told that these hearings had to be conducted similar to a criminal trial to raise all possible arguments and objections to evidence to prevent a committment. That is what the state law requires. Before that it was easier to commit a person.
This is probably one of the main reasons for the increase in the homeless. The people do not take their medication or attend therapy, and are in worse condition, and more danger to themselves and others, now that they are out on the street.
I did only one comittment under the new act for a family friend, and will not do them again.

George S| 7.23.12 @ 11:29AM

You cannot design for 100 percent. I don't know of a single engineer, scientist, military commander, airline pilot or even police officer trained or educated in every possible outcome to defend or design against. There is always a risk when you walk outside your door.

If you want to remove risk, you must remove freedom (see: Airport Security, TSA style). Would you accept a grope search of your genitals prior to entering a movie theater plus the removal of emergency exits? That's the only way of 99.99% certainty that that will never happen again.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 1:09PM

What is wrong with Airport Security? I've gone through it several times; no problems. It's always easy to set up straw men (groping genitals), but secure doors, security personnel with better training, and metal detectors at entrances, are a reasonable measure to secure both our liberty and our safety.

Occam's Tool| 7.23.12 @ 1:24PM

I have never been groped---I go through the machine. I am used to wearing loose pants because I have wedding tackle like Secretariat when aroused. We all have our crosses to bear. :-)

Eagle Creek| 7.23.12 @ 9:59PM

Ok... So, besides the Airport and Movie Theaters,
where else should we have metal detectors, secure
doors and security personnel with better training..
The Library ? McDonalds ? The bowling Alley ?
The Piggly Wiggly Market ? Perhaps we should outfit all public buildings with full body scanners ?

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:38PM

I don't think any of those places are similar to a theater. Libraries aren't as enclosed, and they do have things to hide behind. The other places are also relatively easy to exit, have tables to hide behind, or aisles to run around. Theaters have zero protection since the chairs can't be moved, and people cannot get out of the exits very quickly from a shooter; hard enough with a fire.

The public building I work at has a metal detector and security guards. Not a bad idea to protect soft targets. Of course, if you'd rather serve up straw men than do smaller but adequate things, then we'll continue to have more of these massacres.

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:10AM

Congratulations you have just raised the price on a movie ticket to about 150.00 each.

Occam's Tool| 7.23.12 @ 1:23PM

George: when a patient ghas been committed three times, has a rap sheet as long as my arm, and you can't commit and involuntarily medicate for more than 6 months to a year, that's a problem. Look up Reise versus St. Mary's and see the points made.

No, one can't get 100% security, but one can certainly do better than we do with minimal "genital groping."

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:40PM

If this happened at a busy Delicatessen in Brooklyn, they'd say that there needs to be More Security at busy Delis.

If it happened at a Bowling Alley, they'd blame the Bowling Alley for not having Enough Security.

If it happened on a Greyhound Bus. (Do we still have Greyhound Buses?)

If it happened at Walmart.

If it happened at a Parade, a Party, or an Easter Egg Hunt at the Community Center.

There aren't enough Cops in the Country, to be everywhere at once.

"If you're willing to give up a little Liberty, for a little more Security? Than you deserve neither."

As George S has said: Everytime you walk out your door, you're at risk.

That's the World we live in.

That's life, in Obama's Amerika.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 4:34PM

TLP, your analogies don't work because a movie theater essentially holds a large, captive audience, who cannot easily escape. That's why the maxim is that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater -- too many people, not enough time to exit.

As I said, this could have easily been a terrorist attack. Security needs to do a better job of protecting venues where large groups of people are enclosed. What's to stop radical Moslems from starting fires, or tossing grenades, into theaters? Would our arm-chair Rambos are going to be able to stop that?

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 6:11PM

I just gave you instances of Large Groups of people, Congregating.

Last I looked, none of these places are "Easy to get out of" as you so stupidly put it.

So, WTF are you talking about?

The Movie Theatre is no different than any situation that I described.

What's to stop The "Moslems" from setting Fires, or throwing Bombs in to any of the places that I described?

Ask the Israelis, eating at Sbarros, or riding on a Bus, or attending a Wedding, what they think about this.

Or, are you just as Stupid, as The "Moslems"?

Idiot.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:25PM

TLP, We encourage readers to share and discuss their thoughtful and relevant comments about this Spectator article. Comments are routinely monitored and will be deleted if profane, bigoted, or grossly impolite. Please be respectful. (And don't feed the trolls!) Thank you.

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:13AM

Well said.

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:13AM

Well said.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 7:17PM

If there is a fire in theater what do we yell then Vernon? "man with gun"? What you are suggesting is that there aren't enough exits in theaters? They don't meet fire code? Do we have a mass Titanic situation on our hands here? Should we not pull that "fire alram" if there is a fire because we might cause a panic?

The only reason there was a captive audience in this case is because hundreds of people could not defend themselves at all by order of people who think like you and that most people are too stupid to respond with reason given the chance.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:31PM

Thom, I know it's easy to be an arm-chair Rambo, but likely as not, you and all the other big talkers on this page would freeze up in a similar situation as those people in Colorado faced, or you'd panic and try to get out.

chemman| 7.23.12 @ 2:02PM

CVC you can train yourself to get beyond the flight mode of the fight or flight reaction. That said as well trained as I am I would not have wanted to take this guy on. The conditions; a dark theater, chemical haze and panicked people, would have resulted in injuries to more than the person shooting at the patrons. In my state you will be arrested and taken to trial for those injuries even if you stopped a bigger atrocity from happening. In the circumstances, if armed, I would have tried to stop him but not by indiscriminate firing at him.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 4:37PM

Agreed. I think the best situation would be for theaters to invite off duty policemen to watch movies for free. Nothing like paying for a little extra security.

Riff Raff| 7.23.12 @ 6:53PM

Perhaps off-duty police officers could FLY for free as well. Works for me.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:32PM

Good idea.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 7:28PM

chemman, if your choice was take the shot and maybe hit Grand Ma with one round or let the plane fly into the building killing thousands then what?

The problem with trying to outthink yourself in situations like this is that you never know all the details you can piece together after the fact and can never know what the future holds. You act or you don't. People die in both cases but you have to live with your actions and inactions. The survival rate from a single handgun wound is pretty good compared to someone repeatedly firing point blank at people frozen in place by fear.

I’d take the shot(s) with as much care as possible but I’d act because I’ve seen what naive brings if you don’t.

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:00PM

"Its clear that theaters need better security", that is EXACTLY what the author is calling for.
I am compelled to ask, Vern, what happens if the "security" guard or "rent a cop" is the FIRST one taken down by the shooter????
Non-hackers giving security advice!! That is why we are where we are.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 4:39PM

"You're helpless unless you're armed and well trained to respond with deadly force."

No, he's wanting us all to become armed and well trained. Sorry, but that's not going to happen, expecially if most of the audience consists of teenagers.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 7:31PM

One out of 100 in the audience is more than adequate for this kind of situation. There were several hundred in the audience and not one person resisted.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:40PM

How do you know? Maybe the one person who resisted was killed.

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.23.12 @ 5:10PM

"Security guards need to train for this sort of thing so they can take out the crazed shooters or determined terrorists."

The above is also fantasy, rent-a-cops are going to train to be crack anti-terrorists? security guards are good for wrirting 'All Secure' in their logbooks.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:40PM

If they cannot train for this type of situation, what the hell are we paying them for?

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 5:42PM

"Babbin is indulging in Rambo fantasies”

Project much Vernon? Just because you don't have the goods for this kind of situation doesn't mean everyone operates down at your level.

Which one of these questions can you answer yes to:

Been shot at? And didn’t “lose it”.
Used a gun to stop a criminal act in the dark?
Fired at and hit the correct target with a handgun in a pitch dark room and not hit the wrong targets around said bad target time and time again?
Can hit an 8 inch plate at 35 yards most of the time with a handgun off hand with open sights under stress?

I can answer yes to all those. How many did you get?

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.23.12 @ 8:21PM

Right,
but a security guard has a gun largely for show; only one in a million, or less, guards would be on the ball enough to shoot the exact spot (i.e. a crazed gunman's head or midsection) in time.

But if you can hire Clark Kent to work as rent-a-cop, that's different.

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:42PM

It's easy to brag when the shooting is all over.

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:07AM

You have never seen security guard and police shoot have you.

It's call "fight or flight" reflex. And not everyone panics in a high stress situation. If it had not been a "gun free zone", thanks the the policy of the theater owners, things would have been different.
The police did not get there until after the shooting was over.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:12AM

Did you notice that that older guy in the Ocala internet cafe was shooting a bit promiscuously? I know he scared the stuffing out of those thugs, and I applaud that, but he might easily have shoot a bystander. Shooting one-handed like that, tsk, tsk; surely he knew better: an example of what happens when the adrenaline starts a-pumping. You forget everything and spray-and-pray takes over.

KyMouse| 7.23.12 @ 10:39AM

In the Internet Cafe, the older man's shooting at the bad guys didn't result in a gunfight, did it? I don't know the details, but am I right in thinking that the bad guys fled?

I wonder in how many such incidents the bad guys, even when armed, flee instead of getting into a gunfight. In some percentage of cases, I wonder if the bad guys have guns but don't know how to use them very well -- using them to scare people into cooperating.

It may be that, in many cases, the armed bad guys would flee or surrender if confronted by CCW folks. Holmes surrendered to the armed police outside the theatre, right?

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:04PM

Ky, the bad guys fell all over themselves RUNNING away. Bill above is full of baloney, every shot the old guy took was aimed at the BAD GUYS. OOORAHH for him!!!!

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 6:44AM

Was left a 9mm by a friend who recently passed and have taken the first gun safety class, am practicing at a gun range with well seasoned firearms folks. AND have applied for my carry permit. Here in Virginia, we can carry and I intend to.
These stupid liberals wont' give up THEIR weapons and the weapons of their body guards, then we'll talk about "gun control" Screw them.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 7:09AM

You're last sentence is exactly right.

Hey, Bloomberg!

Instead a running your Fat Mouth? How about Leading by Example.

Get rid of your POLICE DETAIL, and walk around UNPROTECTED, like you demand for the rest of us.

Hypocrite, thy name is Bloomberg.

And your Kid looks like the back side of that Horse she's always riding, ya POS.

That's right, I said it! (Hat Tip - Mark Levin)

Maxwell| 7.23.12 @ 7:52AM

I have asked many times to have Chris Christie go with me at 2AM for a tour of Trenton, Camden, Newark, or Washington DC without his state troopers by his side or a 45 ACP. Just Chris & me. At 140 pounds I am not the largest person in the world. I asked when posting at the Star Ledger of New Jersey web site. To date no one has taken me up on that. Needless to say, there is no CCW in Jersey.

Second, if I remember right, Di Fi is one of the VERY FEW that has been issued a CCW. Some are more equal than others comes to mind.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 8:18AM

Actually, when speaking of Her?

Some PIGS are more equal than others, comes to mind, if you ask me.

Maxwell| 7.23.12 @ 8:20AM

Ok TLP, I stand corrected. Thank you.

Cobalt| 7.23.12 @ 10:54AM

I have read that a 9mm performs best with a 124 Grain Bullet.

Always use factory ammunition.

Never use reloaded ammunition, or anything that could be considered "experimental." Otherwise, someday you might have a bad day in court.

If possible, use the same round law enforcement uses when carrying a 9mm.

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 12:19PM

Why thank you Cobalt. I appreciate your advice.

Cobalt| 7.23.12 @ 12:29PM

You're welcome.

Alej| 7.23.12 @ 1:33PM

.45 ACP. Reloaded with 185-grain hollowpoints @ 1100 f.p.s. Because you shouldn't have to shoot the bastard three times.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 1:48PM

A .45 bullet traveling at 1100 fps, I hope you're praying that the expansion will stop it from going all the way through the bad guy's body, passing through your house walls, and the neighbor's walls, and blowing the brains out of their sleeping six-month old in his crib.

I strongly recommend Glaser Safety Slugs or the 12-gauge.

Cobalt| 7.23.12 @ 4:22PM

For home defense, if someone can't handle the weight or recoil of a 12 gauge, then a 410 shotgun might work.

A 410 shell with slugs, or with 3 or 4 00 or 000 shot, would do the trick. This would be more powerful than most handguns.

Bill84728| 7.24.12 @ 10:34AM

Yes, 124 grains (as opposed to 115 grains), the heavier round is more inherently accurate -you still better practice, practice, practice, a good round can't make up for poor stance, hold, trigger pull, breathing. And hollow points so the round doesn't go all the way through the body of your target, as 9 mm. rounds can and sometimes do.

There's some debate over the efficacy of Safety Slugs (frangible bullets), which stay in the body, but the detractors aside, most reports are favorable as to stopping power.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 7:01AM

If Di Fi wants all of these Guns Rounded up? It must be because Her Husand has a Company that Rounds up Guns.

Now, let's look at our Boy, named after Mohammed's Horse.

There he was yesterday in Aurora Colorado, trying his best to pretend that he gives a Sh*t about anyone, but himself. Ditto, for the rest of his Puke Party.

Remember what these Democrats were saying, after 911. After faking it, for a coupla days, and making Phoney Speeches, and singing Patriotic Songs for 5 Minutes, they were out there thinking out loud about "How Great it would have been, if we had been HIT, while The Rapist Bill Clinton was in Office. If only these 3,000 NOBODIES, had been INCINERATED when Bill and Hillary were there. Think of the Wonderfulness of it all. Think about all the Fundraising we could've done."

So, I wonder how Excited they all were, when the Aurora Shooting occurred? Do ya think that Georgie Stephenopoulus mighta slid his hand down his pants, in anticipation of a Repeat of The Rapist's Performance after Oklahoma City? He knows that The Rapsist's phony empathy, is what some people claim to be what Saved his Presidency.

Remember who we're talking about, here. People who'd Slit their own Mother's Throat, if they thought it could buy them One Vote.

We The People, have always been little more than Cannon Fodder to these Democrats, with their Lying Spokemen, and their acquiescent Media Acolytes. Just a buncha RUBES, waiting to have our Pockets Picked by their Cons.

Trust me.

poochie| 7.23.12 @ 9:23AM

Yeah. Uh huh. Uh huh.

Rave on, posters, rave on. (Yaaaaaawn)

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 10:51AM

Hey look.

It's Doctor poochie.

This type of commenters is what we need more of.

Insightful, informative, and ready to give truth to the old axiom that states :It is better to remain silent, when those around you suspect that you're stupid, then it is to open your Mouth, and confirm their suspicions.

Unfortunately, for you, it's already too late.

satan| 7.23.12 @ 11:29AM

Trust you? I don't trust you to show up at your parole office.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:45PM

If satan doesn't like me?

I must be doing something right.

Riff Raff| 7.23.12 @ 4:25PM

Did you notice that one never sees purp and satan together at the same time? Hmmmmm.........

aware| 7.23.12 @ 7:03AM

The saddest part of all was that nobody was shot trying to attack the shooter. They just cowered on the floor and waited their turn. Some were even close enough to be burned by ejected shells. This is a pathetic picture of what decades of conditioning has done to the "home of the brave".

The same town where just a few weeks ago 40 "citizens" meekly allowed themselves to be dragged out of their cars and handcuffed just for being at an intersection. Not one of those demanded a warrant. They just sat there and waited their turn too.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 7:23AM

Indeed.

We don't play Tag, anymore. We don't play Bombardment (That's what Dodgeball USED to be called) anymore. We don't have Running Races, anymore or Grade the papers in RED INK or get Gold Stars on our foreheads in Elementary School, anymore.

We don't keep score, and Everybody gets a Trophy, becaus Everybody is a Winner.

Have you noticed how many places for a Single File Line, now, at the store? It doesn't matter how many Cashiers they have, they make people line up like CATTLE, marching in to the Slaughterhouse. We wouldn't want one line moving quicker than another. Somebody in the Slow Line might have been in his Line before somebody in the faster line, and that just wouldn't be FAIR.

Baaaaaaaa. Baaaaaaaa.

And then you're Dead.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 9:53AM

Sad.
Are you equating managing the wait with our loss of an innate willingness to walk into live fire?

The movie theater was dark, the guy threw gas cannisters and was wearing body armor and a ballistic helmet.

We see time and time again trained marines being ambushed and killed in lesser fubar situations.

With his armor and equipment, a cop with a service glock and a twelve gauge would not have dropped him and likely would have been killed as well.

The guy had a max clip, and I bet even the gun manufacturer wouldn't recognize a jam over a reload in this mayhem. He would be sh!tting his drawers like the patrons were and heading for the exits.

You would probably drop dead with fear.

As for the lineup thing: proven time and again to be the best way to serve the public. But facts seem to trouble you.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 9:59AM

I lost my willingness to walk into live fire quite a long time ago. In fact, I don't think I ever possessed any such willingness.

But you're right overall; a person or persons in the audience who carried a gun him- or herself would have been at a great disadvantage. When the adrenaline starts pumping, your self-possession and control go all to hell. It's easy to say to "Go for the head shot to avoid the armor." Try actually doing it. I shoot at the range regularly; a fellow shooter I know who is a cop who has been shot at on the job says about a gunfight, "Just think about your worst day at the range; that's what a shootout with a criminal is like." Considering that many people who have CCW permits or otherwise own firearms may have NO experience at a range, you can imagine what shooting back in a gas-filled room filled with hundreds of people running around and milling about like a herd of cattle would be like.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 10:13AM

People used to call the Colt Single Action Army Revolver the "Equalizer." The old saying goes, "God didn't make all men equal, Samuel Colt did." Yes, stress goes up. Control fades. But not always. 100 years ago a revolver was believed to make disparate men equal in power. It still does. Fighting back is better than submitting. Fewer people die. This is statistically demonstrable.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 1:50PM

That and about 2000 rounds worth of shooting at the range or on a combat course with the same firearm.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:27AM

I believe in lawful gun ownership, but the constitution has been proven to contain limits.

Extended clips and assault weapons are completely excessive to general recreational use of firearms. I believe there has been exactly zero cases where a life was saved because a civilian had any of these at their disposal. The converse is absolutely true - as Tucson and Aurora testify to.

The cops have demanded limits to these arms for years and years. Not because they have a hidden agenda, but because they are outgunned and put into extreme circumstances every day.

We have more guns than people in this country. The data proves they are not saving lives.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 10:56AM

Mmmm. Criminals have no problem buying fully automatic weapons on the black market. Today, a person cannot legally buy a fully automatic AR-15. Nor can he buy explosives. Chicago, which has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the US is one of the most violent cities in North America. Ditto for LA. And in Mexico, the gun laws are also very restrictive. But many of their cities are nothing more than min-Fallujahs.

In the UK, it is illegal to own firearms. But look at their crime stats. The UK is almost as violent as the US. The data proves that restricting gun sales does not correlate with "lives saved".

And if you go to Texas you will rarely see the kind of violence one sees in Chicago Illinois, Detroit and Benton Harbor Michigan, or LA.

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 12:23PM

The Chicago gangbangers probably go down to Texas to get some of the mexican drug lords guns that they got from Holder.

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 11:18AM

No. Cops have not demanded limits on these things for years and years. Some police chiefs are for gun control. These are the political type- aka: career politician- police chiefs. The only cops in favor of more gun control laws are the wanna be fascist types.

I'm speaking from personal experience. Pay no attention to "canuck" folks. He's a blowhard and 90% wrong on what he's saying here.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 12:10PM

As usual, the call goes out for restrictions on THINGS. But not on PEOPLE who commit violent acts. The streets of almost every major city and town in America have convicted violent criminals who have been released by government.

And your "data" is erroneous. Gun ownership is up, concelaed carry is more prevalent, and in those States where concealed carry is permitted, crime is down.

Most major cities in America, where gun control is strictest, had from the mid-1960's to the mid 1990's, experienced between 450% and 650% INCREASE in the RATES of violent crime, and this parallels the increase in restrictive gun control laws and the reduction in sentences served for violent crimes. The logic is clear: victims were disarmed and criminals were released. This equals more crime. Only when the States began passing "shall-issue" laws did these rates start to reduce.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 1:07PM

Thank you, Albertus. For goodness' sakes, folks, let me long term medicate violent psychotics.

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 12:28PM

Whose data? obama's?

Bob James| 7.23.12 @ 2:23PM

Guess what? It's never been about "recreational shooting." It's never been about hunting Bambies. It's about fighting back against tyrannical government - it's about armed insurrection against a government that has abrogated the social contract. And its about defending yourself and your loved ones against predators, be they of the four- or two-legged variety.

Cheers.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:47PM

Finally.

Someone who Gets It.

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:08PM

Bob James, I concur.

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:39PM

canuck, I challenge you to find the term "reasonable restrictions" anywhere in the Constitution, Federalist Papers or Declaration of Independence.
"the Constitution has been proven to contain limits", yeah, by communists on the SCOTUS.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 4:45PM

You could not be more wrong about every point you make.
Why does this sheep-mentality not surprise me from a Canadian?

lost| 7.23.12 @ 4:28PM

I would like to point out that even though this shooter was wearing body armor if someone was shooting back it would turn the tables a bit on the shooter. While body armor can stop the bullet its not like there is no effect, ie it still hurts and could even knock him down.

loulou| 7.23.12 @ 10:08AM

Apparently you like being herded.

You're a glass half empty kind of guy, aren't you?
You need to develop better skills so you could gain self confidence. Try.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:31AM

No, I run a business and tactics like single queues make people happier and moves people through more quickly.

It's called productivity and optimizing customer service, dummy.

Perhaps it is people like you that prefer a country that became inert sometime between 1952 and 1955. Or was it 1852 and 1855?

Around the time your mamma was wiping your butt. She still is, isn't she?

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 11:04AM

Yeah.

They'da loved you at Auschwitz, Mao's Reeducation Camps, and Pol Pot's Killing Fields.

What, with all of your Charm, and Warmth, and your single minded search for Efficiency, und Order.

SIEG HEIL!

Single File. Men over herE. Women over there.

We've seen your type before, pal.

You're the Monster under the bed, or in the closet, that every child fears.

No Heart, No Compassion, No Feelings.

Just efficiency.

You're gonna feel right at home, when you get to Hell.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:52AM

I feel for you. I really do. Are you really that scared?

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:51PM

I feel sorry for you.

Are you really this Stupid.

Of course you are.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 11:06AM

Thanks, again Mr. Potter.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 11:14AM

He's a bitter old LOSER, loulou.

Nobody loves him.

Nobody likes him.

And, nobody wants to be around him.

So he comes here to put in to words, why he's a total Outcast, back home.

Nothing like the constant dripping of BILE, to ensure that everyone hates you.

Isn't that right, pal?

satan| 7.23.12 @ 11:38AM

Actually, TPL I love the guy. He has more to offer here than any twenty other commenters. Plus he appears to be sane, a very rare quality on this venue.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:57AM

It makes my day to force these hatriots to contort their sensibilities into something resembling a positive view of the country.

We kill eachother at the highest rates in the 1st world, have the highest self-esteem, but suck in almost every other contributing factor. This seems to unfaze people here.

chemman| 7.23.12 @ 2:17PM

Ignorance is bliss isn't it. Australia is number 1 at 30% followed by England/Wales at 25% for violent crime committed against its civilian population. The U.S. doesn't even make the top 10 of first world nations.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:54PM

You're wasting you breath.

He's got satan on his side.

He doesn't need you.

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:52PM

See.

He's that kinda guy, only satan could love.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 10:45AM

There are plenty of combat vets who know how to handle a side arm in combat situations. So, no I don't think everyone would soil their pants if they had the means to stop the guy. And even body armour would not prevent a well placed 9mm round (from a HK P2000, for instance) from knocking the guy down,and stunning him.

satan| 7.23.12 @ 11:32AM

Or your psychiatrist's office, for that matter.

Jack of Spades| 7.23.12 @ 10:08AM

At least three men died shielding their girlfriends, about the only thing they could have done.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 1:09PM

Mr. Spade: That would upset PolishKnight. However, it was the CORRECT thing to do. Protect the women.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 7:49AM

The 2 bloodiest days in American History (Oklahoma City and 9/11) involved 0 assault rifles or side arms. On 9/11 the terrorists used side cutters.

One wonders why these crazed murderers never attack a Texas bar on a Friday or Saturday night?

Maxwell| 7.23.12 @ 8:01AM

JP, I wonder what gun laws are on the books in Auroa? It would be interesting.

As for Texas, I'd bet a bottle of Jack (either Black or Green label) there were enough guns being carried to open a fairly good size gun store.

OP4| 7.23.12 @ 10:15AM

Auroa tried to ban all concealed carry but was overruled by the state. The theater posted "no guns" and the city makes it a crime to violate such signs. So they effectively made sure that the shooter was the only one in the theater with a gun.

lost| 7.23.12 @ 5:22PM

In Wisconsin the concealed carry law states that if you have it posted no firearms allowed then you are libel if something like this happens. If you do allow concealed carry the you are not libel if something like this happens.

Louis Jenkins| 7.23.12 @ 8:54AM

No JP, American History has one of the bloodiest days in the CW. Antietam or Sharpsburg.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 9:53AM

Shiloh was no picnic either. Or Gettysburg.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:16AM

Even Pancho Villa and his men killed more people than died at Columbine when he raided Columbus, New Mexico, and few people know about that one.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 10:58AM

Okay, I was referring to civilian deaths and not wars. I was going to change the wording, but I assumed most people would understand the difference.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 9:56AM

A crazy would never attack a Texas bar on Friday night, as one should never sh!t where he eats.

The crossfires and collateral damage done by the dudes firing back would be a disaster in itself.

Even in the Wild West, towns BANNED all firearms at the edge of town.

Were they wrong? Ya know, those real Umericans of our storied past?

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 10:08AM

Not all towns did this, and yes they were wrong.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:18AM

You mean like in Coffeyville, Kansas, where an ad hoc group of concerned citizens, all Civil War veterans and armed to the teeth, destroyed the Dalton gang in the street as they tried to rob a couple of banks in the town?

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 11:20AM

Touche!

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 11:52AM

Excellent! What gun control advocates do not understand and don't want to hear about, is that despite the "legends of the Wild West" being run over by crime and violence, the actual RATES (number of events per capita) of were far lower than than they are today. And it is precisely because of citizens defending themselves as they did in Coffeyville. Today is far more "wild" and violent than the "old West" of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Gun control advocates have been watching too many Westerns on TV and in the movies. Hollywood is not real life.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:59AM

Lynching rates as well.

But perception trumps reality every time.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 12:11PM

Horse manure. You're just throwing things out and making no logical argument whatsoever.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 4:55PM

Quick!
Play the race card!
Call the opposition idiots!
Pull the fire alarm!
Look! Squirrel!

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:01AM

Are you saying Texans are crazy? When I lived in Texas I used to go to "Cowtown" in Fort Worth on occaison. Despitet the adage that booze and fire arms don't mix, I never heard about an OK Corral type gun fight breaking out amongst a bunch of drunk Good 'Ol Boys. Deterrence is half the equation.

Alej| 7.23.12 @ 1:43PM

"Deterrence is half the equation."

Culture is the other half.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 4:56PM

"An armed society is a polite society".
Robert Heinlein

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:15PM

JP, remember, the Romans conquered the known world with the Gladius. No extended magazine, no bayonette stud. Just two sharp edges and a sharp point. Oh, and I almost forgot, a willing HUMAN providing the thrust!!!!

Alej| 7.23.12 @ 4:36PM

Kind of like the Ole Gunny's introduction to the bayonet... "It takes guts on both ends of it to make it work !"

SCMike| 7.23.12 @ 7:58AM

The idiot shooters are no fools: they stage their attacks in settings where they believe no one will be armed. Bing “Aurora church shooting” for a story about an off-duty Aurora cop who shot and killed a shooter at his church.

Here’s some advice to CWP-holders: the permit does not help if you are not armed. Carry your handgun as often as you legally can.

West Houston| 7.23.12 @ 8:20AM

Quoting:
"-- except the Texas Tower massacre in which Whitman shot from too high a vantage point to be vulnerable to his victims "
Commenting:
I would point out that the Texas incident was indeed opposed by citizens and police who used their hunting weapons to return fire. There were no SWAT teams then. All but one of the fatalities were in the first twenty minutes or so, when Whitman could shoot over the parapet. After that he was limited to shooting from the drain holes. He still had plenty of ammunition when two brave souls rushed the tower deck and shot him dead. Without the returned fire, many more might have died.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 9:46AM

In addition to his other weapons, Whitman had a military rifle (an M-1 carbine) and a military pistol (a .45 M1911). Just for the record.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 9:48AM

And by the way, there are many, many hunting rifles that are semi-automatics and fire cartidges (such as the .308 or .30/06) that are much more powerful than military cartridges.

OP4| 7.23.12 @ 10:17AM

.308 and .30/06 are / were military cartridges.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:19AM

Not any more. Once they were, but they haven't been since the armed forces retired the M-14 back about 50 years ago.

Snipers still use them; that's it.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:20AM

Standard issue is 5.56 mm. and has been for generations.

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:24PM

Bill, c'mon, the M-1 Garand fired the 30-06, same exact cartridge. The BAR fired the 30-06. M-14 fired the .308(7.62mm) although some were chambered for the 30-06. There is no difference in the cartridge no matter what weapon is being fired.

Bill84728| 7.24.12 @ 10:44AM

M-1 Garand: declared obsolete in 1956. Replaced by the M-14, which fired the .308 NATO round, which was replaced in the mid-1960s (my mind says 1966) by the 5.56 mm. M-16.

We now have the M-249 SAW in 5.56 and the M-240, which does indeed fire the 7.62 NATO round. My bad. I'm from the M-60 era and forgot about that one.

Louis Jenkins| 7.23.12 @ 9:00AM

Dear Mr. Babbin:

You point out the painful truth. Americans should arm themselves at all times. I seldom visit a place that has an arms ban. I would discount the Ft. Hood shooting, it was workplace violence, not murder (tongue in cheek). It was the Colonel's duty to kill the unbeliever. Until Americans call for the absolute right, across the board, to arm themselves, this type of incident will keep occurring. The nut house or the grave, it really doesn't matter, dust them all. Police can never protect everyone 24/7.

GW| 7.23.12 @ 12:07PM

While I agree people should have the ultimate right to arm themselves wherever they want (unless of course they are on private property and the owner doesn't want them armed), we need to remember that most of the US is extremely safe. Incidents like the Aurora shooting are very rare, and even if everyone was carrying a gun there is no way to ensure 100% safety (a bomb would have neutralized anyone's firearms). Arming oneself at all time, while a God-given right, would seem like paranoia.

Anthony| 7.23.12 @ 9:12AM

Around the time of VA Tech, there was a story of an off duty law inforcement officer, who was attending law school, when a similar event occured.
The officer was carrying a concealed weapon and used it on the shooter, hence limiting the carnage.
Of course, the lesson of that event has gone unmentioned or, in the case of brain dead leftists, like Feinstein, incomprehensible.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 9:44AM

Some moderate gun controls that the huge majority of people would agree with:

1. No possession of firearms by convicted felons, or people with felony convictions in their pasts;

2. No possession of firearms by the mentally ill;

3. Private owners of buildings may prohibit carrying firearms on the premises of those buildings;

4. No firearms in government buildings.

James Holmes met none of these criteria. Surely he's mentally ill. He may not be legally insane, but he's crazy nonetheless. The article above mentions the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill; that happened in the 1970s. But Holmes doesn't have a history of hospitalization, so that wouldn't have worked.

Yes, a person trained in pistol use could have effectively defended against Holmes in the melee that must have gone on in that Aurora theater, but we have lived so long in a cultural atmosphere in which firearms are identified so strongly with evil that the majority of people (who can freely purchase firearms) have no training. A little training would tell people who own pistols how easy it is to miss your target and hit something (or somebody) else. People should be required to become at least somewhat familiar with firearms in our society.

Ownership of firearms should not be denied to those who wish to own them responsibly just because there are crazies out there who will misuse them.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:00AM

Why no guns in government buildings?

Explain the rationale for that.

If can be banned in one situation, why not all?

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 10:07AM

There ARE guns in government buildings, and each and every one of them is held by a government guard. Politicians are protected at taxpayer expense, but the rest of us are expected to hide in our homes and hope we can hold out until the police arrive. This doesn't work for me.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:25AM

True. Government guards carry guns in government buildings, but in the courthouse where I do my work daily, policemen who aren't part of the courthouse security team are not allowed to have their firearms in that government building (or any others).

You're not expected to hide out in your house; you're free to carry openly in most states, and to carry concealed if you meet the laws of your state.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:41AM

Of course, in my state, the prohibitions on carrying firearms in government buildings comes from cops involved in their own divorces bringing their service guns into the courthouses and threatening the judges hearing their cases with deadly force. That happened twice before the legislature acted.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:21AM

No guns in government buildings because governmental figures are more likely targets for armed crazies than anybody else.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:22AM

Are you suggesting that a prohibition on guns in government buildings would NOT be supported in the U.S. by a huge majority of citizens?

Harry the Horrible| 7.23.12 @ 10:30AM

I, sure as heck, wouldn't support it.
Not unless they have some sort of "weapon check" in the "government building." Have you SEEN where some of those buildings are located? If I have to go down town, I darn sure want to be carrying.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:48AM

Typically in my state, you aren't allowed to even have a gun and give it up when you enter a government building. You're required not to have it at all. That means if you carry you leave it in your car. So in my state, you'd probably want to leave your car in a pay-type lot where it's safer than on the street. But of course, once you leave the government building you can get right back to your car and get your firearm.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:51AM

You must attempt to avoid conflating your lack of support with the support of others.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:34AM

I am suggesting that such a ban would not be upheld by this supreme court.

Do we have a right or not?

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:50AM

The Heller case holds that reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms are constitutional. A ban on firearms in government buildings in my home state of Colorado has withstood state constitutional scrutiny, and would probably pass U.S. Constitutional muster too.

You have a right to keep and bear arms that is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, just like all the other freedoms including freedom of speech.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:35AM

Then why have policy makers not taken Heller and the courthouse restrictions to a larger realm like licensed establishments?

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 1:54PM

They have; you're not paying attention.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 9:46AM

Here in the People's Republic of California, one cannot obtain a CCW Permit. Period. The only exceptions are well connected VIP's who can influence the local law enforcement authority. But the rest of us are easy prey for the criminals that government sees fit to release or to not imprison in the first place. Government disarms victims and releases violent criminals. Government refuses to institutionalize demonstrably insane people. Government creates the conditions, and violent criminals just do what comes naturally to them. The notion that this is not intentional policy on the part of government is no longer defensible.

JMM | 7.23.12 @ 10:08AM

Not true.

I live in Humboldt County CA. and have had a CCW for 14 years. CCW's are very easy for any law abiding citizen to obtain. All you have to do is take the course (which is a joke), pay your money and your CCW arrives in the mail in about two weeks.

RCV| 7.23.12 @ 11:07AM

Don't try to confuse Albertus with the facts. He likes his little myths about California.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 11:26AM

Your opinion is worthless. Have a nice day.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 11:37AM

In California, CCW Permits are "May Issue." The local jurisdiction may issue such permits at its own discretion. Where I live, the local jurisdiction absolutely will not issue any such permits unless there is a demonstrated "need" (some ways that demonstrate "need" involve being assaulted and by then it is too late) and the applicant is somehow "favored." It seems in Humboldt County, the local jurisdiction has seen fit to issue permits, and I applaud that. However, this does not apply to the rest of California. And if I try "open carry" even though legal, the result will be endless harassment by police officers.

JMM | 7.23.12 @ 12:26PM

So move to Humboldt County. You can have my place...I'm moving to Oregon.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 11:57AM

So far no one has addressed the issue of government releasing known and convicted criminals and reducing charges and sentences to minimal levels for violent offenders, thus returning them to open society in relatively short order. Removing gun control is only one aspect of the overall problem. Punishing violent offenders severely and assuredly is the other aspect, and the one that gets scant attention.

chemman| 7.23.12 @ 2:26PM

Actually JMM it depends on the county that issues them. Not all counties are like Humboldt.

satan| 7.23.12 @ 11:50AM

Government is the people. At one time Cal. did have an admirable Mental health system, but the people do not want to cough up the tax dollars to pay for it. state governments don't print money, and if the tax dollars are not there they cannot be spent. If you were willing to cough up more tax dollars "government" could do more.

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 9:50AM

A "Duty of Self Defense". Amen! I love this idea. Let's combine this philosophy with Allen West's firearms purchase mandate idea. It completely turns around the statist equation on the lefties.

If YOU take out the crazy ***hole trying to commit mass murder it will save health insurance costs. If YOU don't arm yourself, and train yourself to shoot like Wild Bill Hikock then the feds are going to tax you into oblivion. It is your duty to the collective. It's part of the social contract to defend the defenseless and hold down healthcare costs. IPSC training will get you in shape and keep you moving per Michelle Obama's program to get us fatties off our arses. Bang, bang- run to the next station- bang, bang- run to the next station. "Feeling strong now....." You are healthier, living longer, needing less healthcare and reducing the costs, lowering the insurance premiums , fulfilling your social contract duties to the collective. It's a brave new world of gun ownership, self defense and self reliance. The Obama's should be all for this.

Kelly Staples| 7.23.12 @ 9:53AM

The killer couldn't become a brain surgeon, so he became a character out of a comic book instead. Talk about the banality of evil. . .

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:01AM

Exactly. and now he's a star.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:52AM

A star headed for the lethal injection room.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 5:03PM

Right.
In 45 years.
Never ask the Govt if it is OK to carry your gun.
Carry always and out the onus upon Govt to disarm the populace.
Good luck with that one.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 5:43PM

Good luck with what one?

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 1:00PM

Neuroscience PhD student. Not MD. Not psychiatrist or surgeon, or student of same.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 9:57AM

In ancient Rome it was illegal for citizens to carry weapons within the walls of the city. This was Rome's version of "gun control." The streets of Rome were not safe. People were murdered, robbed, beaten, intimidated, etc... at the hands of people who DID carry weapons. The notion that government officials today are unaware of these historical facts, and unaware of the statistical inefficacy of gun control to reduce crime (indeed, gun control makes crime and violence worse), is no longer a defensible position to hold. Government officials are fully aware of these things and choose to ignore them in favor of politics. To a politician, politics trumps everything, even human life.

In the 1990's, there was a rash of Colombine-like shootings at schools, and they all took place AFTER the Government created 1,000 foot "gun-free zones" around schools. Government effectively painted targets on all schools in America, and the result was predictable. Leftists in Government know what is going on and will do absolutely nothing to stop it. The blood of the victims is on the hands of the gun control advocates, who tirelessly forward unprovable theories and counter-productive policies that result in the violent deaths of innocent people.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:37PM

These are the same people who insist on an expansion of the social welfare state, thus creating the need for more social welfare. Their fundamental flaw, on all issues, is an inability to comprehend the idea that they might be wrong as to what causes problems, and how to solve them. This psychology forces them to blame their opponents' ideas for all problems, not out of logic analysis, but out of the simple idea that "if my ideas are good, then people who disagree with my ideas must be bad."

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 10:04AM

Every gon control advocate, especially those in elected office, should be required to read Dr. John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crimes." Dr. Lott admittedly started his project expecting to prove statistically the efficacy of gun control laws across America. What he discovered from his research was just the opposite. The most armed communities have the lowest rates of crime and violence. The least armed comminities have the highest, and the statistical differences are not trivial, but staggering.

In a freely armed society, a movie theater of about 700 people may have anywhere from 10 to 30 or more armed people in it. Not only would Holmes have been stopped quickly under such circumstances, but in all likelihood would never have gone to the theater in the first place and NO ONE would have died. THIS is the true nature of gun control.

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 10:10AM

I agree 100%!

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:37AM

What sidearm would have penetrated his body armor? None? As I thought.

Ask a swat cop how easy it would have been to fire a head shot in the dark with teargas and mayhem around them. The swat guy would not have fired a single shot and would have evacuated.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:06AM

It doesn't have to penetrate his body armour to stun him. And once he is down, the situation changes immediately.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:08AM

The FN Herstal semi-auto pistol, manufactured in Belgium, fires a high-velocity 5.7 x 28 mm. cartridge. The Fort Hood shooter used it in his spree. It arguably can penetrate body armor, at least some body armor. The .44 magnum can, too, I think.

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 11:25AM

"Canuck", didn't you say you were a businessman? Then why do you think you are an expert on gunfights and the effects of rounds making contact with body armor? Suffice it to say, you are not an expert on these subjects and don't really know what you are talking about.

Don't pay attention to "canuck" folks. He's a poseur and his opinions are at best are only partially correct.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:33AM

Thank you JimP. I forgot most gun experts don't go out the haus' anymore. Maybe a marshall service should be started? Citizen sharpshooters at the ready.

Would there be hazard pay for being forced to watch Spiderman 100 times?

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 11:38AM

Hey, you are welcome. I'm always happy to point out a loudmouth, BS artist when I see one: and you ARE one. Your sophomoric response is just more evidence of you being a blowhard.

Thanks for the laughs, "canuck". You certainly crack me up.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 11:42AM

Mr. canuck, you obviously get all your information from TV dramas. Do some research in to cops who have been shot while wearing body armor. It hurts. It leaves a mark. It can and frequently does knock you down. Cops have died wearing body armor because sometimes the bullet misses the armor. All your excuses defending gun control add up to zero.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:48AM

So, do nothing?

Even Mimi thought the legal purchase of 6000 rounds online was a little beyond.

Where is your line?

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 11:59AM

Punish the offender. Swiftly and assuredly. Allow people to be freely armed. That people be armed and that this would be well known, in and of itself deters violent criminals.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 5:12PM

If I go to the range once a week and fire 250 rounds in 2 hours(2 rounds/minute), I will expend 1,000 rounds/month.
If I order twice a year in bulk to save money, each order will be 6,000 rounds.
You are looking more foolish with each passing comment.
Quit while you're behind.

Conservative Bob| 7.23.12 @ 8:27PM

Cannuck

...if you have a range in your back yard as I do you shoot 1000- 2000 per weekend..... (during the cooler months) I also reload. I also cast my own bullets for several cal. that I shoot. I by primers in 10k lots.

Because you are unfamiliar you think it is odd or sinister that someone buys 6000 rounds in just a few months.

6000 will not last me a few months.

I also collect guns and notice that people were alarmed that he purchased 4 guns in that time as well. I have on occasion bought more than that in a single day.

I am certain that there large numbers of people who shoot more than I do, I am certain there are even more who buy much more ammunition than I do. We have done it for years and no one ever hears about it, not because of some grand conspiracy but because we don't do anything bad, evil, or illegal with it.

Because someone buys 6000 or 60,000 rounds does not mean they are going to shoot up people in a public place. One does not cause the other. Keeping all of us from making such a purchases will not prevent such horrific acts either.

Maybe focusing on punishing the monsters who do these kinds of things will have a greater effect. Rather than a long drawn out trail process followed by years of appeals, an assurance of rapid trial and punishment would serve society much better. Monsters who commit unspeakable acts have by their very acts resigned from humanity and society.

Put them down.

THKrupp| 7.23.12 @ 12:51PM

Well it depends on the armor that the person is wearing. If its light enough a 357 could penetrate. If its class IV armor with ceramic plates then you will need something bigger than a 308 winchester.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 5:07PM

The CZ52 and the Tokarev fire the 7.62x25 round which will defeat a Class Two vest all day.
Feel free to demonstrate your ignorance further.

Mimi | 7.23.12 @ 10:19AM

WHO....WHO ...Sold this evil nitwit all that ammunition ? All the bomb making stuff in his Apartment? Wouldn't the amount alone arise suspician? The fact that it was purchased over 3-4 months....did someone get smart and call ?
Why did his mother know it was him ? Right away! Is there anything we can learn from this that would help to alert us in the future?
YES...one person ...just one could have saved so many lives...if they were armed. Also we can't be shy and reluctant to call when we see strange changes in the people around us....They would be the first to thank them when the illness was helped and they improved.
Lots we don't know YET!!!

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:53AM

On the ammo, it's my understanding that he got his ammo off the internet.

His mother, when contacted, told the cops that they had the right man. So she might not have known about the planned Aurora shooting, but she knew something.

THKrupp| 7.23.12 @ 1:02PM

Ive purchased similiar amounts of ammo over the internet in the past. I shoot almost every weekend. Mostly I reload now so I only order components. 6000 rounds isnt all that much for someone that shoots often. Actually the description of this guy is very similiar to myself, but I dont see myself doing this similar act ever. The bomb making stuff can probably be purchased in any walmart (not knowing what kind of bombs they are this is only speculation). I would hate to think that just because Im a recreational shooter..I dont even hunt much anymore, that suddenly I would become a person with suspicious motives. Ive only had one speeding ticket my entire life. Im not an overtly social person, my neighbors would probably describe me exactly as they did this guy. The difference being is that Im not going to shoot a bunch of innocent people.

Calmoderate | 7.23.12 @ 10:25AM

Your commentary is standard republican thinking and "logic" that comes from the broken two-party system. Liberals argue that more guns would have meant more deaths. You say: "I can say with considerable assurance that if one or more properly trained and armed people were there, they could have shot and either incapacitated or killed the shooter long before he finished his killing spree."

Well, that's nice, but its all just status quo talking points. Lots of divisive smoke and mirrors. Its routine politics as usual. I have heard all kinds of things that come from ideologues on the left and the right who always speak with at least "considerable assurance" and it is astonishing how often they are dead wrong.

If you want to convince open minded people, don't give me personal assurances. Give me the studies, unspun facts and unspun analyses that prove your point. I do not care about conservative or liberal argument or belief in anything unless it is accompanied by proof with solid unspun evidence. Prove your point and I will accept it. Other than belief in unspun reality and honest analysis, I have no ideology to protect or defend, i.e., no emotional horse in the race. Show us what authoritative study or studies says a well trained and armed person in the theater would have (i) reduced the deaths and (ii) not increased them. That's the only thing that carries weight. Absent proof, everything is just routine partisan spin coming from a failed two-party system.

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 10:39AM

Read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime" that Albertus Magnus noted. If you want a study, with hard data, that is irrefutable, then read this book. It is the Gospel for facts about private gun ownership and the gun control debate. If you do not read this book and accept the bottom line facts presented in it, then you are not serious about what you said above.

KyMouse| 7.23.12 @ 10:44AM

Read also "Thank God I Had a Gun: True Accounts of Self-Defense" by Chris Bird. It's on Amazon.com

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:48AM

You are right, but you are missing the point. The country cannot go forward with gun regulation unless the 2nd amendment is repealed.

That is impossible, and the hatriots on here know it and fantasize about being John Maclane in die hard instead of realizing that hoping for an outcome is different that actually getting it.

Here's some more facts to consider:
1) There have been exactly zero people saved by a civilian using an automatic assault rifle in a siege situation. Zero.
2) there are exactly zero deer or game effectively hunted with an assault rifle with superior outcomes to traditional long rifles. (Unless you call redneck headlighting "hunting".)

Always it is law enforcement that have to deal with "lawful" assault weapons situations. They are the ones living in fear.

We get more bitching on here about a nipple on national TV than a six year-old being killed accidentally with daddy's gun.

But, we must do nothing.

Warped sensibilities lead to a warped view of a free society.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:02AM

There have been zero people killed by people using automatice assault rifles in any situation, siege or otherwise, with the exception of places like Afghanistan or Iraq. Zero.

You can hunt deer quite effectively with assault rifles; they act just like any other rifle. Whether the results would be superior to a rifle designed for hunting depends on the shooter, not the gun. The AK-47 round, 7.62 x 39, is just fine for deer. The M-4/M-16 round, 5.56 mm., is a bit light but would work.

The reason why "we do nothing" is that our society has the good sense to understand that it does no good to penalize the huge number of law-abiding gun users in order to accomplish the problematic and doubtful goal of disarming the criminals.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:09AM

That same logic would nullify seat belt laws, DUI .08 laws and all of the FDA drug mandates.

If limits are ok for other civilian affairs, why not guns?

I have considered the liabilities of bar owners when they permit someone to leave while intoxicated and then kill with their car.

Why are gun shop owners not held to the same standard for liability in civil court? Perhaps this would be a good time to test it.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:14AM

Limits ARE OK for guns. Why are you holding against prohibitions on guns in government buildings?

Gun shop owners are not liable for selling guns to crazies because the government - yes, that all-knowing, all-accomplishing government, the one that protects us all - takes that responsibility on itself via the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, who run the gun checks whenever anyone buys a firearm.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:20AM

The government also takes responsibility for having over-21 ID and required insurance on vehicles. Yet states permit liability exposure to bar owners.

My issue about government buildings is pure rhetoric. I agree there should be laws, but why only for government premises? And why do these prohibitions stand up and others do not?

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:26AM

Speaking of rhetoric, logic suggests holding the BATF (or whatever the word salad is these days) liable for the sale of guns to the crazies.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 5:32PM

When the Feds enforce an ID-for-voting law we can talk about gun restrictions.
Keep in mind it will be only talk, as 2A sez I don't gotta give you or anyone from Big Govt anything except my ammo; dismantled; at full speed; one at a time.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:19AM

For the same reason the DOJ isn't held responsible for walking 1000 assault rifles into Mexico. Fast and Furious has killed more federal agents than law abiding citizens who own Glocks.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:28AM

Really?

About 25M guns have crossed the border. F&F was a dumb idea, but it was a drop in the bucket.

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 11:45AM

"M"? as in "million?" 25 million guns have crossed the border? You must defend that statement. What evidence do you present?

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 12:09PM

Thousands, probably much higher.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 12:03PM

No, the number is about 1000 (that ATF admits to)

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 1:56PM

25 million guns is 10% of the total firearms ownership of the entire United States. That's a hell of a lot of guns.

I don't believe your figure.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 5:34PM

He said millions, then thousands.
I expect the true figure to be dozens.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:10AM

Go to Jaurez where there is "gun control" and get back to me. Or if you cannot go south of the Rio Grande, take a walk in South Chicago. Chicago has very restrictive gun control laws. As I posted earlier, it is illegal for any Brits to own firearms. And the UK's incidence for violent crimes (with all sorts of illegal weapons) is not much lower than ours.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:21AM

No, it's about half - so not much lower.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 12:02PM

You really need to check your stats. Murders, rapes,and armed robbery in the UK are about as high as the average US urban area.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 3:00PM

I've just looked up the UK homicide number - in England and Wales, which is about 90% of the UK I think, there were '550 murders, manslaughters and infanticides in the year 2011/12'. Most of these are domestic affairs - there are less than 100 homicides a year by hitmen, gangs etc and only about 50-60 are with guns. That's for about 50 million people. They do have a high crime rate in things like burglary, muggings and drunken assaults - just imagine what would happen to the homicide rate if all the kids there had guns.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 4:43PM

Well, the mugging rate might fall drastically if everyone wasn't so sure their victims lacked guns.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 5:16PM

'Well, the mugging rate might fall drastically if everyone wasn't so sure their victims lacked guns.'

Exhibit A – a totally stupid comment from JD. And exhibit B, C, D, E... really man you have a brain - for goodness sake start using it.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 4:48PM

Jack London,

Did you look up Switzerland?

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 5:13PM

"Did you look up Switzerland?"

John - really I thought you were one of the more intelligent posters here but you're on a downward spiral.

Switzerland - a wealthy country of about 7.5 million - is about as unlike urban America as you can get, and the guns they have at home after military service have no ammo and are deactivated automatic weapons, which can be used under strict regulation on ranges.

In what way do you use Switzerland to support mass gun ownership in the US? In what way do you think that the low gun use in Europe is not related to the low number of guns in circulation? In what way is your brain switched on? Looks to me like you've set it to knee-jerk automatic like JD (mist be catching) - who I must say is about the most stupid person here if only because he devotes such a huge amount of time to writing stuff that has no basis in reality.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 5:27PM

There are more fully automatic weapons in civilian homes in Switzerland than in the US. 600,000 at last count. What you are talking about concerns only those that are no longer of military age and that still leaves more machines guns in the hand of civilians than all the automatic weapons in the hands of both civilians, military and police in the US.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 5:41PM

You must have missed the facts that Zurich and Geneva are rather unlike LA and Chicago, that the automatic weapons are deactivated to semi-auto, and no ammo is now allowed in homes. Other than that you are your usual genius self.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 5:39PM

In Switzerland, the full-auto rifles (last time I paid attention to this, they were issuing H&K G-3s) are accompanied by a case of ammo, I think 1000 rounds. There are very strict rules about opening those cases of ammo, but they issue ammo with the guns.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 5:43PM

You're behind the times.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Sp.....cid=970614

"Parliament has approved a proposal to ban the long-standing Swiss tradition of keeping army ammunition at home.
With the exception of a few thousand of the 120,000 soldiers in Switzerland's militia army who keep their cartridges at home, all army ammunition will have to be stored in central arsenals. Army guns can still be kept at home.

"The House of Representatives on Thursday followed the Senate in backing a motion that will allow around 2,000 specialist troops, such as those guarding airports and other important installations, to continue to store their ammo in their cellars and attics.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 6:17PM

Jack London,

I always appreciate your compliments. Keep it up!

It was you who argued that a reduction in guns would reduce the homicide rate, did you not? Switzerland is not the U.S., however it has a very high ownership rate with 27.2% of households owning guns. The U.S. is, no surprise, on top with 39% of households (mine included) owning guns. Between the two are Norway and Canada. News to me was that 22% of French households own guns. For England/Wales/Scotland the figure is 4.7%.

The murder rates (excludes justifiable homicides) per 100,000 are France:1.09, Switzerland:.66, Norway:.65, Canada 1.62, U.S. 5.0, and U.K.:1.17.

So France with fewer "packing" household has a 50% greater homicide rate than Switzerland and Norway, but 50% less than Canada. The U.K. rate is higher than that of France with one-fifth the number of armed households. The U.S. has four times the homicide rate of the U.K. despite having over eight times as many armed households. If you really want to put yourself at risk, go to El Salvador or Honduras or Russia. You could go to South Africa where only one-third of the homicides are firearm related.

If you want to keep from being a homicide statistic in the U.S.:

(1) Don't cheat on your spouse.
(2) Don't join a gang.
(3) Don't get involved in the drug trade.
(4) Don't close the bars in the bad part of town.

The homicide rate among my friends and family is 0.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 6:43PM

John - first, you should take a lesson in comprehension.

It was me who posted that middle class types such as most here have very little chance of being involved in any kind of gun incident. What we have in the US though is a huge burden of harm through homicide, injuries and accidental deaths from guns – that is indisputable, and you can read all the stats on the FBI and health sites, such at the $100 billion gun violence costs us a year in healthcare, disability, legal etc.

Other western countries do not have anything approaching that rate of overall harm as your absurd comparison with Switzerland shows - and also your comprehension failed to note that the Swiss no longer keep ammo at home, mainly because of accidents and domestic shootings. In France, most weapons are used by country folk and bearing arms is banned.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 7:08PM

Jack London,

Please take your own advice - take a lesson in comprehension - in this case you don't seem to understand what you, yourself, wrote.

"Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 3:04PM

If we get rid of guns then the homicide and accident rate would drop dramatically - no one could argue against that."

I did argue against that by demonstrating that homicide rates are poorly correlated to levels of gun ownership. Will you dispute that? I further stated argued that high homicide rates exist without using firearms. Will you dispute that? Can you dispute John Lott's findings? You're just another troll making this stuff up as you go, aren't you?

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 7:50PM

John - come on - you're not a stupid man. Do you really believe that if we took many guns out of circulation people would commit drive by killings with machetes? That someone a block away would be killed by a stray knife?

I've just had a look at the South Africa figures and you can see that homicides have been dropping since the early 1990s, but what's striking is that homicides not using a firearm are dropping much faster than those with guns.

See http://www.gunpolicy.org/firea.....uth-africa

And essentially what you are confusing are cultural/social conditions with gun numbers. They obviously correlate in the US, but a long gun with no ammo in a Swiss attic is not the same, is it? Even if it was a loaded handgun, it wouldn't compare with LA or Chicago, would it?

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 8:49PM

Jack London,

Read John Lott's book, "More guns, less crime". Pay attention to the number of times people use guns in self defence and which do not get into the crime statistics. You seem happy to dismiss Switzerland, South Africa, etc. as being different from our situation. They are. But they are the only control we have for statistical analysis unless you want to start experimenting on the population. Come to think of it, we are experimenting. Look where these crimes are happening - in areas of greater gun control legislation.

However, I'll admit that drive by shootings cannot be accomplished with a machete. What I won't admit it that the murder would not happen. Even in the U.S. only about two-thirds of murders are firearm related.

Now let me ask why this particular event has spawned such calls. No one shouted "gun control" after Nidal Hassan killed 13. He killed where defence was unexpected as the soldiers where unarmed but was stopped by those who were armed when they finally made it to the scene. This event will no constitute a "blip" in the statistics. It's horrific because it preyed on the innocent; quite a few of whom displayed extraordinary courage in defending their loved ones. No amount of regulation could have prevented this. England is as close to a complete ban as there is and still the madman strikes.

Admit that your purpose has nothing to do with safety.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 7:08PM

Don't flatter yourself. I wouldn't bother with you if I couldn't write so quickly. I guess you could say I have "knee-jerk" reactions in that I recognize falsehood and respond with truth rather reflexively.

Basis in reality? The reason you don't understand the things you don't understand is that they are reality.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 7:14PM

Jack alleges that factors other than guns cause the disparity between America and Switzerland. How ironic. The liberal grows quite irate when we link his party's policies to problems in ways that are not simple and direct, yet has no trouble invoking indirection when simple, direct correlations do not favor him.

Particularly strange is the fact that Jack thinks that Swiss laws requiring that weapons be kept at home and unloaded are followed perfectly, simply because they exist, while many US laws are clearly not followed in such a way.

I do completely agree that aspects of our society develop individuals who do bad things, moreso than some other societies. Of course, Jack wouldn't like it if I went into details about that. Suffice to say that class warfare paranoia, conspiracy theories, race-baiting, "Two Americas" talk, and removal of personal responsibility tend to create unreliable people.

chemman| 7.23.12 @ 2:40PM

Violent crime (murders, assaults and rapes) against English/Wales civilians is 25%, Australia 30% with the U.S. not even in the top 10.

Math is hard, science is harder and research is hardest of all. Obviously research is too difficult for you.

THKrupp| 7.23.12 @ 1:11PM

I disagree, 7.62x39 would make a decent deer round, similar to the 30-30. 223 for deer wouldnt be appropriate but for coyotes, ground hogs and other varmits its perfect. In fact the AR-15 platform is a great varmit set up. I know a lot of people that use them for hunting varmits, also you can get them chambered for rounds other than 223 and that changes everything. And yes in many cases they are superior to a traditional long gun. Although Im not sure exactly what you mean by that.

George S| 7.23.12 @ 11:13AM

Wisdom from the lofty perch of Moderateville. You do not need any studies, just some common sense. Put yourself in the shooter's shoes and see what fits your delusions of grandeur: do you go into a movie theater during the premier of one of the biggest movies' opening night or...

... do you go locked and loaded into a convention of police officers? Why?

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:20AM

Or a bar in Abeliene Texas on a Friday night.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 12:18PM

Calmoderate,

Sounds nice, but could you describe what such a study should look like? First, these actions are taken by a very few people who stand out only in retrospect. I suspect we could complete a study with normal people. What would our control group be? How many shoot-outs would be needed? Would knowledge of the test skew the results? Should we experiment on an unknowing public?

You could, of course, read Mr. Lott's studies. You might observe such anecdotal data as is regularly reported when an armed convenience store owner kills a robber. Would Mr. Lott's statistical analysis be considered authoritative? What would? Do your own observations count for anything? Or are you merely waiting for Godot?

chemman| 7.23.12 @ 2:36PM

If you are as reasonable as you self-describe then you know that such a study regarding a single incident would and can never exist. So you have asked for a proof that cannot be given. So much for reasonableness and open mindedness.

All studies are done in the aggregate and then generalize the results. As others have said the best of those studies are by Lott.

Houdini| 7.23.12 @ 10:42AM

Isn't Colorado a right to carry state? Maybe that's the reason the shooter was wearing body armor, fearing return fire from a patron. Even though effective fire from a handgun diminishes with distance ( over 25-30 feet), one reasonably well placed shot from a .45 would have gotten his attention. Better to go down fighting than to be slaughtered like cattle.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:55AM

Colorado by statute permits open carry. For concealed carry, you have to have a permit issued by the local sheriff. We're working to become a "shall issue" state, but that hasn't happened yet. It's not clear if it's a foregone thing.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:56AM

In the dark, with teargas and mayhem ensuing?

The best crack shot on seal team six would not have hit him once. Even the commando would require additional information to insure the guy was not part of the entertainment before the gas cannisters were exploded. Even the commando would need to drop his popcorn, secure his loved ones and repair to a position of safety and tactical advantage.

You suggest some sofa sheriff would be more capable?

You would have a similar outcome, but with more casualties that would be traced back to such a moron.

George S| 7.23.12 @ 11:04AM

Unless you served as a Navy Seal, please put a lid on it.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:09AM

Head shots, even for SEALs, are not all that easy. Ask any SEAL.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:17AM

I have. Even spoken to rangers and spec-ops wounded at Walter Reed over the years about the differences between training and real in country experiences.

Sound, light, and intangibles like civilians screaming and running amok limited their precision and operational expertise on the ground.

There would be zero outcomes that would have included an armed civilian altering the body count.

To suggest otherwise is pure fantasy. The killer had to be stopped before entering the theater - and that was unlikely as well. Tucson demonstrated we have a blind spot for these types of killers.

Policy makers have to become leaders again.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:25AM

Yes, indeed we do have a blind spot for people who never get into trouble or otherwise surface on the weirdness scale. Especially when they are bright and can get into post-graduate studies.

We tend to think such people are stable and since they don't have any record of wrongdoing, nothing is done about them. So they find it possible, when their minds occasionally drift into dangerous fantasies, to indulge themselves.

We could stop permitting any dangerous activity in order to protect ourselves from them, but that would involve restrictions that no one wants to impose. So the answer, no matter how unsatisfying it might be, is that they can get away with what they decide to do once they go off the rails and we can't do anything much about it.

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 11:35AM

"Canuck", you are so full of it I am shoveling the manure out of my office. It's oozing through the blogosphere. Pay no attention to "Canuck" folks. He's a blowhard and mixes in just enough facts to make some take him seriously. 90% of what he says is wrong. "Canuck" can not know what the result of an armed theater attendee response to Holmes attack would have been, regardless of body armor, smoke/tear gas etc. We cannot know if more or less would have been killed.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:41AM

The outcome would have been the same. To suggest otherwise is fantasy, and incredibly naive to think so.

The same people who defend CCPs and stand your ground laws can show no benefit to society after years of evidence to the contrary.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:56AM

If you can stand to have it in your hand, pick up any copy of the NRA's American Rifleman magazine and look up the column entitled The Armed Citizen. There is story after story (they publish the column monthly) about citizens with guns foiling crimes and criminals.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 5:54PM

Right on!
Who ya gonna believe?
Millions of Americans saved from robbery/rape/murder each year or a disarmed Canadian knowitall?

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:14AM

The guys from Delta, the FBI HRT, the Mossad, and about 5 dozen Swat Teams in the US practice these kinds of scenarios all the time. You don't know what you're talking about.

And no one is claiming that they could have took the guy out. But, they certainly would have gotten the man's attention. Even for a nutter, getting shot at can be a very emotional experience. Better him shooting at someone who could shoot back than unloading on the unarmed. And if there were one or 2 others doing the same?

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:24AM

What scenario? Sitting in a dark theater with your spouse and defending against an armored killer?
Show me one example where an armed and armored killer was downed by a civilian in Israel or the West during the event.

Back to bed you go.

George S| 7.23.12 @ 11:42AM

Apart from mental disorders, only a coward would go into a crowded theater and open fire. Did he train his guns on the police when they arrived? No, he gave up and told them about booby traps in his apartment. A Coward. And you seriously mean to tell me if he saw a muzzle flash returned he would have been emboldened further?

A Coward.

A man of a psycho would have killed himself when the police arrived. My common sense tells me this punk would have shit his pants if he as much as saw another gun.

Houdini| 7.23.12 @ 12:31PM

Thanks for making my point that it is really easy to shoot at things or people that aren't shooting back. When the rounds are coming your way, the pucker factor goes up exponentially...even if they are missing the mark.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 10:46AM

Mass gun murders are rare events and hardly a rationale for carrying weapons. Likewise, the vast majority of gun homicides are by gangs and domestic disputes. Gun ownership per household has declined markedly in recent years, and so has violent crime overall.

The gun wackos basically just spread fear to drum up support for fewer restrictions and in that they have been successful, and there is less public desire to clamp down on guns now.

That said, I do not think we will go on forever with a situation where a young man living in a city can buy four guns that are mostly for killing people and 6,000 rounds without some kind of license.

I also think the tide will turn on regulation to stem gun crime in cities, and the many tragic gun accidents we have everywhere. Doing nothing, eventually, will become unacceptable to most people but it may take many years.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:03AM

It won't happen, unfortunately.

We had a congresswoman gunned down in a public place last year. A movie theater shot up this year. College shootings several times over the last decade.

When or what incident will prompt people to deem the current state of affairs "unacceptable"?

The NRA president and his entire board spraying a schoolyard?
Still not enough.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:11AM

Why are people jumping on the NRA? The NRA had nothing to do with the incidents you cite. They were random events carried out by crazies. The NRA had nothing to do with their decisions or acts.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:25AM

I am trying to find a pretext for gun regulation. With all of these events and still we are eroding gun laws. What scenario can you think of that will make people wake up?

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:28AM

A pretext? Don't you mean a justification?

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:42AM

No a pretext - the justification comes in the desired outcome. That has not been articulated what a gun-free society would look like and when.

Slacker| 7.23.12 @ 5:26PM

You need to invent a pretext out of thin air.

Gun paranoia is almost entirely exclusive to modern progressives. Civilians have historically owned small arms like to those used by the police and military. Nobody cared before the 1960’s.

Previous generation of Americans did not feel the need to disarm their fellow citizens. Then again they didn’t feel the need to ban smoking, fatty food, and soda back either.

The gun was perfected 100 years ago and nothing has really changed since my great grandparent’s time. Even the “modern” AR-15 design used in Aurora is over 50 years old. There is no pretex that did not exist in 1900.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 5:36PM

Prior to the 20th Century, civilian firearms were often superior to military-issue firearms. That's why the Indians had Henry repeaters and Custer's cavalry had the trapdoor Springfield, and why the Boers had the Model 1890-whatever Mausers and the Brits had whatever they had.

George S| 7.23.12 @ 11:54AM

Maybe, one day, Mexican drug lords will slaughter innocent Americans with weapons purchased in the United States. Then, we will all be so outraged...

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:59AM

We had 23 murders in Chicago on the 4th of July Weekend. And gun ownership is heavily regulated in Chicago.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:30PM

Ah, typical liberal logic. "The current state of affairs is unacceptable, ergo we must choose between the status quo and my liberal idea. There are no other choices."

What on earth makes you think we'd buy that logic?

You remain, as on many issues, incapable of processing the possibility of the existence of alternate perspectives. You have decided, out of political bias, that the NRA is the problem, and that your regulations are the solution, and without actually bothering to convince anyone of either idea, you proceed to the step of condemning those who disagree. It's not so much that you refuse to have a conversation about alternate explanations for the problem and proposals to solve it. It's more like you can't comprehend the idea of doing so.

The current state of affairs is indeed unacceptable, and if you get your way, it will become more unacceptable. See my post at 12:19 PM for why.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 12:57PM

I don't know, Canuck. What will make you let us medicate violent psychotics long term? I don't hear you, or Jack, or Purp advocate that. The ACLU opposes medicating violent psychotics involuntarily.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 11:35PM

It is unacceptable that Commitment/neuroleptic treatment laws are so feeble that the seriously mentally ill cannot be involuntarily treated.

JP| 7.23.12 @ 11:16AM

Legal gun ownership has been growing at a record pace for 3 straight years.

satan| 7.23.12 @ 11:22AM

Yes of course, because the brain-dead believe that the Muslim usurper is actually going to take their guns.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:45AM

The scariest (and amusing) story was the run on ammo around the Raleigh area after the exotic got elected in 08. No kidding. Check it out for yourself.

Whitey scared sh1tless their chickens would come home to roost. But this time they actually thought it.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 1:58PM

Ammo was hard to get for quite a while after the 2008 presidential election, and it's still on the expensive side.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 6:05PM

CMP sold(out of) tens of millions of rounds of surplus ammo from fall 08 to spring 09.
Purely coincidental, I'm sure.

George S| 7.23.12 @ 11:53AM

Are suicide belt explosives illegal in Iraq and Pakistan? Just wondering.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 12:03PM

Jack London,

"The gun wackos basically just spread fear to drum up support for fewer restrictions"

Have you looked in the mirror?

Who Knows?| 7.23.12 @ 11:13AM

Those of my age, 70, might remember The Limeliters, who sang comedic tunes. The one that comes to mind includes this—

“That killin' a man is real immature.
It is just an attention-getting device.”

Here’s the whole song—

“Gunslinger, gunslinger, where did you go wrong?
When you were a child, did the Cheyenne and Sioux
Refuse to play nicely with you?
Did you always feel you didn't belong?
Gunslinger.

Gunslinger, gunslinger, why do you act so strange?
When you were a child were you forced to compete
With siblings you never could beat
Did you come from a broken home on the range?
Gunslinger.

Gunslinger, gunslinger, please take my advice.
You know in your mind that you're plumb insecure,
That killin' a man is real immature.
It is just an attention-getting device.
Gunslinger.

You've killed one hundred and thirty men, my darling.
And now you want to settle down.
But other gunslingers are a-gunnin' for you,
And a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do.
Gunslinger.

Don't wear your guns to town tonight, gunslinger.
Last night you cried out "Mother dear!"
You've got a recurrent dream in your craw
And that dream of your maw will inhibit your draw.
Gunslinger.

There you lie dead in the dust, gunslinger
And now your myth begins.
Out in the west, the folks all believe
You faced and killed the toughest hombres of your day
But time has exposed your feet of clay.
Current researchers have clearly shown
That 93.6% of the gunmen you killed were simply accident-prone.”

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:19AM

How about:

"About the time my daddy went to fight the big war,
I saw my first pistol in the general store
In the general store, when I was thirteen;
I thought it was the finest thing that I had ever seen.

So I asked my mama could I have one when I grew up;
Mama dropped a dozen eggs, she really blew up!
Yes, she really blew up, she didn't understand;
Mama said the pistol is the Devil's right hand..."

satan| 7.23.12 @ 11:19AM

Here's the thing. The desire to own a weapon designed for, and capable of, quickly killing dozens of people, is in my opinion a sure sign of mental illness itself. The purchaser is obviously living in a fantasy world, where the power to kill multiple people is a desirable thing. Clearly the cure for mass murders is to arrest and incarceration of every purchaser of assault weapons for life. problem solved.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 11:26AM

Then this site would be pretty quiet.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 11:49AM

Oh I don't know. I've lived an honorable life all of my life, I've been investigated by the New York and the Colorado bureaus of investigation and passed their character reviews, I've been admitted to the bars of three states and the federal bar, I've gone through six years of military school living under two honor codes and never been accused of an honor violation, I've been a practicing attorney for 35 years without one single ethics complaint having been made against me. I've never committed a criminal act (except for two speeding tickets) in my life, and I also like things military, and firearms. I've been a target shooter since I was 14 or 15 years old (except for a long period during my middle years, when I got away from guns for a while), and I enjoy shooting very much. I don't hunt - don't want to kill anything - but I LOVE shooting targets. I've never had a moment when I lost mental stability, although I've had a couple of moments (in my 20s) when I allowed my emotions to overcome me and made remarks I've regretted. I've never heard a shot fired in anger, and the worst I've ever done is made a hostile remark (my words did not provoke a violent response, I might add).

Am I mentally ill because I like firearms?

Kingofthenet| 7.23.12 @ 12:10PM

Are 20 rounds magazines inconveniences?

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 2:01PM

On the AK and the AR-15 they are. I much prefer the 30-round mags myself. Others might disagree.

Conservative Bob| 7.23.12 @ 3:19PM

Depends if I am shooting of a rest or not, I put in the shorter mags for longer range shooting from a rest...

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 5:32PM

Point taken.

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 12:13PM

No you are not, but to leave something like gun regulation on the margins as a taboo is irrational in a modern society.

As an attorney, you probably have a bucket list of things to do if you were named Chief Justice. Would preventing cities from enacting reasonable firearms laws be one of them?

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:22PM

Your proposals are not "reasonable" just because you put the word "reasonable" next to them when requesting them. In typical liberal fashion, you have skipped the necessary step of making the case for your ideas before demanding their institution and ridiculing all who oppose them.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 12:43PM

canuckistani,

As long as your definition of "reasonable" conforms to the 2nd Amendment and the Heller decision, there is nothing preventing reasonable firearms regulation. You can't take a gun into a bar in Texas, but you can carry a concealed weapon elsewhere.

The modern society you wish to control is happily on a twenty year reduction in violent crime despite an increase in "concealed carry" laws.

We are engaged in an irrational fear of small numbers here. We could have an Aurora shooting every three months and still more people would be killed by lightning.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 1:40PM

That's not the right argument, John. Saying "don't worry about it, it's a rare event" plays right into liberal "even one death is too many" hands.

The reality is, their ideas INCREASE death tolls. That's the point we need to be making.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 3:47PM

JD,

I take your point. Convincing Purp, canuckistani or Jack London is futile, but others may find the comparison apt.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 4:01PM

Well John, you'd have a hard time convincing anyone bar a wacko that countries with very few guns - eg the UK - have very few deaths by gun, homicide or accidents because of a lack of guns, and that there is no correlation with the huge number of gun deaths, injuries and accidents we have and the number of guns.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 4:09PM

Once again Jack equates his laws against guns with a reduction in guns, despite evidence that gun control laws don't reduce gun violence in places that have toggled policies and kept records, and despite the liberal claim that drug laws don't reduce drug use.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 4:47PM

Jack London,

Tell me about Switzerland, Jack!

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 5:58PM

I told you above. Perhaps next time you could engage your brain before posting absurd comparisons.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 6:22PM

Jack London,

Please see my post, elsewhere for a lesson in statistics. Are you and Purp switch-hitting? You sound so similar.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 2:18PM

I respectfully disagree with JD; I think that the small numbers of shooting atrocities is a piece of the equation on the reasonableness of firearms restrictions. We have approximately 250 million firearms owned by private owners in the United States. A miniscule number of that 250 million guns is used to commit crimes. It is not reasonable for people to be limited in their law-abiding ownership of about 249.9 million firearms for the sake of stopping 0.1 million guns in crime.

We can deal with that 0.1 million by passing laws that, for example, create aggravators if one uses a gun in committing a crime. Use a gun, get an extra ten years in the state pen.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 2:27PM

Here I thought "assault with a deadly weapon" was already more serious than ordinary assault. You're trending in the direction of social engineering, which has well-known pitfalls. You'd make gun crimes the equivalent of hate crimes. Penalties which discriminate on things other than the impact of the crime on the victim lead to trouble.

I think you misread me regarding the "small numbers" point. canuckistani is making the argument that more "regulations", which are reasonable because he called them so, will decrease death tolls. I see no evidence of that, and an argument for the opposite. You argued for certain "reasonable" rules above, but I find it unlikely that canuckistani's proposals would align with yours.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 2:35PM

The "deadly weapon" part is the aggravator I was talking about. Assault with a deadly weapon is more serious than ordinary assault because the use of a weapon makes the assault more likely to end in more serious injury than an ordinary assault. Because of that, it is punished to a greater degree. It's not a bit like hate crimes.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 2:58PM

As I said, we ALREADY HAVE "assault with a deadly weapon", separate from ordinary assault. Creating still another distinction where the weapon is specifically a gun is what I oppose.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 3:04PM

If we get rid of guns then the homicide and accident rate would drop dramatically - no one could argue against that.

Conservative Bob| 7.23.12 @ 3:30PM

You may have not heard of South Africa since it's "liberation".

Actually the opposite is true, when guns are taken from law abiding people crime increases.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 3:44PM

Jack London,

You have, in a single statement, refuted John Lott's studies. Amazing!

JD| 7.23.12 @ 3:44PM

Jack is a classic liberal. He requires that the starting point for any discussion with him be the presumption that ideas achieve their intent perfectly.

This presumption allows liberals to claim that they never do anything wrong, and furthermore do great good, because they feel their intent is good. Furthermore, they attack any instance of "bad" by first identifying the person with bad intent to blame (where anyone who disagrees with the well-intended liberals must surely have bad intentions). They assume, by backwards deduction, that all problems must be caused by conservatives, for only they could have the non-good intentions of liberals, and only bad intentions could cause bad results!

In this case, Jack substitutes the fantasy that we can "get rid of guns" for the actual liberal policy of passing laws against owning guns. This ignores the fact that liberals frequently argue that drug bans don't eliminate drugs. Jack does not question this contradiction.

Riff Raff| 7.23.12 @ 4:45PM

Yes we could. And we are. The statistics and research prove you wrong. You should check out John Lott's book, mentioned elsewhere here today.

BTW, "No one could argue against that" is a logical fallacy and is used in the absence of a logical argument.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 6:09PM

"The statistics and research prove you wrong. "

Hardly. Societies with very few guns don't have many deaths by gun. It's a pretty simple concept, even for a Riff Raff like you.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 6:20PM

Jack London,

Yes, you are correct! In South Africa which has one of the world's highest homicide rates, two-thirds are committed without firearms. It's simple, indeed!

Riff Raff| 7.23.12 @ 7:21PM

This is another of JL's logical fallacies. It is like saying that a country that has no rabbits also has no over population problem with rabbits. Circular logic. The real question is how many deaths overall. But you didn't ask that one.

Skippy| 7.23.12 @ 6:16PM

I would.
So would millions of Americans whose lives have been saved by guns.

Riff Raff| 7.23.12 @ 7:13PM

The best scholarly estimates are that 2.5 million times each year private citizens defend themselves with a firearm. This does not mean someone is shot or even shot at. It just means that 2.5 million times each year private citizens use a gun or the threat of a gun to deter a criminal from completing his chosen task. Convicted criminals in prison themselves know better than to enter a home where people are armed. To advocate more gun control under these circumstances is to advocate more crime and the violent deaths of innocent people.

Also, 6 million Jews were annihilated by the Nazi's in Europe and most were not shot. But they are just a dead. Gun control is based on the belief that government and ONLY government is qualified legally and morally to be armed. All of recorded human history proves this thesis to be completely wrong. Governments throughout history have proven themselves utterly untrustworthy to claim a monopoly on arms, and this is attested to by the 6 million dead Jews already mentioned, and a hundred million other people murdered by their own governments in the 20th century, murdered AFTER they were legally disarmed.

Gun control is not and never has been about controlling crime. Gun control is only about controlling citizens. Gun control does not even address the issue of crime and it is not intended to.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 7:25PM

Riff Raff,

Spot on. It's why we have the Second Amendment. But the liberals love government and cannot fathom ever needing to be defended from it. They even like Obama!

JD| 7.23.12 @ 7:42PM

I wonder how liberals think this country came to be. What was it we rebelled against?

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 12:54PM

No, no they wouldn't. Check out homicides in Britain, and violent crime stats. Especially violent property break ins, rapes, etc.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 2:10PM

I don't have a bucket list. If I were a Chief Justice and passing on a duly passed piece of legislation, I would have to weigh two conflicting things: (1) the presumption that a duly-passed law is constitutional on its face, and (2) what provision of the Constitution might apply to the firearms law.

But to address you straightforwardly, I believe that the U.S. Constitution permits laws that limit the exercise of the rights guaranteed in it, when those laws regulate time, place, and manner of the exercise of the right, and there is no less restrictive alternative.

Accordingly, firearms laws that I would support: no private ownership of such small arms as rocket launchers, mortars, grenades, or the like; no possession of firearms by the mentally ill or convicted felons; restrictions on bringing firearms into certain places - my main concern in this area is government buildings because people sometimes get a bit irrational about political figures and the law. I would not support laws like the D.C. or Chicago gun control laws. I also wouldn't support as constitutional laws from places where firearms ownership is compelled by municipal ordinance, as one or two towns have done. So that's what I think is reasonable. Since I'm only one person, who cares what I think is reasonable (except me and those close to me)? But you asked, so I'll tell you.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 2:29PM

If you were Chief Justice, you wouldn't have a bucket list because you could only rule on cases brought before you, not a proactive agenda.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 2:32PM

That is true.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 11:27PM

A good character in an attorney, and a good writer, as well. You see, I don't allow my contempt to be a complete blanket.

And, by the way, amateur psychoanalysis is idiotic. I know plenty of very nice men who use and like firearms. Leave the diagnosis to the pros, please. And, answer my question, Satan, etc.: why do you support the ACLU in their efforts to make medicating dangerous psychotics long term as difficult as humanly possible?

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 3:25PM

Satan,
There are more automatic weapons in the hands of "civilians" in Switzerland than all of the United States. They all are mentally ill?

CaneCutter| 7.23.12 @ 11:37AM

When Castro seized power in Cuba, he immediately began to disarm the populace. Prior to Castro, the right to keep and bear arms was guaranteed by the constitution. Castro's famous "Armas Por Que" Speech resulted in door to door searches and more Cubans up agaisnt the wall! So, has violent crime been solved in Cuba, with only the Police and the Army having firearms? Hardly! Now, the people have no way to defend against SOCIALIST abuses except maybe a Chaveta, a small knife used to make cigars. Government abuse, tyanny and slavery most always result when the people are no longer trusted to keep and bear arms. You need look no further than our neighbor to the south of Florida to see he results of "Gun Control."

Kingofthenet| 7.23.12 @ 12:08PM

Nobody but the Police have a 'Duty' to carry a gun, and ANY business has the right to enforce ANY policy regarding weapons on their premises they want.You Gun Nuts can buy your own theater and have it set up any way you want, me, I am going to a theater that doesn't allow them.Oh, by the way maybe it also wouldn't be such a good idea showing movies like COLORS, in a packing movie theater.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:25PM

Typical liberal - confused by the distinction between choice and mandate. Of course a private business can do as it pleases. And we can criticize their choices as we please. Enjoy your gun-free theater; we'll enjoy the fact that none of these mass shootings has ever happened in a place where guns were allowed.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:19PM

The police do not prevent crime. They punish crime. They don't get involved, at all, until after a crime has already been committed. The only way in which they prevent crimes from being committed in the first place is by deterring crime, through the threat of punishment.

Such threats have no impact on those who, to quote Alfred's description of the Joker from the second recent Batman movie (how ironic), "just want to watch the world burn." The police thus serve NO PURPOSE AT ALL in preventing atrocities like the one in Aurora. The best they can do is get there quickly after the shooting starts.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:19PM

The Left would have us believe that we can prevent these atrocities by other means. They think a gun ban will actually keep the guns from being available, despite their contrary insistence when they argue against the war on drugs ("it's unwinnable, people still get drugs, we're just criminalizing people unnecessarily, etc"). They think that the natural human condition is utopian, and there are no true crazies, such that the James Holmses of the world are just sick people who can be diagnosed, treated, and released.

These things are not true. Human nature includes bad things, and the very "diversity" the Left claims to celebrate (except when it's diversity of thought) produces diversities of thought processes that include very bad people. And these people will find a way to acquire the means to kill, inevitably.

We will never achieve a murder-free utopia. But we can individually protect ourselves. We MUST individually protect ourselves. The police do not have the duty or the ability to do this. Not against people like James Holmes. The liberal notion of sacrificing personal responsibility on the altar of collectivism harms us here, yet again. Self-defense is not a responsibility that can be wholly reassigned to the state.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 5:55PM

I suppose there's something to the argument for gun control if the enforcement of the law could insure that no one, under any set of conceivable circumstances, could get his hands on a gun. Then gun violence would be dramatically cut back.

Of course, knife violence would then increase until we accomplished knife control. Then it would be rolling pins. Then people would take off their shoes and let each other have it with their footwear.

But yeah, if it were possible to make our society completely gun-free, gun violence could be cut back.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 8:18PM

Thank you for your sarcasm. As for me, I'll keep lobbying to pass a similar bill banning stupidity. Wish me luck!

Bill84728| 7.24.12 @ 10:22AM

I forgot to mention the cast-iron frying pans.

And now that I think about it a little, wasn't there some Alfred Hitchcock Mystery Magazine story a long time ago, about a woman who kills her husband with a frozen leg of lamb?

Kingofthenet| 7.23.12 @ 12:39PM

Really the police don't prevent crime? The NYPD would disagree, they feel their Stop and Frisk policy prevents a lot of crime.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:45PM

Why don't you reach for an even bigger outlier?

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 12:49PM

Kingofthenet,

I doesn't show up in the crime rate. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm

DRed| 7.23.12 @ 2:50PM

Those are statewide rates, John. NYC is interesting-we have pretty stringent gun control laws but relatively low crime. Compare crime rates in NY with those of say, Nashville. Gun ownership might lower crime rates, but it's obviously not a panacea either.

John Navratil| 7.23.12 @ 3:42PM

Dred,

My mistake in confusing the name of the city and the state. My point was intended to dispute Kingofthenet's assertion that policing prevented crime. On further research, I find my statement to him to be true.

Citing: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/24/us/24crime.html (that's a year old) and http://www.cityrating.com/crim.....york.html, the city is participating in the nationwide trend to lower crime rates, but suffers from the same "big city" crime problem. Property crimes in both the city and the state are similar and are below the national average, but the violent crime rate is above both the state and national averages. In any case (and my point to Kingofthenet), "Stop and Frisk" doesn't appear to have changed either trend.

Kingofthenet| 7.23.12 @ 12:47PM

Well at least on this site, you don't have RABID 'Violent overthrow of the Govt.' NeoCons advocating for hi capacity magazines as a RIGHT to do battle with an imagined tyrannical Govt.What is funny about people like that is they always hide their 'vision' behind this 'out of control' Govt. Boogeyman, and keep it as some Nationalist Abstraction, rather than call it what it REALLY is. They want these weapons and Magazines to POTENTIALLY KILL the Police, FBI and American Military Members, whenever they 'decide' that the situation warrants it.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 12:53PM

You, being a Leftist, NEED that straw man to be real so badly that you complain when nobody plays along. Your paranoia remains in the only place where it was ever real - your head.

What arrogance. You actually demand that we be the crazies you want us to be!

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 2:51PM

Yeah, I'm OK with that. I'm for the AKs and the high-capacity mags because they're the best we're gonnna be able to do against the helicopters, the paratroopers, the mortars, full-auto M-4s and M-16s, tanks, APCs, and so on, until we can get the armed forces to come over to our side.

I keep thinking of Elian Gonzalez, Ruby Ridge, and Waco, and that was during the tolerant Clinton years.

MelvinNC| 7.23.12 @ 2:06PM

I have carried a sidearm or a rifle a good portion of my adult life as a United States Marine and concealed carry.
Only one time did I draw my weapon, and that was in the first Persian Gulf War, other than than, my weapon has remained holstered.
I continue to keep my proficiency up by going to the local range periodically.
I am a card carrying Libertarian and have strong leanings to the Tea Party.
If anyone knows anything about a Marine, in that we never truly leave the Marines. We are Marines for the rest of our lives, period and even though we are not active or reserve it is still our duty to protect Americans and our way of life.
Many times we have seen horrors like the one in Aurora, that has some of the strictest gun laws on the books. In all honesty, that law and laws like it got innocent people murdered in a world turned upside-down.
I carry my sidearm where ever I go to protect my family and others if need be. Even places that do not allow it. Reason being, if anything should happen God forbid I'd rather be receiving a ticket than being in a funeral.
All this fear that is being spread by the Left about CCW is nothing more than advancing a political agenda that has nothing to do with actual fact. There hasn't been one incident that I am aware of a CCW person going ballistic as the Left says that will happen. I take my CCW permit very seriously and don't appreciate the lies being spread about me and those like me.

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 2:37PM

Then you know that a pistol is what you use until you can get your hands on a rifle.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 4:03PM

MelvinNC,
I pal around with people who volunteered to vacation in places like Iraq and Afghanistan (multiple times). Many started out in “uniform” and ended up “out of uniform” trying to protect morons and naive people like is on display on this topic. Most gave it up because it was not worth the risk to save morons. One of the guys I know took “three in the plates in 93” in the Mog and now teaches people how to survive under similar circumstances. Great guy, not the kind of person you want to be on the wrong side of in a fight.

Another guy I’m acquainted with is common to Babbin and I but Babbin and I have never met. He trained me in some things and is fond of saying, “shooting skills are like perishable fruit, if you don’t use it you lose it”. He was on the runway in Panama when things went south.

Serious people just roll their eyes when naive morons speak. Perishable Fruit, Melvin.

AllantheK| 7.23.12 @ 2:35PM

The question I have not seen raised is "How did this person get into the theater in the first place? Through the front door? I think not? What gives?

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 3:12PM

He bought a ticket, watched part of the movie and then left through an fire "exit" proping it open and them came back in geared up and ready for business.....

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 3:19PM

The political class and most media pundits don't want to talk about the elephant in the room, as Babbin has here. If such a "joker" were to engulf a crowded church, school, etc in fire most of those reading this would stand by and wait for the Fire Department rather than try to save the people trapped in the burning building. Ditto for the "joker" walking down the halls of a Public school killing anyone he could. We have long been a nation of sheep ready for slaughter. We make the "joker's" job relatively easy. There will always be someone willing to shove our failings in our face.

On 9/11/2001 a wheelchair bound person armed with an 1851 6 shot black powder pistol could have stopped the hijackers on each of those planes. Four competent armed people could have prevented the loss of thousands of lives on that day. The Government/Corporate policies disarm us in virtually every "killing field" there is and fails repeatedly to prevent such madness. There is a message there. When someone does respond in self-defense to such acts of aggression a portion of society always tries to lynch the one defending themselves. Authority figures hate competition.

As long as the vast majority of our Population "feels" they are entitled to be "sheeple" and live under the illusion that it is someone else's responsibility to protect or save them from the monsters in the world, the "jokers" will prosper in a world that refuses to deal with the most basic civic duty.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 3:24PM

Lots of ignorance on parade here.

A theater is not a pitch dark cave. I'm a regular movie goer and I can see the slightest movement anywhere in the theater all the time. I can shoot and hit anything I need to hit in such a place without "spraying down" the place. There was plenty of time to deal with this guy before panic and the smoke grenades took effect. People sat there stupefied because they thought it was part of the "show". Given the number of rounds he fired and where he was, he would have been a moving lighting bug for the Bat waiting and there are only two paths he could have taken to close on the bulk of people. Easy target for someone with the skills and means to do the job. I know a lot of people with the skills to the do the job day or night. When you disarm them you just add to the body count.

Have any of you ever been hit by a pistol round wearing "body armor"? If not then you are speaking from Hollywood ignorance. It isn't like Hollywood shows it unless you are wearing class 4+ plate protection and that normally covers only about 80 square inches of vital area. The first couple of rounds go into center of a dark mass being lite by flashes from his gun. The rest go low into his groin, hips, legs if there is no immediate result of first two shots. He goes down, he won't be able to kill or wound very many after that. Five seconds and he is either retreating or down in pain.

Jack London| 7.23.12 @ 3:39PM

You're right - every theater should have such a marshal in each showing - a theater that doesn't have one could be sued otherwise. These marshals should be named 'Thomahawks' after the brilliance of their inventor.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 3:44PM

The TSA (Theater Security Agency) is coming to a theater near you Jack. Those and the Thought Police will guarantee only “sheeple” get into theaters, churches, schools and DNC meetings where you attend.

Conservative Bob| 7.23.12 @ 4:06PM

Well put Thom.

So many comments from folks who have never held a gun let alone fired one or observed someone else doing so.

As a reloader and an avid shooter, I know the power of the rounds I shoot and what I can hit from a wide variety of positions and distances.

Returning fire would have these murderers ducking for cover or dead, and would certainly impact their aim and rate of fire on their other intended victims.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 5:12PM

One round impacting this "joker" would have caused him to shit himself.... Typical looking in the mirror coward.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 3:39PM

The mindset of the “gun” control-freak is easily refuted transferring their emotional arguments to other “things” that kill more people every year.

A Ford pickup truck with a “high capacity” bed just killed more people quicker than the “joker” did. What took place would not have been possible if everyone but “government citizens” were restricted to “low capacity” 2 passenger SmartCars. That is a fact in this case. Every “high capacity” pickup truck should be confiscated out of the hands of all “civilian” citizens, etc so go the emotional rhetorical song played every time “gun free zones” cost a lot of people their lives. If saving lives were what these people were about they would have the courage to take up this banner since automobiles “kill” two and a half times more people each year. The moment they admit the “driver” of that “assault pickup truck” with “high capacity” bed was the cause of the deaths their gun control argument falls apart.

Hypocrisy has its limits even among “control freaks”.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 4:04PM

At this point they will make an appeal to "rationality" and "pragmatism". This will be more hypocritical, given the anti-pragmatism prevalent in other liberal arguments. For example, when their hatred of business motivates them to say that the only acceptable weapon against illegal immigration is to crack down on employers who hire them, despite the fact that it is infinitely harder to scrutinize every exchange of money in the country (the only way to prevent illegal employment) than it is to build a border fence or enact other security measures.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 6:25PM

JD,
Off the subject a bit. Every SSN submitted to the IRS with each W4/payroll could be run and matched against every SSN in the Social Security Administration in a few minutes to weed out mismatches for known things entered in both places (Name, Sex, age, race, place of birth) and every illegal alien working in the US on the roles of “businesses” that are required to file such info would be red flagged all across the country. Why do you think this isn’t done?

It is almost a given that most illegals are working off the “books” and said “businesses” are also partly off the “books” else millions could be found this way relatively easy. I have some experience with this “subject” and by and large the illegals hide and work among the legals and their relatives here. You can’t stay here without food and water and that requires either a source of income from outside the country or working for someone that breaks the law and aids and enables tax evasion and fraud. Over 11 million illegal aliens are a pretty large non tax paying portion of our population and their own ethnic group legally here is an accessory before the fact in a large percentages of the cases.

JD| 7.23.12 @ 7:21PM

Border enforcement is opposed by different groups for different reasons, none of them good. My point above was simply to state a recent example of liberals choosing the absurd over the practical to suit ideology, to cast aspersions on a claim they might make of being practical.

No doubt that even if a strong effort were made to purge employment rolls of illegals, they would continue to find work off the books. The day-laborers at Home Depot don't have paperwork, nor does anyone employed via Craigslist. I wonder, do liberals think we can eliminate drug cartels by scrutinizing their tax returns, too?

The employment-enforcement angle cannot be the linchpin of border security. It is a supplemental policy at best.

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 7:37PM

Agreed. Half a million make it through each year. The Cartels buy "their weapons" for a fraction of their retail price on the black market and we think the legal retail ones going south are the problem in Mexico....

awildstrawberry| 7.23.12 @ 4:04PM

There were trained Navy personnel in the theater. Sadly they must not have been armed. One died protecting his girlfriend. He could have protected everyone it he had been armed!

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 4:45PM

A 20 year old combat, decorated Seal can't own a handgun......

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 4:07PM

This has been a very enjoyable thread to read, and it's still going to continue is my guess. Many fine comments here by conservative, 2nd Amendment supporters. Also a wonderful amount of hilarity provided by "Canuckistan", and his amen cohorts choir.

"Canuck" is a blowhard on par with Obama. He obviously loves the sound of his own voice, like Obama, as evidenced by his too numerous comments. He's as ignorant as Obama too and speaks with the same kind of confident bombastic line of bull manure. That he is so wrong is what makes it all so hilarious.

Thanks, "Canuck"! You are a scream. I'm rolling on the floor, brother.

Slacker| 7.23.12 @ 5:15PM

It is amusing to see.

I think gun grabbers generally fail for the simple reason that, when it comes to guns, they simple don’t have a clue what they are talking about. If you want to control something you should at least understand it.

Third Army| 7.23.12 @ 4:17PM

Feinstein is such a hypocrite. While she is constantly screaming for gun control, she has one of the few carry permits in San Francisco.

Jeamar| 7.23.12 @ 10:27PM

I am a firm supporter of the Constitution and gun rights although I can't imagine why the average citizen should own an assault weapon. But even more I can't imagine feeling any safer in an Aurora situation or sitting on a lawn reading when a nut opens fire and all the average citzens armed for their self defense start shooting back. In either case innocent people will be in the middle of a shoot out and the results won't be good.

Bob James| 7.24.12 @ 12:23AM

Define "assault weapon," please. What is it? What distinguishes this particularly noxious and deadly curse from any other semi-automatic rifle?

And cite one documented case where a well-meaning, legally armed CCW/CHL/CWL (whatever your state's term of choice might be) inadvertently shot an innocent bystander. Just one.

Just one.

Cheers, and God bless.

JP| 7.24.12 @ 7:32AM

Plenty of reasons. Why would someone wish to own a classic T-Bird? Isn't a Ford Model-T enough? I know of one person who collects several models of semi-automatic weapons as a hobby and investment.

And it should be noted full automatic weapons are illegal. The hobbiests I know (most are former Marines) also own several models of semi-automatic side arms.

As far as your neighbors being armed: the people I know who own side arms have all been through safety training. Most of them again are former military. And if someone opens up in your nieghborhood? I pity the crazed gunman. Just think; word gets around. Don't plan a crime in that neighborhood; everyone there is loaded for bear.

Bill84728| 7.24.12 @ 10:19AM

Full-automatic firearms aren't illegal; you just have to have a special federal firearms license to deal in them, and pay a large tax to buy one.

But you can own them. You just have to jump through a bunch of hoops.

Many people want full-auto firearms until they find out how expensive it is to keep them fed with ammo.

Conservative Bob| 7.24.12 @ 12:41PM

I do not believe you are a supporter of either the constitution or gun rights. The 'But even I..." says you are anything but.....

To echo Mr. James. define assult weapon. What makes it an 'assualt' weapon? How it looks?

FYI unless you live in CA, or NY or IL or DC many of your neighbors are armed already and have increasingly been so the past several years as CCW has increased.

If your fears had any basis in fact we would have see it play out repeatedly in places like TX or AZ or any of the dozens of states that have right to carry and shall issue laws.

We do see instances where random gun fire hits innocents.... Chicago, DC, and other secure bastions where severe restrictions insure that only criminals have guns.

Legal gun owners have proven to be very responsible, and I would ask as does MR. James. please site a single case, just one.

Good try though with the I am a firm supporter line...

Renaissance Nerd | 7.24.12 @ 2:06PM

I'll go you one further. Every able bodied man or woman in America should have an assault rifle in the house. I'd leave it to the states to decide if it should be required, but every citizen of a free republic should have a military-grade weapon readily available. Pistols are sidearms. Assault rifles are required to resist tyranny, if it ever comes to that, and the very fact that so many people have them dissuades the petite-fascists among us from ever become full-bore fascists. That by itself is reason enough to own an assault rifle.

James1754| 7.23.12 @ 11:48PM

Well done. I agree that if people had been allowed to carry at the theater things would have been different.
I also believe that the theater was chosen because it was a "gun free zone".

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:18AM

You people are missing the point. If you can't defend yourself you have no one to depend upon. If it is a "gun free zone" don't go there. If you are going to depend on someone else to defend you, prepay your funeral expenses.

Renaissance Nerd | 7.24.12 @ 2:02PM

I haven't generally felt the need to carry a pistol at all times, and neither of my pistols are well-suited for concealed carry.

This particular incident has convinced me that I was wrong, and your article only adds to my reasoning. At first I thought that a little .380 or .38 special might not do the trick against a guy with body armor and an assault rifle, but the simple fact remains, armed is better than unarmed in any situation of the kind. A .380 might've only staggered him, but even a momentary pause might be enough to close the distance and aim for a more vulnerable part of the anatomy, as well as letting those running away gain a little distance.

One thing I've noticed about all these shootings is that the shooters all pick the soft targets. You never see one of these mutts attack an army base or a police station. It's always the place with lots of people who aren't allowed to be armed, like schools and now movie theaters. One way to stop them would be to remove the soft targets by removing restrictions on weapons. I'm sorry that open carry would be the quickest way to do it; it would be nice if it weren't necessary. But there will always be wolves, so it's past time to quit with the sheep act.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 12:53PM

Nidal Hussan attacked an army base because the soldiers aren't allowed to go routinely armed on base.

May he be drowned in lard.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 12:48PM

Speaking of self defense, the latest attack on the Iranian computers has the equipment malfunctioning while AC/DC blasts out of the computer speakers.

Thunderstruck!

Dimitry_Aleksandrovich| 7.25.12 @ 2:23PM

I think everyone (left, right and center) on this issue is missing the bigger picture. America has become a sick nation. The once deeply held faith and subcultures that sustained America since the very beginning has been eclipsed by a false society based on consumerism that has left young people's spirits void of anything meaningful. Thus in this society where success is measured in how much Chinese garbage you can by at Walmart we end up living for the next form of entertainment to take us away the reality of present day American society. For someone who is mentally ill like the shooter the line between fantasy and reality was crossed and the massacre was the end result.

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 11:32PM

Dmitry: please note my comments on medicating the seriously mentally ill. Guns are NOT the issue here.

Harry45255| 7.27.12 @ 10:58AM

Armed citizens did save lives at the Texas Tower incident. Citizens did begin firing at Whitman with hunting rifles obtained from their cars. Although they had little chance of hitting him, Whitman did not know this. He had previously been firing over the wall, but when return fire started he switched to firing through drainage slits at the base of the wall, greatly reducing his field of fire at undoubtedly reducing the carnage.

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|130 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|137 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|53 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|17 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|24 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|41 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|16 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|27 comments

The Spectacle Blog

One of The London Soldier Beheading Suspects British Born

Aaron Goldstein | 6:42PM

Lois Lerner Now on Administrative Leave

Kaylin Bugos | 6:13PM

Crisis Looms, and Kevin Williamson Can Hardly Wait

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5:48PM

Dismantling Networks, Preventing Footholds

Ross Kaminsky | 5:30PM

Bill Would Ban All Abortions After 20 Weeks

Jordan Gonzalez | 4:15PM

Harry Reid Pushes for the Nuclear Option

Claire Healey | 1:11PM

Weiner: More Photos of My Junk Might Surface

Kyle Peterson | 12:55PM

#FreeKate? Movement to Normalize Pedophilia Finds Its Poster Girl

Robert Stacy McCain | 10:09AM

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Pope Culture

By George Sim Johnston

A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck

By P.J. O'Rourke

Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
Dames at Sea

By John Corry
In the Absence of Guns

By Mark Steyn

In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The Metaphysical Martini

By Werner J. Dannhauser
Counting the Costs of Clintonism

By Robert H. Bork

The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
Chuck McHagel

By George Neumayr

It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted

By Douglas Bartholomew
It’s the Best Time of the Year

By Mark Steyn

The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
The Bush Crack-Up

By Brit Hume

Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?

The American Spectator

Loose Canons

The Duty of Self-Defense

About the Author

Letter to the Editor View all comments (349) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kitty | 7.23.12 @ 6:26AM

Kitty | 7.23.12 @ 6:54AM

Jack in Wi| 7.23.12 @ 7:47AM

Occam's Tool| 7.23.12 @ 1:21PM

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:01AM

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.23.12 @ 5:07PM

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:02AM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:08AM

RCV| 7.23.12 @ 11:03AM

CJW| 7.23.12 @ 12:21PM

George S| 7.23.12 @ 11:29AM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 1:09PM

Occam's Tool| 7.23.12 @ 1:24PM

Eagle Creek| 7.23.12 @ 9:59PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:38PM

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:10AM

Occam's Tool| 7.23.12 @ 1:23PM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:40PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 4:34PM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 6:11PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:25PM

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:13AM

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:13AM

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 7:17PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:31PM

chemman| 7.23.12 @ 2:02PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 4:37PM

Riff Raff| 7.23.12 @ 6:53PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:32PM

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 7:28PM

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:00PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 4:39PM

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 7:31PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:40PM

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.23.12 @ 5:10PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:40PM

Thom| 7.23.12 @ 5:42PM

Brookschwarzenegro | 7.23.12 @ 8:21PM

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.23.12 @ 10:42PM

James1754| 7.24.12 @ 12:07AM

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 10:12AM

KyMouse| 7.23.12 @ 10:39AM

2Anglico| 7.23.12 @ 4:04PM

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 6:44AM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 7:09AM

Maxwell| 7.23.12 @ 7:52AM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 8:18AM

Maxwell| 7.23.12 @ 8:20AM

Cobalt| 7.23.12 @ 10:54AM

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 12:19PM

Cobalt| 7.23.12 @ 12:29PM

Alej| 7.23.12 @ 1:33PM

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 1:48PM

Cobalt| 7.23.12 @ 4:22PM

Bill84728| 7.24.12 @ 10:34AM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 7:01AM

poochie| 7.23.12 @ 9:23AM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 10:51AM

satan| 7.23.12 @ 11:29AM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 3:45PM

Riff Raff| 7.23.12 @ 4:25PM

aware| 7.23.12 @ 7:03AM

TLP| 7.23.12 @ 7:23AM

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 9:53AM

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 9:59AM

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 10:13AM

Bill84728| 7.23.12 @ 1:50PM

canuckistani| 7.23.12 @ 10:27AM

JP| 7.23.12 @ 10:56AM

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 12:23PM

JimP| 7.23.12 @ 11:18AM

Albertus Magnus| 7.23.12 @ 12:10PM

Occam's Tool| 7.25.12 @ 1:07PM

Stephanie| 7.23.12 @ 12:28PM

Bob James| 7.23.12 @ 2:23PM