An attempted mass shooting ended with no innocent bystanders injured all thanks to a law-abiding Uber driver with a gun, in Chicago of all places!
An armed man began shooting into a crowd of people at Logan Square in Chicago late Friday night. After witnessing everything from his vehicle, an Uber driver with a concealed carry permit immediately responded to what could have been a horrible incident by pulling his own weapon and firing six shots at the gunman.
The gunman was later identified as 22-year-old Everardo Custodio, who is currently being treated for gunshot wounds to the thigh, shin, and lower back at Advocate Illinois Masonic hospital.
According to the Chicago Tribune, the Uber driver was in a parked car nearby when he witnessed Custodio shooting into a crowd of pedestrians at the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue. The driver, who has only been identified as a 47-year-old male from Little Italy, fired six shots at the gunman and remained at the scene until police arrived. He immediately presented his valid concealed carry permit and firearms owner’s identification card.
A Georgia gun owner is labeled a hero after stopping a car thief and saving the life of the woman clinging to the hood.A Georgia concealed carry permit holder put a stop to an attempted carjacking at the Fast Track Car Wash in Smyrna on Friday afternoon.
While the victim was vacuuming her vehicle, a teenage male came out of a red van parked next to her and attempted to drive away with her car. The suspect began to speed up after the owner of the white Honda jumped onto the hood with the intent of stopping him from driving away. A Smyrna, Georgia city worker was passing by and drew his gun.
N.J. Governor Chris Christie granted a pardon Thursday for a Pennsylvania concealed carry holder who was arrested for bringing a registered firearm across the border in 2013.
Governor Christie signed the pardon at noon on Thursday, April 2, 2015 that released Shaneen Allen from any criminal charges or indictments.
View the rest of my article at Wide Open Spaces
On March 17, 2015, we were informed that the Texas Senate was one small step away from approving a bill that would allow people to openly carry handguns in the state. Read full article on KHOU.
Texas is one of 6 states who do not permit open carry of handguns, even though open carry of shotguns and rifles is permitted in the state.
Though some have their own sets of reservations with the passing of this law, state Senator Huffman believes that these trained citizens will act responsibly. Plus, this bill does not permit just anyone to openly carry their firearm. In order to openly carry, one must already hold a license to carry concealed and their firearm must be carried in either a shoulder holster or a belt holster. Documentation of proper training (classroom and firing range instruction) and a criminal background check are required in Texas in order to obtained a CCW.
In addition to Bill 17, the senate gave final approval to a proposal that would allow certain people with proper licenses to carry concealed on college campuses.
A House panel is set to consider both gun bills on Tuesday.
Stumbled across this little piece of perfection from Keep And Bear Arms.
It’s amazing what one has to believe
to believe in gun control
KeepAndBearArms.com — It’s amazing what one has to believe to believe in gun control:
That guns are the real cause of crime, but we will blame and jail the owner of said gun for the crime, even if the owner wasn’t the person involved.
That a mugger will kill you in the half-second it takes to draw from the holster, but won’t harm you while you dial 911 on your cell phone, talk to the dispatcher and wait half an hour for the cops to arrive.
That gun control works, which is why there are no illegal weapons in Northern Ireland or Beirut.
That the Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks, just as the First Amendment only applies to quills and lead type.
That the proper response to an attack is to call the police, but only unarmed police, because “Violence never settles anything.”
That it’s wrong to make snide, sexist comments about women, unless the comments are about women who own guns.
That a gun with an 11 round magazine is dangerous, but a gun with fifteen 10 round magazines is much safer.
That a hijacker could easily take a gun away from a pilot, but the hundreds of passengers aboard would then be unable to take the gun away from the hijacker.
That if there’d been a gun aboard American Airlines Flight 11, someone could have been hurt.
That rapists prefer to attack armed women so they can take the guns and use them against the victims.
That 1 firearm owner in 10,000 will commit an act of violence in his or her lifetime, and this is far more frightening than the 25% of drivers who will cause a serious or fatal accident.
That you should rely on police in lieu of your gun, just as you should rely on a dentist in lieu of your toothbrush.
That car keys, umbrellas and hairspray are good tools for self-defense, despite the fact that police continue to carry guns.
That Washington DC’s low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, but Arlington, Virginia’s high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is attributable to the lack of gun control.
That the depressed and emotionally disturbed should not be allowed to own guns that shoot bullets with 250 ft-lbs of energy, but should be allowed to own 4000 lb cars with 1,136,000 ft-lbs of energy (at 65 mph).
That “assault weapons” are “very powerful” but big game hunters oddly prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs.
That we should outlaw bullet proof vests so criminals can’t use them, and private citizens should be then proud to be killed in the crossfire, knowing they are doing their part for society.
That among the hundreds of documented cases against anti-gun freaks we note that: the press secretary of Handgun Control was arrested in DC for discharging an illegal handgun, a ranking regional officer of the Million Moron March was convicted of felony assault, and other Million Morons in Colorado have been arrested for attacking firearm dealers and activists, but “gun nuts” are “obsessed with violence.”
That the laws against specifically named weapons have been found unconstitutional, that the laws against “types” of weapons have been considered vague, that the laws against cosmetic features are easy to comply with and still produce the identical mechanism, and that laws against particular mechanisms are unconstitutional is an indication of the “obsessiveness” of firearms enthusiasts to do what they enjoy doing, against the wishes of the narrow minded prudes who wish to stop them, and not an indication of the obsessiveness of the ignorant paranoids who fear them.
That NASA, the military, physiologists, anatomists and trainers all agree and Olympic scores confirm that men on average have tremendously more upper body strength than women, but women should try to defend themselves with martial arts and not a gun.
That it’s terrible when police officers plant weapons on a suspect to enable them to make an arrest, but we should have tougher laws against weapons and trust the police not to abuse them in this way.
That police arriving at 80mph are a better way to stop criminals than bullets arriving at 800mph.
That people buy guns as “substitute penises,” because they know that only people with small penises ever get attacked by criminals.
That Hitler and Stalin didn’t disarm citizens, only Jews, Gypsies, gays, unionists and other “undesirables.” (Yes, a liberal member of the MMM actually said this in the Washington Post.)
That to properly understand Nazi gun control, one must consider the “legitimate fears” they had of the Jewish population. (This was another self-proclaimed liberal. I’m beginning to wonder.)
That families with children should not be allowed to own guns for safety reasons, just as they aren’t allowed to own dogs, power tools, or toxic chemicals.
That it’s wrong to destroy someone’s life over an administrative crime by jailing them and impoverishing their family, unless that crime is to own a gun.
That a law that allows someone to keep doing “X” that has been legal for years, in the face of another, badly written law that says they can’t do “Y”, is a “loophole.”
That it’s wrong to politicize that the World Trade Center attackers didn’t need guns to hijack a plane, but okay to politicize that the Columbine killers bought guns…illegally.
That when someone dies because they couldn’t get a drug the government won’t approve, it’s tragic, but when someone dies because they couldn’t defend themselves with a gun the government won’t approve, that’s just life.
That a criminal is somehow more of a threat to a cop than to a regular person, so police need guns and regular citizens don’t.
That the “Reasonable” uses for guns are hunting and target shooting, but not self-defense. In other words, it’s acceptable to use them as toys but not as lifesaving devices.
That .50 caliber rifles are both “very rare” and “selling like hotcakes.”
That the fact that .50 caliber rifles are very rare justifies banning them, just as the rarity of Lamborghinis and other high-performance cars justifies banning them.
That one has the moral obligation to make a citizen’s arrest when one sees a felony in progress, and that it should be accomplished by yelling at the perpetrator, “Stop! Or I’ll yell ‘stop’ again!” rather than by drawing a weapon.
That intelligent people should support gun control because they realize they are too stupid to be trusted with guns.
That a gun is merely an inadequate substitute for a penis, so when attacked by a mugger one should pull out a…
That a gun is a symbolic penis…what this has to do with defending one’s life I have no idea. It simply serves to prove that anti-defense psychiatrists clearly have Freudian issues that THEY need to address.
That reasonable licensing fees will stop casual ownership of guns, but anyone who would jump through hoops to own a gun is obsessive.
That outlawing the carrying of guns will stop people from doing so, just as lowering the speed limit stops reckless driving.
That we should deal with the problem of criminals using illegal weapons by taking lawful weapons away from honest people.
That we should ban guns-if it saves even one life, it’s worth it, just as we should ban assemblies where people might be trampled to death-if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and we should ban speech by groups who offend public order-if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and we should ban unhealthy foods-if it saves just one life, it’s worth it, and…
That a punk wakes up one morning, and thinks, “Gee, instead of robbing, raping, sodomizing and killing a young woman, why don’t I turn my $400 gun in for $20 and a pizza and go work at McDonald’s?”
That the more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.
That you should give a mugger your wallet, because he doesn’t really want to shoot you and he’ll let you go, but that you should give him your wallet, because he’ll shoot you if you don’t.
That despite all the outrage about Corporate America’s cavalier treatment of employees, Domino’s Pizza’s demand that employees be unarmed is an altruistic effort to stop them from hurting themselves, and not a calculated financial bid to avoid having a lawsuit filed by a dead robber’s family.
That one can sue a store for having a slick floor, falling ceilings, and sharp corners, but if they refuse to let you bring a gun in and you get shot by a criminal, they aren’t liable for enforcing that rule with others.
That there is no right of self defense, and the police are not legally obligated to respond to my cries for help when disarmed, but you can sue them if they take too long to get to a traffic accident.
That assault rifles are far too powerful to hunt deer and elk, and too dangerous for private citizens to own, but are too impotent for modern warfare, too weak to reliably kill soldiers, and have no place in the concept of a citizen reserve.
That there’s no incongruity in claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $25 .22 caliber pocket pistol, and claiming the preferred weapon of a drug dealer is a $2000 machinegun in the same piece of propaganda.
That any cheap weapon is a “Saturday night special,” and any expensive weapon is an “assault weapon.”
That “Cops” and other shows are edited to show the boring encounters with traffic stops and the occasional drunken fool with a revolver in his pocket, and never show the millions of cases where the cops are gunned down in droves by machinegun toting drug dealers.
That “NYPD Blue” and “Miami Vice” are documentaries.
That an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .44 Magnum will get angry over your retaliation and kill you.
That firearms in the hands of private citizens are the gravest threat to world peace, and China, Pakistan and Korea can be trusted with nuclear weapons.
That Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
That ordinary people, in the presence of guns, turn into slaughtering butchers, and revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
That someone who fails to clear his weapon, fails to point it in a safe direction, pulls the trigger without checking the chamber, and blows his foot off is an example of how even a “trained professional” can be a “victim” of a diabolical gun, but people in the military who clean weapons millions of times a year without getting hurt are “dumb grunts.”
That the New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns, just as Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
That one should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a neurosurgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.
That the best thing our kids can do to bullies and drug dealers is “just say no,” and fight back, and the best thing we can do to bullies and drug dealers is to give them $50 and wait for them to go away.
That it’s outrageous that the Milwaukee police took 45 minutes to respond to reports of Jeffrey Dahmer’s last victim running around naked in the cold, then returned him to his attacker without checking ID, but the best thing a citizen can do in an emergency is dial 911.
That the “right of the people peaceably to assemble,” the “right of the people to be secure in their homes,” “the enumeration herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” refer to individuals, but “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” refers to the states.
That the 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, allows the states to have a National Guard, created by act of Congress in 1916.
That the National Guard, paid by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state agency.
That private citizens can’t have handguns, because they serve no militia purpose, even though the military has hundreds of thousands of them, and private citizens can’t have assault rifles, because they are military weapons.
That it is reasonable for California to have a minimum 2 year sentence for possessing but not using an assault rifle, and reasonable for California to have a 6 month minimum sentence for raping a female police officer.
That it is reasonable to jail people for carrying but not using guns, but outrageous to jail people for possessing marijuana.
That minimum sentences violate civil rights, unless it’s for possessing a gun.
That door-to-door searches for drugs are a gross violation of civil rights and a sign of Fascism, but door-to-door searches for guns are a reasonable solution to the “gun problem.”
That the first amendment absolutely allows child pornography and threats to kill cops, but doesn’t apply to manuals on gun repair.
That a woman in a microskirt, perfume and a Wonderbra, without underwear, is a helpless victim, but someone getting paid $6 an hour to deliver the cash from a fast food place to the bank at the same time every night is, “asking for it.” And you won’t allow either of them to carry a gun.
That Illinois’ law that allows almost any government official from Governor to dogcatcher to carry a gun is reasonable, and the law that prohibits any private citizen, even one with 50 death threats on file and a million dollar jewelry business from carrying a gun is reasonable. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.
That the 80 religious kooks in Waco were a threat to American security, but snipers killing them as they left the building, machinegunning children, hiding the video evidence, possibly torching the building on purpose, and having no case to present in federal court is good law enforcement. And it isn’t a sign of police stateism.
That free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self defense only justifies bare hands.
That with the above, a 90 LB woman attacked by a 300 LB rapist and his 300 LB buddy, has the “right” to kill them in self defense, provided she uses her bare hands.
That there’s nothing in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain guns, but there is something in the Constitution that specifically prohibits banning certain sex acts.
That gun safety courses in school only encourage kids to commit violence, but sex education in school doesn’t encourage kids to have sex.
That a criminal will take a gun away from you and use it against you, so conversely, the best thing to do when threatened is to take the criminal’s gun away from him and us it against him.
That the ready availability of guns today, with only a few government forms, waiting periods, checks, infringements, ID, and fingerprinting, is responsible for all the school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 1950’s and 1960’s, which was caused by the awkward availability of guns at any hardware store, gas station, and by mail order.
That we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time, but anyone who owns a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
That there is too much explicit violence featuring guns on TV, but that cities can sue gun manufacturers because people aren’t aware of the dangers involved with guns.
That the gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to run a “don’t touch” campaign is responsible social activity.
That the crime rate in America is decreasing because of gun control, but the increase in crime requires more gun control.
That 100 years after its founding, the NRA got into the politics of guns from purely selfish motives, and 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation, the black civil rights movement was founded from purely noble motives.
That statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control, and statistics that show increasing murder rates after gun control is legislated are “just statistics.”
That we don’t need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, so we should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments of that Constitution, and won’t thereby become an oppressive government.
That guns are an ineffective means of self defense for rational adults, but in the hands of an ignorant criminal become a threat to the fabric of society.
That guns are so complex to use that special training is necessary to use them properly, but so simple to use that they make murder easy.
That guns contribute to high death rates and should be banned, but tobacco and alcohol are okay.
That guns cause crime, which is why there has never been a mass slaying at a gun show.
That guns cause crime, just like matches cause arson.
That guns cause crime, just like women cause prostitution.
That guns cause crime, just like men cause rape.
That guns aren’t necessary to national defense, which is why the US Army only has 3 million of them.
That banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns against armed criminals.
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but a woman with a gun is “an accident waiting to happen.”
That women are just as intelligent and capable as men, but gunmaker’s advertisements aimed at women are “preying on their fears.”
That a handgun, with up to 4 switches and controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile which only has 20.
That handguns are useful only for murder, which is why the police and military define them as defensive weapons.
That neighbors who carry guns against the occasional lunatic are paranoid, because of the perfectly justifiable fear that every single one of them is waiting to turn into a lunatic.
That a majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population used to support owning slaves.
That one should ignore as idiots politicians who confuse Wicca with Satanism and exaggerate the gay community as a threat to society, but listen sagely to politicians who can refer to a self-loading small arm as a “weapon of mass destruction” and an “assault weapon.”
That there is no absolute right to a weapon, documented historically because the British government used to prohibit Catholics from owning guns. And that wasn’t a sign of religious bigotry. (Note: the British Constitution actually RESTORED to Protestants the right to own arms, which Catholic James II denied them)
That rifles with pistol grips are assault weapons, just like vehicles with racing stripes are sports cars.
That you don’t need a gun against invaders, because the government will know in plenty of time to issue you whatever weapons you need.
That Massachusetts is safer with bans on guns, which is why Teddy Kennedy has machinegun-toting guards.
That most people can’t be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by, because they can be trusted.
That a woman raped and strangled with her panties is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
That the “Right to keep and bear arms” refers to armorial badges and coats of arms, not to weapons. (Potomac-inc.org)
That guns should be banned because of the danger involved, and live reporting from the battlefield, which can keep the enemy informed of troop deployments, getting thousands of troops killed and perhaps losing a war, is a protected act that CANNOT be compromised on.
That the right of explicit teenage pornographic websites to exist cannot be questioned because it is a constitutionally protected extension of the Bill of Rights, but the claim that handguns are for self-defense is merely an excuse, and not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
That the ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is bad because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
That a house with a gun is three times as likely to have a murder, just like a house with insulin is three times as likely to have a diabetic.
That police operate in groups with backup, which is why they need larger capacity magazines than civilians, who must face criminals alone, and therefore need less ammunition.
That people who own guns out of a fear of crime are paranoid, but people who don’t want other people to own guns in case it causes them to commit crimes are rational.
That guns cause the high suicide rate in the US, even though Japan’s rate is almost three times higher.
That we should ban gun stores near schools, because of all the 10 year olds who are buying guns without parents’ permission.
That there is a statue called “Armed Freedom” in the Capitol, but that that is irrelevant to the intent of our ancestors.
That we should ban “Saturday Night Specials” and other inexpensive guns because it’s not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
That guns have no legitimate use, but alcohol does, which is why we issue cops guns instead of beer.
That police and soldiers are the dregs of society who were unfit to get any real job, which perfectly qualifies them with the high moral standards and keen intellects to handle these complicated tools and be our guardians.
That it’s acceptable to arm a courier at $6 an hour to shoot criminals for stealing bank deposits, but unacceptable for a college-educated business owner to do it himself.
That a registration plan will reduce crime, because criminals will register their guns despite the Supreme Court decision Haynes v. U.S. (309 U.S. 85, 1968) that registration violates self-incrimination.
That it’s reasonable to require proof of a criminal act before an order of protection can be issued, but reasonable to assume anyone with a gun will commit a criminal act, so they should be subject to prior restraint.
That teaching abstinence exclusively rather than use of condoms is doomed to fail, but encouraging absolute bans on guns rather than education in safe use is the only acceptable method of reducing crime.
That it is outrageous that civilians have rifles that were designed for the military for their own self defense, but perfectly okay to have polluting, potentially unstable, heavy vehicles that were designed for the military simply as status symbols.
That guns are the gravest threat to society because 83,000,000 gun owners didn’t commit a crime yesterday.
That it is essential to incorporate locks and sensors into guns to make them safer and that only a criminal would not support this, but cops and federal agents would be exempt for safety reasons because locks are unreliable and hinder access.
That a bank guard can protect money with a gun, but you cannot protect your children with one.
That all gun dealers sell illegal weapons, just like all black people sell drugs.
That crime is higher in urban areas with less guns, and we must continue to disarm the minorities in these areas because of the risk of crime, and that isn’t bigotry.
That an underpaid, overworked bodyguard should be glad to throw himself in front of a bullet for you.
That your safety is someone else’s responsibility, but they have no right to tell you how to live your life.
That guns are useless against tyranny, because an armed populace of 160 million cannot defeat an army of 2 million mixed in among it.
That if the above is true, we should not be terrified of the concept of that government holding control of our lives and freedom at its whim.
That the piecemeal destruction of the right to keep and bear arms makes the right useless, and therefore justifies destroying it further.
That one should be more afraid of one’s spouse blowing a gasket and shooting the children, than of those children being run over by a hormone-driven teenager in a car.
“It can’t happen here.”
That people are too stupid to handle guns, but are intelligent enough to vote.
That guns are not an effective means of self-defense, which is why police carry them.
That one can “study” the “gun issue,” but not know the difference between an assault rifle and a battle rifle.
That the NRA, with over 4 million members, is “out of touch” with America, and HCI, with 50 thousand members, is a “mandate from the people.”
That a baseball bat is good protection against a burglar, provided his gun fires baseballs.
That to judge a group by secondhand news and hearsay is bigotry, unless that group is the NRA.
That the National Defense Act of 1916 doesn’t exist.
That pricing products out of the reach of poor people through excessive regulation is discriminatory practice, unless that product is a gun.
That manufacturers are not responsible for damages caused by their products, unless that product is a gun.
That trigger locks and other devices make guns safer, which is why the police and military refuse to use them.
That registration of guns will help law enforcement, because that way they won’t need probable cause and a warrant to conduct a search.
That registration of guns, which makes their existence a matter of public knowledge under the FOIA, isn’t dangerous to owners.
That registration of guns, in violation of the McClure-Volkmer Act, and as declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, is somehow still legal.
That private citizens making private sales of private property is a “loophole.”
That the existence of weapons not banned by previous laws is a “loophole.”
That making it harder to get a license to sell firearms legally will reduce the number of people selling illegally.
That it’s safer to do nothing than resist with a gun, which is why the military wins so many wars by not fighting.
That we must close shooting ranges because of the noise, but ban silencers because they are quiet.
That owning a gun for self-defense indicates an intent to kill, just like owning a first aid kit indicates an intent to impersonate a physician.
That guns are an “epidemic” even though we can’t treat them with penicillin.
That there’s no right to own military weapons, which is why the Civilian Marksmanship Program at http://www.odcmp.com exists to sell military weapons to civilians under Congressional authority.
That suggesting teachers be armed is an outrageous suggestion for a “civilized” society, which is why the Swiss and Israelis do it.
That making it harder and harder for even cops to have guns on school property will somehow make it harder for lunatics to kill the utterly helpless students.
That accidents with a product justify banning the product, even though MADD has never called for a ban on alcohol, people actively push to legalize drugs, and no one wants to ban swimming pools, so basically it’s only practical items like guns we should ban and not the luxury items that are essential to human survival.
That the 14th Amendment requires states to accept each other’s drivers licenses, even with age or vision requirement differences, marriage licenses even with age or relationship differences or if it’s a gay marriage, but somehow doesn’t apply to licenses to carry weapons.
That the same people who build illegal high-tech drug labs for less than $30,000 won’t build illegal low-tech gun shops for less than $10,000.
That people with large gun collections are dangerous, especially if they have more than two hands to shoot with.
That autoloaders are “easily converted” to fully automatic fire, yet the person telling you this has no idea how it’s accomplished.
That banning rifles with bayonet lugs will cut down on all the drive-by bayonetings.
That shooting at an intruder who smashes your door and enters with knife in hand will somehow “escalate the violence.”
That it’s safer with less guns, which is why lunatics shoot up schools instead of gun shows or police stations.
That guns cause crime, which is why there was no rape or murder in the Dark Ages.
That stopping the people who don’t commit murder from having guns will lessen the number of those who do commit murder.
That since banning a few guns hasn’t helped, we should ban more.
That just like the anti-nuclear weapons movement used to believe, if the potential victims disarm, the oppressors will take pity on them and give up their weapons in remorse.
That oppressing gun owners until they violate the law justifies oppressing them further.
That “crime guns” and old police guns should be destroyed at government expense, because the cost of exorcising the evil spirits from them before selling them to lawful owners is exorbitant.
That raising the legal age to possess firearms from 18 to 21 will REALLY show those 16 year olds.
That inner-city blacks in public housing should be disarmed to prevent crimes, but not rich white suburbanites. And it isn’t a sign of racism.
That creating firearms crime by having a Byzantine code of firearm laws proves there’s a problem, and justifies more laws to create more crime.
That liberal parents who give guns to problem children to “teach them responsibility” are not responsible for the deaths they cause, but everyone else’s guns are.
That gun owners are a threat by existing that must be destroyed by any means possible and their rights are unimportant, but the thugs who attack us on the street whom the gun owners wish to be armed against are simply a problem we have to put up with.
That one should judge all gun owners by the acts of a few criminals, just like one should judge all blacks by the acts of a few inner-city crack dealers.
That making it harder to get firearms legally will reduce their illegal use, just like making it harder to get a prescription will cut down on the illicit drug trade.
That it’s tragic when a child dies in a firearms accident, and we must pass restrictive laws to prevent it, but children poisoned by household chemicals are simply unavoidable accidents.
That you don’t need a gun, therefore no one needs one, and you have the right to impose that belief and will on others.
That stupidity can be cured by legislation.
That societies with less guns have less killings by guns, just like societies with less cars have less vehicular homicide. This is deemed to be relevant.
That criminals who rob to support their drug habit can afford $65 a minute in ammunition for their automatic “Weapon of choice.”
That with nationwide gun control, the entire nation can be as safe as NYC, LA and Chicago.
That since a gun isn’t 100% effective for self defense, you should get rid of it, along with your first aid kit and fire extinguisher, since they aren’t 100% effective, either.
That if Chicago were to legalize firearms, it would have shootouts in the streets, which never happens now.
That it’s wrong to use tax dollars to finance private political agendas, unless that agenda is to ban guns.
That a “safe gun” will help stop criminal misuse of firearms just like “safe sex” works so well to stop rape.
That a cop with felonies on his record is safe with fully automatic weapons but a churchgoing mother with a parking ticket as her worst crime is unfit to use a pistol to protect her child.
That a suicide who used a gun would still be alive if he or she had used a knife or hanged himself or herself.
That someone else’s suicide is a problem for the rest of us that would be prevented if we gave up our guns.
That alcohol is acceptable in private, as long as the user doesn’t use it while driving, but mere possession of a gun is a threat to others.
That gun owners are unwilling to compromise, which is why there are only 20,000 gun laws in the US.
That criminals are better shots than civilians because of all the time they spend on the practice range.
That since criminals are better shots by the logic above, one is safer by not shooting back, but just waiting for them to run out of ammo.
That it’s reasonable to assume an accident would have been lethal if the victim wasn’t wearing a seatbelt, and reasonable to assume that an armed defender would have been safe even if they didn’t have a gun.
That one accidental death is too many, but thousands of people dying because the means of self-defense were not available is unavoidable and not worthy of worry.
That we should ban guns because people have a “right to feel safe,” but the right to feel safe by owning firearms for defense is not valid.
That it’s outrageous to count 18 and 19 year-old parents as “children” for statistical purposes, but perfectly acceptable to count them as children for purposes of exaggerating gun deaths among “children.”
That a zero-tolerance policy is bad regarding drugs, but a zero-tolerance policy is good regarding guns.
That martial arts are a better form of self-defense, and can defeat an armed opponent, but we still need to ban guns because of the danger they present to those few people who don’t know karate.
That government officials can be trusted with automatic weapons, but private citizens cannot, because of the number of people private citizens kill while kicking in doors without search warrants.
That an 18 year old can handle a machinegun and die defending another nation’s oil reserves, thereby being a hero, but an 18 year old who tries to defend his or her child with a gun belongs in jail.
That the few people who can’t use martial arts or other non-lethal means of self-defense–the young, the old, the infirm, the disabled, the weak, the small, and the pregnant–are simply the necessary sacrifice we must make to criminals to avoid the risks of letting people be armed.
That the dangers of guns outweigh their recreational uses, unlike alcohol and motorcycles.
That getting rid of guns reduces violence, so the military should be armed with bouquets of flowers.
That we should hang out at funeral homes to tell the families of the deceased how lucky they are their loved one was killed by a drunk and not a man with a gun.
That a conservative with a dozen guns is an “extremist,” and a liberal with a dozen guns is a “museum.”
That a team of cops shooting an unarmed citizen 19 times and not getting charged with murder is “law enforcement” but an old lady shooting a knife-wielding attacker is “vigilanteism,” and we should leave defense to the professionals.
That we should require trigger locks and safe storage facilities for all guns in order to prevent accidents, just like we require all household chemicals to be kept in a locked cabinet.
That a woman shooting a rapist is a felon.
That NORML is good for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product, but the NRA is bad for supporting legalization of a politically unpopular product.
That poor people who live in high crime areas and can’t afford alarms shouldn’t be allowed to have guns either.
That telling a murderer he’ll go to jail for carrying a gun will make him think twice.
That the only way to end gun violence is to ban guns, just like the only way to end medical malpractice is to ban doctors.
That killing a triple murderer so you don’t become the fourth victim is “escalating the violence.”
That we should get rid of “junk guns” so that criminals are forced to use reliable high-quality guns.
That repealing laws that discriminate against gun-owners “endorses” guns, just like repealing laws that discriminate against gays “endorses” homosexuality.
That guns are designed only to kill, just like women are designed only to give birth.
That only people over 21 are allowed to defend themselves.
That we should ban guns because their primary purpose is to kill people, but we shouldn’t ban alcohol, which has its primary purpose getting intoxicated and losing control of the higher faculties, thereby increasing violence and accidental death.
That the lack of mention of firearms in Colonial literature proves their scarcity, much like the lack of mention of outhouses proves their scarcity.
That somehow the above is more relevant to the 2nd Amendment than the lack of letters to public officials and newspapers is relevant to the 1st Amendment.
That a person who would commit violence with a gun would never do so with a knife.
That most people are seething cauldrons of potential violence who cannot be trusted with a gun, but most people are so decent that there is no need to carry a weapon for defense.
That a person foolish enough to leave a gun loaded and lying in reach of a child will somehow be responsible enough to attach a trigger lock.
That 83 million gun owners are “extremists,” and the 50,000 members of the Million Moron March are “the majority.”
That allowing concealed carry does not reduce crime through deterrence since some people do so even though it’s illegal, but allowing concealed carry increases crime, because more people carry guns and use them irresponsibly.
That a woman buying a gun to defend herself against a violent ex needs five days to “cool off.”
That a woman being raped should refuse help from an armed stranger, and instead wait for the police.
That if an a group of anti-gun protesters feels threatened, they should ask police with guns to protect them while they tell everyone how worthless guns are for protection.
That a trauma surgeon’s experience in treating gunshot wounds makes him an expert on gun control legislation, just like an automobile body repair technician’s experience repairing cars makes him an expert on traffic laws.
That the typical town only needs one law enforcement officer per 1000 population, because most people are law abiding, but that it’s dangerous to let citizens carry weapons because most people are criminal.
That the risk of arrest for carrying a weapon on school grounds will stop a person bent on suicide from starting a shootout.
That felons should be denied the right to ever own a weapon, just like rapists should be castrated before being released from jail.
That the 1939 US vs Miller case, is “established law” that endorses gun control and the matter is closed, just like Plessy vs Ferguson endorsed “separate but equal” schools and the matter is closed.
That game wardens have the most dangerous job in the world, because everyone they deal with is armed.
That there’s no risk of the US becoming a police state, Japanese-Americans were not interned in the 40’s, blacks were not oppressed and jailed in the 50’s, and no students were killed at Kent State.
That when the government promises that they won’t confiscate our weapons after we register them, we can believe them, just like the Commanche, the Sioux, the Apache, the Kaw, the Cree, the Blackfoot, the Italians in NYC, the Jews in Germany, the Zulu in South Africa…and the Americans at Lexington and Concord.
That the government can control guns as well as it controls drugs.
That the high crime rate in cities with oppressive gun control proves the need for gun control in cities without gun control and with low crime.
That Charlton Heston, as president of the NRA, must be a racist, despite his marches with Dr. King in the 1960s. After all, all gun owners are racist, and that theory isn’t bigoted.
That we don’t need guns because America is safe, and only criminals or people wishing to start trouble would be out late at night in bad neighborhoods.
That there is no left-wing conspiracy to send police and troops to imprison American gun owners, but there is a vast, right-wing conspiracy of gun owners who must be disarmed for attempting to stop it.
That .50 caliber weapons must be banned in case Americans use them to shoot holes in the armored cars that the government doesn’t own and isn’t going to send against them.
That ships using Australian waters mustn’t carry handguns against the mythical threat of piracy or mutiny, because some aspiring captain might sell them for a few bucks.
That gang punks shot by other gang punks are innocent victims, and babies shot by government agents deserve to die because of the unpopular beliefs of their parents.
That allowing the poor and minorities to defend themselves is Fascist.
That small arms can’t win wars, as all the Viet Cong bombing, air superiority, and naval missions prove.
That John Wayne, rejected by the Marines for bad knees, who portrayed firearms as used by soldiers and law enforcement is a draft-dodging agent of evil, but antigun draft dodger Sylvester Stallone, making movies about Vietnam veterans and using weapons gratuitously, is an American hero to be slobbered over.
That violence is bad, but any defensive use of a firearm that doesn’t involve the death of the perpetrator is invalid.
That the NRA is bad for running political activities, but the Million Moron March, stealing money from AIDS research, illegally maintaining tax-exempt status as a 501c(3) organization and fraudulently using a hospital rent-free as its headquarters is good for running political activities.
That Charlton Heston is evil for working for the NRA for free, but Sarah Brady charging $10,000 a speech is a paragon of altruism.
That a ranch rifle made after 1994 is somehow a military rifle.
That all firearms retailers are illegal gun dealers, just like all pharmacists are illegal drug dealers.
That hate is not a family value, but all gun owners are tobacco-chawin’, beer-swillin’, racist, redneck bubbas.
That a gun which sits silently in a drawer and costs pennies per round to shoot is a bad idea for self defense, but a dog that requires walks, veterinary care, and licenses, may not be allowed in certain neighborhoods and may annoy the neighbors at all hours is a good idea for self defense.
That the worst thing one can do if there’s an intruder in the house is get a gun and apprehend them, and the best thing on can do is pretend to be asleep and wait for them to go away, especially if they are raping your children.
That gun control will “keep guns out of the wrong hands,” meaning law-abiding Americans’ hands.
That trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why it makes sense that police officers are exempt from using them on their duty weapons.
That the government attempting to stop the Microsoft “monopoly” is good, and the Federal government pressuring cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson is also good, and not monopolistic.
That “assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them.
That “assault weapons” are only designed for killing offensively, and the police need them but you do not.
That citizens don’t need to carry a gun for personal protection but desk-bound police administrators who work in a building filled with cops do, as do tax auditors, vegetable inspectors, mail inspectors, and meat inspectors.
That beer-gutted police have special mental, emotional and physical capabilities that enable them to deal with the incredible complexity of a firearm, and private citizens can never hope to achieve such competence.
That the Brady Act and the “Assault Weapons” Ban which both went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates since 1991.
That 25% of the dealers at gun shows are unlicensed, and we must license these purveyors of books, tools, knives, clothing, artwork, candy and historical artifacts.
That because of New York’s “tough laws” against guns, there exist black market dealers who spend thousands of dollars in gas and other expenses to drive to Arizona, which has “weak laws” in order to buy Ruger pistols at $500 each retail and drive back to New York and sell them to criminals at an “average” of $50 each, thereby making a profit.
That there’s no contradiction in the same liberals who said in the 60s that 18 year olds who could fight should be able to vote, now saying that 18 year olds can vote but shouldn’t own guns.
Copyright 1999, 2001 by Michael Z. Williamson. Permission is granted to copy in whole or part for non-profit purposes, provided due credit is given. Please inform the author directly at firstname.lastname@example.org or through http://www.KeepAndBearArms.com when you do.
On Saturday, July 12, a 34-year-old man named Moises Torres raised a ruckus at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in downtown San Antonio. It was to be his last ruckus.
Torres was reportedly banging on sixth-floor hotel room doors and breaking hallway lights as he went. When one woman opened her room door, he announced that he was “looking for someone to kill.” Thankfully, she was able to close the door before he could get inside her room.
In the next room was 43-year-old John Neal and a woman. When Torres began beating on Neal’s door, he called security. When things got quiet, Neal thought the disturbance was over. But when he opened the door, Torres charged at the pair. That’s when John Neal drew his legally-carried concealed handgun and fired one shot.
The bullet hit Torres in the chest, stopping him in the room’s doorway. Paramedics were unable to revive Torres, who was pronounced dead at the scene.
Early reports said that Torres had been “suffering from some undiagnosed mental issues recently.” John Neal was not charged with any crime.
And this, my friends, is why people carry guns.
Yet another ‘good guy with a gun’ that Shannon and the rest of the Mom’s Demand crew thinks doesn’t exist. When are you anti-gun loons going to wake up and see that good guys with guns DO exist? Moises Torres could have done some MAJOR damage, but instead a legal gun owner stepped in and saved the day. This happens more than you think, the media just doesn’t want to shine any light on it because it isn’t ‘tragic’ enough to support their agenda and put fear into the minds of uneducated citizens. Stories like this don’t scare you, they give you hope. They put that thought in your mind that maybe, JUST MAYBE, there are good reasons to have guns. And they (Mom’s Demand, Bloomberg, and the Obama Administration) don’t want that.
The other major important piece of information in this article is the fact that this guy was mentally insane. THIS is what we need to be focusing on, not taking guns away from the sane. Why wasn’t this guy in a mental institution, psychiatric ward, or with caretakers? There are people that are responsible for making sure this man doesn’t do things like this and where were they? What medications was he? Where was the security guard that was supposedly called? I mean, after all, they are supposed to just magically show up at your doorstep and stop the criminals, right?
There is something else wrong here and this story is the perfect example. Instead of attacking law-abiding citizens, we should be focusing on the criminals and the mentally insane. Criminals need harsher punishments. No more of this “out of jail on good behavior” crap. Jail time is jail time. That’s final. The mentally insane need better psychological care. So, Mr. Obama, instead of wasting millions and millions of dollars on “gun control research”, how about we look into spending money on the REAL problem?
I guess my constant Google searches and endless hours of looking at guns for sale has finally caught up to me. I am getting emails, tweets, phone calls, and Pinterest links sent to me with “Girly Guns”.
I have to say I have some mixed feelings about the bedazzled and painted guns that seem to only target female gun owners on the web and in stores. Because of these feelings, I have tried to think of why I like and dislike the idea of having a pink gun or something covered in rhinestones. I have also tried to look into why it is women are interested in these designs.
I believe that a lot of women (not all) search for guns that look ‘less scary’. Picking up a small pink gun the size of your hand almost doesn’t register in your brain that you are holding a deadly weapon. Which makes me wonder- if you aren’t recognizing it as a dangerous weapon, would your attacker? This is one of the reasons that I have a bit of hesitation in purchasing a decorated gun. I don’t ever want to give my attacker any indication that I am not serious about defending myself or that my weapon is “too girly” to do any harm to a man, even if that isn’t true.
The next reason I think that women flock to these guns is because they are more ‘fashionable’ or ‘pretty’. To me, a gun is not something you sport around on your hip just to look good or feel pretty. Carrying a gun is serious business and needs to be treated like such. The other thing that I am confused about is a lot of these guns are meant for concealed carry. If you are meaning to keep it hidden from someone, then why choose a weapon designed to stick out? Now some women wear a TON of pink. In that case, I guess a pink concealed carry gun is probably a good choice. In the case that you are trying to hide in a dark corner somewhere, I have some concerns that a bright colored or bedazzled gun may give away my position if light catches it.
Another reason women lean towards this purchase is because it shows men that “this isn’t my husbands gun, it’s mine”. I have talked to a lot of women who feel empowered by having a gun that is unmistakably their’s. Heck, more power to them.
Let me dig a little deeper here. It’s not the little pink and black handguns that really bother me. It is more the “My Little Pony” and the “Hello Kitty” guns that I can’t stand.
Another issue I have with these is they look like toys. If something looks like a toy, it is pretty much assumed that it will be treated like a toy. If not by you, then possibly by a child. That being said, if not taught by their parents, any child could pick up a gun thinking it’s a toy.
Now to my biggest issue. I think that the way pink guns are being marketed towards women is a bit ridiculous, and quite frankly I think that is the main reason they bother me. It’s as if some believe women are only attracted to the style and color of the weapon and not to the fact that it’s a firearm. There has been one occasion where I was looking at a gun and was encouraged to go with the pink gun instead of a black one. To me, I felt like the man thought that I knew nothing about guns and would want that one just because it’s ‘pretty’. I then asked him “why this one over that one?” while pointing at the PX4 I had been wanting. He starred at me for a couple of seconds and then said “well because this one is popular with our female customers”. Wrong answer dude. Someone once phrased it “It’s as if I was looking at a car and the salesmen shows me the vanity mirror with pretty lights when I was about to ask a question about the engine”. That is exactly how I felt. I mean seriously now, guys do you have this problem? I don’t think so.
Finally, I feel like a lot of the negativity that goes towards pink guns is one of the main reasons that I haven’t considered purchasing one. Why do a lot of the guys tend to laugh at the women who walk into a range with an ‘unmanly gun’? I surely don’t want to fall into this stereotype that women are weak and can’t own a ‘real’ gun. On the other hand, how would it make these guys feel having this pink gun wind up in the evidence tray for their case after getting shot? Yea.. I don’t think they’d feel too good about that one.
All in all, I have come to the conclusion that it’s just a color. It by no means determines whether or not a woman is weak. It by no means takes away from the damage that the gun can do. Heck, it’s a ‘man’ gun with a coat of paint on top of it. Now will I ever purchase a pink gun? Probably not. Pink isn’t really my thing. But will I NEVER buy any colored gun? I wouldn’t go that far. This Tiffany Blue rifle is pretty cool 🙂
Economist Marc Guis from Quinnipiac University has recently published a new study in the journal Applied Economics Letters.
“An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates” looks at data between 1980 and 2009 that suggests that restrictions on carrying concealed had higher gun-related murder rates than other states. According to Guis’ findings, the results of his present study indicate that states with more concealed carry weapons (CCW) laws had gun-related murder rates that we 10% higher.
Results are presented on Table 1. The CCW dummy variable is significant and positive, but the assault weapons ban is insignificant. Given that the average gun-related murder rate over the period in question was 3.44, the results of the present study indicate that states with more restrictive CCW laws had gun-related murder rates that were 10% higher. In addition, the Federal assault weapons ban is significant and positive, indicating that murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal ban was in effect. These results corroborate the findings of Lott and Mustard (1997). These results suggest that, even after controlling for unobservable state and year fixed effects, limiting the ability to carry concealed weapons may cause murder rates to increase. There may, however, be other explanations for these results. Laws may be ineffective due to loopholes and exemptions. The most violent states may also have the toughest gun control measures. Further research is warranted in this area.