NT - No one's coming after your guns, paranoid rightwingers. Oh wait...

[Lion EA]

Explosions on the news on a client's street, so I call to see if she's alright. She's stopped a couple of miles from her house behind a police barricade. Her neighbor's house is on fire with multiple firearms and boxes of corresponding ammunition (and maybe some fireworks) inside while owner is at work. Well-armed and trained policeman is killed approaching the house. A child is killed in a neighboring house. Don't know if his parents had their own guns within five feet or not, but how could that have saved their child? When the fire spread to the second house, of course the situation just got worse. I believe we lost even more first responders before they were able to evacuate all the nearby residents, and that is a town with three-acre zoning.

The builder/former owner of my house had a three-year old daughter who woke up about 4 a.m. one morning, climbed up on a counter to unlock the deadbolt, walked through the yards (two-acre zoning here) to grandma and grandpa's house next door, went into their bedroom, and took grandma's air rifle that she used to shoo crows away from her compost pile. Luckily grandma was a light sleeper, but would already have been raped or assaulted or killed in their sleep if it had been other than their granddaughter with arms too short to immediately shoot. Dad added chain locks at the top of doors. Don't know if grandma moved her air rifle or not, but they did start locking their back door.

If I'm asleep with my gun two feet away when the rapist enters with a weapon, then I'm not going to make up for his head start. And if it's five feet away, what's going to keep my client's child from grabbing it before I can?!

[Jack from Ohio]

Explosions on the news on a client's street, so I call to see if she's alright. She's stopped a couple of miles from her house behind a police barricade. Her neighbor's house is on fire with multiple firearms and boxes of corresponding ammunition (and maybe some fireworks) inside while owner is at work. Well-armed and trained policeman is killed approaching the house. A child is killed in a neighboring house. Don't know if his parents had their own guns within five feet or not, but how could that have saved their child? When the fire spread to the second house, of course the situation just got worse. I believe we lost even more first responders before they were able to evacuate all the nearby residents, and that is a town with three-acre zoning.

The builder/former owner of my house had a three-year old daughter who woke up about 4 a.m. one morning, climbed up on a counter to unlock the deadbolt, walked through the yards (two-acre zoning here) to grandma and grandpa's house next door, went into their bedroom, and took grandma's air rifle that she used to shoo crows away from her compost pile. Luckily grandma was a light sleeper, but would already have been raped or assaulted or killed in their sleep if it had been other than their granddaughter with arms too short to immediately shoot. Dad added chain locks at the top of doors. Don't know if grandma moved her air rifle or not, but they did start locking their back door.

If I'm asleep with my gun two feet away when the rapist enters with a weapon, then I'm not going to make up for his head start. And if it's five feet away, what's going to keep my client's child from grabbing it before I can?!

Pray that you never have the occasion for someone to invade your home. If you search the internet, there are literaly thousands of instances where homeowners defend their family and property with a weapon. Here is just one example... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/01/philadelphia-homeowner-shoots-kills-intruder-during-home-invasion/

Btw, I have my self defense weapon within 5 feet of me, but I promise that you could not see or find it without extensive searching. I, on the other hand, can have it in my hand, safety off in 3 seconds. No worries about anyone who should not have it, getting it.

Common sense is to be applied in all cases.

[kcjenkins]

I am going to post a link at the end, because the whole survey is fasinating. But for those like Tom, I'll give you the top items here:

PoliceOne's Gun Control Survey: 11 key lessons from officers' perspectives Never before has such a comprehensive survey of law enforcement officers’ opinions on gun control, gun violence, and gun rights been conducted.

In March, PoliceOne conducted the most comprehensive survey ever of American law enforcement officers’ opinions on the topic gripping the nation's attention in recent weeks: gun control. More than 15,000 verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey, which aimed to bring together the thoughts and opinions of the only professional group devoted to limiting and defeating gun violence as part of their sworn responsibility.

Totaling just shy of 30 questions, the survey allowed officers across the United States to share their perspectives on issues spanning from gun control and gun violence to gun rights.

Top Line Takeaways
Breaking down the results, it's important to note that 70 percent of respondents are field-level law enforcers — those who are face-to-face in the fight against violent crime on a daily basis — not office-bound, non-sworn administrators or perpetually-campaigning elected officials.

1.) Virtually all respondents (95 percent) say that a federal ban on manufacture and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would not reduce violent crime.

2.) The majority of respondents — 71 percent — say a federal ban on the manufacture and sale of some semi-automatics would have no effect on reducing violent crime. However, more than 20 percent say any ban would actually have a negative effect on reducing violent crime. Just over 7 percent took the opposite stance, saying they believe a ban would have a moderate to significant effect.

3.) About 85 percent of officers say the passage of the White House’s currently proposed legislation would have a zero or negative effect on their safety, with just over 10 percent saying it would have a moderate or significantly positive effect. 25%said it would have a NEGATIVE effect.

4.) Seventy percent of respondents say they have a favorable or very favorable opinion of some law enforcement leaders’ public statements that they would not enforce more restrictive gun laws in their jurisdictions. Similarly, more than 61 percent said they would refuse to enforce such laws if they themselves were Chief or Sheriff.

5.) More than 28 percent of officers say having more permissive concealed carry policies for civilians would help most in preventing large scale shootings in public, followed by more aggressive institutionalization for mentally ill persons (about 19 percent) and more armed guards/paid security personnel (about 15 percent).

And here is the one I found most impressive, in light of this discussion

6.) The overwhelming majority (almost 90 percent) of officers believe that casualties would be decreased if armed citizens were present at the onset of an active-shooter incident.

7.) More than 80 percent of respondents support arming school teachers and administrators who willingly volunteer to train with firearms and carry one in the course of the job.

8.) More than four in five respondents (81 percent) say that gun-buyback programs are ineffective in reducing gun violence.

Bottom Line Conclusions

Quite clearly, the majority of officers polled oppose the theories brought forth by gun-control advocates who claim that proposed restrictions on weapon capabilities and production would reduce crime.

In fact, many officers responding to this survey seem to feel that those controls will negatively affect their ability to fight violent criminals.

Contrary to what the mainstream media and certain politicians would have us believe, police overwhelmingly favor an armed citizenry, would like to see more guns in the hands of responsible people, and are skeptical of any greater restrictions placed on gun purchase, ownership, or accessibility.

The officers patrolling America’s streets have a deeply-vested interest — and perhaps the most relevant interest — in making sure that decisions related to controlling, monitoring, restricting, as well as supporting and/or prohibiting an armed populace are wise and effective. With this survey, their voice has been heard.

Here's the link to the full article http://www.policeone.com/Gun-Legislation-Law-Enforcement/articles/6183787-PoliceOnes-Gun-Control-Survey-11-key-findings-on-officers-thoughts/

[Jack from Ohio]

You won't read this story in the liberal media...

Early Sunday morning, April 7, in Lumberton, Texas three robbers kidnapped and robbed one woman, but when they moved on to rob two more women they were met with an unexpected surprise. According to a report by 12 News Now, one of the would-be victims brought their robbing spree to a halt when she shot one of them.

The three robbers, identified as 21-year-old Scott Willis, Jr., 21-year-old Malik Washington, and 21-year-old Ariel Malveaux, all of Beaumont, have apparently been targeting women as victims of robberies since last month.

In the first robbery which happened on Sunday morning, the three abducted a woman at gunpoint, and forced her to drive to an ATM to withdraw cash. There has also been an unconfirmed report that she was sexually assaulted.

In the second robbery attempt, the three approached two women and demanded money. One of the women was able to retrieve her handgun and shot Willis in the abdomen, reportedly puncturing his liver.

Willis is being held in the intensive care unit at Christus St. Elizabeth hospital where he is being treated for the gunshot wound. Upon his release, Willis will be charged with aggravated robbery. Washington and Malveaux are both being held by Lumberton police on aggravated robbery charges. Washington also faces a kidnapping charge. The three are likely to face additional robbery charges, pending an ongoing investigation.

One would think that a story of this woman’s courage and quick thinking which ultimately led to the capture of three violent serial robbers would be a big story that would catch the attention of mainstream media. However, it has not. At the time this article was published, there were only eight reports of this incident, all which include local media outlets, local conservative political websites, a forum, a blog and an individual’s Facebook page, who happens to be the brother-in-law of the first woman who was robbed.

http://www.examiner.com/article/texas-woman-shoots-wanted-serial-robber-possible-rapist-story-ignored-by-msm

She took her own safety and protection into her own hands and used a legally obtained and carried weapon to save her life and prevent undoubtedly more physical harm to the others. She also protected her property in the process. Kudos for whomever motivated her to be prepared.

[kcjenkins]

Oh yes, the msm does not report these 'local stories' because it does not support the side they are pushing. There are, however, thousands such events every year and in the majority of cases, when a 'victim' pulls a gun, whether they fire it or not, the bad guys run. See, criminals are usually lazy, which is one reason for their choice of occupation, and often cowards as well. It's much easier to run away from an armed 'victim' and go find an easier target later.

[Catherine]

<snip> I also know that if I were able to take his life instead of him taking mine, that I would NOT be a good person with a gun. I would be a killer and a bad person who had no right to judge his life less important than mine. And, if he wanted my goods rather than my life...well, no court would sentence him to death for stealing my costume jewelry, so why should I ?! <snip>

You judged the parents harshly who had their neighbor child break into their lock-box and shoot their son; why don't you judge yourself just as harshly for keeping guns in your house? How can you be more sure than any other gun owner that your guns will never get used for bad reasons? Throughout my lifetime, I've had my apartments and homes broken into and jewelry and electronics and bicycles and money and other goods stolen when I have not been home. <snip>

I do not have the time to respond to every one of your claims here, except to say individual circumstances vary and the vast majority of civilian-owned firearms that "make an appearance" in self-defense SAVE many, many lives every year -- and those are almost never reported (certainly not nationally; sometimes locally).

I will address your assertion above, though. You have stated what can be termed the "Quaker fallacy" -- that if you save your own life by killing another, that makes YOU a bad person.

WRONG. Utterly.

You did not invade another's house, looking to steal, attack, or kill. Most of those who are "just" burglars will flee INSTANTLY when faced with a homeowner with a gun. Those who do not would not stop until one of you was dead, regardless.

It is your right and your -duty- to protect your own life against one who will kill you. The injunction is not "do not kill" but rather "do not murder." Please listen to Rabbi Daniel Lapin's most-excellent CD on the Ten Commandments where he makes this point and distinction far better than I could. To save your own life is to protect a gift given to you by your Creator, against one who has no right to take it from you. You would only become a bad person if you left your house, malice aforethought, with the intent to hunt someone down to maim or kill. To refuse to defend self (as some Quakers espouse) frees those evil-doers to wreak havoc at will, knowing that none will stop them. It is tantamount to proclaiming that evil may propagate unchecked through the land.

“Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”

― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I will add "inaction" to Rev. Bonhoeffer's quote.

Now, a couple other minor bits: I did not intend to judge parents harshly. The intent was to show there are other ways to handle the presence of firearms in the house. That which is hidden, not discussed, but NOT locked up is a serious temptation to children. If a family wishes to not speak about their firearms with the kids, they need to keep them locked where the kids cannot get at them. When one is not home, firearms need to be securely locked. No one breaking into this house could put their hands on ANY of our guns, no matter how long they were in here.

The fire you mentioned in a later post? No firearms and no ammunition would be responsible for explosions. Cartridges do NOT "shoot" unless they are in a barrel. Over-cooked the powder could burn, yes, and they'd be ruined and might cause small damage in the immediate vicinity. FAR less damage than you can cause with a soda bottle, vinegar, and baking soda. Large quantities of powder (if they were reloaders) could make a nasty hot spot in a fire, but powder BURNS, it does not explode. For explosions, look at the fireworks -- those are designed to have small explosions and propel the sparkly bits.

Again I will say: the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Firearms exist. The bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get their hands on them. We can either let the bad guys have ALL of them, or we can stop interfering with the good guys trying to own them legally. And the purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure that the government NEVER stops the citizenry from owning firearms, as that is OUR last defense against tyranny in government.

I'm done on this topic -- there are plenty of articles and info available online, including my web site at www.constitutiondecoded.com.

[Guest Taxed]

The two Boston terrorists did NOT have any gun permits in MA as per the police chief. Yet they were in possession of at least 2 hand guns and one long gun and were quite proficient in using them.

I am sure those guns will be traced and it will start another debate on gun control particularly the gun show loophole!

[Jack from Ohio]

[Philip1117]

Catherine,

Thanks for the information, You have gone out of your way to answer all questions and criticisms. Anti's wont be happy till only criminals can carry guns.

Phil

[kcjenkins]

Great response, Cat. That comment from Lion about becoming a killer really bothered me, too. Your answer was much better than mine would have been. She's a nice person, I hope she takes your words to heart. No peaceful person, doing nothing wrong, should feel guilty for simply defending themselves or others against a violent attacker. I have never heard it expressed better than " To save your own life is to protect a gift given to you by your Creator, against one who has no right to take it from you."

I especially liked your summation. "Again I will say: the genie cannot be put back in the bottle. Firearms exist. The bad guys will ALWAYS be able to get their hands on them. We can either let the bad guys have ALL of them, or we can stop interfering with the good guys trying to own them legally. And the purpose of the Second Amendment is to insure that the government NEVER stops the citizenry from owning firearms, as that is OUR last defense against tyranny in government. "

[GeneInAlabama]

I only want to add one other thing to Catherine's excellent response. To not protect ourself is our own business, but to fail to protect someone else that we could protect is inexcuseable. I wouldn't want that hanging over my head.

[OldJack]

Your comments are why you should have membership in the NRA. I joined this year!

[Catherine]

Your comments are why you should have membership in the NRA. I joined this year!

Doug & I are life members. This year they ran a special, and both daughters are now also life members. Plus Gwen & I members of the Second Amendment Sisters; sometime when Fiona is over I'll remember to have her sign the form and get her signed up as well. I could wish more of the Board had a knowledge of competitive target shooting. Maybe Doug should run once he retires!

[kcjenkins]

[JJStephens]

It's no longer just the guns they're after. Check this out: http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/teacher-sues-school-over-suspension-weapons-charge-showing-students-garden

Does lunacy know no bounds??!?!?

[Catherine]

It's no longer just the guns they're after. Check this out: http://cnsnews.com/blog/craig-bannister/teacher-sues-school-over-suspension-weapons-charge-showing-students-garden

Does lunacy know no bounds??!?!?

In a word, no.

Don't forget about the kid who was suspended from school for wearing a tee shirt with an NRA logo. No picture of any kind of "scary" gun, just NRA.

[jklcpa]

Why haven't the schools banned pens and pencils? Those could be used as weapons and so could the eating utensils from the cafeteria. What about the baseball and softball bats, tennis rackets, hockey and lacrosse sticks. More weapons! Wire or gut from the stringed instruments all should go too! No more sports or music because of the danger.

[kcjenkins]

[michaelmars]

Your comments are why you should have membership in the NRA. I joined this year!

I JOINED THIS YEAR TOO

[BulldogTom]

Late to the conversation. There are 2 real issues here that all of you are dancing around, but not saying directly:

1. What is the definition of a "free society"?

2. What limits are we going to allow the government to place on "free individuals"?

Everything you argue on both sides comes down to this.

The framers of the constitution came from a time of government tyranny. They understood that an all powerful government would excercise that power over "free" individuals if allowed to. Therefore, they placed limits on the excercise of control over the people by the government.

Over time, we have realized that "free" people in a "free society" will take advantage of that freedom to the detriment of other "free peoples". Government has stepped in and enacted laws limiting the freedoms of all with the idea of betterment of "free society" for all. In general, most of those laws were well intended and agreed to by society as a whole. Laws against murder, rape, theft, mayhem, arson, etc with the associated punishments for breaking those laws are pretty much universally accepted.

Today, we look at most of the laws that are passed or proposed, and we see a shift in their intent. Most laws today are proactive in nature - they intend to change behaviors or force the behaviors to come about that the goverment wishes to obtain. All in the name of the "betterment" of society. It seems to me that every one of the laws passed in the last 2-3 decades in some way takes more and more of the "freedoms" from the "free peoples" of the society. Today, most look to government to determine all the rules of society, with factions pushing for their agendas of what "free peoples" can do in a "free society".

As these laws have passed, the "need" for goverment to enforce and regulate increases, to the point that (check me on this) about 17% of the society is employed by the government. Another 15-20% rely on the government for their livelyhood through direct government payments (social security, welfare, medicare, medicade, unemployment, disability). As the government gets more and more control over the livelyhood of these individuals, they can enforce more and more behaviors that the government wishes to obtain from the people.

This is really what we are talking about in this entire thread. Do we as a "free society" and "free peoples" want to concede our "freedoms" to the government to regulate more of our actions in a "free society"? At what point do we limit the power of the government to regulate our lives in this "free society"? Everything else is just details in the argument. But it comes down to the question "Do I want the government to have the authority to make this decision about the interactions of the "free people" of this "free society" and regulate their actions"?

We could use this same discourse not only for this thread, but every social issue that comes up, such as:

Should Government mandate the purchase of health insurance?

Should Government mandate the purchase of auto insurance?

Should Government mandate the level of retirement savings?

Should Government allow the marriage of people of the same gender?

Should Government define marriage?

Does Government have the right to outlaw a religeous conviction.

Does Government have the right to force acceptance of an action that is contrary to a religeous conviction?

Should Government regulate the content of television transmissions?

Should Government outlaw the ownership of handguns?

Should Government be allowed the right to tax the income of individuals? and at what rate?

Should Government be allowed to put to death those who violate the laws it passes?

Should the President of the United States have the power of execution of American Citizens in foreign lands when he believes they are enimies of the state?

Should the President have the power to order the execution of American Citizens on American soil when he believes they are enimies of the state?

Should the Government allow the breaking of immigration laws in the name of human rights?

Is the Government responsible for the education of our children?

Is the Government responsible for the health of all of its citizens?

Is the Government required to feed every person in the US?

Is it the sole responsibility of the Government to determine the uses of private land?

Is it the sole responsibility of the Government to "protect" the environment and determine the uses of all land, minerals, and water in country regardless of the ownership of those assets?

Are the Governmental goals of the state of the "free society" higher than the individual "freedoms" of the "free peoples of the society"?

I am sure you could add a bunch more, but I think you get the point.

What is Freedom these days?

Tom

Hollister, CA

[GeneInAlabama]

Tom, you make some very good points, but to have freedom, "someone" has to control that freedom or else there would be total anarchy. I don't want my neighbor to have the freedom to kill me or steal from me. As for the subject of this thread, if my ability to protect myself and my family is limited as to the methods I can accomplish this, my freedom has been fringed upon. Criminals DO NOT obey laws and a law that limits firearms only limits honest people.

[BulldogTom]

Tom, you make some very good points, but to have freedom, "someone" has to control that freedom or else there would be total anarchy. I don't want my neighbor to have the freedom to kill me or steal from me. As for the subject of this thread, if my ability to protect myself and my family is limited as to the methods I can accomplish this, my freedom has been fringed upon. Criminals DO NOT obey laws and a law that limits firearms only limits honest people.

Who do you want enforcing that freedom, and how much freedom are you willing to cede to them to protect your freedom?

My son has a quote that he picked up in an American History class that went something like this:

"He who would trade liberty for security deserves neither". I don't know who said that, but it has some wisdom in it.

Tom

Hollister, CA

[PapaJoe]

I believe that quote is from Benjamin Franklin.

[kcjenkins]

You are so very right, Tom, that is the real question behind the whole thing.

For example, let me take a different 'target' and see if it makes things clearer what many of us are worried about. Borrowing from your list:

1. Is it the sole responsibility of the Government to determine the uses of private land?

2. s it the sole responsibility of the Government to "protect" the environment and determine the uses of all land, minerals, and water in country regardless of the ownership of those assets?

If these are true, then is there really such a thing anymore as "private land'? And shouldn't there be limits on what rights "the government" has over the right of the private owner? Yet government that started out with reasonable laws to protect against gross abuses that harmed all the neighboring owners has, through incremental and gradual expansion of control has now reached the point where in many areas you can not plant a tree, or remove a tree, on your own land, without getting a Permit. Nor clear a ditch, fill a low spot, build your kid a tree house, etc, etc, and soforth.

[kcjenkins]

Tom, you make some very good points, but to have freedom, "someone" has to control that freedom or else there would be total anarchy. I don't want my neighbor to have the freedom to kill me or steal from me. As for the subject of this thread, if my ability to protect myself and my family is limited as to the methods I can accomplish this, my freedom has been fringed upon. Criminals DO NOT obey laws and a law that limits firearms only limits honest people.

Gene, our 'basic" laws, as reflected by our Constitution, already covered those things you mention. Killing and stealing were illegal from day one of this country. No one here is advocating anarchy. It's the creeping power grab to take from individual citizens their sovereignty over their own lives and property that many of us fear and resent. As for me, I also resent the idea that in today's world, the actual criminals 'rights to privacy' are more protected than are the same rights of the law-abiding citizens. If they are caught with stolen goods, or even the gun used to kill someone, and the "search" was deemed to be without a warrant the evidence can not be used against them, but if the police decide to break into my home because they are searching for someone I have no right to privacy? Sure, if they tell me why they want to search, I will likely give them permission, but it should be MY RIGHT to decide that. If I say no, they should get a warrant first. Not what happens many places today.