The most likely answer is that the more people who own a firearm the more
fearful the potential criminal is of confrontation. Even a criminal is usually
cautious. The idea behind concealed carry is expressed by a convicted street
robber who told an FBI agent that had concealed carry been in effect when he
comitted his crime, he would NOT have done it, for fear of being shot himself.
This is likely why the crime rate has dropped. This is basically why a criminal,
armed, drops his weapon when contronted by an armed police or security officer,
he doesn't want to be shot himself. As to the question about how the robber
got into the house in the first place, there are many ways to break into a
building without too much noise, which I won't go into here for fear of
giving someone ideas. I'm a former chief of police of a small town and
later chief of campus law enforcement for a university.
Gun ownership by Americans should be extensive because the citizens have a
God-given right to protect themselves against tyrannical government, criminals
and militant Mexicans who claim that America was stolen from them. We do have a
big threat from the Aztlan movement promoted by those who want to claim America
for Mexico. I have seen the videos showing Mexicans shouting and holding up
signs telling America that the white man should give up his property and there
should be no block to Mexicans who want come here illegally. It is a fearsome
sight seeing these loud and militant people shouting about their natural right
to America. Americans should be armed. These Mexicans are organized and armed.
The 2nd Amendment is vitally important.
Negotiations and discussion will do no good. There is a total lack of trust
between all parties. This means there can be no starting point, nothing to
continue and no decision can be made. Politicians must do something to be
re-elected, the anti gun lobby can do nothing or they will lose membership and
easy money and the NRA is accused of being a lobbying organization because they
are doing a great job of getting the word out. They lobby for me because I
belong to the NRAand feel a firearm in my home is a necessity because of
the lack of respect and trust which has been carefully nurtured by society.
While drawn into the article I was disappointed by the lack of details during
the St. George encounter. How did he pin him down? What did he say? Was the
criminal prosecuted? What if he had shot him in the back in the house? Outside
on his property? Running down the street with stolen goods in his hands? The
real human interest story is: (1) the personal encounter and (2) the debate
about self-defense, in that order. The author missed the mark here. More,
@ the old switcheroo. Can you even conceive of a situation where the criminal
home invader would be at fault instead of the innocent homeowner? Why do you
worry so much about protecting the criminal?
This a dismal failure not a success story. If someone gets into your house why
you are sleeping you FAILED to protect your family. He got lucky and that's
all. Gun nuts really want this to happen not keep their family safe
in the first place. That would preclude having loaded guns unsecured in your
What if the intruder had a gun, also. He had the flashlight and could see the
other people. He didn't have to roll off the bed onto the floor and open a
drawer and pull out the weapon. Technically, to be safe with children around,
the gun should have had a gun lock or be in a position that was not accessible
to children. The security of the house is a question that wasn't
addressed. Even with Elizabeth Smart, the security of their windows was not
good, especially for an individual that had worked in and knew their house and
children. Guns, without proper training and use, is a much larger issue than
just registering them, concealed or not. I remember living in Mississippi and
when we were looking at buying a home and going through many of the homes in the
1970s how open pistols were in the homes and accessible to people, even the bad
guys, if they got in the homes. Access is still a problem for good
people, but bad people have ways to get one of the 300M guns in the United
States of America. They may take months to get a gun.
In 1938, Germans took guns away from the Jews, and self-defense was gone.Through out history, most human suffering have come from bad
governments. Good government doesn't allow the killing of millions of
Here is all you need to know about gun control laws; cops carry guns to protect
THEMSELVES, not you! All other discussions are just about who is going to
control YOU, not guns, not criminals and not crime because gun control laws do
not control criminals and crime because criminals do not obey laws. So the real
issue and the only debate is really all about who controls YOU! Chicago's
crime and their strict gun control laws are proof for anyone who is not blind,
dumb or seeking to control YOU! Drat that darned 2nd amendment anyway!
What's with a debate? There isn't one.The second
amendment spells it out.
Thanks to the NRA for stifling gun violence research for more than a decade, the
national debate about gun violence prevention has been focused mostly on
speculation, common sense attitudes unsupported by the lack of science research,
and emotions. Hopefully Obama's renewed efforts at federal science-based
research on this important topic will allow future Congresses and Presidents to
make more informed decisions about gun policy in this Country, instead of having
to rely on NRA advertising to make our decisions for us.
Sooooo, how DID the burglar get into the house anyway? Why don't we start
talking about actual security instead of these security failures were the last
resort of a gun is needed? A little journalism would be nice. This was NOT a
victory, it was a dismal failure to keep his family safe by letting a burglar
get in in the first place.Only in the US will men spend $20,000 on
guns and not a penny on an alarm system or security blinds."But
most of the things that were presented (as self-defense) were little more than
escalating arguments. It wasn't like this is a good guy and this is a bad
guy. It's two people who got into an argument and somebody drew a
gun."Guns are not the only defense.
For the most part, this is a good article that treats the issue fairly. But it
misses one very important question: What is the cause and effect of guns
ownership and crime. The article seems to want to say that the increase in gun
ownership is pointless because the rate of crime is going down. But what if the
crime rate is going down because of more gun ownership? I think that is likely
what is really happening. Criminals aren't entirely stupid; they don't
want to get shot and/or die, so, they're being more careful. Unfortunately,
some crime has increased and continues unabated: that which takes place in our
It is not surprising to see the intesity of both sides of the gun argument and
the obvious stretching of the truth by both sides with the justification that
the other side is doing it so we are just keeping it even. In the aftermath of
NewTown I have centered on just one major litmus test of any new gun laws,
"would it have prevented or even mitigated this shooting"? The gun laws
currently working their way thru congress would have done absolutely nothing.
Motion is not progress.