If they don't like the facts , pro-weapons of mass destruction types, will just make them up as they go along.
Sickening, that people would take someone who calls himself the terminator seriously, but to them he's a guru.

There are pics of beautiful Swiss young girls, riding bikes with assault weapons strapped on their back, also all over facebook & twitter.
Teachers in Israel holding semiautomatic rifles , surrounded by adoring students.
These photoshopped pics are there to tell us, that we are the crazy ones and the country would be such a wonderful place, if only every man, woman & probably child carried an AK47 around.

I don't know how we got here, the subject matter in more than depressing. But the culture of violence that has taken over this country has to be changed, problem is where do you begin...

Again I thank you William, I'm going to book mark this

cite (often fictional) cases where someone with a gun stopped a crime or drove away a home invader or some such. Yes, sometimes it happens, but meanwhile 30 people a day die in this country from guns.

Imagine if we had a major plane accident every single week, in which a couple of hundred people were to die. Every week, fifty two weeks a year. Some nine thousand deaths from those plane crashes. Don't you think we'd do something about airplane safety? Don't you think that if the planes were fundamentally unsafe we'd ground them?

Instead, the gun apologists always have an excuse why it's not the guns. They're partially right. It's not only the guns. It's untreated mental illness, it's a culture of violence, of movies and TV shows that glorify shooting and murder. But in the end (because all of our violent shows and movies are exported to the rest of the world) it's the guns. They're available in abundance here in a way they are not in other countries.

I am absolutely for taking away guns, and it's time to be saying that out loud. It's too bad that some people think they are responsible, or because they hunt for food they should be allowed to have as many assault weapons as they want. Yes, I am willing to distinguish between assault weapons and others, but there still needs to be some sort of absolute limit on the number of guns owned.

Is it possible for guns to be disabled in some way that they forever after can't be fired? I'd be in favor of that for all of the guns above some limit in a collection.

Oh, and because I don't collect guns I don't know what a reasonable limit might be, but more than five strikes me as excessive.

Check out this video on YouTube:

That was worth a second listen. With the volume a little higher also.

I completely agree with you.

And if I recall correctly he didn't dare draw for fear of shooting bystanders and also from fear of being mistaken for the shooter.

He was certainly considering it, according to the interview he gave, but ultimately, he did exactly what he was legally allowed, and no more.

(My mistake, he says he was in Walgreens, not Safeway. The buildings are adjoining)

I wasn't clear. I read the OP and it echoed a number of things you have said, so when I saw your name below I wrote that comment.

For the most part, it is accurate, and there has been some legend-making applied to most of those incidents. I have a problem with a couple of the details, but overall, it's a fair point, and one pro-gun folks need to get their shit straight on.

which is precisely what it is. You are simply wrong.

By the time he got outside to the area where the shooting occurred, it was already over. He confronted the guy holding Loughner's gun, and ordered him to drop it, which he did. He did not draw his firearm, because the guy holding the gun did exactly as he was told.

Our problem is that right wing talking heads can make up lies a hell of a lot faster than we can debunk them.

After I graduated from college it took me a while to find a real job, so for several months I delivered pizza. I was robbed by someone with a pistol, and for quite a while afterward had wished that I'd been armed so I could have done something about the situation. The sad fact is that if I'd have been armed I probably would have been killed, there's no way in hell to do anything about someone who's holding a cocked gun to your head except to quietly empty your pockets and give them the cash they want.

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

"The shooting ended when the owner of Nick's Place, James Strand, intervened and confronted Wurst with his shotgun, ordering him to drop his weapon and later holding him at bay for eleven minutes. Strand later got Wurst on the ground and searched him for weapons, finding a dinner fork in his sock."

...

• the 14 cops killed by Concealed Carry Permit holders
  
• the 485 private citizens killed by Concealed Carry Permit holders
  
• the 23 mass shootings committed by Concealed Carry Permit holders, or
  
• the 35 murder-suicides committed by Concealed Carry Permit holders?
  

Thanks to the N.R.A.'s lobbying and strong-arming politicians, it's really
difficult to find out how many more of these types of crimes have
actually been committed, but never recorded.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

I have detail checked on one set set of those numbers and found them to be cooked. The 485 is extremely misleading.

First they have been accumulating that total since 2007. What is important is the annual rate, not the grand total. However if you will look at the detail page on VPC's website you will find that exactly 100 of those are pure suicides. By pure suicides I mean that the person killed no one but themselves. We don't even know the methods of those suicides, whether they were by overdoses or by guns. VPC includes them to inflate the number. So that brings us down to 385. Since it took five years to compile that number, it would annualize to 77.

There are about eight to ten million people with CCW in the country. If we use the lower number of eight million CCWers then we get an annual rate of about one murder per 100,000 CCWers. According to the FBI, the annual murder rate for the entire country is 4.7/100,000. So CCWers are far safer to be around than an average person.

Texqs publish annual statistics on their CCW population (Called CHL in Texas) http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

That gives the number of CHLers convicted of violent offenses, broken down by the offense. We have a bit over 500K CHLers and average about five CHL murders per year, which is about one per 100,000 CHLers, way below the national or the state murder rate.

With any group as large as over eight million, there will be some who do wrong. But our percentage of wrongdoers is far less than the national average.

Your numbers are beside the point. The NRA has effectively lobbied to
keep crimes committed by Concealed Carry Permit Holders off the books,
inaccessible for the type of statistical analysis you're pretending to be doing.

The actual number of crimes and shootings is at present virtually unknowable,
but it has to be much, much higher than what the VPC has been able to
document.

The Texas stats are kept by the state, and CHLers don't get any special treatment. You just don't like it that we are statistically much safer than the general public.

Sorry..... but we pay teachers to TEACH....not to be cops....

Teachers are taking pay cuts, furlough days, etc. all over the country to solve budget deficits they had no part in creating. And yes, to expect teachers to take firearms training and purchase a weapon is an insult.

and we barely pay them to do that.

accordingly a female patron was one class away from concealed carry (right after it was legalized)... she of course left her weapon locked in the trunk of her car...

In Texas concealed carry was legalized in 1995. The Luby's shooting was in 1991.

That story is a corruption of Ms. Hupp's story. She often carried concealed, although illegally. That day she left her gun in her vehicle.

just stuck in my mind from years ago..... plays into that "if only we all were armed theme"

If you think there is something magical about the fact that it is usually police officers, you're kidding yourself.

These cowards wilt in the face of armed resistance.

Other people's guns don't stop them because they have nothing to lose.

Just like the shooting last Friday. Police show up? Shooter commits suicide.

but--maybe it cuts short the rampage (which I think is your point).

No easy answers.

Police are almost never present during the commission of crimes. They always show up after the fact.

These mass shootings are stopped when the assailant kills himself. They don't wilt in resistance - they take out as many people as they can before they end up killing themselves (which was what they had planned to do all along). The perpatrators of these crimes are mentally unstable - not quaking in their boots at the sight of another gun.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

These mass shootings are stopped when the assailant kills himself. They don't wilt in resistance - they take out as many people as they can before they end up killing themselves (which was what they had planned to do all along). The perpatrators of these crimes are mentally unstable - not quaking in their boots at the sight of another gun.

I can't believe people are still saying this.

Yes, they stop when the shooter kills himself.

And why does he kill himself?

When the fucking police arrive with guns to stop him!

This was true last Friday and it is almost universally true.

Police presence didn't change his mind. These killers die from suicide or suicide by cop. When the killer doesn't get killed, a lot of times it's because unarmed people tackle them and wrestle the weapon away. Ultimately their goal is to die - whether it's by their own hand or by the hand of a cop. The sight of another weapon doesn't make any difference.

It has been reported several times now that the killer killed himself as the police were closing in.

And this is usually the way it goes.

Yes, these people were planning on killing themselves - only AFTER killing as many people as they can before the police show up to stop them.

The sight of another weapon doesn't make any difference.

It is the realization that the unchallenged massacre is now over, and they need to kill themselves before they get taken into custody and held responsible for and forced to acknowledge what they did.

Links, places, dates, names?

By MOST you mean more than 50% of mass shootings are stopped.... by...?

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/

Just look at the number that kill themselves when the police show up with guns to stop them.

Or do you just post lists assuming nobody will read any further?

1. Police charged into the chaos. Doesn’t say if shooter was still alive or not. Leans “yes”. 1 of 1
2. Police appear to have shown up after the suicide. 1 of 2
3. Link says shot himself after police wounded him. But I recall police saying he was dead before they arrived. 1 of 3
4. Arrested after he got tired of killing people. 1 of 4
5. Left before police arrived then killed himself later. 1 of 5
6. Captured by police after an investigation. 1 of 6
7. Left before police arrived. 1 of 7
8. Ran out of bullets. 1 of 8
9. Left before police arrived. 1 of 9
10. Kill himself before police arrived. Bystander with gun did nothing because, “He had too much firepower”. 1 of 10

This is the point at which I wrote the subject line. Your numbers do improve as we go backwards. You end up with approximately 28% stopped by guns.

And, of course, 100% committed by guns.

11. Gun jammed. Bystander with gun did nothing. 1 of 11
12. Shot himself as police approached. 2 of 12
13. Shot by fellow soldiers. 3 of 13 (you’re finally on a spree)
14. Shot himself after running out of victims. 3 of 14
15. Shot by cop. 4 of 15
16. Shot himself before police arrived. 4 of 16
17. Shot by cop. 5 of 17
18. Doesn’t say
19. Shot himself after police arrived. 6 of 18
20. Shot by cop. 7 of 19
21. Ran out of victims. 7 of 20
22. Doesn’t say. He sure was no coward though as he was known to go around beating up skinheads.
23. Since he exchanged fire with police, I’m not giving you this one. Too likely he was just running out of ammo.
24. Ran out of victims. 7 of 21
25. Shot himself before police arrived. 7 of 22
26. Ran out of victims. 7 of 23
27. Left before police arrived. 7 of 24
28. Got bored. 7 of 25

It was just a convenient Google result.

Here is more what I had in mind:

Sandy Hook: Shooter kills self as police close in.
Aurora: apprehended
Binghamton: Shooter kills self as police close in.
Virginia Tech: Shooter kills self as police close in.
Columbine: Shooters kill self as police close in.

What?

That's what.

Who knows?

Obviously when someone IN UNIFORM WHO THEY KNOW ARE TRAINED show up with sirens blaring, they end their murder spree/suicide.. But some bubba or mother of 4 with a gun and no authority is not gonna cause the same result.

I just love too the 20/20 hindsight NRA talking point about the shooters picking "gun free" zones. No.... they pick target rich zones...schools, museums, churches.... because they have lots of innocent victims they can take out before committing suicide...by cop or by themselves. Why would they care if a gun was there? They want victims before they kill themselves.

I suspect a lot of those who claimed to have a change of heart about their guns after Sandy Hook, are now back to their same old gun cultist ways. Sad.

I now advocate universal licensing and restrictions on all semi-automatic weapons with removable magazines. I also support increased and and national standards for CCW permit training.

I still support the right to carry a gun.

And this has nothing to do with the fact that most of the time when there is a mass shooting, it is stopped when people with guns show up.

NOT ONE. Armed citizens have been on scene after the shooter stops or runs out of ammo, but they did not affect the outcome simply because they were packing!!!

. Not one mass shooting was or has been stopped by an armed citizen!
NOT ONE. Armed citizens have been on scene after the shooter stops or runs out of ammo, but they did not affect the outcome simply because they were packing!!!

This is demonstrably false. Even the latest shooting ended when the shooter heard the police closing in on him.

COP = Citizen On Patrol

The New Life Church shooting was stopped when a church staff member shot the killer. The staffer was NOT a cop. Pitt got the facts wrong.

Golden Food Market Shooting 2009 Bad guy walked in, shot manager, was about to shoot others when armed citizen began shooting. Multiple shots were exchanged. Bad guy died on scene. Nobody else died.

Armed Citizen stops bar shooting: http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-shooter-wasn-t-provoked-1.1371854

the mass shootings begin when people with guns show up.

ground" laws. The proponents often base their reasoning on hypothetical situations in which they attempt to assure the rest of the populace that all citizens have this instinct to pack heat and pull it at any moment's notice to "protect" or "apprehend" someone they have decided is a "criminal." Well, everyone knows already that everyone else is a "law abiding, responsible citizen" until they decide NOT to be one, and I was always concerned these laws were proposed as more of a cover for murdering other citizens based only on potentially skewed perceptions of the actions of another.

I suspect there are too many cases in which people shoot to kill as soon as they feel "threatened" - which (as we saw in the pizza place incident a few days ago) seems more like someone with a weapon playing out some Hollywood fantasy. I've read accounts of people merely approaching strangers to ask for assistance with jumper cables only to have the over protective, actively imaginative respondent push a coat aside to reveal his "defensive" weaponry.

As someone who is familiar with how many times straight men were allowed to use the "gay panic" defense when murdering a gay American because of perceptions that the other guy was "hitting on me" I have a tendency not to trust most people who talk a lot about their fantasies about killing others who they perceive are "threatening." Too many in the past have done just that and hauled those excuses right into a courtroom, often successfully, as if their right to snuff out another life is justified because of their perceptions, and the victim has no such right to life. In other words, I often get the feeling that someone's right to live is, in their minds, completely dependent on whether an armed person decides they don't feel threatened by anyone else that day.

People with CCW permits hardly ever get their permits revoked for the crimes you "suspect" happen.

Or do you have actual, documented evidence to the contrary?

Go google for Texas CCW crime reports. Not all the states provide the information, but Texas provides conviction data on everything from Public Lewdness to Homicide.

CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in crime - any kind of crime. They are less likely to be involved in crime than people without permits.

in the Wild West everybody had guns and there were shoot-outs everywhere.

which would explain the process people in towns back then took to eventually ban open use and displays of firearms in public. I think, if more of us knew WHY those ordinances/laws were passed, we'd have more of a clue as to why we don't need to allow those displays again today.

Gun Control and the Old West

....and here's one on the history of how gunfights were really fought, instead of the romanticized versions we see on TV and in the movies:

Old West Gunfights

There were very few shootouts. The famous shootout at the OK Corral came from law enforcement actually trying to enforce the no guns in town laws.

The Wild West had less guns that people think, let alone six shooters, useless for hunting...but had strict law control laws that would make the modern day NRA have virtual and real fits.

half the problem with this country -- it's too attached to its fake narratives.

They had one episode with a stranger coming to town with a six shooter. None trusted him and was told to take it off.

The OK Carrol fight was not only a shoot out between two rival gangs, they were also s shootout between the Democratic Party (Which supported the Clantons) and the Republican party (which supported the Earps). The fact that a Democrat had won the White House in 1880 was also a factor (and that the local Sheriff had won with support of the Clantons and the Democratic Party was also a factor). The biggest factor was Tombstone was a GOP mining town with two roads to it, One over the mountain, people could walk or ride into town, but could NOT haul heavy loads over that road, or a PRIVATE ROAD through the property of the Clantons. The Clantons wanted to be paid for anyone going over their land on their road, the town objected and hated them for it. The County and Territory, under Democratic Control, supported the Clantons (Through Wyatt Earp managed to hold onto his deputy US Marshall position. which was at that time a Spoil position but Cleveland had run on a Civil Service Platform so removing every GOP hack on the payroll would make him look like someone just trying to put Democrats in position permanently, so he left people like Wyant Earp in, when previous presidents would have removed him).

In fact, on they way to the OK Carrol (which was OUTSIDE the town limits)the county Sheriff told the Earps to go BACK. Thus, the only person who had LAW ENFORCEMENT JURISDICTION OVER THE OK CORRAL HAD TOLD THE EARPS TO GO, THAT ALONE WOULD MAKE THEM LIABLE TO MURDER CHARGED TODAY.

What happened subsequently to the gunfight is out and out murder, but no one evidence was ever found so no charges were filed. Please note, the Earps were CHARGED with Murder for what happened in the shootout, but the Judge ruled not sufficient evidence to indict them. Yes the Earps used the only non-pistol (a 10 gauge shotgun at six feet), two of the give Clantons were UNARMED (and both were NOT killed) and confusing testimony on what the other three Clantons did (including a dispute that one of them was unarmed, no gun was found near his dead body but Earps claimed he fired on them).

Sorry, I just do NOT believe the Earps, they had good reason to lie and being good Republicans would think nothing of doing so. The Clantons may not be 100% honest (some cattle thieving, ballot stuffing etc) but nothing major EXCEPT when it came to the Earps. By the time of the shot out, it appears to have been a falling out between the two groups (including robbery the Earps had agreed to participate in).

To an event that happened 120 years ago is just plain out weird.

What I did point out is that Hollywood narratives, when it comes to the Wild West are plain out wrong.

You have to understand, that today something like 40% of all firearms are pistols, prior to about 1970, it was only 10%. This show the HUGE increase in pistols sales over the last 40 years (and most of these pistols, even then, were sold to people living in cities NOT in the rural areas that dominated the Frontier West).

In the Old West , most people did NOT carry pistols. When you see pictures of Cowboys in a group or as individuals, most often the not the guns that are in the picture with are props, owned by the Photographer and uses a props (i.e. these young men wanted to be seen as depicted in the dime novels of the time period, thus had the picture taken with props then went home with picture but no props).

Now, there were some people who knew how to use a pistol, but they were the exceptions not the rule. In the shootout in the OK Carrol, the sides were less then six feet apart, yet, only two on the four Earp's side were hit, and only three of the five Clantons (Yes very poor shooting, and it appears most of the damage done to the Clantons was do to the 10 Gauge shotgun carried by Doc Holiday).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfight_at_the_O.K._Corral
http://www.clantongang.com/oldwest/gunfight.html

Now, other gun fighters in the west, were better, Cole Younger and his brothers, and his cousins Jessie and Frank James were dead shots. Sergeant York of WWI fame, was a dead shot with a pistol (What he did to get the Medal of Honor included when he ended up facing six charging Germans, in the 1941 Movie staring Gary Cooper he does in with his rifle, in real life he did it with his Army M1911 Pistol, through the rest of his action was with his Springfield 1903 rifle).

More on Sergeant Alvin York:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_C._York

Side note: The Wikipedia article said Sergent York had a 1917 Enfield, for that was the weapon his unit had been issued. Sargent York said he used a 1903 Springfield. It is believed he stole the Springfield from a Marine Unit his unit had been sharing a camp with. His unit had switched weapons several times during his time of service during WWI, depending on which army his unit was attached to. He used British STEN when he was attached to the British Army, French Weapons when attached to the French Army and finally when his unit went into combat under American Command Model 1917s Enfields in 30-06,

York preferred the m1903 Springfield to the M1917 Enfield, as did the US Army (The Springfield had better sites, if you were trained to use them and "locked" on opening, the Model 1917 had better "Battle sights" that were easier to use and its bolts locked on Closing. A bolt that locks on opening is consider easier to operate.

The model 1917 Enfield had started out as a British design replacement for the British SMLE, but WWI started and that plan was canceled, but it was made for Britain by Remington Arms in the US. In 1917 Remington convinced the US Army to buy the Model 1917 Enfield to supplement not replace the M1903 Springfield, the US Army did so for it had a shortage of weapons. Thus both were used during WWI.


I bring up the James-Younger Gang and Sergeant York, for they were the exception not the rule. In the west the weapon that won the west was the rifle (and more the Kentucky/Pennsylvania/American Rifle then any other rifle, they were people still making it around 1900 and Sargent York used one before he was drafted during WWI). Even Winchesters were the exceptions, the main weapons, after the invention of Metallic cartridges was the Remington Rolling Block, Sharps and ex US Army Muzzle-loading Rifles from the Civil war Days.

Now most people had rifles or shotguns for the simple reasons these are more usable in more situations, but were less used then pistols even then when it came to acts of violence. Most areas did NOT have shootouts, it was rare and thus why they were reported in the newspapers (just like today, dog bites man in NOT news, man bites dog, that news, i.e. it is the ODD things that is news, not what happens every day).

in real life they are pathetic

that they are perfectly happy allowing this to be the new normal rather than working to stop the need for having to protect ourselves everywhere we go.

"5. The Mall shooting in Ogden Utah and the Church shooting in Aurora, Colorado were stopped by people with weapons, but they were off duty police officers with training to deal with this sort of thing, and who were fulfilling their duty to the fullest."

The church shooting was stopped by a woman who was a police officer some ten years prior, not an "off duty" police officer.

In that particular case, yes, the shooting WAS stopped by the intervention of an armed non-leo, and its a good thing, because if it hadn't been, it may have ended as the worst mass shoting in the history otf the world:

(note: the shooter at that church had over a thousand rounds on him when he died)

"I'm coming for EVERYONE soon and I WILL be armed to the @#%$ teeth and I WILL shoot to kill. Feel no remorse, no sense of shame, I don't care if I live or die in the shoot-out. All I want to do is kill and injure as many of you as I can especially Christians who are to blame for most of the problems in the world."


http://www.denverpost.com/ci_7686929

Its pretty much impossible to deny in this case, that an armed citizen stopped a gun massacre in progress.

It's right twice a day.

Because the golfer was injured, he ended up in the hospital where a malignant tumor was discovered and treated saving his life.

Doesn't mean we should whack everyone in the head with a golf ball.

The shooter had 1000 rounds on him, and had stated his intent to kill as many as he could. If the woman had not stopped the shooter at that church, and he had killed 10, or 20, or 30, or more people...

Those of the anti-gun ideology and those of the "pro control" ideology, would without any doubt what so ever, be using it as another example of why we should ban them all, or enact another AWB, or similar tighter controls.

They get to have it both ways with other things entirely too much as it is, but rejecting the objective truth of this one is stretching things beyond belief.

...this is the first I've seen involving a tree. Naturally, other accounts leave that part out entirely and just mention Myrick's gun.

Is there a full, unbiased account anywhere that doesn't involve going to Pearl and digging through the case file?

only occur in places where the shooter doesn't expect to meet resistance and are stopped when they face armed resistance:

The attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan by John Hinckley.

Four people wounded when Hinckley confronts Reagan, who is surrounded by armed police and secret service.
Six shots fired in around 2 seconds, but Hinckley's weapon is a cheap 6 round .22 revolver.
He is wrestled to the ground by an unarmed labor executive, not by the armed men protecting the president

So, what saved people's lives (although did not prevent them from being shot) wasn't the presence of armed protection. What stopped the shooting wasn't the intervention of those armed protectors. What saved lives was that Hinckley used a lousy weapon. Now imagine what the result would have been had he used a semi automatic weapon like a glock with a magazine with between 18 and 30 rounds.
Before anyone could have gotten to him, he would have squeezed of between 3 and 5 times as many rounds. More people would have been hit. Fatalities would have been inevitable. In all likelihood the unarmed person that wrestled him to the ground would have been shot as well.

A cheap revolver such as that used by Hinckley can be lethal, no doubt. But the argument for putting semi-automatic weapons with large magazines in civilian hands makes no sense.

You have been an incredibly wonderful voice in the call for gun sanity!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Those two words, seldom combined, are quite apt in this case!

eom

'cause I know I'm going to be receiving that email soon from some gun-nut relatives and friends.

of the argument. What concerns me as well, is lawmakers sitting down to write actual legislation that is influenced by their own misunderstanding and apocryphal tales from constituents.

"so many people cling to (the false e-mail) as if it is gospel."

I'd say EXACTLY as if it were the gospel. It can't be a coincidence that such a high percentage of over-the-top gun nuts are over-the-top religious nuts as well.

but remember old time westerns where guns have to be checked in with the Sheriff when entering town? Back then people had far more reasons for carrying sidearms than today.
Now we have come 180 degrees from the 'check your guns in' thinking to 'let's give everyone a gun'
This assault weapon conversation, and guns in general is creating more hard feelings in my corner of Facebook than the election! And that's saying something............