Sunday, December 16, 2012

Mass Killings Stopped by Armed Citizens


There are several documented cases where armed citizens have stopped mass attacks by gunmen. Let me list a few: The Pearl, Mississippi school shooting was stopped by the vice principal Joel Myrick with a Colt .45, The Appalachian School shooting was stopped by two students with handguns. Both of the above incidents were stopped by the armed citizens threatening the shooter without firing.
Pearl High School Link

Appalachian Law School Link

Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their "gnawing hunger for crack cocaine" fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back.
Muskegon Shooting Link

The mass church shooting in Colorado Springs was stopped by the shooter being shot by a church member with a CCW permit.
New Life Church Link

The Santa Clara gunshop shooting in 1999 was stopped by an armed citizen after the shooter declared that he was going to kill everyone. Police found a list of intended victims in his car. Only the perpetrator, Richard Gable Stevens was shot.
Santa Clara Gunshop Link
 
The December, 1991, Aniston, Alabama defense where a CCW holder stopped armed robbers who were herding employees, customers, and his wife into a cooler. He shot both robbers, killing one.
Aniston Shoney's Shooting Link

July 13, 2009, in Virginia at the Golden Food Market: The gunman tried to shoot several people, was stopped by a CCW carrier.
Golden Food Market Shooting Link

Just recently, in Early Texas, armed citizen Vic Stacy shot and stopped a deranged man who had just murdered two neighbors and was firing at police with a rifle. Stacy made a very long shot with his revolver, three times as far as the perpetrator was from the police officer, who had an AR-15 type rifle.
Early Texas Peach House Shooting Link

 Updated link to Peach House Shooting one Year Later

That sounds like a very good story... but it never made the national news.
I wonder who made the decision to spike that story.
Of course, when a mass shooting is stopped by an armed citizen, there are not as many victims. This leads to the charge that it would not really have been a “mass shooting”.

I have added this incident at the request of a reader:
Abraham Dickman had a history of anger against employees of the AT&T store in New York Mills, New York. On May 27th, 2010, he walked into the store with a .357 and a list of six employees. He shot the first employee, but was stopped from further attacks when Donald J. Moore, an off duty police officer who was allowed to carry his own handgun when not on duty, drew and fired his .40 caliber, killing Mr. Dickman before he could fire any more shots.
AT&T store Link

Here is another likely candidate.
College Park, GA, May 4, 2009.
Two gunman entered a party and ordered the men separated from the women. Then they started counting bullets. “The other guy asked how many (bullets) he had. He said he had enough,” said Bailey.
When one of the assailants prepared to rape a girl, a student was able to access a handgun and engage the two attackers in a firefight, driving one off and killing the other before the thug could rape his girlfriend.
“I think all of us are really cognizant of the fact that we could have all been killed,” said Bailey.
College Park Link

Another off duty police officer stopped the Trolley Square shooting with his personal handgun. He stopped the killing and contained the shooter until police reinforcements arrived and ended the situation.
Trolley Square Shooting Link

Winnemucca NV shooting, 25 May, 2008
The shooter, Ernesto Villagomez, entered the Players Bar and Grill and killed two people. He reloaded and was continuing to shoot when a citizen with a concealed carry permit shot him and stopped the killing.
Winnemuca Shooting Link

Parker Middle School Dance Shooting
14 Year old Andrew Jerome Wurst Killed one person and wounded three others when he was confronted by James Strand who subdued Wurst with a shotgun and held him until police arrived.
Parker Middle School Dance Shooting Link

Destiny Christian Center Shooting, April 24, 2012
Kiarron Parker rammed his car into another in the church parking lot, got out and attempted to kill multiple church members. He was only able to kill one before a member of the congregation, the nephew of the lady killed, and an off duty police officer, drew his handgun and shot Parker, stopping the killing.
Destiny Christian Center Shooting Link

Tyler Courthouse shooting, 2005 While police officers were involved in this shooting before and after Mark Alan Wilson intervened, no more people were killed after he shot the shooter, who had body armor, and who was able to return fire and kill the CCW holder, Wilson.
Tyler Courthouse Shooting Link

Clackamas Mall Shooting
I include this story because it is recent and has been getting some interest on the net. This case is not as clear as the others listed. This incident is similar to the more common defensive uses of guns because the mere display of the gun was enough to defuse the situation. We can never know if the shooter decided to commit suicide because he was confronted by Nick Meli, the CCW holder, as the shooter is dead. However, many mass shooters commit suicide when they know that armed resistance is at hand.
Clackamas Concealed Carry Showdown Link
 

I have added this link as suggested by Doug Kuiphoff in the comments.  I do not think that it qualifies as a mass shooting stopped, because the potential shooter says that he did not intend to shoot anyone, but to kidnap some people.  Still, it is an interesting story, so here is the link:
 SC:Boiling Springs Freewill Baptist Church event

Added, from 2012.  Consider that the Plymouth shooting incident happened just three months before Sandy Hook.  Mark Ktytor, a concealed carry permit holder, stopped a likely mass killing before it reached enough victims to officially quallify.   From the citizensvoice.com:
"Mark Ktytor?" the latest in the stream of reporters asked, trying to put a face to the name of the man investigators credited with preventing a fatal bar shooting last weekend from escalating into a massacre.
 Link to Plymouth, PA Shooting story

 This is  the oldest incident that I have found.  I include it because it is in the "modern era".   It occurred in 1915, in Brunswick, Georgia.  It is a bit unusual in that 20 or more people were wounded and at least five killed.  The citizen who finally stopped the slaughter obtained the pistol used from a hardware store during the attack.  The shotgun was actually a double barreled model.
Angered by losses in a real estate deal, Monroe Phillips, a lead business man, ran amuck today with an automatic shotgun and killed five men and wounded twenty others before he himself was killed. Phillips was shot dead by E.C. Butts, a lawyer, while he was trying to fire upon citizens who appeared in the street.

Link to 1915 Brunswick GA Mass Shooting story
  
 Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch








































65 comments:

  1. I want to thank the brave people who saved many lives with their use of fire arms. thank you and god bless you!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carry at all times!

    ReplyDelete
  3. In 1996 Australia suffered a gun massacre at Port Arthur, which was followed by rapid changes in restricting gun ownership and safety laws. On the gun control Australia web site, the statistics provide clear evidence of the benefits. The reality is, last year our American cousins lost 29000 lives of 94000 shootings.
    We are better than this lawlessness.
    John Berbatis
    Perth, Australia

    ReplyDelete
  4. There was a shooting about 2-3 years ago at a AT&T in New Hartford, NY. The violent gunman was shot by an off duty officer. The man carried a list of employees he was going to kill. His pistol was taped to his hand. We actually need less harsh gun laws. If 2 in 3 carry, these nut jobs may think twice, before killing innocent individuals. The bad guys will always get them, so give the good guys a better share.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Berbatis is a bit misleading. The scholarly studies done of the aftereffects of draconian gun control placed on all Australians has had essentially no effect on crime.

    If you think that disarming a population is a positive effect, then he is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Guns are about rogue governments. Ask Hitler or Stalin about what they thought of armed citizens....

    ReplyDelete
  7. The main point that is missing in the coverage of all mass shootings is that no one ever mentions the meds. It is well documented that every shooter has mental issues and is on some type of "prescribed" medication. This problem is not the guns it is the medication.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The AT&T shooting occured on May, 27th, 2010. Abraham Dickan was the shooter. He criticaly injured Seth Turk, an employee. He had a list of six employees in his pocket.

    Donald J. Moore was the off duty officer in the store. Although he was not required to carry a personal handgun by department policy, he was carrying his .40 caliber pistol. He drew and fired, stopping the attack after only one shot had been fired by Abraham. Abraham was killed and Turk went to the hospital in critical condition.

    ReplyDelete

  9. For those who think these things just cry out for gun control.

    http://xvleo.tripod.com/id15.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. In Switzerland, nearly everyone owns a gun, although few carry them, and they have virtually no gun murders. in the U.K. there is almost no gun ownership, and same thing, very few gun murders. So, it is not so much about guns.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Working with media for years there are thousands of incidents where a gun owner saved lives but were only allowed to report the criminals I have heard the same from countless media people but they would be fired for coming forward ,.,... Look Obama is going to take your guns all of them ! As well as the police afterwards then DHS they already took away the military as they must now have all guns locked in armory breaches locked separate ammo locked somewhere else ---- its a take over and its global and the USA is the only road block !

    ReplyDelete
  12. Posting this link on Our FB Site for Political and Financial Corruption. This is a great story, Thank you!
    Many more stories of this nature are posted on our site. I look forward to posting more from this site.
    www.facebook.com/BankAndPoliticianFinancialCorruption
    CoreyG/Texas

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's not gun control that is going to fix our safty issues. we need to put the people with mental issues back where they belong, in institutions! This way if they are on meds, they will be watched in a safe environment. And look at the jobs that will be created…

    ReplyDelete
  14. The largest mass killing of school children the killer used Dynamite

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

    Today's Democrats are just like their Communist Counterparts

    China Calls for ‘No Delay’ on Gun Controls in U.S.

    http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/china-calls-for-no-delay-on-gun-controls-in-u-s/

    They don't even try to hide their Communism anymore! They sound just like their Commie counterparts!

    Dianne Feinstein To Introduce Assault Weapons Ban On First Day Of Congress

    http://on.aol.com/video/dianne-feinstein-to-introduce-assault-weapons-ban-517606030



    Innocents Betrayed - The History of Gun Control - FULL LENGTH

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUmKT43j4Tc

    ReplyDelete
  15. To John from Australia,who tried to argue gun control laws have worked...you are wrong!

    http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

    Also, this is the united states! We have many other issues which must be dealt with to progress as society. Solving these problems, (rather than restricting important rights put in place by our founders, for our protection), will do more than gun control ever could!


    ReplyDelete
  16. GUN CONTROL!

    TELL ME AGAIN ABOUT HOW CRIMINALS FOLLOW LAWS!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous said...

    "In 1996 Australia suffered a gun massacre at Port Arthur, which was followed by rapid changes in restricting gun ownership and safety laws. On the gun control Australia web site, the statistics provide clear evidence of the benefits."

    Sorry, cobber.
    "Recorded assault increased again in 2007, to 840 per 100,000, compared with 623 per 100,000 in 1996. The 2007 rate was the highest recorded since 1996. "

    http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime.html

    ReplyDelete
  18. And it only gets better:
    "Reported sexual assaults have increased by 51 percent since 1995, at an average of four percent each year." (Australia)
    See http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/violent%20crime/sexual%20assault.html for a graphic graph.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Wow, 15 whole incidents. Nice. That totally makes up for the 30k deaths caused by firearms every year.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Has anyone considered why these attacks occurred in the first place? For example, the abnormally high, way beyond coincidence, correlation of shooters taking anti-depressant drugs and exhibiting this behaviour?
    Has anyone considered why so many people are diagnosed with depression?
    We need to dig much, much, deeper.

    ReplyDelete
  21. To:
    Anonymous said...
    Wow, 15 whole incidents. Nice. That totally makes up for the 30k deaths caused by firearms every year.

    The CDC numbers for homicide by firearm were around 11,500 for last year. That's less than 3% of all reported deaths.
    All other firearm deatsh were accidents.
    How about you show some outrage over the 100,000 plus deaths caused by medical malpractice, or the 300,000 plus automobile accidents last year.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Does anyone wonder about a government that systematically seeks to persecuted tens of millions of law abiding gun owning citizens when ever something bad happens involving a gun? And they compound the insult by ignoring that those tens of millions were not involved. Nearly any one of those tens of millions would have stopped the threat before the body count grew.

    Punish criminals, not gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The more guns, the more safety?
    France is as big as Texas, and has 3 times as much population.
    In France there are 35 homicides a year with firearms (0.06 per 100.000 rate). In Texas there are 699 a year (2.91 per 100.000 rate, 48.5 times as much as France)
    Why it's so difficult to admit that the more guns the more homicides??? I can understand if you want the freedom to keep firearms, but it's clear that the more firearms around, the more firearms homicides you will have.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list


    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many total murders are in france? That would be my question. They dont have guns so what are they using? What is your crime rate there in comparison to gun saturated countries. Can someone find these numbers?

      Delete
  24. Way more deaths caused by hospitals than deaths by guns. Where is the call to ban hospitals?

    Way more deaths cause by vehicles than caused by guns. Where's the call for a ban on vehicles?

    There are over 200 million guns in the US to over 300 million people.

    Mathematically the number of gun deaths is extremely minute compared to other things in our society that can cause death.

    The argument is NOT about saving lives, it's about pure, unadulterated control and power as it always is.

    History is the proof.

    ReplyDelete
  25. In the U.K, there is almost no gun ownership compared to the U.S., and they have a much lower homicide rate than the U.S. But, on the other hand, Switzerland has an extremely low homicide rate, with almost everyone having a gun at home. So, it seems that gun ownership per se is not the problem. No one could argue however, that the availability of semi-automatic assault weapons, makes mass killings much easier. We do not allow private citizens to own hand grenades, tanks, and artillery pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  26. To the lady TALKING about Australia THERE IT IS AT THE BOTTOM...

    Original post by ALAN SMITH!
    INTERESTING HISTORY OF"GUN CONTROL"
    THINK GUN CONTROL IS A GOOD THING?
    THIS IS WHAT THE GUN CONTROL FANATICS
    DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW!

    In 1929,the Soviet Union established gun control.
    From 1929-1953,about 20 million dissidents,
    unable to defend themselves,were rounded up and
    EXTERMINATED.

    In 1911,Turkey established gun control. From 1915
    to 1917. 1.5 million Armenians,unable to defend
    themselves,were rounded up and EXTERMINATED.

    Germany established gun control in 1938 and from
    1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were
    unable to defend themselves were rounded up and
    EXTERMINATED.

    China established gun control in 1935. From 1948
    to 1952, 20 million dissidents,unable to defend
    themselves,were rounded up and EXTERMINATED.

    Guatemala established gun control in 1964 .From
    1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians,unable to
    defend themselves, were rounded up and
    EXTERMINATED.

    Uganda established gun control in 1970.From 1971
    to 1979,300,000 Christians,unable to defend
    themselves,were rounded up and EXTERMINATED.

    Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975
    to 1977, 1 million 'educated' people, unable to defend
    themselves, were rounded up and EXTERMINATED.

    Defenseless people rounded up and EXTERMINATED in
    the 20th Century because of gun control:56 million!

    It has been 12 months since gun owners in Australia
    were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal
    firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a
    program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500,000,000.

    The first year results are now in:
    Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%,assaults are up 8.6%,
    armed robberies are up 44%(yes 44%!)
    In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now
    up 300%.
    (note that while the law-abiding citizens turned in their guns,
    the criminals didn't,and the criminals still possess their guns!)

    While the figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady
    decrease in armed robbery with firearms,this has drastically
    changed upward in the past 12 months,since the criminals now
    are guaranteed that their victims are unarmed.
    there has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
    of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how
    public safety has decreased,after such monumental effort and expense
    was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." The
    Australian experience and other historical facts have prove it.

    You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
    Presidents,Governors or other Politicians disseminating this information.

    Guns in the hands of honest citizens save life's and property and,YES,
    gun-control laws affect on the law-abiding citizens.

    The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,please remind them
    of this history lesson.

    With guns we are citizens.
    WITHOUT THEM WE ARE SUBJECTS.

    If you value your FREEDOM, Please spread this anti-gun control message
    to all of your friends and family. THANKS ALAN SMITH!

    ReplyDelete
  27. The problem is not guns, or the ownership of said guns, but the lack of responsibility people have for guns. It takes a taught skill set to safely and responsibly use guns. Teach responsibility and character, not fear. The same could be said for fast cars. They're not inherently dangerous, but they can be used in a dangerous fashion. Responsibly however, they are a lot of fun.

    ReplyDelete
  28. They need to control the nutjobs getting their hands on the guns.

    ReplyDelete
  29. RE: anonymous
    "France is as big as Texas, and has 3 times as much population."

    Yes, but France doesn't share a border with Mexico, and their drug cartels.

    Additionally, the French are fucking pussies who would let themselves be killed by drug cartels instead of defending themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Another one they won't tell you about - three months before the Aurora massacre, IN Aurora, a convicted felon attacked a church killing one member before being killed by an off duty officer carrying his pistol. Didn't hear about that one. Link: http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/12175-two-aurora-shootings-one-widely-known-the-other-ignored

    I believe it was Mother Jones that did a report on mass shootings that were not stopped by armed resistance. Like normal liberal propaganda outlets, it's lost on them that they were mass shooting incidents BECAUSE there was no armed resistance; had there been armed resistance, the incidents would never have met their criteria for mass shooting.

    We are NOT going to accept any new restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I live in Winnemucca & can validate that the story listed above is 100% true!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Fatal gun accidents have been trending down for a hundred years. We have reduced the fatal firearm accident rate by 94 percent since 1905.

    The number of fatal firearm accidents in 2010 was 600. Most deaths associated with firearms were suicides, about 19,000. Suicide rates are unaffected by gun control laws, as indicated by several studies.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I refuse to argue the meritsnof somethine endowed me by God.
    No debate.
    Molon Labe

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous said: "Why it's so difficult to admit that the more guns the more homicides???"...um Mr. UK newspaper quoter, you might want to look in your own backyard. In Russia all guns are banned, and their murder rate is 20.54 per 100,000 people. In neighboring Finland and Norway, guns are allowed and their murder rates are 1.98 and 0.81, respectively.

    In Luxembourg, where all guns are banned, their murder rate is 9.01 per 100,000 while in neighboring France and Germany where firearms are allowed, their murder rates are 1.65 and 0.93, respectively.

    In Belarus, where guns are banned, their murder rate is 10.40 per 100,000 whereas Poland and Belgium allow guns and their murder rates are 1.98 and 1.70, respectively.

    So it would appear that in fact more guns = less murder, and less guns = more murder.

    Homicide data from CANADIAN CENTRE FOR JUSTICE STATISTICS, HOMICIDE IN CANADA, JURISTAT.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I would like post this, it's a little off topic, but I think it's pertinent to places such as much of the US where violence is high.
    South Africa. Gun ownership is allowed but the process of obtaining a license is long and not guaranteed. Authorities may deny your license even if you're mentally stable, should they deem that you don't require a firearm or request your employer apply instead. South Africa's violent crime rates are incredibly high. Gun use among criminals is also high with the exception of Cape Town where knives prevail. In February 2007, the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation was contracted by the South African government to carry out a study on the nature of crime in South Africa. The study concluded that the country is exposed to high levels of violence as a result of different factors, including:[3]

    The normalisation of violence. Violence comes to be seen as a necessary and justified means of resolving conflict, and males believe that coercive sexual behaviour against women is legitimate.[3]
    The reliance on a criminal justice system that is mired in many issues, including inefficiency and corruption.[3]
    A subculture of violence and criminality, ranging from individual criminals who rape or rob to informal groups or more formalised gangs. Those involved in the subculture are engaged in criminal careers and commonly use firearms, with the exception of Cape Town where knife violence is more prevalent. Credibility within this subculture is related to the readiness to resort to extreme violence.[3]
    The vulnerability of young people linked to inadequate child rearing and poor youth socialisation. As a result of poverty, unstable living arrangements and being brought up with inconsistent and uncaring parenting, some South African children are exposed to risk factors which enhance the chances that they will become involved in criminality and violence.[3]
    The high levels of inequality, poverty, unemployment, social exclusion and marginalisation.[3]

    http://www.csvr.org.za/docs/study/CSVRstatement091110.pdf

    This is probably similar to the US:
    1. Social and economic inequality in USA (in some areas at least) - YES. (for whatever reasons)
    2. Normalisation of violence (more so among some groups than others and probably age related) - YES.
    3. Subculture of crime (among some) - YES.

    On the other hand Switzerland, Israel and Canada have much lower rates of the above, and hence have lower murder rates. I think also that point 2 is often overlooked by liberals. It's something the society can work on, but I don't think it requires gun control per se but perhaps a shift in attitude in young people to an attitude more respectful of the dignity of others. The other causes of high crime rates do not require gun control at all.

    What is also overlooked I think is why people who live in "unequal" societies have to resort to violence. That is a societal problem. That can be addressed too, beyond addressing inequality which may or may not have merits.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Inequality as an issue is pushed by the left as a means of imposing socialism.

    However, the United States had tremendous inequality from 1880 to 1900, and had very low crime and murder rates.

    I believe it is a question of whether the inequality is considered legitimate or not. The left has pushed very hard to define inequality as illegitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  37. So the will bann Assult waepons...
    30 k death each year of guns...
    400k death each year of cigaretts....

    so the want bann guns... sure that is logical.....

    ReplyDelete
  38. Nice site, but mispelling "Appalachian" is an unnecessary distraction.

    thanks,

    ReplyDelete
  39. Bob S. Thank you for the correction. An editor is a great help.

    ReplyDelete
  40. MAKE NO MISTAKE, we did not ask for our 2A rights to be attacked, we did not ask for this battle, it was brought upon us. It was brought upon millions of good, responsible gun owners due to the actions of a few deranged individuals and the gun-grabbing politicians who choose to exploit these atrocities to further their agenda. We would rather mourn these tragedies and find real solutions; instead we must spend our time and energy defending a basic Constitutional freedom.

    This battle will determine whether our lawmakers have the backbone to implement solutions that will provide immediate dividends and safety, or whether they will go back in time and focus on the failed policy of gun bans.

    If our opponents succeed, our rights won't be affected simply for a few years, but for generations to come!

    ReplyDelete
  41. "...but it's clear that the more firearms around, the more firearms homicides you will have."

    Yes, it's clear. It's also meaningless. "Gun deaths" is a stupid statistic the gun-control crowd gulls you into following as if it means something, but it doesn't.

    The more rickshaws a country has, the more rickshaw accidents it will have. What does that prove about the goodness or badness of rickshaws? Nothing.

    If you ban guns, gun homicides (may) go down. But if total violent homicides committed by people against the now defenseless victims go up more than to compensate, have you improved your society?

    By the stupid "gun death" criteria, life under the Huns, Visigoths, and Vandals must have been utopia for the common person. After all, nobody was killed by guns.

    Annual gun deaths in the US are around 30,000, over half of which are suicides. Annual self-defense incidents with guns run anywhere between 400,000 and 2.5 million, depending on which study you believe. Is that a good tradeoff?

    But we don't even have to do the experiment, because the poor Brits have done it for us… and this is the result:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. We can add the Clackamas Mall shooting to those which were stopped by an armed citizen. Nick Meli drew his lawfully carried firearm and pointed it at the shooter as he took cover. The shooter saw him and the next round was used on himself.

    LINK: http://minutemennews.com/2012/12/oregon-mall-shooting-brave-citizen-with-concealed-carry-may-have-saved-lives/

    ReplyDelete
  43. I am an Australian and I am totally despondent at the apathetic attitude of Australians towards gun control - how irresponsible can it be to disarm the population when there are people with both the means and intention to commit gun crime, keaving innocent civilians like sheep to the slaughter? The criminals can just have a field day, knowing they can commit acts of slaughter and nobody will shoot back while they become famous for their notoreity.
    Australians generally believe that this is a good thing - I believe it will take a violent revolution or coup before people even begin to consider the absence of defensive means may have an effect. People even actively encourage their own enslavement by government down there. Ignore them, they are dangerously naive idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  44. There was a reader claiming the following "The more guns, the more safety? France is as big as Texas, and has 3 times as much population.
    In France there are 35 homicides a year with firearms (0.06 per 100.000 rate). In Texas there are 699 a year (2.91 per 100.000 rate, 48.5 times as much as France)
    Why it's so difficult to admit that the more guns the more homicides??? I can understand if you want the freedom to keep firearms, but it's clear that the more firearms around, the more firearms homicides you will have."

    This was a great example of being very loose with facts, and manipulating the numbers to support an agenda. A quick check reveals that in TX the homicide rate is indeed higher than in France - 4 times, not 49 times as the claimed above. The reason is that in France there are way more "non-gun" murders. So the criminals who have no access to guns just use other means.

    There was no gun control in New York and London in the beginning of 19th century. Still, NY murder rate was 3 times higher than in LOndon. It's the people and geography that matters, not the inanimate object criminals use to kill people

    US rates from deathpenalty.org
    international, from UN

    ReplyDelete
  45. In America we have Guns to empower citizens to prevent corruption and allow citizens to take back their governemt.


    Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Limiting Guns only hurts law abiding citizens. It will not affect criminals.

    Criminals will:
    Still have accesss to guns.
    Still shoot people.
    Still enjoy gun ownership benefits while the law abiding citizen is defenceless.

    The govt. will take absolute power from the people turning us to peons as well and allow what our founding fathers gave us a right. A right to purge corruption.

    Notice msot mass killings happen where people do not have guns.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I remind the people who want less guns of one fact.Who shows up when you call 911 for help....the good guys with lots of guns!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  47. Thanks for posting this. I am sure the antis will be sticking their heads in the sand with this. The only violent crime of gun control is gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Whoever it was that said there were almost no murders in the UK, you better check your statistics, you are way off.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Wow.. some of you are so ignorant. You can NOT compare two completely different cultures. Those of you who compare the US to any other small nation has thrown logic right out the window. For one the US has many problems with Gangs and border control, drugs with the drug war. There is just so many dynamics that are completely different within the US than in another country. Compare stats with really high Gun control vs those with really low gun control. More Americans were killed in Chicago last year than in Afganistan, Chicago has extremely strict gun laws. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  50. People need to quit lying out their ass. John Berbatis, you totally inflated the amount of deaths last year in the US. It was only 11k, AND of that 11k - 2k of them were justified homicides from Cops or civilians(which means self defense). I forgot how many more were from Suicides but those were included in that number.

    ReplyDelete
  51. 1. Gun control does not mean gun bans. No one is coming to take your gun so please keep your paranoid fantasies out of this.

    2. The guvamint isn't out to get you. You are most likely so insignificant to them you aren't even on any radar.

    3. The second amendment is NOT absolute, see 2008 DC vs Heller. Just like the first amendment, it has restrictions.

    4. If you are against gun control, you are against background checks and for selling guns to criminals. Those are forms of gun control already in place.

    5. If the constitution is sacred and can never be changed, do you think women should not have been given the right to vote? Or African Americans equal rights? That was amended in the constitution.

    6. Just because a form of control isn't perfect does not mean it is completely useless.

    7. PLEASE, and i mean PLEASE stop comparing guns to other things that cause fatalities (cars, ladders, medical malpractices).

    a. Because cars have many many regulations and because of this we have limited the amount of car fatalities over the years. Same with ladders, same with medical malpractice. All of those things have a history of regulation, laws passed to help prevent deaths.

    b. Guns have only one function, to kill or damage. By removing/restricting them you don't lose a lot. Remove cars and see how you do. Remove doctors and see how you do.

    And finally, why is it that ANY other source of fatalities are subject to be made safer but for some reason, guns are completely exempt from this logic. No one cares about the 10+k homocides each year, or the 30K total gun fatalities.

    ReplyDelete
  52. >John said...

    1. Gun control does not mean gun bans. No one is coming to take your gun so please keep your paranoid fantasies out of this.

    Funny that ALL of the 'gun control' strategies are about restricting this civil right and removing guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens.


    2. The guvamint isn't out to get you. You are most likely so insignificant to them you aren't even on any radar.

    If politicians campaign on restricting or removing my civil rights and still get elected? Guess what? The _GOVERNMENT_ (nice try on the sneering implication that those who support their own civil rights are uneducated or stupid, BTW. Way to make a point and be listened to.)

    3. The second amendment is NOT absolute, see 2008 DC vs Heller. Just like the first amendment, it has restrictions.

    Yes. Yes it does. There are many existing restrictions. None of the restrictions came close to preventing the tragedy your knees are jerking against. None of the proposed measures would, either. All they do is restrict my civil rights further.

    4. If you are against gun control, you are against background checks and for selling guns to criminals. Those are forms of gun control already in place.

    ROFL nice strawman! 'against selling guns to criminals'. Haha! No, I'm FOR selling guns to LAW-ABIDING citizens.

    5. If the constitution is sacred and can never be changed, do you think women should not have been given the right to vote? Or African Americans equal rights? That was amended in the constitution.

    ROFL more strawmen. So - we should celebrate THOSE rights and restrict others? Tell you what: get the 2nd repealed just as the 21st repealed the 18th. Then we will talk.

    6. Just because a form of control isn't perfect does not mean it is completely useless.

    You ARE a funny guy! So, 'separate but equal' wasn't a restriction of civil rights? I mean, it wasn't completely useless, the 'African Americans' were still free, right?

    7. PLEASE, and i mean PLEASE stop comparing guns to other things that cause fatalities (cars, ladders, medical malpractices).

    a. Because cars have many many regulations and because of this we have limited the amount of car fatalities over the years. Same with ladders, same with medical malpractice. All of those things have a history of regulation, laws passed to help prevent deaths.

    b. Guns have only one function, to kill or damage. By removing/restricting them you don't lose a lot. Remove cars and see how you do. Remove doctors and see how you do.

    ROFL one function. The many people that defend their families, the many mass killings and crimes prevented by guns (remember the subject of the article?) not reported because crime prevention doesn't 'sell' as well as crime might disagree with you. So, I don't see why I should agree that guns are special and cannot be compared to any other tool or object that can be put to either virtuous or nefarious use....

    > And finally, why is it that ANY other source of fatalities are subject to be made safer but for some reason, guns are completely exempt from this logic. No one cares about the 10+k homocides each year, or the 30K total gun fatalities.

    HAHAHA! And then you DO compare 'guns to other things that cause fatalities'! Your closer is a 'No True Scotsman' appeal that doesn't apply to you? Narrowing the subject of the argument so that you can exclude any evidence against your point? Really?

    ReplyDelete
  53. I am Canadian so these questions are for my own info

    Just a question, although I will never really understand the debate about guns, something someone said to me is really on my mind. I can not seem to find an answer verify this claim because every time i searched I was directed here. or another site about Crimes deterred by CCW holders. which is good about the crimes settled but bad for my research.

    the statement was this

    "crimes involving guns especially mass murder have never been committed by a legally licensed gun holder"

    also I have heard this one:

    "more likely to be killed by lightning than by a firearm discharge"

    ReplyDelete
  54. You can't defend the 1st amendment without the 2nd amendment

    ReplyDelete

  55. "crimes involving guns especially mass murder have never been committed by a legally licensed gun holder"

    This statement seems to be hyperbole to me. The truth is that concealed carry permit holders commit crimes at a frequency a bit less than police do.

    "more likely to be killed by lightning than by a firearm discharge"

    On this statement, it depends on context. Lightning only kills about 50 people a year in the United States, so quite a few more people are killed with firearms than by lightning.

    On the other hand, if they were talking about activities, It is possible that more people are killed by lightning while playing golf than are killed by firearm accidents while hunting.

    ReplyDelete


  56. "You can't defend the 1st amendment without the 2nd amendment"

    The 1st Amendment is also essential for protecting the 2nd Amendment.

    ReplyDelete
  57. 1. Gun control does not mean gun bans. No one is coming to take your gun so please keep your paranoid fantasies out of this.

    I'm sure that every locality that has suffered a gun ban was told the same thing as it was incrementally implemented.

    2. The guvamint isn't out to get you. You are most likely so insignificant to them you aren't even on any radar.


    There can no longer be much doubt about how insignificant our government sees us, and our rights...which is what concerns many of us about them. We keep wondering where "of the people, by the people, and for the people" went.


    3. The second amendment is NOT absolute, see 2008 DC vs Heller. Just like the first amendment, it has restrictions.


    Yes, we are well aware of how some wish to interpret the framer's intent, despite all facts.


    4. If you are against gun control, you are against background checks and for selling guns to criminals. Those are forms of gun control already in place.

    I don't believe I have heard anyone here advocate the sale of firearms to criminals...but since you bring it up, I for one would like to see better enforcement of current laws before wasting a whole forrest of paper on less enforceable laws than we already have.

    5. If the constitution is sacred and can never be changed, do you think women should not have been given the right to vote? Or African Americans equal rights? That was amended in the constitution.

    Wait...I thought you said nobody was coming for our guns? Now you are advocating a repeal of the 2nd Ammendment? Most changes to our constitution have been to guarantee rights, not infringe upon then...not sure I'm very comfortable with that kind of thought.

    6. Just because a form of control isn't perfect does not mean it is completely useless.

    It's useless if it is not enforceable, heck we've already seen that our government is not adequately enforcing the laws already on the books that you like so well.


    7. PLEASE, and i mean PLEASE stop comparing guns to other things that cause fatalities (cars, ladders, medical malpractices).

    I don't think the intent is compare them to other things as much as it is to give context to the statistics that are thrown around...numbers without context are often very misleading...or did you already know that?


    a. Because cars have many many regulations and because of this we have limited the amount of car fatalities over the years. Same with ladders, same with medical malpractice. All of those things have a history of regulation, laws passed to help prevent deaths.

    Yes, and for even longer it has been against the law to commit murder with a gun...funny how criminals, by definition, ignore those laws...

    b. Guns have only one function, to kill or damage. By removing/restricting them you don't lose a lot. Remove cars and see how you do. Remove doctors and see how you do.

    Then again I might tell you that a guns purpose is to protect and preserve, and that many instances in history have shown how a poorly armed society has protected or preserved itself.


    And finally, why is it that ANY other source of fatalities are subject to be made safer but for some reason, guns are completely exempt from this logic. No one cares about the 10+k homocides each year, or the 30K total gun fatalities.

    Of course we care, just as we care about the fatalities from the subjects you don't want to hear about (cars, ladders, etc.), we care about stabbing fatalities, and drownings, I am saddened by loss of life, and I intend to do what I can to protect and preserve my life, and the lives of my loved ones...who knows, I may even save yours someday...

    ReplyDelete
  58. It is not guns or gun control that makes the difference in murder rates between western European countries and the United States. It is demographics.

    European Murder Rates Compared to the United States: Demographics vs Guns

    http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2013/01/european-murder-rates-compared-to.html

    If you remove the cultural sub groups that do not exist in Europe from the United States murder rates, the murder rate falls right in the middle of European murder rates.

    ReplyDelete
  59. You need to add the Boiling Springs South Side Freewill Baptist Church, Boiling Springs, SC, March 25, 2012, to your list of shootings that were stopped by CPL holders. A man who had lost custody of his children acted like he was having a heart attack during the morning service; he was cleared by first responders, after which he left the church. He went out to the vehicle driven by his sister (who was also charged with providing him with a shotgun), and returned with the firearm. His actions had been witnessed by members of the church, who secured the doors or the church; the attacker kicked them in. The grandson of the pastor, who possesses a CPL, held the attacker at bay with his firearm as other members of the congregation tackled and detained him until police arrived.

    Most of the media accounts of this event, like the one in HuffPost, conveniently leave out the part about the CPL holder holding the attacker at gun point and focus only on the brave members of the church who tackled him.

    http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781"]http://www.goupstate.com/article/20120325/ARTICLES/120329781

    ReplyDelete
  60. “Mass shootings are a tragedy, just like earthquakes, fires, or tornadoes. Isn't it time we actually prepared for them” That's my point, these things are happening all the time, but we're shocked every time. We should have trainings and drills and stuff by now! (The quote was from Fight, Flight, or Hide, by John Forsythe if anyone was wondering)
    http://www.amazon.com/Fight-Flight-Surviving-Shooting-ebook/dp/B00B9J8FL2

    ReplyDelete
  61. Guns are bad! No, guns are good! I don't care! The truth; the lies; all the BULLSHIT is in, people. And, just so you know...I'm never, ever giving up my guns - FOR ANYTHING. I'll hide them if I have to and use them if I'm forced to. But, come Hell or high water, nobody is takin' them from me while I'm still breathing. No matter what the government goons and liars promise or threaten, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees. Besides, if the Obama-trons succeed in taking away our guns and "fundamentally changing the United States of America", trust me, you won't want to live in the country America will become, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This is the reason why people should have their own guns. It doesn't mean that guns will always be used for killing innocent people. It is also a tool for self defense. I bought oz used guns for this reason.

    ReplyDelete
  63. This is the best argument I've heard on the subject:
    "What does the government want to do, that it can ONLY do if it disarms its citizens?"

    Should scare the hell out of all of us. You going to pretend all of those communist regimes who disarmed their people, then started exterminating who they didn't like--by the millions-- should we pretend none of that ever happened? Do you think liberals/progressives value human life? Open your eyes, its obvious they don't. Abortion... they worship the planet and view humans as a scourge on it. Do you think Germans pre-holocaust ever thought something like that would happen in their country?

    ReplyDelete
  64. The latest episode of a mass killing stopped by an armed citizen:

    D.A.: Hospital gunman intended to kill others; suspect to face 1st-degree murder charge:

    http://www.pottsmerc.com/general-news/20140725/da-hospital-gunman-intended-to-kill-others-suspect-to-face-1st-degree-murder-charge

    Quote:

    Not only did Plotts have a loaded .32-caliber revolver on him when he showed up for his appointment with Silverman, but he was also carrying an additional 39 bullets, authorities said. Investigators believe Plotts had plans to shoot other staff members, but was stopped by two male employees. “We believe that after he killed the caseworker and tried to kill Dr. Silverman that he was not going to stop there,” said Whelan. “We believe that Mr. Plotts, if it wasn’t for the heroic action of the doctor and the caseworker, we believe he was there and was going to reload that revolver and continue to fire and continue to kill.”

    ReplyDelete

Spammers: You are wasting your time. Irrelevant comments will not be published