Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Counting on people being able to stop an assailant between reloads is a cynical ploy, and typical of the Left.

Really?

Woman Wrestled Fresh Ammo Clip From Tucson Shooter as He Tried to Reload

Patricia Maisch looks like a grandmother, but she is being hailed as a hero today for helping to stop alleged Tucson shooter Jared Loughner by wrestling away a fresh magazine of bullets as he tried to reload.

Maisch, 61, effectively disarmed the shooter as several men pounced on him and threw him to ground. As they struggled to hold him down, Maisch joined the scrum on the ground, clinging to the gunman's ankles.

Maisch and her fellow heroes -- identified as Bill Badger, Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio -- stopped the carnage after 20 people were shot, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

ABC News



And here is the rest of the story the gun clingers don't want you to know...


Armed Giffords hero nearly shot wrong man
Joe Zamudio rushed to the scene and saw a man with a gun — but he wasn't the shooter


Does the Tucson massacre justify tighter gun control? Don't be silly. Second-Amendment advocates never look at mass shootings that way. For every nut job wreaking mayhem with a semiautomatic weapon, there's a citizen with a firearm who could have stopped him.

Now comes the tragedy in Tucson. And what do gun advocates propose? More guns. Arizona already lets people carry concealed weapons without requiring permits.

The new poster boy for this agenda is Joe Zamudio, a hero in the Tucson incident. Zamudio was in a nearby drug store when the shooting began, and he was armed. He ran to the scene and helped subdue the killer. Television interviewers are celebrating his courage, and pro-gun blogs are touting his equipment. "Bystander Says Carrying Gun Prompted Him to Help," says the headline in the Wall Street Journal.

But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!'"

But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.

Zamudio agreed:

"I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky."

The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."

This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."

That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.

We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting. I hope Arizona does train lawmakers and their aides in the proper use of firearms. I hope they remember this training if they bring guns to constituent meetings. But mostly, I hope they don't bring them.

NBC News

I said COUNTING on people to disarm a gunman between reloads is a cynical ploy. If you can't understand simple statements you should get another hobby.

 

[ChrisL]

Does anyone believe that a person who is planning on committing a crime is going to purchase a gun in the legal manner? Then it would be quite easy to trace that gun back to that particular criminal. That is why they go through the black market.

 

[Vandalshandle]

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right? Do you think we should do background checks on voters? Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?

Do we have to go through this all again, Chris?

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

 

[ChrisL]

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right? Do you think we should do background checks on voters? Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?

Do we have to go through this all again, Chris?

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

What I think is that he should never be out of jail. If we cannot trust a person enough to practice their rights, then they have no business being out of jail to begin with. THAT is the problem. We are too soft on criminals and crime.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right? Do you think we should do background checks on voters? Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?

Do we have to go through this all again, Chris?

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

What I think is that he should never be out of jail. If we cannot trust a person enough to practice their rights, then they have no business being out of jail to begin with. THAT is the problem. We are too soft on criminals and crime.

Not relevant to this thread.

 

[ChrisL]

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right? Do you think we should do background checks on voters? Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?

Do we have to go through this all again, Chris?

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

What I think is that he should never be out of jail. If we cannot trust a person enough to practice their rights, then they have no business being out of jail to begin with. THAT is the problem. We are too soft on criminals and crime.

Not relevant to this thread.

Sure it is. Completely relevant. Just as relevant as YOU bringing up John Hinckley.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

That's not my quote. That is Vandal's quote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

That's not my quote. That is Vandal's quote.

I know. I edited badly.
Vandal doesnt like it when I call him on his lies, and so he has me on ignore.
Speaks for itself.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

That's not my quote. That is Vandal's quote.

I know. I edited badly.
Vandal doesnt like it when I call him on his lies, and so he has me on ignore.
Speaks for itself.

Okay, as long as you know that wasn't me who asked that question.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

And you are absolutely correct because I just checked on this. However, I don't have a problem with background checks (as they stand now) to check and SEE if said person trying to purchase a firearm is a felon or not.

How do you feel about it and why? I'm just trying to learn here, not starting an argument, so don't yell at me and call me names.

Owning a Gun - Felony Restrictions

Owning A Gun
Can felons own guns? Is this governed by state or federal law? Does this apply to only certain types of guns or all guns?

In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where your civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until your felony is expunged, you are not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

Ammunition
Many felons don't realize this, but the federal ban on owning a firearm also applies to any type of ammunition - if you are caught with just a bullet you are in violation of this ban and subject to another felony (this one federal, meaning a lot more jail time and less chance of a pardon).

Does this only apply to concealed weapons?
Actually this law applies not only to concealed weapons, but also to any firearm that might be in your own. In the United States, felons are not legally allowed to bear arms - this is a point of controversy because it means in essence that you cannot defend yourself if somebody breaks into your home.

How can you legally own a gun again?
The easiest way to regain your right to bear arms is to have your felony expunged. Some states, however, offer felons the opportunity to own a handgun again after a certain amount of time has passed from the successful completion of probation. This is rare and there are many states, such as North Carolina, where a felon can never again own a weapon.

Are any types of felonies excluded?
Actually, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(20)(A) specifically exempts a few types of felonies:

...any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices...

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

And you are absolutely correct...

Of course I am

How do you feel about [background checks] and why?

Short version:

Background checks are a form of prior restraint and as such create an undue burden on the exercise of the right to arms. -- the state may not presume all who seek to buy a gun are 'guilty' of dong so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

 

[ChrisL]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

And you are absolutely correct...

Of course I am

How do you feel about [background checks] and why?

Short version:

Background checks are a form of prior restraint and as such create an undue burden on the exercise of the right to arms. -- the state may not presume all who seek to buy a gun are 'guilty' of dong so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Makes sense. But still, I don't necessarily object to doing a background check (as long as it is speedy) to check if a person wishing to purchase a weapon has any kind of violent felonies in his or her background. If I was a gun seller, I would want to be sure I wasn't selling a weapon to a criminal. If that criminal did go on a shooting spree with a weapon that I had sold him or her, then I feel an awful lot of guilt about that.

 

[2aguy]

I wouldn't trust the polls. People are getting a little paranoid, with all the govenment spying going on.

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

That's not true.....most positives are false, and go against normal, law abiding people...which delays their ability to get their weapon...most criminals get friends who can pass the check get the gun, thereby nullifying the whole thing....

 

[2aguy]

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

Under no circumstance can Hinckley legally buy a firearm. None.

And you are absolutely correct...

Of course I am

How do you feel about [background checks] and why?

Short version:

Background checks are a form of prior restraint and as such create an undue burden on the exercise of the right to arms. -- the state may not presume all who seek to buy a gun are 'guilty' of dong so illegally and compel them to 'prove' that they are innocent by undergoing a background check; to presume a citizen 'might' misuse a civil liberty does not warrant the state's restriction of that right.

Excellent point.......well said......

 

[ChrisL]

The decline in gun ranges however is quite undeniable.

Because they're harder to insure. Your simplistic reasoning leaves me appalled anew at our education system. Most people don't pay to shoot their guns, they go out to public lands and shoot for free.

This would explain why Central Park in NYC can be such a dangerous place....

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

That's not true.....most positives are false, and go against normal, law abiding people...which delays their ability to get their weapon...most criminals get friends who can pass the check get the gun, thereby nullifying the whole thing....

That's a good point, but do you feel that there should be NO background checks? It does prevent criminals from legally obtaining weapons after all.

 

[2aguy]

I suppose you think that laws restricting honest citizens would have an effect on crime, eh? That's real smart. I can see you've given this some thought . . . Lol. That was sarcasm, of course.

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right? Do you think we should do background checks on voters? Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?

Do we have to go through this all again, Chris?

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

No...he shouldn't be free, he should have been executed.....using mental illness checks to keep guns out of his hands are fine.....sadly....that isn't what the gun grabbers want...they want to include soldiers returning from combat, people with insomnia......and any number of non dangerous issues for mental health professionals...we know how they think and what they want and they will use the mental health background check to deny regular people guns....

I'm not saying we can't have some sort of screen....but I'm not letting the gun grabbers design it....

 

[ChrisL]

It doesn't prevent them from getting GUNS, but it prevents them from getting them in a legal manner. OTOH, should a person be discriminated against in such a manner? This is kind of like imposing a punishment for a crime not even committed. It's a tough call, IMO.

 

[ChrisL]

I get very weary having to say the obvious, over and over. Background checks do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens. They restrict the right of people who have already forfeited their rights.

We already have background checks.

That's odd. Nobody does them at any of the gun shows that they have in AZ.

Actually, I am just being kind. Your statement is totally false, except regarding purchases from licensed retailers.

Why do you think it's necessary to do a background check anyways? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with background checks, but why is it necessary to do a background check in order to practice a constitutional right? Do you think we should do background checks on voters? Or perhaps before you practice your freedom of speech?

Do we have to go through this all again, Chris?

Do you think that John Hinckley, who is now a free man, should be able to walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from some guy who has no legal obligation to ask any questions?

No...he shouldn't be free, he should have been executed.....using mental illness checks to keep guns out of his hands are fine.....sadly....that isn't what the gun grabbers want...they want to include soldiers returning from combat, people with insomnia......and any number of non dangerous issues for mental health professionals...we know how they think and what they want and they will use the mental health background check to deny regular people guns....

I'm not saying we can't have some sort of screen....but I'm not letting the gun grabbers design it....

I don't believe in the death penalty, so here you and I will have to part ways. He SHOULD have to spend the rest of his life behind bars or in a mental hospital though. Cold-blooded murderers should never get out of jail, IMO, insane or sane . . . doesn't matter.

 

[2aguy]

John R. Lott Can’t Defend Himself

You probably don’t know who John Lott is, but he has been written about a lot recently. To make a long story short, John R. Lott Jr. is an unabashed gun advocate...

blah blah blah...

I guess he should be bashed instead of unabashed to the fair minded reader? He doesn't need to defend himself from hate filled agenda driven morons.

Survey on gun ownership Archives - Crime Prevention Research Center
A new Pew Research Center survey finds that, for the first time in their surveys, the majority of Americans oppose more gun control. Gallup and CNN polls tell a similar story. Opposition to gun control has been increasing over at least the last couple of decades.

Gun control groups have spent hundreds of millions of dollars to try to convince Americans that gun control is the answer. In 2013, gun owners’ groups — including the NRA — spent less than one seventh as much on television advertisements. This year looks to be even more lopsided, thanks to the unrelenting efforts of individuals such as Michael Bloomberg, George Soros and Gabriel Giffords.

Perceptions have changed dramatically, with most people now believing the “More Guns, Less Crime” hypothesis. Gallup recently asked Americans if they thought residents are safer with a gun in the home. People answered “Yes” by a margin of 63 to 30 percent. In 2000, Americans gave just the opposite answer by a margin of 51 to 35 percent. In 2013,Sixty percent of gun owners listed “Personal Safety/Protection” as the reason for owning a gun.

Academic research aligns with current public opinion. If you have a gun in the home, that gun is far more likely to prevent murder than it is to be used in an accidental shooting or to kill a loved one. . . .

Blah, blah, blah...the man you vehemently defend already revealed his character...

Lott's book received glowing praise from one Mary Rosh...who is Mary Rosh?

Why it is none other than JOHN LOTT impersonating one Mary Rosh...

A most respectable thing to do, don't you THINK Weasel brain??

But now you have also revealed YOUR character... something we are taught, or NOT taught as children...

YES, JOHN LOTT AGAIN....If you are an econometrician — a person who evaluates the real world using complex statistical models — there are two basic ways you can go about your job:

• You can do your best to figure out which statistical model does the best job of mirroring the real world, and then plug in your data and see what pops out. We will call this methodology tolerably honest.
  
  
• You can plug in your data first, and then tweak your model until it provides the results you want. We will call this methodology dishonest bullshit.

The alert reader has probably guessed that I am talking here about the latest sad chapter in the John Lott saga, and indeed I am. The indefatigable Tim Lambert is on the case, and assuming I have been able to put the timeline together correctly, here's what's happened:

1. Lott and two coauthors produced a statistical model ("Model 1") that showed significant crime decreases when states passed concealed carry gun laws.
   
   
2. Back in April, two critics discovered that there were errors in the data Lott used. When the correct data was plugged into Lott's model, his results went away.
   
   
3. After a long silence, Lott admitted the data errors and posted a table with new results. Oddly, though, his new results were similar to his old ones and continued to show significant drops in crime. So who's right, Lott or his critics?
   
   
4. Answer: his critics. It turns out that since he really had no choice but to use the corrected data, and the corrected data erased his results, he decided to invent a different model ("Model 2") for use in this new table — but without disclosing the fact that he had switched to a new model specifically constructed to keep his results intact. Note: In less refined circles this would be called "lying."
   
   
5. When Tim discovered that Lott had surreptitiously changed his model, he emailed Lott. No response.
   
   
6. It turns out Lott was busy covering his tracks. How? By quietly removing the corrected table from his website and replacing it with a new corrected table. This one uses Model 2 but has the old, incorrect data.
   
   
7. Here's where you have to pay attention. Why would Lott do this?
   
   Answer: this new table claims to be "corrected: April 18, 2003," and it turns out that Lott is trying to pretend that this was the original table he had posted all those months ago. That way, he could claim that he had never changed his model at all. Model 2 is the one he's been using all along!
   
   
8. Unfortunately, when Lott changed the revision date on the document to make it look like it had been created on 4/18/03, he changed it to 1/18/04 instead. What's more, Lott apparently doesn't know that you can check the create date of PDF documents anyway, and this one was created on 9/2/03. That is, it was created in September, not April.

Basically, Lott wants to pretend that Model 2 is the one he's always used. That way, when he corrects the data errors, his results still hold up. Unfortunately for Lott, his attempts to rewrite history were as clumsy as they were dishonest. His original table did use Model 1, his results do go away when the corrected data is plugged in, and he did respond to this by furtively devising a new model that would continue to give him the results he wanted.

If you're not sure you understand what's going on here, reread the timeline. Reread it five or six times. Eventually it will all become clear.

And a note to Glenn Reynolds, who has said he is "not sufficiently knowledgeable to opine on the statistical questions": my timeline deliberately avoids discussing the validity of the competing econometric models, which I'm not competent to judge either. Rather, it simply shows how Lott works, something that anyone is competent to judge. He's a liar and a cheat, and merely being "quite reluctant" to rely on him is far too weak a response.

The evidence is clear. John Lott should be fired from the American Enterprise Institute forthwith and banned from polite society.

Here Lott responds to Lambert on some things lambert was bitching about....

Response to Lambert