Crime scene, Treme, LA (courtesy fox8live.com)

On the afternoon of 31 January, 2016, some ten ATVs were getting gas at the intersection of Claiborne and Esplanade Avenues in New Orleans, Louisiana. Richard Macklin pulled up in a white Volvo. Police said Macklin became upset; the ATV riders were blocking the gas pumps. He pulled out a firearm and opened fire, sending more than a dozen rounds into the crowd. Three were wounded. One of the wounded was armed . . .

He drew his legally carried weapon and fired at Macklin, hitting him in the head and stopping the attack. During the initial investigation, officers concluded that the person who fired back did so in legitimate defense of self and others.From  nola.gov/nopd:

At this time, detectives believe it was an act of self-defense. He was also carrying a legal weapon, that was registered to him and that he had a concealed carry permit to carry.

While the disarmsists will see this incident and bemoan the “easy availability of guns,” it’s another example of a legal gun carrier stopping a mass shooting, which the disarmists claim never happens. Even when it does.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

Recommended For You

187 Responses to Defensive Gun Use of the Day: LA CCW Stops Mass Shooting

  1. I saw the title and thought, “A CCW in Los Angeles! Maybe Californians will learn that guns are valuable tools.” Then I saw the body…less exciting.

      • Yup. And Florida just moved a little closer to having their rights restored. The Florida House just voted in favor of HB 163 to give those of us with CCWs the rigjt to openly carry. Now we may see movement on Florida Senate bill 300 (identical bill) and get our rights back!!

        • Let’s hope that Florida also gets its right to Stand Your Grand back considering how the Florida Supreme Court basically rewrote the law saying that if one stands their ground, they are presumed guilty until proven innocent, that they must prove they had reason to stand their ground and couldn’t flee.

        • Guess you missed the Senate President saying he will not allow a vote on either Bill. Don’t understand how one idiot can stop a vote on bills. That needs to change!

        • I like the fact that he shot him in the head and killed him. No fuss, no muss….One less dirtbag and no trial or money spent for him to be in jail…I love it when a shot hits its mark…. lol

        • IT CAN’T be a RIGHT if a group of Public Servants is the one that says you can.

          Only the People can make it a Right! Take back the Constitution and make the elected servants obey it. The people are ONLY liable under the common law while the public servants are controlled by the statutes/rules. Careful examination of the Statutes will show that they have NO AUTHORITY over ‘private’ ANYTHING!

          Their only handle over the private citizen is that WE act like we are in commerce. You ‘drive’ a commercial motor vehicle you gave/donated to the State with the Application for Certificate of Title.

          You have a “Drivers License” which in TEXAS is defined as dealing ONLY with commercial vehicles.

          They must use the STRAWMAN all capital letters spelling of your name to get you into their commercial courts as they have NO AUTHORITY over a ‘private citizen’ and if you do not know how to respond in that court, YOU LOSE!

      • Conceivably, it could have been someone from another county that’s a lot looser with its CCWs than LA is (a low bar to top, to be sure).

        IF, and that’s the rub, IF, you can manage to get a CA CCW permit, there’s almost nowhere you aren’t allowed to carry in the state.

    • Update: From the advocate.com:

      Police said in the arrest report that statements from victims and witnesses made it “evident” that Macklin was the aggressor and responsible for the shooting.

      Friedman, the magistrate commissioner, found probable cause in relation to the shooting for the three counts of attempted second-degree murder as well as illegal use of a weapon, illegal carrying of a weapon and possession of a firearm by a felon.

      Macklin was convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon in Texas in 2009, according to court records, and also has previous convictions in New Orleans for domestic abuse, battery and violations of a protective order.

      http://theadvocate.com/news/neworleans/neworleansnews/14759629-123/new-orleans-gas-station-shooter-sent-from-hospital-to-jail-claimed-self-defense

      • Gun laws didn’t stop him from illegally obtaining and illegally using a firearm. Cops weren’t at the scene to stop the attack in time. But an armed concealed carrier was able to stop him, preventing more injury and possibly death. +1

  2. Damn ATV’s and motorcycles…Good to see. Yeah this seems even more rare than legal Chiraq shootings. Honestly idiots at gas stations are a pet peeve…

  3. I think the real Q is was macklins gun legal. Clearly that butter should have been walking around free let alone driving a car

  4. The 2nd amendment IS our damn “legal carry permit!!! You idiots continue to give away your GOD given right to self defense. The govt has no involvement in how you protect your life or those of your friends and loved ones. GET THIS THRU YOUR THICK HEADS. YOU DON’T NEED A DAMN PERMIT FROM SOME GOVT PRICK!

    • I won’t disagree with you, but apparently the supreme and other courts have held that while the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right of the individual, concealed carry is not. Don’t shoot the messenger.

      • That’s what they have said, concealed carry requires a permit if the state says so. However in FL they may restore our right to open carry but ONLY IF you ask permission and pay the tax. That is a poll tax. Pure and simple. It turns an enumerated protected right into a privilege. Ask for permission, pay a tax, your now allowed to excercise your privilege. Purely unconstitutional.

    • Dude, you’re preaching to the choir.

      But, you really need to work on your delivery.

      Shouting people down is a pretty weak tactic.

    • The evidence presented here is yet another example the laws NOT allowing previous violent convicted felons from owning a gun, though difficult to enforce, are correct. The best predictor of future behaviors is past ones. This is also another prime example of why those who use a weapon in commission of a violent crime should have additional time added to sentence.

      • Wait. Huh?

        How did the laws against past “bad guys” possessing guns stop Macklin from doing what he did?

        The entire premise of your statement is nullified by this (and many, many other) real world example: the “law” does not do jack squat from stopping current felons or prior felons…or anybody else, for that matter…from getting a gun.

        The law is ineffective at delineating behavior. That simple concept is something you don’t seem to understand.

      • Use of a gun has nothing to do with anything. Those who commit violent crimes should have additional time added to their sentences.

        • maybe people who commit crimes while in possession of a gun should have an automatic verdict of attempted murder tacked onto their sentence. of course, in this warped country the sentence would be overturned because a person who commits an illegal act while having a gun will be considered to have had the gun for self-defense only, which is not a crime.

        • You do realized that speeding, crossing against the light, etc are crimes, right? So, since there is a gun in the car, or legal CC, the person should go to prison for a parking ticket, or a rolling stop? Why not work on punishing actual crimes, and forget about punishing possession of an inert object.

      • Then you are endorsing a life-sentence of prohibition of self-defense based on maybe one bad act? Do you know how minor a crime can be and still qualify as a felony?

      • Are you willing to go into a jurisdiction where possession of handguns is highly regulated, walk into a police station and declare you have a handgun, and the police have no right to relieve you of your handgun and drop you in the drunk tank? Willing to go into court and tell the judge he/she has no right to penalize you for violating the handgun laws of that jurisdiction? Only when you have done such and managed to avoid any sanctions can your position have much usefulness.

        • I don’t even know what that is supposed to mean. Are you willing to go into the ‘hood after midnight, and yell out for all to hear that you are unarmed and there to take their guns and drugs, and screw their women? Because if you are not willing to do that, then you shouldn’t have expressed an opinion on how often homeowners should be required to mow their lawns.

          Try to wander back into the realm of reality.

        • What I am saying sir, is slogans are not legal defense, or even political defense. Even on a gun lover blog, slogans should not be acceptable discourse about serious matters…especially slogans in all caps. People believe that screaming a few words they learned is all the justification they need to violate a law and be free of consequences. Thus the test of faith in what was said is the willingness to challent the court,

    • Try screaming that to the thug filling the jack-boot pressing down on your neck when you get arrested. Or to the judge overseeing your trial. Or the guard at the jail when you’re incarcerated. You don’t have a right to anything that you won’t fight for (and win), and neither does anyone else. All rights come from the threat or implementation of violence.

  5. So much under the surface here. 1 year ago, a woman was struck and killed by an ATV rider just one block from this incident. There has been an ongoing campaign by NOPD to get ATVs off the streets. This group apparently tried to take part in a parade that day but were told to leave. The 3 who weren’t shot fled the scene and led police on a chase of sorts. Do I smell liquid courage? The perp, Macklin, was shot in the back of the head. The 3? Reports do not say where they were shot, but if one or two are to the front than a “disparity of force” scenario begins to form in my mind…

    • So if I’m reading this right (and I can scarcely believe that I am), you’re saying that the convicted felon illegally carrying a gun who threatened his ex-girlfriend with a gun 14 days prior, and has multiple violent convictions on his record, was probably attacked or threatened by several men to the point of needing to legitimately use deadly force in self defense??????

      And how the heck did he survive a shot to the back of the head? Was that a “point nine millimeter”?

      • Well a felon may defend themselves. Even with a gun, there have been a number of felons acquitted under such circumstances. And wouldn’t his violent temperament be more likely to rub drunken parade rejects the wrong way? I said this theory was “forming,” so I’ll take it further;

        “Hey, guys (watching them play grabass) could you hurry it up?”

        “FU, we’re the ATV BOYZ!”

        “…(inmate comes out) WTF did you just say to me?”

        (bikers line up like 50s greasers, snap fingers) ATV, ATV, ATV BOYZ!!!

        Shots begin to fly.

        And he was obviously running away from the group of aggressors, who were mounting their all terrain vehicles which are capable of pursuing him literally anywhere.

        Your scarcity of belief notwithstanding.

        • “And he was obviously running away from the group of aggressors…”

          Why is that obvious? Running? I haven’t read much about this incident. Is there anything reported that says he was running?

          Running away? Ditto.

          Aggressors? Plural? I guess shooting back in self defense could be considered “aggression,” but I don’t think that’s how you meant it.

          If you are assuming that he was running and running away because he was reportedly shot in the back of the head, I don’t think that’s necessarily correct. I can envision many situations where someone who is shooting at a group of people could be justifiably shot in the back by a member of the group who was smart enough to move away from the rest of the group or who just happened to be somewhere else on the property when the shit went down, like returning from the bathroom, or paying the cashier or…

          If your comment was meant as sarcasm, never mind.

        • Glenn,

          I’m working off the idea that lining up and snapping the fingers constitutes an “imminent” threat of bodily harm.

          And the running away theory is only part tongue in cheek; the question was how did that shot not kill him, and a glancing strike off a moving scalp accomplishes that.

          Again, I am attemptinmg to formulate an alternate theory that MIGHT be plausible, not officially declaring my belief in his innocence.

        • “the question was how did that shot not kill him,”

          That fact alone says precisely nothing about the circumstances of the incident.

          There are many examples of head shots from handguns not being lethal – or even not penetrating the skull. MANY.

          For example, Jared Reston, in his first CQB gunfight, ended the fight with not one, not two, but THREE contact headshots. Autopsy showed only ONE of those three shots delivered a fatal injury. That was with a .40 S&W with Duty Ammo, point blank, muzzle touching the head…

          The notion of an instantly and always lethal head shot, especially from hand guns, is yet another Hollywood Gun Myth.

  6. So a dude in a Volvo couldn’t wait his turn to get gas? So he shoots everyone up? I don’t buy it. There is a lot more to this story than what is currently portrayed.

    • Sometimes people can be real d***s at garages. Last weekend I wanted to buy petrol, get some ice creams because my son and I had been stuck in heavy traffic for the last 90 minutes, and get home. Nothing complicated.

      Two people decided to be difficult and be a**holes to everyone else by blocking the lanes to the pumps. One decided to leave their car parked in front of the pumps while they took their time doing their weekly shopping (hint: pay for the fuel AND MOVE YOUR CAR before shopping). The other had forgotten his wallet and sulked in his car in front of the pump while checking facebook. It should be noted getting caught by the police without your driver’s license while driving can result in loss of points and several hundred dollars fine.

      It’s not rocket science, nuclear physics, or brain surgery, but to some even simple things can be. Or that some people just HAVE to be a**holes and can’t help themselves.

      • Been there done that, drive a diesel where normally 1 set of pumps out 10, 2 nozzles out of 20 are for diesel on that same setup are 2 gas nozzles. Most fail to understand why the Audi/VW/1 ton dually is sitting there when all the rest of the pumps are open. They are normally on the ends where it’s easy for a truck pulling a trailer can get to, then turn to leave. Commonsense and normal curtiosity are far from common or normal.

        My guess is that the ATV’s were not legal to be on the street. DC is having a problem with ATV/dirt bikes being used for he11raising/snatch and grabs/blocking interstates while doing donuts, etc… They flee before the LEO’s can get though the backups. There are a number of Youtube videos. Even a $250 reward if you call it in and they are busted. http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/DC-Police-Offer-250-For-Help-Catching-Illegal-Dirtbikers-321648652.html

      • It is in NOLA. How else did they confiscate during Katrina, eh?

        I believe this was in NOLA, if not… I know some people who register because they want to, think it’s right, or that they have to when they don’t.

        I also think that newspapers and or police higher ups report that they are registered to push an agenda or their own ignorance.

      • States that Require Registration of All Firearms
        District of Columbia
        Hawaii

        States that Require Registration of Handguns
        New York

        States that Require New Residents to Report Their Firearms
        California
        Maryland (handguns and assault weapons)

        States that Require Registration of Pre-Ban Assault Weapons or 50 Caliber Rifles
        California (assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles)
        Connecticut (assault weapons and large capacity magazines)
        Hawaii (assault pistols)
        Maryland (assault pistols)
        New Jersey (assault weapons)
        New York (assault weapons)

        States that Prohibit Registries of Firearms
        Delaware
        Florida
        Georgia
        Idaho
        Pennsylvania
        Rhode Island
        South Dakota
        Vermont

        • It seems you’re right that Louisiana does NOT require gun registration. “Registered to him” has unfortunately become shorthand for “he legally owned it”, I’m thinking.

        • The majority of news consumers are in states with serious gun control laws. News is packaged to reach that audience. Thus, “legally registered” does, indeed constitute short hand for “legally owned”, because the major audience cannot conceive of legal possession of a firearm without it being registered.

  7. If it weren’t for the easy availability of guns in the hands of the wrong people:
    1. the bad guy would not have had a gun in the first place
    2. the good guy with a gun would have had no need for one
    3. attempting a head shot in a crowd chaotic after shots were fired is a recklessly dangerous action; should have shot near the body in an attemept to wound

    • 1. Bad guys are the *last* people to give up their guns.

      2. Guns are not the only weapons available to bad people, but guns can be used to defend against many kinds of attacks. They are just more effective than many other kinds of defenses.

      3. The head shot worked very well in this case, with the attack stopped and no one killed. Are you complaining about that? Head shots are usually safer for other people than body shots, because head shots are often directed upward, and are less likely to intersect with another body after the first one.

      • Ok….

        1. If the bad guy (all of them, from the beginning) did not have easy access to guns, the bad guy in this situation would have been very unlikely to have a gun at all. So, we can’t eliminate all the illegal guns (or the people holding them.), but do we need to make a path for them to add to that collection ? (by path, I mean gun availability in the general populace).

        2. Any weapon other than a hand gun used by “the good guy with a gun” would have prevented the “good guy” from using a hand gun to endang others in the middle of a fear accelerated mele’. If there were/are no guns in the possession of the general population, “good guys” would be forced to find another means, or just maybe, decide it is not worth risking death to confront a deadly attack by a “bad guy”.

        3. Head shots are the most difficult to achieve (the ricochet theory is more luck than reality), placing bystanders at the most risk of being hit by a “good guy” miss. Aiming for the body (you know this) and slightly adjusting for a leg or crotch shot puts bystanders at less risk (hollow points, right?) of a miss or over penetration. But, unarguably, no gun available means zero collateral damage by a “good guy with a gun”.

        • 1. Wrong.
          2. Wrong.
          3. Wrong.

          Take a self defense class. Nothing personal, but you know nothing about this subject, and a forum debate will not fix your incorrect assumptions.

        • My friend, simple logic: if guns are not available to anyone, there will be no injuries or deaths from gunfire. Irrefutable. Without guns, self-defense classes would concentrate on close-quarters techniques and weapons (carrying a bow and arrow for SD is kinda silly). The idea that one has a somehow superior right to self-defense does not mean by use of a gun and nothing else.

          Gun confiscation is considered impossible to achieve, yet other nations have done a remarkably good job of it. Come on, we are Americans. We can do this.

        • Have you considered that simpleton statements in defense of the the myth of guns being a good thing is one of the reasons common sense gun control is gaining popularity everyday?

        • George, have you considered that the overabundance of lies about statistics is part of the reason why gun control is rapidly fading in popularity among all but the most fanatic ideologues? Popularity has been declining for quite a few years now, claiming that it is not is really pretty difficult to explain, other than branding it a lie. Many, many states have moved from prohibition to licensing, to constitutional carry, steadily relaxing gun control for several decades. Once again, take a course, find out a bit of truth before claiming to know anything at all about the subject. Much less everything.

        • I do not consider a near 50-50 split of the public to be a victory for unfettered gun possession. There has been movement toward more tolerance of gun-related chaos and carnage among the states. 2016 may be a watershed, irreversible victory of common sense. There is viable hope that a Clinton victory will have long coattails, combined with a demographic shift to ethnic groups more sympathetic to government-provided safety from crime and decay. The demographic shift will be permanent, and antiquated ideas such as self-defense equates solely to gun ownership will be left behind.

        • You might check in with this idea after the resulting civil war ends. You obviously never learned anything from at least 5,000 years of history.

          If being kept a helpless, vulnerable victim at all times, and subject to the thugs that would then rule everything, I’d rather be dead.

          The good part is that you, nor people like you, can choose for me. I’ll always have my gun, so I’ll always get to “vote” on it. Why is my death so much less important than any you make up in your false statistics?

          Go pound sand…

        • What false statistic? What was the latest Gallup poll result regarding gun control? I’d call that near 50-50.

          But to take the gun owner logic to its conclusion, there can be no restrictions on possessing a firearm, not one. If any restriction is allowed, the justification can only be that such is a restriction gun owners like. If there is a restriction gun owners like, why are other common sense restrictions not to be tolerated? The only valid justification for any restriction on gun ownership is “common sense”. Thus we meet at “common sense”, but the definition of “common sense” by either side is subjective, neither being based on objectivity or acceptable “gold standard” of logic.

        • 2A, you have to realize you are speaking gibberish. Why do you seem to enjoy it so? Why not learn a bit about some subject or another?

        • Gibberish? Ideas that don’t calcify your world view are gibberish? Resistance to shop-worn phrases and attacks are gibberish?

          Not to be trusted.

        • @2Asux,

          There is viable hope that a Clinton victory will have long coattails, combined with a demographic shift to ethnic groups more sympathetic to government-provided safety from crime and decay.

          Safety for who? The individual or the collective? Please elaborate how the government can provide safety from crime? The supreme court has already ruled that police don’t have a duty to protect. Police officers themselves state that in the vast majority of cases whatever was going to be done is already done by the time they arrive.

          The demographic shift will be permanent, and antiquated ideas such as self-defense equates solely to gun ownership will be left behind.

          Who said self-defense can only be accomplished with firearms? I don’t endorse the exclusion of other objects, but I do endorse the inclusion of the firearm.

        • The “collective” is comprised of individuals. When government control of individual behavior results in reduction of risk in the “collective”, risk is reduced for individuals. When police are commanded t control the population, protection is a byproduct (with nothing being 100% effective…but neither is having private possession of firearms 100% effective as a deterrent or solution).

          If you have been reading this blog long, it is abundantly clear how many subscribers focus on gun possession as self-defense. The mantra about “natural and God-given civil right to self-defense” is extremely rare in conjunction with non-firearm weapons. And if most were honest (and they just may be), they will tell you they do not think of anything other than firearms when invoking 2A.

        • The “collective” is comprised of individuals. When government control of individual behavior results in reduction of risk in the “collective”, risk is reduced for individuals. When police are commanded t control the population, protection is a byproduct (with nothing being 100% effective…but neither is having private possession of firearms 100% effective as a deterrent or solution).

          The collective is usually handled as a singular entity. People are no longer people with rights, but are numbers on a spreadsheet, statistics. What is best for the collective is not always best for the individual. Suppose guns were banned, you want to paint this facade that people can still have their right to self defense without guns because it “may” reduce the overall “gun” homicides (maybe not overall homicides) for the collective. So young strong burglar breaks into an old lady’s house. Are you seriously… seriously going to say that this old lady can exhibit any means of hand to hand self defense against an attacker twice her size? Is it beneficial to her for the two of them to resort to “Knife, baton, umbrella, broom handle, wrench, chains, pepper spray, stones, feet, staff, walking stick…and so on” as you called it? The gun puts them on near equal footing. I thought you social liberals were all about equal opportunity???

          Another example – taking hundreds of millions of people and blanketing laws on them when they are so culturally diverse is a recipe for conflict. Many of those people will differ in how to accomplish that law. Many will differ in that they disagree with that law. Those people are not a “collective.” They are a full color gradient of differing people disagreeing – individually. Some laws are deserving of respect. I think we can all, regardless of differences, agree that killing each other is not a good plan? Right? Let’s not kill each other, rape each other, take each other’s stuff? Right? Well… how about we ban lawn darts okay? Some people would say – that’s a great idea – for the children. Some people would say – I like lawn darts, I don’t throw them at people, and I don’t have any children. Some people would say – that is ridiculous, lawn darts aren’t any more dangerous than the chemicals in my home, why can’t I have more responsibility over my own home, my possessions, and the safety of my children? Okay – lets ban guns and confiscate them? Yea?? Some would say – that’s a great idea, If the bad guy did not have easy access to guns, the bad guy in this situation would have been very unlikely to have a gun at all and the good guys wouldn’t need them! Others would say – that’s not good for me – I have coyotes and they constantly attack my calves. I need my guns. Others would say – wait a minute, I’m a 3GUN and IDPA champion – this is my sport! This is the only sport I do and I enjoy it! Others would say – I don’t like that. My neighborhood is riddled with large dudes exchanging paper bags for money and I keep my gun in my drawer near my bed. I don’t have any children and that is best for me. Others would say, hold up! I have 73 guns, that’s a large investment! Who is going to reimburse me for them? Also – I don’t even want to part with them! They come from a long line of family members – one even from my great great grandfather. Others still – I have 70000 rounds of ammo for the next civil war against the .gov and I like my guns! So no. There is no consensus there and an amazing potential for conflict. So to me, we are not a collective. We are a large group of amazingly different people with different ideas, different ways of life, different cultural aspects, and most importantly different conditions that blanketing such a law affects. Trying to take things away from such a large group invariably will cause a great deal of conflict. We are not all the same – trying to make us the same or will only create conflict and is morally wrong in my opinion. As you can see – taking people’s guns is not the common good. Reducing violence and addressing why people are resorting to killing people (with guns or otherwise) is. Also – what is the deal here? I thought you social liberals liked diversity?? What happened?

          If you have been reading this blog long, it is abundantly clear how many subscribers focus on gun possession as self-defense. The mantra about “natural and God-given civil right to self-defense” is extremely rare in conjunction with non-firearm weapons. And if most were honest (and they just may be), they will tell you they do not think of anything other than firearms when invoking 2A.

          When I think of the 2A, “Knife, baton, umbrella, broom handle, wrench, chains, pepper spray, stones, feet, staff, walking stick…and so on” as you have worded it – doesn’t normally come to mind. But I see no reason why those shouldn’t be included in the 2A and I see no reason that firearms should be excluded from the 2A.

        • We agree there will always be crime, violent crime. At this minute, and foreseeable future, not every person has a gun to use as an “equalizer”. People are still being assaulted by bad guys who have overwhelming force in their favor. The likelihood that every person will have a gun everywhere they need it is so remote as to not be a serious topic for conversation.

          Evidence is that with 400 million guns in the public, the type of criminal actions you cite are happening anyway. If liberty means free choice, people are free to choose to not have a gun. So, guns are not actually the great equalizer.

          My entire thesis is that if guns are removed (as near completely as humanly possible), the deaths resulting from gun use will decline, and however many people would remain alive afterward is worth the effort to achieve (no, one or two would not be a success justifying gun removal).

          If the “collective” is rendered safer by severe gun control, then individual safety rises also, even if it is an unintended consequence of collectivism.

          The fault line for gun advocates is the raw selfishness that dismisses innocent life taken as the result of irresponsible gun handling. To attempt to avoid making changes in gun laws, gun advocates demand the elimination of all other type threats/risks, first. This is a “straw man” argument of the first order.

          Track back to the beginning, this string was about a “good guy” with a gun being necessary because there was a “bad guy with a gun”. The line of reasoning was that without guns, the incident would not have unfolded as it did, and there would be no need of a “good guy with a gun”. Reduced to absurdity, zero guns means zero gun related death/injury. The idea is to track backwards from the “dream” to actions that can get us as close as possible in order to save lives callously lost today.

      • Dean, buddy, you should know better than to feed a Troll. Besides, the head shot was probably landed by pure luck, not aimed.

        • You just made my point. If the bullet did not strike the small target, it was going somewhere, likely to harm a bystander. If the “good guy” shooter was aiming at something other than the head, goes to my point that shooting into a crowd is reckless. If the shot was aimed, attempting to hit such a small moving target was, itself, reckless; margin for error is enormous.

          And sometimes you have to read with comprehension.

        • @2Asux,

          …shooting into a crowd is reckless.

          The article did not state he fired into a crowd.

        • The record reflected a crowd at the scene (10 motos). The record reflected shots fired into “the crowd”. The crowd did not completely evaporate into a gaseous state when shots were fired. Concluding, there were probably many people running in all directions when both shooters discharged. If the crowd ran away from the immediate scene and congregated a short distance away, the “good guy with a gun” may have had several innocents covered down by his muzzle when he was shooting. My point was attempting head shots in a mele is reckless. Being so out of control that a center mass aimed shot resulted in a “lucky” hit to the head of the “bad guy with a gun” indicates poor gun control, and is also reckless.

          Spoiler Alert: do you really think an actual “troll” would spend this much time exchanging ideas? Not to mention that a “troll” would have been limited to sophomoric sentences, name-calling, integrity impugning, foul language, or all the above. Dean responded with reasoned words, and I tried to reply the same way.

        • The record reflected a crowd at the scene (10 motos). The record reflected shots fired into “the crowd”. The crowd did not completely evaporate into a gaseous state when shots were fired. Concluding, there were probably many people running in all directions when both shooters discharged. If the crowd ran away from the immediate scene and congregated a short distance away, the “good guy with a gun” may have had several innocents covered down by his muzzle when he was shooting. My point was attempting head shots in a mele is reckless. Being so out of control that a center mass aimed shot resulted in a “lucky” hit to the head of the “bad guy with a gun” indicates poor gun control, and is also reckless.

          Understood. I thought you were saying the DGU was fired into a crowd, but it was the shooter who fired into the crowd. Understandable that people could have been running everywhere, however the DGU shooter knew the situation much better than our speculations about it and I don’t think anyone here promotes shooting a shooter who is standing in a crowd. That said, if a shooter is among a crowd targeting everyone, which is better?: To risk hitting bystanders in the crowd to disable the shooter or to run away and do nothing allowing the shooter to continue the onslaught? I’ll give you a hint. In one instance the shooting stops in the other the shootings continue.

          And we can play the “there should be no guns here” card, but that isn’t going to happen. Why? Because there are perfectly legal and valid uses for guns. We don’t ban blenders because they are dangerous – because we use them to blend our food, and likewise, we don’t ban guns because they have useful, legal, valid purposes:

          3GUN, IDPA, IPSC, USPSA, CAS, PPC, SCSA, ICORE, Action shooting, silhouette shooting, precision shooting, benchrest shooting, trap, skeet, clays, hunting, NRA high power, defense of livestock, defense of self, defense of country, defense of tyranny.

          And again – we can discuss the “defense of tyranny” which is a darkish gray area when it comes to lawfulness, whatever it’s purposes. But regardless, there are many uses and the prohibition of gun ownership would cause a great deal of conflict. And even if there is no perceived valid purposes, it is not indicative of a free country to “ban” objects rather than actions that harm.

        • I appreciate your reasoned reply. And to give everything away, the culture is becoming more anti-gun with each generation, and with each wave of immigrants from nations where guns are prohibited (and seen as a benefit). The dangers of untrained and irresponsible gun owners need to be addressed by the pro-gun citizens, but it is not happening. Most attention is given (by either side) to trying to prove immutable truths via the courts, and, as here, loud shouting of religious (I love guns, don’t bother me crowd) slogans. The image projected is of a dangerous mob of gun owners who care nothing about reducing unintentional gun deaths, care nothing about pressuring legislatures and courts to dramatically punish people who commit crimes with assistance of a gun (I see no rallying cry to create a combined front to take political action on this matter, only that “someone” should make things better), care nothing about bringing gun ownership to normalcy (one third of the populace owning guns does not make it “normal”), care only about shoving “rights” in the face of honest people who are concerned about their right not to be a victim of irresponsible gun handling. The environment, as presented here, is one of intolerance, arrogance and bullying people who value their right to life over anyone else’s right to own a firearm. There is danger is self-congratulations and self-aggrandizement.

    • Based on your username, it’s a safe assumption that you are mostly a troll, rather than a complete moron.

      1. “the bad guy would not have had a gun in the first place”: This incident proves otherwise. Macklin was already a prohibited individual. It is illegal for him to obtain, purchase, possess, or even touch a gun. There does not exist a place in the US he can legally buy one. Yet he had it anyway.
      2. “the good guy with a gun would have had no need for one”: This incident proves otherwise. Good guys will always need guns, because laws can’t prevent bad guys from obtaining them. Why do you think the police carry them?
      3. “attempting a head shot in a crowd chaotic after shots were fired is a recklessly dangerous action; should have shot near the body in an attemept to wound” Everything about this statement is wrong, including grammar and spelling. It is legally impossible to “shoot to wound”, because employment of a firearm against a person is a lethal act under the law. It is use of deadly force. There is no such thing as shooting to wound, and if you knew anything about firearms, the law, or reality, you wouldn’t write such silly things.

      • My premise is that if guns were/are not available, the incident would not have happened the way it did; bad guy wouldn’t have a gun, and good guy wouldn’t need a gun. Meaning, availability of guns is a driving factor in shootouts. We can’t actually scarf-up all the existing firearms, but how does that problem argue for further escalation of guns in society?

        In the incident, both “sides” had guns, so people were shot because both sides were shooting into a crowd that was in a panic and running every which way. Head shot: shooting at a small moving target is less likely to be successful than shooting at a larger target. Except for police, collateral damage is to be minimized, so head shots should be discouraged and condemned.

        Putting more guns into a dangerous brew of human frailty cannot be the answer to crime reduction. Statistics will prove that the number of competent gun shooters in the population of gun owners is very low. Putting more guns in the hands of incompetents does not bode well for society.

        Employing deadly force against imminent use of deadly force does not mean I must kill the other guy. I can use deadly force to stop/prevent/disrupt a deadly attack on me or someone I observe. If the use of deadly force against an imminent deadly force attack requires a killing, then “shoot to stop the threat” becomes exposed for the crass, self-serving rubric that it is.

        It is one thing to read alphabetic characters on a page or screen. It is entirely another to understand written content.

        • Justification for confiscation, like other civilized countries. No guns, no gun related crimes/accidents. More guns, more gun related crimes/accidents. You only need a gun to fight someone else with a gun. If there are no guns, other lethal threats are more difficult to mount. And those threats generally cannot wreak destruction at long distances.

        • 2A, thanks for the positive tone rather than the vitriolic bile that’s normally spewed against the right to bear arms. The problem with your premise is that nearly everyone can effectively defend themselves using a firearm. Becoming proficient in martial arts for the same purpose is very time consuming and difficult if your opponent is larger, younger, and less mentally stable. As for banning easy access to firearms to block the “iron river” I’d ask you to look at what comes from the Khyber pass or the Danao region of the Phillipines. Guns are not difficult to make, although quality can be lacking in cheaper weapons. Finding raw data from law enforcement organizations or papers from peer reviewed criminologists may help you as well.

        • Agree, it is impossible to bring gun possession by citizens to zero. The point is that crime/accidents related to gun ownership will be drastically reduced (effectively near-zero). The “natural” right to self-defense does not start and end with a gun. Martial arts is also not the only alternative (though useful). There is a wide range of alternative weapons that do not have the long range ability to destroy accidental life. Knife, baton, umbrella, broom handle, wrench, chains, pepper spray, stones, feet, staff, walking stick…and so on. Self-defense is not Latin for, “the only useful tool for self-defense is a gun”. 2A advocates seem to be myopic about self-defense.

        • There are now about 400 million guns in the United States.

          Guns are essentially 15th century technology. Guns are made by individuals and by street gangs and small black market shops all over the world. They sell for about $10 – $15 in India, on the black market, at present. The favorite of Brazilian street gangs is the home brewed sub-machine gun. It is one of the easiest guns to make.

          Advancing technology has made the individual manufacture of guns even easier with 3D printing and CNC milling machines making the production of critical parts for sophisticated firearms cheap and easy.

          So, your thought of a gun free world is an irrational illusion. All you succeed in doing is disarming those who follow the law, not to mention that Governments have been the biggest murderers of the 20th century, and those shall never be disarmed.

          If you read the scholarly literature, you will find that citizen disarmament does not reduce murder or crime rates, in spite of your hypothetical theory. I suggest Joyce Lee Malcolm on England and Wales as a good start.

          There are a couple of cases where crime was decreasing, and continued on the same path before and after the disarmament drive. That is the closest you can get.

          It is good that you are willing to engage. Be warned, as you learn more, you will become more and more skeptical of citizen disarmament. Many have become avid Second Amendment supporters. I have yet to find a Second Amendment supporter who turned the other way.

          The facts, the Constitution, and physical reality are on our side.

        • Being “armed” is not a one-trick pony. A weapon of any sort constitutes being armed. .

          Confiscating 400million guns is monumental, and there will always be leaks. But you must admit that absence of guns (to near-zero) will result is less gun-related crime and accidents. And never forget that government can control whatever “thing” it wants. Thus, gun making equipment (including 3-D printers) can be required to be registered and controlled.

          The idea that a plan of action must be 100% foolproof or it is worthless flies in the face of reality. Many imperfect ideas and items have proven useful and effective throughout history.

          As for the constitution, it is a man-made document with its own internal mechanism for removing whichever right 3/5s of the states declares null and void. Even the constitution itself does not declare that certain human rights cannot be abrogated through the amendment process.

        • Did you not notice that more than a dozen shots were fired by the “bad guy”, and the “good guy” was wounded in the process, according to this blurb? If you knew jack about what you’re discussing, the idea that the wounded defender then carefully planned to shoot the madman in the head, or that he should have instead carefully aimed at an arm or leg, while wounded, and while the nut was still shooting people, would not even enter your mind. Learn a bit about what you are jumping into, before making arguments which could fairly be called “stupid”, simply because you are inexperienced.

        • If the “good guy with a gun” was so impaired by his injury that he could not shoot straight, then he was being reckless in shooting at all (presuming he was not in bodily contact with the bad guy). If his head shot was not controlled and aimed, the bullet could have injured a bystander at the scene or other location within range of the bullet. Gun lovers are constantly pointing to “the four rules”, one of which is know your target and what is behind it. If the “good guy with a gun” was depending on “luck” to guide his bullet, that is/was reckless. In short, if you cannot guarantee that your bullets will hit the intended target, you should not be shooting. If the bad guy and good guy neither could have a gun, no one would have been injured by gunfire. Simple as that. While we cannot create a perfectly zero gun world, that is no excuse for not trying. Shoot for the stars and be happy to land on the moon. I am not one who endorses shooting for the street and ending up in the front yard.

        • 1). Good luck “uninventing” guns. I can make a full auto gun in my garage on my mill/lathe. It is actually much easier to make than even a semi auto or bolt action.

          2) Your solution is to ban all guns. F you. You don’t get to decide what I can and can’t have and believe it or not, if wanted, the law can’t stop me either.

          Understand now? Criminal acts are not completely decided by law but by environmental conditions and persuasion.

        • Already agreed 100% confiscation is impossible. But that doesn’t mean trying to get there is thus unjustified. Many things, ideas, laws or whatever are not 100% successful, but they are close enough we accept them readily. If 100% success is required, then ALL laws are useless, and nothing should be done to make them useful.

          Your declaration that you are willing to violate a law banning gun ownership is just the sort of thing that supports confiscation. Gun owners are dangerous, and criminals waiting to be caught.

        • George, now you are just making shit up. You have absolutely no idea what was behind the nut when he was shot, it could have been 5 miles of swamp for all you (or I) know, yet you seize upon the idea that a man was stressed and in mortal danger as well as fearing for the lives of others as a reason why he should just lie down and die rather than defending himself. If you read the article, you will find a lot of reasons to understand you are simply WRONG! He did NOT hit a bystander, he DID stop multiple attempted murders, and if you had your way, only the determined killer would have been armed, since he is not going to obey any law you advocate, he was already breaking a half-dozen. You are attempting to convince me that you think that proves your position CORRECT? It is not possible to be that dumb, you are just arguing for the sake of being silly.

        • If it proves-out that the head shot was indeed a “lucky” hit, then, yes, it was reckless. Since I do not know the terrain at the shooting site, you do not either. Thus it is impertinent for you to assume that beyond the target, there were acres of open land where a stray bullet would cause no human damage. My point is that if you cannot control your shooting, you shouldn’t be shooting. If, if a bystander had been hit, would you condemn the shooting or just pronounce the innocent victim of no consequence because the “good guy with a gun” was trying to do the right thing. If you have a gun, and are dying from wounds, and cannot control your aim and shooting, yes, you should just lay down and die. Killing or injuring an innocent person is not justified because you had to do something other than just lay down and die.

        • “Justification for confiscation, like other civilized countries. No guns, no gun related crimes/accidents.”

          2A, are you planning to be the first one through my door, to “confiscate” my guns? Like other civilized countries? Are you going to do that? Because I don’t think so. I think you plan to hire *ME* to confiscate my guns, and I will not do it. I will accept your money and tell you all your stupid desires are being accomplished, but I will not do it. Neither will anybody else who is willing to actually use a gun. If those not actually willing to use a gun try to take mine, they will die. So, are *YOU* willing to stand up and die for what you believe in? I seriously doubt it, I think you’re a CS loudmouth with an overly simplistic view of a complicated question. All the “If there were no guns” crap in the world does not make that the case anywhere at all. In countries with no food, people starving by the thousands every day, there are guns everywhere. In most places, it is the criminals who have the great majority, including the criminals who wear badges. That puts them in a hopeless situation, which you will never put me in.

        • Your presence is unnecessary for gun confiscation. Here is how it can happen:
          you lose your job, you lose access to bank accounts and credit cards, you are arrested for driving without a license you can no longer renew, police or NG go to your house and ransack it for weapons and ammunition. All because some FFL has a record of your purchases.

          Bravado will get you no where.

        • Already agreed 100% confiscation is impossible. But that doesn’t mean trying to get there is thus unjustified. Many things, ideas, laws or whatever are not 100% successful, but they are close enough we accept them readily. If 100% success is required, then ALL laws are useless, and nothing should be done to make them useful.

          –> 500 accidental deaths each year does not justify it.
          –> 8484 (2013) intentional homicides per year does not justify it.
          –> Whatever number of suicides who would just off themselves by a more effective and less messy method do not justify it.

          You have arbitrarily chosen a tool/object that happens to be the current choice for criminals to kill people and deemed it too unsafe for the rest of us who are completely safe with it. 400 million guns in the US and less than 8484 were used to kill people. My guns aren’t on that list. For the sake of freedom and justice, you should pursue the criminals responsible (who could have used another method) rather than penalizing gun owners with zero intent to harm with your draconian totalitarian rules. You don’t punish Fred for what Bob did. Justice101.

          Your declaration that you are willing to violate a law banning gun ownership is just the sort of thing that supports confiscation. Gun owners are dangerous, and criminals waiting to be caught.

          I was making a point which you didn’t get. The point is – laws banning objects don’t stop crime, they create criminals. Just because it is the law doesn’t mean criminals would obey it.

          Your opinion regarding gun owners is noted – here is mine: Gun-grabbers are dangerous, they have zero respect for individual freedom and could care less that your grandmother was beaten, raped, and killed as long as the statistical collective “gun” crimes are down and that the safety of the collective is preserved over the rights and freedoms of the individual.

        • We agree, laws “banning” behavior are not 100% effective. That is why confiscation is attractive; it is much more effective in that even the criminal element can be included. 100% effective, never. But the reduction in crimes facilitated by possession of a gun will go down dramatically. And before you get there, with a gun one can command a victim from a distance (say, across a counter) with a knife or pipe or rock, that distance must be closed to near contact, making armed crime more difficult to achieve. Some have noted that if guns were removed, crime rates would remain the same, with other weapons substituted for guns. This is an assertion with no experiential evidence to support it. But beyond potential for reduction in crime, unnecessary loss of life through poor gun handling will result in several hundred lives being saved.

        • “Your presence is unnecessary for gun confiscation. Here is how it can happen:”

          And then you describe a nation that you want to live in? Why not just move to North Korea right now, they are already the utopia you seek! It seems every time you post you are describing a bigger and bigger, more and more tyrannical state crushing all individuality and all initiative, consuming more and more of the national resources to accomplish … nothing.

          Other than that, your rendition is childish, you’re describing how to collect guns of one person, assuming it’s just the same thing when it’s 100 million homes you’ll be invading. The first day a procedure like you describe happens will also be the last, on the next day your beloved confiscation teams will come under fire when they leave their driveways on the way to work. Once they have all quit or died, the hunt will be on for the people responsible for sending them. It will be over in a week or two. Messy, and completely unnecessary, and without any rational purpose, wouldn’t you be proud?

        • The world you seek is not at hand, and, given the cultural progression is not in your future. All I pointed out is that it is dangerously false bravado to think gun confiscation cannot happen because will be armed and defiant in resisting it. My explanation was not indicative of desire, but an example of how limited thinking does little to promote a cause. It was a forecast of what can happen, and how little power the individual has. It is also completely off the point. More guns in the hands of the untrained and irresponsible is not the solution to personal safety. Refusing to admit that people who fear guns have a valid position leads not to persuasion, but to ossified thinking that will eventually result in extreme measures.

          Oh, and did I mention that the Bundy clan had two armed encounters with government authorities, yet there were not thousands rushing to assist? Such is the status of the revolutionary army. We are so far beyond the trigger points for the original revolution that it is sophomoric to continue to chest-thump and talk about armed resistance becoming wide-spread and effective. The culture is turning against you, and there is little being done to slow, much less end, the change.

        • We agree, laws “banning” behavior are not 100% effective. That is why confiscation is attractive; it is much more effective in that even the criminal element can be included. 100% effective, never. But the reduction in crimes facilitated by possession of a gun will go down dramatically.

          It isn’t attractive to me. It’s a conflict starter. Also – it’s no different than gun control. Gun control, thus far, for the vast majority, only affects the law abiding. Criminals don’t register their guns. Criminals don’t undergo a background check. Confiscation is no different in that criminals aren’t going to turn in their guns. But those abiding by the law will – and those with no intent to harm others who don’t turn them in – become criminals.

          And before you get there, with a gun one can command a victim from a distance (say, across a counter) with a knife or pipe or rock, that distance must be closed to near contact, making armed crime more difficult to achieve.

          Perhaps for small people. But large, strong people are now at an advantage (supposing disarmament would actually work). More than likely, the criminal would still be armed and the shop keeper would no longer be.

          Also the disabled, elderly, sick, etc are all at a great disadvantage. Unintended consequences? And that is assuming it actually works – which I don’t think it would, and I don’t think the american people (certainly at this point) would allow it.

          Some have noted that if guns were removed, crime rates would remain the same, with other weapons substituted for guns. This is an assertion with no experiential evidence to support it.

          I agree. But there is no experimental evidence to disprove it either. Also, the US is not Europe or Australia. It is possible the crime rate could increase (or decrease) – it is all speculation.

          But beyond potential for reduction in crime, unnecessary loss of life through poor gun handling will result in several hundred lives being saved.

          Again, as stated below, gun owners accept the risk of owning guns, like swimming pool owners accept the risk of owning pools, and people with stairs in their home accept the risk of having stairs. These people understand the risks and I’m sure don’t need anyone supervising/nannying their lives on how to increase additional safety they don’t want.

        • “Again, as stated below, gun owners accept the risk of owning guns, like swimming pool owners accept the risk of owning pools, and people with stairs in their home accept the risk of having stairs. These people understand the risks and I’m sure don’t need anyone supervising/nannying their lives on how to increase additional safety they don’t want.”

          There is not demographic who can force me to own a pool, have stairs in my home, or impose from a distance a deadly item on me. Yes, there are risks we all accept…by choice and judgment. Gun owners impose on me a risk I did not ask for, I do not want, and rob me of my right to life. Think about what you said…”…gun owners accept the risk of owning guns…”, the risk of unintentional death of another is not a risk for the gun owner, it is an unwelcome and undeserved risk to the victim. The negligent gun owner may go to jail or be financially ruined, the dead innocent victim is just, well, dead. You put in writing the truth about gun owners, everything is all about them and the rest of the populace be damned.

        • @2Asux,

          Gun owners impose on me a risk I did not ask for, I do not want, and rob me of my right to life. …the risk of unintentional death of another is not a risk for the gun owner, it is an unwelcome and undeserved risk to the victim.

          Seriously? You are afraid you will be an unintentional accidental victim of gunfire? Ok – I thought we were arguing something more meaningful.

          2013: United States:
          Death from Disease: 320,065
          Accidental poisoning: 38,851
          Motor vehicle accidents: 35,369
          Accidental falls: 30,208
          Accidental drowning: 3,391
          Accidental exposure to smoke, fire, and flame: 2,760
          Death from pregnancy complication: 1,111

          And the absolute smallest one amongst the entire list:
          Death from accidental discharge of firearms: 505

          http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf

          The following impose a risk on you also:
          Sharing the road with other drivers.
          Taking medicine manufactured by people who are human who make mistakes.
          Being operated on my doctors who are human and make mistakes.
          Obtaining medicine from pharmacysts who are human and make mistakes.
          Get prescriptions from doctors who are human and make mistakes.
          Walking in the forest with wild animals and feral carnivores.
          Walking on a sidewalk you may share with criminals or mentally ill.
          and on and on.

          You take the least important element and make a big deal about it. I’m sorry other people’s freedom of making choices (whatever they are) impose a small risk to you.

          Probably half of those unintended firearm deaths come from police officers – who i’m sure you aren’t seeking to disarm.

        • False premise: all other forms of risk must be eliminated before we address the risk at hand.
          This is the same as sticking fingers in one’s ear and singing, “lalalalala, I can’t hear you.”

        • False premise: all other forms of risk must be eliminated before we address the risk at hand.
          This is the same as sticking fingers in one’s ear and singing, “lalalalala, I can’t hear you.”

          Negative. I have:
          * Emphasized the irrationality of your method of organizing your priorities by risk.
          * Emphasized that talking about so few deaths per year on anything (be it swimming pools, stairs, or ladders, etc) is a waste of time.

      • Actually, 2A is correct. For use of deadly force to be legitimate, an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm must be present. The level of the threat means any force UP TO AND INCLUDING deadly force in return is allowed. This does not mean that the aggressor must die. If one can use a deadly weapon to stop a deadly force attack WITHOUT actually killing the aggressor, all well and good. Shoot-to-wound is very difficult and problematic…but not a violation of self-defense law (notwithstanding some jurisdictions will put you through hell anyway).

        • The major distinction being that if you say, “I was shooting to wound” the implication is that you were not legitimately in fear of your life.

        • You don’t need to be in fear for your life. You just need to have a “reasonable” conclusion that your life (or another) is in imminent danger. There is no legal requirement to kill the attacker. “Shooting to stop the threat” means exactly that. Your choice of impact location is up to you. Think about it, in court you declare that you were shooting at center mass in order to stop the attacker, but you missed and shot through the femur bone causing the attacker to fall and stop attacking. Are you expecting a jury to be OK with that? Juries are filled with “reasonable” people who would not engage in armed self-defense. Are they going to conclude you were guilty of attempting to kill? Who knows. At trial, you declare that your intent was to stop a deadly attack, and you did so by intentionally shooting to break the femur bone because you only wanted to stop the threat, not kill. Think a jury will find your action “unreasonable” ? (remember, the jury members are “reasonable people”, and “reasonable people” do not want to kill someone. The law only requires you reasonably believe the threat is imminent and deadly, it does not require you kill the attacker. The range of self-defense permitted is “….up to and including…” deadly force. That means if you can end the attack short of killing, that is permissible.

        • Sam I Am (and 2Asux):

          I don’t think the misunderstanding was whether you are legally required to use deadly force (and nothing less than deadly force). In other words, its not just a legal issue (can you use deadly force or not), but a tactical one about how to engage a threat, in this case, where to shoot him, once you’ve made the decision to use deadly force.

          The “shoot to wound,” “shoot to kill” and “shoot to stop the threat” constructs are both legal and somewhat tactical. In other words, each one implies something about (1) the shooter’s mindset or intent, which is a legal issue (mens rea, which is what the DA would have to prove if the DA decided it wasn’t a justified shooting and brought charges against the shooter) and (2) anatomically, where do you want the bullet to go, which is tactical.

          Sometimes a gun is successfully used in self defense without firing a shot, such as when the mere presence of the gun was enough to deter the attacker from further violence. Sometimes a non-lethal gunshot is enough to deter an attacker even though he is still physically capable of continuing the attack, because he decided he’s had enough. Sometimes a lethal gunshot is not enough to deter an attacker, because even though eventually fatal, it does not immediately physically incapacitate the attacker. Sometimes a single shot in the right place will immediately incapacitate the attacker. Thus, only in the last situation is the result guaranteed: immediately stopping the bad guy from doing more harm. That’s the result you’re looking for. However, you may or may not get that result if you “shoot to wound” or even “shoot to kill.”

          Now, it just so happens that anatomically speaking, the places that immediately incapacitate the attacker also happen to be the places that, if hit, result in death (I’m excluding damaging the pelvic girdle ’cause I’m not sure taking the legs out from the attacker is the same as “incapacitating” or ending the threat). But there are also places that if hit will result in death but not immediately incapacitate the attacker.

          So, shooting the stop the threat is different from shooting to kill. If a shooter wanted to just kill someone, he could achieve this w/o immediate incapacitation by just letting him bleed out. No sane person shooting in self defense wants that because (1) humans are hard-wired not to want to kill other humans and (2) the attacker would still be capable of harm in the meantime. That is why you don’t shoot to kill or shoot to wound.

          In reality, hitting the places that immediately incapacitate is really hard, which is why the majority of people shot by handguns survive.

          And, BTW, use of lethal force doesn’t require the risk of serious bodily harm or death, at least in Texas. There are situations where it can be used in defense of property.

          Sorry for the long comment that restates most of what has already been said (better) elsewhere,

        • Think you pretty much underscored “our” position. No one is required to shoot in such a way as to likely render the attacker dead. Advocating for targeting areas that generally result in a psychological stop is a valid tactic. Aiming for a larger area is less likely to result in a miss (but can). If I aim at an arm or leg, I have a whole body targeted. If I aim only for the head, the target is so much smaller and moving in such a manner that a miss is a larger probability. And that discussion was begun before reports that the good guy was wounded and maybe was not in full control of his gun (meaning it was a lucky hit). My particular input was directed at those who implied that use of deadly force can only be justified if you kill the attacker.

      • To 2Asux
        You wrote:
        “Confiscating 400million guns is monumental, and there will always be leaks. But you must admit that absence of guns (to near-zero) will result is less gun-related crime and accidents.”

        Several problems with your argument.

        First, we have increased the number of guns in the U.S. by nearly double in the last 20 years, and the crime and murder rate, including murder with guns, has dropped by half. Yes, that is right, you can check the numbers. Comparing rates to rates, the number of guns per 100,000 has increased about 70%, while the number of murders per 100,000 have dropped in half from 1993 to present.

        Second, it does no good to decrease murder rates with guns, if murder rates by other means then increase. if the overall murder rate stays the same or increases, there is no gain. Looking only at “gun murders” is an exercise in propaganda, not reasonable discourse.

        Third, actual experience is that actual murder rates often increase with stricter gun laws.

        Fourth, the government cannot “control” whatever it wants. Historically, is simply has not been able to do so. In those totalitarian states that come close to doing what you say, such as Stalinist Soviet Union, North Korea, or Mao’s China, the “fix” has been much worse than the “problem”.

        In the United States, you need to repeal the First, Fifth, and Fourth Amendments as well as the Second.

        Consider what you are wishing for. Do you really think installing a totalitarian state, with all the great evils that accompany it, is worth reducing the non-state murder rate by some non-measurable amount?

        As for accidents with firearms, fatal firearms accidents are at historic lows, about 500 per year. That equates to a reduction in the fatal firearm accident rate by 94% over the last 80 years, while at the same time the number of firearms per capita has more than doubled. That 94% reduction is not a typo. It is fact.

        • Firearm related crime and accidents under a totalitarian system is about as near zero as one can expect. I don’t like writing-off 500 (your number) lives as “just the price we pay for living in a free society”. And you can only say that because you are not one of the 500, yet. I would think an enlightened society would value conditions that would reduce accidental gun-related deaths from 500 to maybe 100(?) would be worth the effort. I am sure the 400 then remaining alive would think so.

          If the second amendment is repealed, or modified to include only formally deputized militias, there is no requirement to repeal any others. The repeal/modification would be done by “due process”, no one would be required to self-incriminate (gathering all the transaction forms from FFLs would identify who should be considered for confiscation), and anyone can exercise their first amendment right to disagree and try to convince the public to reverse the repeal/modification of the second amendment.

        • To 2Asux:
          You might consider some serious introspection as to why people dying from gunfire, specifically, lights such a fire under you. Why are you so obsessive about this particular method of death?

          After all, everyone dies. No one lives forever.

          A number of us have tried to show you that banning firearms comes at a price. We have explained that the price is greater than the benefit.

          Let me try another way. Millions of people die in hospitals every year. We have a simple solution, and by your logic, it will work. It is infallible.

          We can stop all those hospital deaths by banning hospitals. Hospitals tend to be big and easily found. With the proper system of informants and secret police, we can effectively ban 99% of all hospitals. Then there will be no more hospital deaths. None!

          Like most such “solutions” it is easy, logical, and wrong, because it looks at society and humanity though far too narrow a lens.

          True, there would be no more “hospital deaths”, but the resulting surge of deaths, injury, pain, and suffering make the original “problem” of hospital deaths minuscule in their insignificance.

          Another thought, just because you have a mind. If the time, energy, money, and effort that is used to attempt to disarm us was directed at far simpler solutions to far worse problems, many more lives would be saved. So why the enormous effort to disarm us?

          We believe that the reason is that some people who want to disarm us are not seriously concerned with saving lives. They want control over us. Our freedom either frightens them or they are annoyed that we represent an ability to resist some schemes that we will probably dislike.

          In that mode, I shall not be spending more time on you, as I can accomplish much more with my efforts by following my chosen path as writer, reaching many times the number here.

          Have a good day.

        • Collateral damage. Unintentional death and injury. Reckless behavior with a gun.

          Are these not serious issues related to civilian gunfire?

          In the original response was that zero guns means zero collateral damage from gunfire, zero unintentional death by gunfire. The follow-on is the near zero guns in the hands of private citizens means near zero collateral damage from gunfire, near zero unintentional death from gunfire. The argument cannot be rationally disputed. The question is how to achieve such a goal. Because the goal cannot be perfectly achieved is no excuse for not doing everything possible to attempt to get there.

          If it were possible, I would ask that you survey every unintentional death and injury resulting from gunfire. Ask the victim if they would rather be dead/injured as a result of the freedom of others, or be alive and uninjured even though a single means of self-defense were prohibited.

          Gun owners are fixated on gunfire as the only reliable, useful, existing means of self-defense. Many nations outright ban any attempt at self-defense, by any means. The US is not one of them….and not what I am putting forward.

          The problem with guns as a means of protection is the ability to inflict unintentional carnage at great range. Something not characteristic of all other easily transported weapons.

          One specific item in the discussion concerned the head shot. Some indicated it was a good idea to shoot for the head, some indicated the head shot was “luck”. My take is that head shots are inherently dangerous because the head is a very small moving target, and if the return shooter was relying on “luck”, that is most reckless.

          Most of the people on this blog (TTAG is not an exception) take the stance that collateral damage is just “tough s…t”; it is more important to have a gun than to be concerned with unnecessary loss of life. I submit it is this stance which animates the “gun control crowd”. Bald faced indifference to innocent life taken by bad handling of firearms by people not really qualified (or do you propose that the vast majority of 100million gun owners are professionally trained and kept proficient?).

          If you subscribe to this blog to avoid having assumptions questions, ideas challenged, slogans dissected, then you are proving the accusations from the “gun control crowd” that gun owners are irresponsible, ignorant, belligerent bullies. Is that an acceptable characterization? If not, what are the people on this blog doing to change the image?

        • To 2Asux:
          You might consider some serious introspection as to why people dying from gunfire, specifically, lights such a fire under you. Why are you so obsessive about this particular method of death.

          After all, everyone dies. No one lives forever.

          A number of us have tried to show you that banning firearms comes at a price. We have explained that the price is greater than the benefit.

          Let me try another way. Millions of people die in hospitals every year. We have a simple solution, and by your logic, it will work. It is infallible.

          We can stop all those hospital deaths by banning hospitals. Hospitals tend to be big and easily found. With the proper system of informants and secret police, we can effectively ban 99% of all hospitals. Then there will be no more hospital deaths. None!

          Like most such “solutions” it is easy, logical, and wrong, because it looks at society and humanity though far too narrow a lens.

          True, there would be no more “hospital deaths”, but the resulting surge of deaths, injury, pain, and suffering make the original “problem” of hospital deaths minuscule in their insignificance.

          Another thought, just because you have a mind. If the time, energy, money, and effort that is used to attempt to disarm us was directed at far simpler solutions to far worse problems, many more lives would be saved. So why the enormous effort to disarm us?

          We believe that the reason is that some people who want to disarm us are not seriously concerned with saving lives. They want control over us. Our freedom either frightens them or they are annoyed that we represent an ability to resist some schemes that we will probably dislike.

          In that mode, I shall not be spending more time on you, as I can accomplish much more with my efforts by following my chosen path as writer, reaching many times the number here.

          Have a good day.

        • Could it be that firearms can cause more unintended injury and death faster, and at long range, than any of the other risks listed in the commentary here?

        • Firearm related crime and accidents under a totalitarian system is about as near zero as one can expect.

          Yep. Check out North Korea. A great paradise.

          I don’t like writing-off 500 (your number) lives as “just the price we pay for living in a free society”.

          500 die from lightning strikes every year, would you force everyone stay inside to prevent lightning deaths?

          And you can only say that because you are not one of the 500, yet.

          I would gladly be one of the 500 if you and the rest of the collective marxist borg would leave the bill of right alone – deal?

          I would think an enlightened society would value conditions that would reduce accidental gun-related deaths from 500 to maybe 100(?) would be worth the effort. I am sure the 400 then remaining alive would think so.

          I once had a home with a swimming pool. I accepted the risk that there was a small probability of me drowning in a swimming pool because I owned one. Now I have stairs in my home. I currently accept the risk that there is a small probability of me breaking my neck falling down the stairs because stairs exist in my home. Obviously, if I own a gun, I am at more risk of accidentally killing myself than if I didn’t have a gun, and like the other conditions mentioned, the risk is acceptable to me, it is also acceptable to millions upon millions of gun owners nationwide. Living life and doing any activity entails risk. Now you guys already banned lawn darts because 3 people died. We get get old and die anyways – no one survives. Please don’t try to enlighten us more with how to live our lives.

          …gathering all the transaction forms from FFLs would identify who should be considered for confiscation

          I guess they are actually going to cooperate on that one? They are required to keep the 4473 form for 20 years – afterwards they can dispose of it (destroy the record). That’s a lot of destroyed records already. Your push for confiscation and record keeping only reinforces our opinion that gun grabbers will never be content with just universal background checks.

        • Never mentioned universal background checks. That idea is silly because people who correctly fail are never prosecuted (well, almost always), making background checks so useless at to be ignored as a reasonable or common sense measure of keeping guns from people who are or should become “prohibited persons”.

          Yes, tons of purchase records have been lost/destroyed. But the surge in ownership is a recent development, meaning more records than you suspect are available.

          Gun removal, not control, is the effort most likely to result in significant reduction in unwanted shooting events. As some one who values my life, I am not willing to just become a sacrifice to liberty so gun owners can continue to put the rest of the nation at risk.

        • @2Asux,

          Yes, tons of purchase records have been lost/destroyed. But the surge in ownership is a recent development, meaning more records than you suspect are available.

          It’s not going to work, you might as well kiss all those records goodbye. I’m sure you are aware of the boating accident meme? I lost it in a boating accident? When the confiscators come they need only say, I sold those privately in 2011 when it was legal. I traded those for some tools with an acquaintance. I sold those at a gun show in 2002. I lost those in a boating accident in 2006. Etc. Also, the NICS check “supposedly” isn’t allowed to record anything, only to perform the background check (unless your ever so trusting gov is lying right?) So, what is to stop the FFL from modifying those records??? He could go through some public death certificates and start filling out form 4473’s with their information. Destroy the valid 4473’s and replace with with people who have already died. Maybe not just a few – maybe all of them?

          Gun removal, not control, is the effort most likely to result in significant reduction in unwanted shooting events. As some one who values my life, I am not willing to just become a sacrifice to liberty so gun owners can continue to put the rest of the nation at risk.

          “…I am not willing to just become a sacrifice to liberty…” Isn’t that the truth. What amount of “risk” would you actually… actually tolerate, to allow any freedom at all that generates that risk?

          In 2014, there were 11961 murders. 8124 – 67.9% by firearms and 3837 – 32% by other methods. Given that the population of the US in 2014 was 318.9 million people – that leaves us with 2.55 homicides per 100k with a firearm, and 1.20 homicides per 100k with something other than a firearm.

          https://www.quandl.com/data/FBI/WEAPONS11-US-Murders-by-Weapon-Type

          Discussion points:
          –> Correlation doesn’t mean causation, but while gun crimes are steadily declining, concealed carry and “proliferation of guns” are on the rise.

          –> We can only speculate how much the “homicide by other methods” rate increases while “homicides by firearm” rate decreases if guns were banned and confiscation attempted. The margin may be very little.

          –> Gun homicides do not justify taking people’s guns away. Justice101. You don’t punish Bob for what Fred did, and the people of the US are not children to be “nannied” with their possessions taken from them because of the acts of a few criminals.

        • Many responders have glossed-over the fact that people with guns present a risk and threat to my life, risk and threat I did not agree to. Your mistakes can kill me from long distance (next door, across the street, yards away). The only risk to you is getting caught. Even then, the price you pay is temporary. The price I pay for your feeling good about yourself is permanent.

          Risk of death or injury from negligent gun owners could be lessened if everyone who owned a gun was required to undergo professional gun safety training semi-annually, or upon re-issue of gun permits. I say lessened because most gun owners will attempt to evade, becoming more than complicit in harm to others. Another measure might be mandatory life without parole for negligent injury or killing of another person. But the pro-gun crowd is impervious to appeals to recognize the human tragedies caused by people who just want to wave guns around for whatever reason (obviously we do not see thousands of negligent discharges daily, so the matter seems trivial…until you or a family member are the recipient of unfettered 2A behavior.

          The majority on this blog seem to have inexhaustible excuses for why concern for harm innocent citizens is not their problem (SODDI). The same attitude is amplified by all the supposed “gun rights” organizations. The original comment I made was that no guns equals no gun related injuries or death. Most responses follow two lines: impossible, so nothing is worth doing; anybody who would place responsibility on gun owners for being careful, professional, trained, sensitive to the risks they pose others is to be dismissed as unworthy of breathing (which just may be the reason gun enthusiasts don’t care about those among them who represent a threat simply being in possession of a gun).

          No guns; no injuries/death related to guns. Can’t get to perfection, but declaring fellow citizens not worthy of discussing how to reduce poor gun handling is not a philosophy appealing to at least half the citizens of the country.

  8. More of that “the gun was legally registered to him” bullshit that reporters and police seem to like to spout. Louisiana doesn’t have gun registration, so what “registry” are they checking?

    • They are not checking any “registry”.

      It appears to be a stylistic meme from the AP and New York Times, to always refer to a legal gun owner as legally “registered”.

      It is a propaganda effort to suggest that all legal guns must be registered.

      Obviously, it has not worked well. It may even have backfired. Registration used to be far more acceptable than it is now.

      • People on all sides include some who are not stupid, just misinformed. It takes only a bit of thought to discover that registering a firearm does not prevent it from being fired. Registering, in fact, accomplishes exactly nothing besides letting government thugs know where to find it, and who to kill in order to remove it from the list of threats to themselves. Exactly nothing. And in fact CAN not, in any conceivable flight of fancy, accomplish anything else.

        Which leaves the question, “why are so many people in favor of registration?” Do they imagine that there is some reason other than planned confiscation followed by joyful and unfettered tyranny? Or is that precisely what they seek?

        • The purpose of a gun registry is twofold: tracing a gun left at a crime scene to the owner (or tracing the gun to more than one gun scene); identifying those who will need to be confronted when removing guns from a civilized society.

        • @2Asux.

          We don’t need free speech. We need to control ideas – especially about firearms. 1A sux man. While you are repealing the 2A – please repeal the 1A. What we should have is the .gov actively scanning the internet for words “firearm,” “gun” and so forth. Logging those users and paying a visit to their homes. This will reduce “gun violence.” Maybe not overall violence… but definitely “gun violence.” As soon as this is implemented we can focus on other losses of life because “safety” is way more important than “freedom” and even though everyone is going to eventually die anyways, we need to minimize this stuff.

        • If I were truly a demented “gun-grabber”, I would say you are on to something. I am just presenting the case that rampant gun ownership is not the positive so many think, and that preventing gun-related death and injury is something that warrants serious attention and action. So many on this blog are concerned only with themselves, their image of themselves, and making exceptions for themselves. They are writing-off hundreds of innocent lives in the quest to be, what do you call it…tacticool.

        • Let’s see, if a firearm I just used in a crime were registered to me, why the HELL do you think I would leave it at the scene? That entire scenario should instantly strike you as implausible. If the gun was left behind, it was obviously not used by the registered owner, so what was the benefit of registration? Absolutely none, just like I said. Your second supposed benefit? Maybe you have spent so much time twisting words that you don’t even recognize it, but it is to facilitate confiscation. EXACTLY like I said. You think that is a good idea, apparently. If so, why is your side of this argument constantly denying it? Which is called “lying”, BTW, are you proud of being part of a movement which repeatedly laughs about “nobody is trying to take your guns”, when they ARE? You are upfront about it, but why is the lying necessary? Why the pretense? If you cannot tell the truth about your goals, can you really claim they are worthwhile? Is it for the good of the ignorant masses that you imprison them? You need to think!

        • The owner of the gun used in commission of a crime might have dropped it accidentally, might have lost control of it during a struggle, might not even know the gun was missing until the next crime attempt. All in all, some guns left at crime scenes might lead back to the owner who is the actual criminal, sometimes not. Police need all the help they can get solving crimes, and registering owners is only one more tool in the box.

        • You really do need to try to learn a little bit before you go on and on about a subject you clearly know nothing about. You, yourself, listed the states with registration laws, how about checking to find out how many times their police forces have used that registration system to solve a crime. Hint: zero. Ever. Whether the registered owner is the criminal being sought or not, he will certainly claim the gun was stolen, no one can prove it wasn’t. The only people who leave guns behind by accident are police officers, who do not have to pay for them. I’ve been carrying guns here and there for around 60 years now, and have not forgotten one yet, but you come up with that as a reason to have registration? You are making up scenarios which have not happened and will not happen, then pretending those wild imaginings require prompt and dramatic action to curtail our freedoms. Just silly, really, really silly.

  9. I hate that the writers’ of news articles like these always feel they have to say “The gun was legally registered to this owner…”.

    If I give one of my guns to my wife, or Dad, and they use it in self defense, it was a “legal” gun, with no registration.

  10. I stopped for gas in Houma, Louisiana (just north of New Orleans) and in 10 minutes I saw at least 4 altercations worthy of Jerry Springer. This does not surprise me at all- but I’m glad the CCW’er made the shot.

  11. Only in America… A shootout at a convenience store over blocked gas lanes. Yes… Guns making our lives better!
    This is yet another example of why citizens of other countries are constantly shaking their heads in wonderment at our country.

    • I see… and that’s why the person who even attempts any sort of self defense winds up in jail with a sentence longer than the person who tried to kill them. Or they wind up dead, of course. And dead is dead, whether the killing was done with a gun or anything else.

      Ever had someone half your age, twice your size telling you how he’s going to kill you, while rushing at you with bare hands extended? I have. I shot him too. Stopped the attack. He lived, but it would not have bothered me much if he’d died. He attacked a woman pointing a shotgun at him… I’d say he chose what happened to him.

      Did you realize that many “other countries” don’t even accurately count the number of those killed, with guns or anything else. I believe the standard in the UK is now to count only those where the perpetrator is caught, tried and convicted, even if many years later. I’m sure that makes sense to someone….

    • Ri-i-i-ight! And while they are “shaking their heads”, they are also trying to dream up some scheme which would allow them to move to the US, get out of the shithole they live in and learn what “freedom” means.

        • Wrong again troll and this time you’re so amazingly wrong in your prediction as to generate a black hole of getting it completely bassackwards. Does it hurt being so wrong all the time?

          Here’s a fun fact, I train people for my company that come to the US usually from places with effectively zero legal civilian gun ownership and the first thing they always want to do is go to the range. So that’s where I take them and train them to shoot safely and they all LOVE it and usually express a desire to buy a gun of their own just as soon as they legally can. I’ve taken more than 50 so far in just the last 7 months and should get to just over 100 by summer. Here’s an even more fun fact: The more restrictive their country’s gun laws the more excited they are to go out and experience a little ballistic freedom.

          So no, they’re not bringing their origin country’s hoplophobic mindset. Quite the opposite. They’re adopting ours.

        • Why postulate from a limited population (foreigners working for your company) onto the populaces from those same countries? Since the super majority of people in other countries are conditioned to state security, government programs, common sense gun laws, how does one conclude all that societal conditioning is overcome, if they don’t all go through your training. Sample size is too small to make such logical leaps. Once upon a time, immigrants and guest workers might have been looking to “become Americans”, but in the last 20 years, most are bringing the best of their societies, intending to recreate their best in this country. They want their new world to be a more perfect vision of what they are leaving.

        • Yes. Because the weak, the sick, the disabled, and the elderly are deserving of defenselessness.

        • They are deserving of protection by society, the courts and government at all levels.

          They won’t get any of that if they are dead – beaten or stabbed to death by people stronger than them.

        • They will survive long enough to become the majority population (politically speaking), maybe displacing the most aggressive and angry among us,

        • “Why postulate from a limited population (foreigners working for your company) onto the populaces from those same countries?”

          Says the guy who has spent the whole day arguing about a sample size of *zero*, just his own imagination? And suddenly we’re a statistics expert, are we? Really silly.

        • Was I wrong to conclude that you reasoned from a limited sample? I did not reason from one sample type to another. I noted that DGUs were statistically negligible. Saving 400 lives from unintentional death or injury is an entirely different matter, because actual life renders even small populations beyond qualitative or quantitative measure. If you think a small sample of life is statistically insignificant, would you not also oppose billions spent on medical research and care to save only an insignificant sample size who suffer some life-threatening disease or disability? When you measure mechanical events against the pool of available tools, you are not on the same plane with measuring lives.

        • @2Asux,

          They will survive long enough to become the majority population (politically speaking), maybe displacing the most aggressive and angry among us,

          The “weak, the sick, the disabled, and the elderly” will become the majority? I hope not.

        • And the Europeans, Chinese, people from India, Russians, Vietnamese, Koreans, Latinos, Middle-easterners. There is a real chance the brash, arrogant and diminishing untamed Americans will be out-birthed in the not too distant future. Immigration stands a better chance of eliminating the gun culture than all the political contesting today. The danger is real because gun owners do not have a compelling case to persuade immigrants to abandon their own long culture of not having firearms in the hands of individuals. Immigration controls the future of gun rights. The “2A, dammit; leave me alone” crowd will be swallowed up in the coming tribalization of the country.

    • Violent people doing violent things over seemingly silly things is not just an American thing. It happens all around the world. The only difference is that in many parts of the U.S., a legally armed citizen and/or civilian can practice their natural or God given right to bear arms and defend themselves without being harassed by the state. And yes this was another case where guns did make things better, because the bad guy was stopped with no further casualties. Even if the felon attacked the rest of the bystanders with something other then a firearm, the victims were still within reason and their right to defend themselves with their own firearm.

      As for someone who has traveled though numerous European, Middle East, and Asian countries, I could give two flying figs what the rest of the world thinks about us. Because it seems that our 2A rights have not stopped people from coming into this country from every one of those regions, both legally or illegally.

      • While some would posit that there is no such thing as a successful use of a gun in stopping a crime or mass shooting, I recognize such incidents happen. However (you knew that was coming)….the number of such events in a given time period does not statistically justify widespread gun ownership. Consider the population of the US, next, consider the number of guns acknowledged to exist in the US, then consider how often a person and a gun is used in defense of life. The rarity of successful gun related self-defense episodes is negligible. Just as the number of automobile fatalities is insignificant in the face of the number of drivers and cars/trucks.

        • There are nearly 2 million defensive gun uses a year by civilians in the US and almost none of them require the firing of a single shot. Your personal distaste for a thing doesn’t stop it being a right enshrined in the US constitution nor does it stop it being a right granted by nature (or God, depending on how you see that argument). How someone defends himself is absolutely zero of your business until AFTER it infringes on some actual right you have or does you some actual harm. You have no right not to be offended nor any right to have all possible harm to you actively prevented. You have the right to receive justice for any wrongs actually done to you and that’s it.

          You’ve got a nasty rectal cranial inversion and a stunning case of Dunning-Kruger going on. You might want to correct both because right now you’re looking like the least educated activist on the planet.

        • I have a right to my opinion. I have a right to try to influence opinion. I have a right to support legislation. You have a right to not be deprived of your illusions. So, where does that leave us?

          If you never question your politics, your assumptions, your slogans, you are projecting yours condition on others who contend they cannot be questioned,

        • “the number of such events in a given time period does not statistically justify widespread gun ownership.”

          Actually, as I think you already know, yes, it does. 2.5 million times a year, which would be *higher* if more people were armed, very much DOES justify widespread gun ownership. If you disagree, please state what number *would* justify widespread firearm ownership, else we assume that 100 million a week would not be justification to you, because your position is inflexible, your mind is made up regardless of evidence. In fact, most guns in America are not designed or intended for self-defense use, and continually putting blockades in the path of those who wish to defend themselves keeps the numbers down to that 2-2.5 million per year. I guess you are proud of the fact that innocents have died due to your efforts, I will continue to oppose your efforts, and to support freedom!

        • Ok, the number you are looking for is 0.007353 (incidents divided by US population). That is a percentage of success you would foist on the country? Could we agree that anything less than 1% utility is not worth risking 500 gun related deaths per year? (those 500 would likely tell you they didn’t like the odds.

          As noted before, I think reducing injury/death through use of firearms to 100 would be a decent goal (and the 400 who were not killed/injured would be grateful). And if confiscation would reduce to zero the number of children/toddlers (not ganger teenagers) who die of unintended gunshots, that would be a decent goal.

          The alternative is for gun supporters to publicly announce what they try to hide….any amount of death or injury by gunfire is acceptable, and a just price to be paid for gun owners to be able to “exercise their natural, God-given, civil right of self-defense”. Fact is, gun owners believe explicitly that the “natural, God-given, civil right of self-defense” excludes all defense measures other than wielding a firearm.

        • That 500 you mention is what, .00000000002 %? Totally insignificant, without any faint importance next to 2.5 million. In fact, all your numbers notwithstanding, the comparison is, in fact, 2.5 million to 500. That is not close. Are you awake?

        • Improper comparison. Original statement was that 2.5million DGUs (an unverifiable number) is/was proof that private citizens need to carry guns (not weapons). My response was that 2.5million is really statistically insignificant in the population of guns owned. That cannot be compared to 500 human lives. If guns were almost non-existent, there would be no DGUs (or almost no DGUs). The problem is the number of gun owners who willingly sacrifice the lives of innocents as being of no importance.

        • It is 2.5 million human lives defended with guns, it is DIRECTLY comparable to the 500 lost due to guns. And that figure was well proven, to most every standard, as of 10-15 years ago when the study was done for “More Guns, Less Crime”, I suspect most would agree there is little reason to repeat it every year, it isn’t going to change very much one way or another, and would likely be going up due to more guns entering the scene, at the same time as going down due to decreasing crime.

        • Actually, “more guns, less crime” is a classic case of correlation being touted as causation.

          I yielded to the 2.5million number becuase it is what was proffered, it is not generally accepted as a proven fact (it is a postulated outside limit). If you go to the often announced minimum estimate, the statistic becomes more negligible.

          Equating DGUs to lives saved is speculation. We cannot know the number of lives actually saved, because factors other than the DGU can interfere with understanding the precise number of lives that would have been taken, because they were not…but, we can be definitive in the number of lives lost or damaged by negligent gun handling. But if DGUs are justified by the invaluable lives saved, why is the pro-gun gang so indifferent to the lives lost or destroyed by gun owners who proved themselves to be incapable of being trusted with a gun?

    • If you take the time to actually study the subject, you will find that you have been systematically lied to. The United States is hardly the “only place this happens”. It is far more common in the gun control paradises of Jamaica, Brazil, South Africa, Russia, or Mexico.

      The places that have lower murder rates are those that had them long before they instituted the very restrictive gun control laws.

      In 1963, for example, Jamaica had a murder rate lower than that of the United States, on average. Now its murder rate is 8-10 times a great. In the meantime, about 1967, it instituteted draconian gun control.

    • No, they don’t. Why do you think they beating down our doors to get into America?

      Besides, if you think this kind of craziness only happens in America, then here are even crazier stories for you:
      “In recent years, news media in several West African countries have reported periodic episodes of ‘panic’ in which men and women are beaten, sometimes to death, after being accused of causing penises, breasts, and vaginas to shrink or disappear” -Penis-Snatching Panics Resurface in Africa, http://news.yahoo.com/penis-snatching-panics-resurface-africa-182137805.html

      Burn a Quran, a bunch of people are murdered: 30 were killed after the U.S. military Quran and other reading materials Taliban prisoners were using to write in and pass messages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Afghanistan_Quran_burning_protests

      Burn a Quran, be burned yourself:
      “Pakistani police say they have arrested up to 40 people in connection with the killing of a Christian couple(the wife was pregnant) in Punjab province who were beaten, then pushed into a burning kiln after being accused of desecrating the Quran. http://fox59.com/2014/11/05/dozens-arrested-in-pakistan-after-slaying-of-christian-couple-accused-of-desecrating-quran/

      Germany, where people have been killed for fun instead of blocking fuel pumps: “The teenager who attacked a German school and shot dead 15 people said he was doing it “for fun”, according to a driver whose car the killer hijacked.” -German teenage “killed for fun”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7951821.stm

  12. Cops/everyone should start carrying throwaway Koran’s. Then when involved in a shootout just throw it down…. Terrorists. done.

  13. So what was the bad guy shooting? Firing a dozen or more rounds sounds like he may have had an assault rifle, in which case wasn’t he invinceable? How could this have happened?

  14. 2asux supoports a totalitarian .gov as opposed to a free society. He says that saving 500 lives a year by banning guns is worth the effort of a police state.

    All he has to do is get 3/5’s of the states to agree with him. Knock yourself out sparky and welcome to a lifetime of frustration.

    • Given the temper of the times, 3/5s may be unnecessary. The right president can issue executive orders that accomplish much. Once people not complying with a confiscation order are jailed, they will be at a huge disadvantage while their cases, along with whatever legal steps a cowardly congress would take, to have their guns back. Never underestimate the power of a government backed by sufficient political will to act where the people refuse.

      You are posing yet another example (your comments) of how gun rights people are myopic, retrograde, uncaring and unsympathetic. You have declared in writing that the 500 people killed unintentionally through the use of firearms have/had no value, and no right to life. Refusing to assist in the reduction of unnecessary death and injury is the essence of self-centeredness and selfishness ascribed to gun owners by those who wish, through common sense measures, to prevent as many unnecessary deaths as possible. I doubt gun rights people will see their families refuse to be anguished, angry or vengeful when a gun owner is killed accidentally at home or on business or at the mall. I think they will demand action to prevent such in the future (along with screaming for financial compensation).

      • 2Asux:

        “Never underestimate the power of a government backed by sufficient political will to act where the people refuse.”

        We don’t. Which is why we see the value of guns. It’s also why the framers wanted the 2d Amendment in the first place.

        • Glenn! He’s not going to understand that. Too simple. 2A, when that happens we will shoot the government and start over. Are you starting to understand?

        • You will not shoot the government, very few will. The Bundy family has been in two armed conflicts with government authorities. I did not see thousands of gun lovers show up to overwhelm an arrogant, out-of-control government. Oh, right, it wasn’t happening in your front yard, for that you will shoot it out with the Federales. Right. And your neighbors would be where?

          If gun owners were serious about protecting their rights (all of them) we should have seen the over throw of government already. The founders did not let things get this far with their British government before overthrowing it.

        • Indeed, 2A is designed to balance power between government and people.The balance is heavily in favor of the government. The likelihood of armed rebellion is negligible (even the Oregon dust-up did not attract very many pro gun/anti-government advocates (which is the state of the revolution to date). All I am saying is the pro gun element is not winning the day, and government can eventually run out of patience with a group too stubborn to yield to any reasonable modification of their religion. A group too uncaring of their fellow passengers in this lifeboat. Storm, noise and smoke gains attention, points to the target, but is greatly ineffective of a roused government (representing the common sense of the people).

      • 3/5’s is necessary to legally change the constitution. Now, you may support a leader that does things illegally, but I don’t.

        You keep qouting the sacred 500. What about the thousands that are saved because they have guns?

        Again, if your cause is so noble, go for it. Get back to us when you’ve gotten the constitution changed to your satisfaction.

        Otherwise, you’re just another windbag troll.

        • Cassandra was right. Greeks didn’t listen.

          And the shepherd boy was correct; there was a wolf.

        • And your roused government has been the cause of more guns being sold in the second half of barry’s time in office than at any time in American history. If the clownshoes in the white house is the roused government you’re counting on…….

          So it’s safe to say you’re a troll. A denier of civil rights. Well at least you’re a dying breed. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the RKBA.

          Witness all the movement in the direction of constitutional carry. Just a matter of time til it’s the law of the land.

          Bless your heart. You have a nice day now.

        • Haven’t seen the 86% number anywhere, but the links below show the war between pro and anti gun factions is closer to even than you think.

          Do you really think a “troll” would spend so much time and effort here? Maybe someone trying to raise your level of awareness and understanding of the reality of popular culture and its impact on your rights.

          BTW, the constitution guarantees nothing. You have no immutable civil rights. It is all subject to the political process; constitution outlines two “legal” methods of removing your rights.

          http://www.gallup.com/poll/186236/americans-desire-stricter-gun-laws-sharply.aspx

          http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/187511/american-public-opinion-guns.aspx

          http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/21/politics/gun-control-poll-americans/

          http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/257285-poll-more-americans-crave-stricter-gun-control

          http://hotair.com/archives/2015/10/21/55-percent-want-stricter-gun-laws-while-56-percent-think-more-concealed-firearms-makes-the-country-safer/

        • Dood. You’re not even close to the level of cherry picking and internet references some of our better trolls engage in. You guys have something in common. All the time in the world to play on the computers. Not having a job or life will do that for you.

          Gun ownership is growing. Daily. First time buyers are massive numbers. And you’re one of those guys trying to convince us that gun ownership is dying. It’s just a few OFWGs keeping the rest of the country hostage to the gun lobby.

          And I’ve put some study into the issue of trolls. I’m an old fart that’s new to the internet so I was curious. More people, educated people in the profession, are seeing trolling behaviour as a sign of mental illness.

          Food for thought, my dood.

        • DOOOOD, gun ownership is not political or cultural power. New concealed carry permits are not political or cultural poser. I did not cherry pick my references, I simply Googled “Gun Rights Survey”, and selected the first few that appeared; it is a mixed result. People want to believe that the vast majority of citizens support unfettered gun rights. But it isn’t true. Just pointing out here that the surveys indicate, at best, a near 50-50 split. You still have the courts against absolute gun rights. Combined with politicians sensitive to their voters, it is a powerful alliance to contain the worst aspects of gun ownership. You do see evidence that gun control efforts at the municipal level is becoming more effective. The pro-gun advocates have nothing like it. They are still depending on giant organizations to lobby at the federal level.

          And just because it is interesting, it wasn’t until after the Civil War that the US constitution was declared operative at the state level. The founders were not concerned so much about the states as they were intense about controlling the central government. Until the SC ruled the constitution ruled at the state level, the states could determine how their militias operated, and could, without hindrance, keep their citizens from having any weapons at all. In those times, it wasn’t the Minuteman with a rifle and powder horn over the mantle that constituted the militia, it was the body of men who rallied to the armory and were issued community weapons, to be returned to the arsenal when the militia stood down. Without that post-Civil War ruling by the SC, there would be no debate about “shall not be infringed”. The central government could not prevent the states from forming and fielding militias. The states could control firearm possession in whatever manner they liked.

        • DOOOOD, gun ownership is not political or cultural power. New concealed carry permits are not political or cultural poser. I did not cherry pick my references, I simply Googled “Gun Rights Survey”, and selected the first few that appeared; it is a mixed result. People want to believe that the vast majority of citizens support unfettered gun rights. But it isn’t true. Just pointing out here that the surveys indicate, at best, a near 50-50 split. You still have the courts against absolute gun rights. Combined with politicians sensitive to their voters, it is a powerful alliance to contain the worst aspects of gun ownership. You do see evidence that gun control efforts at the municipal level is becoming more effective. The pro-gun advocates have nothing like it. They are still depending on giant organizations to lobby at the federal level.

          And just because it is interesting, it wasn’t until after the Civil War that the US constitution was declared operative at the state level. The founders were not concerned so much about the states as they were intense about controlling the central government. Until the SC ruled the constitution ruled at the state level, the states could determine how their militias operated, and could, without hindrance, keep their citizens from having any weapons at all. In those times, it wasn’t the Minuteman with a rifle and powder horn over the mantle that constituted the militia, it was the body of men who rallied to the armory and were issued community weapons, to be returned to the arsenal when the militia stood down. Without that post-Civil War ruling by the SC, there would be no debate about “shall not be infringed”. The central government could not prevent the states from forming and fielding militias. The states could control firearm possession in whatever manner they liked.

        • Dood. It ain’t 1865 anymore. Lotta changes since then. But i believe you’ve proved my point.

          Windbag troll. No doubt about it. You’re whole schtick is to try and convince us we’re losing the gun rights battle when the ownership of firearms and the attendant freedoms with said ownership is at an all time high.

          It ain’t 1865, or 1968 anymore and free access to firearms is sweeping the land. Remember, scotus ruled that the 2a is an individual right, as it was meant to be.

          Why don’t you try and remove other rights/ Voting? Free speech? You’d have better luck than removing 2a rights.

        • SCOTUS ruled the 2A is an individual right, and the lower courts are saying, “stuff it”. SCOTUS then refused to reinforce their decision, leaving split district and appeals courts. Still think the courts will protect you?

          My whole “shtick” is to point out that refusing to admit there are problems with wide-spread gun ownership is not a winning proposition. If you and yours believe that belligerence, bluster and chest-thumping about absolutes is winning the day, why haven’t the vast majority of citizens forced pro-gun legislation through their representatives.? If you believe the gun rights culture is in ascendance, why are there so many complaining on this blog about gun control? Simple majority agreement about unabridged gun rights is not a victory, it is a holding pattern, waiting to be reversed. You need an overwhelming majority (say, 85%) of legislatures passing veto-proof legislation that secures your wish. Everywhere you look, you see politically fatal compromises in whatever pro-gun laws are proposed and passed. If you think I am trying to convince you that you are losing, you are right; but not why you think.

  15. So let me get this straight.

    “Gunfight occurs at gas pumps full of volatile explosive fuel. Guy with clear rage control issues and access to firearms shot first. 3 wounded, but good guy managed to shoot bad guy before bad guy finished off good guy and luckily there was no fiery explosion.”

    “Look! Our gun policies are working!”

    Seriously? THAT is the conclusion you want people to walk away from this with?

    (And who the hell has ever argued defensive uses of guns never happen? What fictional fantasy land is it where that is true?)

  16. Mea Culpa, mea maxima culpa. My Bad !! What a doof. However you wanna say it….I have stated that the second amendment can be repealed by 3/5s vote of the states. WRONG. It takes 3/4s. (Article 5).

    No excuse.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *