If even 1 bad guy is able to get his hands on a gun legally or not, then upstanding citizens ought to have the right to legally carry. Personally, I could care less where specifically they are allowed/not allowed to carry, because in this case the shooter in the theater was not technically allowed to carry(because he was in a theater) but obviously he had no intention of obeying this law.

I don't own a gun, nor do I really want one, but this video is a solid example of why I don't mind upstanding citizens having guns(I say upstanding citizens, because, let's be honest, if a bad guy wants a gun no simple law is going to stop him):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZNC2VwyaPU&feature=youtu.be

I feel that you should be able to carry in these type of venues. If there had been someone with a weapon and training they could have help stop some of the carnage

After last night anyone with common sense should be able to say yes to this one. No surprise it is running 50/50. That has been my guess at the general public with and without common sense.

What is worse than a single shooter in a crowded dark area? Multiple shooters in a crowded dark area. Chances are much more likely that you would end up shooting other innocents while trying to take out the original shooter. The panic created would be even more magnified since then the crowd would no longer know which direction in which to flee.

Miriam, Decades ago, I might have agreed with you. With many relaxed gun laws (I.e. ccw , cpl, self-defense, make my day laws, etc.), it has yet to actually occur as many predicted.

Having a gun might not save your life in a tragic life threatening situation, but at least it gives you an opportunity to save a life. Just like wearing my seatbelt might not save my life in a tragic car accident, I still wear it to add an extra layer of security.

Kenneth, agree, agree, agree....
I have been around guns my whole life. My dad taught me gun safety and I watched him shoot. The Colorado shooting makes me want to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon. I want to have a fighting chance to defend myself.

Guns are one thing. I have a couple rifles and shotguns that are used for hunting deer and turkey.

However, I draw the line at AR-15 assault rifles with drum magazine clips. Those things are not meant for deer; they are meant for people.

At a bare minimum, I hope people will agree that 100-round drum magazines should not be for sale except to law enforcement, army, etc.

Michigan Voter - you took the words out of my mouth. I dont own a gun, but I do believe that we should have a right to own and carry a gun.

I do NOT believe that any type of "Assault" rifles have any business for sale to the public.

Don't you people realize that this type of stuff cannot be prevented because there is always going to be deranged characters in this world that laws are not going to have an effect on. If there were law abiding people with CPL's in that audience, one or more might have been able to react in time and end that jerks mission.

Is it possible to have a system in place to throw up "a red flag" when someone buys 4 gus in a short amount of time and 6000 rounds of amunition?? Could that have saved lives? All the ammo was purchased on the internet-the fire arma wer purchased at Gander mtn and Bass Pro Shop. Just out of curiosity, does anybody think there will be copy-cat shootings now? I have heard that theaters are hiring lots of security, just in case-The guy has to be a genious to booby-trap his apartment and get out without anything going off-I can't imagine how his family must feel-there were apparently no signs-It is all so very sad-

I understand freedom and rights I'm not sure I agree them when there's a chance someone innocent can be harmed. Guns are totally used differently than in 1791 and have many more capabilities. Do you think it is so terrible for a police officer to ask for ID. There are many signs that a trained individual can see. If your not doing anything - age isn't questionable, What do you have to lose and certainly there's always a posibility that soemthing is spotted. It's not much different from an officer noticing a swearving car - they fail or refuse tests. Bet there's a good chance someone may have been saved. Do you appreciate the cashier requesting to see id when using a credit card? They are trying to protect you from fraud. Sometimes people only want their rights when it's convenient for just them.

I bet all the guys who had their bigass legal guns at that movie theater were hiding under their seats. So much for the theory that people toting guns will protect the rest of us and that's why we should adore them.

So, after reading all of these comments, one question pops up prominently in my mind: To all of those who advocate for the non gun control side... what's your solution? Far too many innocents are being slaughtered by gunfire in our nation, and it's only getting worse. SOMETHING has to be done. So, what's the answer, do you think?

Rochelle Riley's commentary ("Why do we allow weapons of war among us?") in the Free Press this morning said it all for me:

http://www.freep.com/article/20120720/COL10/120720043/rochelle-riley-colorado-movie-shooting

Arguing against outlawing assault rifles because one is afraid of losing one's 2nd Amendment right seems wrong when people are losing their right to "Life, freedom and the pursuit of happiness" at the hands of madmen who have purchased these weapons easily and legally at sporting goods stores. They should be taken off the shelves and it should be illegal to sell them second hand. I'd propose further that there be a program to encourage voluntary turning in (with a monetary incentive) of such weapons, to be destroyed.

Sadly, I think the question posed in this Patch article is a moot point. One or two skilled CPL' ers with their pistols, or an open carrier with a pistol would not make a difference in this case. Best to take the overpowering automatic loading assault rifles with huge drum magazine capacity out of the equation.

I think that if an establishment denies customers from defending themselves, then that establishment necessarily assumes complete responsibility and liability if such customers are harmed. For example, in Aurora Colorado, since it was Cinimark Theater's policy to prohibit its customers from carrying guns, then Cinimark Corporation naturally assumes the duty of protecting its customers, and Cinimark in Aurora Colorado should have had adequate security to have prevented all those people from getting hurt and killed. Cinimark should now be sued to the maximum and the company should be forced into bankruptcy for its failure to adequately assume the defense of its customers. Maximum tort liability should be the very least penalty imposed on Cinimark. This is the only way to stop such mass murders, because the murderers know that gun-free zones is where customers or students are not allowed to defend themselves. Mass murderers almost always choose gun-free zones such as theaters, schools, post offices, federal buildings, etc because it is like shooting fish in a barrel, unarmed fish.

The term "going postal" came about because mass murderers went into post office buildings to shoot a lot of people, knowing that nobody inside had a gun to shoot back. I remember the Royal Oak Post office shootings, and I didnt see any high percentages of gun carrying federal agents at the Royal Oak Post Office. Columbine High School and a dozen other school shootings mass murders were places where the murderer knew that the people inside those places were not allowed to defend themselves.

"“Headquartered in Plano, TX, Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry with 459 theatres and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America as of March 31, 2012,” their website reports. Cinemark owns the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, scene of last night’s mass shooting. Cinemark doesn’t allow its law abiding customers to carry legal firearms in their theaters. However, the ban of legal firearms at Cinemark hadn’t escaped the attention of mass murderers.

I sent an e-mail to Cinemark Corporate to inquire as to their policy on firearms.
I got a call today, from Dan Myers with Cinemark Corporate, and he informed me that Cinemark’s official policy is that ONLY LEO’S CAN CARRY INTO THEIR THEATERS NO CONCEALED WEAPONS, NO OC.
He asked me that we not send e-mails to tell them their policy sxcxsxx.

Perhaps that's the liability insurance talking. The risk of allowing movie patrons to carry guns and causing accidental injury far outweighs the chances of said movie patrons with guns overcoming maniacal madman in rare incidents. I can think of other things that Cinemark could do to reassure patrons rather than let them carry guns in...metal detectors, security guard prescence, exit door monitors.

You have a right to defend yourself, this right is universal, and any government that tells you that you can't be armed because of your location, is in effect saying that at that location, you have no right to defend yourself. They are wrong! Guns are banned in Russia, and Luxembourg. The murder rates in these countries are quite high. Switzerland issues assault weapons to all of their law-abiding, military age male citizens and they have a very low crime rate. Israel boasts having looser gun laws and more availability of firearms than we have in the U.S., and their violent crimes are very low as well. When the statistics are from a reliable source, and not from a legislative propaganda group like the Brady campaign, the figures clearly indicate that an armed society is a polite society.
I'm armed, and I will remain so. I've never committed a crime with any of my firearms, and neither have nearly all of the other law-abiding armed citizens of this country. Government CAN'T be there to protect you and your family all the time, and the purpose of government is NOT to protect us from ourselves!

Terry, now who sounds like the nut? What does manhood have to do with it? Criminals, who intend on committing crimes, are likely to seek out and find firearms to assist them in committing those crimes. Therefore, the potential victims, in an effort to level the playing field should not be hindered in fighting fire with fire, just as nuclear devices are used by governments to level the playing field with one another.
Cookie, we're not talking about an establishment owner of a movie theater deciding to not allow guns in their establishment, we're talking about state law. Beyond that, you're displaying your ignorance on this topic by bringing up the consumption of alcoholic beverages while carrying a firearm, because that's a crime in itself.
A gun ban would would have the same consequences as prohibition had. The criminals would continue their criminal acts and enterprises, and the public would suffer as a result. Your "feel good" solutions, and utopian schemes of world peace are a pipe dream that have been proven false repeatedly!

I don't understand why there's an opposition to law-abiding, adult citizens, who have no history of violent crime carrying defense weapons. Would you disarm off duty police? Would you disarm military veterans? There are between 43 & 55 million American households with firearms in them. The percentage of those weapons that have been used to commit crimes is astonishingly small. Those that support banning gun ownership by private, law-abiding civilians, with no history of violent crime, are hypocrites, who mock the security provided them by the armed society in which they live. If you truly believe that disarming the American public would be beneficial, put a sign in your yard indicating that you oppose gun ownership. See if that makes you more, or less safe. Until all of you are willing to do that, I say you are hypocritical fools with delusional dreams of an impossible peace!

The problem is that the Holmes guy was a "private, law-abiding civilians, with no history of violent crime" before he bought his assault rifle, his shotgun and his two Glock pistols and 6,000 rounds of ammo within a 4-month period. Yet when a suggestion is made that law enforecment track such unusual behavior, gun owners are upset because they think thus lays the road for their 2nd Amendment right to be taken away.

We have a society where our rights are supposed to be protected. In such a society, there exists a very small portion of citizens who will abuse those rights. That shouldn't condemn the other 99.999% to forfeiture of their rights in response. These things will happen, with or without guns. 9/11 involved no guns. The Oklahoma Federal building involved no guns. The underwear bomber, again, no guns. Criminals will find a way, firearms or not.

You gun ban zealots are dangerous! You would make law and policy based upon your emotional responses rather than based upon facts. You've learned NOTHING from the devastating consequences of prohibition, or the failure that is the drug war.
Will you go to the bayous of Louisiana and demand they forfeit their arms? Will you go to the Upper Peninsula, Montana, or Alaska where our fellow citizens live side by side with coyotes, bears, wolves and mountain lions and tell those people they're only defense against those beasts will now be prayer? What would your argument be to a parent in the southwest who has shot and killed a rattlesnake before it injected its venom into their toddler? What was your position on the 18 year old Oklahoma mother who this past January shot and killed the intruder who was trying to break in and rape her, possibly finishing with the murder of her and her 3 day old son?
You go ahead, make the attempt to take the guns from the people of this country. You better be well armed when you do! Even if you succeed, the consequences of your emotionally based political stupidity will make you regret your actions. It only took 13 years, and who knows how much bloodshed for prohibition to be repealed...how will this move turn out?

Yes Terry, I carry a handgun so criminals now arm themselves with bazookas, you have an excellent point there. In fact, I've lost count of the number of reports I heard yesterday about assailants with grenade launchers and ICBM's.
You're willing to go to any lengths to make your case, including lies and distortions. Perhaps the real reason you're so upset about your personal experience is because you most likely had a bought of cowardly incontinence.
I wonder what the circumstances were leading up to your being shot at, if it even really occurred, perhaps you were the assailant and deserved to be shot at...?
The criminal element of our society would love to see the good guys disarmed, is this your motivation for the case you're making?

Wow Terry, you must have some hypnotic capability parallelled only by hostage negotiators.
My apologies Sir, as my experiences are limited only to a tour in Iraq!

Specifics were not demanded, I was making an accusation regarding your credibility.
What I did for the DoD is not open for discussion. An ideologue such as yourself is only seeking ammunition for further debate regarding my credibility.
As stated earlier, trying to talk sense into you is akin to reasoning with a drunkard.
My motives are non-criminal. My weapons are defensive only. I would use my weapons to defend you if given the opportunity Sir, and I hope if you ever find yourself in another of those frightening situations you have heretofore described, that an armed citizen may be there to take out the trash and save your life, rather than you taking the approach you took which is not a recommended reaction. Because you're in need of such a reality check. Mrs. Sarah McKinley would agree.

Just as I predicted, your intent was to spin the debate to your favor from a fresh angle. You're grasping for straws, and I refuse to turn this into a discussion about the mental state of troops, traumatic brain injuries or PTSD.
The message I've received reading your positions (and comparing them to what I know to be true) is that you're an ideologue who will go to any length to make your case. You refute facts and accept propaganda as truth. You're willing to make assumptions and proclaim them to be valid. You have a strong distrust of your fellow man, and your too blinded by your ideology to take blatant lessons from history.
You're not worth debating, because you're so ingrained with your ignorance of history and faith in authority that your mind is closed to whatever information doesn't fit your template of a perfect world.
I bid you adieu Terry, you're a waste of my time. Try to disarm America, and see how far you get!

Terry, have I been under your skin for the past week? What a pity!
Let’s put something in perspective. You’ve made a few comments attempting to assert that you’re experienced, and therefore have license to engage in debate on this issue:
“…I have been assaulted twice and shot at once. I speak FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE. How about you?”
“Yes, I've been on the wrong end of a gun twice in my life, and shot at once, so I have some experience in this matter.”
“Ahhh.........a gun nut who has never been on the other end, or ever shot somebody. In other words clueless.”
Do you really want to compare experiences? Let’s do that! You’ve been “shot at once” by an assailant who was in possession of what, a semi-automatic handgun? You were “shot at once” by someone who WASN’T intent on killing you. I HAVE been shot at, by several aggressors at one time, who were firing fully-automatic AK-47 rifles. I’ve also been shot at with mortars. All of these projectiles were fired by people who WERE intent on killing me, and everyone I was with! I say to that, thank God for retaliatory weaponry!
It would appear Terry, that my experience FAR outweighs yours in this arena, but I am not so ignorant as to imply that I have some great legislative authority derived from these situations.

Now that we’ve covered experience, let’s cover hypocrisy:
In one post (10:48 am, Tuesday, July 24) you wrote that Ann and Kenneth: “…take facts out of context and draw incorrect conclusions.”
I later said to Cookie: “…you're displaying your ignorance on this topic by bringing up the consumption of alcoholic beverages while carrying a firearm, because that's a crime in itself. A gun ban would have the same consequences as prohibition had. The criminals would continue their criminal acts and enterprises, and the public would suffer as a result.”
To which you replied:
“I love your comparison of the right of gun ownership to the right to drink alcoholic beverages… Equating gun ownership with drunk driving is probably the most intelligent thing you have said.”
What was that about taking things “out of context and drawing incorrect conclusions?”

You wrote to Kenneth (9:59 am, Tuesday, July 24): “Talk to any state policeman, federal agent, or "real" handgun expert. Any one who doesn't know rule one...........is not an "expert" they are a danger.”
What is rule one? According to you: “…the number one rule of using a hand gun to defend yourself. That is, if you pull it out......pull the trigger.”
According to who?
The NRA says the 3 most important rules for gun safety are:
1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.
2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
Learnaboutguns.com says the top rules for defending yourself with a firearm are:
1. Keep your distance to avoid having the gun taken away by the criminal.
2. Keep your distance to help prevent being injured by the criminal’s own weapon.
3. Don’t press a gun against the criminal.
What was that again about “Anyone who doesn't know rule one is not an expert they are a danger?”

We’ll move on. You wrote (10:57 am, July 24): “Please name ONE local police department that says "THE" best way to be safe, to protect your family, and to avoid being murdered oneself, is to carry a handgun…Try calling the Troy or Farmington Hills PD's. I just did and that is NOT what they recommended.”
You later wrote to Ann (11:04 am, July 24): “Try actually asking a police officer BEFORE you put words in their mouths.”
And then to me, you wrote (8:26 am, July 25): …I was managing a business and was robbed… the perps were arrested (once after the fact, and once when I disarmed him and held him until the police arrived). Had I pulled out a gun in either case the situation would have been considerably more tense.
Now you’re making assumptions about the reactions of the “perps” you gunned down with your hypnotic stare. But let’s focus on the position of the Police. It’s interesting that you CLAIM the Police don’t recommend owning firearms for self-defense, because the National Organization of Police Officers, and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America would disagree with you. Let’s see what they have to say:

Now that I’ve established that you’re NOT an expert, but in fact a hypocrite, I’ll illustrate how you’re also a liar!
You posted (12:57 pm, July 24): “... we could just arm the public, anyone of whom could be a mass murdering psycho.”
Forty-three states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have prohibitions for persons with mental illness from purchasing, or possessing firearms.
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?Volume=163&page=1392&journalID=13
According to http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/29/8/281.full: “Although the majority of gun-related incidents are carried out by people not suffering from a mental illness, access to guns by some psychiatric patients is an issue because of the possibility of self-harm and, much less likely, harm to others…Most societies acknowledge the fact that licensing of firearms works to minimize gun-related crime.”
Applicants for a Michigan Concealed Pistol License must:
15. Have never been subject to an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to a mental illness
16. Not have a diagnosed mental illness at the time the application is made, regardless of whether he or she is receiving treatment.
http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

Michigan Law states: (3) The commissioner or chief of police…that issues licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols… shall with due speed and diligence issue licenses to purchase, carry, possess, or transport pistols to qualified applicants…unless he or she has probable cause to believe that the applicant would be a threat to himself or herself or to other individuals, or would commit an offense with the pistol that would violate a law of this or another state or of the United States. An applicant is qualified if all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) The person is not subject to an order or disposition for which he or she has received notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and which was entered into the law enforcement information network pursuant to any of the following:
(i) Section 464a of the mental health code, 1974 PA 258, MCL 330.1464a.
(g) The person is not under an order of involuntary commitment in an inpatient or outpatient setting due to mental illness.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ilqppx45mbj01d45eqqqco55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-422
The restrictions for firearms possession in Michigan are quite extensive and can be found here:
http://michigan.gov/msp/1,1607,7-123-1591_3503_4654-10926--,00.html

Law professor and firearms issue researcher David Kopel notes, "Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed-carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences. Permit-holders will slaughter each other in traffic disputes, while would-be Rambos shoot bystanders in incompetent attempts to thwart crime. But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media's radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn't so bad after all."
Thirty-two states now have right-to-carry laws. Half the U.S. population, including 60% of handgun owners, live in right-to-carry states. Twenty-two states have adopted right-to-carry since 1987. In each case, anti-gun activists and politicians predicted that allowing law-abiding people to carry firearms would result in more violence. Typical of this sort of propaganda, Florida State Rep. Michael Friedman said, "We'll have calamity and carnage, the body count will go up and we'll see more and more people trying to act like super-cops." Broward County Sheriff Nick Navarro said, "This could set us back 100 years to the time of the Wild West." But since Florida adopted right-to-carry in 1987, its murder rate has decreased 51%, while nationwide the murder rate has decreased 33%. Less than two one-hundredths of 1% of Florida carry licenses have been revoked because of firearm crimes committed by licensees, according to the Florida Dept. of State.

Before Gov. George W. Bush was able to sign Texas' carry law, predictions of a return to the Wild West were also made. But honest public servants who initially opposed the law have stepped forth to admit they were wrong. John B. Holmes, Harris County's district attorney, said that he thought the legislation presented "a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my initial fears absolutely groundless." And this from Glen White, president of the Dallas Police Association: "All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. . . . I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert."
I’m reminded of another position you took…something about arming citizens would be equitable to a shootout at O.K. Corral…?

Terry, you claim: “The accuracy of a handgun beyond a couple of feet is extremely poor.” Says who? You? A non-shooter? This is a LIE!
Let’s discuss some of your other misinformed claims. You said (11:27 am, July 23) “Statistically a person who is mugged is more likely to get shot if they are carrying a gun, often with their own gun, than if they were not.” And “Consider also, that by far the largest percentage of people who are murdered are done in by a relative or someone known to them.”

You said (11:27 am, July 23) “The chance encounters, like the Colorado case, account for an extremely small percentage of the killing nationwide.”
Glad you can admit that you were wrong, and that the entire U.S. isn’t a “potential shootout at O.K. Corral” as you insinuated on July 24.
You wrote (11:27 am, July 23): “If you really want to decrease your chances of being killed by a gun, you are far better off not owning one and not associating with gun-nuts.”
Let’s ask the FBI, shall we? Since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, the nation's murder rate has dropped 10 percent, continuing a long-term decline that began in 1991. Through 2009, the murder rate was at a 45-year low, and the FBI recently reported that the murder rate fell an additional seven percent in the first half of 2010.

How about this claim (11:27 am, July 23): “…fact that a large percentage of the illegal weapons available were stolen from someone who purchased them legally. Less legal guns, translates to less illegal ones.”
According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -
A flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
A retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
Family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%
Government studies have found that at least 40 percent of felons acquire their firearms from "street/illegal sources"--ranging up to 97 percent for criminals who attack law enforcement officers.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/archive/firearms_and_crime.shtml

And who could forget this fallacy: (10:16 am, July 24): “…study published in the American Journal of Public Health by Charles Branas, PhD, et al. found that someone carrying a gun for self-defense was 4.5 times more likely to be shot during an assault than an assault victim without a gun.”
Here, you’re spreading misinformation by passing on a manipulated study as valid. Even supporters of restrictive gun legislation have called this study into question.
The Philadelphia Inquirer interviewed J. Michael Oakes, a professor of Epidemiology and Community Health at the University of Minnesota. “There are some sketchy things going on here,” he said. “The foundation of the case control study is the sense that those who are the cases are exactly the same as those who are in the control group,” Oakes explained. The Inquirer summarized Oakes’ observation that, “Branas is assuming the people who were shot were no more likely to have guns than a group of controls of the same gender and racial mix. It’s a big stretch,” Oakes said.

University of Chicago Economist Jens Ludwig is one of the most experienced, and most intellectually rigorous, academic supporters of restrictive gun policies. Yet he, too, was skeptical of the conclusion. “They can’t tease out whether guns are contributing to assault or assault risk is contributing to gun ownership,” Ludwig said. In other words, people who are especially at risk of being attacked might be more likely than other people to carry guns, rather than the other way around.
Florida State University criminology professor Gary Kleck put it succinctly: “It is precisely as if medical researchers found that insulin use is more common among persons who suffer from diabetes than among those who are not diabetic (something that is most assuredly true), and concluded that insulin use raises one’s risk of diabetes.”
After its release, Kleck wrote a short essay about the Penn study blasting it as “the very epitome of junk science in the guns-and-violence field--poor quality research designed to arrive at an ideologically predetermined conclusion.”
Research on people who actually use guns for protection shows the opposite of what Branas and his colleagues claim. Kleck and Jongyeon Tark examined data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, an annual study by the Census Bureau and the Department of Justice that asks individuals if they were crime victims in the last year and, if so, collects information about the circumstances.

You asserted (9:42 am, July 24): “Many mass murders happen where large number of people congregrate, not necessarily gun free zones.”
Amish school in Pennsylvania (5 children murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
Virginia Tech (32 murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
Columbine High School (13 murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
Jonesboro Westside Middle School (5 murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
Germany`s Gutenberg High School (16 murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
14 legislators murdered in Zug, Switzerland: GUN FREE ZONE!
8 city council members in a Paris suburb murdered: GUN FREE ZONE!
Junior High in Moses Lake, Wash. (3 murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
California Christian University (7 murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
Fort Hood (14 murdered): GUN FREE ZONE!
And on, and on…

More bogus claims (7:44 am, July 25) “Only a fool would believe that having more guns will make this a safer place to live.” Or (7:39 am, July 25): “The number one way to get killed when you are assaulted, is to pull out a weapon.”
Let’s ask a real expert (not a fraud, like you). Professor John Lott spent 18 years studying firearms laws and crime rates in all 3,045 U.S. Counties. His research is compiled in his book “More guns, less crime.” This is the most comprehensive study of firearm laws ever conducted. He included in his analysis many variables that might explain the level of crime--factors such as income, poverty, unemployment, population density, arrest rates, conviction rates and length of prison sentences.
With 54,000 observations and hundreds of variables available over the 1977 to 1994 period, Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been compiled for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control.
"Many factors influence crime," Lott writes, "with arrest and conviction rates being the most important. However, nondiscretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime."

Nondiscretionary, or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes, because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed and can defend themselves. Secondly, national crime victimization surveys show that victims who use firearms to defend themselves are statistically less likely to be injured. In short, carry laws deter crime, because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.
Lott's research shows that states with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high-crime urban areas and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.
Lott found "a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates." Further, he found that the value of carry laws increases over time. "For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by over 2%," Lott writes.

"Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women," Lott notes. "An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men."
While right-to-carry laws lead to fewer people being murdered (Lott finds an equal deterrent effect for murders committed with and without guns), the increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others "get a 'free ride' from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens," Lott finds. And the benefits are "not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns." The most obvious example of what Lott calls this "halo" effect, is "the drop in murders of children following the adoption of nondiscretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area."

Lott devotes an entire chapter of his book to rebutting attacks leveled at his research and at him personally. He recalls how Susan Glick of the radical Violence Policy Center publicly denounced his research as "flawed" without having read the first word of it.
Criminologist Gary Kleck says: "Battered by a decade of research contradicting the central factual premises underlying gun control, advocates have apparently decided to fight more exclusively on an emotional battlefield, where one terrorizes one's targets into submission rather than honestly persuading them with credible evidence."
Hey, that sounds like you, Terry!

Here’s one that caught my attention. You wrote (9:07 am, July 25): “Very few people realize that their morning commute to work probably puts them in more danger than our forces serving in Iraq (by the % of death statistics). That most of our soldiers never fire a shot in anger or self-defense (the same is true of most of our police officers).”
Isn’t that interesting? You’re admitting that in Iraq, where there’s a huge number of people with firearms (American military, Iraqi military, Iraqi police, and the enemy) the risk of fatality from gunfire is lower than the risk of death here in the U.S. where the gun-carrying population is not so pronounced. I believe you’ve contradicted your own argument here. It’s also interesting that you admit that the well armed police and military forces aren’t likely to engage in anger-fueled fire-fights. But aren’t they all “gun nuts?”

What is most sad after reading a good chunk of these comments is that the Anti-Gunners seem to me more afraid of a law abiding trained and approved citizen carrying a gun than they are of an untrained moron criminal intent on destruction of carrying a gun.

AND to clarify to all those who claim they are "Pro Gun" but anti "Assault Weapon". An AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon. It is a civilian version of a military weapon. It has the aesthetics of the military version but its function as far as rate of fire is no different than any other readily available but more traditionally styled semi-auto rifle. Just because its not wood stocked and is black in color does not make it evil. The 2nd Ammendment was designed to protect the people from tyranny, our fellow man in positions of power and force, not deer. When the 2nd Amndmnt was passed, the rifle on the battlefield was a musket, today, the rifle on the battlefield is the AR and the AK. Those rifles are just as protected by the 2nd today as the musket was yesterday.

Monday, February 21, 2011
WXYZ: A pizza delivery driver with a concealed carry permit used his gun to defend himself after three men tried to rob him.

Thursday, February 17, 2011
Chicago Tribune: A man armed with a knife demanded drugs from two employees at a Wauconda drug store. After refusing to surrender, the pharmacist fired a shot, sending the intruder to the hospital.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011
KRIS TV An armed pastor confronted two juveniles attempting to steal from a church remodeling project. The teens first pleaded, then threatened, the pastor, who held the men for police.

Friday, February 11, 2011
Sacramento Bee: Four men in ski masks and armed with a pistol tried to hold up a Sacramento Market. The owner denied the robbers by firing a shot in the air, prompting their quick retreat.

Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Standard Speaker: A female homeowner shot one of several intruders breaking into her home in Pennsylvania. The woman was wounded but is expected to recover; one intruder was killed, the others retreated.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Indianapolis Star: An armed homeless man confronted two citizens and tried to break into their car. The owners were present, but rather than complying with the gunman’s demands, they drew weapons of their own, shooting the would-be robber.

Country superstar Craig Morgan was whitetail hunting when he received a terrifying phone call— his daughter’s home was invaded. Luckily, Morgan had taught her well. “My daughter was smart enough to go in her bedroom and lock herself in, and she had a pistol, so she was waiting if he came through,” Morgan explained. Rather than face an armed citizen, the man fled the home. “I’m grateful that we live in a country where we as citizens have the right to bear arms and protect ourselves,” Morgan said. “God bless the U.S.A.”

Already on edge following a burglary that occurred just days prior, Omar Medina was awakened by loud noises coming from somewhere inside his home. He quickly retrieved his handgun and stepped out into the hallway. An intruder was in the living room. Medina fired three shots. The intruder grunted loudly, ran out the door, collapsed and died. Police say the man had an extensive criminal record and was a suspect in other burglaries. (The Item, Sumter, S.C., 05/28/11)

Peggy Melton returned home unaware that a man and woman were in the act of burglarizing the residence. As she entered a bedroom, she discovered the male intruder, who possessed a gun illegally. He threatened to shoot her. Fortunately, Melton has a concealed-carry permit and had holstered a handgun earlier that day. She drew the gun and fired three shots, striking the burglar. He ran from the home and his accomplice sped them away in a stolen truck. Police caught up with the suspects and took them into custody. (News-Leader, Springfield, Mo., 06/23/11)

How’s this for a bold, criminal act? A thief who burglarized a residence and stole the homeowner’s Lexus returned in the stolen ride intent on further burglary. He broke into the home, perhaps knowing the owners were out of town. What he surely didn’t know was that their son was house-sitting and armed with a shotgun. When the son heard the suspect enter the home, he took up his shotgun and confronted him. The intruder cursed and reached toward his back as if to draw a weapon. The son shot the intruder three times, killing him. Neighbors say the area, home to many military retirees, has been hit hard by burglars, and residents have armed themselves in response. “I don’t feel scared, I feel violated,” said neighbor Mary Gramm. “I have a gun.” (San Antonio Express-News, San Antonio, Texas, 05/23/11)

When a homeowner’s dogs began barking in bizarre fashion, he grabbed a handgun to investigate while his wife called the police. The victim of two burglaries in recent weeks, the homeowner cautiously approached his detached garage. He confronted two prowlers lurking inside, drew his handgun and told them not to move. Initially it appeared the suspects would wait for police, but suddenly the desperate men charged. The homeowner made quick work of the criminals, opening fire and connecting with each shot. One man fell dead. The other lay wounded. The homeowner grabbed a medical kit and provided assistance to the wounded suspect until police arrived. (The Chronicle, Centralia, Wash., 05/23/2011)

A 9-1-1 dispatcher received a call at 4:34 a.m. that someone was trying to break into a 4-year-old girl’s bedroom. The girl’s mother remained on the line, but before police could arrive, the suspect threw a concrete block through the glass portion of a back door. Fortunately, the caller’s husband had a Plan B—one that did not involve waiting for police to arrive. He quickly retrieved his .22-cal. revolver and fired three shots through the broken glass window. Moments later the brazen attacker returned and stuck his hand through the window. The husband fired two more shots, this time striking the suspect in the head and abdomen. When police arrived, the suspect was sitting on the back porch covered in blood. At press time he was listed in critical condition at the hospital. (The Baxter Bulletin, Mountain Home, Ark., 06/14/11)

It’s a familiar scenario: An armed citizen with a concealed-carry permit is likely once again to have saved multiple lives. Several customers were doing business inside a pawn shop when a man walked inside, pointed a gun toward the ceiling and announced a robbery. Did the gunman intend to shoot the clerk? Would he take hostages? We’ll never know, because a customer with a concealed-carry permit promptly drew a pistol and shot the robber in the stomach. The suspect has been charged with aggravated robbery. (KSAT-TV, San Antonio, Texas, 06/22/11)

Seeking help following an assault at the hands of her boyfriend, a woman phoned her parents. They quickly picked her up and brought her to their home, calmed their terrified daughter and she went to sleep. Then a banging at the door arose—the boyfriend had found her hiding place. The parents would not answer, so the suspect kicked in the door and began assaulting them. The mother was able to struggle free and ran to the bedroom to get her pistol. Meanwhile, the suspect turned his attention to the father. The mother returned to find the suspect badly beating her husband. She opened fire, killing the suspect. (The Orange Leader, Orange, TX, 05/16/11)

Look Terry, here's one that happened in the dark:
A woman in her early 50s was getting out of the shower when the bathroom lights suddenly went out. An intruder collided into her in the dark, causing her to fall backward into the shower and injure her back. She fought the man, but he put a knife to her throat. “She was telling him that she has money and please don’t hurt her,” said Police Cpl. Edwin Ritter, adding that the attack was an attempted sexual assault. The intruder forced the woman into her bedroom, but that’s exactly where she kept her .22-cal. pistol. She broke free, retrieved the gun and shot her would-be rapist several times. He ran outside, collapsed and died. “Thank God she’s OK and she had a weapon to protect herself with,” said a neighbor. “She’s a nice lady, just a sweet lady.” (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Atlanta, GA, 05/12/11)

Robert Parsley was watching television one evening when he heard a noise outside. He quickly grabbed his Smith & Wesson Model 360 revolver chambered in .357 Mag. to investigate. The doorbell rang several times. Parsley looked out the window and saw a man tugging on the locked screen door. Holding the gun behind his back, he turned on the porch light and asked the young man what he was doing. He claimed his wife was in labor, and heavily perspiring, he said that he needed help. But Parsley found the man’s story suspicious. His instincts were correct: Earlier that evening the man stole an excavator and used it to severely damage a church. Parsley lowered the gun, bringing it into view. “Sorry for waking you!” the young man said as he ran off. Two police cruisers pulled up with their spotlights on searching for a suspect. Parsley told them in what direction the suspect had run and they found him breaking into a nearby home. (WTVD-ABC, Raleigh, NC, 05/20/11)

In 2007, shortly after pharmacist Jeremy Hoven began working the night shift at Walgreens, the store was robbed by four armed men. Despite workers’ security complaints, Walgreens made no changes, so Hoven obtained a concealed carry permit and purchased a firearm. Earlier this year, Hoven was behind the counter when two masked robbers carrying guns burst inside. According to Police Lt. Delmar Lange, the robbers were “very aggressive and very dangerous in what they did and how they did it.” The robbers ordered all employees into a back room. Hoven fired upon the robbers, likely hitting one and causing both to flee. Unfortunately, Walgreens fired the heroic armed citizen for carrying a gun. (The Herald-Palladium, St. Joseph, MI, 05/10/11)

When three men claiming to be contractors told 86-year-old Walter Peppel that his roof was leaking—and that he needed to pay them $11,700 to fix it—he smelled a rat. The roof was in good condition, and the men had no uniforms, business cards or logo on their vehicle. One of the men was so bold as to climb atop Peppel’s roof without permission, claiming he needed to inspect it. Peppel told the men to leave the house. Instead, they shouted at Peppel, frightening his wife and demanding he pay them to fix the roof. That’s when Peppel got his original Winchester Model 94 lever-action and pointed it at the scammers. They fled before the Peppels could record their license plate number. (Pocono Record, Stroudsburg, PA, 05/09/11)

When a noise woke an 84-year-old grandmother, she noticed her hall light was on and knew something was awry. The sharp-thinking, independent woman opened a nightstand drawer and quickly grabbed her .38-cal. revolver. “My mind told me to get that gun,” she explained. No sooner had she done so than an intruder appeared at the bedroom door. The woman fired a shot, striking the wall. The intruder ran out the back door, which he had kicked in. (KTVU-TV, Oakland, Calif., 03/03/11)

Denard Joe was stopped in his car at an intersection when a man wearing a red bandana tapped on the window and pointed a gun at him. Big mistake. Joe, a concealed-carry permit holder, drew a handgun and opened fire through the window, striking his assailant twice in the chest. The carjacker, who had just been released from state prison last November, ran a short distance and then died. (The Ledger, Lakeland, Fla., 04/06/11)

Home alone in his two-story house, a man heard a knock at his door. Glancing out the window, he saw three men sneak around to the back sliding door. The sound of breaking glass made it clear that the men were entering the house. The homeowner went upstairs, locked himself in a bedroom and got his gun. At least one of the burglars approached the bedroom door and was about to enter when the resident opened fire, killing him. The other burglars fled, one of whom was nabbed by a responding officer’s police dog. (The News Tribune, Tacoma, Wash., 04/05/11)

Church Minister Kimani Wright and his young son interrupted a burglary as they returned home one morning. Wright saw the burglar, who was armed, and immediately drew a handgun and opened fire. Glass shattered as bullets struck the front door. The burglar wisely ran away. According to police, the intruder was not struck. Neither Wright nor his son were injured. (The Fayetteville Observer, Fayetteville, n.c., 04/21/11)

“You’re not supposed to knock old people down … I’m too old to be going through all that!” said 83-year-old James Brooks after a hair-raising burglary incident. It began when a man knocked on the door, claimed to have lost his cell phone and inquired whether Brooks had seen it. Soon after, a second man knocked on the door. “He told me to go sit on the couch because he didn’t want to kill me,” Brooks recalled. At first he thought the suspect was joking, but his intent to do harm quickly became clear. As the suspect attempted to lift Brooks’ television, Brooks saw his opportunity to retrieve a firearm. He fired a shot, wounding the suspect, who fled the scene with the assistance of two accomplices. Brooks said he’s lived in the neighborhood for more than 25 years and never had anything like this happen. “These young people have got their whole lives to live, why spoil it?” Brooks asked rhetorically. “I’m thinking [the suspect] got the message.” (Dayton Daily News, Dayton, Ohio, 04/30/11)

A woman and her husband pleaded with a man to quit attempting to break into their home. As the woman dialed 9-1-1, the suspect banged on the front door and shattered the surrounding glass. The husband shouted that he was armed with a rifle—he even fired two warning shots in an attempt to halt the break-in—but the suspect forced the door open anyway. As he entered the home, the husband fired a single shot from his .22-cal. rifle. The suspect was shot once in the chest and killed. (The World, Coos Bay, Ore., 04/08/11)

Notice how many of the criminals were injured. Out of all those stories, the majority of the shots fired hit their target...even in the dark.

I must applaud the 50 year old woman near Atlanta for giving us a remarkable example for this debate!
She's attacked in her home, IN THE DARK, with a knife-wielding maniac. She resists, manages to break free from his grasp, promptly retrieves her firearm, and despite the fact that IT WAS DARK, and her adrenaline must've been going wild, she manages to fatally wound him with "several" well placed shots...IN THE DARK!
Bravo Ma'am!

Imagine that...good guys with guns were needed to stop a bad guy with a gun!

This is a reminder to all to please be civil when commenting. Name-calling, among other things, is absolutely not permitted per our Terms of Use (http://troy.patch.com/terms).

Failure to adhere to our terms may result in banishment from Patch.

Thank you.

Eric B +1 +1 +1 +1

As I read Eric B.'s blog on the Patch, I understand that yes, you know a lot about firearms and I'd like to thank you for sharing ALL of your knowlege-BUT there comes a point when you are just beating a dead horse and not getting anywhere-I think we have covered this subject enough and it is time to move on-

Thank you!!! I was ready to move on over a week ago. However, I wasn't willing to tolerate someone posing as an expert spreading skewed figures and misinformation. It would appear that said "someone" is no longer among the contributing members, and therefore, I may retire.