Guns Advocates Lie While People Die

Alan Korwin

I’ve sent an e-mail to the man pictured to the right. He is a noted gun advocate/writer.

Hi Alan,

I just saw you on C-Span giving a talk on April 8th 2008.

You said, “Guns save hundreds of thousands of lives a year.”

You said this after describing a situation in which a women killed her intruder.

I think this claim needs to be fully explored for veracity because if it is true, we gun control advocates will need to take pause.

If on the other hand, this statement is off by say 99.9%, then it is arguably a lie. As a non-fiction writer, your moral and ethical integrity are in question.

I’ve posted this e-mail on our blog so that you may defend your statement publicly. Please go there to respond.

Thanks
Cliff

This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.

Fortunately, because of OneUtah’s very high search engine ranking, this post will soon be returned on the first page of a search on Alan Korwin. This is called meritocracy.

I hope he will address our concerns responsibly.

, , ,

  1. #1 by Lynette on April 15, 2008 - 6:38 am

    I keep forgetting to tell my children you can make a living by lying. The evidence is all around us.

    This guy will never respond. He can’t. Why start now? He’s probably been telling the same lies for so long, he doesn’t even realize how ridiculous this lie is.

    These gun freaks are shameless.

    “According to the Violence Policy Center, since 1962 650,000 people have been killed, intentionally or unintentionally by hand guns. Evidently, despite the maxim, guns do kill people. And even that doesn’t tell the story — in a seven-year period between 1990 and 1997, 110,000 people died from gunshot wounds. 89,000 of those came from hand guns. On average, about 80 percent of those who are shot to death in the United States are killed by hand guns. And just 1.4 percent of those killings, on average, are self-defense shootings. The other 98-plus percent of shootings are homicides, suicides and accidental deaths. In fact, someone is four times more likely to be accidentally killed by a hand gun than saved from attack by one.

    Those who argue in defense of hand guns and say they should continue to be legal and easily obtained, in virtually unlimited numbers don’t have a good response to numbers such as these: in 2006, 46 people died in all of England as a result of shooting (this includes all guns, including handguns which are illegal in the U.K.). In the same period, in New York, which has about 20 percent of the population of the U.K had 579 gun deaths in 2006. After falling throughout the 1990s, when more cops were on the street and hand guns faced the new Brady Bill restrictions, gun deaths are again on the rise.” Full article.

  2. #2 by KarateMan on April 15, 2008 - 7:11 am

    IN 2004, GUNS MURDERED

    5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
    37 IN SWEDEN
    56 IN AUSTRALIA
    73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
    184 IN CANADA

    AND 11, 344 IN THE UNITED STATES

    GOD BLESS AMERICA.

    Want to make a difference? Join http://www.bradycampaign.org
    Statistics supplied by individual countries.

  3. #3 by Jeremy on April 15, 2008 - 7:36 am

    It looks like a few of you could use a lesson in gathering statistics. According to the DOJ there are 1.5 million defensive gun uses per year. That far out weighs the 11,344 people that were killed with guns in 2004. And of those 11,344 how many were gangsters or criminals that deserve what they got?
    Our country is based on the idea that we have inalienable rights, meaning these rights are ours from birth. They are not granted by a law or government. But with such great freedom there is great responsibility, something most people don’t teach their children. Cars kill hundreds of thousands of people every year, why not ban cars? Cars and guns are not the problem. Its people.

    This is a great book, and its free. Try to arm yourself with something more than a brainwashed rhetoric from the Brady Campaign. Knowledge is power.

    ” Don’t Tread On Me”

  4. #4 by David Hardy on April 15, 2008 - 7:40 am

    If you watch my documentary, see http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com, you’ll see Prof. Gary Kleck, criminology, FSU, speak. He’s done the most authoritative polling on gun use in self-defense. He made the following findings: about 2.5 milllion Americans annually use firearms in self defense against criminal attack; about 400,000 would answer that their use of a firearm saved a life.
    He notes that all that a poll can tell you is that 400,000 would say so–there is no way to assess it objectively. But even if 90% said yes in error, the number of lives saved would far exceed those taken by criminal use.

  5. #5 by Anonymous on April 15, 2008 - 7:44 am

    Gun owners and inalienable right 2nd amendment supporters, Ask cliff the Jew if he would like to see his brethren disarmed, it is only for their own good after all, and to make a more peaceful world. He will argue that a Jews’ safety in Israel is more threatened and somehow more important than an American with the same intent in owning arms, and the threat is not not comparable. Americans don’t care is what to tell him, they got theirs, we have ours.

    K man, we are a large uncivilized country, with many violent felons. If you wish to focus on accidents that would make more sense.

    This said Mexico has a higher murder rate than the US, and guns are expressly illegal. People bent of crime and killing find ways…and guns. Who cares about dominion country stats? They are the leavings of the crown we fought war with, of course they are a subdued group. We are not them, and never will be.

    Canada has 1/3 our murder rate per capita, and most of that is done via knife and bludgeoning. It comes down to people, we have piles of very bad people that use violence regularly to achieve their aims. Much less so in Canada.

  6. #6 by Cliff Lyon on April 15, 2008 - 7:55 am

    David,

    You can’t possible believe that 2.5 million people Americans use guns in self-defense annually.

    Can you produce the study? Was it peer reviewed? Such a claim demands some reasonable evidence don’t you think?

    And if 400,000 people claim they saved a life, what of the 2.1 million who pulled a gun a didn’t save a life? Did they miss. Were they drunk? Or were they just paranoid, shriveled little men who wave their guns around at any opportunity?

  7. #7 by SayUncle on April 15, 2008 - 8:21 am

    Well, you were given the name of the researcher and the university, I figure a smart guy like you can google it up.

    “And if 400,000 people claim they saved a life, what of the 2.1 million who pulled a gun a didn’t save a life? Did they miss. Were they drunk? Or were they just paranoid, shriveled little men who wave their guns around at any opportunity?”

    We have studies and you have dick jokes?

    ‘This is the beauty of the internet. Unsupportable public comments and the people who make them can be taken to task and a permanent record established.’

    Yes, you’ll soon figure that out.

  8. #8 by Anonymous on April 15, 2008 - 8:24 am

    Who cares about peer review? It is meaningless to the truth. It leads to bad science.

    I guess you like to answer before watching the documentary huh cliff?

  9. #9 by gattsuru on April 15, 2008 - 8:31 am

    The Peter Hart Research Associates 1981 study surveyed 1,228 United States voting households, and 4% answered that they had “within the last five years, used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property.” I can’t find a good online record of the information, but it was considered accurate and peer-reviewed enough for TIME magazine. While Kleck’s methodology for determine what circumstances the events were used in has come under some fire, simply projecting the research data by the number of households then dividing by the number of years covered by the question is a pretty well-documented and well-proven methodology, and it gives a number easily within the hundreds of thousands. Further research has suggested that result to be low (households with registered voters are, apparently, less likely to be the victim of a crime than average in the first place. Go figure).

    And if 400,000 people claim they saved a life, what of the 2.1 million who pulled a gun a didn’t save a life? Did they miss. Were they drunk? Or were they just paranoid, shriveled little men who wave their guns around at any opportunity?

    Generally speaking, it’s lawful to use a firearm to stop a rapist, several forms of property crime, or some forms of attackers that do not intend to kill you (self-defense law almost always recognizes the right to not be paralyzed). Part of the difficult of such an assessment, and the primary criticism of Kleck’s data, is that short of unknown psychic powers, it’s rather difficult to tell if the average criminal is merely after the TV or thinks that opening your wife’s skull will lead to the fountain of eternal youth.

    Beyond that, I feel I should point out that defense gun uses aren’t reliant on accuracy. While it’s nice to have, a lot of criminals just don’t want to be shot at in the first place, and in many documented cases just pointing the gun at an attempted has given them a reason to go elsewhere.

    Beyond that, I’ll point out exactly how irrelevant the needless insults are. Provide data or arguments, not some assumption that anyone disagreeing with you is somehow mentally flawed. It’s just insulting, especially when you’ve asked for data in the first place.

  10. #10 by Anonymous on April 15, 2008 - 8:50 am

    Outgunned a’gin or something like that, huh cliff?

    So you don’t like the means by which one would defend themselves and property, it can’t be helped. Bottom line, violent crime is part of the social fabric of America, until the crazies are cured or controlled, do you object to a person defending themselves and property from people who would attack or steal such? Or would you have it as in dominion countries, where you do not have such a right, and must wait for “authority” to intervene?

    Please recall that Englishmen did a whole lot of murdering to end up in control of the lands where they are all now so peaceable. Without exception. I’ll bet the Maoris, and Aborigines could have used a few pistols and HP rifles in their day, instead of being culled like lizards in the desert. Our own Indians too had the same trouble. As I recall no negotiations they made with armed white people were ever fully respected, and this with the force of the federal government behind them. Imagine the Indians may have wanted to have had guns, and the organization to halt the thefts of their lands. We today still have that right of defense, inalienable. The dominions do not anymore.

    Have a gander at Australian violent crime stats since their gun ban. In addition, if you have never lived in dominion nations you really have no notion of the meaning of property crime. It is rampant in Canada, the lower mainland of Vancouver having the 2nd highest rate in North America, # 1 being Miami.

    Emigration is always an option if this issue sits poorly with a person. It is however a citizens right to piss up any rope they like.

    Do you deny a person a right to self defense? Lethal if necessary, under legal restrictions carefully outlined. If you do believe in self defense, then what I see is a person that does not appreciate the personal CHOICE to use a handgun to do it. One way or another, it does not matter, the Supreme Court decided we can carry. Enough already.

    An armed society, is a polite society. Do you call people names to their face when you lose arguments? Don’t worry, it is verbal abuse, and while that can be criminal, it is not legal cause for shooting a person, though if they utter threats, and menace… it can be justified.

  11. #11 by Obama Girl on April 15, 2008 - 8:56 am

    Guns won’t be an issue if Obama is elected president.

    If Obama wins, no one will want to commit crimes because Obama will appeal to everyone’s better self. He will inspire us and lift us up, and we shall meet Obama in the clouds.

    Once people realize that crimes are no longer being committed because Obama has united us, people will turn their guns into plowshares.

  12. #12 by jon on April 15, 2008 - 8:57 am

    even convicted felons report using guns in self-defense — largely.

    you’re so sure they don’t deserve the right to survive an attack?

    even if it’s from another, more dangerous and violent felon?

    even if their felony didn’t involve homicide?

    interesting view of human life for a man of faith.

  13. #13 by Anonymous on April 15, 2008 - 10:07 am

    Those of you afflicted with hoplophobia( fear of guns) need to read this psychological analysis of your mental state.

    Respond to the good doctor. She wrote the article, and is in your neighborhood. She is fully credentialed, so you may have to actually read what she writes and then use a lay mans’ knowledge to attempt to maintain your own positions.

    Or a person can just be like Mr. Schumer.

  14. #14 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 10:09 am

    The war on drugs and the middle class is what causes most of the gun violence in the United States. Take the money out of drugs people like to do and stop making it impossible to live for the working class.

    I still don’t understand why the 2nd amendment people and the NRA didn’t go crazy when Bush took people’s guns away after Katrina. They didn’t have any problem when they thought somebody else’s gun was confiscated.

  15. #15 by Jeremy on April 15, 2008 - 10:23 am

    Larry, there were plenty of hoping mad citizens, but the left wing media squelch there voice. Black, white or purple, I don’t care what color you are, you have a God given right to arms.

    BTW New Orleans was sued and lost in court for the violation of the second amendment.
    Take a look at this

  16. #16 by jdberger on April 15, 2008 - 10:38 am

    Larry,

    The NRA and the Second Amendment people didn’t have to go crazy when Mayor Nagin took people’s guns away after Katrina. They filed a lawsuit in the USDC Eastern District in Louisiana, filed and received a restraining order forbidding additional gun siezures and filed a motion for contempt against Mayor Ray Nagin for failure to comply with the restraining order.

    They pushed for legislation forbidding the confiscation of firearms from lawful citizens during declared emergencies. This was signed by Gov. Blanco in June 2006.

    Further, the NRA promoted Federal legislation that prohibits the confiscation of otherwise legal firearms from law-abiding citizens during states of emergency by any agent of the Federal Government or anyone receiving Federal funds (effectively, any Federal, state, or local governmental entity). Introduced in Congress by Rep. Bobby Jindal and Sen. David Vitter, both of Louisiana, this bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support, passing the House of Representatives with a margin of 322-99 and the Senate by 84-16. President Bush signed it in October 2006. (Thanks to Wikipedia)

    The NRA didn’t go crazy – it went to work.

  17. #17 by Cactus Jack on April 15, 2008 - 10:43 am

    KarateMan Says:

    April 15th, 2008 at 7:11 am
    IN 2004, GUNS MURDERED

    5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
    37 IN SWEDEN
    56 IN AUSTRALIA
    73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
    184 IN CANADA

    AND 11, 344 IN THE UNITED STATES

    No, CRIMINALS murdered those people. Seriously people, a gun is not like Stephen King’s Christine, a mechanical device with a mind of it’s own. The criminals are what need to be delt with, not the devices they use because, as would be obvious to a blind man, gun bans do NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. And making honest people totally helpless in the prescence of armed attackers does NOT stop violent crime, it only encourages it.

    Here in Wyoming a very large percentage of the population own firearms and carry them either on their persons or in their vehicle quite ofton. Violent crime here is so rare that it’s a major subject when it does happen unlike places with very restrictive gun laws like D.C. and California, where it’s a daily occurance and seldom makes the front page since it happens so ofton.

    Cliff, you assert that guns dont save lives or prevent violent crime and have yet to prove they dont. However, places like Wyoming show that the deterrent value alone of armed honest citizens DOES.

  18. #18 by caveat heston on April 15, 2008 - 11:30 am

    When I was with you all on that earthly plane, I only had guns because I was bitter. Same with religion. But now that I am with my maker I need neither.

  19. #19 by Bill on April 15, 2008 - 11:32 am

    Cliff admits he would “take pause” if indeed it is true that guns save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, but he says the claim needs to be “fully explored for veracity.”

    In other words, Cliff, you’ve done no research of your own before reaching your position in the debate. The “claim” that guns save far more lives than are taken and prevent more crimes each year than are committed with guns has been proven in many studies and surveys – perhaps the most notable being a study done by the Department of Justice under the Bill Clinton administration, which was the most anti-gun-rights, pro-gun-control administration in the history of this country.

    Very nearly every single survey ever done, no matter who performed the survey, indicates that guns are used in self-defense (so called “defensive gun uses” or “DGUs”) anywhere from a few hundred thousand times, to over 2 million times each year in the United States. In some of those surveys and studies, the anti-gun bias of the authors is obvious, as they try to explain away the numbers they are surprised to find.

    The plain, simple reality is, guns are used defensively, to prevent injury or death from unlawful attack, far more often than they are used unlawfully to inflict injury or death. One of the best sites on the web for researching the gun control debate and getting emotionless facts is http://www.guncite.com/. Take some time and do some reading.

    And as far as which side of the gun control debate lies more, have you ever actually read and taken the time to understand what Florida’s so-called “stand your ground” legislation actually, factually allowed, or Virginia’s recently proposed “castle doctrine” legislation – and then read how the shameless liars at the Brady Campaign described those laws? Their press releases are disgusting with absolute distortion and blatant untruths regarding what those laws would allow. Their bald-faced lies exceed mere hyperbolic rhetoric.

    It has been proven, repeatedly and clearly, that prevalent lawful gun ownership does not CAUSE crime. Let’s just ban all private ownership of guns – it has worked so tremendously well in Chicago and D.C., hasn’t it?

  20. #20 by Alan Korwin on April 15, 2008 - 11:38 am

    Cliff,

    Thanks for writing.

    C-SPAN taped the symposium when it was held on April 9, so it’s unlikely you saw it broadcast on April 8.

    I’ve been waiting for word on when it would air, and have not heard yet. I’m presuming the Duquesne organizers will be among the first to know, no word yet. Do you recall if you saw the entire Symposium?

    The 13 scholarly studies I referred to, which indicate between 700,000 and 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, are summarized, as I mentioned, in the book Armed, by Gary Kleck and Don Kates. The differences in the numbers are due to different time periods and sets of respondants examined in the various studies. You can see the book, or get a copy, here:
    http://www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm

    The example of a woman saving herself is common in real life, but mercilessly censored in mainstream news reports. This leads to a hopelessly distorted impression among the public, who are flooded with stories of criminals misusing guns, sometimes from thousands of miles away, and don’t have a clue about all the good that guns do. We sell four books with nothing but accounts of people using guns in self defense. For an excellent account of media bias on the subject, see John Lott’s book, The Bias Against Guns, here:
    http://www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm

    Is that sufficient?
    Will you now take that pause?
    Somehow I suspect you may not,
    because this isn’t a policy issue, it’s a medical one:
    http://www.gunlaws.com/GunHate.htm

    Thanks again for writing, questioning my “moral and ethical integrity,”
    and giving me an opportunity to respond.

    Alan.

  21. #21 by glenn on April 15, 2008 - 12:29 pm

    There is no concealed carry law in Vermont for handguns, and Vermont, surprise, has now, and has always had, the lowest incidence of gun crime in North America.

    As for gun crimes, it’s the people stupid.

  22. #22 by Anonymous on April 15, 2008 - 12:42 pm

    I think its time for Cliff to find a new blog and name, it obvious that he has lost any credibility he may have ever had.

  23. #23 by Anonymous on April 15, 2008 - 1:21 pm

    Cliff-

    Your ignorance is near invincible.

    See:

    http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/

  24. #24 by glenn on April 15, 2008 - 1:37 pm

    I’m not anonymous cliff. Check, you know you want to. I don’t see Alan in any search engine relating to this “progressive” mop.

  25. #25 by Nephi on April 15, 2008 - 1:54 pm

    Anon:

    I am often taken to task for citing wikipedia to support arguments I am making. Perhaps you can provide citations other than the NRA (http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/) to back the point that guns are used defensively 2.5 million times per year. Moreover, I would appreciate some clarification as to what the term “defensively” refers.

    Treat the exercise as a test of your own ignorance level, which may be much higher than you think.

  26. #26 by Pawned? on April 15, 2008 - 2:09 pm

    Wow. You anti-gun types just got thoroughly pawned, or whatever it is the kids say these days.

  27. #27 by jdberger on April 15, 2008 - 2:27 pm

    Nephi,

    Please read a little further. Each one of the articles on the NRA cite have attributions to the original source. For example:

    When Darrell Benton, a retired Pittsburgh, PA, motorcycle officer, was alerted to an intruder in his daughter’s house, he arrived to find the rear door kicked off and the home itself ransacked. Benton shot one of the burglars, then called police before shooting a second, whom police now have in custody. Police spokeswoman Diane Richard said of Benton, “It was an intrusion in the home. It was a burglary in the home, and (Benton) was defending their home.” (www.pittsburghlive.com), PA. 4/15/08)

    Did you not read it carefully, or did your “ignorance level” blind you? The search engine is easy to use. There are instructions and everything. Here’s another:

    The Bakersfield Californian, Bakersfield, CA, 11/09/07

    After someone shot through Steven Troy Stewart’s living room window, the frightened Stewart began keeping a shotgun nearby. A month later, the precaution proved a lifesaver. Stewart heard glass breaking. He leapt from bed, grabbed his shotgun and walked toward the front of the house. There stood a man with a gun and a gasoline bomb. Stew-art shot several times, wounding the intruder. The intruder fled with accomplices and later died. Three suspects were arrested In connection with the crime andsuspicion of gang activity. In a jailhouse interview, one suspect told a local TV station they planned to kill Stewart, but he didn’t know why.

  28. #28 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 2:43 pm

    Jeremy:

    Very interesting video from the NRA. Where I STRONGLY disagree with you is that the left wing media stopped the coverage of peoples guns being taken away under a Republican administration.

    I’m not saying this to be a smartass, but listen to me. THERE IS NO LEFT WING MEDIA!

    The NRA and the Republicans are joined at the hip. If Al Gore had been president and Katrina had happened THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO END of the gun confiscation coverage on the media. It would have been non-stop 24/7. Ted Nugent’s image would have been burned into the minds of every American for years.

    The fact is that if Al Gore had been president there would have been no “Blackwater” mercenary organization and it wouldn’t have happened. The rich people in that area got to keep their weapon protection. The judgment on who was a “law abiding” citizen was loosely based. Just because Ray Nagin happens to be black doesn’t mean blacks weren’t unfairly targeted for gun removal whether they were “law abiding” or not. It had more to do with income levels. Rich, white people are TERRIFIED of poor people and would much rather have them out-of-sight and out-of-mind in a “faith based” warehouse somewhere.

    I live here in Salt Lake and really am not the expert on what exactly happened, but I feel fairly confident from what I’ve heard to be saying these things.

    And so I ask again:

    Why didn’t the NRA go CRAZY when this happened under a Republican administration? It has a lot to do with politics, doesn’t it?

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 2:48 pm

    Ha Ha, glenn had to use his usual moniker so we could tell who the crap he was. Even HE was confused!

  30. #30 by Jeremy on April 15, 2008 - 2:50 pm

    Whether or not there is a left wing media is in the eye of the beholder, I say there is, you say there isn’t.

    As far as the NRA, I’m not an NRA member, I’m not a republican either. I don’t why they didn’t go nuts over the gun confiscation, I did. I wrote several letters and made several phone calls to my elected officials, state and federal.

    Last but not least, I’ll disagree with your opinion on Al Gore. I only wish I could say that I have or had any faith in GWB, he is as much of the problem as the rest of Washington.

    I’m no expert either, I love my country, I love my God given rights. Most people could care less, but not me.

    BTW I miss living in Utah, the most gun friendly state in the union!

  31. #31 by glenn on April 15, 2008 - 2:55 pm

    No Larry, as usual, you are in the dark and confused. It really isn’t me.

    Pawned, I think the term you are looking for is THE ANTI GUN NUTS GOT PUNKED! Or pawned, I really don’t know either.

    Quite a slam dunk huh?

    Hey wait a minute Jeremy, you don’t need a concealed weapons permit in the State of Vermont.

    Hey Cliff is Alan your Uncle? He looks just like you!

    Neph(Jim Farmer) you admit that you use wikipedia? It is good for describing a tomato, but something political? The NRA site talks about the laws concerning guns, it is really pretty accurate. BTW, you get my message?

  32. #32 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 3:08 pm

    Study up on “Blackwater”

    It is a purely Republican friendly organization and creation. I do wish the Democrats would show some guts and stop it though.

  33. #33 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 3:14 pm

  34. #34 by jdberger on April 15, 2008 - 3:19 pm

    Larry,

    If Al Gore had been president, Katrina never would have happened. Clearly, the RIGHTNESS of his being would have dispersed the storm – doncha think?

    The NRA is a single issue advocacy organization. Simply put, they support Republicans more often than Democrats because Republicans don’t have “Gun Control” as a plank in their National Platform. There are always exceptions like Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson and Gov. Brian Schweitzer who received NRA “A” rating. On the converse, there are plenty of Republican Legislators that receive NRA “F” ratings [Lincoln Chaffee (RI)]. Even Al Gore used to be a darling of the NRA.

    So … uh…no. The NRA and the Republicans aren’t “joined at the hip”. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

  35. #35 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 3:22 pm

    jdberger:

    The NRA got a law passed to stop the confiscation of weapons UNDER A REPUBLICAN ADMINISRATION. Wasn’t there already a law about that called the constitution?

    Good luck with that one. If there’s another Katrina, the same thing will happen if the Republicans are in office. They don’t give a crap about “that Goddamn piece of paper” (Bush’s words.)

  36. #36 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 3:27 pm

    Your gun rights are safer under a Democratic administration, and Katrina proved it. Where did I say Katrina wouldn’t have happened under Gore? I just said the weapons wouldn’t have been confiscated by Blackwater, because it (Blackwater) wouldn’t have existed.

  37. #37 by glenn on April 15, 2008 - 3:27 pm

    Great Larry so you are finally on board. The anti-Constitutional apparatus is long in the making and bi-partisan.

    Most of the people you would try to inform would agree that the admin is a piece of work we would hope the people of any aprty would reign in. Hasn’t happened and the ball is in the democrat court as it stands.

    It matters not at all which party defies the Constitution, we would hope someone would stand up for it, something like 1776, would that be too much to ask?

  38. #38 by jdberger on April 15, 2008 - 3:28 pm

    Larry.

    I wasn’t aware that Kathleen Blanco was a Republican. When did she decide to leave the Democratic Party?

    And you might not have been aware of it, but the role of Second Amendment in this country has been the subject of some dispute. Fortunately, even the Bradys are coming around to the “individual rights” pov.

    So, yes, a Federal Law was necessary.

  39. #39 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 3:38 pm

    When Republicans stop stealing elections, we will see some sanity and rights. Until then, just hope.

    I have to go to work now because I don’t know how to, and don’t have enough money to inside-trade and sit home on my ass when I’m not fucking things up on capitol hill.

  40. #40 by jdberger on April 15, 2008 - 3:50 pm

    Thank you, Larry – for conceding that your problems are not with the NRA – but with the Republicans.

    I’m sorry that you feel that you are “fucking things up on capitol hill”. If you think you are doing such a horrible job, perhaps you should step out of politics for a while. Get your bearings. Maybe walk the earth, like Kane in “Kung-Fu”.

  41. #41 by glenn on April 15, 2008 - 4:06 pm

    and when you can walk the rice paper and leave no trace, we’ll be glad you are gone.

  42. #42 by rmwarnick on April 15, 2008 - 4:21 pm

    Whatever the statistics, I’ll be happy if the gun advocates stop claiming that their right to own firearms is in the Constitution. It’s not. Our law is based on English legal tradition, and they have never had an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is about state militias.

  43. #43 by Earl Harding on April 15, 2008 - 4:45 pm

    rmwarnick,

    From the English bill of rights 1689

    “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;”

    So the precedent of an armed citizenry, armed for their own defence, is indeed in Old English law.

    Try harder next time.

    Earl.

  44. #44 by karrde on April 15, 2008 - 5:59 pm

    You know, you don’t have to go to the NRA to read news of people defending themselves with firearms.

    There are two other places that I know of that aggregate such stories (typically from local newspapers).

    They are:
    Gun Watch
    This one has a link to the original article in the blog post.

    Also:
    Civilian Gun Self-Defense
    blog.

    Neither of these will prove the tale of hundreds of thousands. But they will give you a taste of the kind of thing that happens on a daily basis throughout America.

    It is important to remember that the U.S. Dept. of Justice can only track such events when they become police reports. If a citizen draws a weapon and the would-be-felon flees, and if no police report or newspaper report is filed, it is very hard for government authorities to count it. Pollsters like Mr. Kleck might be able to, but they have to use representative samples and statistical extrapolation.

  45. #45 by Ken Bingham on April 15, 2008 - 7:43 pm

    Guns don’t kill people. Starving people by converting food into “environmentally friendly” biofuels, and keeping poor countries from developing in the name of global warming kills people.

  46. #46 by Oldsmoblogger on April 15, 2008 - 7:51 pm

    Your gun rights are safer under a Democratic administration, and Katrina proved it.

    Ray Nagin is what party affiliation again?

  47. #47 by Tomare Utsu Zo on April 15, 2008 - 8:03 pm

    rmwarnick Says:

    April 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
    Whatever the statistics, I’ll be happy if the gun advocates stop claiming that their right to own firearms is in the Constitution. It’s not. Our law is based on English legal tradition, and they have never had an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is about state militias.

    rmwarnick, that was plain ignorant. The right to arms for self defense is an ancient one. The Laws of Alfred (9th Cent) prohibited fighting with weapons, but not their keeping. The Laws of Cnut (11th Cent) recognized the right to armed self defense. Every attempt by English kings to disarm the populace was to quell rebellions brewing for their despotic rule.

    Further, the original wording included the phrase, “may have Arms for their Common Defense” the word common was removed to clarify the right as being individual. The inclusion of “as allowed by law was to provide for laws that would make it illegal to hunt on the kings land.

    And to really see how the view of the right to bear arms one need only look at the common law that developed around the right to be armed for ones self-defense. In Rex v. Knight (1686) Knight (who had worn firearms into church) was found not guilty because was not armed to terrify the king’s subjects or in affray of the peace. In Rex v. Smith (1914) “The indictment, therefore, omits two essential elements of the offence – (1) That going armed was without lawful occasion; and (2) that the act was in terrorem populi.” The keeping of a gun could not be considered to be denied just because it might be used in illegal poaching as recognized in Rex v. Gardner where the counsel argued, “it might as well have been said, he kept a cane contrary to the statute, being an engine to destroy game; for it does not appear that he actually did kill any game. And to charge only that he kept a gun is improper, for it includes every man that keeps a gun.” And the court ruled the did “not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defense, but only for making that forbidden (poaching) use of it.”

    The right to bear arms is actually in our Constitution twice. First, is the 2nd which does make mention of the militia. That mention of the militia is a reference to every American citizen. It was understood that the militia consisted of the great body of the people. Samuel Adams said, “The Militia is composed of free Citizens.” Richard Henry Lee, who is recognized as being the most influential writer with regards the Bill of Rights, wrote “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in the greater measure unnecessary … The constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include … all men capable of bearing arms”. And, “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them”. Also, the right to keep and bear arms can’t be only tied to the militia (which even if it had been wouldn’t matter because the militia is every Citizen) but the text of the 2nd includes the words “the people” which, in the body of the Bill of Rights, has never been construed to mean anything other then individuals.

    Second, we have the 9th which recognizes that any right not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights are still rights and therefore are to be protected.

    I would like to thank Stephen P. Halbrook for his excellent research in this field. I basically cliff noted the second and third chapter of his book, “That Every Man Be Armed”.

  48. #48 by Pro Rights Guy on April 15, 2008 - 8:14 pm

    I haven’t seen Cliff post in a while.

    Remember, the title of his post was “Guns Advocates Lie While People Die.” That’s a mighty in-your-face claim that has yet to be supported.

    He must be researching, which is what the rest of you anti-rightists should have done when you asked, “Was it peer reviewed?” That you don’t know Kleck, or Lott, or Wright or Rossi, et al shows that you’re ill-prepared to engage in debate. However, I have a sneakin’ suspicion that you know who Arthur Kellerman is (oft-refuted “advocacy researcher” famous for “a gun in the home is X times more likely…)

  49. #49 by jdberger on April 15, 2008 - 8:14 pm

    rmwarnick Says:

    April 15th, 2008 at 4:21 pm
    Whatever the statistics, I’ll be happy if the gun advocates stop claiming that their right to own firearms is in the Constitution. It’s not. Our law is based on English legal tradition, and they have never had an individual right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is about state militias.

    That’s nice, Richard. To support your position, you cite your own position.

    I’m afraid that even Paul Helmke and the Brady Campaign disagree with you.

    The fact is, your position just doesn’t hold water. I’d feel some sympathy for you and your ilk if what you proposed wasn’t so dangerous. I am rather enjoying the thorough spanking you and Cliff are getting on your blog posts.

  50. #50 by bogardus on April 15, 2008 - 10:37 pm

    I’ve -heartily- suggested that someone go elsewhere to pursue their fun… No shots were fired, and not even any deliberate aiming took place, but at the same time, the fact that I was holding a rifle, and the truckload of bumpkins were holding nothing but softball bats more than likely played into the whole scenario…

    Another time I was staying in a $100+/evening motel in suburban Detroit, and some genius decided that he wanted into my room. When he got the door open (I’d chained, but had neglected to set the deadbolt), he saw a .45, and decided that he abruptly needed to go elsewhere. In neither case was a police report filed. Too much hassle, too little sleep, and too many miles to go. Don’t just center on instances where the bad guys end up with extra orifices. Sometimes scaring ‘em is just right.

    There’s lots of anecdotal evidence, but since many instances don’t get reported, it’s hard to nail down “real” numbers.

    I just know that I might not be typing this today…

  51. #51 by Albert O. on April 15, 2008 - 11:56 pm

    Hey you gun-rights talking heads! Not a one of you “Hanitized” morons have dared define what “defensive” means such that we can place it within the context of 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year to save that same number of people.

    I am a LIBERAL who loves firearms, but let’s at least speak the truth!

  52. #52 by bogardus on April 16, 2008 - 12:12 am

    What’s a “Han?”

    IMHO, “defensive” means “make bad guy go away.” Period. Doesn’t have to mean “make bad guy croak.” Just create a scenario of “you know something, there’s really something else I’d rather be doing right now, kthnxbye…”

    Is that all that bad?

    Heck, I’ve got a friend who does a lot of traveling within a few states, calling on his company’s customers for training, etc… One night he was at a gas station, and a guy was looking kinda “low-life.” Can’t say what would have gone down, because I’m not psychic, but when the guy walked close enough to his car that he saw a gun on the dashboard, he turned around and headed out cross-country… Maybe he was just a panhandler – or maybe he was looking to carjack someone. The best situations are those which don’t happen, agree?

    I’m older, and semi-disabled. It’s a little late for me to dedicate the majority of my life to learning unarmed combat techniques, which pretty much only work in the movies anyway.

  53. #53 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 12:21 am

    bogardus:

    ‘preciate the response; I’d like to buy you a beer sometime!

    But, as I said earlier, I am left of Hillary liberal who loves guns, too. It just annoys me, however, when the gun-nuts go wacky and suggest things like guns have somehow saved 2.5 M folks’ lives per year, and support such statistics with anecdotal riff raff.

  54. #54 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 1:10 am

    Albert O,

    Apparently you missed this post:

    David Hardy Says:

    April 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am
    If you watch my documentary, see http://www.secondamendmentdocumentary.com, you’ll see Prof. Gary Kleck, criminology, FSU, speak. He’s done the most authoritative polling on gun use in self-defense. He made the following findings: about 2.5 milllion Americans annually use firearms in self defense against criminal attack; about 400,000 would answer that their use of a firearm saved a life.
    He notes that all that a poll can tell you is that 400,000 would say so–there is no way to assess it objectively. But even if 90% said yes in error, the number of lives saved would far exceed those taken by criminal use.

    This is not “anecdotal evidence”. This is statistical evidence.

    This is anecdotal evidence:

    When Darrell Benton, a retired Pittsburgh, PA, motorcycle officer, was alerted to an intruder in his daughter’s house, he arrived to find the rear door kicked off and the home itself ransacked. Benton shot one of the burglars, then called police before shooting a second, whom police now have in custody. Police spokeswoman Diane Richard said of Benton, “It was an intrusion in the home. It was a burglary in the home, and (Benton) was defending their home.” (www.pittsburghlive.com), PA. 4/15/08)

    Why the personal attacks? Why the “moron” comment? Why do you assert that all the “gun-rights talking heads” here are conservatives? Where’s your evidence?

  55. #55 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 1:26 am

    jdberger:

    I know of a least half a dozen CH4 molecules contributing to global warming, too.

    You get my point?

  56. #56 by dagamore on April 16, 2008 - 1:59 am

    IN 2004, GUNS MURDERED

    5 PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND
    37 IN SWEDEN
    56 IN AUSTRALIA
    73 IN ENGLAND AND WALES
    184 IN CANADA

    AND 11, 344 IN THE UNITED STATES

    One major problem with this stat, mainly with the England and Wales numbers, is that under UK law it is not a murder until someone is convicted of the crime of murder. So in the UK they have a special class of firearm deaths and that is uncharged, and it is not included in their official murder stats. I wonder how many of the other countries do the same thing.

  57. #57 by Larry Bergan test on April 16, 2008 - 2:15 am

    Nobody is answering my question about why the gun nuts didn’t go CRAZY when Blackwater forces from Iraq came to confiscate weapons after Katrina. Jeremy said it was because the media didn’t cover it. I say that’s ridiculous because when Janet Reno closed in on Waco Texas. there was non-stop coverage.

  58. #58 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2008 - 2:19 am

    Why aren’t you guys, who say they care so much about the constitution out in the streets like I am, trying to get Bush impeached. BUSH IS THE ONE WHO TOOK YOUR GUNS and he’s stealing your elections too. Where is the outrage!

    Here’s what I think. You guys are cowards! You’re always talking about that criminal who is going to break into your house but you do nothing when an illegitimate “president” takes away every right you have because he’s too big a threat to you.

    If Al Gore did what Bush has done, I’d be in the streets carrying an Impeach Gore sign armed with nothing but poster board and magic marker, and all alone. I’ve carried this sign over 500 miles in the redest state in America. Either you guys are cowards or you’re lying about your priorities.

  59. #59 by Xrlq on April 16, 2008 - 4:18 am

    And if 400,000 people claim they saved a life, what of the 2.1 million who pulled a gun a didn’t save a life? Did they miss. Were they drunk? Or were they just paranoid, shriveled little men who wave their guns around at any opportunity?

    None of the above. If 2.5 million guns are used to thwart crimes annually (a high estimate perhaps, but no matter, as even the most conservative estimates dwarf the number of serious crimes committed with guns), and 400,000 save a life, the most logical inference is that the other 2.1 million thwart crimes other than murder. It’s not hard to understand, for those who want to understand, which you obviously don’t.

  60. #60 by Richard Warnick on April 16, 2008 - 6:52 am

    Larry is right, these are people who claim to support the Constitution. But they really just want to re-interpret it for their own selfish agenda.

    If the gun-rights crowd really cared about abiding by the Constitution, they would be unhappy about the Bush administration’s abolition of habeas corpus, warrantless domestic surveillance, violation of international treaties (e.g. the U.N. Charter) and abuse of human rights.

  61. #61 by caveat on April 16, 2008 - 7:59 am

    It does seem as though havin a gun pointed at your temple or crotch or wherever does sort of effect your decision-making. That, however, is a double edged sword.

    Where are we headed with all this?

  62. #62 by Bob S. on April 16, 2008 - 9:46 am

    Larry & Richard

    Who says the “gun nuts” didn’t go crazy when the guns were confiscated or when other constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridged? Run an couple of internet searches and you’ll find hundreds or more of articles, blogs and comments decrying this incidences from the right. What is being said is the media didn’t cover the confiscation or the REACTIONS to it. If a story never makes the news, how do you know what the reaction was?

    Sorry to tell you this, but Bush didn’t take the guns. It was the local and state government that did that illegally. If the president had taken over in New Orleans, people would be crying he is a tyrant.

    Do the research, heck pick up the paper and read about defensive gun uses (DGU). Or better, have you ever stopped a possible crime by just being vigilant? That is the first step in any self defense, but some criminals aren’t scared off that easily. As repeated shown here, stories of DGUs are usually not reported to the police because NO crime was committed. It is not possible to prove a negative.

    By the way, our right to bear arms isn’t given by the 2 amendment; the 2nd amendment only limits the government from infringing upon it. I have a right to defend myself that predates and supersedes the Constitution.

  63. #63 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 11:01 am

    Yo Bob S:

    Care to take a shot at defining “defensive” such that we can place it within the context of 2.5 million defensive uses of firearms per year?

  64. #64 by Rob F. on April 16, 2008 - 11:36 am

    You can’t possible believe that 2.5 million people Americans use guns in self-defense annually.

    Why is it so difficult to understand? Criminals commit violent crimes against law abiding citizens constantly. Is it really so difficult to understand that many people refuse to be completely passive and instead choose to stand up for themselves?

    I see nothing questionable about such a statistic. Why are you so opposed to people defending themselves. You appear to value the life of a criminal actively committing a violent crime more than that of the victim.

    Can you produce the study? Was it peer reviewed? Such a claim demands some reasonable evidence don’t you think?

    It’s right here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

    And if 400,000 people claim they saved a life, what of the 2.1 million who pulled a gun a didn’t save a life? Did they miss. Were they drunk? Or were they just paranoid, shriveled little men who wave their guns around at any opportunity?

    What about them? Being able to oppose a violent crime is still a success. You only think in absolutes; there is more to self-defense than saving a life. What about preventing a brutal rape, or a vicious beating? Neither of those violent crimes are necessarily life-threatening, but in each situation, the use of force in self-defense is more than justified.

    Enjoy reading the DOJ article.

  65. #65 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 11:37 am

    C’mon, Albert. Why this quibbling about the meaning of “defensive”? Res ipsa locuitur.

    Are you just attempting to evade the truth or importance of the issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections?

    But here you go:

    American Heritage Dictionary
    de·fen·sive (dÄ­-fÄ›n’sÄ­v)
    adj.
    1. Intended or appropriate for defending; protective.

    2.
    a. Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack: a defensive weapons system; defensive behavior.
    b. Of or relating to the effort to prevent an opponent from gaining points in a game or athletic contest.
    c. Performed so as to avoid risk, danger, or legal liability: defensive driving; defensive medicine,

    3. Of or relating to defense.

    4. Psychology Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one’s shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego.

    n.
    1. A means of defense.
    2. An attitude or position of defense.

    How about 2 (a)? That work for you?

    Further, it’s interesting how you insist on the 2.5 million number, while the Rights advocates are willing to stipulate that there may be as few as 400,000 defensive uses of firearms per year. Are you conceding that there are 400,000 defensive uses of fireams per year?

  66. #66 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 12:11 pm

    jdberger:

    Same question, but insert the 400,000 figure.

    But more to the point, the thing does NOT speak for itself! Your perceived need to flatter me with your use of latin phrases familiar to any first year law student and to school me with a dictionary definition of the word “defensive,” instead of simply answering the question, plainly suggests that you cannot answer the question, which, I might add, is not all that surprising.

  67. #67 by Bob S. on April 16, 2008 - 12:14 pm

    Albert O,

    Yes, I’ll take a shot.
    How about simply an actual or potential criminal activity that is stopped or preventive by the presence or threat of a firearm?

    Does a criminal have to be killed for a gun to be used defensively? No.
    Does a criminal have to be wounded for a gun to be used defensively? No.
    Does a person have to even show a firearm for it to be used defensively? No.
    (Imagine a robber being scared out of a house by the sound of a round in a shot gun being chambered; a very rec0gnizable sound)

    Does it count if a person pretends to have a gun and it scares off a criminal? I’m not sure if the surveys have counted it that way but it happens.

    Does that suffice for a definition?

  68. #68 by Rob F. on April 16, 2008 - 12:15 pm

    Albert, he answered the question sufficiently. English grammar is explicit in its meaning. He didn’t use uncommon word phrasing; he used a simple word and gave you the definition.

    You asked for the meaning of the word; he gave it to you and even cited a source.

  69. #69 by SayUncle on April 16, 2008 - 12:16 pm

    ‘Larry is right, these are people who claim to support the Constitution. But they really just want to re-interpret it for their own selfish agenda.’

    Yes exercising my civil liberties makes me selfish! That’s genius right there, man! Almost as genius as getting the second amendment wrong and then linking to yourself being wrong as proof!

    ‘If the gun-rights crowd really cared about abiding by the Constitution, they would be unhappy about the Bush administration’s abolition of habeas corpus, warrantless domestic surveillance, violation of international treaties (e.g. the U.N. Charter) and abuse of human rights.’

    I suggest you read some gun writers. They are a bit put out by that (well, except the UN treaty stuff). But way to change the subject from you being wrong there, sparky.

    I, unlike you, rather enjoy all ten amendments of the bill of rights. Say, what’s that psychological term for when you accuse people of being like you? No, not douchebag, the other one?

  70. #70 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 12:27 pm

    Amazing. You gun-heads rally about the notion that 400,000 lives per year are saved through “defensive” uses of firearms yet not a single one of you can tell me what that means; albeit credit is due Bob S for telling me what it does not mean!

  71. #71 by Bob S. on April 16, 2008 - 12:31 pm

    Albert,

    How did I tell you what it does not mean? A potential or actual crime stopped or prevented by the presence or threat of a gun….how can you read that and not see a definition?
    The rest was just explanation of why I came up with that.
    If you don’t like what was written, you try defining it

  72. #72 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 12:42 pm

    Perhaps Albert has an alternative definition for “defensive”. I’d be happy to entertain it. But methinks he’s hair-splitting for want of a decent argument.

    I think that it’s excellent that Albert learned latin in 1L. I learned mine as a freshman in High School.

  73. #73 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 12:47 pm

    Still waiting ….

  74. #74 by Bob S. on April 16, 2008 - 12:54 pm

    Albert,

    A potential or actual crime stopped or prevented by the presence or threat of a gun

    Do I need to use simpler words?

  75. #75 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2008 - 1:14 pm

    Just as I thought!

    Gun nuts are so cowardly, they won’t even respond when somebody calls them a coward. I’m in the phone book. Come on over and I’ll call you a coward to your face. You can even bring your gun with you, but you’ll be facing an unarmed man.

    COWARDS!

  76. #76 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 1:19 pm

    Albert, since you are so dissatisfied with the multiple and consistant definitions below, why don’t you offer one – or two.

    The Peter Hart Research Associates 1981 study surveyed 1,228 United States voting households, and 4% answered that they had “within the last five years, used a handgun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property.”

    IMHO, “defensive” means “make bad guy go away.” Period. Doesn’t have to mean “make bad guy croak.” Just create a scenario of “you know something, there’s really something else I’d rather be doing right now, kthnxbye…”

    American Heritage Dictionary
    de·fen·sive (dĭ-fěn’sĭv)
    adj.
    1. Intended or appropriate for defending; protective.

    2.
    a. Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack: a defensive weapons system; defensive behavior.
    b. Of or relating to the effort to prevent an opponent from gaining points in a game or athletic contest.
    c. Performed so as to avoid risk, danger, or legal liability: defensive driving; defensive medicine,

    3. Of or relating to defense.

    4. Psychology Constantly protecting oneself from criticism, exposure of one’s shortcomings, or other real or perceived threats to the ego.

    n.
    1. A means of defense.
    2. An attitude or position of defense.

    How about simply an actual or potential criminal activity that is stopped or preventive by the presence or threat of a firearm?

    Truly, I’d be interested in your learned wisdom on this. As far as I can tell, “defensive” doesn’t have any disparate definitions.

    And even if it did, “defensive” is being used in the context of the 2.5 million/400,000 number to mean

    2.
    a. Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack

  77. #77 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 1:21 pm

    Larry Bergan Says:

    April 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
    Just as I thought!

    Gun nuts are so cowardly, they won’t even respond when somebody calls them a coward. I’m in the phone book. Come on over and I’ll call you a coward to your face. You can even bring your gun with you, but you’ll be facing an unarmed man.

    COWARDS!

    Actually, Larry – we’re psychologically secure enough that we don’t feel the need to respond to verbal slights with violence. Go challenge someone else to a duel.

  78. #78 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2008 - 1:22 pm

    OK, I did get one tepid response from Bob Somebody who said:

    If the president had taken over in New Orleans, people would be crying he is a tyrant.

    Hello, Bob?
    Bush took away all but one of your rights in the bill of rights, including the one that protects your gun.

    Take some Prosac and cower in the corner of your living room waiting for a scary drug user to trespass.

  79. #79 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2008 - 1:24 pm

    I’m only asking you (an anonymous blogger) to respond with WORDS jdberger. Whether you’re “packin’” when you say them is up to you.

  80. #80 by Cliff Lyon on April 16, 2008 - 1:48 pm

    I am struck by what Bogardus wrote to argue for gun possession.

    “I’m older, and semi-disabled. It’s a little late for me to dedicate the majority of my life to learning unarmed combat techniques, which pretty much only work in the movies anyway.”

    I’m sure his premise is that we should have the right to defend ourselves (with guns).

    Certainly that seems reasonable. But I would ask at what cost.

    Do we all accept that individuals should have the right to decide when and if their life is in danger and who the danger is?

    Do we want to demand the right to kill someone who is merely trying to steal our money?

    Do we want to live in a world where our justification for arming everyone is based upon the assumption that one needs self-protection?

    Aren’t we supposed to insist that America is a pretty safe place where the chances of dying from criminal attack are almost zero?

    If the proliferation of hand-guns is a deterrent to would-be criminal, wouldn’t the banning of hand-guns reduce violent crime?

  81. #81 by Cliff on April 16, 2008 - 2:00 pm

    Alan and David,
    You must know that the need to cite hysterically unscientific polls to defend an absurd position (people need and guns to defend themselves in America) reflects the very desperation of that position.

    The claim that 400,000 people per year use a gun to save their lives, is on the order of a statistic that would have been implausible even in World War II. Thats why no one has bothered to prove the “professor” wrong and the professor does not himself claim any scientific validity for his POLL. (sells well though)

    But since you like dealing with absolutes, like when my bullet enters your brain, you are definitely dead, lets do the same here.

    Can you give me ANYTHING more bankable than some professor did a poll? How about a link to the poll, or the questions asked or the methodology used. How about some peer review ?

    Its just a ridiculous number that doesn’t comport with any other related statistics.

  82. #82 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 2:11 pm

    Still waiting ….

    C’mon gun-heads, if you cannot define “defensively” in a way that gives the 400k figure some semblance of reality, maybe you can point me to exemplar scenarios that occur with such frequency that the 400k figure starts to hold water.

  83. #83 by Rob F. on April 16, 2008 - 2:40 pm

    I’m absolutely astounded that Albert still doesn’t understand the definition of a simple word, even after having been told said definition repeatedly.

    How hard is it to understand? A gun owner’s life and/or well-being are challenged. The gun owner responds by displaying a firearm, and the violent crime is therefore averted.

    Oh, and the statistics the Department of Justice gathered do hold otherwise. It is not a question of whether we can support its validity; it’s a question of whether or not you have any evidence to debase the DOJ study other than “Bawwwwww it doesn’t agree with my opinion!”

    None of you are really in any position to judge if the DOJ study is valid or otherwise. It’s actually very straight-forward: They found that legally-owned firearms are used, legally, in over 2,000,000 cases of self-defense annually.

    If you can’t disprove that, don’t run in circles claiming everyone else is still wrong. Admit you’re wrong, and move on with your life like a mature adult would do.

  84. #84 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 2:45 pm

    Cliff, you are a drowning man grasping for straws.

    You ask for a study – then discount it claiming that it wasn’t “peer reviewed”.

    When directed to the peer review, you discount it, calling it “hysterically unscientific” and returning to your first assertion.

    Then you ask for examples – which were previously provided.

    Meanwhile, your minions see fit to quibble and obfuscate by seeking definitions of easily definable words and insisting that the NRA take on the burden of the ACLU.

    Finally, you make veiled threats about “your bullet entering [the] brain[s]” of Mr. Korwin and Mr. Hardy.

    So? What is your point? Clearly it isn’t an attempt at truth, nor could it be an honest request that Mr. Korwin’s “claim needs to be fully explored for veracity”.

    It appears to be some desperate attempt for intellectual recognition. Frankly, sir, you’re out of your league. Perhaps you should go back to screaming at traffic. I have a feeling that you will be more successful.

  85. #85 by Robert G on April 16, 2008 - 2:47 pm

    No Alan Korwin is not lying and just because you disagree with his research does not give you people the right to say so; but politics, emotions and bad TV dramas does cause some of Alan Korwin’s critics to lie a lot. The man is capable of doing such things as Original Research. Original Research might not be as much fun as getting your information from the Brady Bunch or reruns of bad police dramas but some of you might try it once.

    Yes there are nations with lower gun death rates than ours. Well armed New Zealand is one of them, but I noticed some of you were wrong about that too. We are a different country than others. Our history and population mix is different. If you prefer the others move. But I believe Mr. Cliff? knows all this. He knows Alan Korwin is NOT lying which leads me to believe Mr. Cliff? is lying.

    It is my pleasure to have met several people who have indeed use a gun in self-defense and the loss to know two people who are dead because they did NOT have access to a gun at the moment. So Mr. Cliff? if you would please call me a liar. I would enjoy the company.

    “if you cannot define “defensively” in a way that gives the 400k figure some semblance ” Try “More Guns Less Crime” by John Lott @ http://www.johnlott.org/. But he does use big words. Hi Alan, hope you are enjoying this.

  86. #86 by Bob S. on April 16, 2008 - 2:56 pm

    Albert,

    We have provided 3 definitions for defensive gun uses, provided 2 websites to provide anecdotes backing up the statistics (see Karrde’s post) , and made several suggestions for you to do your own research….what more do you want?
    Here is another site…first up on google for defensive gun use

    Here is another

    Let’s put even the lowest DGU in perspective
    In 2006 using FBI statistics
    there were 20,618,880 crimes reported as being committed. That’s 20.618 MILLION crimes report. Are some crimes not reported?
    So, with 400, 000 defensive gun uses, that would be less than 2% (1.94% to be exact) of the crimes were either preventive or the criminal chose another victim. Is it so hard to believe that 2% of the time a firearm was used defensively?

    sorry for the mixed up link, new to using that function.

  87. #87 by Cliff on April 16, 2008 - 3:21 pm

    jdberger,

    Wait! — Is it a poll or a study?

  88. #88 by SsevenN on April 16, 2008 - 3:26 pm

    I’m sorry but for every well formed, research backed point a pro-rights person brings up. You ONe Utah bloggers keep attacking us on points unrelated to the issue at hand. How does calling people scared morons in anyway improve your standings in this debate? How come you guys keep answering questions with more questions that are getting further and further off topic?

  89. #89 by Cliff Lyon on April 16, 2008 - 3:29 pm

    I see there is a heated debate going here and I don’t have time to read thru all the comments right now. Has anyone posted the actual poll/study or do you have to PAY for the evidence that supports the hysterical numbers?

  90. #90 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 3:36 pm

    You gun-heads have failed miserably in making your point that 400k lives per year are saved through “defensive” use of a weapon. Seemingly, the BEST that you can do is cite a poll conducted under such conditions that it amounts to double-hearsay of interested parties. That is nonsense!

    Further, you are completely unable to define a simple word – defensively – such that the definition provides any meaningful way of interpreting the data behind 400k figure or even the conclusion itself. Then again, I am not surprised. It is much easier to wave hands and force your opponent to disprove a negative than it is to provide analyses that holds water.

    Frankly, it provides little comfort to know that many of you obviously analytically-challenged persons are walking around with conceal-carry permits and weapons in your pockets. At any rate, I hope your aim is better than your analytical abilities; otherwise, you may well be rushing a family member to the hospital after employing your defensive use of a firearm!

    Good luck to you and your loved ones!

  91. #91 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 3:38 pm

    Cliff, there was a poll and a number of studies. And some studies that used polling data. And some polls that were generated in order to confirm conclusions to the studies.

    Other Cliff – yes. They’ve all been posted above. Sorry to see that you don’t have time to read your own blog. Uh…didn’t YOU ask the question? A reasonable man would expect that you’d stand still long enough to hear the answer.

    I’m waiting for Albert O. to demand the definition of a “poll”.

  92. #92 by Larry Bergan on April 16, 2008 - 3:43 pm

    The buck stops with George W. Bush and he’s taking, law abiding, American citizens guns away.

    That’s a statistic too.

    Bob S. is right. The media didn’t cover it, but they would have, if a Democrat had been in office.

    I don’t know what you gun nuts are worried about. Your sculls are too thick to be penetrated by a bullet anyway.

  93. #93 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 3:50 pm

    Try page 4 Albert.

  94. #94 by Rob F. on April 16, 2008 - 4:10 pm

    Albert O. Says:
    April 16th, 2008 at 3:36 pm

    You gun-heads have failed miserably in making your point that 400k lives per year are saved through “defensive” use of a weapon. Seemingly, the BEST that you can do is cite a poll conducted under such conditions that it amounts to double-hearsay of interested parties. That is nonsense!

    You have failed completely at disproving the Department of Justice. Aside from you going, “No, I refuse to accept your studies because they don’t agree with my opinion,” you have added absolutely nothing to this discussion.

    The DOJ study has been linked more than once as of this post. Seeing as you are completely incapable of identifying a URL and then clicking on it, here it is again:

    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
    http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

    If you still can’t see that, you have larger problems than the inability to look up the definition of a simple word.

    Further, you are completely unable to define a simple word – defensively – such that the definition provides any meaningful way of interpreting the data behind 400k figure or even the conclusion itself. Then again, I am not surprised. It is much easier to wave hands and force your opponent to disprove a negative than it is to provide analyses that holds water.

    We repeatedly defined the word for you. Someone who is incapable of looking up a word in the dictionary, or at best, reading the posts in response to your repeated requests for the definition of a simple word, you’re in no position whatsoever to pass judgment upon us.

    We have told you what it means numerous times. Learn to read, or get out.

    Frankly, it provides little comfort to know that many of you obviously analytically-challenged persons are walking around with conceal-carry permits and weapons in your pockets. At any rate, I hope your aim is better than your analytical abilities; otherwise, you may well be rushing a family member to the hospital after employing your defensive use of a firearm!

    If you think your “analytical abilities” are good, I will take that as a compliment. I am capable of higher cognitive function; you can’t efficiently use a dictionary.

    Oh, and DGUs have nothing to do with careless possession of a firearm. Nice try, though.

    Good luck to you and your loved ones!

    They don’t need luck; they exercise their rights within the law to keep their lives intact.

  95. #95 by caveat, quizling on April 16, 2008 - 4:12 pm

    I’m not sure if Albert Os’ contention could be bottom-lined by referencing the number of gun crimes that occur in relation to those stopped with the presence or threatened presence of a fire arm, but gun crime has to be a factor in the way this society deals with the issue.

    Also, there are lots of reasons for having guns besides the prevention of crime, whether the number is 40 or 400,000. Some of those reasons, I have the feeling Albert could resonate with.

    I do not hear anyone even remotely reflectring ‘gun-craziness’, so while gun advocates may ‘lie’, I wonder if anyone else can say they do not. And all the while PEOPLE ARE DYING! Are the gun advocates fancying themselves as part of a citizen militia, and when does the call to arms to take back our government from the fascists come into play? Perhaps, even with all of our guns, we still feel out-gunned by the PTB. Many of us are committed to a peaceful, non-violent ‘revolution’ but suspect all too strongly that it will only come with the support of the gun. While realistic the notion is still lamentable.

    2 more of my cents.

  96. #96 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 4:15 pm

    jdberger:

    The discussion re defensive uses actually begins on page 8, not page 4. But what about this little ditty found on page 2:

    • Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate
    the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack.

    Indeed, even the authors strive to point out in the section discussing the information on DGUs that their conclusions are subject to serious statistical uncertainty.

    Sorry, but 400k lives saved per year through DGUs just sounds too incredible.

  97. #97 by Rob F. on April 16, 2008 - 4:44 pm

    Can you define “incredible”?

  98. #98 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 4:50 pm

    Rob F.:

    Be happy to. Incredible means too improbable to be believed.

  99. #99 by Coot on April 16, 2008 - 4:58 pm

    Mr. Lyon,

    I think it’s exceedingly outrageous that people on your side of this discussion should demand the sources, methodology, peer review etc of actual research when it concludes that your position is wrong. When folks on our side of the issue ask for that info of your “studies” we get stonewalled or lied to.

    I remember back in the 1960s when people on your side of this issue would proffer a “study”, the media would blather it about with great fanfare and august faces basically declaring that “guns are bad and no one should have them”. Our side of the issue would do actual research, peer reviewed etc and prove the original “study” wrong, flawed and why. Of course by then people on your side of the issue had already gone on to publish one or more lies for the media to spread about and the media would totally ignore the actual factual studies. The result is that the public remembers the first “study” and either never hears or possibly even believes the truth from the actual factual study. So for years, you folks have proffered false ideas and our side has countered it after years of actual research. Searching for those studies is a lot easier now than then so I’m going to let you do your own searching. I’m real tired of doing your research for you.

    The bottom line is that you folks have insulted us and lied for at least four decades on this issue and, frankly, I’m real tired of it. If the folks on our side of this issue was as evil, nasty, ignorant, juvenile and dim witted as you would like the public to believe, then an awful lot of you folks would be dead. Obviously this has not happened so this shows a lot of self restraint and maturity by the folks on our side of this issue. We just wish that you folks would show an equal amount. I suggest that you grow up and quit lying.

    Coot
    P.S. You might try Vancouver, CDC, Besilles (possible misspell), JAMA and Lancet. There are a few others but that will get you started.

  100. #100 by Cliff Lyon on April 16, 2008 - 5:16 pm

    “exceedingly outrageous that people on your side of this discussion should demand the sources, methodology, peer review etc of actual research” ????

    You’re kidding right?

    I’m still looking for who really said it? Alan or Kleck?

  101. #101 by Robert G on April 16, 2008 - 5:48 pm

    Larry Bergan Says:

    April 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    I don’t know what you gun nuts are worried about. Your sculls are too thick to be penetrated by a bullet anyway.

    There you go, you haven’t got the facts on your side so you call names, insult and lie. Rather common tactic but I enjoyed seeing it used. I would imagine this Bitter, Bible thumping, red necked gun nut has studied the issue as much as any amature, more than most. I have yet to see where gun control has made any place safer.
    There you go, you haven’t got the facts on your side so you call names, insult and lie. Rather common tactic but I enjoyed seeing it used. I would imagine this Bitter, Bible thumping; red necked gun nut has studied the issue as much as any amateur, more than most. I have yet to see where gun control has made any place safer.

    Other societies have lower gun crime rates, but they often have lower crime rates period. They tend to homogeneous populations. Japan has tough gun laws, a low crime rate but one of the highest murder/suicide rates in the world. That has nothing to do with guns or gun ownership. But the gun controllers lie about that too.

    But keep up the name calling and insults. It reminds me to hate liberals all the more. I have been doing so since May 31, 1968. From time to time I mellow but up jumps a liberal and brings me back to reality. So this Bitter, Bible Thumping; Red Necked Gun Nut wishes you all a good night. I shall curl up with “The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy” by David Kopple, which I purchased through Alan Korwin’s Bloomfield Press.

    http://www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm

  102. #102 by Robert G on April 16, 2008 - 5:51 pm

    Larry Bergan Says:

    April 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pm

    I don’t know what you gun nuts are worried about. Your sculls are too thick to be penetrated by a bullet anyway.

    There you go, you haven’t got the facts on your side so you call names, insult and lie. Rather common tactic but I enjoyed seeing it used. I would imagine this Bitter, Bible thumping, red necked gun nut has studied the issue as much as any amature, more than most. I have yet to see where gun control has made any place safer.
    Other societies have lower gun crime rates, but they often have lower crime rates period. They tend to homogeneous populations. Japan has tough gun laws, a low crime rate but one of the highest murder/suicide rates in the world. That has nothing to do with guns or gun ownership. But the gun controllers lie about that too.

    But keep up the name calling and insults. It reminds me to hate liberals all the more. I have been doing so since May 31, 1968. From time to time I mellow but up jumps a liberal and brings me back to reality. So this Bitter, Bible Thumping; Red Necked Gun Nut wishes you all a good night. I shall curl up with “The Samurai, The Mountie, and The Cowboy” by David Kopple, which I purchased through Alan Korwin’s Bloomfield Press.

    http://www.gunlaws.com/books4.htm

  103. #103 by Albert O. on April 16, 2008 - 5:56 pm

    New gun-nuts – e.g., coot:

    I took down your boy jdberger with his own source. Indeed, the authors of the study went to great lengths to state that the results were, at best, speculative and questionable.

    Now I’m going to take you down. So, then, just what sources do you have to prove that 400k lives are saved per year through DGUs?

  104. #104 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 6:01 pm

    Albert,

    The methodology is on page 4.

    And so what? They overestimate the number of DGUs. Kleck claims 2.5 million. THe NSPOF claims 1.5 million. But we were stipulating to 400,000 as found in the Southwick study.

    Yes, Albert, the 400,000 number is incredible (not your definition). But so was Copernican astronomy.

    Larry, I don’t know how impenetrable my scull is, though it’s made from carbon fiber.

  105. #105 by jdberger on April 16, 2008 - 6:09 pm

    Albert, you didn’t take me down. Not in the least. Your assertion is “incredible”.

    And here’s another study critical of Kleck estimating DGUs at 1.2 million. http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SmithT1.htm

    Finally, Albert, don’t change the criteria. It was 400,000 defensive gun uses per year that we were discussing. Not lives saved per year.

  106. #106 by Rob F. on April 16, 2008 - 6:17 pm

    Why are people so hung up on this “400,000″ number? I mean, the number of crimes committed in a single year is significantly higher than that. Why is it so difficult for the anti-rights lobby to accept that law-abiding citizens, within the law, cannot use the appropriate means and level of force in self-defense?

    I’m noticing a constant pattern of the anti-rights lobby making empty arguments, and then resorting to name-calling and other rude, immature, and other behavior unbecoming of civilized adults.

  107. #107 by Bob S. on April 16, 2008 - 6:24 pm

    Albert,

    Seems to be you want to disprove the defensive use of guns, can you cite a peer reviewed study that disproves it?

    I notice that your stance is changing again. No one is saying that 400K lives are saved per year; just guns are used that many time by people against criminals. Where is your evidence that guns aren’t used that often?

    Besides isn’t enough to have guns if they save just 1 live, especially a childs?
    (sorry couldn’t resist)

  108. #108 by MadRocketScientist on April 16, 2008 - 6:24 pm

    Wow, this is like a Gun Control Advocacy Train Wreck. I keep trying to stop reading it, since it got boring long ago, but I have to keep coming back to see what “incredible” things are said about the definition of “defensive” (really, how thick can you get), or how more picky we can get about a Defensive Gun Usage Study, or ranting about something wholly unrelated (yes, Bush (and Nagin, and the ATF, and others) is bad and hasn’t met a Constitutional Protection he wasn’t ready to violate, we get it, we agree, can we get back to the topic at hand?).

    The Gun Control folks serve them up, the “Gun-Nuts” smack it down. Better than TV.

  109. #109 by Tomare Utsu Zo on April 16, 2008 - 6:52 pm

    Cliff Lyon Says:

    April 16th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
    I am struck by what Bogardus wrote to argue for gun possession.

    “I’m older, and semi-disabled. It’s a little late for me to dedicate the majority of my life to learning unarmed combat techniques, which pretty much only work in the movies anyway.”

    I’m sure his premise is that we should have the right to defend ourselves (with guns).

    Certainly that seems reasonable. But I would ask at what cost.

    Do we all accept that individuals should have the right to decide when and if their life is in danger and who the danger is?

    Yes. And after we accept societies right to check the facts and maybe second guess in cases where the individual was wrong.

    Do we want to demand the right to kill someone who is merely trying to steal our money?

    Yes. For a variety of reasons. One is, it is never possible to tell if “just giving them what they want” is a going to keep the victim alive. And I happen to be the sort of person who views my money as being more important then the life of the criminal who try’s to take it away from me.

    Do we want to live in a world where our justification for arming everyone is based upon the assumption that one needs self-protection?

    Yes. We do. Welcome to reality.

    Aren’t we supposed to insist that America is a pretty safe place where the chances of dying from criminal attack are almost zero?

    We don’t. No amount of willing it will change anything. But, an armed society would likely be more like that do to the high mortality rate of those who are criminals.

    If the proliferation of hand-guns is a deterrent to would-be criminal, wouldn’t the banning of hand-guns reduce violent crime?

    That is just so insanely stupid I am flabbergasted. You basically just said, if 2+2=4 (implying that we are wrong) wouldn’t 2-2=4 as well? NO YOU STUPID GIT! If guns in the hands of law abiding citizens reduces crime, and criminals wouldn’t pay any attention to a law banning guns, but law abiding citizens would pay attention to said gun ban law, then banning guns would at the least leave crime the same (or more likely lead to an increase in violent crime). Don’t believe me? look at the UK. The banning of guns has lead to a RISE in violent crime.

    I almost want to guess that you are really working for my side or something. Because anyone on the outside looking in would be forced by this debate to assume anti-rights folks like you are to intellectually dishonest, morally corrupt, or retarded. Because you have not only not provided arguments that fail every test of debate, but you haven’t even lived up to your own rules of debate. Don’t believe me? Go find a first year debate student, and ask that they score this thread. Ask for an honest appraisal of who made their points, and who whine infantily.

  110. #110 by Rob F. on April 16, 2008 - 7:05 pm

    I agree with Tomare Utsu Zo. This topic is essentially little more than an anti-rights advocate proclaiming that the law-abiding have no use for self-defense, and then when presented with data that shows the law-abiding using effective means of self-defense successfully, the same anti-rights advocates then ignore the studies they asked for, say they won’t accept its results, or make numerous posts asking for the definition of a single word. The anti-rights lobby might as well stick their fingers in their ears, turn their heads, and yell in unison, “La la la, I can’t hear you!”

    The anti-rights lobby has yet to make a single point that actually holds up to any deconstructionist. It’s very easy, once you get past the “feel-good” points, to see why the anti-rights lobby is nothing more than a political agenda masked by the illusion that they want to help others by disarming them.

    It’s astounding that people don’t understand that criminals are a group of people characterized by their deviance from the law, and thus making it illegal for them to break the law is nothing more than redundant. Keep passing laws to make illegal behavior illegal again. Maybe someday the criminals won’t want to break the 9th law to make murder illegal.

    If laws stopped deviant behavior, we wouldn’t have criminals. If only it were that easy….

    Ideally, we’d live in a world where self-defense isn’t an issue, but the reality of the situation is just the opposite. A person who refuses to take their own personal safety seriously is the perfect victim for someone with malicious intentions. It’s unfortunate that the anti-rights lobby is a group of people who want to create more victims while telling them the laws that disarm them (which they’ll listen to because they’re law-abiding citizens) is actually going to make them safer. The illusion of safety doesn’t prevent violence.

  111. #111 by Larry Bergan on April 17, 2008 - 2:02 am

    I feel like the Afflack duck.

    Bush is taking peoples guns (and every other right) away, and the gun nuts want to shoot the liberals. We have a common enemy here folks. It’s called the Bush administration. That’s all I’m trying to say. If you’ll help us get rid of Bush, (legally and peacefully), we’ll help you get rid of any other constitution destroying asshole.

    Deal?

    By the way, we’re ALL computer nuts using the information superhighway (internet) that Al Gore envisioned, and that’s not a bad thing is it?

  112. #112 by dagamore on April 17, 2008 - 2:07 am

    Larry
    You keep saying that Bush is taking peopls guns, yet i have not seen a sinlge link to any newstory about this theft happening. The only recenct unlawfull gun theft was done by Mayor Ray Naggen(sp?) Democrat, and possibly with support by Gov. Blanco (sp?) another Democrat. You can either support your point of Bush taking guns, or you can keep repeating the lie that Bush did take someones guns. But untill you do the first It is a Lie, and no matter how many times you repeat it. It will never become the truth.

  113. #113 by Robert G on April 17, 2008 - 6:01 am

    Larry Bergan Says:

    April 17th, 2008 at 2:02 am
    I feel like the Afflack duck
    —Deal?—.

    No. We of the Right, as in the Correct, have tried dealing with Liberals before. It does not work. It is always what we can surrender to your statism. You then come back for more. So no, no deal. Mr. Bush will soon be out of office and we will have a new dragon to worry about.

    But the issue in “Guns Advocates Lie While People Die” was Alan Korwin lying? I believe We of the Right, as in the Correct, have defended the man and his position well. So No, no deal. So call us names, insult us. Hell, we are just bitter, church going gun nuts anyway, why would you want to deal with us?

  114. #114 by Heckler on April 17, 2008 - 8:36 am

    From the Pro-Self Defense crowd we have reasoned debate.

    From the Anti-Self Defense crowe we have name calling and Hide-The-Goalpost.
    (we’ve seen this game before people, we know where you are hiding it)

  115. #115 by Larry Bergan on April 17, 2008 - 9:51 am

    Robert G says:

    No. We of the Right, as in the Correct, have tried dealing with Liberals before.

    Would you like to link me to that effort, because I’m speechless.

  116. #116 by Robert G on April 17, 2008 - 12:30 pm

    Larry Bergan Says:

    April 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
    Robert G says:

    No. We of the Right, as in the Correct, have tried dealing with Liberals before.

    Would you like to link me to that effort, because I’m speechless.

    No and Good, stay that way and reflect on the error of your ways. Too many times we have seen semi-bi-partisan “reasonable” gun laws passed and when the gun laws did no good the Left came back for more. The Left, such as Senator Edward Kennedy referred to almost all hunting calibers as Cop Killers and tried to get them banned. We saw the Liberals define semi-automatic rifles and shotguns as assault weapons, the fools.

    Again, No and Good, stay speechless and reflect on the error of your ways. We of the Right, as in the Correct, are here to help our wayward citizens of the Wrong-er- Left.. Have a nice day.

  117. #117 by Rob F. on April 17, 2008 - 12:47 pm

    I’ve yet to see the word “assault” used properly by a politician or other public official. They have no idea what the word is, or what objects would be considered to be “assault weapons.”

  118. #118 by glenn on April 17, 2008 - 1:49 pm

    The best part in this, is that armed criminals don’t read this steaming pile, and make their way with a gun in possession, debate be damned.

  119. #119 by jdberger on April 17, 2008 - 4:58 pm

    Apparently Cliff was overwhelmed by the negative response to his pathetic postulate that Mr. Korwin was a liar, so he created a new Blog entry.

  120. #120 by Rob C. on April 17, 2008 - 8:52 pm

    Thank-you all for providing a lively and informative debate. I don’t have a dog in this fight… just came to watch. I am, however, quickly becoming a pro-gun American. Thanks go to those who have provided proof and links. Cliff, you seem to have your head in the sand.

  121. #121 by Bob S. on April 18, 2008 - 5:35 am

    Rob C.

    Thanks for your comments. You and others like you are the reason so many pro-gun people spend time on sites like this.

    Thank you for having an open mind and considering the information provided; reading your post makes it worth it.

    p.s. Rob, if you have never been shooting and want to, post it on the board. There are many pro-gunners willing to take you shooting, I’m sure we can find someone in your area.

  122. #122 by bogardus on April 19, 2008 - 5:14 pm

    I am struck by what Bogardus wrote to argue for gun possession.

    “I’m older, and semi-disabled. It’s a little late for me to dedicate the majority of my life to learning unarmed combat techniques, which pretty much only work in the movies anyway.”

    I’m sure his premise is that we should have the right to defend ourselves (with guns).

    Certainly that seems reasonable. But I would ask at what cost.

    So, then, Cliff, do you argue that we should have a society where younger, larger and stronger thugs can do completely as they wish?

    Are you going to tell a rape victim that it is morally righteous that she is NOT ALLOWED to defend herself? After all, -most- women do not have the strength or body mass of -most- men.

    Is a robbery victim morally righteous because they are NOT ALLOWED to counter a street thug with a club or knife with the equivalent deadly force?

    Is a GLBT bashing victim morally righteous because they are NOT ALLOWED to make a group of attackers go find an easier target?

    What will be the cost be of allowing thugs to have their way at will? Are you prepared to pay it? Because it is NOT a monetary cost.

    You may argue that you rely upon the police. Essentially, you are then arming yourself by proxy. And rather ineffectively, since police will generally arrive after the fact.

    So… It’s your choice:

    In a darkened parking garage, confronted by several thugs with clubs, broken bottles, knives, what have you, you can draw a legal concealed weapon, and using your best John Wayne/Clint Eastwood impression (funny, last time I did that, I didn’t know that John Wayne or Clint Eastwood sounded so squeaky, and used the F-bomb so much…), tell them to go find an easier target… You go home, your body, and dignity (didn’t sound a thing like the Duke back there… more like SpongeBob..), mostly intact, and they go on to find either an easier victim or a “party.”

    Or you can hand them your wallet, your watch, your car keys, your shoes, your coat, possibly submit to a rape, and still be killed. And the police will show up later, with their crime scene tape, their cameras and computers, and you’ll be a statistic. But by golly, you’ll be a righteous statistic.

    The vast majority of gun owners are people like myself – not convicted of crimes (hey, I went to college in the eighties…), decent citizens, gainfully employed, or gainfully retired, etc., etc…

    And many of us, when confronted with people who wish to render us defenseless, wonder why.

    If any of you folks who don’t know about firearms are in the St. Louis area, I’ll be happy to have you as my guest at a local club. You’ll meet some interesting people, and maybe have a few stereotypes busted.

  123. #123 by HatesMorons on April 20, 2008 - 12:52 pm

    This is way late, but I had to laugh at this comment:

    “Who cares about peer review? It is meaningless to the truth. It leads to bad science.
    I guess you like to answer before watching the documentary huh cliff?”

    Hahahahaha. Oh, yes, peer-review leads to bad science. Spoken like a person who has no grasp on science. Well done!

  124. #124 by Anonymous on April 20, 2008 - 1:31 pm

    Note i am not saying the peer-review leads to bad science, but keep a few things in mind.

    Peer-review said the world was flat.
    Peer-review said the sun orbited the earth.
    Peer-review said ect. ect. ect.

    Just because something is peer-reviewed, or not, does not make it either good nor bad science.

    You have to read the paper and see how it was done, and then judge for your self it if is good or bad sciene.

  125. #125 by anonymous too not glenn in any case on April 20, 2008 - 3:25 pm

    We all don’t hate morons, some of us have sympathy for those burdened with them. My sympathies to your parents person that hates morons. Hate is a moronic value anyway.

    The point is that peer review does lead to bad science, as marginal scientists, wishing to be included in the genre of they day, will sign on to anything someone they perceive with status will sign, as they are simply hangers on. It gives the impression that the science is valid…, and rather than review the science, we review the personalities promoting it.

    My sympathies,.. you moron, thank you for revealing yourself to us so late in the game.

  126. #126 by glenn on April 20, 2008 - 4:11 pm

    Ever notice how people with poor arguments absolutely abhor counter arguments without an identifiable source?

    It is most pronounced by the owner of this blog. He relies on the habit of followers to once they know who is posting, to debase the argument simply because of who it is presenting it.

    The need to have a name to the point in question is to so as enable the ad hominem process of debasement of the ideas without review. A form of intellectual fascism.

    None of this matters really as for anyone really interested in exchanging ideas, we only become interested in who states them when the ideas have merit. The rest is a feeble attempt of cult of personality, or the averse of that…

    This insecure method is the best means at hand to true believers to marginalize the valid ideas of any person that does not promote the concepts that fit into their intellectually lazy orthodoxy. It is age old, and with technology available via wordpress, the blog owner can alter twist and make up what a person states and then name it to a person and idea, they do not approve of.

    This is the variety of anti-intellectual Cliff Lyon is. There are many posts here I never wrote that are attributed to me, and also many that are not, and are altered anyway.

    Those of you new to this visa vis the gun debate will recognize that Cliff is an intellectually dishonest person, and if he were to be a criminal, he would likely be serving a life sentence under the 3 strikes and you are out law.

    With any luck his marvelous search engine manipulation will add this sorry fact concerning his character in the record, as he likes to submit….forever.

  127. #127 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 20, 2008 - 9:48 pm

    Two bits of gun news, for better or for worse:

    Man mistakes his nine year old son for a turkey! Shoots and kills him. Sad

    Condoleesa Rice argues for the dissolution of the Second Amendment. Guns are not for private ownership, but are instead the property of the state

  128. #128 by Larry Bergan on April 20, 2008 - 11:26 pm

    Condolessa Rice. That darned liberal.

    Is that real caveat?

  129. #129 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 21, 2008 - 6:59 am

    Larry, The notion, was part of the discussion with Maliki over ‘there’, in regards to her sense of ‘Democracy’ and how Iraqi’s (especially the Al Sadr army) ought to be disarmed. Still as I read the Constitution, there is to be a generalization of the law to ‘We the People’ and there are no specific distinctions for across-border or in other lands for its application

    None the less that was her take on the issue. I’ll go now to search for the link.

  130. #130 by RobertG on April 21, 2008 - 7:25 am

    Larry Bergan Says:

    April 15th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
    Your gun rights are safer under a Democratic administration, and Katrina proved it. Where did I say Katrina wouldn’t have happened under Gore? I just said the weapons wouldn’t have been confiscated by Blackwater, because it (Blackwater) wouldn’t have existed.


    Gore, Bush, Blackwater
    your arse. The guns were confiscated by local authorities , with some out-of-town police assistance. The guns were confiscated by order of Mayor Nagin and the Governor of Louisiana. Now what all this has to do with the attack on Alan Korwin I do not know. But you people do like to wander don’t you?

    Our rights would be safer under a Democratic Administration? I doubt you believe that but both Senators Obama and Clinton have stated otherwise. No I will not provide a link. Look it up.

  131. #131 by bogardus on April 21, 2008 - 1:57 pm

    Well, I’m still wondering which of you guys want to promote a society where young toughs can have their way, at will, with those weaker than them.

  132. #132 by Anonymous on April 21, 2008 - 3:07 pm

    cookie problem.

  133. #133 by Larry Bergan on April 21, 2008 - 3:09 pm

    RobertG:

    I should say that I really don’t think about gun control that much. I believe that if I don’t try to take over somebody’s drug turf or try to shoot a cop or even a robber, my chances of being killed that way are less then being struck by lightening.

    To condense, Blackwater is an private military organization with very dubious right wing ties that sent members to New Orleans and was paid a lot of money by the Homeland Security Department there. The leading expert on Blackwater, not involved in it, is a man named Jeremy Scahil who was astonished to find members of the organization in New Orleans who told him they were there to “confront criminals and stop looters.” Do you think they confronted the “criminals”, but let them keep their guns?

    I’m skeptical of Alan Korwin’s figures because our REPUBLICAN government is always drumming up fear and taking away our civil liberties. While my heart breaks for you because Senator Kennedy doesn’t like guns, I’m more angry at the Republicans who have been taking away EVERY liberty I cherish ever since they stole the 2000 “election” and before.

    I am delighted Cliff flushed some of you guys out so I can ask you the question that has been burning in my mind for the years since the “election.” Where are you?

    Can you answer this question posed by the man elected by the majority of Americans as our president in 2000, but the federal court took states rights away to stop? (It’s a short video, even if you only have dial-up, like me, you can watch it)

    I didn’t think so, but thanks anyway.

    If you reply, I’ll take back the last sentence.

  134. #134 by caveat, quizling (real name) on April 21, 2008 - 7:03 pm

    nevermind

  135. #135 by Al Czervic on April 23, 2008 - 10:03 am

    Please excuse me. I have to take a “kennedy”.

  136. #136 by RobertG on April 23, 2008 - 12:00 pm

    For those of you who would bother
    John Lott – More Guns on Campus:
    Article Exposes Gun-Free-Zones Folly:

    Australian Prohibitions Have Had No Favorable Impact:


    From JPFO:(Jewish Group)

    But if it does not fit your tidy little world view it does not matter. So call us silly names, it does not matter and neither do you. Way too many of you have flat out lied about Alan Korwin which says nothing about him, but volumes about you.

  137. #137 by Cliff on May 5, 2011 - 11:16 am

  138. #138 by jdberger on May 5, 2011 - 11:24 am

    That’s not evidence, Cliff. It’s an 8 year old editorial criticizing methodology (by an non-criminologist), quoting Hemenway who’s got skin in the game (he receives huge grants from Mayors Against Illegal Guns and the Joyce Foundation).

    Try again.

  139. #139 by Bogardus on May 5, 2011 - 2:19 pm

    Well, checking back in – I’m still wondering which people should be considered fair targets for our society’s thugs, and which should be allowed protection.

    Where I’m living now, if I get on the telephone and call for a man with a gun to come running to protect me (i.e., dialing 911), I likely have, at minimum, at 15-20 minute wait. Which is why quite a few folks in “flyover country” sort of take the middleman out of the equation…

    Now, next time some carload of tweakers pulls up and starts casing the property, should I try to run them off by just reasoning with them? Can you pay my medical bills? Can you pay for my funeral?

    Would you EVER take a vow to never call the police? Because that’s basically what you’re asking me, and many other folks, to do. Because the quick response police protection you take for granted in your city or suburb just isn’t going to happen here.

    Or even in some cities – I used to live in pretty much the center of the St. Louis metro area. One evening I witnessed a drive-by shooting (criminals, who were forbidden legal possesion of firearms anyway…), and after I called the police, it took them approximately 20 minutes to show up. Another time, I had a neighbor who either needed to take more medication, or a lot less, who decided that the thing to do was remove her clothing and run screamjabbering up and down the middle of the street. The words “naked coed” in my police call resulted in an area where it looked like someone was giving away free donuts within five minutes. Five minutes. During which the young lady located her car keys, got in her car, and tear-assed up and down the block several times before bailing when the police showed, and getting tackled by bystanders. Who probably should have waited for the police to do it, but hey, it seemed like the right thing to do at the time. But in the five minutes between the call and the sound of a meaty thud, someone could have died. Five minutes was a record response for the authorities. But a lot happened during that time.

    If you don’t like guns, imagine what your life would be like for five minutes after a housebreaker with an axe and a bad meth habit kicked in your front door.

  140. #140 by Cliff Lyon on May 7, 2011 - 2:48 pm

    Bogardus, Sweet love. No one is asking you to give up your right to run tweekers off your property with a really powerful gun that kills people. All we are asking for is a bit of sanity.

    Please watch the video below to understand how your (NRA) intransigence has resulted in incredibly destructive policies that destroy lives.

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

    So you are alive but very many are dead who did not have to die.

  141. #141 by Cliff Lyon on May 7, 2011 - 2:53 pm

    Hey JdBerger,

    Well enough, let us quantify the amount of special interest money invested in pro-gun vs research and advocacy for smart handgun policy.

    I will expect to see your results by tomorrow.

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  142. #142 by jdberger on May 7, 2011 - 9:36 pm

    All your bases are belong to us….

    (your comment doesn’t follow standard English grammar rules)

    But assuming I understand your demand, first you need to clarify your terms.

    What’s “smart handgun policy”?

  143. #143 by jdberger on May 7, 2011 - 9:49 pm

    Cliff?

    Would you consider California to have “sensible gun laws? It got the highest rating from the Brady Campaign this year with 80 out of a possible 100 points.

    Of course, it also has some of America’s most dangerous cities. Oakland had about more than 100 murders last year. It doesn’t even have 400,000 residents. Same in San Francisco.

    Not a single Republican (or even Independent) serves in California’s State government or the governments of Oakland or San Francisco.

    Maybe it’s Democrats?

    Just for fun (and I’m not suggesting any causation), how many of America’s dangerous cities are run by Republicans?

  144. #144 by Cliff on May 8, 2011 - 10:20 am

    If Brady says they are good, I accept that.

    Now back to YOU point. Please quantify the amount of special interest money invested in pro-gun vs research and advocacy for smart handgun policy.

  145. #145 by Bogardus on May 8, 2011 - 4:31 pm

    Cliff, those areas have a THUG problem, not a gun problem.

    Do you support the rights of women, elderly and disabled people?

    Why, then, do you wish to deprive them of the ability of self-defense?

    All “gun free zones” do is create a group of victims who are ripe for the picking by younger and stronger thugs – essentially those “utopias” revert to barbarism, where the weaker are ruled by force. The elitist wealthy can hire security guards, pay for things like gated communities, etc., etc., but the defenseless poor, and in particular the weaker poor, pay in blood…

  146. #146 by Cliff on May 8, 2011 - 4:55 pm

    Its much easier to be a thug when you have a gun. Guns=Thugs.

  147. #147 by Wendell Jay Jefferson. on May 8, 2011 - 6:26 pm

    That is silly Cliff, it is much easier to kill a thug if you have a gun. It is simple enough the physically weak can do it with some training.

    When one looks at nations with personal gun bans, we see places like Venezuela where the murder rate is 10 times the US per capita. Guns aren’t allowed, but thugs are more effective there using illegal guns, or whatever comes in handy. 10 times our per capita rate for murder.

  148. #148 by Bogardus on May 8, 2011 - 7:13 pm

    So, Cliff – Am I a thug?

    Say you’re sitting in your living room, and you hear a noise outside. You step to the door, look out, and see that three skinhead tweakers are beating on your car with baseball bats. One of them looks over, and sees you, and starts toward you. You go inside, close and lock your door, and…

    You pick up the phone, and call for a man with a gun to come to your location with great haste.

    Is that man with a gun a thug? He is tasked with protecting you (or at least calling for an ambulance or coroner, and doing a lot of paperwork.)

    I don’t understand how you can condemn the actions of people who only wish to protect themselves or others – most gun owners I know are really pacifists; they just like having the means available to be able to tell a violent person that they don’t wish to be a victim. Is it more -noble- to be a victim? Maybe brain damaged, maybe paralyzed, maybe dead from a beating?

    There are -some- firearms accidents, but they are a pretty small number, considering. Heck, look at the number of fatal accidents involving teenage drivers – People who would never DREAM of giving their kid a BB gun happily toss the keys to 200 horsepower of havoc to Junior on his sixteenth birthday….

    If you don’t want to be shot, there’s a simple way of avoiding it: Do not hang around with criminals – most firearms homicides involve people who know each others, and most are ancillary to criminal activity. If you’re hanging out with your friend the local meth dealer, you really shouldn’t be surprised to get shot at by his competitors.

    In addition, most rapes/attacks on women come from men who use nothing more for weapons than their fists and feet. If a woman wishes to be able to tell Buford “No” and have him fully understand, all she needs is a small .38 to make the message perfectly clear: “Go away. Now.”

    Now, please… I know you’re probably fairly well educated – put on your Logic hat, and step back from your emotions.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: