Sounds suspicious to me too.

I'd want to know if he had come home unexpectantly and entered through bedroom window.

Yes, I agree. The wife is now officially a "person of interest". If it were the other way around, the husband certainly would be.

Hi Sweetie, could you sign these papers? What are they? Oh, just a $500,000 Life Insurance policy. Ok, here you are, where you headed now honey? Just to the gun range to hang out with my friends. Wait for it, the payoff will be in about 60 days +/- 5 days for check mailing time.

Good thing my ex didn't know she could walk away from something like this without charges being filed. She would have killed me 5 times before I hit the floor.

It is sad for the family though. My prayers and condolences go out to them.

I have to agree with CreekDog, something seems a little off. MySpellChecker, my advise is don't move to a stand your dirt state ... LOL

You silly future victims just don't seem to understand. There are hundreds of instances where guns prevent murders every day but never reported. Personally, I was walking my dog one night four years ago when a drive-by shooter fired at me. He sped off when I drew my gun. That was never reported.

and accidently killing "thier" husband !!!

He's 57 and she's 33? 2 things come to mind:

1: Damn, I hope I still have game at 57, he must've been one good looking dude ;)

2: Insurance scam? Something is off, it's 'possible' she killed him for the money. Obviously I'm not going to accuse her of anything like that given her loss.

Either way, my heart goes out to the victims' family.

leftrightcenter, #1.10

And 47% said they were not sure!

LOL!

@Creek Dog do you know how short his arms would have to be for him to shoot his thing off?

Newswinner101

She was 53, according to the article.

Sad, it's sad that people think more guns mean less crime. Nowhere in Europe is this true, nowhere.

Thought he was an intruder at 11:00am.................hmmmmmmmmm................

I know intruders don't care what time it is but it's 11:00am and everyone is up and it's daylight. I'm about as pro gun and self defense as you can be but there's more to this.

They need to stop taking these Ohio polls at truckstops.

To be honest, why is this story "National News?" It is sad, one way or another, for the family(s) involved but, outside of that, is not worthy of the term "National."

Until ALL the facts are known, there is no story, except for local interest, here.

Rightleftcenter: What in the world does that have to do with the topic on hand in the article. From your nom de plume you must be tri-polar.

Dem in Texas.............the gun had nothing to do with a crime. PEOPLE commit crimes, not guns!!!

WHAT THE FFFFFFFFFFF??????????????????

@ Dem in Texas - We are not in Europe. What does that statement have to do with the US. Our culture and demographics are MUCH different.

@Early Out - "The NRA theory, that guns make us safe, has been disproven over and over and over and over again. Slow learners?" - Where did you find all of those studies? I am interested in reading them. I know you would'nt make that up?

Wow Road Warrior, hundreds? Every Day? Gosh, where DO I get the courage to leave my house without a gun!!!???

So one person just gives condolences as is appropriate. After that people just make up all these scenarios, about which none of you have info if you weren't there. But don't let that stop you. As usual most of the posters here know everything that happened and everyone's motives the minute a story is posted. So I suppose everyone who just knows something is wrong here and she killed him on purpose has evidence to back that theory up? Nah, didn't think so.

And on the guns issue, proving something didn't happen only because you had a gun and that bad things would happen if you didn't have one is quite a stretch. But don't let that stop anyone, either. We can't even have a civilized and reasonable conversation in this country about reasonable gun laws because the moment someone mentions that some reasonable laws might make a positive difference...note I am not saying take away everyone's guns, so don't jump me...there is always a barrage of name-calling, assumptions, and threats about, "take my gun away over my dead body" or "I will fight to the death to keep my guns" situations.

We have no clue why this happened...room might have been dark, he might have been out of town and she was surprised, etc...it doesn't automatically mean she is a killer for money or anything else. Geez, how about we let the investigators do their jobs before you have her convicted? And no, just because a person doesn't agree with you on either or all sides of the gun laws issues doesn't mean s/he are automatically stupid, naive, or some weak victim. We all come from different backgrounds and feel differently about this, but until the topic can be discussed rationally nothing will change.

Personally I preferred the story on another news site the other day. A grandfather accidently hit his young granddaughter with a shotgun while he was aiming at a stray cat. Fortunately, the kid will be fine.

Nope, it wasn't Dick Cheney.

More guns will result in more accidents though. Be careful, folks!

A couple of weeks ago three punks decided to break into a 90+ yr old Veterans home in the early morning hours. They decided to kick down the basement door. Well, Mr. Veteran heard them, the door was just beneath his bedroom. (Maybe they thought his hearing was gone???) As they started up the stairs to the first floor, Mr. Veteran was there waiting. As they neared the top, he started firing. They fled, leaving a trail of blood. About a half hr later, & a couple miles away, the police rolled up on a car with three young men in it. One was dead, the other two were in shock....and needing a change of underwear. There were weapons recovered from the car.

When the tv station interviewed the elderly Veteran he said: What is the matter with people anymore, has everyone gone mad? They just want to come & take whatever you have, & you have no idea what they will do to you. Well, I was ready, and for the next fool who thinks they can enter my home without an invitation, bring it on, I'll be waiting.....priceless! And the mother of the young man who died? Her comment was: I know he's a heroin addict, but that doesn't give anyone the right to kill him. He didn't deserve to die like that. What?!@? He didn't die from heroin, he died because he broke into someone's home to feed the heroin. So, maybe in a round about way, yeah, the heroin led to his death. Now, he's gone, the other two are in trouble.

I'm just thankful that Veteran was able to defend himself, and live out his life, HE'S earned it.

@Slimyone.... maybe his arms were the normal length... perhaps his johnson was that much longer??

There's always at least two ways of looking at something...

I feel sorry for the poor guy that got killed; however it is beyond irresponsible to discharge a firearm when you aren't sure what you are shooting at. Sadly, most of the gun-toting lunatics in our country are not really qualified to use them. They take an online course or a weekend class at best and are then ready to kill. God bless the USA I guess.

Dem in Texas-2291575

Sad, it's sad that people think more guns mean less crime. Nowhere in Europe is this true, nowhere.

Get your facts straight, bud. ALL the evidence points to more crime. After guns were outlawed in Australia home intrusions went THROUGH THE ROOF. Multiple intrusions of the SAME HOUSE increased as well.

I just finished a class where a very scary statistic was presented. In the last several (10 or so) years incidents where more than 4 people were killed by guns happened in NO GUN ZONES (schools, churches, posted areas) in all but ONE case. Criminals don't like it when people shoot back.

Another thing the MSM is ABHORENT about is reporting all the crime that is STOPPED by people that are armed. Can't push the agenda by reporting that now can we.

Road Warrior - you get why they are called 'drive-by' don't you? It's not called a 'stop-by'. See, they drive by intended victims shoot and drive off, but I guess in your case, they would have stopped, got out of the car, maybe had a picnic and chilled, but you pulled out your gun and scared them off.

@leftrightcenter

Liu and Ditto conducted a study and found conservatives are more likely to simply make up facts to support their stance than liberals.

Gee a couple of professors from an uber liberal college find conservatives are more likely to make @!$%# up than liberals, what a shock. And of course what the study actually found (did you read it since you're quoting it?) was that the discrepancies were morally driven so you could make the claim that conservatives have higher moral values than do liberals based on this study.

See how easy it is to twist things to make them sound the way you want?

"... also the highest rate of gun fatalities in the civilized world..."

But it's ok for you to make up numbers - where the US has one-fifth the Columbian rate of firearms deaths.

Guns don't kill people, mistakes do. Is that the NRA ramble for the day?

Sleepin,

Are you awake? Drive-by, stop-by, you can it whatever your clever liberal mind wants to. The bottom line is I was walking my dog outside an Extended Stay America motel and someone drove up, yelled some obscenity, fired through the window, barely missing us. You glass bubble libs will get yours one day when you wish you have a gun.

Hi honey I'm hom..............

Road Warrior-252445

You seem to place all liberals in one category, anti gun, for whatever reason but surely you have to know you're wrong.

I am as liberal as they come, also a former Marine, Viet Nam vet who saw plenty of combat and a gun owner. I have over 15 different types of guns and shoot them regularly. I also have a conceal carry permit and carry sometimes. So to be more accurate with your post you should change "bubble libs" to an anti-gun group of people. By the way there are some very Republican, Republicans I know that will have nothing to do with guns.

I guess she wasn't a big fan of peek-a-boo.

On It,

It is safe to say "most" gunphobes are liberals and Democrats. That's not to say all liberals and Democrats are anti-gun, just as I can be an atheist and be conservative. There are good reasons why Obama and the Dems have not say a word about gun control in an election year, even after the Colorado shooting. They learned from Al Gore that gun control is a losing issues for them.

Door Slams.

"Who's there"

"Hi honey, its me."

"Where have you been. Have you been with that Jezebel again ?"

"Now sweetee, you know how it is"

"I'll show you how it is !" BLAM !

myspellcheckerisbroken

Good thing my ex didn't know she could walk away from something like this without charges being filed. She would have killed me 5 times before I hit the floor.

Funny spellchecker. You got me to think (which I try to avoid) you know how to tell the difference between my wife "accidentaly" shooting me and an intruder............the intruder would only have one bullet wound and I would have multiple.

This happened in daylight. She couldn't see that it was him?

Dem in Tx, You forgot about the Norway murderer who used Glock handguns to murder most all people at a summner camp. Forget that one?? I think 70 plus killed in one rampage.

he would have known there was a gun in the house....would be pretty stupid to play any kind of sneak up on you games.

There are good reasons why Obama and the Dems have not say a word about gun control in an election year,

This year! They haven't said anything about it since Obama was elected. In fact Obama expanded gun owner's rights when he signed into law the "Carry in National Parks" law.

The NRA and Republican party are spreading lies which too many people believe. Remember when they claimed Obama prevented ammunition sales when he first got elected? Well the ammo makers even said their ammo was going to the war and it would be over soon so it wasn't worth expansion. My point is it was a lie, you can buy all the ammo you want today, since the war in Iraq is over. Also there are no laws pending or even in committees about restricting guns. Regan gave us the biggest and last gun control law.

On it,

Isn't it funny how that works. Where I live in West Virginia the politicians claim that President Obama is leading a "war on coal" even though the coal industry has thrived since he took office and there are even more mining jobs than when he took office. We live in a country full of morons sadly.

OMG was she drunk?WTF

Road - they arent talking about gun control because it's not a huge issue for us liberals as it is for you conservatives. No doubt, SOME liberals are crazy about guns and wanting to ban them...and no doubt they bark the loudest on these stories.

They dont speak for all of us.

I dont care if you want a gun...and im as liberal as it gets.

What i dont understand about christian conservatives, why they are willing to kill another human being just to save themselves or their possession. If they REALLY believed in GOD, they'd be ok with the timing of their death as GOD plans it...and if that means dying because some poor pathetic person breaks into your home to steal your playstation so they can sell it to by drugs, so be it right?

But, clearly, gun toting christian conservatives must not REALLY belive in GOD, because they are terrified to leave the here and now for the heavenly ever after.

That, or they know they arent going to heaven anyway...so must max out their time here on earth.

"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven" Matthew 19:24

so yeah, all americans are screwed out of heaven because by the worlds standard, we are all filthy rich...so, no wonder most fake american christians are loaded with guns...this is it, this is all they have...better to go out guns blazing than to have real faith in GOD and trust that when it's your time, it's simply...your time.

On It,

There are lots of things Obama wants to do but cannot because of re-election. Remember him whispering to the Russian president "Psssss, I will be more flexible after the election". After the election, if he gets re-elected, all hell will break loose. He will do everything through executive orders and bypassing Congress. He is a Marxist at heart. So far, he has only appointed Marxist czars to do his dirty work. Who is his biggest donor? Bill Maher, a check for $1 million. Remember what he said? "Sometimes, you just have to drag people to where you want them to go". In other words, to hell with the will of the people. Just force them into servitude. Anita Dunn, an Obama appointee said Mao Tse Tung is her favorite philosopher. Now, why would Obama associate himself with people with such thoughts if he doesn't feel the same way?

At least the thread started with the proper thoughts...

Now lets take a look at some NON-NRA data/statistics:

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR OWN SELF-DEFENSE - NOT THE POLICE.

The most telling example that cannot possibly be misinterpreted is Warren v. District of Columbia: Three women were sharing a multiple dwelling. The two living upstairs heard the third being attacked downstairs. They called the police multiple times, who assured them they were on the way multiple times. About 30 minutes later the women upstairs thought things were okay because they didn't hear screaming anymore, and the two went downstairs and the perps were still there.

"For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The police never arrived.

The Supreme Court ruled: "...fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen".

This is at a time when DC had the handgun ban in place, and firearms had to be stored in an unusable manner. Thus one was not allowed to carry a gun for protection and you can't rely on police even if you are able to make the call...A situation that has been the case from 1976 until Heller in 2008. "Heller" was supported by 33 "Friend of the Court" briefs, including one signed by 58% of Congress.

"Only for militia!" you say? All adults who are not otherwise forbidden are members of the militia all the time - and when called, we report for duty BRINGING OUR PERSONALLY-OWNED WEAPONS. Which is a damn good reason for civilians to own assault rifles of the same caliber used by our armed forces.

Imagine a war breaking out, 4 million of us militia showed up unarmed and untrained. Where are 4 million rifles suddenly appearing from? And the ammo? And the training? The war would be lost before we were equipped to participate. Audie Murphy and Sgt Alvin York became marksmen on their own time, not in boot camp. We should all strive to emulate their examples.

Our Founding Fathers, eighty million LAWFUL gun owners, 58% of Congress, 49 of 50 states permitting some degree of concealed-carry, and the Supreme Court say that gun ownership by law-abiding citizens is a good thing, and it is also the law of the land.

And forget the tired old "musket argument" because during that time, Benjamin Franklin went to France to secure State-of-the-Art RIFLES (which are NOT muskets) for the People to buy/possess/keep/own to fight the British AND keep thereafter.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
{PAUSE}
the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Keep in mind that these are two stand-alone phrases that make up the Second Amendment. The SCOUTUS understood this. Also consider that the Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments to the Constitution) CANNOT be abridged. Check your dictionary, abridged means "to be shortened". They CANNOT be overturned. They CANNOT be revoked. They CANNOT be repealed. They CANNOT be CHANGED! If the Second Amendment cannot be modified in any way, that means whatever the founding fathers meant, (which has finally been clarified by the SCOTUS), MUST stand until the United States no longer exists. And the only way for that to happen is through subversion or conquest.

"Throughout history, there have only been two groups of people that have never been allowed guns: Slaves and Conquered Nations. And which one are they trying to make us in America?" -- Sheriff Richard Mack

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin

Washington didn't beat the British with Free Speech. He shot them. American independence would not have been secured without the militia that consisted of "the People" at large. In the Dick Act of 1902, in which the federal government acknowledges that States have both organized militias (National Guard) and UN-organized militias (the People). As an Ohioan, I have read Article IX of the Ohio Constitution and it states quite clearly that EVERYONE, both male and female, 17-67 are automatically part of the Ohio militia, like it or not. According to the Dick Act the feral federal government CANNOT confiscate anyone's guns... It is our right to defend ourselves, from invaders, both foreign and domestic. This is why in Heller v. DC the SCOTUS acknowledged that it is an INDIVIDUAL Right to bear arms. The Second Amendment is NOT about hunting. It IS about defending yourself from attackers, criminals AND invaders, both foreign and domestic. The Founders knew this very well...

Dr. Gary Kenk of University of Florida (Criminology Dept) estimates that firearms in the US prevents 300,00 violent crimes per year. They are fired less than 1% of the time.

Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.

A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun "for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere." Applied to the U.S. population, this amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year. This figure excludes all "military service, police work, or work as a security guard."

Now for the "violence/murder" aspect. Most of the anti-gunners try to skew the numbers by going back and forth with gun related and non-gun related statistics. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Seventh United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems, {covering the period 1998 – 2000}, the top 10 countries for homicide does not include the United States. Keep in mind that this covers ALL homicides, and not just gun related ones. This means that countries with uber-strict gun control laws have a higher rate of violence/murder than we do. Here is the list:

Colombia -- 62 per 100,000
Jamaica -- 32 per 100,000
Russia -- 20 per 100,000
Mexico -- 13 per 100,000
Estonia -- 10 per 100,000
Latvia -- 10 per 100,000
Lithuania -- 10 per 100,000
Belarus -- 9 per 100,000
Papua New Guinea -- 8 per 100,000
Kyrgyzstan -- 8 per 100,000

As for the nutcase in Norway:

Breivik set off a bomb that killed eight people and injured more than 200 in Oslo’s government district, before opening fire at the left-leaning Labor Party’s annual youth camp, killing 69, most of them teenagers, on Utoya island.

And this just scratches the surface... When ALL of the data (the pieces of the puzzle) are brought together to give a complete picture, it clearly shows that guns actually SAVE many more live than they take, AND many of those that are taken with guns are of the criminal element, (there's no real loss there). So when all things are equally considered, I still fail to see the down side/negative aspect of the anti-gunner stance in any way, and always will.

EVERYWHERE gun control policies are instituted, shortly thereafter, crimes goes up.

EVERYWHERE the people's rights are restored to protect themselves, crime almost becomes non-existent.

Go figure...

If you choose not to own/keep a gun of any kind, that is YOUR choice. But you WILL NOT take my choice to have one away from me! I have never shot anyone in my life, and hope to never have to. But if I need to defend me and mine... I will not hesitate to do so.

Gun Handling Rules:

1) Treat ALL firearms as if they are loaded.
2) Always keep the gun muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
3) Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
4) Know your target AND what is beyond.

If you can't follow these simple rules, you probably shouldn't own a gun.... Play safe.

Ahh, 11am? Hmmm!

As far as Obama goes....

Dreams from My Real Father: Director Joel Gilbert at National Press Club, Washington DC

OMG was she drunk?WTF

One does have to wonder...

...as several have pointed out, it was 11 AM.

However...

1. That doesn't mean it can't be dark. Depending on the layout of the neighborhood and it's features as well as the orientation of the home or the arrangement within, it is possible for some to most of a home to be dark until well into the afternoon. Tall buildings or trees to the east and southeast can keep a home unnaturally dark until quite late. Light blocking shades drawn on most or all windows can also make a home very dark without electric lights turned on. It is not uncommon for police officers who work daytime details to still carry flashlights because they can still find themselves entering dark places, even in the middle of the day!

2. People who work late evening shifts will often just be getting up at 11 AM, such as those who work until 2 AM or later, such as bar tenders or night club employees. 11 AM to those folks may as well be 6 AM to the rest of us.

I would not be surprised if the situation was that the woman, for whatever the reason, was awaken by some unusual noise that alarmed her, or that perhaps she had very good reason to believe that her husband would not be there and then had at least a 'half valid' reason to assume that anyone else in the house was not him and perhaps (as in no close friends or relatives alive or in the vicinity) anyone in the house at a time he wouldn't be there was probably there to assault her. It could be that he was supposed to be away and plans changed, causing him to return home early, or perhaps he normally would have been at work, at a job he'd just been let go from, and had returned home. His entrance may have been unusual as a result of shock, anger, disgust, or whatever and could have sounded like a housebreaking if it was rather clumsy.

We just can't tell a whole lot from this article, although I had to smile when I saw:

He's 57 and she's 33? 2 things come to mind:

1: Damn, I hope I still have game at 57,

he must've been one good looking dude ;)

I sure hope that's age 57 for me! But, the article stated that she was 53, not 33! Oh, well.

No matter what happened, some lessons that need to be remembered is that a married couple needs to stay in communication about some things where secrets can be very, very bad. The big one is that if one spouse has a problem or a potential problem with personal security through work or otherwise, the other spouse needs to be 'in the loop' on it. If they don't know there's a problem, they may not at all realize a stalker is showing up. In this instance, perhaps, the wife had attracted some unwanted attention. If she never told her husband about it, he may have noticed that other man/men dropping by or slinking around, but not have thought much about it. If he knew something was going on, seeing strange men in the neighborhood would be an indicator that the situation was escalating that he could share with the wife so they could take action on this situation together.

If there is a firearm to be kept in the house for personal protection, both spouses, and preferably all adults in the household need to know about it and there needs to be a very good discussion on how this will affect everyone. More importantly, while maybe there wouldn't necessarily be any formal training involved, there at least needs to be a household policy established. Certain things are done, or not done. A very simple one is that no one arrives home unannounced. Either call first before you come in, or if you can get in through the door, let it be known you just walked in by announcing it. If you lock yourself out, there should be a procedure; someplace you go, something you do (find a phone and call before anything else, knock on a bedroom window and shout, etc.) besides trying to force your way back in. Each household is going to be different, but this stuff all needs to be worked out so no one is being mistaken for an intruder.

In homes with several people who come and go, the best bet is for everyone to have a key and the doors are always locked. That pretty well puts the kibosh on 99% + of unauthorized house guests who just show up to help themselves. When that's done, the uninvited will generally have to break glass or kick a door in to gain access, which is something that will be heard. Breaking glass or loud crashes will be an 'alert' sound, where normal 'people in the house' sound would be accepted as normal in a house with several people in it.

Other family members or house mates definitely 'muddies' the home security situation, and it requires that a person really knows what's happening before they take any action, especially of the drastic variety.

Isn't it funny how that works. Where I live in West Virginia the politicians claim that President Obama is leading a "war on coal" even though the coal industry has thrived since he took office

100 coal-fired power plants are expected to be shut down.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/coal/index.html

I truly love the people that come on here and say that gun owners are cowards. I say that anyone who refuses to defend themselves are victims and lacking in intelligence; some possibly hoping for some sort of martyrdom. I have been shot before. I was unarmed. He was a gangbanger. Nothing happened to him. Ever. I was burglarized in Feb. I was armed. I caught them. They were unarmed. I never drew my weapon. They hit me. I still never unholstered my weapon. When the police FINALLY showed up, their lips were blue and they had bruises on their throats where I grabbed them and held them. No shots fired. We aren't trigger happy, but we won't put up with your bull@!$%#. BTW, we aren't all christian conservatives, either. Let me know if I missed addressing any of your ludicrous generalities.

I feel bad for the family may he RIP

My condolences

dem in texas. I for one, am so glad and grateful I don't live in europe. And I am scared is that people like you, who live in this country, think it's better there. To all, watch obama 2016 and have an open mind.

Good thing she had a gun to protect herself...

Anti-logic if I ever heard it.

Good thing she had a gun to protect herself, otherwise her husband wouldn't be dead... Oh, wait.

We have something called Freedom in this Country 8) something Europe does not have if you like it so much please go.

@Spiddas:

Number 2 should be:

"Never point your weapon at anything you are not ready to kill".

I've actually seen the following variants:

Always keep the gun muzzle pointed in a safe direction.

Never point your weapon at anything you are not ready to kill.

Never point your weapon at anything you are not ready to destroy.

They pretty much mean the same thing.

I say it only because I have witnessed how 'safe direction' confuses some of the more intellectually stellar members of the human race. You would not believe what some people think is a 'safe direction.'

Before I read the article, I was expecting that the husband came home at night unexpectedly, and because it was dark, she didn't realize it was him. But this was at 11:00 am. I don't get it. She had to have been looking at him in order to aim and shoot... so it's pretty suspicious.

"Anti-logic if I ever heard it."

You were doing so well until the snarky comment at the end.

The bottom line never changes. We have the highest rate of gun ownership in the civlized world, and also the highest rate of gun fatalities in the civilized world. This is not a coincidence. The NRA theory, that guns make us safe, has been disproven over and over and over and over again. Slow learners?

I can't believe you accused the poster of making things up, and then use this to make your point. If you check the states with the highest (legal) gun ownership, you will find that they have some of the LOWEST crime rates in the nation. And the states/cities with the toughest gun laws (Chicago, D.C.)? High high crime rates. Besides, the constitution says US citizens DO have the right to keep and bear arms (guns), so there's nothing you can do about it anyway.... :o)

Spddas, # 1.53, you offer this reasonable commentary about guns

Gun Handling Rules:

1) Treat ALL firearms as if they are loaded.
2) Always keep the gun muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
3) Always keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.
4) Know your target AND what is beyond.

... and then you add this interesting suggestion,

If you can't follow these simple rules, you probably shouldn't own a gun.... Play safe.

"... you probably shouldn't own a gun?" I realize the word "probably" takes all the comittment out of your well-reasoned proposal, but I still have to ask, does this measure of control coincide with the NRA position on gun ownership?

Three points. First: The USA is NOT the most heavily armed nation in the world, it is 3rd behind Switzerland and Israel. Second: The number of lives saved or crimes prevented is hard to estimate but the best studies estimate around 2 million uses of a gun per year prevents a murder or other crime. The reasons for the inability to be more precise is 1) if a crime is prevented there is no official report made; 2) gun owners have had their guns taken away when they do try and report that a crime was attempted because the gun "was involved in a crime" therefore gun owners fail to report their crime prevention. Third: Europe has a very high crime rate where people are put in danger by thieves breaking into homes when the people are present - torture to force disclosure of the location of valuables is hideous.

Greentimer: After everything I wrote, I thought the air of sarcasm in that statement would have been a bit more obvious. My apologies if it was not so. If a person cannot follow those four simple rules, that person should never be allowed anywhere near a gun!

Okay... Maybe a squirt gun... ~_o

The real lesson from this story is that owning a gun does not make you safe. It makes you armed. Given how stupid some people are, being armed is a hazard to them and people around them.

Hey, I can relate to this woman, giving her the benefit of the doubt, that she did not intentionally murder her husband. I have been awake in the middle of the night at home, and I've heard a noise, and I got scared. I would go grab my gun, but, I don't have a gun. But I know the fear. Unfortunately, fear and guns do not work well together.

This story should not surprise anyone and is consistent with the findings of Dr. Kellerman, who as an emergency room doctor, observed that most gun shot victims were not criminals shot by law abiding armed citizens who were protecting themselves. No, the gun shot victims were the gun's owner, or someone shot by someone who they knew.

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

And this is consistent with FBI stats on murder and justifiable homicide, which show that when death occurs from a gunshot, it is approx 20x more likely that a murder has occured, than a justifiable homicide.

If you own a gun, especially a hand gun, be very very careful. You are playing with fire.

Sadly there is an idiot born every moment. Twice I have seen someone cut a finger off on a table saw. I have watched people injure themselves and others with tools many times in my life, some narrowly avoiding killing someone, and sadly I even hear of the occasional death. This is just another case of a tool being misused.

And Spiddas - awesome post, nothing shuts up a liberal faster than facts.

To liberals who are pro-gun ownership - my apologies for grouping you in with the majority of liberals. The defining difference between a conservative and a liberal is basically the philosophy of setting rules to to allow people to take care of themselves versus setting rules to take care of people. Hence a typical conservative would believe in the right to bear arms and thereby be able to defend themself from danger as well as from the government, whereas the typical liberal would rather leave that up to the police and the military. I think that most people are closer to center than they would like to admit, and I think most people have at least a few ideals that would be opposite of the left or right stance they consider themselves to take. The other thing to consider is that Democrat is not synonymous with liberal, and Republican is not synonymous with conservative.

I also think that anyone who believes gun control is in place to protect people from themselves needs to read up on history.. Nothing assures that a government will remain in power like the ability to remove the threat of the people being able to defend themselves against that same government. Gun control serves one purpose: to make the people helpless against the government. This is why the second amendment was written the way it was and why it cannot be changed.

Whenever you grant personal responsibility to people there will be tragedies where someone fails to be responsible. Give a kid a drivers license and there will be accidents where people are killed. Give someone a gun to protect themselves and there will be cases of accidental shootings. Give the people the right to have as many children as they want and some people will have more kids than they can feed. It is ALL the same thing, and the liberal answer is to take away the right to do these things in order to prevent the small percentage of misuse of those rights. Gun ownership is a hot button because someone who has no desire to own a gun can easily say "make them illegal". But if you talk about a license to drive a car, you are talking about something that most everyone wants to be able to do, so you don't hear anyone saying that it should be banned because of how many deaths come from misuse. And God forbid you take away someone's right to have kids.. Instead you can make the working class pay more taxes to support all those kids whose parents couldn't afford them in the first place. The bottom line is that as long as there are people who are not responsible, the right to be responsible for yourself will sometimes lead to tragedy. If this weren't the case, we wouldn't have a liberal class.

This happened at 11:00 AM! What? Who can't see or hear that that the "intruder" is your spouse? This is not looking like a justifiable shooting...

There are a few things that bring up questions. 1) Shooting an "intruder" at 11 a.m.? What was he intruding on - her giving it up to somebody else? 2) There have been suggestions of collecting life insurance. Really? A resident of the Lower 9th Ward with life insurance? They were so broke they couldn't afford bus fare to escape Katrina but can afford life insurance? 3)Why the continual anti-gun agenda in articles by NBCSnooze? Where are the articles about the other shootings in NO since Sunday night? You know, the ones where there was no chance that they were "gun ownership results in mistaken shootings" innuendoes? The others were obvious crimes from the get-go by criminals and yet they fail to be noted by NBCNews.

Spiddas, after frequently having my own sarcasm misinterperted, I swallow hard at having the tables turned on me. To be honest, I have a tendency to skim over longer postings, and did so in your case. I stand corrected and appreciate your un-condescending rebuke. Squirt, squirt.

@davey - keep in mind that guns are a deterrent to crime. Simply posting a sticker at the entry points to the house that has a picture of a gun and the words "I am armed" will deter most criminals from breaking and entering that home. If they DO go in and the owner is armed, simply showing the gun will either chase the criminal off or allow the owner to call the police. If you don't fire the weapon in the crime, you will not lose your gun. When all you post is information pertaining to the circumstance where a gun was fired and injured or killed someone, you leave out the MAJORITY of cases. How many police officers go their entire career without ever having to pull their gun from their holster in the line of duty? Or how many police officers have never fired their weapon in the line of duty? Almost every situation where a police officer is involved will not result in a shooting, so why would you think that every case of self defense requires a gun to be fired?

The person who broke into my house who I found hiding under a bed didn't make a move when they saw the gun in my hand. And I simply told them to get out, I didn't bother calling the police. The funny thing is I had shot all my ammo at the range that weekend and the gun was empty. The sound of "loading" the gun was enough to send the intruder into hiding. The best thing someone can do for home defense is to have a pump shotgun loaded with bird shot and add a laser site to it. The sound of sliding the pump is universally known. If the intruder is confronted, a flashing laser dot on their chest is enough to know that there is NO QUESTION that if the trigger is pulled they are dead. If it comes down to pulling the trigger, the bird shot can kill the intruder but won't pass much further than the wall behind them, and won't be lethal once it does. Unless the intruder is crazy or dugged up too much, you will end any issues before they begin.

And a shotgun requires a little more conscious effort than pulling a pistol from your nightstand and pulling the trigger.

If the people wanting to blame the guns for killings, why not blame the cars and alchol for drunk driving. How about the medications for overdoses as well.

Get a firm grip on reality people.

how about this chain of thought. Woman hears a noise in the kitchen when husband is not supposed to be home. Wife works nights and hubby works days, she gets woken up to noises in the kitchen, looks at the clock and sees 11am. Too early for hubby to be home. She takes a gun downstairs to see who is in the house. her mind races as there are so many crazies out there that want to hurt people, a loud noise spooks her and she fires. Hubby had come home and made a sandwich, and dropped something.

Greentimer: No problem. I know what you mean.

It would figure, another senseless firearms tragedy and right away the NRA is on here defending gun ownership by saying that the US murder rate is not nearly as bad as in several countries that have guerrilla warfare going on within their borders.

The US average murder rate per 100,000 population is 5.0, and the all-Europe average is 0.9. Some US States have murder rates 50% above the national average, and others, such as Utah and Wyoming, have murder rates comparable to the United Kingdom, which is 1.2 per 100,000.

The NRA always wants to whine about how the anti-handgun crowd wants to use the UK as a comparison against US murder rates, but the population density graphic is starkly similar, with one very-large urban area, and several more large urban areas similar in population to our own other top-five largest cities.

So instead of trying to compare UK murder and crime rates (where handgun and assault weapon ownership is greatly restricted but legitimate hunting weapons are still legal, and the #1 weapon involved in murder in the UK is a knife), why don't we instead compare German or French demographics and murder rates?

France has a murder rate of 1.1/100,000 population, and Germany has a rate of 0.9/100,000 population. In neither country are handguns legally owned by the vast majority of the population, though hunting weaponry is legal in both countries.

Paris, France has a population of 12 million people, two other French cities are over 2 million people, and four other French cities are over 1 million population. France also has eight more cities between 500,000 and 1 million population.

Germany is a little unusual in that it does not have a single very-large mega-city like England, the US, Japan, or Mexico have. On the other hand, Germany does have five different urban areas of over 5 million population, and eight more large urban areas of between 2.3 million and 4.3 million population.

Japan is another case in point, with a murder rate of 0.4/100,000 population. Handguns are not legally owned by the general population there either. In 2011, Japan only had 506 murders among a population of 127 million people, while the US had 14,468 murders in 2011, out of a population of 310 million. Tokyo, Japan is one of the world's largest urban areas, with a population rivaling the metropolitan New York City area, and Japan has 19 other urban areas of between 716,000 and 3.7 million population

The source that I used for the US data claimed that our sheer number of murders was down by 20% in the last 5 years, which the NRA likes to attribute to the increased numbers of handgun owners, though sales of non-lethal personal protection weaponry have also soared over the last 5 years in the US too. Also, over the last 5 years a record number of Americans have been sentenced to prison too, removing a fair number of likely perpetrators from society too.

This source, the FBI's annual uniform crime report, also said that the annual number of murders had fallen to their lowest level since 1968, when only 13,800 Americans were murdered, when our population was less than 2/3rds of what it is now. So without even checking the data for every year, only by determining the previous high annual number of murders in the US, 18,805, then adding the murders from this past year, 14,468, as well as the murders from 1968, 13,800, then by averaging those numbers and then by multiplying the result by the number of years between 1968 and 2012, there were more than 700,000 people murdered in the US during that time period, or roughly 14 times the sheer number of US servicemen killed in the entire Vietnam War.

Clearly the data shows how much safer it is for humans to live in large high population density urban areas without having a readily-concealable and very lethal weapon at their immediate disposal, and I didn't have to resort to quoting any of Kellerman's extensive anti-handgun data either!

Almost right across the street from where I lived in 1983 a very similar tragedy occurred. This guy had won the Colorado Lottery for a few million dollars, and shortly thereafter he got locked-out of his house after being out late having a good time one night, out in northeast Denver on Olmsted Drive in the Montbello neighborhood. So, after pounding on the door without any response, he tried to open a basement window, and as he was crawling in, his wife shot and killed him too, and if she would have had a Taser, there is a 99% chance that he would have survived his rotten luck.

All that handguns are good for is for trying to intimidate, then when that fails they are only good for trying to injure or kill someone else. Because viable and non-lethal personal protection alternatives do exist, a growing number of Americans feel that there must be a better way than having to suffer losing 150,000 of our families and friends to handgun violence every 10 years just so that some people can feel safe. I am not at all opposed to the legal ownership and use of legitimate hunting weapons, but there must be a way to stop this carnage as well as to greatly reduce our prison population too.

keep in mind that guns are a deterrent to crime.

It's true, but most often only indirectly. They are a deterrent much like laws and law enforcement officers are. 80-90% of the population does not commit base crimes against other people because it's illegal to do so and there will be someone with authority investigating and pursuing the perpetrators of crimes. In areas where most households have guns, usually more rural areas, part of the reason crime is very low is because anyone with a lick of common sense realizes that if they invade someone's home, the odds are very good they'll be shot in the process. This understanding 'short circuits' most ideas about committing burglary, rape, or who-knows-what-else long before any serious attempt to commit the crime is made. In more urban areas where it is more likely than not that the household does not contain firearms that are rapidly deployable, this deterrent tends to not exist.

Simply posting a sticker at the entry points to the house that has a picture of a gun and the words "I am armed" will deter most criminals from breaking and entering that home.

Yeah, it'll deter them from breaking and entering as long as they feel there's a good chance that you're home. It makes your home a very enticing target when they're satisfied that no one is there! Firearms are inherently quite valuable on the black market and tend to resale on the streets for more than most electronics or jewelry will, and the value is more in line with prescription narcotic drugs. It's NOT a good idea to advertise in any way that you have valuables inside! This includes firearms.

If they DO go in and the owner is armed, simply showing the gun will either chase the criminal off or allow the owner to call the police.

The person who broke into my house who I found hiding under a bed didn't make a move when they saw the gun in my hand. And I simply told them to get out,

Unfortunately, there is no guarantee whatsoever as to how they'll react, and they have been known to do almost anything. This includes assaulting you, putting on a 'show' where they dare you to shoot them, just plain not cooperating with you, or any number of very irrational things that you would not expect a person being held at gunpoint to do. Usually they'll act as you expect, but you need to be ready for pretty much anything and not let anything unexpected to 'throw' you as the attempt to distract you will generally work in the favor of the criminal unless you are proactive in preventing that. You absolutely need to know what you're doing and how you're going to react to whatever they do.

I didn't bother calling the police.

Not a good idea, I'm afraid. For one, you never know when they might be back, possibly with 'friends'. You very much want the police involved in this and taking a report ASAP. It isn't exactly unheard of for such a person as the one driven off to go file a complaint that YOU assaulted them with a deadly weapon somewhere. They might claim to not know you by name, but that they know you drive such-and-such vehicle, live on such-and-such street, and they'll have a good physical description of both you and your gun that they will allege you pointed at them out on the street somewhere. Think of it as what sometimes happens if one fails to report a minor traffic accident at the time and the other party reports it later...with the facts twisted to their benefit. Do not lose the all important 'race to the phone'. The first to report gets priority, and you don't want to have to do any 'catching up' because you're going to have a lot of it to do!

How many police officers go their entire career without ever having to pull their gun from their holster in the line of duty? Or how many police officers have never fired their weapon in the line of duty? Almost every situation where a police officer is involved will not result in a shooting,

It needs to be remembered that the first level of the force paradigm is 'presence'. The fact that a uniformed officer shows up, probably in a marked patrol car, slams the brakes on a lot of criminal goings-on. The cops do have a reputation that precedes them, and most of your common crooks know that you don't want to mess around with them and that they're just best avoided in the first place. This isn't necessarily true where the average citizen is concerned, and especially where a person has a less than commanding stature or demeanor. Most crooks have been arrested before a few times and know how to 'game' things through experience. With homeowners, there's a lot of opportunities to try 'funny stuff', and the weaker in body, mind, and spirit a person looks, the more a criminal is likely to try to exploit this. The cops show up, and bad guys tend to split. No situation requiring use of firearms develops. An average person shows up, and who knows what will happen next?

The NRA theory, that guns make us safe, has been disproven over and over and over and over again.

This is nonsense. You can't just make stuff up, and use it to prop up your position.

Doesn't it suck when your own words jump up and bite you in the ass?

keep in mind that guns are a deterrent to crime

Hand guns also facilitate crime.

I'm OK with armed citizens, but I do object to some arms. Hand guns, for example.

If you look at the FBI crime stats, you'll see that there are about 300 justifiable homicides each year. Most people who kill justifiably in self defense use a gun, but not all. The FBI crime stats also show there are about 10,000 murders each year where the murder weapon is a gun, about 7,000 when the
weapon is a hand gun. So, the stats show that getting shot to death means that you were probably murdered, and not a bad guy who got shot by a law abiding gun owner.

I do not have stats that track gun injuries. That is, if you were shot but did not die, were you an innocent victim, or were you a bad guy who got shot while you were committing a crime? Similar for gun brandishments -- if you pulled a gun, were you 'waving the magic wand' to make a bad guy go away, or were you committing some criminal intimidation?

I see no reason why the ratio for murder/justifiable homicide when a gun was the weapon should not also hold for gun injuries and gun brandishments. That is, if the overwhelming number of gun-related deaths are murders and not justifiable homicides, then if an injury is inflicted by someone with a gun, then it probably was a crime. And, if someone shows another person a gun, there is likely a criminal intent.

I do realize that there are legitimate, real defensive gun uses. (That 92 year old WWII vet who killed the intruder in his home, using one bullet from his 22 rifle. This is an example of how guns should be used.) But the bad guys are using their guns more than the good guys.

DaveK: You may already have these on hand, but just in case, these are for you.

"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery." -- Thomas Jefferson

"What luck for rulers that men do not logically think." -- Adolf Hitler

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains set lightly upon you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen". -- Samuel Adams

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." -- Benjamin Franklin

"It is impossible to make people understand their ignorance; for it requires knowledge to perceive it, and therefore he that can perceive it, hath it not." -- Jeremy Taylor, English prelate (1613 - 1667)

"Only 2 things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein

"Gun control is the idea that a woman who is brutally raped and killed is somehow morally superior to the woman who shoots and kills her attacker." -- Unknown

"Guns do not produce violence any more than a school produces success. It's not what you have, it's how you use it." -- Anonymous

"A firearm is a tool. Your weapon is between your ears! Use THAT ONE first." -- Anonymous

Yes, I keep a LOT on hand for times like this! ~_o

BTW - Great posts!

Whoever posted the quotes starting with jefferson's quote about freedom/slavery really should learn to think.

To the guy who posted the completely irrelevant post about the vet who shot the intruder, cute but it doesn't match the story about the eight year old boy who blew his head off with a mini-uzzi while two law abiding gun experts were standing right next to him.

This is a great shame for the dead guy and his family, but all in all just another tricky day in the life of a law abiding gun owner.

Lmao god you people never give the crap a rest do you? Clearly lets get rid of all gun laws so only criminals who say F you either way will be the only people with them... makes total sense doesn't it? Police can't protect you idiots who wish to go un-armed so what's your means god forbid you ever find yourself in this situation? Plead? Beg?.

Lol we will all be safer... oh if we lived in a perfect world. In fact go ahead and rid the gun laws, watch how fast murders and robberies realy jump when they find out people ( who abide the law ) are no longer allowed to have them... boy it'll be a free for all!.

name one

frivolous

The preponderance of the killing in this country is thug killing thug. To be candid, they don't take enough of each other out.

And may I ask you one question? What percentage of those thug on thug killings are drug related?

I would submit that 95% or better are drug related.

frivolous

You mean like it has in countries that have gun laws? Oh wait, they have significantly lower homicide rates. huh.

Why do you all compare our country to other countries ? Society is completely different around the world and from nation to nation. There would be no way to know if complete gun control could ever work out here. Too many factors to toss around.

"JeanValjean" you are mistaken.

It is easy to understand why incidents like this bring out the anti-gunners. But the fact of the matter is things like this are the tip of the tip of the iceberg.

Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day. (Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law)

" It is the guns that kill people. " Back to the same old line.

Why can you dip @!$%#s never blame the people behind the gun? Why is it always somehow this guns fault like it jumped up, cocked itself and pulled it's on trigger? You never mention the @!$%# behind the weapon... That's funny.

If guns kill people, cars make peole drive drunk, pencils cause mistakes, matches cause arson. Now why don't yall pull your heads out of your asses and make a legitimate argument, PLEASE for the sake of it try this JUST one time.

Ah, oh, here come the people not allowed to have guns again. Of course they want the rest of us to be un-armed also.

LOL @ 95%...There are other things in the world besides drugs to shoot each other over. The fact is having a gun in your home increases YOUR chances of YOU getting shot exponentially. Sure there maybe times when you wish you had a gun when you don't... Poor TM, but the times when you don't greatly and undoubtedly out number the times you do.

I bet the same people that feel the need to carry a weapon would J walk across the road, but where is your fear of getting hit by a car? Your chances are much greater of that happening...

I wouldn't feel any safer knowing the law abiding citizen beside me has a gun anymore than that creepy looking guy that might have one.

Your fears drive you towards danger when left unchecked, because you ignore everything else. You can't get shot if you aren't around any guns.

BLS,

How 'bout we ban all "idiots". Then guns won't even matter anymore.

They're more dangerous than guns. Put one behind the wheel, or fly a plane. I can go on forever.

"The fact is having a gun in your home increases YOUR chances of YOU getting shot exponentially."

Maxxa, please provide stats to support your comment.

More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million—even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent. Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well. (National Safety Council, Injury Facts (2000), p. 125.)

Maxxa, you perfectly stated it.

For all of you know-nothings, a little research:

hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html

Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole. (Gary Kleck, "Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force," Social Problems 35 (February 1988):15)

None of my firearms have spontaneously fired themselves randomly at anyone, and I leave one loaded ready to fire. In my house we don't mess around with them, they stay where they are put and always treated as if they are loaded and ready to fire.

There has not been a single accident or incident or any other dangerous event regarding my firearms, this proves it is people, not the firearms that are dangerous.

None of my knives have got up and sliced anyone to bits either.

Phil, there is always the first time. Hopefully it won't be your last.

Yes, research indeed!

David Hemenway is an anti-gun liberal and a former Senior Soros Justice Fellow. That tells me everything I need to know about his "research", and I use the term lightly.

John in Battle Creek

Phil, there is always the first time. Hopefully it won't be your last.

Maybe so, but it is still a person who animates the object and if the people are trained well enough there won't be a 'first time'.

To the people who keep saying that banning guns is the answer, I point you to exhibit 1:

Drugs

Look at the success of drug bans and you will get your success of gun bans.

We know for a FACT that no one was ever killed before the invention of the gun...right? Well, anyway...I'm not going to let fact checking affect my opinion.

"No gun in the room, no one gets shot, pretty hard to shoot someone with a finger bullet."

John, you're mistaken. There was no "gun in the room[s]" when the mass shooting took place at Virginia Tech. Consider this, Holly Admas' daughter was killed that day at VT...

On April 16, 2007, my child, Leslie Sherman, was killed by Seung-Hui Cho during the Virginia Tech massacre. Today is the fifth anniversary of her death. Always in my memories, every day I wish that this tragedy was a nightmare and I could wake up to hold my daughter even if it is just one more time. That opportunity might have been possible if someone been able to defend and protect my daughter in her classroom before Cho took 30 precious lives.

There is an unfortunate drive for more gun control and the continuation of preventing guns on campus by parents whose children lived or survived during that fatal day. Several family members of those victims have actively voiced their support for increased gun control measures. As result, it has been assumed that they speak for all families of the Virginia Tech victims. I am writing this to make it clear that this is not the case. They do not represent me and my views.

Speaking for myself, I would give anything if someone on campus; a professor, one of the trained military or guardsman taking classes or another student could have saved my daughter by shooting Cho before he killed our loved ones. Because professors, staff and students are precluded from protecting themselves on campus, Cho, a student at Virginia Tech himself, was able to simply walk on campus and go on a killing rampage with no worry that anyone would stop him.

I ask a simple question: Would the other parents of victims be forever thankful if a professor or student was allowed to carry a firearm and could have stopped Seung-Hui Cho before their loved one was injured or killed? I would be. I also suspect that the tragedy may not have occurred at all if Cho knew that either faculty members or students were permitted to carry their own weapons on campus. Cho took his own life before campus police were able to reach him and put a stop to his killing spree.

A sad testament to this anniversary date is the number of similar killings in schools and public places that have taken place afterwards as if nothing has changed to help prevent such needless and heartbreaking events. That is why I fully support the VCDL in their outstanding efforts to help prevent this type of tragedy and loss from
occurring in the future.

Holly Adams

If you doubt it, Google Holly Adams

Hey waneroni, guns don't grow in your backyard. Try making up a batch of 9mm's will you!

@spud, how about armed and trained security staff? OMG!

Article II of The Constitution states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Militia: The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),^[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens^[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.

It does not state that the citizens of the USA can arm themselves with guns to protect themselves or their belongings. The right to bear arms is to protect the State to provide a defense for the country. That said, I believe that we should be able to own stun guns, use them and ask questions later. To err is human.

Anne's Recipes

The Supreme Court says you are WRONG. Last I checked, they are the highest Court in the Country. Not you.

Anne, you're mistaken. Read the WHOLE article:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Time and time again, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have upheld that "the people" means exactly what it says--the citizens of the United States.

John in Battle Creek

Spud, listen up. No gun in the room, no one gets shot, pretty hard to shoot someone with a finger bullet. Put a gun in the room and your chances of being shot are up 100%. Two guns make a gun fight. I wonder what you need to understand that basic concept. NO gun, no shot.

And when people turn to swords and knives, ban them too? I've heard reports that the UK has had to turn to sword registration and bans on them too! Where does it end?

It remains that people will kill each other with whatever object they can get their hands on, regardless of the objects intended purpose. The root of the problem is PEOPLE, not the objects they chose to implement in crime.

We cannot ban every object that can made into a tool of crime.

Anne...

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. – James Madison

The Constitution shall never be construed … to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. – Samuel Adams

The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. – Alexander Hamilton

Kevin D. Hoke, thanks for confirming their decision on Obamacare was correct and the law of the land

Hey spud, note Adams said peaceable. Angry tea baggers screaming about God and gays are not peaceable, their violent biggots.

@spud, as for Kleck:

saf.org/lawreviews/hemenway1.htm

In its landmark case Heller v. District of Columbia, the Supreme Court, after nearly seventy years of avoiding cases squarely presenting Second Amendment questions, ruled that the right to bear arms protected by the Federal Constitution was held by individuals regardless of whether they were acting as part of a militia or in a military capacity. In doing so, the majority opinion focused on the idea of gun use for self-defense, rather than for armed rebellion or protection of state, opining, "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." Commentary on Heller has focused on this recognition of a personal right and on the opinion's constitutionalization of armed self-defense.

Visit the site below at NYU's Law School to read more.

www.law.nyu.edu/ecm_dlv2/groups/public/@nyu_law_website__journals__law_review/documents/documents/ecm_pro_067506.pdf

Spud your not making any sense... asking about figures that speak for themselves. I bet the guy in this story felt the same way you did. You can only protect yourself from yourself, after that it's a craps shoot.

Take for example the Batman incident, do you honestly think anymore people in the dark that day shooting amongst the confusion would have helped the situation at all? Certainly not... perhaps if you had a trained sharp shooter up in the projection room you could have had a clear and effective position to act but on the floor in the panic no friggen way, you'd be just as dangerous as the nut job causing the panic.

The answer is not more guns... it isn't, it doesn't make any sense at all. You aren't living in the wild west anymore.

TexasLaw

You don't have to be an idiot to go unarmed. You do have to be an idiot to live in Texas.

Gary Kleck's voluntary disclosure statement:

The author is a member of the American Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International USA, Independent Action, Democrats 2000, and Common Cause, among other politically liberal organizations He is a lifelong registered Democrat, as well as a contributor to liberal Democratic candidates. He is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of, or contributor to, the National Rifle Association, Handgun Control, Inc. nor any other advocacy organization, nor has he received funding for research from any such organization.

@TexasLaw you are right guns don't kill people but they just make it a whole lot easier. Can you imagine what would happen if there was no gun in this case. She would have to get a knife or hachet run over to him to stab him to death. That would have prevented the mistake from happening. The more technology you give a person the worst it is when the person makes a mistake. Look at cars. A car that will allows a drunk person to drive 100 mph makes it a whole lot worse than if that person had to drive a car that topped out at 20 mph. Guns make mistakes a whole lot worse.

Maxxa, read post #2.17.

Slimyone... Gun control is like trying to control drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to get drivers licenses.

Marvin Wolfgang, who was one of the most prominent criminologists, commented on Kleck's research concerning defensive gun use (see How often are guns used in self-defense?):

I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of Brave New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns--ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people. ...

What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator... I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. ...

Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies. ...

Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it. ...

The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.
--- Marvin E. Wofgang, "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

Back to the topic at hand, my heart and prayers go out to this poor woman and her family. I cannot imagine having to live with the knowledge that I had killed the man I loved, lived with, and created a family with. How will she and her children ever be able to look one another in the eyes again? If ever there was a need for forgiveness and understanding of humanity's unending gift for screw-ups, this is it.

Where's the Do-Over button when you need it?

That said, I believe that we should be able to own stun guns, use them and ask questions later. .

Yeah, and I'm sure all the criminals that currently have guns will voluntarily turn them in for stun guns to make everything fair. After all, isn't this generation being taught that everything MUST be 'fair'.

Wake up - look at Chicago's and Illinois' gun laws and see how many daily shootings there are in Chicago.

Gun Control = Hitting the bullseye

That said, I believe that we should be able to own stun guns, use them and ask questions later. .

Yeah, and I'm sure all the criminals that currently have guns will voluntarily turn them in for stun guns to make everything fair. After all, isn't this generation being taught that everything MUST be 'fair'.

Wake up - look at Chicago's and Illinois' gun laws and see how many daily shootings there are in Chicago.

Gun Control = Hitting the bullseye

frivolous,

You are wrong, the UK (gun control) has one fifth the population that we do and if you take thier death/murder rate per 100,000, vs. ours per 100,000 thier death/murder rate is higher per year then ours... Find the figures on Wikipedia or any other site...

It may be hard for Mr. Wolfgang to challenge the data, but I think Hemenway did just that with a challenge to the methodology of the research. It's apparent that we need another study. One thing is certain, the "founding fathers" had no way of knowing the future capabilities of modern weaponry. Imagine a British infantryman with an automatic weapon against our muskets. We would not be having this debate.

Here we go again. Ban guns? Everyone should have any kind and as many as they want..maybe be required to have one?

Doesn't anyone see that those are extremes and that a compromise could be found if all sides don't scream at each other and call names? Reasonable and enforced gun laws don't mean your guns are taken away by any means, and they don't mean that people have to have huge magazines or assault rifles, but that they can have legally purchased guns after a background check and training.

The huge emotionally charged fear reaction of those who want no laws at all makes no sense logically, and banning all guns isn't reasonable to me personally, either. Why not take the NRA, a lobby whose members stand to make a fortune if all citizens are allowed to have unlimited guns and ammunition with no laws at all, away from this conversation and let real gun safety experts, the public, law enforcement, medical experts, psychology, and those affected by gun violence meet and come up with reasonable laws to submit on this issue? Let those who don't stand to make a fortune and aren't experts at bullying (lobbying) everyone into silence on the topic discuss it and make recommendations for reasonable laws that take individual freedoms and everyone's safety into consideration.

Oh wait...everyone yelling at each other and NRA lobbying with tons of money is much more effective. Ugh.

@frivolous

You mean like it has in countries that have gun laws? Oh wait, they have significantly lower homicide rates. huh.

As well as significantly HIGHER rates of almost every other violent crime. huh.

Funny how you anti-gun sorts always "forget" to mention that little fact.

To all you people arguing "constitution" well we all know guns were not the same back then. I don't think our founding fathers would have written it up the same way if they had the types of guns that we have now. And anyone disputing that link to the Harvard Article.....those are peer reviewed articles from surveys and real research not some jerk with a keyboard telling us all about the millions of crimes a day that are prevented by people owning guns. Ha! Studies have shown (and I don't have a link at this second- but you can google this) that unless you are in the military or law enforcement people can not just whip out a handgun in the theater, classroom, mall or what not and take out a shooter. You have to always be training to keep up that ability.

To go back to the article....this woman would not have killed her husband if there had not been a gun in the house.

eh............this argument is moot...................guns ain't going to be ban.................if you don't like guns.....there are plenty of countries that have a ban on them...............take your pick.

There has never been a victim of a gun shot wound that didn't involve a gun.

Anne's Recipes

Article II of The Constitution states: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Article I: Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohihibiting the free exercise therefore; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; of the right of the people peaceably...............

Article IV: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.........

Article IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of cetain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparate others retained by the people.

Article X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

people

1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" (Thomas Jefferson).
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer

in·fringe
[ in frínj ]

1. disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
2. encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way

Synonyms: encroach on, intrude on, interfere with, impinge on, trespass, invade, overstep

Question: I do not like the fact that certain people, newspapers and cable news anchors spew what they do, does that mean I am for abolishing the 1st Amendment? I think if a known drug dealer gets busted with their drugs, they are caught.....regardless of where or how. Does that mean I want to abolish the 4th Amendment?

NO to both. If you choose to not be armed....that is YOUR right. If I choose to be armed...that is MY right. DO NOT TRY TO MESS WITH MY RIGHTS!!!!!! And I will not try to mess with your right.

Spudbucket - except, the founding fathers INTENT was to rival our federal military, so that our people - as a united group - could keep tyranny at bay, to prevent our federal military from destroying us and forcing us to do as they say...

and it's been so long perverted to only mean "indviduals can have guns" that we've destroyed the actual 2nd amendment...it's entire point and purpose, and the Supreme Court solidified that.

OTHERWISE, the right of the people to BEAR AND KEEP ARMS - could and should go as far as our federal military has, nukes, drones, tanks, rocket launchers...and yet, as a nation we've concluded, that is NOT what the 2nd Amendment meant at all, oh no...how dare we even CONSIDER that an option.

That seems silly to trust a bunch of white idiots with a bunch of nukes, just as stupid to trust a bunch of black people in a ghetto with drones...doesnt it?

But, here we are, trusting a bunch of american idiots with guns...as if they are any less dangerous in the end. They arent.

But, that 2nd Amendment, means nothing at this point...we could NEVER wage a revolution against the tyranny of our federal govt without having TONS of outside help...we'd look like the rebels in syria...shooting our little guns at drones, like it would amount to anything in the end.

Yet, a bunch of white guys roaming the heartland seem to think they are keeping the 2nd Amendment alive because their NRA and conservatives are helping them keep their little guns.

It's sad and pathetic, but mostly, it's just hilarious. I guess here's hoping out govt doesnt become bought and sold to the highest political donor...and WE THE PEOPLE never have a reason to rise up collectively against our facist dictators.

I am personally not an advocate for a complete ban on guns. As an ex-law enforcement officer I have seen both sides of the equation. I am also a little paranoid about what I see as a rising problem with civil unrest in the USA. I personally would rather be able to protect myself should something happen. That does not negate the fact that there are fewer homicides in gun controlled countries, it just speaks to my paranoia and issues that I feel are arising with over-population, inequity in wealth, and over-regulation of personal freedoms. That said, I have two issues with the proliferation of guns.

1. I think that the ease of access to guns should be controlled better. When someone like the Batman shooter can so easily buy the amount of weaponry he did with no questions asked, even though he had documented mental issues, there is a problem.

2. Fully or semi-automatic weapons should be banned for all but law enforcement. There is no valid reason for civilians to have access to these guns. They are designed for killing large amounts of humans, period. The only reason I make an exception for law enforcement is that criminals will continue to find a way to get these guns and law enforcement should have an even playing field. Yes, I said criminals will continue to have them but if they are fully banned it would be easier to identify the criminals from the run of the mill dumb****s that just like to shoot things up.

"Fully or semi-automatic weapons should be banned for all but law enforcement. There is no valid reason for civilians to have access to these guns."

Law Enforcement = Government. So you are saying that the government should have more power than I; that they should have the ability to supress me for any reason. That is one scary little philosophy you have there fella. Also, as former law enforcement, you should know better; most crimes are committed in a matter of minutes. Far less time than it takes to respond to the crime. I personally don't want to have to depend on you not being on a break and close by. Your job is to clean up the mess afterwards. This run of the mill dumb@!$%# rarely misses.

@frivolous

2. Fully or semi-automatic weapons should be banned for all but law enforcement. There is no valid reason for civilians to have access to these guns. They are designed for killing large amounts of humans, period

So I'm just going to go out on a limb and assume you don't know any ranchers and that you've never had to shoot at coyotes or other predators harassing your livestock.

This may come as a shock to you but the little world you live in is not representative of everyone's lifestyle and experiences.

People always mix up idealism and practicality with these issues. Gun advocates have an ideal that everyone is generally responsible, never make mistakes, can quick draw and sharp-shoot, and never have their judgement impaired. Gun prohibitionists have an ideal that the world could be peaceful without any predators.

Society can't be run based on ideals. You can try to steer toward them a bit, but practicality has to be the basis of laws.

The first practicality is that you can't prevent guys from getting guns any more than you can prevent them getting drugs. Prohibition of any sort (gambling, liquor, prostitution, etc.) always fails. So the ideal of no one having guns is a non-starter.

Therefore, it makes sense that everyone might as well have access to guns.

The second practicality is that the majority of people have moments of bad judgement, temporary anger, or simply aren't that smart. To accidentally shoot someone basically you almost by definition have to be stupid (or it wasn't an accident as I suspect in the case of this article) -- you need a loaded weapon pointed in a dangerous direction with any safety overridden and a full action of trigger / hammer. You simply can't have all that go wrong easily.

Anyway, yes it would be a nicer world without guns, drugs, abortions, illegal immigrants, etc. but our laws have to reflect the fact that not only are these things not going away they are prevalent. That's just reality.

Julian, that was a well reasoned and cogent argument. Also very diplomatic. Without meaning to offend; maybe you should run for office.

Jessica, you're creating a straw man. Always a dumb idea.

Read Post #2.55 and learn.

MikeC - yes, I do think that law enforcement should have more power than you. That is the way our society is set up. You aren't making the rules or the laws, you aren't determining where tax money is spent, etc. We elect officials that we expect to represent us but then we have to trust them. Again, your argument about the amount of time it takes to commit a crime is irrelevant unless you plan on sitting in your house with a semi-automatic aimed at the door. Otherwise, a regular handgun is sufficient for self-protection in the vast majority of situations (unless you are a drug dealer or gang member that needs to protect themselves from other bad guys with big guns).

Backcountry, hate to tell you this but again you are wrong. I grew up in ranching country in Northern California (Modoc County). None of the ranchers I knew needed a semi-automatic to kill coyotes that were attacking their flocks. Seems like a little bit of either overkill or maybe someone that doesn't have a very good aim and needs the wide swath of a semi-automatic. Maybe some gun lessons would help?

I agree, very well stated Julian.

At this point, there is no practical way to gather up all the guns in this country. No matter what method is used, a large number will fall through the cracks-primarily unregistered/stolen/illegally owned guns. A much better solution is to critically examine the current gun laws and close the numerous loopholes that exist, come up with a better tracking system, and find better/more consistent screening for gun purchases. Part of the problem is that gun laws are so inconsistent with regards to where you are in the country-someone could take a day to travel out of an area with very strict gun laws, purchase a gun where the laws are lax and bring that gun back with them.

Bans guns? No. Can we ban stupid people from owning guns? No, but that would be a start. Clearly, this woman is too stupid to have access to a loaded forearm. Isn't it fundamental to be certain of your target BEFORE firing? It is generally too late to ascertain your target after the fact...

frivolous

Backcountry, hate to tell you this but again you are wrong. I grew up in ranching country in Northern California (Modoc County). None of the ranchers I knew needed a semi-automatic to kill coyotes that were attacking their flocks. Seems like a little bit of either overkill or maybe someone that doesn't have a very good aim and needs the wide swath of a semi-automatic. Maybe some gun lessons would help?

You must not have know them very well or not many of them if you're trying to suggest they don't own any semi-auto rifles. And if you think you can hit a running coyote without taking a few shots in rapid secession then your opinion of the matter is obviously not backed by any personal experience and is therefore, in my opinion, worthless. Stick to commenting on things you actually know about instead of making assumptions without basis.

lol @backcountry - well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You are making exactly the same assumptions that you are accusing me of doing. Obviously ranchers can't possibly protect their herds or flocks with anything but a semi-automatic rifles; gee, I wonder what they did for the thousands of years before semi-automatics were invented.

This perfectly illustrates the problem. Both sides seem to think that it should be an all or nothing proposition. If you look at it from a risk based perspective then it is clear that less people would die if semi-automatics were banned; this trumps a few ranchers that could just as easily use a regular rifle for predator control.

"firearm"...

Jessica, Your equation of "white idiots" with "a bunch of black people in the ghetto" is telling. You modified the whites with "idiots", clearly delineating them from "normal white folk". Where is your modifier for the ghetto dwellers? Are all of the "black people in the ghetto" of the same character and behavior? Are there ghetto residents that are law abiding and striving to do better? Hmmmm....

The point in arming the people is to allow them to fight back against a tyrannical government. Just because the government has the "big guns" does not mean that an armed population could be easily wiped out. If the government were to wipe out the population using the heavy weapons in the military's arsenal, there would be nobody left to govern. The whole point is that if the people as a majority are armed, they will not be easily bullied into submission. To force a group of people to do something they are unwilling to do, you have to take away their ability to fight back and make them submit. Look at places like Ireland where you had a government who took power away from the people and for over 25 years they revolted before England restored power to the IRA. And that is a case where the people were not, as a whole population, allowed to arm themselves. Imagine how things would have changed if everyone who was in favor of independence from the British government was armed. England could have used all kinds of heavy weapons against northern ireland but the fighting came down to skirmishes with small arms. In the end it took satisfying the needs of the people to end it, not people with bigger guns.

The second amendment is what protects us from powerful politicians deciding to use their position of power to override our constitution and infringe on the rights of the people. There is no police force in place to protect the rights granted by the constitution from the lawmakers.. We, the PEOPLE, are the police force, and a LOT of us are armed and willing to fight to keep those rights.

Besides, how many people in the military do you suppose would take the side of their families or home towns in the case of a revolution or civil war? If you don't think that a major uprising would have heavy duty weaponry on both sides, you are mistaken. And the possibility of something like this happening only further justifies owning military grade weapons like automatic rifles.

Finally, when you start to think that this kind of thing could never happen in modern society, think about the fact that the whole situation in northern ireland happened within the last 50 years, during most people's lifetime, and only concluded 15 years ago. This is MODERN history, not stuff from two centuries ago.

Why does everyone with an opinion on gun control have to be so extreme? Hand guns are very easy to conceal and they make crime easy and convenient. Shot guns are really far more intimidating anyway, if you are looking for protection and you don't go hunting with a handgun. Why would anyone need them? For those who think there should be no gun control at all, do you really want a bigot with an IQ of 60 to keep a loaded canon in the yard next to yours? There has always been gun control and there always will be. Accept it and get over it. Someone told me today that everyone should be required to carry a loaded gun at all times. Personally, if I ever see a law like that put into effect, I will never go to another hockey game. There will always be times and places where guns are just not appropriate.

@frivolous

lol @backcountry - well, if that isn't the pot calling the kettle black. You are making exactly the same assumptions that you are accusing me of doing. Obviously ranchers can't possibly protect their herds or flocks with anything but a semi-automatic rifles; gee, I wonder what they did for the thousands of years before semi-automatics were invented.

No, I'm not saying that they can't what I'm saying is why the @!$%# would they? Whether you want to admit it or not I have provided a valid reason for a civilian to own a semi-automatic rifle and your rebuttal was "but they could use something else". They could stand out there all night with a bag of rocks and keep the coyotes at bay also but should they? Why should they be deprived of the best tool for the job?

This perfectly illustrates the problem. Both sides seem to think that it should be an all or nothing proposition.

So you're a part of the problem? Because despite your attempts to con yourself you are arguing in favor nothing over all. Since only a few people have a legitimate use for a semi-auto rifle NO ONE gets to have them. All or nothing. Either everyone needs them or no one gets them.

If you look at it from a risk based perspective then it is clear that less people would die if semi-automatics were banned; this trumps a few ranchers that could just as easily use a regular rifle for

This is the argument that all anti-gun folks use. Some apply it to all firearms, some pick and choose what they believe other people should be able to have. The common thread seems to be that people believe it is ok to ban things as long as they aren't affected by it themselves in any way. If you don't mind my asking, how many guns do you own and how many are semi-auto rifles? In other words how much would your position on firearms affect you?

@frivolous

Look at the gun crime rates 5 years after the gun ban took place in the U.K. The number of gun crimes had doubled in those 5 years and it took another 5 years for gun crimes to come back down to pre-ban levels.

Handguns were banned in NYC 100 years ago this month. That ban hasn't eliminated gun crimes there. As a matter of fact just recently an unarmed shop keeper, who was being robbed by 2 gunmen, was shot and killed by a NYC police officer as he was escaping from the gunmen in his store. The person who was not allowed to own a gun was killed while the armed criminals and police officer were left unscathed.

You can't bottle up technology after it has been released. Gun bans make no sense because guns will never disappear. It is a truism, "If you ban guns then only criminals will have them".

What is a semi-automatic weapon? You squeeze the trigger once and one round is fired whille another is chambered from a magazine and ready to fire. Not much difference between that and a revolver except for increased reload time for a revolver. What happens if multiple intruders enter your home? You would be glad to have a semi-auto Glock at that time.

@ Stacey Cooper

There will always be times and places where guns are just not appropriate

Would a movie theater be one of those places? Perhaps a high school or a college campus? The reason that those places are targeted by those intent on committing murder is because criminals know that most people abide by the law which means that they are unarmed and are easy prey where weapons are banned.

Isn't it odd that police stations are never robbed, even though they may have vast amounts of wealth in their evidence rooms? Cash, drugs, jewelry, guns... They are never robbed because criminals know that there are many armed people in that location. Police stations are not soft targets. Locations with gun bans are soft targets.

The misuse of a car which kills someone has no one shouting that cars should be outlawed. Let's treat guns like we treat cars.

A car is built to transport people and there are traffic laws regulating its use, and if improperly used it can result in the death of a person. Sometimes a death may occur even if properly used, but its purpose is to transport persons.

Improper use may result in suspension of license to use.

The user of a car is required to be licensed which requires a minimum demonstration of its basic functions to start, stop and turn.

A gun is built to kill. There are very few laws regulating its use, and the few laws that do exist are being rescinded (stand your ground: if you punch somebody who is bothering you, you are charged with assault, but if you shoot someone who is bothering you, you are standing your ground).

If used as intended, it kills what is targeted. If improperly used, it does not kill the target but only maims, hits the wrong target, misfires or scares the target away.

Improper use is not well defined (?? perhaps it didn't kill ??). and no lose of use is provided.

The user of a gun is required ... to be alive ??? .... which requires ... eyes to be open ???

Let's treat guns like we treat cars.

@texas baby and others who go on about gun control = only criminals have guns.

Where do you think criminals get guns? And why can the get so many of them so easily?

And to the people referring to the incidents at the movie theater and that Virginia agricultural school, as I recall the people who walked in with guns and started shooting had acquired them legally.

What could possibly be wrong with gun laws if these guys could get guns legally? And before you tell me they should have been checked more thoroughly, maybe, and so maybe should you, but did any of the people who sold them the guns get charged with anything? No? Then they acquired them legally.

So where do you think criminals get guns? And why can the get so many of them so easily?

"If you look at it from a risk based perspective then it is clear that less people would die if semi-automatics were banned"

That's really not the point. The point is we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear. As a few on here have so eloquently pointed out; it is a matter of responsibility. Take responsibility for yourself and stop expecting someone else to protect you from all the hazards in this supposedly civilized world. Do you realize that cel phone use in the car is actually outstripping DUI's for deaths caused; why aren't more people screaming for laws against that. Cel phones in the car AREN'T guaranteed by the Constitution. I think my point is that, instead of trying to take away rights that can't be touched, why not require education and training. Familiarity and competence go a long way towards making the world a safer place.

@frivolous - first you state that ordinary people don't need semi-autos. Then you say they can have "regular" handguns, so my question to you is, what is a "regular" handgun? A revolver maybe? With a revolver you pull the trigger once, one bullet is fired and the cylinder spins making it possible to then pull the trigger and fire a second bullet.

As opposed to the vastly different semi-auto Colt 1911, where you pull the trigger once, which fires one bullet, the action moves a second bullet from the magazine into the chamber, allowing you to fire a second bullet with a second trigger pull.

Oh wait, I guess it isn't all that different... I get it, you are one of those super intelligent people who doesn't actually know the difference between a semi-auto, one trigger pull, one shot fired (which applies to most handguns and hunting rifles) and a fully auto, in which one trigger pull will elicit multiple shots and has been heavily regulated since 1934.

I'm sure this dead husband is so glad his wife had her 2nd amendment rights. Yep!

While we're at it--why not legalize murder? Like many of you say--banning guns and drugs don't work--so let's legalize murder while we're at it, ok?

For those of you who think guns protect you from the government, I have 3 words:

Waco and Ruby Ridge.

So much for your gun protection from the government!

I agree. And even if it was not an accident, how horrible for the rest of the family who lost a son, brother, uncle, father....

Probably 500k fishies........................

Maybe he was supposed to be at work at that time and the wife didn't know he was home. We will just have to wait for the facts to come out.

If the husband shot his wife (even at night in the dark) you can bet he would still be sitting in a jail cell right now.

Funny how the only double standard women ever complain about is sex.

So Pjam--I dare you to become a woman. Then get back to me with your sobbing. Boo hoo hoo!

You have no clue how light the room was. Some people work nights and sleep in dark rooms during the day. No glasses, some medicine on board...who knows?

ram - And you have no clue either, and you also have no clue how pissed off she was... maybe she just discovered his emails to Craiglists escorts, or his nude pictures of her best friend.

Perhaps the obvious rarity of killing someone at 11 a.m. for mistaken identity should cause you to believe the victim more than the perpetrator.... but then again that would require you having common sense.

Charlie:

YOU WROTE: "Remember --- guns keep us safe!!!"

MY RESPONSE: I don't know if you really believe that statement or if you were just trying to be sarcastic. But in either case, it's true - GUNS DO KEEP US SAFE (or at least SAFER!).

According to The National Self-Defense Survey, the defensive use of guns is about three to four times as common as criminal use of guns. The National Self-Defense Survey indicated that there are approximately 2.5 MILLION incidents of defensive gun use per year in the United States. A similar national survey conducted by the Police Foundation and sponsored by the National Institute of Justice almost exactly confirmed the findings of the National Self-Defense Survey.

Moreover, according to crime incidents reported in the National Crime Victimization Survey, victims who use guns for self-protection are less likely to be injured or to lose property than otherwise similar victims who used other forms of self-protection or who did not resist at all.

To summarize, if gun possession among law-abiding citizens tends to reduce violence, then reducing such gun possession is not a social good.

One word Rhonda. Canada.

@John in Battle Creek

One word Rhonda. Canada.

One work John. Mexico

One more word..........Stupid.

You have no clue. Brilliant post..not.

I think killing her husband in broad daylight in their own home is a bit of a "clue" Sherlock.

OMG........Are you like blond?

James - "Hope the rest of wives who have good insurance policies on their husbands don't get any "Louisiana" ideas."

So, were you trying to highlight that is is actually people who kill people? Or are you too ignorant to realize when you explicitly contradict your own sarcasm?

Make her?

Yeah. And if she won't do it you could always pistol whip her.

And speaking of cops, I know some in NYC (among other places) that could use a course in "Be sure of your target AND what's beyond." The number of innocent bystanders shot by them is outrageous coming from those who are supposed to be "trained professionals in firearm use"

sonof - "Do not just give your wife a gun and teach her to shoot straight - make her take a class which includes the 4 basic rules,"

You may want to clarify that this should only be done for wives who are 100% not crazy or not gold-diggers, and should only be done by men who are not liars or cheaters.... otherwise they are setting themselves up for a case of "mistaken identity" target practice.

Might help to give her a portrait of yourself also, and keep up with the current password when entering camp, I mean, the front door.

Lmao - all good points!

Agreed. The police may want to double over this investigation. Check insurance policies, debts, etc.

Retired: "Should not have been allowed to handle a firearm of any kind."

WHAT?!!! How dare you suggest taking away her 2nd amendment rights! Bleeding heart libtards!

LOL - "I'm stephano B" POW

Yeah, fantastic outcome.

Yes, good for her. She is now a widow because she was so scared of intruders that she killed her husband at 11:00 am in his own home. If you are so afraid of intruders that you shoot first and see your target later you need to move...

You co-worker will have kids that do not know how to act socially, and he himself needs to be locked up for being a lunatic.

This is why I'll never be a delivery person. "Ma'am, here's your"--BLAM BLAM BLAM!!!

Maybe there was no belief that is was a home invasion. Maybe it was just plain, old-fashioned murder.

Jerryb - Dan was referring to his male coworker.

Dan-365503

Do you personally know where these people lived? I will submit that they might have every reason to be fearful, yes, even in their own home.

Of course, horrible things never happen to nice people. It didn't happen to a nice doctor and his family in Connecticut. That was a figment of someones imagination. His wife and daughter weren't raped and murdered in front of him and then set on fire. The perpetrators of course had free reign in the house while the police were down the block "accessing the situation and waiting for backup officers to arrive". Yes, the perpetrators were caught, prosecuted and incarcerated. Does that help the loved ones the doctor had to bury?

Do I anticipate something like that happening to me and mine? NO is the simple answer.

The expanded answer to that question is:

No, I don't actually anticipate something like that happening to my family. It was an aberration even in the underworld of crime. Yes they do happen but with very very limited frequency.

However, I DO have the ability to defend my family and myself in the event it does happen. My wife has the ability to defend herself in the event something similar happens while I'm not there.

I carry insurance on my home and vehicles hoping I will never need it. I carry a firearm for the same reason. For the protection it affords me and mine. And again, it is something I hope to never need to use again.

I kid around a lot sometimes with articles like these, but seriously this is sad. Here is a lady who had access to a gun but with no real training with it. I hate the idea of a bigger bureaucracy, but when it comes to gun safety, I believe mandatory training may be the answer. Pro-gunners, like myself, could still have guns but get the necessary training for them. My dad taught me to respect guns and what they could do. I knew I was not allowed to touch them unless he was there. I voluntarily teach gun safety and some good common sense goes a long way. As one of the posters above mentioned, there are four general guidelines for handling guns--#1 being know your target and what is beyond.

Rangercl1

I very sincerely hope that #1 being know your target and what is beyond. is NOT the first lesson you teach your students.

Number one in ANY class is: ALWAYS TREAT A FIREARM AS IF IT IS LOADED.

But thank you for taking your time to teach others firearms safety.

Sorry, I was referring to this particular case.

No need to apologize.... I got the concept. And i was nit picking....

It IS the first lesson of a concealed carry class after all the basics of initial firearm safety are covered.

hmmm, >>> yaah yur shore right about the "mandatory" part of life, here in the usa of meheeco. For instance the ( Captain May-I ), take a poop this morning, afternoon, or must I wait until "CENTRAL COMMAND" at the State-house or Federal Level says so. Yaah we all kin see just how right n' good too that MANDATORY wud be then. Thanks for enlightening us all about this!!! FYI: (I kid around a lot sometimes too), however this (my point) is NOT KIDDING! Mandatory anything izz jus so muchn BALONEY & I do NOT care for baloney sandwiches.

I do agree with you, all kidding aside. It is a double-edged sword, no pun intended. I am for those who want to have guns legally but read nearly every week how someone accidentally shoots themselves or someone in their family because they "know" that gun they were cleaning or fooling around with was unloaded. You can't force people to respect guns and what they can do. I stand behind the adage 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', but how do we keep those who should not have guns, meaning those untrained, from having guns and using them irresposibly. If training was not mandatory, who would go through it? My neighbor drove for two months on a suspended license before he hit another car in a parking lot and the police were called. He knew a license was required to drive but chose to anyway. It was an accident that could happen whether he had a license or not, but he chose to skip the requirement.

Great Toni-s think alike.

642 accidental shootings reported in 2009. So saving those "thousands of lives" each year could be a little tough.

So Toni, you're on at least two lists?

I agree. I proposed the same thing in a reply in above post. Many are too worried about more government regulations and bureaucracy. I too want a smaller, leaner, government but think with gun safety we may be selling ourselves short. Most gun owners feel that they are perfectly capable of handling their gun without any professional training. They think its only these crockpots that give gun ownership a bad name.

While I fully agree with mandated training for buying a firearm, why would you need training to join the NRA? You don't get a gun for joining the NRA, being an NRA member does not make it any easier to get a gun, nor does it make it any easier to get a permit to carry.

Toni--I agree.

Natdom--The NRA is nothing but a political front. They are a fraud. I wouldn't give them a dime. And, i have been a firearms instructor for 35 years.

#1 Rule for firearm safety: Identify your target and be certain of what it or who it is B/4 shooting!

#2 Rule: Treat every firearm as if it is loaded.

Very simple, not rocket science. No complicated training to understand. More firearm handling and safety training is a good idea; but it is not the governments place or responsibility to do it.

PS: Most of these so-called accidents are not. They are deliborite acts of violence without suficient evidence to procecute.

Driving a car isn't exactly rocket science either, but I wouldn't want people driving cars without required testing/ training.

@tactical45 - what does the NRA being a political front have to do with the price of tea in China? My statement was in direct response to DoubtingToni's statement that you have to take a training class to join the NRA in the UK but here you simply have to pay $10 (it is actually $35 for an annual membership, but whatever). Again, as you said, the NRA is nothing but a lobby group, so why would one need any sort of training? That is like saying you can't attend a classic car show unless you have a drivers license, or attend a pro-choice rally unless you have had an abortion.