[Final Authority]

I posted this because it certainly is a good topic for discussion.

Are the facts correct is one thing I would ask? Is gun confiscation strictly a liberal plan or mindset? Who else would want to confiscate guns? How would gun confiscation be administered?

I think banning guns means more than restrictions on sales of guns and more than gun registration, it must mean going door to door and confiscating the weapons.

[230FMJ]

Why is the Union Leader publishing this totalitarian crap? It used to be a Conservative paper.

[FrankR]

"Then she shot and killed her daughter and her daughter's fiance - my brother David.

That's where I stopped reading...I could see right now this woman is dancing the Cindy Sheehan tune; a pity-party in 3/4 time.

Everything in this country that is being taken away, from gun rights to Christmas, is due to those self-pitiful beings who can't handle the trials and tribulations of life without a "group" to share his/her pain.

I'm sorry her brother was killed, but there must have been some unlying reasons other than there was a gun available. The gun wasn't born to shoot every human it encounters...it always takes another human with less than honorable intentions to control the gun.

But let's take the whiners' points a step further; Cindy Sheehan, let's stop having wars and just wait for the bad guys to come over the kill us all.

Let's ban cars and there won't be anymore traffic accidents.

Let's ban knives and no one will ever be cut again.

Ban matches and all forms of fire, and no one will ever die in a fire again.

Ground all the airplanes and there will be no crashes.

Oh...but wait...if we ban all that, then there will be no....oh should I even say it???? LAWSUITS. What will those poor lawyers do? No asbestos, no cigarettes, no rear-enders....the lawyers might actually have to get a job...other than the "extortion-light" racket they're already in.

But I digress; let me get back on track...Let's see now....er....my Father died of a staph infection...I think we should ban surgery.

My dog was run over by a log truck...let's ban logs and trucks.

Ok...rant off, I'm just so tired to the attention-starved people out there who think the world should be tailored to their whims and wants, I could puke. Political Correctness needs to be outlawed...and then maybe everything else would fall back into place.

To all the PC'ers out there...one final thought....YOU CAN'T PUSH A ROPE.

[MAWG]

Come and get my gun. I want you to try.

[Ichneumon]

Are the facts correct is one thing I would ask?

No, they aren't, and in fact they're presented in a way as to be maximally misleading.

For example, she says, "Of the 12,000 guns used to kill people every year, 160 are used in legitimate self-defense."

This "statistic" is taken from the FBI's annual Uniform Crime Reports, and is NOT an actual tally of the total number of justified self defense incidents with a firearm. It's the number of firearm *deaths* (most defensive uses of a firearm do *not* result in the death of the perp) which were IMMEDIATELY determined (by the cops at the scene) as being so overwhelmingly clear as to not even require any kind of arrest or further examination in order to be determined "self defense", case closed. Needless to say, this is a very small percentage of total "perps killed" cases -- usually the cops prefer to have a grand jury check it over to be sure.

Here are some older posts of mine on that subject:

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in 1992 there were only 262 justifiable handgun homicides compared with a total of 13,220 handgun murders in the United States.

Also according to the FBI UCR, that number is *not* the total number of justifiable handgun homicides. Again, Albert seems to be getting his half-truths from HCI, which is fond of leaving out the significant parts of the information they misleadingly present. The actual figure is in the thousands. The number in the FBI UCR is *only* those homicides which were *immediately* judged to be justifiable, *and* which the police bothered to properly record and then send to the FBI. As it turns out, most such homicides are sent to grand juries or the courts to be examined in greater detail (which makes good sense), and many police departments don't have the time or inclination to keep the FBI up to date on such things.

Furthermore, please explain to me why you're only counting the number of attackers *killed*, please? Surely you must understand (well, maybe you don't) that the aim of defending oneself with a handgun is *not* to kill the attacker, but to simply halt the attack? Most folks who are attacked would rather *not* kill anyone, as it turns out.Fortunately, just showing the handgun is almost always (about 99% of the time) sufficient to halt the attack, for the excellent reason that most attackers aren't suicidal enough to continue to attack someone who's armed with a gun.

Counting *all* successful handgun defenses, not just those in which the attacker is shot and killed, gives a much more sensible view of the effectiveness of handguns as a self defense tool. That number is in the hundreds of thousands, but you'll never hear Albert, nor his sources at HCI, mention that. You'll also never hear them mention the FBI figures that show that employing a gun as defense against robbery or assault is *the* most effective form of self defense, including cooperating with the criminal.

And:

The DoJ figures are way too low because they rely solely on the basis of how they were classified by the initial police investigation. Unfortunately, the majority of self defense homicides are referred to the DA or the courts for further examination, and are only later declared justifiable homicide. The DoJ figures miss all these.

For example, Time Magazine's July 17, 1989 cover story on a week of gun deaths reported that only 3% of the homicides were self-defense. However, in a May 14, 1990 follow-up story, they reported that 12% of the homicides had eventually been ruled self defense. It's almost a certainty that even more were still pending decisions -- one year is quite often not enough time for the wheels of justice to turn.

And:

Justifiable homicides number around 1500-2000 per year. Sources:
# Bensing and Schroeder (1960): 19.5% of homicides found to be self defense.
# Wolfgang (1958) : 1.6%(?) of homicides found to be self defense.
# Rushforth, et al (1977) : 10.1% of homicides found to be self defense.
# Dietz (1983) : 13.0% of homicides found to be self defense.
# Wilbanks (1984) : 13.1% of homicides found to be self defense.

And:

Al, once again, fails to note that the FBI number counts *only* justifiable homicides that are counted as such *on the spot*, and ignores *all* that are later judged in court to be justifiable (or excusable) homicides.

Someone's bound to ask for documentation for that, so allow me:

49. NO ARRESTEE RECORDS ARE PERMITTED FOR A JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE Group ôAö Incident Reports cannot have arrests when Data Element 6 (UCR Offense Code) is 09C = Justifiable Homicide. By definition a justifiable homicide never involves an arrest of the offender (the person who committed the justifiable homicide).
-- Page 84 of the Uniform Crime Reporting National Incident-Based Reporting System Volume 4 Error Message Manual

Note that this manual, which is part of the instruction manual for the computer system by which police agencies report incidents to the FBI for inclusion in the Uniform Crime Report, specifically says that "BY DEFINITION", a justifiable homicide as tallied by the FBI's UCR (and parroted by Albert) DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INCIDENT IN WHICH THE SHOOTER WAS ARRESTED, no matter what the ultimate outcome before the grand jury or a court of law. In fact, if the shooter *is* arrested, the computer will reject any attempt to mark the incident as a justifiable homicide -- note that the above passage from the Error Message Manual is explaining why an attempt to do so will cause the computer to reject the attempt, and produce the cited error message.

And, as we all know, *most* shootings involve an arrest no matter how clear the circumstances, because it's not up to the police to single-handedly determine guilt or innocence in a serious matter like the killing of one person by another -- that's almost always left up to the grand jury, and/or the courts.

For example, a number of years ago Mr. Hale shot Mr. Tavai in a well-publicized shooting up near Dallas. Despite the fact that Hale was clearly defending himself (the much larger Tavai was beating the hell out of Hale's head while Hale was helplessly strapped into his parked car), Hale was arrested and charged with murder, specifically so that a grand jury would be able to examine all of the facts. They did, and they no-billed him, on the grounds that his shooting of Tavai was justifiable self defense. The FBI's UCR would not have included this incident in their tally of "justifiable homicides by a private citizen".

Guns in the home are used seven times more often for murder than for self-defense.

Again, this only counts self-defense incidents which resulted in the DEATH of the attacker -- a very small subset of the total.

HCI and other gun-control-nuts have been making this "mistake" for over ten years (the above posts are from the early 1990's), so they've had plenty of time to be informed that they're being grossly misleading. The fact that they continue to use these twisted, carefully selected, not-the-whole-picture factoids after all this time clearly indicates that they *know* they're twisting the facts, and use them anyway. In other words, they're knowingly lying.

[Plutarch]

This is the Jenny Price , the freelance writer in L.A. who wrote the article, and whose brother was supposedly gunned down by an elderly mother but that didn’t get any news coverage that one can find.

Jennifer price is a freelance writer and environmental historian, is the author of Flight Maps: Adventures with Nature in Modern America (1999). She has published in the anthologies Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature and The Nature of Nature: New Essays from America's Finest Writers on Nature, and in the L.A. Weekly, Los Angeles Times, American Scholar, and New York Times. She has a Ph.D. in history from Yale University, and is currently living on Venice Beach and writing a new book about nature in Los Angeles.

She is a 2005-6 Guggenheim Fellow and a two-time NEH Fellow, and has been a research scholar at the UCLA Center for the Study of Women since 1998. She has a Ph.D. in history from Yale University and currently lives in Venice Beach, California.

[mad_as_he$$]

A quick search of LA times and google turned up no stories about such an incident. Could be in surrounding area. My BS detector is at a full 10!

[FierceDraka]

Tear-jerking anecdotes never amount to good public policy or good law.

They also never mention the fact that handguns are used millions of times annually to DETER crime in the United States. Or that more people die from motor vehicle accidents than from firearms, either.

Call me tacky white trash, but I've got one of those "This house protected by .357 MAGNUM" signs in my front window, a "welcome" mat that says "GO AWAY" on the front porch, AND I tend to dress and carry myself like a thug. Guess what! Nobody bothers me - EVER.

[metalurgist]

These guns are designed to kill people: That's their sole purpose. Nearly 12,000 Americans annually use guns to do just that, and the majority use handguns.

Doctors and medical mistakes kill 100,000 people a year. Maybe doctors and hospitals should be banned.

[pankot]

Better idea: Confiscate every citizen and ban them.

[Liberate California]

My question, as a soldier, bound by an oath to uphold the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic, would I be required and obligated to remove the Government of San Francisco when the no ownership or possession of any firearm in city limits takes effect? This is a clear violation of the Second Amendment and the rights of the 2 or 3 Americans like myself that actually live in San Francisco.

And I can not believe New Hampshire, with it's state motto would propogate such a story.

[Ouderkirk]

She Lied. I have searched the LA Times for quite a while and there is no crime fitting the descritption anywhere in the last five yeas.

[Let's Roll]

One more time, maroons.

Banning handguns would guarantee that only crimnals would have them.

Ask the Aussies how that's working out for them - they gave up their guns yet somehow the subversive muzzies still have theirs.

Oh, that's right they don't recognize secular law for starters and since they only infested Australia to take it over they wouldn't have surrendered their weapons no matter what law was in effect.

[jonrick46]

The relationship between gun ownership and deaths due to firearms is a very complex one to understand. In choosing the United Kingdom for comparison to the United States fails to show the even lower rates of firearms deaths in the Asian countries. Why are their rates so low? Asians have very strong social norms against the use of firearms. In fact, homicides of all types in such countries is quite low. Why would a Japanese buy a gun if it was scorned to own one? However, their suicide rate is close to our suicide rate, which brings up another interesting statistic. In the United States, 58% of all firearm deaths are suicides. And, if you want to talk suicides and homicides, visit Estonia.

The bulk of all firearm deaths in the United States are done by the 15-24 year age group. This group does not own guns at a higher rate than older age groups. What does this tell you? It is hard to set one reason for this difference in age group. However this age group has the highest drug usage and is engaged in the most violent behavior. It tells you that the United States has a violence problem not a gun problem. What cultural conditions contribute to this violence is one for the social scientists. One interesting tidbit: Amsterdam has one of the most restrictive gun regulations and the highest murder rates in Europe.

[tet68]

I cannot say whether the woman who shot my brother was vicious or insane: I myself no longer understand the exact difference.

That is certain from your vicious insane attack on peaceful
citizen's right to self defense.

[Robert A Cook PE]

OK: Let's look at ONE number.

This "writer" claims 12,000 people are killed every year by handguns, and only 160 of those are in self-defense.

Yet, the REAL statistics are that 20,000 crimes are PREVENTED every year by armed Americans, and NO PERSON has been killed (illegally) by a authorized person with a concealed-carry handgun. EVER.

So she claims 12,000 people a year are killed by handguns, or about 33 PER DAY. Nope. She's lying.

[Leatherneck_MT]

"Who else would want to confiscate guns?"

Only those peace loving individuals such as...

Benito Mussolini
Adolf Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Pol Pot
Fidel Castro

The list goes on and on and on. ALL of them upright, outstanding peace loving individuals.

and I do hope you recognize sarcasm when you hear it. (Not directed at you mind you)