Guns Kill Families

Originally published July 25, 2012 at 4:22 p.m., updated July 31, 2012 at 3:38 p.m.

It may be an inconvenient truth in a state where so many people value their rights to own a firearm, but easy access to guns make women and children much less safer—in their own homes. The American Journal of Public Health warned that access to firearms increases the likelihood of intimate-partner homicide more than five times compared to situations where there are no guns.

Put another way, while an abuser may choose a knife, a frying pan or their hands to try to kill his or her partner, a gun makes it a whole lot easier to kill, even from a distance.

The facts are there if we'll pay attention: American women killed by husbands or boyfriends are more likely to be killed with guns than all other methods combined, the Journal of the American Medical Women's Association reported. Women are twice as likely to be shot and killed by life partners than they are to be murdered by strangers using any kind of weapon.

Males most often use firearms to murder women, according to the Violence Policy Center of Washington, D.C. Handguns are the weapon of choice in domestic murders over rifles and shotguns.

Studies show that a gun in the home presents more risk to health than benefit. The American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine reported that most gun accidents occur in the home—with about 50 percent being family members under 25—and that a gun in the home is a high indicator of successful suicides (that is, more suicides fail when other methods are used).

The Centers for Disease Control reports that, in 2006 alone, 7,564 persons 24 years old or younger died as a result of gun injury. This, the CDC reported, is equivalent to one Boeing 737 crash every week for a year with no survivors.

With these kind of gun dangers in our midst, what is the answer? That is a tough one in a country that refuses to have a serious dialogue even about banning military-style assault weapons—the kinds that very few people would ever have occasion to use for self-defense (and would likely have caused more deaths in a dark, tear-gassed theater if pulled on a shooter in head-to-toe body armory).

Clearly, there is no immediate compromise regulation in sight on any kind of firearm in the United States. You can't even bring up guns as a public-health issue without getting shouted down and called names (watch the comments under this editorial at jfp.ms to see what we mean).

So, that means it is up to all of us to self-regulate and to have the real facts at hand. We must know the dangers of having easily accessible guns in the home—to our own families and children. It is simply fact that the risk is statistically greater then guns' successful use for self-defense in the home.

Choose wisely, friends. Your loved ones' lives hang in the balance.

Jwalker 11 years, 9 months ago

I dont' think anyone has suggested that moviegoers should carry assault weapons. I think the current laws already forbid this. If carrying an assault rifle into a theater is legal, that does sound "less safer".

In reality, people who choose to use a gun to commit suicide, intend to succeed sadly. Some suicide attempts are a cry for help. Fortunately, cries for help often do not result in a death. Oh wait, this seems to be a completely irrelevant subject.

If a serious dialogue is desired, I think you are correct in your assertion that real facts are necessary. One place to start is with the assumption that criminals can get guns in America. If we can agree on this assumption, what are the stats on situations where armed criminals attack a crowd of unarmed citizens vs. attacks on a crowd of partially armed citizens. How often do the armed citizens kill other members of the crowd while trying to subdue/kill the armed criminal? Please follow this up with more researched information. I hope to see it soon.

brjohn9 11 years, 8 months ago

There are, so far as I know, no cases where mass shootings have been stopped by an armed bystander. Shooting sprees end when the shooter gives himself up or the police shoot him. So the argument that an armed citizen will stop such an event is fantasy, and gun advocates should stop citing it as anything other than an entirely theoretical possibility.

Regarding suicide, it is not just that people who use guns are likelier to succeed. There is scientific evidence that people who own guns are likelier to commit suicide, because guns make it easier to be impulsive. People often argue that a determined murderer or suicide will simply use some other weapon if a gun is unavailable, and there is surely some truth in that. But it ignores the fact that many people act impulsively. For example, many people who attempt suicide do so while intoxicated. It is much easier to fire a gun than it is to slit your wrists.

rburch20 11 years, 8 months ago

Um the Aurora Colorado church shooting from last april where an off duty cop carrying a concealed handgun shot and killed the shooter after he'd killed just one victim.

The Colorado Springs church shooting where a church security volunteer shot and disabled the shooting inside the church where more than 1000 people were attending services.

The Pearl Mississippi School Shooting where a vice Principal retrieved his pistol from his truck and confronted the shooter, holding him for police.

The St. James Church Massacre in South Africa where a preacher armed with just a 5 shot 38 revolver took on a group of 4 terrorists armed with machine guns, hand grenades, and petrol bombs.

Over fifty were killed in the first few seconds, not unexpected when someone tosses a few hand grenades into a crowded church, and then proceeds to opens up with full auto weapons. But the terrorists fled when someone started shooting back, before they'd set off the fire bombs.

Meaning far more would have died if nobody had been there to fight back.

BRJackson 11 years, 8 months ago

'There are, so far as I know, no cases where mass shootings have been stopped by an armed bystander." Probably because nearly all mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones, i.e. schools or places like the movie theatre that had posted signs prohibiting CCP holders from carrying. There are weekly instances of armed citizens intervening in robbery attempts and other crimes successfully. Most of which go unreported by the media for some reason.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

And the problem here is that Aurora doesn't fit your narrative. In an extremely gun-friendly and conceal-carry state, none of the "citizen hero" scenarios played out. Short of requiring citizens to carry guns on them at all time, I don't understand what the logical next step is for the gun lobby on this one.

rburch20 11 years, 8 months ago

Because the theatre forbid carrying guns.

There was another attempted mass shooting in Aurora last April.

Just one victim and the shooter killed because someone there was carrying a concealed handgun.

brjohn9 11 years, 8 months ago

You have no evidence that citizens fail to shoot crazed gunman because the shootings occur in gun-free zones. That is simply speculation. Look at the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. She was in a state with permissive gun laws, standing in a parking lot. But no one shot Loughner. People tackled him when he had to reload. I strongly suspect that in most of these scenarios, there is too much chaos for a civilian to identify the shooter, pull a gun, and take accurate shots. That almost certainly would have been the case in Aurora even if someone had been armed.

The argument over guns preventing ordinary crime is another matter. I just think gun rights advocates should stop claiming that an armed citizenry would stop a shooting spree. All available evidence indicates otherwise.

scrappy1 11 years, 8 months ago

As with most health issues education is the key to prevention. What is missing in firearm ownership is the education and training that should not be taken for granted. People will break laws and do harmful things by many different means including with firearms. Education and skill training is lacking in most of the wrong use I've encountered with firearms. As with the Aroura shooter had he attempted to return to the shooting range where he had applied he was going to be turned down based on his insane phone recordings. Requiring basic training before purchasing a firearm would help but not cure criminal activity. A further example is motor vehicle licenses where applying and taking written and driving tests reduce some but not all of the motor vehicle deaths in the USA, with about 40% being caused by law breaking drunk drivers.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Scrappy, aren't you the guy who said two threads back that "Free contraception will not work any better than free education has." (Hint: yes, that was you.)

That was on a sex education thread. You say above "As with most health issues, education is the key to prevention." Interesting, but if that's true for gun safety, it seems it might also be true for preventing unwanted pregnancies.

scrappy1 11 years, 8 months ago

I have a relative that is a county health nurse and I know that free women's health and contraceptives have been available for years. As has free high school education. Ms still sets the pace for school dropouts and teen pregnancies. Hunters on the other hand have to pay for a 3 day gun safety class to be able to buy a hunting license. Concealed carry permits also require a fee for classes testing and firing range to qualify. I'm going out on limb here but I'll be willing to bet that the Va Tech shooter, the Fort Hood shooter and the Aurora shooter had neither hunter safety classes nor concealed carry permits. Be interesting to know how many firearm homicides are committed by people that were just allowed to walk in off the street go through the NICS check pick up a few weapons buy a few thousand rounds and start shooting. Another a little guess I'll make is if there was as much training to vote as hunters and concealed carry people get to have their licenses there would be a few different politicians screwing up our country.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Be interesting to know how many firearm homicides are committed by people that were just allowed to walk in off the street go through the NICS check pick up a few weapons buy a few thousand rounds and start shooting.

Amen. I agree that classes and licensing for all gun owners would make sense.

As for your other comments on education... I know you're not in Mississippi, but the fact that right now half the state wants "abstinence-only" education and the other half is opting for "abstinence-plus" speaks to how little sex education is really happening. If you think people like shooting guns, you might at least agree that people also like having sex, and that the world would be a better place if they were trained properly in both endeavors.

BRJackson 11 years, 8 months ago

How does that not fit the narrative? The theatre complex had signs saying " firearms prohibited", much like the ones you see at Northpark. It doesn't matter how many people had CCW permits if they left their guns in their vehicles.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

My bad... I didn't know about the posting. Colorado law does allow private property owners to determine whether or not you can carry on their property.

Still, that's a can of worms -- you're going to force private property owners to allow people to carry guns on the premises? If people don't have a conceal-carry permit, are you supposed to allow them to sit in the seat with their pistol in their lap?

BRJackson 11 years, 8 months ago

Property owners have every right to determine what is acceptable on their premises. Who the hell said anything about letting anyone and everyone watch a movie with a pistol in their lap? I was merely pointing out that the majority of mass shootings occur where the shooter knows that no one else is likely to be armed. It creates a target rich environment, so to speak.

brjohn9 11 years, 8 months ago

Do you have any evidence that shooters deliberately choose locations where they know people are prohibited from carrying firearms? I am unaware of any such evidence. People who go on shooting sprees typically choose a place that is tied to their grievances. For instance, the Virginia Tech shooter did not shoot up the school because it was a gun-free zone. He reportedly chose it because he was struggling in school and resented other students. The Aurora shooter apparently wanted to be famous, and he admired Heath Ledger's Joker from the last Batman movie. There is no evidence that he chose the theater because he knew it prohibited concealed weapons.

I am an agnostic when it comes to gun control, but I think these are sloppy arguments that simply aren't supported by facts.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Who the hell said anything about letting anyone and everyone watch a movie with a pistol in their lap?

My point is that if the business didn't prohibit firearms on their private property then why wouldn't Colorado's open carry policies kick in?

But I guess you're saying you're being descriptive not prescriptive and you're not actually suggesting any particular change? OK...

In that case, I think it would take a little more research to conclude that "gun-free" zones are somehow causal in determining where mass killers are going to perpetrate their crimes.

Aside from the fact that many of the major shootings of the past few years have happened not just at schools, but also in malls, workplaces, outdoors, on an Army base, around town in the D.C. area, etc., you might find that there are possible reasons for a location being selected for a mass shooting beyond a location being a "gun-free" zone.

For instance, it's possible some of the places were chosen simply because they were PUBLIC places where the shooter assumed a large number of people and/or a dramatic showdown, without regard to whether the location was technically "gun-free."

Likewise, at least some of the places where gunman have decided to shoot up have been locations of significance to the shooter, where at least some of the people shot were specific targets, probably again without regard to whether or not the location was a "gun-free" zone.

Thirdly, while I suppose some mass shooters are at least able to think tactically, my guess is that it's unwise to also prescribe logical motives to mass-murdering shooters.

With the Aurora shooter, who went in with tear gas and head-to-toe kevlar, it seems that even if he specifically selected the theater for its gun-free policy, he was still prepared as completely as possible for the eventuality that someone would shoot back.

So I guess my question is... what's the point? Even if we assume there's some correlation between "gun-free zones" and mass shootings -- causal or not -- then what steps should be taken?

scrappy1 11 years, 8 months ago

These mass murderers have had one thing in common; they choose unarmed victims to shoot. Colleges and schools have few armed guards, military clinics outside war zones seldom have armed guards, and I don't go to many movies but I don't remember seeing a guard near a theater except maybe a passing patrol car. Puts these guys in the chicken poop, coward category plus the ones that don't commit suicide usually plead insanity defense. The Va Tech shooter was diagnosed mentally ill yet to protect his privacy it was unreported allowing him to buy firearms.

My point is there are already laws to stop most of these people if utilized and if you don't think we have enough gun laws what do you suggest to stop criminals and the insane from killing people? And with more gun laws how do you get criminals to obey the law?

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

No doubt they're cowards for those reasons and more -- like the fact that they're resorting to murder via high-capacity weaponry to deal with whatever crazy talk is going on inside their head. Regardless of the venue.

That said, most places where people congregate are filled with "unarmed victims." Aside from maybe tea-party meetings, VFW halls and Bubba's family reunion, I'm not sure where exactly all of these "armed victims" are going to congregate. It's a fairly nonsensical argument -- when someone opens up in any crowded public space with the ability to put a round-per-second into the air, you're going to wound and kill people. Maybe fewer, if people with the proper training respond correctly, but you've still got surprise on your side.

Note the lens through which you see the problem. The problem isn't access to weaponry, it's the lack of an armed populace? The often challenged and arguably debunked theory of "More Guns, Less Crime" isn't the only way to see it.

There have been laws to stop the purchases made in preparation for Aurora; a significant one has expired. I think a renewal of the ban on weapons of war might be the logical next step, along with more controls and regulations on high-capacity magazines and related modifications.

There's a common-sense argument that says this deranged person -- who otherwise had no criminal records or apparent ties to the underworld -- might have at least gone into this situation with fewer bullets to spray if he'd been limited to lower-capacity rifles and/or handguns, and if his weapon of choice wasn't on the shelves at Bass Pro Shop.

In fact, I'm surprised that handgun proponents don't welcome a renewal of the assault weapons ban, as it puts them on more equal footing in that public firefight they seem to feel is so likely to go their way.

And, finally, my stance is more nuanced than just re-instating the assault weapons ban. I believe we need rethink both some of our laws governing guns in this country, and the "drug war" and our addiction to incarcerating people for non-violent offenses.

I think that the drug war puts entire too many people into a system that then (a.) gives them criminal records, making it harder to get legitimate work and (b.) that introduces them to harsher criminal elements and syndicates that then perpetuate violence and more serious crime. The result -- those criminals you're worried about getting access to guns on the black market.

There's a holistic solution in there somewhere, but it'll require us to be honest about the problems and we'll need to change some screwed-up priorities to reach that solution.

donnaladd 11 years, 8 months ago

A good place to start is making sure these law-abiding citizens who are about to explode into murderous rampages can't walk into a big-box outlet and buy an assault weapon.

bubbat 11 years, 8 months ago

Donna- It's illegal to own or sell assault weapons? What box store sells them?

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Bubba -- I'm surprised at you. I would at least assume you would use more precise gun-related language. See BR down thread. Y'all are started to sound like Clinton wanting to know what the meaning of the word "is" is.

bubbat 11 years, 8 months ago

Todd - I am using precise gun related language. An assault weapon is a weapon used against a fortified position, a bazooka,rocket launcher or grenade launcher a weapon of that type, not a rifle.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

OK, good luck with that.

BRJackson 11 years, 8 months ago

I don't think anyone with half a lick of sense would argue that, but seeing into the mind of someone is a bit tricky. A LOT of tragedies could be avoided if that was as easily done as said. And again, by definition, assault rifles are fully automatic. You can't buy one at Bass Pro or Academy.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Assault weapons, a term Donna is using correctly, have been defined in U.S. law as semi-automatic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_...">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_...) and are currently available at Bass Pro Shop. They're advertised, among other uses, as handy for varmint hunting.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

BRJackson 11 years, 8 months ago

Also from wiki- An assault rifle is a fully automatic rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine, not to be confused with so called assault weapons.[1] Assault rifles are the standard infantry weapons in most modern armies. Assault rifles are categorized in between light machine guns, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge. They are also handy for wild hog hunting. And when I was shopping, I found that Academy had better prices than Bass Pro, FWIW.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Which is fascinating, but irrelevant, since the topic is semi-automatic assault weapons. :)

donnaladd 11 years, 8 months ago

Bubba, BR, Scrappy: While y'all gun boyz are whipping out your rifles and weapons to do these uber-important side-by-side comparisons, I'm a bit more concerned about the point of the editorial: families dying due to gun violence. So I'll continue to ignore the trivia and let y'all figure out what you want your toys to be called.

I don't give a damn.

BRJackson 11 years, 8 months ago

So are we to assume that you would have all households to be firearms-free? Any other parts of the constitution you want to do away with? It seems that the JFP wants to do away with the 2nd amendment all together. I recall a piece about a year ago in which you lamented the fact that JPD officers were telling citizens to arm themselves because the police cannot be everywhere all the time. Well you can arm yourself with a frying pan but the rest of us will choose otherwise.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Isn't there an old adage about "assuming"? :)

I'm personally for the Second Amendment, although I don't believe in ignoring any of the clauses in it, and I think the assault weapons ban should be renewed, as should types of ammo be regulated, the size of magazines, etc. (I also think some mandatory training for gun owners wouldn't be a bad idea and I'm skeptical of the 'More Guns, Less Crime' theory, tending to believe something more akin to a 'More Guns, More Gunshots' theory.)

Here's the JPD piece you're referencing which is, believe it or not, more about what JPD should be recommending and less about whether or not you should buy a gun: http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/..." rel="nofollow">http://www.jacksonfreepress.com/news/...

donnaladd 11 years, 8 months ago

No, BRJackson. The smarter thing to do is to read what we actually wrote. Assuming is for fools.

brjohn9 11 years, 8 months ago

This statement demonstrates the absolutist thinking of many gun advocates. If you support any restrictions, you support all restrictions. It's like saying that people who think cars should have airbags want to take away everyone's cars.

tstauffer 11 years, 8 months ago

Well don't you?! You're just a closet "two-legger," aincha?! Bought and sold by the bicycle lobby. It's sad, really.

BRJackson 11 years, 8 months ago

The Huffy/Schwinn Lobby is not one to be taken lightly.

chunnyeahthatone 11 years, 6 months ago

From reading the comments from Todd and Donna, as well as some of the articles here on this site and I understand my comments will not change any left leaning minds here on guns and that is OK. We can agree to disagree, but hopefully you will consider my thoughts.

This is not to insult anyone…so please do not take it that way.

The facts stated in the above post using the AWA data does not hold water, when there are many more sources that say otherwise.

Below are some facts….with references. The rate of suicide is not affected by the presence of a firearm. This is true in either a time-series analysis or through cross-national analysis. For example, Japan has no private handgun ownership (aside from an extremely limited number of licensed Olympic sport shooters), and yet had a suicide rate more than twice that of the United States in 2002. As per FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, World Health Organization Suicide Prevention country reports

Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year – the equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day – or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths. This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666 gun owners doing the same. As per Medical death statistics, Gun deaths, Dr. David Lawrence, CEO Kaiser Permanente, CDC report 1993

Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all. As per Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter 1997

Children are 12 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than from gun-related homicides or legal interventions (being shot by a cop, for example) if they are age 0-14. For the group 0-24 years old (which bends the definition of “child” quite a bit), the rate is still 8.6 times higher for cars. as per National Vital Statistics Report , National Center for Health Statistics.

Non-firearm related homicides of children out-rank firearm related homicides by children almost 5-to-1 as per FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1997

Firearms in private hands are used an estimated 2.5 million times (or 6,849 times each day) each year to prevent crime; this includes rapes, aggravated assaults, and kidnapping. The number of innocent children protected by firearm owning parents far outweighs the number of children harmed. As per Gary Kleck, Criminologist, Florida State University. (many times shots are not fired to prevent these crimes, on the presence of the weapon is enough.)

chunnyeahthatone 11 years, 6 months ago

continued... 82% of homicides to children age 13 and under were committed without a gun as per FBI Uniform Crime Statistics.
Fatal firearms accidents among children have dropped 91 percent since 1975, according to the National Center for Health Statistics and the National Safety Council. Eddie Eagle and other gun safety programs are widely considered to be one major reason for the decline. Further, the program has been evaluated by a number of organizations devoted to safety issues. In 1999, the Department of Justice called it an "outstanding education initiative" in a study of dozens of violence prevention programs. In 2001, a study published in the Journal of Emergency Nursing Online found it to be the most effective of 80 such programs examined. In March 2002, the program was formally endorsed by the National Sheriff's Association. The National Safety Council has also honored the program, and 24 governors have passed resolutions recommending that Eddie Eagle be taught in their states. Moreover, in 2011 Ohio became the first state to appropriate funds specifically for the program to be taught in their public schools. Now here are my comments… We can do still do better through education….! If a child dies from a firearm incident in a home, you have irresponsible adults to blame (man slaughter), not the firearm. It is to me no different than leaving a child in a car while you go shopping with 100’f temps outside- irresponsibility. It is tragedy when it happens. I do not think you can regulate or legislate irresponsibility. Drunk driving is a good example of this irresponsibility. It is against the law and people do it every day and they still kill other people. Parents that have firearms in their homes should have sense enough to take the responsibility to teach their children about firearms. Kids are very curious about firearms. Take them shooting with you, let them see what damage it can do to a watermelon or a milk jug full of water, if they are old enough, let them shoot it to remove that curiosity. Then have the responsibility to store them securely in the home… not under the mattress, in the drawer of the night stand with the sex toys or behind the door. For these are locations they can easily find them if they look. We were all kids once and you know how kids slip around and get into stuff that they shouldn’t… If you are in the bath tub, you can’t watch them all the time. I never used trigger locks because my kid always went to shoot with me and knows as much as I do about my hand guns and my AR15(not an assault rifle). He went through the NRA programs that gun proof kids. It is like drowning…you can teach them how not to drown…

chunnyeahthatone 11 years, 6 months ago

continued again... It is a terrible thing when domestic violence leads to someone being injured or killed with any weapon knife or firearm. I think all women should take the responsibility to be armed (as part of their constitutional rights) and trained to protect their self from harm. The hand gun can be a great equalizer for the so called “Weaker Sex” (although some of the larger women are probably stronger than most men.) Everyone in my family is trained (wife included) and fully capable of using a firearm safely against any attacks. I feel better if my wife is at home alone that she has her weapon and is very capable of using it…she feels better about it also, knowing she can defend herself if someone decided to do a home invasion or break in on her while she is at home alone. I carry a handgun every day and I will try to give you a little insight why. It is always there just in case I need it. Am I paranoid or scared of society? No…not at all. I have fire extinguishers in my house but I am not expecting a fire. I carry a spare tire in my car but do not plan to have a flat. I have life insurance but do not plan on dying for many more years, but that does not mean it is not going to happen. Do I go places I feel I need a gun? No, if I feel I may need a gun to go there, I avoid going all together. Carrying a weapon does not allow you to walk through the shadow of death and come out alive. I am a person that always tries to be prepared.
Criminals pick their victims; they pick the place and time. We have no control over that. IF I have the misfortune to be in a store while a robbery is in progress, as long as I do not feel my family or my life is threatened with deadly force, or I do not feel anyone in the store is in danger, the criminal can get the money or whatever he/she needs and go on their way. I will call 911 and stick around to be a good witness. It is not my responsibility to enforce the laws or catch the bad guys…that is the Cops job. IF the robber points a gun at me or my family or it appears someone in the store is about to be fatally harmed, I could not sit idly by and watch a murder. I will be forced to stop the attack as quickly as possible. Notice I did not say KILL anyone…the weapon I carry is only to STOP the attack. No law abiding citizen wants to kill another human being. If I am robbed personally, I will probably hand over my wallet and let them go on their way unless I feel my life is threatened with traumatic bodily harm, then my firearm will come out and I will use it to stop the treat…as quick as possible. The money that is taken from me in a robbery is not worth person’s life, no matter how much of a scum bag they may be. I will dial 911 and wait for the cops to get there like everyone else.

chunnyeahthatone 11 years, 6 months ago

one more time hopefully... Cops do a great job and they have a very dangerous job, but they cannot be in every location and most of the time their response time is way too long to stop the attack when it is happening. And attack usually happens in about 10 seconds. Cops are usually called along with the ambulance after it is all over. They are just the clean-up crew. They fill out the reports and gather evidence with the hope they can find who beat the hell out of, raped or killed the victims. It is too late to save my own life by that time…I have to hope the doctors can do it at that point. I take the responsibility to protect my own life and that of my family.
IF I come upon a sign indicate no firearms allowed, I will step back and retreat from the area. I am a law abiding citizen and it would be breaking the law to enter that area with my weapon. That movie theater in Colorado as I understand had a corp policy that only uniformed officers could enter carrying a weapon. Most conceal carry holders honor the wishes of businesses that post” No Gun” signs and we do not break the law. (oh yeah, they do not get my business either) I feel that criminals seek out these areas to do their dirty deeds, like mass killings. I think some of these guys that committee these crimes are cowards and would not dare try it where guns were allowed and there was a chance someone might shoot back. You never hear of this type of crimes happening in a firing range. If I were there and had my weapon I believe I would have tried to stop him even with the armor he was wearing. I believe I could have hurt him enough to make him stop and leave. It hurts pretty bad to get hit will bullets even with body armor on…very similar to getting hit with a baseball bat. I may have died with all the rest of the victims but I could not have lived with myself if I had dove under the seats and did not at least try to protect my family or friends.
I do not believe Guns Kill Families; I believe Guns protect families from the criminals in this world. I am not trying to stir up a battle of words as I will probably lose to 2 journalists. Just thought I might offer another opinion for the “Free Press”. Gun topics spark my interest. Thanks for the opportunity…

Sign in to comment

Or login with:

OpenID