A Gun For Grandpa

[Vegas]

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/536098/201006021837/A-Gun-For-Grandpa.aspx

Chicago is deciding whether to prosecute a great-grandfather and Korean War veteran under its handgun ban. He refused to be a victim, and now there's one less armed thug roaming the streets. What's the problem?

If the 80-year-old vet living on the city's West Side didn't have the gun the city said he shouldn't have, he and his 83-year-old wife and 12-year-old great-grandson might have joined those victims of gun violence about whom gun-control advocates constantly chirp.

The vet obtained the gun in violation of the city's handgun ban after a prior incident in which the couple was robbed at gunpoint by three armed intruders. So when Anthony Nelson — a parolee with a record of drug and gun arrests — tried breaking into their East Garfield Park home, they were ready.

Nelson fired twice at the as-yet-unnamed homeowner, who walks with a cane but retained enough of his military marksmanship to drop the intruder with a single gunshot to the chest. Yet in some quarters, instead of being hailed as a hero, it's the homeowner who's being considered a threat and the armed predator a victim of gun violence.

When asked if the 80-year-old would be charged for violating the city's gun ban, Mayor Richard Daley, who recently threatened to put a gun up the posterior of a reporter questioning the ban's effectiveness, said: "I don't know. Thank you very much." Of course, if the homeowner didn't have the gun, he might not be alive to be charged.

Pressed further on the incident, Daley, who goes nowhere in the city without armed protection, cautioned that "guns is not the answer to the problems that we see in a home, in the streets of America. It's as simple as that." Sorry, mayor, but in this incident calling 911 was not an option and armed intruders do not obey gun bans.

Guns is the answer. It's as simple as that.

Here is yet another example of guns saving lives — the side of the equation that never makes the headlines. In many instances, merely brandishing a firearm has been sufficient to thwart off an assault or home invasion, but instances of the successful defensive use of firearms never seem to make the headlines or the statistics.

Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote in 2008 that in his city only two classes of people can possess firearms — criminals and politicians. Chicago politicians, he noted, either used their influence to "become deputized peace officers so they can carry" or "often go around surrounded by armed bodyguards on the city payroll."

That may soon change if the U.S. Supreme Court decides that the 2nd Amendment applies to all Americans and not just to residents of the District of Columbia. In a 5-4 decision in 2008, Heller v. District of Columbia, written by Justice Anton Scalia, the high court overturned D.C.'s draconian gun ban and ruled that Americans did indeed have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

A three-judge panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, led by Judge Frank Easterbrook, subsequently rejected suits brought by the National Rifle Association against the city of Chicago and its suburb of Oak Park using Heller as a precedent. It ruled, essentially, that the 2nd Amendment applied only to the federal enclave. We are not making this up.

Otis McDonald, a 76-year-old Army veteran who lives in a high crime area of Chicago thinks the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution he fought to protect gives him the right to bear arms to protect himself and his wife as he once protected his country. He sued and the Supreme Court will soon rule on his case and Chicago's gun ban.

We trust that the court will rule that the right of American veterans and just plain homeowners to be able to defend themselves and their families against armed predators shall not be infringed.

[Matt]

One of the tiny percentage of people who actually stop a crime with their guns.

[Vegas]

One of the tiny percentage of people who actually stop a crime with their guns.

It happens far more often than you know about or are willing to admit. Private citizens use guns to stop crime in the US over 900 times a day.

[pnkpanther]

It happens far more often than you know about or are willing to admit. Private citizens use guns to stop crime in the US over 900 times a day.



Hard to prove cause we dont know if a crime would've occured. It's all based on a survey done 20 years ago.

none the less.

The old guy should be applauded.

[Matt]

It happens far more often than you know about or are willing to admit. Private citizens use guns to stop crime in the US over 900 times a day.

I'm a voracious reader, I'd love to read some of your material on the subject.

[Matt]

Hard to prove cause we dont know if a crime would've occured. It's all based on a survey done 20 years ago.

none the less.

The old guy should be applauded.

Agreed and agreed.

[FatDumbOxycontinAbuser]

I'm a voracious reader, I'd love to read some of your material on the subject.

NRA.org?

[hannitykillspuppies]

It happens far more often than you know about or are willing to admit. Private citizens use guns to stop crime in the US over 900 times a day.
that's funny.

[hannitykillspuppies]

Nelson fired twice at the as-yet-unnamed homeowner, who walks with a cane but retained enough of his military marksmanship to drop the intruder with a single gunshot to the chest. Yet in some quarters, instead of being hailed as a hero, it's the homeowner who's being considered a threat and the armed predator a victim of gun violence.


he only used a handgun in the military?

[KinjaKahn]

he only used a handgun in the military?
What are you arguing? That he should be able to hold his cane and fire an M16?

[KinjaKahn]

One of the tiny percentage of people who actually stop a crime with their guns.
Translation: That "tiny percentage" is unacceptable, all are innocent until guilty, even uninvited guests shooting at you in your own home.

[hannitykillspuppies]

What are you arguing? That he should be able to hold his cane and fire an M16?
walks with a cane, doesn't say anything about standing with one.

[KinjaKahn]

walks with a cane, doesn't say anything about standing with one.
Gotcha! Compassion fail. Respect for the elderly fail.

[Matt]

Translation: That "tiny percentage" is unacceptable, all are innocent until guilty, even uninvited guests shooting at you in your own home.

Is that you think that means? You are an odd one.

What it actually means is that a tiny percentage of people who carry guns thinking they're going to stop a crime are disillusioned. But, as long as the guns are sold...

[KinjaKahn]

Is that you think that means? You are an odd one.

What it actually means is that a tiny percentage of people who carry guns thinking they're going to stop a crime are disillusioned. But, as long as the guns are sold...
Removing guns from those who successfully thwart their own victimization at the hands of criminals, only aids in successful criminals.

[domenick2x]

I thought gun ownership was about fighting the government, not stopping crime.

[KinjaKahn]

I thought gun ownership was about fighting the government, not stopping crime.
Well you are more than welcome to not use a gun, just call 911 and try to be real nice to the bad guy, and hope you make the right choice.

[ryr8828]

I thought gun ownership was about fighting the government, not stopping crime.

When you thought that there could only be one reason and not many to own firearms, well that's where you went wrong in your reasoning.

[Matt]

Removing guns from those who successfully thwart their own victimization at the hands of criminals, only aids in successful criminals.

Run the numbers on crimes COMMITTED with guns versus crimes PREVENTED with guns and get back to me.

[ryr8828]

Run the numbers on crimes COMMITTED with guns versus crimes PREVENTED with guns and get back to me.

So if you take guns away from law abiding people you can keep law abiding people from committing crimes?

[KinjaKahn]

Run the numbers on crimes COMMITTED with guns versus crimes PREVENTED with guns and get back to me.
1 prevented is enough. You taking that 1 prevention away makes YOU an accompliss to the crime.

[Matt]

So if you take guns away from law abiding people you can keep law abiding people from committing crimes?

I have no interest in taking guns away from anyone. Nor, really does any legitimate political group. I am slightly interested in getting the facts straight. There are few crimes stopped by people who carry guns. If you want to carry and it's legal in your state, go for it, but the chances that you're going to be a hero are tiny; if it's worth spending the time and money to maintain that tiny chance of being a hero, that's your choice to make.

[Matt]

1 prevented is enough. You taking that 1 prevention away makes YOU an accompliss to the crime.

That's a good one.

[ryr8828]

I have no interest in taking guns away from anyone. Nor, really does any legitimate political group. I am slightly interested in getting the facts straight. There are few crimes stopped by people who carry guns. If you want to carry and it's legal in your state, go for it, but the chances that you're going to be a hero are tiny; if it's worth spending the time and money to maintain that tiny chance of being a hero, that's your choice to make.

You obviously don't read about the bills that are submitted on the state and federal levels every year.

[Matt]

You obviously don't read about the bills that are submitted on the state and federal levels every year.

Submitted, how many pass?

[ryr8828]

Submitted, how many pass?

What does that have to do with your claim of no legitimate political group?

Without vigilance many would pass and the rights of US citizens would be trampled on.

[Matt]

What does that have to do with your claim of no legitimate political group?

Without vigilance many would pass and the rights of US citizens would be trampled on.

I said legitimate political groups. In order to be legitimate you have to have at least a chance of getting you agenda through. These groups don't.

[ryr8828]

http://neoncstar.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/facepalm2ic7copyrl2-jpg.jpeg

[Matt]

http://neoncstar.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/facepalm2ic7copyrl2-jpg.jpeg

That's a very cute lion. Do you like lions? When I was a kid I had my picture taken with a lion. It still around here somewhere.

[Iron Jaw]

One of the tiny percentage of people who actually stop a crime with their guns.

There is no way to determine how many people stop a crime via a firearm. The overwhelming majority of crimes stopped with a firearm do not result in a shooting and are not reported.

Also, how many crimes are deterred because of knowledge that a person is carrying a weapon (particularly if it is unconcealed). How many muggers would consider robbing or molesting a woman if he spotted a pistol on her hip?

[Matt]

There is no way to determine how many people stop a crime via a firearm. The overwhelming majority of crimes stopped with a firearm do not result in a shooting and are not reported.

Also, how many crimes are deterred because of knowledge that a person is carrying a weapon (particularly if it is unconcealed). How many muggers would consider robbing or molesting a woman if he spotted a pistol on her hip?

Those are numbers we can set our watches by, hey? So strap on a Magnum....

[Iron Jaw]

Those are numbers we can set our watches by, hey? So strap on a Magnum....

Which is perfectly legal in most states so long as it isn't concealed. And if concealed, a permit for an honest citizen is not hard to obtain. In Arizona, after July, the permit will not be necessary for a non criminal, U.S. Citizen of age thanks to AZ Senate Bill Senate Bill 1108, passed in April and signed into law by the governor.

[Matt]

Which is perfectly legal in most states so long as it isn't concealed. And if concealed, a permit for an honest citizen is not hard to obtain. In Arizona, after July, the permit will not be necessary for a non criminal, U.S. Citizen of age thanks to AZ Senate Bill Senate Bill 1108, passed in April and signed into law by the governor.


Awesome, carry away. And, they will all have very little effect on the crime rate, but feel as though the do.

People who want lower crime rarely enter areas where there is any crime. So they walk around, nod to one another but do nothing. The stats show it. There are very few crimes stopped by guys who carry guns. But, go ahead and carry, you are likely wasting your time and effort but feel free to do so.

[becherr]

Awesome, carry away. And, they will all have very little effect on the crime rate, but feel as though the do.

People who want lower crime rarely enter areas where there is any crime. So they walk around, nod to one another but do nothing. The stats show it. There are very few crimes stopped by guys who carry guns. But, go ahead and carry, you are likely wasting your time and effort but feel free to do so.

I think those that want to carry do legally. Those that want to harm those that don't want to carry do so illegally.

[Matt]

I think those that want to carry do legally. Those that want to harm those that don't want to carry do so illegally.

You're thinking puts you in 1800's Montana.

[becherr]

You're thinking puts you in 1800's Montana.

It puts me in prison 8 hours a day listening to those that carry illegally every day....so date me 2005 to present.

[Matt]

It puts me in prison 8 hours a day listening to those that carry illegally every day....so date me 2005 to present.

Clarity isn't your strong suit is it?

[becherr]

Clarity isn't your strong suit is it?

Normally it is but obviously I need to be more clearer.

I hear those I work around talk about what crimes they have committed and how they committed them. One of the first things they do when "Negotiating" a charge on a first offense is to get a mandatory 2 year weapons charge. Most first/second time offenders get this. Much of the time it is for illegal carry and concealment.

[Iron Jaw]

Awesome, carry away. And, they will all have very little effect on the crime rate, but feel as though the do.

People who want lower crime rarely enter areas where there is any crime. So they walk around, nod to one another but do nothing. The stats show it. There are very few crimes stopped by guys who carry guns. But, go ahead and carry, you are likely wasting your time and effort but feel free to do so.

Our city murder rate in the Phoenix Metro area will still be considerably lower than Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Oakland, or Washington D.C. (all of which have stricter gun laws).

[LSU]

Our city murder rate in the Phoenix Metro area will still be considerably lower than Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Oakland, or Washington D.C. (all of which have stricter gun laws).



That begs the question, does the murder rate necessitate gun laws, or do the gun laws result in a higher murder rate?

[becherr]

That begs the question, does the murder rate necessitate gun laws, or do the gun laws result in a higher murder rate?

I think the correct question is: What is the density of the population and the employment environment?

[Matt]

Our city murder rate in the Phoenix Metro area will still be considerably lower than Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Oakland, or Washington D.C. (all of which have stricter gun laws).

I think you're over simplifying the situation. There are huge cultural differences between Phoenix and those cities.

But, I'm not making the case that gun laws are effective in stopping gun crimes either. In America, where there are SO many guns, anyone who wants one can get one.

[domenick2x]

Our city murder rate in the Phoenix Metro area will still be considerably lower than Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Oakland, or Washington D.C. (all of which have stricter gun laws).
If Phoenix was like Philly in the first place, you'd have something.

[Iron Jaw]

If Phoenix was like Philly in the first place, you'd have something.

Phoenix itself suck$. But the suburban cities are nice places.