Good lord iangb. You want us to repeat the exact same mistakes that both England and Australia made? Spend our time and money on taking guns away from the law-abiding, who are NOT the problem, while the criminals import their guns in with their drugs? Gun control is NOT Crime Control! How many millions of crime fighting dollars do we need to waste in order to get that message?

As we have seen from other threads, there is a substitution effect! What both England and Australia are learning from us, is that you control crime with good cops, and better crime fighting techniques and equipment!

Who commits murder, is the question we need to ask. Then how do we stop it?

What we here in the U.S. can learn from both England and Australia is what role proper socialization plays in creating a society that respects life. Our inner city drug dealers have been socialized by the previous gangs and drug dealers who are creating a revolving door of these exact same problems. Racism, the previous institution of slavery have also created a backlash that is coming back to haunt good people who must live in these inner city death traps! Solve some of these problems and we might have a chance! Gun control socializes no one!

If you are lucky enough to live in one of our better suburbs, you can't even understand the gravity of the inner city problems because we are so far removed from their life conditions. In the suburbs where guns are also plentiful I might add. Hardly no crime, maybe a murder every ten years or so, maybe a few break ins, and some domestic squabbles, is about it, when living in the suburbs. So we know it can be done, but it will take money and effort, on our part. The solutions our government tried only became a way to make a living without the effort. I am speaking of welfare. What the inner city youth need is proper role models, not gun control!

__________________
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

Apparently England just can't stop the flow of illegal guns that are imported by your illegal rug dealers either. What chance would we have?

Schoolgirl, 13, arrested after sub-machine gun found in her wardrobe Heck, we can't even get one of these!

__________________
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

Ironic isn't it? Sadly the same country whose XXX we kicked out after the Declaration of Independence and founded a Republic based on the Rule of Law (the Constitution) and added and adopted the Bill of Rights as checks on our own government so it would never be oppressive again and says NO and NOT to the government 24 times in the Articles of Confederation and 22 times in the first 10 amendments still has the unmitigated gall to ask sovereign citizens to account for our rights by their standards and from political viewpoints we rejected by sending them sailing back to the ****hole they came from.

The only proof we need are LAW and we have that in the Constitution's BOR.

The same country whose *ss we saved by donating guns through the NRA and federal government during WWII to protect their homes and property and nation since they had foolishly disarmed. After fighting the battle of Nomandy to protect their homeland from invasion by a tyrant, they used those loaned firearms as reinforcement for sidewalks and roads.

I don't owe the ungrateful b******s nothing, certainly not a demand to prove why we separated nor an excuse to exercise our rights in this Republic.
The UK has always been at war with each other and yet the inhabitants claim it is a socialist paradise. They can have their paradise, I want more self-defense rather than more criminal use and that means our folks exercising their Second amendment rights.

Yes, and I live here now. Please don't suppose details about my life.

It's also very easy to see the darkness when you're deliberately looking in caves.

I still fail to see how I should feel threatened by this. If you like, I will release to you the (highly confidential) list of where I went last time I was in the city.
Waterstones
Dixons
CEX
Millets
M&S
A second-hand bookshop or two.
WH Smiths
HMV

Indeed. That isn't a reason why you shouldn't control who gets guns, though.

You didn't mention a 'right' at all. All you said was that 'proving your innocence goes against the very basis of the court system'. I just pointed out some of the other occasions where 'proving your innocence' is vital.

No, I'm saying that it will be able to show that someone is at least half-competent at handling and using the lethal force which you are allowing them to have.

Sorry, you'd be happy for someone to own a gun who can't tell the safety from the trigger?

Brilliant! Then you shouldn't be complaining about it as a suggestion, unless you think that it shouldn't be an offence.

Detailed examples of specific cases that the police have worked on? Not likely. Can you name me a country whose police force releases information about how they solve specific cases? (Hint: make it Canada, and show me where to find them)

True. However, I never claimed that; you're adding in details for your special pleading. My claim was simply that precedent has been set to remove a constitutional amendment.

***********
Why? Someone has been unlawfully killed by what you are claiming should be an 'inalienable right', regardless of other circumstances.

And... we return to the "if we ban guns, we should also ban cars/cameras/the internet!" argument.

My response was only a few pages ago...

EDIT: Some other people posted

That's fairly true. However, there's a limit to it. It's the difference between thinking "this is how people are, how do we deal with it" and "this is who people should be, how do we change them?"

The two are linked. More self defence and more criminal use, not 'or'.

__________________
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.

Nope! The availability of guns in our society and the amount of people who have them have been increasing for years but our crime rate has fallen during the same time, then has normalized with normal fluctuations. Your theory that more guns cause more crime is just not true.

Our gun stock has been increasing. 103 million NICS Background Checks -- November 30, 1998 - June 30, 2009
While our violent crime fell.
Serious violent crime levels declined since 1993.

and remained low even to this day. the Nation reported a decrease of 2.5 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention in 2008 when compared to figures reported for 2007. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

__________________
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel." -- Patrick Henry

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
They can have their paradise, I want more self-defense rather than more criminal use and that means our folks exercising their Second amendment rights.[/quote]

The two are linked. More self defence and more criminal use, not 'or'.

Uh, did you see an "or" in that? Nope, none there! If you get more self-defense, you will have less criminals and criminal use because of loss of criminals getting shot in their profession. Perhaps you are confused and view self-defense as a criminal act in which case you would be WRONG as self defense has been and will continue to be a lawful exercise of an inalienable right. It is not vigilatism!! This is something garnished from the plate of the anti-Constitutionalist and some in law enforcement who are envious of the fact that most folks are perfectly capeable of taking care of themselves while they see a decreased need for their services and rightly fear for their reason to exist. They can become highly emotional about it. I kind of suspect that you have something to do related to law enforcement? Just a feeling and no need to answer that one. At least you are a pleasant fellow to talk to and not "a cheeky fellow" as some of your countrymen are

Earlier, I posted a reference to John Lott's studies and book of More guns equal Less Crime. The majority of antis get sidetracked claiming gun control equals crime control but get overwhelmed by evidence to the contrary. That the right to self-defense has always existed as a fundamental and unalienable right in this Republic. Even 'the wise latina' hem and hawed claiming not to know there was any cases supporting the right to self defense. There are: Sotomayer Overlooks All 14 Supreme Court Self-Defense Cases

Is your claim that self-defense equals more criminals or criminal misuse? When they jailed the farmer for shooting at violent yobs and criminal trespassers in your nation of GB, did you agree with that decision in your country?

Sorry about the delay in getting back to you but the old man is a bit busy today and I need to finish my loop, gotta eat too you know?

Must have posted as I was? I was going to get around to some stats, like our DOJ reported a 63% drop in crimes while our gun stocks amoung the people increased the most in history. Yeah, there is a link there and reason for that! Things are as they should be...and all is well within the Republic.

And how long do you think it'll be before the government decides to monitor people inside their own homes?

It would really help your case if you chose to familiarize yourself with our laws before you started telling us what was wrong with them. Because then you'd know that we have an entire list of people that're forbidden from owning of possessing firearms.

Even the stupidest of the stupid, the most unfit to ever get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, still manage to pass a driving test with enough competence to get a license. But they're still the same people who crash their cars and drive drunk. So applying the same standard to people who wish to buy a gun will serve no practical or effective purpose.

Why does it even matter? The safety is nothing more than a mechanical device, it's no excuse for being stupid and leaving your finger on the trigger or waving the gun around at people because you think it can't go off.

I'd rather not see mandatory training become a prerequisite for gun ownership. Once that's initiated it's a very slippery slope to instituting other qualification tests for the rest of the Bill of Rights.

What I'm complaining about is how you think something is a problem when it's not. Letting someone shoot your gun at the range or wherever isn't a crime, and it shouldn't be one either.

Well with so many people being in favor of killing the long gun registry for good, surely there are news reports about police speaking out in favor of the registry and touting about how many cases it helps them solve every year, and supplying tales of how they were completely stumped until they turned to that magical list that somehow made all the pieces fall into place.

On another note, with 200+ million privately owned guns in this country, just as this point in time, how much do you really think a centralized database would cost? Canada doesn't even have half the number of guns we do, and their database is costing them $2 billion in taxpayer money. There's no way the American budget could feed such a beast.

And besides that, the registry would only have the information of those willing to obey the laws, IE the people who aren't going to go out and shoot and kill others for the fun of it. The list would be useless as a crime fighting tools. The guns they would recover would never be in the registry, and even if they were by some chance, it'd be discovered that they were reported as stolen at a previous date, or that the registered owner had been killed and his guns stolen.

Guess what, we don't care. Criminal misuse is no excuse for declaring war on our rights.

Even if our crooked politicians could implement Britain-style gun control in America, that wouldn't do a thing to approach the problem. Our criminal element, which imports drugs from overseas and across the borders, could easily order in new weapons as well. The borders are too porous to keep drug shipments out, weapon shipments wouldn't be any easier to stop.

Of course you really don't care about that fact. To you it's just irrelevant. This has been brought up before and all you or the other gun control supporters have to say in response is "but it'll make the numbers lower" as if that somehow makes things better and more acceptable. Well it's not. The only numbers that'll be lower, will be the number of criminals killed by home owners in self defense.

When are you going to get it through your head, that de-horning the ram won't address the issue of the wolf?

It's the truth. You can't talk about banning only one thing that can be used to harm others, unless you're willing to consider applying the same standard to everything else that has played some role in harming or killing others.

__________________
Taking away rights to stop criminals is like taking away chocolate chip cookies to stop cancer; it sounds good on paper, but doesn't work in the real world.

[QUOTE=Brady;363469]When I was a kid I did lots of things like playing with fire and torturing animals even though adults told me not to.[/QUOTE]
The admission of a sociopathic serial killer.

[QUOTE=Penfold;363126]No Personal attacks, insults, name calling, offensive generalizations, or labeling.[/QUOTE]
He should practice what he preaches.

I posted on another board that the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that it is unconstitutional to demand a fee or license to exercise a fundamental right.

There goes the old tax and spend a right out of business and arguments on what type and amount of training should be required to get a license to exercise your Second Amendment rights.

Perhaps if YOU had read carefully the information you posted:

"It has been claimed that in the United States, 'guns are used for defensive purposes about five times as often as they are used for crimes'.1,2 This claim is made even though the criminal chooses both the time and place of the crime, most households don’t have guns, and very few of the individuals who own guns are carrying at any time..."

What a concept. The criminal is going to be more likely to strike at a time and place where their victim has a lesser chance of being armed. Perhaps this simple concept explains your statistics?

Sounds like Ian wants to put old doc out of business? Just wait until he gets government health care----oh, he already does, tough.


Firearms in America: The Facts

I hate that old rehashed lies keep getting repeated and reworded like it is an original or recent finding when it is just a reposting of an old gun control lie.

The title posted by star gazer is a misleading lie in itself.

Ian posts reasons he thinks should revoke a right we fought a revolution over and one that is strictly prohibited from interference from any government infrigement. These folks sell snake oil and the Bridges in heavily populated areas on the stock market in their spare time I suppose? Nothing is too absurd for them to post or demand because they have no stake in it to lose. Grants from the hate America crowd that funds their zeal is drying up and hopefully will soon be history. Despite repeated debunking of their thesis, they keep hoping to be a cheap huckster and try to beat someone out of their birthrights. These are the kind of folks our FF warned about and they keep trying to elect folks willing to do their bidding and commit treason...or worse. Their problem is they have no standing in court nor logically. If they can post their (deleted by poster) with a straight face I would be truely surprised. I read a poll this morning that 74% of the respondents thought there would be another revolution. Justice W.O. Douglas did too before his term was up. http://www.constitution.org/wod/wod_por.txt

Let me first address your specific proposals in this post. I want to return more to your “maximizing quality of life for the population as a whole” post later.

#1 Licensing the RKBA. I disagree with this. I believe individual rights exist to provide a check on the power of government. It is the right of the individual against governmental action. The government has no ownership interest in an individual right, and it is not the government’s prerogative to license it. We either have to accept the RKBA as a right, in which case allowing the government the power to license the right encourages the government to attempt to license other rights; or we declare it is not a right.

#2 Proof of valid reason for a license. For the reasons stated above I believe this is a bad idea. As an aside, how would you prove to a government official you were unlikely to misuse a firearm?

#3. Self defense not a “valid reason” for having a gun. I believe that self-defense is the first law of nature, and for that reason I disagree with your proposal. But assume I got a gun under your system for sporting purposes and happened to use it in self-defense, then would that be lawful under your system? Assume, for example, that a man broke into my home with a pry bar and tried to use it to kill me. If self-defense cannot be a purpose for having a firearm, then would you also abolish the right of self-defense altogether? Or would it be modified to deny the right of self-defense with firearms? In other words, would it be illegal to kill or wound in self-defense entirely? Or, would it be illegal to defend myself with my sporting purpose shotgun, but still OK to defend myself with a well-aimed swing of a 7 iron or baseball bat?

#4 Proficiency testing as part of the license. Because I believe it is a right, then I do not believe you could require me to demonstrate proficiency any more than I would encourage the thought that the government could require me to prove I am literate before I can buy a book; or make me pass a religious history test before I could go to a church of my choice. Of course, if I misuse the firearm then lack of proficiency is always a factor in determining criminal and civil liability for my actions.

#5. I do not believe we should license the exercise of a right on private property. I also prefer the existing agency liability laws we have.

#6. I have spoken before about registration EDITORIAL: 'We want them registered' and mandatory theft reporting: what is your knowledge level?

I agree, as you have noted, that all of your proposals are permissible if the individual right is abolished by amending it out of the Constitution. My complaint against the Brady Campaign and others who have advanced the fraudulent “collective right/state’s right” theory is they have attempted to do in the courts what they know they lack the political power to do at the ballot box.

Iangb:

I went back and re-read your “maximizing quality of life for the population as a whole” post again http://www.4forums.com/political/342035-post81.html

When you asked the question of where to “draw the line between freedom and security,” my answer was we did it by recognizing and defining certain individual rights.

But I want to give a more complete answer to your post now because I’ve given it some thought and I find myself in disagreement with it. The problem I have with your post is I read it to redefine the limitation on government action away from respecting individual rights to focus instead on this “maximizes the quality of life for the population as a whole” ideal. I read this to be the ultimate question in your post, and if the answer is “yes, the law meets that goal” then the concept of individual rights must yield when they are believed to be in conflict with the legislative goal.

Please correct me if I am misunderstanding this.

I have no problem initially with your legislative goal to “maximize the quality of life for the population as a whole.” But when this goal comes into conflict with individual rights, then I believe the individual right must always trump this policy goal. I believe that to allow otherwise invites tyranny.

Now I know “tyranny” is almost a 4 letter word here—kind of like saying “Nazi.” But this is not what I mean with the word. I don’t believe allowing your goal to triumph over individual rights would bring about a tyrant dictator in America. We are after all a majority rule democracy. Rather, I fear allowing your goal to trump an individual rights model would bring about the tyranny of the majority.

We know that in a democracy the question of what “maximizes the quality of life for the population as a whole” has always been answered by the will of the majority—what the majority thinks is best. With that in mind, the individual rights model we adopted in America works towards this balancing principle: “majority rule, but respect for minority rights.”

I believe that respect for these rights of the individual should be the ultimate goal of any legislation. I do not believe we can safely set this principle aside in favor of a vague “maximizes the quality of life for the population as a whole” standard. To our shame we have done it before.

In my nation it was the will of the political majority that kept black men enslaved for decades. In my opinion the supreme irony of the Revolutionary War was that (in my state at least) the same men who cried the loudest to “take up arms against the tyrant king” had with equal clarity of conviction decided that keeping the black man unarmed and enslaved to them would “maximize the quality of life for the population as a whole.”

It was the same will of the majority that decided the policy of denying the RKBA to and forcing the migration of the Native American to “reservations” would act to “maximize the quality of life for the population as a whole.”

It was the same will of the majority that decided a policy of forcing both the disarmament of and the concentration style internment of the Japanese American in World War II would act to “maximize the quality of life for the population as a whole” (with the belief that it would ensure security from spying and sabotage)

And surely the goal of “maximizing the quality of life for the population as a whole” (through the belief it would provide greater domestic security) is the policy consideration behind holding suspected terrorists indefinitely without trial at Guantanamo Bay.

The bottom line, as I see it, is this….If your goal of “maximizing the quality of life for the population as a whole” is not forced to yield when it infringes upon individual rights, then the will of the majority will undoubtedly pervert your goal to read “whatever is in our collective best interest, regardless of how it punishes those not with us,” and we will hear Thucydides remind us that: “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”

Now I agree we can look back on the history of my nation and see many examples of how having these individual rights did not protect minorities or individuals from the tyranny of the majority. But if these circumstances existed then they are not the fault of the liberties themselves. Rather, they happened because of the fault of those in power who broke their oaths to protect and defend those rights when asked to do so by the tyranny of an irritated majority—and the actions of weak minded or self serving public servants in the past do not justify the abandonment of these rights today.

I know the RKBA is unpopular with some in power in Washington. But what cannot be doubted now is that this individual right is indeed listed in the BoR alongside the rights of freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, to not have soldiers quartered in your house, to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, to remain silent when accused of a crime, to a grand jury indictment before trial, to a trial by jury, to representation at trial, to confront and cross-examine your accusers, to the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to be free of cruel and unusual punishments. I believe these rights exist to draw the line between freedom and security. If we concede to those in power today the authority to eliminate the RKBA because they feel it interferes with their goal of “maximizing the quality of life for the population as a whole,” then we concede to those in power tomorrow the same authority to tell us they can eliminate any other right in the BoR if it interferes with their similar policy goal. If there ever existed a slippery slope, then surely this would be it.

But I don’t want to misread what you said in your “maximizes the quality of life for the population as a whole” post, or infer something into it which was not intended. If I have, then please let me know. Regardless of whether I have or not I welcome your comments.

---

“The great ideals of liberty and equality are preserved against the assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, the scorn and derision of those who have no patience with general principles, by enshrining them in constitutions, and consecrating to the task of their protection a body of defenders.” Justice Benjamin Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process, New haven, 1921.

“Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 485 (1928) Justice Brandeis, dissenting.

From the Houston Chronicle of July 23, 2009
74-year-old man shoots carjacker in SW Houston

A 74-year-old man shot and wounded a teenager who attempted to carjack him with a knife early this morning in southwest Houston, police said.

The 18-year-old male suspect was wounded in the abdomen and was caught by police after he tried to run away following the shooting. He was taken to Ben Taub General Hospital in fair condition.

No other injuries were reported.

Police have not released the suspect's name because no charges have been filed against him, but investigators said that he will mostly likely be charged with aggravated robbery.

The shooting happened outside a home in the 10900 block of Corona in southwest Houston about 6:30 a.m., police said.

The victim, August Peters, had just parked his car in front of his wife's home when he noticed another car drive past him and park at the curb across the street.

When the victim got out of his car, he told investigators that the teen came up to him and pressed a knife against his throat.

"He said, 'Give me your car or I'll kill you,'" said Victor Senties, a spokesman for the Houston Police Department.

The victim was able to reach inside his car to get a pistol. He fired two shots at the suspect, Senties said.

The suspect ran into the driveway of a home across the street and then somehow got into the home. He broke a window to get out and continued running away. Senties said no one was at the home at the time.

Police found the teen moments later on bridge on Wilcrest near Bellaire about two blocks from where he was shot.

Investigators are uncertain if the teenager got out of the car the victim had seen park on the street. They have no description of the vehicle and no other suspects at this time.

From WLEX of July 21, 2009
Intruder Fatally Shot By Homeowner In Garrard County

Police are investigating after they say a man was shot to death early Tuesday morning while trying to break into a home in Garrard County.

The incident happened at about 12:45 a.m. at a home on Old Richmond Road. Kentucky State Police said Dallas Richard Helton, 40, had broken into the back of the home, and was shot once in the chest by the homeowner, Herlin McQuerry, 67. Helton stumbled out to the driveway where police said he died.

Police said McQuerry also fired a shot at the alleged getaway car being driven by Tonya Fowler, 35, of Berea. She was later arrested and charged with complicity to commit burglary second degree.

Helton's 17-year-old son was also in the vehicle. Police questioned him, but have not charged him.

Helton's family claims they were looking at rental property. However, Kentucky State Police said Helton was wearing a black ski mask and armed with a crowbar. Police added McQuerry's house was not listed for rent.

No charges will be filed against McQuerry in the case.

From the July 22, 2009 Anchorage Daily News:

Daniel Ames reckons he dealt one for the good guys on Saturday night near Soldotna when he came home, found two burglars in his house, wrestled with them over a pistol, then took them down, telling them he was going to blow off their knees if they didn't start following his orders.


One of the two 21-year-olds charged with the burglary turned out to be Ames' next-door neighbor, according to a report from the Alaska State Troopers. The young man registered a blood alcohol content of .418, which is more than five times the legal limit to drive.

Ames called the young men bandits.

The 49-year-old construction worker was returning home from work on Saturday around 9 p.m. when a neighbor told him some kids were wandering around near his home, which was being remodeled.

He rushed home to find his neighbor, Chance Tallman, and Joshua Simons trying to walk out of his house with a $125 ceiling fan, he said.

Ames said he wasn't going to let those guys get away with burglary.

"What are you two buttheads doing in my house?" he said.

To that, apparently, one of the young men said, "Who are you calling buttheads?" and began to pull out a Glock pistol.

Ames grabbed for it and began wrestling, thrashing Tallman's hand against wall studs to loosen his grip. The gun broke loose and then, according to Ames, the men looked ready to carry on with their fists. That's when he pulled out his own concealed weapon, also a Glock. He shot into the ground to let the burglars know he was serious, he said.

He told the men to get down on their knees. If they didn't, he was going to blow off their kneecaps.

He had them. Drama over. Good guy wins. Or so he says.

Tallman told troopers a different story. He was merely trespassing, picked up the fan to admire it, thinking his mother would like it, and then Ames barged in the door, put him in a chokehold, then recklessly shot the gun into the floor.

As for the Glock, that was his mother's, Tallman told the troopers. She showed up on the scene afterward and confirmed it was hers, troopers said.

Simons admitted to troopers that he was trespassing but said he was only admiring the construction work.

Troopers charged Tallman with burglary, theft, assault and misconduct with a weapon. Simons faces burglary and theft charges.

Trooper Sgt. James Truesdell, who investigated the case, said that when he arrived Ames had both men on the ground in the front yard. A Glock 23 was on the ground with a round in the chamber. Ames told the trooper that he had taken the pistol from Tallman, Truesdell wrote in his report.

The trooper said he didn't charge Ames with any crime but the district attorney may feel differently after reading the report. When asked what he meant, he read Alaska statutes on what constitutes legal defense of life and property.

From the July 20, 2009 Tallahassee Democrat:

BRISTOL #—Bradley Harvell, 82, closed the Slip N’ Slide bar that is connected to his house on County Road 333 around 8 p.m. Sunday and walked inside his house an hour later. He ate some dinner dropped off by a neighbor and then went to bed.
Harvell said a short time later, he heard a knock at the door.

“There were two knocks at my door,” Harvell said. “I didn’t get up when I heard the first one. But I decided to go see who it was on the second knock.”

As Harvell cracked the door open to take a peek outside, a man dressed in a black T-shirt, black jeans with a blue bandanna covering his mouth, forced his way inside.

Harvell said the man, later identified as Octavius Barnes, 24, of Sanford, Fla., shot him with a stun gun, causing Harvell to fall back on his bed. The intruder then pulled out what appeared to be a black pistol and demanded money.

Harvell pulled out his money clip and gave the robber half of the cash. When pressed to give more, Harvell said he turned it all over.

But Harvell then reached for his .357 magnum among a pile of papers on the floor next to his bed and shot Barnes near the stomach. Barnes fell over on the TV, knocking it onto Harvell, who fired another round, striking Barnes in the head.

“I did what I did to try and save myself,” Harvell said Monday afternoon, after spending the night with his sister in Bristol. “I’m 82-years-old. I’ve made it this far, and I want to keep on living.”

The call came in about 9:20 p.m., according to the Liberty County Sheriff’s Office. When a deputy arrived, with her weapon drawn, Harvell said he told her, “There’s no need for the gun. I don’t think he’s going to get up and do anything else.”

From July 19, 2009 Detroit channel 4:

PONTIAC, Mich. -- Neighbors in one community said a man was shot and killed early Sunday morning after he interrupted a neighborhood party and robbed some of the partygoers.

"It's like playground rules. They just broke one of them by going in and robbing and turning your back on someone," neighbor Andre said.

Andre said 29-year-old Gregory Scott interupted a dice game in the basement of a house in the 300 block of Seward Street in Pontiac at about 3:30 a.m.

Andre said Scott pulled a gun on partygoers and robbed them. "He goes in, pulls out a gun, let off a shot or two to make the person come out his money, and he was fine with that and turned his back," Andre said. "But everybody had pistols ... lights went off on him then."

Andre said the man was shot several times as he ran up the stairs and out of the house.

"He made it outside. He fell outside," Andre said.

Neighbors said two other people were also wounded but were able to walk away from the scene.

From WVEC of July 16, 2009
No charges against Suffolk store owner who shot suspect

No charges will be filed against a man who shot and killed a would-be robber in his store, the Suffolk commonwealth's attorney announced Thursday.

On the morning on June 21, the alarm went off at James Durden’s Whaleyville store – J&L Food Mart.

Durden, who lives close by, grabbed a gun and went to the store. His brother told 13News that Durden opened fire because he thought the man pointed a gun at him.

That man, identified as Ernest Scott Roop, was struck four times.

Detectives determined Roop was wearing camouflage clothing with his face concealed in a "ninjna" style fashion. They also said Roop had a hunting knife and crowbar and was wearing heavy construction gloves.

In the letter to Police Chief Thomas Bennett, C. Phillip Ferguson stated, “Mr. Durden was confronted with a very dangerous situation created by Roop and was legally justified in using deadly force as he genuinely believed that Roop had a firearm and that his own life was in danger.

In addition, from a practical standpoint, convinced that a Suffolk jury would not convict Mr. Durden of criminal misconduct under the facts of this case.

Therefore, this Office declines to prosecute any charges against Mr. Durden.”

From the Birmingham News of July 14, 2009
Store owner says robber shot himself

An owner of the Vineyard Food Market told The Birmingham News that a man shot himself dead as he ran after robbing the store on Tuesday night.

The owner said he fired a shot at the fleeing man, who had grabbed money in the store and ran, but he did not think he had hit him.

Police have not confirmed that account of the incident, but said the dead man had attempted to rob the store on Crestwood Boulevard.

Jerry Tucker, owner of Crestwood Antiques a few doors down from Vineyard Food Market, was called to the scene because an alarm went off at his business after a bullet went through a window. Tucker, who has been in business there for eight years, said it's a nice community, but there is a lot of crime.

Tucker said his son-in-law closed a computer store that he had owned in the same shopping center after several break-ins.

Tucker said the owners of the Vineyard are well-liked by members of the community.

"This is tragic. They are really good folks," he said.

From WAVE of July 16, 2009
Homeowner subdues intruder until police arrive

Police in Oldham County are investigating another apparent home invasion attempt. This time the homeowner subdued the alleged intruder until police could arrive.

According to a press release from the Oldham County Police Department, officers were sent to the 1000 block of Goshen Lane about 1:30 a.m. Friday on a report of a home invasion burglary.

When police arrived on scene, they found the home owner, Wes Johnson, and a houseguest, Richard Rackleffe, restraining 34-year-old Sherman Ellis from Louisville.

Johnson told us it was about 1 a.m. Friday when Wes Johnson, his wife and their two out-of-town guests went to bed. About a half-hour later, Johnson says they heard something strange: the garage door opening and closing.

"We got out there and the garage was closed and we couldn't really figure out what was going on," Johnson said.

They didn't know it then, but Ellis had cut open the top of the Johnson's convertible and used the garage door opener to get inside their home. "When I walked back inside, I asked my wife to go up and call 911 and notify them that something was wrong," Johnson said.

That's when he noticed something in the basement. "I saw a closet door in our basement close. When I approached the door and kicked it open the guy came out and started to assault me," Johnson said.

Johnson says he and Ellis continued to struggle. "When somebody's coming at you in the darkness in the night and somebody comes at you with something in their hand to hit you, it helps you realize real quick that something's not right."

Johnson says he yelled for his wife to bring him a pistol he had in the house. In the meantime, Johnson's guests - both former FBI agents - came running downstairs.

"The guy was fighting all he could," said Johnson's guest, Richard Rackleffe. I used to work with defense tactics and all I did was take the arm and put it in a twist, where he quit fighting and he just succumbed or submitted at that point."

They held Ellis at gunpoint until police arrived and even then Johnson said Ellis fought officers, slightly injuring one before being handcuffed.

Even though Johnson managed to get the upper hand, the experience has left him shaken. "It definitely takes all the peace and comfort you have of going home and closing the door and knowing that you are in a safe place."

Police say Ellis lives in Portland, and told Johnson he was in Oldham County for a party. When he got left behind he said he planned to steal a car to get home.

But Johnson says that doesn't explain why Ellis decided to enter his home.

Ellis has a long criminal past, including multiple rape charges. And he's listed on the Kentucky Sex Offender Registry for raping a 15-year-old girl.

Ellis is charged with burglary, robbery, assault, resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer and possession of burglary tools. He is being held in the Oldham County Jail on a $10,000 full security bond.

From July 18, 2009 KIVI channel 6:


Boise Police received a call of a man with a gun this afternoon at approximately 1:18 p.m. in the area of Americana and River Streets. As multiple Boise Police units arrived on the scene, they located two men with handguns and de-escalated the situation.

According to BPD spokesman Charles McClure, "Witnesses tell police that the original suspect, later identified as John Dickey, had stolen personal property from the victim at a nearby homeless shelter. The suspect fled on foot traveling Eastbound on River Street. As the victim chased the suspect on foot, a third man intevened in the chase by producing a handgun and ordering the suspect to stop. The suspect was on the ground and held at gunpoint when the third citizen -- who was also a concealed weapons permit holder and only saw a man with a gun pointing it at someone, intervened and demanded that the other man drop his gun. Officers then arrived on scene and took the suspect into custody."

At this time, the original theft suspect -- John W. Dickey, 46 -- has been taken into custody and charged with misdemeanor petit theft. Dickey has no known address.


From July 17, 2009 WAFB channel 9:


PORT ALLEN, LA (WAFB) - A ten-year-old boy left home alone with his sister used his mother's gun to shoot an intruder in the face, police said.

Late Tuesday, West Baton Rouge Parish sheriff's deputies received a call to a Port Allen apartment complex after several shots rang out from inside one of the apartments. "You are out here trying to work and for someone to come and do that and invade your home is very hard," the children's mother said. She asked to not be identified.

Deputies say Dean Favron and Roderick Porter knocked several times on the apartment door. The two young children, a ten-year-old boy and eight-year-old girl, stood on the other side, terrified. "He told his sister to be quiet and seconds later, they started kicking on the door and finally kicked the door in," said Sheriff Mike Cazes. The two children ran to their mother's bedroom closet.

In a panic, the ten-year-old grabbed his mother's gun for protection. "He did what I told him to do. I never told him to get the gun, but thank God he did," she said. Once the two suspects opened the door, threatening the kids, deputies say the boy fired a bullet into the lip of Roderick Porter. The two men were taken to the hospital by a third suspect, who is a 15-year-old juvenile. Once they got to the hospital, they were later arrested. "It's just hard. I don't understand why they would do that. I know they have little brothers and sisters and they wouldn't want anyone to break into their house," said the mother.


From the Houston Chronicle of July 16, 2009
NW Houston resident fatally shoots intruder

A man was shot and killed in a Spring Branch home this morning in what police believe was a case of self-defense.

Shortly before 7:30 a.m., paramedics received a call that a man was wounded in the 9000 block of Kerrwood, northwest of the intersection of Hammerly and Bingle.

Police on the scene say it appears the dead man was killed trying to rob the modest wood-frame house, which has a visible security camera installed outside.

Neighbors said crime has increased in the area in recent years, mostly break-ins and burglaries.

"It's disturbing, but there's nothing you can do about it," neighbor Terry Vick said, referring to what happened today.

Ginny Evans, who has lived in the area for less than two years, said she was stunned by the shooting.

"I can't blame him. I'd shoot (an intruder) if he was in my house," said Evans, who added that she had given her pistol to a friend but now plans to either ask for it back or buy another one.

"It's real scary, and it's sad," she said.

No arrests have been made and authorities are still on the scene. No other information was immediately available.

From the July 13, 2009 Redding (Cal.) Record-Searchlight:


An Anderson man shot and killed a 33-year-old Burney man early Sunday after he allegedly caught him trying to steal property from his Tranquil Lane home, investigators said.

Jerry Kirk called 911 about 3:40 a.m. saying he'd just shot a man in his front yard, Shasta County sheriff's Capt. Dave Compomizzo said.

Curtis Evin Ingalls died from his wounds on the property, Compomizzo said. The home sits behind a gate at the end of a quiet street surrounded by walnut orchards and horse pastures.

Compomizzo declined to say how many times Ingalls had been shot with Kirk's handgun or where he had been hit.

The two men knew each other, Compomizzo said.

Kirk went to confront Ingalls after he caught him trying to take tools and other equipment from the property, Compomizzo said.

"He didn't assault Kirk, but he went after him," Compomizzo said.

No arrests have been made in the case.

Crime scene investigators remained at the property throughout the morning, and investigators continued interviewing witnesses and family members throughout the day, Compomizzo said.

Ingalls has a lengthy criminal history in Shasta County. On Wednesday, he pleaded no contest to obstructing an executive officer, a felony, according to electronic Shasta County Superior Court records.

He was to be sentenced Aug. 5.

In January, Ingalls pleaded no contest to obstructing a police officer and injuring a police dog. He was sentenced to 63 days in Shasta County jail, court records show.

__________________
The left lost the ability, use logic or know what truth is with the embrace of moral relativism. Thus you get moral equivalence between acts like detaining terrorists and cutting off heads of innocents.
If lawmakers and anti-gun groups were serious about reducing or ending gun crimes, they would turn their wrath toward the criminals. As it is, their efforts are not the solution to gun crimes they are part of the problem.
Even if you gave liberals the answers on an ethics exam, they’d fail.