This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Oldest First
  • Lightfoot3 Feb 8, 8:40 a.m.

    "It is not only private citizens who can go "Stupid" with a firearm...what's next ? Do we ban police departments or ex police from having guns ? " - Tomcat123

    It gets worse. So far the police, in looking for this criminal, have shot two innocent women and also fired on another vehicle. The police are armed, spooked, and dangerous.

  • Tomcat123 Feb 7, 7:17 p.m.

    It is not only private citizens who can go "Stupid" with a firearm...what's next ? Do we ban police departments or ex police from having guns ?

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/07/suspect-identified-in-deaths-cal-state-coach-fiance/

  • Tomcat123 Feb 7, 6:42 p.m.

    By strict definition an assault rifle has to be selective fire capable (semi, burst, or fully auto). Semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 or Tommy Gun are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable.

    US Army states same

    The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges

    So does Defense Department

    As the United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” In other words, assault rifles are battlefield rifles which can fire automatically.

    Why are anti-gun people, Obama, and Dianne Feinstein trying to include Semi automatic military looking rifles as assault rifles ?

  • Tomcat123 Feb 7, 6:30 p.m.

    @blackops762 I agree, he took guns from the Jews, not the Nazi party or friends of the party.

    It begins with an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the liberal Weimar republic of Germany's first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as "communists." After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun control law in 1938 which benefited Nazi party members and entities but denied firearm ownership to enemies of the state.

    Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany's Jews. Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent to concentration camps for the Final Solution.

  • Tomcat123 Feb 7, 12:03 p.m.

    @jjsmith1973 Apparently, you missed the point I was trying to make. By strict definition an assault rifle/weapon has to be selective fire capable (semi, burst, or fully auto). Semi-automatic-only rifles like the AR-15 or my 45 Cal Tommy Gun are not assault rifles, as they are not capable of switching to automatic fire and thus are not selective-fire capable. Because they look like assault rifles/weapons or have high capacity mags or were not designed for deer hunting doesn't make them assault weapons.

    And I was referring to the 1934 NFA which banned machine guns and not the 1968 NFA which I think overrode the 1934

    I never said no one could not own a machine gun. I stated (machine gun owners are mostly collectors and it takes a lots of oks/paperwork from government and local law enforcement to own one)

    And, yes if the Feds and Senator Feinstein have their way I believe it will eventually lead to gun confiscation no mater what kind of gun it is.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 7, 8:41 a.m.

    If you really want a glaring example of how worthless the Kellermann report is, consider the Fort Hood shootings. How was that shooter stopped? While people like Grand Union won’t admit it, lives were probably saved when the shooter was taken down by gunfire. At the very least, the criminal action was brought to an end by the use of a firearm (i.e. if he hadn't received return fire, he would have kept on shooting people until he got tired or ran out of ammo). Yet Kellermann would NOT count this as a case of a gun stopping a crime because the gunman wasn’t killed when he was stopped.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 7, 8:12 a.m.

    “Only the NRA discredited them. Hardly a non biased source.” - Plenty Coups

    Every logical, intelligent person that understands statistics and reason has discredited them. Google and you’ll find plenty. Better yet, read it yourself. The only time he credits the positive use of a firearm is when the bad guy was shot dead. He doesn’t count wounding. He doesn’t count brandishing. He doesn’t count the thousands of other cases in which a firearm STOPPED the crime.

  • jjsmith1973 Feb 7, 12:26 a.m.

    @blackops762 I'm so sick of the Hitler took the guns comment. No he didn't. He did exactly the opposite. He relaxed the gun regulation that were put in place before he took power. GOD read a history book!

  • beachboater Feb 6, 5:14 p.m.

    hey GRAND UNION!!!!! Why don't the Brits ban bombs? I think there have been more killed / injured by bombs in England than in the U.S.

  • Plenty Coups Feb 6, 3:24 p.m.

    "Kellermann? The one that produced flawed analysis because he only counted DEAD bad guys instead of wounded, held at bay, scared off, etc.? His work has been discredited many times over."

    Only the NRA discredited them. Hardly a non biased source.

  • Pretzel Logic Feb 6, 3:20 p.m.

    RE : If guns were a prescription drug for personal safety the FDA would take them off the market in a heartbeat!

    How about OTC's like Tylenol ???

    Acetaminophen is a very dangerous drug, with a low level of toxicity, it kills and it has killed many over the years, That's what started the whole cyanide thingy way back yonder, one overdose,,, too much at one time or not enough time between doses CAN DAMAGE ONES LIVER BEYOND REPAIR such that a liver transplant is required, yet its all good...

    30,000 people are hospitalized and 500 die each year from acetaminophen overdoses.

    Still on the market though $$$

    I guess 500 a year dead from Tylenol is not such a big deal...???

    Cost Benefit $$$ Outweighs the risk and few 500 dead

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 3:10 p.m.

    “Guns never were a significant factor in other crime before or after the bans so of course the bans made almost no difference to crime rates.” – Grand Union

    Exactly. So quit pointing to the UK as a model for gun control.

    “So what the UK and germany etc show is what murder rates in the US would would be if guns were not so readily available here.” – Grand Union

    If the UK didn’t have higher gun murder rates before their ban, it’s non sequitur.

    “Its already been shown that they add nothing for personal safety” – Grand Union

    Wrong. It’s already been shown that thousands (both LEO and civilian) have saved themselves, others, and stopped crime with guns.

  • delta29alpha Feb 6, 2:59 p.m.

    There are 20 dead kids! its already happened!!! The only question is when will it happen again if we do nothing.

    Grand Union

    Yes of course it will happen again. Perhaps not the same way, maybe not even with firearms, but because man is imperfect and because man has intelligence, individuality and free will, there will always be tragic deaths, murder and mayhem from time to time. Therefore there will always be a legitimate need to protect oneself.

  • delta29alpha Feb 6, 2:47 p.m.

    Grand Union, it is evident that you chose not to defend yourself or your family, fine, It's your right. However, I and others choose to defend ourselves, and to arm ourselves and our families so that should the situation arise, we will have at the very least an even chance of survival. I have trained them and I am confident of their abilities. Will that guarantee their survival? no, neither will calling 911. I do believe that their odds of survival are significantly increased. It is the way we as a family choose to live and face life. We will never ask anyones permission to do so.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 2:43 p.m.

    “Murder rate in US - about 1 per 100,000, US rate 4 per 100,000” – Grand Union

    Uh, okay. Once again, give me the numbers of times people used their firearm to stop a crime. If you’re not using those numbers, your stats and odds are worthless.

    “blah, blah, blah….kellermann” – Grand Union

    Kellermann? The one that produced flawed analysis because he only counted DEAD bad guys instead of wounded, held at bay, scared off, etc.? His work has been discredited many times over.

    “all ODDS are not equal” – Grand Union

    You’re almost there! Now to COMPARE the odds for equality, you HAVE to have the numbers for positive gun uses. Understand?

    “There are 20 dead kids! its already happened!!!” – Grand Union

    There are thousands of people that saved themselves and others with guns, and stopped criminals. It’s already happened!!!

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 2:40 p.m.

    "The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an """individual's right to possess a firearm"""

    They also definitively say women can have abortions, but that doesn't stop people campaigning against abortion.....

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 2:37 p.m.

    "RE : no its not. guns are not even mentioned nor is ownership of guns. There is no right to bear anything other than a black powder single shot weapon.

    "Rubbish, Drool,,,"

    No really, go read it....no guns and nothing about you owning them. You have a right to bear "arms" them ie carry but it says nothing about the Country having to make them available for sale or that you have the right to own one. Go try building a hand portable A-Bomb or a shoulder launched anti aircraft missile and you will very quickly find out that you are very wrong.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 2:33 p.m.

    "The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an """individual's right to possess a firearm""" unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

    Yes and they specifically did not specify what a fire arm was.........a black powder musket or pistol is a firearm.

    The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Thankfully its "their ruling" and "not your opinion" that matters :)"

    Indeed and they said nothing that makes banning any specific kind of weapon unconstitutional. If anything they left the door wide open for such action and probably deliberately did so.

    Again go try and buy a stinger missile..

  • Pretzel Logic Feb 6, 2:32 p.m.

    RE : There are 20 dead kids! its already happened!!! The only question is when will it happen again if we do nothing.

    It would take a hundred years to get all the guns of the street...

    What are they doing """NOW TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN"""

    THEY ARE DOING NOTHING !!!!

    Your a smart guy, Be realistic, Don't Patronize?

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 2:29 p.m.

    "If guns didn’t factor in BEFORE the ban, then they certainly don’t factor in AFTER. If guns were the problem, then the UK should have had a significantly higher gun crime rate."

    Really? Do you want to think about that again? Guns were banned in the UK after two separate massacres.....the first in Hungerford resulted military style rifles being banned, the second in Dunblane resulted in hand guns being banned.

    These two incidents resulted in 33 deaths total.

    Guns never were a significant factor in other crime before or after the bans so of course the bans made almost no difference to crime rates.

    So what the UK and germany etc show is what murder rates in the US would would be if guns were not so readily available here. Its already been shown that they add nothing for personal safety, they do not deter crime (burglary rates are slightly higher in US than UK) so getting rid of them over time will almost certainly reduce the US murder rate considerably.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 2:13 p.m.

    "“one does not need exact figures to do the math” – Grand Union

    How about SOME figures? Anything? "

    Murder rate in US - about 1 per 100,000, US rate 4 per 100,000

    Guns ownership increase your chance of being killed by 2.7X

    http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

    "Just like you can’t prove there will ever be another shooting. But the ODDS are there will be, just like taking down a shooter likely saved lives. See how that works? "

    LOL all ODDS are not equal....don't take up the horses, you will lose big.

    "Of course, but you can’t PROVE someone is going to fire a bullet, or that if they fire that bullet it will be fatal. See, your silly semantics work against you. "

    There are 20 dead kids! its already happened!!! The only question is when will it happen again if we do nothing.

  • Pretzel Logic Feb 6, 1:58 p.m.

    RE : no its not. guns are not even mentioned nor is ownership of guns. There is no right to bear anything other than a black powder single shot weapon.

    Rubbish, Drool,,,

    The Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an """individual's right to possess a firearm""" unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

    The Court reasoned that the Amendment's prefatory clause, i.e., "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announced the Amendment's purpose, but did not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause, i.e., "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    Thankfully its "their ruling" and "not your opinion" that matters :)

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 1:34 p.m.

    “one does not need exact figures to do the math” – Grand Union

    How about SOME figures? Anything?

    “I said you cannot prove that they do.” – Grand Union

    Just like you can’t prove there will ever be another shooting. But the ODDS are there will be, just like taking down a shooter likely saved lives. See how that works?

    “I think the bullet wounds in the heads of all those kids would be quite solid proof that bullets do kill people.” – Grand Union

    Of course, but you can’t PROVE someone is going to fire a bullet, or that if they fire that bullet it will be fatal. See, your silly semantics work against you.

    “Its the relative lack of guns, before and after the gun bans” - Grand Union

    If guns didn’t factor in BEFORE the ban, then they certainly don’t factor in AFTER. If guns were the problem, then the UK should have had a significantly higher gun crime rate.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 1:32 p.m.

    "Because gun ownership is sanctioned in the constitution,"

    no its not. guns are not even mentioned nor is ownership of guns. There is no right to bear anything other than a black powder single shot weapon. All other weapons can be, and some are, restricted.....go try buying a stinger missile if you don't believe me.

  • schooldoctor Feb 6, 1:30 p.m.

    Learned yesterday that 8 out of the last 9 mass murders were committed by individuals with mental health problems. Why in the (^*%# are we so concerned about guns? They are not the problem they are the symptom. I guess we remove or restrict certain vehicles for death by motor vehicle. It is amazing the type people we elect to serve our needs.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 1:27 p.m.

    "I wish they would pass a law to give every single whining bloody pommie his fare back home to England."

    This isn't Oz and I'm not English. Just using my right to free speech under the 1st :)

  • grumpyhermit Feb 6, 1:09 p.m.

    The first three words of the 2nd Amendment are: "A well regulated..." Which of those words do you folks who wish to do away with gun regulation not understand?

    Because gun ownership is sanctioned in the constitution, and because "liberals" couldn't even get an amendment passed that stated simply that women should have equal rights to men, I am highly skeptical that the government will be coming for anyone's guns any time soon.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 12:43 p.m.

    "Grand Union, I can't help but notice your level of dissatisfaction with how we do things here compared to other developed countries. Perhaps you would be more content and feel safer in one of the other developed countries in the world."

    The US does lots of things better too but it would be really silly if I wrote trying to get those changed wouldn't it?

    I've got a better suggestion, how about you do a bit of traveling outside the US for say 40 years and then come back and lets see if you still think everything here is done as well as it could be :)

  • Pretzel Logic Feb 6, 12:41 p.m.

    I wish they would pass a law to give every single whining bloody pommie his fare back home to England.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 12:40 p.m.

    "Hmm, when I asked you if you actually had the numbers to do the “math thing” you said, “hard to get exact figures”. In other words, you’re not doing the math and you’re not using all the data (i.e. you ignore the cases of POSTIVE differences)."

    one does not need exact figures to do the math.....really did you skip everything at school??? And lets see your EXACT figures for the positive diffrences :)

    “they increase the risk to the gun owner by at least 3X that they will be killed by a gun” – Grand Union

    Proven wrong given you’re not doing the “math thing” with all the data."

    wrong again....

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

    Its a science thing.......

  • Bendal1 Feb 6, 12:39 p.m.

    Wow, the gun-lovers are really serious about pushing their "moar guns" agenda, aren't they? First it was "give us CCW ability!", well they got it. Now it's "our rights are infringed on because we can't carry in a business!". Looks like they'll soon get that too. I'm surprised the NRA hasn't started lobbying for laws requiring parents buy a gun for every child reaching the age of 12, and laws allowing guns in planes, in government offices, and other people's homes.

    You all do realize the NRA stopped being an organization for gun owners and became a PR firm for gun makers a long time ago, right?

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 12:35 p.m.

    "

    You're claiming a single life has never been saved by killing a murderer in the act of killing people? See what your anti-gun religion is doing to you? You can’t even make a rational statement. And just yesterday you said, ““Yes guns do sometimes perhaps save lifes”. "

    no, learn to read or rather learn to comprehend what you are reading, I said you cannot prove that they do.

    "Your silly semantics could also say that you can’t absolutely prove that another person on the planet will die of a gunshot wound. You can quote the odds, but you can’t prove it. See how that works? "

    wrong again. I think the bullet wounds in the heads of all those kids would be quite solid proof that bullets do kill people.

    "Given those other countries were the same rate BEFORE their gun bans, it’s a faulty comparison."

    Wrong yet again. No one claimed that the gun bans in the UK made much difference to the rates. Its the relative lack of guns, before and after the gun bans that result in

  • rokmsokm99 Feb 6, 12:29 p.m.

    Grand Union, I can't help but notice your level of dissatisfaction with how we do things here compared to other developed countries. Perhaps you would be more content and feel safer in one of the other developed countries in the world.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 12:06 p.m.

    “you have no way of showing that guns save a single life” – Grand Union

    You're claiming a single life has never been saved by killing a murderer in the act of killing people? See what your anti-gun religion is doing to you? You can’t even make a rational statement. And just yesterday you said, ““Yes guns do sometimes perhaps save lifes”.

    Your silly semantics could also say that you can’t absolutely prove that another person on the planet will die of a gunshot wound. You can quote the odds, but you can’t prove it. See how that works?

    “because the status quo is killing americans 4X as fast” – Grand Union

    Given those other countries were the same rate BEFORE their gun bans, it’s a faulty comparison.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 11:48 a.m.

    “multiple that by the odds you actually own a gun makes any positive difference to the outcome (its a math thing) and the odds become vanishingly small.” – Grand Union

    Hmm, when I asked you if you actually had the numbers to do the “math thing” you said, “hard to get exact figures”. In other words, you’re not doing the math and you’re not using all the data (i.e. you ignore the cases of POSTIVE differences).

    “they increase the risk to the gun owner by at least 3X that they will be killed by a gun” – Grand Union

    Proven wrong given you’re not doing the “math thing” with all the data.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 11:32 a.m.

    "Likewise, why the need to ban weapons in the face of slim odds? If it’s an odds game, why not maintain the status quo?"

    because the status quo is killing americans 4X as fast.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 11:31 a.m.

    "Given the only stats you’re willing to consider are heavily flawed (i.e. they only count DEAD bad guys and not the THOUSANDS of cases in which a gun saves), you have no way of really knowing that. "

    and you have no way of showing that guns save a single life let alone thousands for exactly the same reason, there is no way of knowing that. So given that neither are knowable we have to go with what is known...the US has 4X the murder rate of comparable countries and almost all those murders are carried out with guns.

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 11:28 a.m.

    "Using 2011 FBI crime data, the likelihood that you will be a victim of any kind of violent crime is 3/10 of 1 percent. So, all of the talk of having to defend yourself seems a bit overblown."

    and then you have to multiple that by the odds you actually own a gun makes any positive difference to the outcome (its a math thing) and the odds become vanishingly small. Now that wouldn't really matter if the guns didn't have any harmful side affects, but they do......they increase the risk to the gun owner by at least 3X that they will be killed by a gun (usually their own) and then we have to add the mayhem caused by criminals and nuts when they get hold of the guns we make so easy to get.

    If guns were a prescription drug for personal safety the FDA would take them off the market in a heartbeat!

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 11:27 a.m.

    “Yes. The US has 4X the murder rate of comparable Western democracies whilst other crimes rate are broadly the same.” - Grand Union

    But you’ve admitted that even before those “comparable” democracies enacted sweeping gun control measures, guns were not part of the problem, thus it had no effect. So you can’t compare them with regards as to what will happen with gun control in the U.S. because they are NOT comparable democracies when it comes to gun crimes. Not saying gun control wouldn’t matter, just that your logic is faulty in trying to compare the countries given it’s not apples to apples.

    “Why the paranoid need for weapons in the face of slim odds?” - Tony Snark

    Likewise, why the need to ban weapons in the face of slim odds? If it’s an odds game, why not maintain the status quo?

  • Grand Union Feb 6, 11:06 a.m.

    "So why all the fuss ? Is Gun Crime out of control?"

    Yes. The US has 4X the murder rate of comparable Western democracies whilst other crimes rate are broadly the same.

  • masontom56 Feb 6, 11:05 a.m.

    “Sadly having a gun greatly increases the risk to your family not decreases it” – Grand Union

    Yea and people who own a ladder have greater chance to fall off them than people who don't own one...

  • Tony Snark Feb 6, 10:57 a.m.

    So why all the fuss ?

    Is Gun Crime out of control?

    or is it just Violent Crime out of control?

    Are there too many guns or just 3/10 of 1% chance...

    Which is it?

    Pretzel Logic

    Why the paranoid need for weapons in the face of slim odds?

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 10:56 a.m.

    “odds are that no matter how good they are the attacker is going to win any firefight.” – Grand Union

    True, if just looking at the hypothetical situation you’ve setup, it would seem that the odds are in favor of the criminal. But odds don’t absolutely define the outcome. And as ACTUAL incidents have shown, the armed attackers HAVE been stopped:

    http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/2009/jul/12/shot121_20090711-230802-ar-37595

    http://now.msn.com/71-year-old-man-in-internet-cafe-shoots-robbers

    http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMGPublications/AmericanHandgunner/AHJA09/?page=62

    http://www.examiner.com/article/armed-homeowner-shoots-intruders-while-children-have-sleepover

    http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/articles/cfn/2012/8/7/security_guard_shoot.html

    Let me know if you need more...

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 10:45 a.m.

    “He fired ONE shot with the shotgun into the crowd.” – Plenty Coups

    From the reports I read, he fired the shotgun until empty. It was a Rem 870 tactical. Mine holds 6+1 rounds. Depending on the type of ammo and range, 7 rounds can certainly hit WAY more than 7 people.

    “Please show me examples of huge amounts of victims caused by shotguns in very short periods of time.” – Plenty Coups

    Irrelevant as to what a shotgun CAN do.

    “like at the Raleigh gun show, most people will survive a shotgun unless its at close range” – Grand Union

    When you were Haggis Basher, you claimed to have shot a pigeon. You do realize the difference between birdshot and buckshot, right?

  • Pretzel Logic Feb 6, 10:42 a.m.

    RE : Using 2011 FBI crime data, the likelihood that you will be a victim of any kind of violent crime is 3/10 of 1 percent. So, all of the talk of having to defend yourself seems a bit overblown.

    So why all the fuss ?

    Is Gun Crime out of control?

    or is it just Violent Crime out of control?

    Are there too many guns or just 3/10 of 1% chance...

    Which is it?

  • Pretzel Logic Feb 6, 10:38 a.m.

    RE : Not at all, but since the attacker has the gun out and ready, pointing at the victim, is wide awake and high on adrenaline and the poor victim is sleepy and surprised and does not have gun out and pointed at attacker.......odds are that no matter how good they are the attacker is going to win any firefight.

    When you build your own scenario the odds can be whatever you want them to be.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 10:30 a.m.

    “If you can't defend yourself with a revolver or a double barreled shotgun an AR-15 isn't going to be much of a help.” - Grand Union

    It depends on the situation.

    “Obama has already been shot at....have you?” - Grand Union

    I have. :) But I concede the point that the President is MUCH more likely to be shot.

  • Tony Snark Feb 6, 10:26 a.m.

    "RE : You keep having the same difficulty in grasping that just because something can happen that it doesn't mean that its even remotely likely that it will."

    Using 2011 FBI crime data, the likelihood that you will be a victim of any kind of violent crime is 3/10 of 1 percent. So, all of the talk of having to defend yourself seems a bit overblown.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 10:23 a.m.

    “Sadly having a gun greatly increases the risk to your family not decreases it” – Grand Union

    Given the only stats you’re willing to consider are heavily flawed (i.e. they only count DEAD bad guys and not the THOUSANDS of cases in which a gun saves), you have no way of really knowing that.

    “If he also has a gun and has the element of surprise how is a gun going to help other than giving him another gun?” – Grand Union

    True, the gun MIGHT not help, but that’s irrelevant because as ACTUAL incidents (you know, the ones you ignore) have shown, it has helped and stopped the crime. Our troops are often snipped, hit with IEDs, and ambushed, but that doesn’t mean we should send them out unarmed. A woman armed at least gives the POSSIBILITY of equalizing or giving an advantage. Otherwise she’s just another victim.

  • Lightfoot3 Feb 6, 10:04 a.m.

    “So banks shouldn't have secure ATMs just because one is pulled through a wall by a backhoe????” – Grand Union

    I was referencing the “no problem” part, where one would put a sign out saying “expensive guns inside”. I wouldn’t recommend the sign, even if the guns are in a safe because of the stated reasons.

    “and I have insurance to cover that” – Grand Union

    That’s dandy, although not everyone is in that upper percent you brag about, so their insurance on material items, if they have any insurance at all, might not be as good.

    “and nothing I own is worth starting a fire fight over” - Grand Union

    Agree, although as precedence has shown, more and more it’s also a personal attack upon the occupants.

Oldest First