hell yes Brandon.

This event that took place was tragic and horrible but it has absolutely nothing to do with Gun Control! I am grateful the it's not YOU that gets to make the decision about whether or not I will be able to adequately defend myself, my family and my friends if need be.

If he would have driven his super fast car into a crowd of people and killed the same amount of people, would you have called for the ban of fast cars? Blame the person, not the weapon.

If it was the guns fault then I guess we should just let the guy who pulled the trigger go then right? I mean guns kill people right...Had nothing to do with the guy from the way anti gun advocates put it...anti gun advocates need to take their butts out there and talk to people who saved their family from intruders...which happens by the way every 20 minutes in America....when are you going to be included in those 20 minutes? You have no idea but chances are your going to be at one point in time and you better be prepared....Gun rights are not just for hunting food,They are to stop tyranny...Take a look at Burma where the military,secrete police,shoot people in the streets for wanting a peaceful government and wanting to be free...If you don't like guns take your butt to somewhere that does not allow guns and see how it is there....never mind the fact people kill people by the masses with machetes,hammers,knives,....vehicles...every day all over America there are more hit and runs than shootings...Won't ban cars though will ya...might interfere with your life..

Why won't you put the story in about the 71 year old man that shot 2 robbers that came into an Internet cafe...the robbers ran out so fast the one robber knocked down his buddy and stepped on his head...both robbers were shot in the arm,hip,and butt...why don't you put the story where the single mother who lost her kid had 3 men come up to her while she was in the car and had a gun pulled on her...she thought well I am going to die then I am going to do it on my terms and drew her gun from her purse which she was legally allowed to carry it and shot all 3 men..no one killed,Or the mother that was saved when a guy tried to carjack her and 2 guys with CCW came up put a gun to the guys head and made him sit down until the police showed up,how about the one where the liquor store lady in California was getting robbed and the guy behind the robber put a gun to his head and made the guy put his gun down and sit until the cops got there.Or the guy in Florida that came out of the bar got into his car and had to shoot someone for trying to rob him...Or the U.S. Marine in Michigan that when the group of black people ran through a crowed of people and started beating up the while people he was in the car with his family and pulled his gun out...they left his car alone...he said he didn't care the color he just cared about his family...where are these stories at?.....

As Average Joe said, "Blame the person, not the weapon"!

I choose to own guns because I never want to be a victim. If someone breaks into your house and has bad intentions a plastic spatula is not much of "stopper". Bullets and guns do not kill people. A gun has never made the decision to fire a bullet at someone. There is a person that does that.

I think it all comes down to one of the sentences from your editorial, "The shooter was going to do something despicable and irrational regardless of who was holding a gun in that theater." So if it wasn't a gun, he would have planted some of the same IEDs that he rigged in his apartment in the movie theater. The dude was just crazy. The guy had a neuroscience degree and could only get a job at McDonalds ... a perfect example of why we should be focusing on the economy and jobs.

I think the issue most people have is not the fact that guns should be allowed, but the type of gun that can purchased by the average person. Semi automatic/assault type weapons have no business being in the general population. The 2nd amendment gives people the right to bear arms. Just because it's our right, doesn't mean we need to bear arms that are capable of swift and mass destruction..that's all. Have your handgun, have your hunting rifle, as long as your state laws allow for it, of course. These should be more than sufficient for your protection, sport, hobby, etc. if that's what you choose. Perhaps fewer people would have lost their lives had he not used that semi automatic...he may not have gotten off as many rounds. It's true that guns do not kill people, but crazy people with exceptionally dangerous weapons kill people.

Guns and abortion....two arguments that go on and on. Why? Because government has poked it's nose into a personal decision that is and will be decided by the individual anyway. Those who don't like guns will not and should not own one...especially if they are not trained in the safety issues. Those who want an abortion will get one, one way or another. It is a personal decision they make and live with. Less Government...less arguments over guns and abortions...me thinks. Dont like it...don't do it...it's *your* choice. Leave the other guy alone. As an aside...you will never get rid of all the guns and you will never stop all the abortions.

So had he not had a gun everything would have been fine?

Anyone remember Tim McVeigh?

We can't pillow and bubblewrap the world. Evil doers are going to do evil. We should be happy this intelligent individual only used firearms or this entire situation could have been much worse.

A wacko will always get his or her hands on a weapon, if motivated. And I say that as someone who supports gun control.

Brandon: It looks like you got two votes of agreement out of 17 votes cast. Limit the allowable capabilities of weapons designed only for killing people and eliminate the capabability to buy materials used to make explosives (unless for legitimate business). When all of the firearms are in the hands of the bad guys and a handfull of police we will no longer exist as a nation.

Ask anyone in Chicago how that gun ban is working out for them. Maybe when the media stops playing up to these one time horrible incidents and starts to hold accountable our courts and lawmakers for making the punishment outweigh the crime, then there will be some sense in hand. These types of incidents will never be stopped and will happen regardless. If you want to talk killing, just look at the amount of gun violence in Chicago, why doesn't our lawmakers stop this? Why are these felons repeatedly let out back on the streets? I can tell you why, it does not make good news, that's why. Let me see you rant every time someone who committed a crime with a gun walks free out of the jails, then you will be doing some reporting that makes a difference. Why don't you name the judges who give lenient sentences to the repeat offenders, spend your time reporting something worthwhile and not jumping on the media slamming bandwagon.

Brandon I kissed my daughter goodbye this morning while she lay in bed sleeping. And I'll kiss her when we go hunting and when we go fishing and when we go target shooting and when we go out to learn to drive my truck. But if she ever comes home with a lilly livered tree hugger like you I'll give her a boot in the ass. It's one thing to feel bad about what happened and outraged at one insane individual. It's another to expect the other 700 million of us to pay for it. Are you secretly Richie Daley?

Wonder if the guy was doped up. There's been some reports that he was taking Vicodin (same thing that helped kill Heath Ledger.) Who know's whether or not that would cause anyone to go off the deep end. Time will tell (and blood tests.)
It sure seems big pharma drugs have more to do with killings then the guns themselves.
Makes you wonder.

Batman Colorado shooting: James Holmes fixated by altered states of mind http://bit.ly/Og69id

The connection between violence, suicide, homicide, and antidepressants http://bit.ly/PpquTn

Brandon, you carry a very Utopian mindset of total peace throughout mankind. That is a very hopeful message you have written. I and so many others can only wish for an America such as this. Unfortunately (and I do mean very unfortunately) that is just not Reality. Someday you could very well be able to thank someone that is a registered conceal and carry person for possibly saving the life of that person that you so love. Those that conceal and carry , legally, have the training and the sense to act when needed, they are not "John Waynes and Clint Eastwoods" . They no more want to take a life than you want to see one taken. Not 'Heroes', just people wanting to stop a 'beast' with a gun or whatever. What really sickens me is the way our justice system will place the burden of caring for a 'monster' such as this on the taxpayers. Well... enough said by me, I just wanted to defend those that actually believe in conceal and carry rights. It's one of those never ending debates. If it comes down to me and my family or 'him', I'm picking me and my family.

Your words "but the telltale signs have been emerging that this person was going to do something. The shooter was going to do something despicable and irrational regardless of who was holding a gun in that theater." give me reason to be a gun owner. Why should I make myself an easy target for some whacko? Most everyone in America owns guns or are protected by guns..(when you call 911 the police show up carrying guns) . Like it or not you live in a world that is not perfect so get used to it or get a gun.

I have always wondered why gun owners are *asking* for illinois to approve carry laws. It seems the Supreme Court ruled to back up the rights given ...the right to keep and bear arms. Why are we asking? It would seem that there is no consequence for just doing it! An arrest for breaking the law? What law would hold up as being constitutional. I learned as a kid that asking for permission, when it was assumed to be ok anyway, just got me into a real inquisition and probably a NO.

No product listed above, except for firearms, is designed specifically to kill. Comparing guns to cars or Vicodin is the argument of someone who knows that they're wrong, but they don't have the self esteem to live day to day without a weapon to prove their strength. Guns are for people who are too weak to use their minds. I'm not talking about hunting rifles, or antique weapons that the Founding Fathers would have recognized. I'm referring to automatic weapons.

What do automatic weapons have to do with anything? They weren't used here, most people can't own them.

Honestly, I wish everyone would have read my article. I get the impression many of you glossed over it. Specifically the parts where I say that i'm not against people having guns to protect their homes, and guns to hunt with.

What i've spoken out against is semi-automatic rifles and conceal and carry. The cons far outweigh the pros. Guns kill people. The bullets don't kill people by being thrown. They kill people when they are fired out of a gun.

Everyone who mentioned having a gun if you were in the theater. You CANNOT know how you would react when put in the same situation. It's simply not possible. Unless you are a cop or fought in a war, you don't know how you will react when put in the situation. You can hope you will remain calm under pressure. But you won't know.

What if you kill people in the crossfire? What if you shoot a family member trying to escape past you?

Why is a semi-automatic rifle necessary? That's what nobody is answering. Why do you need a gun that can fire at a rate of at least 60 shots per minute? Are you going to strafe your house in case of a burglary? Do you not worry about hitting a family member in another room by shooting through a wall?

"I don't, on the other hand, understand conceal-and-carry advocates, nor do I understand people who need to own semi-automatic rifles." I agree with you. I have no doubt many other readers do, too, but can't stomach the illogical rhetoric of glassy-eyed gun lovers who begin foaming at the mouth the second any sort of gun control is mentioned. Yes, people kill people. Yes, this guy probably would have worked out a plan of some kind regardless of weapon. Wearing full body armor and obscuring vision with gas canisters while using the specific type of weapon he was using invites discussion that moves past I LOVE GUNS I LOVE GUNS SHUT UP YOU SOCIALIST HIPPIE sort of responses. And now I'll turn off e-mail notifications so I'm not depressed by I LOVE GUNS SHUT UP responses. I'd love to hear from logical, rational, responsible gun owners though. I know there are a lot of them out there.

What constitutes a logical, rational, well thought out opinion on gun control?
.
.
.
Someone sharing the same opinion as me, of course.

For those who believe someone with a handgun in the audience could have stopped this guy, I offer the following observations:

1. He was wearing body armor, 2. He used a tear gas like substance prior to beginning his killing spree, 3. He was carrying an an arsenal of weapons (ar-15 semi-auto with large capacity magazine, shotgun, hand gun and a substantial amount of ammunition, 4. It was a crowded, darkened theater and after he began his assault it was pandemonium en-masse 5. Trained police, SWAT and military members have stated openly that even with their extensive training, practice and actual experience for dealing with such scenarios, they would not have been able to take down this individual or get off a clean kill shot, 6. Even if you've had the concealed carry or open carry training and certification, very few if any of you have been in a situation where someone was shooting back with live ammunition or even simulated rounds, 7. his rate of fire and firepower, along with the conditions and environment factors, gave him the tactical and strategic advantages, 8. you would have been, at best, a minor and momentary inconvenience for the shooter and most likely his next 'target of opportunity' 9. the likelihood of you killing or wounding even more innocents in the cross fire is rather significant and almost guaranteed.

Look forward to factually based substantive responses, rebuttals or refutations.

cont'd from last post:

In closing, I'll offer you a challenge should you wish to respond.

Cite ONE incident in the past 30-50 years in which an armed civilian was able to take out, end or even be partially responsible for ending, wounding, killing or assisting in apprehending an individual or group engaged in a scenario like the one in Aurora, CO, AZ, VA Tech, NIU, or other one. (note: armed robberies, home invasions, street violence do NOT count and are disqualified, they are not not on par with the situation, circumstance and scenario you wish others to believe (or delude yourself into believing is accurate or feasible) would result from armed civilians intervening or to prevent such incidents.

There is nothing wrong, in my opinion (and many others'), with owning guns for protection or hunting. What need, though, does one have to walk around with a concealed weapon on their person all the time? Just because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms? In the event that another tragedy could take place at the same time and location one happens to be there?
First, there was a more dire need to be able to have a gun on one's person in colonial times compared to today.
Second, nobody really needs to go grocery shopping with a handgun stowed in their waistband. The chances of you being in the same place at the same time say, a hold-up, is occurring are statistically pretty rare. There are certainly isolated incidents of tragedy but why live in fear?
One can argue that carrying a concealed weapon is just a prudent safety measure. One can also argue, however, the likelihood of ever having to use that weapon. Look, there's always going to be the "Well, what if?" You can't live your life based on what if's. What if there's the off-chance I'll drown in Lake Michigan? Better cancel that boating trip. You know, just in case.
At the end of the day, there are always going to be people on the opposite side of the fence as you. When you aren't willing the take the time to hear out the other side and get defensive and insulting instead... well, you can imagine why progress in society isn't being made.

Tyranny.

You go first.

U.N Small Arms Treaty.

Perhaps if someone in the audience of the movie had a conceal-carry, they may have tried to stop the evil suspect...maybe not. I still like those chances. It happened so fast, while the movie was playing, in a poorly lit theater. Along with smoke cannisters, and the suspect wearing tactical clothes...if anyone could have gotten off a shot to stop this wacko...it still would have been too late! The guy cranked out a lot of rounds, from that AR-15, before it jammed. This entire situation, has NOTHING to do with gun-control. Bad guys are always going to get guns. Not an easy answer to this mess. Do we allow citizens to OPEN-CARRY? Do we allow CONCEAL-CARRY? Another thing that does NOT make sense...is why allow Conceal-Carry...only to have "no-weapons" signage upon entering many public buildings?? I'll bet that theater had a "No Guns" sign. I guess the suspect didn't read...but all the people with VALID CC permits left their gun at home. (Only a $50 fine, if caught with a gun, in a building where it is prohibited--most states) Also...it seems logical, that where large crowds gather...there should be some type of security/police presence. WOW!! THAT'S a 'no-brainer'!! All the unemployment in this Country...a good start on the problem.

Tay...how relaxed would you be, out of gas, and walking on the south side of Chicago? Better yet, living there like a lot of good people do.
As to your boating example. We have emergency first aid kits, tire repair kits in the truck, life preservers in the boat, safety belts in the car...all that JUST IN CASE WE NEED IT! No gun carry person see themself as an 'off duty cop' looking to be in the right place at the right time to do something heroic. Rather, it's a simply matter of personal protection WHEN AND IF NEEDED. Get it?

If we could carry a gun, I believe there would be less killings. Would you go up to someone, thinking they may have a gun and try to shot them, rob them, rape them? I wouldn't. People kill not the guns, The question is, why was he allowed to buy so much with out a waiting period? Or even buy all he did? Even if they say we can't have guns, people can still get them on the black market. There is aways a way to. buy illegal stuff, that is not right.

Edward Andrysiak
7:26 pm on Tuesday, July 24, 2012
If body armor worked as well as you think we wouldn't have any flag drapped caskets would we. You pose a lot of good questions and no one really knows the answers. One hypo you missed is what *might* that coward really have done if someone was shooting back. If he wasn't concerned about dying himself...why the body protection effort in the first place. Trying to win an argument with non fact facts don't get it! Anti gun folks will forever have to thank a gun person for their continued freedom...now thats a fact.

Edward: typical evasions and rhetoric...the deaths and injuries of our troops are from many non-shooting related causes (IED's and others) plus body armor has limitations for piercing, fragmentation or other types of penetration beyond bullets. You should know that, plus non-combat related deaths.

Edward: I am not anti-gun or one of hte ban all guns, weapons, etc types. That is just a cheap shot and holds no water or validity as a reasoned, factual response.
Same goes for much of your other comments and observation/response.

Playing the 'what if things had been different, they wouldn't have been the same' card is moot and irrelevant. Has no direct bearing on this, since it is an not an actual question with factual or definable/testable results or answers. You know that as well as I or many others, it's just more rhetorical posturing attempting to masquerade as a viable point. Same goes with the 'why was he wearing body armor' ploy...yes he obviously wanted to have protection and had planned out his tactics and strategy well in advance.

I was offering points for consideration, based on what we know thus far. Show me where the logic, errors, etc are in my listed points. I note also you nor anyone else has been able to cite one actual incident where your 'armed citizen' scenario has actually occurred. the 'silence and lack of substantiated cases speaks volumes, IMO.

Could this guy have a point?

Colorado Man Tells Us Why He Owns An Assault Rifle

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/colorado-man-tells-us-why-he-owns-an-assault-rifle-2012-7#ixzz21dvAVP4i

When it comes down to it, we have the RIGHT TO BARE ARMS.
The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. We need to get back to where our founding fathers were so the Great America that is falling apart can get back on track. May GOD BLESS AMERICA, if you don't like it, move to a different country.

Here are some links you may find interesting:
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx?p
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PDzE55esIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTHc4H_i8DY&feature=related

To all of those that review above they should now be Educated enough to realize that the weapons used by the Colorado shooter function EXACTLY the same as a simple revolver - you pull the trigger once and ONE round is fired, you pull the trigger again and a second round is fired.
There is no difference in functionality, it is just that some firearms "look" scarier than others. Those that just "look" scary are the ones the lame street media and anti-gun types label as "assault" weapons for political gun grabbing purposes.

Tom: but there's a significant difference in the lethality between a handgun round and one from an AR-15 or similar weapons. Add on that hand guns are close quarter weapons compared to rifles and similar firearms. It's comparing apples to orangutans.

Just because one round is expended/trigger pull is moot and has no bearing when comparing ballistic profiles, kinetic energy, accuracy, etc. Try again...

Laura: Try reading the SCOTUS "Heller Ruling', which defines and determines the limits and rights under the 2nd amendment. It also states very clearly there is a legal right to enact laws, regulations and limits for private ownership/possession of firearms. That is not rhetoric or subjective perspective, it is the official law of the land and black letter law.

Roseann: "She was on the security team", home invasions are not equivalent to the CO or other situations, hence that one also doesn't carry weight nor factually backup proving there has been one documented incident of a civilian taking out the shooter.

Also, for historical perspectives, do you recall the shootout in Norht Hollywood in 1997? That was with the full engagement of the LAPD...and a fairly comparable situation.

Here's a refresher on that in case you don't recall it:

North Hollywood shootout
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Edward: "As for proof of one instance where a mass shooter was brought down by a CC person...I do not believe that has occured...YET."

Thank you for proving and validating my earlier point(s), when/if it should ever happen I will be among those singing hte praises and offering accolades to the individual(s) responsible. But I won't be expecting it anytime in the near future or even longterm eventuality. As the saying goes "anythings possible but only a few things actually happen"

Steve, there are Many handguns that use ammunition that is much more powerful / lethal than many rifle rounds. Would you rather get shot by a .22 rifle round or a .45 hollow point pistol round. Try again Steve.

Heller decision: fire arms in common use. Semi-automatics are most commonly used handguns and rifles!

TOm: He also had a shotgun, which as was and still is the favorite and possibly the best choice for close quarter or mid range. how many rounds, compared to the handguns, did the shooter have in his magazine in the ar-15? (ohh yeah, you only have a limited number of available rounds in your handgun, even with the semi-autos using a clip feed) the ar-15 can put many more 'rounds on target' in a comparable amount of time. hollow points are illegal to the best of my recall and not openly sold or available for the consumer market. same with so called black talon and other rounds designed specifically to pierce or defeat body armor or ballistic protective materials.

Tom: my mistake, intended to state 'the shooter can continue shooting without required to reload long after you need to change clips' not 'put more rounds on target in comparable time period' (momentary distractions and multiple trains of thought don't generally result in transferring one's points from the mind to the fingertips..felt a correction was called for on my part, or at the least a clarification and re-statement)

Tom: I also appear to have been mistaken re: hollow point ammo, I am attempting to refresh my information re: that matter from reliable sources who are more familiar with pertinent regulations, laws etc.and can cite them or reference them, along with where and when they are applicable.

Steve, you are mistaken on many counts!!

Tom: as are you, sir...but you don't seem flustered about that or offer any substantive or facts to back up your opinions or personal views... but then that's rather par for the course and not something that is uncommon.

Tom:Care to refute or offer rebuttal to these pertinent facts perchance:

In the U.S. for 2010, there were 31,513 deaths from firearms, distributed as follows by mode of death: Suicide 19,308; Homicide 11,015; Accident 600. This makes firearms injuries one of the top ten causes of death in the U.S. The number of firearms-related injuries in the U.S., both fatal and non-fatal, increased through 1993, declined to 1999, and has remained relatively constant since. However, firearms injuries remain a leading cause of death in the U.S., particularly among youth (CDC, 2001) (Sherry et al, 2012).
...
The number of non-fatal injuries is considerable--over 200,000 per year in the U.S. Many of these injuries require hospitalization and trauma care. A 1994 study revealed the cost per injury requiring admission to a trauma center was over $14,000. The cumulative lifetime cost in 1985 for gunshot wounds was estimated to be $911 million, with $13.4 billion in lost productivity. (Mock et al, 1994) The cost of the improper use of firearms in Canada was estimated at $6.6 billion per year. (Chapdelaine and Maurice, 1996)

cont'd:
The issue of "home defense" or protection against intruders or assailants may well be misrepresented. A study of 626 shootings in or around a residence in three U.S. cities revealed that, for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann et al, 1998). Over 50% of all households in the U.S. admit to having firearms (Nelson et al, 1987). In another study, regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). Persons who own a gun and who engage in abuse of intimate partners such as a spouse are more likely to use a gun to threaten their intimate partner. (Rothman et al, 2005). Individuals in possession of a gun at the time of an assault are 4.46 times more likely to be shot in the assault than persons not in possession (Branas et al, 2009). It would appear that, rather than being used for defense, most of these weapons inflict injuries on the owners and their families.

Barry: Thanks for you corrections earlier to my post re: hollow point ammunition. I stand corrected and appreciate the tone of your response.

Here are a few other pertinent facts and details on the 'alledged' shooters arsenal to keep this grounded in reality, not rhetorical hyperbole or speculations:

The Associated Press noted that Holmes had received 50 packages at home and school and The Times' Jack Healy reported that he "ordered a Blackhawk Urban Assault Vest, a knife and two magazine holders," from sites like Tactical Gear. He also bought "3,000 rounds for an assault rifle and 350 shells for a 12-gauge shotgun — an amount of firepower that costs roughly $3,000 at the online sites — in the four months before the shooting, according to the police." A 100-round magazine (at left) for the AR-15 he allegedly used (pictured above), itself an assault rifle formerly banned by the federal government, goes for $144.11 on a site called Cheaper than Dirt. Police found one such magazine in the theater. He also allegedly had a 12-gauge shotgun, two .40-caliber Glock pistols, and a full suit of body armor, which made him nearly indistinguishable from the SWAT team members who responded to the shooting, Aurora Police Chief Dan Oates said on Face the Nation on Sunday.

the above all purchase legally from online sources. here's a snapshot of the 100 round magazine he used as well for those 'dead eye dan's' out there who make claims of being able to get off a hypothetical 'perfect shot' under fire without collateral injuries or rounds going off target.

http://cdn.theatlanticwire.com/img/upload/2012/07/23/magazine.07232012.jpg

Add to that facing a 12 guage shotgun, the two glocks (a fav for both law enforcement and those seeking to kill and maim) and 350 rounds of shotgun shells.

Ya you're pistol or sidearm will 'get the job done' that a SWAT Team can't accomplish and a trained sniper would most likely hesitate to take if one was there and prepared to actively engage.

Also note he had a full body suit of protective gear, so you are again quite limited in your opportunities to take out the bad guy or even put him down before he can re-engage or get off more rounds.

Steve, my hat is off to you, man. I knew I wouldn't get much support by posting this. Pro-Gun people aren't people that listen to reason, or are willing to change, and have a tendency to have a temper tantrum when you speak of their way of living not being the same as your own.

You are bringing up some amazing facts and points. They aren't. I do appreciate your thoughts throughout this thread.

Brandon: Just offering some perspective, opinions and salient facts as I'm able to do so. Fallible, flawed and subject to revision or change as cases or facts are offered. I like to believe at the least I attempt to keep things from degenerating into inflamed personal attacks or needless insults.

THanks for posting your original blog piece and broaching this matter. Such conversations need to be aired, engaged and discussed, not evaded on a societal and individual level, IMO.

All the best to each and all, along with your responses and rebuttals.
I will end my contributions as it seems to have run it's course for the time being.

Steve, I own a business with employees who count on me. I, unfortunately, do not have a lot of free time on my hands to scour the Internet for statistics to back my position. Those of us that are wise know antone can spew out numbers and make them work either way. May I suggest you read "More Guns, Less Crime", I believe in it's 3rd or 4th edition now.
Re: some of the things u stated above: big number of suicides by firearms. They would have killed themselves anyway! IF I had the time and was not living in my parents basement I could in fact dispute and provide statistics to counter each and evey one of your claims! Point being, u r an anti-gunner, we get it. Then don't get one. Let me ask u this though, it's 2am & ur sleeping in ur moms basement. 2 guys break in and intend on killing u and doing things to ur mom. What would u rather have, a phone to call 911, a baseball bat, a knife, or a firearm???

Brandon, may I suggest you do exhaustive research on your own? Also, ask your self the same, last, question listed above!!

Illinois State Police website suggest that women in the process of being abducted/raped should vomit on themselves to make themselves LESS attractive to the felons! Women, would you rather carry a tongue depressed on u to help yourself vomit, OR a firearm that you have trained and practiced with??? Your call!!
49 out of the 50 states allow law abiding citizens to carry firearms for Legal Defensive purposes!!!
Criminals, by their very nature do NOT obey Gun Laws!!!

Tom: I just so happen to be semi-retired, living in my own home and enjoyed a 31 year in telecommunications. I was also a data analyst for nearly 10 of those years. Hence my grounding in statistics, facts and empirical data. Not that it will make an iota of difference in your opinion of me, my views or validity of the points I offered. I congratulate you on your professional success and accomplishments in turn.

In passing, just because a book, of whatever topic or subject matter has enjoyed multiple releases or editions denotes it has been successful in the market place. It is not, as a rule, positive irrefutable proof of the validity of it's facts, premises, etc. Certain books do enjoy being the 'gold standard', the one you cited may well be one of those within its subject matter.

I bid you a good night, sir and again thank you for your responses. I will keep the book you commended in mind, look into it for my reading lists.

Good night sir. If you are opened minded, which it appears, contact me after you have read and analyzed it.
I'll be happy to welcome you aboard!

Tom: I would also remind you of those 'pesky statistics' again on the percentages and number of accidental shootings, killings, self injury or becoming a victim of you 'hypothetical people breaking into your home'... along with the number of innocent family members who get mistaken for intruders or get caught in the crossfire or line of fire.

Also, I am not anti-gun nor wish or advocate they be banned nor other available means of self protection. However I do believe in and advocate for well reasoned and sane gun regulations and controls within our society. As I'm sure you know, they had gun control measures in place and practice in the old west and pioneer days. For sound reasons and common agreement by the members of the cities and locations where folks went to settle and build a viable, civil and reasonably peaceful society.

You may or may not concur or agree with those of us who hold such beliefs but we are not all cut from the same cloth as you propose, nor do I hold everyone sharing your views is a 'shoot first and don't be bothered with questions', no limits extremist.

I would hope (and believe) we can at the least accept and agree there is room for debate and refinements to our 2nd amendment rights, along with the responsibilities and consequences that come with them.

Recent events over the past several years, including, sadly, the horrific slaughter in CO have changed my once staunchly anti-gun stance.

However, I will NEVER EVER condone the purchase or ownership of any semi-automatic assault weapon by any private citizen. I was actually speechless (yes, me!) when the media reported that out nation's latest murdering lunatic purchased his assault rifle LEGALLY at a national retailer, whose name I will not post as I do not know for sure this weapon was purchased there. How on earth can assault rifles be sold legally....one does not hunt ducks, or deer or even squirrels with assault rifles. This is where I draw my line....assault rifles should be illegal, period. No retailer should be selling them. I am astonished these sales occur.

No , I do not agree nor will I agree with your views! I, sir, am prior Army Infantry and have given my oath, and willingness to give my Life for the Constitition, the Bill of Rights, and what I believe in!!! Have, OR, are you willing too sir?? I see you did not answer the straight forward question asked above. Are u afraid of your own Answer?? Since u have provided more info, let me revise the question. IF 2 -3 bad guys decide they are going to break into your home while your granddaughters are staying there DO u want a phone to call 911, a bat to hot them with , a knife to cut one of the with, or a Firearm????
Steve, put your gun hatred aside. Think.
2-3 males break into your home at around 2:00am. Your teenage granddaughters are staying with you at that particular time. Do you want a cell Phone to call 911, a knife, a bat, or a firearm to protect and save your grand daughters???? I KNOW everyone.

Tom: I commend your service and years of doing your duty, along with all others who have done so, especially those who gave the last full measures of devotion or were wounded in body, mind and spirit. I also have sworn a persona oath to those same ideals, rights and duty to defend our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Civil Liberties and freedoms.

I know the average response time in my area when calling 911 from personal experience and knowing the area I live in. (averages 2-5 mins, in cases and scenarios as you propose, wiht multiple units and others at the ready should it be required and access to fire power and trained individuals to back it up. They also have the direct tactical, strategic and experience to know when and how to employ it and when to use their intelligence, alternative means and methods to avoid having to go with the last resort of discharging their weapons.

Should a break-in happen here, given your scenario Yes I would call 911, use every available means and method at my disposal until the police arrived and keep from turing my home into a free fire shooting zone. My daughters, granddaughters (or grandsons) might equally be injured or killed by stray or misplaced rounds from either myself or your bad guys.

I have always advised my own daughters, their friends and others to always use every means and method at their disposal to defend and protect themselves. Including using their intelligence and wits and employing situational awareness and safety.

I would also note, in passing, your Oath and duty were to defend, protect and uphold everyone's rights and those held sacred and detailed in those same documents and the underlying liberties and rights. Not just those you personally agree with nor support. The same applies to everyone, hence they are considered universal rights, liberties, etc. I would out my own life and personal safety on the line to defned yours in turn and others in our society.

Your service also does not grant nor give you special rights or liberties beyond those of others. Nor to the police or others serving and answering the call to duty and defense of them.

I am fine knowing you do not, will not and won't agree or share some or even many of my views, beliefs and values. Nor will endless others and I in turn have those persons whom I do not agree with on principals or points of view. That is a given in life, it does not mean or require retreating into opposing camps and not engaging in dialog, offering mutual respect and being good neighbors and members of our society. I'd even go as far as wagering we could enjoy a bbq, break bread together and share a favorite beverage of choice together should an opportunity arise or happen. Even discover areas or experiences where we agree or share common grounds.

Tom: I have read the available online excerpt from "More Guns, Less Crime" you commended, (chtp 1: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/more-guns-less-crime-john-r-lott/1102826787?ean=9780226493664)

I will, most likely, search for an e-book version or visit the local library to acquire and read it in the near future. I would note, in passing, much of what he shares in the opening chapter offers anecdotal evidence and cites survey results (shich may or may not have been conducted under statistically controlled methods that are the 'gold standard' for being considered scientifically or statistically valid and controlled for numerous variables that can/do taint or alter the results. For example, an online news poll of readers from Fox, CNN, NY Times, et. al. are just that, a poll of readers opinions to the question posed at that particular period of time. They are very clear to note it is not to be taken or used as 'scientific or statistically valid' Professional polling orgs and others use control methods and standards for very valid and proven reasons. As do scientists, university studies, etc. It helps to factor out and identify/qualify the collected data and sample sets for objective, empirical analysis and vetting or refutation by professional peer groups. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary, proofs.

Again, thank you for commending the book you cited and sharing your views, we may disagree but I still respect you and your sincerely held beliefs.

BTW, Tom, care to comment on why the military, police and other agencies maintain strict controls over access to firearms, their allowed use, who is granted access to them and under what circumstances?

I'll wager you they didn't start handing out weapons and ammunition, or have open access to them nor allow private possession, the first or even second week of boot camp. And on bases where active duty service members are stationed or deployed.

The police and other law enforcement organizations also restrict, control and have significant safeguards in place re: access and use of weapons and ammunition,

The general public and civilians are also entitled and granted rights and protections to safeguard themselves, along with the rights to own and use them under specific circumstances or for certain specific activities. For hunters, there are rules and laws in place governing what can be used and when,

Again, we're back to the Heller rulings...even for those weapons 'in common usage', regulations and laws are still in place, enforceable and constitutional.

Like you Brandon, I have heard and LISTENED to both sides of the fence. I myself have never owned a gun even though, like yourself, I have family that do. It's just my choice. However, I want it to remain MY choice. If for some reason in the future I decide I want one, I want to be able to own it. Not have that freedom taken from me. The bad people will always find a way to get one if they desire. Drugs are illegal and look at all the users. It's the person not the gun that's the problem.PERIOD.

The Second Amendment clearly states that as an American Citizen your right is to carry a gun. If your anti-gun then don't carry a gun. That's your choice. But don't go pushing your dislike for guns down other people's throats. Statistics show that crime goes up when gun ownership goes down. They have also shown the inverse, that crime goes down when gun ownership goes up. And besides that, it's just common logic that criminals can get guns no matter what laws or restrictions are in place. So why would you want to make it harder or impossible for the average joe to carry a gun to protect themselves?

Not to long ago two armed teenagers tried to rob an Internet Cafe. A 70 year-old carrying a pistol (which he had all the permits for) shot at them and ran them off. Police caught them not to longer after that. The old man didn't even hit either of them, just shot at them.

And that's how easy it is to stop a criminal: carry your own gun to counter their weapon. Risk of death is a great stopping factor against criminals.

And if your afraid of somebody slipping through the background checks and still getting a gun? Why don't you go get your permits and carry your own gun so that if anything does happen, you can defend yourself?

I think what happened in Colorado was horrible. I do not think that it calls for stricter gun laws.