A bit of spam (my apologies), but some of you might be interested in my review of "United 93." If you have not seen it, please read my latest post to know why you must see it!

"has an obligation to defend his faimly - and sometimes the police aren't close enough to ensure that protection."

Sometimes? Just curious, but what's the average response time to your area? Do folks really know?

Too often the stories of folks defending themselves and others isn't told. The only thing folks seem to care about is the number of accidental shootings (which are bad), when someone kills themself with a gun (which surprised me is the number one cause of death by gun in America), or when a criminal shoots someone.

The simple fact is that everyone has a right to defend themselves. It should be up to the individual how they want to defend themselves and not the government. If you want a "Panic Room" where you can run to and call the police go for it. Want alarm systems and big dogs? Go for it! Huge fences? Go right ahead. But if you want a gun, Oh no! Far be it for a law abiding citizen having a tool that will equal the power of something that might be used against them.

Oh, in case you were wondering here is my sources: (Updated for 2003's data!)

E-Version and quick rundown.

A PDF of the full report.

On Table 18: Number of deaths, death rates, and age-adjusted death rates, for injury deaths according to mechanism and intent of death: United States, 2003. This is where I get my gun related deaths numbers. Surprised me to find the number one cause of death by firearm, at 16,907, was suicide. Next was of course Homicide at 11,920. Unintentional was 730. Total number of deaths by firearm in 2003? 30,136.

Seen the top 15 ways to die in America? Homicide barely makes the list at #15. More folks are dying of diseases, mainy of them old age diseases or systemic diseases then violence of any kind. Not quite the picture one gets off the news now is it?

As I've said to many an anti-gun nut, yes, if I have time to get my gun I have time to call 911. However, what am I supposed to do during the 10 to 30 minutes it might take for the police to arrive?

I hope the boy has a speedy recovery and that others don't lay a guilt trip on the Dad. He did his family right, as far as I can see.

Frankly, I don't see why it is such a big deal to have to obtain a license to get a gun. You need a license to drive; are you going to claim that that is an enfringement of rights?

The licensing system is intended to make it harder for convicted felons to get guns; it streamlines to background checking process.

Heaven forbid that we make sure that a person doesn't have a criminal history or ensure that they are of age before we sell them a deadly weapon!

Self-Defense stories and DGU (Defensive Gun Use) stories abound in local papers, but are never picked up by the bigger press.

Driving a car is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun (and using it) is a God Given Constitutional Right.
“Heaven forbid that we make sure that a person doesn't have a criminal history or ensure that they are of age before we sell them a deadly weapon!”, If that be the case, how did that robber get his gun? Guns are outlawed in Washington DC, it is more unsafe because so.

ok. So everyone gets to carry gun. Is that the kind of society you want for your children? Armed and dangerous. I understand America is a violent place and people don't feel safe unless they can protect themselves. But do you think firearms for the public is the answer?

The licensing system is intended to make it harder for convicted felons to get guns; it streamlines to background checking process.

Very silly, or at least naive, statement. Convicted felons do not go to reputible gun dealers for their guns. They get them through theft or buy them from the trunk of another criminals car.

For people so afraid of guns, I ask what do you intend to do about knives, screwdrivers, baseball bats, chemicals, and other such implements used to murder in the past? Why only worry about guns?

I believe Mark's point wasn't that it was stupid to have licensing requirements, but rather it is curious that one of the reporter's questions was whether the dad had a license. Interestingly, he did not ask whether the carjacker had a license!

And again we have Noonans hatred on liberals showcased:

"If liberals had their way...."

First Mark, prove all liberals are against gun ownership.

Prove all fascists are for gun ownership.

Prove this situation couldn't have ended favorably without gunplay. Oh that's right fascists value money enough to risk their lives for it.

Did the father have a license to carry a gun? If not do you still see him as a hero? (You of the law and order crowd) If he lives in a state that allows him to have a concealed weapon or one sitting on his dashboard, then fine. If the state requires a liscense and he had one, fine. If he didn't then he should be fined or charged.

Lew, no offense but I'll take my chances against a baseball bat, screwdriver, knife, etc. as opposed to a Glock. I think the driver of this SUV would have merely driven away if the robber had "flashed" a phillips head!

"but a man has an obligation to defend his faimly"

DAMN RIGHT!

Thank you.

Bravo Mark!

I've always been a staunch supporter of concealed carry laws. I mean you can't argue with things that work. It's a proven fact that crime rates are lower when people are allowed to carry a handgun. There should be a course and a permit to do it, and very highly regulated, but legal. It's one reason I'm leaning toward voting for a Republican governor in Wisconsin. They are getting the bills through the legislature but Doyle is a moron that I am sorry I voted for.

I was driving through the Texas panhandle once and every pickup truck we passed had a shotgun hanging in the back window. You think anyone messes with those guys? Believe me, thugs will think twice before pulling a gun on you if there's a chance you can grab one from under your car seat. I, for one, am glad there is 1 less thug out there trying to mess up other peoples' lives.

Ash, no offense taken, but the point is that other objects are used to murder and harm others, but it is only the gun which comes under such scrutiny.

Many a business has been held-up at knife point as well as people subdued and killed by objects other than guns. If the interest is the public safety, why is their no move to limit access to these as well?

Just because it doesn't go "bang" doesn't mean it is any less dangerous in the hands of a criminal.

"Prove this situation couldn't have ended favorably without gunplay. Oh that's right fascists value money enough to risk their lives for it."

Prove that it wouldn't. See you can't and neither can we.

Every situation is different and it's not up to you or me to determine if a situation deserves a defense response or not. You just assumed the guy was trying to protect his vehicle and not his family, when we know there was at least one kid there it's just as likely he was worried about his family and not the vehicle.

If he gets fined fine. That's the law that's fine. As a matter of fact California has a Concealed carry law, but it's nearly impossible to get a concealed carry permit here unless you're someone with some pull. (Heck even if you've got a restraining order and can prove you've been attacked it's hard to get one!) My mother carries concealed illegally whenever she feels like it because she is much more comfortable paying a fine for carrying concealed illegally than being raped or murdered.

Which leads me to something that has always bothered me about gun laws. Why is it that we immedietly look for something the victim did wrong? Oh did he register that weapon? Did he have a licence? Heck even when the criminal survives the shooting the victims are always scrutinized and have to worry about criminal charges or law suits.

Driving a car is a privilege not a right. Owning a gun (and using it) is a God Given Constitutional Right.
-Bill C

Though I agree that driving a car is a privilege, you are making the assumption that owning a gun is a universal right, and it is not under our current system.

Just as there are restrictions to Free Speech (amend. 1) with causing havoc and making threats, there are restrictions to the second amendment's bearing arms clause.

Do we allow felons to buy guns? Do we allow children to purchase guns? The answer is no, as it should be.

Also, God didn't grant us the rights in our constitution; God didn't write it. The "God given right" statement was an ignorant one.

It's a proven fact that crime rates are lower when people are allowed to carry a handgun.
Captain Ron

I would like to see some statistics to verify your claim. I am not contesting the claim; it just seems like a somewhat grandiose statement.

Very silly, or at least naive, statement. Convicted felons do not go to reputible gun dealers for their guns. They get them through theft or buy them from the trunk of another criminals car.
Lew Waters

Strangely enough, you called my statement naive, but you didn't read it closely enough to understand what I said. I said that it was intended to make it harder for convicts to get guns. I didn't say that it was effective. I was commenting on Mark's apparent ambivalence to requiring a lisence to have a weapon. It seemed, from my reaction to the post, that he had disdain for the entire system of lisencing gun ownership; not so much for it's shortfalls. Try to read more carefully before you react so harshly to a statement.
--------

Once again, Mark is making a mountain out of a mole hill. If it is a crime not to have a lisence, and that person doesn't have a lisence, they are still guilty of breaking that law, no matter what they did prior to that. That additional law infraction adds to the overall situation and should be covered by the news media.

More conspiracy theories about the left...

Canadian,

I'm sure the 304,515 Canadian victims of violent crime in 2003 are delighted that Canada is a strict gun control, non-violent place to live...for the greater glory of gun control, I'm sure the 23,425 rape victims were happy to sacrifice themselves...

Gozer,

Yeah, I don't know where he got that - the time I was a victim of armed robbery, I couldn't hand over the wallet fast enough...Money is rather trivial when you've got a .38 pointed at you...though, I do wonder if the robber had a license for that gun...

Georgia,

It is a exceptionally trivial matter as to whether or not the man had a license for the gun...it isn't a question I would even think to ask...

Georgia and the rest of the lefty hypocrites....this is classic.

"Frankly, I don't see why it is such a big deal to have to obtain a license to get a gun. You need a license to drive; are you going to claim that that is an enfringement of rights?"
-Georgia's comments

Yet Georgia and other lefties just a few days ago seem to think it's a HUGE DEAL for people to have to present an ID to vote. My, my. Pretty hilarious stuff Georgia, I must say.

LOL

Warrior Nation-

Just so you know, I fully support manditory IDs for voting. Does this make me not a hypocrite? I love it when people make unfounded, non-factual assertions about me when it is obvious that they actually know very little.

Yes, Mark, throw in some gun play and then the numbers would magically be reduced. Your logic is astounding.

I said that it was intended to make it harder for convicts to get guns. I didn't say that it was effective.

You can't possibly be this naive, can you, Georgia? Since criminals obtain guns illegally, any intent to making legal guns harder to get is entirely moot and well as asinine.

So... Lew(d)...

What you are saying is that we shouldn't require lisencing because criminals don't follow the law? So, you are saying that we shouldn't have laws if we know that people are going to break them. A person with a clean record won't have a problem getting a lisence, just as (concerning the voter ID thing that was brought up earlier) people won't have a problem getting an ID card to vote. The point is that if we didn't have lisencing, any felon could go to Wal Mart and buy a 12 gauge shot gun instead of having to take on the added risk of buying a gun illegally off the black market.

Are you advocating making it easier for criminals to have access to guns???

*Chuckles*

Except for Mark why do my posts seem not to garner cross comments? Is it because I'm not angry or agressive? Not insulting? Or because I post links to back up my claims? Or am I just that boring? :D

See, I'm not against the idea of Licences for guns. My biggest problem is that all it would become is a "who's who" list of gun owners and not make things easier for the gun owners. If having one made it easier to get a gun, say by having all my information on it so I can swipe it at the store, do the instant check, and bam I'm done? Then I might be interested.

As I've seen most wouldn't do that.

We'd have to pay to get the licence. Pay to renew the licence. Pay to fill out more papers when we buy the gun. Still wait to get the gun. Then have to repeat the process for any and all guns we buy in the future. On top of that I'd be the first person they bothered if someone used a gun "similar" to one I owned.

Don't believe me? They're already holding hearing about the BATFE using local lists to cause trouble with folks in Richmond, VA.

The NRA's report on it.

Now I know it's an NRA report so take it with a grain of salt. I'm looking for links to the CSPAN and such coverage of this subcomittee.

I think we should ban all guns. Guns only cause violence and death. They are the beginning of all pain, and I think they should be outlawed across the board. I also think that the military should be forced to enforce without use of firearms, and strictly armed with non leathal weapons such as hard foam batons and maybe lightly powered taser guns.

Gozer,

Now I almost feel bad commenting on your comments...come on, lefties, throw a little fire and brimstone Gozer's way!

Canadian,

Actually, it would reduce - and not at all magically. Several studies have shown that introducing "will issue" concealed carry permits (ie, the police will issue them unless you have some legal or physical debility which prevents you from having/using a weapon) decreases crime. The reason for this is because criminals are neither dumb nor brave.

They aren't dumb - they can read the papers and when such a law is enacted they now know that at least some people in their pool of potential victims may be armed with a concealed weapon...and they aren't brave; they don't want to tackle someone who is armed...so they take more time and care in their crimes...checking more carefully to see if their potential victim is armed and/or likely to give trouble...plus they make sure that no one else is around, lest the innocent bystandard be armed...this extra time involved in each crime means less crimes are committed.

Its really quite simple, Canadian: more guns equals less crime.

Mark, I do think all but 560 of those Canadian victims are delighted that they are still alive.

I'm sure the 16,000+ Americans murdered in 2003 were delighted that they had the right to defend themselves with a firearm - even if it didn't work out for them this time.

I'm a liberal. I own 4 (count em') 4 guns now. I enjoy the shooting range. I do not hunt animals I do not eat. I follow all rules associated with the legal posession of firearms. Reality requires me to be ready to defend my home from you people. It won't be a liberal who comes to invade your home. I can almost gaurantee it will one of you right wing zealots. I'm not talking about a criminal, I'm talking about your wonder boy declaring martial law soon enough. Liberals can own and do condone the legal right to bear arms. nuff said.

But do you think firearms for the public is the answer?

Yes, we do...

Uh, somebody posted as "Keefer" at 8:52pm. It wasn't me, and Mark can verify. If you're gonna spoof as me, at least write my name the same way...

Are you advocating making it easier for criminals to have access to guns???

Talk about a spin.

Please explain how making it harder for the average citizen to obtain a legal gun through a reputible and legal gun dealer makes it any harder for the criminal who obtains his by illegal means from the trunk of another criminals car.

Of course there should be some checks and balances, but your statement that gun laws are intended to make it harder for criminals to get guns, then your statement that you did not say they were effective, is what shows naivety.

Just another example of how the left thinks placing words on a piece of paper stops anything.

As in the case of the perpetrator in the above article, he won't be abusing any intended laws again, will he? Your intent did noting to save this man's family, he protected them as he should.

Small little nitpick Chris. Only 11,920 were killed with guns in a homicide in 2003. 17,732 people were murdered in 2003.

Now I'm not sure where you're going with your comment on them but I shall say this. Would you prefer they had no chance to defend themselves what so ever? I mean is it just me but if you're going to die wouldn't you at least like to have a chance to take one of your killers with you?

Yes, they were killed, but at least in this country many of them had the opportunity, or at least the capacity, to defend themsevles equally. If you remove the gun from the law abiding then that leaves guns only in the hands of the law breakers.

Now to be fair to our friends up north I've started digging around for their stats. Now I'm not sure if I've found everything, but this does look official. The Canadan statistic system is VERY detailed and I had a hard time sifting through things.

This is a table of "External causes of morbidity and mortality" such as gunshots.

First off, very few people die in Canda it seems. Just looking at it, it looks like more people die of Heart Disease here in America than total deaths in Canada! I never realized there was that large a population difference.

Next, if you can sort through ALL of the causes of death (they've got contact with a powered lawn mower listed! O.O!) and get down to 378-380 you'll see very few folks died of accidental gunshots: only 27. Unfortunetly, Canada doesn't group by type of death (or at least if they do I can't find that chart) so you have to keep going down to 485-487 to see how many killed themselves with firearms: 618. Then keep going down to 502-504 you find assault based use of guns at 138. Add 9 for unknown and police invovled shootings and you get a grand total of: 792.

Total US Deaths: 2,448,288
Total US Firearms Deaths: 30,136
Percent of US deaths caused by firearms: 1.23%

Total Canadian Deaths: 226,169
Total Canadian Firearms Deaths: 792
Percent of Canadian deaths caused by firearms: .35%

Pretty damning numbers eh? Depends on how you want to take them. Remember there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. No matter what, you are far more likely to die by a disease of some kind then by a firearm. Plus, these numbers say nothing about crime rates, injuries, rapes, or the like committed with firearms. Even more, this is just USA and Canda, each country presents it's own challanges and problems based on just the cultures. There is no "one solution for all." Heck, the number one cause of death by firearm period is killing yourself (another surprise to me).

So what does all this number crunching mean? That's up to you. For me? It means there are a lot of sad folks out there, far more people die than I imagined, and the idea that the number one way people are dying is because of guns is far from the truth.

Lew-

Just another example of how the left thinks placing words on a piece of paper stops anything.

Kind of like banning abortion, eh?

Please explain how making it harder for the average citizen to obtain a legal gun through a reputible and legal gun dealer makes it any harder for the criminal who obtains his by illegal means from the trunk of another criminals car.

There is a simple economic answer to this, actually. If we have a no license, anyone can go and pick up a gun from wal mart system, criminals wouldn't not have to risk breaking the law to obtain a gun. If we have a system that restricts gun ownership (such as lisencing), a convict who would be unable to obtain a firearm legally would have to take on the additional risk of buying out of "the trunk of another criminal's [sic] car"; that other criminal could, however, be an undercover ATF Agent. So, the convict would have to take a gamble whenever he illegally buys a gun. That gamble and risk would dissuade some convicts from illegally obtaining guns (in theory).

As in the case of the perpetrator in the above article, he won't be abusing any intended laws again, will he? Your intent did noting to save this man's family, he protected them as he should.

I never said that the father shouldn't have protected his family. I laud him for doing so. However, if he broke a law, he should bear the appropriate punishment, lest we all do the same.

If we have a system that restricts gun ownership (such as lisencing),

If we have a system that allows relibale citizens easier access to self defense and self protection, even criminals that might go and buy a legal gun would have second thoughts about who to go after. Criminals seek the easiest targets, not one who is well armed. Again, your point is moot.

However, if he broke a law, he should bear the appropriate punishment, lest we all do the same.

Since none of us know whether or not his gun was actually "legal" in the leftist sense, would it please the left for citizens to just roll over and allow crime to flourish?

Only the left can "laud someone for protecting their family," yet think they need punished for doing so at the same time.

Gozer,

Sorry man, it's just hard to fire on a nice guy that prefaces so many of his posts with *chuckles*

But here, I'll try. Gozer you are a moron. All you ever do is speak with a lot of facts to back you up. I hate your point of view and I bet you make up half the facts and sources you quote. You are just a dumb conservative.

How's that, Gozer?

*chuckles*

LOL

That's perfect Ash, you made my night.

One of the countless stories of self-defense by law abiding gun-carrying people EVERY DAY!

Thanks to Ohioans for Concealed Carry for this piece

http://www.ohioccw.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3597&Itemid=83

CHL Holder Shoots and Kills Robber
Written by Bryan Torok
Saturday, 06 May 2006
Thursday evening Mike Dayem was in a battle for his life. A masked man entered Mike’s Food Market on Cleveland’s east-side with a gun and demanded money. When Mike’s 19 year-old son, Abe, who also works at the store, gave the robber everything in the cash register, the robber said it wasn’t enough and demanded more. Then the robber shot Abe in the head.

That is when Mike grabbed his own gun and returned fire, striking the robber in the neck and chest. The robber fled from the store, leaving the money. Cleveland Police found the robber on the sidewalk about a block away. He was declared dead about 30 minutes later. Police and the Cuyahoga County Coroner’s office are still trying to determine the robber’s identity.

Abe was taken to Metro Health Medical Center where he is being treated. Abe is conscious and talking, albeit with the bullet still in his head. He may be released as soon as Saturday.

Mike does not want his son to return to the store, while Abe would prefer that his father not have to go back to store. This evening, Mike is back running his store. The front window, display cases, and even lottery tickets were riddled with bullet holes. But Mike, who has seven mouths to feed, can’t afford to not have the store open.

Police have not said if any charges will be brought and the matter is still under investigation. However, several similar incidents at other small stores in the Cleveland area have not resulted in store owners or employees being charged. OFCC expects this will similarly be ruled justifiable.

OFCC has verified that Mike is a CHL holder. It is extremely ironic that following a previous robbery several months ago, it was Abe who urged his father to get a gun and become licensed. Mike received his CHL in January of this year.

Local news has followed the story, with video:

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=51806

http://www.wkyc.com/video/player.aspx?aid=22799&bw=

Mark

If, as you say, gun ownership = protection, why does the USA lead the world in gun-related deaths.
I just don't get it.

Oh Lew-

You seem to know a lot about the criminal mind... you have any applicable career experience?

If we have a system that allows relibale citizens easier access to self defense and self protection, even criminals that might go and buy a legal gun would have second thoughts about who to go after. Criminals seek the easiest targets, not one who is well armed. Again, your point is moot.

The funny thing about criminals is that they are not all rational actors. I am under the opinion that any one who would kill someone when more people are well-armed would be the same type of person who would risk buying an illegal gun in the first place.

Secondly, your statement which I have quoted (and, strangely enough, the basis of your argument) is a fallacy. You are supposing that the only reason that more "reliable citizens" don't have guns is that we have a more difficult system in place. What you are ruling out is people who are possibly moral objectors to owning a gun, pacifists, people who don't want to own a gun, or people who are not allowed to have a gun on certain premises (certain apartment complexes prohibit firearms). All of those people don't own guns, and wouldn't if an "easier" system was implimented. All people who really wanted a gun, and still reatain the right to buy one legally, probably already have one. If you are talking about the right to conceal a weapon, that is a completely different argument.

Since none of us know whether or not his gun was actually "legal" in the leftist sense, would it please the left for citizens to just roll over and allow crime to flourish?

Only the left can "laud someone for protecting their family," yet think they need punished for doing so at the same time.

First of all, where did I say that we should punish someone for protecting their family? Say what you will about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_luck>moral luck, but I never said that we should punish people for protecting their families. If the father obtained his gun or concealed his gun illegally, then he is guilty of a crime. He then should be charged accordingly, and it would be the job of our legal system to determine if he is somehow an exception to that rule.

If someone breaks a law, they broke a law. It is as simple as that... It doesn't matter whether or not you or they or anyone else agrees with the law (unless you want to go to the supreme court), if you break the law, you are guilty of a crime and should be charged accordingly.

People have every right and the duty to protect their families, but if this father either illegally obtained or illegally concealed his weapon, then he is guilty of a crime. Don't try to turn this argument into what you want it to be. We are debating whether or not a person should be charged with illegally obtaining or concealing a firearm. Noone is advocating sending this man to prison for protecting his family. Your reliance on that argument shows how little you really know.

damn, screwed up my link...

moral luck

You seem to know a lot about the criminal mind... you have any applicable career experience?

No, I grew up in a Democrat household.

I still can't understand all the fuss about a reporter asking if the shooter was licensed, or not.

Here in Michigan, a purchase permit has been required to purchase a handgun for as long as I can remember -- and that's a long time.

The state's concealed carry laws were recently liberalized to make it easier for citizens to carry a concealed weapon. The law was signed by Michigan's "liberal" governor (and former attorney general). But guess what -- if you actually shoot somebody, the least of your worries are going to be whether or not you were licensed -- but that doesn't mean they won't ask -- and the last time I looked, carrying w/o a permit was a two-year felony.

I lived in Texas for a while and even though there seemed a bit too much of a "wild west" mentality, even they had laws restricting the carrying of handguns -- especially where alcoholic beverages were sold.

Gun laws are designed to protect citizens, perhaps sometimes from themselves. It only seems reasonable to have a handle on who exactly is packing on any given day -- and the ability to throw hoodlums in the slammer for a mandatory deuce if they carry illegally.

Canadian,

Because we don't necessarily lead the world in gun-related deaths...it depends; Some nations with very strict gun control have low levels of gun violence, others with strict gun control have high rates of violence; ditto with nations that have little or no gun control - some a very violent, some aren't. The United States isn't nearly as violent as some nations out there - including some that have very strict gun control

The mistake you make is to assume that the gun, an inanimate object, is the problem - its not...its a thing which must be used by a human before it can have negative or positive value. Violent crime isn't caused by guns - violent criminals just use guns.

Yes, violent criminals use guns, but you also want joe public to be armed. With all these folks running around fully loaded, guns (inanimate objects) will be fired and people will die. Final words - More guns, more deaths.

Or as I always say, Guns don't kill people. People with guns do.

Final words - More guns, more deaths.

We hope you mean it this time--final words, that is...

Hey keefer, I think I found out who was shadow posting using your name:

Eddie Munster!

Georgia

Then my apologies, I could have sworn you were one of the lock, stock and barrell libbies on here screaming that IDs for voting was tantamount to slavery or whatever other ridiculous argument was made.

" All you ever do is speak with a lot of facts to back you up."

Finally, a liberal honest enough to admit to what ticks him off---and smart enough to figure it out..Fortunately, there is an antidote to facts---Air America. And steve.

BTW, guys, you are all missing a point. At least in my state, you don't need a license to carry a gun in a vehicle. You need a background check to buy the gun, if you buy it in a gun shop or licensed store, and you need a concealed carry permit to carry one on your person. But you can transport a gun in your car. So another question might be, did the father have to load his gun before he shot it.

If we have to get rid of guns because some people might use them in a wrong manner, then please enlighten us on how you would stop rapes. Just because something can be used wrongly, I guess we should make sure no one has one......

Does anyone remember the name of the Florida county that made in MANDATORY for every household to own a gun? Or was it just a town, and not a county?

Anyway, the crime rate plummeted. It went up in neighboring areas, where the people were less likely to be able to fight back.

You know, I find it incredible that no one has mentioned anything about the other victim in the incident that sparked this thread -- the 10-year-old son who is now in intensive care. The poor kid. My heard and prayers go out to him.

I would also like to know exactly what happened that caused the poor kid to be injured. Does anyone know? I can't find any information on the case past the initial AP story.

Let us thank God that he gave the american people the freedom that we have, and the obligation to protect ourselves from harmful felons,murderer's,molesters,and all sorts of crazy nutty crooks out there.

Let us also thank God that we do not have someone in office like al gore which would certainly subject us all to every kind of evil that lurks.

We have a right to bear arms, a moral right to protect those that we hold dear to which is our own families.

anyone that cannot except it should LEAVE!!.

Maybe try iraq or afghanistan and see how long you last without a gun there.

No offense to anyone but we do have the right to possess a firearm,bar none PERIOD!.

And by the way if anyone wants to see extreme liberalism please go visit the FUNNY FARM ONLINE,
and tell tom what you think of his not so funny FARM.

Thirty years ago I was attacked by a male thug. I stabbed him repeatedly. My only regret is that I didn't kill him. I now carry a gun with me at all times. Ain't it strange how being a victim can change your outlook on things?

Tell me genious, would it not been better to hand over his SUV to the criminal, and spare this mans anguish....If you would bother to ask this man, I'm sure that he would do things differently next time...

What's more important, making a statement to criminals by killing one of them and injuring your family? To my testosterone filled friend I say, No...