Advertisement
Police line do not cross

Armed Citizen Opens Fire On Home Depot Shoplifter; You’re Doing It Wrong

Advertisement

AUBURN HILLS, MICHIGAN — A woman with a concealed carry permit in Michigan opened fire on a shoplifter as he was running out of the store and to a waiting vehicle in the parking lot.

The shooting happened in the store’s parking lot at around 2 p.m., when Home Depot security was chasing a shoplifter in his 40s who jumped into a waiting dark SUV, said Lt. Jill McDonnell, an Auburn Hills police spokeswoman.

But when the SUV began to pull away, a 48-year-old woman suddenly began firing shots at the fleeing vehicle. The vehicle escaped – but possibly has a flat tire, McDonnell said.

Based on the information provided, this is in no way a self-defense situation. It is, however, worthy of the tag Irresponsible Gun Owner.

If the bad guy is fleeing, it’s difficult to prove self-defense if he has a bullet in his back. We all don’t like criminals and thieves, but to fire at them if they pose no threat to us? That’s irresponsible, dangerous, and worthy of a hard look at that armed citizen’s decision making process.

What would you have done in this case? I’ll tell you what I would have done; I would have stayed wherever I was until they took off, and I would get as much detail on the suspects and vehicle as I could to give to police.

But pull out my gun and fire at them? Hell no.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
About Brandon Curtis | View all posts by Brandon Curtis

Brandon is the founder of Concealed Nation and is an avid firearm enthusiast, with a particular interest in responsible concealed carry. His EDC is a Glock 27 that holds Hornady…

Brandon is the founder of Concealed Nation and is an avid firearm enthusiast, with a particular interest in responsible concealed carry. His EDC is a Glock 27 that holds Hornady 165 gr FTX Critical Defense rounds, and rides comfortably in an Alien Gear Cloak Tuck 3.0 holster.

Posts – Below Author – Small Square 1 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 2 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 3 (150×150)Advertisement
Posts – Below Author – Small Square 4 (150×150)Advertisement
  • Earl Cooper

    Michigan…? I’m surprised, that’s the kind of thing people in Texas think is legal.

    • Cisco

      What ? You mean it isn’t legal ? Damn ! That’s no fun.
      Seriously though, sometimes a person, any person, make’s a spur of the moment decision. You just hate to see the criminal run off scot free, and you don’t really have the time to stand around and think about it. So, sometimes you just react. I hope the shooter that was trying to stop the thief learned something, and doesn’t get charged with something.

      • Aaron Smith

        Are you kidding me? I hope she’s charged and pistol whipped with her own damn gun! No time to think means don’t pull the trigger. I hope she learns something too, that with great power comes great responsibility. If no life was in danger she needs her CHL taken away at a minimum. This makes every responsible license holder look bad.

        • Del Bancroft

          Michigan calls it a CPL… But I agree with the rest of your statement

      • quasar704

        ” I hope the shooter that was trying to stop the thief learned something, and doesn’t get charged with something.” <<<< This is possibly thee absolute dumbest statement i have ever read! That woman should be charged and if convicted, given the maximum sentence allowed!
        "Firing at a fleeing vehicle"? That a "shoplifter" fled in? What if those rounds struck a bystander? It's that type of irresponsible behavior that gives the gun grabbers momentum

      • If someone is unclear whether shoplifting justifies the use of deadly force, they really shouldn’t carry. These kinds of decisions should be made long before a live situation is encountered so they are not spur-of-the moments actions.

      • Ray Houthuysen

        She committed more than one felony.

        • Earl Cooper

          That is correct:

          1. Aggravated assult with a firearm.

          2. Discharge of a firearm in the city limits.

          They could also throw a few more charges at her regarding endangerment if the DA is really pissed about it.

      • Bob Hoffman

        Oh, she’s GONNA’ GET “charged”–Michigan is SERIOUS about their CPL law, and violations THEREOF. Her CPL is GONE–FOREVER–she ALSO will answer to ALL charges–ALL of them–she MAY “plea bargain” with them, but I would be SURPRISED to hear she didn’t GET any “time”–suspended, MAYBE–contingent upon her making it through her “probation”–probably at least 3 years–more likely, about FIVE…

        • Cisco

          Wow, real soreheads huh ?

    • Ray Houthuysen

      Texas DOES allow shooting at fleeing burglars. You may protect personal property.

      • Earl Cooper

        That is true, but I have had people try to tell me that you can shoot someone in Texas for stealing a pack of cigs….
        I have a copy of Texas law and copy of all of the laws in the 39 States that my permit is in reciprocity with. The problem is that people sometimes tend to interpret laws incorrectly for their own false sense of understanding…

  • Mike Vee

    Idiot. Now she will face the consequences of her actions.

  • Alex Janus

    Good for her…and us!! As long as she was trained enough on how to use the firearm…hootie hoo lady!!

    • smokeybandit

      Apparently she wasn’t trained well if she opened fire at a shoplifter’s vehicle.

    • Dave M

      So, the punishment for unarmed shoplifting is now summary execution in the street. Who “trained” her, Charles Bronson?

      • Ray Houthuysen

        Lmao

    • CountryShank

      um, yeah, there’s a reason the actual police in pursuit didn’t shoot at the suspect – it doesn’t warrant deadly force. If she had hit someone, she’d be facing serious criminal and civil trouble.

      • Christopher Joseph Deming

        the police often shoot out the tires of a fleeing suspects car

        • Dave M

          Unarmed suspects, though? In a Home Depot parking lot?

        • Ray Houthuysen

          In Hollywood.

        • CountryShank

          not when the suspect poses no direct threat and isn’t otherwise considered dangerous. A police officer would be in big trouble if they just empty a clip into a car to stop a shoplifter who wasn’t trying to injure them or anyone else.

  • GDrum

    Sounds like she needs a lot more of, and better training. I’m always more concerned about certain states that require little or no training before people go carrying a gun around. I think the majority of CCW’s out there take the time to train properly. Either on their own or with instruction. Having under trained folks running around out there has the potential to make the rest of us look bad. I have an east coast friend who believes that the 16 hour requirement I have in CA is too much. I don’t think so. The training I received was well worth it. Having someone touch on subjects such as avoidance, situational awareness, when use of deadly force is appropriate and when it is NOT, legal ramifications, ect, is invaluable information. When these things happen, it’s a black eye on the CCW community.

    • Kirby Crowley

      Michigan requires 8 hours, including 3 hours on the range.

      http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(d5manlbowfyzxzqyvratnf2n))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-28-425j

      • Dave M

        The NY DMV requires a 5 hour course and 50 hours of practice to take your driving test. Shouldn’t a permit to carry a deadly weapon in public require… like… a LOT more?

        • Kirby Crowley

          I get your point, and personally I’ve had a lot more training than that with firearms. All of my friends and associates that handle firearms train at least 2-3 hours/month, year in and year out. So that helps. Those of us that are serious about carrying also get annual instructor-based training. As far as straight training goes, I’ve probably had much, much more training with a firearm than with an automobile, but I’ve used the car much more than the gun. (I might also have an advantage with 26 years prior military, but that’s not everybody.) Point is, everyone the I know that has guns puts in training time every year. How much should be mandated? If it is, and also expected of every able-bodied person to be part of the militia, shouldn’t firearms training be mandatory in high school, the same as driver’s ed and sex ed?

        • Bob Hoffman

          I SEE the “issue” here–YOU LIVE on the East Coast-liberalville, anti-gun type region! Get some REAL facts, Dave–you have NO DOUBT been LIED to, many times, regarding GUNS–maybe a visit to the Midwest would be of some HELP! LOL

          • Bob Hoffman

            BTW–did you KNOW that MOST CPL holders PRACTICE using their guns, at least ONCE a MONTH, and many do it at least ONCE a WEEK, some even getting “advanced” training? Drivers take how many “refresher” courses? NONE do–unless it’s related to a driving “incident” that YOU CAUSED–Senior drivers DO have to take road tests in many states these days, as a result of the many accidents INVOLVING senior citizens! Dave–GET ON your TV–LOOK for Outdoor/Hunting/Shooting shows ON it–You can learn a LOT just by WATCHING those shows, especially the ones dedicated TO shooting!

          • Bob Hoffman

            See Kirby’s post below, please!

          • Dave M

            I have no issues with hunting, shooting, firing ranges, or anything that happens on the “Outdoor Network”. As I said above, I grew up in a house with a shotgun and/or a rifle in it my entire life. I had a freezer full of deer and goose to eat every season. I think there is a big difference between being an enthusiast of these sorts of things and the notion that any attempt to ban any type of weapon or ammo, or put up any reasonable restrictions to purchasing a gun is somehow a left-wing conspiracy to disarm the populace, and not a reasonable way to insure public safety. That’s why I was trying to stake out a middle ground in the discussion before someone came out with empty, kneejerk “Obama wants to take all of our guns” NRA rhetoric.

            I’ve actually been PLEASED to find people here saying – yes, this person shouldn’t be allowed to own a gun. Hell… that’s a START.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Dave–this IS a fact–whether YOU choose to accept it as such is on YOU–before he was elected President the first time, I saw a video OF Obama–here is what the audio said, Dave–(Obama’s voice)–“I don’t think that the average citizen ought to be able to have guns.” He SAID that–and how many (idiots) gun owners VOTED for him? TOO MANY–THAT’S how many, Dave…

          • Dave M

            Are you 100% sure that audio wasn’t edited? Anyway, even if that’s true… So what? Do you still have all your guns? What did Obama do in 8 years, gun-wise that was so bad? Where is the totalitarian state the alarmists all promised us?

            Here’s my analogy. I love guitars. I have a dozen of them. Some are antiques. They are a tradition in my family, and an important part of American culture. But if somehow, through accident, negligence, or criminality, it turned out that 1.45 million Americans had been killed by guitars in my lifetime? You know what? I like to think I’d be willing to suck it up for the common good and learn to play the piano instead. Or at least be perfectly happy to fill out a little extra paperwork every time I want to buy a new Strat.

            I would be willing to do this for the same reason I’m going to get new brakes put on my Mustang before the end of the month – Because I enjoy living in a society where we are all made safer OVERALL by making small concessions to government oversight and regulations. And if you really do believe responsible people should be able to own guns, then I think you should be fighting as hard as you can for MORE gun laws, and coming up with creative and constructive solutions and compromises rather than alarmist cries that this or that politician wants to “take away all the guns”. Because without those creative options in the middle, what options are left?

          • Bob Hoffman

            True about the (shouldn’t be able to) part–Where I come from, THAT is what’s known as a “no brainer.”

          • Ray Houthuysen

            I shot at my local range three times this week. I carry whenever legal. Seven days per week.

          • Dave M

            Actually I grew up in Maryland with a Dad who hunted, and had at least two guns in the house my entire life. Don’t make assumptions.

    • Ray Houthuysen

      16 hours is a good start. It’s less in Michigan.

      • GDrum

        Exactly Ray. A good start. Then there’s countless hours we spend reading articles. Watching GOOD training videos from the pros, taking supplemental classes. I’ve also been fortunate to learn a great deal from a friend who lives in another state and has been carrying for over 20 years. The training never really ends. It should always continue.

    • Wizardling

      Can training instill a value for human life? Because this lady wasn’t just foolish, she displayed a lack of basic respect for human rights. Life > property.

  • If there are ever valid grounds to revoke a concealed carry permit, this is it.

    • smokeybandit

      Not only that, but bar this person from owning any guns.

  • robertg222

    Have people really lost so much faith in our legal system that they feel the need to take the law into their own hands?

  • smokeybandit

    It’s jackasses like this that the media loves to run with in their anti-gun agenda.

  • Del Bancroft

    She nor her property were in danger. Other people around… She made the wrong choice.

    • Pete Sylvain

      You can only use lethal force when someone – yourself or another person – is facing grave danger. You *cannot* use lethal force to protect property.

      • Christopher Joseph Deming

        she shot at the tires, the intent was not to kill the suspect. This article is poorly worded and misleading, not that this was a smart thing to do.

        • Pete Sylvain

          What she did was not just foolish; it is criminal. This shooting doesn’t fit the criteria for lawful lethal force in the case of someone fleeing.

        • Ray Houthuysen

          Highly unlikely. She flinched under stress and shot low. Even cops do it. Their hit rate in a gunfight is 20-25%

      • Del Bancroft

        780.951 Individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force; presumption; definitions.

        Sec. 1.

        (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), it is a rebuttable presumption in a civil or criminal case that an individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force under section 2 of the self-defense act has an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another individual will occur if both of the following apply:

        (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is in the process of breaking and entering a dwelling or business premises or committing home invasion or has broken and entered a dwelling or business premises or committed home invasion and is still present in the dwelling or business premises, or is unlawfully attempting to remove another individual from a dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle against his or her will.

        (b) The individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force honestly and reasonably believes that the individual is engaging in conduct described in subdivision (a).

        (2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if any of the following circumstances exist:

        (a) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used, including an owner, lessee, or titleholder, has the legal right to be in the dwelling, business premises, or vehicle and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order, a probation order, or a parole order of no contact against that person.

        (b) The individual removed or being removed from the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle is a child or grandchild of, or is otherwise in the lawful custody of or under the lawful guardianship of, the individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used.

        (c) The individual who uses deadly force or force other than deadly force is engaged in the commission of a crime or is using the dwelling, business premises, or occupied vehicle to further the commission of a crime.

        (d) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is a peace officer who has entered or is attempting to enter a dwelling, business premises, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties in accordance with applicable law.

        (e) The individual against whom deadly force or force other than deadly force is used is the spouse or former spouse of the individual using deadly force or force other than deadly force, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has or had a dating relationship, an individual with whom the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has had a child in common, or a resident or former resident of his or her household, and the individual using deadly force or other than deadly force has a prior history of domestic violence as the aggressor.

        (3) As used in this section:

        (a) “Domestic violence” means that term as defined in section 1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501.

        (b) “Business premises” means a building or other structure used for the transaction of business, including an appurtenant structure attached to that building or other structure.

        (c) “Dwelling” means a structure or shelter that is used permanently or temporarily as a place of abode, including an appurtenant structure attached to that structure or shelter.

        (d) “Law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force” means a regularly employed member of a police force of a Michigan Indian tribe who is appointed pursuant to former 25 CFR 12.100 to 12.103.

        (e) “Michigan Indian tribe” means a federally recognized Indian tribe that has trust lands located within this state.

        (f) “Peace officer” means any of the following:

        (i) A regularly employed member of a law enforcement agency authorized and established pursuant to law, including common law, who is responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the enforcement of the general criminal laws of this state. Peace officer does not include a person serving solely because he or she occupies any other office or position.

        (ii) A law enforcement officer of a Michigan Indian tribal police force.

        (iii) The sergeant at arms or any assistant sergeant at arms of either house of the legislature who is commissioned as a police officer by that respective house of the legislature as provided by the legislative sergeant at arms police powers act, 2001 PA 185, MCL 4.381 to 4.382.

        (iv) A law enforcement officer of a multicounty metropolitan district.

        (v) A county prosecuting attorney’s investigator sworn and fully empowered by the sheriff of that county.

        (vi) Until December 31, 2007, a law enforcement officer of a school district in this state that has a membership of at least 20,000 pupils and that includes in its territory a city with a population of at least 180,000 as of the most recent federal decennial census.

        (vii) A fire arson investigator from a fire department within a city with a population of not less than 750,000 who is sworn and fully empowered by the city chief of police.

        (viii) A security employee employed by the state pursuant to section 6c of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6c.

        (ix) A motor carrier officer appointed pursuant to section 6d of 1935 PA 59, MCL 28.6d.

        (x) A police officer or public safety officer of a community college, college, or university who is authorized by the governing board of that community college, college, or university to enforce state law and the rules and ordinances of that community college, college, or university.

        (g) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, that is designed to transport people or property.

    • Pete Sylvain

      Property doesn’t matter. If someone is invading a dwelling, then force will almost always be permitted. People are worth more than objects.

      I have taken the mandatory course to obtain a concealed carry in Massachusetts, and what the instructor, along with my friend that’s a Marine who came with me, stressed that you need to be sure where your bullets are going. If one of those shots hit a tire and hit someone else, she would be responsible for another crime.

  • HansonBro

    All it takes is the stupidity of one to undo the competent and silenced practice of hundreds of thousands of responsible CCW holders.

    • Bob Hoffman

      In Michigan, it’s a Concealed Pistol License-CPL–HERE, CCW (carrying concealed weapon) is a CHARGE AGAINST you! lol

  • Dave M

    I’m asking this respectfully and honestly. As an advocate of “responsible concealed carry”… do you honestly believe that having more people with guns won’t lead to more frequent acts like this? I assume you’ve seen people drive. They are all licensed. They all had to pass a written test and a driving test. How many of them obey the laws and drive safely and responsibly?

    • bovii

      No, I believe it will still be a rare occurrence. You need to not only irresponsible but incredibly stupid to do what this woman did. Most folk aren’t that stupid. Unless you feel you or others are in danger you do not pull and you do not fire. Its a primary rule. This woman is an exception.

      • mike sisco

        denial,, its not just a river in Egypt.

      • Dave M

        I think it’s stupid and irresponsible to drive 85mph in a 55mph zone, but the number of BMWs that pass me on the LIE like I’m standing still when I’m going 64mph tells me you are wrong. It tells me that most people ARE stupid and irresponsible, and they think that they are immune from accidents caused by their own carelessness or disregard for the rules. It’s basic human nature, isn’t it?

        • Bob Hoffman

          AGAIN–most people do NOT HAVE A CPL, Dave! To use cars/drivers as a comparison is absolutely a “non starter!” LOL

          • Dave M

            So everyone with a CPL drives within 5 mph of the speed limit? Follows 5 car lengths behind? Signals before changing lanes? Never drives after 2 drinks? None of them have a gambling addiction? Suffers from depression? They never make snap judgements? Poor decisions? Has unprotected sex? Stays up too late? Has too much credit card debt? These people are really and truly the best of humanity, with none of the flaws and foibles that literally all the people I know seem to suffer from? That must be some test you guys have to take!!

            I’m not saying a concealed carry license is that same as a drivers license or harder or easier to GET. I’m saying people are people, and people are stupid and irresponsible… even though NOBODY THINKS THEY THEMSELVES ARE STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE!! That’s the problem with the notion of the “good guys with guns” idea. Every guy with a gun (or lady with a gun) THINKS they are smart and responsible and cool-headed, just like EVERYONE thinks they are a good driver and EVERY drunk driver thinks they are “fine to drive”. The problem is… a LOT of the time, those people are wrong. As this story shows. And based on everything I know about the world I live in… there is NO reason for me to expect that this lady is the exception and not the rule. And proving otherwise is a tall order.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            I am much more polite and agreeable since I received my CPL. No more road rage for me. Your fears are just that, YOUR fears about yourself. Psychologists call this projection.

        • Ray Houthuysen

          You continue to speculate but the facts say otherwise.

    • Ray Houthuysen

      The penalties are very severe in financial and legal terms, not an analogy to traffic violations. CPL holders are less likely to commit a crime than are cops.

      • Dave M

        I hope that stat is true – I’ll take your word for it. But the fact is, most people aren’t thinking about financial and legal penalties when they are making a split second decision. I barely trust the police with that power. And I sure as hell don’t trust most of the people I interact with on a daily basis. The traffic example might not be the best example in terms of the severity of the penalties, but I think it’s a pretty good barometer of how much we should trust the average person to make good, safe, responsible decisions when failing to do so could result in someone getting killed.

        • Ray Houthuysen

          My guess is legal fees of $35,000 to $50,000. Loss of income if she had a job, possible loss of job, civil suit if she hit ANYONE, Felony conviction, loss of CPL, loss of liberty. Moral, don’t sleep in class. Keep learning after the CPL class.

          • Dave M

            And the penalty for drinking and driving is often similar things, including DEATH. I’ve been living in the Hamptons for a few years. Every summer, a dozen idiots from Manhattan (who drive maybe three times a year) come out here, get drunk, and crash into a tree and kill themselves (And if we’re unlucky, one of us.). What do you think their thought process is about the possible legal and financial outcomes before they get into a car? I’m pretty sure it’s “Meh, I’ll be fine.”

            (And yes, their judgement was impaired. Are people with CPLs not allowed to drink? Or get only 3 hours of sleep? Impairment happens. Hell, a lot of people I consider “impaired” by DEFAULT.)

            I’m not trying to say there should be no concealed carry, or no guns… I consider myself pretty reasonable on the issue. The reason I chose to post on a forum like this was that it seemed like there were quite a few reasonable folks here. I really am interested in the range of opinions about more guns vs. less guns. I find the unqualified claim that “more guns in the hands of more people will make everyone more safe” to be illogical and unsupportable in the extreme. And it seems like a few people here feel similarly. It’s reasonable pro-SAFE-gun-law voices like these that I think are missing from the debate.

          • Bob Hoffman

            John Lott’s book, More Guns, Less Crime–I see from your words here, that you have yet to peruse that tome… lol Pro-SAFE gun laws? WHAT the HELL??? How DO such laws MAKE us SAFE? Dude–Have you not SEEN the amount of CARNAGE FROM improper use OF GUNS IN places where the laws YOU call “SAFE” have COST so MANY LIVES? I think your “point” is absolutely INVALID, Dave… Are you ONE of those people who IS so ignorant as to actually BELIEVE that words on paper will PREVENT gun deaths/injuries from guns from occurring??? I HOPE not… BTW–“Reasonable?” AS in the “sensible/common sense” BS that people like Obama spout OFF about? Dave–what IS “reasonable” ABOUT laws like the ones I mentioned above–the ones that COST LIVES, rather than SAVE them??? NOTHING–absolutely NOTHING!!! A “few” people–maybe THEY need to LEARN some FACTS relative TO guns–The Seven Myths Of Gun Control, written by a person who does NOT own/use/possess guns–he was simply quite WEARY OF the BS that was OUT there ABOUT guns, would be a GOOD place to START–There ARE NO (can NEVER BE) “reasonable, common sense” type gun laws that will ever SAVE lives–Quite the CONTRARY, as FACTS SHOW us ALL–at least those of us who ARE paying attention… sigh

          • Dave M

            I’m not sure what kinds of laws you are talking about. I’m talking about licensing, registration, tracking, mandatory safes and trigger-locks, background checks, inspections, insurance… basically all the things I have to do to own a car, I think you should need to do to own a gun. I have to get my car inspected by NY this month and they are going to make me replace my brakes.(Even though I REALLY can’t afford it at the moment, and I think they’d be fine for another 6 months, and I probably wouldn’t kill myself or anyone.) Why shouldn’t you have to take your gun to the police station once a year to show that you still own it, haven’t sold it or given it away, and renew your registration just like I have to for my Mustang? How do any of these things cost lives?

          • The Goat Tender

            Dave M you are a liberal…Bottom line….I do not want you on my side…

          • Dave M

            Translation – “I am not interested in discourse or compromise or actual solutions. Only labels and rhetoric and knee-jerk reactions”. Thanks for your input.

          • Bob Hoffman

            DUDE–your “solutions” don’t WORK—that your skull is too thick (apparently) to understand that fact is amazing–READ what i have pointed you toward, PLEASE–especially the Seven Myths book–You are going to learn FACTS–look at his “sources”–BOTH “left/right” sources–no one can SAY ‘biased”–well, not if they want to be fair and HONEST–something the anti-gun/gun control lobby has NEVER BEEN…

          • Bruce White

            Oh good frikkin’ idea! ” manual safes and trigger-locks,” Yeah, I’m gonna tell the home invader, or criminal, who BTW ignores every law on the books, to wait while I open my safe and unlock my trigger lock. Are you insane? I tutor my loved ones on the SAFE use and storage of firearms from the time they are old enough to walk! The worst thing in the world is an unloaded gun, even if you’re sure it is! There is no such thing. I know it, they know it! Owning a firearm is a great responsibility and we take it VERY seriously!

          • Dave M

            And don’t you think the father of the 11 year old boy who shot his neighbor yesterday would have said the same thing 3 days ago?

            And what about the other dozen or so suggestions? I guess those are all either worthless, because they wouldn’t be 100% effective, or a slippery slope to Nazi tyranny? (Or somehow both?)

            I’m glad you teach your kids about safety and I honestly hope that they will never pick up a loaded gun and point it at someone. Or drink and drive. Or have unprotected sex. Or do drugs. Or do any of the things that everyone thinks their kids won’t do, because they taught them better… until they do them.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Responsible gun owners dont leave loaded guns for kids to find. Period. I don’t see the common sense of punishing 100 million Owners for the mistakes of a few.

          • Dave M

            And I don’t consider every regulation and bit of paperwork to be “punishment”. But my larger point is – everyone THINKS they are responsible, just like everyone THINKS they are a good driver. A lot of them are wrong.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Not taking about paper. Left leaning politicians want to make stuff I already own illegal. It’s been done before. It just happened in CT. We are instant felons for owning standard magazines which suddenly are deemed high capacity. My AR has an adjustable stock so my SO can comfortably shoot it for sport. To some idiots, that became an assault weapon.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            And the facts are that concealed carry permit holders do not have shoot outs. They are an extremely well behaved group. Your fears are typical, but unfounded.

          • Dave M

            Laws are not to protect us from the responsible ones, just like traffic laws aren’t to protect us from safe, responsible, competent drivers. The laws are to protect us from the IRRESPONSIBLE people, and to try to make all of the things they might do LEADING UP TO AND BEFORE killing someone illegal.

            Why are there speed limit laws, when people just break them anyway? Do they make anyone safer? If so, how?

          • 4Bravo1

            Liberals fear personal responsibility. That is clear from all of your arguments. You want government control because you believe you and your fellow man are incapable of expressing your freedom appropriately. That is a sad mindset. You really don’t deserve the freedom you have.

          • Dave M

            Yet another guy on a college campus started randomly shooting people today. How much more evidence do I need that my fellow man is not capable of expressing his freedom appropriately?

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/10/09/one-dead-3-injured-in-shooting-at-northern-arizona-university/

          • 4Bravo1

            More innocent victims of gun prohibitions. And 100 people used guns to prevent attacks that went unmentioned in the news in a country still free because the government is kept in check by the people. 6 million people did not get starved to death or put into camps, 300 million could get on the internet and type anything they wanted. And that country also happens to be a massive super power capable of projecting force all over the world, but still held in check by its people. America is amazing isn’t it. Wait is you argument that criminals and crazies use guns? Did anyone say it wasn’t the case?

          • Dave M

            No. My question is simply – what do you think we should to make these events less frequent. Do you have any answer that isn’t “more guns for everyone”?

            Nobody got put into death camps in Australia or France or Canada last time I checked either. And yet nobody there feels like they need to be packing heat just in case a lunatic walks into their calculus class.

          • 4Bravo1

            We did put people in camps in America. No one has been put in camps in Canada yet. But if you publish book in Canada, you will have to fear possible legal charges against you if it offends certain groups. Lack of foresight. Because it isn’t a problem now means that it can never be a problem? Because guns in the hands of citizenry hasn’t prevented the countries you mention from becoming tyrannical. Two more logical fails.

          • Dave M

            That’s an interesting example. So in your version of right and wrong, and freedom vs. tyranny… what should have happened during WWII was that Japanese Americans should have organized a campaign of fierce armed resistance against the US government? What do you imagine the ultimate outcome would have been? Anything other than an additional 100,000 American casualties?

          • 4Bravo1

            Yes, they should have. I won’t be put in a camp.

          • Dave M

            Interesting. In that case, I hope you are as vocal and as wary of such warning signs as rampant xenophobia, scapegoating of ethnic minorities, and unchecked nationalism as you are of gun laws.

          • 4Bravo1

            Pass legislation to make any company or business making any of their areas “gun free” automatically liable if they do not have sufficient security in place. If you want to put people in jail who allow their guns to be stolen and used by other because they are irresponsible, certainly you want people who keep guns away from people irresponsibly to also face consequences?

            Allow people to defend themselves; end the financial promotion of single parent families; stop over medicating people; do something about real gun crime- the inner city gun crime in places like Chicago with strict gun laws and massive repeat offenders. Death penalty for armed robberies. 20 year minimum sentence for all pre-meditated gun crime or all straw purchases for criminals. Stop liberal ideology that teaches people that they are always the victim and that it is all the fault of white, Christians. Maybe bring back some manufacturing jobs so people not willing or capable of doing well in college can work productively. Train all children in school on how to lawfully practice their rights to include gun ownership and basic safety. Encourage people to fight back when attacked by criminals.

          • 4Bravo1

            How do you know it was random?

          • Dave M

            Oh right. Maybe he was taking out a few agents of the Illuminati. Or the alien lizard-people who secretly run the Earth’s governments.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Your argument (evidence!) PROVES the NEED to BE ABLE TO DEFEND one’s self FROM such people! DUH?!? You are a FUNNY GUY, DAVE!!! LMAO

          • Ray Houthuysen

            By law, I must take the initiative to report lost or stolen guns within 30 days. I also do a form when I make a private sale or trade. The buyer brings me proof of passing background check.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Ray–In Michigan, you only have FIVE days to report them–that’s what it was when I had my Dad’s guns taken from me…

          • Ray Houthuysen

            We have all of these already. My guns are all registered, I am licensed, all came with a lock, every purchase, even if only a day apart, required a background check, and I am bound to report a lost or stolen gun within 30 days. My entire networth is my liability insurance.

          • 4Bravo1

            You don’t understand the purpose of the 2nd Amendment and the intent of the framers of the constittution. Armed citizens were meant to keep the government in check. Giving them absolute power over guns would obviously not be the way to sustain those checks and balances. You really don’t get it at all.

          • Dave M

            You might have been able to overthrow the government with your muskets in 1800, but nowadays this argument is beyond stupid. It’s the kind of twisted conspiracy lunacy that gives the rest of the reasonable folks on this forum a bad name.

          • 4Bravo1

            Like I said, you don’t get it. its people like you who don’t understand the intent of the constitution at all, that argue things that are “beyond stupid.” It is the law of the land. It is the main contract we agree to live by, yet, because a modern society cant overthrow its government, you show your ignorance. You just think “well its an old law; let’s not pay attention to it because I don’t want to.” Pretty ridiculous.

            1. Modern governments are overthrown all over the world. Maybe watch the news once in a while.

            2. Your belief that the government is too powerful to overthrow exactly proves the point people are making about a government that is too large and powerful; in other words, your own statement gives credibility to the other side. You are stuck in a logical loop, which is where most liberals find themselves on most arguments.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Dave–WHAT COUNTRY ARE the TROOPS IN our armed forces FROM? Do you NOT REALIZE, upon being given orders to “attack” the citizenry, or attempt to DISARM them, HOW MANY OF those troops are MOST LIKELY gonna’ TURN AGAINST those who have DISPATCHED them? Logical CONCLUSION, given WHERE they COME from, and WHO they would be going AFTER, at the behest OF our government… It is YOU who are “twisted,” Dave–“danglin’ in the wind” ALSO applies to you… LMAO Reasonable “folks” KNOW that gun laws DO NOT PREVENT crime, IF the perpetrator has BAD INTENTIONS–PERIOD–ONLY STUPID/UNREASONABLE people BELIEVE words on paper WORK to PREVENT crime(s) with guns!!!

          • Bob Hoffman

            Dave–how DO you come UP with the term, “unqualified claim?” As stated–you have yet to read John Lott’s BOOK–Unqualified? Maybe as a result of the CHOICES YOU make regarding what news sources YOU USE??? That CLAIM is QUITE “qualified,” sir–as Lott’s book proves–Dr. Gary Kleck–used to BE anti-gun–read HIS books on guns, PLEASE!!! Knowledge is power!!!

          • Dave M

            I don’t mean “unqualified” in the sense of “made by someone unqualified” — I mean it in the sense of “made without any qualifiers”. In other words, the most vocal voices in the debate on the pro-gun side seem to advocate for more guns, any guns, for anyone. No bans, no waiting periods, no restrictions… any attempt to do any of those things is “coming to take our guns”. What I DO NOT hear are reasoned voices of gun owners like some of the people here saying things like – “Hey, if I want to stop a gunman with my concealed handgun, maybe it would be great if it was ALSO harder to get a semi-automatic weapon in this country!!”

          • Bruce White

            Bull Feces! We do not advocate what you say! “No bans, no waiting periods, no restrictions… any attempt to do any of those things is “coming to take our guns”. That’s just a downright lie! We believe everyone should go thru a background check! We believe you should be screened for mental illness! Stop putting words in the mouths of law abiding Second Amendment citizens!

          • Dave M

            Who is “we”? I specifically said “the most vocal voices” What gun law has the NRA ever come out vehemently in favor of? What alternative gun safety legislation have they ever forcefully lobbied for? Has it ever happened?

            Let me ask you. What laws do you think should be passed that would help avoid accidental gun deaths and make it harder for violent criminals to commit crimes with firearms? Are there particular categories of firearms you think it should be illegal for ANYONE at all to own?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            NRA and Clinton made a joint effort to require a free gun lock with every gun purchased. I have a big useless collection since I use a safe.You need to look before asking loaded questions. Google.

          • Dave M

            Ok. That’s one. And a good one. Granted, it was 15+ years ago… :)

            I’m glad to hear you use a safe, too, since someone here just blasted the idea of both gun locks and safes as ridiculous… implying that the only gun worth having is a loaded one within arm’s reach at all times… as if we are all in real danger of being murdered at any time. I think a law requiring a lock, a safe, or both is at least as reasonable as the law that says I have to get my brakes inspected.

            To continue the theme of “everyone THINKS they are responsible”… in the 70s/80s my Dad kept his shotgun and his rifle on the top shelf of his closet, and his ammo in the top drawer of his dresser. The guns were never loaded, and they were technically “out of reach”. Had you asked him, he would have said he was a “responsible gun owner”.

            I never messed with them or loaded them. But if I was the kind of irresponsible, impulsive, dumbass kid that a lot of my friends were, I could have easily done so. A trigger lock, a safe, more frequent safety refresher courses… all of these things would have made me and my family safer.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            What we are against is dumb laws which require guns in MY home under my CONTROL to be locked up. That defeats the purpose. I don’t have kids so my gun is bedside, fully loaded, light attached.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Gun locks/safes PREVENT you from HAVING a GUN the MOMENT that you NEED it–as G.Gordon Liddy so eloquently states–“Ladies and gentlemen, when you need a gun, you need it YESTERDAY!” Hey, Dave–I KNOW–we can just call a “time-out” when the bad guy breaks DOWN the front door–I’m SURE he’ll “cooperate,”and GIVE you TIME to REMOVE the gun FROM the safe, REMOVE the trigger lock FROM the gun, and REMOVE the lock on your ammo case-I am SURE he has all of the time in the world, so YEAH, he’ll WAIT on you to get “caught up!” YES, Dave–STUPID–Facebook CHALLENGE FOR YOU, Dave–Read the book, The Seven Myths Of Gun Control–also read Dr. Gary Kleck’s books ABOUT guns–HE IS an “expert”–used to BE anti-gun–then, a MIRACLE occurred–HE (criminology professor) DID some “research,” and FOUND OUT, firsthand, he was WRONG about guns–to the point that HE now CARRIES one–Knowledge IS power, Dave–isn’t it TIME that you GOT some knowledge, instead of your silly “opinions” posted HERE? LMAO DO it–READ The Seven Myths-LEARN about HOW a California teen LOST TWO siblings BECAUSE OF STUPID GUN LAWS, Dave!!! It’s IN the BOOK–the first seven pages OF the introduction!!! Read/Learn/Grow

          • Dave M

            Actually, this didn’t seem right to me, so I did some Googling. NRA “agreed” to the inclusion of trigger-locks in some legislation back in the Clinton administration, but it can hardly be called a “joint effort”. The acceptance was reluctant, and the NRA’s own website indicates that their official position was that this is an example of unnecessary, and perhaps even harmful safety regulation, and that “There is no compelling need for such invasions of privacy.”

            https://www.nraila.org/articles/19990729/mandatory-storagetrigger-lock-legislat

          • 4Bravo1

            NRA supports Mental health screening for applicants; Mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes, you have been factually or logically wrong on almost every post you have made.

            “The National Rifle Association, which has opposed virtually all of President Obama’s proposed gun control package, swiftly endorsed a bill rolled out Wednesday intended to strengthen the federal background check system and keep guns out of the hands of those deemed mentally ill.”- Washington times.

            “The NRA strongly lobbied state-by-state for mandatory minimum sentences – See more at: http://www.thomhartmann.com/users/ddc/blog/2013/02/nra-history-mandatory-minimums#sthash.sPJsccCW.dpuf

          • Dave M

            How are mandatory minimums for non-violent drug offenses helping reduce accidental gun deaths?

            How about a law like this – Your under-13 year-old kills someone with your gun, and YOU get charged with negligent homicide. Do you think the NRA would support that? Does it sound reasonable to you?

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/10/05/11-year-old-charged-with-murdering-8-year-old-after-arguing-about-puppies/

            http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/kentucky-accidential-shooting/index.html

            What mandatory minimum does the NRA support for these two parents?

          • 4Bravo1

            So I answered your question. Once you admit that your original assumption was clearly in error, then we can move on.

            Your question included “keep guns out of the hands of criminals.” See how you have to change even your belief about you own statements to support your argument. You were wrong, just admit it like a man.

            No, I don’t think you should face negligent homicide because some unauthorized persons takes a possession of your property against your will and uses it outside of its intended purpose. If someone takes my car without authorization and runs someone over, I don’t think I should face homicide charges at all. If states want to apply some type of other charge that is not a crime against persons, I could go along with that. All of my guns are secured and many states require it by law.

            See how you argue. You just try to change the subject, you never admit to a fact, you try to change your argument, and then once you clearly lose a point, you yell “squirrel” and look away.

          • Bob Hoffman

            How about we just REQUIRE an “IQ” test before you are allowed to REPRODUCE? THAT would be a GOOD PLACE for a new LAW—Maybe THEN we could “produce” less CRIMINALS! LMAO Laws that prevent accidental deaths? THAT is a FOOLISH idea–to THINK that a LAW can CREATE “intelligence”–that IS what you seem to be proposing here! LMAO How about we EDUCATE people about guns, and HOW to SAFELY USE them? Oh, NO, Dave–TOO MANY of your fellow LIBERALS would not ALLOW it–goes against their GUNS ARE BAD argument! LMAO

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Semi automatic machine gun is an oxymoron. Only full auto is a machine gun by definition and law. The Nat. Firearm act of 1939 banned manufacture of machine guns. Those made before then cost as much as a car. Special permits are needed and a $200 tax is required. Last I read, only once was a full auto used in a crime.

          • Dave M

            Fair enough – my sloppy terminology. Edited to fix.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Those who say that are not being logical/rational–they ARE being ’emotional”–thinking with their heart, NOT their head–FACT: No matter IF you outlawed all semi-auto weapons, there are so many OUT there already, such a law would serve WHAT purpose? Oh, YEAH–leave law abiding citizens even LESS choices with regard to defending themselves–just like ALL of the OTHER gun control laws–Dumb? Nah–it’s plain STUPID…

          • 4Bravo1

            Why would making it harder for a law abiding citizen to own a semi-automatic handgun stop a criminal?

          • Dave M

            That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that making semiautomatic weapons harder for CRIMINALS to obtain would make it easier for a law abiding citizen to sop them before they kill more than one or two people.

          • 4Bravo1

            You said: “What I DO NOT hear are reasoned voices of gun owners like some of the people here saying things like – Hey, if I want to stop a gunman with my concealed handgun, maybe it would be great if it was ALSO harder to get a semi-automatic weapon in this country!!”

            My question directly addressed that. Once again, and this is about the third time, I asked you a simple direct question, and you DID NOT ANSWER IT, tried to obscure what you actually said, and then tried to change the subject.

            Sorry, I am done trying to educate you. It really comes down to this. You believe we should disarm people because you feel the government is too big to overthrow if it became too tyrannical always. (You did essentially say this). You don’t understand the constitution.

            If your gun is not secure and someone takes it against you will and commits a homicide, then you too should be punished for homicide. Sorry, that is called cruel and unusual punishment for a simple act of negligence in securing property without any other overt act. You were alarmed that the NRA opposes such things. You don’t understand the constitution. You also didn’t know that the NRA does promote some legislation to keep guns out of criminals hands.

            You believe you have to be in a militia to own a gun. This has clearly and decisively been settled by the supreme court and it was clearly not the intent of the framers. Once again, you don’t get the constitution.

            Seriously, you should read a little history surrounding the constitution and perhaps take a class on debate.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            In Michigan, CPL holders can’t carry if blood alcohol is .008. The level for impaired driving is .08. Drunk is higher yet.

          • Dave M

            Ok… they “can’t carry”. And you “can’t drive” if your BAC is .08. And yet plenty of people do. This is my point. That permit is not a magic guarantee of responsible and safe behavior. You can’t tell me that this Friday night, with 500,000 CPLs in Michigan, there won’t be… let’s say 10 or 20 guys (0.004 percent) walking around with a handgun after two beers. I think that’s 10 or 20 too many.

            Ok. Be 100% honest. If you are active in this community, you probably know a hundred or so people with CPL permits. There have got to be one or two who you know or hang out with or read their stuff on the Internet, and every once in a while go — “Eeech… that [email protected]#$er seems kinda off. I do NOT trust that dude.” Right? We ALL know these people. That’s all I’m saying.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            The world is full of assholes. There is no subway line from NY to Utopia

          • Dave M

            Agreed. And the fewer assholes with guns, the better, IMO… I hope we can both at least agree about that.

            I have a busy day at work today, interviewing a job applicant, so I probably won’t have time to continue this discussion or respond to most of the replies. I just wanted to thank you, Ray in particular for keeping the discourse civil and informative, whereas a few other seems to think “You are a Liberal” is somehow the beginning and end of a discussion.

          • Cisco

            Or, don’t miss. If she had’ve brought the fool down, the whole situation would be different.

          • Pete Sylvain

            Yes. She would be facing murder charges.

          • Cisco

            It just don’t serm right.

          • Dave M

            It doesn’t seem right that a 16-hour gun course doesn’t give you the authority to execute suspected petty criminals in the street?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Eight hours

          • Cisco

            Have you never heard the old adage, that police used to use ? “Stop, or I’ll shoot”. Maybe it’s still used sometimes, for all I know. But more importantly, why are you ok with letting the criminal just run off scot free ?

          • Chris

            Dave,

            One thing you continue to forget is that while “more people with more guns” might not be the solution, people who legally, responsibly, and with good intentions go out and pursue a concealed carry license are not the majority of the gun crime makers.

            http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/

            has proof, citations, and information.

            The people who are committing these crimes break the law, just like driving drunk, or not registering their vehicle. Many permit holders take the required course, and/or train weekly or monthly.

            The lady above was not a responsible permit holder and failed to adhere to the guidelines and responsibilities that she signed up to uphold. Which are first and foremost protection of one self, aka, self-defense.

            Now I read every comment you made and you continued to compare it to other lawfully required acts. Criminals, those who break the law, do not follow the law. So if you really wanted to compare the act of registering a vehicle, abiding by laws, etc. It’s apples and oranges.

            As for requiring me to lock up my firearms in my own home, under my own supervision, etc. That makes no sense. While there have been instances where misplaced, or unsupervised firearm incidents or ND’s have occured, that is due to the specific environment that firearm and owner are subject to AND EACH environment requires different considerations.

            For example, if I lived in Compton or Harlem, most likely I would not leave my vehicle with any valuables in the car on the street, in my driveway, or maybe not even in my garage. However, since I don’t live in a heavily gang populated area with high crime rates I don’t have issues leaving my valuables in my vehicle on the street, driveway or garage.

            Each gun owner has their own considerations to take into account. The reason they are carrying, whether it be constitutional belief, self-defense, or others. They also have their own responsible considerations to take into account, gun storage, safety, location, usage, etc.

            For me, living alone, in my own house, with no kids, i don’t see a reason why i cannot have my firearm locked, loaded, and holstered within reach. For a family man or woman who has children, it would make more sense to have a quick access safe or wear, with a proper holster, the firearm on person AND start firearm safety early and responsibly for their children.

            I’m not trying to start a feud, but frankly you are, like others said, taking the smallest fraction of irresponsible permit holders and blowing them up. Just remember there is a smallest fraction of corrupt police officers (and they get training, exams, prep, constant scrutiny with their firearms), judges (who are allowed to carry in the court of law), teachers, coaches, taxi drivers, etc. but we don’t consider them as a whole bad do we?

            While I value your viewpoint, some of your requirements make no sense. I’m not going to tell you that you need to baby proof a home if you have a newborn. That is what a responsible and capable parent would do.

            A responsible gun owner should and will take into consideration these things and they will continue to educate and train themselves. While there are some who don’t or can’t, you don’t know what other considerations they have taken into account and you can’t compare them to the group in whole.

          • Dave M

            I’m not saying you should be required by law to have a gun locked up at all times. But I think just like cars are required to have minimal safety requirements, it’s a reasonable law to require someone who owns guns to OWN a safe, or simply a lockable hard case, like the one I keep my Stratocaster in. Just like seatbelts… if everyone has them, they have the OPTION to use them. Had my Dad been required to own a safe, his guns probably would have been in it when it wasn’t hunting season, and not in zippered cases in the top of his closet. Little things like this won’t stop all accidental gun deaths. They won’t eliminate thefts. But they could reduce them by a few percent. Maybe they will save a few hundred lives a year. But the most commonly heard refrain from gun owners (or their most vocal lobby), from my perspective, is to reject ANY increase in safety/registration/tracking as either unacceptable as too curtailing of their freedom, or useless because it won’t be 100% effective. And I think that’s silly. If I have to show my ID and sign a form to buy Sudafed because SOME people use it to make meth… I don’t think it’s too much to ask for you to deal with a little extra paperwork and deal with some safety regulations that you consider silly because SOME people might not be as trustworthy as you.

          • Chris

            Every firearm does some with a lock, whether it be a threaded or not. it’s up to the user to use it. Background checks (or due diligence for private sales) are needed for every legal firearm exchange. States mandate the registration/tracking if need be.

            You’re essential asking for a federal law to be implemented to require things such as proper firearm registration and tracking (or a state law that requires annual firearm questionnaires for owned firearms). Frankly, I’d be fine with disclosing that I sold this and that weapon, but they shouldn’t need to know what I currently own, only that I don’t own a firearm that might be later used for a violent act. On that note, I am legally obligated to disclose a stolen or lost firearm. Therefore, if my owned firearms do get stolen, the authorities will then know what I owned.

            States don’t need to abide by federal law and so it might or might not work. But that’s not something you or I can decide. If you feel so strongly about it, I respect that, but you should find a group or law maker and create a petition for backing and get the ball rolling. Discussing your opinions here will get you all sorts of responses, as you’ve seen, but most likely won’t get people with similiar interests/ideas of which might persuade some people here.

            Good Luck.

          • Dave M

            So let me ask. If the state has the right to know what perfectly legal houses and cars you own… what would be wrong with them knowing what legal firearms you own? Is there a reason other than the slippery-slope-to-Nazi-Germany argument that I’ve heard made?

          • Chris

            The state doesn’t need to know what cars you own. They only need to know if you decide to drive it on a public road. If it’s for personal property and will never hit the road then you don’t a) need to register it and b) license it (all provided it is not new from dealer, a used car sale). Even then there should be a bill of sale for the private sale, just like firearms.

            As for not knowing what firearms I own, if I buy brand new they will. If I buy private they wont. Same as with a car. You keep referencing this Nazi Germany argument, which frankly has no place. If the govt wants to know about me they wouldn’t have any issues. If i’m a law abiding citizen, legally own my firearms (whether disclosed or not), they should have nothing to worry about. Remember, most permit holders are required to not have been committed to any mental health facility among other things.

            On top of that, if I were a criminal and the laws changed where you can only legally buy it or they have to be registered, it wouldn’t matter. They don’t follow the laws.

            I gave you information and I told you if you really wanted to pursue your passion go the correct route. You have a response for everyone’s opinion. Hang it up, move on. I’m done replying.

          • 4Bravo1

            Again, you don’t understand the purpose of the constitution or the second amendment. Tell me Dave, was the intent of the second amendment only to allow people to protect themselves from criminals or criminals and the government. Its a simple question. Please answer it.

          • 4Bravo1

            Of course Dave doesn’t have any idea.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Relative to TAXES/FEES, those things are “registered”–not for ANY purpose relative to SAFETY… WHY DOES the government need to KNOW what guns I have? Dave–Ted Kennedy’s Oldsmobile has KILLED MORE people than ALL of the guns of ALL who are posting here, with the POSSIBLE exception OF police officers posting here. That’s a SERIOUS FACT!!! LOL

          • Dave M

            Republicans really aren’t over Ted Freaking Kennedy? Seriously?

          • Bob Hoffman

            Just making a statement that is based on fact–MANY gun control/anti-gun people do not CARE about such things (facts) relative TO guns–just their “feelings”–what they THINK should happen/would work–when they start with the “more laws” BULLSHIT, that is IT–NO MORE “discussion”–WHY? Because CURRENT laws are NOT BEING invoked–what use are MORE LAWS, other than to (literally!) tie the hands OF the law abiding, as PROVEN IN both DC and Chicago…

          • Dave M

            The government needs to know what guns you own so that YOU KNOW if you sell one illegally, with no BG check, to someone who shouldn’t have it, and then that person commits a crime with it, then YOU will also go to jail. (See the statistic I posted about the NYPD undercover study)

          • Bob Hoffman

            NOPE–and you can stick New York’s gun laws up your ass–Not you, literally–you KNOW what I MEAN, Dave–seriously, dude–NO “semi-automatic” weapons? HUH? What COUNTRY is New York IN? I hope you enjoy living under the thumb of the state! sigh…

          • Bob Hoffman

            Dave–are you of the mind that the “bad guys” are going to follow ANY of your suggestions/rules/regulations/laws? Really? As TOLD to you already–there are OVER 20,000 local/state/federal statutes IN PLACE–why aren’t those who are “in charge” USING them? Why AREN’T those who SAY it’s about “safety” (more asinine gun laws!) DEMANDING stiffer penalties UNDER current laws? Because, Dave–it IS about restricting/banning/taking guns–PERIOD–it IS absolutely the proverbial “slippery slope”–that YOU seem to not possess the insight to realize the logical CONCLUSION to all of this is NO SURPRISE–you are not “wired” to be able to DO that–all of your comments HERE PROVE it to be SO…

          • Bob Hoffman

            Dave–the lady in the story is ABSOLUTELY a RARE exception TO those who have CPL’s—at least in Michigan, dude. Fact, Dave—if someone IS trying to hurt/kill you, shooting and killing that person in defense of your own life is NOT “executing” them–your terminology HERE makes me think–YOU are what is labeled as a “troll” on most websites! LOL

          • Dave M

            I was responding directly to the commenter who said – “It doesn’t seem right” that it wouldnt have been ok for her to kill the guy. More than one person here has said – “Good for her”. I’m glad you disagree with them.

          • Pete Sylvain

            You can’t shoot someone for shoplifting.

          • Cisco

            So then, they get to skip happily down the street, with your stuff, and you can do nothing to stop them ? That sux. It don’t seem right. After all, they knew when they committed the crime, that there was risk involved.

          • Pete Sylvain

            Call the police and give them a detailed description of the person and where they are going. You don’t get to shoot someone because they are breaking the law; if that was the case, then we’d just execute everyone that broke the law.

          • Cisco

            I was just thinking along the lines of, just the one’s that are trying to escape. Not one that has surrendered and/or stopped running. If I can get Odumbo’s job as dictator, away from him, there’s gonna be some changes made. :-)

          • Pete Sylvain

            You claim Obama is a dictator, but you are okay with people shooting anyone they see committing a crime?

          • Cisco

            You didn’t pay attention. Read it again. Just the ones that are trying to escape.
            And yes, I do think Odumbo is a dictator, or at least trying to be one.

          • Pete Sylvain

            Dictators and their thugs kill people without courts. You’re advocating exactly that mindset. Lethal force is only allowed when you are trying to save someone’s life, not when you think a criminal is running away.

          • Cisco

            No, not when you “think” a criminal is running away, but when you “know” a criminal is running away. And, I never advocated that the force had to be lethal, although yes, it could possibly end up that way. But criminals make that choice, the armed citizen is just reacting to the criminal’s action. What I was referring to is, taking the escaping criminal down, so that he can’t escape, and continue on with criminal activities. What if the criminal does escape, due to the inaction of an armed citizen, and goes on to maybe kill one of his vivtims a few days later ? You may take the liberal stance if you like, but I, like most red blooded Americans, will not. I flatly refuse to take the bleeding heart liberal stance, when it comes to criminals and their criminal activities. As far as I’m concerned, they’ve got nothing coming.

          • Pete Sylvain

            Firearms *are* lethal weapons. Do you have any firearm training?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            You couldn’t be more wrong. It would be worse in every way.

        • Bob Hoffman

          MOST of the people you interact with DO NOT HAVE CPLS, DO they? sigh… Neither does the “average” person, Dave!

          • Dave M

            Well, so what does it take to have one? Psych profiles? Intelligence tests? Are you telling me the training is SO INTENSIVE and the screening SO COMPREHENSIVE that dumb or irresponsible people can’t get one of these? How do you explain the lady this story is about then?

          • Cisco

            Keep in mind mah man, nothing is100%. Nothing. No matter what you do, somebody, somewhere, somehow, just might mess up. That’s the real world.

          • Dave M

            Understood. No argument. Likewise – seatbelts, turn signals, airbags, crumple zones, safety glass, speed limits, annual inspections… none of these things BY THEMSELVES have eliminated automobile fatalities. But all of them TAKEN TOGETHER have GREATLY REDUCED them. We should have the same mentality about firearm deaths, be they accidental, negligent, or criminal. Not toss out any suggestions because they “won’t be 100%”

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Driving is not a Constitutionally protected Right.

          • Dave M

            Neither is the unfettered right to bear arms by those not actively engaged in a well-regulated militia, according to plenty of folks well-versed in the Constitution… including former conservative Supreme Court justices. But I’m not particularly interested in that argument at this moment, or parsing the punctuation of the Founding Fathers. The fact is, the government regulates plenty of constitutionally protected rights.

          • 4Bravo1

            The law of the land is factually against your belief. it does not require militia membership. This has been clearly settled, so if you aren’t interested in that false, disproven argument, why bring it up?

          • Dave M

            The Republican appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for nearly 30 years, Warren Burger, vocally disagreed with this interpretation. So it’s certainly not “settled” in the minds of everyone. The “settled law of the land” changes all the time. So does the interpretation of those laws. And, from time to time, so does the Constitution. That’s why we can’t own slaves, and women can vote, and stuff.

          • 4Bravo1

            It was settled and it was interpreted as an individual right. You have to accept that as the law of the land unless you think you can get the second amendment revoked.

          • Dave M

            Abortion rights were settled as the law of the land in Roe v Wade, and upheld by the Supreme Court as an individual right. Is that discussion over, too?

          • 4Bravo1

            Stay on subject. Don’t try to run to another argument because the facts are against you. Did I say something factually in error?

          • Dave M

            You are claiming that just because the current legal interpretation of an issue is “X”, that the issue is no longer up for debate or discussion or change. That is not true. I was giving a parallel example to show that your argument is wrong.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Genius Dave here apparently believes that the word people means something DIFFERENT in the Second Amendment than it does in the First and Fourth Amendments–I know FOUR US Supreme Court Justices who AGREE…

          • 4Bravo1

            What is your suggestion that doesn’t infringe on someone’s constitutional rights?

          • Dave M

            Oh, I’m totally in favor of infringing on someone’s constitutional right! If I have to be X-rayed and patted down to get into the state courthouse… If I need to apply for a permit to have a parade… if government offices close for Xmas and not Yom Kippur… guess what? A whole bunch of my constitutional rights have just been infringed upon. I’ve been searched without cause, my right to peaceably to assemble has been abridged, and my government just respected an establishment of religion. Not much, but a little. We infringe on ALL sorts of rights in tiny amounts for ALL sorts of reasons. Guns are not somehow magically immune.

          • 4Bravo1

            You didn’t answer my question. I will never make the argument that infringement ever historically meant make no laws concerning in any way. But since I asked a relatively simple question and you couldn’t answer it, then you should maybe pause and reflect on your beliefs.

          • Dave M

            I didn’t answer your question as posed because I don’t believe my solutions need to be confined to those that don’t infringe in any way on the broad statement of the “right” to own a gun. I think they can infringe plenty. Just like laws against libel and slander regulate unfettered free speech and freedom of the press in order to prevent harm to individuals, it’s perfectly reasonable to regulate access to firearms in the name of public safety.

            Here are some things I think could be a start. Every gun sale could begin with a federal background check and a (5 day? 15 day? 30 day?) waiting period. Every gun you own could be registered and titled, just like a car. Any transaction involving said gun would require the accompanying title transfer, just like a car. Every year or two, you could have to renew said registration and prove that you still own that gun and haven’t sold it, given it away, loaned it to someone, lost it, or had it stolen. (This might involve taking the actual gun to an Authorized Inspection Station, like I do with my car in NY. Gun shops could be licensed to perform this check the way garages are licensed to do state auto or emissions tests.) All of these regulations could be basically uniform from state to state, if not federal, to eliminate the phenomenon where some states are much easier to obtain a gun in than others.

            When you buy ammo, you could have to show your ID, and sign a little form (just like I have to when I buy Sudafed at the CVS, because some people can’t be trusted not to make methamphetamine with it) and you might have to also show proof that the type of weapon you are buying it for is actually registered in your name. This might make it slightly harder to use a gun that came into your hands illegally.

            Gun owners could be required to have liability insurance, just like drivers. Frequent gun safety courses would reduce your premiums the way that safe-driving courses do. Insurance companies might determine which types of guns are more likely to result in accidental or deliberate deaths, just like they do with cars, and determine premiums accordingly.

            Gun licenses could come in different levels or “classes” like drivers licenses. In order to graduate up to the next class, you’d have to complete particular training courses, and obey the regulations above for a certain amount of time without incident.

            If anyone violates the above regulations, and their lost, stolen, borrowed, or illegally sold gun is used to kill someone, they could charged as an accessory to murder.

            Anyone who allows a gun that they own to fall into the hands of a child, who then kills themselves or someone else, would be charged with negligent homicide. (If it’s my fault when my dog bites somebody, then it’s my fault when my kid shoots somebody.)

            Anyone convicted of a violent offense (particularly domestic violence) or anyone who has a restraining order against them for harassment or stalking and the like will have their licenses revoked and any firearms they own removed. This type of information needs to be comprehensively reported and gathered in a national database.

            And yes. I think certain guns that shoot too many bullets, too fast, too easily should be illegal, and that we should err on the side of public safety over personal freedom in this decision. And before you object too strongly — I’m sure you probably don’t think individual citizens should be allowed to own RPGs, tanks, and fighter jets… so we BOTH believe the right to bear arms has limits. We just differ on where the line should be drawn.

          • 4Bravo1

            Let me destroy your argument in your first paragraph. There are laws against libel and slander so we can make laws against guns. Libel and slander violate the rights of others. We already have laws in effect when you use a gun to violate someone else’s rights. The laws are called assault, threats, and homicide. Bad comparison as usual. There are no laws infringing your free speech as long as it doesn’t directly violate someone else’s rights.

            Instant background checks I do not have a problem with. 30 day waiting period is an extreme an arbitrary infringement that will keep people from -protecting themselves in times of crisis. Registration does lead to confiscation; there are just too many examples of it to trust the government with it. If your state wants to do it, petition your state. Why do I need to show ID to buy ammo. I think you should have to show ID to make a comment on the internet. Sorry, you want ammo recorded. What will that do? All of your suggestions are a clear infringement and without a doubt an attempt to catalog gun owners for future confiscation. A clear constitutional violation. Like I said, you don’t understand what a right is and you don’t understand the constitution or its purpose.

            Your negligent homicide suggestion is a ridiculous violation of human rights and would be cruel and unusual punishment.

            People with restraining orders are already prohibited. So if I commit a misdemeanor assault, I lose my rights? Lets apply that to speech as well.

            Guns that shoot too many bullets. Again, you get the constitution or its intent. The average citizen should be able to put up fierce resistance against the government and should be armed with the same general type of weapon now used to enforce laws against its citizens. If the government started using fighter jets and RPGs against citizens, then I would say yes, we should have them.

          • Dave M

            “I think you should have to show ID to make a comment on the internet.” -LOL

            (you’re a wacko, but that was funny)

          • Dave M

            “Why do I need to show ID to buy ammo. […] Sorry, you want ammo recorded. What will that do? ”

            It would mean if I got a gun in a back alley that wasn’t registered to me, or if i stole it, I wouldn’t be able to buy anything to load it with. (without committing another crime)

          • Ray Houthuysen

            How’s that FOID working in Chicago IL?

          • Dave M

            See above. The FOID doesn’t do at all what I’m suggesting.

            As I understand it, the FOID card says – if you are permitted to own a gun, you are permitted to buy ammo.

            What I am saying is – if you want to by ammo for an AR-15, you would have to bring proof that you own an AR-15 that is registered in your name, and that was obtained legally.

          • 4Bravo1

            If you got a gun in a back alley why couldn’t you get ammo in a back alley? So I need approval for every box of ammo. That certainly doesn’t put too much power in the hands of the government. Are you for voter ID laws?

          • Dave M

            You definitely could. But then that would involve two more people committing two more crimes, so… maybe four times the chance of someone getting caught before a criminal has everything he needs to put a bullet into a gun he shouldn’t have.

            I would be for voter ID laws if they could be implemented in such a way that didn’t disenfranchise disadvantaged groups. (See, for example, the appalling example of Alabama passing voter ID laws and then immediately closing a dozen or so DMV offices in predominantly poor, black counties.)

          • Bob Hoffman

            MAYBE they would get caught? WOW–Talk about an “effective” LAW–NOT… sigh

          • Bob Hoffman

            So, you ADMIT that there would BE “another crime”–how DO words on PAPER PREVENT such a thing from happening? REMEMBER, PLEASE–ONLY LAW-ABIDING citizens FOLLOW the LAWS!!! FACT: Putting words on paper, thinking that it will PREVENT crime is only something that absolutely CLUELESS individuals BELIEVE…

          • Dave M

            Why are there any laws then, if nothing we can do can stop criminals from breaking them? That’s a stupid argument, and the more maniacs we see killing people with legally obtained weapons, the fewer people are going to buy it.

          • Dave M

            So just as you claim my first paragraph gives away my intent, so does your last one betray yours as nothing more than the cartoon version of “paranoid anti-government gun-nut” who gives responsible gun-owners (like many on this forum) a bad name, and who is not interested in solutions, compromise, or conversation if they might interfere with your twisted revolutionary fantasies. Good day, sir.

          • 4Bravo1

            Good day communist plant.

          • Bob Hoffman

            FACT–NO LAWS will EVER keep us ALL SAFE–and too many absolutely STUPID people VOTE FOR candidates who TELL them that they WILL PASS LAWS that make us SAFE–BULLSHIT–TOP to BOTTOM–anyone with TWO or more functioning brain cells SHOULD be able to SEE THROUGH that BULLSHIT–SHOULD be able to…

          • Dave M

            “So if I commit a misdemeanor assault, I lose my rights?”

            In short, Yes.

            A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association analyzing purchasers of handguns in California found that purchasers with at least one prior misdemeanor conviction were more than seven times as likely as those with no prior criminal history to be charged with a new offense after a handgun purchase.

          • 4Bravo1

            So now we are using minority report to decide when to take people’s rights. How about if you lose a slander case or provide false information to a police officer. Should you lose your right to vote? You really don’t believe in human rights.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            The First Amendment has nothing to do with libel or slander. Those are civil torts. 1A protects us from Gov’t restraining speech.

          • Dave M

            Plenty of other examples could be given, as I have in some other comments. For example – laws against “hate speech” and “hate crimes” arguably infringe on free expression to an extent.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Let’s see proof these ideas stop any killings. First time to use in a crime is Eleven Years for a gun per FBI.

          • Dave M

            States with firearm waiting period laws have significantly lower rates of suicide. Research published in the American Journal of Public Health showed that states with a law in place that required a waiting period for the completion of handgun sales had 27% fewer suicides per capita and 51% fewer firearm suicides.

          • Dave M

            In states that require a background check for every handgun sale, 38% fewer women are shot to death by intimate partners.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Bull

          • Dave M

            So you ask for statistics, and now you’ll just deny them all?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            I’m learning from you. No sources cited. Contradicts my knowledge.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Feds say 4% of sales to later criminals are gun show. Doesn’t add up. 99% of sellers at gun shows are FFLs. Some states do not allow non FFLs to sell.

          • Dave M

            I didn’t say anything specific about gun shows – not sure what your point is here?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Your claim the universal checks are an answer solves a nonexistent problem.

          • Dave M

            ““The private-party gun market […] has long been recognized as a leading source of guns used in crimes.” Private-Party Gun Sales, Regulation, and Public Safety, 363 New Eng. J. Med. 508, 509 (Aug. 5, 2010), at http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMp1006326

          • Bob Hoffman

            For EVERY “event” you can show, using guns ILLEGALLY, there are about TWENTY (or more!) cases where a LEGAL gun was used, to PREVENT bad things from happening to GOOD people–FBI stats say it happens around 1,000,000 times per YEAR–The Armed Citizen blog–on the NRA’s website HAS such stories–taken from various new sources around the country–yet. many will call it “NRA propaganda”–NEVER MIND that the NRA is merely REPRINTING those stories!!!

          • Dave M

            A singular example – In 2012, a gunman killed three people, including his wife, and injured four others at a spa in Wisconsin, after buying a gun through a private seller he found online. The shooter was prohibited from purchasing guns due to a restraining order his wife had acquired against him, but was able to buy the gun anyway because the seller was not required to run a background check.

            (Loopholes in Gun Laws Allow Buyers to Skirt Checks, N.Y. Times (Apr. 10, 2013), at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/us/gun-law-loopholes-let-buyers-skirt-background-checks.html)

          • Dave M

            “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) found that during one 29-month period, unlicensed sellers were involved in about one-fifth of illegal trafficking investigations nationwide and associated with nearly 23,000 trafficked guns”

            Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers,xi (June 2000), at https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/Firearms/chap1.pdf

          • Dave M

            As for the ideas that have never been attempted — it’s kinda hard to prove a law will be effective BEFORE it’s enacted.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Most of your ideas are in place or have been tried and failed. Background Checks? Done. Waiting periods. Done. Ammo purchase restrictions. Done. Fail, fail, fail. Next?

          • Dave M

            Waiting periods are demonstrably effective and yet still vary wildly state to state.

            I’m not talking about restricting types and amounts of ammo – I’m talking about tying purchases to a comprehensive and well-maintained registration system. I’m pretty sure this has not been tried.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            CT has waiting. CT got Sandy Hook. Michigan has no wait. Last masacre in 1927. Bath, Mi School Board Member used dynamite to kill 47 kids. CT has AW ban. Mich does not. Killer acquired one anyway.

          • Dave M

            Yeah. From his Mom. So if CT has an AW ban, how did Nancy Lanza obtain one legally? This is why wildly inconsistent state-by-state regulations are a farce.

            (A reasonable response to your examples might be – Thank god there has only been ONE mass dynamite killing this century! Why have there been so many more killings with guns? Maybe we should make assault weapons just as hard to obtain in every state as dynamite is. Let’s take a closer look at how dynamite is regulated and see what we can learn from it.)

            Yes, of course waiting periods won’t stop every mass killing. But statistics show pretty clearly they reduce gun suicides, domestic assaults, etc. This argument of “Law X wouldn’t have stopped event Y” serves as nothing more than a roadbock to any productive discussion.

            I’ve asked a couple times for acknowledgement of, and solutions to the following problems…

            1) the US has an appalling number of accidental gun deaths, too often involving children
            2) the US has an incidence of mass shootings simply not seen in other functioning democracies
            3) It is easier in the US for a criminal to get his or her hands on a gun legally, and commit a violent crime with it, than in almost any other civilized country

            So I’ve been asking… as a responsible, thoughtful, well-trained gun owner – What suggestions do YOU have for helping to alleviate some or all of these problems. So far I have gotten two classes of responses…

            A) These problems aren’t real
            B) More guns!

            Does anyone have anything else? Because if not, I’ve learned all I wanted to learn, and I can go.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Dave, #1 is a parental responsibility. Various “solutions ” punish those of us not to blame. You drive drunk and I get a tether and must go for community service? Where is the fairness in this?

            Your other items are erroneous or unproven

          • Dave M

            “You drive drunk and I get a tether and must go for community service?”

            No, but in many places where a lot of people drive drunk, we all have to stop at a DWI checkpoint every now and then. (A clear, if tiny, violation of my fourth amendment rights, one could reasonably argue.)

          • Dave M

            Also – depends on what you call a massacre. Robert Lee Haggart in the 80s… Rodrick Shonte Dantzler in 2011…

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Sandy Hook with 20 was called a masacre. I agree. Latest college with 9 also. Seems 47 in Bath, Mi qualified.

          • Dave M

            No what I meant was – I turned up two or three other mass shootings in Michigan with a quick google. It sounded like you were saying there hasn’t been a massacre in Michigan since 1927, thus proving that the most dangerous thing in Michigan is not guns but dynamite..

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Massacres inside schools involving students. CT 1 MI 0

          • Dave M

            But the conversation isn’t just about schools. It’s offices, churches, Sikh temples, movie theaters, coffee shops, hair salons, IHOPs, grocery stores, army bases, immigration centers, government buildings, malls, factories, concerts…

            http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/12/14/1337221/a-timeline-of-mass-shootings-in-the-us-since-columbine/

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Adam Lanza met the CT waiting period.

          • Dave M

            I thought he got all of his guns from his mother. Did he actually buy any himself? If not, it’s not really relevant to the discussion. We can all agree that background checks and/or waiting periods wouldn’t have stopped this ONE PARTICULAR SHOOTING. Can we also agree that it’s pretty clear that they can and do make SOME OTHER shootings less likely?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Not clear at all. First, the vast majority of sales go through NICS. You’re only impacting a small minority. Not arguing whether it’s 5% or 20%.. Not sure anyone has legit numbers, after all, if its undocumented, it’s undocumented. When unqualified persons get rejected, do you think they drop their ideas. They certainly do not get prosecuted. A few dozen out of the most recent 1 Million rejections.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            See Illinois for your ammo and registration program . check Chicago gun Violence while you are at it. Google FOID

          • Dave M

            No. The Illinois law requires you to have an ID card. There is no check to see if the ammo corresponds to a gun that is registered to you. Just that you are permitted to own some gun.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Laws obeyed by honest people. NEVER by criminals .

          • Dave M

            Yes – and plans like this would require criminals to break multiple laws, with the opportunity to get caught at each step, in the process of obtaining a gun.

            It would also make it a crime for an individual to sell a gun to somebody who can’t get one legally otherwise. And it would make that sale easy to track backwards via the equivalent of a “title”. Do you really think that it wouldn’t be an overall good thing for everyone if laws about private gun sales weren’t a little stricter?

            Do you think it’s fine that a felon or a recently discharged mental patient could buy a gun from a private seller? With no record kept of the sale? That there is NO reason to tighten up simple laws like that? Because it’s a “nonexistent problem”?

            “According to an undercover investigation conducted by the City of New York, 62% of private online firearm sellers agreed to sell a firearm to a buyer even after the buyer had told the seller that he or she probably could not pass a background check”

            Point, Click, Fire: An Investigation of Illegal, Online Gun Sales (Dec. 2011), at http://www.nyc.gov/html/cjc/downloads/pdf/nyc_pointclickfire.pdf

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Says a lot about New Yorkers, if it truly can be extrapolated to the larger population. You keep talking about ideas that have been tried and are less than successful. Strawman purchased are illegal everywhere. You are trying to criminalize non criminal activity carried on by law abiding Americans

          • Dave M

            No. I’m trying to come up with ideas that make it harder for a criminal who couldn’t pass a background check to easily get a gun off Craigslist. (Oh, sorry – “Armslist”) Are you interested in that problem, at all? Do you have any solutions? Or is “That won’t work” all you have to offer?

            (And I thought NY was supposed to be filled with gun-hating liberals, not rogue arms traffickers. Make up your mind.)

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Explain to me how I get a gun off armslist, Craigslist or GunBroker

          • Dave M

            Looks to me like I can click on an ad, and get a dude’s phone number. After that, I imagine nobody needs to know what happens, right? That was the point of the undercover study.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            So a law has to be broken and I need to be willing to drive across five or six state lines. If I wanna break those laws, I can save the gas money. Yours is a theory that just isn’t common. Most sales will involve a transfer from Seller’s FFL to Buyer’s FFL

          • Dave M

            So you refute the statistics of the ATF I just posted, then? About the prevalence of privately sold guns? Based on what alternative study?

            (There were no state lines involved. I found a 9mm Luger in my county, posted today, about 45 min away.)

            And yes, laws would need to be broken, but something like a title/registration process like a car sale would make that crime much easier to discover.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Try to buy that Luger the way you described.

          • Dave M

            Haha. No thanks. I could easily pass a BG check and get a gun legally if I wanted. I have no need to resort to desperate measures.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Didn’t see that post. Phones aren’t the easiest for this.

          • Dave M

            Basically, ATF found that during one 29-month period, unlicensed sellers were involved in about one-fifth of illegal trafficking investigations nationwide and associated with nearly 23,000 trafficked guns.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Criminals selling to criminals? Perhaps Atty General Holder selling to Mexican cartels.

          • Dave M

            I don’t understand what you’re saying. The ATF says 1/5 of illegally trafficked guns originate as the result of loopholes in background checks and record-keeping and other regulations that do not apply to unlicensed private sales. What is your point about Mexicans??

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Operation Fast & Furious should ring a bell.

          • Dave M

            It rings a bell. I’m just sure what it has to do with the fact that 23,000 guns originating in poorly-regulated private sales wound up being illegally trafficked.

            Are you suggesting that these ATF statistics are not reliable, because Obama? Because, if you check the citation, this study was from 2000.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            The govt trafficking weapons and pressuring store owners to be complicit should bother you as much as a lone woman shooting at a car full of felons. The BATF is corrupt and politicized.

          • Dave M

            So rather than commenting on the problem, you are changing the subject?

            So what kind of statistics could I cite that would mean something to you, and not just be waved aside as untrustworthy or irrelevant? Anyone other than the NRA?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            We started with you claiming to be an advocate of responsible concealed carry. Every post since then has either attacked the current system, created a Rube Goldberg like alternate reality, or argued that Americans can’t be trusted. When do we get to defend ourselves in public? Ten years after your plans are implemented? Twenty five years? There is no Utopia or Camelot.

          • Dave M

            Oh, I never claimed to be an “advocate” MYSELF! (Although now I can see how maybe my wording was confusing.) What I actually asked was… All of YOU in this forum, as advocates of safe, legal concealed carry… what would YOU do to make sure more guns didn’t lead to more parking lot vigilantes? Out of genuine curiosity, because I WAS actually impressed with the forum’s reaction to this incident. The answer seemed to be, pretty universally – “Meh. Nothing. It’s not enough of a problem to worry about.” (With some fairly convincing statistics and arguments to back that claim up.) Ok, then. Then the question gradually moved to – Wait, what about all of the other gun deaths in the US… what would you do about those? And the answers were either. “Meh, there aren’t really that many” or “Make sure almost every room or public space has someone with a gun in it at all times.” Or both.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            If there’s a phone number, its likely a legal FFL. Auction sites make money off bids. Biders must be registered. Its anonymous until you win a bid. Like eBay. Could it happen? Sure. Has it? Sure. Is it the easiest way? No. Is a transaction with a paper trail a criminals first choice? LOL. Remember that both parties are risking up to twenty years in prison. A long stretch even for a New Yorker

          • Dave M

            Where is the paper trail if I can offer the dude an extra $100 to skip the background check requirement? (The survey suggests I might not have to make more than 3 or 4 calls before finding someone willing to do so.)

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Dave, You’d make a good criminal! carry on..but don’t buy any overpriced collectibles or pay $500 for a Glock. Your budget is $100. Remember, your a criminal. Cant continue. Got guns that need cleaning today.

          • Dave M

            Ray – Remember to point them away from you… I wouldn’t want you to wind up as one of my unreliable statistics ;)

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Before I bought my first gun, I learned the four rules. Here’s a story you’ll enjoy. A retired cop went out with his wife and another couple. Afterwords, they were all in his kitchen enjoying a undetermined beverage, he sat down to clean his gun, shot his wife with a .45

            1. Never mix alcohol and guns
            2. Don’t clean or handle guns when distracted
            3. Assume all guns are loaded
            4. Never aim at anything or anyone you don’t want destroyed.
            5. Finger off the trigger and outside the trigger guard until you have lined up your sights on a legit target which you intend to shoot
            6. Be sure of what is in line behind your target

            His wife lived

          • Dave M

            Those rules are great. I’m not sure what the point of your story is, though. Sounds like the moral of it is “Not even cops can be trusted to use a gun responsibly” :)

          • Ray Houthuysen

            #3 – 6 are must learn at any safety class. The point is CPL holders aren’t anymore dangerous than “trained” cops. This command Officer had 20+ years in. You can’t make the world 100% safe.

          • Dave M

            Of course not. But you can make it 5% safer. Or 10%. Or who knows.

            Car deaths per passenger mile traveled are 1/6 today what they were in the 50s, and are down 25% in the last decade alone, due to such mandatory features as 4 wheel brakes, seatbelts, airbags, antilock brakes, center brakelights, increased drinking ages… as well as the establishment of federal agencies like the DoT and the NHTSA. Would you have opposed making each and every one of these safety features mandatory, at each step along the way, because they wouldn’t make cars 100% safe? Because they would cost too much? Because they involved “big government”?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Haven’t you yet grasped that no one buys into your car analogy. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is inalienable and the Constitution reminds us of that. I don’t like that many people are untrained. I accept the risk because there is a bigger principle involved.

          • Dave M

            I accept that you don’t buy the LEGAL analogy. But you also didn’t answer the question. Does that mean , no you wouldn’t have opposed them… you’d have been in favor of them? I’m just trying to get to the bottom of the “100% safe” mentality, because it doesn’t make sense to me.

            I understand that you think gun restrictions are different from automobile restrictions because the Constitution specifically mentions guns. Fine. To a certain extent, I agree. But you obviously ALSO think that SOME gun laws are ok… right? I think you’ve given some examples. So why is your answer to almost every suggestion I made “That won’t work 100% of the time” or “Only a small number of cases happen that way” or “That wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook”…? The main point of my car analogy is that laws and restrictions don’t NEED to be 100% effective to save hundreds or thousands of lives.

          • Bob Hoffman

            Driving=privilege–Guns=Constitutional RIGHT. Dave says there isn’t a “big” difference–guess he’s never cracked OPEN a dictionary… sigh

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Most ideas bandied about in the Liberal press, or pushed by the WH are feel good Band-Aids to pander to the Democratic base. Yes, big govt is bad

          • Dave M

            Maybe because anything more meaningful than a band-aid would be shouted down by Republican politicians in Congress who are all scared to death of the gun lobby and the tea-party. : /

          • Bob Hoffman

            They are REPRESENTING those folks, if they KNOW what is GOOD for them, Dave–Trying to legislate “behavior” is the ULTIMATE “fool’s errand!” DUH?!? Proper prosecution under CURRENT laws, Dave–as TOLD to you ALREADY–those in charge are NOT USING our laws to properly PROSECUTE gun crimes, and those (like you, apparently!) who are unaware of that fact want MORE LAWS? WHY??? sigh…

          • Ray Houthuysen

            You make the assumption that statistics only move in one direction with a change in a law.Take away guns from one group makes them vulnerable while there may be a benefit to another group. A waiting period can be a good idea in one case but cost a life in another. It’s more complex than simply adding rules and bureaucracy. When I digest your ideas, I see an enormous cost. There is also the Constitutional issue of State’s Rights. I’m done but enjoyed the exchange.

          • Dave M

            I agree about cost. And about State’s rights, for that matter, but obviously as a liberal, that doesn’t bother me AS much. I think some things are too big/important for the states to handle.

            I also agree it’s complex and there are no easy answers. I appreciate your efforts to keep things mostly civil and focused on “reality” rather than demonizing the opposition. I learned some things.

            Keep safe, and I hope you never have to draw your weapon to stay that way.

          • Bob Hoffman

            WHO KNOWS? Guessing when it involves MY Second Amendment RIGHTS is a “NO GO” there, Dave…

          • Bob Hoffman

            And, WE HAVE a “WINNER!” You got the “answer” RIGHT, Dave! BTW–did you KNOW, according to FBI statistics, CIVILIAN citizens SHOOT and KILL TWICE as many “bad guys” EACH YEAR as the COPS do? Good THING all of those folks HAVE those guns–IMAGINE the carnage that would be POSSIBLE if they DIDN’T!!!

          • Bob Hoffman

            Your response is absolutely STUPID–you DID READ the part where he shoots NUMEROUS times EACH WEEK, correct? The man you are “admonishing” could most likely fieldstrip EACH of his weapons, and reassemble them ALL, BLINDFOLDED–YES, Dave–it’s a (self) “test” as part of one’s firearm proficiency–to be able to DO that–if you are THAT “disciplined,” you KNOW your SHIT… DUH?!? LMAO

          • Dave M

            It was a JOKE Bob, JEEZ, lay of the CAPS lock and CHILL

          • Bob Hoffman

            ANY–REPEAT–ANY gun dealer (FFL holder) HAS to–repeat, HAS TO perform a background check ON any prospective buyer–online sales INCLUDED–Dave–you KNOW that we can sell CARS without a “background check,” right? Last time I checked, CARS are STILL (even with all of their “safety features!” killing MORE people than guns–and when cars do it, it’s called an “accident!” sigh…

          • Bob Hoffman

            Criminals are ALREADY BREAKING PLENTY of laws–why WOULD we need MORE LAWS, when those “in charge” REFUSE–repeat, just for “geniuses” like Dave here-REFUSE to FOLLOW the ones we have NOW? NO NEED for even ONE MORE GUN LAW–Dave–DO some “research”–I hereby CHALLENGE you to FIND even ONE case where a person using a gun illegally broke LESS than TWO laws already in PLACE while DOING what they did–more than likely, NUMEROUS (MORE than TWO!!!) gun laws were broken DURING the time that act was COMMITTED!!! FACT!!!

          • Dave M

            (I will grant you that the IL FOID program sounds like a mismanaged shitshow. Putting programs in place without also allocating the resources to make them function properly is a waste of everyone’s effort. But it seems to me like all the FOID card says is “I’m not crazy or a felon”. It’s nowhere near what I’m talking about, re: better registering specific guns and tracking their sales.)

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Registration has one purpose, to track ownership AFTER a crime was committed. It might need to be left at the scene or discovered with a search warrant AFTER other evidence point to a person of interest. Doesn’t stop crime. Ever. It is a first step for confiscation.

          • Dave M

            And so now the underlying paranoid agenda comes out. I thought maybe you were a different breed from 4Bravo1, but maybe not.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Learn from history. It’s a long leap from genuine concern to paranoia.

          • Dave M

            In a 2007 report, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) stated that, because individuals who fail a background check can easily access firearms through private sales, “guns are far too easily acquired by prohibited possessors, and too often end up being used in gun crime and gun violence.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Let’s enforce the law. 1.1 Million rejections by NICS, yet only 76 prosecuted. Biden says there are no resources. I don’t value the opinions of command officers who are political appointees.

          • Dave M

            Yet the other day, you cited the statistic that the majority of cops favor concealed carry to support your argument. So do you only count the opinions of law enforcement officers when they happen to agree with you? I have a hard time believing that the International Association of Police Chiefs is some kind of rampant liberal organization.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            You don’t know this organization, do you? When officers are elected officials, they worry about their reelection. Those appointed worry about being canned. Street cops have union protection and less visibility in polls.

          • Dave M

            I don’t know any of the organizations responsible for the stats you’ve cited either, and yet I haven’t responded by knee-jerk rejecting their validity.

          • Dave M

            So since you don’t believe any claims by organizations you’ve never heard of, I assume you support lifting Congress’s ban on the CDC comprehensively researching gun death statistics?

          • Bob Hoffman

            CDC is a place for DISEASE control–NOT GUN control-DUH?!? How do you “catch” a gun disease? NOT… LMAO Keep politics OUT of the CDC!!!

          • Bob Hoffman

            IACP–a “mouthpiece” organization–NONE of these ASSHOLES is ever ELECTED–only “appointed”–at the discretion OF the mayor of the town/city they are in–go to the Sheriffs–THAT is where you will find REAL comments about guns, that are accurate and truthful…

          • Dave M

            Research has found that states with universal background check laws experience 48 percent less gun trafficking, 38 percent fewer deaths of women shot by intimate partners, and 17 percent fewer firearms involved in aggravated assaults.

          • 4Bravo1

            So you just admitted you cant make any laws without infringing and that is as unconstitutional. So you are against the constitution. You said “I didn’t answer your question as posed because I don’t believe my solutions need to be confined to those that don’t infringe in any way on the broad statement of the “right” to own a gun. I think they can infringe plenty.” Pretty much sums it up. you don’t care about the constitution.

          • Dave M

            “You don’t care about the constitution” is empty rhetoric. There are few “constitutional rights” that aren’t infringed upon by other laws under some circumstances. Whether that’s free speech being infringed by laws against slander, or laws against freedom from searches being infringed upon by stop-and-frisk police municipalities. Guns should be no different. There is no magic word in the second amendment that makes firearms immune to regulation.

            How is it that the same Republicans who don’t believe that requiring photo ID infringes on the right to vote can at the same time believe that requiring a gun to be registered infringes on your right to bear arms? Which one of you has the crystal ball that tells you which paperwork is unconstitutional, and which isn’t?

          • 4Bravo1

            There is no constitutional right that bans verification of identity before voting. Like I said, you don’t even understand the constitution. What would they confiscate if they collected your name and the only fact was that you voted? Really just some more dumb arguments and lack of knowledge about the constitution on your part.

          • Dave M

            Correct. There is simply a constitutional right to vote. Some think ID laws infringe upon that. Some think they do not. Some think they do, a little, but that’s ok if it prevents voter fraud. (which is basically a nonexistent problem)

            There is a constitutional right to own a gun. Some think requiring you to register said gun infringes on that right. Some think it does not. Some think it does, a little, but that’s ok if it makes it harder for criminals to get guns illegally. (Which is an actual real problem.)

          • 4Bravo1

            You don’t see how gun registration leads to confiscation and voter registration leads to what exactly other than honest voting? Dealer gun sales are recorded. I cant help you if you cant see the difference. Additionally where is the constitutional right to vote without infringement clause?

          • Dave M

            Not being a paranoid conspiracy theorist myself, I actually don’t believe registering something somehow leads to government confiscation. Is my car registered so the government can confiscate it? Is that why my house has a title, too? Is the tyrannical NY state government going to round up all the snowmobile owners and put them in camps? People who own chickens in North Carolina have to register them with the state. Is that for when the Government Black Ops Chicken Force comes to round up all the poultry?

            Voter photo-ID laws infringe upon the voting rights of poor people who don’t have drivers licenses and often can’t afford to travel to government offices (which can sometimes be in the next county) in order to apply for and obtain a government issued photo ID card. It’s basically a back-door “poll tax”. (Which was determined long ago to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.) Read up on what Alabama did a few months ago –tightening voter photo ID laws, and then immediately closing a dozen DMVs in poor, mostly black counties.

            As for the other question — the right to vote is more complicated because white men, black men, women, and 18 year-olds were granted the right by the Constitution at different times, but — “not only is there a right to vote in the Constitution, but it’s the single right that appears most often in the Constitution’s text – five times in all. In fact, four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th – even use the same powerful language to protect it: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” Of course, like every other constitutional right, the right to vote is subject to reasonable restrictions. Nevertheless, it’s just as much a constitutional right as any other embodied in our Constitution.” [article source – http://theusconstitution.org/ ]

          • 4Bravo1

            There is no point. You don’t have the logical ability to differentiate between a snowmobile and a a gun. Answer me this, has the US ever rounded up a class of citizens and put them in camps? Has the US ever confiscated what was privately owned?say gold for example. If you were logical you would understand how those facts weigh against your ignorant religiously based belief system.

          • Dave M

            I have to say, I’m fascinated by this belief system that says — “I love the Constitution of my own country’s government because I feel it supports my twisted paranoid fantasy of armed resistance against my own country’s government.”

            You know that “treason against the United States” is the only crime specifically defined in the Constitution, too… right?

          • 4Bravo1

            You clearly have not studied a single aspect of the second amendment. Its clear intent is primarily what you stated, to allow the people to stand armed against the government to keep the government from becoming tyrannical. By your own admission, it has clearly worked. I am teaching math to a pig. Like I said, you only have your religious belief system and no facts. I have the exact words of the people who wrote the constitution. You are a pathetic weak, uniformed, person undeserving of the protections you receive.

          • 4Bravo1

            The poor are not protected voting class in the constitution and it does not infringe on the poor who need ID to collect benefits anyways and nearly all have IDs. You have poor logic and a clear lack of knowledge about the constitution. Has the government ever confiscated gold or perhaps put whole classes of people like the Japanese in camps. Hurt to be proven an idiot doesn’t it.

            The language you claim does not exist because you clearly and intentionally left out the last part of the sentence. Basically, you lied on purpose because it is psychologically painful for you to have to admit your belief system is wrong.

            “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

            The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists. (fair vote.org)

          • Dave M

            The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you that the right of poor people to vote isn’t protected by the US Constitution – hence the ruling in Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966).

            From the decision – “a state violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth.”

          • 4Bravo1

            There is no mention of a blanket right to vote in the constitution. But you apparently have never read it.

          • Dave M

            What could be more “blanket” than saying things like “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . .” in FOUR different amendments?

            Besides, this whole argument is moot anyway. There are already laws that infringe on blanket firearm ownership. Can you buy a fully-automatic machine gun in most states? If not, then your claim that no law can infringe on the second amendment in any way is already proven wrong by dozens if not hundreds of existing laws. We have already decided, as a country, that this right CAN be abridged and regulated, in the name of public safety. That ship has sailed. If you can be required to have a permit, wait a week, get a background check… and none of those things are thought by most reasonable citizens, lawmakers, or judges to violate the 2nd Amendment, then of COURSE you could also be required to register a gun. How is this not completely obvious?

          • 4Bravo1

            what you say is not in the text of amy amendment. You clearly live in a fantasy world.

            The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal and state governments from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen’s “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

            note: is doesn’t say what you claimed.

            “The right to vote is the foundation of any democracy. Yet most Americans do not realize that we do not have a constitutionally protected right to vote. While there are amendments to the U.S. Constitution that prohibit discrimination based on race (15th), sex (19th) and age (26th), no affirmative right to vote exists.” (fair vote.org)

            How does it feel to be proven an idiotic liar once again? Undeniably crushed on all arguments. You are a pathetic, twisted person with a low IQ and terrible delusions.

          • Dave M

            So when those amendments say you can’t take away the *RIGHT* to vote from those groups… they are preserving a right that doesn’t actually exist?? That makes no sense. The fact that the universal right exists is clearly assumed and implicit in the first half of the sentence, where they call it a “right”. “The *RIGHT* of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States… (for reasons)”

            Oh wait – I forgot… gun rights advocates only read the SECOND half of constitutional amendments :)

            This is all beside the point. None of this addresses your demonstrably false claim that we aren’t allowed to make laws that abridge, restrict, and regulate constitutional rights. Every firearm law in the country ALREADY does so. Nothing I proposed last month is, in principle, any different from a constitutional standpoint from existing laws on permits, licensing, background checks, waiting periods, prohibited classes of weapons, etc. And maybe YOU think all of those EXISTING laws are an unacceptable violation of your constitutional rights. Guess what…? Most citizens, legislators, and judges disagree with you. That’s how and why those laws exist.

          • DWELLS1

            But, if they don’t have the gun, they CAN’T mess up.

      • Bob Hoffman

        MUCH less “likely!”

    • Bob Hoffman

      The word “rare” APPLIES here–VERY few such incidents will occur–BTW–it isn’t EASY to GET a CPL–a lot harder than a license to drive–this IS the “exception” TO the RULE, to be SURE! Not very smart–and it is a “lesson” for ALL of us to learn from!

      • Dave M

        I agree that it’s a lesson. I still need convincing that it will remain the exception though.

        • Ray Houthuysen

          Wisconsin very recently started issuing CCWs. The anti gun crowd predicted blood in the streets and all sorts of Mayhem. Two years later, nothing of the kind occurred.

          A national police organization polled its 15,000 street officers, 91% fully support citizen carry. Any law enforcement opposition comes from political appointees or Sheriff who run for office in Democratic areas.

    • Kevin Reed

      There is close to 500,000 people with Concealed Permits in Michigan alone, and these stories about Concealed License holders using or even pulling their weapon out when it is not a life threatening issue is very very rare.

      • Kevin Reed
        • Dave M

          There is a lot of stuff there Kevin – although from a mishmash of sources, some objective and others not. I appreciate the link. This is the part that resonated with me most….

          “Fact: The average citizen doesn’t need a Sport Utility Vehicle, but driving one is arguably safer than driving other vehicles. Similarly, carrying a concealable gun makes the owner — and his or her community — safer by providing protection not otherwise available.”

          Yes. Driving an SUV arguably makes the DRIVER safer (and in particular, FEEL safer.) But their reduced visibility, longer braking distances, increased mass, and other properties potentially make everyone else NOT in an SUV considerably less safe. (Having been hit by a Yukon in my old Saturn SC2, I can vouch for this first-hand.) This is exactly how I feel about guns. The more well-intentioned but ultimately-fallible people there are carrying them, the more often someone is going to do something stupid like the Home Depot lady.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            You miss the point on SUVs. We don’t outlaw them even though they aren’t needed and may endanger small car owners. Most drivers don’t NEED them. This is an argument made against owning AR15s, more than one gun, hi capacity magazines etc

          • Dave M

            Yes, exactly. Are you also against all those things?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Not sure what you are asking about, SUVs or ARs. Congress and the Administration agreed that after a twenty year trial, the AWB was ineffective and unnecessary. It was allowed to lapse because all the people’s representatives agreed it was a waste. Many law enforcement agencies have reversed their position on AWB Ban. I saw a story of a medium large city having confiscated 2200 guns off the streets by their PD, not a single one was an Assault Weapon.

          • Eddie Conna

            Actually it’s proven that SUV’s are NOT “safer”. They have a much higher propensity for rollover, and occupants in SUVs are far more likely to be seriously injured or killed because SUV’s are classified as trucks, and don’t have to meet the safety standards cars do.

      • Dave M

        500,000? That’s more than 1 in every 20 people. That seemed really high to me, but I checked the stats and it seems to be correct. Thanks for that info.

    • The Goat Tender

      I am an advocate for Constitutional Carry for all Law Abiding Citizens…No permission from Government to Open or Conceal Carry..There is not test for what might happen….Freedom is scary..Having to receive Government permission is scarier..

      • Dave M

        I don’t understand this mentality at all. I need government permission to drive a car. I need a state-issued title to buy and sell a boat. I need to tell NY state what kind of car I drive and prove to them it works properly every 12 months. Why would applying these same types of rules to a gun curtail your freedom SO MUCH? Wouldn’t it be worth it if it saved… I don’t know… the life of the ONE 9 year-old girl who was shot by her 11 year-old neighbor yesterday? A little paperwork? That’s “tyranny”?

        • Bob Hoffman

          In Michigan, driving is a privilege–I presume it’s the same where you live–owning/possessing/using firearms is a RIGHT–there IS a (big) difference!

          • Dave M

            Not really. There is a difference, but it’s not a big one. We regulate and legislatively limit all sorts of constitutional rights. Every city that requires a permit to hold a parade or demonstration is regulating your first amendment right to peaceably assemble. I happen to think (despite being labeled a “liberal” here) that most ‘hate speech’ laws intrude upon first amendment rights to free speech. Every time you walk through an airport scanner, you are giving up a tiny bit of your 4th Amendment right to be secure in your person and your effects. (Not to mention every time you authorize the NSA to collect your phone records.) Plenty of people think solitary confinement and the death penalty are violations of the 8th. Just b/c the Bill of Rights mentions something doesn’t mean we don’t draw legal boundaries around it

          • Bob Hoffman

            Dave–there is NO “big” difference BETWEEN what is called a “privilege,” and that which is called a RIGHT? Dude—YOU need to stick your nose in a Webster’s Dictionary! WOW… BTW–I “authorize?” You are on DRUGS–I give NO ONE any such right–How DO you prevent “Uncle” from DOING whatever the FUCK “Uncle” WANTS, Dave? DO TELL—PLEASE!!!

          • Dave M

            Um. You vote?

        • Ray Houthuysen

          There is only one, maybe two, people to blame. No reason to punish me. I lock up my guns. You have absorbed too much Nanny State thinking from your years in New York. Do you like having your Big Gulp being regulated? By the way, my car isn’t inspected every 12 month or ever.

          • Dave M

            I actually don’t mind having my Big Gulp regulated. If I’m that freaking thirsty, I’ll buy two mediums. The public health costs (paid by my tax dollars) of rampant obesity and diabetes are so onerous that, yes, I’m perfectly fine with the gentle government disincentive of banning 64oz soft drinks. Who is that bad for??

    • Smokey Behr

      Thank you Dave M. you hit the Nail on the head sir. We have the constitutional Carry in my state and it doesn’t even require a gun passage of a gun Safety course.. And I am very aware whom is around me at all times when going to the range. even the person shooting in the next lane. As far as the Article. What was hammered into our heads was “BE A GOOD WITNESS” . If your personal safety isn’t threaten you have no basis for drawing you firearm. Especially over property theft.

    • Dennis Haas

      so what if it does happen more often, too bad she missed the loser. How long does it take someone to go from robbing home depot to home invasion and homicide? How many times are tax payers going to be forced to feed, house and provide health care for people with no respect for our laws?

      • Dave M

        So (suspected) petty criminals should be shot dead in the street. That’s seriously the country you’d prefer to live in?

        • Dennis Haas

          innocent people don’t run away from authority and hop into a waiting get away car do they? If he wasn’t robbing the place wouldn’t he have stayed and explained his innocence?

          • Dave M

            I didn’t say he was innocent. I said that petty theft, last time I checked, doesn’t carry the death penalty in most states.

    • Ray Houthuysen

      No advocate of concealed carry would ask your questions or entertain your solutions to problems which don’t exist or are already addressed in better ways.

    • 4Bravo1

      Concealed carry in this country has grown by millions without any significant alarming increase in these events. Almost every state has a concealed carry program. If your belief is true, why aren’t the streets already running with blood? Most people do drive responsibly and they use their cars daily. You can drive at 16 and generally cant own a pistol until 21. People may carry guns daily, but they don’t pull them out and use them daily. I hope that makes you reconsider your premise, because the facts are against it.

      • Dave M

        Actually, it has somewhat – and I appreciate the folks responding with seemingly fairly objective facts as opposed to canned rhetoric and anti-government paranoia.

    • Eddie Conna

      So a CPL holder turned out to be an idiot. There are plenty of idiots driving 2 ton plus vehicles on the road every day.

      She should be charged with multiple felonies to send a message that this isn’t acceptable. BTW, I know several CPL holders, and many gun owners, (myself included) ALL of whom feel the same way.,

      • Dave M

        I’m glad to hear that you (and most of the people who have commented) feel this way. But more than one person here has responded along the lines of “good for her, too bad she didn’t hit him”, and that’s troubling.

        • Eddie Conna

          There’s no shortage of morons in this world.

  • Tappy Mcwidestance

    If she had stopped the suspect, everybody would be praising her. The hypocrisy is stunning.

    • CountryShank

      If she had wounded or killed a man who stole something and posed no threat to her? No, I don’t think so.

      • Christopher Joseph Deming

        she shot at the tires, the intent was not to kill the suspect.

        • John Doran

          That is NOT PART OF THE LAW. To legally resort to deadly force, you or someone else MUST be the innocent victim of a DEADLY FORCE ATTACK and the threat must be IMMINENT…….. No warning shots, no shooting at someone to either scare them or stop shoplifting – a property crime……. I know – I teach CPL courses in Michigan……. NRA CERTIFIED FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR AND TRAINING COUNSELOR as well as a Retired Michigan Department of Corrections Officer……..

        • CountryShank

          The report says she ‘might’ have deflated a tire. And what if mr. shoplifter had a passenger in the backseat? Say, a kid in a car seat? And one of those rounds goes high? Deadly force isn’t always the answer, and it wasn’t here.

  • Robert Andrews

    keep focus on the big picture, please! This is a check on your thoughtfulness….the woman made a bad judgment call. However, that does not mean we should not trust the citizenry to carry guns for self-defense. That would be idiocy – similar to banning alcohol or autos because thousands of people a year die from drunk driving. Maybe support retraction of her license, but do not be silly and use this as reason to remove citizens’ right to self-preservation. Trust yourself and let your neighbor trust himself; be suspicious of others (aka govt or pc crowd) assuming they know what you need better than you do.

    • Dave M

      The problem is – Everyone thinks they are safe. Everyone thinks they are making the right decision. Everyone driving 80mph in a 55mph zone thinks THEY are a good driver, so it’s fine for them to be doing what they are doing. If people can’t be trusted to obey simple traffic laws like signaling when changing lanes, then why the should I trust them to carry around a deadly weapon and know when it’s ok to pull it out? Isn’t that decision a whole lot more complicated? And isn’t the cost/benefit calculation a WHOLE lot more dangerous?

    • CountryShank

      I think this case is useful as an example of what not to do when carrying, just as those movies they used to show in drivers ed of mangled crash victims explained why you should drive recklessly, drunk, etc.

    • Robert Fowler

      the question is when did the ideal of “self defense” become “protector of all things” ??

      statements like “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with gun” lead people to think they need to be the hero.
      demanding and asking for armed citizens (untrained, un bonded and uninsured ) to protect schools lead people to think they need to be a hero.

      if you are protecting your home or family that is one thing but this women went from customer to vigilante in less then a second and seriously failed at doing it correctly. in fact she put people in danger and is now the criminal. (because she violated laws, broke them clean off the books)

      • Dave M

        So here is the question. If we have 10x as many Americans walking around with concealed weapons… as the most vocal “good guys with guns” folks seem to advocate for our safety… what’s the ratio of (responsible trained individuals who stop genuine killers) to (people like this lady with bad judgement who cause more unnecessary bloodshed)? I would guess something like 1 to 100, based on nothing more than my basic knowledge of human nature.

        • Bob Hoffman

          Your “gobbledygook” spouted here is laughable–10X as many? Dude–HOW MANY of THOSE are carrying ILLEGALLY? DUH?!? So much for your “math problem” displayed here… Here’s an “idea,” Dave–YOU need to START compiling such stats–NO ONE ELSE has, up to NOW! WHY Are you so “stuck” on this “incident?” It is a RARE occurrence, relative TO the amount OF people who carry LEGALLY here in Michigan!!! Based on conjecture–isn’t THAT what you MEAN? lol

          • Dave M

            No, what i mean is – the loudest “good guys with guns” people like to state that having an armed populace makes everyone safer, with no ifs ands or buts. So I’m posing a thought experiment. Suppose 10x as many people as have them now went out today and got their CPL. Myself included. Took the course. Did all the things you have to do. What fraction of those people do you think would be like YOU (assuming you are every bit the cool-headed, responsible, well-trained gun owner you claim to be – I’m not doubting you) and what fraction do you think would be like Ms. Home Depot Dirty Harry here? My guess is – based on how responsible and competent people are at JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE is… no better than 50/50. And how many of them will leave their guns at home unlocked so that their 11 year old kid can shoot their 9 year old neighbor, like I read about yesterday? They will all CLAIM that they won’t. Just like you do. Except we all know that a lot of them will.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            What we know is when guns are widely held by citizens, crime is down and there is no pandemic of accidental shootings. Easily research. We don’t need s thought experiment. The science is settled.

          • Dave M

            I’m a scientist, and my burden of proof is REALLY high when it comes to social stuff. Correlation ≠ causation and such. It’s REALLY hard to prove something like that. I believe the “no pandemic of shootings”, but proving that it’s the CAUSE of a decrease in crime is nearly impossible.

            So let me flip the question around. When you look at the graphs of gun deaths per capita in the US vs. the rest of the world – what do you see? Do you see a problem in need of solutions? Or just one more piece of proof of — “and that’s why we all need more guns”?

          • Ray Houthuysen

            We are 28th

          • Dave M

            Not if you toss out the banana republics and war-torn countries and stuff. From what I’ve seen, if you include only similarly stable democracies with functioning infrastructures, we are at or near the top, and the next countries are FAR behind.

          • Ray Houthuysen

            Well then, toss out Chicago, LA, Detroit, D.C.and a couple of other large cities and we plummet. Crowding, poverty and the new thug culture drive our numbers. Most European countries don’t have comparable large cities or demographics. Look at Vermont’s lack of gun laws. Notice the low violence.

          • Dave M

            I’m not *just* talking about violence, though. Most of these stats include accidents too…

            http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/local/vermont/2014/07/17/vt-gun-deaths-outpaced-car-accident-deaths/12756651/

            (Either way, Vermont is probably a terrible example b/c their population is so small — <1.3 of the county I live in — to make statistics pretty sketchy.)

            And yes, it would be nice to simply ignore the problems in our large cities when deciding on national policy. That's probably not wise, though. That's precisely WHY we need to deal with the issue.

          • Dave M

            And if we are talking specifically about the problem of mass-shootings in public spaces… a problem pretty unique to the US… these are almost exclusively white dudes in the suburbs, not “thugs” in the “hood”, so… there are many different aspects to the issue that just counting heads doesn’t get to the bottom of.

          • The Goat Tender

            I agree Bob Hoffman …Dave M is a liberal….

          • Bob Hoffman

            Off the WALL, at least… sigh

        • Ray Houthuysen

          There are already millions of ccw Permit holders, plus Open Carriers, plus Constitutional carriers. With those numbers, if your personal fears are reality, there should be tens of thousands of shootings like this rarity in Auburn Hills, Mi

  • Christopher Joseph Deming

    She shot at the tires of the vehicle, not the people. Not such a terrible thing though poses a risk to the public and is irresponsible

    • Robert Fowler

      basically you can say , “she randomly fired rounds at a moving target in a crowded domestic setting” she endangered the people and the property in the area of that parking lot. try explaining that to your car insurance guy, “some chick with a gun channels dirty harry and shot my car trying to stop an unarmed shoplifter so please fix the bullet hole mr insurance guy” (thankful no kids were there in that parking lot or elderly or disabled or well any other human .. oh wait we don’t know if that was true … does the shooter ?

    • Ray Houthuysen

      That she hit a tire doesn’t mean she was aiming at it.

  • Susan

    Idiot! She makes the rest of us look bad & hurts our efforts. She should have a lifetime ban from carrying. She can keep her guns AT HOME.

    • Ray Houthuysen

      If convicted of a felony, she looses all her 2A Rights, home and carry.

      • Susan

        Good point!

  • Barb

    What an idiot. Did she ever once consider her “back stop”? She is responsible for every bullet that is discharged from her firearm. Thank God she did not harm and innocent bystander.
    Revoke her gun rights.

  • Monty Simmons

    The three major natural rights are Life, Liberty (freedom) and Property. This woman clearly abused her right to “Liberty” by shooting at this criminal. Her right to life was not in danger so she had no self defense claim.

    Perhaps we should take everyone’s liberty also. After all, crimes are committed by people exercising their liberty badly. If we take everyone’s Liberty from them they cannot abuse same and commit crimes.

    Sound stupid ? It is just like it is stupid to take everyone’s right to defend their right to life just because of one idiot.

    • Dave M

      We take peoples’ “Liberty” away ALL THE TIME in the name of public safety and the greater good. You don’t have the liberty drive a car you built in your garage that has no safety features. You don’t have the liberty to raise goats on your roof in Brooklyn. You don’t have the liberty to buy heroin, even if you intend to shoot up responsibly. You don’t have the liberty to build and live in a house that isn’t up to building codes.

      Every suggestion for better and more effective regulations, permitting, licensing, tracking, and limitations on firearms is NOT a secret fascist plot to take away all of your guns… any more than the DMV is an Orwellian scheme to allow the government to someday come confiscate all of our cars. It’s simply an attempt to reduce the number of people who die by being shot — either through accidents, negligence, or criminality.

  • Bruce White

    What a DUMB ASS!

  • Dennis Haas
  • CETZA

    The worst part is that there’s thousands of lunatics just like her

  • cobra88ri

    Love how there are some people talking about “shooting out the tires.” Really?!? 1) that is not as easy as it sounds. 2) Even if you do manage to hit them, the cars dont stop like in the movies. In reality, they keep driving on the rims. Bottom line is that this a VERY bad decision. Do I think she needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Of course not! Come on people! Stop being so extreme like our friggin’ liberal enemies. Let’s face a little reality. She simply needs to be charge with unlawful discharge of a firearm, fined, and then suspend her permit until she completes a training course on the subject.

    • Ray Houthuysen

      Not likely in Oakland County. In my “court”. She would do two years for the gun crime, three additional years probation, lose her CPL permanently. I’d let her restore her ownership in ten years but not CPL.