Late last January, a Fox commentator noted that CNN had turned into a 24/7 “gun control” telethon. And now, on the evening of April 9, I sit here watching what CNN has called a two-day special devoted to exactly that topic.

It is focusing on background checks.  No surprise: the gun prohibition movement nationwide has lasered in on the exact same thing. They’ve been doing it for a while, ever since they realized that both the “assault weapon ban” and the “high capacity magazine ban” are being increasingly recognized as illogical and meaningless…as, indeed, they were proven to be the last time they were enacted.

The “opening shot” of the “two-day blast” (puns intended) centered on Gabby Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly.  Before she was shot by psycho Jared Loughner, Rep. Giffords was a conservative Democrat who staunchly supported gun owners’ civil rights.  She owned a Glock 19 pistol exactly like the one Loughner used, and to their credit, her husband admitted that.  He also admitted that he and his wife owned a slightly larger capacity version of the same gun, the Glock 17, which he fired obligingly at a backyard plinking range for the CNN cameras.

The Glock 19 pistol holds 15 rounds in its standard magazine, and the Glock 17 contains 17 rounds when its standard magazine is full.  Each will take one more round in the firing chamber when fully loaded. Kelly made a big point of the fact that Loughner had used extended 33-round magazines in the weapon he used in the massacre.

Interesting, that, though Giffords and Kelly have now become icons in the “gun control” movement that wants to limit everyone to 10-round magazines (and New Yorkers to only 7), neither seems to have even symbolically given up their standard capacity magazines “evil high capacity assault magazine clips.”

“Sean AZ” commented in the last blog entry below this one that it looked to him as if the backstop Kelly was shooting at on CNN was unsafe. And  in a previous entry here I commented on the disingenuous hypocrisy Kelly demonstrated recently in his purchase of a “high capacity assault rifle,” to wit the SIG version of an AR15.  (The gun shop where he bought it refused to complete the transfer. When I am next in Tucson, I want to shake the hand of the gun shop owner who made that decision.)

So far in this particular stage of the “we gotta have universal background checks” CNN marathon, it appears that folks think we gun people want it to be legal for criminals to buy guns on the street, or have their girlfriends buy guns for them. Nothing could be further from the truth. That’s already against the law, and has been for a very long time, and it’s us gun people who rage against the Obama/Holder Justice Department’s failure to prosecute more than a token number of criminals who do so.  So far, even Anderson Cooper, the point man on this particular CNN blitz, doesn’t seem to be aware of the quicksand of creating felons out of a husband who leaves a gun at home with his wife, or parents who bequeaths a family heirloom gun to heirs, which lies in some of the currently suggested “background check” legislation passes. (Please see the blog entry below this one.)

To Cooper’s credit, while he’s obviously not “pro-gun,” he’s trying to show both sides like a professional journalist, in stark contrast to his fellow CNN denizen, Piers Morgan. Having been forced out of his journalism career in England by a hoax he perpetrated as a journalist, and a phone-tapping scandal, Morgan gets about half the ratings Anderson does. Anderson has already, honestly, brought out the fact that Loughner PASSED a background check when he bought the gun he later used that terrible day in Tucson.

My heart goes out to Gabby Giffords. It pains me to see what the brain damage inflicted on her by a monster has done. I can only wish she’d been carrying her own Glock 19 on that day, and seen the evil little monster in time to stop him.

1 COMMENT

  1. “Universal” background checks are nothing more than a platform for those opposed to the second amendment to begin the process of creating a registry of owners, prevent transfer of lawfully owned firearms and effect an “eminent domain” style confiscation that begins the process of an all out confiscation. Portrayed as “common sense”, the implications of the proposals have even raised concerns with the ACLU (no friend of the NRA) and could not be further from sensible.

    All law abiding gun owners want guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to society. Most reasonable people, a significant majority of law enforcement officers, and even the Justice Department’s own analysis comprehends that limiting the rights of law abiding citizens with an arbitrary ban and magazine capacity limit will have no measurable effect on the very issue the anti-gunners keep saying we need to do “something” about. No thank you!

  2. “Make it legal for criminals to buy guns on the street”? That’s where they get them now and although ILLEGAL they seem to do quite well at it.
    The main objective is to turn background checks into registration.

  3. It seems like the news outlets always get victims of gun violence as their centerpiece, but never give time to people who have defended themselves or others with their gun.

    That is the side of the story that is not being told.

  6. When I saw that video, my pedantic inner CCW instructor couldn’t help but note the proximity of the impromptu range to Gabby Giffords’ mother’s home, and the porch where they were both located – which brought this to mind:

    http://azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/03107.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS

    13-3107. Unlawful discharge of firearms; exceptions; classification; definitions

    A. A person who with criminal negligence discharges a firearm within or into the limits of any municipality is guilty of a class 6 felony.

    B. Notwithstanding the fact that the offense involves the discharge of a deadly weapon, unless a dangerous offense is alleged and proven pursuant to section 13-704(Dangerous offenders; sentencing), subsection L, section 13-604(class 6 felony; designation) applies to this offense.[Essentially, unless Mark Kelly has a prior history of felony convictions, the court may at its discretion enter judgement of conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor.]

    C. This section does not apply if the firearm is discharged:

    1. As allowed pursuant to chapter 4 of this title.

    2. On a properly supervised range.

    3. To lawfully take wildlife during an open season established by the Arizona game and fish commission and subject to the limitations prescribed by title 17 and Arizona game and fish commission rules and orders. This paragraph does not prevent a city, town or county from adopting an ordinance or rule restricting the discharge of a firearm within one-fourth mile of an occupied structure. For purposes of this paragraph, “take” has the same meaning prescribed in section 17-101.

    4. For the control of nuisance wildlife by permit from the Arizona game and fish department or the United States fish and wildlife service.

    5. By special permit of the chief of police of the municipality.

    6. As required by an animal control officer in the performance of duties as specified in section 9-499.04.

    7. Using blanks.

    8. More than one mile from any occupied structure as defined in section 13-3101.[6. “Occupied structure” means any building, object, vehicle, watercraft, aircraft or place with sides and a floor that is separately securable from any other structure attached to it, that is used for lodging, business, transportation, recreation or storage and in which one or more human beings either are or are likely to be present or so near as to be in equivalent danger at the time the discharge of a firearm occurs. Occupied structure includes any dwelling house, whether occupied, unoccupied or vacant.]

    9. In self-defense or defense of another person against an animal attack if a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force against the animal is immediately necessary and reasonable under the circumstances to protect oneself or the other person.

    D. For the purposes of this section:

    1. “Municipality” means any city or town and includes any property that is fully enclosed within the city or town.

    2. “Properly supervised range” means a range that is any of the following:

    (a) Operated by a club affiliated with the national rifle association of America, the amateur trapshooting association, the national skeet association or any other nationally recognized shooting organization, or by any public or private school.

    (b) Approved by any agency of the federal government, this state or a county or city within which the range is located.

    (c) Operated with adult supervision for shooting air or carbon dioxide gas operated guns, or for shooting in underground ranges on private or public property.

    Seems like the more Mark Kelly tries to prove he’s “just like any other gun owner,” the more he shows his arse by making dumb mistakes that any AZ CCW permit holder with 8 hours of training would know better than to make….

    (By the way, I’m acquainted with Doug Mackinlay of Diamondback Police Supply, and I’m sure he’d be thrilled to meet you and discuss Mark Kelly’s gun buying habits when you come to town.)

  7. Mas – well said, as usual! I’m looking forward to meeting you in July at your MAG-40 class at F.A.S.

    The only way I can keep my head around this nonsense is through my blog: http://jeffcarryoncolorado.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/debunking-gun-control-universal-background-checks-gun-show-loophole/

    But not only are these universal background checks unconstitutional, and disregarding that none of them would have prevented any of these tragedies lately, they’re utterly unenforceable… until they decide to enforce them. And at that point, we’re all in trouble.

    Anyway, I’m a big fan – keep up the great work!!

  8. I’d actually be somewhat OK with some of the anti-gun proposals if almost ALL of the people proposing them didn’t say “It’s a good first step”.

    The “Brady Center to Prevent Handgun Violence” used to have a less BS-filled title; that group first formed as “The Coalition to Ban Handguns”

    Liars all…so much so that they’ve forgotten not only the truth but that they played all their cards too soon and some of us have long memories.

  9. You need only witness some of the crap that went on in Maryland to understand what Obama and Schumer have in mind for the whole country. I’m pleased to hear that Mr. Keene plans to take Maryland to court for the destruction it plans to our 2A rights here and pray that we get a judge with some common sense and not a Liberal activist. Since our TV in the break room at work is tuned to CNN at all hours, I cannot help but look at it occasionally and have to admit that while they were telecasting from the N/S Korea border tonight I halfway expected to see a CNN person throw a grenade over the border just to see what would happen. Their conduct is a horrible example of what the U.S. media have become.

  10. Not that I would ever advocate anyone doing this, but simply selling all the guns one has bought from any dealer and taking the money to privately buy the same kind of gun from another private citizen is a simple workaround for the registration process. No one can force you to register something you don’t have. And no doubt, registration and confiscation is the ultimate goal. Of course, I don’t have anything to worry about. Most of my guns were lost in a tragic boating accident, and I had to sell the rest of them to finance repairs on the boat. I sold them to some guy at a beer joint, named Bob. Or Jim. Or Ralph. Or Bill. Well, whoever, they’re all gone now. And so is the boat, but if I ever buy any more guns, I’ll have to borrow another boat.

  11. Sorry to be verbose, but something else occurred to me about registration, at least in CT: Unless they actually kept all the records of gun purchases instead of destroying them as we were told they would do (bets?) there isn’t a record in Hartford of what firearms I have purchased. To supply such information to “register” these weapons or magazines would be tantamount to self-incrimination, or a violation of my 5th Amendment protections. Of course, I did realize that if the 1st and 2nd are toilet paper to these people, then the 5th is entirely irrelevant.

    Then I realized the the 5th Amendment is where “eminent domain” comes from, and the “Kelo” decision (events of which took place in CT) showed the disregard for this amendment as well.

    Sometimes if you don’t laugh you’ll start crying.

  12. I suppose this has been said many times before, but my prayer is that YOU get involved in these network debates on gun control, Mas. I know that you are a very busy man, but we need a well-spoken, experienced Second Amendment advocate who can quote chapter and verse negations on every crazy reason these gun grabbers come up with to disarm us.

    “They” have the unfortunate Gabby Giffords and now the poor Newtown parents to parade around at every opportunity and we need some “Big Guns” to counter them. Please, please let us start seeing you on national television and in Senate hearings; we desperately need your voice to reach the masses so they can pressure their so-called “representatives” into doing the Right Thing.

  13. Mas,

    When laws become immoral I think we have an obligation to not follow the law.

    Gun control is immoral to some, not naming names here, and having seen the disaster of the Australian gun ban, I would look for a lot of moral martyrs in our nation’s future.

    We’ve become a nation of “Mandatory” this and “No Tolerance” that. It’s sad really as freedom has diminished. What happened to Ms. Giffords shouldn’t have happened, but it did. Now people clamor to deprive those least likely to do anyone harm of their arms and their freedom, the law abiding citizen.

    As to the gunshop that refused to sell Mr. Kelly that AR rifle I suspect it was because of economic backlash that the sale was terminated. Lots of folks, myself included, were very vocal to the propietor regarding that sale. Because that sale was terminated I will continue to order/purchase from them.

    Take care, stay safe, and give me a shout the next time you’re in town. I owe you a good Australian beer, the only beer worth drinking.

    Vince

  14. URghk!! (all choked up)…

    Ya know, the only way to keep someone like Loughner or Holmes from killing – with any weapon – is to replicate the changes in Domestic Violence laws, in mental health. Yes, the mental health people are gonna have to come to agreement on how to define when someone is a danger to themselves or others…

    and make it easier for the people who ARE reporting wackos, to see some real protective actions put in place, by the powers that be — law enforcement, the courts and the medical professionals. WITHOUT leaving the definition so wide open, that people are fearful of seeking emotional or psychological help.

    It wasn’t that long ago, that women were told that LE couldn’t intervene between man & wife until AFTER someone was hurt. That changed. Why can’t this?

  15. First, I’d like to say that I’m not THAT Bob that bought glenbo’s guns….
    Next, I still don’t understand why, with all this screaming about background checks = registration, we don’t simply push to eliminate page 3 of the 4473 form. That’s the page that lists the details of the the gun(s) the individual is buying. If all “they” really want is background checks to (help) prevent a criminal or lunatic from buying a gun what difference does it make what KIND of gun they are buying? The first 2 pages of the 4473 form are all about the person and nothing other than type (handgun, long gun or other) is listed (we should “lose” that, too). It’s page 3 that we have to worry about. Eliminate page 3 and, even if we had to do gunshow or “sales to strangers” background checks (which I am against) we would NOT be having gun registration. Why is this point ignored? Even better, if we propossed this, we would see the true agenda of these morons who only want to check a person’s background to “save the children…”

  16. No one wants to sell guns to criminals on the street? Well, yes and no. I don’t want to sell guns to criminals on the street, but I want to sell them to anybody on the street. Because if the criminals are of the sort that it’s dangerous for them to have weapons in public, then they should be locked up in prison. In the same way, if someone is adjudicated as too crazy to be allowed to possess firearms, they are too crazy to be allowed to roam around freely in public. Put them in mental hospitals until they are well.

    We don’t really have a problem with the types of guns we sell, or who we sell them to – we have a problem with a soft-headed system that lacks the guts to keep violent and criminal people locked away.

  17. CT Sen. Murphy to Rupert Murdoch: Don’t Televise NRA-Sponsored NASCAR Race
    by Robert Farago

    I write today to urge you to not broadcast NASCAR’s NRA 500 at Texas Motor Speedway on April 13th. This race, which is being sponsored by the National Rifle Association (NRA), is going to take place during the Senate’s consideration of legislation to reduce gun violence. The race not only brings national attention to an organization that has been the face of one side of this heated debate, it also features the live shooting of guns at the end of the race. This celebration of guns is inappropriate in the immediate wake of the Newtown massacre. But most importantly, broadcasting this race, which will highlight the NRA and its radical agenda during this time, sends a harmful signal to the families affected by gun violence, as well as the millions of Americans who support sensible gun control measures and enjoy your sports programming . .

  18. Your right, they won’t give up theirs and they will allow their “private citizen” bodyguards to keep theirs as well. But of course while trying to ban the citizens of our own country the same ability the POTUS says it’s alright to give defense items (Guns and Ammo) to Somalia a Islamic country that supports and harbor terrorism and piracy (obama signed this on April 5th) “I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to the Federal Republic of Somalia will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace.” ~ Barry the Traitor

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/04/08/presidential-memorandum-presidential-determination-eligibility-federal-r

    How much longer will we tolerate these traitors running our country

  19. There is something that I haven’t heard anyone say or write about so far.

    I don’t want any law that will leave it up to a Bureaucrat, Doctor, LE, Judge, Blood Sucking Lawyer, or Anyone Else, to decide if anyone can or should or should not be able to exercise their God Given Rights. Anyone who does this is anti American and anti god. That person will answer to God for it, and so shall we if we allow this blaspheme to continue.

    It’s obvious that the trouble this nation is in today is a curse from God to get us (as a nation) to turn back to Him so he can bless us again. He cannot reward us for our treachery. See Deut: 28.

    We need to insist our elected officials question everything said, done, or proposed, is first filtered through the constitution and all documents it was created from, including “the laws of nature and natures God” (Torah) which our founding document demands (first paragraph).

    If a Bill or proposed legislation is not compatible with the Law of the land (as intended), then don’t waist time with it. It is dead. No need to present it for a vote. This is Sedition, insurrection and treason.

    A person commits perjury when they take their oath of office and intentionally reject the constitution and instead enforce their own agenda in place of the purpose/cause as instructed by it.

    It is astonishing to me that I have never read or heard anyone speak on this. Is there one thing that congress has done during the last several decades that it is instructed to do by the constitution? I don’t think so. Every thing they do is not authorized by it.

    Where does it say anything about entitlements or welfare? Where does it tell our elected reps to create jobs, make treaties with our enemies and give them our wealth, and trade with then? Why are they calling Christians and military vet’s Terrorists, traitor’s and mentally impaired and the Holy Bible a superstitious relic. This nation is founded upon the word of God.

    As George Washington raised his right hand to take the oath of office, he placed his left hand upon a Holy Bible opened to Deut: chapt. 28. What is in that scripture became a guiding mandate for all public officials. It is for all that worship the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob (as our founding fathers did).

  20. Patrick, I take issue with this guy’s misleading words. It’s no longer the “wake of Newtown”. And since when does anyone in this country have the right tell people not to celebrate their legal RIGHTS, because it hurts his feelings?

    I’m tired of being accused of all manner of bad and inhuman failings, because something bad happened somewhere to someone else. (Granted, I do feel sympathy for those people; I’ve had bad things like that happen to me too.) But it doesn’t take over my life or interfere with my ability to make rational decisions that will be remembered – and felt – far longer than the personal tragedies that happen to people everyday.

    Perhaps said politician could benefit from some therapy, himself.

  21. Cheezy politicians keep SAYING they want to keep guns out of the hands of ‘criminals’ …BUT virtually NONE of the legistlation these cheesebags put forth even adresses criminals. Almost all of it seems to be geared towards taking guns out of the hands of TAXPAYERS.
    Could it be with their own guns, their armed bodyguards and gated communities the Cheese Kings do not really fear criminals at all? Could it be that that they fear armed Taxpayers???
    Before you call me paranoid stop and think about it- It certainly explains why they keep passing and proposing bills that would not stop crime doesn’t it?
    Remember- these are the same cheesball politicians who routinely crybaby about jail overcrowding and push for more early release, more parole and so forth for criminals. I do not think they are worried about criminals at all- I think they have decided whose side they are on and its the taxpayers who scare them…

  22. Bob: in ref:
    “Next, I still don’t understand why, with all this screaming about background checks = registration, we don’t simply push to eliminate page 3 of the 4473 form. That’s the page that lists the details of the the gun(s) the individual is buying.”

    Because it still allows them to store the information on the person that’s getting the firearm transferred to them. This gives them registration (even under your suggestion) of firearms owners and the ability to round them up later, rather the guns.

    In truth, they have no business keeping information on either. It would simply be used to bad effect later.

    Instead, a background check should be a query with no record-keeping at all.

  23. Federal Law Enforcement officers need to be disarmed first. If there is truly little danger from criminals then they don’t need guns. I am willing to allow the FBI and U.S. Marshal to maintain officers armed with 6 shot revolvers and 4 round shotguns and leveraction rifles. They would have to pass background checks and possess a mental clearance and never have taken psycotropic drugs before they can be armed. They would also have to leave their firearms and ammunition at the office. Since society is safe they don’t need them off duty.

    Once that is done we can work on keeping crazy people out of the U.S. military and out of state and local law enforcement. Once that is all cleaned up we can work on the criminals.

  26. Interesting that the left fails to see Ms. Giffords as brain damaged. The same goes for Brady. Our hearts go out to them, but they wouldn’t be able to pass the background checks they want, and we should not accept the judgements of those, regrettably, brain damaged persons.

  27. Gun debate revives questions about self-defense
    By ADAM GELLER

    The beam from the intruder’s flashlight pierced the blackness of the bedroom at 4:45 a.m., sweeping across the down comforter and into Eric Martin’s eyes. Outside, the streets of his Utah subdivision lay still and silent.

    But as Martin rolled to the floor, reached into the nightstand drawer and drew out his 9 mm pistol, the 46-year-old executive’s mind raced with calculation: Would this man harm Martin’s fiancee or her son? Was an accomplice outside waiting? What if he pulled the trigger and hit the sleeping 8-year-old across the hall?

    In the weeks since the Connecticut school massacre, some of the most intense debate has swirled around how to keep guns from criminals without infringing on the ability of lawful gun owners, like Martin, to protect themselves and their families.

    Indeed, self-defense is now the top reason gun owners cite for having a firearm, a new survey shows, a figure that has nearly doubled since 1999.

    But even after years of study, there is little clarity on how, exactly, Americans use guns to protect themselves in moments of jeopardy — or how often. Researchers known for sharp disagreement on the self-defense riddle say the answers may be shifting dramatically because of a steep drop in crime, an increase in guns and state laws giving owners more leeway to wield them.

    Determining the absolute value of guns for self-defense is clouded by that complex dynamic of policy, judgment and circumstance. Still, both advocates of gun rights and of gun control understand the issue’s importance in shaping the debate.

    “When there’s a threat outside your door, the police aren’t going to be there … the guys trained to save lives aren’t going to be there,” said Dom Raso, a commentator for the National Rifle Association’s online news channel, in a video posted recently by the gun rights group.

    And even while calling for new gun laws, President Barack Obama, too, acknowledged the legitimacy of self-defense in an April 8 speech in Hartford, Conn., when he recounted a conversation with his wife, Michelle, after campaigning in rural Iowa.

    “Sometimes it would be miles between farms, let alone towns,” Obama said. “And she said, ‘You know, coming back, I can understand why somebody would want a gun for protection. If somebody drove up into the driveway and, Barack, you weren’t home, the sheriff lived miles away, I might want that security.'”

    With Americans split over whether guns more often save lives or jeopardize them, researchers have long parsed surveys of crime victims done in the 1990s, arguing over what the numbers mean.

    But since then, crime has plummeted in the U.S. The rate of violent crimes including murder and assault fell by nearly half from 1992 to 2011, while the rate of reported property crime dropped 41 percent, data compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation show.

    That drop has researchers considering the possibility, even the likelihood, that many fewer Americans are drawing firearms to protect themselves.

    “I’m pretty confident that whatever the number is, it did go down … because overall crime went down,” said Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist whose 1990s research, widely cited by gun rights activists, concluded that Americans drew their firearms in self-defense up to 2.5 million times a year. That translates to about 3 percent of all gun owners during the course of a single year.

    But the drop in crime means there are far fewer occasions now for Americans to use guns for self-protection, Kleck said, making it likely that the number of annual self-defense usages of guns “should be about half as big now as they were back then, 20 years ago.”

    Even if such a drop were documented, it would still leave a scenario of relatively widespread use of guns for self-defense suggested by Kleck far at odds with research done by his critics.

    The most outspoken has long been David Hemenway, director of the Harvard University Injury Control Research Center. He contends Kleck’s survey vastly overinflates the number of times people use guns to defend themselves — for example, by estimating thousands during the course of break-ins, though many of those homeowners either didn’t own guns or remained asleep during the crime. Kleck, in turn, says Hemenway and others depend on surveys that significantly undercount self-defense gun use.

    Hemenway, also relying on 1990s surveys, concluded Americans were then wielding guns for self-defense about 200,000 times annually.

    Others researchers, analyzing the federal government’s National Crime Victimization Survey, say the number of times guns were drawn for self-defense was even lower, about 80,000 times a year.

    But Hemenway, too, is rethinking his estimate. If declining crime was the only change, he said, it would be reasonable to expect a parallel decrease in the number of times Americans use guns to defend themselves.

    “You certainly have less opportunities to use a gun in self-defense appropriately,” he said. “The problem is, over long periods of time, so many other things may be changing.”

    Since the 1990s, 18 states have passed stand-your-ground laws. At the same time, many more states eased the ability of gun owners to legally carry concealed weapons. The number of guns Americans own has also jumped to about 300 million, although researchers say the percentage of households with guns has declined.

    Today, more gun owners than ever — 48 percent according to a March poll by the Pew Research Center — cite self-protection as their primary reason for having a firearm. That has nearly doubled since 1999, and now far surpasses the declining number of gun owners who say they own a firearm primarily for hunting.

    The figure confirms personal security as a major concern for most Americans, reflected in attitudes about guns, said Michael Dimock, director of Pew’s political polling unit.

    “On both sides of this, the safety issue is front and center,” he said. “For most people, this is not a casual choice. There’s a sense of safety that gun owners associate with having that gun and there’s a clear sense of risk that non-gun owners associate with guns.”

    Demands for gun control have led many gun owners to point to the value firearms play in allowing Americans to protect themselves, a position Martin, the Utah homeowner, agrees with based on firsthand experience.

    When a robber broke into his home in St. George before dawn in late March, he and fiancee Rachel Cieslewicz were in bed. Her son, Canyon, was asleep in a room across from their doorway.

    Martin says he trained to use a gun when he was in his early 20s and has long kept one for protection. Before the break-in, he had thought carefully many times about how, precisely, he would react in such a situation.

    But in the dark, gun in hand, judgment and action were instantaneous. Even with the intruder directly in front of him, Martin says he realized he could not fire because of the chance the bullet might pierce the wall and hit the sleeping 8-year-old.

    “I knew I needed to protect Rachel. I knew I needed to protect Canyon,” he says.

    When Martin pulled back on the gun’s slide to load a bullet into the chamber, the man in the doorway bolted and Martin gave chase. Seconds later they were outside, but as the robber tried to escape, he tripped and fell. Martin, taking position behind a wall, trained his gun on him and ordered him to stay down, threatening to shoot when the man moved. That’s where they were when police cruisers arrived.

    In the days since, scores of people, including police, have commended Martin for his cool-headed reaction. Martin and Cieslewicz say they have no doubt about the gun’s self-defense value. But he acknowledges the complexity of the calculus.

    “What would have happened if the guy hadn’t fallen, tripped over the stuff he was stealing, and I hadn’t gotten him pinned down?” he said. “Or if he’d run down the street 50 feet in front of me,” and Martin had opened fire?

    “Is that self-defense or is that me just trying to let off a little bit of steam at that point? That changes the whole dynamic of everything.”

    Multiplying that uncertainty by the many confrontations involving a gun where the roles of the players are less clear helps explain researchers’ disagreement about the use of gun play in self-defense.

    Kleck, of Florida State, said that when people are surveyed correctly, the vast majority only disclose clear-cut incidents where they were in the right and guns were used correctly to protect their own and their families’ lives.

    But Hemenway, the Harvard researcher, says many of the incidents people characterize as self-defense are dubious.

    “We expected pretty brave and wonderful things,” he says, about a 1990s survey of gun owners. “But most of the things that were presented (as self-defense) were little more than escalating arguments. It wasn’t like this is a good guy and this is a bad guy. It’s two people who got into an argument and somebody drew a gun.”

    One much-debated self-defense claim is in the February 2012 death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed 17-year-old killed in a Florida subdivision by a neighborhood watch captain.

    But many other incidents, highlighting the role of a gun and quick thinking in protecting lives, don’t get the attention they deserve, said Daniel Terrill, an editor of Guns.com. The Winnetka, Ill.-based website regularly publishes accounts of self-defense.

    Then there are reports of gun usage in which people seem either to have used questionable judgment or sought out a dispute — cases that elicit fierce discussion among gun owners on the site.

    “It’s a debate piece for them and … they will go over that ad nauseum, saying it was justified or it wasn’t justified. So you find a lot of these stories, actually, are kind of morally gray,” Terrill said. The uncertainty reflects both the complexity of decision-making involved in gun use, as well the many unknown circumstances that led to a confrontation in the first place, he said.

    The increased focus by gun owners on self-defense while the threat of crime decreases reflects a long-standing disconnect in public perceptions of violent crime, said Mark Warr, a University of Texas criminologist.

    “Americans don’t know that the crime rate has been going down,” said Warr, noting that public perception is shaped by television crime dramas and news reports focusing on the most violent offenses. “What happens is that people watch this dangerous image of the world and they buy into the idea that the world is a really, really dangerous place.”

    Public fears spiked in the 1960s in response to a substantial increase in crime, reflected in increased purchases of guns, homes in gated subdivisions and security systems, he said, and concern about crime has never eased to pre-1960s levels, even though crime has steadily declined.

    But trying to figure out how those safety concerns, attitudes regarding gun ownership, changes in law and other factors are affecting the use of guns for self-defense remains difficult.

    David McDowall, a professor in the school of criminal justice at the University at Albany, State University of New York, said that given all the changes in law and gun ownership, it is quite possible that a greater proportion of people now draw firearms in self-defense.

    “I think that’s really the interesting question,” he said.

    And gun owners point out that the decision to draw a weapon in self-defense when confronted by an intruder makes the abstracts studied by researchers and policymakers all too real. To Cieslewicz, it comes down to recalling her fears for her son’s life as a stranger loomed in her bedroom doorway.

    “It was,” she said, “an absolute moment of terror.”

  28. Seven Rounds Into an 10-Round Ammunition Magazine
    by Robert Farago

    Note to New Yorkers: it’s time to unload. It’s one minute past midnight on April 15, 2013. Under the provisions of the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act of 2013 (a.k.a., the SAFE Act), Empire State gun owners are now prohibited from loading/possessing an ammunition magazine with more than seven rounds. There are three exceptions: if the owner is loading-up at an incorporated shooting range, if he or she is shooting at an NRA or International Handgun Metallic Silhouette Association event, or if the “large capacity magazine” in question is a curio or relic. Home defense? Fuhgeddaboutit. An owner who dares to defy the SAFE Act for his or her or family’s safety is looking at a Class B misdemeanor, facing 1 to 3 and up to 25 years in prison. That puts a pistol-suffing perp on a par with criminals convicted of manslaughter 1, rape 1 and arsenal 1 (man united nil). What are the odds owners will comply? Would you?

  29. IWe are already experiencing gun control. We can’t buy ammo. I have been trying to buy 22 mag and can’t find any. Don’t take our guns just don’t manufacturerany ammo.

  31. What about victims of gun violence that don’t support gun control? Can you imagine someone showing off their wounds and saying that they aren’t with this crap?