The ABC News site asks:
Have you ever defended yourself from a crime in your home, in your business, or in public by using a gun? Perhaps you warded off a potential attacker by simply showing a gun?
40 states now allow their citizens to obtain conceal-carry permits for handguns. Some people say that's dangerous, while others say it allows them to protect themselves.
If you have a story of self-defense involving the aid of a gun and would like to tell it to 20/20, please fill out the form below. A "20/20" producer may contact you.
To fill out the form (if you do have such a story), go here. I hasten to add that I can't speak to the likely quality of the resulting story -- the story may use representative incidents or unrepresentative ones, may describe them thoughtfully or sensationally, and so on. Still, I thought it was worth noting the inquiry.
Thanks to Paul Hsieh for the pointer.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog
Which epidsode?
The most recent episode, Breast Hysteria.
Here are some quotes from his segment:
"It is probably the case that there is no first amendment right to expose ones breasts, at all."
"it kind of grabs people in an erotic way that a lot of people don't like to see in public."
Both are very sad statements.
Where is Royko's Gun Owner of the Year column when you need it?
A theme gone wrong?
If you can't trust America's most trusted mustachioed journalist, who can you trust?
Give me a break!
1. First incident, she was attacked while jogging in a public park at 11:00 AM on Memorial Day weekend. Her attacker ran up behind her and grabbed her in a bear hug, which pinned her arms to her sides, and began lifting and dragging her towards the bushes. Fortunately, her right hand was pinned near her pocket where a tiny (1" barrel) stainless steel North American Arms 22 Magnum LR, single action revolver was stored. She was able to retrieve the gun, twist and squirm and begin firing at her attacker. In the struggle she was not able to actually shoot the attacker and she had, even at that moment some reluctance to plug the guy, but being shot at made the attacker loosen his grip, pee on himself, and faint all at the same time. When he awoke just a few seconds later my wife put a round into the ground next to him and told him not to move (that round was her last shot as she had expended the other 3 shots in the struggle before he fainted, but neither she nor the attacker realized this at the time).
She held him with what was in fact an empty gun until the police arrived. It turned out he had just been released from prison 2 weeks earlier. He was found mentally incompetent to stand trial and went away to a mental hospital for two years and then was released. Had she not had the gun she would have been beaten and raped at minimum. Raped and murdered was a definite possibility.
2. The other incident was an attempted mugging where a purse snatcher ran up to her in a parking lot and tried to pull her purse off her shoulder. She held on and the mugger began to kick her while pulling on the purse. At the same time a gun exactly like the one described above came out of her jacket pocket and pointed at the mugger. When the mugger saw the gun he turned and fled as fast as he possibly could.
The reason the gun in story number 2 wasn't the same gun as in story number 1 is because the gun in story number 1 was confiscated by the police, because it was illegal for my wife to have the gun that saved her life and limb and there was no concealed carry permit law at all in effect for that state at that time. She was lucky she wasn't in New Jersey or some place where they would have charged and prosecued her for carrying the gun that saved her life.
Says the "Dog"
I wonder if she will report how she prevented a mugging, or worse, by drawing her gun on me.
Duffy
http://www.timesonline.co.uk /tol/news/uk/crime/article1624323.ece
One of the replies to the article:
That's why it's important whether John Stossel is associated with this project or not. Stossel is a supporter of gun-rights.
But cherry-picking on the part of the networks is to be expected.
It's their job.
Good point, why doesn't ABC get both sides of the story. Not only the "armed citizen", but the poor guy who chased the woman down because she dropped her cell phone and got a gun shoved in his face for the trouble. (And of course she fended off a mad rapist and she had already been victimized once that day when someone had "stolen" her cellphone and she just wasn't going to be a victim again.)
Not if, as noted above, Stossel is in charge of this project. In that case, the report will certainly will be slanted towards the country being full of lurking predators only held at bay by brave citizens packing heat.
And thus an urban legend is born.
"Certainly"? By the man who just criticized ...the media -- part of the Fear Industrial Complex?
In Stossel's world it is bad to be afraid of benevolent, all-knowing corporations (except apparently the very corporation that he works for and other media conglomerates) whose number one priority is of course the well-being of their customers. But individuals (trial lawyers, criminals, citizen groups, liberals, doctors, reporters [except him], scientists who don't work for big corporations) and those who advocate for them are a bunch of alarmist know-nothings.
That's what we need, more independent pharmaceutical distributors who are willing to defend their business with the use of deadly force!
You see, that's what makes me different from you: I tell the whole story, the good and the bad. Yes, there are sleazy characters who use guns in self-defense. But I notice that you picked that example--and not the far more common examples of decent people defending themselves from burglars, violent ex-boyfriends, robbers, and carjackers.
So you are saying that there aren't lots of criminals out there predating on innocent people? So why your enthusiasm for disarming law-abiding adults? Do you honestly think that people with no criminal history just suddenly start committing murder?
J.F. Thomas consistently defends the disarming of law-abiding citizens. Why this is so is inexplicable. Perhaps he projects his own lack of self control and inability to handle the responsibility of a deadly weapon upon his fellow citizens. But I am speculating here.
Do you have a citation to this incident? I don't find it impossible to believe--but I also know that there are all sorts of similar stories floating around the Internet. I've seen the "woman walks out to her car, sees four black guys in it, draws her gun, orders them out--whoops! her BMW is two rows over" several times, with just enough differences to tell that it is urban legend.
Since so much of what you know is demonstrably false (in every area that you write anything about), I am going to insist that you give a citation to this supposed incident.
Except the rest of what Speedwell described was what happened to her, when she used a gun to defend herself from someone whose behavior should have given good reason for her to fear for her safety.
Why is it that liberals are constantly trying to make it safe to be a rapist?
What makes you such a buffoon is that you see everything in stereotypes. The real world is a bit more complicated than that, with some businesses injuring their customers while most, in the interests of keeping their customer base alive, do not. In the real world, there are scientists who make genuine efforts to determine the truth, and others whose political motivations make it hard for them to remain unbiased.
You are the liberal equivalent of the person who thinks every homosexual is a child molester, every black person is a criminal, and every gun owner is a cousin-marrying, toothless redneck. The real world is a bit more complex of a place.
No, I just made it up. But it is just the kind of incident that is recounted constantly in all those "Armed Citizen" stories in NRA publications. Completely unverifiable one-sided stories from a single source of some gun-owner in distress.
It is amazing that you think so much of what I know is demonstrably false. Of course you don't bother to back up your statements with any concrete examples.
I went back and reviewed your website and looked all your collected stories for April so far. It amazes me that you accuse me of cherry-picking from your website. Of the 28 stories you have posted for April, only about half involve clear-cut cases of citizens preventing traditional crimes (and in many of those cases the perpetrators were not armed). Even in some of those the circumstances appear to be very suspicious. The other half are pretty much bar fights escalating, domestic disputes, and drunks killing each other. Even some of the clear cut cases are pretty iffy. Is it really a legitimate use of a gun to shoot an unarmed man who is stealing your garbage can?
From reading your website, one would get the impression that for every foiled robbery, one drunk shoots another one because the first one groped his girlfriend or someone gets shot because they are accused of stealing his brother's girlfriends cellphone (or something like that).
Because I characterize Stossel as thinking in stereotypes that means I think in stereotypes? You need to review your basic logic.
As for stereotyping, everyone here assumes that I want to end all private ownership of all firearms. Even though I have stated my position on this frequently and clearly you continue to assert this is my position.
So, one more time for the record. I think concealed carry is a boneheaded and dangerous policy. I think people should be allowed to own and keep handguns in their homes if they so wish. But don't call me a pansy if I, who have lived in New Orleans, Chicago, Atlanta, Washington D.C., and Kansas City and fully enjoy city life including being out late at night in sometimes questionable neighborhoods, have never been so frightened by people that I thought I needed to carry a gun. I have no problem with long guns. However, I do believe in strict regulation and registration of firearms (no, not as some nefarious prelude to confiscation).
All of the Armed Citizen stories in the NRA magazine are taken from published newspaper reports. I have included a link where you can search by state and find not just the incident, but which newspaper reported it and on what date. I assume that you are not going to go and research even a single newspaper report to find out if the NRA reported the incident correctly.
"Completely unverifiable", indeed. Clayton Cramer was a little charitable in calling you a buffoon. Unrepentant fabricator is more like it. Sadly, you meet the stereotype of the gun control advocate - someone whose acquaintance with the truth varies from occasional to non-existent. And you expect us to believe that you and your type only want "reasonable" gun control and don't want to take away citizens' guns from them.
I am sure that it would be full of stories like an incident that happended here in town a few months ago were a big and strong but mentally disabled man was out in the middle of the night and started breaking into a house because he thought it was his and he was locked out. The owner, who had kids in the house, shot him dead. I am sure their show wll be full of crying relatives of people like that man. That was an unfortunate incident, yes, but I don't blame the homeowner for shooting the guy one bit.
Do you have a link? This sounds excessive, irresponsible, and trigger-happy - like it could have been stopped with a warning or calling the police and waiting.
And I don't buy the emotionally manipulative "kids in the house" thing. Yes, kids need to be looked after. But you don't magically become the Duke and Duchess of the Manor and the world doesn't stop spinning on its axis because you happen to have rugrats now. That's collectivist, soccer-mom bullshit.
As another has already pointed out, every single "Armed Citizen" story has a published source and date. Ditto for the items on my blog. You can look them up. These news accounts are almost always based on police reports, decisions of prosecutors, judges, or juries. You are not simply wrong; you are a liar.
You have a very short memory. You claimed a few days ago: "Most murder victims know their assailant." I demonstrated from the FBI's Extended Homicide Detail reports that this is utterly false: 59% are "unknown" or "stranger."
Let's count them up, and see how well you can read:
On April 8: a robbery in a Scranton gas station. The robber was apparently only pretending to have a gun, but that's still a felony.
Also on April 8: a robbery in St. Paul. Again, a robber simulates having a gun. Still a felony.
April 7: Jefferson, Oregon. A break-in to someone's home; an assault of the resident, trying to take the gun away. Two felonies, at least.
April 7: Reno, Nevada. Stupid people being stupid: the woman should not have met someone in the dark if she was uncomfortable about it, and that her friends were hiding in the bushes makes me suspect that she and her friends were up to something inappropriate. Significantly, the police decided that the man doing the shooting had good reason to fear for his safety.
Bradenton, Florida. The man fires a shotgun into the air as a warning shot to prevent injury to a friend who was under attack. Your problem with this is?
Taunton, Massachusetts. An armed forced entry into someone's home. Not happy with this guy getting shot?
April 6, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Another attempted home invasion by a guy who approached the porch with gun drawn.
Memphis, Tennessee. Armed robbery of a store.
Rittman, Ohio. A burglar is confronted and held for police. That's a felony.
Lebanon, Pennsylvania. A son kills his father while in a chokehold. The entire family rejoices that the son is found innocent by a jury. Do you suppose that they know something about the father?
April 5, Chico, California. Armed robbery by someone who forces his way into someone's home at night--and is according to police, likely the guy who had done similar armed robberies at night.
Macon, Georgia. This is one of the few cases in April that might turn out to be suspicious, a robbery in someone's home, by a person known to the shooter.
Indianapolis, Indiana. A guy defends himself from two petty thieves who get into an argument with him. Maybe not the ideal case.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. A home invasion.
St. Martin, Mississippi. A guy gets out of a car holding a gun while being confrontational over a cell phone. Someone shoots him. Yes, these all sound like sleazy people, but trying to resolve a property dispute while waving a gun around is both felonious and stupid.
White Plains, New York. A less than wonderful case but the evidence presented at trial was obviously sufficient to persuade a jury. Of course, this is a state with very restrictive gun control laws, and in a part of the state where a permit to carry would require political connections or Mafia involvement.
April 3, Mercer County, West Virginia. The ex-boyfriend hasn't taken no for an answer, and is approaching the house with a knife.
Idaho Falls, Idaho. The bad guys follow someone home after a bar fight. Maybe they were going over to apologize?
Henry County, Virginia. A sleazy character is involved--and was shot after threatening people with a gun, while using alcohol and cocaine.
Everett, Washington. The drug dealer who defended himself from a robbery attempt. Sleazy character--but liberals believe that all drugs should be legal, so what's your objection? Or is it just that you object to a robber getting shot?
Houston, Texas. Breaking and entering, armed robbery. And your objection is?
April 2, Corpus Christi, Texas. Burglars get held by the resident for police. A felony. Or do you think burglary should be lawful?
Poca, West Virginia. Armed robber.
Dallas, Texas. Someone kicks down the front door, and gets shot. Your objection is what? That the resident didn't just spread his cheeks and beg for mercy?
Lorena, Texas. A man with a knife threatens someone who is better armed.
San Antonio, Texas. Three guys kick in the front door.
I am tired of this. J.F. Thomas, you are either incapable of reading, or just an outright liar.
No, because your characterization of Stossel shows that you have completely missed his point--that the real world doesn't fit into the neat little categories of evil corporations and virtuous public interest lawyers.
Where did you assert this?
Think it all you want. The best that your side manages is to argue that shall issue doesn't improve the crime situation. Even the most rabid antigunners can't show any evidence that it makes things worse.
You are obviously quite young, lacking experience with real life. Some of us grew up in America when it was a FAR more violent society than it is today--murder rates almost twice as high as now.
You are welcome to run around blissfully ignorant of reality. But you are not welcome to prevent people that actually have some experience of the real world from being able to defend themselves from violent attack.
I called the police one night in Costa Mesa, California, to report a kidnapping in progress. A drunk was dragging a woman kicking and screaming out of her apartment. It took 45 minutes for the police to show up.
I'm sorry that this guy was in the wrong place, confused, and thought that he had the right to force his way in. But this is a pretty atypical situation. The vast majority of the time that someone is forcing entry into your home, it isn't because they are delivering flowers or pizza and are too impatient to wait for you to answer the doorbell, or are confused about whose home it is. Or does law school teach you to believe that?
I am 45 years old, thank you. Not lacking experience with "real life".
I could say you sound like some scared suburbanite or rural hick who is afraid to enter even a medium sized city because you are so afraid of your own shadow and other people you think there is some big bad criminal hiding behind every lamppost waiting to jump you.
I have included a link where you can search by state and find not just the incident, but which newspaper reported it and on what date.
Well so what? Most of the "armed citizen" stories are uncorroborated stories of a gunowner who reports of an incident where he or she "prevents" a crime. Very rarely do the stories involve an arrest or conviction of a criminal. So yes, well they may be verified in the sense that the "victim" filed a report with the police or a story about the incident appeared in the newspaper, there is no way to verify that his or her version of the events reflect reality in the least.
Someone has obviously never called the police in a life threatening emergency.
Nope, I've called the police when two guys were fighting over a gun that was knocked out of one of their hands outside an ex-girlfriend's apartment building. The dispatcher in Philly said "15 minutes" if memory serves. I guess its good that the winner didn't feel like shooting the loser. (Ironic bonus: They were involved working security for the ex-girlfriend's building.)
I'm sorry that this guy was in the wrong place, confused, and thought that he had the right to force his way in.
No need to apologize to me. I haven't forced or tried to force my way into anywhere. I just thought the shooting sounded bad so I wanted a link to the details.
The vast majority of the time that someone is forcing entry into your home, it isn't because they are delivering flowers or pizza and are too impatient to wait for you to answer the doorbell, or are confused about whose home it is. Or does law school teach you to believe that?
Possibly. But it sounds like the shooter in this case was pretty trigger happy. I wonder how much warning was given, and whether a warning shot was performed. I realize that people are trained not to do warning shots and that they are often illegal. But unless you like shooting people I can't see not giving the person in question every opportunity to leave. Especially since it sounds like the person hadn't gotten into the house yet. Just sounded pretty bad to me, and I support gun rights. Probably one of the worst things that can happen for gun rights is to have inappropriate self-defense shooting incidents.
And nice snied comment about law school. Regardless of what I learned in law school, I form my own beliefs.
JF, you are just lying through your teeth today. Anybody can go and read these linked newspaper reports to see that most of them arose from investigations by police who investigated, spoke to witnesses and corroborated most of the accounts.
If you can lie so effortlessly about something that we can so easily double-check, what else are you lying to us about? Your intentions about only wanting "reasonable" gun control?
Liar.
Sorry if I misspoke. I wasn't referring to the roundup of newspaper articles, but the breathless 2000 word or so accounts of gun owner facing down criminals that appear in NRA publications.
I demonstrated from the FBI's Extended Homicide Detail reports that this is utterly false: 59% are "unknown" or "stranger."
You really know how to distort statistics and even the stories on your own website don't you? Only 13.93% of that 59% are "stranger", the rest fall into the "unknown" category. It hardly proves that my point is "utterly false", just not provable from the FBI statistics you cite. As I understand it the FBI statistics are a compilation of police reports and "unknown" means that the relationship of the victim to the perpetrator could not be gleaned from the information provided. How that completely destroys my contention is beyond me. In fact since where the relationship is known, 41% know the victim and 14% do not, it would seem reasonable to allot the "unknowns" proportionally. Even if we split the "unknowns" 50/50, well over half (i.e., most) murder victims would know their assailants.
As for your website, you tired of it after going through the stories and supposedly showing how wrong I was. Add them up again and you will see I was right.
And you of course assume, that every time the police are summoned to a home where a neighbor reports they heard shots fired and the resident reports that he was repelling a home invader, that the resident is telling the truth. Or that self-reported self defensive uses of guns are accurate. If you think that every stranger (or Japanese exchange student) at the door is trying to break in, you are more likely to scare them off with a gun, even if their intent is completely innocent.
You continue to lie shamelessly. I have been reading NRA publications for the last 13 years, and can count the number of such detailed accounts on the fingers of one hand in that entire time period. And in every case, they have been backed up by newspaper articles, police reports and other reputable publications. The NRA is well aware that even a single mistake it makes will be picked apart by the media.
In this thread, you have the misfortune of dealing with people who have a lot of interest in this issue and have worked on it. Yet you persist in lying when you know you will be caught. What else are you lying about?