GROUP SAYS RULE VIOLATES SEVERAL FEDERAL LAWS
Brady Campaign Sues to Stop National Park Gun Rule
The new rule applies to rural and urban national parks. If it goes into effect on January 9, it would allow concealed firearms on the National Mall just eleven days before the Obama Inaugural Celebration.By Bill Schneider, 12-30-08
 |
|
 | |
|
Updated January 7. See addition at end of article.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, America’s largest anti-gun organization, sued the Department of the Interior today to prevent the implementation of the controversial administrative rule allowing loaded and concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.
“The Bush Administration’s last-minute gift to the gun lobby, allowing concealed semiautomatic weapons in national parks, jeopardizes the safety of park visitors in violation of federal law,” said Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke, in a press release. “We should not be making it easier for dangerous people to carry concealed firearms in our parks.”
In a phone interview with NewWest.Net, Daniel Vice, Senior Attorney for the Brady’s Legal Action Project, said his group “is looking at all options,” but thought it was vital to file the lawsuit as soon as possible instead of waiting to let the rule go into effect and work through the long political process of trying to get the Obama administration to overturn it.
Many other groups also oppose the rule, he noted, but at this point the Brady Campaign is going it alone with this lawsuit with no co-plaintiffs.
“The rule would allow concealed guns on the National Mall,” Vice pointed out,” and it takes effect only 11 days before the inauguration.”
The Washington Post had estimated that as many as five million people will be in Washington D.C. to celebrate the Obama inauguration, predicting that the celebration might be “the single biggest gathering of people America has ever seen.”
“This rule affects both rural and urban parks like the Liberty Bell,” Vice said. “Some of our members are now afraid to take their kids to Ellis Island.”
This is why the lawsuit asks for a temporary injunction to prevent the rule from going into effect on January 9, he added. “But we’re concerned about all the parks, not just the urban parks.”
The fundamental legal issue, Vice explained, is that the rule violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
“They (Interior Department) did no environmental analysis or review at all,” he explained. “When you have so many people with strong opinions on both sides of an issue, it’s important to follow the law and do a review process.”
Asked if defendants might consider this rule “non-environmental” and not covered by NEPA, Vice answered, “Even Reagan did this.”
He refers to the NEPA analysis and review President Ronald Reagan’s administration conducted when the current rule, which requires guns to be unloaded and inaccessible when taken into national parks, was implemented in early 1980s. “This rule should at least require the same review,” Vice insisted.
According to the Brady Campaign press release, the new rule also violates the National Park Service Organic Act and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, which created the parks and wildlife refuges as protected lands for safe enjoyment of all visitors.
You can read the entire legal complaint here.
Update: Following the lead set December 30 by a lawsuit by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, two park advocacy groups, the National Parks and Conservation and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, announced that they have filed a similar lawsuit to stop the Bush administration rule to allow loaded, concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Like the Brady Campaign, the two groups base their legal objection on failure of the Department of the Interior to prepare a environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Here is the total text of the press release sent out by the two groups:
WASHINGTON, D.C. (January 7, 2009) - The nation’s leading voice for America’s national parks, the nonprofit National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees late yesterday filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court that seeks an injunction against enforcement of the Bush Administration’s new regulation allowing loaded, concealed firearms in national parks, which increases the risk to visitors, park staff, and wildlife, and to have the new rule declared unlawful. The rule is scheduled to take effect this Friday, January 9.
“In a rush to judgment, as a result of political pressure, the outgoing Administration failed to comply with the law, and did not offer adequate reasons for doing so,” said NPCA President Tom Kiernan.
The Bush Administration last month finalized a National Rifle Association-driven rule change to allow loaded, concealed firearms in all national parks except those located in two states: Wisconsin and Illinois, which do not permit concealed weapons. The former rule, put in place by the Reagan Administration, required that firearms transported through national parks be safely stowed and unloaded.
“Our members, with over 20,000 years accumulated experience managing national parks can see absolutely no good coming from the implementation of this rule. More guns equal more risk,” said Bill Wade, Chair of the Executive Council of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, and former superintendent of Shenandoah National Park, Virginia. “Apparently, the Bush Administration chose to ignore the outpouring of concern voiced during the public comment period,” added Wade.
According to the lawsuit, the Department of the Interior “adopted the Gun Rule with unwarranted haste, without following procedures required by law and without the consideration of its consequences that they are required to observe under law… The new regulation is an affront to the National Parks’ missions and purposes and a threat to the National Parks’ resources and values, which must be held unlawful and set aside.”
The groups are arguing that the rule is unlawful because the Department of the Interior did not conduct an analysis of the rule’s environmental effects, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, including the effects of the rule on threatened and endangered species. The suit also argues that the Department of the Interior ignored the National Park Service Organic Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
“Any reasonable person would have to conclude that changing these rules to allow more firearms in the national parks could have an environmental impact on park wildlife and resources,” Kiernan added.
In a letter sent to Interior Secretary Kempthorne on April 3, seven former directors of the National Park Service stated that there is no need to change the regulations. “In all our years with the National Park Service, we experienced very few instances in which this limited regulation created confusion or resistance,” the letter stated. “There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”
The rule also was opposed by the current career leadership of the National Park Service and other park management professionals, including the Association of National Park Rangers and the Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police.
The public agrees: of the 140,000 people who voiced their opinion on this issue during the public comment period, 73 percent opposed allowing loaded, concealed firearms in the national parks.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
He's either uninformed or deliberately deceptive.
The "National Park Gun Rule" simply aligns the statutes in national parks, monuments, etc., with the statutes of the jurisdictions in which they are located. (Unless I am uninformed.)
For example, if you're in Glacier National Park, you are subject to Montana's gun laws. If you're at Craters of the Moon, Idaho's gun laws are in force. And if you're at the National Mall, you follow D.C.'s extremely restrictive gun laws.
(If I am uninformed or am somehow distoring the facts, please correct me. The Brady Campaign has no qualms about twisting things to their benefit, and hopefully everybody knows that.)
If I understand the rule correctly, the parks must comply with the statutes of the state in which the park is located. And since the Mall is not in a "state," but in a federal district, concealed carry is not legal unless you have a, guess what, DC concealed carry permit, which I suppose only Mayor Fenty and his cronies possess. So the Mall "threat" is a flat-fannied lie. Period.
As for the Lib Bell, or Gettysburg for that matter, Pennsylvania is a must-issue state, so even in commie Philly under preemption, a PA CCW holder is, and should be, legal in Independence Hall.
As for the NEPA angle, that's asinine. Yet, if NPS and DOI didn't say, under NEPA we find no significant impact, then they blew procedure and the judge sayeth so. But if the rule does have a FONSI regarding NEPA, then Brady is just blowing smoke. As usual.
1. Concealed Carry only becomes legal in states where it is already legal. It is not legal in DC at all, therefore will not be legal on the washington mall.
2. Liberty Bell park is mostly a building. CCW would not be legal within any Federal Structure, including those in National Parks. (and the area around is park of Pennsylvania, where CCW is legal anyway).
3. Same for Ellis Island -- couldn't enter any stucture carrying.
As to DC, the federal rule allows carrying wherever the state (defined in the federal regulations to include DC) allows concealed carrying. DC law allows concealed carrying with a license to carry. DC Code section 22-4506.
Doesn't matter if common sense would determine no environmental impact, the law, written by those slags in Congress, mandates dotting the I and crossing the T.
Sure, I wasted my vote, but on balance I think I'm better off than if the last eight years had been under control of clever Goreons.
By the way, I got some spam from Sarah, the fifth in at least five days calling on me to "Please give a tax-deductible gift now to help us stop this unnecessary and dangerous ruling. It will allow guns in rural and urban national park areas around the country ..."
And here's the pitch to the gullible:
The Brady Center filed the suit on behalf of our Brady Campaign members, including school teachers in the New York and Washington, D.C. areas who are canceling or curtailing school trips to Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall in Washington, D.C. now that the Bush Administration will allow guns in these national parks.
Oh, give me a break. The sick part is that without a FONSI, and you would think SOME bureaucrat in the agency would have mentioned it, IF they didn't already know and simply decide to STFU because they're bureaucrats with an agenda, whatever judge has this thing on the docket pretty much has to rule for the stupid way.
Being a "glass half full" kinda guy, I'm encouraged that the Brady Discipleship say they are now afraid to go to our National Parks and Monuments, on account of the proliferation of concealed semiautomatic weapons. (Some of our parks are uncomfortably overcrowded. Maybe this means I can get a coveted camping spot that would otherwise go to some Brady hand-wringers.)
But on the other hand... if the parks are populated only by the [heavily-armed] knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing sloped-forehead rednecks that the Brady people are so afraid of... perhaps that public campground won't be so attractive after all!
(-;
DC gives no concealed carry licenses to anyone except retired police officers. They don't recognize concealed carry licenses from any state. So while retired police officers will be able to carry under the new law, isn't that a good thing even to an anti-gun guy?
Hard to believe they would have to waste money on an environmental study. Nothing new is being allowed into the park (guns/ammunition already legal) and no actional not already legal is being allowed, except that before the gun had to be in the car and now it can be on the person. No environmental impact as long as the rest of the laws are followed -- but that's always been the case.
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/12/brady-campaign-sues-to-stop-ccw-in.html
Fact #1: criminals don't follow the law, hence they are criminals
Fact #2: criminals will always have guns, refer to fact #1
Fact #3: guns don't kill people any more than cars or pianos do, people kill people, a loaded gun sitting by itself is harmless, just as a piano hanging above your head is harmless. it takes a person to point the gun and pull the trigger. it takes a person to cut the ropes and drop the piano.
Fact #4: guns don't turn regular people into criminals, quite the opposite; we gun owners are some of the most caring and responsible people this country has ever, and will ever see because we know that guns are a responsibility, a responsibility to ourselves, our family, our neighbors, our state and our country.
Fact #5: the military fights wars, the police prosecute criminals. neither can protect you from terrorists at home, burglers or rapist. you must be ready to protect yourself and those around you.
Fact #6: anyplace you are not allowed to have guns becomes a soft target for criminals who will feel more comfortable committing crimes with no fear of defense or reprisal. (the only exception are areas that have restricted access with armed guards, like court rooms, but even then how many times have you heard of bailiffs being shot by their own guns? i've heard that 3 times in the last 2 years.)
I have thought long and hard about how 9/11 may have been different if concealed carry was legal on us airlines. Statistically 1% of the population is carrying a concealed weapon LEGALY. each of those aircraft had roughly 300-400 people which means that they also would have had 3-4 people with concealed guns. it is impossible to know if that would have helped, but one is left to wonder if congress and federal law were responsible for 9/11 bye not allowing the people to defend themselves. air marshals are useless. they have to lock their guns up on take off and landing, so when do you think the terrorist will strike? at 40,000 feet when the marshals are armed? I don't think so.
Amen brother and pass the ammo. Keep up the audacity and fight for our God given Rights!
My bet is on the latter.
Allowing law abiding citizens to carry handguns for self defense to National Parks will make it harder for dangerous people to carry out criminal activities. Might make such activities down right hazardous to their health.
There are areas in this country that have the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation, like Chicago and DC, and they have the worst crime rates in the nation. The states that have the least restictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates. Those are some inconvenient truths that Sarah Brady doesn't want anyone to know about.
BTW, open carry of holstered handguns is legal in 44 states.
Sue them for harrassment & file charges for violating the 1968 Civil rights act.
Be interesting to see who really has civil rights in this country.
Do you fully understand what you just wrote? Allow me to rephrase:
"It's absurd to think the principles of democracy rest on someone being able to exercise their rights."
Do you honestly think that you, and those like you, can dictate what rights others may exercise? Simply because you find them distasteful? That a majority vote can overturn civil rights?
Apparently so. That's the danger of a democracy. Thankfully, we live in a republic, governed by a constitution. Not the mob mentality you espouse.
And thank you Terry for the link to the FR document. That was interesting, motivated me to look at the complaint. Colleen Kolar Kotelly, the Microsoft monopoly judge, has the case. The plaintiffs all seem to be Million Mom March HCI activists who are reduced to shuddering goo by the IDEA that someone might have a gun...park or not. So for HCI's bent logic, this is a perfectly logical extension of their "reasoning."
Now, back to reasoning in terms of Mehmet. "It's absurd to think the principles of democracy rest on someone being able to "carry a gun"."
Okay, without debating the difference between a republic and democracy, let's play "Fill in the Bill Blank." All you have to do, Mehment, is answer yes or no:
Could democracy exist if people were not able to "speak freely?"
"Own Property."
"Enjoy Privacy from Random Warrantless Search And Seizure."
"Face their accusers before a jury of peers"
"Refuse to keep government soldiers in their home and feed them too"
"choose one's own religion"
"enjoy any civil liberties not specifically laid out in government documents"
and so on and so forth?
1) Death may occur but that happens when something gets out of whack, misused or there is a dearth of experience; guns, on the other hand, kill even when "used properly" (like that horrible tragedy in upstate NY).
2) With everything else, even a car accident, there is usually some time factor involved that at least affords a chance to save someone; with guns, it's all over in the flash of an instant, no time lags, no possibility of attending to the injured.
No - no guns in the parks. "Rights"? Hah! That little 5 year-old in upstate NY had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that gun-happy hunter had to shoot his weapon "one more time" and that was the end of her. He now speaks of all the remorse - I say give him the death penalty. Maybe if we did that more often, you gun-heads would start taking more accountability for your weapons.
Yes, it is true, you cannot always deploy a firearm in time to stop something bad from happening. Just like you can't always deploy a fire extinguisher in time to stop a fire from growing. But that doesn't mean we don't keep fire extinguishers around, because sometimes people DO use a fire extinguisher effectively and having an option to deal with a situation is better than no option.
As for that sad case in NY you speak of ... the hunter was NOT exercising any right. He was hunting, and apparently fired his weapon in an irresponsible manner. That doesn't mean it wasn't an accident, anymore than the lady who ran over a child in her car because she was reaching down to retrieve the chapstick she dropped hadn't committed an accident; both are tragic and have civil liability, but the former doesn't prove that gun ownership can't be done responsibly any more than the latter means that chapstick and cars can't be owned resonsibly.
I spend a lot of time in the woods and always with a firearm handy. I've never once drawn that weapon to shoot at a "snapping" twig or whatever . Given the number of people armed in non-National Park woods and campgrounds (probably 1/3 in Colorado) if we gun owners did that the death toll would be just about 100% and no one would survive a walk in the woods.
Concealed carry has been the widely exercised law of the land in 40 states for better than 20 years with several million Americans being licensed to carry firearms. It has caused no problem outside of National Parks, it will cause no problem inside National Parks.
Let go of your fears, and look at the situation rationally. Concealed carry will only make you more safe, not less.
Look here for more info:
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/12/brady-campaign-sues-to-stop-ccw-in.html
or here:
http://sensiblyprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/08/ban-on-firearms-in-american-national.html
Read the constitution, moron.
Are you not aware of checks and balances to ensure that the rights of electoral minorities are not to be infringed? Maybe you aren't.
Bearing arms, or in less-sophisticated English, "carrying a gun," is guess what, a Constitutional right. Specifically enumerated.
Furthermore, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments made sure that those rights and powers not specifically enumerated (or "spelled out") were reserved respectively to the states or to the people (that's "individual citizens"). Now, do I need to translate "reserved respectively" or do you need help there as well?
Perhaps you should take your own suggestion to heart. Happy reading.
Paul Helmke, acting in an official capacity for a "non-profit" organisation, just called me a violent criminal. I shall sue him for slander. It should be fun owning all rights to the Brady Campaign and having all of Paul's money.
Mehmnet can't answer questions very well. People like him/her can only project their own shortcomings.
Mehmnet:"You people really like to whine: "waah-waah-waah...poor little me..."
Yeah, liberals really do like to whine allot. They are always running to government whining that they need to be protected from their own shadow.
Mehmnet:"Yeah - can claim anything is a "right" and then weep and moan when the greater public says you can't do it, and claim that your "rights" have been violated."
There is a difference between unalienable rights that are protected by the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and imaginary rights. Mehmnet doesn't seem to be able to tell the difference. And since those unalienable rights ARE protected we have a right to raise hell about it when they are infringed upon.
Mehmnet: "Yeah - I have the right to free speech but that still doesn't give me the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. No - sorry - you people are trigger-happy: you think the first line of defense for any situation is a gun. "
Your right, the rights we have come with responsibilities. Mehmnet isn't able to grasp that concept. Mehmnet is projecting his/her own lack of responsibility on the rest of us. Saying anything that will cause harm to others is irresponsible, like saying that anyone that carries a gun is dangerous. Those of us that have chosen to carry a gun for self defense have taken on the responsibilities that go with it. That includes knowing the legalities of useing deadly force to stop a threat with a firearm. Mehmnet doesn't seem to want to be responsible for anything, not even for his/her own safety.
Mehmnet: "And you're paranoid: you think you will constantly find yourself in a situation where a gun affords total protection."
Actually, I haven't run into a situation in which I needed a gun, yet. I might not ever. But I'd rather have a gun on me and not need it than to find myself someday needing one and not having it. No one expects to find themselves in harms way, but that is often when it happens. Those students and faculty at VT didn't expect to be killed and wounded on campus either. Law abiding gun carriers are not paranoid, just prepared. Mehmnet is projecting his/her own paranoia. Folks like him/her are always hearing "monsters in the closet" and crying for the nanny government to protect them. NO, carrying a gun is never going to be a 100% defense against a threat, but it's better than no defense at all.
Memnet: "And you're deluded: do you really think that a dangerous situation is going to give you the time necessary to accurately aim and fire? Wild animals will attack you when you least expect it. A bear pulled that kid from his tent without the father ever seeing it - and a mountain lion will quietly stalk you and then pounce and grab you around the throat before you have time to 'exercise your right to fire a gun'."
We're deluded? Do you think that a dangerous situation is going to give you time to call 911, for the cops to get there and protect save your butt? When seconds count the cops are only MINUTES away. Apparently Mehmnet hasn't heard of "situational awareness". Mehmnet is also projecting his/her total lack of it. People that venture into the habitat of preditory animals and fall victem do not exercise it either. Carrying a gun may not prevent an attack by a wild animal, but it can improve the odds of surviving such an attack. Law abiding gun carriers are more concerned with the two legged preditors though. And there have been plenty of them in our National Parks.
Mehmnet: "Meanwhile, the first broken twig you hear will give you cause to cock your gun and ask "Who goes there? Friend or Foe?". Sadly, if you don't get an answer within 10 seconds, you are all too-ready to fire - only to realize it was a hiker or such who had peanut butter in their mouths and couldn't answer right away."
Again Mehmnet is projecting how he/she is more likely to react to hearing a twig snap. Law Abiding gun carriers go by the rule of "Know your target" before we draw a weapon and pull the trigger. My gun isn't coming out of the holster unless I have positively identified a real threat.
Mehmnet: "Nobody's rights are being trampled on...."
Denying people the right to defend themselves isn't trampling on anyones rights? Where does the Brady Bunch get off trying to doing this. What right do they have dictating to the rest of us whether or not we can practice our 2nd Amendment right? 2A clearly states that we have the right to keep and BEAR arms, (BEAR means to carry) and that right "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Get over it!
Mehmnet: ".....only adolescent fantasies of bravery and fortitude."
Here, Mehmnet is projecting his/her own ignorance of "bravery and fortitude", or, the disdain for such charactoristics that he/she lacks. Bravery constitutes the overcoming of fear, something mehmnet clearly can't do. Fortitude, is defined as "strength of mind that enables one to meet danger or bear pain or adversity with courage". It appears that Mehmnet is projecting his/her own condemnation of charactoristics that he/she does not posess. Do we detect a hint of envy? Jealousy?LOL
Mehmnet: "Depressed about that? "
Projecting you own psychological weaknesses, heh, Mehmnet?
Mehmnet: "Oh - well - put that gun of yours to good use and shoot yourself!"
For someone that is suppose to be against violence Mehmnet sure is projecting a strong advocation of violence against those that don't agree with him/her. If folks like him want me to be shot, they're going to have to buy a gun and do it themselves. OH! But wouldnt that make folks like Mehmnet "Dangerous people with guns"? Mehmnet, if you want to shoot me I'll be easy to find, because I DON'T hide my gun. I wear it right out in the open for you to see. And I have a permit from the State of Tn that says I can do it legally, too.
You want something else to pee on yourself over? 44 states have made it legal to carry handguns holstered in plain view (open carry) and some of them don't require a permit to do so. Sounds like the return of the old "Wild , wild West, don't it? A time when our society ws made up of people who had "Bravery and fortitude" to deal with lifes ups and downs on their own and didn't need or want a nanny government to wipe there noses for them. Spirit of the Old West? Hell yes, bring it on!
I think you misinterpreted my post.
I probably shouldn't have called Mehmnet a moron, but he really is .
I was trying to make the point that the constitution does guarantee us the right to keep and bear arms.
Don't count on it. Our second Amendment right must be protected, else the entire Constitution will be lost. This is why the Bill of Rights started off with the 1st and 2nd Articles; Freedom of Speech and Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
There's over 80 million gun owners in this country, and we aren't going to put up with any dictatorship here.
Addititionally, I expect shorter lines and a generally better class of people in the parks as well.
Thank you to the Department of the Interior and those who have helped reverse the infringement of the Second Amendment.
No less than 5 Gun OWNERS have died in the past 10 days, most of them from self-inflicted wounds.
We had Santa-gun-nut ("Merry Xmas little girl - now I will shoot u in the face!"), New Year's gun-nut, Aspen gun-nut, and one other down South. Go back in time and the list only grows.
The latest is Washington gun-nut college student who was wantonly shooting off his antique rifles using blanks, but the police didn't know that so they offed him.
No - sorry - no dangerous toys in our public sandboxes. You people keep reassuring me that you are all responsible with your guns. Well, I'm sure you posters are - but what about all the others???
You keep telling me that guns are a means of defense, but all I read is that they are being used as weapons of revenge by depressed men - who then off themselves when they can't face life (why is it always the guys, huh??? gee - what is it about GUNS that men get so crazy over??? Rarely does a woman shoot herself in the head - much less over a bitter divorce???)
You're right: guns empower the powerless. But all I read about is how these guys use guns on the defenseless - and then themselves.
Read More.
Education is the most powerful tool available to the ignorant.
Yes - read more. More history - and you will find that the 2nd Amendment is rooted in 18th century thought, colored by notions of kings suppressing rebellions and colonists having to band together because there was no other means of defense save for their muskets.
Well if your head is so stuck in the 18th century, I would think your time would get more support asking for a repeal of the "Stamp Act" - or that nasty tax on tea.
Hundreds of gun owners have died in the last 10 days. Read up on the ones who didn't commit suicide, before or after they killed someone. Then consider how many people were killed while operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Now go focus yourself on something more meaningful tp the safety of society, like making it illegal to own a car.
Better yet, pass another law making it illegal to drive under the influence - the several thousand we have don't do the job.
Likewise, putting restrictions on the miniscule number of LEGAL gun owners and carriers will have no effect on stopping people who are already breaking other laws from doing so.
By the way, Santa was in California, whose already incredibly restrictive gun laws did nothing to stop him. Eerily, he didn't seem too worried about the laws concerning murder, arson or assault. You should probably pass a couple more laws since he didn't get the word on those.
Many are certain however that if someone at the party had been carrying a weapon and stopped him, there would have been no thank yous, no congratulations, no sighs of relief from those at the Brady HQ. Only a weary sigh of resignation and a renewed search for someone, somewhere with a concealed permit who wantonly kills a group of people so we can continue our mindless vendetta.
Oh, read up on something factual:
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/general-firearm-discussion/5731-police-fatalities-08-prove-ccw-laws-no-threat-cops-says-ccrkba.html
It's from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms but the data is from the statistics of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund and published by USA Today.
Here's the important part if you get tired of reading:
The number of officer fatalities due to gunfire is the lowest in 50 years, noted Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. A report out Monday said that this year, 41 officers have died from gunshot wounds, down 40 percent from the 68 who died by gunfire in 2007. Yet the number of concealed carry permits issued by the states has risen, dramatically in some areas, in the past 12 months.
I know, I know, inconvenient facts getting in the way of your agenda. Don't worry, you'll find something to try to stir up mass hysteria in a bit.
1. "Likewise, putting restrictions on the miniscule number of LEGAL gun owners and carriers will have no effect on stopping people who are already breaking other laws from doing so."
should read "..gun owners and carriers who break the law will have no..."
2. "Many are certain however that if someone at the party had been carrying a weapon and stopped him, there would have been no thank yous, no congratulations, no sighs of relief from those at the Brady HQ. Only a weary sigh of resignation and a renewed search for someone, somewhere with a concealed permit who wantonly kills a group of people so we can continue our mindless vendetta."
Should read ".....so they can continue their mindless..."
And yes, there were a couple of typos spread in there, sorry about that.
Well apparently it didn't matter: he offed himself with his own gun. So yes - a gun killed him (finally). That's the part you people have to explain in-depth: why do these gun-owners end up shooting themselves - and why is it always despondent men???
Forget it, kidz, if gun deaths are at the lowest they've been in a long time - and we're still hearing about all these gun-nuts killing themselves - then obviously there's real problem.
(Oh - but I guess if you people keep offing yourselves eventually they'll be none of you - hmmm....)
Better yet, pass another law making it illegal to drive under the influence - the several thousand we have don't do the job. "
And stop convoluting the logic here. Cars - when operated properly - do not kill.
Even drugs - when taken in the correct doses and prescriptions - do their job.
But shooting a gun is a deliberate act. It's no "accident" that Santa shot that little girl in the face - he wanted to. It's no "accident" that Aspen-gun-nut shot himself in the head.
These guns never "misfired" - they were deliberately pointed at people and then the trigger pulled. When that kind of "power" can reside with nutzolas who crack but cannot be stopped until after it's too late, then it's time to put away the firearms and make them harder to obtain.
When you're looped, obviously you are not capable of handling/driving the car properly.
Compare that to Santa-gun-nut: he WASN'T DRUNK.
He was sober - and everybody still ended up shot by his gun, including himself.
My guns, like my car and the prescriptions from my doctor have managed not to murder anyone for their entire existence. So, yes they should all be left alone.
Those guns by the way have been operated very deliberately, thousands of times. Oddly, no one is dead as a result of that.
Anytime your own arguments are shown to be faulty, as with Santa Claus, you drift away on same lame tack that it doesn't matter.
Your comment about the use of guns to result in the elimination of gun owners speaks volumes for your basic humanity and maturity.
Interesting how Santa-gun-nut grouped the issue of his gun with assault and arson. Funny how that works, eh?
WHAT???!!!!
Are you high?
If I can visibly tell if a person is a drunk and prevent that person from driving a car. There are even tools - breathalizers - which can quantitatively determine your blood-alcohol content for legal purposes.
How the he11 am I - or anyone for that matter - even YOU - supposed to determine if someone is "sane" enough to maintain and operate a gun??? A quiz? A Rorschauer test??? Gun demo???
And seriously - do you think with your mentality you would ever deny ANYONE ownership of gun? I bet you would be oh-so-ready to arm a nutzola because you would be more concerned with supporting gun rights than really be discerning of the mental health of someone - besides which said "nutzola" may really appear to be sane at the time of issuance of the gun..
Yeesh!
"...members of your group have this odd way off going nutz at the drop of a hat. You may have acted very responsibly with your gun in the past. What assurances do I have that you will not crack and decide to take revenge with your gun?...."
You're afraid.
Now you are much easier to understand.
Next time you see a Santa Claus, just take a deep breath then exhale slowly.
Oh, and seek professional help before next holiday season.
Actually - the way things have been going, it seems the only people who really have cause to fear are the people who know gun-heads.
Santa-gun-nut took out his ex-inlaws and his ex-wife.
Southern gun-nut was using his gun to hold his children hostage.
I guess you could say that gun restrictions are really more about keeping you and your relatives safe from yourselves.
What? Me worry???
It would be grand to sit and discuss "solutions" to gun violence with someone rational. Presently my home is in West Tennessee but I'll be moving to Southwestern Idaho before the end of the year - let me know if you're ever in the area for a coffee or a beer to go with the chat.
From your posts, you seem like the type that would probably kill someone very easily if you got your hands on a gun.
Is that what terrifies you so much about guns?
You don't fear us as much as you fear yourself, do you.
You're not worried about us killing you, you're worried about guns being available to you at the wrong time and having to pay the price for you lack of self control.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
"They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania..
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as they are injurious to others." -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia (1781-1785).
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun. -Patrick Henry.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" -Patrick Henry
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788).
"The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." -Samuel Adams, debates & Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87.
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." -Patrick Henry and George Mason, Elliot, Debates at 185.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." -James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." -Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
"The people are nor to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States...Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America." -gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. the supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).
"If a man hasn't discovered something that he will die for, he isn't fit to live." -Martin Luther King Jr., June 23, 1963. Speech in Detroit.
Statements of The Enemies of Liberty:
"Government begins at the end of the gun barrel." - Chairman Mao
"One man with a gun can control 100 without one. ... Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms." --V.I. Lenin.
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves." --Joseph Stalin.
"We are taking the law and bending it as far as we can to capture a whole new class of guns." - Jose Cerada, (White House official who specializes in gun control policy), The Los Angeles Times
"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ..." Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)
"Gun registration is not enough. Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." - Janet Reno
Which of you geniuses out there can tell me what part of, "Shall Not Be Infringed" you don't understand? Is it too many words together in a string? WTF!!!!!!
The liberal press won't print stories about people protecting themselves or others with guns. Why? Because it doesn't fit in their agenda. They promote the nanny state, where cradle-to-grave care awaits the unarmed. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.The average American's authority is being taken incrementally, one millimeter at a time. A frog does'nt know it is being boiled, if the heat is applied ever so gradually. Look for the united nations action on small arms and the "treaty" that will be eagerly signed by the B. Hussein Obama regime. This would authorize foreign troops to disarm Americans. They'll get my guns alright. Hot lead first!
The truth lies therein.
So it's not "American gun culture" - it's more correctly "rural White American Male culture" that you're adhering to (there may be women among you but not a single Jew or Negro, right? That's why you're so afraid Obama will "take your guns away").
Hey wake up! If a national crisis occurs in the same way the writers of the Bill of Rights imagined it would - a gun is not going to protect you. Foreign Troops - even National ones - will simply take you out with missiles and tanks. And they'll be wearing bullet-proof vests!
Heck - there are terrorists in the world these days: when they kill use car-bombs and germ warfare - they don't care if they go down with you.
Ask anybody in the Middle East - be they Jew or A-rab - a handgun - even a rifle - is worthless when a modern siege erupts. Ask any Palestinian how effective a gun is when you're under assault with missiles and tanks.
You people have this curious double-standard: presumably you all support the war in Iraq and the notion that there are "weapons of mass destruction" - yet you cling to this notion that a gun will protect you if they come over here. "Mass destruction" - get it? You won't even have time to say the word "gun" before you go out in a blaze of Muslim glory.
Yeesh!
You might want to practice a bit in LA, Chicago, DC or New York a bit before you go. Just ask the nice young men (and women) to hand over their guns since it IS against the law you know. Should be easy since those bad old guns are illegal there and surely they just don't understand that they are breaking the law. We are certain that after the proper reverent consideration, they will seek to deliver you to their heightened level of consciousness and understanding.
Drop us a line with how that works out for you.
Folks like you never cease to amaze me as to how low you are willing to stoop to defend your narcisism. When you can't come up with any facts or reasonable argument to support your stance you pull the racism card. How pathetic.
Are you sure your not just projecting your own hidden racism and bigotry? Just as you have been projecting your own insecurities, lack of self-discpline, lack of tolerance, inability to except reality, disdain for personal responsibility, curious double standards,etc.
That's what this thread started out as.
The turning point for me came when my co-worker came to me on a weekday and said "Yuk-yuk-yuk. My buddies and I had a great time last night - we got drunk and went out and shot out all the street lamps."
Backwoods children - that's what you are and that's how you must be disciplined.
America is the only country in the world that GUARANTEES it's citizens the "RIGHT to keep and bear arms". There are so many countries you could move to if you have such disdain for the the American way of life. I'm sure Fidell will welcome you with open arms.
Had your co-worker actually went around shooting out streetlights (and even telling you about it) they most likely would have been arrested before they could have shot them all out. Discharge of a firearm within city limits (where street lights are normally found) is unlawful and surely would have drawn the attention of law enforement. Unless they were using pellet guns.
I suppose you didn't report these people to the authorities either, huh? You are aware, that if this event did happen and they told you about it, and you didn't report it, that makes you an "accessory after the fact"? Whcih means you are not a law abiding citizen.
Solve 2 problems at once. Then everyone gets to be happy. yeeeeaaaa!
January 21st - day after Inauguration - it's all over for you: the Head Negro will be confiscating your guns.
But hey - don't go without a fight.
And when the missiles start flying and the bombs start falling, here's some handy advice you may or may not have heard before:
"Duck & Cover."
Have you considered profesional help?
That hate is gonna burn you up inside.
"January 21st - day after Inauguration - it's all over for you: the Head Negro will be confiscating your guns.
My, have you been sold a bill of goods. And you baught it hook, line, and sinker. The "Anointed One" may think he can pull that off with a Dem controled congress, but I don't think it will be so easy.
First of all, there are too many Democrats in congress that know that they would be committing political suicide if they were to go along with any confiscation Obama may want to execute. They'll fight him on it.
Secondly, Obama will not be able to count on the US Armed Forces to carry out such a confiscation. Memebers of teh US Mil are sworned to defend the Flag and the US Constitution, not their Commander and Chief. The vast majority of the Military personal will not go against US citizens for exercising their rights.
Thirdly, a majority of law enforcement will not go against law abiding citizens for standing up for their Constitutional Rights, either.
There are over 80 million gun owners in this country. Even if only half of them take an armed stand against an order of confiscation, they will out number the number of Military and Law Enforcement that may be loyal to Obama. Now, given the number of gun owners + the Military and law enforcement that would side with us, I think Obama and his cohorts might want to have their bags packed when they try to take our guns.
Oh yeah, and there's also all the non-gun owners that would support defending our constitutional rights, too, because unlike you they know that if the 2A falls the rest of the Bill of Rights will tumble with it, like dominoes.
You keep posting, Mehmnet. The more you post the more you disclose about your own charactor. So far we've learned that you are a sexist, a bigot, an enemy of the Constitution, and now a racist. Everything you try to project onto gun owners.
Maybe you would like to take a shot at explaining why extremely restrictive gun control laws haven't lived up to their promised intent.
The 2A is the basis for the change back to the ORIGINAL situation and now provides those who use Park facilities with the means to protect themselves, their families and others as appropriate. The danger of personal assaults and animal attacks has been rising and at least we now have an option for protection.
The only concern I have remaining is the practicality of limiting the practice to prohibit bathroom buildings and that we are apparently going to be forced to lock weapons in the trunk of the car while staying in hotels or entering into ranger stations/offices, visitor's centers, convenience stores and museum buildings. Hopefully, trailside toilet buildings and enclosed shelters are excluded from this coverage. That part appears to not be well thoughtout or consistent.
A very "toilet-centric" post.
You go on at-length on gun matters - but the frequency of your bathroom-related issues makes me wonder how old u r...
I realize that this thread started over the new NP rule, but the Brady Bunch and their followers have been doing their darnedest to put a stop to are ability to carry our tools of self-defense all together. If they had their way we wouldn't be able to keep guns at home, either. They are totally against 2A.
AS you can see, they aren't able or flat refuse to explain why the strict gun control laws they favor don't work as they claim they were suppose to. But yet they want more regulation. Their arguments are based on lies and misinformation. True facts and statistics destroy their arguments easily. Why they have any credibility with anyone is beyond me.
http://www.usacarry.com/ is a good Pro 2A site where you can enjoy some camaraderie and discuss both politics and your hobby if desired.
Keep at it.
I'll give that site a look see.
I tend to hang out at this one. They'd have Mehmnet for breakfast over there. LOL
http://www.opencarry.org
Ed, I won't be in Idaho any time soon, but if you ever come to Bozeman, MT, shoot me an email, I appreciate the offer for a chat. (My contact address should be easy to find with Google.) Now I don't think guns in National Parks will help much against animal attacks. Against people maybe, but where do you get the idea that crime or animal attacks in National Parks are rising? Most statistics show that National Parks are pretty safe places.
After leaving Colorado I lived in California where it has become a joke about coyotes taking cats and small dogs from backyards at night. I will search around for exact statistics but I am confident they will bear out the increase since these were mainstream news rather than special interest group hysteria-inducing announcements.
The Colorado Fish and Game was repeatedly advising people to make more noise and avoid certain areas. California was doing the same and advising to secure garbage cans at night due to bears. What is the point of a park if you have to avoid parts of it due to danger? How does someone protect themselves, their spouse or their children from a bear in the backyard or campground?
Regarding two-legged predators you can scan for the current headlines concerning the one year anniversary of the death of a Georgia hiker killed by a stalker in December, 2008. In the NW you had the young female athlete (skier) attacked by the father and son team who wanted themselves a woman.
Still it makes no difference whether it involves one death a year or fifty; the point is having the option to increase your chances. Simply, the intent of the 2A was to provide citizens with the means of self-protection. It was also for political reasons but while those are extremely important they are secondary to the purpose of this thread.
Also, don't forget that despite the claims of carnage and bloodshed which are always predicted when carrying laws are restored, there has been no blood running in the streets, no crazed concealed weapons carriers opening fire on police, drivers, shoppers or neighbors. This is merely returning the National Parks back to the way they were some 25 years or so ago.
Of course, there might be situations where a gun might help, and I understand your argument about having the additional option. I'd just advise you to go without a gun from time to time, it isn't as dangerous as some people would make you believe.
Overall, I don't think this new rule will change much in real terms, so I am not very passionate about it. I'd rather see both sides of the debate chill out a bit. The world is not going to end with this rule change, and it won't end if Obama reinstates the rule either. You (both pro- and anti-gun voices) could at least admit that this is a largely symbolic battle about the larger issue of the second amendment in general.
Toilet traumas and scary tales of "When Animals Attack!"
A forum for the fears and phobias of backwoods children!
Sorry - kiddiez - but we can't arm you just because you imagine the first snapped twig or strange footstep to be an assault on your life. Contrary to what you've seen Davy Crockett do on the Disney TV show, guns are NOT toys. We live in a real wilderness, not Frontierland.
Enough of this foolishness!
Grownups have work to do!
This was not a last minute, lame duck move by the interior department. They had months for a public comment period and it was extended by the antigun people because they thought they could get more anti comments than pro comments. They were wrong and now, shortly, we will have concealed-carry in OUR parks, again. We The People have prevailed and I feel at one with the universe. Now, if only we could get stupid law-makers out of office. Last election proved that there are more idiots than you can shake a stick at. Scary.
If one of them has hold of one of my children and is mauling my wife and other child (see story below) I would like something other than my fists and a piece of firewood (see other story below) to try to get it off.
Aggregate statistics from credible sources are difficult to come by so I had to sort through a few news stories to get you some comments but here are three notables:
Samuel Evan Ives, 11, male - June 17, 2007
Taken from a tent in American Fork Canyon in the Uinta National Forest in Utah County, Utah where he was sleeping with his stepfather, mother and 6-year-old brother. The bear was later killed by state Wildlife officials.
Jim Hamm, 70, male - Jan. 25, 2007
Wildlife officials credited a woman with saving her husband's life by clubbing a mountain lion that attacked him while the couple were hiking in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, a California state park.
Elora Petrasek, 6, female - April 13, 2006
She was killed and her mother and 2 year-old brother seriously injured in an attack in the Cherokee National Forest in Tennessee.
The fatal attacks are easier to find than simpler attacks unless they resolve in some sort of spectacular fashion. While some dismiss these as insignificant, children and elderly people seem to be targeted more due to their speed, size and ability to avoid panic.
From your perspective it may not seem like much, although many of the anti crowd are agonizing and predicting the same shootouts, mayhem and carnage they predicted in Florida and other states (erroneously), but to those who believe in the Constitution this is a restoration of an illegally infringed right. We keep coming back to the essential larger point though that in no instance has there been shown to be a correlation between carrying guns and increased gun fatalities. In fact, those locations with stringent restrictions on guns have higher incidents. This holds true whether they are malls, schools or cities.
Crime rates tick up across national parks
Christian Science Monitor
Crime in National Parks
Washington Post
Crime slowly creeps into parks, forests
Seattle Times
Mexican cartels running pot farms in U.S. national forest
CNN
That woman beat the mountain lion off by clubbing it.
So why do you need guns?
They may be insignificant to you but they meant the world to their families.
You really exhibit an incredible lack of sensitivity and humanity, not to mention basic intelligence. My sincere hope is that you get some serious therapy before you come apart.
You're off my radar now, good luck.
You say: "Certainly if a bear wanders quietly into a campground only a fool would immediately pull a handgun and shoot it unless it was actively engaged in an attack." Does that mean you would shoot it if you thought it was engaged in an attack? If so, please think twice, and check out this link: http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/2008/03/studies-show-bear-spray-more-effective-guns-against-grizzlies
Quote (from a USFWS report): "The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality -- based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries."
Sure, there are cases where guns have saved lives, there are also cases where guns have done harm. Altogether, the number of those incidents in National Parks is very small, so it is hard to tell whether you increase or diminish your chances of survival with a gun. Somehow you gun advocates think that having a gun is always an advantage, but this is just not true, definitely not with bears.
Remember the old saying, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
They got over it.
You will, too.
On the other hand, if it is actively attacking someone across a space, I am probably not going to maneuver in front of it and be closing towards swipe range to spray it. If it is upwind of me, I am not spraying it either. If it about to attack someone I feel responsible for defending I am probably going to shoot it to draw it away if it is more than a few feet distant. Finally, if it is chasing someone I am probably going to shoot it since I doubt I can chase it down and get in front of it to spray it in the face.
I used to go to Parks quite a bit and expect to start going more in the next year. Not because of the rule, just had to do with where I lived. During that time when I did go regularly, I saw bears twice, mountain goats dozens of times and no mountain lions but none ever attacked (thankfully). That said, I was at Yellowstone about 40-odd years ago and within 50 yards of 3 buffalo, one of which killed a man 24 hours later. I walked that same path at Chatfield Reservoir where cougar attacks occurred three times during the period I lived less than 3 miles away.
In the stories about the bear and cougar attacks I also can't help but notice that the Rangers who went after the animals apparently used guns on it, not spray, although they probably carried it on their belts.
And yes, I do believe that having a gun is an advantage. How is it "just not true"? You may be trying to say that it is not a greater advantage with bears "than the spray option" and that is a possibility, but animals are just one item and we come back to the 2A.
You're in TN? I'll be home (Memphis) in a week and visiting Nashville at least one long weekend for some shooting. You in the vicinity?
I have only to wait for a day or two before I am confronted with yet another GUN-NUT who sheds his despondency by going LOONY TUNES!!!
MADISON, Ga. – A 13-hour hostage standoff at a Georgia motel ended peacefully Monday when a former South Carolina police officer and a teenage girl surrendered, freeing his estranged wife and infant son.
FBI spokesman Steve Lazarus said 25-year-old David Dietz surrendered around 9:15 a.m. at the Red Roof Inn off Interstate 20 about 60 miles east of Atlanta. Jamie Lynn Burgess, 17, was also taken into custody at the time.
The two had been holed up in a second floor room with the infant, Allim David Dietz, and Dietz's estranged wife, 29-year-old Eva Arce-Perez. Two shots were fired at law enforcement agents from the room Sunday night.
The next morning, Dietz stepped onto the walkway outside the motel room holding the baby in his arms as he surrendered. Burgess exited the room with her hands in the air.
Burgess helped Dietz in the kidnapping, West Columbia, S.C., Police Major Jackie Brothers said.
"It's our understanding they arrived together, they waited together and when the family and friends arrived home, she actively participated in the abduction," Brothers said.
Police said Burgess and Dietz were acquaintances but wouldn't elaborate on their relationship.
Burgess was set to return to South Carolina Monday night, where she would be charged with kidnapping, carjacking and assault with intent to kill, Brothers said. She won't face federal charges because she's a minor, Lazarus said.
Dietz, who wore a black uniform emblazoned with the word "police" during the abduction, was being held in federal custody in Macon and would face federal charges of kidnapping in South Carolina and federal charges of assaulting a federal officer in Georgia since shots were fired at FBI agents, Lazarus said. He said they hoped to bring Dietz before a federal magistrate on Tuesday.
He also faces state charges including kidnapping, assault with intent to kill and carjacking in South Carolina and five counts of aggravated assault in Georgia, authorities said.
Police said Arce-Perez and the baby were abducted from their home in Columbia, S.C., Saturday evening. A missing child alert was issued, and authorities learned Dietz might be headed toward Atlanta.
The standoff started Sunday night after Georgia State Patrol officers spotted the car mentioned in the alert in the motel parking lot.
It wasn't the former police officer's first run-in with the law. South Carolina police reports showed authorities were called twice last year to domestic disturbances between Dietz and Arce-Perez.
Police in West Columbia were called to the home where Arce-Perez lived in December after the woman claimed Dietz threatened her.
"She stated that he called her wanting to see the baby even if he had to kick the door in," West Columbia chief Dennis Tyndall said.
An incident report filed in May by the Richland County, S.C. Sheriff's Department says Dietz was arrested for criminal domestic violence after he tried to force then-pregnant Arce-Perez to leave her apartment with him and pointed a gun at her brother, threatening to shoot if he tried to intervene. A judge dismissed charges in that case when Arce-Perez didn't show up for a hearing, said department spokesman Chris Cowan.
Columbia police spokesman Brick Lewis said Dietz was hired by the department in June 2006 but resigned in October 2006 without giving a reason and on good terms.
Dietz also worked as a probation officer until August 2007, said Pete O'Boyle, a spokesman for the state's probation department.
http://www.wildsingapore.com/news/20070506/070531-5.htm
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060109&slug=dige09m
Outlawing helmets would be silly, of course, but wearing helmets on hikes would be silly as well (and you couldn't really conceal them). The most dangerous part of a Park visit will always be the drive to and from the Park anyway, and you can never protect yourself against all eventual dangers. Try to be prepared against the most likely problems (getting lost, hypothermia, drowning, falling, getting hit by a car) and enjoy your visit. Carry a gun if you like, but don't think that it is what makes you safe. Paranoia isn't fun...
By the way, I just realized that I am always thinking about big scenic parks like Yellowstone or Yosemite, not urban Parks like the Mall in Washington.
Amazing how this whole infringement mentality begins to encroach into unexpected areas of our lives. Imagine being denied travel despite your purchased ticket just for forgetting that 150ml canister of bear spray in your carry-on. Sheesh!
And yes, outlawing helmets would be silly. If someone wants to wear a helment, we should let them. Likewise, if someone wishes to carry a gun, let them also. Since there is a clause in our Constitution explicitly giving us the right doesn't it seem like it should be even harder to imagine outlawing the guns than it does the helmets? You might remember that 30 years ago nobody wore helmets while biking, now there are many states where a paarent can be held negligent and both them and their children cited as negligently operating a bike if they are without one.
As for the Mall situation, there the predators are more likely the two-legged kind. The Federal buildings protections remain, apparently, at least for now though and DC is still struggling with how they will deal with the total failure of their gun ban, both to deal with crime AND its unconstitutional foundation. I suspect that the Mall's proximity to terrorist targets gives them a legitimate environment where they will restrict weapons, I even endorse it. Our national treasures, government structures and even our politicians need the best protection we can provide, balanced against our society's accessibility and educational needs.
And thank you very much for the comment, "I don't really have a problem with you (or people like you) carrying a gun in Parks.." that is reall all we expect.
I live just south of Lobelville, south side of I-40. If you've been over to the opencarry.org site PM me there. I post their as Task Force 16. Maybe we can meet up out on the Interstate on your way.
Keep your powder dry.
You're all worried about the bears being poached in the NP by usgun carriers, right? Well quit worrying. The handguns that are commonly carried concealed don't have the punch need to stop a grizzly bear or even a large black bear. The range in caliper from .38 special (usually revolvers) to .45, with several calipers in between, including magnums. None of which have the balistic power to penetrate the massive bodies of these bears to get to any vital organs. It takes a high powered rifle to stop a large bear dead in it's tracks. And even then, you have to hit the bear in the right place. There are a few pistols available that can fire high powered rifle ammo, but they are too big and bulky to carry concealed.
The commonly carried handgun does not ahve enough barrel length to be accurate enough to be shooting at bears at a distance. These handguns are designed to be use accurately at close range. I'll be keeping my distance from bears.
Now if we find ourselves being mauled by a bear, the quickest way to stop that bear from continuing, is to kill it. I have little confidence in any commonly carried handgun to accomplish that. Popping one with my .45 cal revolver may just piss him off more, unless I get really lucky and get a good head shot. I don't have good luck very often. And if it's mauling me, I may end up shooting myself while trying to put my gun to his head, if I can do that.
A carried handgun may be affective against a cougar, but that's if you can get your gun out quick enough. Cougars are very stealthy in stalking their prey and victems rarely know that there's one around until it's on them. (Unlike the bears that are anything but quiet as they lumber through the forest) Most of the time a cougar attacks from behind and it's victem will be held face down. Not a good position to defend yourself with a gun.
People that will be carrying concealed handguns will be doing so for defense against the 2 legged preditors in the NP's, just as we do anywhere else we go. Most people are attacked by 4 legged preditors due to their own carelessness or foolishness. Those attacks could have been avoided without any need for a gun. Attacks by the 2 legged preditors will be reduced sugnificantly when they realize that they can no longer safely prey at will on other visitors.
What exactly does this event have to do with carrying handguns in NP? Nothing.
That officer didn't use to be crazy. Something had to happen to make him go off the deep end. Maybe it was knowing that there is people in the world like you. ya never know.
Are you saying that bear spray (or any other pepper spray) should be allowed in the enclosed space of an airplane cabin? That would show an amazing lack of common sense. Banning shampoo might be silly, but banning pepper spray and guns in carry-on luggage is obviously a good thing to do. None of these bans on airplanes are infringement of anything. If you don't like them, don't fly, but don't complain that the airlines (or the TSA) try to get you to your destination securely. Anyway, this is off-topic, and I don't have anything more to say.
As for the spray question, whether I think it is okay or not you should consider that up until 8 years ago people flew regularly with knives, pepper spray, perfume, scissors and such. Some things change and security regulations are one of them. While I clearly stated that I believe in protecting certain areas and zones there are quite a few people who now question the TSA regs. It is one example, directly relevant to the park carry issue, as to where the lines are evolving between prudent safety measures, reasonable regulation and infringing on our rights.
We'll save the debate about licensed gun carriers being allowed to carry on public transport for an ON-TOPIC thread in the future.
It just gets more and more bizarre!
All of this would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.
"Cross-Dressing Killer Doctor Found Dead"
AP posted: 7 MINUTES AGO
NORFOLK, Mass. (Jan. 6)- A cross-dressing dermatologist serving life in prison for killing his estranged wife, who was shot in front of witnesses, has been found hanged in his cell, a prisons spokeswoman said Tuesday.
Richard Sharpe was found by his cellmate at MCI-Norfolk on Monday evening and was declared dead at a hospital, said Department of Correction spokeswoman Diane Wiffin.
Murder in MassachusettsRobert E. Klein, Pool / AP6 photos Richard Sharpe, a cross-dressing dermatologist serving a life sentence for fatally shooting his wife, Karen, with a hunting rifle in 2000, was found hanged in his prison cell in Norfolk, Mass., Monday. Sharpe, seen during a court appearance in 2007, was found by his cellmate, according to a prison spokeswoman.
The Norfolk District Attorney's office is investigating, she said. Sharpe tried to hang himself in his cell in March 2002.
The Gloucester dermatologist was convicted in 2001 of shooting his wife, Karen, with a hunting rifle. In 2007, he was acquitted of charges he plotted to kill the prosecutor in his murder trial.
He testified that he didn't remember much about the night of the killing, when he shot his wife in front of her brother and other witnesses as the couple's two youngest children slept in another part of the house.
Sharpe, 54, was a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty who ran several businesses outside his medical practice and parlayed his earnings into millions in the stock market.
Prosecutors said he killed his wife in July 2000 because he was angry over the prospect of losing $3 million in their divorce.
His case drew national attention when photographs of him wearing slinky dresses and fishnet stockings were widely published after his arrest. His wife had said in earlier affidavits that he stole her birth control pills in an effort to enlarge his breasts.
At his trial, Sharpe testified that he began cross-dressing at a young age to escape his father's rage.
Defense witnesses, including Sharpe's siblings, testified that Sharpe was abused for years by his father.
A defense psychiatrist said Sharpe suffered from a half-dozen psychiatric disorders, including severe depression and intermittent explosive disorder.
The psychiatrist said Sharpe's disorders were aggravated when he drank alcohol, and Sharpe testified he had two to four glasses of wine the night of the killing.
But prosecutors said Sharpe carefully calculated his actions and later faked symptoms of mental illness to impress psychiatrists and the jury.
###
I guess at this point questions invariably arise:
Which of you will crack sometime in the next 5 years and kill some member of your family???
Which of you out there are currently sporting "manties"???
Yeesh!
Do you have any rational argument in support of your position to offer, or do you mistakenly believe that appealing to ad hominem attacks, spotlight fallacies and hasty generalizations constitutes a reasonable justification of your claims?
That hunter in upstate New York was a "law-abiding citizen."
That little girl was asleep in the presumed safety of her own home.
His wayward bullet - fired at an already-incapacitated deer killed her.
He was directly responsible.
So - apparently you don't have to be a "killer" or a "criminal" to misuse a gun.
U get the frickin' facts!
An average of 195,000 people in the USA died due to potentially preventable, in-hospital medical errors in each of the years 2000, 2001 and 2002, according to a new study of 37 million patient records that was released today by HealthGrades, the healthcare quality company.
The HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study is the first to look at the mortality and economic impact of medical errors and injuries that occurred during Medicare hospital admissions nationwide from 2000 to 2002. The HealthGrades study applied the mortality and economic impact models developed by Dr. Chunliu Zhan and Dr. Marlene R. Miller in a research study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in October of 2003. The Zhan and Miller study supported the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) 1999 report conclusion, which found that medical errors caused up to 98,000 deaths annually and should be considered a national epidemic.
The HealthGrades study finds nearly double the number of deaths from medical errors found by the 1999 IOM report "To Err is Human," with an associated cost of more than $6 billion per year. Whereas the IOM study extrapolated national findings based on data from three states, and the Zhan and Miller study looked at 7.5 million patient records from 28 states over one year, HealthGrades looked at three years of Medicare data in all 50 states and D.C. This Medicare population represented approximately 45 percent of all hospital admissions (excluding obstetric patients) in the U.S. from 2000 to 2002.
"The HealthGrades study shows that the IOM report may have underestimated the number of deaths due to medical errors, and, moreover, that there is little evidence that patient safety has improved in the last five years," said Dr. Samantha Collier, HealthGrades' vice president of medical affairs. "The equivalent of 390 jumbo jets full of people are dying each year due to likely preventable, in-hospital medical errors, making this one of the leading killers in the U.S."
HealthGrades examined 16 of the 20 patient-safety indicators defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) - from bedsores to post-operative sepsis - omitting four obstetrics-related incidents not represented in the Medicare data used in the study. Of these sixteen, the mortality associated with two, failure to rescue and death in low risk hospital admissions, accounted for the majority of deaths that were associated with these patient safety incidents. These two categories of patients were not evaluated in the IOM or JAMA analyses, accounting for the variation in the number of annual deaths attributable to medical errors. However, the magnitude of the problem is evident in all three studies.
"If we could focus our efforts on just four key areas - failure to rescue, bed sores, postoperative sepsis, and postoperative pulmonary embolism - and reduce these incidents by just 20 percent, we could save 39,000 people from dying every year," said Dr. Collier.
The HealthGrades study was released in conjunction with the company's first annual Distinguished Hospital Award for Patient SafetyTM, which honors hospitals with the best records of patient safety. Eighty-eight hospitals in 23 states were given the award for having the nation's lowest patient-safety incidence rates. A list of winners can be found at http://www.healthgrades.com.
Study Highlights Among the findings in the HealthGrades Patient Safety in American Hospitals study are as follows:
-- About 1.14 million patient-safety incidents occurred among the 37 million hospitalizations in the Medicare population over the years 2000-2002.
-- Of the total 323,993 deaths among Medicare patients in those years who developed one or more patient-safety incidents, 263,864, or 81 percent, of these deaths were directly attributable to the incident(s).
-- One in every four Medicare patients who were hospitalized from 2000 to 2002 and experienced a patient-safety incident died.
-- The 16 patient-safety incidents accounted for $8.54 billion in excess in-patient costs to the Medicare system over the three years studied. Extrapolated to the entire U.S., an extra $19 billion was spent and more than 575,000 preventable deaths occurred from 2000 to 2002.
-- Patient-safety incidents with the highest rates per 1,000 hospitalizations were failure to rescue, decubitus ulcer and postoperative sepsis, which accounted for almost 60 percent of all patient-safety incidents that occurred.
-- Overall, the best performing hospitals (hospitals that had the lowest overall patient safety incident rates of all hospitals studied, defined as the top 7.5 percent of all hospitals studied) had five fewer deaths per 1000 hospitalizations compared to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals. This significant mortality difference is attributable to fewer patient-safety incidents at the best performing hospitals.
-- Fewer patient safety incidents in the best performing hospitals resulted in a lower cost of $740,337 per 1,000 hospitalizations as compared to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals.
The complete study, including the list of AHRQ patient-safety indicators, can be found at http://www.healthgrades.com.
"If the Center for Disease Control's annual list of leading causes of death included medical errors, it would show up as number six, ahead of diabetes, pneumonia, Alzheimer's disease and renal disease," continued Dr. Collier. "Hospitals need to act on this, and consumers need to arm themselves with enough information to make quality-oriented health care choices when selecting a hospital."
Distinguished Hospital Awards and Findings
In addition to its findings on patient safety, HealthGrades today honored 88 hospitals in 23 states with the Distinguished Hospital Award for Patient Safety, the first national hospital award to focus purely on hospital patient safety. The award was designed to highlight hospitals with the best records of patient safety in the nation and to encourage consumers to research their local hospitals before undergoing a procedure.
HealthGrades based the awards on a detailed study of patient safety events in hospitals nationwide from 2000 to 2002, using the list of patient-safety incidents developed by AHRQ. "Best" hospitals were identified as the top 7.5 percent of the hospitals studied and had significantly different patient-safety incident rates and costs compared to hospitals that were average or in the bottom 10th percentile. Among the "best" hospitals, the lower number of avoidable deaths and in-patient hospital costs were directly related to their lower overall patient-safety incident rates.
"If all the Medicare patients who were admitted to the bottom 10th percentile of hospitals from 2000 to 2002 were instead admitted to the "best" hospitals, approximately 4,000 lives and $580 million would have been saved," said Dr. Collier.
About HealthGrades
Health Grades, Inc. (OTCBB: HGRD) is the leading independent healthcare quality company, providing ratings, information and advisory services to healthcare providers, employers, health plans and insurance companies. HealthGrades works with healthcare providers to help assess, improve and promote their quality. HealthGrades provides consumers access to information about healthcare providers and practitioners through its Web site and provides liability insurers, employers and payers with critical information about healthcare quality.
Contacts
Scott Shapiro, Fenton Communications
(212) 584-5000 x307;
See! You have a much bigger chance of your doctor killing you than a gun!
Man, 93, shoots alleged intruder
By Kelly Mori
Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Springfield, Ohio — Police are investigating a weekend shooting of an alleged intruder by a 93-year-old homeowner.
Mark Leon Applin, 32, address unknown, was taken by helicopter to Miami Valley Hospital with life-threatening injuries from the shooting that occurred about 8:30 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 3, according to police reports. The hospital was unable to release information on Applin's condition Monday.
According to police reports, officers were dispatched to the 200 block of West Southern Avenue following a report of a man trying to gain entry into a home.
When police arrived, a woman was standing outside her home pointing to Applin who was lying on the sidewalk. She identified him as a man who was trying to get into her home. She said she did not know how he ended up on the sidewalk or how he was injured.
At that time, another officer observed an elderly man in the house next door holding a gun in his hand. Police secured the gun from the man who said he shot the younger man, identified as Applin, after he broke into his home.
The man told officers that Applin, whom he did not know, kept knocking on his door and he told him to leave several times. Applin then allegedly entered through an unlocked back door and walked to the front door and ripped down the curtains. The homeowner said he then retrieved a gun from a box in the living room. He warned Applin he would shoot him if he didn't leave. Applin reportedly kept walking toward the homeowner, who said he fired one shot. Applin fell on the floor, then got up and ran out the front door, ending up on the sidewalk, the man said.
No charges have been filed, pending an investigation.
He was also on parole and presumably barred from possessing the firearm with which he shot himself.
I doubt that there will be an investigation much less a prosecution of the supplier of the weapon. We may be past the point where anyone can be stopped from getting a gun with malice in mind.
Our mayor was taken into protective custody (I assume to the Dick Cheney safe house) because this particular weapons nut wrote letters specifying a desire seek revenge on the Mayor for opposing mining claims scams two decades ago. That's right, death sentence for opposing a warped notion of "property rights."
The Mayor had reported for duty to serve as a volunteer to keep people out of the danger zone where the four bombs were located. The Mayor did not know he was on this man's mind as desrving punishment and doesn't own or carry a gun.
Would the Mayor have been safer if he had carried a gun? A bomb ( greater deterrence right?). My guess is no, he would not have known the mad bomber was walking the streets observing the effects of his bomb planting and would not have been given the chance to deploy a weapon of any kind if the bomber had spotted him. The police did not even know what make and model of car this man was driving until shortly before his suicide so a street corner volunteer would not have known enough to take defensive measures of any kind.
I really like the irony inherit in this quote:
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
Hamilton, you may recall, was killed by Aaron Burr in America's most famous duel. He was properly armed with a Wogdon, hair trigger dueling pistol, he shot first and died the next day of Burr's shot to his abdomen. The duel was illegal and fought in New jersey because the laws against dueling there were less strict. The guns were transported to the dueling site separately from the participants so the rowing crew could plausibly deny having aided or abetted a duel.
Burr was ruined but never convicted of murder or any related offense
I agree with Hamilton that properly armed is the best hope but think properly armed with a brain and willingness to use it is much more helpful than having a weapon. had Hamilton apologized for remarks he had made of Burr, there would have been no duel. had Burr accepted hamilton's missed shot as signaling an "honorable" end to the duel, he might have lived fame and prosperity.
But they didn't let it end because both were unable to let go of their anger and pride.
Common sense tells me that I am not safer in a national park because more people are carrying concealed weapons. The criminals with criminal intent will have guns with or without a law or permit but I will have no more chance of deterring them than the Mayor would have in Aspen on New years by having a gun. My chances of being killed accidentally or without malice aforethought increase for each "innocent" bearer of arms, however, as certainly as would the danger increase if duels were to be legal.
Rather than stoking anger with verbal weaponry "gun nuts, Brady Bunch, liberals yada yada" "my rights, my rights, my rights" maybe we could stop obsessing and think about what drives people to carry and use weapons in circumstances that only increase danger.
I note that you have not addressed my previous inquiry. Are you able to construct an argument in support of your position that does not rely upon the spotlight, hasty generalization and ad hominem fallacies?
Individuals who carry concealed deadly weapons do not do so in order to enhance your safety; they do so in order to enhance their own safety and the safety of those with whom they travel.
The criminals with criminal intent will have guns with or without a law or permit but I will have no more chance of deterring them than the Mayor would have in Aspen on New years by having a gun.
I am curious as to how you have determined this conclusion, given that research conducetd by Gary Kleck (who himself initially expected to uncover a correlation between increased firearms ownership and crime rates, yet who was unable to establish such a link) suggests that an individual armed with a firearm is more likely to be able to successfully resist an attempted criminal attack.
My chances of being killed accidentally or without malice aforethought increase for each "innocent" bearer of arms, however, as certainly as would the danger increase if duels were to be legal.
Currently, thirty-seven states in the United States issue permits to citizens allowing for the carrying of concealed deadly weapons on a "shall issue" basis. Most of the state legislative acts that allowed for the issuance of such permits were passed within the last twenty years. If your above assertion is valid, then you should be able to demonstrate that risk of a firearms death such as what you describe increased universally within all such states following the establishment of a "shall issue" concealed deadly weapons permit system. Please do so.
All I have done is cite a number of extremely recent cases that have appeared in the media. Hey - i didn't give guns to those people to try to make my point; they acted independently based on their mindsets which may - or may not - be similar to yours.
Fight fire with fire: so far, we have had ONE recent article documenting where a gun actually prevented harm to someone fairly defenseless compared to the assailant.
Where are all the other similar stories? Covered up by the liberal media? "The Night a Gun Saved My Baby"?
I mean granted a Harvard doctor may grab headlines more so for his home-made transgender procedure than for murdering his wife with a rifle, but how do you explain the broadcast of the others?
Perhaps you want statistics? Okay - is anybody really breaking down the demographics of gun-related deaths in detail? We hear "self-inflicted gunshot" - but are they breaking it down into sex, income bracket, cause, etc? It's one thing to say these people are all depressed and they would have killed themselves anyway - it's another to cite that a specific % are white males in a certain age bracket, undergoing marital difficulty or workplace issues, and that they not only killed themselves but did so after offing a spouse, an acqaintance, a couple of her relatives or a group of co-workers (who more than likely ended up on the side of the equation as "murders").
Where are those numbers?
Hah! It was probably someone who wanted to ensure said bomber the right to carry a gun.
(Possibly even someone on this board? Come on - 'fess up - at what point would you have denied this guy a gun? He was in his 70s. Unless he told you he was making bombs, would you have guessed that he was gun-nutz?)
You also rhetorically asked "Which of you will crack sometime in the next 5 years and kill some member of your family???", implying that such an event is an inevitibility amongst those discussing this issue in this forum. In so doing, you implied that the isolated, and relatively uncommon, events that you have referenced are in fact expected occurrences amongst firearms owners in general. This was an appeal both to the spotlight fallacy -- in that you focused upon single events in order to create the false impression that such events are commonplace -- and to the hasty generalization fallacy -- as you implied that the irresponsible actions of the subjects of the stories that you have referenced are common amongst firearms owners when in fact the majority of firearms owners have not caused negligent harm due to irresponsible action.
Fight fire with fire: so far, we have had ONE recent article documenting where a gun actually prevented harm to someone fairly defenseless compared to the assailant.
Such an anecdotal reference is no more valid as evidence than the anecdotal references that you have provided. Instead, an individual should examine analysis of defensive firearms usage; for example, the United States Justice Department at one time estimated that, between 1987 through 1992, an average of 82,500 crime victims per year used a firearm for self defense. That figure only includes incidents reported to the police, and will not account for individuals who did not feel a need to contact legal authorities following a defensive firearm usage (note that successful self-defense with a firearm need not involve discharging the weapon).
Perhaps you want statistics? Okay - is anybody really breaking down the demographics of gun-related deaths in detail?
Actually, the demographics of a number of firearms-related incidents -- such as the demographics of individuals killed through use of a firearm and of individuals who committed a homicide with a firearm -- are available, and should be analyzed. Failure to consider that there exist definable traits beyond firearms ownership when analysing statistics of firearms-related incidents can lead to unreliable conclusions.
We hear "self-inflicted gunshot" - but are they breaking it down into sex, income bracket, cause, etc? It's one thing to say these people are all depressed and they would have killed themselves anyway - it's another to cite that a specific % are white males in a certain age bracket, undergoing marital difficulty or workplace issues, and that they not only killed themselves but did so after offing a spouse, an acqaintance, a couple of her relatives or a group of co-workers (who more than likely ended up on the side of the equation as "murders").
In fact, government agencies do keep statistics regarding the age range, race and gender of homicide victims, and of the general circumstances of the homicide.
Any responsible gun owner carrier will tell you that there is no 100% garauntee that having a firearm at the ready will protect us from all threats. They won't protect us from a bomb blast or a snipers bullet. Carrying a handgun may not help us much against multiple bad guys that are armed. There will always be the possibility of an unforseen threat presenting itself that our gun will not save us from. Many of us feel it is better to be prepared to go down fighting than to submit to un-contested slaughter.
As to the bomber being on parole and in possession of a firearm. You see how well the Fed and State prohibition for felons laws has worked, now don't you?
Your reference to the duel between Hamilton and Burr seems a bit out of place in this discussion. Both were willing particpants and equally armed. We must assume that they both understood the risk they were taking. Personally I think that dueling stuff was idiotic. But, at least they always did it away from crowds. That way the only potential victems (sometimes both shooters missed) were the participants.
I agree with you that suing ones brains can prevent some adverse events from happening. But, there are still those things that one cannot control. Carrying a gun and using ones brain while doing so can cover most situations pretty well. I'll assume that you don't carry, and you probably don't know that those of us that do are legally held to certain protocals as to what exstent I can use deadly force to stop an eminent threat of serious bodily enjury or death to myeslf or others. The degree of useage of a firearm to stop a threat that I can legally use depends on what is needed to stop the threat. If merely putting my hand on my handgun and commanding the assailant to cease and decist stops the threat that is as far as I can go with it. If unholstering my weapon stops the threat, that's as far as I can go, legally. You how this works? I can only use my weapon to the extent it takes to stop a threat and still be within legal justification. If at any time an assailant drops his/her weapon and /or flees, I can not pull the trigger on them. So you see how one needs to use their head about when and how far to go when using a firearm to stop a crime? As you can see, contrary to what some anti's think ( like Mehmnet), using a gun to stop a criminal threat, doesn't necesarily mean shooting someone.
It also takes brains to prevent oneself from allowing a situation such as a debate escalating into something worse while armed. I'll walk away from a discussion if it looks like it may get heated.
Should have been: " I agree with you that using ones brains can prevent..." Sorry for the dislexic fingers.
Here's a good site to get gun facts.
http://www.gunfacts.info/
Okay - yes - I understand one's confidence at packing heat.
I lived in the big city, yes - "Negro" criminals with illegally-obtained guns "abounded" (I believe that's what the redneck population describes it as such?).
There were times I truly suspected that "leering Negros" had criminal mischief/thuggery/murder on their minds and me as their subjects.
Hah! I used to put my hand inside my jacket and pretend to grasp something. I'd smile as if "try it - you'll lose".
Never had a problem!
You misspelled "protocol" too - just thought you'd like to know.
XOXOX,
"Mehmnet"
Okay - yes - I understand one's confidence at packing heat.
AH HA!!!! So you admit that carrying of firearms publicly (or at least pretending) is a deterent to potential crime.
Mehmnet, there may be hope for you yet.
Did you know that 44 states allow open carry of handguns? I carry mine that way all the time.
"Rather than stoking anger with verbal weaponry "gun nuts, Brady Bunch, liberals yada yada" "my rights, my rights, my rights" maybe we could stop obsessing and think about what drives people to carry and use weapons in circumstances that only increase danger."
Well, you need to understand that "my rights" are a fundamental of this discussion and hardly constitute rationale for lumping them under a "yada, yada" heading. If the Brady organization, Center for Handgun Violence OR the NRA was ordered to cease publication of their viewpoints and lobbying, it is fair to say no one would consider freedom of speech as "yada, yada, yada". If the city you live in passed an ordinance prohibiting your congregation from meeting on Sunday mornings, you would probably be screaming about freedom of religion not summarily dismissing it as some sort of silly fluff. Your dismissal of the 2nd Amendment is in itself "verbal weaponry" which stokes the anger associated with the question.
What "drives them to carry" - perhaps their right to do so and a desire to remain assertive on their position in society. Assertion is not to be confused with aggression. The vast majority of carriers I associate with are rational and understand they should retreat from life-threatening situations IF POSSIBLE but allowing yourself, your family or others to be dominated and subdued by those able to exert more physical presence in a given situation is unacceptable to many. It may be to you, so by all means, do just what the other person(s) tell you to if that is your wish. Afterwards, wait on a policeman to show up and take a report, the ambulance to transport any injured, the morgue to take away any bodies and the insurance company to determine your loss.
With regard to "..and use..increase danger." the laws seem pretty clear to me. Personally speaking, the people I am aware of who chose to use their weapons overwhelmingly either avoided/ended the danger with only occasional injuries to themselves or others in the confrontation. You would need to explain how you see this as somehow "increasing the danger" or worsening the situation. Statistics pretty clearly indicate the odds of injury and death for various crimes so the many citizens who chose to change the odds seem to be applicable only to their personal situation. The legitimate, lawful injury to an attacker who was in the process of breaking the law as they attempted to harm others is a simple concept to me as it was to the founding fathers. Others may cry about his/her home life, abused childhood and dire economic situation but that is all of society's problem to cope with, not my individual concern when confronted with his/her immediate intent to do harm to me and/or my family/friends.
Please feel free to make your case by clearly showing that average people, actively defending themselves or others, caused an undue escalation of violence/danger above and beyond that which is normal for a criminal event. Anecdotes which illustrate credible, substantiated figures rather than aberrations are fine as long as they are based upon fact rather than editorializing, assumptions and suppositions.
I fail to understand how your racism and paranoia relates to the current discussion.
Following the lead set December 30 by a lawsuit by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, two park advocacy groups, the National Parks and Conservation and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, announced that they have filed a similar lawsuit to stop the Bush administration rule to allow loaded, concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges. Like the Brady Campaign, the two groups base their legal objection on failure of the Department of the Interior to prepare a environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
Bill Schneider
http://www.streetpro.com/usp/stories.html
http://hematite.com/dragon/gunuses.html
ITEM: A press release issued by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, dated November 5, asserts: "The election of Barack Obama as President and Joe Biden as Vice President along with significant wins in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and key state legislative chambers, have significantly improved the political environment for progress on gun violence prevention issues in the years ahead.... 'This is a good day for people who want to reduce gun violence in America,' said Sarah Brady, Chair of the Brady Campaign. 'It's a bad day for extremists who are stuck in the rhetoric of the past.'"
CORRECTION: The disarmers of the Brady group no doubt are also offended by the rhetoric of past extremists such as Thomas Jefferson, who said that "No free man shall be debarred the use of arms," and Patrick Henry, who maintained that "The great object is that every man be armed."
In contrast to such straight shooting, President-elect Obama seems resentful that citizens should be wary of his intentions just because he has inveighed against Americans who "cling to guns or religion" in times of adversity, and has a record, at one time or another, of supporting handgun and ammunition bans, outlawing concealed-carry permits, and favoring stricter restrictions on rifles and shotguns.
Some of Obama's positions proved embarrassing to him in times of political adversity, so he subsequently affected not to cling to those extremist views. Take, for example, a questionnaire filled out in Obama's name, when he ran for the state Senate in Illinois (with his own handwriting shown on the form). The document acknowledged that he favored a ban on the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns. He later said those answers did not reflect his opinions, repeating that claim in particular this past year when he was running for national office and more Americans were looking carefully at his record.
In April of 2008, columnist Robert Novak also took note of the fact that Obama was on the board "of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84-16 majority (and against [Hillary] Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an 'F.'"
There are many reasons to be leery of Obama's views on the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Among these are his false assertions relating to concealed-carry permits and support for a permanent ban of so-called assault weapons. Obama called the ban on the latter "common sense" — though it was nothing of the kind, since it outlawed almost 200 types of firearms, many simply for cosmetic reasons such as having a rifle grip that protruded "conspicuously" from the stock or including a bayonet lug. Such weapons, despite their name, are not automatic weapons and do not necessarily fire faster than other weapons or have more powerful ammunition.
The NRA's Institute for Legislative Action has kept a careful eye on the purposely misleading claims about this ban, which has since expired:
Perhaps no other firearm issue has been more dishonestly portrayed by gun prohibitionists. Notwithstanding their predictions that the ban's expiration in 2004 would bring about the end of civilization, for the last four years the nation's murder rate has been lower than anytime since the mid-1960s. Studies for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that gun prohibition or gun control reduces crime. Guns that were affected by the ban are used in only a tiny fraction of violent crime — about 35 times as many people are murdered without any sort of firearm (knives, bare hands, etc.), as with "assault weapons." Obama says that "assault weapons" are machine guns that "belong on foreign battlefields," but that is a lie; the guns are only semi-automatic, and they are not used by a military force anywhere on the planet.
There are real-world consequences to disarming local populations, as Indians found out not long ago during the terrorist attacks on Bombay (Mumbai). Scholar and author John R. Lott, Jr., now at the University of Maryland, pointed out in the "Fox Forum" that the terrorists just smuggled their automatic weapons into India. Accordingly, he asked, "Would anyone argue that India's extremely strict gun licensing and artificially high prices for guns helped prevent the terrorist attacks? In fact, the reverse is more likely the case."
In India, said Lott, victims were forced to just watch as "armed police cowered and didn't fire back at the terrorists." Meanwhile, "according to the hotel company's chairman, P.R.S. Oberoi, security at 'the hotel had metal detectors, but none of its security personnel carried weapons because of the difficulties in obtaining gun permits from the Indian government.'" Who was disarmed by the strict gun-control laws? Lott answers: "The terrorist attack showed how difficult it is to disarm serious terrorists. Strict licensing rules meant that it was the victims who obeyed the regulations, not the terrorists."
In the United States, in the 40 states that have "right-to-carry" laws, violent crime rates on average are 26 percent lower than the rest of the nation. Yet, Obama has supported federal legislation to supersede the rights of citizens carrying weapons because the laws in those other states are "threatening the safety of Illinois residents." Never mind the truth, such as the fact that the seven states with the lowest violent crime rates are "right-to-carry" states, according to FBI statistics.
Even before Barack Obama's inauguration, he was making moves that raised more concerns among those who believe in the right to self-defense, with the selection of Eric Holder as his potential attorney general and Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff of the White House. John Snyder, a spokesman for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, observed: "Holder has stated that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Emanuel worked at the White House for passage of the Clinton administration ban on certain semiautomatic firearms, which President Clinton himself later admitted led to Democrat loss of the House in the 1994 elections."
The right to keep and bear arms is not restricted to hunters, despite the claims of certain politicians and left-wing activists. Asserting this right not only has an effect on crime, but it also tends to protect citizens from terrorists and tyranny. As Texas Representative Ron Paul put it: "As long as there is metalworking and welding capability, it matters not what gun laws are imposed upon law-abiding people. Those that wish to have guns, and disregard the law, will have guns. Gun control makes violence safer and more effective for the aggressive, whether the aggressor is a terrorist or a government."
While Barack Obama has been urging citizens not to stock up on weapons because they mistrust him, other anti-gunners are a tad more candid, seeing in the new administration an opportunity to disarm Americans. The Brady Campaign, the day after the election, was demanding the adoption of what it duplicitously calls "common sense gun laws." Similarly, John Rosenthal, co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence, gleefully wrote in the Boston Globe: "With the historic election of Barack Obama, the nation finally has an opportunity to enact sensible national gun control policy."
Not so. We already have such a "policy." It is called the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
As I've noted in several columns on the OFCC website (listed below), gun control advocates have been screeching about last month's rule change by the Department of the Interior that lifted the total ban on firearms in National Parks and Wildlife Refuges and instead specified that they follow the laws of the state in which it is located. If state law allows concealed handgun license holders to carry a firearm for personal protection, then it is allowed in National Parks; which, incidentally, is the same it has always been for National Forests.
Today, I came across an article written by anti-gun extremist and U.S. Senator from California Dianne Feinstein that just got under my skin.
There are nine facilities in Ohio operated by the National Parks Service: Cuyahoga Valley National Park, David Berger National Memorial, Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park, First Ladies National Historic Site, Hopewell Culture National Historical Park, James A Garfield National Historic Site, North Country National Scenic Trail, Perry's Victory & International Peace Memorial, and William Howard Taft National Historic Site.
Sen. Feinstein would have you believe that now that the DOI has enacted the rule change that these will now become bastions of criminal activity courtesy of CHL holders. She argues that tourists will soon be assailed by stray bullets, though fails to note why this is not currently the case in National Forests or in any of Ohio's State Parks, which currently do allow CHL holders to be armed.
She claims that poaching will increase, as if either an illegal poacher will jump through all the hoops required to obtain a CHL, or that the mere presence of a firearm will cause a previously law abiding citizen to go crazy with bloodlust and be unable to resist an illegal hunt. Again, she fails to explain why this hasn't happened in State Parks, local parks, National Forests, or any other public lands.
These extremists are the only ones who think that every gun owner is a criminal waiting to happen. Their unfounded paranoia runs rampant through the newspaper headlines whenever a gun control law is defeated and the dire predictions of lawlessness and blood in the streets ring out from the hilltops. Of course, nothing ever happens because concealed carry licensees are one of the most law abiding segments of society.
How many times can the anti-gunners like Sen. Feinstein cry wolf before everyone just starts to tune them out? Not soon enough for me.
Check it out!
You'll like it.
Unless you're a hoplophobe, that is!
They didn't have one to begin with, did they?
First rule of debate: Bring substantiated facts/evidence and have kowledge of the subject to be debated.
They totally ignored that Rule.
I cited headlines and asked what you thought.
But few of you responded.
I asked at what point would you decide that someone nutzola is too-nutzola to be issued a gun.
No responses.
Forget it - you don't want to open up about yourelves except to say you feel the need to carry a gun.
I'm outta here.
Now I have to go bash Caroline Kennedy's bid to become a US Senator.
In an ideal world, there would be no nutzolas. But there is no such thing as a gun-free utopia, is there Mehmet? There is no such thing as hatred in a gun-free utopia. All of the inhabitants smile at each other all the time and every man looks like "Bob" in the natural male enhancement commercials. No murderers, no home invaders, no rapists (tree jumpers), no window peepers, no pedophiles, no maniacs, no depression, no suicide, no malevolence whatsoever. No evil, mean people and no nasty ones either!
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age..." -Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." -Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950).
"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government..."-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28).
You're projecting again.
I beleive you did get responses concerning the headlines you posted. You just didn't get the responses you wanted.
Well, I think all us gun owners would unanimously agree that you shouldn't be armed. How's that for a response?
Mehmnet, it ahs been you that hasn't wanted "open up", even thought you did just by posting your rubbish. It's told us a whloe lot about you.
Problem is you, and your biddies, have not answered our questions. And we made them as simple as possible.
Mehmet et al fail to produce statistics proving their stance is the right one. Instead, they rely on lies vis a vis the old Hitler standby, "a lie, repeated often enough, becomes the truth." In actuality, you are more likely to die as a result of your doctor's error.
In actuality, Washington D.C. is more dangerous than Baghdad and guns are illegal in D.C.! I have a solution, Get the U.S. out of D.C.! Restore Second Amendment rights in D.C. and I guarantee crime will fall dramatically. What criminal in his right mind would try to victimize an armed person?
"The Constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.
I'm sure you have noticed that the loony left become apoplectic at the thought of a citizen being responsible for their own protection, even though it has been ruled in court that the police do not have a duty to protect you. They just show up to draw chalk outlines where they find the body and do the paperwork. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria.
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self defense..." -John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788).
"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them." -Thomas Paine.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p322.
The loony left believe in a "living constitution", a document that protects what they want it to mean (abortion, separation of church and state) and defeats what parts they don't like(First Amendment and Second Amendment) . Obamaistas want leftists in SCOTUS so their agenda (disarming law-abiding Americans) will be fulfilled and all opposition felled like a forest of balsa.
"Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny." -Thomas Jefferson, Bill for the More General diffusion of Knowledge (1778).
"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to enslave them..." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8.
I leave you with words to ponder by Patrick Henry, one of our greatest Patriots: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
Any objections? No? I thought so!
Surely though there will be a party at the Brady HQ since their prediction didn't come true. After all, isn't this cause for a celebration when an organization which CLAIMS to have as its objective the elimination/reduction of gun deaths learns that there was no mass carnage as predicted? Surely there are large sighs of relief and high fives that there were no shotup campgrounds, slaughtered animals, overrun hospitals, SWAT team callouts and escalating personal disputes?
Congratulations Sarah! I share your joy at this moment I am sure you are shuddering with relief and pent up concern.
Yeah - I live in a place like that - the only gun injuries I hear about are the guys in their late teens/early 20s who end up either injured or dead because their friend shoots them during a drinking game.
Well - Vermont - huh? Well maybe DC wouldn't be so dangerous if you upped the per capita income and lessened the population density, not to mention just erased the entire urban landscape with its high rate of unemployed not to mention welfare-funded groups.
Honestly, do you people live in the same country I do???
Enough - it's become apparent that there are mostly 3 gun cultures in this land of ours: Negroes and other darkies in the Big Cities, White Males in the Hinterlands - and White Males in the Suburbs.
The first group is who you all fear: the Negroes and other darkies - a'cuz they are armed to the teeth with illegally-obtained guns - and - well - responsible, hard-working white folk need to arm themselves against these people, right? And gun laws do no good to prevent them from getting guns because, well, they're criminals and will get guns regardless.
The second group is YOU: grown up with guns, use them on a regular basis, I-know-my-civil-rights-if-the-enemy-comes-or-I-am-threatened-I-need-my-gun.
Well - before moving onto the third group, I have to say: you accuse me of having "anecdotal" data, yet - with all your stats cited - not one of you admitted to ever having to use your gun - or admitted to an instance when a gun really made a difference in protecting either you or your family - from either another human or even an wild animal. So while carrying guns may make you people feel more secure, and while no one ever wants to be in a situation where a gun is called for, in fact, the frequency of "gun-required" incidents seems to be incredibly low as revealed by your own lack of personal gun confrontations.
At the same time, I can ACT like I have a gun on the platforms of the New York subway, and suspected gun assailants leave me alone. What gives???
Let's move on to Gun Group #3: white males in the suburbs.
These are the ones that are causing problems for you people. Latest we have is Florida gun-nut who went out on New Year's Eve to a party, rushed back to his dad's house to shoot his 93 year-old father, then rushed back to the New Year's Eve bash to party. Yeah - his poor father had wounds to the hands which indicated he put his hands up defense.
What is going on here?
Why are so many white males killing their parents, their kids, their ex-wives, and themselves?
More intriguing: no one seems to care - not the mad Libs, not the gun-heads.
Oh well -neither do I.
I have to say: after sparring with you all on this board and drudging up recent gun-nut murders/shootings, I realized that most people these days who are likely to be victims of gun violence are people who know white gun-owners in the suburbs. Ergo: I feel incredibly safe from gun violence!
But no one seems to be addressing this situation. None of you certainly. You quote statistics, but these statistics are at high levels - country (Australia) and state (Vermont). Is anyone breaking it down in terms of stressed out white males - and their regionality (suburbs not rural areas). These guys - it would seem - possess guns as a right of protectoin but really only fire them recreationally at firing ranges - and then use them as weapons of revenge when their emotions snap.
My only misgiving with the National Park ruling is that we will have teenagers of gun-head parents bringing guns in, presuming "it's the wide open spaces" and subsequently shooting everything in sight.
But the likelihood of an innocent bystander getting hurt is low compared to living in the suburbs and getting shot by your husband/father/son, as borne out by the last three weeks of headlines about gun-nuts.
The one argument you people espouse that still seems ridiculous, however, is that you somehow believe that guns in a national crisis will save you. Really? Look - we may live in a nation of guns but we also live in a world of missiles and bombs - and biological and chemical warfare. The notion that - like our forefathers during the 1700s - hand-to-hand and gun-to-gun combat will take place is - well - somewhat socially retarded. The enemy these days wants destruction - not political dominance.
What do you have to say to that?
domain hosting name web yahoo
two web sites same server
trade finance business web hosting
radio broadcast webhosting
maryland affordable web hosting
web hosting with ecommerce
offers linux shared hosting
powweb web hosting sucks say anything
injoy firewall setup web server
virtual dedicated web server
who owns the web servers
singapore webhosting
arizona package cheap hosting web
web hosting services and reseller
miami business web hosting
web hosting decatur
arizona web hosting sites
virtual tours real estate web hosting
free large web site hosting
web hosting lake havasu city
affordable and web and hosting and
windows 2003 shared ssl web hosting
wow web hosting
hosting managed web merchant account
web hosting dedicated server online information
web hosting affiliate program 3
small business web hosting ecommerce
dell website hosting
affordable hosting jersey new site web
what is web enables server
advanced hosting provider web
dedicated server for game hosting
east coast dedicated server host
website with calendar hosting and free
free perl web counter sports hosting
business website hosting de leon texas
webhosting domain webhosting austria php
web hosting sales
counter strike 1.6 dedicated server internet
design hosting miami web
project server 2007 web access security
free web hosting personal site yahoo
matco video web server dvr software
ecommerce web hosting solutions
alaska low cost web hosting
nationwide host com web hosting
web design hosting authoring
free web site form builder hosting
good php web hosting
amp asp net hosting web