I’d just like to point out that the same people who are whining about gun laws today supported Bush and the Patriot Act. Odd.

Sure. My gawd, a “science” blog full of unqualified idiots who spout long refuted claims opposing inanimate objects while ignoring history involving firearms legislation worldwide.

Most of you do NOT own guns, do not understand them and do not know the difference between an AR-15 or an AK-47. How many of you have ever sold a gun, witnessed a sale, or have had a BG check performed on you for one?

Do you use Piers Morgan for your information on guns?

When a pistol costs from $300-$1100, holsters can run up around a hundred, a box of ammo is very costly, yes, $150 background check fee (like DC charges), can be the difference in exercising one’s Right.

Why should one have to apply to exercise one’s Rights?
Shall we insist on a federal background check before buying a cell phone or computer (to exercise some 1st amendment speech rights)? How about clearing a federal database before buying a car from a non-dealer?

It isn’t the country we live in today, but out west (i.e., here in Minnesota) it was at one time. When the James Gang and friends tried to rob the bank in Northfield, the bank was full of customers who happened to be armed, and there were plenty on the street. One of the reasons they may have felt the need to be armed was because the post Civil War period in this area saw a lot of post war insurgents and such, plus the “Indian Wars” were still fresh in memory. It might have made a lot of sense to carry a gun around then. But presumably that was either a long gun in your horse drawn wagon or attached to your horse, or a six shooter on a belt holster, matching your cowboy hat and chaps.

I disallow one of the 17 cases because the armed civilian died without stopping the perp, who wore body armor.

Four interventions were by off-duty police officers permitted to carry weapons.

Two were by store owners or employees who had weapons for protection, as many convenience store employees already do. Such stores are frequent targets and have been for a long time. I don’t think those cases are germane to the larger problem.

One was at a shooting range, so plenty of people other than the disgruntled perp were carrying.

That leaves us with 8 cases where a random citizen either shot or intimidated someone in the course of perpetrating armed violence — and one of them was a former police officer.

These stories are heartening, but IMO they are not very persuasive statistics. In most situations, the criminals will prevail simply because they have their guns out and ready to fire, while the law-abiding citizens do not.

Perhaps it would be different if America had a culture in which almost everyone treated gun ownership as a right with attendant responsibilities instead of a privilege that must not be limited in any way. But that’s not the country we live in today, is it?

Also, it does document a reduction in firearm suicides for people 55 or older. That’s the effect of a waiting period.

Seems you’re arguing against yourself. If those background checks are so burdensome that they prevent law-abiding people from getting guns, how could there not be a reduction in gun violence over time?

And any Internet site can have service interruptions. You sound like you think they’re targeted at you.

Many duties imposed by society are burdensome. It’s a burden to get and keep a driver’s license. How come you’re not complaining about that?