Facebook Cracking Down on Illegal Gun Sales

[Stiletto]

Then the question would be in what relation to fatal crimes.

"Fatal crimes"? Now we're making up new phraseology? Homicide is already included in "violent crimes". There's no need to start referring to "fatal crimes" unless for some reason you're actually uninterested in the relationship twixt gun ownership and violent crime.

 

[Shalafi]

Then the question would be in what relation to fatal crimes.

30,000 fatalities attributed to guns yearly (murders, suicides, accidents all included) is an acceptable price for our freedom to own a gun.

Cars and medical errors kill far more than that.

 

[mope54]

All that gun bans and higher crime rates in other countries prove is that gun bans don't lower crime and only increase crime. Gun bans just make them find a different instrument of violence.

He doesn't understand the data he's citing. We have higher rates of violence than those other countries.

Just to set the numbers straight, the UCR is a national average. It makes local differences. Some communities have very little violent crime and others have incredibly high rates of violent crime. The UCR does not count *all* violent crime. The index only accounts for four specific types of violent crime: murder, rape, robbery, and assault.

The UCR also only accounts for the most serious offense during a crime. In what we call the "vertical hierarchy rule" the UCR only places into its stats the crime of murder when someone rapes and kills someone. If someone assaults someone and that person dies, the only number in the UCR will be a 1 for murder.

We are moving to a system called NIMBRS to address this (and other reporting) problems.

For murder, there is often a body so we feel those numbers are fairly robust. But for rapes, robberies, and assaults we know that only about a tenth of the crimes are reported. We arrive at that figure by using data like the NCVS (national victim crime survey). Then some more sophisticated models, like the stuff I use in my research, also take into consideration medical data. Even if people don't call the police after a fight they sometimes still end up going to the ER to get patched up. If you look at non-violent crimes then crimes associated with insurance claims tend to be more robust so pay attention to those more than the others. Crimes like car theft and bank robberies tend to get reported fairly accurately, for example, because even if they don't think the police can do anything about the crime the victims still need a police report to file an insurance claim.

In relation to the Australian data their categories are much more expansive and they include more reports. Also, looking at their violent crime trends indicate theirs are moving in the right direction--downward--whereas ours are trending upwards.

 

[Shalafi]

If crime is going up, it sounds reasonable that I should have a right to own a gun to defend myself, after all, it's the great equalizer.

We don't call 911 around here, we reach for our 1911's

 

[mope54]

If crime is going up, it sounds reasonable that I should have a right to own a gun to defend myself, after all, it's the great equalizer.

We don't call 911 around here, we reach for our 1911's

ok granted, but this thread isn't about gun rights in general it's about whether facebook should do anything to restrict people from selling guns across state lines or to whomever can figure out how to log in...because that's what the problem is/was.

 

[heatlesssun]

We don't call 911 around here, we reach for our 1911's

Hopefully around there people don't do that when there's a bad car accident, fire or someone is having a heart attack.

 

[Ur_Mom]

Hopefully around there people don't do that when there's a bad car accident, fire or someone is having a heart attack.

Well... Just like an old dog. Best put them out of their misery.

 

[mavrocket]

Most homicides are intraracial. In fact, in almost all street crime the victims and perpetrators look alike and come from similar backgrounds.

So not true. The Department of Justice disagrees with you.

 

[heatlesssun]

Well... Just like an old dog. Best put them out of their misery.

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised by someone in Florida or other places with similar laws claiming stand your ground and shooting someone dead because they got scared by the reaction of a heart attack, stroke or epilepsy victim.

 

[Phoenix333]

Granted if you sold a gun to a criminal because your flippant about selling your guns online and that criminal used it to commit a crime you can be held partly liable by the state, some states more judicious about this then others

State and local laws vary of course, and it's the individual's responsibility to know them before engaging in that kind of commerce. Being specific would be exhaustively verbose and require far too much research on my part so that's why I limited my comment to the general stance adopted by the ATF.

 

[Shalafi]

Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised by someone in Florida or other places with similar laws claiming stand your ground and shooting someone dead because they got scared by the reaction of a heart attack, stroke or epilepsy victim.

Police have already done that, and they are the ones we're "supposed to trust with guns".

Next?

 

[heatlesssun]

Police have already done that, and they are the ones we're "supposed to trust with guns".

Next?

I admit I never saw coming is current this right wing anti-cop mentality and disdain of police brutality, something blacks have complained about forever.

 

[Phoenix333]

Oooh, look! Everyone's arguing about gun ownership! I guess I'll put my $0.02 worth in!

1) LEGAL gun owners typically do not commit crimes with guns.
2) Laws are only good if you enforce them.
3) Criminals don't give a shit about laws.
4) A gun-free world at this point is a pipe dream. That genie's not going back into the bottle so don't pretend it ever will.
5) Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the US. Check their firearms related murders for 2013.
6) After doing #5, read #1 - #4 again.

If the criminal element is going to have weapons - and they will get them, they always do - then the non-criminal element should have access to the same weapons to defend themselves. Citizens should never have fewer rights than criminals, nor should they have to live in fear of them. Disarming the citizenry is not going to disarm the criminals, especially when the revolving-door legal system just puts them back on the street again.

I realize some people cannot stomach violence, but the world is full of it and until human nature magically changes, as long as at least two humans are living on this world someone is going to want someone else dead at some point, and they'll find a way to do it. No amount of laws, good intentions, or children singing Kumbaya is ever going to change that.

Now that logic's out of the way, let's handle the emotional arguments. Someone you know died of a gunshot wound? Tragic. However... how's that any more tragic than getting run over by a car? Getting mauled by a dog? Falling off a building? The world is dangerous, and guess what? Everyone dies in the end! Are you going to ban cars because people die in accidents and hit-and-runs? I know a guy that almost lost his leg due to a drunk driver. He drives a car to work every day, and has a perfect driving record. I know someone that was bitten by a dog. He went to work at a pet store. I know an ex-Marine that had to kill people in war. He feels bad about having to do it, to the point he got PTSD and needed counseling. He served 4 tours of duty in spite of it.

Life is full of tragedy, and people either overcome it and get on with life or let it rule them. The Sarah Brady's of the world let it rule them, to the point that emotional scarring throws logic out the window and people turn that pain into a "cause". The "cause" becomes all-consuming and there's no reasoning with them. It does not matter if the cure ends up worse than the disease, just so long as they're doing their part to combat that "evil". Whenever I hear the anti-gun arguments it's always emotion, and skewed statistics to rationalize the emotional position.

Nobody on the pro-gun side thinks criminals having guns is somehow good, or that people getting shot is somehow good. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE I know that's pro-gun has no criminal record, has never had a single accident with a firearm, and treats them with the respect you would expect to give something that could easily kill if misused. These are people that, if the US were invaded by a foreign power, would stand up and fight to protect you as well as their own families. They're not just gun owners, they're the nation's last line of defense if the SHTF. For the anti-gunners here... are those the people you're really wanting to disarm? They're not hurting anyone, and they support tougher penalties for the criminals that DO need to be disarmed and locked away. How about focusing your attention on tougher penalties and more enforcement of existing laws so that the people doing the murdering and robbing with guns are the ones punished, not the ones that go out of their way to obey the laws? After all, guns don't go "bang" by themselves. It takes a finger to pull the trigger, that finger belonging to a human. How about taking the humans that misuse the guns and controlling THEM instead? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

 

[FearTheCow]

Also...you do you have loved ones you care about? Are their deaths worth someone having a gun so they can shoot at pieces of paper or animals they don't really need to eat to survive? When you lose someone you care very much about to someone with a gun, even one death might feel like too high of a price. But I don't expect empathy from the internet.

Do you have a loved one that you care about? Are their deaths worth people being able to own cars which could lead to them being hit by a drunk driver?

Funny that you use the word "empathy" because emotions are the only thing liberals like you have in an argument and not facts.

 

[mope54]

we already have the most punitive criminal justice system in the (developed) Western world. We're also the last country to use the death penalty when someone murders someone. We can't possibly *get* more punitive, lmao, so what would you advise changing on that end?

meanwhile, if the people you're speaking about want to buy guns then it won't be hard for them to pass a background check or purchase a gun from a store or other lawful manner. clearly they wouldn't resort to anonymous facebook sales in order to obtain a firearm. so why would you be opposed to supporting a policy aimed at restricting gun ownership to people who can acquire them lawfully?

people who use guns illegally may not care about the laws they are breaking but that doesn't mean we don't put laws in place to restrict their behavior anyway, that shouldn't even be in contention are you seriously advocating an anarchist vision of gun ownership?

 

[heatlesssun]

They're not just gun owners, they're the nation's last line of defense if the SHTF.

Guns would have been little use to Noah but that ark came in real handy.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Do you have a loved one that you care about? Are their deaths worth people being able to own cars which could lead to them being hit by a drunk driver?

Funny that you use the word "empathy" because emotions are the only thing liberals like you have in an argument and not facts.

Oh great, another car analogy (because everything in the world is the same as or comparable to a car). Sorry, cars have a useful purpose like, you know, moving people from one place to another. Deaths due to cars are a side effect of mobility and not the intended purpose of a car. Offhand, I can only think of one purpose for a gun. I'll give you one guess to figure it out. So yeah, incomparable things.

Also, I don't do "liberal" or "conservative" or any other political party stuff. Parties are stupid because they blanket consider pretty much all of society's issues and give people a reason to pick irrational sides and platforms from which to argue at one another. Individual issues warrant individual consideration in light of the circumstances rather than just saying proudly, "I'm a such-an-such and my grand book of such-and-such knowledge or my preferred slanted news outlet tells me I need to take this stance on the issue!" I know a lot of people can't and aren't able to think rationally on one of the commoners' issues like abortion, gun control, or PC vs console, but since someone has time to compose a thoughtful response instead of just going off with all their emotions, I'd expect better out of a forum that's suppose to be about computers.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

Oooh, look! Everyone's arguing about gun ownership! I guess I'll put my $0.02 worth in!

1) LEGAL gun owners typically do not commit crimes with guns.
2) Laws are only good if you enforce them.
3) Criminals don't give a shit about laws.
4) A gun-free world at this point is a pipe dream. That genie's not going back into the bottle so don't pretend it ever will.
5) Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the US. Check their firearms related murders for 2013.
6) After doing #5, read #1 - #4 again.

If the criminal element is going to have weapons - and they will get them, they always do - then the non-criminal element should have access to the same weapons to defend themselves. Citizens should never have fewer rights than criminals, nor should they have to live in fear of them. Disarming the citizenry is not going to disarm the criminals, especially when the revolving-door legal system just puts them back on the street again.

I realize some people cannot stomach violence, but the world is full of it and until human nature magically changes, as long as at least two humans are living on this world someone is going to want someone else dead at some point, and they'll find a way to do it. No amount of laws, good intentions, or children singing Kumbaya is ever going to change that.

Now that logic's out of the way, let's handle the emotional arguments. Someone you know died of a gunshot wound? Tragic. However... how's that any more tragic than getting run over by a car? Getting mauled by a dog? Falling off a building? The world is dangerous, and guess what? Everyone dies in the end! Are you going to ban cars because people die in accidents and hit-and-runs? I know a guy that almost lost his leg due to a drunk driver. He drives a car to work every day, and has a perfect driving record. I know someone that was bitten by a dog. He went to work at a pet store. I know an ex-Marine that had to kill people in war. He feels bad about having to do it, to the point he got PTSD and needed counseling. He served 4 tours of duty in spite of it.

Life is full of tragedy, and people either overcome it and get on with life or let it rule them. The Sarah Brady's of the world let it rule them, to the point that emotional scarring throws logic out the window and people turn that pain into a "cause". The "cause" becomes all-consuming and there's no reasoning with them. It does not matter if the cure ends up worse than the disease, just so long as they're doing their part to combat that "evil". Whenever I hear the anti-gun arguments it's always emotion, and skewed statistics to rationalize the emotional position.

Nobody on the pro-gun side thinks criminals having guns is somehow good, or that people getting shot is somehow good. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE I know that's pro-gun has no criminal record, has never had a single accident with a firearm, and treats them with the respect you would expect to give something that could easily kill if misused. These are people that, if the US were invaded by a foreign power, would stand up and fight to protect you as well as their own families. They're not just gun owners, they're the nation's last line of defense if the SHTF. For the anti-gunners here... are those the people you're really wanting to disarm? They're not hurting anyone, and they support tougher penalties for the criminals that DO need to be disarmed and locked away. How about focusing your attention on tougher penalties and more enforcement of existing laws so that the people doing the murdering and robbing with guns are the ones punished, not the ones that go out of their way to obey the laws? After all, guns don't go "bang" by themselves. It takes a finger to pull the trigger, that finger belonging to a human. How about taking the humans that misuse the guns and controlling THEM instead? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

Humans are emotional creatures. Everything they do and think is driven by their emotions and someone who's read anything in this thread can prolly figure that out pretty easily. So taking emotion from an issue and trying to ignore it completely isn't possible. Maybe getting some kinda control over it and clearing a mind to take things as lucidly as possible might be good for _some_ people, but saying that we ought to remove emotion from any issue is probably not gonna work realistically.

And anyway, yes, I think that this last line of defense shouldn't have guns either because they can be stolen and misused. Where do criminals get guns? They don't magically drop out of an illegal guns tree when they're ripe. They're legally produced and sold to people without criminal records. Then their middle school nephews steal them and go on a rampage with them or they find their way into the gray market because people are allowed to resell them. If you start to make exceptions and give so-and-so a gun because he's a nice guy and a heroic potential defender of the US from those evil invaders from Sri Lanka and would never do anything wrong, you lose control over the gun itself. So nope, even legal citizens who are nice guys that get drunk and hang out with their friends or drive around in their pickup trucks staying mostly in the lane they're supposed to be in unless it's late Friday night aren't responsible enough to have them.

 

[aShrubbery!]

Private sale through FFL. Period.
The problem with private individual sales is, that A) you don't know the person you're selling it to most of the time, and B) you're not held liable if that individual commits a crime with the gun you sold him/her.
Fortunately, most sales are done through a federal firearms licensed dealer.
If private guns sellers were held accountable for selling to phoney characters, they'd be more careful.
This law - or lack thereof - that authorizes the sale among private parties is an aberration, for the simple fact, that it is ILLEGAL and gets you to do jailtime IF you buy a gun through an FFL on behalf of another person - straw man purchase -, and that person commits a crime with said gun.
It goes to show the logic of gun sales laws.
So, if these people want to sell guns among themselves, do it through a FFL.

 

[Shalafi]

I think guns should be unregulated and we should be able to own any firepower we can afford, including fully automatic weapons and silencers.

I think criminals and felons should be allowed to own guns as well, since they will get them regardless of laws banning them or not, so just deregulate gun sales completely and let anyone buy a firearm as long as they have the cash to do so.

There is no good reason to have firearms restricted, period.

 

[heatlesssun]

There is no good reason to have firearms restricted, period.

Sure, having absolutely no barriers for convicted felons and mentality ill people to get guns couldn't possibly have a down side. Not even the gun lobby would be willing to go this far, at least publically. Though admittedly they don't have a problem with it, a crazy persons cash for a gun is just as good as anyone else's.

 

[Shalafi]

Sure, having absolutely no barriers for convicted felons and mentality ill people to get guns couldn't possibly have a down side. Not even the gun lobby would be willing to go this far, at least publically. Though admittedly they don't have a problem with it, a crazy persons cash for a gun is just as good as anyone else's.

It we have restrictions on our Constitutional rights, then our Constitution means nothing and the only "rights" we have are what our political elites "allow" us to have. The Second Amendment explicitly says;

"Shall not be infringed."

I don't care about the gun lobby or big firearms manufacters. It seems nice to be able to single out capitalist concerns as boogeymen, but without them, guns would still be bought and sold on the private market. It just isn't that hard to make one, there are thousands of custom shops out there that make them.

 

[mope54]

we always have restrictions on our Constitutional rights, lmao

 

[jon666]

I think guns should be unregulated and we should be able to own any firepower we can afford, including fully automatic weapons and silencers.

I think criminals and felons should be allowed to own guns as well, since they will get them regardless of laws banning them or not, so just deregulate gun sales completely and let anyone buy a firearm as long as they have the cash to do so.

There is no good reason to have firearms restricted, period.

Last I heard suppressors were legal to own here in WA. They were working on making them legal to use a couple of years ago. So long as the rest of the country ignores California, New York, D.C., and Florida we will all be fine.

Facebook is probably going for publicity with this. Can't sell stocks if everyone forgets about you.

 

[heatlesssun]

It we have restrictions on our Constitutional rights, then our Constitution means nothing and the only "rights" we have are what our political elites "allow" us to have. The Second Amendment explicitly says;

"Shall not be infringed."

But that is an absurd concept given current weapons technology. I seriously doubt the Founders would have supported the notion of private citizens legally owning nuclear or biochemical warheads attached to ICBMs.

I don't care about the gun lobby or big firearms manufacters. It seems nice to be able to single out capitalist concerns as boogeymen, but without them, guns would still be bought and sold on the private market. It just isn't that hard to make one, there are thousands of custom shops out there that make them.

The gun lobby is always looking for boogeymen, all of the bad guys hiding in the bushes ready to kill or the unarmed teenagers in a car with loud music or the unmarked helicopters ready to whisk people away. So that kind of stuff is goes all around regardless of political ideology.

 

[Shalafi]

But that is an absurd concept given current weapons technology. I seriously doubt the Founders would have supported the notion of private citizens legally owning nuclear or biochemical warheads attached to ICBMs.

They would support us owning anything the military uses.

The gun lobby is always looking for boogeymen, all of the bad guys hiding in the bushes ready to kill or the unarmed teenagers in a car with loud music or the unmarked helicopters ready to whisk people away. So that kind of stuff is goes all around regardless of political ideology.

I find it very interesting the use of isolated incidents as a reason to crack down on gun sales.

Sort of reminds me how the Reichstag fire was used to blame the Jews, same tactics our media uses to prop up a problem then generously offer their "solution", which of course ends up with freedoms and liberties being eroded.

 

[Semantics]

They would support us owning anything the military uses.


I find it very interesting the use of isolated incidents as a reason to crack down on gun sales.

Sort of reminds me how the Reichstag fire was used to blame the Jews, same tactics our media uses to prop up a problem then generously offer their "solution", which of course ends up with freedoms and liberties being eroded.

Well gun homicide in the US is many factors above gun homicides per 100,000 in other developed nations above 6-10 times on avg. Granted gun homicides is only half of gun suicides in the US, far more people use guns in the US to kill themselves then others. Then you get into gun related injury per 100,000 is crazy above again developed nations. The difference is pointed out is mostly availability of guns.

I doubt the founding fathers would all agree on everyone one owning anything a modern military uses. I find it a silly notation that some reason the founding fathers of america are some gelatinous all same minded people. When anyone who read extensive US history would notice they are all nuanced politically and often did not agree on anything. And they centrally did not have any concept of something like nuclear bombs or even fully automatic weapons. It's almost sad people seem to think they would have a gasp of it and then have an opinion on it, it's like self fulfilling bullshit. It's giving up on actual self thought and logical analysis.

 

[heatlesssun]

They would support us owning anything the military uses.

Of course not. Private ownership of doomsday weapons would give individuals the power to coerce millions with instant death, can't think of a bigger threat to individual liberty than that. Work for free or I'll blow up your city. No government would ever permit it for so many obvious reasons.

I find it very interesting the use of isolated incidents as a reason to crack down on gun sales.

Conflating issues. The big gun issue today is when it is legally justified to use a weapon resulting in death or injury. The bar is set to low in some places. Rights come with responsibilities and it's responsibility that gun lobby wants to duck. "I thought he was going to kill me and got scared so I shot him first even though he was unarmed." ain't got nothing to do with the Second Amendment.

 

[aShrubbery!]

They would support us owning anything the military uses.

I wonder if that would include felons and mentally unstable.

Also, remember, that after the Sandy Hook shooting Wayne Lapierre said that more should be done to fix the mental health care system.
Yeah, great idea... paranoia is a mental condition. And everyone affected by it should be institutionalized.

Sort of reminds me how the Reichstag fire was used to blame the Jews, same tactics our media uses to prop up a problem then generously offer their "solution", which of course ends up with freedoms and liberties being eroded.

The old 'freedoms and liberties being eroded' tirade are akin to Putin's recent remarks about his concerns for Russian citizens in Crimea. A lot of huff, and not enough substance.

If you cannot pass a back ground check you should have no guns. Period.
And, no. I don't want criminals and whackos defend me from 'tyranny'. I don't want to owe my liberty or freedom to them. At least not after they murdered, raped and pillaged to their hearts' content.

 

[Hamateer]

They would support us owning anything the military uses.





I find it very interesting the use of isolated incidents as a reason to crack down on gun sales.

Sort of reminds me how the Reichstag fire was used to blame the Jews, same tactics our media uses to prop up a problem then generously offer their "solution", which of course ends up with freedoms and liberties being eroded.

... Well, you do live up to your name at any rate...

 

[maverikv]

Wow this thread made a left turn towards stupid pretty quick, huh? Criminals should be allowed to have any weapon they want? LOL! Where am I, American Thinker?

 

[aShrubbery!]

Wow this thread made a left turn towards stupid pretty quick, huh? Criminals should be allowed to have any weapon they want? LOL! Where am I, American Thinker?

Those who advocate that are the mental whackos Lapierre had in mind, when he said the mental health system needed to be fixed.

 

[c3141hf]

Sure, having absolutely no barriers for convicted felons and mentality ill people to get guns couldn't possibly have a down side. Not even the gun lobby would be willing to go this far, at least publically. Though admittedly they don't have a problem with it, a crazy persons cash for a gun is just as good as anyone else's.

So someone who writes a bad check shouldn't be able to own a gun?

And who gets to decide who is mentally ill?

Guns are to keep the government in check. Without them, we'd still be a British colony.

 

[maverikv]

So someone who writes a bad check shouldn't be able to own a gun?

And who gets to decide who is mentally ill?

Guns are to keep the government in check. Without them, we'd still be a British colony.

Lol yeah all those rednecks shooting cans in their back yards are really keeping the government in check. I'm sure they quake in their boots every time they pass a new law, hoping Cletus and his 45 aren't mad.

Ever notice how the people who claim that we have to have guns to keep the government in check are the same people who hate the government and everything they do? Shouldn't you be doing a better job keeping them in check?

 

[heatlesssun]

So someone who writes a bad check shouldn't be able to own a gun?

So should they be allowed to vote?

And who gets to decide who is mentally ill?

The same people that tells us when they are physically ill, they're called doctors.

Guns are to keep the government in check. Without them, we'd still be a British colony

A modern professional military would mow the most people proclaiming this. I mean they kind of trained and equipped to kill those shooting at them after all.

 

[Shalafi]

So should they be allowed to vote?



The same people that tells us when they are physically ill, they're called doctors.



A modern professional military would mow the most people proclaiming this. I mean they kind of trained and equipped to kill those shooting at them after all.

I think you missed the part where there are 300 million guns in the country. Private citizens outnumber the military by far.

 

[heatlesssun]

I think you missed the part where there are 300 million guns in the country. Private citizens outnumber the military by far.

Like those 300 million guns would be of any use against something like a tactical nuke or nerve gas. There's plenty examples of 3rd rate militaries holding their pretty well armed populations at bay. A 1st rate one like ours unleashed against the general population, it wouldn't be pretty.

 

[ak47is1337]

in light of this recent facebook announcement, i'd like to post 3 SAIGA 12K 12 gauge assault shotguns with 20 shell capacity drums for sale at 25% for all [H] members in Missouri!

Kidding, but seriously, this is BS and proof positive why private gun sellers online should stick to armslist.com,

 

[ak47is1337]

buy now and I'll include 100 12gauge slugs, a shark brake and a stock-mounted recoil pad to give mark zuckerberg a piece of your mind!

 

[arentol]

Oh great, another car analogy (because everything in the world is the same as or comparable to a car). Sorry, cars have a useful purpose like, you know, moving people from one place to another. Deaths due to cars are a side effect of mobility and not the intended purpose of a car. Offhand, I can only think of one purpose for a gun. I'll give you one guess to figure it out. So yeah, incomparable things.

Tons of studies have shown that In the US firearms are used by private citizens to defend themselves an average of 200,000-400,000 times per year. If that doesn't count as a useful purpose then I don't know what does.

Read the articles below and then PLEASE try to tell me that guns have no useful purpose.

Mother hides in attic to AVOID confrontation, has to shoot intruder to defend herself and her child....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-face-neck-cornering-mother-kids-attic.html

10 people would likely have died if not for one with a gun.....

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/college-student-shoots-kills-home-invader/nD9XG/

Thanks to people's f'ed up priorities and complete misunderstanding about firearms this kids education is at risk for defending his life, and never harming anybody...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/sarahj...on-sixtime-felon-placed-on-probation-n1744421

Lawyer defends himself and others against armed robber while waiting for an AA meeting to start....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2272885/posts

Indian company making a gun specifically targeted towards women as defense against rape:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/india-women-gun-rape_n_4638199.html

Here is one about a democratic strategist who suggests the best way to protect women from rape is just to tell men not to rape women... Naive Much? How about we do that AND let women carry firearms if they want, just in case not quite all the men listen...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...self-defense-just-tell-men-not-to-rape-women/