Comments on: Gun Rights News 30 Jun 2008 - Matt Long http://gunrightsnews.com/2008/06/30/gun-rights-news-30-jun-2008-matt-long/ The Podcast with Matt Long Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:11:48 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: freedom first http://gunrightsnews.com/2008/06/30/gun-rights-news-30-jun-2008-matt-long/comment-page-1/#comment-44 freedom first Wed, 16 Jul 2008 05:31:54 +0000 http://gunrightsnews.com/?p=24#comment-44 In addition: Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.1 Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.2 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year. 1 Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, “Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’”, 1989, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2 C. Cramer, and D. Kopel "Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994 In addition:

Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns

Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders.1

Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for
protection

Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.2 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.

1 Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, “Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’”, 1989, Journal of
Quantitative Criminology

2 C. Cramer, and D. Kopel “Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws”. Independence
Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994

]]> By: freedom first http://gunrightsnews.com/2008/06/30/gun-rights-news-30-jun-2008-matt-long/comment-page-1/#comment-43 freedom first Wed, 16 Jul 2008 04:59:45 +0000 http://gunrightsnews.com/?p=24#comment-43 Matt, I was a little taken aback by your comment on June 30 edition of Gun Rights News in which you suggested that a requirement to "qualify" with your sidearm to exercise your Constitutional Rights to maintain said Constitutional Right was a good idea or reasonable. No doubt that NO ONE wants a "good guy" to accidently shoot an innocent bystander in the act of self defense; but to require any training, fees, tests, registration, etc for a Constitutional Right is quite frankly ANTI- Gun Rights. You're the host of Gun Rights News...not Anit-Gun Rights News and ideas. So I am shocked at the suggestion. Matt, Many or most of us can "pop out to the range and put 24 rounds down range" to prove our "responsibility" as you suggest, but putting rounds down range prove nothing. In the relative calm of a shooting range, aim, technique, trigger control, etc are pretty darn easy. In the frenzy and surprise of an attack by a criminal, I assure you most of us will be shooting wildly in an effort to defend against the attack. Any/all of us could shoot innocents by mistake. Cops carry minimum of 3 magazines fully loaded for this very reason. Because it's easy to spray 36 rounds with potentially NO HITS when in fight or flight and while combatants are in constant movement. There are no qualifications to operate power tools. There are no qualifications to use or maintain any other Constitutional rights. Why would we accept such limitation on our 2nd Amendment Rights in the name of "the possibility someone COULD shoot an innocent" due to lack of training. I find that unacceptable. Always vote freedom first Matt. Matt,
I was a little taken aback by your comment on June 30 edition of Gun Rights News in which you suggested that a requirement to “qualify” with your sidearm to exercise your Constitutional Rights to maintain said Constitutional Right was a good idea or reasonable.

No doubt that NO ONE wants a “good guy” to accidently shoot an innocent bystander in the act of self defense; but to require any training, fees, tests, registration, etc for a Constitutional Right is quite frankly ANTI- Gun Rights. You’re the host of Gun Rights News…not Anit-Gun Rights News and ideas.

So I am shocked at the suggestion.

Matt, Many or most of us can “pop out to the range and put 24 rounds down range” to prove our “responsibility” as you suggest, but putting rounds down range prove nothing.

In the relative calm of a shooting range, aim, technique, trigger control, etc are pretty darn easy. In the frenzy and surprise of an attack by a criminal, I assure you most of us will be shooting wildly in an effort to defend against the attack. Any/all of us could shoot innocents by mistake. Cops carry minimum of 3 magazines fully loaded for this very reason. Because it’s easy to spray 36 rounds with potentially NO HITS when in fight or flight and while combatants are in constant movement.

There are no qualifications to operate power tools. There are no qualifications to use or maintain any other Constitutional rights. Why would we accept such limitation on our 2nd Amendment Rights in the name of “the possibility someone COULD shoot an innocent” due to lack of training.

I find that unacceptable. Always vote freedom first Matt.

]]>