We had a case here last week where a man walked into a church and shot his wife (the organist) and then left. About 5 minutes later, he came back in to make sure she was dead, shooting her a couple more times. The police had been called, but did not arrive in time. And no one in the congregation was armed and able to save the woman's life.
This event is outside the coverage area my paper covers (but my company owns the paper in that town, where I had my internship). In the borough of Potter County, Pennsylvania, there are two police forces with jurisdiction: the borough cops (not a 24-hour office) and the state police. The state police barracks is about 9 miles away (or 15 km) down U.S. Route 6.
BTW, word on the street is the motive was a pending investigation (the police searched his home and took his computers, so you can probably guess for what) and she was going to testify against him.
so you think, that people, who want stricter laws, don't want to defend themselves? that's an assumption.
they just think, that it is safer to live in a secure environment unarmed, than to live in a dangerous enviroment with having a gun.
That's what we call a "Straw man" argument. It's a logical fallacy. It's the same as "You don't support armin teachers? You have blood on your hands!"
it would have saved her life, if that man hasn't been able to buy a gun ( and i am quite sure, he bought it legal)
WRONG. There was an order of protection in place. Under federal law, if there is an order of protection (also known as a restraining order), you MAY NOT legally possess a firearm.
This is the list of people who cannot legally own firearms ANYWHERE in the U.S.:
® Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors except where state law reinstates rights, or removes disability.
® Fugitives from justice
® Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs
® Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution and currently containing a dangerous mental illness.
® Non-US citizens, unless permanently immigrating into the U.S. or in possession of a hunting license legally issued in the U.S.
® Illegal Aliens
® Those who have renounced U.S. citizenship
® Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and the age of twenty-one for handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen.
® Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (an addition)
® Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition.
In Connecticut, the guns were stolen. At Columbine, the kids were under the legal age to possess firearms. In Tuscon, the shooter was a user of marijuana, and therefor unable to legally own firearms. There seems to be a trend here...
Something else I have noticed is the top cities for murders and homicides
SHOWN HERE are NOT tied to EITHER extreme of gun control laws. Six of the top 10 cities are in states which rank high on the Brady Campaign's scorecard, while the other four are very, very low. Most murders are by people a) who know each other, and b) are committed during other crimes, like robbery or drug dealing.
That said, there are many good ideas about new gun control laws, but I don't see any — other than an out-right ban — which would even theoretically prevent violence based on historic trends (and we all know how well this country's "war on drugs" is going).