Appeals court overturns D.C. gun ban

[yellowwing]

Appeals court overturns D.C. gun ban
March 9, 2007
© 2007 The Associated Press (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4616529.html)

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's long-standing handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.

In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued intermittent enrollment in the militia."

A lower-court judge in 2004 had told six residents they did not have a constitutional right to own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime neighborhoods who wanted the guns for protection.

The Bush administration has endorsed individual gun-ownership rights, but the Supreme Court has never settled the issue.

If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case in nearly 70 years to address the Second Amendment's scope.

**********

Freakin' A :thumbup: :banana:

[killerinstinct]

This is a good idea. I find it amusing to see people running around complaining how they have the right to speech and it has been violated when they go and obstruct a public building in protest and disrupt other peoples lives and always claim First amendment. YET it's the same people who believe everything down now by Bush etc are violating our constituion rights but when it comes to guns they want them all banned? It goes to show how people only use something when it's beneficial to their cause and screw the rest of us.. In my opinion it's all or nothing...

[crate78]

Going all the way back to the Athenian Republic around 300 B.C., there has been one commonality between the democracies that have become dictatorships. In all cases, the citizens were disarmed in advance, leaving them unable to defend themselves when the dictator moved in.

This is what will save the United States. Anyone that tries to disarm the population of the U.S. had better plan on putting in a pretty good days work. The founders who framed the Second Amendment weren't stupid.

crate

[ggyoung]

78+++++++++++++++++You said that right. They will have to find them frist. Only after I am out of ammo and I am dead.

[FistFu68]

:evilgrin: GREAT FOR THE GOOD PEOPLE OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,(NOBODY EVER RAPED A .45).:evilgrin: :iwo:

[thedrifter]

Showdown at the Constitution's Last Frontier
by Sean P. Trende

Posted: 03/12/2007

Most presidential elections contain an issue that acts as a third gunman, ultimately stacking the odds against one of the main two combatants. It was Iraq in 2004, ethics in 2000, the economy in 1992, and so forth. Last Friday, the 2008 election may have found its third gunman with a court decision that, somewhat appropriately, also sets out an important marker on one of the last untamed frontiers of constitutional law.

In Parker v. District of Columbia, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down portions of D.C.’s strict gun control laws, becoming the first federal appellate court to strike down a law under the 2nd Amendment. In so doing, the D.C. Circuit set down an important opinion in the debate over the scope of the 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment’s text offers little to guide this debate; it reads as if two separate sentences were glued together without thought to the overall meaning: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Nor is Supreme Court jurisprudence helpful. The Supreme Court has never revisited its 19th Century holdings that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the states, so 2nd Amendment cases are few and far between.

Thus, it was not until post-New Deal Congresses began to enact federal laws regulating firearms that there was much need for scholars and courts to consider the meaning of the oddly worded amendment. Even then, only a single Supreme Court decision directly interprets the amendment, and that opinion -- which upheld a conviction for possessing an unlicensed sawed-off shotgun -- is arguably confined to its facts for technical reasons beyond the scope of this column.





What scholarship and appellate law exists initially embraced what is now called the “collective rights” model. Under this model, the first phrase of the amendment controls, and the amendment merely stands for the proposition that the federal government may not disband militias. Modern scholarship has increasingly embraced the “individual rights” model, which views the 2nd Amendment as granting individuals a right to own guns, which makes gun control laws much harder to justify. Adherents to this view cut across the political spectrum, and include staunch liberals such as Laurence Tribe.

This latter interpretation was purely theoretical until 2001, when the Fifth Circuit became the first federal appellate court to embrace the “individual rights” model in Emerson v. United States (although it found the statute at issue did not impinge upon those individual rights). Last Friday’s opinion in Parker goes a step further, and actually invalidates a law for violating those rights.

The District of Columbia has some of the nation’s most draconian gun control laws – among other things, they prohibit owning a handgun and force legal guns to be kept disassembled. Four residents of the district challenged these laws, alleging that citizens were entitled to own handguns and keep them assembled in their homes for purposes of self-defense.

Judge Laurence Silberman authored a lengthy opinion that considered the Supreme Court’s precedent, as well as the history and text of the amendment. The court concluded that the “collective rights” approach was a “strained” interpretation of the amendment, and held that “the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.” It rejected the district’s argument that handguns were not related to militia activity, struck down the handgun ban, and invalidated the requirement that guns be kept disassembled, along with a few other restrictions challenged by the plaintiffs.

The case will most likely eventually be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, where its prospects are unclear. The court has avoided granting writs of certiorari in 2nd Amendment cases before. In 2002 it refused to grant a petition for writ of certiorari in the Emerson case. A year later, it refused to review a Ninth Circuit opinion by Judge Stephen Reinhardt which specifically took issue with Emerson.

But this case may be different. The Supreme Court usually prefers to allow issues to percolate through different courts of appeals and will often avoid the first case raising an important issue, which may be why it did not take up Emerson. It also prefers “clean” cases that cannot be dismissed on independent grounds; the plaintiffs in the Ninth Circuit case also lacked standing to challenge the law, which may explain why the Court passed there. As a later case with minimal alternative issues, the court may be more inclined to take up Parker, though Judge Karen Henderson did dissent there because she believed the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the District of Columbia. The Supreme Court may yet shy away from reviewing Parker because of concerns regarding this “technicality.”

How the high court would rule if it does take the case is a mystery. Justice Clarence Thomas has authored dicta which seem to embrace the individual rights model, but other than that, the justices are writing upon a largely blank slate. This issue cuts across ideological lines; while “liberalism” is generally supportive of gun control, it is also generally supportive of expansive interpretations of the Bill of Rights. Similarly, conservative justices who generally oppose broad interpretations of the U.S. Constitution may be persuaded by the lengthy history supporting the individual rights approach.

Which brings us to 2008. The most immediate impact of Parker will likely be felt in presidential politics. The Democrats made progress in rural areas 2006 by shying away from gun control. Similarly, Republicans hope to re-gain ground among suburbanites by nominating a candidate who can speak to metropolitan areas. If the Court takes up Parker, its decision may well come down in the summer of 2008, re-driving the wedge between Democrats and rural American and Republicans and the suburbs. If it does not go up, candidates will still be forced to take a stand on the decision. Either way, gun control will likely play an important part in the 2008 election. That is appropriate, as the next President’s appointees will play a critical role in shaping this last frontier of constitutional law.

Ellie

[The1stSgt]

"Happiness is a new gun."

[SkilletsUSMC]

WOW!!! Finally some GOOD news.

Why would the right to free speech by protected for the indivivdual, but the right to bear arms be granted to the MILITARY???

Liberals are SO stupid

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Amen brother.

[HOLM]

Is anybody ever taking names of the guys that claim to be anti gun... If the sht ever hit the fan... I would want to be able to take out the soft targets first..:p


Wait a minute.... never mind... Most of the loud mouth anti gun types all have body guards...

[SkilletsUSMC]

Is anybody ever taking names of the guys that claim to be anti gun... If the sht ever hit the fan... I would want to be able to take out the soft targets first..:p


Wait a minute.... never mind... Most of the loud mouth anti gun types all have body guards...

The body guards are going to be rich fellows once the SHTF;)

[HOLM]

Funny thing is I'll bet most them body guards would join the home team..

Boy I'll bet we wouldn't even have to shoot they anti gun crowd then...

They would probably get together and sign a resolution that said they didn't like the conflict... Then one setting a time table.... And another showing all their cards...

Like fish in a barrel man...

[ggyoung]

HOLM++++++++++++++All the body guards would be armed. All body guards are armed, that is part of there job.

[damba]

While I support the right to bear arms provided ceteris parabus, what's the purpose in having (obviously) unlocked loaded handguns inside near-tenement public housing apartments with single parent low income households? This is a seriously urban area with desperate social problems, folks. The guns won't help in all reality. The affected individuals would be uneducated, poor, predominantly african-american residents who would not be taking a gun safety course for that matter. Hardly the place for firearms if young children are involved, wouldn't you agree?

I am genuinely interested in all civil comments on this issue.

-damba


HOLM++++++++++++++All the body guards would be armed. All body guards are armed, that is part of there job.

[SkilletsUSMC]

While I support the right to bear arms provided ceteris parabus, what's the purpose in having (obviously) unlocked loaded handguns inside near-tenement public housing apartments with single parent low income households? This is a seriously urban area with desperate social problems, folks. The guns won't help in all reality. The affected individuals would be uneducated, poor, predominantly african-american residents who would not be taking a gun safety course for that matter. Hardly the place for firearms if young children are involved, wouldn't you agree?

I am genuinely interested in all civil comments on this issue.

-damba

Damba, you are more F'ed up than a football bat if you think like that. Whos responsibilty is it protect their family? the police? the ****** state? NO.. the any law that requires a saftey class or manditory lock for weapons is B*LL****! a disarmed public is a dependant public. Security starts at home NOT 911. Maybe if the African american community could defend itself from thugs, it would rise above its self


Murder has been illegal since before firearms existed, Any new gunlaws should be blocked!!!

[Sgt Leprechaun]

Well said, Skillets.

Damba, if you are going to go down that particular road, then the same could be said for Appalaicia, certain sections of many states that are all white, etc. The arguement you are using is flawed from the 'gitgo', simply by assuming that if one does not have 'book larnin', one is stupid.

"Hardly the place for firearms if young children are involved, wouldn't you agree" sounds like a statement made by someone from the Brady campaign or some such, using the 'logic' that we must 'protect the children' and anyone against such logic is a knuckle dragging neanderthal with no sense.

So, the answer to the question is "No, I wouldn't agree".

[mrbsox]

To chime in on the above...

Kids grew up in my home, with LOADED weapons. Long guns were locked in a case, handguns out of sight and casual reach.
They KNEW that they were in the house, and I KNEW they (the kids) would be curious about them. The kids all knew what they were for, what they were capable of doing, and that they were loaded. They also KNEW that if they had questions, they got me or their mother, we got the weapons out, and looked at them together. And when they were big enough, we got some range time in.

My point is, KNOWLEDGE is the key.
Remember being a kid and curious about stuff, even to the point of getting into trouble ?? Satisfy and direct that curiosity and you gain a smarter self reliant family.

And to ask a question about government intervention into the 2nd ammendment;
If the government (local, state, or federal) removes your ability to protect and defend your property and family, then do they also accept FULL responsibility for your safety ?? If the 'common man' cannot provide for the 'common defense', then is the government REQUIRED to do so ??

If so, then places like DC, Chicago, Detroit, Mass-a-2-****s, should be crime free !!

[Sgt Leprechaun]

To add more to this....the citizenry of London, and Merry Olde England have pretty much been disarmed by the nanny state....and guess what? Gee....crime has increased several hundred percent because of it.

The gummint is not the be all end all protector of anything but it's own interests.

[ggyoung]

mrbsox,Sgt Lep+++++++++++++You are both right. When my kids started to show interest in guns I got some of my pitchers Vietnam and showed them what guns do to people. It left a verygoog image on them.

[Sgt Leprechaun]

My kids grew up looking at crime scene photos. They well know what guns do, and don't do. Mine are always loaded. "An unloaded gun is worthless".

They get to shoot whenever they want. My oldest turns 18 in April. Her present will be a nice little 38 revolver she can take with her when she leaves home.

[DWG]

My kids grew up looking at crime scene photos. They well know what guns do, and don't do. Mine are always loaded. "An unloaded gun is worthless".

They get to shoot whenever they want. My oldest turns 18 in April. Her present will be a nice little 38 revolver she can take with her when she leaves home.

An unloaded gun is just an unwieldy club! :mad:

I took two water filled milk jugs and shot a hole in each to show my kids what a bullet will do; never had a problem with them messing with firearms without supervision!:)

[10thzodiac]

Doctors vs. Guns


The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health Human Services.


Guns:

The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000
The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .000188.
Statistics courtesy of F.B.I.
<HR>Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."
FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but almost everyone has at least one doctor.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat immediatly. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!
Note: Out of concern for the public at large, the statistics on lawyers have been withheld for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

[DWG]

Excellent post 10Z! I have noticed more people die in hospitals than anywhere else. Plus, since I have started going to (multiple) doctors I seem to have more and more health problems! Hmmmmmmm!!!!!:confused:

And in 57 years my guns have caused no harm to anyone (yet)!:p

[yellowwing]

Yeah but a family can't sue a tweaked up carjacker for $25,000,000 for death. Now if criminals had malpractice insurance...

[DWG]

Yeah but a family can't sue a tweaked up carjacker for $25,000,000 for death. Now if criminals had malpractice insurance...

I think hillary has it in her campaign platform!:banana:

[mrbsox]

Yeah but a family can't sue a tweaked up carjacker for $25,000,000 for death. Now if criminals had malpractice insurance...

I recall an article out of California, many many moons ago, about a car thief. He steals this Lincoln that had bad brakes, and has a wreck in the get away and is injured.

Sues the owner of the car for poor maintenance of the vehicle (he was stealing) ... AND WINS THE SUIT !! :thumbdown

Now, what's worse;

The fact that the law allowed the suit to proceed to court,
or that some treehuggingtofueatingpantywaisted judge and jury would award in his favor ?

[DWG]

Need to go back to tall trees an short ropes for these thugs and leave the "legal system" out of it. Seems judges and lawyers swap their integrity and common sense for a law degree!

[SkilletsUSMC]

I recall an article out of California, many many moons ago, about a car thief. He steals this Lincoln that had bad brakes, and has a wreck in the get away and is injured.

Sues the owner of the car for poor maintenance of the vehicle (he was stealing) ... AND WINS THE SUIT !! :thumbdown

Now, what's worse;

The fact that the law allowed the suit to proceed to court,
or that some treehuggingtofueatingpantywaisted judge and jury would award in his favor ?

Im not trying to call you out here, but do you think you could find a link? I just cant believe this sorry. I searched snopes and it wasnt on there as true or false. I may not have alot of faith in the current legal system, but this seems pretty far fetched even for california.

[ggyoung]

SkilletsUSMC++++++++++++=========Nothing to do with the above. But, if you shoot a home invader you had better kill him with one shoot and make sure you do it inside you house.

[DWG]

SkilletsUSMC++++++++++++=========Nothing to do with the above. But, if you shoot a home invader you had better kill him with one shoot and make sure you do it inside you house.

In Florida, we can shoot them on the lawn now!:banana: :D

(You just can't "bait" the field!;) )

[drumcorpssnare]

My first firearms lesson from my dad- "Don't ever point a gun at someone unless you plan to shoot them. Don't ever shoot anyone, unless you plan to kill them. Dead men tell no tales."
drumcorpssnare:usmc:

[SkilletsUSMC]

SkilletsUSMC++++++++++++=========Nothing to do with the above. But, if you shoot a home invader you had better kill him with one shoot and make sure you do it inside you house.

Yeah and then rifle through his pockets for loose bills so you can rent the steam cleaner for your carpets... ;)

[Phantom Blooper]

<TABLE id=INCREDIMAINTABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=2 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD id=INCREDITEXTREGION style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; CURSOR: auto; PADDING-TOP: 0px" vAlign=top width="100%">If you consider that there have been an annual average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theatre of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2,112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000 soldiers.
The firearm death rate in Washington, D.C. is 80.6 per 100,000 for the same period. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in the U.S. Capitol,which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.



Conclusion: The U.S. should pull out of Washington.:beer:


</TD></TR><TR><TD id=INCREDIFOOTER width="100%"><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%"></TD><TD id=INCREDISOUND vAlign=bottom align=middle></TD><TD id=INCREDIANIM vAlign=bottom align=middle></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

[yellowwing]

Im not trying to call you out here, but do you think you could find a link? I just cant believe this sorry. I searched snopes and it wasnt on there as true or false. I may not have alot of faith in the current legal system, but this seems pretty far fetched even for california.
Found it. Its from a Law Theory Excercise (http://www.rjmintz.com/expanded-theories-example.html):

Example
Take this example. Meticulous Max noticed that the brakes on his car were not working properly. Feeling the car was unsafe to drive, on Monday, Max made an appointment for his mechanic to pick up the vehicle in a tow truck on Wednesday. Late Monday night the car was stolen. As the thief was driving away in the car, the brakes failed and he crashed into another vehicle. The person driving the other car, Bob Brown, was injured in the accident. Bob sued Max alleging that Max was negligent in failing to properly maintain his automobile. Because of the high incidence of stolen cars, Max "should have" reasonably foreseen that his car might be stolen and, if stolen, the faulty brakes would likely cause injury to someone. On this theory, Bob was successful and was awarded $325,000 by the jury. Clearly, Max thought he was exercising due care by not driving his car and by arranging for an appointment to have the brakes fixed. However, the jury expanded the concept of "due care" ruling that Max acted improperly by agreeing to wait two days to have his car repaired.

This leaves us with a legally required standard of behavior that cannot be ascertained in advance. (And with which most people in Max’s town would disagree.) We know we have to be careful, but we do not know what that means. It is impossible to anticipate what standard a jury will impose with the advantage of hindsight. That is the problem.

[FistFu68]

:evilgrin:TAKE A SEMI-TRUCK LOAD OF 22'S & A SEMI-TRUCK LOAD OF CHEAP WHISKEY. UP TO 14TH AND U ST. HAND ONE OF EACH OUT TO ALL THE THUG'S THERE FOR FREE.IN ONE WEEKEND THEY WILL KILL,ALL OF THEIR OWN AZZES!!! :evilgrin:

[SkilletsUSMC]

Found it. Its from a Law Theory Excercise (http://www.rjmintz.com/expanded-theories-example.html):

Hey YW... Im guessing then that it is not based of a real case? I hope not.

[yellowwing]

No but its not really that far from the truth and tenants of Keep and Bare Arms. <br />
<br />
My buddy in Arizona was charged with excessive force when a burglar broke into his trailer. One of those moments...

[SkilletsUSMC]

The old saying &quot;i'd rather be judged by 12, than carried by 6&quot; held true for your buddy. Im glad to hear he made it through OK.

[ggyoung]

Last summer in Ceder City, Utah a bum broke into a motor home. The motor home was in a Wal-Mart parking lot. The old people in the motor home were from Florida. The old man put one 3.5in 12 gage mag...

[mrbsox]

Im not trying to call you out here, but do you think you could find a link? I just cant believe this sorry. I searched snopes and it wasnt on there as true or false. I may not have alot of faith in the current legal system, but this seems pretty far fetched even for california.

Thanks for the backup YW.
As I said, many many moons ago, and maybe I should have said back in the late 70's. I'm sure it would be hard to research.

30 year old memories can loose some detail, but I was sure it was an actual case. I DO remember (I think) it being a Lincoln. And cases like this have a way of winding up in 'text book examples'.

My major point I guess is that we should always be careful not to confuse RIGHT & WRONG with LEGAL & ILLEGAL. Since I have a carry permit, I've read alot of instances where the DEFENDER, had to prove 'just cause' or 'emminent danger'. Even cases when the ROUND IN THE CHAMBER resulted in a conviction. A +P Hollowpoint has but one purpose, TO KILL. And as such, people have been convicted by PREMEDITATED INTENT, he INTENDED to kill someone by using THAT specific ammo.

Yes.... it sounds ludicrus.
But as long as these libral self serving (both elected and appointed) judges set on the bench, we'll get rullings like this.

Recently, there HAVE been cases like Skillets and DW point out, where the LAW is actually on the side of the law abiding citizen. But they are rare. Remember Bernard Gettes(sp), the subway shooting in NYC many years ago. Killed several 'thugs' on a subway thatwere mugging his azz. Got off on the shooting, but nailed for an illeagl weapon.
Provides proof of the 'tried by 12 vs carried by 6' is alive and well, and if you get the RIGHT peers on your jury, you have a chance.

[Phantom Blooper]

Right to carry v. right to know <br />
<br />
In a St. Louis suburb this week, Riccardo Crossland was charged with robbery and assault after he and another thug held a 23-year-old Florida man at gunpoint,...

[yellowwing]

(I can't believe I'm quoting News Max)

Media Ignore Fact That Gun Owners Stopped School Shooter
Phil Brennan, NewsMax.com (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/25/153427.shtml)
Saturday, Jan. 26, 2002

Two of the three Virginia law students who overpowered a gunman in a fatal school shooting were armed and used their weapons to disarm the shooter. Yet of the 280 stories written about the shooting, a mere four mentioned the fact that the heroic students were armed and used their guns to halt the rampage.
That's according to Dr. John Lott, a resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute and the author of the widely acclaimed book "More Guns, Less Crime."

Writing in Friday's edition of the New York Post, Lott reported on last week's shooting at Appalachian School of Law. Nigerian student Peter Odighizuwa is accused of killing the dean, L. Anthony Sutin, 42 – a former acting assistant U.S. attorney general and campaign worker for Bill Clinton – professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and student Angela Denise Dales, 33.

Noting that the rampage was widely covered in the world's media, Lott wrote: "As usual, there were calls for more gun control.

"Yet in this age of 'gun-free school zones,' the vast majority of news reports ignored the fact that the attack was stopped by two students who had guns in their cars. The quick response by two of the students, Mikael Gross, 34, and Tracy Bridges, 25, undoubtedly saved multiple lives," Lott reported.

According to Lott: Having just returned from lunch, Gross was outside the law school building when Odighizuwa began shooting. Bridges was inside, waiting for class to start.

When the sound of shooting erupted, panic ensued. "People were running everywhere. They were jumping behind cars, running out in front of traffic, trying to get away," Gross said.

Instead of joining in the chaos, Gross and Bridges ran to their cars and got their guns. Joined by an unarmed Ted Besen, an ex-Marine and police officer, the three men approached the shooter from different sides.

"I aimed my gun at him, and Peter tossed his gun down," Bridges recalled. "Ted approached Peter, and Peter hit Ted in the jaw. Ted pushed him back, and we all jumped on."

Wrote Lott: "What is so remarkable is that out of 280 separate news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.

"Only two local newspapers (the Richmond Times-Dispatch and the Charlotte Observer) mentioned that the students actually pointed their guns at the attacker."

Lott cited the liberal, anti-gun Washington Post, which reported that the heroes had simply "helped subdue" the killer. The leftist, anti-gun New York Times, not surprisingly, noted only that the attacker was "tackled by fellow students."

"Most in the media who discussed how the attack was stopped said: 'students overpowered a gunman,' 'students ended the rampage by tackling him,' 'the gunman was tackled by four male students before being arrested,' or 'Students ended the rampage by confronting and then tackling the gunman, who dropped his weapon.'"

Such selective reporting is not unusual, Lott noted. "In the other public school shootings where citizens with guns have stopped attacks, rarely do more than 1 percent of the news stories mention that citizens with guns stopped the attacks."

Wall of Silence

Lott cited research showing there are 2 million defensive gun uses each year. "After all, if these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? But when was the last time you saw a story on the national evening news (or even the local news) about a citizen using his gun to stop a crime?"

Such "misreporting actually endangers people's lives," Lott concluded. "By selectively reporting the news and turning a defensive gun use story into one where students merely 'overpowered a gunman' the media gives misleading impressions of what works when people are confronted by violence.

"Research consistently shows that having a gun is the safest way to respond to any type of criminal attack, especially these multiple victim shootings."