This post details several incidents in which armed civilians were able to stop a mass shooting. Of particular interest was this:

At Appalachian Law School, in Grundy, Va., a disgruntled student on the verge of his second suspension entered a school building and shot and killed the dean and a professor. He then shot four students, killing one. Hearing the shots, two students, Michael Gross and Tracy Bridges, ran to their cars to retrieve their guns. With guns aimed at the shooter, Mr. Bridges ordered him to drop his weapon. When the shooter turned and saw Mr. Bridges’ gun, he laid down his weapon and put his hands in the air. (My pro-Second Amendment documentary, “Michael and Me,” goes into detail about this incident, as well as others.)

Professor and economist John Lott checked 280 separate news stories in the week after the Appalachian Law School shooting, and only found four that mentioned the students who stopped the shooter had guns. The Washington Post, for example, said the students “helped subdue” the killer. Newsday wrote the shooter was “restrained by students.” The Richmond (Va.) Times-Dispatch, however, wrote that the shooter “was wrestled to the ground by fellow students, one of whom aimed his own revolver at [the killer].” Four months later, the Times-Dispatch detailed the students’ actions, including the second student’s use of a gun.

Here is a story about yet another foolish citizen defending his property with a gun. Really it would of been safer to have cowered in a closest praying for the state’s experts to show up. He puts himself and others in danger when he takes care of business on his own.

This out of control cowboy says this:

When you hear a pump shotgun click, it makes everyone think twice.

Thats the kind of attitude is how people get hurt. Especially the poor innocent ones trespassing on your property and stealing your stuff.

Story here:

A MAN who lived in his own “zoo” of lizards and insects was fatally bitten by a pet black widow spider — then eaten by the other creepy-crawlies.

Police broke in to Mark Voegel’s apartment to find spider Bettina along with 200 others, several snakes, a gecko lizard called Helmut and several thousand termites had gorged on his body.

Given my experience with those named Bettina, looks like he got that black widow’s name right.

This accidental death never would of happened if non-experts, i.e. citizens were prohibited from having these kinds of animals. Oh wait turns out they are. And yet this tragedy, if you want to call it that, still happened.

Apparently woman in the Kashmir region between Pakistan and India are arming themselves as a way to protect themselves from Islamic militants. This strikes me as an incredibly foolhardy move. Guns are dangerous and someone may be shot accidentally. This will also make it easier to gain access to firearms for those that would do unjustified harm. Its better to rely on the authorities, some might say experts, to protect you from religious fanatics in a remote area.

Putting sarcasm aside, this is what the second amendment is all about. Guaranteeing your right to protect yourself from anyone you believe would do you harm. Having the right to arm yourself gives you the ultimate freedom to protect yourself and those you love. It’s a statement about who is responsible for your safety and preservation. A statement that says at the end of the day, you are.

Damn dirty dog. Just think if the state treated this man like a child, telling him he couldn’t play with dangerous things this never would of happened. When will we learn it’s to dangerous to treat adults like adults. WHEN!

Via Instapundit, a link to a post about how the press is covering a shooting in Philadelphia. The author notes that many of the news sources mention the shooter was a felon much further in their articles than that the homicides were committed over a bet.

The idea here is that the reporters, intentionally or not, are highlighting the senseless nature of the homicide before indicating that the senseless act was caused by someone that was already forbidden to possess the gun needed to commit the act.

I find this kind of argumentation compelling. Left leaning bias is not explicit. Professional journalists are good enough to realize a set of indisputable facts must be reported. In fact most news sources do a good job of this (excluding the war), including Fox News. The bias becomes more apparent as the reporting requires more and more editorial input. For example, how does one arrange the facts in a story? In this case, most news sources put the disputed fact of what started this fight closer to the front then the fact that the perpetrator was a felon.

Like all news sources Fox News makes these kinds of editorial decisions. Unlike other news sources, Fox news is excoriated for its biased editorial decisions. Some on the left don’t realize that there is editorial slack on how a story is reported. They are accustomed to the typical left narrative and assume any deviation from that narrative is untrue. This is quite common from left leaning naïve readers that have never bothered to think about the editorial decision of reporting a story because they implicitly agree with the way the story is covered. Readers leaning right are much more aware since they have been frustrated for years with the dearth of editorial news coverage in accordance with their bias.

Hence the countless liberals I have ran into shocked to discover MSM has a bias.

Apparently a robber entered the residence of a 91 year old man and beat him unconscious with a soda can. When the old man regained conscious he got his gun and shot the robber in the throat. If supporters of gun control had their way this would not of been an option, but at least gun control would stop illegal gun usage.

The funniest part:

When police arrived, officers said Williams told them, “I can’t feel my legs and I got what I deserved.”

He is taking responsibility for his actions! Ha, he has more integrity then your typical liberal.

A law giving immunity to those that report suspicious activity related to terrorism was shot down by democrats. This is an example of a law that is appropriate in helping deal with terrorism while opening the possibility for abuse. It seems prudent that citizens have no fear of retribution for reporting suspicious behavior.

I suspect the reluctance on the democrats side is that it opens the door to discrimination without consequence. Given that most Al Qaeda operatives fit a couple of profiles, reducing the cost of vigilance towards those that match the profiles is prudent even if it means more hassle to this group. Increased hassle for some citizens seems more desirable than dead citizens.

Tinker with citizen rights to prevent death by terrorism and democrats have a stroke, but completely eliminate one of our constitutional rights to prevent civilian death with handguns and the democrats don’t just support the bill, hell, they sponsor it.

Related to the last point.

Freaking Hypocrites.

In this story, to escape a kidnapper, a kid uses a safety pin to cut through the duct tape binding his hands together. At one point during the kidnapping he conceals the pin by foolishly placing it in his mouth. This strikes me as very dangerous because he could have died by accidentaly swallowing the safety pin.

Just like a gun, the safety pin posed certain dangers, and just like a gun the safety pin was used to stop a crime in progress. Some have argued that the danger of guns is greater than their benefit of stopping crime. I for one embrace this argument. Its also why I fully support the banning of safety pins. Their potential for harm far outweigh their benefits.

Besides, we have law enforcement whose job is to stop crimes. This kid should never of taken that risk with a safety pin and instead waited for the police to show up. If you ask me its better to keep your life in the hand of experts rather than take matters into your hands.