2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,556
- 52,800
- 2,290
Good article, also highlights quite a few times where a good person with their gun had to fire more than 10 times to save their lives....
Actually, the link below this one has the story on magazine capacity.....
The American gun owners described above were not “fanatical” or “irrational” for possessing firearms or defending themselves and others with them. Far from it.
What’s irrational is the belief that governments—which killed 200 million largely unarmed civilians in the 20th century—should be entrusted with a monopoly on instruments of force, instead of held in perpetual check by a well-armed citizenry.
What’s fanatical is Gun Control Inc.’s obsession with disarming peaceable persons and effectively rendering moot their inalienable right to self-defense based on a promise that the government always will be able to protect them from all harms.
For the Americans in the incidents outlined above, and for countless others who defend themselves with firearms every year, the right to keep and bear arms is not a curse.
www.heritage.org
======
In no way, then, is it reasonable to conclude that if one of my monthly articles for The Daily Signal doesn’t highlight a case in which more than 10 rounds were fired by a defensive gun user, then no such case occurred that month.
Ironically, the September article that the gun control groups cite (covering cases from the previous month) is the perfect example to illustrate this point.
Left out of that article—but still included in Heritage’s database and highlighted on the @DailyDGU Twitter account—was an Aug. 19 example of defensive gun use in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, by a concealed carry permit holder who fired 18 rounds while defending himself against an armed robber.
A cursory review of Heritage’s database reveals this is far from the only confrontation that didn’t make it into the monthly “highlight reel,” despite involving more than 10 rounds fired in self-defense.
In the March article, for example, we declined to highlight a Feb. 22 case in Richmond, Kentucky, in which a man fired at least 19 rounds using two firearms during a shootout with an intruder who had just killed the man’s daughter.
That same month, a gun owner in Washington state told reporters that he fired an entire magazine of ammunition at a gunman, providing covering fire for two wounded sheriff’s deputies during a shootout and likely saving their lives.
Second, the authors of the legal brief apparently assume that if a media report doesn’t explicitly state that a defensive gun user fired more than 10 rounds, it simply couldn’t have happened. Although it’s sometimes evident from the broader context that fewer than 10 rounds were fired, at other times—as the Washington case above underscores—such an assumption is entirely unwarranted.
In fact, at least two cases in the articles cited by the gun control groups cannot be so easily dismissed as involving “nowhere close” to the firing of 10 defensive rounds.
In an Aug. 16 case out of Lexington, South Carolina, both the assailant and the defensive gun user suffered multiple gunshot wounds during an exchange of gunfire inside the latter’s home. As far as we can tell, law enforcement hasn’t detailed the exact number of rounds fired during the shootout.
The broader context, however, is one in which it is more than plausible for the defensive gun user to have fired more than 10 rounds. He was defending his home and family against a well-armed man wearing a ballistic vest during a shootout in which both men would have had ample opportunity for defensive cover.
Similarly, a June 16 incident in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, was featured in the July article cited by the gun control groups. That article includes language and circumstances that make it entirely plausible that the defensive gun user fired more than 10 rounds. The elderly homeowner got into a shootout with three armed intruders who fired at him first, and the most detailed news reports say merely that the homeowner “returned shots.”
Unless the authors of the two gun control groups’ legal brief have information to which neither we nor the original journalists are privy, there’s no reasonable basis to conclude that the homeowner could not and did not fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense.
This type of scenario—and indeed, scenarios in which it is almost certain that more than 10 rounds were fired—are found routinely in the monthly articles published by The Daily Signal, and it seems evident that the gun control groups must have gone out of their way to ignore any recent articles that didn’t fit the misleading narrative they wished to convey.
www.heritage.org
Actually, the link below this one has the story on magazine capacity.....
The American gun owners described above were not “fanatical” or “irrational” for possessing firearms or defending themselves and others with them. Far from it.
What’s irrational is the belief that governments—which killed 200 million largely unarmed civilians in the 20th century—should be entrusted with a monopoly on instruments of force, instead of held in perpetual check by a well-armed citizenry.
What’s fanatical is Gun Control Inc.’s obsession with disarming peaceable persons and effectively rendering moot their inalienable right to self-defense based on a promise that the government always will be able to protect them from all harms.
For the Americans in the incidents outlined above, and for countless others who defend themselves with firearms every year, the right to keep and bear arms is not a curse.
Second Amendment a Blessing, Not a “Curse,” in End-of-Year Examples of Defensive Gun Use
The editorial board of a major New Jersey newspaper started the year off with an anti-Second Amendment screed, decrying the right to keep and bear arms as a “curse” perpetuated by a “fanatical” interpretation created by the Supreme Court in 2008.
www.heritage.org
======
In no way, then, is it reasonable to conclude that if one of my monthly articles for The Daily Signal doesn’t highlight a case in which more than 10 rounds were fired by a defensive gun user, then no such case occurred that month.
Ironically, the September article that the gun control groups cite (covering cases from the previous month) is the perfect example to illustrate this point.
Left out of that article—but still included in Heritage’s database and highlighted on the @DailyDGU Twitter account—was an Aug. 19 example of defensive gun use in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, by a concealed carry permit holder who fired 18 rounds while defending himself against an armed robber.
A cursory review of Heritage’s database reveals this is far from the only confrontation that didn’t make it into the monthly “highlight reel,” despite involving more than 10 rounds fired in self-defense.
In the March article, for example, we declined to highlight a Feb. 22 case in Richmond, Kentucky, in which a man fired at least 19 rounds using two firearms during a shootout with an intruder who had just killed the man’s daughter.
That same month, a gun owner in Washington state told reporters that he fired an entire magazine of ammunition at a gunman, providing covering fire for two wounded sheriff’s deputies during a shootout and likely saving their lives.
Second, the authors of the legal brief apparently assume that if a media report doesn’t explicitly state that a defensive gun user fired more than 10 rounds, it simply couldn’t have happened. Although it’s sometimes evident from the broader context that fewer than 10 rounds were fired, at other times—as the Washington case above underscores—such an assumption is entirely unwarranted.
In fact, at least two cases in the articles cited by the gun control groups cannot be so easily dismissed as involving “nowhere close” to the firing of 10 defensive rounds.
In an Aug. 16 case out of Lexington, South Carolina, both the assailant and the defensive gun user suffered multiple gunshot wounds during an exchange of gunfire inside the latter’s home. As far as we can tell, law enforcement hasn’t detailed the exact number of rounds fired during the shootout.
The broader context, however, is one in which it is more than plausible for the defensive gun user to have fired more than 10 rounds. He was defending his home and family against a well-armed man wearing a ballistic vest during a shootout in which both men would have had ample opportunity for defensive cover.
Similarly, a June 16 incident in Hopkinsville, Kentucky, was featured in the July article cited by the gun control groups. That article includes language and circumstances that make it entirely plausible that the defensive gun user fired more than 10 rounds. The elderly homeowner got into a shootout with three armed intruders who fired at him first, and the most detailed news reports say merely that the homeowner “returned shots.”
Unless the authors of the two gun control groups’ legal brief have information to which neither we nor the original journalists are privy, there’s no reasonable basis to conclude that the homeowner could not and did not fire more than 10 rounds in self-defense.
This type of scenario—and indeed, scenarios in which it is almost certain that more than 10 rounds were fired—are found routinely in the monthly articles published by The Daily Signal, and it seems evident that the gun control groups must have gone out of their way to ignore any recent articles that didn’t fit the misleading narrative they wished to convey.
BOLD-FACED LIE: Gun Control Groups Twist Heritage Foundation Data Out of Recognition in Court Documents
A conglomerate of gun control groups has filed a brief in federal court supporting the District of Columbia in a lawsuit challenging the city’s prohibition on civilian possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. This was not at all surprising.
www.heritage.org
Last edited:
