Have you ever used a gun in self-defense, or defense of another? If so, there’s something you may want to do.
ABC News’20/20 television show has put out a call for anyone who has used a gun in self-defense to contact the show and tell your story. There is indeed a possibility that you and your story may be on national television!
And if ABC’s 20/20 is looking at this issue, you can bet John Stossel has got something interesting up his sleeve.
Have you ever defended yourself from a crime in your home, in your business, or in public by using a gun? Perhaps you warded off a potential attacker by simply showing a gun?
40 states now allow their citizens to obtain conceal-carry permits for handguns. Some people say that’s dangerous, while others say it allows them to protect themselves. — 20/20
At the 20/20 site is a contact form where you can tell ABC’s producers your story.
People who support victim disarmament and dependence like to ignore and ridicule the simple truth that ordinary people have and use their guns for self-defense. Gun control advocates like the Brady Center for Promoting Gun Violence want people to be raped and killed by criminals instead of defending themselves. They’ve said so. And if you don’t believe me, you can ask them yourselves. They’ll be happy to tell you.
People who value their right of self-defense can take a stand now by telling your stories to ABC’s 20/20.
(1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
Matt
Apr 10, 2007
I think that for many the mere fact that others know that they go armed is enough to assert that it was used in self defense… if it made an attacker hesitate.
Michael Hampton
Apr 10, 2007
Indeed. That’s enough to give criminals pause, but it probably doesn’t make good television. One of the points John Stossel made when I saw him speak at the New Hampshire Liberty Forum is that for something to get on television and draw ratings it has to be “sexy.” (Not literally, but something visually engaging.)
thom
Apr 10, 2007
thought you would be interested in this: university of chicago study says that americans want more gun control because of 9-11
Verbos
Apr 10, 2007
I have a conceal-carry permit. I had a cop who would have me ride along when didn’t want any gun play. Everyone knew about my 44 mag then. No shots were ever fired. On the other hand I had a punk who I knew, pull a gun on me in my living room to rob me. No shots were fired then either, but he did have some big knots on his head and left the state voluntarily. I don’t ever show my gun until it’s time, I don’t talk about it, and only my closet friends know. Criminals are usually cowards and the surprise is most effective.
CC Johnson
Apr 10, 2007
If 20/20 is involved it is probably a trap or trick and it will turn out bad for them. I would urge everyone to keep their stories to themselves.
ghandi
Apr 11, 2007
criminals will always find a way to arm themselves with firearms, the only people having a hard time getting guns, are the people who aren’t criminal minded enough know where to look, or who respect the law to much to break it, even if it means they would have the power to defend themselves from monsters.
don’t get me wrong, if i could have it my way, guns wouldn’t exist at all, then the threat would truly be gone, and we find other ways to kill each other like with swords, arrows, hangings or burning people at the stake.
all this so called gun control, and so far, it hasn’t worked, it never will, unless someone does some kind of voodoo that makes every gun on the planet disapear forever, and the odds of that happening are what? 10000000000000000000000000000000:1? am i in the ball park here?
it’s as much a wasted effort as is the war on drugs, ask LEAP (law enforcement against prohibition) and they’ll tell you what kind of damage these faux wars are really doing to good people.
Ray
Apr 11, 2007
Well I am not sure that my story is what we want to hear on the news. I am sure it would get completely distorted. I grew up in a mostly but NOT EXCLUSIVELY white poor Midwest farming community. The term (and I will use the real term here so everyone can understand the context a a few decades ago when it was OK to use it) “nigger” referred not to our black skinned neighbors. I would have gotten by behind blistered big time for ever referring to one of them as this term. (Something else that the namby pambies would have a fit about today. ;-) ) Instead it referred to the people from the bad part of the big city who came out and did all of the things that the term is now associated with. The people this term was used to refer to were generally black skinned, but NOT EXCLUSIVELY.
The reason for this background. Well when I was about 12 one of our black neighbors came over to our house in his pickup laying dust. There were a couple guys in the bed with shot guns, and he informed me and my mom that a “nigger” had broken into the old lady a mile down the road’s house. My dad was not home, so my mom told me to go help, and someone handed me an old shot gun. We went down to the house and found that the lady was actually not home, which was what as originally feared. We searched the house and found the guy and marched him out of the house.
We called the cops, but they couldn’t spare anyone to come arrest the guy, and my understanding was that it was suggested that if we didn’t want to wait till tomorrow we should just let the guy go. Instead we made the guy take his shoes off (or we maybe had already done this I forget). The black skinned neighbor and I ended up sitting on top the cab of the pickup with our legs dangling over the wind shield and cradling the shotguns. I was on the passenger side the neighbor on the driver’s side. Some of the others got in the back and someone drove. We then marched the guy in front of the pickup on gravel roads in his bare feet (hard to run away in bare feet) several miles to town and turned him over to the cops. (with very bloody feet which I understand never did heal properly)
The point of my original comments on the word “nigger” and its use. As I said the neighbor who started getting people together to deal with the situation, and who was a fully accepted part of the community was black. The “nigger” was white. But we were still called a “racist” community for doing this. I am sure that if this made the news today it would sound even worse.
By the way I got to keep the shot gun for “helping out”. “You proved you are ready for one”.
J. Perkins
Apr 15, 2007
I was stationed in the Sunni Triangle for 1 year. On multiple occasions I hand to use my weapon to defend myself. I..and anyone one else in my Platoon never fired unless the threat existed or we were fired upon. All those who do not believe in personal protection (Conceal and carry)have never been in the situation that called for their personal defense. The truth is that the world is an ugly place with violent people. Violent people only understand one thing….violence. Part of my job overseas was to patrol a main supply route. On more occasions then I can count, while on patrol we would find random dead bodies on the side of the road. Grown men, women and small children with their head cut off or their necks slit. What do you think would be the best way to deal with their killers. Would you sit down with CNN and have a political debate about it, that would never EVER solve ANYTHING. Or would you be one of the brave, Would you raise your right hand and vow to do what you can to protect our children and our country from these sick minded extremist, By fighting them on their own turf. I live in NH and we don’t see big crime that often, Since my return from Iraq, there has been 2 murders in my hometown, 3 or 4 gas station hold ups and about 8 bank robberies. My brother missed the most recent bank being robbed by about 2 minutes, he made a deposit for his store and 2 minutes later a man with a shotgun held up the bank. My friend in Utah was out to dinner with his wife when a man came into the mall they were eating in and started shooting people, an off duty police officer was in the mall, carrying his weapon and killed the suspect who killed 6 I believe. If he hadn’t been carrying, how many more innocent would have been murdered in cold blood before the rest of the police got there. My friend was lucky, he lived.
Michael Hampton
Apr 15, 2007
Speaking of which, right here in town, Friday night, an armed citizen saved the life of a doorman at the Uptown Tavern when a pissed-off drunk who got kicked out went to his car, got a gun and tried to shoot the doorman. Nobody but the suspect was hurt.
socialflea
Apr 20, 2007
True, you can use a gun to defend yourself but it doesn’t mean that you can’t get shot and killed. Maybe we should be waring full body armor to protect our selfs. There is also that little invention that harnesses electricity that can disable a person who is trying to rape or rob you.
Michael Hampton
Apr 20, 2007
No, but as we learned earlier this week, if you don’t have a gun, and the bad guy does, you’re fucked.
Kevin
Apr 24, 2007
I had a friend who nailed a robber with a shotgun just after he broke through the window of his house. Unfortunately, he was shot by the robber in the shoulder. Unfortunately for the robber, his father had a semi and that was that.
20/20 wants to prove you don’t need a gun. The intention of the 2nd amendment is to allow the citizenry to take out the gov’t if needed. What the events of the past few years have proved to me is that allowing massive nos. of foreigners in the country is a mistake and assuming the position of a buddist cow is a larger mistake. Neither 9/11 or VT may have happened had not both these things occurred.
DonnieBnyc
Apr 24, 2007
“all this so called gun control, and so far, it hasn’t worked, it never will”
What gun control? That looney in Virginia bought his gun legally after he was judged to be a danger to himself and others. Most of this country has little or no restrictions on gun purchases. And what little there is is poorly enforced. We can’t even keep military style assault weapons banned. Does it really take an AK-47 to kill Bambi? A true hunter doesn’t need a Glock 9mm semi-auto with a 15 round clip. That is a weapon designed to kill people, not rabbits or ducks.
There were 30 gun related deaths every day in the US last year. That’s one Virginia Tech massacre every day for a year. Where’s the outrage and memorials for those victims?
“as we learned earlier this week, if you don’t have a gun, and the bad guy does, you’re fucked.”
That’s easy to say, but can you imagine what VT might have looked like if there were guns in every classroom. You are an armed 19-year-old student. You hear shots and screams coming from down the hall. You pull your pistol and enter the hallway to find another student (or two) also holding a gun. What do you do? What will he do? Or how about this — you pull your pistol and manage to exit the building safely. You walk out to find two dozen armed and anxious police with weapons drawn pointing at you. It only takes one over-reaction to start the shooting. Are you still fucked?
At the very least we need serious universal gun registration and background checks for all gun purchases. No fast tracks and no gun show exceptions. Is it a pain in the ass for the legal gun owner? Yes, but no more so than it is for the legal car registrant. I keep hearing that gun owners want to be recognized as the honest, law abiding citizens they are. Well, here’s your chance. Step up to the plate and do the right thing. Is a little paperwork and a short wait to purchase a gun really too high a price to pay to prevent a VT or Columbine?
I want to state again that the guns used in VT were legal purchases. There is no law in Virginia restricting a gun sale to a person with a history of mental illness. I hear all the time that the NRA’s “absolutely no gun laws” position is protecting our Second Amendment rights. This week that absolute position protected the rights of a deranged man to own a gun with no questions asked. Is that really what the founding fathers had in mind?
Black Bellamy
Apr 24, 2007
Thanks DonnieB from NYC for your hysterical half-truths. You want assault-style rifles banned? Why? Because they look scary? That must be it since criminals don’t use them. You mention 30 people killed each day with guns. How many of these are assault rifles? Umm, zero? The only time I see them is on the firing range when some guy is plinking a 200 yard target.
Yeah, a true hunter doesn’t need a Glock. But my mother does, when some thug is trying to rape her after busting down her door. Of course you would rather let the police handle it right? I hear they’re real good at collecting evidence after the fact.
You cry for more registration and paperwork. You think criminals fill out your precious forms? Yeah, just the other day I saw the Crips standing in line to file the federal background check instead of using their stolen and illegal guns.
You hear all the time about the NRA’s position? Who do you hear it from, more ignorant morons just like yourself? What the fuck are you talking about? Do you even know what their official stance is? Obviously not to be spouting your ignorant drivel.
Thanks for proving once again that New Yorker’s are hysterical pussies.
Michael Hampton
Apr 24, 2007
Yes, they actually DO want your mother and your sister and your daughter to sit there and take it while the rapists run amok.
Michael Hampton
Apr 24, 2007
Hey, Kevin, how do you know that 20/20 wants to “prove” that people don’t need guns for self-defense? Maybe, especially if John Stossel is involved, it is the opposite that they are looking to demonstrate.
DonnieBnyc
Apr 25, 2007
Black Bellamy:
I will attempt answer your charges. First, I am sure I was not hysterical, and that my statements were not half-truths.
Yes, I want assault rifles banned from private ownership. And, no, it’s not because they are scary. (Actually, they look like a lot of fun.) It’s because they are made for the express purpose of killing people, as many as possible in as short a time as possible. They are the preferred weapon of gangs and drug dealers. I’m sorry if preventing murder by criminals costs you some fun at the range. I happen to think it is worth the cost in personal amusement to provide some safety to the general public.
Reread what I wrote. I did not say that the 30 deaths a day were caused by assault weapons. They were in fact caused by a wide variety of guns, but handguns were by far the largest group.
I also never said that your mother, or anyone else, should not be allowed to own a handgun. I mentioned the Glock as a way to diffuse the honest hunter argument against gun control laws. I never said that all guns should be banned, only assault rifles. Although, it is good to see you agree that a true hunter doesn’t need a Glock.
I can’t help noticing you have no response to the scenarios of
armed students. Can I take that to mean you agree with me on this point?
The registration of guns will obviously not by itself stop criminals from buying guns. There are other laws to cover them. The disturbed young man who shot up Virginia Tech is the object of my statement about registration, background checks, and waiting periods. He should not have been allowed to buy a gun. Period. Again, is this minor inconvenience really so great that you would rather let a disturbed individual have fast and easy access to a gun?
All rights come with responsibilities. Any citizen who exercises his right to own a gun (yes, I believe in that right) has a responsibility to his fellow citizens to act as reasonably and rationally as possible, not unlike car owners. If you want to own (and sometimes carry) a deadly weapon then you should expect to be required to do whatever it takes to ensure the safety of your fellow citizens not just from yourself, but from others as well.
I hear about the NRA’s position from the NRA. For several years I was a member of the NRA so that I could learn what they really think. (I don’t believe in learning about anyone from their enemies.) The NRA is very open about their belief that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is absolute and that any law that seeks to regulate gun ownership in any way is automatically bad, and the first step down the road to completely disarming all citizens. They are zealots, and as such are immune from all reasonable arguments that disagree with their beliefs.
As far as all New Yorkers being hysterical pussies, that statement is so stupid it does not warrant a response. However, I am proud of my city and will say one thing in it’s defense. I, like most New Yorkers, survived 9/11 without becoming hysterical and without running away to a rural area. In fact, I watched the towers fall from my roof and for several hours did not know if my brother, a police officer, was dead or alive. (He survived.) As far as I was concerned we should have nuked every mountain in Afghanistan until Bin laden was ashes. Unfortunately, our “pussy” president had other priorities and he let the bastard walk.
New York may have more liberals than where you live, but we are every bit as patriotic and as non-pussy-like as anyone else. And after reading your post, I think we may be smarter, too.
Michael Hampton
Apr 27, 2007
I just got word that ABC will air its 20/20 special on guns on Friday, May 4. I also got word that it’s a John Stossel special and will expose the myth that gun control reduces crime.
Rich Paul
Apr 29, 2007
For me, crime is a side issue when it comes to owning guns. The Second Amendment does not exist to protect hunters, or sportsmen, or even people potentially threatened by crime. The Second Amendment exists so that if the time ever comes when our government becomes so intolerable that people will finally get off their asses and do something about it, we have the ability to resist. You think it can’t happen here? That’s what they thought in Germany. It was a democracy. They elected a bad chancellor. Oh, well, he’ll be in office for a while, and then he won’t get reelected. Life goes on. And it usually does. But in this case (in case anybody didn’t know) the chancellor in question was Hitler, and since “his” people were largely disarmed by the Weiner republic that came before him, and he finished the job of disarming them so that when it because clear that he needed to be resisted, there was nobody who could.
That is why the second amendment exists. And therefore, although I personally believe we would be marginally safer if the government provided free guns to anybody who asked for them (instead of requiring that you bee a dictator for that sort of welfare), and that we would be much much safer (not only from government, but also from crime) if gun ownership was neither encouraged nor discouraged by the government, and those who were willing to take responsibility for doing so were permitted to carry their weapons wherever they went.
Speaking of 9/11, can you imagine how short the hijackings of those planes would have been, if instead of trying to keep weapons off planes, the government issued you a weapon when you boarded the plane so that you could do your civic duty and assist in an emergency?
In terms of the Virginia situation, and your questions about what would have happened had armed, non-criminals been present, you might want to look into the *OTHER* Virginia school shooting. Two students, who had their weapons in their cars, disarmed and subdued the man. They didn’t even kill HIM, much less go about shooting everyone they could find. Would there be accidents from time to time? Of course. Guns are powerful devices, and when handling them, you must respect the power that is in your hands. Sometimes people do not, and there are accidents. But we cannot put the genie back in the bottle, and un-invent guns, and return to the days when security was in the strength of your arm and the size of your gang, and women, the aged and the infirm had no defense against the most physically powerful. As you may of inferred, I am happy that that is the case.
Anonymous
May 08, 2007
can you show me a gun
Cf
Jun 03, 2007
Re: Rich
I just happened upon this site looking into what makes gun enthusiasts tick and agree with everything DonnieB said. Coincidentally, Rich seems to think if everyone had a gun on the 9/11 planes, people would be able to perform a civic duty. Didn’t DonnieB just paint a picture for you if everyone jumped to do that civic duty at VA tech? Accidents from time to time? You find that an acceptable sacrifice? We’re in trouble if in order to own guns, we’re willing to let a few innocent folks die every so often.
Johnny
Jun 29, 2007
Well, I personally think that any normal law abiding citizen should be able to own a firearm if they wish, including assult rifles. Its true that some people, shouldnt ever be given a gun. Everyone wants to blame the system, and not themselves for firearm related deaths. firearms, have their inherent dangers, but so does driving a car on a highway and getting hit by a drunk driver, or smoking ciggaretes for 20 years. Maybe they should ban alcohol, and ciggarettes since, it causes more deaths per year then firearms do.
As far as carrying concealed weapons goes, I support it too, to a certain degree. I live in a dangerous area, when I walk out my door, I sometimes have to fear for my life. I would carry a concealed weapon if I could. I seen way too many violent crimes, where the cops just cant do anything about. Its true that criminals sometime carry guns and use them. But to be honest, I rather get shot in the face, then stabbed or beaten to death. As long as guns exsist, theres no effective way of banning them. Criminals will always have guns, regardless if its illegal or not. the only thing banning guns or assult rifles will do, will make citizens have weak ineffective weapons, against criminals who have superiour firepower. You may as well even the odds.
as for DonnyBnyc, and your comment about bush responding to 9/11 and afganistan. He was going through the legal system like he was sopposed to, but in the end, with the law system, he got fucked over because he had to wait. its the same thing with the guns. You want it to be a more strict and effective way of getting guns, but the fact is, when you get your life threatend, and theres no way you can prove it, lets see how the cops protect you.
the right to have a firearm is one of the things that makes america, what it is. Banning guns will, just limit guns to criminals, and no effective way of really defending yourself. Tasers, fuck that, bullets have a very long life storage, that doenst need to get charged, and has a longer effective range. Me personally, I would feel alot more threatened with a gun pointed to my face then a taser.
I agree with both sides of the story, guns should be limited to civilans who are responsible, and whatnot but because of what the weapon is capable of doing. Its what defines us. Its the same thing with buying a car, would you rather have a geometro, or a freakin mustang. whats the difference though, they still get you where you need to be. i chose the mustang because it looks badass, and has nice performance. Its like your pretty much telling me i cant buy a mustang, because its too fast, and alot of people do street races with them. As far as the 2nd admenment goes, and some peoples interpretation that its sopoosed to mean that guns are only to overthrow the government if it gets too intolerable, and not for self defense. In a sense, wouldnt that mean that civilians should be able to own full auto weapons, rocket launchers and whatnot? since the government already has that crap. I would feel like an idiot taking on the government with a semi-auto ar-15.
I dunno, if im retarded or not, but im sick of people blamming guns. well anyway, im sure i showed my point of view. Im sorry if i pissed off a few people. If I sound ignorant, i apologize. Im in Iraq, doing my part, and giving back to my country.
tim
Jul 29, 2007
An aaault weapons are made to kill people??Correct.Hard to believe that some of the people in this country actually believe the only reason to own a gun is to go hunting or target pratice.Ignorance abounds and it will be a miricle if we are to survive as a country with all our freedoms intact.
joe
Sep 17, 2007
When bad people have guns it is a bad thing. When good people have guns it is a good thing. Not so complicated is it?
Aaron Wilson
Nov 26, 2007
As Ann Coulter says, When you need a gun, nothing else will do.
I defended myself and family with pistol in hand to force a drug dealer from my yard. Yeah, guns work.
Remember, the 2nd Amendment gives EVERY American the right.
mike
Nov 27, 2007
I don’t understand people sometimes. Yes, Crimminals will sometimes get concealed weapons permits but, stopping them from having the permit will not automatically make them not carry a weapon.But a law abiding citizen might not carry without the permit. The point remains the same, guns can’t kill people without somebody waiting to pull the trigger and if a person that wants to do bad things with a gun, wants a gun, they will get a gun. Its these bad people that will still be using guns no matter what the law is. It’s the law abiding citizens that try to obey the law that will go unarmed.As for assault rifles, I don’t even know what to say to you about that. I don’t think that the only thing they can be used for is hunting or target practice but I also don’t think that most people that get these legally bought them to kill people, they just want to show off to thier friends and bragging to your friends about having an assault rifle is no more dangerous than bragging to your friend that you got assault riffles banned IF YOU DON’T PLAN ON SHOOTING ANYONE. . Once again guns can’t kill people without someone to pull the trigger ( accidents excluded ).There are always exeptions but, IMHO it doesn’t matter what weapons you own, if you want to hurt someone with a weapon it doesn’t matter if you have a permit or a legal gun but, the rest of us would like to legally protect ourselves against them. Just because I can, I hope I never have to.
Aaron Wilson
Nov 30, 2007
Why exactly do we need carry permits to exercise our 2nd amendment rights?? I don’t need a permit to give a speech and exercise my 1st amendment rights. Our constitutional rights got hosed the day carry permits became law.
mike
Dec 02, 2007
I almost get that. When you become a felon you give up some of your rights, and that is one of them.If someone wants to carry a weapon bad enough, they probably will if they have a permit or not but, it does give more of a chance for enforcing this. This probably sounds like I’m just looking for a way to justify the permits and I probably am but, I live in Florida where if you are not a felon, you can get your permit without much of a problem. The cost sucks but beyond that, all they do is make sure your familiar with the law and that you can operate a weapon.Basically, if your right to have a weapon has not been taken away because of a felony, you can have a gun at home or in your car without anything but, to carry it you have to have a permit.With all that said,,,I get your point..
Mike
Jan 02, 2008
My previous post says if your right to own a gun hasn’t been taken away due to a felony but, there are actually other other convictions Etc. than can prevent you from getting a permit