Okay, Gun Nuts: Justify This One...

• This is like using an example of someone dying on the operating table and then stating  "I thought heart surgery was supposed to SAVE lifes!"

• I will have to disagree with your comment if the founding fathers had cars and the british didn't we would have run them over.

• Cars are destroying the atmosphere guns are not, cars are not necessary they are a convience.

• man, losing my friend right in my face is crazy.  He NEVER FIRED HIS WEAPON, HALL WAS OUTSIDE DURING ALL THE CONFUSION AND THE SECURITY SHOT BOTH OF THEM, THERE WAS NEVER ANY PUT YA GUN DOWN OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE IT ALL HAPPENED IN A MATTER OF SECONDS ONCE THE SECURITY STARTED SHOOTING LIKE A COWBOY. POLICE TREATED US AS IF WE WERE THE SHOOTERS THREATENING US AND MISHANDLING US. BEFORE THE CLUB OWNER CRAIG WHO WAS APART OF THE WHOLE SITUATION, AND THE SECURITY WENT DOWN TO THE CLUB I'M SURE THEY GOT THEIR LIES TOGETHER.  CLEARLY ALL THE BS THEY TOLD THE POLICE THAT MORNING DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE BUT THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO SAVE THEMSELVES. THANKS CRAIG MORRIS FOR BEING A "BIG BROTHER" AND DIFFUSING THE SITUATION...WAIT, YOU DIDNT.

• Near as I can tell, this kind of situation and happenstance is at least acceptable to the quote-unquote gun nut. Collateral damage so assholes can wear pistols into Starbucks?...??

• Okay, Freedom of Speech Nuts: Justify This One.... http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrft/2011/06/two_plead_guilty_to_prostituting_16-year_old_girl.php Not the first time Backpages.com, owned by the same organization that owns RFT, played a vital role in the sexual exploitation of children.  /parody

• "rape victims have a tendancy(sic) to fear and/or hate all men" You are not serious with that statement, are you?  Because that's a far more ignorant (and false) stance than any I've heard on the original subject matter here.

• Chad, Thanks for letting us all know that you don't carry a gun.  Now if you could let us know how much money you usually have on you, and where you hang out, we would really appreciate it.. PerformanceArt "I'm Only A Pawn In My Game"

• chad, these 2 guys were killed due to their idiotic behavior and irresponsibility. i figure it like this:  3 strangers with guns + 1 nightclub with alcohol /chaos = 2 dead drunk gun toting idiots 

•  "I'm talking about the belief among many backers of the Second Amendment that guns make  society safer " I don't know if it makes society safer, but it makes me safer...when seconds count, the cops are just minutes away

• So why don't the second ammendment people use non-lethal weapons to defend themselves? You know like instead of hollow point or regular bullets they can use blanks or rubber bullets. Or instead of a gun use a stun gun or a taser. Or mase or pepper spray. Are they afraid of a red dawn or zombie apocalypse? Seriously when you need a tool that kills when used properly what is the real reason behind it? I read an article years ago. And someones stereo was being stolen out of their car at night. The owner of the vehicle shot and killed the guy from his balcony. The owner was never arrested and charges were never filed. It was rediculous. What is a life worth when you can kill someone for stealing a stereo? It's not as if a court system would execute someone for that. The only reason I can see for guns is war. Otherwise non lethal weapons should be used.

• Seems to me that not that long ago Britain had a 'mallet gang' of young kids who mugged with knives and hammers.  So the question is always 'are guns making us safer'.  but as soon as someone shows up with a knive and starts stabbing the response is 'somebody shoot em!'  Where is the middle ground?  Have you liberals lost all common sense and critical thinking skills?  Unfortunatley those who are the most sheilded from societies dangers are always least aware of why they exist and think they can be eliminated through legislation.  If criminals no longer have guns they will use knives, then sticks, then stones.  After all that is outlawed we can concentrate on what really matters like outlawing straws and toothpicks and any other hard or sharp objects.

• Yet, you read an article with "Gun Nut" in the title.  You sir are a genius.  I can see you are a reasoned unbiased individual. 

• Ron Hubbard? Hilarious! Funny how you tie Ayn Rand to racism -- she was an objectivist and individualist. In fact, she ties racism to collectivism -- pretty much the antithesis of what she believed in. I have heard the ramblings of semi-intellectuals before: they know to associate Ayn Rand with all things bad, but they have never taken the time to read her philosophies. And I understand why they don't read her; it is hard to finish 1400 pages and still have time to hang out at Pin-Up Bowl (in $300 jeans and a $10 sports jacket... no doubt). So tell me, Mr/Ms Semi-intellectual, how do you draw the connection between Ayn Rand and racism?

• That escalating British crime rate wouldn't have anything to do with the infuux of black and/or Muslim immigrants, would it?

• Chad,regarding your comments relevant to the impact of private citizens carrying firearms on crime rates and public safety, I suggest you review the works of Dr. John Lott,  and Professor Gary Kleck . As for "what's wrong here?" - based upon what you have stated in your article, it appears that more facts(as pointed out earlier) are needed before one can intelligently comment upon this particular incident and where it screwed the pooch.

• Can you Read? Verbatim from the above post. "Indisputably, citizens having guns make society safer on an incredibly wide scale"

• The ability of an individual to defend themselves against aggressors is a benefit to society. Free speech, the 1st Amendment, has collateral damage, yet I don't hear you calling for the banning of internet use or computers.  If we are talking straight up benefit/liability then people such as yourself, who rely on others to protect them, present an undue burden and undeniable lack of benefit to any society that you infest.

• Tell that to the thousands of people that use a handgun in self defense against a criminals every year. Even the anti gun Violence Policy Center admits that only 0.25% of all gun deaths(not including self defense) can be attributed to licensed gun owners. That statistically proves that we dont have a gun problem, we have a CRIME problem.

• The more guns are around because of laws like Missouri's conceal and carry, the more "misunderstandings" like this there will be.  If this were the cost of some benefit to society, then it would might be worth it.  In all the inflamed rhetoric in the comments, however, there isn't a single benefit to society (at least not since 1776) provided.  Increasing guns gives a false sense of security and results in unnecessary death.  

• Chad, you might want to make your articles not so biased if you would like to have a successful career in journalism.

• This is simply a tragedy gone wrong when you mix Alcohol, Midnight hours and Guns.  Even when the three involved appeared to have past or current careers carrying guns.  Our human bodies weren't meant to be intoxicated.  We are not righteous, no not one.  We are not responsible, no not one.  If more of us read the word of God and had values, we would not be looking for something in the wee hours in the morning while holding an intoxicating beverage in our hands.

• Hey, Chad, where'd you go?  Don't tell me you've abandoned the discussion, taken your dolly and gone home because of the overwhelming opposition to your incredibly naive viewpoint.  As you can see, I never checked back in after my original comment yesterday; do you think it's pretty fair to say that "my claim has been backed up" by the other commenters?  Have the gun nuts "justified this one"?  Actually, I think there's a worthy point to be made: it's the people who want more gun control who are truly the 'gun nuts'.   You want to try and legislate the danger out of the world.  We have too many laws on the books already.  Maybe you are willing, but I am not willing to Nerf all the corners & hard edges of the world in anticipation of those too stupid to avoid hurting themselves on said edges.  

• Sounds like this anti-gun nut is trying to make a point off on an isolated incident.  I say isolated because this incident is not the norm.  Yes, what happened is a tragedy but you have to remember one thing, if you live in a FREE SOCIETY there are some risks.  I personally do not want  to live under a glass dome.  You do not ban cars because of drunk or careless drivers, road rage, faulty equipment or the use of vehicles in criminal behavior.  Some will say regulate them like cars.  That that I say, only regulate them IF you trust your government.  I do not.  Would the government lie to you, take your property without compensation,  have they ever killed anyone, will they always do what is in the best interest of its people.  The answer is a simple NO, they will not always work in our best interest.  THE GOVERNMENT IS MADE UP OF PEOPLE...  A lot of them with criminal histories attached to them.

• Your supposition that "many other gun owners" see their firearms as "cool toys" is prejudicial in the extreme. This one incident is not indicative of a trend. If it were, given the sheer volume of firearms in the possession of private citizens, then incidents like this would occur multiple times a day across the entire nation. The FBI indicated that there are approximately 220 million privately owned firearms. The population of the US is 308 million, and of those 80-100 million are minors, leaving ~200 million adults, thus 1 firearm for each adult in the US. With essentially a 1:1 ratio of guns to adults, the amount of firearms related deaths is miniscule in comparison to all other causes of death (auto accidents, drownings, accidental electrocutions, allergic reactions, alcohol poisoning, ad nauseum). The numbers are even more dramatic if you factor out officer involved shootings and suicides. Gun ownership has done a spot on impersonation of a hockey-stick graph, and misuse of them by ordinary citizens has done a reverse hockey stick. Not only that, but in 80% of the US, including the #2 most populous state (TX), liberal and permissive concealed carry laws have lowered the incidences of violent crime against persons (rape, robbery/mugging, carjacking, home invasion) much lower than the national average, often double digit drops. Having a gun does not guarantee your prevalence in a fight. It does not confer invulnerability or omniscience. If a criminal surprises you and you can't draw your weapon before they do you harm, you're just as dead/unconscious as you would be if you were unarmed. What having a gun does do is give you the chance to fight back where you would have had absolutely none before.  Citing an avoidably tragic lapse of judgement as was displayed in this incident as justification for "doing something about the gun nuts" is cynical and opportunistic. The millions upon millions of guns in responsible and sober hands provide ample rebuke to your opinions with their lack of use in irresponsible acts like the one you wrote about.

• I know of no responsible gun owner or gun rights activist who would endorse the behaviour of any of the three parties involved.  Even forty-five years ago, when I was first being taught the rules of firearms handling as a teenager, one of the fundamental rules was that guns and alcohol do not mix.  It is one thing to carry one's legally possessed firearm while dining in an establishment that serves alcohol. But... but one should confine oneself to non-alcoholic beverages when armed.  The behavior of all three parties involved in this incident is indefensible and I believe that Mr. Garrison knows it.  If so, the title of this editorial is a straw man argument and yellow journalism.

• The answer is: poor judgment.  That is what went wrong.  If these two left the club after drinking and ran over 2 children, the bar and people would be blamed.  Noone would question people's right to own cars.

• if the copper was in the drinking and carrying, how can you say that he was legal??  or is it that coppers are again the thosen few, and we are just sub-human??  

• ayn rand is l ron hubbard for racists

• stopped reading at "libtard" i'm sure you have em loling at free republic though

• Your title says it all. To argue with you would be futile.  Suffice it to say, there are plenty more auto accidents than firearm accidents every day and you're not screaming for everyone to take the bus. I used autos because there are as many guns as cars in the United States (around 230 million of each).  What makes every firearm owner a "Gun Nut" other than your ill-informed view of how it should be?

• I bet his headline would be  "Is our kitchen butter knives safe or are they so dangerous they should be bannnnned......"

• Reading this was a complete waste of time..lol I don't see where you wanted to go with this.. You fail as a writer, maybe you can help write a few fantasy savage love articals..

• Does anyone at the RFT see the irony? http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2011-06-09/news/knockout-king-elex-murphy-hoang-nguyen-dutchtown-murder/#disqus_thread CCW bad until you need a pistol to save your life from a bunch of thug kids.

• Here is what happens in a society where only the government has guns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPyANnZ5dDc&feature=youtu.be

• You mean like the fact Britain has some of the strictest gun laws in the developed world, yet has a violent crime rate nearly 4 times higher than the United States?  What about the fact that US has a lower violent crime rate than countries like Canada, Australia and France?  Of course gun violence is higher in country with guns, but that doesn't mean VIOLENCE is higher in places with guns.  That is the fallacy of your argument.

• Absolutely right Chad.  It doesn't.  And it is "too bad" that this happened.  And no, it being "too bad" is not a justification for letting this go and moving on and somehow sweeping the issue of gun control under the rug.  I believe there needs to be an honest debate in this country about guns and gun violence.  Now...that being said I think you and I have very different opinions about the true cause of gun violence.  I believe the problem is cultural and responsibility based.  I might be reaching, but you probably believe the easy access to guns creates these problems.  That is like saying easy access to drugs creates drug addicts, as opposed to demand for drugs creates easy access.  See the problem?   I think the real debate behind the gun control is one about freedom and personal responsibility, as it is behind almost every debate.  Americans are not like other people around the world.  Even before the constitution was written we have always had a strong and profound sense of personal responsibility and more importantly, that our government and fellow citizens should not treat us like infants.  We demanded and still do demand a level of freedom not afforded to other people in other countries.   Freedom is messy.  Some people don't know how to handle it this is true.  Some people do not know how to be responsible.  The solution to that problem is not to take away freedoms with the expectation that this will somehow solve people being irresponsible.  The only thing that does is harm and remove freedoms from those that not only deserve them but can handle them.    It has been a little beaten to death here in this discussion, but there will always be people that cannot handle responsibility.  I do not feel and will never feel like I, as a responsible citizen have to be the “bigger man” here and give up my rights to allow for these numbskulls that don’t deserve theirs.  We believe in a system that (or at least it should) hold people personally accountable when they f**k up and misuse or abuse their freedoms.  That is what happened here.  The idiocy of a few should not act as a justification to do away with the freedom to bear arms just as the harboring of illegal immigrants or dealing drugs should negate the need to produce a search warrant before barging through the door.  NO REASONABLE AMERICAN WOULD SUGGEST THAT.   We must be ever vigilant about trying to over-regulate or deregulate away our problems and use the law and the ultimate remedy for everything.  It leads to a Nanny State and the ultimate contempt of governments for their people and the dependency of the people on their government for everything.   I respect your argument Chad, I really do.  This is tragic, but I’d prefer the freedom to do something dumb with something dangerous any day of the week rather than be treated like a child without the concept of common sense.  I know you would too.

• As a gun person I will say this.Don't drink and play with guns.Stupid people should not have guns.Don't pull the trigger unless 100% sure.

• Swords will cut you wide open you know.

• Successful troll is successful

• I bet that every time someone says something you don't like, you call for a repeal of the first amendment.  Government does not exist to guarantee that nothing bad will ever happen.

• It would be interesting to see the crime rate involving knives pre gun band and post gun ban in the UK. Do you have these figures?

• Chad, you're getting your a** kicked, lol. Don't you feel bad, man. I wanted to add to the argument but these fine gentlemen seem to have it covered.  Let us all keep Officer Hall and his family in our thoughts and prayers.

• sadd

• The problem with society today is every unfortunate accident for some reason has to met with a law that prevents this from happening in very specific events later. Also since the bouncer was already breaking the law then this really isn't a second amendment case now is it? Even if the law said no hand guns at all, he would have still had a hand gun and still be breaking the law. Words on pages do not magically affect the people who would read them, they only give grounds for someone to say "It's ok to take away this mans rights" after the fact. Crime prevention laws are not a viable solution to stopping crime, making examples of people who break those laws are. As long as we do not hold people accountable for their actions. We have become a society of finger pointers and bribers, our leaders point fingers because it's never their fault and after decades of this it has slowly trickled down into the fabric of society, it's never your fault that you did something, it's always the fault of someone else. Even in your own article you point fingers and I'm not saying the "gun nuts" you ask for explanations do not also point fingers. But seriously why don't you just hold the bouncer accountable for his actions not the second amendment.

• You're correct that the article doesn't explicitly state that Blake was carrying illegally. I made that assumption and may be wrong about it. I do believe based on Halls reported actions that it was his opinion that Blake was at least behaving illegally and/or unsafely, thus my belief that he was a threat. Yes, it's a bad idea to be carrying while drinking. I think we can agree that was a bad decision. We're debating the idea that this incident enforces the premise that stricter gun control will lead to less violent crime. I don't think this incident says anything about the issue.

• " Hall, used his handgun to address an illegally armed threat." Please explain how Blake was illegally armed? I haven't read those facts anywhere yet. Also, how do you know he was a threat? I haven't read those fact yet either. For all I know, he could have been defending his life, I haven't seen anything indicating differently.  "The legally armed person, Hall," While it may have been legal, people drinking should not be carrying firearms. Legal status doesn't justify, only excuses from criminal prosecution. 

• 1. A "safer" society does not necessarily mean a completely safe society where violence does not take place. Using this single incident where Blake and Spencer illegally possessed and used handguns does not make a reasonable case for law abiding gun ownership being the cause for broader violence. Nor does it make a case for law abiding gun ownership reducing violence. 2. Blaming the handgun for the illegal and unreasonable actions of Blake and Spencer is not a reasonable or logical conclusion. The legally armed person, Hall, used his handgun to address an illegally armed threat. If anything, the actions of Hall protected those others being threatened by Blake. It would not make sense to punish the legally armed individual to address actions perpetrated by those not obeying the law. If it would be possible to remove all guns from existence, of course, there would not be any gun violence. But our only means for attempting that is to create laws that make it illegal to possess them. Those laws would not affect individuals that would be willing to disobey the law, as evidenced by the incident in this article.

• ++ on Chad bringing the heat on this volatile subject.  I still prefer the dick joke type of stories.

• The founding fathers disagree. Mainly because they used their guns to secure their freedom from tyranny and start this great country. Cars, while extremely useful, wouldn't have accomplished this same feat. 

• Bunk. A car is a tool. It is used to provide transportation.  When used improperly, it can kill.  A gun is a tool.  It is used for personal / home protection.  When used improperly it can kill.  Clearly you have made up your mind and it is not possible to debate with you, hence the headline to the article.

• That's right. We accept it as a tragic happening. Because that is what it is.  Just as we (and you) accept deaths resultant from other technologies.  Crying to eliminate the 2nd amendment every time there is a tragedy is knee jerk, and won't solve a thing. 

• And as for the car argument. Yeah, they can kill. But they have a LOT more useful role in society than guns. You really can't compare the two. I'm tired of that B.S. argument.

• No. I'm just amazed how gun control is never an issue when something like this comes up. We're supposed to just accept it as "too bad." 

• Kudos to Chad for spurring a debate more volitile than pet ferrets... 

• All the good intentions in the world don't justify carrying a firearm if you're drinking. Just as  a surgeon shouldn't do surgery while impaired. 

• Has anyone considered that the police officer stepped into the situation because it was the right thing for him to do? Police officers carry while off duty for a reason-- because just like doctors and nurses, they're never really off duty. Have any of you ever patrolled City of St. Louis to protect its citizens? Have you ever been scared shitless while knowing around any corner, at any moment, your last breath could be waiting? Have you ever considered, truly considered, that these men and women really do risk their lives on a daily basis? That they're not just the assholes that gave you a ticket on your way to work? It seems to me that those of you who have commented on the police officer basically jumping to take advantage of a rare opportunity to shoot his gun like a little boy playing cops and robbers, are CLEARLY projecting YOUR immaturity into this situation. Just because you may secretly dream of being a pistol-packing BLACK BART doesn't mean he was. Maybe instead of sitting in judgment over a situation you have never and probably never will be in, a situation that could quite possibly make you piss your pants, consider this. Lives were lost. One of those lives was that of a police officer-- a man who risked his life every day-- a man whose last breath finally found him, while he was answering a call off duty.

• Seriously?  You want to start throwing out constitutional amendments every time an anecdote involving 3 morons shows a downside?  Or are you just trolling at this point in a desperate attempt to improve readership?

• Just another black man shot while shooting guns at others. LOL.

• Be in possession of ... NOT CARRYING.  They had problems with lawyers or prosecutors trying to create felonies out of nothing by charging people in possession, by being drunk at their own home and having a gun in the house...

• The rest of us.... I reiterate that these guys were stupid.  I'm a former marine and getting marine marksmanship training does not a good marksman make.  Nor getting police officer training a good (or even "uncorrupt") police officer make.  Anyone, I repeat ANYONE can be stupid with a firearm.  Sadly it takes an incident like this to show us who is stupid and who is not (although a "stupidity test" might be nice). The point is that the 2nd ammendment does not protect people like this.  IT PROTECTS RESPONSIBLE GUN OWNERS, the vast majority of whom will never ever ever use their weapons in an irresponsible and harmful way.  I won't quote statistics, but the number of responsible gun owners out there for every one of these clowns (I believe it's 1 per 10,000 or something) more than legitimizes in my mind the need and justification for an "individual madate" to keep and bear arms. I don't want to lose my ability to protect myself from these idiots, who would have had a firearm with or without the 2nd amendments protections.

• Accidental shootings less than 2% of all firearm related deaths (somewhere in the 600-700 range)... Average gun deaths in the US is usually between 25,000 and 30,000.  with about 60% of those being suicides.  Canada has shown us when suicides by gun decrease the suicides by other method increas at the same rate.  So with the suicides out and the accidents out that leaves 38 % aprox. Which leaves around 11,400 deaths of "homicide" by gun each year.  Out of 350 or so million people, that is less than one tenth of 1%.  Compared to whom?  NO country of our size population wise has the amount of guns we have.  So you would really compare apples to oranges.  Switzerland requires each household to own and take care of and know how to use an assault rifle, but there is less gun crime there.   Places like the UK that outlawed guns, their police carry guns for the first time in history... now have a HUGE knife crime epidemic.  So again, compare to whom?

• Ok, let me restate.  What if he were stabbed with a knife instead of a sword?  Would you call out the "knife nuts"?

• Just like cars.  An even deadlier weapon and CERTAINLY responsible for so many more deaths.  Chad, I'm guessing you had a bad gun experience.  Care to share or does that hit a little too close to a nerve?  Kinda like how rape victims have a tendancy to fear and/or hate all men.

• The article is light on pertinent facts. Stl city requires all security guards who wish to carry a gun while working to be licensed with the city. Given no charges were filled against Blake it's reasonable to assume he had such a license. Otherwise he would have been arrested for a myriad of charges. This is a police policy issue, not a 2nd amendment one.

• Chad, obviously having guns in society does not make society safer, no contest. But it has gotten to the point where the good guys are nothing more than targets in this hell-hole-of-a-town. The innocent folk have to fight back somehow. We cannot count on STL's finest to protect jackshit. The cops are mostly just as crooked as the gangsters. There is no easy answer, brah.

• What does this have to do with the "gun nuts"?  Someone shot someone without knowing 100% who he was shooting at.  Bouncer at fault, not guns or gun laws or others that don't shoot unless they are 100% sure of what or who they are shooting at.  Police officers are always training to make the right decision to shoot or not to shoot.  But again this is an article that suggests we need to yet again "justify" a right...

• Chad. Can you read? He did not claim that. 

• As fun as it is, I'm unsubscribing from this story because when you're debating guns you inevitably reach a point when anti-gun people fail to acknowledge facts and revert to emotion so, I'm done.  Not to mention I have better things to do that sit and wait to respond to incoming messages. All the info you need is at http://gunfacts.info/ ALL THE FACTS ARE SOURCED AND VERIFIABLE...

• Well, if these guys can't make good decisions, who can?

• Yes, but the Second Amendment doesn't keep stupid people from bearing firearms. The fact of the matter is that these guys -- and many other gun owners -- see these weapons as cool toys that they rarely get to use. In this situation they got a chance to actually use the toy and two people are dead. 

• How many people die from swords, Dan? Sorry you're so thinned skin. Guys like you need to make they don plenty of Kevlar.

• Back up your claim! How do citizens having guns make society safer? We have some of the most liberal gun laws in the world and the highest gun violence as well.

• Well of course gun deaths will be lower in the UK and countries with bans. Its like saying compare vehicular deaths in a specific county, to a place that doesn't allow vehicles, like Mackinac Island.... Of course that county will have more accidents.... However, are you willing to trade 1 lower violent crime statistic (gun deaths) for 4 higher violent crime statistics (assaults, home entries, stabbing, and rapes)?  I'm not The issue is that society in blaming an object or cultural problems, not the users behind it. Stats: In Australia Crime has been rising since a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after gun-owners were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, government statistics show a dramatic increase in criminal activity.61 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%. From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are: • Gun murders up 19% • Armed robbery up 69% • Home invasions up 21% The sad part is that in the 15 years before national gun confiscation: • Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66% • Firearm-related deaths fell 50% Citing: Report #46: Homicide in Australia, 2001-2002, Australian Institute of Criminology, April 2003. UK: Handguns were used in 3,685 offenses in 2000 compared with 2,648 in 1997, an increase of 40%.55 It is interesting to note: • Of the 20 areas with the lowest number of legal firearms, 10 had an above average level of “gun crime.” • Of the 20 areas with the highest levels of legal guns, only 2 had armed crime levels above the average. Fact: Between 1997 and 1999, there were 429 murders in London, the highest two-year figure for more than 10 years – nearly two-thirds of those involved firearms – in a country that has virtually banned private firearm ownership.56 Fact: Over the last century, the British crime rate was largely unchanged. In the late nineteenth century, the per capita homicide rate in Britain was between 1.0 and 1.5 per 100,000.57 In the late twentieth century, after a near ban on gun ownership, the homicide rate is around 1.4.58 This shows that the homicide rate does not vary with either the level of gun control or gun availability. Fact: The U.K. has strict gun control and a rising homicide rate of 1.4 per 100,000. Switzerland has the highest per capita firearm ownership rate on the planet (all males age 20 to 42 are required to keep rifles or pistols at home) has a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. And to date, there has never been a schoolyard massacre in Switzerland.59   Percentage increase from pre-ban number: Armed robbery 170.1% Kidnapping/abduction 144.0% Assault 130.9% Attempted murder 117.6% Sexual assault 112.6% UK info citings: 54 42 killed by handguns last year, The Times, January 10, 2001, reporting on statistics supplied by the British Home Office. 55 Illegal Firearms in the UK, Centre for Defense Studies at King's College in London, July 2001. 56 Ibid. 57 Crime and Society in England 1750-1900, Clive Emsley, 1987, at 36. 58 Where Kids and Guns Do Mix, Stephen P. Halbrook, Wall Street Journal, June 1999. 59 Ibid. 60 Associated News Media, April 30, 2001. For more facts, THAT ARE SOURCED AND VERIFIABLE,  go to http://gunfacts.info/  

• What of is rates of deaths / injuries related to motor vehicles in the US vs. countries that do not have cars? I'll wait while you look it up. 

• 21 comments and no Hall & Oates jokes? Really?

• Car + guns + alcohol + prostitution = grand theft auto.

• I don't think anyone could argue guns make society safer. However, that genie is out of the bottle and cannot be put back. Once there are guns, guns are needed to effectively protect against hostile armed forces.  About this:  "The police officer ran out of the bar like Lone Ranger only to be shot by Tonto. Ridiculous." ----- You're 100% correct. Ri-fucking-dic-ulous. Being a cop does not justify having a weapon when you are drinking, just as it doesn't justify driving when you are drinking. 

• Actually, if anything, your story is off-topic.  The second amendment to the US Constitution does not prevent the city of Saint Louis from disarming its police force of all firearms.  You have two choices:  (A) go to law school and then get back to us when you have some idea what you're talking about.  Or (B) just keep on blathering and pretending that "second amendment" = "gun nuts."  I have a pretty good guess as to which one you will choose..

• What is the rate of gun deaths and murders period in the US vs. countries that have firearms bans?  How about accidental shootings?  I'll wait while you look it up.

• Agreed. Typical libtard here chiming in. I agree that the 2nd amendment stands. I am also keeping my guns. No way any group is taking this libtard's guns away. Too many bad guys with guns running wild in the streets. The good guys must protect their own because the cops are not going to protect the innocent. I am chalking this tragic incident up as just that, a tragic incident involving multiple human error. No bad guys to blame.

• What's wrong here is that the Chad mistakenly believes that statistics is the plural of anecdote.  You have a couple of examples where guns are used in a bad way and therefore conclude that handguns make everyone less safe.  The truth is that handguns are used to protect Americans almost 2.5 million times every year.  Yes, people do stupid things sometimes.  But to conclude that it would make everyone safer if you disarmed good people is a bridge too far.

• THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT! THE SHOOTINGS AND KILLINGS AT "THE LABEL AT THE BALLPARK" WERE ONE OF THOSE "SHIT HAPPENS" THINGS. YES, THERE WAS DRINKING AND MIS-JUDGMENT INVOLVED BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. IT'S HIGH TIME ALL THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT WHINERS S.T.F.U. -( SHUT THE FUCK UP ).

• Accidents happen and people make bad decisions (especially with alcohol).  Guns are not the problem, they are simply tools.  Saying "guns kill people" is like saying "cars kill people."  They don't, the operator kills people. Removing the tool will not solve the problems at hand.  Just look at England and Australia, they have put heavy bans on firearms and have only seen their violent crime rates increase.  In fact according to a Dutch Ministry of Justice Survey, England has a much high violent crime rate including more assaults, home entries, stabbings, and rapes than the US does. Why?  Criminals don't care about laws, so why do we think that making guns illegal will do anything but put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage? So lets stop focusing on, and trying to place the blame on an OBJECT.  Lets instead focus on fixing a culture that thinks drinking to excess is fun, and one that produces the monsters that kill innocent people, OR a culture that is too damn sensitive and too worried about offending someone to report an Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jared Loughner, and Seung-Hui Cho....  All of those massacres were preventable if people would have spoken up...

• It used to be a felony.  As of August 2010 it is no longer a felony unless you are basically being stupid with it.  See RsMO 571.030 (5) http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C500-599/5710000030.HTM

• "It's been my experience that the misinformed extremists are the loudest and most often heard." Like the author of this article, yeah? I can agree with the author on only 3 points: * Officer should not carry weapon while out drinking * The suspect should never have been carrying a gun in the first place * The bouncer should never have been carrying a gun in the first place. Beyond those 3 points, the whole incident is just senseless tragedy, not realistic debate fodder for anti-handgun activitsts

• Nice one, Chad. The score is now: Chad- 1 Gun Nuts- 1000 I do take issue with the off-duty officer having his gun at a bar... or, at least I have a problem with it if he was drinking. It is against the law to carry while drinking (I think it is a felony... someone help me out here). I see off duty cops at bars all the time, and they are always packing heat. I believe that the same laws apply to cops... but they are never enforced.

• Alcohol + guns is no different than car + guns.  Chances are nothing bad will happen. But if it does and someone gets hurt, someone will be in big trouble.  That's why it's just better to not drink and drive and to not drink and carry.

• With all due respect, you're using the exception to argue against the rule. That's the exact same method used by right wing extremists to argue against same-sex marriage and the value of things like welfare (which is prone to fraud) and giving federal funds to Planned Parenthood (because they perform abortions, even though the federal funds don't fund abortions). I don't think guns make everything safer, but I also don't think most proponents of gun rights believe such a blanket statement. It's been my experience that the misinformed extremists are the loudest and most often heard. Really, the only inference I can currently draw from the events you discuss is that the police and military need better training programs because all three men of military/law enforcement ranks involved seemed to have made extremely poor decisions. But really, that may be an unjustified opinion too. We don't have enough facts and we weren't there.

• what's wrong here is alcohol + guns. quit acting like the gun killed somebody. the irresponsible behavior of several people killed somebody.l

• 2nd amendment stands. now I know why STL get's it's reputation.  I'm Keeping my guns. Don't even think about trying to take them. 

• Chad, I totally get your point.  One thing though, not all gun-rights advocates (like myself) have ever made such a blanket statement that "guns make everyone safer".  I and many many thousands more responsible gun owners and users have never and will never say that.  Guns have never and will never make stupid people safer.  Being stupid and carrying or having a gun (yes...including police officers) is doubly dangerous.  Your equation should be amended to include "+ stupidity + impulsivity".  That is what happened here.  3 stupid people with guns likely under the influence or close to using a firearm to make up for a seious lack of judgement. Unfortunately, we have yet to come up with a "stupidity test" in this country, and being stupid is not a crime (thankfully...because we all have our moments).  The second amendment has only ever protected the rights of the individual (the "individual mandate") to keep and bear arms.  It DOES NOT exempt or protect people that misbehave with firearms.  I believe in the second amendment, gun rights, and gun ownership, and I accept that instances like this can and do happen, and that thankfully, they are confined to and remain within and among the community of the stupid.  I am willing to pay that price for gun rights ownership to ensure that the responsible can protect themselves for the clowns. And oh yes...only one person that night was carrying a gun legally.  The officer.

• What if he were stabbed to death instead of shot?  How would your headline read?

• Excuse me? Gun Nuts? Let's see what happens when someone tries to carjack this particular "gun nut." Or if someone tries to attack my kids. What the hell does this have to do with "gun nuts?" A mistake was made somewhere. Either the shooter messed up BIGTIME or the officer did not properly identify himself. What if it all went down with swords instead of guns? Would you be asking "sword nuts" to justify it? I have now lost all respect for Chad.- A former regular reader of the RFT

• To be able to respond to your challengewe'd have to know: 1. Why Blake drew his weapon and was firing. 2. Was Hall drinking. Did he properly identify himself as an officer?  3. Regardless of policy, is someone drinking/drunk really justified in having a weapon? IMO, no. Judgment is impaired, maybe this officer would have realized this person wasn't a threat, was defending their life, who knows. Maybe the officer failed to properly identify themselves and/or issue coherent orders. With someone drinking, all presumptions are out the window.  It was a tragedy, but I blame the STL Police Policy. It's pure insanity. 

• Dude, c'mon.  Don't use some goofy phrase like "I thought guns were supposed to make society safer" because of one instance where things went wrong.  That makes you cross the line between 'citizen who is honestly concerned about guns' and 'stupid fucking libtard'.  The bouncer acted inappropriately, and it's that simple.  He didn't make sure of his target.  For you to posit that this one incident means that gun control should be tightened... that is straight-up fanciful.  There is a higher percentage of firearm misuse by POLICE than by conceal-carry permit holders.  Indisputably, citizens having guns make society safer on an incredibly wide scale.    

• Nice attempt to change the topic, but I'm not discussing pepper spray. I'm talking about the belief among many backers of the Second Amendment that guns make society safer -- not vice versa. So, I want to know why this situation seems to be the exception to that rule. The police officer ran out of the bar like Lone Ranger only to be shot by Tonto. Ridiculous. 

• That's not a second amendment issue - that's a city ordinance issue.  The Supreme Court would likely strike down a blanket ban on guns in the city including residences - But the city could easily pass narrower restrictions.  For example, Saint Louis could require its police officers to police North city armed only with pepper spray.  I think that is a bad idea.  I guess this makes me one of the "second amendment folk"?  Whatever that means..

TotalComments: 98