Thank you sir!

@Bren -

- competition/sport shooting

- hunting

- in case you encounter a criminal meaning to do you or others harm with some heavy firepower

- to protect yourself and your loved ones against a tyrannical government

Basically, all the same reasons for allowing citizens access to non automatic weapons, including that it's protected by the 2nd Amendment of the Federal Constitution.

@Matt -

Just an FYI:

Never expect an admission from Bren when she's conclusively proven wrong. Like a true liberal, Bren never admits when she's wrong. If you ever manage to prove her objectively wrong, she'll call you names and accuse you of doing things that you don't actually do and that she can't prove.

@Brewn... Why not focus on the failure of Rahm Emanuel to enforce the law in Chicago rather than to throw red herring on the National stage. Chicago has has a few hundred casualties this year while having a strict gun law on its books.

Jimmy the Skipper, the few hunters I know would consider it unsportsmanlike to take a semi-automatic on a hunting trip. Sorry, I skipped over the rest of your post.

Ms. Sanders, I was asking about civilian uses for semi-automatic weapons. But to address your question, do you think part of the problem is the sheer volume of weapons out there? Many guns used by criminals are traced to home break-ins; that is, purchased legally but now in the hands of someone else.

That's the few hunters you know. They do not speak for all hunters. The uses for semi-automatic weapons have been covered ad nauseum in comments here. As for where criminals get their guns, they get them from many different places. Stolen guns being one of them. Not sure of your point, since again, gun control has no proven impact on violent crime rates.

@Bren -

If you want to act childish, that's your prerogative.

What's so surprising about the fact that criminals who break into a home that is not theirs would steal a gun found in that home?

They're called criminals because they do not respect and abide by the laws.

Jimmy the Skipper, if at some point I choose to act childish I'll be sure to let everyone know beforehand so they can grab a refreshing beverage. If at some point you choose to engage in civil discourse with me, which includes actually reading my posts before going off on narrative rampages, that would be nice. By the way, thanks for clarifying the definition of a criminal for everyone! ; )

Matt Stevens, I'm sure there are many uses for semi-automatic weapons--or any gun--for which I am unaware. I just know I'm sick to death of reading about children getting shot in drive-bys, etc. What seriously can be done?

Bren I wish there was a silver bullet (pun) to the problem, but unfortunately it's a problem that is very complex that society doesn't have a solution for. It may also be the kind of thing that due to variables and an array of circumstances we simply cannot control.

@Bren -

Hoffa is willing to be civil and has always attempted to engage in civil discourse with you. So let's put these issues to bed right now!

Please provide your source showing that the Walker administration provided Georgia Pacific and Diane Hendricks with special beneficial tax treatment, as you previously affirmatively asserted as fact.

Otherwise please admit that such an assertion was little more than a conspiracy theory.

Regarding the Ryan budget, you were the one who previously asserted that Ryan would accomplish the goals of exempting Congress and giving tax breaks to oil companies via his budget. Your most recent statement of substance indicates that the Ryan budget is vague and leaves open the possibility of giving tax breaks to oil companies. Thus, if you still believe that the Ryan budget gives oil companies tax breaks, then surely, you must be able to point to either a supplemental bill either drafted or supported by Ryan giving such tax breaks.

Also, where does the $43B number originate from?

Please provide the cite to the bill proving positive these tax breaks, otherwise, please admit that such an assertion was little more than an unfounded conspiracy theory.

JRH

So there is something we agree upon like the 2nd amendment? w/o name calling?
Outstanding!

@$$andSense -

Better call Guinness!

►it unsportsmanlike to take a semi-automatic on a hunting trip◄

Bren, once again you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of hunters use a semi-automatic weapon. Your liberal brainwashing has worked, confusing you again about an automatic weapon vs semi-automatic.

Semi-auto maybe......fully automatic no.................we'll never outgun the gov. no matter what we're carrying and other than that possibility - NO!

The US is a very large country with a disparate population and an underlying social pathology that does not exist in those European countries with a lower murder rate. It has very little to do with guns or gun laws.

@Dave -

Here's a couple more reasons:

- invasion by a hostile extra-terrestrial intelligence

- in case giant prehistoric underground dwellers wake up from hibernation and are hungry

- well armed gang-bangers

You're right - citizens need more fire power, especially against today's gang bangers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6hzqQHJChM

And at least equal to that of the government. I'm thinking it's Manhattan Project (1986) time! Cynthia Nixon was smokin in that film ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMzZY8hR-5I

@ Dave. You're making the assumption that those in charge of that firepower would also side with the "tyrannical government", and that none of that firepower would end up in the hands of those who are against the tyrannical government they were fighting. In addition, with each American able to own firearms, it makes it difficult for a "tyrannical government" to "take over" the American people without completely destroying everything in the process.

@Dave --- yep, just like all the firepower the British had against the Colonists --- or our recent displays of firepower superiority in Iraq, Afghanistan ................ bombing runs don't work against Guerilla forces !!

@Randy, this is actually another fallacy. The higher the capacity of the magazine the less reliable it becomes. In a twist of irony, the fact the killer in aurora chose to use a 100 round high capacity magazine (which are notorious for jamming) actually likely saved lives, since his gun jammed and stopped his attack.

On the flip side, "stop to reload" is not really what you think it is. With a bit of practice, you can change a rifle magazine in 1 second, without even taking your sights off the target. Handguns just as fast. In other words, limiting capacity will not change anything.

I was actually surprised how many rounds he got off with that mag, they jam all the time. I want to know if he was using steel or brass ammo casings.

@Dave -

We've been through this before. Do you honestly think that people like Bert (Michael Gross) from Tremors (1990) pose a threat to the law abiding citizen? Come on, people like Bert are as American as sliced bread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFNBUs7O-h4

BTW - Hoffa watches plenty of PBS.

"History shows that individuals with power USE that power, usually in a bad way, because they can. Citizens do not need to be armed wherever they go." All the more reason the 2nd amendment exists. To quote I believe it was George Washington, the 2nd amendment is the people's liberty's teeth. Also, another quote that illustrates it quite well: If I had to choose between the 1st amendment and my gun, I'd choose my gun. And then I'd say whatever I wanted because I have a gun.

"We got along reasonably well before concealed carry by staying out of crummy neighborhoods," This makes the incorrect assumption that bad things only happen in bad neighborhoods.

"but concealed carry makes people think they are more powerful than they really are." A baseless statement of which you have no proof.

"If someone really wants to get you, they will find a way." Ironically, this is a good argument as to why gun control doesn't work.

@Lyle -

"However, the legal gun owner also represents a risk to the well being of society."

You can't make a conclusive statement like this and then not support it with an analysis - where's your facts and reasoning?

Let's suppose for a moment that everyone who owned a gun would NEVER use it or threaten to use it for nefarious purposes. And that everyone who owned a gun was properly trained in using the weapon(s) they own. Wherein would there be a threat to anyone, or the "well being of our society" from mass gun ownership?

And who's stopping the people of Grigsby's neighborhoods from cleaning up their own act? If they were serious about ending their gun problem, they'd stop having out-of-wedlock promiscuous sexual relations, they'd actively try to improve themselves through education or employment, they'd take pride in home ownership and actually maintain their properties, they'd promote self reliance and community within their communities, they'd provide law enforcement assistance by reporting criminal elements within their neighborhoods and homes instead of sheltering such activity, they'd stop using alcohol and illegal narcotics, etc.

In other words, there's a lot that those neighborhoods could do on their own if they really wanted to do it. The fact is - they don't want to, or they would. They prefer to live as they do for whatever reasons. No one is stopping them from bettering their situations and there's tons of programs out there to assist them in doing so. But it has only gotten worse, not better.

Before those neighborhoods get anymore taxpayer provided help, they need to start demonstrating a willingness to help themselves! We've already wasted trillions on failed public housing projects. How much more of the hard earned taxpayer's dollars must we throw down the drain to assist those that have only abused our generosity in the past and used our handouts against their intended purposes?

And why is the answer always to punish or impede the righteous just to kowtow to the idiots of our society? That's not a part or the attitude of the American way!

I'm getting SICK of paying for the non-righteous element! And I’m not the only one who's fed up!

@JRH....Just the possession of firearms presents an element of risk, whether legally held or not. Simply logic would dictate, the higher the number of guns, the greater the potential for harm.

I like the way you demagog and set yourself up as judge and jury. Unless someone meets your standards,then they fall from grace and are deemed unworthy of human compassion, protection and inclusion in the broader society. Only you know what is right and correct and you and you alone will decide on who is deserving and who is not. I think it's high time you come down off your high horse and become a human being capable of error and frailties. It is time to embrace humanity with all its complexities and participate in the good and stop being a pompous ass.

@ James, actually what they prefer is that the government do everything for them. Which is not unlike how a growing populace of the US lives their lives today. It's a staple of the democratic left.

"Just the possession of firearms presents an element of risk, whether legally held or not. Simply logic would dictate, the higher the number of guns, the greater the potential for harm." This statement can be applied to just about everything in our lives. Where do we stop the nanny state and simply let people live their lives, own their choices, and stop trying to regulate things we don't agree with?

"Unless someone meets your standards,then they fall from grace and are deemed unworthy of human compassion, protection and inclusion in the broader society. " As opposed to your stance, which is to regulate and control and protect people from themselves under the ruse of "for the greater good"? Especially when it comes to things you don't agree with?

"Only you know what is right and correct and you and you alone will decide on who is deserving and who is not. I think it's high time you come down off your high horse and become a human being capable of error and frailties." Rather ironic given your stance on guns.

@Lyle -

Why are you so unwilling to admit that there is a great deal of things that the people of those neighborhoods could in fact do to help themselves if they wanted to?

Instead, you'd rather call me names.

@JRH....I do have an expectation that people will take control of their own neighborhoods and living environments. However, before they can successfully do that they need a minimum of personal security. Do you realize how many kids come to my village so they can play outdoors without the fear of something bad happening. So many children in these environments are afraid to be outside and just be a kid free of danger. This is just one of the elements of the culture of poverty. Condemning people for their lack of ability to take control is the worst king of demagoguery, you're better than that.

@Lyle -

"Condemning people for their lack of ability to take control…."

Who's condemning anyone? I'm merely asking what it is that is preventing these people from taking control? I've yet to receive a legitimate answer to that question. And without a legitimate answer, there's no logical reason to support a position of empathy.

Where are these children's parents? What are they doing to attempt to make things better for their children? What are these parents doing in their free time? How much government assistance are these parents already receiving? How do these parents utilize their resources?

With the programs currently available - there's no viable excuse that exists. Ergo, the reason for their situation must be because it is what they ultimately desire, otherwise, they'd do something about it, right? Those who are truly incapable of helping themselves represent a relatively small proportion of that community, and you know it.

We can only provide the opportunities. They have to be willing to embrace and use those opportunities to better themselves. We can't force them to do this though - they have to want to do it. If they simply lack the will and desire, for whatever reasons, how is that my fault? Why should I have to pay for their essential laziness?

You claim that these people are in poverty, and yet very few are going without their basic needs being met. For the most part, they all have food, at least two changes of clothing, and some kind of roof over their head at night. A majority of these people tend to have many luxuries above and beyond their basic needs. WHY? HOW? Is that just?

You claim that those who escape or work themselves up and out of such communities represent the exception to the rule. Hoffa claims that those so-called exceptions are really just the ones who embraced the provided opportunities and used them to better themselves - there is nothing exceptional about that, as anyone is capable of doing it with the right attitude.

I'm willing to help people, but they have to be willing to help themselves first - and that means playing by a certain set of rules. No promiscuous sexual relations, no substance use/abuse, no being lazy, no refusing to embrace the opportunities provided for whatever reason, no frivolously spending your resources on luxuries when the only way you can afford your necessities is with public assistance, no trashing the opportunities provided to you, etc.

Those rules are fair - to both those receiving assistance and those providing the assistance. But these people aren't willing to play by the rules. Thus, those who are unwilling to play by the rules, shouldn't get any assistance.

I'm a sympathetic guy, but I'm also a just guy.

"For Representative Grigsby and her constituents, firearms, especially handguns, represent a clear danger. She and others like her want to clear the guns off the streets to bring their neighborhoods back to safety, not increase them legally or otherwise. Careful consideration should be made about who, what and under what circumstances should gun ownership be allowed." This entire statement is based on the false premise that gun control works. What you and Rep. Grigsby don't understand is that all the gun control you can muster won't solve her community's problems with guns.

@Matt Stevens....I have simple logic to back up my position. We live life based on probabilities and not on possibilities. You seem to have difficulty separating the two. Your reference to cars, airplanes, etc smacks of absurdity. Those other devices were not designed to kill and maim.

Guns have many uses that are not to kill or maim people. And you have no logic, you just have statements you presented as fact without any substance to actually back them up. Just like you presented that we "live life based upon probabilities not possibilities". Who are you to tell us how we live life? I live life based upon freedom and personal choices, and owning those choices.

@Matt Stevens...It seems you don't seem to like to think about things in depth. For example; most people would be reluctant to attempt to cross on foot a busy freeway because of the much higher probability that they would be hit and not survive. Whereas they jaywalk all the time on streets with slower traffic flows. Experience teaches us probability of occurrence where as anything can be possible. Your reliance on anecdotal evidence to back up your claims leaves a lot to be desired. I and others are much more comfortable in relying on scientific evidence that is not dependent on individual biases. It is obvious that you're a firearms supporter and whenever you make a statement about the subject, it will reflect your bias. I am, on the other hand, neither a firearms supporter nor an advocate for banning firearms. However, I do think we need to leave behind all of the political posturing and extreme ideologies and work to finding solutions to cutting violence, firearm violence in particular. Your statement that guns have many purposes other than killing or maiming people is entirely misleading. I agree that sporting long guns are designed for hunting. However, handguns are designed for one thing only, killing people.

@Lyle -

How exactly would gun control "clear the guns off the streets to bring their neighborhoods back to safety?" Are most of the guns on the streets in that community lawfully held by law abiding citizens that would tend to comply with gun control laws if enacted?

If not, then I fail to see how laws would effectively solve that problem. In fact, if that community did everything that Hoffa suggested it do above, there's a high PROBABILITY that the gun problem in that community would subside and eventually become a non-issue, correct?

But for some reason, you're against the solutions that Hoffa proposed, that have a high PROBABILITY of success, and favor laws that have already proven to be ineffective at producing the desired outcome.

Is this just more of your own inner struggle, or is it the hypocrisy that it facially appears to be?

@Lyle -

"However, handguns are designed for one thing only, killing people."

Really? So they can't be used for target / competitive competition? Or shooting away the lock if someone entrapped you in a room for nefarious purposes? Or how about maintaining order during a crisis/panic situation, such as during the sinking of the Titanic? There's a lot of other uses that I could think of.

"Your reliance on anecdotal evidence to back up your claims leaves a lot to be desired." Also, you seem to forget the original reason I posted that "anecdotal evidence". You made the assertion that self defense with a gun was a myth. My anecdotes refuted that statement directly.

@Matt Stevens....Pray tell me what handguns are designed for? Secondly, you don't seem to understand that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. There is no measurable validity or reliability to it. You are the one who made the original statements concerning how much CCW prevented crimes from happening, I didn't.

In my previous two posts, I did not state the banning of guns. In fact, I stated that it would be impossible to do so. My suggestion is that ammunition should be regulated for some types of firearms. In addition, I also stated, that someone carrying a handgun who found themselves in the theater in Aurora probably couldn't have stopped Holmes. There is no way we can always be prepared for a random catastrophic event.

"Pray tell me what handguns are designed for?" Self defense, competition shooting, etc. I've stated this several times.

"Secondly, you don't seem to understand that anecdotal evidence is not evidence. There is no measurable validity or reliability to it. You are the one who made the original statements concerning how much CCW prevented crimes from happening, I didn't." You said self defense with guns is a myth. Actual real life examples or anecdotes of self defense with a gun directly refutes your statement. Are you trying to claim that the people in those news articles don't exist? That their guns don't exist? That their action with their guns don't exist? Which part of those examples are "myths"?

"My suggestion is that ammunition should be regulated for some types of firearms." For someone who claims to be a man of scientific methods and unbiased facts, your suggestions (like this one) lack either in support that they would have the intended effect.

" I also stated, that someone carrying a handgun who found themselves in the theater in Aurora probably couldn't have stopped Holmes. There is no way we can always be prepared for a random catastrophic event." You're correct. None of us had a crystal ball. But, if someone or multiple people was carrying, it would have changed the odds. But instead, the odds were stacked dramatically heavy in favor of the shooter.

Self-defense, exercise their rights to name 2. Neither of those are "paranoia". And, you illustrate my point perfectly with your 2nd sentence. I'm absolutely allowed to have my liberty, to purchase and carry weapons. Where that liberty ends would be to use those weapons in a crime against you. (your nose)

I could also ask you the same question. Why do you not want others to be able to purchase guns and exercise their rights if not paranoia?

@ David, do you have car insurance? Are you paranoid you will get into a accident. Homeowners insurance, medical insurance, are you paranoid something bad is going to happen? Do you have band aids in your home, what about vitamins? Are you immunized? Are YOU paranoid?
Probably not, you are probably prepared, responsible, and cautious. You prepare for the future, you realize things you may not be able to predict may happen, and you minimize the devastating effect it could have on you or your loved ones.
Would you, without thinking, run into a street to save your child from the danger of a oncoming car? If you are a parent, you would.
This is why I, a suburban mom purchased a safe, then a semi auto, I took classes and got a CC permit. I practice shooting often, and I usually carry.
It does not make me paranoid, it makes me prepared, responsible, and cautious. It is a tool to help me protect my children from danger!

@Dave -

Why do you care so much about what other countries think about us or the way we live our lives? Many older governments around the world think that it is preposterous that we allow our people to freely speak out against and petition their own government. We are the butt of many jokes in this regard as well. So why aren't you speaking out against our love affair with free speech?

Conservative in Greendale...Concealed carry doesn't make you paranoid, but your reasons for doing it do. While I agree with you about getting immunized out of a worry about catching something, you have to look at the odds. I'm way more likely to catch the flu or get in an accident than getting in a gunfight. While I certainly would want my kids to be safe, realistically, by the time I got to my gun safe, opened it, and got ready to fire, it would probably be too late. I sure wouldn't want my gun to be in a purse or night stand, unlocked. My kid could kill himself if he found it. In many home invasions, you wake up and find a stranger standing over you with their gun pointed at you...once again, your gun won't do you much good. Owning a gun is a real Hobson's Choice. Paranoia makes you fear and think a gun is the answer. It causes more worries than it solves, whereas insurance or immunizations do not. Don't underestimate your delay due to being surprised by a home invasion. If your child were hurt or killed in a drive-by shooting, there's not much you could do either. Of course you would do what you could do to try to minimize problems before they become problems, that is just common sense, but a gun, to me, is more dangerous and less valuable than it is worth. Hopefully, your quality of life is not dominated by paranoid fear that would ruin it for you and your family.

@ Dave. Those are your opinions. Not fact. Your opinion is that people who buy a gun are paranoid. Your opinion is that conservative in greendale is paranoid. Just like my opinion is that you are in denial.

@Matt Stevens...You don't have a good grasp of the culture and structure of many of the European nations that Koven cited. Denmark normally experiences only one firearm death a year. The exception is when the motorcycle gangs went to war in the late 1990s. The Banditos and Hells Angels were killing each other for criminal control over the Copenhagen drug trade.

Switzerland is unique in as much as their view on firearms. All male citizens must go through mandatory military training and becomes part of the ready reserves. After training they are encouraged to take their issued weapons and military kit and take them home. With one of the nations with the highest GDP per capita, one of the important elements that leads to crime and violence has been eliminated, poverty. If I were you I would find another example rather than Switzerland.

@Lyle. It seems you don't have a good grasp on what affects violent crime rates, and that I was pointing out the fallacy of comparing one country to another.

Matt Stevens... You mention that the violent crime in Great Britain is 5 times that of the USA...That might be true, but the violence takes the form of assault without using a gun. You have a better chance of surviving that kind of attack than being attacked with a gun. I'd still like to know: If we were to follow the lead of Switzerland to have one of the lowest crime rares, what would the USA have to do differently? What are these "variables" you mentioned? As for "evolving as a country", it's hard to evolve when a large segment of our youth (our future) is killing each other with guns.

Ah, so violence is ok or somehow less impactful just because a gun isn't used? Rape with or without the use of a gun is still rape.

I can't even believe I have to say that...

As for the rest of your post, you do realize that for 7 years after the full gun ban, the murder rate went UP in the UK right? Color me crazy, but I don't think any of the people killed said to themselves "hey, at least I'm not dying by gun!"

"What are these "variables" you mentioned? As for "evolving as a country", it's hard to evolve when a large segment of our youth (our future) is killing each other with guns." Variables like culture, economy, politics, etc. There's a lot of variables. Also, you once again imply that a large segment of our youth killing each other is fine so long as they don't use a gun to do it. That the fact they're using a gun to do it is what's holding us back. Yes, once again, that makes total sense.

@ Dave, and Matt Stevens, - Matt thank you for your support. Dave, first my S&W is never out of my complete control, not in my purse (which is just a stupid place to carry – thank you for the stereotype), or a nightstand. My kids are 12 and 14, not old enough to be responsible for a firearm, but first, they have been trained to shoot and they are better then I in a controlled situation, second they have respect for the power a firearm possesses.
As a parent of teenagers with many friends in the house, the guns are locked and loaded in a safe. Your argument that I could not get to my safe quick enough is invalid; we have dogs (large and loud) no one is getting past my property line, much less in the door or window without them alerting me. If you want to talk odd’s – it is much more likely my family, even in Greendale will be a victim of a violent crime then getting Rubella, or many of the other things the government suggests we get immunized for. (I could site the dangers of getting immunized, but that would be mute at this point).
You stated Drive-By shootings, although I guess possible where I live, the flu is much more common. I do have a stash of Kleenex, does that make me paranoid?
As far as my quality of life , life is great without my head buried in the sand. We are no more concerned about our safety, then our vacation plans. As a family we love to plan for both.

@Taoist -

What do you see as constituting the intent behind the 2nd Amendment?

I think the point is to let an American civilian protect himself against Obamacare, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!! WOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!

***Obligatory disclaimer - the above statement is satirical, and is intended only to highlight the insanity of our current gun crazies.

Hoffa was being serious.

"I think the point is to let an American civilian protect himself against Obamacare, by ANY MEANS NECESSARY!!! WOOOOHOOOOOO!!!!!

***Obligatory disclaimer - the above statement is satirical, and is intended only to highlight the insanity of our current gun crazies."

When all else fails, reductio ad absurdum.

I think the point of the 2nd Amendment is simple.

The Founders had a vision of a future in which their quaint matchlock muskets would be replaced by far more elegant and refined tools of mass human annihilation, more befitting those august luminaries. And while most men of 18th century would have been appalled at the notion of so much killing power in the hands of a single person, the Founders, in their infinite wisdom, realized that it would be awesome to be able to gun down 100 people without reloading, but were afraid that the "lefties" would think that such capabilities were excessive and pointless, so they wrote into the Constitution. Duh...

***Obligatory disclaimer - the above statements are satirical, and are intended only to highlight the insanity of the revisionist history that underlies the gun lobby's reading of the 2nd Amendment.

@ Hoffa:

Nobody who refers to himself in the 3rd person is being serious.

It's obvious that Taoist has no cognizable, relevant, or coherent point to make on this subject. Instead, he prefers to demean and insult those who do not think as he does.

What a big man!

It doesn't matter if they were carrying legally or illegally. The status of carrying legally or illegally did not affect their perpetration of a crime.

@Stormy Weather....Whether or not we have CCW it will not eliminate the number of guns the bad guys have. But there is one thing to consider; many of the people who have gotten their CCW didn't own a handgun before. Now we have more guns and more opportunity for the criminals in society to get their hands on them since the vast majority come from burglaries. I thought for sure that with CCW now in place in Wisconsin that their would be a drop off in violent crime. I'm still waiting.

@Lyle -

Has the violent crime rate went up since CCW was implemented?

Ah I misunderstood.

"many of the people who have gotten their CCW didn't own a handgun before."

"criminals in society to get their hands on them since the vast majority come from burglaries."

Citations for this please. Or is this just more of you presenting opinions as facts.

" I thought for sure that with CCW now in place in Wisconsin that their would be a drop off in violent crime. I'm still waiting." CCW doesn't necessarily provide for a drop in violent crime. As we have discussed, the violent crime rate is affected by many variables, and it is difficult to point to the implementation of CCW as being the single cause for any change in that rate.

@Jason J...It seems to me that if we are serious about preventing crime that we would commit ourselves to eliminating the conditions that lead to crime. Desperate times lead to desperate behavior.

I really don't see the need to carry a weapon if you are not going to be in an area with a high potential for confrontation and violence. What sense does it make for a "North Shore Nancy" to be packing heat when her life consists of schlepping around her kids to soccer, music lessons, play dates and shopping trips to the mall. On the other hand, if you are constantly in and out of unsafe areas, especially at night, then I can see a need. I think many purchase weapons, especially handguns, because they can and have no real need for self defense or are not sport shooters.

Committed handgun advocates like Matt Stevens doesn't make cogent arguments for the need why everyone needs to be CCW armed. What do we really know about Matt? Why is he such a strong handgun advocate? Did something happen in his past that led to the position or is just his obsession? What risks does he face and where did he get his firearms training? I am much more comfortable with people who received their firearms training in the military than those that are range trained and are firearm experts wannabes.

@Matt Stevens...LMAO. I can't believe that you are quoting and steering people to Dr. Sarah Thompson MD. I didn't even know she was still around. Talk about an extreme libertarian. You directed me to a piece that I am well familiar with the substance of her information having been a psychotherapist. She is doing a psychological profile that is dubious at best and requires a great many speculations.

I don't know where you come up with the idea that I am anti-gun ownership. I am all for responsible gun ownership.

BTW, opinions do count and in the public forum it is the power of the arguments supporting the opinion that feeds gist for the mill of public debate. If I were going to write a referenced and documented piece it would be about subjects other than this and for a specific professional audience of my peers.

I thoroughly enjoy these exchanges because it gives me the opportunity to learn.

My issue is not with you expressing an opinion. It's the fact that you express them as fact, yet it's nothing more than an opinion which is based upon no evidence or fact or data whatsoever.

@Taoist -

I'm so glad you mentioned this, as I just had a guerrilla force of Colombian nationals from Medellín knock on my door last night. Usually, Hoffa just gets your typical Libyan, Cuban, and Iranian nationals, so you know it's getting bad out there when the Colombians start showing up!

Not to frighten anyone, but rumor has it that a heavily armed band of nationals from Uruguay is making its way through the area. Last I heard, they joined forces with the Gangster Disciples, so keep your doors locked and your uzis loaded and easily available!

@Jason J...The discussion on the "War on ...." is best served for another time. I remember the shooting at the Sheridan well and if I remember correctly it was a fellow congregant that went off the rails. I still believe in potential based behavior and risk. You seem to place a higher risk than I do on most normal activities. In my 60 plus years I have generally been able to ascertain normal risk and have not experienced a threat like you are prepared for. The times that I was at greatest risk was during combat flying during the Vietnam War. The closest I have come in civilian life was getting caught in the middle of a gun fight in Oakland, CA between two men who were fighting about something outside of a bar. It gave a whole new meaning to the term "duck and cover".

" In my 60 plus years I have generally been able to ascertain normal risk and have not experienced a threat like you are prepared for." Good for you, now stop trying to force your opinion on others by suggesting forms of gun control. Which is all this entire discussion really comes down to.

I think the Founders realized that the slow and cumbersome firearms of their day would evolve into the sweet, sexy mass-murdering instruments that we have today, just like they realized that the horse and buggy would give way to the self-driving electric car, and that the internet would one day deliver free, on-demand pornography, via outer space, to hand-held and voice-operated devices that would be simple enough for a toddler to use.

The founders predicted everything about today's technology, and wrote a 2nd amendment that accounted perfectly for all of their foreknowledge, by not including any restrictions. So, obviously they wanted their descendants to have, hold, cherish and love the most powerful and destructive arms available. I don't think there's any other way of interpreting the 2nd amendment, without being a Socialist Big Government Lefty.

***Obligatory disclaimer - the above statements are satirical, and really just flat-out stupid. It's completely ludicrous to think that George Washington would run interference for James Holmes, the way that so many on the right seem willing to do.

The 2nd amendment refers to firearms. It does not refer to ballistics, etc like grenades, grenade launchers, nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, etc.

"The founders predicted everything about today's technology, and wrote a 2nd amendment that accounted perfectly for all of their foreknowledge, by not including any restrictions. So, obviously they wanted their descendants to have, hold, cherish and love the most powerful and destructive arms available. I don't think there's any other way of interpreting the 2nd amendment, without being a Socialist Big Government Lefty."

If you understand the intent of the 2nd amendment, and how arms was defined, then this nonsensical rant is moot.

Matt,

I'm afraid that the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms." Perhaps you should read it before expounding on it.

To address the larger point, though - the Founders couldn't have been expected to predict the development of the self-contained cartridge, much less devices that could spray them with abandon. If you think the Founders had an AR-15 with a 100-round drum in mind when they were penning the 2nd Amendment, then you're attributing as much prescience to them as I did in my "nonsensical rant" above.

Furthermore, what makes you think that "arms" includes firearms, but not explosives? Please cite carefully.

Taoist, apparently you still don't understand how arms was defined, nor what the purpose of the 2nd amendment was. I told you what it meant, but you choose to ignore it. But since you want me to spell it out for you... Arms is defined as firearms you can carry or other close quarters weapons such as knives, etc. It does not include things like ordinance, explosives, ballistics, etc. And again, one of the primary reasons of the 2nd amendment was so that the people had the ability to fight against a tyrannical government should that need ever arise. They didn't need to predict things like the AR15 or the M16, because if the government had such firearms then so should the people. When they created the 2nd amendment they didn't say that the people couldn't have the best musket available. They gave the people the ability to have whatever the government had. And when a newer better musket came out a couple years later, they didn't "ban" the people from having this new improved firearm.

You dumb ass liberals don't realize that the 100 round magazine is prone to jamming, if this kook would have had 20 30 round magazines there would be more dead in the aisles of that movie theater. CC is the only way to stop kooks like this, man up you wimpy liberals, stop hiding behind your wifes sizeable rear end.

"concealed carry2012" -

No one's interested in what you and your tiny genitals have to say

Taoist, get back in the kitchen and make me a sammich, wimp.

So, Matt, what about nuclear arms? Is the entire world using this term improperly? Maybe they should have checked with you first.

Suggesting that the word "arms" has some particular definition (which you did not cite, predictably) that is the basis for including AR-15s but not explosives under the umbrella of the 2nd Amendment is, quite possibly, the weakest argument you can make.

And if you think that the founders meant for us to be able to fight against a tyrannical government by enemy means necessary; well, then they would want us all to have SAMs that we could use to bring down the government's planes and helicopters. Do you think that shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles should be available to the general public? Again, this is no straw man argument - I'm trying to understand what limits you think the founders intended to be placed up[on the 2nd amendment.

Perhaps we should be allowed to have SAMs and the like...

Its okay Taoist, we CC permit holders and gun owners will protect you while you cower behind your wifes sizeable rear end.

Sure, CowDung. I'm sure that Matt Stevens will agree with you, although he might want to quibble about what "arms" are.

Yes, "conceal carry2012," I cannot tell a lie - I like big, juicy butts. But, I can see how someone who's as poorly endowed as yourself gets pissy and jealous when your tiny goods are thrown into sharp relief by something large and generous.

Taoist,

It's not my problem that you don't understand that words have definitions to them. You asking for me to provide a cite for the "definition of arms" is like asking me to provide a cite as to my definition of the word "is". (ala Bill Clinton) And arms had a very clear definition in 1791. In addition, remember that the purpose of the constitution was to limit government by providing a set of enumerated powers. It is not uncommon for liberals to seem to be upset at this fact, since they feel that if it isn't explicitly defined word for word with every specific example one can think of, that it is somehow fit to be manipulated to fit their agenda, and that anything not explicitly defined is allowed.

In Colonial times "arms" as defined in the dictionary meant firearms and blades that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordnance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon and ballistics. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, should then at a minimum be considered constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not, since none of those are firearms or a blade-type weapon.

Matt Stevens,

Again, you're ducking the question. You're insisting that there was a specific definition of arms, according to dictionaries at the time, but you're too lazy to back that assertion up with anything. It's also hard for me to square your avowed etymological expertise with your consistently incorrect use of the word "ballistics."

Did the founding fathers interpret the 2nd Amendment as prohibiting the possession and use of explosives and cannon by militias? If not, then your argument falls apart completely, and I see no reason to think that they did. After all, the explosives of the time were no more sophisticated than the flintlock firearms that the founders were familiar with, and they could no more have envisioned a SAM than they could a SMG.

You're insisting that "any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, should then at a minimum be considered constitutionally protected." Okay, that includes fully automatic weapons, does it not? So you think that every American should be able to own and stockpile SMGs, machine guns, and automatic rifles? Do you think that such indiscriminate battlefield weapons have any legitimate home defense purpose? Do you really think that the founding fathers would have wanted a SAW in every gun nut's hands? Please.

I'm not ducking anything. Words have definitions. If you want to know what 'arms' entails, look at the definition of the word at the time the constitution was written. It's like beating a dead horse.

"Okay, that includes fully automatic weapons, does it not? So you think that every American should be able to own and stockpile SMGs, machine guns, and automatic rifles?"

Yep.

Matt,

And why not explosives? A hand grenade certainly represents less firepower than a squad assault weapon. If we're giving loons like Johnny Blade machine guns, then why not some rockets and grenades?

"Look at the definition of the word at the time the constitution was written."

What? I'm sure you meant to refer me to some historical dictionary that you consulted. Please provide the citation, so that I may become enlightened like you. Will it be the same dictionary that explains about how "ballistics," as a category of weapons, doesn't include firearms?

"...then bigger and more destructive weapons must make us the safest of all."

Well, you finally swerved into the truth, Tao. That would be the point of USA owning more nukes than anyone else. So we don't have to use them. That same logic could and should apply to any American who feels the need to be armed. It is our right.

Awesome, GearHead - so you agree with the complete idiocy that I posted above. Not surprising.

There are some idiots who lived in my old neighborhood - this woman was so stupid that she left her kids unattended in a running car, and one of them put it into reverse. It backed down the driveway, and crashed into the house across the street.

You are suggesting that the idiots who live among us should be able to get their clammy, stupid hands on rocket launchers. What, exactly, does that make you?

Another liberal idiot who wants big government to protect him cradle to grave. Weak, pathetic, and an all out coward.

@Tao, clearly you have never given a moments thought to what would happen if we have civil unrest for a couple days. I can see that happening when Obama loses the next election. Are you ready for the "occupy" crowd when they start dismantling the infrastructrure? Electric, water, city hall? I have. And I don't give a crap when they start knocking over the easy targets like yourself. Can you handle 72 hours of darkness? I wonder.

Who's the bigger coward - someone who who cowers in his basement, surrounded by guns? Or someone who is enough of a man to go about his business without needing a security blanket / surrogate manhood?

Don't worry - I already know that you don't have the answer. George Zimmerman is your model of a strong, courageous man.

Wow, GearHead - you tough talkers really are nothing but a bunch of scared little boys. Afraid that the hippies are going to come and plunder your arsenal? Get a life, and climb up to the bunker. Own up to the fact that you're secretly hoping that society falls down around your head, so you can pull your guns out and show us all how tough you are.

Seriously, you guys are pathetic. Grow up; high school is over, and all of the normal kids who picked on you for being awkward and creepy have no interest in trying to take your sad little stash of guns.

@Tao. I'm not worried about the stash. The looters will visit your personal gun-free zone long before they are tempted to try me ;-)

Sounds good Dave; you're a great American. Keep exercising those rights!

Strawman. It's what people do when they can't win an argument.

I expect that you'd see a lot of opposition from the Catholic Church on that one... then again, maybe it would be a net positive; at least some of the pedophile priests would be brought to justice.

Mr Stevens is advocating a form of self defense for his family. This country was built upon rugged individuals taking care of themselves and not looking for hand outs, something that is a foreign concept to you and your kind,

I dunno Lyle, with the rise of the 99% movement, class warfare, plutocratic oligarchy, 'Randian extremists' etc. it doesn't seem all that far fetched to think that we might see an armed revolt in the not to distant future.

@CowDung...I didn't know you were a "preper". BTW how many firearms do you own for your personal protection living in the violence of Shorewood?

I don't own any firearms. Never have and probably never will.

I will admit to owning a bow and several arrows though. I used to be big into archery during my younger days...

Ever notice how Lyle tries to publicly analyze those he disagrees with, and then try to talk down to them with his analysis since he is unable to actually refute their posts? He loves strawman arguments and ad hominem. I think I'll just flag these posts from now on.

I take comfort in the fact that, thanks to the efforts of President George W Bush, wild-eyed gun crazies and preppers like Johnny Blade, GearHead, and conceal carry2012 are probably on a government watch list somewhere.

Thank you for being so forthcoming about the fact that you are dangerous to yourselves and others, boys.

You need to simmer down Taoist Pantywaist. All we want is a 'thank you' for being man enough to protect you and your over fed wife and family. Government watch list? think again pantywaist, only hand guns require a waiting period and back ground check, buy as many AR 15's as you want.. You are welcome btw.

Alfred, you miss my point. You're on a watch list because of your online activities, thanks to the Patriot Act.

And please, don't ever try to protect my family. I'll thank you if you stay indoors, and stroke your AR-15s alone in your basement.

Wow, you are really out of your mind. Seriously, all joking aside - get some mental help. You have some notions regarding 9/11, the President's place of birth, and now the Colorado shootings, that have broken free of reality, and you obviously fail to recognize this.

@Matt Stevens...What factual data? I don't remember ever calling for gun control beyond controlling ammunition. It is speculation on my part and I never claimed otherwise. You seemed to be threatened by my speculation and have taken it upon yourself to defend against such speculation. It is much like Don Quixote and his jousting at windmills. Your obsession with straw man arguments and ad hominem indicates you know the concepts, but little else.

I find your arguments quite entertaining since you take all of this so seriously when whatever you and I do or say isn't worth a bucket of spit in how these things workout. Your youth is showing itself and it is pleasantly refreshing to see someone pursue their passions over pragmatism.

Typical Rube response...nothing between those ears, Lyle, give up and more to another website, you are an intellectual midget.

Controlling ammunition is still a form of gun control. But fine call it whatever you want. My point still stands. You talked about how you are a man of science and factual non-partisan data, yet your opinion is not based on any of that. Which was my other point.

@Matt Stevens...I made no such claims. By education and training I am a philosopher of social sciences. I have no interest in the physical sciences. My interests lay in understanding human existence. I have done many things in life and have gained a wealth of knowledge about human beings, but I excel in posing the Socratic questions of life. My inquiries and opinions are directed at why do we do the things we do. In this case, it is why do we feel compelled for some to arm themselves to the teeth, without an overwhelming presence of risk.

"In this case, it is why do we feel compelled for some to arm themselves to the teeth, without an overwhelming presence of risk."

Ah in that case, the problem is your preconceived notion of how you define "armed to the teeth" and that if people buy enough guns or ammunition to fit your already biased definition of "armed to the teeth" then you have already come to a conclusion that such an act must be somehow related to risk factor.

@Matt Stevens....The logic of your response escapes me. Perception of risk is subjective and arming oneself in proportion to the perception of risk is logical. However, unless the perception is part of a consensus of reality, then it is nothing more than a self belief and possibly delusional.

The logic of your response escapes me. I disagree with your assessment. So I guess that's the end of that discussion.

"The logic of your response escapes me. Perception of risk is subjective and arming oneself in proportion to the perception of risk is logical. However, unless the perception is part of a consensus of reality, then it is nothing more than a self belief and possibly delusional."

Mr Ruble is acutely aware of the extremely obvious. Talk about a bloviating gas bag of pseudo intellectualism, Mr Ruble, no one is fooled by you.

Reduce global population? You first sir.

For some here, anarchy does seem to be the next appropriate evolution of democracy, although government pastor/agents will be needed to enforce appropriate bedroom behavior and pill-between-the-knees monitoring.

Bren you do realize we are not a democracy, right?

@conceal carry2012...Let providence decide who shall live and who shall die.

Lyle - The "undesirables" (those who live contrary to wise advice) always will destroy themselves, if they don't learn from their mistakes. They are their own agents of natural selection. The problem arises when government steps in to support them, and thereby enables their perpetuation.

@Luke...Who decides who are the undesirables? If we are going to play the game of natural selection, then the survivors by surviving will be determined who are the desirable.

@Lyle -- That's the point! They are self-selecting. They have values and behaviors that threaten their very existence. Financial support prevents them from hitting bottom, and perhaps learning from their mistakes. Therefore, their bad social behavior is perpetuated multiple generations, and the narrative they pass on to their own next generation is one that is maladaptive, at best.

@Luke...Those who we consider as being society's undesirable are faced with doing whatever is necessary to survive. Just as anyone committed to survival, they will do what is necessary. If we carefully consider those living in poverty and they engage in the underground economy and take from the greater society to survive, how can they be faulted. If you or I were placed in similar circumstances and we wished to survive, then we would probably engage in similar behavior. For those of us who were lucky enough to be born under different circumstances we are in no place to judge as to their desirability.

If you look at the history of those we consider undesirable you will find people who came here to escape from a bleak existence. If you want to see who will rise though merit, then eliminate all advantages of birth and allow the most fit to survive.

Lyle -- Ummm, I WAS born under those circumstances, as was also the case with all my relatives, most of whom are immigrants,. However, rather than embracing poverty as a cast of fate, we all realized that our choices would affect our future.

What I am talking about, Lyle, is a category of people who do not take the easily understandable steps to improve their lives. They make really bad choices, even though society encourages them to make other choices.

Since government support is blind, it not only supports those who intend to do their best, but also those who intend to gratify their immediate desires as a lifestyle. Therefore, those who are "undesirable" do not face the full consequences of their behavior and learn from it. They continue on in their state, multiply, and pass on their maladaptive social values and behaviors to the next generation.

"They are self-selecting. They have values and behaviors that threaten their very existence. Financial support prevents them from hitting bottom, and perhaps learning from their mistakes. Therefore, their bad social behavior is perpetuated multiple generations, and the narrative they pass on to their own next generation is one that is maladaptive, at best."

I don't think I have ever met anyone so self-centered and self-serving before. Just wow. Do you hear yourself talk? Is this how you try to have constructive conversation? By talking down your nose at people? Just wow, lol.

@Matt

On the contrary, I am merely making an observation.

I come from a family that has worked to help the poor since 1979, and I continue to do so myself.

As for the topic, do you not believe that there are people with maladaptive behaviors? If do believe that there are people with maladaptive behavior, what's your objection to me pointing it out?

@Luke....You were born under what conditions? Does that include being a person of color with your family history rooted in the Mississippi Delta? Possibly your circumstances include Latino origins which don't include a legal right to be here? How about your family escaped the civil wars in a number of places occurring around the globe. There are many circumstances, but if you see yourself as better than others just because of the circumstances of your birth, that may not be enough. You talk about delay of gratification and for what, if delaying gratification has absolutely no benefit.

@Lyle

Yes, I do have a lot of relatives of color (from Laos, Nigeria, Jamaica). White people in my family are the minority, although none are still poor. As for myself, I grew up in Kirksville, Missouri at the edge of a squatters' park named Pickler Park, in which houses were made of tin and cardboard. The state came and burned down the entire neighborhood in 1975.

That said, I'm still, apparently, unable to get you to focus in the point of my very first post. Regardless of present circumstances of the poor, there are a number of them that will do nothing adaptive to help themselves, other than feed their immediate gratification. They are not socialized to do anything other than that, and the government perpetuates that condition.

Once again, Lyle (try to focus), I am not talking about all the poor.

Lye --

"You talk about delay of gratification and for what, if delaying gratification has absolutely no benefit."

How does the delay of gratification not help someone who has escaped a civil war, or who had grown up in a poor neighborhood? I don't know anyone who has been unable to advance if they wanted to, and also took action to do so.

@Luke...What a fascinating family and background you have. I also have a Missouri connection. I graduated from high school in Central Missouri and started university at the Rolla School of Mines.

I agree with you that no one who finds themselves being upward mobile has done so without hard effort and many delays of gratification. Sometimes it may take several generations to do so. However, I caution that we should be careful how we judge others and not to dehumanize them as being of a different species, which many people do on these boards.

I think that what is needed is that we, as a society, work with those who have found themselves in such dire straights. That begins with empathy and compassion for our fellow human beings. It all begins with Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and assuring that people are guaranteed their survival needs. In my estimation, if we don't, we are no better than those who commit acts of genocide.

It has been my experience that if given half a chance most will take advantage of moving up. We are in a place where our education system isn't preparing people for work, we still have problems with people not having adequate affordable shelter and nutritional foods, healthcare is still an issue and most importantly there aren't the jobs available for these people. With the employment situation as it is, you have many from the former middle class taking the jobs normally open to those at the bottom.

Lyle--

Yes, we appear to have a lot in common, including backgrounds in psychology, although mine is in experimental (learning, memory and cognition).

I agree that we are obligated to treat people with dignity and respect; however, what I consider respecting a person is different than what you think is respecting a person. In some cases, as with drug addiction, the person involved will only change if they hit rock bottom. In such cases, there is nothing you or I can say to such people that will change their lives. I am not respecting such a person when I enable their plight.

Unlike you, I do not believe that I am doing any service to someone by meeting their basic needs when they need to be forced to take steps to do so themselves, because they WILL NOT do it for themselves. Like a lazy adult son who is satisfied living in your basement after listening to your best advice, the best thing you can for him is to kick him out and force him to carry some of his own weight (even if you do some assistance). Allowing him to continue to waste his life in your basement is not the humane thing to do, even though some might get some distorted satisfaction from perpetuating the situation.

Once again, I am not talking about all the poor. I agree that most would like to find a way out of their situation. I also agree that we need to improve education and expand the job base. The difference is that I believe that, for a certain number of people, the system cheats them by catering to their biggest weakness, and thereby dehumanizes them.

Lyle -

One more thing. My example of a person addicted to drugs, above, was not meant to be a discussion about the poor on drugs. Rather, it was meant show how some of the poor are addicted to government support, and to enable them is to stop their personal growth, just as if we were doing things that supported a drug addict.

@Luke...It is true what you say about those who are addicted to alcohol and/or drugs. They do have to hit rock bottom before they become motivated enough to finally tackle their dysfunctional condition, and for some they will never come to grips with their malady.

I also agree that the young man living in the parent's basement engrossed in the cyber reality is only being enabled by his parents to continue such. In that type of familial structure, the family is clearly dysfunctional. As long as his parents continue their support, he will not have to change. We could go through each scenario and point out how it is detrimental for reaching self sufficiency, which I think is tangential to our main discussion of creating a better society.

Lyle-

But my point had nothing to do with the man living in his parent's basement, nor the drug addict, per se. Those were simply analogies involving people who are happy with dysfunctional lives, but not living the fulfilling lives they could have if they were given tough love.

There are a large number of the poor who are simply more happy to live the way that they are, if the only alternative is to take a long series of steps to achieve a better life. They will do nothing for themselves, unless forced. In such cases, the system has dehumanized them, because given no other alternative, they would find a way to make ends meet, and would therefore live a better, more humane life.

@Luke....You know as well as I do that as a species we are able to adapt to almost any kind of environment. Our system is designed in such a way that it has created a permanent underclass. We have to come to grips with the fact that it is cheaper to society to permanently maintain this underclass than to deal with the social unrest that would occur to not support them. It's not right but it is the case. With the underclass they can be conveniently scapegoated as needed. Sorry for my cynicism, but a simple observation will confirm my position.

"Death is a primitive concept. I prefer to think of them as battling evil in another dimension!"

Yeah, the death penalty in Colorado was a great deterrent for Holmes.

Would the Colorado death penalty be applied because he used a gun in the crime? I don't think so. I think it would be for the MURDERS.

I agree, it's gotten pretty thick in here...

Dave, Body armor is not like a superhero type of thing. It only protects certain parts of the body, usually the vital organs. It does not stop all hits, police officers die while wearing it, soldiers die while wearing it. And most important, the impact from a bullet will hurt like hell if the armor does stop it.
...

In addition to what Greg said... He'd be dealing with a lot more than the "noise" from a handgun. Ever seen someone wearing bulletproof gear get hit by a 9mm or handgun? It is very painful. It does not make you a tank. It would temporarily incapacitate someone to be hit by that. It's meant to save your life, but you are often injured in some manner, and often doubled over in pain. It would have made him vulnerable long enough for people to take action against him.

Do you have idea what it is like to take a shot wearing a kevlar vest? Do you think the bullet bounces off like in your daily cartoons you watch? Are you 12 years old Mr. Koven? Have you ever shot anything above a .22 caliber gun?

Hint: Aim for the portion of the body NOT protected by the vest.

Luke:

Aim for the center of his chest or the largest part of him that you can. Trying to take aim with a handgun for a headshot or other part outside the vest will more often than not result in a complete miss.

As was pointed out before, a direct hit to the vest will likely be enough to cause pain. Repeated hits to the vest can incapacitate the target--at least temporarily.

Cow:
I get your point. But since I will never own a gun, I would rather sit by somebody who does. They can make that decision.

Ditto for my 9MM. A shot to the chest would have taken him down, enabling escapes or someone shooting him in the face.

Cynthia - I would reword your comment slightly in light of yesterday's gun + nut = tragedy.
"Wow. The scariest bunch of mouthy neocons I've seen in one place for a while."

The purpose of one owning a gun has many reasons. Self-defense is a part of security, in that it is an equalizer. Criminals are going to have guns. This is simple fact. Even if they're banned completely in the US, the criminals will still have them. This notion that criminals are suddenly going to start obeying laws because you ban guns is laughable at best.

"I think that a large part of you fantasize about becoming guerillas in a pitched battle with a despotic government. Movies you have grown up with are rife with this plot. It aligns with the vigilante fantasy... another very popular movie theme. I bet that most of you tough guys have not been near a real war. My guess. I don't hear vets talking with your blood lust and bravado. They have seen what happens in conflict. You sound like fifteen year old boys."

I don't know anyone who wishes for that type of thing. You're trying to draw the connection that people who wish to carry or own weapons are also fantasizing about using it like some action hero in a movie. It's a nonsensical correlation. It might be what the anti-gun crowd likes to paint us as being, but there is no basis in reality.