Is this type of event statiscally recorded anywhere? I don't believe so.

I know that the NRA tracks and publishes this information, and I THINK it comes from the Department of Justice, but I will have to check on that.

During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000
violent crime victims (approximately 1 percent of all violent
crime victims) used a firearm in an effort to defend
themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000
victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft
attempted to defend their property with guns.

In most cases victims defending themselves with firearms
were confronted by unarmed offenders or those armed with
weapons other than firearms.  During the six-year period,
about one in three armed victims faced an armed offender.

I had just returned from the range where I was practicing with several handguns and also my shotgun. A little teenage punk actually tried to mug me on my front lawn with a knife......He had a quick change of heart when I had my pick of a 9mm, .357 or the 12 gauge. He soon came to his senses and ran off.

Oooooh I'm glad this is here! 

What statistics that are not shown, and probably never will, is the crime that is thwarted with a privately owned and licensed firearm.

I live in Texas. I had just received my CHL (Concealed Handgun License). Seriously? The reason I got the CHL was so that I could legally stop by the gun shop, restaurant, etc. on the way to the range and/or the hunting lease (Law says with no CHL, straight to the event, straight home. NO STOPS)

I had just returned from the range where I was practicing with several handguns and also my shotgun. A little teenage punk actually tried to mug me on my front lawn with a knife......He had a quick change of heart when I had my pick of a 9mm, .357 or the 12 gauge. He soon came to his senses and ran off. Is this type of event statiscally recorded anywhere? I don't believe so.

IMHO. One of the reason people in Texas are a little safer is that criminals don't know which one of us is armed. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Texas have one of the highest crime rates among the 50 states?

If you are an armed robber and you know that buying guns is easy to do and then you might be a lttle tenative if you know your next victim might be packin' heat.

CP 

Oh, and there is that whole right to bear arms thing in the Constitution, shouldn't that be enough?

But the Justice Dept. now says it's an individual right, and some recent court rulings have said so too.

I believe you are misinterpreting the Miller case

Wow...maybe I am. And so has every court outside of Emerson. And Robert Bork was wrong. Oh yeah, and Chief Justice Warren Burger misinterpreted it as well.

Excuse me, but that statement is ludicrous. The Miller case was based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that such a firearm "at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" (which the Court recognized to be "all males capable of acting in concert for the common defense").

It clearly ruled the second amendment a collective right. You can spin the "organized" vs. "unorganized" militia all day but the militia was clearly defined as a common defense (and able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45).

No gun control law has EVER been struck down. This is because the Constitution trumps all and the Constitution does not give individual rights to own a firearm regardless of whatever was in the Federalists papers that never made the final cut (after all, there were anti-Federalists that included John Adams).

A predominately conservative Supreme Court had the opportunity to conclusively rule on this issue in the Emerson case. They didn't, because they didn't need to. It's been conclusively ruled 30 times since 1929. They didn't need to beat the same dead horse.

It clearly ruled the second amendment a collective right.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

Straight from the ruling...

Thomas Jefferson stated in one of the Federalist papers that "..no man shall be disbarred from owning a firearm..." or something to that effect.

Something interesting happened yesterday.....99.98% of armed American citizens harmed no one with their firearms

But, let's look at knives. In my house, there are 3 of us and we have roughly 20 knives total in the kitchen (steak knives, butter knives, etc). Now, go to http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/weapons.htm and look at the difference in homicides by guns and knives. About 10 times the amount of knives (at least) are available to the same population with half to a third of the crime.

amendment 2 explicitly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" the "people" could mean one person, or all of them

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.