Man Uses Gun To Save Boy From Pit Bulls, May Face Gun Charges. Do Guns save lives ?

yes guns save lives

Absolutely; they are the great equalizer that allows women, the infirm, the elderly, and the outnumbered to defend themselves.

When you need help in seconds, the police are mere minutes away.

A gun, when in the hands of a good citizen, can definenately save lives.

only when taken from mentally ill liberals. keep your family safe gun bans on liberals they kill children families congresswomen s audiences, teenager minding their business in school. and I could go on.

Actually, thinking about it, I should have voted "Other." Guns no more save lives than guns kill. It's the people behind them that decide what will be done with them, save lives or kill. In this case, I believe this was a justified use of lethal force. I would much rather see a living boy, and 3 dead dogs than the other way around.
If the man's gun was not registered, he should have his gun confiscated, but the gun charge should be waived in thanks for his saving the boy.

The man saved the child's life. If the gun is not registered then he should have to pay the fine that is associated with that crime but to say that he did the wrong thing is absolutely ludicrous.

They sure do, every day of th year, they save a life.

Hope the guy wasn't foolish enough to use an unregistered gun, but even if he did he should receive a commendation for coming to the boys rescue.

This is a ridiculous story. This man should be given a hometown hero award not brought up on charges. The world has gone mad.

yes saved that kid! then again 3 pit bulls lost their lives, guess depends on point of view.guy lucky cop didnt panic and shoot him too.

I guess he should have called 911 so they could tell him it was OK to shoot first and ask questions later.

some one needs to start potition to stop this rediculous case

Further proof that Washington is full of idiots with absolutly no common sense.

This is a good example !!!!!

This is a good example of how guns save lives.

Of course guns save lives.

A guy was illegally carrying his licensed concealed handgun after ignoring the "gun-free zone" signs in front of a mall.

A week before Sandy Hook, that guy drew his gun, and caused a shooter - in a mall - to shoot himself.

Literally, two killed, one injured. WITH AN AR-15!

OF COURSE guns save lives! That's what they were designed for!

it doesn't get any crazier than this.

Of course they can be used to save lives.

But they are used to kill much more than they are used to save lives.

The boy - and man - are lucky he was a good shot.

FALSE!

Guns prevent MILLIONS of crimes every year! Guns kill less than 20,000 - and that's if you include suicide, which is more than half of all people killed by guns!

To be precise, guns in the hands of civilians do much more damage than good.

Over 2,000,000 crimes stopped every year, and less than 10,000 people murdered every year, including gang and drug violence?

You are factually wrong.

Oh, and before you say that there's more than 11,000 murders each year - that's "homicides". Justifiable homicide is included in that statistic. That includes police shooting criminals, and people shooting home invaders.

You are so wrong that it's not funny. Are you lying, or are you really this uninformed?

Please review your statistics and limit the guns to civilians holding guns.

The 11,000 do not include police actions.

Neither do the 35 or so in the U.K.

In the UK - if three men rape and murder a woman, but there are no witnesses, so they get off on the charges and are never convicted - this counts as ZERO murders. In the US? This counts as THREE! Even though ONE person was killed!

11,000 DO include police actions. Actual murders were under 9,000 - somewhere in the 8500-8900 range.

So - back at you. Please review your statistics.

Also, please respect the bill of rights of the United States of America, which overrides your opinion.

No, the 11,000 does not include police killings.

http://www.juancole.com/2011/...

The Bill of Rights of the U.S. do not over-ride my opinion. Nor yours. They are a set of laws, most of which are good, one of which is bad.

Your link is from 2009, saying 9146.

I'm thinking of the 2011 statistic - where crime has dropped even more, and gun ownership has skyrocketed.

Although crime in general has gone down, firearm deaths are stil way, way, more than they should be.

Thousands upon thousands in the U.S. compared with a couple dozen in the U.K. Way out of proportion to the relative populations.

If the government made it mandatory to get free training - firearm deaths would drop.

If the government bans the ownership of firearms - and more than 400,000,000 firearms exist - then even ones that are registered (less than half) will disappear, and firearm deaths will skyrocket.

One sec.

Are you saying that when one buys a gun in the U.S., training is *not* mandatory!?

Nope. People are trusted to be responsible enough to seek training.

Any idiot can handle a gun safely. Most gun ranges will provide some training on gun safety for free.

If you buy a gun, and you take it to a shooting range to figure out how it works, then the chances are, you will very quickly understand that you don't know what you're doing - and seek help.

Ohmygawd.

That's like letting someone drive without a license. Worse, actually.

And no, not any idiot can handle a gun safely. One must be trained to handle a gun properly, clean it safely, and most importantly, respect it properly.

A gun is not just like buying a baseball mitt, or a bicycle, where you can just go out and learn how to work with it yourself.

If what you say is true, it is very irresponsible on the part of the government.

Gun classes are cheap, and as most everyone has a gun, and most gun owners are great people, there's always someone who will teach you to shoot for free.

Any idiot can get on youtube. All of this stuff is already available online.

It is not irresponsible on behalf of the government to take the freedom of everyone away. It is irresponsible on behalf of any person who does not get educated before buying a gun, or before using a gun, that goes out and kills someone.

Our laws hold you responsible for being an idiot. Because it is YOUR fault if you are an idiot, not the government's fault.

I am sick of people with the mentality of "The government shouldn't be that irresponsible and LET people do everything!"

People are held responsible for their actions! The government doesn't drive drunk, or kill kids in schools!

It is irresponsible for government to allow people to have a very dangerous item without requiring them to be properly trained. They do it with cars, they do it with airplanes, they do it with practicing law, and practicing medicine. Heck, they even do it with real estate agents.

If the government does not require proper training in order to own a gun, then the government is the idiot, and people will get killed.

This is kind of unbelievable, actually, and I'm having a hard time believing that any government in the U.S. is actually this foolish.

Where I live, most people know how to handle a gun, and to own one, it is required to go for refresher training from time to time, including training in the specific weapon. Handling an M16 is *not* the same as handing an Uzi, a Galil or a Tavor, and they are all certainly different from handing a pistol.

Really? So then, the government is also going to regulate your free speech, and if you speak in a political arena without receiving proper training, and without paying the proper taxes and paying for the proper classes, then you have no freedom of speech, either.

See the problem there?

The only constitutional way to mandate training is for the government to pay for it.

California unconstitutionally charges $25 for a "handgun safety certificate". I am a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, but I had to pay $25 on top of the $25 fee to buy my handgun, to take a test, that proves I can safely handle a firearm, just to buy a handgun. Oh, guess what? This test? it's only good for 5 years.

You think, after being a veteran of 3 wars now, that I would just forget how to handle a gun in 5 years?

The fact is, mandating that people be responsible? That already exists. If you make a mistake with a firearm, it's probably already illegal. You are EXPECTED to know better!

Babying people is retarded, and so are you, if you think that the government needs to baby everyone in their everyday lives.

They already do. No one can yell "fire" in a theatre for example.

Califiornia did it right, even with you. And I'm glad the test is only good for 5 years. I'm a veteran also, but did not serve in a war. Were I to buy a pistol, I would not only have to pass such a test, but also show that I am not a criminal (get a document from the Police), and show that I am mentally stable, and in general healthy. AND show that I need a gun.

Using a gun is not "in everyday life". It's a special task. I would have thought that you as a soldier would have at least that respect for a gun.

A gun is VERY useful in everyday life.

Rarely does it ever have to be fired... but the best use of a gun is having it, followed by threatening to use it.

Guns prevent millions of crimes in the US every year, without them being fired.

If I've got a gun, I will be safer in the event that I need it. That's why you carry one every day - here or overseas.

Only if you live in the West Bank.

Or Afghanistan.

Or, you know, if you live in real life.

I'm sorry to hear that you believe a gun is needed in everyday real life.

I was born and brought up in Los Angeles. Never needed a gun there.

Good thing that there's no bill of needs, or bill of absolutely necessarys.