90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Here and Now with Robin Young
Public radio's live
midday news program
With sponsorship from
Mathworks - Accelerating the pace of engineering and science
Accelerating the pace
of engineering and science
Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Shooting Survivor Fights For Concealed Weapons

Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, is pictured in February 2005, during a hearing by members of the House Committee on Human Services in Austin, Texas. (Harry Cabluck/AP)

Rep. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, R-Lampasas, is pictured in February 2005, during a hearing by members of the House Committee on Human Services in Austin, Texas. (Harry Cabluck/AP)

Suzanna Hupp survived the 1991 mass shooting at Luby’s Cafeteria in Kileen, Texas.

Twenty-three people including Hupp’s parents were killed, making it the worst mass shooting in the U.S. before the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007.

The experience of being at Luby’s, unarmed and unable to protect herself or her parents, has made Hupp one of the leading advocates of the right to carry concealed weapons.

“My gun was out in my car, 100 yards away, completely useless to me, because I’d wanted to obey the law.”

“For several years I carried a gun in my purse, at that time illegally in the state of Texas,” Hupp told Here & Now’s Robin Young, “So I figured, ‘I’ve got this guy.’ But then I realized a few months earlier, I had made one of the stupidest decisions of my life. My gun was out in my car, 100 yards away, completely useless to me, because I’d wanted to obey the law.”

Hupp’s father tried to rush the shooter but was shot down. Her mother refused to flee – instead she went to where her husband, Suzanna’s father, lay bleeding to death and cradled his head in her lap.

“The shooter walked up to her, put a gun to her head, she looked up at him, put her head down and he pulled the trigger,” Suzanna said.

Hupp said she’s not angry at the shooter.

“That would be like being angry at a rabid dog,” she said. “What I am angry at is my legislators who legislated away my right to protect myself and my family.”

Hupp went from that experience to advocating for the right to carry guns. She served five terms in the Texas House of Representatives.

Suzanna Hupp testifies before Congress in support of concealed-handguns:

Guest:


Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • JohnKeller

    I first started feeling sorry for Miss Hupp but as her story continued I only got callous. Gun control did not kill her parents, a man with a gun killed them. Gun control may have saved them from him. Do you really want untrained people walking around with guns, spraying the crowd with lead looking for a shooter? I suggest she look for ways to curb violence, not blame gun control on a killer.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

       simple answer..get training. That’s what the shooting range is for. I dont know a single 2nd amendment advocate or firearm owner that would suggest otherwise. Go shoot, get training, keep training. An hour at a public range cost $12 and hour or so. Get familiar with your firearm, go to training classes so that you are proficiently trained mentally and physically with this tool. “Dirty Harry’s” can be dangerous….just go train, then train some more.

      FYI: There are already millions of people walking about every day with firearms…its called conceal carry…and criminal seem to always carry as well regardless of the law. They are by definition ‘law breakers’. Pass a law against the law abiders (which Ms Hupp was) and it apparently has no effect on the law breaker…weird how that happens.

      • amlnrse

         Having been outside in my backyard collecting my laundry while a neighbor exercising his right to have a gun and shoot at the pond down the hill struck the dining room window of my next door neighbor’s house, I can tell you there are too many inexperienced people with guns playing cowboy. I think annual registrations, inspections adn mandatory education needs to be included in gun regulations

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          where is that? annual registrations and inspections? whats is going to change about a gun over a year? who is going to inspect them and for what?  in mass and i assume else where you have to be 500 feet from an occupied dwelling by law. (  we also already have manditory education classes) I am sure that its 100% illegal anywhere to shoot someones house and i cant imagine anyone who would think that was ok even without taking a class. the individual who did that was irresponsible and can he held accountable under current law. “ignorance of the law is no defense” it is his responsibilty to inform himself of the gun laws or he will face the consequences just like any other laws in our society.
          why should it be more expensive for me to own a gun because your neighbor is a stupid criminal? if your neighbor hit a baseball through the window would you be pushing for people to have their baseballs registered and annually inspected?

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

         Training on a gun range does not equate to Police training.  Shooting a paper target in the comfort of a range is not anything like shooting at a living person in a real life massacre.  We would all be better off without everyone carrying guns.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

          There is no “everyone”, it really is rather optional. Range and IDPA are readily available options for all, there are pistol and rifle training courses all over the country also freely available for one and all to avail themselves of, its leaps and bounds above what the standard police are trained to do (not speaking for SWAT and the like). You might be surprised just what police firearm training is and how it just might NOT be as intense as you might think.

          Look up ‘Travis Haley’ on youtube..One single example of a well regarded and expert trainer. Courses he offers are also offered by hordes of others. Although many might  not know it because it’s not readily reported, responsible and sensible firearm owners are not some fringe aberration or kooks living off the grid somewhere, we are regular folk living right next door.

          We all start getting familiar with our firearms by plinking targets at the range (so do police btw), you are quite free to progress from there…why not.

          If you believe that because you dont have the level of training parallel to what a law enforcement officer has then you are not qualified or worth protecting your own life or the life of your family with a firearm…that sir is your choice. But I humbly ask that you please dont make this choice and impose it on me.

          Talk to any responsible firearm owner..we are rather well aware that each and every round discharged in public has the weight of the DA prosecutors office attached to it. Of approximately 100-million firearm owners out there how many of them behave in a knuckle-headed fashion? I’d suggest the tiniest remnant do foolish things and readily and aggressively have the full punitive weight of the law thrown at them, they do not get to go home in time to catch the evening news. We know this, and generally are fully mindful of the implications. At best, personal bankruptcy at worst a very, very, very long custodial sentence with a felony record for life..assuming we live to be subject to prosecution. It is very much not the wild west or a cavalier choice to procure a license to carry and then do so. Life being what it is, there are always exceptions and in truth some idiotic horrors occur (Trayvon Martin for example), the fix for this is not to legislate my ability to protect mine or my families lives away and by law condemn me to being prey to the criminal that simply does not obey the law.

          Look up the case of ‘Warren vs the District of Columbia’, you will find that the supreme court ruled that the police are not obligated to protect you. That signage on the side of the patrol car that reads “to protect and serve” is just that..writing. They have no legal duty to do so. So while you home is actively being broken into by criminals looking hopefully for objects to steal and I pray not to harm or kill, you can call 911 assuming there is time but do you think the police will be there in time for you and yours not to get harmed? They also are not obliged to go rushing in and at all cost save you. They are there to ‘enforce the law’ NOT to ‘save your life’…saving your life is more likely the hoped for secondary outcome. Go look it up..Warren vs. District of Columbia. For me it’s reason enough why with a population on the road to 400,000,000 more than the local PD alone should have a firearm.

          Homicide and crime stats speak to law breakers, not the overwhelmingly law abiding. Always feel free to choose for ones-self, be careful about what we deem must be imposed on all others that did no wrong and broke no law….

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          where do you think the police train? they train at ranges.  personally I think we would all be better off with everyone carrying guns like the city where gun ownership is required instead of chicago where legal guns are banned so that only criminals are armed and the murder rate is through the roof

          • .45vt

            It really is sad the extent to which these people have had their common sense destroyed. I think some of them actually believe that outlawing carbines and outlawing CCW will erase guns from society. It’s actually quite disturbing.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            whats funny is many of the same people have seen how banning drugs has no impact on thier availabiltiy and created dangerous black markets crime and death

          • Human898

            Outlawing certain types of arms means those that possess them are outlaws.  Not outlawing does not allow anyone to see who the criminals are BEFORE they start shooting.   Thinking people realize that no one can know the intent of someone with a gun on their person.    When two people walk into a space with firearms, no one knows how and when any one of them might use those weapons.   If the weapons they carry into the space are illegal and someone sees them in possession of the weapon, they can be stopped before they start shooting because they are in illegal possession, a crime.  Ms. Hupp, was NOT a law abiding citizen when her parents were shot, she was in illegal possession of a firearm, just as the shooter was.     Had anyone noted the weapons, because it was illegal to possess them, both the shooter and Ms. Hupp could have been stopped, just as people who try to carry firearms illegally onto aircraft are stopped.   Nothing is going to eliminate crimes from happening, but both gun crime and death by gunshot can be reduced with fewer guns and with reduced means to kill and wound.     

          • Human898

            Are you seriously trying to suggest the only training law enforcement officers do is at the shooting range?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            are you suggesting the only place private citizens train is the shooting range?

          • Human898

            Are you trying to suggest there is a legal requirement for all citizens to train for combat and shooting incident situations?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            am I? how did you come up with that?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            am I?

        • Jaugs

          The police do not train to shoot anything but paper targets either. No law enforcement officer trains to shoot anything but a paper target. Many police officers train at the same range I do. I’ve had them commend me on my accuracy and discipline.

        • Seerak

          You can always tell who has absolutely no idea about police training; they are the ones invoking it like it was some sort of super +15 magic talisman that endows the trainee with infallible aim and judgment, and gives them special rights too.

          As for this “we would be better off” bullship: speak for yourself, buster.

      • Human898

        An even simpler answer is require all citizens, ALL citizens, to train and to be lawfully committed to duty in a “well regulated Militia” where they would learn appreciation for a “common”, not individual defense and that which is “necessary to the security of a free state” not individuals.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yup she is a great example of a person who had to make a choice between being able to protect her life and follow a law. the old saying”i’d rather be caught with it than caught without it” comes to mind. this is exactly what happens when you ban people from exercising their natural rights. many of these efforts to make gun ownership more expensive or onerous drive law abiding people into the illegal market.
          i like the idea of requireing military service using the 2nd amendment. we could reduce the enormous cost and sociatal damage that results from having a standing army at the same time reducing crime.

          • Human898

            She chose to be a criminal and possess a firearm illegally, just like the person that shot her parents.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            she owned the firearm legally and admitted that in the past she had carried it when she was not allowed to. that day she had decided to keep he legal pistol in her car in order to be in compliance with a law

          • Human898

            Ms. Hupp was in illegal possession of a fire arm.   That does not define a “law abiding citizen”.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the whole point of her story is that had she chosen to violate the law that day or had that foolish law not been in place there is a chance her parents would be alive.  its the same sort of dilemma medical marijuana patients face because of foolish laws.

          • Human898

            Are you seriously trying to equate the illegal use of marijuana for medical purposes to the illegal use of a firearm?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            they are both examples of harmful laws that force people to choose between staying alive and following the law. Dr.Hupps story illustrates the danger of it.

          • Human898

            So your solution is to have every citizen arm themselves and keep those arms at arms reach 24/7 to feel safe in their own nation?    Is that a first world nation or a third world nation?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            every law-abiding, legally sane citizen is free to arm themselves as they see fit. i sure would feel a lot safer if everyone who is legally able to exercised their right. just like i would like it if everyone exercised their right to vote, it would strengthen our republic

          • Human898

            Is it a “natural right” for Iran to have nukes to defend themselves as the U.S. did?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            of course

          • Human898

            Then we’ll hear you speaking up in favor of Iran’s development if nukes?  

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            they are a sovergn nation what business is it of mine? what right do we have to tell them what they can and cannot do and which 60 year old technology they can have?

          • Human898

            I have my opinions about the validity of  your response, but let’s move on to individual self defense.   Would you suggest that your neighbor was well within their rights to plant their property with landmines, mount m134 miniguns around their home tied to motion sensors and justify it as a means to defend themselves?    Consider that while they have been treated for mental illness, they have also been more law-adiding than Dr, Hupp, with regard to any past illegal activities.    You have young children and pets as do others in the neighborhood.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            man traps and machine guns are currently illegal.

          • Human898

            You mean a right to keep and/or use (bear them) is infringed upon?  So how is it so, if “shall not be infringed” to be interpreted as you and some others seem to believe it is?   If some sort of limitation on the type and style can be made, it is only a matter of deciding where, up or down on the type and scale of arms, the limits lie.    The Supreme Court did nothing to establish that there is an unlimited right to any and all arms one chooses to keep and bear.   You can look at gun regulations still currently in effect in Washington D.C.   A regulation, is an infringment if one wants to suggest “shall not be infringed” is some limitless “right”.

          • Seerak

            No. National sovereignty derives from individual sovereignty. Accordingly, tyrannies like the Iranian government have no rights, while free or at least semi-free nations like Canada or Australia or the U.S. where governments remain constrained by law and alterable by legal and non-warlike means exercised by the people, possess sovereignty thereby and thrrefore retain the right to defend their nations.

            Should a government go rogue and become a tyranny, its sovereignty is forfeit. The people have the right of overthrow (hard to do that without any weapons) and other free and sovereign governments have the right (though not any obligation) to invade and overthrow that tyranny.

          • Human898

            Show me where the words “individual sovereignty” are mentioned anywhere in the Constitution of the U.S. of A.

            The preamble mentions what, defense based in individual sovereignty or “the common defense”?

            Define “going rogue” and please explain it in terms of the invasion of Iraq by the U.S. when the invasion did not meet the requirements of Article 51 of the UN Charter, nor did it have approval of the UN Security Council.    Explain “going rogue” when a nation like Israel is a nation that has had some of the highest number of UN resolutions against it.    

            One problem with values is that they require one to be consistent in them.   One cannot forget the “values” they’d like others to have when it conveniences them and then expect when it comes to trying get others to adhere to those values, they won’t just laugh and point to one’s own failure to adhere to their own values and say if they weren’t good enough for the U.S. to adhere to, by should anyone else?

            The U.S. feared Germany using the atomic bomb, but instead working to destroy any means to produce such a bomb, we stole the technology and built our own, then used it just as we feared Germany would use it.      Iran is not any more rogue than we are in their desire to defend themselves no less than we and other nations do.

        • tim

          Banning certain types of guns is an infringement on your rights but requiring people to be members of a militia is completely fine to you? It seems that the only freedom many gun owners really care about is the freedom to own a gun. I have never ever heard or read a guns rights advocate talk about protecting free speech, voting rights, etc.

          • Human898

            A “well regulated Militia” where their right to keep and bear arms, like assault rifles is predicated on their duty and service to “a common defense”.   That means they train with others to learn how to fight like and against other trained forces and they do so to pose “a common defense” against common enemies, foreign and domestic, of their state or their nation.    It is predicated on what the 2nd Amendment describes as “being necessary to the security of a free state”, a well-regulated Militia.   Unless you are bound by that duty and service, there is no reason for anyone to have an absolute right to keep and bear any specific firearms or any and all arms.       The idea is to keep the focus on a common defense, not pit citizens against citizens with the suggestion we live in a nation that is so dangerous the best way to be safe is to carry a gun at all times.

            If you are in the arms manufacturing industry, the best way to sell your wares is to promote fear, paranoia and mistrust and to suggest the best way to feel safe in your own home is to keep a loaded firearm at your side 24/7, the only way it might be effective when needed.   That dismisses and ignores all the obvious problems with that least of all the promotion of the odd notion that the best way to stop violence is to use violence, even as many of the same people sit in church each week and hear words out of the books of the Bible that include the 10 commandments as well as the Book of Matthew, specifically Chapter 5 .     I have to say a CCW and “love thine enemy” and “turn the other cheek” don’t appear to have a lot in common or go without contradiction.   The same with Matthew Chapter 6 and wearing one’s religion on their sleeves.  

            Denial and delusion are big problems for substance abusers and the addicted.   The deny they have problems with their substance abuse and delude themselves into thinking the problem is everyone else, but them.   There seems a familiar tone with that lately in politics especially, but one cannot tell the nacissistic and vain their problems for their narcissism and vanity get in the way of their humilty,  introspection and other human virtues.    No one wants to hear their own faults and falacies, but the strong and the brave are the ones that don’t run away from them and find all manner of excuses to keep running away from them (in the case of substance abuse as a means of escaping the hardships of reality), they face up them and are not afraid to admit they may need help to overcome what has come to rule them.

          • Seerak

            You need to get out of your mom’s basement and meet more people. Most gun rights supporters are quite pro-Bill of Rights. In fact, the idea that the purpose of the Second Amendment is as a backup for the First is pretty common among them.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        anyone i know with a carry permit who actually uses it practices regularly with them. good point about passing more laws not having an effect on those who choose not to follow the law already.  in fact i am pretty sure murdering children is already unlawful in 50 states so people who are willing to do that are pretty unlikely to be stopped by more laws

        • Human898

          If one is not legally allowed to have a gun on an aircraft and one tries to carry one on an aircraft, but is stopped because the gun they are carrying is found, a potential crime is thwarted before any shooting starts.   If there is no ban on firearms on aircraft, there is no way of sorting those who intend to use a gun they are carrying for no good and to harm others, regardless of whether a gun fight onboard to take down the offender is likely to harm all on board.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            how is that different from a bus or a train or a city street? 99% of the time when they find a gun at a TSA checkpoint its an oversight.  There have been no reports of people who intended to shoot up a plane with the firearms confiscated.  Like the  NFL player who just got in trouble at the TSA checkpoint.  The TSA has yet to catch a terrorist. I love the efforts to stop “potential crime” it reminds me of minority report

          • Human898

            Sorry Futo Buddy, you, nor anyone else can know what anyone intends to do with a firearm in their possession until they use it or not use it.   I would like to see your sources for your “facts”.   You seem to want to suggest that because nothing is 100% assured, no effort should be put into pursuing improvement.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            do you think the nfl player was plotting to shoot up the aircraft? don’t you think if the TSA ever actually caught a terrorist they would be throwing a party?   pesonally i can think of many ways to improve the current system.  none of them involve federal agents putting their hands down peoples pants

          • Human898

            Your suggestions make no sense Futo….Once again, the TSA cannot read the minds of those they check…..if they find a gun on someone, they cannot know if the person intended to use the gun in a harmful way or not, the only way to ensure that risk is greatly reduced, is to not allow the firearm to be carried onboard.     If all people are allowed to carry firearms on aircraft, there is no way of telling who might be planning to use their legally carried weapon in a harmful way….Once again, I don’t like the idea of any strangers putting their hand down my pants and I have not found that to be the case with the TSA….

            What I have found to be the case is a lot of American whiners who seem to want to have it all ways   Some see, to want no inspections or checks because some feel they are offensive or abusive (as some may actually be, but not by general policy – the same as I would doubt the Catholic Church actually espouses homosexual child sex abuse as a policy, even though its celibacy policy might present an open invitation for those with such mental problems.), but some of the same would be first in line to sue the airline and airport security should they or any of their loved ones lose their lives because of a hijacking that otherwise had a high probability of being thwarted at a security checkpoint had there been one in place.   

            It’s the same as firing employees to “save” money and either hiring cheaper foreign labor or replacing workers with robots, then hoping such actions are going to somehow contribute to an economy that depends on growth in spending.   People without jobs and with lower paychecks, spend less, not more.   They pay less, not more tax, they need more, not less assistance, thus increasing debt if not slowing the paydown of it.   In addition, people without jobs or lower incomes and benefits, mean a shrinking, not a growing economy.    Robotics, while they represent an initial cost, programming repair and maintenance, do not require food, shelter and all the things humans require that humans also purchase from other humans, keeping an economy in motion.  Unless someone has a plan to build more pyramids with human slave labor….all the people laid off from or fired from their jobs so some others or companies can “save” money need some sort of work.  At half or a quarter of the wages they were making which were still fractions of the wealthiest, they are hard pressed to make ends meet unless all prices come down significantly (a real market economy) thus they either seek some sort of assistance or become desperate becoming homeless  or turning to crime to scrape a living off the streets and so a society pays one way or the other.    Some might suggest the idea that such people should be lined up along a trench and shot as either n’er do well “leeches” or as worthless humans who should work for less than a living wage or as someone’s slave rather than seek assistance as they search for a replacement for their old job.

            Many of our problems appear to be contradictory thought.   Frugality and a growth in spending economy are at odds with one another and investments of capital gow toward actual production of something.   If the world were made up of only investors, the world would come to a standstill, because no one would be doing the actual labors that so many of those investments generally represent. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the point is that without the checkpoints you would be just as safe as you are when you are on the way to the airport and you and your women and children would not be molested by perverts  on the federal dime for no reason.  Airport security is an expensive and dangerous illusion. The sensible measures were taken almost immedaitly after 911 of hardening the cockpits and arming the pilots. The biggest change happened even faster than that which was just the american people being alerted that this was a potential threat and changing our mindset which is why the 4th plane was prevented from crashing into a building. No pistol round can penatrate a cockpit door. (now we just have to hope none of the pilots want to do harm)You must not fly much.  I saw a man come out of the checkpoint with a bewildered look. “they told me I had too many toothpicks!” he exclaimed. Is that really how we have to live so people can “feel safe”?
            As far as your problems with catholics,robots and capitalism seems like they would be go better elsewhere.

          • Human898

            Your problems with airport security demonstrate your own problems with added security methods.  You fail to offer any actual or common sense corroboration to your assertions.

            My discussion of the other topics was to related them to the mindsets of people who either fail to think things through beyond a certain point or believe other people are ignorant enough to believe the snake oil someone is trying to sell them is something other than snake oil.  

            In other words, if someone is a con artist, they aren’t going to offer the real reasons behind their “sales job”.  Greedy people aren’t going to admit they’re greedy, gun sellers aren’t going to admit their connection to gun “rights” is profit from guns sales.

            There is more than ample evidence from around the world that general attitudes and measures to curb violence by means this nation has both instituted and not yet instituted, work in other places. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes i am not in favor of trading liberty for the illusion of security because it is a bad idea. It does not work.
            Please tell how you will change americans “attitude”.

          • Human898

            Is Futo Buddy trying to suggest something is “working” now?    There is no reference to “self-defense” in the Constitution, there ARE references to a common defense, what is necessary to the security of a free state and that being, “a well regulated Militia.  There no mention of self defense.

          • Tim

            Someone who “forgets” they are carrying a tool for killing people do not deserve to have gun. The fact that gun culture has gotten this far out of control has enabled people to be so lax about this.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            to me it seems like the check point culture has gotten out of control.  people who carry legal guns are not “carrying a tool for killing people” they are carrying a tool to protect themselves with.  like wearing a seatbelt it becomes second nature.

          • Human898

            I remember when knives were first banned on aircraft, people began to whine their penknives were being confiscated, so they removed the ban on everything up to 4 inches…..then the 9/11 guys legally took matt/box cutters on board…..people whined that more security was needed.   “protecting one’s self” depends on one’s point of view.  Some paranoid schizophrenics see “protecting themselves” from society or any odd circumstance that normally is no threat to anyone,  as a perfectly normal threat to them.    No one can know if the “good guy” with a gun might in a second of transition, become a “bad guy with a gun” and with everyone drawing their guns to “protect themselves” reasonable and sane people can see the chaos and harm to innocent people that will ensue.

            We don’t suggest more kids have matches when there is a problem that results from kids with matches.   We don’t suggest more people get drunk to deal with the problem of drunk driving, we don’t suggest the answer to people getting injured or killed by not wearing a sealtbelt, is to have everyone stop wearing their seatbelt.    Safety improvements in all manner of endeavors and devices come as the result of noting faults and problems that remain and working to come up with solutions to them, not refusing to or tryng to deny or ignore faults or problems.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            except in massachusetts, we don’t ban matches because a child used them improperly. we don’t  ban alcohol to stop drunk driving.  And why not? because it would not work and create more problems (remember prohibition?)
            ”  No one can know if the “good guy” with a gun might in a second of transition, become a “bad guy with a gun” and with everyone drawing their guns to “protect themselves” reasonable and sane people can see the chaos and harm to innocent people that will ensue” So do you have an example of that happening besides the NYPD shooting the 9 innocent bystanders?
            You are right though no one can predict what people will do so all we can do is take the measures we deem appropriet to protect ourselves from people who go crazy.   What exactly are your policy reccomendations?
             

          • Human898

            Your comparisons make little sense.   When a problem arises as the result of a child playing with matches, you don’t keep matches in the hands of children. 

            When someone drives drunk, you take away their ability to drive.

            Why, because they work better than ignoring the problem and doing nothing about it.   Children are not deprived of toys to play with and people are not deprived of all means of transport, they each have alternatives, just as every American if evry gun on the globe were to disappear, has a myriad of alternative ways to defend themselves.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            lol thanks for admitting you dream of every gun disappearing. you are right when people drink you take away THEIR right to drive not everyone elses. when a child plays with matches you take away their matches not ban matches for everyone. i am pretty sure the law has ample provisions to take away anyones gun who misuses them. great we have solved the problem!

          • Human898

            For Futo B below – Where does my post in any way say my dream is to ban all firearms?   Might I suggest you are the one that has illustrated your failure to speak the truth and allow either paranoia or your financial interest in firearms to  suggest that any and every mention of gun control is to be interpretted as a move to ban all firearms and means for anyone to defend themselves.

          • Seerak

            I can tell you’ve never been in a fight with someone three times your size.

            There’s a reason why guns were known as “equalizers”; they ended the advantage of the big bruiser. We already have thousands of years of experience with such societies without any guns; the most recent were called the Dark and Middle Ages.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      has that been happening? or have “gun free zones” become shooting gallerys for madmen? you read the part where it said she was not legally able to carry a weapon because of gun control right?
       “I suggest she look for ways to curb violence, not blame gun control on a killer.” maybe you should stop blaming the gun for the killer and we can actually find ways to address the violence the insane killers perpetrate regardless of the means.

      • Human898

        You can’t seem to comprehend what happens when 10 people have their guns drawn to get “the bad guy” and they all start shooting and others arrive, not knowing who the offender(s) or defender(s) are.   Why do you believe police where identifying clothing?

        • Paulamine

          If they all 10 had shot the bad guy, by the time the cops got there, they wouldn’t be needed, just ambulances and a clean up crew! That was the problem, it took precious time for the cops to respond and to get their own guns from their locked cars. Time the armed criminal used to kill people with no resistance. Armed citizens may not always kill the bad guy, but they might just slow him down, and give time for others to get away, or for the cops to get there, or for him to change his mind and make him leave! Unarmed people are just targets. 

          • Human898

            You make a lot of assumptions.   Have you been in combat without training?   It’s one thing to be at the firing range, it is another to be in a shooting situation where bullets are coming at you.    In addtion, it is a sad statement about our society when there are those that suggest all citizens need to arm themselve and keep those arms by their side 24/7 to feel safe in their own nation.   Think about that for a moment.     Because access to firearms is easy, it is easy for those who want to use firearms to do great harm to obtain them.   If it were not easy and one could spot those up to no good by possession of a firearm they should not have, they can identify a criminal with a gun before they begin shooting.    With no limits, no one on earth can tell, of the people carrying firearms, what their intent is with firearms they are legally able to possess.     Some people may need to stop watching so much fantasy about how a gun in their hand will mean they will prevail in a gunfight and no innocent people will get hurt or killed by errantly flying bullets.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you seem really concerned with the fact that you can not really predict everyone’s behavior.  crazy people do crazy things.  gun control mesures will not change this fact. depending on where you live it can be very difficult to obtain a legal firearm although i will concede they are readily available on the black market.

          • Human898

            The problem you seem to have is the suggestion that because one cannot completely eliminate a problem, there is no reason to even try to reduce incidents of the problem.   As aleady mentioned, there are statistics all over the world that say if one reduces the chances of risk, the risk goes down.    You seem to want to suggest that one should not stop smoking because stopping smoking would not elimnate their chances of ill health effects from their smoking.    

            You buy firearms on the black market? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what does owning a gun and smoking have to do with one another? I don’t use the black market because i have jumped through all the hoops and can afford all the fees in order to exercise my right in a lawful manner.  Anyone can buy firearms on the black market however and no law will stop that.

          • Human898

            You know anyone can buy firearms on the black market and no law will stop that how, anecdote or personal experience.     You know very well what  was referring to with regard to smoking and taking action to improve stuations, even if one cannot eliminate all risk.  If you don’t, you expose where you are coming from and why dangerous objects are not put into the hands of people that cannot demonstrate an ability to fully comprehend what they would be handling.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            Just look at the city of chicago handguns cannot be legally possessed yet 900 people are shot a year there mostly with handguns. 
            ciggerettes provide a perfect example of how overregualtion leads to crime. because of the extra taxes in NYC ciggerette smuggling has become a big crime there with all the violence attendent with black market dealings.  people will get what they want whether its legal or not we have had a war on drugs for 70 years and drugs are still easily obtained by children and criminals alike and you want to start a war on guns ? run all the anti-shooting people ads you want i am all for it. guns are fine, shooting people you do not have to is not

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          10 ccw holders all in one place sounds like a very safe place to me. has that really happened?

          • Human898

            Nice to know you’re all for gun control Futo Buddy.  You do realize a CCW is gun control, do you not?   The discussion is, if people can be required to obtain a permit to carry certain types of arms, the type of arms one can carry are also up for debate and question.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            ccw is currently the law. i would perfer to see it more like they have in VT with no permit needed for concealed carry

          • Human898

            You’ll likely find that in VT, a very minute portion of the population regularly carries a concealed weapon.  This is due mainly to little reason to do so and a lack of paranoid attitudes about needing a firearm by one’s side to feel safe in one’s own communities.   

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “You’ll likely find that in VT, a very minute portion of the population regularly carries a concealed weapon” how would anyone know this?
            so you are paranoid if you choose to carry a firearm?  is wearing a seatbelt or owning a fire extingusher paranoid? a family here in mass just saved themselves from being killed by a bobcat because they had a pistol handy.  Who would have ever thought they would be a bobcat victim? like a smoke dectector fire extinguisher or a seatbelt you hope you never have to use it and its unlikely that you will ever need it but its sensable to use these things because the consequences of their absence when you do need them is catostrophic

          • Human898

            Killed by a Bobcat because they didn’t have a firearm?   Who are you kidding?  Seatbelts and fire extinguishers were not originally or specifically designed to wound and kill.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            http://news.sky.com/story/1034768/bobcat-mauls-two-in-us-garage-attack
            This happened in mass a few weeks ago. Its an example of a totally random and unlikely event however it illustrates how having a handgun when you need it is the only thing that can save your life in some situations.  Who cares what something was designed to do? Its not a weapon unless its used as such. A brick or a baseball bat was not designed to kill but they will do as fine a job as anything else and it makes little difference to the person who is killed by them. 

          • Human898

            I saw the news and please look up incidents of Bobcats killing people and other means to get bobcats and other creatures off of one’s self without a firearm.   

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            it was rabid. they shot it after it attacked. lucky it was not a bear. the point is that you never when you will need a gun or for what but when you do its essentail

          • Seerak

            The fact you are dodging is the one that Vermont illustrates: the violence-suppressing aspect is not that straw-man of “everybody with a gun”; it is “everybody with the OPTION to have a gun”. Everyone in Vermont has that option, and that fact creates risk for criminals. Legal interferences with this option reduce risk to criminals; the more likely it is that cops are the only ones who present a danger to them, the easier it becomes for them to know where the risk isn’t: among the hoi polloi.

            It is the option for anyone to be armed that makes being unarmed safer and more practical. So spare us the straw men, and admit it: you are not bothered by guns per se (unless you call firemen or clergy instead of cops when you have a criminal problem); it’s our option that bothers you – that the rest of us may see things differently from you and might make choices different from yours that you don’t like. The horror!

          • Human898

            Unfortunately Seerak, statistics don’t back up your assertions.   Much of the south is similar to Vermont and some other states in the nation with regard to gun control and yet they still have some of the highest rates of gun crime and death by gun.

            http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?ind=113&cat=2

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state

            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states

            The strawman is the idea that a society full of armed people is a safer one, since that has been the state of this nation and the subject of the discussion is centered about people who feel unsafe in their own nation, to the point they are arguing about the best solution, more arms in the hands of its citizens or fewer arms in the hands of its citizens.   For those in the for-profit arms selling industry certainly more guns are a solution that works very well for their pocketbooks.   

    • .45vt

      What are you talking about? How can you possibly say that gun control may have saved her parents? You honestly think that allowing him to walk calmly around the room executing people at will, slowly blowing the brains out of everyone there; is better than having a few armed opponents? Even if the return fire injured or killed innocent people, it would surely occupy his time and save many more lives. As noted in the story, the minute the shoote saw armed opposition (the police) he retreated to a corner like a cur and blew his useless head off himself, because he was a coward, as is everyone who targets innocent people like this. An armed citizen placing a few .45 caliber hollow points in the chest or forehead of a shooter is a great way to curb violence by the way.

      • Human898

        As you have pointed out, cowards carry guns to “feel” brave.

  • Kathy

    If this is such a great idea, why is it that the states with the most liberal carry laws have the most people being killed in gun violence and states like Massachusetts with more stringent gun control are at the bottom for gun violence?

    • http://www.facebook.com/anita.paul.5680 Anita Paul

      Because they do not have themost gun violence. Ever been to Missippi or New Orleans.

    • Joseph

      that statement is incorrect as is the correlation that gun control = gun violence.  Far and away in the #1 spot of gun related murders in the US is in Washington, D.C.  Illinois isn’t far behind, yet states like Utah (where teachers can carry in schools) is towards the bottom.  Did that convince you?  Didn’t think so.  People can cherry pick statistics from lists to fit their argument either way, but that’s illogical and is not focusing on the real solution.  Making new/stricter gun laws is our legislature taking the easy way out so as to appear they are doing “something”.  It is inarguable that the 1994 gun ban did ANYTHING.  Countless studies have proven it was worthless, yet people are getting whipped into a frenzy that reinstating that same law “will work this time”.  Curbing gun violence in this country will not be easy because it is a matter of enforcement, not putting ink on paper in D.C.   Gun laws do not affect those who do not follow the law.  Now, that is not to say there should be no restrictions; universal background checks, strengthening  the power of ATF, etc are all things that can PREVENT guns from getting into the wrong hands.  Only law abiding citizens will follow gun bans, just like only law abiding citizens don’t take guns into places they aren’t allowed.

      • Human898

        Ms. Hupp spoke of owning a gun illegally.   That is not what most would generally define as a “law abiding citizen”.  

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          reread the article for the correct facts

          • Human898

            Quote from the article:

            “For several years I carried a gun in my purse, at that time illegally in the state of Texas,” Hupp told Here & Now’s Robin Young, “So I figured, ‘I’ve got this guy.’ But then I realized a few months earlier, I had made one of the stupidest decisions of my life. My gun was out in my car, 100 yards away, completely useless to me, because I’d wanted to obey the law.”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            where does it say her gun was illegal?

          • Human898

            Her words admit that she had carried a gun in her purse illegally, does it not?  

            Do you generally define people who admit to doing an illegal act as “law abiding”?     That she suddenly on that day decided to leave it in the car to “obey the law” on that day is a good hind sight “reasoning” and excuse for discussing the failings of the reasoning that she might have stopped something had she had it with her?   I get out a lot into the wilderness a fair amount and with people who tell me about all manner of fancy survival gadgets they have, but left at home.  Sharpshooters don’t generally use pistols or revolvers instead of rifles because accuracy is better with a rifle.  When bullets are coming at one, the experience is totally different than standing, sitting, lying down at a shooting range station, so is shooting at a target that does not stand alone against an empty bullet catching background.

            Ten gun toting people can walk into any place where there are no restrictions and start mowing down people because they were allowed to carry those weapons into that space unchecked.   If all or certain types of firearms were banned in the space and there were checks, even if 9 of the 10 were caught, the numbers 1 would take out versus 10 would be greatly reduced.  If all were caught because they were carrying what was illegal to carry, the potential threat is stopped before any bullets fly.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “Ten gun toting people can walk into any place where there are no restrictions and start mowing down people because they were allowed to carry those weapons into that space unchecked.”  Whats going to stop them? a sign that says “gun free zone”? and has this happened in america? if the one person gets trhough the “check point” and no one has a gun at the other side who is going to stop them?   

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      Vermont has the most liberal carry laws. In fact they require no permit at all to conceal carry. Are they awash with crime? why is it that chicago which essentailly bans legal carry had 900 murders? if it works so well why has mexico had 60,000 killings there in the last decade? mexico has very strict gun control laws. compare chicago to Kennesaw, Ga where gun ownership is required.

  • AlanThinks

    I do not have a problem with Dr Hupp being able legally to carry a concealed gun.  I will support her right to do so. But in exchange, I want her to disavow the NRA and support the following national legislation: require all gun sales to have a background check; require all gun owners to be licensed and certified in gun safety, require all gun owners to carry liability insurance, disallow anyone from owning a high capacity gun clip; allow the collection of gun ownership and use data to be used in research, stop blocking the appointment of a director of the ATF

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      besides the liability insurance, “high capacity gun clip” and making a registry of gun owners those are not all terrible ideas. they will have little or no impact on anything but if they make you feel better thats fine.
      The liability insurance is a way to punish legitimate gun owners and to prevent people of lower socio economic status legal access to self defense tools. how are you going to get the criminals who commit guns with illegal guns to pay an insurance premium? how will insurance deter gun crime?
      “high capacity gun clip” what is that? and how will you “disallow anyone from owning a high capacity gun clip” because i am sure the criminals are not going to follow that rule if they do not feel like it. so once again this is just arbitrary punishment for legitimate gun owners. are you going to force people to get rid of them or become felons like they have in new york?(btw they rushed their law so fast they forgot to make an exception for law enforcement)
      making a registry of gun owners is anathema to the point of the 2nd amendment which is to prevent the us from declining into tyranny.  it they govt does become a tyranny we must overthrow we dont want them to have a handy list of all the gun owners.

      ps whats wrong with the NRA and why should they be “disavowed”?

      • peterlake

         Why do people call “magazines” “clips”?
        Are they so smart they don’t have to learn the nomenclature of that which they decry?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          you can call it a magazine or a clip but magazine clip makes people sound stupid  it would be the same as as saying “automobile car” instead of automobile or car and we really dont want people who speak of “automobile cars” writing driving regulations right?

          • peterlake

             You misread my post.
            I complained that people were calling magazines, clips.

            As a former member of the U.S. Shooting Team I assure you I know the difference.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            LOL i would be happy if they just stopped calling them “magazine clips”

          • Kyle

            Actually, magazines and clips are different. The analogy would be more like someone calling it a “motorcycle car”.

          • Varn Ford

            A clip is not a magazine. A clip is used to load a magazine.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

      “In exchange”? What does she owe you that are readily stating you wish for her to disavow and condemn in order to gain your limited favor? I’m confused..

      I’ll agree to disallow anyone from owning high capacity gun clips, 10-round limit lets say; if you swear not to support limits on magazine capacity…lets shake on it?

      Firearm ownership is not a privilege, it is my individual right so long as I am a law abiding citizen and protected by the law of the land that is the United States Constitution. The government has no business whatsoever to know or have record of my personal private property. The government is there to keep the lights on and the roads paved not to instruct me how to live my private life or what I choose to include in it. It really isnt.

      I’ll concede this; if the government issues me a firearm from the publicly funded purse, then I am in full support of registering, allowing 4th amendment waivers for them to stop in and check to verify its secure and legal physical condition, storage and usage and can at their whim decide to repatriate it from my custody back to them or else transferred to some other custodian or agent..it is after all their property.

      Me exercising a right cannot be conditional upon you demanding I secure insurance in order to avail myself of it. So ultimately that’s a no go also. Why do you want to lay such control and rules over the lives of so many other millions of individuals that have broken no law and done no harm in the exercising of their rights? Why do you wish to shackle folks that have done no wrong?

      How do all of these punitive and constraining conditions you suggest stop even one single criminal from committing a crime with a firearm? A sociopath breaks the law and does the unimaginable and your response is to move to punishing EVERYONE else that did not break the law? HUH????

      You reference Dr. Huff suggesting that she should agree to all these strange conditions of yours as if she did something wrong or broke a law, you have said not one single thing about the fellow that actually broke the law AND did the killing. You do realize this right…

      • Human898

        From the article:  

        “For several years I carried a gun in my purse, at that time illegally in the state of Texas,” Hupp told Here & Now’s Robin Young, “

        Ms. Hupp did break the law.   And what does anyone owe Ms. Hupp that they don’t owe the chidren and other victims of gun violence?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          there are violent guns running around?

          • Human898

            Is there violent anything inanimate running around?  Do people die of human wounds or gunshot wounds?

            If there are not “violent guns” or violent people with tools specifically designed to be efficient at wounding and killing (violence), what’s your concern?       Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” right up until the moment he did something that broke the law by using a gun in the wrong violent way.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            nope there is not. thats why we can not blame things for what people do.  would you ban knives to stop “knife wounds”? Should we ban matches to prevent arson(this sounds silly but it has actually happened)? Do you think that adam would have remained a law abiding citizen but for his stolen gun?

      • peterlake

         Why are you willing to give up your 4th Amendment rights in order to enjoy your 2nd Amendment rights?

        Why not trade 3rd Amendment for 5th Amendment rights?

        What’s wrong with having soldiers quartered in your house ?

        • Human898

          Any0ne in this nation have a right to live in a nation and society where the best solution to gun violence some can come up with is NOT for everyone to keep a loaded and ready firearm on their person or within grasp 24/7 to feel safe and secure walking about in their own nation?

          Anyone see reference to personal individual defense rights?    

          http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/preamble

          Hiw did the United States of America become a nation?    Not by individual self-interest, but unity around common causes.

          People need to eat to survive, but they can eat so much they threaten their own survival, there are limits.

          All people may have a need to defend themselves one day, there are many means to defend one’ self, firearms only one group of means to do so and firearms or “arms” in general come in many varieties.

          When a perceived or potential (not an absolute need such as eating)  “need” for something such as “defending one’s self” against a fellow American begins to present more of a cost to the health of society than benefit, just as with overeating, recognition and acknowledgement of the problem is the first step to solving it.

      • Human898

        Very strange interpretation of your “rights” according to the Constitution of the United States, especially if you have ever actually taken the time to read and comprehend it, beginning with its preamble.

        I assume you register motor vehicles and boats where required by law?   Do you pay taxes?   Is your property title recorded by the government for the purpose of legal transfer and proof of your ownership?  Who defends that legal title were someone to challenge your ownership, you or does the “system” you rail against also defend your rights for as much as you want to make claims it takes away your freedom?     Ironically, the loss of freedoms comes with the massive increases in population, people few and far between are less likely to compete for resources that don’t grow as populations do, but remain the same even though populations grow and grow and grow and grow.      Much of what allow populations to grow are the infrastructure that communities of people, not individuals, contibute to, to make human survival easier.     Yes, individuals have ideas and make discoveries, but they go no where without consensus and financial support, often times public.    Individuals didn’t build sewage systems and sewage treatment facilities one of the largest means for populations to explode, especially in urban areas.    For all the anti-federal government folks in Alaska and with all due respect to them, Alaska would still be owned by Russia were it not for Seward and lots of government funds.

        Education is a powerful tool, perhaps what our nation needs if more education about their own history and their own Constitution and less paranoia.

        How many people who consider themselves “law abiding” break laws daily when they get into their motor vehicles or do other things?     There is no warranty that any “law abiding” citizen will forever be so, especially when one considers that every crimnal on earth was a law abiding citizen before they broke the law.   Adam Lanza had no criminal record and was a “law abiding” citizen the moment before he did something that transitioned him from “law abiding” to law breaker, thus to suggest “law abiding citizens” will be unduly hurt by further gun regulation has no basis in fact or reality.     What is fact is that “law abiding citizens are hurt by “law abiding citizens” who move from being “law abiding” to deadly in a nanosecond.    In addition, why would a “law abiding” citizen have problems with gun regulation laws?

    • you are stupid

       “But in exchange, I want”

      No one cares what you want, rights don’t work that way.

      • Human898

        How do “rights” “work” according to you?

    • ColonelWarden

      Obama did allow the CDC to do gun research, and guess what they found, Concealed Carry reduced crime. Many states do require safety classes for concealed carry, Texas is one of them. Liability insurance? Do criminals carry liability insurance? What if a person who can’t afford liability insurance is in a position to prevent a crime and can’t because they can’t afford it? That blood is on the hands of those who promote those laws. They are nothing more than Jim Crow 2.0 laws that discriminate against those who can’t afford them, who are usually minorities.

  • info

    I’m sorry for her pain, but she is still so caught up in fear and regret…not a rational case for widespread gun availability. The facts just don’t support her position on guns. For society as a whole, the danger outweighs the rare, very rare instance of “self defense” gun use.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what are you advocating?

  • Kenpratt

    I feel bad for representative Hupp and her loss, but the wild west solution that she calls for is not suited for a civilized society. 

    • beenjaminNPR

      It’s obvious that when a gun man or woman is shooting,  they are not in the right mind (lets face it, they have gone crazy) and do not consider your “civilized society” when pulling that trigger.  A “civilized society” can slip into a chaotic  situation real fast. Don’t be a victim, protect your self.  You and I both have the RIGHT to do so.

      • Kenpratt

        BJ, I understand a lot about guns. I have been shot at. I have heard bullets fly past my head. Good gun control my not have prevented that, but it might have. 

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          yes good gun control (using both hands and positivly identifying your target) may very well have prevented you from hearing that bullet. you are going to need a better reason than “here is hoping it works” before I decide to give up my god given rights. i have had a gun pointed at me by a crazy person as well in a gun free zone by the way and not having one did not make me feel any safer.

          • Kenpratt

            Fb, are you implying that I should have had a gun? That is absurd. I was eleven years old walking in the woods. Eleven-year-old boys should not have guns. Are you saying that we should arm preteens? 

          • you are stupid

             Why not? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i did not say you should have had a gun nor did i imply it, i was saying in the situation i was in i would have perferred to have a gun. I support the right of every law abiding american to decide if they want to carry a gun or not. 

          • Human898

            Adam Lanza decided to carry a gun, he was law abiding, up until he wasn’t anymore.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            he did not legally purchase that gun and he did not have a permit. is your argument that everyone should be treated like criminals because some people commit crimes?

          • Human898

            Why not make sense Futo, Adam Lanza had no criminal record, he got the weapons he used from someone who purchased them legally.  

            Because people who drink and drive kill others, as well as themselves, there is a means to check to see who might be drinking and driving BEFORE they kill someone or someone else and there are limitations on the amount of alcohol in someone’s blood that is allowed, if someone exceeds that, they can be arrested and charge with the crime of drinking and driving.     In such a case, no one assumes everyone is a criminal, but there is a means to stop a potential crime from occurring by making the circumstances for a crime to be committed, a crime.    If one has not been drinking to excess, there is nothing to fear from being checked.

            It’s the same with type of arms,  if there is a limit (like there is on blood alcohol levels for drinking and driving) on the type of arms one can have in their possession, there is a means of preventing the worst before the worst happens.   If someone is permitted to have a specific weapon, they have nothing to fear from a check.   If they are not permitted to have such a firearm, there is a means to stop them before they begin shooting, otherwise, as in the case of Adam Lanza and anyone else, until they have shot and killed someone and it is clear they are not shooting shooting someone attacking them, they have not done anything criminal by possessing the arms they are using.

            Nothing is going to eliminate tragedies, but humanity has strived to improve everything about it since its beginning.   Better medicine, better shelter, better safety measures, better defense, yet excess, as with eating too much, can negate the positives and that has to be recognized or the greatest irony of all occurs where the very thing people engage in to protect themselves and improve their chances of survival, actually cause the opposite.

            Gun regulation and drinking and driving laws don’t treat anyone, but criminals, as criminals.     You have nothing to fear, unless you are doing or planning to do something illegal.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            Wow, we have the capability of predicting and stopping drunk drivers? then why the thousands of dead? oh the classic anti- civil rights line of “if you are doing the right thing you have nothing to fear ” 

      • Human898

        Are you trying to suggest a “civilized society” is one where it is recommended that all citizens carry firearms on their person 24/7 to feel safe in their own nation?     What a sad suggestion.

      • Human898

        There are many ways for people to protect themselves.  One of them is to reduce the number of firearms and certain types within their society.  It’s why you can’t obtain a nuke or would likely be stopped if you decided to plant your front yard with landmines or tried to use chemical or biological weapons to “protect yourself”. In additon, why does the notion of a nation where the best answer to our problems is for everyone to carry 24/7 to feel safe in their own nation from their fellow citizens? That’s not only sad, but pathetic in many ways and says we’re going backwards, not forward.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so whats the answer? i think it would be the perfect solution for a civilized society. people act much more civil when everyone in armed

      • Human898

        Iis that what happens in war?  People all act more “civilized” because all of the people at war are armed?  What tends to happen is weapons escalation, until people become civilized enough to recognize how insane it is to have a bunch of armed paranoid people walking around and hoping that such a “civilization” is either civilized or safer than a civilization who are civil to one another to the point they trust one another, respect one another enough to not feel fear of and paranoia about one another and a need to arm themselves to live “safely” in their own home or nation.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          and then we can all hold hands and sing

          • Human898

            Some “tough” guys like singing, but only as long as they have their “security blankets” grasped in their fist. 

            Some really tough people will die living what they believe in, peace.  They let those who would mow them down prove to be the cowards.

            Something does not quite fit with a Bible in one hand (inclusive of Matthew Chapter 5) and an assault weapon in another.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            an object is not a weapon untill it has been used as such.  Even the dhali llama says that he will use force to defend himself. 

          • Human898

            Most people will fend off those attacking them, but is that what Christ did and called his followers to do?

            Fists have force.  Once, again there are many ways to fend off or defend one’s self that exclude firearms or certain types of firearms and other arms.     That is what the whole discussion is about, gun regulation, the same as deciding whether it is a good idea for everyone to own a suitcase sized nuclear explosive device for their personal “self-device” or plant their front yard full of AP or AT mines for their “personal protections”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I listened to a whole congressional hearing today and suitcase nukes and AT mines were not mentioned.  What did you think of the woman’s rights activist who testified today about why many women perfer AR15 for home defense?

          • Human898

            I thought she was dreaming.   Unless she was suggesting women sling a loaded and ready to go AR15 over their shoulder 24/7 or leaning against their night table, she was delusional about their effectiveness as a defense weapon.  In additon, she sounded as if she has been playing too many video games, watching too much television or lacked a mind of her own.    Even if one has a fully loaded AR15 by their side 24/7, the chances they will need to use it in the manner she described are minute.   She actually helped the gun control side of the argument by suggesting such a scenario. In addition, she revealed the what some seem to think is a “free nation” where everyone should feel a need to arm themselves to feel safe. Really? That’s someone’s idea of an ideal nation where people are free to pursue happiness as long as they are armed to the teeth against their neighbors? You never know when you’re going to be in a shoot out?

            http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-kellermann.htm

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182

            http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/753058

            In civilian life, these stats bear themselves out.   I know no one who has used a firearm to justifiably defend themselves, but personally know two people who are serving jail time for using their firearms in a manner that was not justifiable defense, but manslaughter.   One thought he was “defending himself”, the other was drunk and reached for his gun to “solve” a dispute.  When a child, a friend of mine, whose father was very very strict about gun safety, shot his finger off with his own gun.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            this happened just last week. for some reason NPR did not cover the story. not too suprising since it happens thousands of times a day with different variations.
            http://www.inquisitr.com/495065/new-yorker-with-ar-15-faces-down-robber-with-a-handgun/
            Maybe you should stop hanging out with a different crowd.
             “When a child, a friend of mine, whose father was very very strict about gun safety, shot his finger off with his own gun.” this is a nonsensical sentence fragment, what are you trying to say?

          • Human898
          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you are pretty hard to decipher.” When (I) was a child” is not a sentence, it is a prepositional phrase it does not convey a complete idea. “When i was a child, we all ate cake. ” is a sentence. When johnny shot his finger off, we all were sad.” is a sentence. I am not the grammer police but things still have to make a little sense. i am getting the sense that i am wasting my time with you

    • .45vt

      Calling this a wild-west solution is a liberal talking point. You’re telling me that in your view, a ‘civilized society’ is one where a mad man can walk into a public place and shoot everyone in sight without the fear of return fire? I would like to see your proposal for locking up EVERY closet psychopath who has the potential to commit such atrocities. I won’t hold my breath, because you won’t come up with a viable plan – it’s impossible. So, keep your high minded rhetoric to yourself. If you don’t want to carry a gun to defend yourself and your loved ones, be my guest; just don’t try to take away my right to defend my family.

      • Human898

        “arms” come in many many forms, many of which do not include firearms of any shape or form.  No one wants to deny anyone a right to defend themself and banning certain types of arms as has been done for a while not denies no one their right to defend themselves.  

        The only way to suggest any reasonable connection to type of “arms” one is able to put up “a common defense” (See Premable of the Constitution – The only type of defense spoken of in the Constitution) of “the people” is to connect it to “a common defense” through what is described as “being necessary to the security of a free state”, that being “a well-regulated Militia…..  One could then argue, that in demonstrated and proven duty (by demonstration and proof of being a member of and training with) to “a common defense” by means of “a well regulated Militia” military type “arms” are needed for that duty and service….If one wants to go around leaving out words in Amendments or applying implied meaning or words where none exist, then the Constitution and all its Amendments become fair game for the same in all directions.   That means where there is nothing specifically specified and one leaves out portions, such as the first part of the 2nd Amendment, implied “meaning” could go in any direction.   It could just as well mean there is nothing anyone can do to regulate or restrict or ban nuclear weapons, rocket launchers, landmines, miniguns etc, from any of individual “people” for their personal self-defense or as a group to mount an illegal military assault upon any of the state governments or the federal government, simply because a number of people (like Timothy McVeigh and para-military non-regulated “militia”, without consensus, define in their own minds, what a “tyrannical government”.

        Common defense and mechanisms of common defense are the basis for any right…. there is no right to keep and bear arms to mount a private individual or group offense.   If all those who keep and bear arms are legally bound to a duty to regular training and participation in “a well regulated Militiia, which they were in 1792 along with a requirement to furnish their own weapons and a certain amount of powder, shot and a pack, there is a totally different reasoning for keep and bearing arms and unifying reason for keeping and bearing them, not as citizens of a nation arming themselves against their fellow citizens in a dangerous and violent nation, but to arm themselves as a “community” on at least two levels, state and federal, against common enemies, foreign and domestic.     The wild west was tamed for the very reasons that it was too wild, just as I am sure many people here, including you, would like to have someone “tame” your neighbors if they felt it was their “right” to blast their music at full volume during the hours most people sleep.    The answer to the dangers of kids playing with matches is not to give all the kids matches to play with, but to reduce the risk by removing matches.    In case some people have not noticed, it has been the endeavor of many humans and many human businesses to reduce the risk of all manner of things that do human harm, from looking both ways when crossing the street…. seatbelts to healthy exercise and dietary habits….and improvements to sanitary conditions, like human waste and wastewater infrastructure, the very things that have reduced the risk of spread of certain diseases and allowed explosions of population growth…..

        People seem to go to the trouble to pay people for consultaion on risk management, anger management, financial management and financial planning, even as they neglect to plan to reduce risk and for the future of their progeny……to the point of adding competition pressure to their own loved ones, merely by having lots of children….all of whom end up having to compete with one another for the earth’s resources as well as education and jobs etc.

    • 2spamagnet

       Sorry, but your active shooters are not suited for a civilized society either.  Your desire to not have them exist is not going to help. 

      Giving incentives (rebates, etc) for gun owners to buy security devices that will keep them from being stolen will increase gun safety, create jobs, and decrease gun violence.  Too many gun owners keep guns unlocked, and we need to change our culture so that people who do that are looked down upon, the same way driving drunk now is shunned (if you don’t remember, it used to not be).

    • Seerak

      How do you think we “civilize” a society and keep it that way? By wishing?

      No. We do it with the principle of individual rights, in particular the right of self-defense against any aggressor, be it a common criminal or an uncontrolled government.

      When you’re under attack, are you going to sit there and wish him away? No. You’ll get your gun, or if you foolishly lack the means of self-defense, you’ll call for some guys with guns.

      And if that attacker IS the cops, because your government has suddenly decided it no longer wants to be constrained by some 237 year old piece of paper, then what? Are you just going to sit there and wish it away by insisting that history is over and governments don’t go rogue in this day and age?

  • JAMES IN PORTLAND

    What kind of world do we want to live in? I greatly appreciate Dr. Hupp’s story. It helps keep liberals as myself grounded in what’s really happening to people. I empathize the desire to protect your loved ones. But play it out to its possibility… imagine looser gun control and more people carrying concealed weapons. Now imagine the influence the USA has on the globe and global politics. Imagine other country’s picking up these policies. WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE WANT TO CREATE?

    • JAMES IN PORTLAND

       …. imagine looser gun control NATIONWIDE and more people carrying concealed weapons EVERYWHERE. Now imagine …

      • Rick R

        Things would be calm.
        Visit Israel, many armed individuals walking the streets bodes well for the protection of those who aren’t.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

         I imagine you would see a lot of people getting shot before they had a chance to draw their weapon.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          oh because people will all the sudden have a desire to start killing people because they have a gun? and maybe you would get to shoot one person before they pull their gun but everyone else will have pulled theirs before you get to them

          • Human898

            You will find that law enforcement does not like the idea of coming upon a scene where there is shooting going on and 10 people have guns drawn.   They have no way of knowing who is the offender, who are the defenders.  Meanwhile the defenders while aiming at the offender are likely to have innocent people, including other defenders in the area of their target.      There is a reason the wild west became extinct, but perhaps you prefer to resurrect it.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            “law enforcement does not like the idea ” they do not like the idea of ending the war on drugs either. police in newtown showed up 10 minutes after they were called that does not make me real confident to rely on them for protection. when seconds count the police are only minutes away

      • It

        James just smoke another and imagine all the people living live in peace….You may say i’m a dreamer, but I think your the only one.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        sounds great! seems like the shootings take place in gun free zones by people who are already forbidden to have them

  • Maggie

    “IF” is a tough way to live by … So sorry for Mrs. Hupp’s loss.  As a 41 yr old working, tax paying, law abiding citizen with a permit to carry a concealed weapon, I hope that I never have to find out about my reaction in a situation such as the one she survived. However, the way things are going I must say that I support and appreciate my right to carry a concealed weapon and will continue to do so.

  • Info

    The man from the theater who advocated more control, background checks, etc., was closer to my own thinking. In most situations, starting a shootout in a chaotic crowd scene will probably kill more innocent bystanders.

    Plus, attackers tend to wear body armor. Should civilians start having to wear armor all the time, too? How far can this mentality go? Also, when the police arrive and see people shooting, how are they to know who the “good” guys are, and who the “bad” guys are? They may not have time to stop and have a conversation about it with bullets flying.

    • twohoos_mobile

      Verify your facts before making assertions.  There’s insufficient data to make a generalization about attackers wearing body armor.  The Aurora theater shooter did, but none of the others as far as I know.  

      We also can’t generalize about mass-shooting scenarios.  Yes, the darkened theater would be very challenging even for trained police, but again that’s only one instance.  Nearly all the others (Va Tech, Tucson, Columbine, Sandy Hook, etc.) occurred in broad daylight.  There would have been little difficulty identifying and engaging the shooter.

      Yes, there is always the chance that the “good guy” might accidentally kill or wound someone, but weigh that against the near-certainty that the “bad guy” will kill or wound that person and others.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        thats right, we still let the NYPD have guns even though they shot 9 innocent bystanders shooting a guy who was not pointing a gun at anyone. personally i would take my chances with out that kind of help

        • Jaug

          Denigrating the police, who often support citizens’ right to bear arms, is not helping the cause of right to bear arms. Please professionalize your rhetoric and do not disparage police officers. They advocate carry.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i am sure some do.  My police chief is a public advocate for all forms of gun control in my city alone dozens of people have had to sue the police chief for illegally denying them carry permits. It also happens in commmunities all across the state. who knows how many others are afraid to sue the police chief in their town because just on its face that seems like a bad idea right?  now the gun controllers want to give the police even more discretion and power when they have been proven to misuse and abuse that power which is why we took part of it to begin with.
            I am not sure how pointing out that the NYPD shot 9 innocent bystanders while shooting a person who was not pointing a gun at anyone is denigrating the police? should we pretend that that did not happen?

          • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

            Not the NYPD! You been to New York recently? Do you believe at all they want you to avail yourself of your constitutional rights? Take a half-hour stroll about the outer boros with a little ‘brown’ makeup and report back.. Let me know if your 4th amendment rights were left in tact.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      was anyone suggesting that people be required to have a gun or wear body armor? i think that peoples right to decide for themselves if they want to wear body armor. dont worry the police usually show up well after the incident is over and far too late to do anything about it. like they say”when seconds count the police are just minutes away”
      “attackers” which i assume you mean the public mass shooters also “tend” to have homemade bombs( so we can assume if somehow we elimianted the 300 million guns here now and were able to seal the borders 100% they would just use those to kill people) and in you scenerio if the police actually show up while bullets are still flying they can just shoot the guy with the body armor because “attackers” tend to wear it right?

  • backfull

    Dr. Hupp should be more upset that her legislators not only allowed, but promoted, the millions of lethal weapons that are now in circulation. There are madmen everywhere, but that is the distinction between what is happening in the US and the rest of the sane world.

    I predict that over time we will see a migration of people from areas where guns may be carried freely into schools, teachers are armed, armed guards are present, etc. to areas where guns are banned. Who in their right mind wants their children trying to learn in a paranoid prison-like setting?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “the paranoid prison like setting” is the gun free zone right? in  Kennesaw, Georgia gun ownership is required and people and business has flocked there as opposed to chicago where guns are banned and 900 people are gunned down yearly.

  • Joseph Ponessa

    I believe that the concealed weapon/ self defense arguments are heavily influenced bu the ‘Dirty Harry scenario: The good guy pops up & takes out the badguy with a single shot. My questions are: since recent massacres have involved suicidal attackers wearing body armor and carrying assaule weapons designed to quickly ‘clear the field’, what are the realistic chances that a handgun will be of any use? Also, if, say, 50% of people are carrying, what are the odds that we will see a spike in shootings when what might otherwise be scuffles or fistfights turn into gun battles?  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “clear the field” whats that a quote from? in fact it it often takes many shots for the good guy to take down the bad guy the woman in georgia who defended her children from the home invader shot him 5 times with 6 shots and he still lead the police on a high speed car and then a foot chase. thats why you need more than 7 or 10 rounds she was very luckyit was just one guy and that he ran away after she emptied her gun at him. when seconds count the police are just minutes away.
      so you think people are more likely to start a confrontation with a stranger if there a 50% chance that person is packing? maybe everyone would be a whole lot more polite. it there is one thing i will say about Texans they are a polite bunch. about half of texan woman carry guns and they have one of the lowest incidence of rape. must be a coincidence

  • Libervir

    It seems to me that the key and most instructive point in Ms Huff’s account of the Luby’s shooting is this: it only took a single shot into the ceiling to unmask the shooter for the coward he was and to send him running.

    Sure most people could likely not avoid killing innocent bystanders.  Sure most of us wouldn’t have the guts to pull the trigger — and it has to be that way if we are to have a civilized society.

    But surely everyone can be alerted — not trained — to shoot into the ceiling until the beast is scared off.

  • sford

    No one is saying gun control means getting rid of guns. Common sense would ban assault weapons and high capacity magazine clips!

    • Conor Sands

      Common sense would say that if you ban those weapons then you have no recourse to deal with threats to your personal or national freedoms. Imagine the united states joining the UN banning all firearms for civilian use and enforcing thier laws upon you with foriegn soldiers. Don’t worry though from the sounds of it you’re already content being someone’s cattle.

      • beenjaminNPR

        Wells said Conor Sands

      • Human898

        “Paranoia strikes deep, ”
        “into your heart it will creep”
        “it starts when you are always afraid”

        -Stephen Stills

        The Preamble of the Constitutions decribes “a common defense” Militia and “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”

        Alexander Hamilton described citizens who are not trained to fight those that are trained as:

        ” The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system,
        without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed
        with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.
        The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the
        people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy
        will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily
        obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the
        possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where
        the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence
        of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. ”

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed28.asp

        The solution to this fear of the founders was the use of “well regulated Militia” where ALL, not some, not volunteers, but ALL, citizens (then the only people considered citizens were free white males) had a LEGAL DUTY, to not only enroll in, train with, but to furnish their own arms and other supplies.   The “right to keep and bear arms” was in deference to that lawful carrying out of that duty.  It is no longer required for all citizens to be enrolled in, train with or furnish their own arms in the service and duty to a “common defense”.    It is not a “right” to keep and bear arms for the pupose of overthrowing a non-tyrannical, non-oppressive (as defined by consensus of “the people”) .    By the dual use of state militias, the founders found a solution to central control of professional standing militaries as a means to “provide a common defense” (see Preamble).   By use of state Militia that could serve in “common defense” of the people of the state against enemies foreign or domestic, the “commin defense” forces were made up of citizen soldiers who were trained to fight together and they were loyal to their states and people of their states versus a single central government.    When needed “to provide a common defense” (See Preamble) of the entire nation (the states united) they were already trained and ready to serve in that capacity.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          our founders knew the dangers of having a standing army. looks like they were right about that too

          • Human898

            Their solution was what they deemed “necessary for the security of a free state, a well regulated Militia” and they required EVERY citizen at the time to be enrolled in, train with and furnish their own arms too, “a well-regulated Militia”.    A “well regulated militia” is still a citizen soldier military (not a standing or professional one), but now, there is no legal duty to enroll in, train with and furnish one’s own arms to.   State National Guard units, are not standing armies of professional soldiers, but citizen soldier units that Congress still has the same power over in Article I, Section 8 that it has always had and the units serve a dual roll as a common defense for “the people” of their states individually and “the people” of the nation.  

            There is no reference to individual “self-defense” in the Constitution.   Any “defense” mentioned is in the context of a “common defense” as in “the people” being able to defend themselves, not individually against one another, but against a tyrannical government.   The founders didn’t fear one another, they feared groups of people unjustly trying to oppress other people. 

            Timothy McVeigh and friends did not possess a “right” to keep and bear arms against a government they and a few others (without majority consensus of Americans) thought was tyrannica,l no matter how much they might have claimed they were doing so as the founders suggested.   

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      how does that make sense? how many gunfights have you been in that lead you to that conclusion? its pretty clear its none because calling magazines or clips “magazine clips” is like calling a car an “automobile car” and you would sound like an idiot who had no business commenting on automotive issues.
      common sense tells me that only people who care about following the law will comply with your ban meaning that only criminals will have those things. could you define the terms “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazine clips”?

      • Human898

        Automobiles were designed for what pupose?
        Firearms were designed for what purpose?   The word “assault” applies to what?

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          automobiles are designed for many purposes. same with fire arms. I asked you to defien “assault weapons”. to me its a meaningless term designed to scare ignorant people but i would love someone to come up with a definition. its the democratic equilivelent of the term “death tax”

  • Mkitman

    I understand the view of the gentleman in the movie theater who said that he wouldn’t have wanted to have a gun with him as it was dark & he could have hit other innocents.

    However, especially since he DID have that understanding of the situation, what would have been the harm of his having one on his person.  It’s always the choice of the person whether or not to use it (as the situation requires, in their opinion).  On the other hand, as Dr. Hupp’s story shows, NOT being able to make that choice can only be detrimental.  It’s having the option that carries the benefit.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

       Bravo..I was thinking the same thing.

      Having a firearm does not mean you MUST use it. If the situation give you pause that you might cause more harm than good…DO NOT UNHOLSTER IT, but at least you have the occasion to make the choice. That said, if one decides that their having a firearm would not lend benefit I think it’s inappropriate to then believe that no-one should have one.

      One thing we all know is that when these horrors occur we all look for men with guns to save us all (Police), once they arrive (with their guns) we all say “HURRAH” and it’s not because they are coming with beer and sandwiches and the lyrics to ‘kumbaya’ ready at hand to croon into the megaphone…it’s because they come with force of arms to resist and suppress the lawbreaking offender!

      I’m all for sweet-talking a sociopath into submission first but if that often doesnt work.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        hey when seconds count the police are minutes away

  • Joe

    I am looking at a webpage that lists mass and spree shootings in the US, going back for the last 30 years.  
    This… guest began her argument by stating – as if it was an obvious fact – that her parents were killed in that ’91 a mass shooting, “before we had all these mass shootings.” That is a total unabashed lie… there is a (horrible) long list of such events that runs on, and on, about every year or two, from as far back as you want to research. She just wants to tell a story that fits “her story,” and the truth be damned. Sad that she has spent twenty years on this crusade but still cannot even see such an obvious error in her position, i.e. simply seeing the past beyond her ’91 experience; people are so easily blinded by their own opinions. 

    I hope she just googles for a historical list of US shootings, and glances at the table, and then maybe she can stop ‘selling’ such obviously false platitudes. 

    Killings over (only) the last 30 years, from Mother Jones:
    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map?page=2

    • beenjaminNPR

      “people are so easily blinded by their own opinions”,  yes Joe they are, including you.

    • twohoos_mobile

      IIRC, she said before these killings were happening “randomly.”  This would imply previous mass-shootings were targeted (like the Tucson shooting was targeted at Congresswoman Giffords). I don’t know if that’s technically correct and it’s imprecise, to be sure, but not in itself a basis to call her a liar and disregard her entire argument.

      • Human898

        I imagine anyone that owns a weapon “just in case” to use in either a “good” way or a “bad” way takes some of the randomness out of any shootings.   People can plan for weeks to do “good” or “bad” or do so on the spur of the moment.    The concern with guns is that in order for them to be effective on a spur of the moment “random” case, one must keep them very close by and loaded at all times.  The concern there is that with lots of loaded guns so close by and ready for their possessors to use, there is an increased chance they may make use of them in a harmful manner, either by confusing a situation, in a moment of uncontrolled temper and anger, in their own despair.   In all cases, they can do irrepairable harm to themselves or others in a matter of seconds or minutes.   Making firearms less accessible cuts down on  the spontaneous use of them, but also renders them less effective for use in legitimate defense.   

        The sad thing is that the shooters got access to their guns, ironically because of lack of gun laws.    Nothing is ever going to be totally eliminated, but one cure can decrease incidents of gun violence if they are willing to be reasonable and sincere about balancing their own rights with the rights of others.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          seems like they got hold of them despite 20,000 gun laws.  how exactly does my gun infringe on your god given and constitutionally recongised rights?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so what lessons should we draw from your reserch at mother jones? does it show the effectivness of gun free zones at stopping mass shootings?

  • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

    I had to make it a point to come on back and follow up from my last comment (Cuomo’s proposal to ban and confiscate) and say I heard fairness, frankness, balanced opinion and simple thoughtful truthfulness in this interview segment (if that’s what its called). It was appropriately informative from both ends of the argument and gave food for thought and contemplation anyone should appreciate. It was splendidly done!

    • Bobpren

      Agreed. It was an excellent job of taking a divisive issue, giving plenty of time to it, truly listening g to an activist with a deeply held position, and fairly balancing it with competing arguments. Congrats to Robin and her producers

  • http://twitter.com/ericmcnew 3ric McNéw

    I feel for this lady’s loss, but as JohnKeller says, the more I listened to her the more callous I became. It makes me wonder how much the NRA stuffer her coffers. 

  • Lyndahp

    If Dr. Hupp has been proven to be a responsible gun owner, I have no problem with her being legally allowed to carry concealed, and i believe she’s right – responsible armed citizens can make a difference in these situations. However, why can’t we also implement other protective measures, such as limits on high capacity magazines and assault weapons? What’s the problem with universal background checks? Why is it that gun owners refuse to consider these possibilities as well?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “off limits” how will you enforce that prohibition for criminals and killers? has making drugs illegal put them off limits to anyone who wants them? personally as a gun owner in a state with nearly universal background checks i dont really have a problem with it as long as no gun registrys are created. 22% of firearms being sold today would be called “assult weapons” by the cosmetic standards of the AWB yet they are used in far less than 1% of crimes or murders so who does that protect? would those less than 1% of crimes be stopped by banning guns with a certian look or would those criminals buy an illegal gun or just a different one?

  • Tim C.

    I’d like to know what kind of doctor this woman is.  She certainly doesn’t demonstrate the kind of logical and critical thinking that would be required for success in most doctoral programs of which I’m aware.  Her logic is that if she (and everyone else) had a gun, she’d be safer and could protect her parents (or children or grandchildren, etc.).  But if that were indeed the case, we should already be the safest nation on earth and Texas should be amongst the safest of the states.  Our per capita gun ownership rates are the highest on the planet.  According to this woman’s logic, we should be the safest nation on earth, but we’re not.  How does she explain that? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      we arent safe because of all the restrictions on carrying firearms her point is that just having one is not enough you have to be able to carry it legally did you even listen to her story? its like a seatbelt is useless unless you actually wear it.

    • Paulamine

      We aren’t the safest not because too many law abiding people have guns, but because too many law breakers do. People who deal drugs, who are criminals known to the police and who have lengthy criminal records but who are still out on the street! Take those people out of the equation and I bet your gun violence statistics drop quite a bit. Like the repeat drunk drivers, I for one and sick of criminals being allowed to perpetually re-offend. And thats one thing I think this conversation never seems to focus on. What are you going to do with all the people who are already breaking the gun laws, on purpose? When are you going to address that before you make otherwise law abiding people into criminals?

  • concernedamerican

    I am very sympathetic to Dr. Hupp’s view and live in a home with guns. My husband hunts and is prior military and while we own guns, we don’t carry them around with us. I have worked over 30 years as an RN in emergency medicine. I have cared for many families who have experienced gun violence and must point out that most were suicide or unintentional injury of a child who got ahold of a gun. I do advocate universal background checks for gun owners and even a registration of guns. I do not think regular citizens should be allowed to carry automatic weapons of the type that the military or police use and certainly do not need high count clips. In many of the situations where mass shootings have occurred, the weapons used belonged to a family member and not the perpetrator…..people who OWN guns MUST secure these is such a way that they are inaccessible to others, IE gun locks and safes. If all handguns were sold with a lock, and used appropriately, kids would be alive today. My heart goes out to all who have lost family members in such a senseless way, and support more control and regulation of gun wonership – it is a right that carries deadly responsibility.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lucky for you its been illegal in the US to carry an automatic weapon for decades.  in mass we already require all guns be sold with locks and i doubt an effort to make that nationwide if its not already would recieve little pushback from anyone. the registration would not prevent any crime and it leads down a slippery slope vis a vie the point of the second amendment which is to be able to raise a militia if needed perhaps without the consent of an illegal or despotic future regime

  • Johnandting

    The idea of being helpless in a situation like Dr. Hupp’s is terrifying. Nonetheless, Dr. Hupp’s anger toward legislators for outlawing her ability to carry a weapon into a restaurant seems misplaced. Perhaps the anger should be directed toward legislators for not outlawing high capacity weapons of mass destruction.

    The idea that you need a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun sounds reasonable. However, nearly everyone with a gun is a good guy with a gun until they commit a horrific act such as the one Dr. Hupp experienced.
    J Sherry

    • MelVT

      And bad guys with guns are actually almost never stopped by good guys with guns, the NRA’s assertions notwithstanding.   It’s far more likely that they commit suicide, run out of ammo, or just stop shooting after a while.  After shooting Reagan,  Hinkley was stopped by some guy who punched him in the face.  I guess there is more than one way to stop a bad guy with a gun.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        the actual examples of people defending themselves with guns are almost never protrayed in the media.

    • Appalled

      “However, nearly everyone with a gun is a good guy with a gun until they commit a horrific act such as the one Dr. Hupp experienced. ”

      I’m sorry but this sentiment is simply ridiculous.  The presence of a gun does not turn a good person into a bad person, or even a potential bad person.  Guns do not make good people do bad things.  Bad people do bad things, whether or not they have or use a gun.  There are millions of good people in the U.S. who legally own guns, possess and use them safely and responsibly, and are not criminals who simply haven’t committed their crime yet.

      This is a blatant example of the elitist mindset of most advocates of gun control.  Guns aren’t the problem, it’s the unwashed troglodyte barbarians possessing them that is the problem for liberals. 

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

         ” Guns do not make good people do bad things.”

        Maybe, maybe not, but they certainly make people do really stupid things.

        • Irony

          Thank you for demonstrating that elitist mindset for us.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

            If you aren’t writing with the same tone as your screen-name, then you need to consult a dictionary.  There is not the slightest hint of elitism in my statement.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          really what other objects make people do things?

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

            Having a gun on your person makes you less likely to run away, which is usually the best course of action.

            Fast cars tend to make you drive fast.

            Wearing nice clothes make you more aware and less likely to get them dirty.

            I am sure there are other examples, but it is easy to see the objects around us influence our behavior.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            i agree running away is the best tactic when confronted by a person with a gun in most situations, when that is possible.
             next time you get pulled over just blame the car, tell the cop it made you drive fast. seems to me whenever i see a corvette on the highway they are doing 60 in the right lane but thats anecdotal.  Its pretty silly to blame objects for behavior.  By that logic bridges make people jump off them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

             You are overstating and over-interpreting my statements.  I never said we should blame the object as the sole responsible factor for the behavior, I only said the objects influence behavior.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            my point is that saying objects influance behavior is a way of saying people are not responsible for their behavior.  People are responsible for their behavior not objects.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

             Saying objects influence behavior is NOT a way saying people are not responsible for their behavior.  You are incorrectly attempting to simplify a very complex interaction.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I am saying that there is no evidence that objects influance behavior. If having an AR15 made people want so shoot people then the 3-5 million Ar15 sold in the last few months should have resulted in mass slaughter. i am sure would have heard if there were any crimes commited with ar15s given the media circus right now.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

             “I am saying that there is no evidence that objects influance behavior.”

            Well, if that’s what you’re saying, then you’re completely wrong. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            so far you have said that fast cars “make” people drive fast and that guns cause people to want to kill people. where is the evidence for that? under that logic we should ban fast cars. would you support a fast car ban? do you think whatever influance you believe objects have on people somehow changed the amount of responsibility they have for their actions? if you can provide evidence that objects influance behavior how is it relevent?

      • Human898

        And you know who the “unwashed troglodyte barbarians” are before they start shooting? Are they “law-abiding citizens” that illegally possess a firearm they left in their auto to obey one law while they disobeyed another or are they the same people that want to keep and bear arms so when they are ready to decide in their own heads who their “enemies” are, they can “defend” themselves by emptying clip after clip into a crowd of people they think they need to defend themselves from. Your argument for the right to keep and bear any and all arms you wish is their argument. To them, they are just as sane as you are. ALL people are “law abiding citizens” (Ms. Hupp was breaking the law the day her parents were killed by possessing a firearm illegally) before they break the law, whether by disobeying the speed limit or shooting 100 people who they decided they needed to “defend” themselves against.

        There are mixed messages in a society that suggests their guide is “thou shalt not kill” and the books of the Bible including Matthew, Chapters 5 and 6 while they also suggest wrath, hatred, greed, gluttony and vanity are not sins, but their highest values.

        More guns in the hands of increasingly paranoid people is a recipe for disaster and a very sad society.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          if you actually pay attention to the point of her whole testamony it was that she, in order to be in compliance with the law, had left her leagally owned gun in the car when she happend to be attacked by a maniac who had forgot to follow that law and god knows how many others when he started gunning down defenseless people

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      thats why we need to outnumber the bad guys.

  • facts

    The likelihood of injury from an accidental gun discharge on your part or by a carrier in your proximity far outweighs that of actual violent confrontation. Given the choice between owning a gun, which immediately and substantially increases mine and others mortality percentages no matter the level of gun training, and taking my chances performing daily tasks unarmed, I’ll choose the later every time. Call me insensitive, but emotional arguments and anecdotal evidence do not usurp statistical truths.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i respect your decision. do you respect my decision to own a firearm?
       i think thats a great argument to disarm the police sounds like we would all be safer being near them if they did not have guns. you should get rid of you car if you have one too that makes it waaay more likely that you will get in a car wreck.  i avoid owning a bicycle because those things really increase the likelyhood of you getting killed while rideing a bicycle no matter the level of training so that’s just a risk I am unwilling to take.  

      • Human898

        You appear to know all the rhetoric by heart, yet autos were not invented for the specific purpose of wounding and killing.  There are numerous ways people can “defend themselves” the greater number of them do not include fire “arms”.   If personal ownership of nukes and C4 , rocket launchers, landmines etc, can be limited, the “limit” can be moved up or down, from rocks and clubs to nukes or anywhere in between.   Where that line is depends upon compromise and agreement of “the people”, not “the people” of the NRA or the for-profit arms industry, “the people” or the majority of Americans.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          nuclear weapons and landmines are regulated by international treaties. also it is not impossible to get a permit to own these things because they are produced by private companies so these companies must have permits, correct?
          Also where do draw the line has nothing to do with what the mafority wants. we have made firearm ownership a right because we do not want it to besubject to the tyranny of the masses. we live in a republic not a democracy.
          I hear shortly after cain slew able there was a lot of call for Adam to do something about it. So he banned rocks. This worked great untill someone invented the pointy stick.
          Thank you for the complement about the soundness of my rhetoric but I make it up as I go its not memorised.

          • facts

            Sir, my statement was not about my position on gun control policy. It’s concerning the claim by the guest that gun ownership statistically improves ones safety. It does not.

            As for your car and bicycle analogies, they are unrelated to the logic in my comment except in that they deal with safety marginally. In a logical proof your post is merely a slippery slop fallacy with a couple of straw-mans.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            doing any activity entails risk. as americans we are free to choose to take risks. for example people are allowed to go skydiving although that makes it much more likely they will die skydiving.

          • facts

            This is another fallacious example unrelated to my argument. Yes, every action implies some risk of injury. Perhaps this example will clear up my mathematical claim:

            Say country A has a ban on all firearms. Also say that criminals in A are unaffected by the ban. All gun violence in A is perpetrated by criminals.

            Now, A lifts the ban and all citizens have access to weapons. Citizens now attempt to defend themselves from criminals. Instances of criminality (use of weapon for purposes other than defense) remain constant and only marginally affected by the ban lift. Some (again, marginal) acts of criminality are countered by citizens with weapons.

            So, baring anecdotes of successful prevention of crime by citizens, violence by criminals remains fairly constant. An individual’s safety probability (in relation to gun violence) seems to remain constant or improve slightly if the citizen actually succeeds in preventing a criminal act with a gun, which is exceedingly unlikely and involves its own set of probabilities.

            Now consider the probability of self harm on the part of the citizen arising from the proximity to and use of said guns. This probability wave is considerably easier to collapse on any given citizen than the wave concerning an attack by a criminal. With multiple waves of lethal probabilities in play, any given citizen is now more likely to suffer gun violence (criminally or accidental) solely based on their proximity to increased gun presence both legal and criminal.

            So this statement, that instances of gun-related injury decrease as gun availability increases, is fallacious. As a citizen, you are less likely to be harmed by guns in country A with an active ban (but with criminal access) than you are in post-ban country A. The key for us in our country is finding a mean between two extremes: full ban or unrestricted access to all firearms.

            You state that, as Americans, we are free to choose our own risks. Gun ownership is not an individual risk. A gun owner risks others implicitly by their owning said gun (yes, just like cars). And like car ownership, certain safety regulations apply to all citizens who buy guns. Whether the proper regulations on gun ownership in proper quantities has been achieved in our country is a different argument altogether. An argument which should be informed by correct probability assumptions, which was not the case in this interview.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            and what policy recommendations do “‘ correct’ probability assumptions” lead you to make? and what does that have to do with peoples right to defend themselves?

          • Human898

            No one is taking anyone’s right to defend themselves by taking away any or all of their guns.   All can still defend themselves with their fists, a club, a shovel, etc.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what makes a firearm great is that it allows my 92 year old grandmother to be able to defend her self from a 19 year old 300 lb male home invader even if he has an illegal ak 47. you dont want to bring a fist to a gun fight if you can avoid it and as long as the criminals have guns then its a gun fight

          • Human898

            You apparently don’t have much of a grasp on reality.   A home invader often has the advantage of surprise and is more likely to steal your grandmother’s firearm or wrestle it from her and use it against her as she is to use it effectively against them.   That is if your grandmother has it loaded and in her hand and it able to do something with it before she is physically overtaken.   There is also the added and greater risk your grandmother will shoot herself in the foot or someplace more serious if she keeps it close enough to her and ready to use against a thug than she’ll ever have a need to use it against a thug.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            well she is 92 and has not shot herself or anyone else for that matter yet.  If someone smashes through her security shutters that gives her plenty of time to get her .45 out from next to her bed. In reality it provides no guarentee of safety but it does provide her with peace of mind so she can sleep at night. Do you want to take that away from her? don’t you think the potential of armed homeowners disuades people from attempting home invasion in the first place? Can you provide any statistics about  “likely to steal your grandmother’s firearm or wrestle it from her and use it against her as she is to use it effectively against them.  “? 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            she is 92 and she has not shot herself yet.  She is pretty sure she can get her .45 from the nightstand in the time it takes to smash through her steel security shutters. It does not guarentee her any safety but it does provide a her a peace of mind so she can sleep at night. do you want to take that away from her?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you expect an elderly person to be able to defend themselves with their fists vs a gang of young thugs who may have guns themselves? Why would you put them in that situation?

          • Human898

            You make the point that there is a means to regulate arms and it is aready done, thank you. You might also want to check again into what the majority wants.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            what “the majority wants” is irrelevent in a debate about individual rights in a republic.  In california the majority wants to deny gay people the right to vote.   Should the gay people there be subject to the will of the majority or continue to fight for their rights?

          • Human898

            Individual rights regarding firearms is worded where in the Constitution of the United States?

            There is “a common defense” mentioned in the Preamble, there are powers to the legislature regarding militia in Article I, Section8 and in the 2nd Amendment, “a well regulated Militia” is described as the thing that is “necessary to the security of a free state”    “The people” can hardly establish a “well regulated Militia, for a common defense (“security of a free state”) without a right to keep and bear arms of the type that would contrbute to a common defense against people trained in the use of arms for a common defense, but the people have all manner of arms at their disposal for their individual self-defense even if guns were eliminated.    While there is reason to connect, predicate, require certain arms with the mechanisms and entities of a common defense, there is no reason to connect any specific arms to personal self defense.   You can still defend yourself individually with your fists thus your “right” to defend yourself still remains.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            ” You can still defend yourself individually with your fists thus your “right” to defend yourself still remains.” all i can say is thank god the supream ct disagrees with you

          • Human898

            No, 5 of 4 Justices on the Supreme Court did not suggest that you or I  have an unlimited “right” to keep and bear any arms we choose to keep.   It is only a matter of time before a court case comes forth that makes this apparent if it is not already appparent.      Self-defense, arms and any and all types of firearms or types of “arms” are not synonymous.    Justice Breyer pointed the circular reasoning of disallowing or regulating some arms for personal self defense while at the same time trying to suggest such regulations o not represent some sort of infringement.   

            When people begin building their own drones and claim they are just for “self-defense” or someone plants their front yard with landmines and mounts an M134 Minigun on their balcony claiming its all for “self-defense” you’ll see a court case that ends up with little choice, but to infringe on the sorts of “arms” on can keep and bear.   I think we have already been there, but there appears to be some misunderstanding that infringing on someone’s ability to keep and bear rocket launchers, M134 Miniguns, C4 nukes etc. is already infringing upon what some seem to interpret as an unlimited (uninfringable) “right” to any and all arms they desire for their personal “self defense”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            sorry, thank god the majority of the supream ct disagrees with you. god help us from those who think trading liberty for the illusion of security is a good idea

          • Human898

            Well Futo, you have just demonstrated everyone else’s point and destroyed your own position.  “Arms” as you have pointed out, come in many shapes and forms, from rocks to nukes.   As you have pointed out, some “arms” are regulated (a “right” to own them is infringed upon), as long as someone can arm themselves with the lowest form of “arms”, they cannot claim their right to keep and bear arms is denied.   That would mean all “arms”, but a single type could be regulated, controlled and limited, if society agreed to it.  

            If one wants to tie “arms” to some for of military level arms, one would have to link a “right” to that purpose.   The purpose is a common defense and the necessary means for a common defense, is “a well regulated Miliita”.   Those in service and duty to “a well regulated Militia” for “a common defense” cannot have their right to keep and bear arms infringed upon.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I have said that it is the current law not that i think it is right or constitutional. Not sure who “everyone else” is or what their point is.  Your point about people being able to defend themselves with their fists being adaquite is something i have never heard any one say, ever. probably because its insane to think an elderly woman should be reduced to her fists to defend herself from an armed assailient.

          • Human898
    • Seerak

      Fine, that’s your choice. I’ll choose differently. That’s what freedom is all about.Vive la liberté!

      • Human898

        Are you or others free to kill anyone you choose to?

  • Guy

    This article misses the point entirely.  The question to her should have been, “would you mind limiting the size of magazines to, say, 7 rounds”.  Let’s have liberal conceal carry laws and minimize the capacity of magazines.

    There, compromise acheived, let’s go balance the budget!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      where did 7 rounds come from? is it just a lucky number? the woman in georgia shot her attacker with 5 of six shots and he still went on a high speed chase  and a foot chase before being subdued  by police. there was only one of him and he did not have a gun. so what makes 7 such a great number of rounds to have? if this 7 bullet law passes it means my wifes hand gun which she went through the absurd process to leagally obtain would make her a felon if she put 8 bullets in the 10 round magazine. what good is a law that makes law abiding people criminals for having 8 bullets in a ten round clip going to do? will criminals only limit themselves to 8 rounds and promise to only invade your home by themselves? if its not a bobcat but say a bear attacking your family will 7 pistol rounds stop it before it can kill someone? how about a person on meth are you sure 7 rounds is enough to stop several methheads from doing harm to you or your family?
      i like the idea of creating a liberal law that allows anyone to carry a very small capacity pistol wothout all the hoops one must jump through to get a carry permit to carry a gun with greater capacity its a good start on the road to compromise.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

    No one will ever know what the outcome would have been if Ms. Hupp had a gun during the massacre.  However, she survived because she fled the area.  Her father and mother would have likely survived if they had also fled. 

    Having a gun doesn’t make you bullet proof, yet it does change your behavior in several ways. 

    I find it curious that Ms. Hupp has forgiven the shooter, but not the lawmakers. 

  • Michiganjf

    Why do news shows keep having this IRRELEVANT conversation about taking away peoples’ guns… guns which can be used for self defense???

    Who wants to take away these guns???!!

    Those with the ability to draft legislation are talking about limiting access to high capacity magazines, assault weapons, and certain types of ammunition.

    These are sensible limitations, and THEY HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH TAKING AWAY GUNS PEOPLE CAN USE FOR SELF DEFENSE!!!

    Why is the media letting the absurd far-right conflate the message to suit their dogma?

    There’s A BIG DIFFERENCE between taking away peoples’ right to self defense with guns, and legislating against weapons of mass destruction and death!

    • twohoos_mobile

      Well, Dianne Feinstein (sponsor of the current gun control legislation) for one.  In 1995, she said, “If I could’ve gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — Mr. and Mrs. America turn ‘em all in — I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”  The current legislation stops short of a complete ban, but it’s the first step down a slippery slope.

      • BHA_in_Vermont

         Are you mixing “turn ‘em all in” meaning all assault style weapons, with “all guns”?

      • Michiganjf

        Wow, you had to dig back eighteen years for THAT??!!

        I repeat,

          “Who wants to take away these guns???!!”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          she is still here and writing legislation as we speak lets not get it twisted as to what their long term goal is

    • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

       Fact is this is a larger issue than simply ‘self defense’. Go back and listen to the show discussing Governor Cuomo’s initial statement, he wants confiscation. Look at the law they rail roaded thru that many applauded but also most did not fully read. They apparently forgot to make an exception for police and as written makes them lawbreakers for having firearms that can receive a removable magazine in excess of 7-rounds..a round number that was admittedly arbitrarily chosen without a reasoned explantion why..more like ‘why not’. No occasion for the public to see what was in it and debate…at all. Hardly democratic in its execution.

      Fact is, this crosses into 2nd amendment issues and that pesky “shall not be infringed” portion of the statement.

      Cut any way anyone wishes to slice it, the 2nd amendment has little or nothing to do with self-defense, hunting or ‘sporting’. It’s rather short, simple and explicit about the rights of a militia in defense of the state and the right of the individual WITHOUT statement or implication of restriction or specific purpose to a particular role, to “keep and bear arms”.

      For the individual it’s written simply thus openly and followed with “shall not be infringed”. Bothersome for some, liberating for many others.

      We are FREE CITIZENS my friend…NOT SUBJECTS of the government..even tho it often does not feel like it. It is NOT a government issued privilege, its an inalienable RIGHT…THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!..

      As Barak Obama stated yesterday during his awesome speech…’WE….THE PEOPLE’!..It’s ‘WE..THE PEOPLE’, that gives authority to the ‘STATE’ to act in our behalf, the ‘STATE’ in turn give authority to the ‘FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’ to act in our behalf. ‘WE’ send our representatives to the senate and congress to do…”WE THE PEOPLE’s” business…They each and EVERY ONE OF THEM raise their hand, place it on a ‘book’ and SWEAR while taking the ‘oath of office’ (remember that?) “..to the best of their (my) Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”..

      Remember that ‘pesky’ old, imperfect, outdated constitution THAT THEY TOOK OATHS AND SWORE TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND? So what’s with all this infringement?

      An ongoing mperfect experiment, but that 1st and 2nd amendment if you recall..simply RECOGNIZES a right, it does not give or authorize..it recognizes at a base level ones right to these very human things, the 2nd asserts ones innate RIGHT to preserve and defend against those that would take any of the others away…quite literally it does that.

      Fuddy-duddy, silly and loony concept that it is in this 21′st century. The idea that it has a place in a “civilized society”..(who says society is civilized btw…theres never been so many wars, and conflict, oppression, hate and malice in the world…civilized? where? Have you seen how many laws are on the books telling you what you cant do because someone has their own reasons why YOU shouldnt do it..Is that right?…if so, we can also immediately talk about the abortion issue (I’m no advocate btw but those that wish “unreasonable” controls on firearms conceivably open this up for a very justified parallel debate).

      Organize and repeal the 2nd amendment if you wish (good luck there), but DO NOT INFRINGE on it…it’s already been that to a point where its tolerated, push more and I suspect there will be a significant push back that come next election cycle us democrats (Yes…I’m one) will pay for dearly. For all their idiot and myopic faults this issue will give Republicans a thrust for the next election because I KNOW FOR ABSOLUTE CERTAIN that if my rights are infringed upon by my own party and I have imposed on me what I KNOW to violate the constitution…WHICH IS THE LAW OF THE LAND…this party WILL HAVE LOST ME..and I’m not the only one.

      BE SENSIBLE…DO NOT BE ABSOLUTE..It will backfire BADLY.

      (is this what they call “a rant”?)

      • BHA_in_Vermont

         “It’s rather short, simple and explicit about the rights of a militia in
        defense of the state and the right of the individual WITHOUT statement
        or implication of restriction or specific purpose to a particular role,
        to “keep and bear arms”.”

        IN SUPPORT of the well regulated militia. Militias of the time existed in every town and had frequent drills. How many people now enjoying their right to bear arms are training on a recurring basis with the rest of their “town” militia? The only one I can think of is the National Guard.

        • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

           ….then like I said, theres the part about the individual. It simply doesnt contain any conditions.

          Verbatim as passed by the first Congress:
          “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
          security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
          shall not be infringed.”The well regulated Militia necessary for the security of a free state, no such stated conditions or limits of the right of the people.

          • Human898

            Read the Amendment again and ask yourself what it says is “necessary for the security of a free state” ?   It says, ” a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”

            If it was meant to include individual self defense, rather than a “common defense” (see the Preamble of the Consrtitution and look up definition of preamble) all the 2nd Amendment would have to say would be “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”   

            It does not say only that, but predicates that right on what is “necessary to the security of a free state”, that being “a well regulated Militia”.   Thus the “right” is defined as being applicable to those in duty to a “well regulated Militia” for the “security of a free state” (a common defense). not individuals interested in personal self defense.      By relating it to “well-regulated Militia, one could argue that those in duty to service to a well regulated Militia must also be able to not have infringements upon their right to keep and bear arms to fulfill their duty.   In 1792, it was the legal duty of all citizens (only free white men were included as citizens then) to be enrolled in, train with and furnish their own arms, shot and some other supplies.    Today, that legal duty does not exist for any that have not volunteered to service in duty to a “common defense”.    

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            every man is still required to register with selective services by law when they turn 18. its a legal duty

          • keltcrusader

            Not the same thing at all – apples and oranges

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the purpose if it so so that you can be drafted   for military  service should a draft occur- its excatly the same thing

          • Human898

            Every “man” and every “citizen” or “we the people” is not the same thing.  Also, registering with the selective service does not comprise of mandatory call up of ALL, nor mandatory training with all others so “the security of a free state” can actually be accomplished.   A rag tag bunch of untrained people with guns will likely kill a few of their own before they are quickly overrun by people with training, fighting in concert with one another and with community support, in other words, “a well regulated Militia”.

        • Human898

          It was also a legal duty to not only enroll in, but to train with AND to furnish one’s own arms, all in service to a “common defense” not a private self-defense.   Today the only citizens that train as “well regulated Militia for a “common defense” “being necessary to the security of a free state” are as you pointed out, the National Guard.   Require by law, everyone to enroll in, train with and furnish their own arms and by all means have the “right to keep and bear arms” for that which is “necessary to the security of a free state” and let all citizens have applicable arms.   

          Otherwise there seems nothing that suggests those that are not in service to duty to a common defense cannot have guns (lots of implements, not just guns, are “arms), just that they have no right to have any and all kinds of arms they wish to have.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            they would never have even thought it was a question because even under common law you have a right to self defense. even the dhali llama says that self defense is a basic human right innate to all people.
            it seems like a lot of the things that would happen as a result of maintaining standing armies are happening just as the founders said

          • Human898

            There are many ways for one to defend themselves, from your own fists to rocks and clubs to nukes.   There is nothing that specifies how one is able to defend themselves and if you are consistent in your beiefs, you would have no problems at all with any nation in the world acquiring nuclear weapons to “defend themselves” in the same manner the U.S. did.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            I have absolutly no problem with soverign states doing what they see fit to provide for their defense. Why would I?  I do not believe that owning a firearm is a right limited to americans.  The massachusetts supream court agrees with me as they just forced the state to issue firearms permits to legal resident aliens

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          should the city or state call me to arms i shall dutifully answer the call.  thank god it has not happened in  while. and if in the future such drills are needed i will equipped for service at a moments notice. by the way Jeremy i have registered witht he selective service havent you?

          • Human898

            Not the same as having a duty to train on a regular basis with others so when you are called in an emergency, you don’t shoot people on your side in the back and you actually know how to fight people who ae trained and do train as a mandatory duty.    Look into the history of the National Guard units of each and every state, they are the “well regulated Militia” of today.   Want a right to keep and bear the sorts of arms those in a well regluated Militia need to mount an effective “common defense” join the National Guard or change the laws regarding Militia (see Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution of the U.S. of A.) to once again include EVERY citizen and by law make them train, just as the National Guard does.    Then they might have an appreciation for what is meant by “a common defense”  (Please see Preamble of the Constitution and look up the definition of the word “preamble”) and understand a right to keep and bear arms is in the interest and duty to “a common defense”, not their personal individual defense.   For that, there are all manner of “arms” one can use to defend themselves, they don’t need nukes, an M134 Minigun or to fill there front yard with landmines to “defend” themselves”

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            you keep bringing up nukes. These are regualted by international treaties.  is the debate about private nukes or ar15s?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        a mighty fine rant sir!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      michigan can you please tell me which guns i can use for self defense? and tell me which guns are weapons of mass destruction?

  • Pat

    These discussions of creating a culture where carrying guns is socially acceptable seems counterproductive to the kind of culture I would like to live in and raise healthy, responsible children. Should we become wary of all people?  Perhaps we need a public awareness campaign like the anti-smoking campaign or as for breast cancer - eradicate guns (and particularly handguns) from our daily lives.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      maybe we should create a culture where violence is unnacceptable then it wont matter if everyone has a gun.
      “Should we become wary of all people? ” what does this mean?
      I support 100% a public capaign to promote responsible gun handling and ownership.  i like to go to the shooting range i would be very sad if that was eliminated from my daily life.

  • Neil Sampson23

    No one can have the deep and intimate knowledge of a situation that comes through the personal experience of it. So, with respect to Suzanna Hupp, and with sympathy for her loss, her argument, which poses the rhetorical question, “wouldn’t you rather be able to shoot back?” is fallacious. First of all, of course we would all rather be able to shoot back, or we would rather that there be someone else who could. I cannot imagine any rational person not answering in the affirmative, but that’s what happens when a person uses loaded questions in her arguments (no pun intended). The reason why this argument is fallacious is because it fails to grant the likelihood that truly effective gun control legislation would preclude the scenario altogether. “Wouldn’t we rather be able to shoot back?…” Well, wouldn’t we rather live in a society where we never ever had to be so prepared for such an event, in the first place?

    The fact that she was compelled by gun control laws to leave her gun in her car only to – lo and behold – find herself unarmed in the midst of a random shooting massacre, speaks less to the presumed bane of gun control laws than it does to their watered-down impotence, which comes to us courtesy of the pro-gun right.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      oh if only there were mor elaws the man would not have decided to go on a killing spree?

  • Tony

    I totally support her position. Everybody who wishes to carry a gun should be registered and have passed a gun use/safety course first.

  • Rlupodimare

    I understand Ms. Happ’s feeling and I do sympathize with her, but, but I do not agree with her message of arming, I assume everyone ,who goes out of the home to perform a simple daily errand in public, in Ms. Happ’s view needs a gun to protect themselves? . Her reasoning and resolve is based on a perfect mass shooting scenario where all are armed, perfect shots and have perfect control in a chaotic environment of a mass shooting. In this scenario, this is a recipe for greater mass killings committed by the shooter and the so called God fearing gun carrying citizen?  Now if everyone is perfectly armed in a public area which is becoming the norm, a shooter deranged or not will remain one step of his quarry. The record shows that these types are very good at planning their deranged assaults on the public, however, if the shooter does not have access to a gun or an assault rifle the chance of he or she to performing mass harm is limited or does not exist at all which translates: The general public does not have to arm themselves with guns. I know from personal experience that if a person is intent on killing someone, the victim will never know what happened to hims or herself. So what is needed in America? America needs an NRA that promotes hunting deer and not people through selling fear. Really, the NRA is about selling guns and using males with the lack of self esteem to promote their product makes big money for the  NRA and investors in the gun making business. It’s about money….. big money.

    • twohoos_mobile

      Her argument is not that everyone should be armed.  Clearly, there are people who would not choose to be or are not suited to be, and that’s fine.  Her argument is this: having passed a background check and whatever training the state may require (it varies from state to state), why would a state deny issuance of a permit (like MD, NJ, NY, CA) and why must some areas be deemed “off limits?”  She specifically pointed out, as others have, that these mass shootings almost always happen in “gun free zones”–usually schools and shopping malls.  The restriction obviously doesn’t prevent the shooter from bringing and using his gun, it only prevents law-abiding citizens from stopping their rampage.

  • Evelyn Allport

    First off, I really appreciate being able to hear stories from all sides on this issue.  This show actually delivers a “converstation” as opposed to “argument” and gives thinking people a chance to widen their perspective.  As we react to a story such as Ms. Hupps, we  often start out with empathy and end up comparing it to other mass shootings and/or searach out statistics to find a solution.  The problem is, situations (a brightly lit cafeteria or a dark movie theater) are rarely equal, and statistics are a fickle ally at best.   We have to understand, as we listen to Ms. Hupp, that she was legally compelled to be helpless in this situation.   Those of us seeking greater control on guns (and I am one) need to understand that ‘gun free zones’ may help far less than we would like to think.

  • Jim S

    To add a little more information to the dialog.  First Ms Hupp is a veterinarian, not an MD.  The shooter was armed with two semi-automatic pistols , a Glock 17, and a Ruger P89 .  Ms Hupp’s gun was 38 revolver.  While she may have used if she had had it, I doubt it would have been effective against semi-automatic pistols.  She is delusional.  Also her stats that she quotes are just plain wrong.  

    Also I know Killeen and someone in that cafeteria was probably armed and it did no good.   The fact is the more guns, the more gun violence. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      lol size does not matter in this case. 10 rounds of .50 that miss are much less effective than one round of .38 on target.
      The fact is the more guns, the more gun violence.  so are you saying the guns themselves cause violence?

  • susan

    Dr. Hupp said that someone having a concealed weapon would have improved the odds that the killer would not have been able to kill so many innocents.
    The odds would have been better also if we had a ban on the size of magazines allowed.
    Also if we had working system of background checks, improved mental health system, strict enforcement of existing laws, including registration, permits and insurance.. More guns concealed or otherwise increases the chances of accidents, suicides, and homicides, plain and simple.

    If her theory works about concealed weapons, are the statistics way down in the states that allow concealed carry? 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      do you think the killer would have complied with the magiazine limits?
      More guns concealed or otherwise increases the chances of accidents, suicides, and homicides, plain and simple.
      so you are saying that these things are caused by guns and not people?

  • Human898

    All I can say to Ms. Hupp is I am terribly sorry for the loss of her parents, but she seems in denial that her argument is also for the shooters as well as those she seems to think would automatically be saved. When there are ten people in a space with guns drawn, who knows who the offensive shooter is, who those trying to take the shooter down is? If there are limitations on the type of arms people are able to keep and bear, those that have them illegally are the criminals and can be identified as such by their possession. Otherwise, a perfectly “law abiding” citizen could buy the weapon of their choice, then proceed to use it in a criminal way, going from being “law abiding” to crimnal. No one can know the intent of the use of anyone with a firearm in their possession until that person uses that weapon (or does not use it). Thus a bunch of people walking around with firearms is no improvemment on safety, but more means for someone to carry a weapon to the site of where they intend to do harm.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      a perfectly law abiding person could buy a truck and drive it into a crowd of people.the person carrying a weapon to a site to do harm has already decided to commit a crime so it does not really matter if thats legal to that person already right?in fact not allowing guns to be carry legally will mean that those who dont care about the law will be the only ones with guns.

  • Flameworker2

    To qualify for a concealed carry permit in Virginia, one cannot be found legally insane within five years of the application.  Five years plus one day and you’re good to go?  THAT’S crazy!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      they are not required to provide any documentation that the issue that got them declared insane has been resolved?

  • Human898

    The guy that shot Reagan and Brady was not shot, he was subdued

  • Nourh3321

    I disagree with all my heart with this woman. Look at history, guns do more harm than good. If she had her gun I bet it would NOT have made a difference. Sorry

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yes we did not need any guns to defeat the nazies right?

  • Human898

    Guns were not illegal in Colorado, still how many people were shot and killed in Aurora, Colorado?   The gunman was not shot.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      guns were illegal in that theater. maybe the shooter missed the sign?

  • Kayro

    People who live in this state of constant paranoid fear are just sad to me.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      she sounds pretty secure and confident to me despite the tragedy she went through

  • Katmexico

    Suzanna spoke of odds no one can argue with, so lets talk about the odds of having more shootings as we allow more people to carry guns.

    • twohoos_mobile

      Yes, let’s.  49 states allow some amount of concealed carry.  Not one of these mass shootings has been perpetrated by a permit holder.  On average. concealed permit holders (having passed a criminal background check) commit all crimes at a much lower rate than the population at large.

      • Ursula2007

        Why are we arguing about concealed carry of a pistol? Did anyone suggest any legislation to ban that? Why don’t we discuss the pros and cons of President Obama’s proposed legislation, none of which “law abiding citizens” who just want to protect themselves should find offensive.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          what if besides just protecting myself i want to particapate in shooting competitions?

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      and what do you think those odds are?

  • Jason Phoenix

    In the last 30 years there are 0 examples where an armed civilian has prevented a mass shooting. Zero.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      because they all take place in gun free zones so “civilains” because they follow the law are not armed and thus unable to act. that was dr hupps whole point

  • Rick R.

    Just because one individual doesn’t want to take the responsibility to protect themselves or others, it doesnt allow them to not allow me to try and protect myself or others around me. I have no guarantee that if I fight back I won’t be injured or killed, but I at least want the ability to do the best I can with a situation that I have little or no control of. A firearm in the hands of one individual attempts to level the playing field.

    • Human898

      What if you enter a space where 5 people are shooting it out with no regard to who they might hit beyond their targets.   How do you (or law officers) know who is the offender and who is trying to disable the offender?

      • Ron O

        So where has this happened? 48 states with concealed carry and 5 armed citizens stand up and ” shoot it out” with the criminal ?

        • Ron O

          The implication that the armed citizen is trying to engage the criminal is misleading; the idea is to have the criminal duck and cover so police can engage.

          Colorado has concealed carry, I believe, and the only shooting came from the criminal …

  • Human898

    Why is it gun advocates seem to believe they will automatically come out on top because they have a gun, could it be they have the same mentality as the shooters?    “may come in handy at some time” can mean a lot of things to angry people and to people considering suicide.

    • twohoos_mobile

      No one has made that argument.  Specific to this story, Ms Hupps said that it “changed the odds” [in her favor], not that it guaranteed an outcome.  And that’s a nice straw-man argument, implying that anyone who wants the ability to protect themselves should the need arise must be just as crazy at the attackers.

      Also statistics repeatedly show that gun availability only alters the /method/ of suicide, not the /rate/.  If guns are banned (as in Britain), suicidal people simply turn to other methods (pills, hanging, etc.).

  • Missy Webster

    If I were in a situation like Dr Hupp was in I can see how one would want someone like Dr Hupp there and armed.  But the likelihood of being in that situation is EXTREMELY rare.  The more likely scenario is to be in a situation where there is someone (or several people) who are armed, untrained in how to evaluate risk and anxious to “save the day.”  One mistake and five people pull guns and start shooting.  I feel for her and I am sure she feels guilty that she left both her father and her mother in that situation, but giving guns to more people is not the answer.

  • ockitaris

    We need to get the fear out of our society.    The gun manufactures push fear through various  channels into society mostly through there interlocking directorate with the NRA.     Fear of an “over-reaching government” push especially by the republican party.     To bring some sanity we must take the manufacturing of small arms and ammunition out of the hands of the profiteers.  The forces of wall-street push the manufactures to extreme measures to increase profits.    The government allows people to own guns now it could allow people to own guns when it owns the manufacturing.      Of course competition creates hatred and can drive those of lesser steel crazy the last school shooter

    • Human898

      Peace and calm are not good for the arms industy, fear and paranoia are.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i hope that dosent happen thegun manufacturs here employ a lot of people.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DI3XYTXZGTDPUTFCEYIR4ILDIQ Steve

    Why don’t we discuss the purpose of the Second Amendment?  There is an excellent discussion here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/bruce-w-krafft/the-second-amendment-what-it-says-what-it-means/

    There is a risk to being free, and ultimately, nobody can or will guarantee our safety.  It seems to me, at least, painfully obvious that we retain the right to protect ourselves, which goes back at least to the Magna Carta.

    • Human898

      There are lots of ways to defend yourself Steve, from your own fists to rocks and clubs to nuclear weapons.   I think it is reasonable to make an argument, no matter whether one includes all the words and meaning of the 2nd Amendment, instead of the last half, that the 2nd Amendment does not refer to any and all types of arms and “arms” and “defense” are two different things.    The only mention of “defense” in the Constitution is “a common defense” (see Preamble of the Constitution of the U.S.ofA. and look up definition of the word “preamble)

  • Info

    I’ve owned handguns in the past, though I’ve never felt the need to carry one (were it even legal in Massachusetts). But I still don’t see why people feel the need to own powerful high-capacity semi-auto handguns and rifles that were designed for the police and the field of battle.

    I have no problem with semi-automatic pistols, “assault” rifles and “combat-style” shotguns being off limits to civilians. Deer rifles, hunting shotguns, perhaps revolvers (some hunters keep one on hand in case of bears) should be the limit. And no hollow-point or armor piercing rounds, obviously. And those guns should be regulated, with training, registration and background checks required. There. The well-regulated bearing of (reasonable) arms, which are still a heck of a lot more effective than muskets.

    Yes, that’ll take weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but law-abiding citizens have no more need for such weapons than they would for hand-grenades or other weapons designed solely to kill dozens of people as quickly as possible. Maybe the “bad guys” will still manage to get them, but that’s why we have police, and the military.

    I wish we could get past the fantasies about hordes of home-invaders and the overthrow of the “tyrannical” government and the focus on the highly visible mass shootings (which any given American has less than a one in a million chance of ever being in) and have a more sober discussion about guns from an evidence-based perspective. We also need to explore the collective anxieties and  insecurities which in our changing society are the oft-ignored underpinnings beneath many of the strong emotions around firearms.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so home invasions which are common place though they get little press are a fantasy yet mass killings which any given american has less than one in a million chance in being killed are a legitimate reason tot ake weapons out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Why do you think the police choose high capicity handguns to defend them selves? why whould a citizen have less of a chance to defend themselves than a police officer is the life of a citizen less valuable? When seconds count the police are just minutes away. You dont have any need of a bicycle either and god knows how many children we could save from death and injury by banning bicycles but in america we have a right to the persuit of happyness whether it be a bicycle or a warm gun. I used to work at an amusement park and i remember the training video quoted a statistic saying less than one i a million visitors are injured or killed at amusement parks making them one of the safest forms of entertainment.  Youth turkey hunting is statistically safer than soccer or football or basketball.

  • Conor Sands

    Most of this is misleading. Gun control doesnt effect the criminal… though it may create more of them. The right to bear arms is in defense of liberty and is meant to protect the people from a government that no longer values individual liberties. The assault weapon ban and the talk of limiting ammunition directly effects the rise of the American militia.

    • Human898

      So you’re all for criminals having a right to keep and bear arms for their personal liberty? Would you be all for a planeload of armed (armed with firearms) people on an airplane to defend their “individual liberties”?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        he did not say he was for criminals having guns. i would feel a lot better if firearms were allowed to legal owners then we could get rid of the tsa and a plane would be just as safe as a bus or train is now

  • Anmagro

    Ms. Hupp relays one of the most fundamental human motivations we hold, the protection of our young and loved ones. Her legislators let her down my disallowing her to protect her parents. Her feeling of helplessness brings me to tears. Did our forefathers not preach self reliance and the individuals moral obligation and constitutional right to defend against evil doers? Yes, they did.

    • Human898

      Ms. Hupp was illegally in possession of a firearm, she was not law abiding and had she, not her government, thought to keep the weapon where she could actually use it, her parents might still be dead and so might she.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        she owned her gun legally and was not illegally carrying it when she was attacked c’mon get facts correct

  • Walker

    The story of Dr. Hupp is a tragic one, as are all stories of wanton violence. No one can blame her for her anger, but we must learn to look past the anger and view the problem with cooler heads. Her argument is the same as those who called for more nuclear weapons, supposedly to keep us safe. This doctrine of escalation has never resulted in peace, or a decline in violence.

    • Human898

      Well said!

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      really when was the last time we had a nuclear war?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

     US history provides some great examples of what it’s like when everyone carries a gun.  They called it the Wild West for a reason, and things only improved with gun control (i.e. turning your guns in to the Sheriff when you rode into town).

    [Insert cliche about history repeating here]

    • Human898

      Exactly, some seem to have some romantic, if not bloody attachment to shoot outs, like the one at the OK Corral. So much so, some of the shooters are trying to re-enact them. I think the problem we may suffer from is a general attitude amongst some that the answer to all our problems (in the heat of the moment or otherwise) is to go grab a gun and shoot at the problem.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        is that the guns fault societys fault or the individual who wants to reenact the ok corral?

    • twohoos_mobile

      Actually, several studies show the number of killings per 100,000 was significantly lower in the “Wild West” than it is today.  There are probably many reasons for that, but verify your “facts” before positing an argument.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

        You might want to verify your “facts” before attempting to use a cliched phrase like “several studies show” as some sort of argument.  I think my facts are facts, but I have no doubt you can provide the link to some NRA funded studies to back up your claim.

        However, let me make it easy for  you, just check the first link on the list:
        http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wild+west+homicide+rates

    • jefe68

      I beg to differ with your assertions.

      Back then, Tombstone had far stricter gun control than it does today. In fact, the American West’s most infamous gun battle erupted when the marshal tried to enforce a local ordinance that barred carrying firearms in public. A judge had fined one of the victims $25 earlier that day for packing a pistol.

      “You could wear your gun into town, but you had to check it at the sheriff’s office or the Grand Hotel, and you couldn’t pick it up again until you were leaving town,” said Bob Boze Bell, executive editor of True West Magazine, which celebrates the Old West. “It was an effort to control the violence.”
      Dodge City, Kansas was  a “wide-open” town in the 1870s and 1880s and earned its reputation as a Sodom of the plains. Some of the most famous gunfighters in America’s history were officers of the law in Dodge including Wyatt Earp, Morgan Earp, Bat Masterson, and Edward Masterson. The “peace officers” of Dodge often had gambling and saloon interests and mingled with or counted as friends the likes of Ben Thompson, Bill Tilghman, and, our Fort Worth friend, Luke Short, among other infamous characters. As early as 1876, Dodge City had a ban on carrying guns on the north side of town (the south side remained wide open), a ban that was rarely enforced.  However, by 1883 the death toll from gun play had risen sufficiently for the town fathers to enact a stricter ban.  Ordinance No. 67 enacted August 14th 1882 specified that no one could “carry concealed or otherwise about his or her person, any pistol, bowie knife, slung shot or other dangerous or deadly weapons, except County, City, or United Sates Officers” and raised the fine from twenty-five dollars to one hundred dollars, no small amount in 1882. The Dodge City Times declared: “There is a disposition to do away with the carrying of firearms, and we hope the feeling will become general. The carrying of firearms is a barbarous custom, and it’s time the practice was broken up.”

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        so jefe is the moral of that story that no one ever got shot in dodge city again?

  • Ben Hernandez

    I want to add the idea of expanded training programs sponsored by local law enforcement. Shooting a pistol in a controlled environment is something you can practice. Shooting in a dynamic, emotionally charged environment is impossible to practice. It isn’t enough for citizens to be armed, they need to have professional training or the possibility of something going horribly wrong in any kind of violent confrontation is very high. If our country is serious about preventing mass shootings, we need to bridge the gap between law enforcement and ordinary citizens who carry.

  • Stuart

    More guns ARE the answer.  The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding responsible individuals.  How do you explain 42% of HH’s with guns and the miniscule fraction of one percent of those LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who are commit a crime with their guns?    

    Those are the people who need access and training.  I have listened to many arguments on this issue in the past 60 days.  I am not a member of NRA, I have one gun, I’ve hunted twice in the past 15 years and have two grade school daughters.  

    Foolish comments come from those who confuse fact with their version of reality a scared, buried head in the sand perspective.  

    Here’s another violent crime state for you:  5.3m violent crimes in the US in ’08 and a whopping 8%  that’s EIGHT percent involved a brandished gun.    

    Anti gunners are chasing the wrong issue.  It’s a cultural problem.  I’ll admit, guns are a band aid, but they are an effective one.  

    Limiting capactity or the appearance of guns that discharge in exactly the same manner as the majority of guns US citizens possess is NOT going to improve the stats.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

       “More guns ARE the answer.”

      Sure, as long as the question is “How can we kill more people?”

    • Human898

      Ms. Hupp said she was in possession of a firearm illegally.   How does that make her a “law-abiding” citizen?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        you might want to review her statement

    • jefe68

      This has to be one of the most inane comments I’ve heard yet on this subject.

    • Ursula2007

      Works both ways: Fewer guns ARE the answer. The vast majority of gun non-owners are law abiding responsible individuals. How else do you explain 58% of HH’s without guns and the huge fraction of 100 percent of those LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who have never committed a crime with a gun?

  • fuzzmello

    Don’t you think for an instant that Susanna Hupp isn’t a professional media expert making a living by being a front woman for the NRA, regardless of her claims.  She been taught the precise language needed to incite an emotional response.  She depends on the polite largess of civil  hosts such as yourself to make her living.

    Do you have less compassion for the mother or daughter of an accidental drive-by shooting victim?  Do you think they could be as skillful at at manipulating your audience as Dr. Hupp? And perhaps even with the reverse position on gun control? Then bring a few of them on next time, instead of this packaged NRA spokesperson.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      are you implying that legal carry permit holders commit drive by shootings on a regular basis? are you upset because she is too well spoken and articulate?

  • ninelives2

    It sounds like Dr. Hupp’s early life orientation was to confront in certain situations, (i.e. her dad’s choosing to rush the shooter, etc.)  I believe she and her parents each contributed in their own individual ways to her parents’ death.  I do not think her personal experience alone is reason to build a campaign for loosening gun control.  If the law enforcement officers attending the conference in the hotel next door were actually on duty and were without their weapons, that is a problem.  

    • Human898

      Moreover, what sort of society have we become where armed guards are required at every instance in our daily lives?    A paranoid one?    Couldn’t paranoia be included in the reasons some people reach for their guns and start randomly shooting at people they may fear without any justification based in reality?

  • JR1

    Sorry for Dr. Hupp’s loss, suffice it to say no one knows her pain and solution unless they’ve been there and that’s much of the problem with her argument. She cites her ability to take a step and analyze the situation objectively but constantly asks people to relive her experience saying emotionally provocative things like “if you child was in danger” in a clear attempt to rile up emotions..perhaps she’s too close to the forest on this issue.

    She also calls someone who doubts they could pull a trigger at the right moment “pathetic”. I could easily think the same of someone who admittedly leaves their elderly parents behind with a gunman saying only “if I just had my gun things would be different…”. I do not judge her actions that day, the point is I didn’t feel as though we could trust her objectivity 

    • jefe68

      This happens in combat with trained solders. They can’t fire their weapon due to fear or stress. How is that this woman thinks she could have reacted in such a cool calculated manner without training?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        so you dont think she would have pulled the trigger because she is a woman? what makes you think she has no training? i wonder how often soldiers in combat “can’t fire their weapon due to fear or stress. “?  i am sure it has happened but i doubt it happens that often.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so will you also criticize Oboma for literally standing in front of a group of children and reading  their letters and saying we must “do something” no matter how foolish “IF it might safe the life of one child”?  The point is that unless you have a gun you are unable to defend you self or others. What would you have done in her place?

  • Mejezze

    I am listening to the program as I write this and I keep hearing about all these studies.  The thing about studies, at least in my experience, is there are studies that can show an outcome in one way and you can find another study that shows just the opposite outsome!  So studies are only as good as the person or persons that are funding the study.  Gun control!  What have the current gun laws and control done for us so far?  So we think more gun control laws will stop the violenent mass murders?  Please.  Why not admit the core problem is us.  Yes us, the people of this country.  All the laws in the world will not prevent further mass killings unless there are law abiding citizens who commit to following those laws.  The fundamental problem(s) are within the person(s) who decide to legally or illegally acquire a weapon whether a rifle, a handgun, a home made bomb, etc. and go on a rampage.  Why can’t we admit to oursleves that the problem is a social problem.  There is something wrong with our society and the people who make up that society.  Maybe somebody should perform studies on the current state of our society and why we do the things we do to each other?  Lets get to the core of the problem and start there.  Additonal gun controls will not resolve the problems of the “We the People……” 

    • Human898

      I agree in many ways Mejezze, much of the problem seems to be the attitude of those who seem to believe the answer to their problems is to be found in reaching for a gun.   They seem to ignore, forget or do not want to admit that that attitude may also be the same as those who reach for a gun, but don’t see their problems as people with guns, but bullies in society or essentially whatever they feel they are free to decide is a serious problem to them and like or not unlike all the advocates for unlimited gun ownership reach for their own guns to “solve” their problems.   

      Those “problems” might include feeling totally at a loss in life and they decide to use that gun as the best means to end their own.  

      Those “problems” might include an unjust prejudice against some “type” of person or people and they reach for their guns to eliminate those type or people.

      Those “problems” might include the cruelty of others toward them or physical harm of others to them and they seek revenge for that cruelty or harm done to them.

      Those “problems” might include heat of the moment anger, be it over love, jealousy, hatred, political argument or whatever else in a spur of the moment burst of temper and feeling one needs to do the most harm they can to those they think have wronged them and they reach for a gun as the best “solution” they can find.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what if your problem is being a elderly woman who lives alone in a bad neighborhood?

  • Flameworker2

    I don’t have to imagine being home alone in Falls Church, VA,  with my three young children when someone tried to break into my house. I could hear two young adult male voices. Luckily, I kept my cool, put my nearby phone on speaker and dialed 911.  I yelled through the door, “Bob, get the door and get the gun!!”   My husband wasn’t really home and we really didn’t own any guns. I quickly herded my kids into the basement and locked the door.   The men could be heard running away and I went to the phone.  The dispatcher had heard what was going on and the police were already on their way.

    Later, upon reflection, I realized that there was a very good possibility that the would be robbers were most likely teenagers that were previous tenants of our rental home.  They had been by a few months earlier asking if they could find their skateboards that they believed they had left behind.  Kids do stupid things.  Good thing I was smarter and we could all walk away.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      guns are so effective for home defense just the idea that you have one acts as an effective deterrant. good thing you did not live in a place where guns are banned and those home invaders knew you did not have a gun

  • Human898

    One thing I believe is important to point out here is that Ms. Hupp was not a “law abiding citizen”, she admitted to owning a firearm illegally.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      nope ,she admitted to carrying her leagally owned gun when it was unlawful for  her to do so. i know that texas has the greatest percent of females who carry guns and the lowest incidence of rape

  • Al522496

    ask the strong doctor how many times she has shot at someone to kill them. her situation was terrible; i don’t envy her at all. i like guns, but i don’t pack. i hope i’ll never be in her situation but hope if i am i can perform.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      one fewer than she would have liked apparently

  • Rob from Oklahoma City, OK

    I understand her desire to be able to defend herself. However, I don’t see how her story is applicable to the gun control proposals at hand. I don’t see how having an assault rifle would help her in a diner, because she could not have carried that in under a concealed weapon act. And I don’t see how a tightening of the background checks would be bad for her sense of security. Nobody is talking about taking regular weapons away at this point, other than the fringe right and fringe left. The story was not applicable to the current situation, and giving her a platform to spout non-applicable scare stories is doing the moderate discussion a disservice.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      in massachusetts they are considering taking away legally owned firearms also they want to make it a crime to put more than 7 rounds in a hand gun that holds ten. this arbitrary rule makes a person who has gone through all the back ground checks and had police permission a felon if they put 8 rounds in their gun that holds 10. if a gun holds more than 10 people will be required to store it at a gun club- can you think of any item a person must keep at another location? these rules do nothing to stop any mass shooters yet some have already been rammed through in NY so its not a fringe fear to think they will also pass here in MA. Also a big part of the national debate, although it has seldom been discussed in the media is the idea of “gun free zones”. Dr Hupp was in the dangerous situation she was because at that time she was essentailly in a gun free zone as she was not legally allowed to carry her firearm so its quite germain to the conversation. also he greater point about blaming the killer and not the gun is also lost in many discussions we see.

      • Rob from Oklahoma City, OK

        I agree that the proposals in Massachusetts appear to be a little random. Still, she lives in Texas, and the MA laws are not considered in the federal proposals that were discussed. In that respect, the story did not apply to this topic, and only causes misconceptions, drowning out reason. There are already far to many false rumors going around ‘in the circuit’.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          there has been an ongoing debate about making CCW liscenses universal it must have been drowned out by the latest calls for banning certian guns

  • Marshall Dunham

    I totally agree that “gun free zones” are a magnet for psychotic killers.  If access to guns was the cause of mass shootings, Switzerland would have the highest rate of murder in the world because there is a fully automatic combat rifle and ammunition in nearly every Swiss home.  The real cause of these shootings has more to do with our lack of mental health care and the drugs that are being prescribed to the mentally ill.

    When it comes to guns in schools, one of the best teachers I know used to carry a 30.06 rifle to work in the logging camp school she taught in Alaska because they had bears wandering the playground.  She never lost a student.  All teachers do not have to be armed, just one in every school would be enough.

    • beenjaminNPR

      Well said.

  • Flameworker2

    Survivors guilt is not a good argument for more guns.

  • NJG

    As a clinical social worker I have to say that times of great stress, such as a shooting or other fight or flight situations, tend to hijack our ability to think rationally.  Having all people armed for protection, I fear, will lead to the exact opposite end result: more incocent people shot!  I am also afraid that the average law abiding citizen, if stressed beyond a certain point at work or just out-and-about, may misinterpret a situation as life threatening and pull their weapon which may be catastrophic.  

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      sounds like you are struggling with some irrational fears. come have a seat on the couch and tell us when this all started.
      or maybe they will pull their gun like the family that was recently attacked by a bobcat and save their lives or the mother in georgia who saved her childrens lives from a home invader. or rick perry will shoot a rattlesnake while he is jogging, oh wait those things all actually happened

      • J Aug

        As a CCW permit holder and strong advocate of the right to bear arms, I have to say you are acting like a petulant ass. His fear is not irrational. These stress situations happen consistently (ask battle commanders). You don’t need to belittle people’s feelings to advocate for your right. Those of us who support rights to bear arms could do without your “support.”

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          “Having all people armed for protection, I fear, will lead to the exact opposite end result: more incocent people shot!”
          this is not based in reality, so its an irrational fear. he said he was a mental health professional i thought he would get the joke. sometimes jokes help break the tension.  make sure your gun is secure in its holster you would not want it to fall out when you are on your high horse

      • Human898

        Who’s more fearless?

        The person that walks into a camp of armed people unarmed or the person that walks into an armed camp armed?

  • Bobpren

    A friend and I had this debate shortly after Sandy Hook.
    He: No, not all teachers in all schools should carry a weapon, but some should, and appropriate training of all gun owners is the key. Guns are not the problem, improper use if them is.
    Me: no, no, no… More guns cannot be the answer. Regardless of training, more guns will lead to more violence. What we need is (a) a complete ban and zero tolerance on the ownership or posession of high volume weapons, and (b) a public policy campaign that does to the perception of gun use what we as a society have done to cigarette smoking. We have done such a successful job of pushing smokers to the fringes that, while more than half of my 1981 high school class were regular smokers, I would be shocked if 5% of my daughters class will be. Because no one around them smokes, it just never occurs to my kids to do so. We have other public policy examples, like Scotland, to follow. Lets get to work.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      so how is the complete ban and zero tolerance of drugs working out? ditto for the public policy campaigns.
      about 25% of highschool seniors still smoke
      do the scots have a 2nd amendment?

  • Al522496

    what kind of doctor, ph.d, md, or quacktopractor?

  • BHA_in_Vermont

    Has Ms. Hupp considered the possibility that the shooter would have turned her into Swiss cheese as she pulled a gun out of her purse?  I bet not. A person NOT scrambling to hide would draw a lot more attention.

    “The guy behind her” would have as likely shot her as the shooter as she got in the way to shoot. And she would be equally likely to shoot someone trying to escape who was between the shooter and herself. I wonder how she would feel about killing an innocent person like her father or mother.

    How many people would have been wounded or killed by stray bullets had many of the patrons been armed and shooting at this “shooter in the middle of the room”. I can see it now, everyone in a circle shooting toward the center. Guess what, the bullets don’t respect the center of the circle as a stopping point.

    Granted this was a horrid event and all the “non shooter” “hits” might not have totaled higher than what occurred without the patrons having weapons.  I can see the “If only I could have done something” feeling. I suspect anyone would have the same response. Survivor’s guilt.

    Consider the OK Corral.  7 men 6 feet apart.  How hard can it be to hit someone that close? Apparently not that easy:

    - 30 shots were fired in about 30 seconds by 7 men
    - 3 were killed – one with 2 bullets, one with a single shotgun blast and one with 3 bullets
    - 3 were wounded – one in the calf, 2 grazings
    - 8 bullets and one shotgun blast hit a person
    - The other 21 shots went wild. And that 21 doesn’t include the 2 grazings. 23 of 30 shots ended somewhere other than in a body.

    This didn’t happen in a crowded diner, school or theater. It was in an alley where there were few bystanders and none in the line of fire. The activities preceding the gunfight were plenty obvious and gave people time to get out of the way.

    These were men who carried guns on a daily basis and lived lives of frequent threat. Even a police officer with “emergency situation” training misses. How well will your average “concealed carry” gun owner handle the adrenaline rush of the ONE life and death mass shooting situation they MIGHT have in a lifetime? I don’t care how much time you spend practicing on a range. The mass shooter isn’t a non moving paper target that allows you to get into a stable stance to fire.

    I have no desire to die in a mass shooting, but I think my odds of being killed by someone carrying a concealed weapon reacting to a perceived threat are higher than my odds of being in the wrong place at the wrong time where some deranged person decides to attack.

    • jefe68

      While I’m not an advocate for the pro gun lobby one must remember that those 19th century pistols were not very accurate when compared to todays sidearms.
      They aso weighed a lot more. Wyatt Earp was more likely to get in close and he used the butt of his gun rather than shoot. Makes a lot of sense in a bar.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100003000884786 Navin R Johnson

         19th century pistols like the Colt Peacemaker were very accurate when used by someone trained and practiced. 

        Perhaps you are getting confused with earlier flintlock dueling pistols which were not accurate.

        • jefe68

          They were not as accurate as todays pistols and they weighed a lot more.
          Which might be the reason that so many shots missed at the real OK shootout.
          Alcohol could have also been a factor. But if you practiced I suppose one could overcome the idiosyncrasies of these guns.
          Even today police miss moving targets a lot. It’s hard to hit someone who is moving, from what I’ve been told. I’ve only shot targets myself.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            the NYPD shot 9 innocent bstanders shooting a man infront of the empire state building and you think they should eb the onlyones with guns? you have absolute faith in their ability to keep you safe. they do not have a duty to protect you

    • Ursula2007

      I agree completely. I have no desire to live in constant fear, with every person around me armed to the teeth. I’d rather take the slight odds of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and being shot by a lone gunman, than the much more certain odds of becoming caught in the crossfire between two well-meaning but overzealous vigilantes, or someone who just “loses their cool.” Do we really want to return to the wild wild west with bigger and more lethal weapons?

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        i dont worry as much about the people around me being armed if i am as well.

  • twohoos_mobile

    So many opinions, so few facts.  Concealed carry has been around for years  (only DC and Illinois currently forbid it).  When it was adopted, opponents argued that there would be “blood in the streets” and that we were “returning to the Wild West.”  It didn’t happen; the overall rate of violent crime has continued to go down, and concealed carry permit holders commit crimes at a far lower rate than the population at large.  Usually, the places with the highest rates of gun violence are those with the strictest gun controls (Baltimore, DC, Los Angeles, etc.).  I’m not saying that less control _causes_ less crime, but clearly more gun control does not _prevent_ crime.

    • jefe68

      The Wild West is a myth. You are aware that in the mid 19th century you had to check you firearms with the local authorities in towns such as Tombstone and Kansas City. You were given what we now call a coat check.  

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        yeah no one ever got shot in tombstone did they?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Virgil-Starkwell/100002249009131 Virgil Starkwell

    Dr Hupp did make a somewhat convincing case that had she had her gun, she could have changed the situation in Ruby’s. However, a comment toward the end illuminates the problem. Hupp said that there were a dozen others whose guns were in their cars. If 13 people would have stood up and started shooting at the shooter, I doubt the death toll would have been less. In pretty much every shooting situations, gun advocates say the people in the room should have been armed. But that would just lead to massive shootouts. People in the back of the room shooting toward an attacker in the front of the room will likely result in the death of multiple people between, not the shooter. Wild west shootouts are not the answer.

    • beenjaminNPR

      “Luby’s” not Ruby’s, great cafeteria food.  One more thing, when a gun man or woman starts shooting up the place, he or she is obviously not in the right mind. I’d say that qualifies as the Wild Wild West.  Protect your self, because the cops won’t be there for another 4 minutes (or more), good luck buddy.

  • beenjaminNPR

    Finally NPR has a level headed pro-gun speaker.  Thank you Here & Now for at least trying to give the other side.   In the right hands, guns can be a benefit to society (police, licensed citizens) and yet can be so so deadly in the wrong hands.  But if the guns are only in the wrong hands, then what is a civilized life loving American supposed to do? Wait for the cops? Tell the gun man or woman that their gun is illegal and “if they don’t stop shooting people they are going to be in trouble with the Government”.  No, because by now he or she has already shot five or six people and is aiming at ME?  No thanks, NOT ME, I have the RIGHT and obligation to protect my self from those guns that are in the wrong hands. 

    Before you reply please note that I voted for Obama and am proud to have him as my President, I know that he has the best intentions for the American people when he speaks of gun control and I do back him, but please Mr. President, don’t leave our responsible, civilized, tax paying citizens defenseless against those guns in the wrong hands.  I am a gun loving Liberal American and I DO have the RIGHT to defend myself.  DEAL WITH IT!

  • Al522496

    she is dumb. wherever she got her degree should be shut down…

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      what did she say that was “dumb”?

  • John_Istvan

    The one thing that both sides of the gun control issue can agree on is that guns ought to be kept out of the hands of mentally ill people.  The problem is in identifying the mentally ill during a background check prior to the purchase of a gun (assuming a background check is actually performed).  Requiring mental health professionals to report voluntary patients who may pose a threat to society or to themselves, as in the newly enacted NY State law, violates the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship, posing a serious dilemma for the professional.  It may also deter the mentally ill from seeking professional help.  A better approach would be to require  gun applicants to take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - a personality test which is used by many private employers as well as government agencies to screen job applicants for sensitive positions.  This completely objective, true-false test can identify schizophrenia and psychopathic deviatation, as well as other mental disorders and attempts to cheat.  It may not be perfect, but it is far better than any other means I’ve heard about so far to incorporate mental health into the background check process.

  • TheIvorySoapBox

    Allow me to swiftly, and unequivocally  dismantle Suzanna “Doctor” Hupp’s arguments and credibility. I will qualify my vehement opposition to Ms. Hupp her duplicates with the fact that I am pro-gun ownership (with careful restrictions). 

    I. GENERALLY 

    A. The “guns for all” argument  advocates for a pound of cure, with a total disregard for the merits of an ounce of prevention  (laws restricting access), and would make Benjamin Franklin to scoff at its error in logic. 

     Deregulation of gun rights, or “freedom” as it is cleverly framed, like free-market arguments, rest entirely on the exception to the rule. Nevermind science, statistics and social tendencies and correlations, it is MY desire (at the risk of your well-being) to feel safe (and to get rich from the free market). 

    B. Guns for all will increase the bloodshed and tragedy: 

    1. The killer of Ms. Hupp’s parents would support her policy arguments. 

    It is unforeseeable who will be the mass shooters of tomorrow, so deregulation will increase the likelihood of their access to guns. Guess who are ardent supporters of Ms. Hupp’s arguments? Oh that’s right, the same “creeps” as Hupp put it, who commit these heinous crimes. They want guns too, and they praise your efforts.It is the premier assumption or purposeful sidestep in logic of pro-gun rhetoric to say that most people will use their guns rationally. “Those crazies” are you and me, not foreseeable loons

    2. We are emotional and “human” vulnerable to panic, and varying degrees. 

    3. Trayvon Martin, and the “hero” who murdered  him unnecessarily. 

    4. Guns Kill people because it all it takes a pull of a trigger, or a push of a button. 

    Like the cell phone and the internet, guns offer a unique panoply of power at our fingertips.  Guns are the most lethal and the most emotionally removed means of committing irreparable and deadly violence. Compare the internal decision making when you’re so mad you actually want to “erase” someone. Using a knife or your bare hands will be a greater burden then simply, point and click. As documented by the “numb” faces of the recent mass shooters, the acceptance of the weight of the action from shooting someone happens after the action, not before. Unfortunately for some with mental imbalances, their capacity for empathy is inferior, making it a lot easier to kill. While Hupp can argue that every shooting is carried out by a “freak” with mental disorders, it belies the point that the sheer efficiency of guns to create death provide enable us to put our empathy on layaway – and it only takes a click to kill. C. That if wasn’t for “gun laws” Hupp would have saved the day: 1. An amazing leap of logic. Yet Ms. Hupp was carrying her gun illegally despite gun laws up until that day in the diner (NPR Broadcast 1/22/13). Why the sudden respect for the law? Was it really a respect for the law that you left it in your car, or just a coincidence that has launched you into state politics as a PR darling of the NRA? 2. Pro-Gun Arguments are based in self-interest, not the common good. Here, Ms. Hupp has made substantial impacts on Texas and Federal gun policy because of a freak occurrence and her own personal tragedy. It is clear from her trembling voice and words, “I’m still angry” (Id.) that she is motivated at least explicitly by her own emotional trauma rather than what she thinks is best for all, and most likely implicitly by a desire for the fame, power and prestige that comes with being a public figure.II. “Doctor” HUPP’S  CREDIBILITY A. She is a “Doctor” of Chiropractic, not public policy, economics, political science or business. B. She is a “fame” politician pursuing her own self interest, not the common good. Her tragedy struck in 1991, while she was presumably working in healthcare, and then got a book deal and was elected to public office. Go figure. But elected officials don’t just control the pet-policies that launched them into the Capitol, they decide on the economy, the environment, and social inequality issues. Here, it appears Ms. Hupp’s political stance and mission can be summed up in one logical paraphrase: “I suffered a rare tragic event, therefore I should be your voice in congress and work solely to change national policy in accordance with that event.”III. IN SUMHupp is another fear-peddler profiting from a unique circumstance and populist outrage. I do not hold her specifically accountable because she is a servant of her own emotional and material self-interest, and the agenda of the NRA. I do however hold the uncritical supporters of her contrived ideas accountable for giving she and her duplicates stage and an excess of credibility. While her story should be heard and shared, her ideas about the political reaction should not because they are vested in a savage individualism, which is anathema to our collective values of “one nation” and a “more perfect union.” Thank you. I invite responses. J.J.C. Lewis & Clark Law SchoolPortland, Oregon

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      “Guns are the most lethal and the most emotionally removed means of committing irreparable and deadly violence”
      tell that to the people in oklohoma city or the world trade center or for matter tell that to anyone who is a victum of an american drone strike.
       “Those crazies” are you and me, not foreseeable loons”
      Really are you an emotionally distrubed young man? this sounds like you think that the guns make otherwise sane nice people into remorseless killers. the killers the media has recently made famous look like lunatics in the pictures of them before they did their killings. do you  really think a crazy killer will decide not to go on a killing spree just because they cant buy the gun they want at walmart? drugs are illegal are they hard to get?
      BTW Dr hupp is not a member of the NRA not that that matters

  • doug

    As I listened to this, a shooting on a  Texas college campus was reported.  As tragic as Hupp’s story is, there is only one person to blame and that’s the guy with the gun.  As it is in all cases.   

  • jefe68

    Ms. Hupp’s argument is flawed.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yes he is an excellent example of a actual citizen being able to use his carry firearm judiciously

  • Circusmcgurcus

    The bottom line is that we need to develop and implement better, not necessarily more, laws.  However, it is also true that good people who have guns often will not use them even in self defense.  Ms. Huff may blame herself and gun control laws for not protecting that crowd but that is a form of revisionist history.  Other folks from her region remember the Alamo…it was pretty well girded but when the Mexican Army climbed the walls, those armed Texans did not make it out.

    Recently people have been spreading really insensitive and ludicrous ideas – like if the Jews were armed Hitler would not have succeeded.  Right – so the armies of France and Russia were using, what – foam pillows?  The Warsaw uprising was a valiant effort to mount armed resistance and it failed not because those in the Warsaw Ghetto were unarmed or too afraid, but because Hitler and his forces were ruthless and overwhelming. 

    Or, the Dr Martin Luther King, Jr. would have supported guns over gun control – he was a pacifist engaged in civil disobedience and he was murdered with bullets shot from a firearm – so, again the history lessons got lost in translation.

    Please, let’s NOT blame the victims.  Let’s try, really, really hard to work (as our President averred yesterday) as ONE nation, together, we – the people – to manage the types of guns, the amount of ammunition, the requirements necessary for purchase, including background information, training, registration, and insurance (all things we comply with routinely for our cars).  We just have to find some common ground before any more innocent bystanders end up six feet under it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      wow i must have missed the part of the second world war  when the germans defeated Russia.  Why did Hitler decide to skip switzerland?  Dr king also had armed body guards and would never argue that a man does not have a right to defend themselves. Even the Dhali LLama says that is is appropriet to use violence to defend oneself. 
      Please, let’s NOT blame the guns.  Lets try really really hard to work together to find ways to make people not want to kill groups of people and to allow people to have the ability to defend them selves when needed before more people end up six feet under

  • Tim Juhl

    As a retired teacher of 34 years experience I was horrified by the events in Newtown.  I could envision myself in that situation with nothing but my body to put between the shooter and the children under my care.  It is a helpless feeling to know that even my death would do little to protect my students.  After thoughtful consideration I believe that properly trained teachers and staff should be allowed to carry firearms during the performance of their school responsibilities. 

    It would be a hardship for my old school district to hire armed security guards, they  are small and just don’t have the money.  As far as locking the doors to prevent shooters from getting in, they already do but my old building has no less than 45 entry points of doors and windows which would make keeping a determined shooter out all but impossible. Do we wait for another tragedy before we take steps to protect our kids?Two years ago I purchased a handgun and completed the training required for a concealed carry permit.  I’m not a gun nut.  I don’t hunt, limiting my shooting to practice at a target range two or three times a year.  Based upon the character and attitude of the people I trained with I take issue with Mr. Keller’s description of ” untrained people walking around with guns, spraying the crowd with lead looking for a shooter.”  Someone who chooses to carry a weapon fully understands the grave responsibility that such a choice entails. In addition, schools could insure that staff who wish to carry weapons go thru recurrent training and inservice as they already do for many other subjects. I would not suggest that armed school staff would or should be expected to perform the duties of a trained police officer.  However, had the staff members who ran to the sounds of shooting at Newtown been armed, they might have been able to prevent further killing or slow the shooter down until the police arrived to deal with the issue. Being shot at is not usually a part of such a shooter’s fantasy so an armed response might be all it would take to short-circuit an otherwise tragic event. 

    • beenjaminNPR

      Well said

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      i find it pretty shocking that people trust teachers to be alone with children all day yet they dont trust them to carry a firearm

  • beenjaminNPR

    “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
    –Thomas Jefferson

  • beenjaminNPR

    Dianne Feinstein has a conceal carries for her own protection.  Look it up, it’s legit, she really does. The ELF tried to kill her in the late 80′s and she still caries today. Dianne Feinstein has a gun!!! just ponder that for a minute?  How come she can protect herself, but yet she wants to limit my RIGHT to protect myself.  Why, is her life more important then mine or yours?  Just like her, I have people that don’t like me and just like her, you and I have a RIGHT to protect ourselves.

    • jefe68

      Because her job might be more dangerous than yours in terms of threats. If you’re job exposes you to the possibility being robbed, such a diamond dealer, then you should get permit to cary. You really do have a very immature outlook on this.

      • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

        what if i look simular to the diamond dealer and we both live in the same neighborhood? who gets to decide whose job is dangerous enough that they “get” to evercise their basic right to defend their life? everyone walks around on the same streets and thus faces the same threats.
        yes jefe believing in fairness is so childish good thing you said that

      • http://www.facebook.com/jeremy.thomas.395017 Jeremy Thomas

         You are a fool. You mean to tell the other 340-million of us that are lives are worth less than someone else because of their position, social status, wealth or vocation thus they are legitimately and understandably deserving or qualified to get a permit to carry for self protection but us other plebs are not?

        You honest to goodness believe that your and your families life is worth less than a diamond dealer or politician?

        • jefe68

          No just don’t think I need to live in that much fear to have to own a gun like you seem to.

          You folks who advocate this should maybe try to stop being so belligerent and inane. 

          a lot of politicians need and get protection because they receive threats from the very nature of their jobs.

          A diamond dealer obviously needs to think about being robbed more than a someone working as a carpenter. 

          By the way you need to work on your comprehension skills. I never said anyones life was worth more than anyone else’s did I. I just pointed out that some jobs required the need for being armed while others did not.

          That you seem to write such a diatribe as a response speaks volumes about the kind of person you are. One that I would think twice about giving a permit to carry a concealed weapon. 

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            oh because carpenters never get robbed?

          • jefe68

            Well they do have nail guns and hammers.

            Your comments really are very hyperbolic.

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            really we all live on the same streets is hyberbole?

  • bigkoala

    No law can cover every possible situation.  We know that seat belts save thousands of lives, yet every once in a while a car crashes into a lake, and an occupant may drown because they are restrained by a seat belt.  There is no question that motorcycle helmets save lives, yet in a small percentage of cases, the added weight of a helmet can cause the spinal cord to break, leading to paralysis or death.  We know that vaccinations save millions of lives, yet there are occasional negative reactions to vaccines.
    Ms. Hupp’s case appears to be a rare exception, where a law designed to reduce violence had the opposite effect.  But this appears to be a very rare event, and should not cause us to panic and allow guns to be carried in all circumstances.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yes a gun is like a seatbelt its only good if you have it handy. or like a fire extinguiser its not likely that you need it but if you ever do its the difference between life and death

  • It

    Every one of these sheep who call for more gun control like your previous guest Stephen are just so happy to wait for those their government feel are qualified to show up to save them from the wolves. Sheep always look to the shepherd as he sits back and enjoys his lamb stew.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      good thing the folks in Mass who were attacked by the bobcat had a pistol handy.

  • Russ

    This makes more sense than anything I have heard in the violence debate.

  • Mbr D

    Win, lose, or draw my biggest concern about the gun control debate is that once it is over the country’s appetite to lessen murder by the mentally ill will be satisfied and nothing will be done to help the mentally ill and their families who are NOT qualified to help. Check out http://www.irs.gov 2011 statistics, table 20. Over TWICE as many homicides were committed by beating, kicking, pushing with NO weapon as were killed by rifles. The rifle stat includes all rifles not just military style and may include some justifiable homicides. I doubt any of the beating deaths were justifiable homicide and I doubt the killers were lucid.

  • Paulamine

    I’d rather die fighting than be shot like a dog. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      yes it used to be that americans would have chosen to die on their feet than to live on their knees. now the trend seems to be the attempt to trade liberty for security and i think NPR listeners are smart enough to remember what Ben Franklin said about that.

  • Patrick

    The problem is that gun enthusiasts will not even have a conversation about this topic. They think their guns will be taken away which is maddening. I predict, at most, Obama will get universal background checks which is so common sense it escapes me why responsible law-abiding gun owners would have any problem with. 

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      look at the law in NY and the proposed laws in mass.

  • http://www.ohioken.com Ken Palosi

    While Ms. Hupp may feel that her experience is justification for more guns in our society I feel that we are regressing as more and more people are carrying guns, both legally and illegally. The weight of those weapons are pushing our country backwards down a slippery slope and I see our society going backwards instead of forward. Many most notably the National Rifle Association and other gun advocates can onle see more guns as a solution to the violence that pervades our society. Instead of we as a people accepting responsibility for the root causes of violence in America we seem to be turning our backs on the social and economic ills that desparatley need to be addressed. For more of my views on this subject please see my blog at http://ohioken.com/2012/12/27/it-is-time-for-us-to-take-a-stand-against-violence/ .

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      the problem is that we need more legal responsible gun owners and fewer illegal irresponsible criminals

      • Human898

        We can tell who is who how?   When they start shooting?    How many people that end up criminals buy their guns as law aboding citizens (Ms. Hupp was brealing the law by owning and possessing a firearm, she was  NOT “law abiding”)   What’s disturbing is all the people that appear to have trouble using their brains to think a little harder that claim some ungiven “right”. Not only that, but all the insecure people that seem to think they need a firearm on them 24/7 to feel safe in their own nation.

        • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

          I’ll assume by Ms. Hupp you mean Dr. Hupp. Dr. Hupp was 100% in compliance with the law on that day and owned her firearm legally.
               What’s disturbing is all the people that appear to have trouble using their brains to think a little harder while claiming some ungiven “right”.
          Did you mean to say God given right?
          as far as ” We can tell who is who how?” is this a Dr. Suess quote?

          • Human898

            “For several years I carried a gun in my purse, at that time illegally in the state of Texas,” Hupp told Here & Now’s Robin Young,….”

            What does the sentence that includes the word “illegally” say and who said it?   For how many years does Ms./Dr. Hupp say she was not law-abiding?

          • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

            yes she carried the gun when it was not lawful to do so but she owned the gun legally. you have been saying she did not own in legally.  its a big difference. 
             ” There are no God-given rights” I guess thats where you and the founders of our nation disagree. 
            Your last sentence is too stupid to comment on

  • Stuart

    When folks here and in the media (ergo P.Morgan) say “clip”.  You show your lack of understanding of the issues.  Liberals fail the to meet the supposed  be all open minded stereotype by not commanding knowledge of the terminology, issues and true motives behind the majority of us who are moderate conservatives.   

    You can go on youtube and find all kinds of videos of average people who with just a few days of repetitious practice for say 10 minutes per day can change a “clip” faster than those without a gun can respond in the heat of a shooting in any meaningful manner.   

    Lastly, please name me a society that has no guns or limited guns and more rule and gov’t control as suggested by “AlanThinks” that has thrived in history?    

    • Human898

      You should first try to listen.   Then you might hear all the people that are not liberals that are for gun control.

  • Williamson

    When the Sandy Hook shooting occurred gun right advocates pleaded for people to not act on their emotions.  Throughout the interview Suzanne Hupp repeated that she is “angry” over and over again.  Well it is hard to take someone’s policy stance seriously when they are still mired in their own emotions.

    She is the perfect person to man a bully pulpit.  Having lost her parents in a mass shooting, you could tell Robin Young had a difficult time taking her to task for her weapons stance.  So Hupp can brow beat the listener with her emotional pleas for more guns for everyone because she has edured this tragedy.  

    Well I am sorry but policy based on emotion in either direction is likely to be bad.  And Hupp didn’t show much care for the tens of thousands of people that will die this year from guns when Robin Young brought up the statistics. 

    It is difficult to debate someone who has the trump card of lost family members, but I think Robin Young could have done much better in her questions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      really can you give an example of a gun killing someone by itself?

  • http://www.facebook.com/chris.maciuba Chris Maciuba

    CCDW (Concealed Carry of a Deadly Weapon) laws are not inherently anti-gun control.  In my state (Kentucky), the requirements for a CCDW license are quite stringent, but still allow people who have undergone proper training the ability of self-defense as your guest mentioned.

  • Tjpennyman

    I have carried a concealed gun since 1968, that’s what it means concealed.. no one but me knows I  have it. My Promise to all  you! anti-gun people    if someone puts a gun to your head i will not stop them.

    • Human898

      How many people have you shot since 1968? If someone has a gun to your head, likely they won’t allow you to reach for your own weapon. If someone has a gun to my head, that means they are standing right next to me and I would prefer that you wouldn’t shoot at them to stop them because you are likely to miss, perhaps in the excitement and zeal of getting a chance to use your gun.

  • copperhead

    This story left so many questions unanswered that one
    wonders about the journalistic capabilities of the staff at “Here and
    Now.”  Has anyone ever followed up on the
    various claims Dr. Hupp makes?  Just
    listening in my car, I wanted to know 1) Why was she willing to
    break the law by owning and carrying an illegal handgun, but was suddenly
    overcome with an urge to follow the law by not bringing the gun – that she had
    for self defense – into the restaurant with her?  It was just as concealed in her purse as it was in her glove compartment.  
    2) She goes to great lengths to talk about how the killer faded away at the first shot of the police, yet somehow, everyone had time to
    stand around and watch as the gunman shot and killed her mother?  3) I’m not a policeman, but I’ve worked
    enough with police to know that they never leave their guns in their cars just
    because some proprietor of a restaurant or hotel asked them too.  Not in my experience anyway.  I am curious what law enforcement officials
    say about this claim.  And even if the
    officers did leave their guns in their vehicle, they did so at the request of
    the hotel owner, not because of some un-cited gun law, as to Dr. Hupp seems to
    suggest.  4) She characterizes the a victim
    of the Aurora shootings as pathetic, but never responds to his point that having
    a gun in a dark theater would have done nothing to stop the shooter.

     

    I’m sorry for her loss, but this woman is pushing a
    political agenda.  She makes no bones
    about that.  Good journalists would be
    willing to follow up on her claims and ask her difficult questions about her
    story.  We would all be the better for
    having a deeper understanding of what happened.

  • Human898
    • http://www.facebook.com/futo.buddy Futo Buddy

      So I guess this means you are not even going to pretend you want a constructive debate?

  • WhiteRabbit

    “Diversity” is code for chasing down white jobs.
    “Diversity” is code for chasing down white schools.
    “Diversity” is code for chasing down white neighborhoods.
    “Diversity” is code for chasing down Every. Last. White Person.
    “Diversity” is code for White Genocide.
    “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.

Robin and Jeremy

Robin Young and Jeremy Hobson host Here & Now, a live two-hour production of NPR and WBUR Boston.

July 22 2 Comments

Remains Of Clovis Boy Reburied In Montana

DNA from the boy buried 12,600 years ago shows his people were ancestors of many of today's native peoples.

July 22 Comment

After Malaysia Airlines Crash, A Closer Look At Planning Flight Paths

Retired pilot John Ransom discusses how to factor in war zones, and how the decision is made to close an airspace.

July 21 Comment

Boxing Attracts More Than Would-Be Fighters

At the Ring Boxing Club, boxers range in age, are both men and women, and include an award-winning author.

July 21 Comment

Why Hot Cars Are So Deadly

An average of 38 kids die in a hot car every year in the U.S. We look at the science of why cars get so hot so fast, and why children are more vulnerable.