Gun Free Zones – Interview with Katie Pavlich SHOT Show 2015

Townhall editor, Fox News contributor, New York Times best-selling author Katie Pavlich was at SHOT Show 2015. We were lucky enough to sit down with her for a few moments to discuss her documentary film “Safe Haven: Gun Free Zones in America.?

About the author: S.H. Blannelberry is the News Editor of GunsAmerica.

{ 78 comments… add one }
  • larry kocik January 25, 2015, 9:20 pm

    I think people tend to listen better when the views come from a young [contemporary] and intelligent and articulate journalist. There is an image people carry of gun enthusists being thuggish, ignorant with a violent nature.
    So thank you Katie for being a voice of reason and helping to disspell those nasty stereo types.
    larry Kocik [Kocich]…an old Slovak.

  • larry kocik January 25, 2015, 9:20 pm

    I think people tend to listen better when the views come from a young [contemporary] and intelligent and articulate journalist. There is an image people carry of gun enthusists being thuggish, ignorant with a violent nature.
    So thank you Katie for being a voice of reason and helping to disspell those nasty stereo types.
    larry Kocik [Kocich]…an old Slovak.

  • Mark January 22, 2015, 11:44 pm

    I am seeing more and more “gun free” zones. Last year about this time, some goof in his early twenties walked into the Martins grocery store near me that I shop frequently. They say that he was a loner of sorts. He walked around the store for about a half hour not purchasing anything, and then without warning pulled out a .40 caliber semi-auto and shot a girl working there as she stocked shelves, killing her. He made his way around the store and shot and killed a female customer in another aisle. As he made his way around the store, he shot at some others but missed them. Finally, he cornered one of the assistant store managers, had him on his knees about to execute him, but fortunately two officers that as luck had it, were within three minutes of the first 9-1-1 call. Any other night, at least 10 minutes away. That night though, they happened to be nearby. The assistant store manager about to be executed saw them, got up and ran, and as the punk took aim, the officers emptied on him and ended it. My point? Two really. One, right away the anti-gun zealots tried to turn it into an anti-gun rally cry, but as it turned out, the stock girl murdered was a very pro-Second Amendment supporter that frequented gun shows with her father, as admitted by her mother and father. One of the murdered victims was pro-Second Amendment, taking the wind out of their sails. My other point? After what happened that fateful night, to this day there still aren’t any “No Gun” zone stickers up on their doors. I have a lifetime conceal carry permit in Indiana, and although I don’t make it known, I do still carry in that store as well. I’m a friend of all that work there, happy to see them, them happy to see me. We support each other in many ways. Gun free zones only support the bad guys.

  • Al Legorical January 22, 2015, 8:46 pm

    a while ago I had an informal chat with a local peace officer, who was on school duty – yup – someone figured that having a (armed) cop on duty at the school may well prevent any mal intent…

    he said (sarcastically) “oh yeah, lets take all the fire extinguishers out and declare it a fire free zone”

    • Joe January 23, 2015, 12:03 am

      Good one.
      And good night.

  • Steve January 22, 2015, 6:29 pm

    Hey Mark or Troll (either works),
    My Pappy used to say “Figures don’t lie…..but Liars can figure”! I would say you fall towards the end of that statement.

    • Joe January 22, 2015, 8:09 pm

      Well said !!

  • Tom January 22, 2015, 3:42 pm

    I just have one question, Katie……will you marry me ? OK one more. Have you ever considered a career in politics ? We need more people like you holding some kind of political office speaking for the MAJORITY of Americans

  • Terry January 22, 2015, 2:22 pm

    The only thing to say is: GUN FREE ZONE = TARGET RICH ENVIRONMENT.

  • Alan January 22, 2015, 1:00 pm

    Great to have a youngster with such talent. Roger Ailes would do well to put her on full time. Katie, please watch the repetition of ‘you know’. Seems that’s a universal habit with lots of the media people and we don’t know, that’s why we’re listening. Cheers.

    • DaveGinOly January 22, 2015, 2:52 pm

      I had a friend in high school who said “you know” constantly during conversation. We started using “you know” back to him. “Yeah, Lou, we know. Do you know Wayne?” “Yeah, Dave, I know. I think we all know.” It became painfully obvious to him how often he used the phrase, and embarrassed him sufficiently that he started to self-monitor his speech and eventually broke the habit.

  • Dennis January 22, 2015, 12:57 pm

    The unfortunate thing about the current 2nd amendment argument/discussions is that it is flat wrong. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense. It has nothing to do with a hunters right to hunt and carry a shotgun or rifle. It has nothing to do even with the kind of ‘gun’. It has to do with the individual right of any citizen to keep what ever armament they see fit for a time needed in order to protect the people from a government gone bad. As long as we try to use the hunter, or self defense as the ‘reason’ to protect the 2nd amendment we are on a losing course. Most people these days are not hunters and far too many mistakenly think the police could actually protect them. The police are not even required to protect you if they think their own life is in danger. Many, to their credit, do, but they are not required to do so.
    The fight for the right to keep and bear arms should not be based on these hunter or self defense issues, it should be based on the fact that IT IS IN THE CONSTITUTION and is the law of the land. Our task should be to elect those who actually believe they should keep their oath of office and protect ALL of the constitution, not just the part they like.
    One more tidbit – Because the term “keep and bear arms” was not defined by the framers to mean any specific type or mode or armament, the law is that I have the right to keep whatever type of armament I choose. It should also be noted that it does not mean any particular section of the populace, it means ANY AND ALL who are legal citizens. It does not put limits on social status, class status, or any other status – it says THE PEOPLE have the right. And since any natural born US citizen cannot have his/her citizenship removed against their will, this means anyone not deprived of their citizenship or not deprived of their constitutional standing has the right to keep and bear arms – any arms.

  • Dan January 22, 2015, 12:43 pm

    Get rid of your armed bodyguards and then we can have a discussion about gun control! Amen!
    And why is it that so many, seemingly intelligent, people don’t understand that you can’t outlaw outlaws (nor mental illness)?

    • Harry Hodge May 29, 2017, 12:19 pm

      Let’s remove the taxpayer funded personal and family armed security from any official who disagrees with the 2nd. Amendment as stated. Make them work and live in GUN FREE ZONES as long as they work for the Government. Maybe the true understanding of the world we live in will make TRUE believers of some. But, I know my life and the lives others DEMAND be ARMED. I will always defend myself and my Family with enough force and type of weapon to be equal to or better than my criminal opponent. I believe and support the need for the 2nd Amendment. Simply stated : Legally I have moral and legal right to use the correct SIZE, COLOR, SHAPE, CALIBER and AMOUNT of defence to insure my life and others against criminal attacks anywhere we go.!!!! To restrict my ability in any way is criminal in itself and will not be tolerated.

  • Frank Pope January 22, 2015, 11:37 am

    Anyone who thinks gun-free zones work needs to Google 08/01/66. I was there and never want to be in that position again.

    • mark January 22, 2015, 12:32 pm

      And your point is????? What would you have done Frank? Seriously? You illuminate my earlier point perfectly. Your contention that you could have done something to stop Whitman is patently ridiculous! If every student on campus had an M1 that day the only possible different outcome might have been that somebody might have mistaken the gunfire coming from across the lawn instead of the tower. Then students could have gotten into a firefight with other students. Whoa, boy, would that have been fun?
      How about a different example. How about four years later at Kent State University. What if student demonstrators there had been armed? Huh, Frank? That would have been something then. The well trained Ohio guardsmen facing off against a motivated student body. It would have been like frickin’ Little Big Horn a hundred years earlier. I can see the headlines now “Soldiers die in hail of student gunfire”.
      I said earlier I own several guns of various calibers and configurations. But I’m not stupid. I pride myself on being rational.
      Let’s do a fact check quiz.
      1) The planet is running out of fresh water. true / false
      2) The planet is running out of oil. true/false
      3) Religious extremists of all stripes (islamic, jewish, christian) are more dangerous that religious moderates. true/false
      4) Drunk people make really crappy drivers. true/false
      5) Cigarette smoking damages the lungs leading to an increased possibility for emphysema and cancer. true / false
      6) The number of gun owners in the United States is on the decline. true/false
      7) Evolution is settled scientific fact. true / false
      8) The planet is approximately 4.5 billion years old. true/false
      9) Man made climate change is held as truth by 97% of climatologists. true / false
      10) Hitler killed 6-million European Jews with the help of a largely complicit population of non-Jews. true / false
      11) When the planet is out of fresh water and oil things will be just a little different. true / false
      Those are eleven easy questions. If you answered ‘false’ to any one of them you need to question your rationality. Does answering ‘true’ to all of them make you a liberal? Absolutely not. Just rational.

      • Joe January 22, 2015, 1:52 pm

        I get it now frank, you are just a troll

        • Joe January 22, 2015, 2:17 pm

          Oops, my apologies to Frank, Mark is the troll.
          Dyslexia can be a bear sometimes.

          • mark January 22, 2015, 3:02 pm

            Name calling – the idiots first line of defense. Hey, at least you know who I am. You’re just some nameless name-caller. You know when I was on talk radio I had discussions with irrational gun lovers on a semi-regular basis. My recollections were mostly that they were irrational, were prone to threats, and could never hold up their end of the discussion. They’d always spout some nonsense and then hang up. Why is that do you supposes? Go back to watching Faux News, they program for the likes of you.

          • Joe January 22, 2015, 4:29 pm

            Name calling ? You should be thanking me for pointing out the obvious troll.

      • Terry January 22, 2015, 2:39 pm

        Sorry Frank, but you are dead wrong. There is no moral equivelancy between Jewish, Christian religious “extremists”, (whatever that is) and an Islamist extremist and there is no “moderate” Islam according to the President of Turkey who has said that the term is an insult and according to him “there is only Islam”. Nowhere in either the Tora or the Bible does it command the adherents of these religions to KILL any non believers who don’t convert. Only the Koran so commands its faithful.

        The number of gun owners in America is NOT decreasing. (Source please) If anything they have increased since Obama was elected and Eric Holder became the Attorney General of the U.S.

        Evolution is NOT a settled “scientific fact”! Billions don’t accept that and “intelligent design” has many scientific supporters.

        “Man Made Climate Change” is not even held in truth by the founder of the Weather Channel a noted climatologist himself, let alone 97% of ALL climatologists. (source please)

        There is absolutely no proof the planet is “running out of fresh water”. (Source please)

        You have sprinkled a few legitimate true/false questions in your quiz in the search of authenticity and acceptance but like all liberals you label any and all who don’t agree wtih your suppositions as “irational”. You are just another my way or the highway leftist gun grabber.

      • DaveGinOly January 22, 2015, 2:48 pm

        Nos. 1, 6, and 9 are all “false.”

        #1 – We aren’t “running out of fresh water.” There’s plenty of fresh water (and ways to make more). Some areas suffer from water shortages because of too much demand, inefficient use, and poor management practices.
        #6 – The number of gun owners is on the increase according to two notable metrics. First, the number of background checks has skyrocketed during the Obama administration. Even allowing for the fact that most (not all) gun purchases are made by people who already own firearms, this cannot account for the number of purchases. Second, more women are becoming firearms owners (i.e., as first-time buyers). Any way you look at it, the number of firearms in private hands, the number of people who own them, and the number of households in which there is a firearm are all “up.” If you disagree, I’d like to know where you get your information.
        #9 – This figure has been thoroughly debunked. It was specious from the beginning and it’s still specious. For instance:

        BTW, #1 is “false” but #11 is “true” because #11 stipulates “when the planet is out of fresh water.” Obviously, “when the planet is out of fresh water” things will be different, but acknowledging this is not contradicted by rejecting the claim in #1.

      • Dennis January 22, 2015, 2:50 pm

        Mark – you need to do a bit more study. your item 6 is not true. While true about certain types of guns, overall the hand gun ownership in the US per household, except for a couple years during the 80’s and 90’s, is shown to be pretty consistent ranging from about 20% in1973 to about 22% in 2012. But also to be remembered is that many do not report gun ownership. It is more likely that a person who did not own a gun would say they do not than a person who does own a gun would say they do. Quite frankly it is none of the governments business if I do or do not own a gun.

        Anyway, seems that at least one or more of your supposed answers are incorrect. But then it seems that you think anyone who does not agree with you is either ignorant or not rational. That in itself is irrational.

        • Joe January 22, 2015, 4:27 pm

          Marks a troll, and he doesn’t like me for pointing it out, don’t feed it and it wont spout bloomberg spam.

      • DaveGinOLy January 22, 2015, 3:05 pm

        “How about four years later at Kent State University. What if student demonstrators there had been armed? Huh, Frank? That would have been something then. The well trained Ohio guardsmen facing off against a motivated student body.”

        So you think the situation at Kent State (armed government soldiers and unarmed citizen students) was ideal? Do you think the government should have a monopoly on lethal force? Do you think the government should be able to slaughter its citizens with no expectation of armed resistance? Do you think that the minute men at Concord and Lexington should have faced British regulars as the students at Kent State faced the National Guard – unarmed, but with good intentions?

        If you do think these things (and it appears that you do), then you’re a fascist and a totalitarian.

        • mark January 22, 2015, 3:46 pm

          It’s called ‘sarcasm’ Dave. Look it up in a book called a ‘dictionary’. 🙂

        • Terry January 23, 2015, 11:13 am

          Now you’ve stepped in it! I was an Ohio National Guard Army Officer at Kent State and I can tell you unequivically that “….the students at Kent State faced the National Guard – unarmed, but with good intentions?” did not do any such thing. They had stockpiled rocks and bricks from a construction site near the “commons” the night before to use against the Guard. They had nefarious intentions from the get go and were spurred on by their idiot liberal professors. The unit that fired on the students were indeed in fear of their life as there were shots fired just prior to them engaging the students. The students killed were not fired at directly. The unit fired in the air and the students hit were hit coming over a hill, except for Sandra Scheuer who was hit by a stray round.

          Now if you want to argue that perhaps the Guard should have been equipped with riot batons instead of M14s you’ll get no argument from me. The students scattered like roaches when the lights are turned on when the Ohio Highway Patrol confronted them with batons after the shooting. But that was not the case and the Guard had no other weapon do defend themselves against the bricks and concrete thrown their way. You might not be aware but the night before the confrontation a Montgomery County Deputy Sherrif patroling on foot in Kent suffered massive brain damage when a cinder block was dropped on his head without any provocation from a second story window. These kids, and use the term loosely were out for blood and thought they were entitled to confront and challenge any authority and burn buildings (ROTC center was burned the night before and was the reason the Guard was there in the first place)and attack fire fighters trying to do their job.

          Don’t invoke anythng about Kent State unless you actually walked the campus in a Guardsman’s shoes as I did.

          • Terry January 23, 2015, 11:22 am

            A correction. Troop G of the 107th Armored Cavalry, Ohio National Guard were carrying M1 Garand rifles at the time and not M14’s as I stated.

      • Mike January 23, 2015, 9:02 am

        Mark, you might not be a troll, but you’re a stupid, ignorant, emotional airhead. 8 out of the 11 statements you present are false. Number 11 is a non-sequiter, it requires that 1 and 2 be true, which they are not. You need to quit believing all the crap you learned in high school. Come to think of it, you ARE a troll.

  • David A. Pryce January 22, 2015, 11:11 am

    Having a firearm and a right to carry one means more to me than self protection. I carry a fire arm for the safety of others as well. I do not wear a firearm for an ornament or to make point. It is a concealed weapon and stay concealed until needed. I know too many people who do just that. In a crises situation they would cower in the shadows and not come to the aid of others who are in dire straights. I feel that if any one who has a concealed weapon permit and has a weapon upon there person and did not act to prevent a lethal crime to another person should have there privilege of having a concealed weapon should be revoked and hope that any bystander if in the same situation will come to their aid.

    • Kevin January 22, 2015, 12:37 pm

      Mr. Pryce:
      I have a CHL and carry all day, every day, everywhere……that doesn’t make me the Police. I carry for the protection of myself and my family and I don’t consider myself a “protector of the Public”, that’s not my job or my mission. As for what I would do to protect someone else, I’m not sure, it would depend on the circumstances, the law, the liabilities, possible danger to others of firing my weapon and other factors. One thing I am sure of is that I don’t have to “cower in the shadows” because as a CHL holder, I have the ability to defend myself. But you don’t speak for me and you don’t know how me anyone else would react in any situation to protect someone from harm.
      If you feel the need to defend everyone around you in a life threatening situation, I suggest you join the Police Dept., If you can qualify.
      The PD does background checks, drug screening and PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS

      • Dennis January 22, 2015, 1:54 pm

        Unfortunately, the sad misconception by many, if not most, is that the police are there for your protection. That idea however has been tried in many courts in the land and as a general ‘rule’ these same courts have made it clear that the police are not actually required to protect you, or to endanger their own lives in any ‘life threatening’ situation. Thank God many are willing to go beyond the call of police duty, but it is not a requirement. So the idea that ‘police protection’ actually exists is wishful thinking. Any real protection for yourself or your family must come from you.

        As to helping others in ‘dire straights’, I would hope that I would, however, that is not a requirement of concealed carry permits nor is it a requirement of citizenship. Like the police, the concealed carry holder is not obligated to protect anyone and to say they should have their permits voided because they choose not to, is insincere and quite naive.

  • Dennis January 22, 2015, 10:52 am

    Well done Katie for Presadent

  • Jeff January 22, 2015, 10:33 am

    I agree with everything that she said EXCEPT the idea that if Bloomberg and the like give up their armed guards, then we can talk.
    No number of people choosing to make themselves more vulnerable will make me willing to engage in a real discussion about giving up my right to protect myself. I fully support calling Bloomberg out on his hypocritical double standard, but can’t support the idea that his actions influence my actions.

  • Curt January 22, 2015, 9:40 am

    Mark and Bob can you mature enough to do without the sexual remarks. I’m betting if that was a man giving the interview, you guys wouldn’t be saying the same things.

    Ms Pavlich is a very articulate and competent journalist. I read her work almost daily and to degrade those talents by e-catcalls and sexual inuendos is totally uncalled for on your part.

    The other Mark, don’t know if it’s the same Mark as referenced above, if so you are 0 for 2, I am betting she got that information from research. She is very thorough and accurate in the things I read. I check. As an example, buy a copy of her Fast and Furious book.

    Larry, a spot on observation about the ums and aahs. It is distracting, yet very prevalent during presentations.

    Katie, keep up the good fight. You have a tremendous platform to use your voice to speak for the rest of us.

    • michael January 22, 2015, 10:32 am

      Well said Curt. i was attracted to her article first; not her looks. i’ve seen her on Fox and Friends and the FOX network severl times and come away with the same thought; great reporting, educated, articulate and conservative minded.

    • mark January 22, 2015, 11:11 am

      Curt, not the other Mark…so I guess I’m only 0 for 1. 🙂
      Her assertion is ridiculous. As a lifelong gun owner, career TV news reporter, radio talk show host, I pride myself on being rational above all else. And that’s the problem. Gun owners and gun control advocates quickly go irrational and in my experience gun owners go faster and farther than gun control advocates.
      Long ago I was interviewing a soldier (airman) at an air show at a military base in Montana. I asked him what level of restrictions he would place on private gun ownership. He said “none”. I was a bit taken aback by that answer so I probed deeper. I said “what about a fully auto rifle, or Mac-10 style pistol?” He said “none”. “Okay”, I said, “what about a grenade launcher?” He said “none!” We turned off the camera and I said “okay, I know you’re just saying that shit for the camera. And I don’t want to get you in trouble so I won’t use that interview, but seriously, what level of restriction would you place on civilian ownership of guns?” “None”, he said, “none at all. If somebody wants to buy an M60 or a LAW who am I to say they shouldn’t be able to buy one.”
      That conversation has always stuck with me.
      The journalists in France apparently had two levels of police protection. And that fell short when put against two heavily armed guys who had the element of surprise. I would argue that if each and every one of those journalist/cartoonists had been armed they would still all be dead because the advantage of surprise in that situation.
      If I’m pointing a loaded gun at you there’s little you can do except say your prayers. I’ll shoot you dead before you can ever pull your concealed, or unconcealed weapon. That’s a simple fact.
      Statistically a gun in the house is far more likely (what’s the stat on that? 80% – 90%) to kill you or a loved one before it kills some person breaking into the house at night. Sure it might make you feel safer, but the statistics are against you.
      That said, I have a loaded gun in the house. I just don’t delude myself as to what it statistically is likely to do!
      But gun owners don’t want to hear that argument.
      And I can tell you from 25 years in front of the camera Ms. Pavlich is pretty unremarkable. But she did serve one purpose remarkably well…she identified what really intelligent gun owners value most.

      • Joe January 22, 2015, 11:53 am

        There is always a chance to defend oneself if properly equipped. If not so equipped there is NO chance.
        As for one with your outlook, just kiss your bottom good by because people such as you with that attitude are defeated before you get started.
        If I used the wrong their / there for your comment response sue me…

        • mark January 22, 2015, 12:37 pm

          anonymous one,
          which part of ‘no chance’ don’t you understand? the people in Paris had ZERO CHANCE! when some guy has a rifle pointed at you unless you have a gun pointed at him and pull the trigger first you have ZERO CHANCE! I’d be happy to demonstrate that for you (with unloaded guns of course). 🙂
          you used the proper ‘there’. ‘their’ refers to other people.

          • Dennis January 22, 2015, 2:07 pm

            Mark – you make an assumption of ‘no chance’ and you know what they say about assumptions. Only the end can reveal who did and did not have a chance. While those in many of the terrorist attacks have had some training in killing others, it is still a far stretch to make wild assumptions. No body knows how any of these situations would or would not have ended if sufficient citizens were armed.
            Some times simply knowing that there is a possibility of running into an armed populace prevents things from happening. For example, when Japan had thoughts immediately after Pearl Harbor to invade the US the reason they did not was because a military leader in Japan said that Japan would NOT invade simply because of the idea that there ‘was a gun behind every blade of grass’.

            Anyway, don’t make assumptions you cannot prove and the proof would only be who was alive and who was dead after the attack.

      • Tom K January 22, 2015, 1:36 pm

        So, what’s your point Mark? Knives, swimming pools, ladders, cars, power tools, they all are dangerous and cause deaths.. Do we just all now live in a bubble so no one gets hurt or killed? Getting out of bed is a risk, driving or riding in a car, bus, train, plane, is a risk.. It’s just a phobia, a fear of death that makes people fear a gun.. A gun is just a tool, as is a hammer, knife, machete, car, power saw, etc. is.. It cannot hurt you unless someone actually pulls it’s trigger, anymore than a chain saw can hurt you unless someone starts it up.. Get over your Phobia’s..

        • Joe January 22, 2015, 2:19 pm

          He is a troll, don’t feed him.

      • DaveGinOly January 22, 2015, 2:32 pm

        If you truly believed that having a gun in the home makes the home environment more dangerous (rather than less dangerous because of it enables you to better protect/defend its occupants), then you’re a complete idiot. Only an idiot would intentionally do something that he admits makes his family (and himself) less safe in the home. The only alternative is that you really don’t believe a gun in the house makes the environment less safe, and you’re just blowing smoke (aka “lying”) here.

        Which is it – idiot or liar?

        BTW, any argument you present in defense of having a gun in the home for protection will have to destroy your statement that the gun makes the environment less safe. If it doesn’t, we’re back to “idiot.” No rational, intelligent person keeps a gun in the home believing that it makes his home less safe.

        • mark January 22, 2015, 2:59 pm

          Dave, et al,
          Statistics don’t lie. Guns kept for self defense are ten times more likely to kill the owners (suicide) or a loved one (homicide, accident). If you believe otherwise head to Vegas! They love people like you (my guess is you’ve already been there – a lot.)

          • DaveGinOly January 22, 2015, 3:17 pm

            If you’re re-read what I wrote, I didn’t challenge your claim. I challenged your logic.

            You said having a gun in the house is more likely to injure or kill a household member than it is likely to be used in self-defense against an intruder. But you then went on to say that in spite of this “fact” that you have a gun in the house for self-defense. By your own assessment of the “facts” you have made your house more dangerous for its occupants than safer for them. I can only conclude from this that you’re an idiot or you really don’t believe your own “facts.”

            BTW, assuming you’re married, if your wife ever uses your gun against you in lawful self-defense in a domestic violence situation, that will go into the stats as the use of a gun in the home against a member of the household – with complete disregard for whether or not the use was in lawful self-defense. Of if your crazy Uncle Joe shows up high at your place and attempts to kill you, but you kill him with your gun, this will be recorded as a gun in the home used against a family member. Do your stats (if you have any) take situations like this into account? Almost certainly not.

      • Terry January 22, 2015, 2:49 pm

        “Statistically a gun in the house is far more likely (what’s the stat on that? 80% – 90%) to kill you or a loved one before it kills some person breaking into the house at night. Sure it might make you feel safer, but the statistics are against you.” (Source please!)

        Like most liberals in the media you throw around statistics for which you have no substantiation. If you do, then present it. But I don’t buy your 80%-90% number. A firearm properly cared for and secured within a house makes the home safer. On your supposed interview with the soldier he was right. He was making the point that the 2nd amendment doesn’t have a caveat that says “shall not be infringed, except when in the interest of the government to do so…”

      • Ben January 23, 2015, 3:45 am

        The young Airman which you interviewed was absolutely correct. The 2nd amendment does not say anything about the weapon having to be a musket or Kentucky long rifle. It merely states that having the weapon will not be infringed. If an invading army or terrorist is armed with a bazooka or a grenade launcher or for that matter a tank. Anyone who has to go up against that individual should also have the ability to be able to obtain and use the same kind and type of weapons. If I’m attacked with a fully automatic weapon that can hold 100 rounds of ammunition, I to want to be able to have the equivalent type and kind of weapon. That should be what the founding fathers had in mind when they wrote the second amendment to the constitution. If all able bodied men are suppose to form a militia when needed, they should be armed with the equivalent type of arms as do their enemies in order to be able to fight against them effectively.

  • Richard January 22, 2015, 9:40 am

    Anybody that does not believe in self protection,go ask the people if they won’t you to have a weapon that is not for the good. What are you going to do run, they do not need nor want a weapon that is registered to them. If you do not have a factory,there’s will be underground. And you will have nothing. Thanks for understanding life’s perdicument.

  • Richard January 22, 2015, 9:39 am

    Anybody that does not believe in self protection,go ask the people if they won’t you to have a weapon that is not for the good. What are you going to do run, they do not need nor want a weapon that is registered to them. If you do not have a factory,there’s will be underground. And you will have nothing.

  • PudbertSavannahGA January 22, 2015, 9:02 am

    A real Liberal conundrum:

    “Gun control defined: The theory that Criminals who are willing to ignore laws against rape, torture, kidnapping, theft, and murder will somehow obey a law which prohibits them from owning a firearm.”

    A conundrum….that which does not compute?

  • Don January 22, 2015, 8:46 am

    Very well spoken and well informed, nice interview,

  • mark January 22, 2015, 8:46 am

    “…their (Europe) violent crime rate is a lot higher than ours.”
    WOW! what did she base that on?

    • eric January 22, 2015, 9:05 am

      It’s true – some say there’s less gun crime, but lots more violent crime, per capita.

      • mark January 22, 2015, 10:23 am

        Some say there’s less gun crime? Some say the planet is round. That doesn’t necessarily make it true.

    • Al Legorical January 22, 2015, 10:47 am

      Being an ex-pat brit, now living in “the land of the free” – which I pray remains so…

      I can tell you that violent street crime in britain is FAR more prevalent than in the US, the stats are (deliberately – IMO) skewed,
      I know (first hand by knowing the victim/relative) of 2 armed robberies in a year in a small retirement town in Sussex, both victims were shot with a handgun, one died. News??? Apparently not – all they got was a “mention” in the local paper!

      London IS one of the most dangerous cities in the world, outside the tourist parts, that is.
      Unless you are a muslin, you really would be ill advised to be anywhere near a mosk when they turn out… I know… I ran!

      Criminals aquire (any) guns with ease. Then there are the stabbings and bludgeonings that only figure in the number of TOTAL assaults and/or deaths – which is hard to find – rape good luck finding the REAL stats, same with the number of muslim attacks (honor it’s called) throwing sulphuric acid or other in the face of the victim.

      Assaults and/or death by gun, is lower. But ALL assaults and/or homicide – it’s higher, and WOULD be lower if the good citizens were armed!

      Then of course there is the epidemic of home invasions – driven by cameras watching public place – all the victims can do is pray they are “allowed” to live…

      There is more, however I could write a book

      • Dusty January 22, 2015, 11:37 am

        Amen…..ditto throughout Europe !!!!
        That would be a great book btw perhaps opening up some eyes here…..oh forgot these are people who don’t venture or live outside the tourist locations/bubble not to mention reality.
        Police arrive at approximately the same time as the EMT’s (give or take) there as here….so it’s kind of on you to be able to solve the provlem(s) or be an incredibly fast long distance runner

      • Dennis January 22, 2015, 12:29 pm

        Good to see that all who come to the US from the UK are not Liam Neeson types.

    • Kevin January 22, 2015, 12:01 pm

      She’s done the research Mark…..I guess you haven’t.

    • Joe January 22, 2015, 2:22 pm

      Facts, those things that you troglodytes hate.

  • barry January 22, 2015, 8:43 am

    That is one of the best interviews I have ever seen, what a great job.

  • Bob January 22, 2015, 8:37 am

    You are gorgeous, I could watch you take out the garbage. You go girl……..

    • John January 22, 2015, 10:02 am

      Heck, I’d take out the garbage for her. Very smart and articulate young lady. I wish there were a lot more young people like her.

  • Thomas January 22, 2015, 8:24 am

    Sharp young lady. Articulate, and knowledgable, has her facts well in hand. Would be a tough one for the Bloombergers and Feinstines to deal with in a public one on one debate. Best to her.

  • John January 22, 2015, 8:02 am

    Katie is the most intelligent articulate and attractive pro gun proponent in the country.
    You are in a position of great power and responsibility as editor of Townhall and deserve greater exposure
    In the media.

    I hope you decide someday to enter politics so you can gain the power to protect those of us put at risk by the many policies of the progressive liberal structure.
    I also wish you could join Fox permanently so your clear headed and concise analysis would reach a greater audience.
    Rock on Katie
    John W

    • Vicious556 January 25, 2015, 11:39 am

      And you would have literally millions of armed gaurds. Every member of the NRA and those that don’t yet belong. You have our support.

    • mtman2 January 26, 2015, 1:22 pm

      Now it obvious she’s your fave John; but there’s plenty more to go around like Dana Loesch, Sarah Palin, Kimberly Gilfoyle, Judge Jeanine, Second Amendment Sisters, Inc. and pages full you could look up.
      Good-Girls n Guns, should be a name for a really great group ~!.

    • ejharb June 15, 2015, 8:50 am

      Draft katie for president!
      I’d even build a new Whitehouse for her.
      I almost feel sorry for the man who wins her heart . NON-STOP A-GAME

  • Mike K January 22, 2015, 8:00 am

    Political nonsense. Gun free zones accomplish nothing other than giving the bad guys a safe place to commit mayhem. Anyone who believes differently is ignorant, stupid or both.

  • Larry January 22, 2015, 7:59 am

    Katie, Nice to see a young person with a mind of their own, not just spouting off a bunch of crap they don’t know anything about. You are awesome. Try to work on the the use of uh, and um in your speeches. You rock.

  • Wayne January 22, 2015, 7:41 am

    New Jersey needs more people like you!

    • George January 22, 2015, 2:07 pm

      Wayne , it’s New Jersey and Merryland too !! I live in Virginia and hate to travel in either of these two lib states !!

  • Bill January 22, 2015, 7:35 am

    Very refreshing………….. we need to find a way to run her thru a Xerox machine about a zillion times. Would help counteract the obamas, schumers and bloombergs of the world.

    • mtman2 January 26, 2015, 1:14 pm

      “Well”(as RR would start an answer), you can send her interview or keep it stored to insert it into posts you make ~!

  • Ken January 22, 2015, 7:28 am

    When I first became aware of “gun-free zones”, it was in reference to Sandy Hook. I thought at first it was a tasteless Onion story. But, when I learned it was something grown-ups were promoting and doing for real, it was one of the catalysts that turned me from an apathetic, ignorant, anti-gunner into a pro 2nd Amendment, NRA member, which a handgun. I couldn’t believe anyone was seriously advocating a “gun-free zone”. It goes completely against common sense and logic. These are the sorts of people we are dealing with? How can we have a serious discussion with people who live in, and advocate, fantasyland? Why waste our precious time and be dragged into a discussion based on feelings, fear, ignorance, and a false sense of reality? If they weren’t so dangerous to the rest of us, I’d write them off and ignore them.

    • mtman2 January 26, 2015, 1:10 pm

      Even with the Mutual Assured Destruction both sides would lose is the point of that keeping it from ever happening.
      Imagine if the USA told the world WE will totally eliminate OUR military on the promotion of trust and good will???!!!!!
      Hahahahahahahahahaha, nah don’t think so. As if a point of relevancy; when the the Dumb-berg’s in this nation totally disarm at least they’d be serious.
      And that question should 1st be shoved down their throat at every encounter+ not let off the hook until they answer that question.

      Further they should be forced to answer-
      “If an armed attacker showed up right here now, are your people armed and able to defend your person from harm?”
      Then ask-
      “Why should I not be able to defend my person and FAMILY from any similar threat or attack?”

  • mark January 22, 2015, 4:40 am


  • mark January 22, 2015, 4:39 am


Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend