Two CCW Holders Kill One Another

[SecularMotion]

Earlier this year, Florida concealed handgun permit holder Robert G.Webster and his wife were returning home from a visit to the doctor when he got into a confrontation with neighbor and fellow concealed handgun permit holder Charles E. Ingram, 57. According to witnesses, as the argument escalated Webster, 63, walked out of his yard with a handgun at his side and then raised it. Ingram, who had also left his yard, standing in the sidewalk and street, raised his handgun as Webster approached. Both men fired at approximately the same time. Webster died at the scene. Ingram died less than a month later from wounds inflicted by Webster. Detectives investigating the shooting concluded that both men might have faced criminal charges had they lived.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/rude-awakening-two-ccw-ho_b_700774.html

[ileus]

1. More guns being victimized by humans.

upside is they were pretty old and their useful lifespans were behind them...


wonder what the whole story was?

[Starboard Tack]

5. "upside is they were pretty old and their useful lifespans were behind them..."

I passed both those ages several years ago sonny and my life is still quite useful, thank you very much. Good luck with that attitude.

[ellisonz]

12. Oy Vey

[X_Digger]

2. Any reason you're posting an article from 8/2010?

Is that what it's come to? You have to dig up articles that were discussed years ago as though they're relevant today?

[SecularMotion]

3. Could you please give a link to the original discussion?

I must have missed it.

[X_Digger]

4. With the archives offline, no..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=browse_archives&forum=118

So.. what is it about this 18 month old story that you'd like to discuss?

[SecularMotion]

7. What could have been done to prevent this tragic misuse of CCWs?

[X_Digger]

8. What do you propose? (He asks innocently..)

[SecularMotion]

9. If you were to remove the weapons from the equation

I think there's a good chance that either one or both of these men would still be alive.

Don't you agree?

[X_Digger]

10. Why yes, if all guns magically disappeared there'd be no more gun deaths!

Any other tautological balderdash you want to throw out there?

[SecularMotion]

14. Try to stay on subject

We're only discussing this incident.

[X_Digger]

17. Well let's see.. Robert could have brained Charles with a pink flamingo..

Charles could have ran over Robert.. They could have both tripped over a garden hose and fell on a rake..

Or maybe they would have just shook hands and had a beer, right?

Any other 'what-if's you'd like to discuss?

[SecularMotion]

18. So you agree that without the guns present one or both of these men would still be alive?

[X_Digger]

19. My crystal ball is broken, how's yours?

They could have beat the crap out of each other and had heart attacks.

[SecularMotion]

20. I don't need a crystal ball.

It's entirely reasonable to say that the odds are that both or one of these men would still be alive if they had not been armed with guns.

[X_Digger]

21. 'both or one' -- covered the bases there, eh?

If Robert hadn't squeezed through that yellow light, he might never have confronted Charles.

That's it, make yellow lights shorter!

Change any one thing and the outcome might have been different.

What's your solution? Oh right, *poof* no guns.

[SecularMotion]

23. It's the *poof* that demands discussion

How do we keep hotheads like these guys from carrying guns in public?

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to keep a gun for home defense, but either these two should not have been carrying in public at all or should have been given stricter training in proper use of CCWs.

[X_Digger]

26. We don't..

There's no due process to be adjudicated 'a hot head', nor should there be. Unless and until someone does something that crosses the line, we can't infringe on their rights.

Nor would training have likely prevented it. (If training could fix things like this, then we wouldn't have the BART shooting, the seattle cop shooting the hearing impaired guy, etc.)

[SecularMotion]

28. I think most Democrats and Americans agree that restrictions on where a gun can be carried

is not an infringement of the rights to gun ownership.

I think there is a push from the far right to extend 2nd amendment rights to include freedom to carry in public. The majority of Democrats support reasonable gun regulation and restrictions on public carry.

Incidents like this raise the reasonable question - Should everyone be allowed to carry a gun in public?

[X_Digger]

29. Err, if that were true..

Then why has 'shall issue' concealed carry spread, even in states with Democratic-controlled legislatures?!?

The second amendment does protect 'bear' as well as 'keep'- both are part of the right protected.

Just as Justice Ginsburg said..

Muscarello v US, 524 U. S. 125 (1998) -

[div class='excerpt']“surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment indicates: ‘wear, bear, or carry … upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose … of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ”

eta: hit post too soon..

Who has advocated the postion that 'everyone should be allowed to carry a gun in public'? That's not the position of any poster that I'm familiar with.

[SecularMotion]

30. You hold some far right views on gun issues

Concealed carry has spread due to backing of NRA dollars and push from other right wing groups.

You just echoed the push from the right to extend the meaning of 'bear' to mean freedom to carry in public.

These are right wing views, not shared by many Democrats.

Okay, if you agree that everyone should not be allowed to carry a gun in public, then who shouldn't be allowed to carry?

[PavePusher]

32. Liberal interpretation of Civil Rights is now a "far right view". Wow, NewSpeak is booming along...

[SecularMotion]

37. Yes, actually the far right view is a liberal interpretation of the 2nd amendment

that's liberal with a small "L" meaning maximum freedom possible, not the political Liberal to which you wrongly implied.

[PavePusher]

41. Actually small "l" is exactly what I meant, and it is a very good thing indeed.

Is there a reason why it wouldn't be?

[X_Digger]

33. I hold views that many democrats hold as well.

And more and more democrats are coming to the same position. See the latest gallup guns poll.

'keep' = own, 'bear' = carry -- are you disputing Justice Ginsburg's position? Kinda hard to peg her as 'far right'.

[div class='excerpt']Okay, if you agree that everyone should not be allowed to carry a gun in public, then who shouldn't be allowed to carry?

Generally, the characteristics outlined in the '68 GCA + amendments- those adjudicated mentally incompetent, felons and those under indictment for a felony, those with a protective order against them, those convicted of domestic violence, fugitive from justice, etc.

[rl6214]

45. There are only 4.5 million NRA members

How is it that 4.5 million people are able to get the financial backing to get all of the pro gun carry laws passed? Someone must be backing it besides the right wing backed NRA.

[burf]

64. Can't be due to the NRA,

we were just told on a different thread that the NRA was no longer relevant.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

66. Why do you characterize...

...this as a "far right view"?

Is that because some righties share this view? So what makes you a lefty? Do you have beliefs or are you just against anything righty thinks?

[PavePusher]

31. "extend"?!

What do you think "...keep and bear..." means?

Perhaps "recover" or "reclaim" was the word you were looking for?

[SecularMotion]

35. I'm not going to argue the meaning of 'bear' with you

just pointing out that the terms you are using are NRA/Right wing framing.

[PavePusher]

36. How odd, I found every one of those words in a dictionary....

free for use by all.

No-one gets to claim jurisdiction on vocabulary, and if you claim otherwise, your argument... needs improvement.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

43. re: "...the terms you are using are NRA/Right wing framing..."

I think it's important to accept when the other party has embraced a correct ideology. Further, it's just dishonest to disparage the opinion of an INDIVIDUAL for not following his party's directives.

There are plenty of examples of common ground between Ds and Rs. Manufacturing a difference is just divisive and hampers progress.

[cleanhippie]

70. Respectfully, that is your opinion, not exactly a fact.

I think most Democrats and Americans agree that restrictions on where a gun can be carried is not an infringement of the rights to gun ownership.


Maybe the Democratic PARTY agrees, but as for most Dems and Americans agreeing, I would need to see the data for that. I think you have it backwards, but thats MY opinion.

[SecularMotion]

72. Here's an example

"Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) has also proposed legislation, backed by Bloomberg, making it illegal to bring a gun within 1,000 feet of a government official. The latest Mayors Against Illegal Guns poll found that 58 percent of the public and 49 percent of gun owners support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines. Sixty-seven percent of the public supports the King proposal, according to that polling, along with 60 percent of gun owners. "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/18/poll-americans-gun-owners-stronger-laws_n_810069.html

Please show some data to support your opinion.

[gejohnston]

73. How about a poll

done by the NRA? Same difference. Also, define "high capacity".

[PavePusher]

75. Politicians are not a "protected class" of people, nor should they ever be.

They moment they become so, we have lost the Republic.

[SecularMotion]

76. We'll put you down as one of the minority of gun-owners who disagree with the legislation

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. "Minority"? As declared by MAIG? I might as well cite an NRA poll- it would be just as valid.

Which is to say not very much at all...

[SecularMotion]

74. Here's another example

Poll: Utahns want gun-free school zone

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utahns don't want the gun-free zone around schools eliminated, a Deseret News/KSL poll found.

A bill before the Utah Legislature proposes to lift a 1,000 foot gun-free perimeter around schools. But a statewide survey by Dan Jones & Associates found 60 percent of Utahns oppose the move.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=14387112

[Straw Man]

38. Um...

I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to keep a gun for home defense, but either these two should not have been carrying in public at all or should have been given stricter training in proper use of CCWs.

If you'll read the article, you'll notice that the altercation began with both men in their respective yards. They were not "in public." Are you suggesting that more training or a ban on public carry would have stopped these two yutzes at the property line like a PetSafe stopping an errant dog?

[pipoman]

40. Since we are only talking about this one incident per your post #14

You do realize this incident happened at both "victims" homes right? CCW or none, if "I'm not saying they shouldn't be able to keep a gun for home defense,..." how would this have been different? I'm not seeing that a CCW made any difference in this incident.

[pipoman]

69. Nevermind...I didn't realize..

Last edited Sat Feb 18, 2012, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

this thread was pulled from the archives..

[ObamaFTW2012]

11. Sure

because everyone knows that people didn't kill each other over bullshit until the firearm was invented.

[SecularMotion]

15. You missed the point

Do you think it is likely that both men would have died if there were no guns involved?

[ObamaFTW2012]

22. Dumb question

To answer your question, I would have to make a number of assumptions and then give you my opinion.

If they didn't have guns, would they have been armed? Would one or both be armed? What would each be armed with? Crossbow? knife? sword? spear? hatchet? hammer? broken beer bottle neck?

[GreenStormCloud]

65. The murder rate during the middle ages (no guns) was 30 times what it is today. N/T

[SteveW]

47. "...remove the weapons from the equation..." Are you suggesting prohibition?

If so, how extensive and in what form?

In any case, removal of the entire class of weapons they used would NOT ASSURE these men would still be alive; they could have used:

1) shotguns;
2) rifles;
3) muzzle-loaders (it did sound like a duel of sorts);
4) double-edged daggers

NOTE: banning handguns (if that were even possible) would probably result in citizens re-arming with either (1) or (2) above, both types several times more likely to kill someone than a handgun.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Too Logical

.....for the gun lobby.......

[spin]

27. There have also been numerous times when a person with a carry permit...

used it in legitimate self defense and prevented tragedies.

Supporters of concealed carry never ague that all those who legally carry concealed are angels. We do point out that is rare to find cases where a person with a carry permit misused his firearm but they can and do happen.

Cops also occasionally misuse their firearms. What do you suggest we do about that?

[rl6214]

44. "What could have been done to prevent this tragic misuse of CCWs?"

While neither was carrying concealed...which makes the fact that they both had CCL irrelevant.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Nothing that wouldn't also prevent lots and lots of proper uses of CCW.

I mean holy shit you found ONE. Good for you.

[Starboard Tack]

6. You need to know that if a post is not pro CC it has an expiration date. nt.

[ellisonz]

13. And pro-CC...

...with only the minimum of standards. A de facto unregulated Militia is the best Militia.

[SteveW]

48. Oh, the date is not really a concern...

...you take what you can get on the calendar when the event is so rare as to approach obscurity.

[E6-B]

16. In 3 years 189 for CCW vs per year 30,000 for the whole country.

Looks to me like CCW is not much of a problem. 189 in 3 years is a statistical fluke. When you form public policy to deal with guns the statistics for CCW causing much of a social problem does not bear out.

[friendly_iconoclast]

53. Dammit, you're ruining the narrative by doing the math!

You're supposed to be going: OMG, Look At What Those Awful CCW Holders Have Been Doing!- instead of pointing out that
in any large group there's bound to be a few fools and/or criminals....

[ileus]

24. Can't we all agree guns kill people?

[ManiacJoe]

25. Sound like they were dueling.

Not that it's legal, but it used to be considered honorable in some places.

Never mind the ancient article, why is someone posting nonsense from Sugarmann?!?!?

[PavePusher]

34. Idle hands are the devil's playground... n/t

[ileus]

39. In this case the devil's investment paid off with two new buddies.

[SteveW]

49. HuffPo appears to be the next warm place to do bidness for gun-controllers. nt

[slackmaster]

42. Two men with bad tempers and poor anger management skills are now dead

So what?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. So What?

Nice.

Maybe people with bad tempers and poor anger management skills shouldn't have guns?

How would you feel if only one died and the one who lived lacked the anger management skills?

Still say 'so what?'

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. How would you feel if they *didn't* have CCLs and still managed to kill each other?

I suspect you'd care not a whit.

I'd also note that one does not need a psychological test to get a drivers' license or buy a car:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172822#post52

[fightthegoodfightnow]

57. You Suspect?

You don't know so don't tell me how you 'suspect' I would feel.

Cars are designed to transport people.

Guns are designed to kill.

No comparison.

[Hoyt]

58. It amazes me that "gun culture" doesn't get that.

Now, I know that many here might not buy a gun to kill, but there are a lot of folks who do just that.

[oneshooter]

59. What law would you prpose to prevent this from happining again?

[DonP]

61. And why are we discussing something that happened over 2 years ago anyway?

[slackmaster]

55. I'm pro-choice on just about everything, including gun ownership by people who aren't legally...

...prohibited from owning guns.

It's the responsibility of every free individual adult to make a good decision regarding his or her personal ownership of firearms.

How would you feel if only one died and the one who lived lacked the anger management skills?

What's your point?

[SteveW]

46. Curious: Does HuffPo allow "pro-gun" viewpoints, or is it the SOSO? nt

[PavePusher]

54. Yes, they do.

And the moderating is a good deal less draconian then here. People seem to have thicker skins.

[montanto]

56. Earlier this year? How does it get any earlier this year?

Oh I see, earlier last year. No, I tell a lie, earlier a couple years ago. Anyway, not enough fresh murders these days i guess . . . so two cranky guys with bad blood between them squared off and each got exactly what he was after. What are we suggesting here? That we charge them post-mortem?

[Remmah2]

60. Man with firearm stops office shooting.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/16/10429981-immigration-agent-killed-in-shootout-at-federal-building-in-long-beach

Damage minimized due to gun ownership.

[rl6214]

62. Shouldn't we pass a law making dueling illegal

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

67. :) another fine idea! n/t

[Common Sense Party]

63. Isn't this precisely what you want?

You don't want there to be rude toters with death spewers strapped to their bodies.

If all of the rude toters shoot each other, your problem will be solved. No more guns, right?

You must be delighted by this story.

[Simo 1939_1940]

71. Appeals to emotion and the spotlighting of rare events are all the

pro-restrictionistas have.

Yawn.

[Eleanors38]

79. Part of the 67,429,433.0261 such deaths per month! Da horror!