Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period

[tucsonlib]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3977048


Just keeping people informed.

[slackmaster]

1. That's a very low rate

;-)

[tucsonlib]

3. Tell That To The Families Of The Deceased. n/t

[slackmaster]

11. Appeal to emotion - Concealed carry is used to stop far more crimes than it causes

:hi:

[jbnow]

15. Have a link for how many killings/crimes they have stopped?

I heard about one kidnapping being stopped and that's good.

But it seems like it would make news when concealed weapons saved anyone.

[Hoopla Phil]

23. Here is one

http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/ConcealedCarryPreventsViolentCrime.htm

[iverglas]

30. lord jeezus

You people really do have no shame, do you?

http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/ConcealedCarryPreventsViolentCrime.htm

Sarah Fucking Thompson.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x3498#3669
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x18344#18502
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x99225#99421

I just love those little strolls down memory lane. Sorry to have got waylaid there.


Everything in the item you link to is rehashed from somewhere else, anyway (i.e. apart from having been repeatedly debunked here). If you wish to present something to support your assertion, that is really not the way to do it.

[Hoopla Phil]

38. There is NOTHING to be shameful for. The shame is on those that want

disarmed victims.

[tucsonlib]

31. But Then.....

This article was originally published in the "American Gun Review" and was authored by Sarah Thompson - a respected gun-rights advocate. One would have to ask the same question posed in comment #13. Can you really trust this article to be unbiased and objective?
Dr. Thompson also wrote an article entitled "Is President Clinton a Sociopath?"

[Hoopla Phil]

26. and another

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm

[iverglas]

35. once again (ed)

no shame.

A person of goodwill really, really, really does not keep spewing the same thing (edit: not "the something) into an ongoing conversation that has BEEN ADDRESSED REPEATEDLY, and fail to acknowledge that fact.

[Hoopla Phil]

37. LOL. Funny post.

Evidence a plenty

[Hoopla Phil]

22. Yep, and if you take out the suicide canard it's even lower.

I do wonder though. We're talking charges though and not convictions. How many do you think were ruled to be justified?

[slackmaster]

64. I wonder how low the number would get if you take out acquittals

Maybe an even lower number.

[Hoopla Phil]

97. Point.

[nosmokes]

87. Not compared to folks that don't carry...

[slackmaster]

90. How about compared to people who do carry but illegally?

Apples, oranges, cucumbers, prematurely partially bald sociology teachers...

[ZombieHorde]

2. And they wasted the meat too. nt

[proteus_lives]

4. Low numbers.

But the anti-2nd fascists will use it as fodder anyway. :shrug:

[nosmokes]

17. When the 2nd amendment was written and adopted muzzle loaders were state

of the art.And as far as I'm concerned people should be able to keep as many single shot muzzle loaders as they wish.

[X_Digger]

19. They also had cannon..

.. that cool, too?

[hay rick]

49. And we have nukes now

Really cool.

[imdjh]

110. I hate cannon as the plural. It's so PBS.

[Deadric Damodred]

29. Well as far as the Supreme Court is concerned...

...the 2nd Amendment applies to modern firearms. And if in a 100 years they invent a ray gun, it will apply to them as well.

[pipoman]

53. And no computers, and no photography,

and no electronic communication, and no.... None of which should be protected by the 1st, huh?

Those wacky founders failed to consider advances in technology.. :eyes:

[proteus_lives]

55. meaningless non-argument.

:eyes:

Just admit you're a fascist.

[nosmokes]

86. I'm a fascist? that's rich!

You're the one that chooses to read only half of the Second Amendment. Y'all always forget about that well regulated militia part. Just too much of an inconvenience, I know.

Now, if you think you can have an adult conversation w/o tossing insults around like a spoiled child with food smeared all over his face I might play, but i'll not participate in a pissing contest w/ a skunk.

[billyoc]

5. Freedom isn't free. I didn't kill any of them.

[tularetom]

6. Why should anybody have to have one of these stupid permits anyway?

You should not need a permit to do what the constitution allows you to do in the first place.

You could argue that it's a sneaky back door first step toward firearms confiscation.

The people that killed others would probably have done so whether or not they had some silly ass permit.

[jgraz]

12. The Constitution does not give you the right to carry a concealed weapon

You may want to read some (or any) of the court decisions on firearms. Even in the recent Heller decision, the majority agreed that the state has the right to prohibit concealed weapons.

Of course, feel free to exercise your "right" by walking around with an unlicensed concealed weapon. I'm sure the police and courts will side with you.

[X_Digger]

16. I think you're reading into Heller more than is there..

"the majority agreed that the state has the right to prohibit concealed weapons" ...

How you get that from this is beyond me-

"ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

[jgraz]

18. To read something in to Heller, it helps to actually *read* Heller

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

They clearly state the right is not unlimited and they use prohibitions against concealed weapons as their first example. How can that be interpreted any other way?

[X_Digger]

20. How you get 'prohibitions on concealed carry'

= "the state has the right to prohibit concealed weapons" is where I don't grok.

You ignore the third sentence and twist the second sentence? I can see the case for, as the third sentence says, prohibitions on _who_ can 'bear' arms, and _where_ they can bear them. But to try to extend that to say a state can prohibit it altogether? Just not seeing it.

[jgraz]

32. "For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment"

"concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment"
"concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment"
"concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment"
"concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment"

This is basic English. What part are you having trouble with?

[X_Digger]

45. context context context...

Christ, take one sentence out of context and you can support any proposition you like.

[jgraz]

46. I've asked you twice now to explain exactly how you're reading that

You say I've twisted the meaning, yet you offer no other interpretation. I can only assume you're having reading comprehension problems.

[X_Digger]

51. No, I comprehend just fine..

.. I can focus on the whole paragraph. Then again, you like focusing on 'code words' so it doesn't surprise me that you'd have trouble reading a whole paragraph in context.

[jgraz]

52. Once again, you can provide no alternative interpretation.

My guess is this: you misread the paragraph, realized that they meant exactly what I said they did, and you're just too stubborn to admit it.

Your next move will probably be to ratchet up the insults, maybe drag out some of the gungeon's greatest hits. Or maybe you'll just stalk off like I'm the one being unreasonable

Whatever you decide, under no circumstances will you ever provide any plausible reading of the text that in any way undermines my crafty technique of just reading exactly what they wrote.

[X_Digger]

58. I'm being stubborn??

When they mention restrictions that _would_ be constitutional as examples of the preceding sentence?

Whatever.

[jgraz]

76. I'm sincerely interested in how you could possibly read that text any other way

Yet you can't or won't explain it. So yeah, you're being stubborn.

[jgraz]

33. dup

.

[imdjh]

109. You're right- it gives me the right to keep and bear arms.

[DesertFlower]

7. i didn't read the responses to the

original thread. i'm sure they are a combination of pro and anti gun. that being said, my husband has a concealed carry permit and he hasn't killed anyone. he rarely even carries it. i keep a 38 in my nightstand which i will use if someone gets past my security system.

flame away.

[iverglas]

94. I see

flame away.

Anyone critical of your opinion or actions will be "flaming". Okay then.


i keep a 38 in my nightstand which i will use if someone gets past my security system.

If you screw up your eyes and use your imagination, can you tell us what will happen if someone gets past your security system AND YOU AREN'T HOME?

I know the answer, but I wouldn't want to guess what yours is.

[DesertFlower]

104. i'm sure you have all the answers.

:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

107. actually, I had a question

It was a pretty easy one.

I see you haven't answered it.

Well, colour me amazed, eh?

":sarcasm:"

[FormerDittoHead]

8. Q to people in this forum - in 2 years, how many CRIMINALS are dealt with by permit holders?

Not including police, of course.

I too, think that these numbers are low, and in fact, are minuscule compared to the numbers of ILLEGAL gun owner shootings...

[jgraz]

14. Probably far fewer than 51.

And certainly far fewer than the number of people who were illegally threatened and intimidated by so-called "law-abiding" gun owners.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1730664

[Hoopla Phil]

25. Most definitely much much more. LOL

http://www.byui.edu/onlinelearning/courses/hum/202/ConcealedCarryPreventsViolentCrime.htm

[jgraz]

34. Yes, that famous peer-reviewed scientific journal, "American Gun Review"

You do realize that just because you can look something up on the web, that doesn't make it true... don't you?

Cuz if you don't, I have a Nigerian prince who wants to talk to you.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. LOL. Like that "stick your fingers in your ears and say LaLaLa" argument don't ya.

[iverglas]

44. twice in one thread??

It got dumped here once already, up in post 23. Do see my reply.

I'm trying to find the thread where someone posted a link to Dr. Thompson's masterwork the other day. It may have got deleted. Google her name and (forgive my uttering such supercalifragilisticexpialidocious nonsense) "hoplophobia".

Citations of that masterwork, and allegations of the fictitious mental illness in question, were long since banned in this forum.

[pipoman]

56. Yet you are defending the garbage

study done by that paragon of intellectual integrity and peer review, the VPC...what a joke...read that study, then get back to us how irrefutable IT is.

[jgraz]

73. The study is published by the NIH, via Harvard School of Public Health

It appeared in Injury Prevention, a peer-reviewed journal.

Where are you getting VPC from?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Why keep asking stupid questions?

Source: Violence Policy Center

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period
Posted : Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:22:32 GMT

31 Incidents Result in Criminal Charges or Suicide of Concealed Handgun Permit HolderWASHINGTON, July 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

-- Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf ) released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The release of the study comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to take up today -- Monday, July 20 -- an amendment to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) that would create a de facto national concealed carry system, overriding the rights of states with more restrictive laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns. The amendment is sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD). Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said he will filibuster the amendment.

Because most state systems allowing the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviewed shooting incidents as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.

The study, "Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders -- An Analysis of News Reports, May 2007 to April 2009," finds that during the two-year period reviewed --
Concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

Concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

80. It really helps if you read the OP and go to the links before posting.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

66. You say that while defending a study by the VPC, that's hysterical. Best joke yet.

[jgraz]

71. You do understand the meaning of "peer reviewed", don't you?

Lead researcher is from the Harvard School of Public Health and the study is published by the National Institutes of Health.

Let me know when you come up with a similarly-credentialed study refuting it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Who's trying to refute it? It proves how safe CCW permit holders are.

[jgraz]

74. So you're laughing at me for "defending" it, but you don't want to refute it

Sorry, I'm getting whiplash trying to follow these changes in direction. :crazy:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

75. I have no problem with this information but the VPC routinely falsifies findings.

The VPC is the NRA of the gun grabbers.

[jgraz]

77. OK, explain this to me: where are you getting VPC from this study?

I see NIH, I see Harvard but I see no indication of the VPC. Where is this coming from.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. Here you go.

Source: Violence Policy Center

Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period
Posted : Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:22:32 GMT

31 Incidents Result in Criminal Charges or Suicide of Concealed Handgun Permit HolderWASHINGTON, July 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/

-- Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study (http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf ) released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The release of the study comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to take up today -- Monday, July 20 -- an amendment to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) that would create a de facto national concealed carry system, overriding the rights of states with more restrictive laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns. The amendment is sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD). Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said he will filibuster the amendment.

Because most state systems allowing the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviewed shooting incidents as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.

The study, "Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders -- An Analysis of News Reports, May 2007 to April 2009," finds that during the two-year period reviewed --
Concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.

Concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

[jgraz]

82. Ah, you're talking about the OP's study, not the one I posted

You should know by now: this deep into the thread, we're NEVER talking about the OP. ;)

However, I read the VPC study. The facts they cite are pretty ironclad. Are you saying the made up some of the crime reports?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

83. It's always about the OP, otherwise rules say start a new thread.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

117. I do know, I'm not sure you do

Peer review really only proves one thing: that the majority or reviewers, conversant in the area in question, thought the methodology of the research sound enough to be published. It does not prove in any way that the findings of the study are, in fact, correct; at most, it proves that the study was performed correctly. Indeed, four years ago, John Ioannidis caused rather a furor when he had two article published, titled "Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research" (http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/2/218) and, more provocatively, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=16060722). Note the first was published in JAMA.

That publication in a respected and peer-reviewed journal is no evidence of a study's veracity is adequately demonstrated by the case of Andrew Wakefield, who caused the MMR scare in Great Britain that has caused measles to once more become endemic with a study that was heavily flawed, and was ultimately proven to be utterly fraudulent, but which he initially managed to get published in The Lancet in 1998 (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697110960/fulltext).

One noted problem with journals is that of "publication bias," which in broad terms means that journals would rather publish studies that claim to have discovered something new, than ones that concluded that their hypothesis came to nothing. This means that studies reporting false positives are more likely to get published than studies reporting true negatives. Unfortunately, science consists to a very large extent of discarding that which has repeatedly been found to be untrue, and provisionally accepting that which has not (yet) been shown to be false. That's part of why gravity, germs, evolution and genetics are still "only theories"; even though they've been about as conclusively proven as science can prove anything, there's always the possibility (albeit a vanishingly remote one) that new evidence will emerge tomorrow and turn the whole field on its head. (A more important part of "only a theory" is that while the existence of a phenomenon may be well established, how it works is still open to question.)

But that level of certainty relies on decades of successful replication. A single study is evidence, but it is not proof of anything. In the case of public health research concerning firearms, its value as even evidence--let alone proof--is highly dubious. Most of the material is produced by a comparatively small group of researchers, and insofar as the results are replicated at all, they're replicated within that small community. The general tenor of findings is much more unequivocal than that done by social scientists, and this in itself should give us pause, because the research matter here is, strictly speaking, social science, not medical science. This problem is compounded by the fact that a great many doctors, including ones who perform research, are not scientists; they do not have a thorough grounding in the scientific method, and that is why quite a few doctors prove susceptible to pseudoscientific notions.

This is not helped by the editorial boards of various prominent medical journals--including the JAMA, the NEJM, the BMJ, The Lancet, Pediatrics and their respective daughter publications (which includes Injury Prevention)--having decided that any research that supports the notion that Guns Are Evil is ipso facto deserving of publication. Arthur Kellermann, one of the usual suspects, had studies published in the NEJM that no self-respecting journal should have touched, and no self-respecting reviewer should have allowed to be published; not in the least place because after his previous two studies had been thoroughly discredited, Kellermann sought to avoid criticism of his latest study by refusing to make his raw data available. This is not behavior consistent with someone who honestly believes his work is sound.

Publication in peer-reviewed journals is the best available method of assessing scientific research, but it is not without its flaws, and it is a mistake to assume that a particular study must be correct because it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.

[Euromutt]

118. Oh, by the way, the NIH didn't publish this study

It's listed in PubMed because it was published in a medical journal, but the publication in question was Injury Prevention. PubMed basically lists damn near everything that gets published in medical journals, regardless of its merits; that's what PubMed does.

[Hoopla Phil]

27. Really?! LOL, Check this out.

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/ShallIssue.htm

[jgraz]

39. Wow, some random internet crank is MUCH more impressive than the Harvard School of Public Health,

:eyes:

Did you also know that you can lose weight while sleeping? It says so on THE INTERNET!!

[Hoopla Phil]

42. LOL, You so funny. Guess you have to fall back on that when your

arguments crumble. LOL

[jgraz]

47. You gonna cite WorldNetDaily next?

The gungeon continues its reign as the short bus of DU.

[Hoopla Phil]

92. HaHaHa. This from the person that blindly follows VPC "studies" LOL

[iverglas]

93. keep covering your eyes and going wahwah there, Phil

Don't you feel any obligation, such as would be incumbent on a person of goodwill, to acknowledge everything that has been said that proves your statement false.

You just keep on saying it. Somebody might believe it, even if you don't.

[Hoopla Phil]

98. You are so funny. I'll stick with credible sources. The ones that

prove my position correct.

Boy I wish I was a lawyer. That way I could continue to believe what I want and claim everyone else's evidence is flawed. LOL!

[Euromutt]

119. You missed the bit about that paper being published in the Tennessee Law Review, didn't you?

I mean, if we're going to make fallacious appeals to authority on the basis of publication in a peer-reviewed journal, we should accord Cramer & Kopel's paper the same weight as the Miller/Hemenway/Azreal one you cited. Actually, I'd tend to agree, since Cramer and Kopel are not pro-gunners, and we should be on our guard against bias on their part. But certainly, you don't get to dismiss them as "some random internet crank."

[TPaine7]

9. Another link...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3977048#3977848

[elocs]

10. I love threads about guns, it gives me a great opportunity to expand my ignore list.

I've got some from this one already.

[pipoman]

59. Me next, me next!!

Anyone who is dumb enough to ignore those they disagree with on a political discussion forum....I want on that list

[elocs]

62. Goodbye and good riddance. When it comes to guns there's nothing to discuss.

Funny I could read the same thing at FR as I could here.

(Where's the flushing smilie?)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Oh please me too.

[eqfan592]

88. ahh yes, a true demonstration of the "open-minded" and "rational" attitude progressives...

...are supposed to hold. I could get the same closed mindedness you are demonstrating over at the FR, which I think is far more telling of you than you'd like to admit.

So please, feel free to add me to your list. It only makes you more like a conservative creationist holding their hands up to their ears screaming "LALALALALALALA NO FACTS NO FACTS ONLY WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE!!"

[iverglas]

105. HAHAHAHAHA HAH

So please, feel free to add me to your list. It only makes you more like a conservative creationist holding their hands up to their ears screaming "LALALALALALALA NO FACTS NO FACTS ONLY WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE!!"

Reading this are you, eqfan592?

Or maybe I'm wrong, and I haven't yet joined jgraz:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=235112&mesg_id=235770

eqfan592
Sat Jul-04-09 03:36 AM
Response to Reply #105
122. jgraz...
welcome to the ignore list. Your posts have proven a totally lack of objectivity and an amazing level of ignorance. I'd swear you were a conservative republican by your total lack of even basic logic, and I'm ashamed you likely call yourself a "progressive"

:rofl:

[pipoman]

91. Though I am sure you won't be reading this *wink*

funny you should mention FR. Republicans are, of coarse, known for their tolerance of opposing views and ability to agree to disagree on one topic while standing united on other topics... :eyes: Yea, you are one good progressive/liberal, you are... :puke:


btw, your stated hobby does sum this up quite well...maybe there is hope...admitting your problem is half the battle...

"Learning more and more about less and less until, at last, I know everything about nothing."

[iverglas]

106. I'm sure if you ask nicely

jody and eqfan592 will add you. I can recommend you to a few others if you like. (or - oops - I guess I can't!)

To my knowledge, the only regular posters in this forum who have EVER put other regular posters on their "ignore list" are adherents of the repeated gun militant memes.

[Euromutt]

120. Or you could just stay out of this forum

I mean, if you don't want to hear dissenting opinions, you could just go somewhere else. And stay there.

[oneshooter]

13. Did you notice

that the "study" was conducted by the Violence Policy Center. A group of rabid gun grabbers,funded by the Joyce Foundation. Should their study be taken at face value?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Hoopla Phil]

21. I see a few problems with this "study" right off the bat. . .

* Charges filed does not equal guilt or conviction.
* Suicides are included - WTF?! (suicides have no place in this study)
* Was there a "control" group for comparison?
* Will this "study" be fully released so that it may be peer reviewed?

[tucsonlib]

24. Well, Not Just Any "Suicides".

The fatalities cited are all cases in which the shooter turned the gun on himself after murdering others. I think it's a legitimate statistic to include.

And in these cases at least, "Charges filed does not equal guilt or conviction" is rather, uh, moot?

[Hoopla Phil]

28. No, it skews the results. And I think that is done intentionally considering the source.

And absolutely NOT. Are you suggesting that being CHARGED with something equals to being GUILTY of that thing?

[tucsonlib]

41. No, I'm Saying

that in those six cases where the shooter took his own life, I doubt there were any charges filed against his corpse.
So, sure, I suppose that, since no trial could be held, and despite any forensic evidence, you could say the deceased was an innocent psychopath.

Feel better?

[Hoopla Phil]

43. Here is the relevant text that you seem to have missed.

"Concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges. . ."

Notice that NO ONE has been convicted? We're not talking about only the suicides not being convicted but all of them. This "study" stops at charges and is not concerned with convictions of actual criminal activity but merely the accusation of criminal activity.

[tucsonlib]

54. Fine, You Win

But wouldn't you concede that killing oneself is kinda like, oh I don't know, confessing?

But sure, as for the others, innocent until proven guilty. Absolutely. Why, I'd wager that in 98% of those cases they arrested the wrong man. Who knows, maybe they were deliberately framing people with CCW permits, the lousy fascists....

[Hoopla Phil]

95. On it's face it does indeed. While I have (thankfully) never

killed anyone I have done all that I can to get training and education in the use of firearms for self defense. I've spent lots of $'s so that I may better be prepared should I ever have to use deadly force in defense of innocent life.

In my pursuit of further education there is always a topic covered that many are surprised about. The mental distress of the aftermath of a justified shooting. A good person that justifiably takes another's life goes through a great deal of emotional stress. Now, consider being unjustly charged with a crime on top of that. Lots of things will stack up; the act, the nightmares, the news reports, the labeling of being a criminal, the stares at work, the lack of support from friends. These are all things that cops are taught to EXPECT when they have a justified shooting but THEY get support groups to help them out - the best I can get was that everyone of my instructors gave me (and all their students) their personal phone number to call them if need be.

So yes I do see that suicide following shooting someone may be incriminating on its face. But unless they have left a note confessing to an illegal shooting I'll continue to give them the benefit of the doubt, being innocent until proven guilty. I find it equally plausible that they simply were unprepared for the post shooting distress and it consumed them.

[eqfan592]

36. Well if you're charged with something and you're not guilty...

...then it sure as hell ISN'T moot!!

And NO, the suicides are NOT legitimate. The people they murdered yes, but not the act of them killing themselves.

[tucsonlib]

48. Okay! Okay!

If you shoot police officers and/or innocent people, you are innocent; that is to say not guilty for all eternity, provided you off yourself before some bleeding-heart D.A. has a chance to file charges.

As for, "And NO, the suicides are NOT legitimate. The people they murdered yes, but not the act of them killing themselves."

Ummm.....because?

Besides! Who says they murdered anybody? They were never even charged!
Right?



:crazy:

[eqfan592]

89. Ummmm, what???

First of all, what a person does to them self intentionally shouldn't count period, as it doesn't support the claim that the article is trying to make.

Secondly, my comment wasn't about people who weren't being "charged" or not, but rather the difference between getting "charged" and "convicted." You seemed to make no distinction, and I was pointing out that there was.

You should get those "crazy" eyes fixed. It might help you maintain a coherent discussion on the forums.

[Hoopla Phil]

96. Please see post 95

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=239813&mesg_id=240392

And of course you do now know that ALL the people in this "study" were charged and none were convictions.

[iverglas]

99. ooooooo

And of course you do now know that ALL the people in this "study" were charged and none were convictions.

Really! Please tell!

Refer us to where you have learned that none of the incidents cited in the report led to convictions.

Now, please, if you wouldn't mind.

[Hoopla Phil]

101. That was an A, B conversation. please DO try to keep up.

So please see post #54. As my conversation was not with you and you are so rudely butting in. No

[iverglas]

102. I read your post 96

In it, you said:

And of course you do now know that ALL the people in this "study" were charged and none were convictions.

That statement is false.

Why did you make it?


btw, you now say:

As my conversation was not with you and you are so rudely butting in.

I believe your "conversation" was actually where you butted into one involving equfan596 and tucsonlib. Anything else?

[iverglas]

100. one should do the trick

You: And of course you do now know that ALL the people in this "study" were charged and none were convictions.

http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf

Here's all it takes.

Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Terrance Hough Jr.

Date: July 4, 2007

People Killed: 3

People Wounded: 2

Circumstances: On July 4, 2007, firefighter Terrance Hough Jr. used a 40 caliber pistol to shoot and kill neighbor Jacob Feichtner as well as Bruce Anderson and Katherine Rosby as a result of a dispute over fireworks the three were setting off. Hough also shot and injured Donny Walsh and Katherine Nicholas. Police seized 12 firearms from Hough’s home after his arrest. Hough’s fellow firefighters described him as a “ticking time bomb that finally exploded,” and one noted, “I hope I’m off the day Hough snaps.” Hough, who had received his concealed handgun permit in 2004, was convicted of three counts of aggravated murder and two counts of attempted murder and was sentenced to life in prison with no parole.

But what the hell. Here's another one selected at random:

Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Kenneth Gumm

Date: June 10, 2007

People Killed: 1

Circumstances: On June 10, 2007, Kenneth Gumm shot and killed Dale Turney in a road-rage incident. Gumm claimed that Turney tailgated him and followed him into a parking lot, blocking him in. Gumm had a permit to carry a concealed weapon as well as being CLEET (Council on Law Enforcement Education and Training) trained and a certified armed security guard. On May 29, 2008, Gumm pled guilty to first-degree manslaughter and was given a five-year suspended sentence.

I trust you're aware that a guilty plea results in a CONVICTION.


So now we know all we need to know about you, eh?

You make claims about things you know nothing about (you have not READ the study you are making claims about), and you make statements that are flat-out false for the purpose of winning arguments.

Done and dusted.

[iverglas]

103. is that crickets I hear???

Or just the gentle flapping of hands on ears and the keening of "wahwah"?

[iverglas]

108. and silence must be taken as admission

You make statements that are flat-out false for the purpose of winning arguments.

You made a flat-out false statement, apparently for the purpose of winning an argument.

If I have got anything wrong, I'm sure you'll point it out, and I will be happy to adjust my conclusion if necessary.

[hay rick]

50. Some numbers- a comparison.

Reading some of the posts above, I see a lot of folks looking for comparisons of concealed-carry shootings with non-concealed. I think most states don't keep such statistics and some states (Alaska, Vermont) require no permit to carry concealed.

One easy comparison is to look at firearms death rates by state. Link here: http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

Compare these statistics with state conceal carry laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

The top of the list with a rate of 31.2 per 100,000 is currently still no concealed carry- Washington, D. C. Life in the ghetto sucks...

The four bottom states: Hawaii 2.8, Massachusetts 3.1, Connecticut 4.3, and New Jersey 4.9. From the wikipedia article: "Nine states have "may issue" or "discretionary issue" laws requiring the applicant to demonstrate specific "need".<5> These "may issue" states range from "shall issue" in practice, such as Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa<5> to "at the whim of local officials", such as New York, Massachusetts, and California, (where rural officials more liberally issue permits but urban officials seldom do) to "almost non-issue" in states such as Maryland, New Jersey and Hawaii where, though state law allows for the issuance of permits, officials rarely choose to issue them under any circumstances."Notice two of the bottom four are "almost non-issue" and one is characterized as "shall issue". I think there may be a broad correlation between gun laws and firearm deaths, but I don't think you can narrow the correlation down to something as specific as concealed carry laws.

A much closer correlation exists between firearm deaths and per capita income. Looking at the bottom 5 states in firearm death rates (New York is the fifth state) we find that they rank 1, 2, 3, 4, and 14 in per capita income.

[tucsonlib]

57. i'm sorta confused

Two identical OPs posted within a few minutes of one another. Nobody seems to have noticed.
But one has 20 recs while this one has a more predictable <0.

Is it my mouthwash? My deodorant?

[X_Digger]

60. The other spent most of today in LBN

[iverglas]

63. ... where slightly more rational, decent people saw it ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. more like where irrational, uninformed, emotionally weak people saw it.

[eqfan592]

69. +1 man. +1 (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. My guess is both. See a dentist and take a shower and repost it. Then see what happens.

[pipoman]

61. 51

in 2 years out of the literally MILLIONS of concealed carry permit holders is unbelievably minuscule...of coarse the study FAILS to tell us how many concealed permit holders there are or how many crimes were thwarted or how many police officers were assisted by concealed permit holders for fear of the truth about the statistics being revealed...same old dishonest shit from the VPC.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

65. Thanks for pointing out how safe CCW permit holders are.

[tucsonlib]

111. Just Keeping People Informed

Like everyone else you're free to read into it whatever "message" strokes your agenda.

[eqfan592]

112. You mean just as you did? (nt)

[tucsonlib]

113. Was I Talking To You?

Was Dave? Off-topic, out-of-context gibberish won't win you too many friends here.

"You mean just as you did?"

Well, allow me to retort!

Did you as just mean you?


And furthermore, sir..

As just did mean you you!

:silly:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. Thanks for posting this study that proves how safe CCW permit holders are.

[tucsonlib]

115. Sure! Happy To Oblige.

And same to all the folks out there who thanked me "for posting this study that proves how dangerously violent CCW permit holders are."

Me, I'm just trying to keep people informed....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

116. Those people are clearly delusional. This study proves CCW permit holders are safer than cops.

Keep on, keeping us informed. It is important to not be ignorant of the issues within a debate.

David