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

[Judi Lynn]

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.

Read more: http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/concealed-handgun-permit-holders-kill,897298.shtml

[katmondoo]

1. This is exactly what to expect

No surprise here for me.

[rd_kent]

119. What, that the rate is so low?

What is not surprising?

[Mojorabbit]

155. Where are the comparison numbers

to people without a concealed carry and their stats within the same parameters? This study makes no sense without those numbers.




edited for extreme grammar offense

[dothemath]

189. similar to .................

a recent report of a small plane that crashed in a cemetery. 2 days later, the authorities were still finding bodies.

[Mojorabbit]

192. I'm sorry

I am having a real foggy day due to a relapse of my MS so forgive me but I can't make heads or tails of your post. In clarification I meant, the number of people poppped for illegally carrying a concealed weapon against those legally carrying a concealed weapon. What is the percentage of those legally carrying against those not legally carrying. 99 percent to 1 percent? Fifty /Fifty. That would be good to know to evaluate the article. I hope this makes my comment clearer. Peace.

[Hissyspit]

315. No need to feel sorry. Poster has an attitude problem.

[slackmaster]

198. Where did they bury the survivors?

In the USA or Canada?

[Hissyspit]

316. Got anything actually useful to contribute?

[sodom]

251. did anyone actually bother to read the report, because its b.s.

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

most of the cases cited no one has even been convicted of a crime. the truth surrounding these incidents is still unknown in many cases and has yet to be determined. a number of the cases deal with self defense, or home owners shooting at police during a raid thinking their house was being robbed. one of the cases a gun wasnt even involved but is cited just because the man had a permit on file. in another of the cases cited the man charged was a security guard who trained law enforcement.

this report is a joke. the position of this group seems to be more anti-gun than any opposition towards concealed weapons permits. its dishonest, unethical, and poorly written. the report is simply propaganda.

congratulations, you lack critical thinking skills.

[RaleighNCDUer]

266. The point is, those who argue for CC make the spurious claim that

those who get CC are NO threat to the public.

Obviously, people are people and getting a little card signed by the chief of police doesn't mean the carrier is any more to be trusted than anyone else.

Even the person who chose not to use his weapon to murder DID still murder.

[Incitatus]

278. I haven't seen anyone argue that CCW owners are NO threat.

Statistically, however, they are far less likely to commit murder.

[Pavulon]

281. 8 hour class, range qualify. 50 state background check, and excludes

you if you have been found guilty of a very long list of misdemeanors, including DWI in NC.

Not a signature type thing.

Sourcing VPC is like sourcing the KKK for information on race relations.

[RaleighNCDUer]

354. That is EXACTLY my point - even with the extensive (lol) background

check (and I contend that there is no way any instant background check can be extensive), the classes and qualifications, and the exclusions which SHOULD weed out anybody who might be dangerous - as so many here, as you just did, claim - they nonetheless have killed more than 40 people in two years.

That's all I'm saying. You want to read more into it, knock yourself out.

[eqfan592]

355. as I've stated elsewhere...

...expecting a 100% perfection rating in any human endeavor is far beyond reasonable, and shows a complete lack of rationality on your part. And don't say that's not what you were getting at, because your statement clearly shows that it is.

If you want to try and back peddle now, go knock yourself out.

[RaleighNCDUer]

357. It is not I that makes the claim that CC holders are all unfailingly

persons of saint-like virtue. I have always said, a person being a CC permittee has all the requisites for being a murderer - he is a person, and he has a weapon.

Question: if the CC permittee is slightly less likely to kill than other gun owners, where does he stand in relation to the NON-gun owners murder rate?

[eqfan592]

360. Please, point out a post where ANYBODY on this forum has stated...

...that CC holders are all "unfailingly persons of saint-like virtue" or even anything close to somebody saying that NO CC holders will commit any crimes. You do that, and I'll not think you're full of it.

As for CC holders being "slightly less likely" to kill than other gun owners, you're simply wrong. CCW holders are significantly less likely to commit a crime in general than the average citizen, but if you want to restrict yourself to just killings, you need only to look to the stats on the OP to see the murder rate of CCW holders over the last 2 years. It is SIGNIFICANTLY less than the general populations, per capita.

Here's an interesting stat from Florida:
221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. Source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp (they site the original source for the info on that page).

[Statistical]

356. "more than 40 people" vs 20,000 killed by non CCW holders.

Assumming the VPC numbers are 100% accurate that is about 25 per year (notice they don't say 51 counts of homicides simply charges filed).

Anyways 25 per year for the CCW population which is about 1% of US. No hard fast numbers so if you want to dispute that go ahead. Most shall issue states issue numbers only periodically and they tend to be around 1%.

The entire US had an average of 16,000 homicides per year for the same period that works out to a homicide rate of 5.6 offenses per 100K population

So 300 million persons in US * 0.01% = 3 million CCW holders.

25 offenses per 3 million = 0.83 offenses per 100K

The CCW homicide rate is 14% of general population homicide rate.

Non CCW holders are 7x more likely to commit homicide than CCW holders.

Or another way to look at it is....
You are 640x more likely to die by a firearm from a non CCW holder (16,000 offenses per year) than by a CCW holder (25 offenses per year).

[X_Digger]

286. Very nice, but you missed a spot in the left leg

[jody]

320. You don't understand, why read anti-gun propaganda before running in

the wrong direction?

"Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up."

[DissedByBush]

341. What did you expect?

This is the VPC. They lie all the time in their quest to rid the country of guns.

Remember when they said there were "no significant differences" between civilian "assault weapons" and their military counterparts? Yeah, they kind of forgot the whole fully-automatic thing. Remember their lie that Barrett was selling their .50 cals to Al Qaeda? Remember their report of .50s being used in crimes and not one instance was a .50 actually being used in a crime?

[ensho]

2. only cops should have guns

nt

[Wolf-Were]

7. Sure thing we know

that they would never just shoot anyone right? .......lol....even just Cops having guns scare me alot don't know how to use them.

[McCamy Taylor]

84. Arming citizens because police have guns makes no sense at all.

Maybe each family should have a tactical nuke because the military has them?

If only police have guns, the police would be less quick to use their own.

[Deep13]

112. Two points.

We are not arming citizens. Citizens are armed. The question is to what degree should that be restricted. And if the citizens were unarmed, there would be no need for cops to be. British cops don't carry guns, you know. I appreciate your trust in the police, but they are only humans like everyone else and often not even the best examples of humanity. I do not trust the government, even if it is my corrupt town govt., with a monopoly on deadly force.

Second, you are committing the logical fallacy of false dilemma and "slippery slope." No one is suggesting anything like nuclear weapons and you know it. If people have concealed pistols, it does not naturally follow that they should have nuclear weapons too.

[Euromutt]

374. It does make some sense, actually

We authorize law enforcement agencies to possess and use firearms because their job may involve confronting offenders who are prepared to threaten or use lethal force to get what they want (e.g. the contents of a bank), or avoid what they don't want (e.g. being arrested), and police need means to overcome this unlawful lethal force. At present, firearms are the most effective existing means to that end.

But these offenders don't prey on police; they prey on private citizens. Thus, private citizens may find themselves victims of the threat or use of unlawful lethal force, and if the police need guns to overcome this kind of force (in spite of superior numbers and better organization than the offenders), it follows that private citizens do as well. It seems only fair, therefore, to allow private citizens to arm themselves if they so choose to be able to protect themselves.

[Deep13]

14. Bullshit. Cops are more likely to commit crimes than the average person.

If we ever have to give them up, so should the cops.

[TheWraith]

15. And cops are twice as likely to commit violent crime than a handgun permit owner.

So says the FBI statistics, at any rate.

[cliffordu]

19. Aw, come on, bringing real actual facts into this hysterical clusterfuck is

going to ruin it for EVERYONE.

[sfwriter]

157. LOL EOM

[AlbertCat]

207. Good one!

I'm probably thought of as an anti-gun nut here, but...

My only concern with guns are:

Stockpiling... who needs a dozen guns? Branch Davidians?
Walking into a tent in East Bumfuck AL, and buying a gun with no problem
The extremely cavalier attitude towards guns in this country. That wild west crap, y'know.

I don't want to take away anyone's gun.... unless they are kookie about it. What the hell is wrong with sensible gun laws?

And most important.... how do we kill this gun lust? It's like a kitchen appliance in America. "Honey, Mommy's gun is out of amo....run get your Father's for me." "Ok Mommy!"

Why conceal a weapon at all? If you're gonna play cowboy, sling it on your hip in full view. Oh, and have a permit that is on file that you had to go thru a waiting "check up" period to get. Also, every once in a while, you must prove you know how to use it, store it and take care of it and that you know the laws before that permit is renewed.

Is that too much to ask? We do it with cars.

[michreject]

236. I'm not stockpiling

I can count the guns I own on mine, my Wife, Daughter, her Daughter, my Dog and a complete strangers fingers.

[subcomhd]

275. Who needs a......?

whatever, assault weapon, ten guns. What other constitutional rights do you apply a needs test to? Who needs to write that crazy stuff? Who needs to print that trash? Who needs to associate with those losers?

[DainBramaged]

35. You really are jaded

I will bet the cops I know would dispute your argument

[Deep13]

36. They can't dispute the facts. nt

[DainBramaged]

76. I can dispute this, goodbye, another one makes my ignore list

Your attitude is disgusting.

[Deep13]

101. I thought I was already on your ignore list.

And why is it disgusting? Appreciating the job they do or even many of them personally is not the same as ignoring the facts. People generally have a low incidence of criminality. For police, it is slightly higher than average. The fact that you wish cops to be somehow superhuman does not make it so. A lot of cops are consumate professionals, but a good number of them are just school yard bullies too who hoped to continue pushing people around.

I suppose you are going to tell me that sailors don't drink or use foul language next.

[Hard2believe]

195. It is disgusting and an aberration

That the worlds most industrialized country has the worst rate of murder,suicide and accidental death, as well as injury ,than all the other combined first world countries.

You mention the police in the UK not being armed. They are. Not all but in high crime areas they are. All plainclothes officers are.

In the Republic of Ireland it is of en assumed the police are not armed. They are too, in high crime areas, and all Special Branch , Narcotics officers and CAB are armed.

However, the incidence of gun crime is minuscule in the ROI. Crime has risen in the Rep since the EEC allowed for open borders. These crimes are Mostly drug and female trafficking.

During the 70's at the height of the "Troubles" all projectile arms such as hand guns and rifles were banned. There was no increase in violence to those that were not involved in the paramilitary groups.

So for all the defenders of the gun laws that think that the US is Afghanistan or Iraq I am sorry and heartily sick of your brow beating and inane arguments that lambaste those of us that have to care for these victims.

We have a higher mortality rate through gun violence than Brazil. A developing country still mired in poverty.

For all you gung-ho warriors other than the recreational shooter of which I am one, go visit a hospital ward and see the a/ damage caused by an AK-47 to a nine year old who happened to get in the way of a bullet intended for her dad.B/ Console a nine year old that lost her/his dad because of a traffic dispute and the murderer with the clean record became a criminal in an instant because he had a gun. Big brave macho guy.

How about you go visit that lady in Arizona that lost her child and husband to a gang of gun toting lunatics that Hannity has orgasms over and so many of you are in sexual excitement at their carrying concealed and patrolling the borders from a group of poor Mexicans that have to trudge across the desert to try to make it better for their relatives.Minute Men. MYNUTE MEN (SIC)
You bunch are no better than Dobbs, Hannity, O'Reilly and that insane Beck.

I have seen bodies cut open and immediately shut due to the damage of even the smaller caliber guns, so before you think I'm off topic,because I referenced AK-47's I'm not.

Guns have one purpose. To KILL.

[Deep13]

203. And yet none of mine have ever done so.

Besides, the real purpose of firearms is to sell them to customers.

I deny that anyone HAS TO enter this country illegally.

As has been pointed out to me down thread, anecdotes are not evidence. None of the example you mention are the result of lawful concealment of a pistol pursuant to a state-issued license. So you are off topic.

And yes, I was aware that a minority of UK cops were armed. I met one in the airport when he noticed I was coming straight from Budapest ('93) on my way back to the USA. Didn't know the situtation in Ireland.

My point about the police is this. Police are citizens operating under govt. authority enacted by the citizens. In what way are the police trustworthy with deadly force if the citizens who put them in office are not? My point about the crime rate among police illustrates that this is not just some rhetorical debating point. I always remember the group of residents of New Orleans who tried to escape from the flooded city on the one road leading out of town. They were U.S. citizens (mostly at least) peacefully walking on a public road to an American town and were unlawfully and cruely prevented from leaving under color of law. They were stopped by red-neck, yokel cops from the next town who forced them back at gunpoint.

[AlbertCat]

212. Besides, the real purpose of firearms is to sell them to customers.

Yeah! And the real purpose of food is to sell it too, not to eat it.

Oh...do shut up! Guns...just another toy to you.

This is the attitude I'm scared of. BTW...You've still got time to kill something with your guns.

[slackmaster]

238. You got off track in your first sentence

That the worlds most industrialized country has the worst rate of murder,suicide and accidental death, as well as injury ,than all the other combined first world countries.

I don't believe any of that is true.

Taiwan, Northern Ireland, and Brazil all have higher murder rates than the USA. Japan's suicide rate is far higher than ours.

Accidental death by gunshot is actually rare in the USA, and has been on a steady downward trend for over 100 years. There were just 642 accidental shooting deaths in the USA reported for 2006. Far more people die from falling (20,823), drowning (3,579), etc. than by accidental gunshot.

[Hard2believe]

352. You need to check your facts before you

utter pure garbage. I'm going to supply a two year old piece of CDC data for you to peruse at your leisure.

Here are gun-related deaths per 100,000 people in the world's 36 richest countries in 1994: United States 14.24; Brazil 12.95; Mexico 12.69; Estonia 12.26; Argentina 8.93; Finland 6.46; Switzerland 5.31; France 5.15; Canada 4.31; Norway 3.82; Austria 3.70; Portugal 3.20; Israel 2.91; Belgium 2.90; Australia 2.65; Slovenia 2.60; Italy 2.44; New Zealand 2.38; Denmark 2.09; Sweden 1.92; Kuwait 1.84; Northern Ireland 1.63; Greece 1.29; Germany 1.24; Hungary 1.11; Republic of Ireland 0.97; Spain 0.78; Netherlands 0.70; Scotland 0.54; England and Wales 0.41; Taiwan 0.37; Singapore 0.21; Mauritius 0.19; Hong Kong 0.14; South Korea 0.12; Japan 0.05.

Now, since you maligned Northern Ireland, Taiwan and Brazil does that give you a little food for thought on your stance. Really, Taiwan has less than a 1/2 a person dead per 100,000 people.

I'll have the suicide figures and accidental injuries and deaths through same when I get to work tomorrow.

One last point. The countries at the top end of the pst all have lax gun laws , hence the larger numbers of mortality. Argue your points in any manner you wish. GUN KILL. Like the drunk says, "I never got a DUI,yet. As one of the other posters noted, his guns have not killed anyone, yet.

However, is he basking in the hope he may get a chance or be like me. Don't have one, don't need one and if I do, my work tells me that I am the most likely victim as the poster is also.

[eqfan592]

359. Gun related death stats are MEANINGLESS, yet people keep trying to use them.

If you want to compare nations to see if guns really do cause an increase in violent crime, then you can't compare gun-related deaths in a nation with high gun ownership and gun-related deaths in a nation with low gun ownership. That is a useless comparison for the argument that you are trying to make (that guns inherently cause an increase in violent crimes).

The key is the VIOLENT CRIME RATE! You must compare the violent crime rates of all those nations to demonstrate that guns really do increase the number of VIOLENT CRIMES. And guess one of the top nations of the violent crime rate list (per capita when looking at western nations).

UNITED "We can't trust our citizens with just about any guns" KINGDOM!

Even when looking at assaults, while the US is on top of the other western nations at 7.56 per 1000 people, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia are all immediately behind the US with numbers between 7 and 7.47. In that listing you have a mix of nations with very low levels of private firearm ownership and nations with very high levels of private firearm ownership (again, all per capita). To point only to firearms as the reason for violent crimes is beyond ludicrous, when there are so many more obvious factors that can be taken into account.

Guns do NOT increase the violent crime rate. Poverty, poor education, urban decay, etc. THESE are the issues we must be facing, and we could face them better if people like YOU were to get off your anti-gun bandwagon and get on board with making some progress on REAL issues.

Source for info on Assaults: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita
Source for info about UK: http://blog.taragana.com/n/uk-is-europes-most-violent-crime-capital-european-commission-97667/
(note that Home Office disputes these numbers, but as has been shown in the past, home office is NOT above fudging the numbers to make themselves look better)

[DainBramaged]

285. Bravo

But here, the influence of the Reich wing gun nuts is entrenched. Any rational argument is met with 'but it's our Constitutional right to bear arms, yuk yuk yuk"

We waste our breaths. These loonies collect guns like our kids used to collect Beanie babies. And 99 44/00% of thm live in LOW or NO crime areas, they just need that gun to protects them from the boogie mans.

[winyanstaz]

343. and never mind the little 12 year old that learned how to use a shotgun

in montana...and shot two rapist/murderers as they broke into her home while she was home alone.
The killers had already broke into another home previously and killed another person before this brave little girl stood up and put a stop to their rampage.
Without those guns in the house and a father who taught her the proper use of those guns..she would have been a raped and tortured and dead little girl.

[Euromutt]

372. It would be an aberration, if it were true

It is disgusting and an aberration <...> That the worlds most industrialized country has the worst rate of murder,suicide and accidental death, as well as injury ,than all the other combined first world countries.

The American suicide rate is unremarkable compared other rich developed countries'. The homicide rate is high, but if one factors out the young, urban black males (the demographic most likely, for socio-economic reasons, to be involved in the illegal drug trade, and the culture of violence that accompanies it), the U.S. rate is also unremarkable.

Sure, if you amend your sentence to include the words "involving guns," then yes; the U.S. rates of homicide, suicide and accidental death by firearm are higher than those of other countries. But why does that matter? People seem to have a knack of finding ways to kill themselves and others, intentionally or otherwise, with whatever's available. The Russian homicide rate is way higher than the U.S.'s, in spite of lower availability of firearms; fatal stabbings and especially beatings occur a lot more. Of course, there are major socio-economic differences between Russia and the U.S., but that fact indicates that there are other factors in play, and moreover that these factors play a much larger part than the legal availability of firearms.

Looking only at firearm deaths in rich, developed countries strikes me as cherry-picking data to support your predetermined conclusion, frankly.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

330. The old head in the sand tactic, nice.

[LanternWaste]

116. Self delete...

self delete...

[michreject]

72. Where did you meet these cops?

In the Dunkin Doughnut while on your way to work.

[DainBramaged]

75. Your attitude disgusts me

I may be anti-gun but with cops as friends for you to make the statement they are all criminals is not worth further comment from me.

Goodbye, you made my ignore list .

[michreject]

80. Criminals?

Where did I say that?

Exagerate much? Must be from too much sugar in the glaze.

[rd_kent]

95. Are we a bit sensitive today?

Ignoring someone because they disagree with you? I guess I will get ignored too? Is my attitude disgusting?

[DainBramaged]

150. You think cops are criminals?

PS I can ignore anyone I fucking please.

[rd_kent]

156. WTF?

Do I think cops are criminals? What does that have to do with anything?

I was just commenting on your use of the ignore function and your anger level. Take a chill pill dude.

[DainBramaged]

284. My use of the ignore button?

oops I just clicked it, buhbye.

[eqfan592]

287. Indeed you can.

Just don't complain when you've ignored just about everybody who disagrees with you and your conversations on the board turn into a mutual admiration circle jerk.

[DainBramaged]

307. Two words and thay AIN'T Merry Christmas

[Deep13]

104. Didn't say they were all or even mostly criminals.

Only that they are more likely to be criminals than the population generally, which is true.

[Tejas]

324. Sigh.........Google is your friend

Try "police officer murdered his" as a search term, unless you just INSIST on being one of the poster children for Brady/VPC.







*yep > 31,700 results

[razorman]

44. There has always been a very thin line between police mentality and criminal mentality.

This is not to disparage cops. The fact that being a cop and being a criminal require many of the same traits is what allows good cops to hunt down the bad guys effectively. In the 19th century, it was common for outlaws in the old west to move somewhere and become lawmen, and vice-versa.

[Clintonista2]

83. 87.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot

[Deep13]

124. No they aren't.

My first case in the DA's office was to prosecute a village police chief for rape. I'm afraid he wasn't the last.

[Clintonista2]

129. You sound like the freepers who say "It's cold outside... so much for global warming!"

Post proof to backup your claim. Anecdotal evidence doesn't mean shit when you make a claim like that.

[Deep13]

142. Well, I figured that's the kind of "evidence" you want...

...since your claim is just a flippant remark with no basis in fact.

Otherwise, I would not dream of relying on anecdotes.

[anigbrowl]

199. Well, I agree with you for a variety of reasons, but you should post a source for the stat claim

I did find one from the journal of criminology, but it's behind an academic paywall (http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/2/5/3/8/p125382_index.html) I think you should provide some firmer sourcing for what cannot help but be a controversial statement.

[Deep13]

205. I'll try to find it. nt

[Deep13]

353. It's something I heard in law school...

...but I don't have a primary source for it and I haven't had time to really look for it. It was not something I found on the internet.

[slackmaster]

26. Right

[amyrose2712]

Sigh. nt

[Xithras]

34. Where I live, the cops tell us to buy guns.

Welcome to the boonies, where a genuine emergency might get you a 911 response in 30 minutes.

Keep in mind, when using that broad brush, that not all of us live in a cushy urban paradise where the local PD is only 4 minutes away.

[Old Codger]

40. Hell

If I got a 30 minute response here it would be some sort of record.... If I call 911 they will tell us to do the best I can til they get here and that can be hours , they even tell us and announce on TV and in papers that the response time is that long and that we are on our own for the most part. One time when I called they actually asked me if I had a gun and did I know how to use it. LOL

edited for spelling

[mikekohr]

63. I live in a rural county in North Central Illinois, 90 miles from Chicago

At any given time we have two deputies on patrol in a county that is 873 square miles in size. Response time can range from 10 minutes to over an hour depending on the given situations that exist when the call is placed.

A woman I work with placed a call a few years back to the Sheriff's Dept., that a man was breaking into their home. Her husband was waiting for the burglar on the other side of the door with a shotgun. It took over 45 minutes for deputies to arrive. The drunken (and armed) burglar was lucky he was not able to pry the door open before they arrived.

"Concealed Carry Laws" don't make me safer but if the larger issue is gun ownership in general then I and many other Democrats all across rural America have a problem with that thinking.

mike kohr

[Old Codger]

176. an example of no guns allowed in Australia

The took peoples guns there.


http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/20/australia.killing/

[AlbertCat]

217. waiting for the burglar on the other side of the door with a shotgun.

Silently? Waiting to ambush him and shoot him?

How about letting the burglar know he's about to get shot? "I'VE GOT A GUN AND KNOW HOW TO USE IT!" and maybe a warning shot. The burglar would be in the next county probably without the shot.

It's this "I can't wait to protect my family with a gun" attitude that is scary.

[Critters2]

229. Yep. Mr. Kohr is apparently just waiting for the opportunity to shoot someone.

Even wants to believe the sheriff thinks it's a good idea.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that not everyone in North Central Illinois is a trigger-happy gun nut.

[mikekohr]

313. I do not own a functioning gun, so I'm not shooting anyone soon, nor do I have plans to.

I personally know our sheriff. In this circumstance our Democratic Sheriff would have supported my co-worker's husband if he had been forced to defend his life or the life of his wife. Thank God, or in this case Jim Beam, that it did not come to that.

mike kohr

ps. Critters2, Insults and off the wall assumptions about people you have never met don't advance the respectful exchange of ideas. I forgive you. Come into the light my friend.

[michreject]

242. Why warn him

He would go find someone who couldn't defend their self.

If the choice was between a thug and defenseless person, the thug loses.

Do you believe that if you warned him and he left that he would change his ways?

[rrneck]

274. Verbal warnings are a good idea,

warning shots not so much. If you have to pull the trigger, you should be doing so as an absolute last resort.

[eqfan592]

291. Wow, I like how you jumped to the conclusion that he didn't vocalize a warning when no such...

...assertion was made in the post you are replying to. Are you sure you don't belong over on Freerepublic, where putting words in others mouths is the norm?

[mikekohr]

308. Actually that is exactly what happened

While my co-worker stayed on the phone with the 911 operator her husband was yelling at the knucklehead trying to break down the door. He repeatedly said he had a gun and would shoot. The burglar was either to drunk to understand what danger he was in or did not believe my co-worker's husband.

Neither my co-worker or her husband knew that the individual was 3 sheets to the wind. They were terrified regardless. And when the deputies arrested the knucklehead, he was carrying a weapon.

Incidentally my co-worker's husband dropped dead of a heart attack a few months afterward.

mike kohr

p.s.
A warning shot? From inside a house? With a shotgun? Into what?

[TheWraith]

77. There's a lot of urban areas where 4 minutes is a fantasy for police response time.

Try calling the cops anywhere but a middle class or upper middle class suburb, you're likely to be looking at a longer wait.

[Critters2]

231. Princeton isn't as rural as yu want to pretend.

I've lived in rural, and Princeton ain't it.

And I still don't own a gun

[mikekohr]

314. I don't live in Princeton

I live in rural Selby Township. I happen to have a RFD address with a Princeton zip code. If you've lived in a rural setting you might be aware of this quirk.


mike kohr

[Critters2]

373. I do live in a rural area. BUt I've lived in a lot more rural.

You're less than an hour from a metro area of 500,000 people. Really. It ain't that rural.

Oh, and I grew up outside Kewanee, so I know the area.

[Endangered Specie]

346. Where I live, the cops shoot friendly action pistol competitions

with us civilians.

[razorman]

42. Any state where only the police have guns is a police state.

[gorfle]

50. See how well that worked out for these ladies:

only cops should have guns

Here is a 911 recording of a woman who was armed with a pistol a friend had recently loaned her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTAADW9wNvk

Here is a woman who was unarmed and on the phone with 911 while an intruder broke into her home and raped her.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3vWsa4ags&feature=rela...

[jgraz]

139. More public policy by youtube

:eyes:

[gorfle]

160. It's a great leveler.

Youtube is a great leveler. It's easy to talk in abstracts about what happens to people when they are victims of crime. It's somewhat more difficult to talk about anecdotes in print. But when it's presented to you as it happened, with real audio and video, suddenly it becomes something real and tangible, with raw emotion that no one can deny.

[jgraz]

171. Yes, it magically drops everyone's IQ to zero.

See? Nice and level.

[gorfle]

175. So I guess Obama has an IQ of zero?

Seeing as how the whitehouse has it's own Youtube channel?

[iverglas]

220. real what, now?

But when it's presented to you as it happened, with real audio and video

You are actually pretending that the video presented there is "real"?

Have you no shame at all?

[subcomhd]

153. ol' ryan fucked up, didn't he?

I would call that practical feminism at work.

[jody]

332. Why, government is not obligated to protect you, me, or anyone else?

SCOTUS said in DESHANEY v. WINNEBAGO “A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.”

SCOTUS said in CASTLE ROCK v. GONZALES, “Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband”

Self-defense is a personal responsibility.

When attacked by a criminal and seconds count, police are only minutes or hours away.

[xchrom]

3. quelle surprise. nt

[AndyA]

4. But...but...but...they have a RIGHT to bear arms!

Those cops don't have a RIGHT to live, correct?

Those private citizens right to live their life is secondary to the RIGHT to bear arms, right?

The right to bear arms exceeds and trumps all other rights, that's the way it's supposed to be.

(:sarcasm: for the impaired)

[rd_kent]

20. That makes no sense

51 people in two years? What is that, .000000001% of legal gun owners? Gimme a break! More people died by slipping in their bathtub.

[Winterblues]

32. Link please

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

33. Roll your on inquiry at WISQARS

http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

[rd_kent]

54. C'mon, really?

You cant tell I made that up for demonstration purposes?

But since you asked, I googled a quick one. I do not claim it is accurate.
http://www.chacha.com/question/how-many-people-die-by-slipping-and-falling-in-the-shower-every-year

[rd_kent]

55. National Safety Council ok?

According to the National Safety Council more than 20,000 people per year are injured in slipping accidents and over 600 actually die.

[Hoopla Phil]

174. LOL. Good post!

[paulsby]

103. they do havea right to bear arms. and this cop supports that

i also know statistically that CCW holders are far less likely to assault or try to kill me than the average person. those stats have been posted numerous times, and my 20 yrs experience has borne that out. the right to bear arms does not trump other rights. it is a constitutional right, though. and scare tactics won't eliminate it, thankfully.

[Raskolnik]

107. Yes, the Second Amendment does protect the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't like that, I suggest you work on amending the Constitution.

[AlbertCat]

222. Yes, the Second Amendment does protect the right to keep and bear arms.

That "militia" stuff comes 1st, y'know. Try remembering the entire amendment...or have it changed to fit your fantasy.

[eqfan592]

297. No, you're just trying to have the grammatical structure of the english language change to....

...to fit YOUR fantasy. A goddamn 2nd grader should be able to figure out that the opening of the amendment does not restrict the amendment only to that one purpose. The fact that rational adults even attempt to make this argument still shows a level of desperation on their part.

[SteveM]

110. That was how many cops in one (1) year? 3.5? (nt)

[AndyA]

126. Right. I'm sure their families don't mind.

No biggie. A life really isn't worth much these days.

:eyes:

[eqfan592]

299. Yep. Now lets use your "logic" and apply to everything else in our society.

How many people die a year banging there heads on low beams? Low beams should be OUTLAWED and massive safety measures should be instituted to protect the people from low beams!

Nobody is saying that life isn't worth much. The fact that you took the argument there demonstrates a distressingly low moral character.

[Pavulon]

283. So repeal it. Wouldn't be the first time..

that would be the legal way to address the "problem".

[WriteDown]

5. Considering the # of concealed permit carriers this is a....

really low #.

[Alcibiades]

9. What they really need is data on the relative number

of such incidents with concealed carry permit holders versus non-permit holders. If they commit such crimes at a higher rate than other people, then we can say concealed carry is a bad idea. Failing that, this is much ado about nothing.

[TheWraith]

16. They commit violent crimes at a rate one third that of normal people.

And at one half the rate of police officers. That's according to the FBI violent crime statistics.

[sinkingfeeling]

30. Can you please provide a link to those stats?

[spin]

61. Here's a couple...

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:

"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)

* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Here's an up to date link to Florida Statistics on concealed carry.
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

(Note: under the licenses revoked section only 167 licenses have been revoked between 10/1/87 - 6/30/09 for Crime After Licensure where a firearm was utilized.

[iverglas]

243. keep in mind that by "normal people"

our friend means the entire population of the age of majority, including people with criminal convictions, mental illnesses ...

Comparability is just a wee bit of a problem, since holders of permits to carry concealed weapons are by definition free of criminal convictions and mental illnesses.

... And yet, some of them manage to shoot cops and other living things anyhow.

[elocs]

21. If you were one of the persons killed, how low would it be to you?

Would your surviving family and friends comfort themselves that the number is low?

[WriteDown]

25. So it has to be zero?

Considering that almost every implement of man has some sort of death rate, this seems like an impossible threshhold to meet.

[safeinOhio]

68. If your life was defended by

a ccw holder, how would your family feel. That being the more likely case.

[TheWraith]

73. "One is too many" is a false and irrational argument.

By that logic, one person being killed by a drunk person flying a hot air balloon means that we'd need to ban hot-air balloons. Everything in life entails risk. The fact that we're talking about 25 people a year, in a country of 300 million, where over a hundred people a day are killed in car crashes, shows that the level of violence is, in fact, pretty microscopic.

[subcomhd]

134. hey hitler

tell that to the families of the people killed in hot air ballons! and on top of that the balloon lovers here say the deaths are zero.

[chrisa]

219. It's also a logical fallacy.

That people have been tricked into believing.

For example, one event happening must be true for the whole country, and therefore harsh legislation should be passed nationwide to make sure the event never happens again. it's sometimes necessary, but usually it's not.

[subcomhd]

132. Appeal to emotion, check

Add this to the strawman - the logical fallacies are piling up quickly.

[eqfan592]

301. No, I doubt they would.

Thankfully, we are intelligent enough not to base public policy on such a ridiculous emotional standard.

[MajorChode]

56. Here's another way of looking at it

Approximately 60 law enforcement officers are killed by gunfire each year. Over a 2 year period, that amounts to 120 on average.

Of those 120, 7 were killed by CCW holders, which is roughly 6%.

The US has about 80 million gun owners.

The US has about 4 million CCW permit holders which is about 5% of all gun owners.

So even if you look at it only from the subset of gun owners, a CCW permit holder is statistically more likely to kill a cop. It also shatters the myth put forth by the gun lobby that CCW permit holders are almost unanimously law abiding citizens.

[rd_kent]

105. So 5% of CCW gun owners commit 6% of cop deaths?

That number is infinitesimal. Not sure what your argument is here.

[MajorChode]

233. Probably because you didn't read it very well

I never claimed that 5% of CCW permit holders did anything.

[rd_kent]

240. Sure you did.

"So even if you look at it only from the subset of gun owners, a CCW permit holder is statistically more likely to kill a cop"

[Incitatus]

276. You only mentioned cops

People are people. The total should be taken into account, which is about 12,000 gun homicides per year.

So if 5% of gun owners are CCW, and they kill 26 people per year. That is (26/12,000 = .002) 2 tenths of a percent of the total deaths.

It seems CCW owners are much less likely to kill.

[subcomhd]

62. stunningly low n/t

[Chulanowa]

90. According to our local gun nuts, the rate is absolute zero

Becuase gun owners never ever commit crime, and CCW licensed people are not only perfect in their following of the law, but they are downright saintly in all other regards.

The numbers may not be big, but when people have been arguing that the number is, has been, and always will be a perfect zero because only bad people hurt people with guns, and gun owners are never bad people...

[Raskolnik]

Please point out the source of those claims.

I'd like to admonish anyone that would say such stupid things. Could you provide a link to the DUers making those claims?

[Chulanowa]

109. You'll have to dig up specific threads, but I can get you started

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

There you go. THE GUN IS GOOD.

[Raskolnik]

113. I'm sorry, but I don't see any links to DUers saying anything resembling "gun owners never

ever commit crime, and CCW licensed people are not only perfect in their following of the law, but they are downright saintly in all other regards" or that "only bad people hurt people with guns, and gun owners are never bad people."

May I humbly suggest that you were talking out your ass on this one?

[subcomhd]

121. ah, the ol' strawman n/t

[Chulanowa]

136. You may, and I'll just assume you're as lazy as I am

I don't really feel like digging through the latrine of DU to find a tiny pearl to hand to you.

I assure you though, a casual perusal of the threads in there will give you more than a few examples of the "no true scotsman" fallacy i'm talking about, where gun owners who commit crimes aren't really gun owners.

[subcomhd]

137. I don't really feel like digging through the latrine of DU to find a tiny pearl to hand to you.

and why should you when you can just make shit up?

[Raskolnik]

138. If a casual perusal would give me more than a few examples of what you're claiming exists, why can't

you provide any instances that support your rather silly claims?

[SteveM]

123. Uh, which one, champ? (nt)

[X_Digger]

114. What a lovely straw man..

.. I think you missed a spot by his left leg.

[SteveM]

120. According to our local prohibitionists, there is blood in the streets...

More likely bad thinking from culture warriors who know they have lost, but still don't mind taking marching orders from the right-wing Violence Policy Center (GOP-founded, GOP-led).

[iverglas]

224. why does Mark Twain come so often to mind

when reading posts shoving the gun militant agenda, parroting this discredited crap?

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

[slackmaster]

127. That's a classic Straw Man

:hi:

[WriteDown]

6. delete, dupe

[sinkingfeeling]

8. And I always hear that people with concealed guns only act in self defense and are law-abiding

citizens.

[rd_kent]

23. How do you know that these werent the same circumstances?

Perhaps all of these incidents were self-defense? Nonetheless, 51 people in two years? More people died choking on their chewing gum.

[sinkingfeeling]

29. Not many police officers are shot in self-defense nor are people charged with crimes.

[rd_kent]

51. You may be surprised

With the overzealous use of no-knock warrants and midnight and early morning raids, don't you think that those people are acting in self-defense? But I digress......
At any rate, my point is that 51 people in two years is nothing. Seriously, more people die getting struck by lightning than by legal gun owners. The OP is trying to make a case for more gun-control, and I feel that case falls very, very short of proving ANYTHING other than the fact that most LEGAL gun owners use them responsibly.

[Hoopla Phil]

180. You need to factor OUT the suicide canard that's thrown into this "study"

[JonQ]

41. I don't think anyone has claimed that no CHL holder

will ever commit a crime under any circumstances. People have claimed that CHL holders are far less likely to commit murders than the general populace (which is true, but the relative numbers are carefully excluded from this article) and that they are more likely to use them in self-defense than someone who is not carrying (don't have the stats on this one).

You could no doubt throw together a study of all the murders committed by left-handed people, and as long as you don't include a per/100,000 people comparison with right handed folk you could drum up a lot of hatred for lefties if you do it correctly. That doesn't mean they are actually more dangerous. Just a misleading use of statistics, as most anti-gun articles do.

[Hoopla Phil]

177. Keep in mind that this "study" lists people CHARGED. Not convicted of

criminal acts. I'm wondering if this "study" will be fully released so that it may be peer reviewed. Somehow I'm thinking. . . .not.

[eqfan592]

302. If you aren't rational enough to recognize that a 100% perfection rating...

...is beyond doable in any large human endeavor, then you have no business attempting to make any sort of argument at all.

[downindixie]

10. How many people have been killed by taser the last two years?

[MajorChode]

60. Very few

It's also probably less than the number of people that would have been killed without the taser.

What people fail to recognize or acknowledge is that taking people into custody is a dangerous prospect with or without tasers.

[winyanstaz]

115. The fact is...

Amnesty International's latest report on Tasers, titled, "USA: Less Than Lethal?" links 334 deaths to Taser use between the years 2001 and 2008.”
Many of these deaths were of totally innocent people.

[winyanstaz]

144. I cannot seem to find a clear listing of the amount of deaths

of American citizens due to accidental or wrongful police shootings.
Anyone have a link for that information?

[MajorChode]

145. The fact is... "linked" does not mean "caused"

You could just as easily say 334 people developed painful gas symptoms after eating a raw tomato. Although it might be a "fact", it would be misleading and fallacious to allege that tomatoes cause gas simply based on the association.

Confusing Cause and Effect is a fallacy that has the following general form:

1. A and B regularly occur together.
2. Therefore A is the cause of B.

This fallacy requires that there is not, in fact, a common cause that actually causes both A and B.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html

First of all, the Amnesty International "report" wasn't a study. It was simply anecdotal information. Even Amnesty International admits only a few cases were directly linked to the use of the taser by medical examiners. If you take the time to do even a small amount of more research, even among those that say the use of the taser can't be ruled out as a contributory cause, but do NOT allege that the taser WAS the cause. The reality is only a tiny number of cases exist that can be directly attributed to taser use and even most of those involve people with health problems or drug overdoses who may have died even without the taser.

Even if you take into account the small number of cases that CAN be directly attributable to the taser and nothing else (which you can count on one hand with fingers left over), it doesn't take into account how many people would have died if tasers HADN'T been used. As I said before, taking people into custody is a dangerous business with or without a taser and people are going to die regardless. When more physical methods are used, more people are going to die and more people are going to be more significantly injured.

[winyanstaz]

344. I see you spouting your opinion but I see no figures or facts..

you say they can be "counted on one hand with fingers left over" but provide no evidence besides your opinion.

[Deep13]

11. "private citizens?"

Presumably that includes justifiable homicide for self defense.

[TheWraith]

12. Which is still much less than half the rate of POLICE killing people.

Probably even less.

[Buzz Clik]

13. Let me see if I get this right: "This just shows that anti-gun laws don't work."

How's that? Am I a walking cliche?

[cliffordu]

17. So fucking what? Mosquitos killed more than that LAST MONTH.

Drunk drivers killed more than that LAST WEEK.

Fast food killed more than that YESTERDAY.

[fascisthunter]

69. mosquitos are created by nature... man creates guns

[SteveM]

125. And?

[rrneck]

280. Nature created man.

And humans are tool using mammals with opposable thumbs. That explains the guns. And knives. And clubs. And hula hoops.

[cliffordu]

292. Again: So fucking what???

This gun hysteric OP is a distraction from health care, the theft of the middle class by the banks and the international business outsourcers...the union busters and the open race baiting in CONGRESS of all places.

Make no mistake about this: You will not take the guns from the people. You will not take mine.

It's the only protection I have from the religion-crazed dominionists that abound and fester like a cancer in this country.

[paulsby]

108. i support gun rights, but fast food didn't kill anybody

abuse of fast food and diet abuse in general did. occasional fast food is not going to kill you. it's a matter of personal responsibility, much like guns i might add. people are responsible for what they stuff down their (often fat) faces.

[bertman]

18. I know I'll sleep a lot better knowing that only the "authorities" have the right to bear arms.

Not.

[benld74]

22. Guns don't kill people,,,

People with guns kill people
EVEN if they have an effin permit

[slackmaster]

24. If only those people hadn't had permits, none of the victims would have died

:sarcasm:

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

Using deadly force, even when justified, carries a risk of having criminal charges against you. That is taught in every decent self-defense class.

Knowing how many resulted in convictions would be a lot more meaningful and honest. But of course the VPC has no interest in that. It's quite telling that they don't present that information here. There could have been one suicide and 43 acquittals for all we know, and they're not going to tell us.

[Blandocyte]

27. I'm surprised it's that high

Here in TN to pass the shootin' test you only have to place 38 of 50 shots in a silhouette target. I'm surprised the permit holders mentioned in the article could place their shots with lethal results.

So here are permit holders committing these crimes, even with all that training and a background check. Get the guns off the streets. Revoke the permits if possible. There are way too many guns out there.

[TheWraith]

74. You know you're more likely to be murdered by a police officer, right?

Permit holders are three times less likely to commit a violent crime than the national average, and half as likely to commit a violent crime as a police officer.

[brendan120678]

28. Only 51 people?

That number is much smaller than I would have guessed.

That just shows you that people with Concealed Carry licenses are less likely to kill someone than a person who illegally owns guns.
I'm sure that the number of people killed by guns not registered/licensed is much higher.

[Rebubula]

31. And???

There were thousands more killed by illegal weapons and 10s of thousands more killed by cars.

[michreject]

37. We all know that Sugarman would NEVER lie about this

Any other source?

[X_Digger]

81. This is a report gathered from the news..

..and we know the news never gets details wrong (intentionally or unintentionally.)

[JonQ]

38. Any data on the rates?

Like per 100,000 CHL owners the murder rates is x.

Compared to the non-CHL population.

Also given the obvious bias of this article I'd like some confirmation on those numbers and if any of them were later classified as self-defense, and how many were suicides.

[bvar22]

39. Yeah, the Senate needs to be wasting time on this.

How many people died in the US yesterday because they couldn't afford Health Care?

How many people died in every other developed country in the World because they couldn't afford Health Care?
(That would be 0).

[Irreverend IX]

43. 31 incidents out of millions of permit holders...

Did you sign up for your remedial statistics course yet? Care to compare that to the violent crime rate among the general population?

[pattmarty]

45. It is somewhat surprising to me that the stats are so low......................

............BUT, you have to remember that it is a study done with ?how many states have concealed carry, with figures of 44 "citizens" killed. IT DOES NOT STATE HOW MANY CITIZENS WERE KILLED IN "SELF DEFENSE" TYPE CRIMES OR WHERE THE "HOLDER" WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL ACT. I, as a liberal am not against concealed laws, but they ALL have to be weighed in the overall total benefit to ALL citizens. Ie: NO permits for felons convicted of violent crimes. I could go on, but you get my drift. And, Jesus, NO GUNS in bars, that's fucking insane.

[LiberalLovinLug]

46. You guys are caraaaaaaaaaaaazy down there

From a Canadian who has only once ever even seen a hand gun. (Smuggled up from the US). Hand guns are banned here.

We hear all the time "guns don't kill people, people do"
While that's true logically on the surface its also true that more hand guns in circulation, means more accidental shootings, and crimes of passion where a gun is handy. The argument for stiffer gun control laws is not to take away personal protection,it is to increase it. By banning all hand guns legally, it makes it much harder for even the "bad guys" to get their hands on one.

I live in Vancouver Canada. Seattle is about 200 miles south. It is roughly the same size in population. One has 10 times the gun related death toll. Can you guess which city?

And no, its not because we're so gawddamn polite.

[rd_kent]

52. Hmmm, interesting.

Just watched a story on Global TV the other night about how Vancouver's gun-crime rate was at an all time high. Something like 20 murders this year so far?

[fascisthunter]

71. if a city already has 20 with strict gun laws there will be more

homicides without them. This has been proven over and over again. More guns in the hands of people, leads to more gun violence. Until the violence in man is taken out of the equation, guns will enable folks to kill each other. More guns, more killing.

[SteveM]

133. Hammering dead wrong...

You say: "More guns, more killing." Yet over the last 12-13 years the number of guns in civilian hands has gone up some
100,000,000 in this country, while the murder rate by guns has gone down. Your gun-prohibitionist mantra-chant doesn't hold water.

BTW, the problem isn't as you pose it ("Until the violence in man is taken out of the equation, guns will enable folks to kill each other"). The problem is to recognize the violence in man and to channel it or use it for constructive purposes. I would hate to see what kind of enterprise would be necessary to "take out" the violence in man.

[paulsby]

100. vancouver canada has a HIGHER homicide rate

than seattle. seattle, fwiw, had 30 homicides last year. vancouver has 20 already this year. that is double seattle's rate, and triple's portland's rate this year, and that's NOT demographically adjusted. demographically adjusted, vancouver's looks even worse.

i love vancouver, but i primarily go to victoria, not vancouver. victoria is beautiful.

downtown eastside (DTES) area of vancouver is extremely sketchy. it's also the first site in north america with a legalized safe injection site. i'm against the war on drugs, and i prefer canada's approach, but regardless, it's not where you want to go.

of course, one significant difference between vancouver and seattle is that seattle is in a shall issue state, and vancouver is... um... not. i'm not speaking to causation here. i'm just saying you cannot arm yourself in vancouver, like you can in seattle.

[iverglas]

228. so?

What on earth do you imagine your point is?

of course, one significant difference between vancouver and seattle is that seattle is in a shall issue state, and vancouver is... um... not.

Yeah, never mind the real differences.

Vancouver is the third largest metropolitan agglomeration in Canada. It is a major seaport, and serves as the metropolis for a huge territory. It is a significant destination for immigrants. It is a world financial centre. Demographically, it is one of the most diverse cities in the world:
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo27x-eng.htm
It is also consistently rated as one of the very best cities in the world to live in (4th thisyear):
http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html
(Canada had 5 of the top 25 in 2008, 5 of the top 26 in 2009.)

It is about as comparable to Seattle as New York city is.

You people can just never come up with anything true to buttress your agenda, can you?

[iverglas]

237. okay, you made me look

Seattle population, in what appears to be 2003: 576,296.

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Seattle&state=WA

On what planet does that make it remotely comparable to Vancouver?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver

In the Canada 2006 Census, the city of Vancouver had a population of 578,041 and Metro Vancouver had a population of 2,116,581. As of 2009, the city has an estimated population of 615,473 and the metropolitan area has an estimated population of 2,318,200.

What's the population of the metropolitan area of Seattle? Does Seattle have a metropolitan area?

:rofl:


Homicide figures for Vancouver are for METROPOLITAN Vancouver.

In 2006, there were 15 firearms-related homicides in the Vancouver Census Metropolitan Area, a rate of 0.7/100,000.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080220/t080220b-eng.htm

Find me a burg in the US with a firearms homicide rate that low, and I'm pretty sure I won't be able to see it on a map without a microscope.

[ManiacJoe]

333. As of 2000, Seattle metro area population is just over 2.4 million.

http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/Seattle-Population-Profile.html


Crime stats for Seattle seem to be for the city only, or encompass much more than the "Seattle Metro" area. Someone else's google-foo might be better than mine.

[proteus_lives]

102. Trust me.

If a Canadian criminal wants a gun, he'll get a gun. Gun control has never stopped those willing to break the law already.

And frankly this is an American issue, we don't give a shit how foreigners feel or act about guns.

[iverglas]

239. not a chance

Trust someone shoving a right-wing political agenda? Nah, ta very much, don't think I will.

And frankly this is an American issue, we don't give a shit how foreigners feel or act about guns.

I'll bet this was relevant to something in the post to which you replied, and wasn't intended as just a gratuitous display of ethnocentricity and wilful ignorance.

Can't see what you might have thought it relevant to, and somehow I don't think the failing is mine.

[Critters2]

232. Okay, we'll have no more of these rational arguments!

This is America! We don't need no stinkin' logic.

[oneshooter]

317. You are wrong.

The possession of Handguns in Canada is NOT banned. It is heavily restricted.

■handguns with a barrel less than 105mm (4.14 inches), except certain specifically listed competition handguns which are restricted
■handguns in caliber .25 or .32, except certain specifically listed competition handguns which are restricted


This is from this site, you might read up on your own laws before commenting on ours.

http://www.panda.com/canadaguns/

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[LiberalLovinLug]

334. sorry, very few are allowed... for target practice.

But you have to get a permit just to transport it back and forth from your home to the range. They are not allowed for personal protection.

"heavily restricted" is in essence a ban.

If you are a trapper, or a security guard you may possess one, for your own protection. But even security guards are not allowed them on the job unless they are dealing with protecting money.

You Yankee gun freaks can keep your opinions that more guns means you're safer, but personally I feel a lot safer where I live knowing that there's a slim to none chance that anyone at any time in any general area I am in is in possession of a concealed firearm.

[paulsby]

349. my (american citizen ) relatives were allowed to take their handguns to canada

they went on a roadtrip in their mobile home, through WA into canada, into alaska, and back through canada, into the US. they were (i was pleasantly surprised) allowed to carry their handguns into canada. they had to go through a somewhat extensive paperwork celebration, but they did get authorization. they did have to keep the handguns in the 'residence' portion of the mobile home and not the operator's portion. other than that, they had few restrictions. i was pleasantly surprised.

[iverglas]

365. 1950, was it? (ed.)

Afraid it doesn't work that way now.


-edit-

I began to question my government's sanity here. Were USAmericans actually allowed to bring handguns into Canada and drive around the country with them, as long as they left them in the cupboard in the back of the RV?

I can't do it. Why would one of you be allowed to?

I would need an authorization to transport -- which is issued to sports shooters so they may legally transport their firearm from the address where they are permitted to possess it to the range/club of which they are a member, such membership being a prerequisite for obtaining a licence to acquire and possess a handgun.

If people wandering across the border from the US don't have to comply with those rules, what has my country come to??

Well, phew, no worries.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/909.pdf

g) - h) If you are declaring a restricted firearm, please print the number of
your Authorization to Transport (ATT) and its expiration date. To find out how
to apply for an ATT, call the Canada Firearms Centre at 1 800 731-4000 in
Canada and the USA, [phone] outside Canada and the USA, or visit
our web site at: http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca before you come to Canada.
Note: You cannot enter Canada with a restricted firearm without
an ATT.

And I think I may safely assume that you may only get an ATT if you are attending a sports shooting event in Canada.

No mom and pop take-yer-gun-to-Canada trips allowed, I fear.

[paulsby]

368. this was within the last year

both are retired cops fwiw. they said the paperwork was a pain, but it was certainly worth it. i do know some cops who have competed in police olympics in canada, and had to go through a bit of a hassle to get their guns shipped to the venue, but in the case of my relatives, they were actually able to drive INTO canada with guns in their mobile homes perfectly legally. again, i was pleasantly surprised that canada let them do that. they were in BC btw. i have no idea if different provinces are more or less strict or if it's purely a federal issue

[iverglas]

369. well, you can believe it if you like

If you PM me the name of the border agent who signed their paperwork, I'll be happy to look into it. A request under the federal Access to Information Act should do the trick.

(It has nothing to do with "different provinces", I assure you.)

[paulsby]

370. what is your point?

are you claiming that this procedure isn't legal, or that i am not telling the truth? if anything, this makes canada look more reasonable. why would i, a critic of canada's firearm laws make up a story that paints canada in a more positive light? i really don't care what you believe. i know these people (my mother and father in law) and they are honest people.

[iverglas]

371. whichever

What happened was not legal, if it happened.

Allowing citizens of foreign countries to wander around in Canada with handguns - apparently not even subject to the same rules as apply to Canadian residents - is not "reasonable". Your story doesn't paint anything or anyone in a positive light. It indicates, if it is true, that a border agent used their discretion illegally. I'm not happy about that one little bit.

Just out of curiosity, how did your aunt and uncle store their handguns in their RV while they were travelling (during travel, while stopped, when away from the vehicle ...)?



typos fixed

[iverglas]

366. and of course you do know

that the carrying of handguns by members of the public is banned, except for certain extreeemely limited purposes.

They may only be transported, at all, to ranges and competitions, by sports shooters, with permits specifying the modalities, and to shows, by collectors.

So it kind of comes down to the same thing, eh what?


Ooooh, love that site/cite, btw: http://panda.com/canadaguns/

If I were wanting to know about Cdn gun laws, me, I'd go to someplace like, oh, a Cdn government site ... largely because it isn't likely to tell me lies.

Any use of a firearm against a human, even in self-defense, is likely to be prosecuted as a crime in Canada. For that matter, use of any weapon against a human is likely to be a crime.

Like that.

[BeGoodDoGood]

47. Georgia Firearms License

In Georgia, anyone (exluding certain people - felons and such) can own without license a gun to keep at their home, car or place of business.

The CCW permit is called a "Georgia Firearms License." I just got mine last week. That widens what you can legally do quite a bit.

Walt

[Bonhomme Richard]

48. A friend who is a cop was visiting this weekend told me ......

that he was doing the processing of concealed permit applications (the regular guy was on vacation) and he was shocked that they got 40 request a week. He asked one of the other guys if that was a fluke and they said it was normal. That's crazy and this is a mid size VA city.

[AtheistCrusader]

Here in Seattle, more than one officer I know encourages people to get them.

We had one stupid shooting last year at the folklife festival that injured two people, and that's about it, for CPL holders. Very law abiding folks.

Even though this state has no training requirement for a CPL. Background check, fingerprint check, here's your pamphlet on state law, and your permit, have a nice day.

[paulsby]

87. i'm a cop near seattle

i support CCW, as do most cops i know. most cop-o-crats (ie appointed police chiefs, who are beholden to their mayoral and city council overlords) may not. most LINE cops, ie real cops ... do.

also, note the folklife shooting, last i checked, was a bit sketchy. iow, i'm not at all convinced the shooter did anything wrong. last i checked, it hadn't bee adjudicated. regardless, assume arguendo the concealed holder DID do something wrong. that's still one isolated incident.

i've been a cop for over 20 yrs, and i've worked here the majority of that time. CCW holders are extremely law abiding. i have yet to deal with any violent crime committed by a CCW holder and their gun. i've dealt with several where they lawfully used a firearm for self defense. i know that statistically, a CCW holder is MUCH less likely to assault or try to kill me than almost any other demographic save maybe mormon grandmothers.

[winyanstaz]

345. Thank you officer for your honesty and your post

Most who are ccw holders are trying to be honest upright citizens.

[gorfle]

49. Look a the revocation rates for CCW permits.

Look at the revocation rates for CCW permits. This information has been posted here on DU before. CCW permit holders have been shown to be many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than your non-CCW permit-holding citizen.

This is logical at face value. Obtaining a CCW permit requires paying a fee, a background check, sometimes fingerprinting, and sometimes a test. Someone who wants to carry a firearm and is willing to go through all the inconveniences required by law to do so obviously have a high respect for law in the first place.

[BeGoodDoGood]

79. Me..........

I have a high respect for not being shot execution style in a 7/11.

Walt

[melm00se]

53. let's provide some context here

in 2006 there were:

30,034 violence related firearm deaths
642 unintentional firearm deaths
360 Legal Intervention Firearm Deaths (shot by law enforcement)
220 Undetermined Intent Firearm Deaths

so extrapolating that out over a 2 year period (to match up with the study in the OP) you have

60,068 violence related firearm deaths
1284 unintentional firearm deaths
720 Legal Intervention Firearm Deaths (shot by law enforcement)
440 Undetermined Intent Firearm Deaths

and 51 done by concealed carry permit holders.

edited:
oh yeah, source: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

[Justyce]

65. Exactly. Thank you.

[safeinOhio]

67. Pretty simple

How many killed by ccw holders that resulted in charges being filed?
About 720 killed by ccw holders that resulted in no charges.
That leaves the basic question, how many innocent lives were saved by ccw holders?
As I understand it from my ccw class, 90% of crimes stopped by legal ccw holders, no shots are ever fired.

My guess, I'd like to see the stats, is that thousands of lives are saved by ccw holders. Weigh that against the 50 or 60 lost by illegal use. That is a no brainer.

[One_Life_To_Give]

57. 4 of 7 Cops killed with AK-47's

1 a fedrally licenced AK the other not specified. Both perpetrators had domestic violence issues in their histories.
Of the remaining three, 1 shot an FBI agenbt inside her home and is facing other weapons charges, one shot an off duty Border Patrol Agent in a road rage incident and 1 for pulling him over.

By my count of the 44 civies at best 22 can be attributed to a weapon being carried as a significsnt contributor. Concidering there are a total of almost 9,400 firearms murders each year. Not sure how big an issue this is.

[Pavulon]

282. 304 million people in the US

you chances of being shot with a rifle of any type are pretty low.

[baldguy]

58. Not surprising. People fearful enough to want to carry a gun will tend to use it.

[paulsby]

85. ah, the fear canard

one of the three illogical arguments used VERY frequently by anti-civil rights types with no real argument

[proteus_lives]

89. Typical anti-stereotype.

Carrying a weapon has nothing to do with fear. I've known hundreds of gun-owners and not one has killed a person.

[SteveM]

146. Another culture war stereotype -- by a prohibitionist (nt)

[BeGoodDoGood]

186. They'll tend to use it rather than be defenseless and just shot.

To me, the thing about fire arms comes down to how one views people.

If you think people as a group are basically bad, you want firearms restricted.

If you think people as a group are basically good, you want firearms use protected.

Walt

[baldguy]

191. If you think people as a group are basically bad, you want to have a firearm so you can shoot them.

If you think people as a group are basically good, you don't lose your sanity to fear.

You have it 180° backwards.

[BeGoodDoGood]

208. No, I do Not.

Good men (and women) need to go armed. That is the way to have a better society.

Walt

[baldguy]

234. Right - the Wild West was a better society.

Somalia & Afghanistan are better societies.

The ONLY reason for a person to go armed in public is out of fear that someone may harm them. That does not make a better society, or a better person for that matter. People who believe it is are more pathetic & sad than anything else.

[Israfel4]

59. So lets say a maximum

of 51 CHL holders did these crimes compared to let's say a minimum of 90,000,000 gun owners and the percentage is............. 0.00000056% !!!!!!


Or 51 CHL holders and a minimum of 1,000,000 other CHL holders nationwide and the percentage is................. 0.000051% !!!!!!


VPC needs to stay away from criticizing CHL holders.

[RamboLiberal]

64. There are 800,000 Carry Permits in my state alone (PA)

This study proves that CHL permits holders are statistically very unlikely to commit a gun crime.

I doubt a national carry law will go anywhere in a Democratically controlled Senate but I for one wish it would pass. It's one thing I think the Repukes should've done when they had control of both the congress & presidency.

[safeinOhio]

70. I have no problem with a national law, either way.

I feel that it should be up to each state. ND is not the same as NY.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. The problem with the VPC is, it grabs the earliest and most inaccurate version of each news report.

I looked at the first two. So far, we have one where the guy has been charged with manslaughter, not murder, and quite possibly will not be convicted. May have been an actual self-defense, despite somewhat incriminating behavior afterwards (tampering with evidence).

The second is a card-carrying member of the aryan nation, who, despite 3 acquitted felony charges, and a domestic violence conviction, the State of Idaho, and the BATFE failed to revoke either his CPL, or his federal firearms license for Class 3 weapons. So the state and the federal government fucked up. Ok. Lesson learned, move on.

[ElboRuum]

78. I just love statistics...

I'm beginning to think that the word "spin" is really an acronym. Statistics Provided, Indicating Nothing.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

290. Of the 44 non-police homicides...

One was a strangulation by a guy who was a CCW holder. Apples? Oranges? Kumquats?

I'm not a huge fan of CCW, but I don't think this really proves much of anything.

[ElboRuum]

362. Comparing Apples to Some Guy Named Horace.

Doesn't fit, doesn't make sense, nothing there. Moving on is the only option. Trying to figure out what this expression of these stats are implying is easy, trying to figure what it really is supposed to prove..., as Lewis Black once said, "don't think about that too long or blood will shoot out your nose."

[grantcart]

82. While I personally would like to live in a place that has UK type controls

1) This is not a very significant number given the tens of millions of guns that are floating around, and

2) If gun concealment permits were taken away would the statistics be really any different.

3) If existing gun control laws were more universally enforced wouldn't there have been a better overall effect than passing more laws that only impact law abiding gun owners.

[chrisa]

215. You mean a place where...

The government places posters around cities that evil terrorists are everywhere, and everybody should be suspicious at all times?

The UK is even more broken than the US system of handling violence. They're considering rounded steak knives, or an all out ban over there. Why would you want to live in a country like that?

[McCamy Taylor]

86. How did DU turn into a wing of the NRA? So much support for widespread gun ownership.

Firearms are a serious public health threat in this country.

What is next? Cigarettes in every pocket?

[slackmaster]

88. I'm pro-choice on guns for the same reason I am pro-choice on cigarettes

And abortion.

Firearms are a serious public health threat in this country.

No. Violent crime is a serious public health threat. Firearms are just tools that can be used for good, bad, or neutral purposes. Take away the PEOPLE who commit crimes, and the problem is solved.

[proteus_lives]

91. Our rights are a public health threat?

"Firearms are a serious public health threat in this country"

What other Amendments are a threat? Anyone you what to take free speech from?

[Redneck Socialist]

92. Democrats support gun rights

It's a small but vocal minority of Democrats, who unfortunately get all too much air time, that oppose the rkba. Unfortunately those self same Democrats, because they get so much press, have allowed to right to create the perception that Democrats as a whole are anti-gun. That perception kills us electorally.

[Scout]

96. "DU" didn't ... it's just the gungeon denizens coming out into the light

for a few minutes before they scuttle back there under their rocks.

[Raskolnik]

106. You're a charmer, aren't you?

Do you think any other portions of the Bill of Rights deserve that kind of scorn, or is the Second Amendment special?

[Scout]

117. it's not the bill of rights that is the problem

and you're oh so charming yourself, aren't you?

[Raskolnik]

131. Oh, its the people that don't want to do away with the Bill of Rights you don't like.

Got it.

[Scout]

141. nope, you've still got nuthin'

but you keep making shit up!

[Raskolnik]

143. So your point is...

...what, exactly? You don't like the people that post in the Guns forum (which includes quite a few fairly strident advocates for gun control)?


edit stupid typo in subject line

[Scout]

162. keep guessing n/t

[Raskolnik]

164. Nope.

If you can't be bothered to have a point, I'm not going to do your work for you.

[Scout]

168. if you can't figure out the point, i'm not going to waste time explaining it to you n/t

[Raskolnik]

172. Why should anyone have to ferret out your own point for you?

You don't like the people on DU that think we should not erode a particular section of the Bill of Rights. Fine. Good for you. Did you have anything else to offer?

[Scout]

181. no one has to "ferret out" my point for ME

YOU are the one having a problem figuring it out

:rofl:

[Raskolnik]

183. Oh, your point is an animated smiley face rolling on the ground!

Now I do feel silly for not getting it sooner.

Carry on.

[rd_kent]

122. Oh, I see you have come out from under yours, too.

Seems like you scurried out to make an inflammatory comment, then back under you go. Pot, meet kettle.

[Scout]

140. if the vast majority of my posts were made in the gungeon, you MIGHT have a point

but they aren't, so you don't.

yeah, i'm such an inflammatory poster, how can you all stand it? :rofl:

[rd_kent]

209. Really, what IS your point?

You just upping your post count or what?

[Scout]

218. another dim one ... :eyes: n/t

[rd_kent]

244. OK, you win

I am unable to have a debate with someone who doesnt have a position or a point. I guess you win.

[SteveM]

149. Seems like you're always sniffing 'round here. Like dem rocks? (nt)

[Scout]

163. sniffing around LBN? n/t

[SteveM]

210. Sniffing my rock? Oooo, we have to quit meeting like this (nt)

[Scout]

335. one wouldn't need to sniff to find you, if so inclined (although i don't know why one would)

the stench would be obvious from quite far away.

i don't go "sniffing around" anywhere ... i was posting in the Latest Breaking News forum. thus my question, which you twisted into some sick shit to flatter yourself.

[iverglas]

225. they don't always scuttle

but they do usually get flushed. ;)



oops, typo

[Raskolnik]

97. You are mistaken on a couple things.

First, you confuse advocacy of the *right* to do something as advocacy of the act itself. The Constitution protects a person's right to keep and bear arms, but no serious person is saying that society is better off with every knucklehead owning a gun.

Second, you let the NRA fool you into believing that it is synonymous with protecting the Second Amendment. It isn't.

[gorfle]

130. How it turned.

It's simple. Lots of pro-firearm folks who traditionally voted Republican for their stance on firearms have gotten tired of a party that engages in immoral wars, torture, pervasive domestic surveillance, corporate pandering, disregard for the environment, and disregard for social welfare, so they abandoned that party.

We still like our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, however.

So now we are under your tent.

With our guns.

Hello! :)

[X_Digger]

152. And many never had to turn..

Many non-urban democrats have always thought that 'gun control' meant hitting what you aim at. Lots of blue collar, local union, shower-after-work-not-before types.

[SteveM]

147. You do know that the VPC is GOP-founded, GOP-led? Don't you? (nt)

[Dappleganger]

173. Freeptards with guns are a public health threat.

As long as they're packing so will I.

[Jakes Progress]

193. It's a minority.

A unrepresentative and outrageously vocal minority.

They get to say what they want because that's the rules. Oh, well.

Just try to ever say anything about guns. The woodwork comes apart. I think they take turns monitoring every thread and post just waiting. Sort of like sitting in a tree waiting to shoot something. If their rhetoric wasn't so redundant and error filled it would be fun just to tweak them every once in a while, sort of like dropping a leaf on an ant hill. Just watch what this post gets.

[Scout]

221. they like to stalk around, and they recruit their nutty friends from other gun boards

some of them are stupid enough to use the same user names ... it's really funny to go over once in a while and watch them all talking about how they've put iverglas in her place, etc. etc.

they keep bringing in the in the trolls, and the sock puppets, and they keep getting tombstoned. it's kind of fun when you're bored.

[Raskolnik]

250. Unrepresentative of who? Of DU? Of Democrats? Of liberal/progressives?

I think you may be surprised about some of your stereotypes.

Regardless, however, the nice thing about constitutional rights is that they are not defined by whether one is in a minority or not. Perhaps you disagree about that being a nice thing, but its a fact nonetheless.

[iverglas]

260. of decent, rational people?

Yeah. I think that's it.

[Raskolnik]

263. Oh, now that's just as charming as can be.

Even by your standards.

Are you even capable of acting like a reasonable person is capable of rational disagreement with something you might think?

[iverglas]

269. I don't think either Scout or I has any desire to charm the dungeon denizens

Ew. The thought makes the skin crawl. Next thing you know, I'll be getting more proposals ...


Are you even capable of acting like a reasonable person is capable of rational disagreement with something you might think?

Find me some, and we'll see, 'k?



typo fixed

[Raskolnik]

273. Says someone who has made thousands of posts in the gungeon.

You hate the attention so much you just come back...and back...and back. Just like a good martyr would.

[iverglas]

294. more gun dungeon ADD

What that had to do with whether you or anyone else in the Guns forum finds me charming, I just don't know.

Do YOU post extensively in the Guns forum in the hope of finding a mate?

That's reminding me of something ... oh yeah, the ex of mine who had joined Mensa to meet chicks. (He dragged me to a "social" one night and then tried valiantly to persuade me to dust off my LSAT score and go join up. Ewwwww. They were mostly wearing food.)

:rofl:

[Raskolnik]

303. Way to slip an anecdote about your LSAT score into casual conversation!

Once again, its all about you.


edit typo

[Jakes Progress]

270. O Noes! Theys founded me. nt

[Raskolnik]

293. I'm not sure how that's responsive to my post. n/t

[Incitatus]

279. Maybe because we understand the reasons the 2nd Amendment was put into the Constitution.

[krister]

93. ....Um, yeah....

If someone is willing to use a gun TO KILL SOMEONE, why would they care if they are legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon?!?!?!

I'm not seeing the logic in using this data in opposition to concealed carry laws.

[proteus_lives]

94. Very low numbers....

If they aren't bullshit. Considering the number of people who have permits.


But of course, the anti-2nd fascists will think this justifies destroying our rights.

[Raskolnik]

98. Is your point that this is an extraordinarly large number? n/t

[SteveM]

99. The VPC? A GOP-founded, GOP-led group...

So after all the gas being pumped about the "pro-Republican NRA," the "RW meme," etc., we have (once again) the latest gassage from yet another GOP group.

So, that's seven (7) cops and forty-four (44) civilians killed by Concealed-carry permit-holders in two (2) years. Put another way in a year's time 3.5 cops and 22 people were killed by permit holders. Big data, there. wow.

[cali]

111. In Vermont, you don't need a permit to conceal carry

anyone from any state can conceal carry. And Vermont has a low rate of gun related crimes.

[rd_kent]

118. Judi Lynn, what's your point, anyway?

You posted this, and have yet to respond. Whats your intent here?

[SteveM]

154. Fair request. What IS the point of the OP? Where is she? (nt)

[chascarrillo]

326. Y'all are hankering for a lynching, aren't ya?

[rd_kent]

337. Waddya mean?

I just find it interesting that the OP put this up, it has caught on fire, and yet the OP has not responded a single time.

[chascarrillo]

348. You're ganging up and bullying the OP. Don't be fatuous.

[rd_kent]

350. Really? How can someone "gang up on" someone who isnt here? Don't be vacuous.

[The abyss]

200. Does an OP need to have a reason for bringing something to the table?

I use LBN on DU to catch up on all sorts of news, not all of it necessarily political in nature.

[rd_kent]

213. Well, yes, I would like to think so

I would think that the OP had a reason for posting in the first place, right?

[slackmaster]

246. The "study" cited in the OP is pure propaganda

Inherently political, and not news.

[NickB79]

128. I wonder if any of the cops shot were charmers like this one here in MN

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=490339

"A Robbinsdale police officer has been indicted by a grand jury in connection with a road rage incident last summer.

Since then, two stories have emerged about what happened.

Officer Landen Beard was working undercover last June. His attorney says he was heading back to the office. Beard passed a few cars, using the shoulder. His attorney says that led to a confrontation with another driver, Scott Treptow, of Coon Rapids.

Treptow was driving with his wife and two kids in the car. Beard's attorney says when the cars were side by side, Treptow took out a gun and shot Landen Beard, hitting his arm and leg."

snip

"Treptow, who is a security guard with a license to carry a handgun, says Beard never identified himself as a police officer. Treptow says he fired at him only after Beard pointed a gun at Treptow's wife."

[Butch350]

135. So, is this bad or good? What specific point are you making?

[Hoopla Phil]

170. Good question. The numbers seem low to me but without a "control" group

the study is pretty meaningless.

I also object to the suicides being thrown in there.

[DainBramaged]

148. This thread is innudated with gun huggers

EVERY 90 seconds in this country a gun crime is comitted. Don't believe me?


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm 525,948 minutes in a year


Where did those hundreds of thousands of guns come from that were used in the crimes??? Think just maybe there are too many guns?

[slackmaster]

151. What does that have to do with concealed weapons permits?

:crazy:

[rd_kent]

178. Hey, dont piss him off by pointing out the obvious

He will call you names then add you to his ignore list.

[Piewhacket]

158. If every adult were required by law to carry a loaded and UNconcealed weapon....

maybe we'd all be a little nicer to each other?
(or the ones who were left would be).

Just food for thought, for any who feel urge to
do any of that 'thinking' stuff.

[Deep13]

161. You're changing the subject.

The issue here is fatalities with lawfully concealed weapons.

[Raskolnik]

165. OK. We all can agree that it would be a better world if there were less violent crime

What do you think we should do?

[marmar]

230. Happens every time.....

It's like a rapid response team.

[Raskolnik]

248. Its annoying when multiple sides of an issue show up, isn't it?

It would be a lot easier if more threads were just big group hugs about how every good Democrat hates guns and every person who values the Second Amendment is a right-wing nut, wouldn't it?

[marmar]

249. Whatever you say, dude.....

:freak:

[Raskolnik]

252. Yeah, that's about what I expected.

Whatever, indeed.

[Deep13]

159. These figures mean nothing out of context.

Just saying 7 officers and 44 civilians (actually cops ARE civilians and citizens) means nothing.

How many of those fatalities were actually crimes? (While unlikely, there are times when self-defense can be asserted against the police.)
-how many were justified shootings?
-how many were accidents (still bad, but not murder)?
-how many were suicides?

How many crimes were deterred simply by being able to produce and show a pistol?

How many times were the police not involved in a gun-point stand off because the would-be victim scared the assailant away?

How many of these CCW permit holders would have shot someone anyway without the permit? That is to say, how many of the shootings would have happened in a place were the shooter was allowed to have a firearm ready even without a permit (home, business etc.) or how many would have carried illegally without a permit?

And in a nation of 300,000,000 isn't 51 fatalities in two years pretty insignificant? I mean tobacco kills half a million annually in this county and cars kill about 50,000 every year. I'll bet 51 years per annum could be avoided simply by making sure everyone gets a flu shot.

Until these questions are answered (maybe they have been, but those numbers are not in the article) simply stating that 51 were shot to death in 24 months is a meaningless statistic.

[Hoopla Phil]

169. The suicide is just a canard that has no business in this study.

The VPC is including CHL holders that commit suicide by firearm to "pad" their numbers.

[missemc2]

166. Here's what I think...

The number and type of guns one owns is in direct proportion to how badly they wish to kill someone with one.
Just give 'em an excuse.

I'm just sayin'.

[Raskolnik]

179. Yup, you sure are just sayin'.

[oneshooter]

321. My collection is

just at 200 pieces. This includes rifles, muskets, shotguns and handguns. I am a CCL holder in Texas. I have no desire to go out and kill another human being, been there, done that. However if another human being wishes to harm me or my family all bets are off.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Hoopla Phil]

167. While I see these numbers as very low as compared to national average I have some

of this study.
__________________________________________
* 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.

* In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.
__________________________________________


These two bullet points seem to be at odds with one another. I cannot figure out if there are 31 incidents or 44.

Why are suicides included in this study? They have no place in this study and seem to be thrown in just to pad the numbers (it is a VPC study after all)

And how many convictions have there been? You can bet that if you shoot a cop (no matter where or why) there are going to be charges filed on you. If a cop (maybe while off duty - as the study makes no mention of weather the cops were on or off duty) is in commission of an illegal act and using unlawful deadly force you DO have a right to use deadly force to stop that cop. But you can bet that there WILL be charges filed.

The inclusion of unrelated suicides and the lack of citation of CONVICTIONS makes this "study" very suspect to me.

[Vickers]

182. As soon as my CCW arrived in the mail, I went out and shot some cops.

:eyes:

[BeGoodDoGood]

187. Igot mine in the mail Friday!

I don't when or if I will take my hand gun out at all. Maybe to the range and practice.

Walt

[LanternWaste]

184. Inevitable. Quite sad, but inevitable.

Inevitable. Quite sad, but inevitable.

[rd_kent]

214. What is inevitable and quite sad?

[LanternWaste]

254. The deaths

The deaths of 7 police and 44 private citizens over a two year period that may otherwise not have have happened-- regardless of the cause, the law or the intent.

I imagine that for many people, thinking of these things is little more than an academic exercise.

[Raskolnik]

185. 185 replies in this thread, and not a single response from the OP.

Wonder why?

[slackmaster]

197. I think she realized that the numbers speak for themselves but don't say what she originally thought

:rofl:

[crim son]

188. That's, like fifty-one people. Who cares?

:sarcasm:

[Raskolnik]

190. You've got to concede that 51 people dying over the course of two years, while tragic

for the individuals involved, is not exactly a large number in a nation of 300 million.

[crim son]

194. I remember discussing the early days of the war on a repuke-dominated

chat site. At the time, just about 153 American soldiers had been killed, which I deplored. A repuke responded how the number was actually surprisingly small and not worth crying about. IMHO, human lives are not so disposable. And if you were one of the individuals involved? Would you be content to sit down and shut up, because these things happen?

Maybe you would. I wouldn't.

[TCJ70]

201. While it is true that human life is not disposable...

...using these numbers as a case for any sort of law reform regarding CCW is ridiculous. 25.5 people a year? Not much ground to stand on when you look at firearms related incidents involving non-CCW people.

[JonQ]

202. If any number greater than 0 is deemed a tragedy

and worthy of some sort of restricting legislature to do away with whatever caused that death, we'd have to get used to a very different society.

Say goodbye to cars, alcohol, tobacco, swimming pools, scissors, all sports and outdoor activities, pets, and so on.

I mean, all deaths are tragic and should be prevented right?

[TCJ70]

204. Prevented, yes...

...but prevention and elimination are NOT the same! Removing gun rights from citizens will not eliminate gun-related fatalities.

[JonQ]

223. So the deaths are tragic, but unpreventable?

[TCJ70]

342. Yes.

Accidents and bad luck (being in the wrong place at the wrong time) will contribute to gun fatalities regardless of the whatever gun laws may be in place. How many times do we hear of people receiving guns who shouldn't?

[Raskolnik]

206. You can knock off the "more sensitive than thee" schtick.

I am absolutely certain that each of the deaths referenced in the report was a tragedy for the family and friends of the victims. But what I am also absolutely certain of is that 51 deaths over the course of two years out of a nation of 300 million is not a large number at all upon which to be basing a change in public policy.

[LanternWaste]

305. The inverse porpotionality of Stalin eh?

"One death is a tragedy, one million deaths is a statistic..."

But as I read in the here and now, 51 people are statistically insignificant. To many people, I imagine it is quite insignificant.

[Pavulon]

268. 303 million nine hundred and ninety thousand

...who did not.

[Zavulon]

196. Oh, wow, I'll just give up my guns and permit then.

:eyes:

[Jack_DeLeon]

211. How many people did the Police murder during that time period?

How many police officers were shot by police officers during the same?

How many of those police that were shot by permit holders were lawfully shot in self defense?

[derby378]

216. I guess I can't see why this is on DU's front page

Isn't this making a mountain out of a molehill? Besides, VPC's data analysis is a bit spotty.

[chrisa]

226. More crap from the "Violence Policy Center,"

An organization (imo) aimed solely at sticking their head in the sand, claiming that "Handguns" and "Assault Rifles" are "Bad" without any context or valid explaination why, and using simplistic arguments to pursue an overly ridiculous, unrealistic agenda.

Notice the usage of these statisics. Simply giving the number of deaths caused by something else will always be assumed to be high. If it was 2 cops killed, and 10 private civilians killed, while tragic, this number would still seem to support their agenda. This is because there's no analysis of the data, or context, which I'm sorry to say is quite typical of the VPC.

[marmar]

227. I see the DU gun lobby has been busy with the Unrecommend function.....

n/t

[Raskolnik]

235. By that logic, has the DU anti-gun lobby been busy with the Recommend function? n/t

[iverglas]

241. yeah ;)

Shortly after it came on line, I posted a thread in the Guns forum that was simply a report of a study.

By the time it had one (irrelevant) reply, it already had a negative rating. ;)

[Raskolnik]

245. Did you ever stop to think that maybe someone may not think something you post is particularly

worthy of discussion, and thus "unrecommend" it?

Of course, the idea that doing something as banal as "unrecommending" something is an organized lobbying effort is much more reasonable, isn't it?

[iverglas]

253. but of course, the study I posted was not "particularly worthy of discussion"

I mean, it was a study specifically about "defensive gun use", which is about the only thing that ever gets discussed in the Guns forum these days: instances of individuals using firearms in allegedly defensive ways. Other studies of "defensive gun use" are cited incessantly.

But a thread started by me about the topic, why of course, multiple people would immediately have given it serious thought, and decided it was not "particularly worthy of discussion"!

:rofl:

But yes, obviously you are right. A study that debunked the nonsense incessantly posted in the Guns forum, indeed, I can see that many posters there would deem it "not partiuclarly worthy of discussion", i.e. not worthy of being brought to general attention. No doubt in my mind about that.


Of course, the idea that doing something as banal as "unrecommending" something is an organized lobbying effort is much more reasonable, isn't it?

I wouldn't know. I didn't express that idea, nor did anyone else.

The poster who whom I replied had said:

I see the DU gun lobby has been busy with the Unrecommend function.....

Now if you read that as an allegation of "an organized lobbying effort" ... well ... who's paranoid?

I have no doubt that members of the collective are able to take independent action in the same direction, myself.

[Raskolnik]

256. I have no idea what the thread you're speaking of even consists of, iverglas, but I do know that it

is possible, just possible, that not everything you post is solid gold.

I know, I know, that comes as a shock to us all, but there it is.

[iverglas]

259. here ya go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=237532&mesg_id=237532

Not necessarily something of interest to those who can't read without moving their lips, but I'd hate to think that the low end of the IQ scale would "unrecommend" something just because they couldn't understand it.



html fixed

[Raskolnik]

261. Jebus, iverglas...I don't give a shit about your other thread.

The point is that, just perhaps, someone somewhere might not be terribly interested in every little thing you have to say.

[iverglas]

262. that's a pretty dull point

Someone, somewhere might be eating pizza right now, too.

I'm sure that would have something to do with the "unrecommends" of a thread by me, posted by people who obviously not even had time to digest the content of the post, or with what is very clearly a generalized practice by gun militants at this site, of "unrecommending" posts with content they don't like.

[Raskolnik]

264. Then feel free to lobby for an "unrec post" feature.

You are not the center of the universe, as much as it obviously pains you to contemplate.

[iverglas]

271. why would I do that??

I think it's hilarious!

[rd_kent]

289. How can it be a "generalized practice"

when the unrec feature is new?

[iverglas]

295. gosh

I guess it would be a generalized practice by gun militants at this site, of "unrecommending" posts with content they don't like, now that the feature is available.

Maybe you really thought I really meant that it had been a generalized practice before the feature was available. I dunno.

Any more sentences you'd like me to read to you very slowly, you let me know.

[rd_kent]

298. No need to be condescending, now.

And isn't that the pint of the unrec feature, to not rec posts you dont agree with?

[iverglas]

300. no, actually

And isn't that the pint of the unrec feature, to not rec posts you dont agree with?

Not to the mind of people of goodwill, anyhow. Disagreeing with an opinion is not necessarily good reason to attempt to stifle it (which is what "unrecommending" is).

The question remains of how anyone could not "agree with" a post about a study. Not a post about an opinion. What is to disagree with? Someone didn't believe the study was done??

[rd_kent]

339. I find this argument interesting

How does unrec stifle a post? I see the rec/unrec as a way to express how I feel about a post. In this case, the OP fails to state their point of view and has yet to respond at all.

[DainBramaged]

306. EVERY 90 seconds there is a gun crime committed in this country

but the gun huggers will ALWAYS claim it's the ILLEGAL guns that are behind those crimes. How can there be 500,000 illegal guns every fucking year? Is ATF that crippled? Or is it simply our laws are just too lax?

[Pavulon]

309. How can people smoke so much weed and snort so much coke

when it is just against the law. I just can not grasp that concept.

[DainBramaged]

310. People who smoke weed aren't committing gun crimes, you got your addictions mixed up

They may want to buy out all of the Oreos in the store, but they certainly are too mellow to use a gun and steal them.

[Pavulon]

312. Banned! Weed is banned. Coke, hookers

all no longer exist because of prohibition. I mean it would take all of 10 minutes to find a hooker with an 8 ball.

People who use guns in crimes are breaking laws, they are making a call.

I have been around firearms for a long time, never broken a gun law. Ever.

It is a personal call.

[DainBramaged]

318. Why are gun supporters anti-weed? Is it the peaceful feeling it brings?

I guess it's ok to down a few Coors with JD shooters and fire them thar guns at the sky to blow off a little steam?

[Pavulon]

319. I LOOVE some Alabama Kush..

however it is illegal. And a conviction means my job. I think drug law motivates a whole shit ton of violent crime. I support the full legalization of drugs.

However reasonable use of drugs is a personal call. A person can smoke some weed in moderation. Some people just can not do that.

A ban on firearms is like a weed ban, silly and ineffective.

[DainBramaged]

322. No one ever died from smoking weed

There is no proof anyone anywhere has ever died from smoking weed. But lots of people die every day from bullets. And neither guns nor people kill people, it's the bullets that kill people.

[Pavulon]

327. Or that rope that killed Carradine..

we need to ban rope, fapping, cars, booze, and sex. lots of people die from aids. Man lets ban that.

I think shooting people is against the law, or stabbing is ok?

Someone bought that chuck of metal. Paid for it. They own it from the box to its final resting place.

[DainBramaged]

351. I can see this is going no where, cya

I am glad I live in a State where the crazies are kept well away from society, and guns are not forced on those of us who abhor them.

[jeepnstein]

361. Those lovely fellows...

who are involved in distributing and selling it are. Since it's an illegal product the folks who are best suited to selling it are criminals. Since it's very profitable and illegal, business disputes are settled by violence.

Think it's a peaceful business? Buy a couple hundred pounds directly from a grower and start selling it on street corners in any major metropolitan area. Be sure to undercut your competitors by a few bucks so you grab all the customers.

The war on drugs has driven dope smokers straight into the arms of criminals that most stoners would avoid like a plague if given a choice.

If it weren't for the huge profit potential most gangs realize from drug sales they'd be hanging around on street corners and engaging in relatively petty crime until they got too old for that sort of stuff. That's where the bulk of the gun violence in this country comes from, gangs dealing in illegal drugs.

[L0oniX]

247. YAwn ...another unbalanced (like FOX) anti gun defense rant that should be in the gungeon.

Man Shot, Dies Amid Party Scuffle
Neighbors Say Man Robbed Group Playing Dice Game
http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/20108423/detail.html

No charges against Suffolk store owner who shot suspect
http://www.wvec.com/news/suffolk/stories/wvec_local_071609_suffolk_shootnig_no_charges.4838bd87.html

Homeowner subdues intruder until police arrive
http://www.wave3.com/Global/story.asp?S=10641038

There's more for anyone who cares to have a more balanced view of gun defense.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

[iverglas]

258. lying down with dogs

The "article" at the link appears to have been written by the subject, but we'll take this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Cramer

In 2008, Cramer ran for Idaho State Senator from District 22 as a Republican, but was defeated in the primary.

http://www.cramerforsenate.org/FamilyValues.shtml

Morality & Public Policy

Back in 1975, California repealed all of its laws that prohibited homosexuality. I can remember watching news coverage of a bunch of clergymen lecturing the state legislature about what a bad idea this was. I was utterly amazed. Why would anyone care what consenting adults do in private? Why was this the government's business?

Yet within six years, a disease so rare that no one knew that it existed had started to sicken and kill not only large numbers of gay men, but soon spread into the IV drug abusing community as well. Because of blood transfusions, hemophiliacs, organ transplant recipients, and surgical patients, soon had AIDS.

What happened? Before 1975, homosexual men were having sex, of course. They met in bars, at social events, and in public restrooms. (Public restrooms have been a part of the homosexual subculture for decades, and remains sufficiently important that a nationally prominent gay rights law firm has a publication telling homosexuals how to avoid getting arrested while they "cruise in parks, bathrooms or other spaces open to public view.") But because homosexual sex was illegal, and police department vice squads spent a bit of time looking for public acts of immorality, it kept a damper on the party.

By the late 1970s, the situation had changed, especially in places like San Francisco. There were "bathhouses" where completely anonymous sex spread a variety of well-known venereal diseases like wildfire. As a gay activist from the period told me, the San Francisco Public Health Department's sexually transmitted disease clinic "was the best place to get dates" because everyone was already infected.

The percentage of the population infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) increases with the square of the number of sexual partners per time. A person with an STD who doubles the number of unprotected sexual partners per month, quadruples the number of person who become infected--because each infected person can in turn infect others. Taking homosexuality out of the closet meant that what had been done discreetly was now done openly, flagrantly--and in short order, a disease that no one knew of became a major public health crisis. Federal funding alone for AIDS will be $18.9 billion for Fiscal Year 2007. The average AIDS patient's care will cost $25,200 per year for an average lifetime of 24 years--much of that cost picked up by health insurance companies.

Those knuckle-dragging clergyman--what were they thinking? It turned out that there are consequences to sexual immorality--just as there is to immoral behavior with respect to lying, cheating, adultery, and a host of other behaviors that sophisticated sorts can justify. Homosexual promiscuity and AIDS is an especially obvious example, but a recent Centers for Disease Control study found that that 1/4 of American girls aged 14 to 19 had at least one STD.

There is a real problem in figuring out what the proper role of government is. There are cases where there is a compelling governmental purpose in telling people what to do. I would prefer to err on the side of trusting consenting adults to make decisions on their own. I am also skeptical that 51% of the population should be imposing its moral values on the other 49%--simply because such laws are difficult to enforce. (How many prisons would it take it to lock up 49% of the population? And even if you could afford to do so, it would be pretty obviously absurd.) There does come a point where support for a law is so overwhelming that there must be a very compelling argument against passage of a law.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/2003_06_15_archive.html#95774565

From Canada:

TORONTO (AP) - Canada will change its law to allow homosexual marriage, joining Belgium and The Netherlands as the only countries where same-sex couples can legally wed, Prime Minister Jean Chretien announced Tuesday.

... "There is an evolution of society," Chretien said in making the announcement after a Cabinet meeting. He said the law would allow religions the right to decide what marriages should be sanctified.

Well, for the moment. I do not doubt that within ten years, Canada's very liberal establishment will decide that it's just bigotry to allow churches to decide who gets to marry whom--or what. ("The groom may now kiss the bride." "Baaaaa!")

http://www.claytoncramer.com/weblog/labels/abortion.html

And now the crowd at the U.N. charged with the Convention Against Torture is asserting that such a law violates the convention--because forcing a woman to give birth qualifies as torture.

My, how broadly that term "torture" seems to be construed these days! Listening to Christina Aguilera music; women interrogators touching Muslim prisoners. Okay, I'll buy that waterboarding is torture. But prohibiting abortion is torture--but aborting a fetus isn't torture (to the fetus)?

Forgive me if I don't get enthused about trusting the U.N. about much of anything.

Heh. Look where his blog is listed:
http://www.rightyblogs.com/national/feed.php?channel=105&iid=125022&y=2008&m=06&d=11
Right (forgive me) alongside Michelle Malkin, etc.


Not all Republicans are evil, or even gun militants. But you people sure do have a hard time digging up friends who aren't complete, total, pieces of shit right-wing scum, doncha?

[tularetom]

255. Why should you need a permit to do what the constitution allows you to do anyway?

These permits are a joke. Around here they are handed out by the sheriff as political favors. Lot of people ignore them.

[old mark]

257. VPC is a notorious bullshit factory, and I would not trust a word they

print.
It's a lie.



mark

[iverglas]

267. that's a pretty bold pot talking there

Cripey, not even your fellow gun militants have come out and called the figures in the OP "a lie".

But then, you're not just anybody, are you?

Nah, you're the fella who treats us to a neverending stream of threads in the Guns forum linking to websites with crap on them written by the likes of the wife of the vile South African white-supremacist Kim du Toit ...

[Tejas]

325. one week they want to ban guns, next week they don't = liars

It's all on Youtube, but don't worry, we believe you!

[Pavulon]

265. Really how many died from food poisoning. I am so tired of this horse shit topic..

you want to ban guns, do what the prohibition people did, and amend the constitution. I mean prohibition of drugs is a stunning success. It may actually take a total of two phone calls to have a hooker show up with an 8 ball.

More people probably dies from sticking foreign objects up their ass than were shot by CCW in a nation of 304 million people.

This topic is dead, You have a better chance of trying to overturn brown v board of education. You want to be useful go work on overturning drug laws that promote street warfare.

Many people can not even pass the basic requirements to get ccw.

Gun control is DEAD as a platform topic, bring it back and watch power go away.

[noahfischer7971]

272. A UK perspective on Arms and the control of the mind in such situations

This is really interesting coming from someone who lives in the UK. As I'm sure your aware, the public neither the police are armed and I'm sure people are robbed as often as they are in the US in urban areas. There is surely no doubt that if us civilians could carry arms we to would shoot when threatened - AND be acting in self defense.

It's the perception of fear, which is valid in anyone who feels threatened and if I were able to defend myself in a lethal manner, I like most would defend myself in the maximum manner the law allows, if not more. When I trained martial arts I would use mental conditioning, such as most primarily power of conversational hypnosis training, the art of fighting without fighting. Using your voice to try and control the attacker without them realizing you are in control. These encounters are are primarily won and lost by way of fear and self control and anyone would learn valuable lessons is such knowledge.

Stories like this are indeed unfortunate, but increasingly common in today's society and people need to learn the tools to deal with these inevitable's.

[iverglas]

296. my goodness

And you're still walking around alive and with no visible holes?

Imagine!



I'm a little confused.

Stories like this are indeed unfortunate, but increasingly common in today's society and people need to learn the tools to deal with these inevitable's.

What tools does one need to learn, to deal with getting shot by somebody who has been authorized to carry a firearm in public?

Other than a ballot box, to vote against pandering legislators who kneel at the feet of the right-wing gun militant brigade, I can't think of one that would be much use, myself.

[Pavulon]

277. What is N, Scum source does not list SAMPLE size, I assume millions (plural)

anyone with that data would do well to post it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

288. Extrapolating and Wondering

Based on 2007 data for police officers killed in the line of duty, it would appear that 10% of all police homicides were committed by conceal-carry permit holders. While that may not sound like a lot -- conversely, 90% of officer homicides were committed by non-CCW assailants -- it's still a disturbing number. To get a conceal-carry permit in most states, one has to pass a criminal background check (at a minimum) and some states are even more stringent.

But looking at the specific cases, 4 of the 7 were killed by in two incidents by known white supremacists who really should never have been issued a CCW permit in the first place because of their prior "experience" with local law enforcement. Two of the remaining three are of questionable judgment as to why a permit would have been issued (one permit holder was in a drug house -- can't believe she didn't have a prior conviction for something or AT LEAST known felon acquaintances that would have othewise disqualified her).

The "Road Rage" incident is the only head-scratcher. Also wondering how the guy was charged with only manslaughter for murdering a federal officer.

[RollWithIt]

304. All I can comment is with my experience in Florida since it has been passed here 2 yrs ago

Considering all the hoopla surrounding it there hasn't been an uptick in violence. At all.

As for the article itself, if you consider the sheer number of crimes committed on a daily basis, the number quoted there is literally a fraction of a fraction of murders/suicides/self defense as the article doesn't mention if the shooter was acting in self defense, robbing a bank, etc. There is no case history represented.

CC permitting requires EXTENSIVE background checks, training courses, and regular reporting. I'm not sure there is much that can be changed.

[DainBramaged]

311. Crimes committed with firearms, 2006

2006, 388,897 total firearms crimes. There are 525 948 minutes in a year. Which means that somewhere in the US, every minute and a half there is a REPORTED gun crime.


And that means 388,897 INDIVIDUAL guns were used in the commission of these crimes.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm

[slackmaster]

328. A minor, perhaps insignificant uptick in a long-term downward trend

In a state with a growing population.

Thanks for posting the numbers. They don't serve your misguided cause.

[pipoman]

336. Really?

And that means 388,897 INDIVIDUAL guns were used in the commission of these crimes.

So you're contending that NONE of those alleged crimes were committed by the same person with the same gun? Surely not?

Even if true that is < 1/2 of 1% of gun owners in the US, and < .2% of guns...what other rights are you wanting to eliminate based on those numbers?

[X_Digger]

338. Shh.. I was hoping he would

catch the error of his stats :)

[rd_kent]

340. And yet gun crime as a whole has plummeted since 1993

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.htm

[Tejas]

323. More LEO's murdered their gf/fiance/wife/fellow officers in that time period, so

you fail once again. I say once again because I remember that post screaming bloody murder over Joe Horn but posting a pic of his lawyer LOL!

run along now.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

329. Those are remarkably low numbers I thought they would have been much higher.

The VPC seems to categorize CCW permit holders very loosely.

[Statistical]

331. So 51 incidents out of what?

There are no nationwide numbers but most state reports are that CCW represent only 5% of gunowners.

There are about 80 million gun owners in America. If the 5% number hold true nationwide that is about 4 million CCW.

51 incidents per 4 million = 1.275 per 100K.
The nationwide average is 5.6 per 100K.
So CCW are 4x less likely to commit homicide than the general public.

Nothing is absolute even Law Enforcement commit homicide and other violent crime.

Unless the homicide & violent crime rate are higher for CCW than the general public the meme that CCW are a danger to society is weak at best.

[Endangered Specie]

347. Nice hit and run post

[imdjh]

358. Weasel article. nt

[krispos42]

363. "or suicide of the shooter". Why, I guess that makes it a criminal homicide then

:eyes:

I wonder what their opinion of the high suicide rate of returning US servicemen is.

[imdjh]

364. Fill your hand you son of a.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x240393

[eqfan592]

367. lol, nice :D