Okay how is it that there never are any gun carriers WHERE and WHEN they are "needed"?

[underpants]

This hit me a few weeks ago. For all the cries about how much these horrific shootings could be stopped IF everyone EVERYONE carried a gun I can't think of a single instance in which someone with a gun was present and acted when something like this occurred.

The recent shooting of the guy in the church was by a trained security guard.

How could that possibly be?

From the shooting near Ft.Hood back in the early 90's which was IN a restaurant (no restrictions as far as I know) to anyone being near Columbine to Tech (no one NOT ONE person had a gun handy?) to the mall shooting a few months ago even the one at the Lane Bryant just a few days ago not one time was one of these mythical gun owners present.

How could that possibly be?

[Squatch]

1. Luck.

[DS1]

2. I remember one in a McDonalds from about 10 years ago

but that's about it

[Irreverend IX]

64. There's a lot more than that.

Here's a blog that chronicles defensive gun uses around the country, with dozens and dozens of entries:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

[smoogatz]

3. I've changed my mind about this whole deal.

If/when WI passes concealed carry (we're one of two states that doesn't have it, apparently), I'll be first in line for a license to pack me some heat. I work at a public university and half my students and most of my colleagues are batshit crazy. It's waste or get wasted out there, baby. Deserve's got nothing to do with it.

[EstimatedProphet]

37. Unfortunately, you have a point

I was just in the thread about how freepers are responding, talking about why I don't like concealed carry. You hit the nail on the head:

I work at a public university and half my students and most of my colleagues are batshit crazy.

The problem as I see it, is that concealed carry turns things into a localized version of mutual assured destruction. We're being put in the position where we will be forced to carry, because we don't know if the drooling freeper standing on the corner eating dogshit has a gun, and is looking for a way to assure himself that he is a Real Man, contrary to all the facts. Those assholes are crazy, and they fantasize about John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, and they are much more likely to see a threat and act out their superhero fantasies regardless of whether there is a threat or not.

[Dimensio0]

38. Your fears have failed to manisfest in reality.

Thirty-seven states offer "shall-issue" concealed deadly weapons permits. Two other states allow citizens to carry concealed deadly weapons without a permit. Thus far, the "John Wayne" or "Clint Eastwood" style shootouts that you fear have not occured in any of these states.

I have observed on more dedicated "defense" forums (defensivecarry.com is a good example) that a number who carry may be considered, by some standards, "paranoid". They spend a great deal of time and effort "preparing" for a possible threat, not just in carrying one concealed weapon but also in learning to watch their surroundings at all times (which, in some situations, is not a bad idea), practice drills at home and -- where legal -- keeping a back-up gun (or BUG as it is called). Nonetheless, they still maintain the attitude that deadly force is a last resort. In the event of a sudden violent situation (or, as they often call it, a SHTF situation), they will tell you that their first priority is to keep themselves and their loved ones out of harm's way, not to rush out like a "hero" with guns blazing.

Predictions of shootouts with hero wanna-bes is a common cry of those opposing legalized citizen concealed carry. Their greatest enemy is reality, which has thus far failed to substantiate their predictions in every state where shall-issue concealed carry is allowed.

[EstimatedProphet]

40. Good that the training includes that

The fact is, there is, and always will be, gray areas in these scenarios. For example:

Someone with a concealed carry permit is in a mall when a shooting occurs. They turn around and see 2 people holding guns on each other. Who's the responsible party? If they sit things out, one of them may shoot the other one - how does the late arrival know whether it's the concerned citizen, oor the original shooter, that is left standing?

How about this? A delusional or medicated CC holder "sees" someone pull out a gun, and acts on it - and it turns out to be nothing.

It's great that things haven't escalated because of concealed carry permits. But very few people have them right now. As the number of people holding them increases, so do the odds of having something go wrong, and so do the odds that someone who shouldn't have one will get one. I have no problem with people having guns, but I am nervous about people carrying them everywhere they go.

[Dimensio0]

42. Why do you expect this?

Someone with a concealed carry permit is in a mall when a shooting occurs. They turn around and see 2 people holding guns on each other. Who's the responsible party? If they sit things out, one of them may shoot the other one - how does the late arrival know whether it's the concerned citizen, oor the original shooter, that is left standing?

How about this? A delusional or medicated CC holder "sees" someone pull out a gun, and acts on it - and it turns out to be nothing.

Once again, you are arguing hypotheticals. Nothing that you describe has happened in reality. If it had, anti-gun groups would be waving the incident around as commonplace.

If someone hears gunshots behind them, their first response -- whether armed or not -- should be to seek cover. If they are unable to discern the "original shooter", then they should hold fire because it is irresponsible to shoot at anything without knowing your target (and what is behind it). In such a situation, they would be no worse off than someone without a gun at all, so I am not sure where your objection lies.

Someone with mental health issues sufficient to cause "delusions" would not qualify for a concealed deadly weapons permit, and they may not even qualify to legally carry a firearm.

It's great that things haven't escalated because of concealed carry permits. But very few people have them right now. As the number of people holding them increases, so do the odds of having something go wrong, and so do the odds that someone who shouldn't have one will get one.

For more than the last ten years more than half of the states in the country have begun issuing concealed deadly weapons permits on a "shall-issue" basis. Florida has offered shall-issue concealed carry permits since 1987. Washington state has offered such permits since 1961. Vermont has never the disallowed the concealed carrying of deadly weapons. When do you expect the number of people carrying concealed deadly weapons to "increase" to a point where your fears will become reality, and what trend have you observed that leads you to believe that such an increase is likely?

[EstimatedProphet]

43. Yes, I am arguing hypotheticals

And I would remind you that hypotheticals have a tendency to occur. VA Tech shows that - the shooter shouldn't have had access to a firearm, but somehow managed to slip through they system and get one anyway. He qualified as delusional too, and still qualified to have a firearm. Would it have been the tragedy it was if someone had been carrying? Maybe not. Would it have happened if the laws were enforced as they should have been? Probably not. Additionally, people sometimes have very adverse reactions to medications, sometimes including delusional behavior. How do we do anything about that? And, just because someone should take cover in a case where they don't know their target doesn't mean they will take cover. I've known too many puffed-up idiots who are trying to prove themselves to know better.

Increasing the number of people with concealed permits substantially WILL increase the number of incidents. It may only increase it by 1, but it WILL increase. If the incidents haven't yet it's more of a measure that the number of concealed carry permits is still small in the population, and les that it's because they are harmless. The fact is, irresponsible people slip through the system regardless of what we do to weed them out. That's the way the world works. This is not a controlled experiment. This is an issue in human behavior, with all its accompanying messy probabilities. People don't act like models. I'm not going to fight against controlled carry permits or work to change the laws against them, but you're not going to convince me to be comfortable with the idea that Joe Freeper has one.

[Dimensio0]

47. You are still not arguing with facts.

VA Tech shows that - the shooter shouldn't have had access to a firearm, but somehow managed to slip through they system and get one anyway. He qualified as delusional too, and still qualified to have a firearm.

Actually, Cho did not "qualify" to purchase a handgun. Virginia's laws did not allow for a comprehensive enough check to determine this. Federal law has been passed to rectify this situation.

The VA Tech Massacre, however, was not purely hypothetical. It was an event of a spree killing, and such events had occured prior to the incident. They had occured in different places, and sometimes with different tools, but "spree killing" was not a purely hypothetical occurence before Cho went on his shooting spree.

Essentially, your argument is appealing to what you fear may happen, even though you readily admit that it has not happened. However, unless you can show that your fears are actually justified, your suggestion that concealed carry should not be allowed at all has no merit. Your lack of comfort does not alter the fact that thus far the scenarios that you have described have not occured. On the other hand, I can readily cite stories of citizens with concealed carry permits have stopped crimes in progress, as can others.

[EstimatedProphet]

51. No, I'm not arguing with facts.

You don't get one very important point: I'm not saying, and never did say, that concealed carry should be taken away. As a matter of fact, I said that I wasn't working towards repealing it in the last post. My point is that, regardless of the facts you throw around, humans have a way of fucking things up. I'm never going to be comfortable with concealed carry being readily available. That doesn't mean that I'm trying to get rid of it, it means I'm wary - there's a lot of things I am uncomfortable with in our society. My point from the outset was that the posts coming from Freeperland indicate that people there who post about how much they "need" their gun in specific places really shows how fearful they are, and points toward them being a lot more likely to act out in a situation, or at least misinterpret what is going on. I wasn't even trying to make an argument either way at the outset, and I'm still not. Is there no room for simple discussion on DU anymore?

[Dimensio0]

57. Perhaps I have misunderstood you.

You don't get one very important point: I'm not saying, and never did say, that concealed carry should be taken away. As a matter of fact, I said that I wasn't working towards repealing it in the last post.

I apologize. I have obviously misread and misunderstood your position.

My point is that, regardless of the facts you throw around, humans have a way of fucking things up.

While I do not disagree, I have not seen any evidence that allowing the carrying of concealed deadly weapons has caused any "fuckups".

I'm never going to be comfortable with concealed carry being readily available.

Your lack of comfort is certainly your right, but try to understand that being uncomfortable does not necessarily mean that your discomfort is rational.

I live in a state with relatively few firearms restrictions. A concealed deadly weapons permit will be granted on a shall-issue basis to any qualifying applicant within three months of the application process (this includes the time involved in waiting to receieve a certificate of completion from a certified trainer). Despite this, I do not feel "uncomfortable" when out in public, even though I live in a relatively religiously conservative state (such that it shamelessly passed an anti-gay state constitutional amendment by 75%).

That doesn't mean that I'm trying to get rid of it, it means I'm wary - there's a lot of things I am uncomfortable with in our society. My point from the outset was that the posts coming from Freeperland indicate that people there who post about how much they "need" their gun in specific places really shows how fearful they are, and points toward them being a lot more likely to act out in a situation, or at least misinterpret what is going on.

I would say that the total lack of any actual incidents in spite of the bluster of FReepers suggests, perhaps, that they are as one might say "all talk and no action".

I wasn't even trying to make an argument either way at the outset, and I'm still not. Is there no room for simple discussion on DU anymore?"

This is the intarwebs. There is no discussion, only argument where everyone who disagrees with you in the slightest degree on any subject is a "troll" or a "fag".

Or maybe I lurked on FReerepubilc too long myself.

[EstimatedProphet]

58. OK, good.

While I do not disagree, I have not seen any evidence that allowing the carrying of concealed deadly weapons has caused any "fuckups".

And I certainly hope things stay this way. Also, and I'm sure you would agree, a lot of gun violence can be addressed with stricter enforcement of existing laws, rather than creating new laws. Additionally, I think we can really address gun violence better in the US by addressing the conditions that cause it, like poverty, injustice, and institutionalized racism/sexism, and in not doing so we aren't really doing anything meaningful about the situation at all.

But, I'm still going to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone wearing a Stars and Bars T-shirt that says "You Wear Your X, and I'll Wear Mine" carrying a concealed gun (I did see someone wearing a shirt like that, and I hope he wasn't armed). I don't believe that CC laws should be scrapped because that guy exists, but I can see situations where that guy would go off half-cocked.

I would say that the total lack of any actual incidents in spite of the bluster of FReepers suggests, perhaps, that they are as one might say "all talk and no action".

I hope so. But one of the reasons I am uncomfortable about this in the first place is that I think the Bush era, at least for a time, acted to empower these idiots. I think part of the subconscious message was that it was now OK to act on prejudices against anyone who appeared Middle Eastern. Right after 9/11 there was a string of violent incidents in the DC area against anyone with a swarthy complexion and facial hair, Arabic or not. I don't think that mood is gone, and because of that freepers who talk about needing guns at sporting events make my hackles rise.

[Recursion]

80. Welcome to DU, Dimensio0

Those of us who believe in the rights of citizens to be armed are something of the minority, but you're not alone...

[louis-t]

68. Saying "they should" won't make it so.

I don't have a problem with people being armed, but there are people I know that shouldn't be armed under any circumstaces. It bothers me when the assumption is made that once a person is armed, they automatically become a "law-abidin' citizen". The media doesn't usually include facts about legality of the weapon used in a crime, but I am sure that the chance of a legally owned weapon being used against a family member, stolen, found and accidentally fired by a child, or used to commit suicide are monumental compared to the chance that the weapon will EVER be used for defensive purposes. Besides, even if the original shooter in the scenario you describe actually can be identified, there is no assurance that the "hero" shooter will hit the right target even if he is Ted Nugent.

[I work for workers]

69. Let the statistics reasure you.

For 2005 (the last year I could find data for all these things) there were approximately 477,040 gun crimes in the US. There were approximately 30,694 firearm related death in the same time period. That leaves around half a million gun crimes/deaths a year.

As mentioned elsewhere in the thread, defensive gun uses are estimated to occur between 100,000 and 2,500,000 times per year. It's quite possible, even likely, that more defensive gun uses occur per year then gun crimes do.

[louis-t]

81. I find that estimate very hard to believe.

It is rhetoric that the NRA has spewed for years. First it was 1 million, then it was 2 million, then it was 1.9, then 2.9 million times a year that people "defend" themselves with a weapon. Then they added "most of the time without even firing a shot!" What situations are they including in their "estimates". No estimated statistic is going to reasure me of anything. I know a lot of people who have CCW, I know dozens of people who have kept guns in their homes for years, and not one has ever mentioned using that weapon to defend themselves. I know a few people who have had guns stolen. I also witnessed an uncle almost get shot by my father when he entered our home at night while we were asleep. He was invited to sleep over after working late and my father forgot. I still say the chances of someone ever using that weapon to "defend" themself is miniscule compared to the chance of someone being hurt, killed, or the gun being stolen and used to kill someone else. Just sayin'.

[jmg257]

82. Excellent! DO NOT rely on stats! NO NEED to re: inherent rights! Unalienable means just that! nt

[louis-t]

83. What stats? "Estimated" stats?

I was referring to the "estimated" stats given in the post. Estimated by whom? Those "estimated" stats are about as useful as the bush administration's stats on how wonderful the repug economy is, or how the surge "worked", or how many "insurgents" they killed. There are no stats that compare chances of a weapon being used in self-defense to chances of being stolen or mis-used. I was merely using observation and common sense, not relying on some phony numbers on a page. Again, what types of incidents are they including in their "estimates"? Every time some knuckle-dragger walks into a bar with a gun tucked in his belt, does that count as one? Every time some sleepy paranoid hears a bump in the night and runs toward the door with his loaded .45, does that count as one? What about when a father shoots his daughter through a closet door thinking she's an intruder? There are some real stats I've read such as: a sizeable percent of police officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire were shot with their own weapons. I recall an incident here in the midwest a few years ago where an off-duty police officer witnessed a robbery at a gas station. She drew her weapon and was immediately shot and killed. She was the only one shot in the incident. I recall another school shooting where a bunch of teachers ran to their cars to get their weapons. Another unarmed teacher followed the kid outside of the school, put out his hand and said "Son, give me the gun." The kid handed over the gun! By the time the Rambos got back with their weapons, it was all over. Talk about bravery. That teacher should have been given a medal. No one knows if brandishing a weapon in self defense against an armed intruder increases your chance of survival, or increases your chance of becoming Swiss cheese. Now let's examine some idiot responses to gunfire tragedies, shall we? "If only all of the teachers at Columbine had been armed, this wouldn't have happened!" Kids with death wishes aren't going to change their plans because teachers might be armed. The same response was evoked when another school shooting happened where the students were firing from the woods at the school. Yes, definitely, let's rake the woods with gunfire in hopes that we'll hit the right target. How about: "If more people are armed, the criminals will be afraid to rob someone because they won't know who is armed and who isn't." That's the same argument that claims the death penalty lowers the murder rate. It doesn't. Desperate people will do desperate things. Always. I also question the wisdom of states that give someone the right to shoot someone trying to steal a car. We all hate crime and want punishment for the criminal, but really...

And by the way, don't worry, no one will ever try to pry your guns from your cold, dead hands.

[jmg257]

99. ANY stats...not good to argue basic inherent & secured rights on stats...they don't always agree w/U

[CTyankee]

94. What you have described is PRECISELY what happened in my family!

My neice was shot and killed by her step-grandfather, who kept a handgun to protect his home. He was out of his mind angry because he wife, who was dying of cancer, had cut him out of her will. He got drunk and started shooting. He shot my neice, her mother and her dying grandmother before he turned the gun on himself.

This man had nothing on any record saying that he would be anything other than a "law abiding citizen." There is just no way to predict how events in life that enrage you, fueled by excessive drinking, can make ownership of a firearm a deadly weapon against 3 innocent people.

[louis-t]

95. My heartfelt sympathies for your loss.

Tragic. The actual case I referred to happened when a girl decided to jump out of a closet and 'scare' her father. The father heard noises in the closet and decided to shoot first and ask questions later, killing his only daughter. He went to trial and I remember seeing the pro-gun people protesting. They didn't want him tried for reckless use of a firearm. One woman was wailing about how "we N-E-E-E-D these guns teh perteck ourselves!!1!!1" The father, even after killing his child, said he would still keep the gun in his home to 'perteck' himself.

[Missy Vixen]

97. Of course, nobody wants to talk about this one

>is looking for a way to assure himself that he is a Real Man,<

EVERY last person I have encountered in one of my various workplaces that bragged about carrying was bat shit crazy. Every last one of them.

You are right about their acting out their "superhero fantasies". They certainly weren't operating with both oars in the water.

Julie

[Wcross]

84. You will probably be prohibited from carrying on campus. n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

4. Columbine, Va Tech, and other campuses are no-carry places.

So that pretty much limits the ability of those who carry concealed weapons to be of any use there. Unknown whether the church restricted concealed carry to its own security guards, but I would not be surprised. A restaurant - assuming capacity of 50 or so - I'm not sure that 1 in 50 being a concealed carry permit holder (much less a holder who carries all the time) would be expected. Any idea what the stats are on % of population holding concealed carry permits? One in fifty would seem on the high side to me, except maybe in AZ and TX.

[underpants]

7. I meant that I didn't know about restrictions in Texas

I do know that in Va. concealed weapons are not allowed in any place that has an ABC license (can sell beer and wine)

I know that Tech is a no carry place but seriously not one person anywhere in the area had a gun??? In Blacksburg??

[Lance_Boyle]

41. I'm sure someone in Blacksburg had a gun

but probably not anyone who was in a position to use it. A responsible concealed carrier is not going to put down his big mac and charge across the street onto campus on hearing the news that there is a shooter on the loose. S/he's going to steer clear and only draw his/her weapon if threatened. Concealed carry does not mean you become de facto police and have the responsibility to enter into dangerous situations. Why would any sane person do that, unless it was a job responsibility? Now, if that responsible concealed carrier was in the classroom when the gunman entered, it would be a different story. But like you said, the no-carry zone prevented that.

[MindPilot]

5. There was the woman at the Colorado Springs church a couple months ago

who took out the shooter before he could do much harm.

Oops just noticed you did mention that one. But my understanding was that she was not actually a "trained security guard", but a person who had a CC permit and volunteered to do security.

[underpants]

9. That was the one I mentioned, or meant to, in the original post

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/february/16.21.html

[Warpy]

6. I hate to admit it, but CCW saved a woman's life here

She was attacked at work in Wally's by a soon to be ex,abusive husband with a knife. A man with a concealed weapon shot her attacker and police credit him with saving her life.

Now could the assailant have been pulled off her and subdued by that same man, with or without help? Possibly. Was there an absolute necessity for him to act as police, judge, jury and executioner? Possibly not.

However, the woman is still alive and her ex will never attack her again.

[underpants]

8. Okay

maybe it is a matter of such incidents not being properly coverd but I doubt it.

[villager]

10. one suspects there aren't quite as many of those incidents as the 10's of thousands

of handgun murders per year?

If I had to, you know, make a wild guess.

[I work for workers]

11. Hyperbole much? There aren't tens of thousands of murders period,

much less murders with handguns.

If you had tried researching before posting, you would have found that the number of defensive gun uses per year significantly exceeds the total number of murders in the US. The number of murders committed with guns is at least 100x smaller then the number of crimes prevented by guns.

[underpants]

15. There are about 30,000 deaths by "guns" every year in the US

that is all kinds of guns in all kinds of circumstances.

Not defending anyone just stating a fact.

[I work for workers]

21. You stated there were "tens of thousands of handgun murders per year."

That claim is completely false. There aren't tens of thousands of murders per year period. Murders with guns have averaged around 11,000 killings per year for the past few years. This accounts for all types of firearms.

The large majority of the gun deaths you are talking about are from suicides. The large majority of gun killings involve members of the criminal networks supplying our drug habit killing each other.

[NeoConsSuck]

24. Please point me to some of the research

you referred to.

[I work for workers]

27. Check:

The CDC for murders statistics.

Gary Kleck's study on defensive gun use is the most famous one I can think of, and estimated that it occurred 2.5 million times a year. If you can access an academic database you can read it. It's usually considered to be a high estimate. The National Crime Victimization Survey estimated that their were around 108,000 defensive guns uses per year. It's commonly considered to be a low estimate.

It's safe to assume that the truth lies somewhere in between the two studies, but even if we take the low estimate that translates into approximately five instances of a gun being used in self defense for every murder committed with a gun.

[villager]

29. notice how ammophiles never provide research of their own?

Just ad hominem attacks, alarmist generalizations, and snide comments?

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

44. Wow Ive never seen someone post a dead off post

And then turn around like they won the superbowl...

You said "10's of thousands of handgun murders per year?"

The actual fact is:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8I6MG9G1&show_article=1

" Murders rose 4.8 percent, meaning there were more than 16,900 victims in 2005. That would be the most since 1998 and the largest percentage increase in 15 years."

so 17,000 is not 'tens of thousands' of murders let alone murder by firearm..

Also you stated that the number of firearm murders exceeded the number of protective uses

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

"There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU's) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck's survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU's annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU's annually."

[villager]

62. You didn't factor manslaughter deaths in the overall gun tally.

And you're using a pro-gun site -- not a neutral one -- to make your claim about the defensive uses: kind of a "figures out of the asses of gun owners" approach.

Perhaps north of 20,000 (again, including manslaughter and "accidental" deaths) is not "tens of thousands," but just two sets of ten thousand.

Glad that's acceptable collateral damage to you.

[I work for workers]

67. Since when does manslaughter = murder?

It's obviously not acceptable "collateral damage", but after looking at the cost/benefit (aside from any freedom based arguments) many of us have decided that easy gun ownership is an overall positive for society.

Hypothetically, if you could stop those 20,000 deaths, but at the cost of 50,000* more assaults and rapes, would you do it?


*That's a BS number I pulled out of my head. I though about finding the rape/assault statistics and comparing them to defensive gun use statistics, and comparing that to the UK/Australian crime rise statistics following those nations's gun bans, but then I remembered I'm posting on the internet, not writing my doctoral thesis.

[villager]

70. to the reality-based community, it's still a handgun-caused death

n/t

[villager]

28. A mere 17,000 murders in 2006 -- a mere bagatelle!

Which means, Mr. Hyperbole -- god, is there anyone more blindered than a gun stroker? -- you are claiming 170,000 such murders a year are prevented by your beloved guns.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

This leaves out manslaughter, accidental shootings, etc.

[I work for workers]

34. Only 12,000 of those murders used firearms.

Even if we use the most conservative estimates on defensive gun use, my claim is perfectly accurate.

Again, I suggest you do some real research into the subject. A few years ago I would have sounded much more like the anti-constitutional side of the crowd. This changed when I started looking into the issue and realized that there was no sound justification for my beliefs. The more I researched, the more I realized that the assumptions I had made were all wrong. This has since become a very important issue to me, as I realize that protecting and supporting our Second Amendment rights is the best way to protect us from violent crime.

[villager]

35. and you get your figure supporting 4,000 combo garroting and Ninja-starrings...

...where?

I'm glad you "researched."

My "research" includes knowing victims of gun violence.

[I work for workers]

36. My figures are from the CDC.

I'm sorry if something bad happened to you or someone you love.

[villager]

61. Thanks for the empathy, at least. It is appreciated.

Not to me, but:

*Friends of my parents -- a gun was handy during an argument; she killed her husband

*One of the most promising students in a class I taught once

*16 year old cousin to a student in a class I'm currently teaching


Link to the CDC figures, btw?

[jmg257]

66. Not sure exactly what stats you are looking for...

but the FBI is a pretty good source for crime stats.

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Total gun-related murders: 10,177 (68%)
Violent Crimes: 1.417 Million
Guns used in violent crimes: about 400,000 ("gun" rapes not kept)


While these guys keep track of causes of death...
CDC / WISQARS (2005):
Suicides: (ttl) 32,200 Gun-related: 17,002
Gun-related Accidental deaths: 789


"According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense with a firearm every year." Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles/165476.pdf

[villager]

71. "One child every three hours is killed by a gun"

Children and Gun Violence
In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

America and Gun Violence
American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm

[jmg257]

72. As long as "children" are defined as 18 and younger, and the large percentage of offenders

and victims of gun crimes are 15-21, there will be plenty of "children" killed every year.

"In the Summer of 1999, the New Haven Gun Project implemented several new strategies to attack violent gun crime in the City of New Haven.
...Data from this research, conducted by Spectrum Associates of Farmington, Connecticut, was presented to a wide array of law enforcement, government and community representatives in order to solicit ideas for strategies to reduce violent gun crimes and illegal gun possession. Some of the data presented included:


Most offenders (the same 15-21 year olds) had serious criminal histories.
One fifth of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and three-fifths had a history of drug charges.
Over one third of the offenders were on probation at the time of the new gun-related offense.
Approximately one-third of offenders or victims associated with murders and armed assaults were members of neighborhood "groups" believed to be involved in other illegal activities. "


Compare to say 1-15 years where then about 625 children were killed by gunfire in all of 2005.

[villager]

73. of course you put it in quotes. Acceptable collateral damage for the gun strokers

The expected snide comments. The utterly heartless view of the deaths of others.

Typical, typical, typical....

[jmg257]

74. Correct - "children" and "criminals" are - unfortunately - not exclusive of each other. nt

[villager]

75. ah, so all the kids deserved it! None could be innocent

again, typical, and I find you so morally heinous, you make the ignore list!

[jmg257]

76. No - not at all. Only those who were shot trying to impose their will on others. Innocents

deserve MUCH better, so ALL innocents deserve the right to life, and so the ability and means to defend that life.

And children especially deserve that those responsible for their safety (i.e. their parents) have the best ability to protect them as well.

But they also deserve more from society - who should have better methods of dealing with the REAL problem - the "huge majority of violent offenders" - most who have "serious criminal histories", etc.

[krispos42]

92. Why are you arguing like a Bushie?

The conservatives we both hate say the exact same thing. That is how they argue, that to a liberal, a terrorist attack is "acceptable collateral damage" for the "probable cause strokers". That to a liberal, a terrorist attack is "acceptable collateral damage" for the "due process strokers. The "cruel and unusual punishment strokers". The "freedom of speech strokers". The "freedom of the press" strokers. The "habeas corpus strokers". Etc.

Then they take the position that, because a terrorist attack is unacceptable, they will do whatever is necessary to prevent it, Constitution be damned. To prevent a terrorist attack, we'll do warrantless wiretapping, mail-reading, and home-searching. To prevent a terrorist attack, we'll waterboard and electroshock and beat and club and rape people we think are terrorists. To prevent a terrorist attack, we'll put people in jail without access to a court or a lawyer, ever. To prevent a terrorist attack, we'll surpress dissent. To prevent a terrorist attack, we'll surpess the media.

Yet you and I know it's bullshit. It's an authoritarian power grab. They don't really fight terrorism. They don't address the causes but spend trillions trying to get the agents, while securing their poltical power base and insuring that plenty of government money goes to companies that will donate heavily to the RNC in coming election cycles and perpetuating both terrorism and the terrorism excuse.


And the fight against guns is only a whipping-boy for politicians to avoid having to make tough policies to really affect crime. Legalizing in some form or another pot, cocaine, heroin, crack, and crystal meth would immediately drop crime rates drastically and permanately. Yet it doesn't happen.

Good union jobs that enable a single-income middle class and promote family stability? Please.

Bringing manufacturing back to America that would require skilled workers and the unions that represent them? Puh-leez!

Drastically taxing the rich while drastically de-taxing the middle class? :rofl:

Ending a costly foreign occupation and having universal single-payer health care instead? :spray: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[krispos42]

91. One child every 5.24 hours commits murder

From the most recent 2005 DoJ statistics, there were 60 murderers under the age of 14 and 1,612 between the ages of 14 and 17. That is 1,672 children killing somebody last year, an average 4.58 per day. And not a one of them can legally buy a long gun, much less a handgun. In fact, they can't legally posess one without adult supervision.











http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm

[Irreverend IX]

65. The most comprehensive study on the subject...

Found that guns are used defensively about 2 million times per year. In the vast majority of such incidents, no shots are fired.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[villager]

77. So we have to factor in the 400,000 violent crimes committed w/ guns, you cite above

Wasn't it CDC?

I also commend you linking to that site, since it notes Kleck's study is not definitive, and has come under criticism (he was trying to upwardly revise an earlier study showing about 100,000 gun defenses a year, meaning a net "loss" if we also go with the CDC's 400,000 violent gun crimes -- above and beyond the murders and manslaughter, of course)

[krispos42]

87. About 10-11,000 gun-related murders a year

of which about 7 to 8 thousand of them involve handguns.

The balance of the 30,000 dead of gunshot wounds a year are:

18,000 suicides

600 police and civilian justified homicides

600 accidental deaths



Rough numbers, understand.




And remember, guns are the means, not the motive.

[I work for workers]

12. Most crimes and attempted crimes don't get widespread reporting.

Massacres are isolated events, and attract a lot of media attention. When someone stops a murder, assault, rape or robbery with a gun, it usually is relegated to local news and gun blogs.

The number of crimes stopped with guns every year is usually estimated to be between a quarter million and two million. Most of the time the gun is never fired.

[slackmaster]

13. Why do these discussions always start with the same tired strawman argument?

For all the cries about how much these horrific shootings could be stopped IF everyone EVERYONE carried a gun...

Nobody is suggesting that everyone carry a gun. Advocates of the right to keep and bear arms generally want two things:

1. Objective standards to get a concealed weapons permit (a.k.a. "shall issue" or "fair issue" laws), and

2. An end to declared gun-free zones that aren't backed up with real security measures.

The fact is that in states that have implemented objective standards for issuance of concealed weapons permits, no more than 1% of the population gets permits. Of people who do, not everyone carries a weapon all the time. When someone is carrying a weapon, it's highly unlikely that he or she is going to be in a position to safely use it at exactly the right time and place. Not to mention that public mass shootings are very rare incidents.

The main purpose of carrying a gun is for your own safety and that of your family and friends. It doesn't make you responsible for protecting the public.

In a self-defense course I took a few years ago, the philosophy taught by the school was that you use deadly force only to protect something that you are willing to die for. Even if you are involved in a legally and morally justified shooting (called the first fight), you are still likely to face two more fights - Defending yourself against criminal charges, then defending yourself against lawsuits.

[underpants]

16. Well I am going to have to disagree with you there

there are those who say "if everyone had a gun...." but I shouldn't have posted that in the OP what I should have said (what I meant) is IF there were someone there carrying a gun.

[slackmaster]

17. I could demand that you cite examples, but I'll let it slide in the interest of civility

:hi:

[underpants]

18. Thanks

:hi:

[depakid]

14. This guy had one at a seattle mall shootining

Didn't work out too well....

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002641156_mallshooting23m.html

[ManiacJoe]

23. Because he chose to not use the gun he had brought with him.

[Edweird]

19. There are. But there's less to sensationalize. Terror sells. Tragedy sells.

Self defense just isn't as compelling, apparently.

[redqueen]

45. Bingo. (nt)

[Mugu]

20. Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

In Virgina the Appalachian School of Law shooting spree was stopped by a Marine and two armed students.

The Pearl Mississippi school shooting was stopped by Vice Principal Joel Myrick using his Colt .45 auto.

In Utah an off-duty police officer having an early Valentine’s Day dinner with his wife was credited with stopping a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who killed five people before he was cut down.

MANCHESTER NH– When a peeved patron began shooting at a doorman after being thrown out of a club. The shooter himself was shot twice by an armed customer who rushed to the bouncer's defense. Eliezer Encarnacion, 26, fired a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun about a half-dozen times at two bouncers and the assistant manager standing in a rear doorway. Customer Kenneth Gage then pulled out his Kel Tec .380 semiautomatic handgun and fired it three times, hitting Encarnacion twice.

Of 687 articles on the school shooting in Pearl, Miss., only 19 mentioned the assistant principal used his .45 caliber semiautomatic to obtain the shooter’s surrender before police arrived.


The incident at Lane Bryant occurred in Illinois, a state that doesn't allow anybody other than police to carry weapons.

[louis-t]

85. That's the one I thought the AP was unarmed!

The article I read said he just put out his hand and talked the kid into giving him the weapon.

[louis-t]

102. Is there a link to the Pearl, MS 'facts' you state other than pro-gun

sites? I have never seen any article that claims VP was armed, only allusions on right-wing sites without any sources.

[Dawggie]

22. This is getting to be like a bad remake of the movie Airplane.

I guess we need to pack from the admitting room of the hospital to the CYA later room at the undertakers according to what I've been reading here lately. It must be a miracle that I have lived my half century plus without having to shoot it out with the baddies.

[Xenotime]

25. Here's one for you..so you can't say "NEVER" anymore...

Two killed, four wounded in Texas shooting

Associated Press
updated 11:41 a.m. CT, Fri., Feb. 25, 2005
TYLER, Texas - A man angry about being sued for unpaid child support opened fire with an AK-47 assault rifle outside a courthouse, killing his ex-wife and a bystander who intervened to protect the couple’s 23-year-old son.

-snip-

The son, David Jr., was wounded trying to act as a mediator between his parents before his mother was killed, police said.

-snip-

A sheriff’s deputy, Sherman Dollison, 28, was in critical condition with wounds in the liver, lungs and legs. A sheriff’s lieutenant and a Tyler police detective were treated and released.

Authorities credited the bystander who died, Mark Alan Wilson, 52, with saving the son’s life.

Wilson, a gun enthusiast who had a concealed weapons permit, intervened after Arroyo started shooting, witnesses said. Swindle said Wilson shot at Arroyo several times but his rounds didn’t penetrate the armor.

“They traded shots, missing each other, and then the gunman hit Wilson and Wilson went down,” Tyler Morning Telegraph publisher Nelson Clyde III said in Friday’s editions of the newspaper.

“The gunman walked up to Wilson and shot him while he was on the ground,” said Clyde, who watched the shooting from a nearby restaurant. “I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. It was sickening.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7026524/

[ManiacJoe]

26. It happens by planning.

The Bad Guys purposely pick places they know to be restrictive on legal carrying. It keeps the Bad Guys alive longer.

There are plenty of news reports of folks with concealed weapons saving the day, but the MSM normally do not find those stories to be worth publishing.

Except for the church, all the examples you site took place were concealed carry is prohibited; please correct me if I am wrong about those individual state/local laws.

[treestar]

31. "Bad guys" do not think that clearly

They do not plan so logically.

[I work for workers]

46. US Gov studies say otherwise:

The Justice Dept commissioned James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi to study the motivational factors for criminals in choosing victims. They found that armed or potentially armed targets are a great deterrent to crime. The Wright/Rossi study suggests that guns are a powerful enough deterrent that criminals fear them even more then would be statistically expected. 74% of the surveyed felons said the threat of a gun was a reason to avoid burglarizing a home, and 81% responded that criminals should make an effort to learn whether or not a potential victim is armed before deciding whether or not to commit a crime against them. 57% said they were more afraid of an armed victim then they were of the police and 40% said they had at one point not committed a crime because they suspected the target was armed. However only 37% or respondents had definitively come across an armed target and only 34% had had the weapon used against them. This gap between the numbers of felons concerned about guns and the number who have actually been faced with an armed target evidences the powerful psychological effect guns have on deterring crime.

[louis-t]

86. That's a repug talking point.

The bad ole' liberal media conspires to not report incidents where guns are used to perteck someone. Sheeesh!

[ManiacJoe]

103. Every once in a while

even a Republican can get one right. I will let you speak about the conspiracy or whatever the reason behind it is, however the fact remains.

[treestar]

30. Must be the librul media

:sarcasm:

True, those who assert that should be able to come up with several examples.

The odds are you don't need a gun to defend yourself, just because the need to defend yourself is so rare that the odds the gun will hurt you or yours by being around and that you don't know how to use it are greater than the odds of encountering a random shooter AND saving lives by using the gun.

Knowing how to use the gun is paramount, and anyone who has one is delusional if they think it will protect them unless they learn and keep up the skills for using it, and even then, they are protecting themselves against a rare occurrence, and would be better off improving their driving skills.

[louis-t]

88. Funny how the inanimate object will protect you

but doesn't kill people cuz "people kill people."

edit for clarity.

[mvccd1000]

89. Funny, I thought the inanimate object was a tool.

Kind of like a 36" pipe wrench is a tool. If I use it to tighten a nut, the wrench did it. If I go next door and kill my neighbor with it, they're going to say I did it.

[louis-t]

93. Spin. Either way, you used an inanimate object to perform

a task. "They're going to say..." has nothing to do with it. If you overtighten the nut and it breaks a pipe and floods the joint, you still did it. My response was to the rhetoric that the gun will "protect" you. If you draw the weapon and someone blows your head off, the gun didn't protect you, did it.

[mvccd1000]

32. Same reason there's never a cop around WHERE and WHEN you need one.

If there was, no one would ever get robbed, raped, or murdered, would they?

Hence the belief by many of us that we are responsible for our own safety, as well as that of our families.

[and-justice-for-all]

33. I think it is because they do not understand the Gun law(s).

My partner is always armed. he knows where he can and can not carry a firearm, he was doing this even before he became a cop.

A large percentage of people either do not read the law or simply do not understand it. If put into a situation while off duty, my partner would more then not, take action and use his firearm if necessary.

[RB TexLa]

39. They might be armed and like me, if it's not my or my family's lives in danger I'm doing nothing.

No way I'm getting involved in something with a gun that doesn't threaten me. Too much legalities, and the prospect of shooting a person is something I do not care to ever deal with.

Anyone that doesn't like that can get their own gun, mine is for my protection not yours.

[leftofthedial]

48. and how come they always hit clothing stores in malls?

you'd think gunmen would hit a Target once in awhile.

[Lilith Velkor]

90. !

:spray:

[Dawggie]

49. We really gotta have more guns in the general populace.

You might be gardening when a member of Al Qaida or the evil (insert gang or minority here) jumps out from nowhere and rapes your dog and eats your husband.

We live in a terrifying world! Remember. Be scared, be frightened and never let someone go unpunished!

[Dimensio0]

50. Perhaps you could offer an actual argument...

...instead of sarcastic hyperbole founded in a strawman.

[Dawggie]

54. Works for me.

Sorry you don't get it.

(but "sarcastic hyperbole," Heh! Love it!)

[jmg257]

56. Not necessarily - some people probably can't handle the responsibility. But

since they have the right, they should have the choice to do so. Up to YOU to know - if you think you're inept - you're inept, and probably shouldn't bother. (just be careful with really dangerous things like driving cars.)

It's the unreasonable laws that do nothing but disarm the lawful citizen and get innocent people killed that are to fear. (insert BG here) can be dealt with - when the people have the means.

[jmg257]

52. Because it's not true. Here's a few examples...

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/OthWr/principal&gun.htm

"The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss.

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer."

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2806

"As Mr. Hawkins moved into the ideal sniper position on the upper deck, an unnamed middle-aged man emerging from the nearby Von Maur department store noticed his odd behavior and glimpsed the muzzle of the rifle peeking out from the sweater. Almost instinctively the man moved toward Mr. Hawkins, reaching to his belt to draw out a Springfield EMP, a small, 9mm semi-automatic handgun.

As the would-be famous mass killer raised the rifle to his shoulder, the unnamed shopper commanded him to stop. Mr. Hawkins turned the muzzle of the AK-47 toward the commanding voice, a single shot rang out and Mr. Hawkins staggered, dropped his weapon and fell against the railing.

By this time, two other shoppers were aiming their pistols at Mr. Hawkins — a young, single woman pulled a .40 caliber Glock 27 from her purse, and a retired farmer drew his 9mm Ruger SR9 (an early Christmas gift from his wife). Together with the first man they moved in to separate Mr. Hawkins from his gun, search him for other weapons and restrain him until law enforcement arrived."

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200209%5CNAT20020917a.html

"Student Group Wants Campus Gun Ban Lifted
By Christine Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 17, 2002

(CNSNews.com) - After two armed southwest Virginia law students stopped a campus shooting rampage in January, a Second Amendment group at a northern Virginia law school decided it was time to change their own school's ban on guns."


And one that wasn't so lucky, who KNEW she could have made a difference:

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

"On Saturday, October 16, 1991, Hupp and her parents were having lunch at the Luby's in Killeen. She had left her handgun in her car to comply with Texas state law at the time which forbade carrying a concealed weapon. When George Hennard drove his truck into the cafeteria and opened fire on the patrons, Hupp instinctively reached into her purse for her weapon, but it was in her vehicle. Her father, Al Gratia, tried to rush Hennard and was shot in the chest. As the gunman reloaded, Hupp escaped through a broken window and believed that her mother, Ursula Gratia, was behind her. Instead she watched as Hennard killed her parents and twenty-one other persons. He also wounded some twenty others. As a survivor of the Luby's massacre, Hupp testified across the country in support of concealed-handgun laws. She said that had there been a second chance to prevent the slaughter, she would have violated the Texas law and carried the handgun inside her purse into the restaurant."


Despite most of these shootings taking place at so-called "gun-free zones", there are still private parties, who take the responsibility to defend themselves and their families, who do/would step up to defend others as well.

Try this - have someone chase you or your kids around with an axe, or yes - even shoot at you with a gun, and count to 320: 1-mississippi, 2-mississippi, 3-mississippi...320 mississippi. That is how long it took for the police to arrive at the Omaha mall shooting...you WILL wish you had taken it upon yourself to be armed, or that some other selfless CCW-holder had.

[Dimensio0]

53. Um...

http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2806

Er, that's not a good example. That didn't actually happen. That's what should of happened, but didn't, possibly because the Westroads Mall is a designated "Gun Free zone". Or it was; apparently the signs were removed soon after the shooting and I can't find any information about what happened since. Whether the mall is actually seeking to revise its policy in light of the fact that their previous rule obviously didn't protect anyone or if they just temporarily removed the signs to avoid embarassment isn't clear.

[jmg257]

55. Cool - thanks! nt

[underpants]

60. Okay thanks

I find it amazing that more of these stories aren't readily available

[louis-t]

98. These are right-wing pro-gun sites.

I don't recall anywhere ever reading or seeing that the Pearl, MS shooter was disarmed by an armed AP. I do believe however that a site like that would 'embellish' a story a little to make a point.

[spin]

59. Most permit holders don't carry.

People get concealed carry permits for a lot of reasons.

I originally obtained mine because I carried a gun in my car. I live in Florida and it's legal to have a weapon in your vehicle as long as it is securely encased... no permit necessary. I worked graveyard shift at a factory in the Tampa Bay area and had to drive to work through some questionable areas. So I always had a firearm in the glove box.

A friend of mine asked why I didn't have a concealed weapons permit. He pointed out that if I was stopped for a traffic violation, which was possible since I had a tendency to drive like a manic, a permit might make things go a little smoother.

Seeing wisdom in his advice, I got the permit. If I was walking around in a bad area at night, I would carry. Otherwise lugging around a large weapon like a 45 auto was just too much of a pain.

One day I was at the range and was talking to a shooter. I noticed he was carrying and asked him if he did so all the time.

Turns out he ran his own business. He told me he always had his weapon with him. Since he was the boss, his employees never complained. (They also were probably very polite and followed instructions to the letter). "You never know when the shit will hit the fan", he said, "If it does I plan to be ready."

There was quite a bit of commonsense in his words. It would be great if when you wake up and go on the computer a reminder comes up on the screen and says "Carry today...you going to need it". Unfortunately life doesn't work that way.

So now I carry a much lighter handgun, a S&W .38 snub nosed revolver. When I head out the door, I just drop it into my pants pocket. No fuss no muss.

Perhaps one percent of the eligible people in Florida have carry permits and perhaps five percent of that number carry on a regular basis. Not really a big surprise that shootings happen without a citizen with a license to carry being present.

[spoony]

63. In Michigan it reduces red tape

I know a number of people who have gotten a carry permit because afterwards they don't have to go through as many hoops when buying a handgun.

[derby378]

78. The Ft. Hood shooting happend BEFORE concealed carry was legal in Texas

In fact, the Ft. Hood massacre was probably the main reason CCW was legalized in Texas. One woman who lost both her parents in the shootings became a Republican state legislator in Texas as well as a Second Amendment activist.

[AngryAmish]

79. Survivorship bias

[Missy Vixen]

96. There was someone with a gun inside of Columbine High School

If I recall, he was a sheriff's deputy, and he could not get close enough to actually shoot one of the perpetrators.

There's always the chance of innocent bystanders being killed in crossfire, too, but the gun fetishists will never admit to this, or admit to the fact that people who die in mass shootings are "collateral damage" to them. After all, their right to carry far outstrips any of our right to safety.

Julie

[CTyankee]

100. This happens in inner cities as well. We have had too many children

who have been shot and killed while theywere out playing or even, god help us, watching a community parade!

[louis-t]

101. Gun nuts always seem to fantasize about

being in the line at the bank and Ted Nugent is next to them in line when a robber runs in the door and starts shooting, the fantasizer and Nuge both hit the deck, do a tv cop show roll, pull out their respective 9mm s and start firing, both simultaneously hitting dead center of the heart of the would be robber, thus saving the day. Reality is usually a little different.

And, this is just today.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080208/ts_nm/usa_shooting_dc;_ylt=AoEybpCostCWPTL6zhdyQ51g.3QA

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080208/ts_nm/usa_shooting_louisiana_dc;_ylt=AtWSJsHhBn7G8puyQr1OGdxg.3QA

edit to fix link