Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
By Chris OBrion for The Roanoke Times
More from cartoonist Chris OBrion is here.
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
This was in my e-mail inbox this morning regarding the counter protest…
Blacksburg, VA— Survivors of the Virginia Tech massacre and their family members will be on the VT campus tomorrow, Thursday, November 17th to rally with students and faculty for a gun-free campus. Simultaneously, the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL)—a radical pro-gun group that seeks the elimination of all gun laws, including background checks—will be at the Squires Student Center (College Avenue on the Otey Street side) between 11:30 AM and 4:00 PM calling for legislation to force the university to allow the carrying of loaded guns on campus. Virginia Tech survivors will engage in a counterprotest at the same location to demand that VT be allowed to continue to set its own firearm policies without outside interference.
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued an opinion last summer that said public colleges must put official regulations in place to ban guns in campus buildings. George Mason University has already adopted such a regulation, which was upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court on January 13, 2011. In that ruling, Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn noted that previous Supreme Court opinions do not “[cast] doubt on laws or regulations restricting the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings. Indeed, such restrictions are presumptively legal.” Larry Hincker, the head of university relations at Virginia Tech, has indicated VT will follow GMU’s lead soon and enact a regulation. In response, VCDL is calling for state legislation that would prohibit VT and all other Virginia universities from enacting their own regulations, thereby preventing them from ensuring the safety of their students and faculty.
Students for Gun Free Schools (SGFS) founders Colin Goddard—who was shot four times during the Virginia Tech massacre on April 16, 2007—and Omar Samaha—whose sister Reema was murdered in that mass shooting—are two of the violence prevention advocates who will participate in the counterprotest at VT tomorrow. “The Virginia Tech Review Panel studied this issue more closely than anyone, and they got it exactly right,” said Samaha. “They recommended that guns be banned on college campuses and stressed that we must have universal background checks on gun buyers that adequately screen mental health history.”
“The reason that Virginia’s college campuses are some of the safest places in the Commonwealth is in large part because of their strict policies concerning firearms,” Goddard added. “VCDL is not concerned about the safety of the student body or faculty. They are not even listening to the student body or faculty. This is about the desire of a select few to dish out vigilante ‘justice’ as they see fit without regard to the potential collateral damage.”
“It’s unfathomable that the VCDL would advocate for the elimination of background checks on gun buyers in the wake of what happened at Virginia Tech,” added Lori Haas of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “The extremists in the VCDL contribute nothing to the academic community in the Commonwealth. They have no business telling students, faculty, and administrators how to run college campuses.” Haas’ daughter, Emily, was shot in the head during the tragedy at Virginia Tech but survived.
Goddard, Samaha and Haas are inviting VT students and faculty—and all concerned Virginia residents—to join them at the counterprotest at the Squires Student Center tomorrow between 11:30 AM and 4:00 PM to show their opposition to guns on campus. “Our college classrooms are places for learning,” said Samaha, “not places for violence. If VCDL truly cared about others’ welfare they would be acting to make sure the violent and deranged can’t gain easy access to guns. Their true agenda speaks volumes.”
I can hardly wait for my son to be able to pack one in every nook and cranny of his dorm room.
BTW, where and when will these groups be rallying. The short online RT story doesn’t say.
I guess they’re going to be down there today…the day of a game? If I see them I’ll walk by and take a “caption this” phone pic.
And speaking of guns…
Ah Texas, our short-bus state. They keep threatening to secede…I don’t suppose there’s any chance they’ll follow through though.
Well, if campus officials could guarantee that people with criminal intent could not bring their guns onto campus in defiance of state laws and campus regulations, then I’ll support it being a 100% gun-free zone. Until then, criminals will do what they do…and laws on the books don’t help to protect gun-free law-abiding students, visitors, and staff.
36 Come on, OJ, nothing in life is a guarantee, except that eventually you’ll leave a ringing 10 (ringing 7 for me) on a great ball. Heck, I also left a solid 8 and solid 9 on my two best rolls of the night Tuesday.
Well said OJ. When those officials deliver that guarantee I’ll start leaving my CC weapon at home, but until then I will exercise my right to protect myself and the ones I care about the most from the criminal element.
That said, I can somewhat support anyone who protests against VCDL’s agenda to repeal all gun laws and background checks…that’s absurd. Those checks and laws at least keep guns out of the hands of some criminals but unfortunately not all of them.
gdad here’s a guarantee for you… if you and your family are sitting in a local restaurant and a gunman comes through thefront door shooting everyone in sight, I guarantee you that you are unable to hold him off until the police get there with a fork or a salt shaker.
Do you take issue with Liberty University’s recent relaxation of its CC rules on campus? Students and visitors are allowed to bring guns on campus, but not carry them into any buildings. Only faculty & employees will be able to CC inside buildings (assuming they have a permit).
Doesn’t this set up different classes of CC holders, at least insofar as the campus is concerned? What guarantee do you have that the faculty member in a class (let’s say it’s an electrical engineering class) will be packing when when a crazed gunman bursts into the lecture room?
gdad, on that you do have a point…there are no sure-fire guarantees in life, aside from death and taxes (usually)…and that splits will happen from time to time. Though, somehow, I picked up both of my splits last week and one of my teammates nailed a highly improbable 4-10 split.
Students and visitors are allowed to bring guns on campus, but not carry them into any buildings. Only faculty & employees will be able to CC inside buildings (assuming they have a permit).
That is actually something I’ve been in favor of all along, to allow faculty and staff members, with legal permits, to carry if they so chose to and got additional permissions from their respective college or university, etc. I’m not in favor of students carrying in buildings though. It would likely be a bear to enforce…but gun-free zones are difficult to enforce as well when you get down to it, unless you set up screening checkpoints at all entry points to campus, or someone actually uses theirs to commit a crime and that it is actually witnessed by police. Gun-free is a great concept, but it’s not practical or reasonably feasible, as has been proven repeatedly, sadly. 30 or 40 years ago, many of the problems we face today were non-existent. Now though? It’s a whole different world, and people all too often seek to use a firearm to ‘solve’ their problems. Be it to commit a crime to obtain money to survive or buy drugs, or to settle a score with someone, or to simply kill as many people as they can…it’s undeniable that they are used for criminal means far too often. Ideally, I’d love a world completely, 100% free of all firearms and other weapons, where they were not needed, used, or even in the consciousness of individuals or society because they had no place any longer. But, that’s not reality for now. Hopefully one day, it will be…but not by force of government…but by societal evolution to a new normal.
Really Huntersdad…do you find you generally walk around with “guarantees” of safety?
When did this country get to be so chicken.
@10 – Other John, don’t you think that societal evolution is reflected by it’s government, art, laws…? I mean, how else do you know it is evolving really?
I think it can be, but I believe the truest sign of societal progress is the demeanor and actions of the people, which are as brazen, callous, and rude as I’ve ever seen it…in an overall sense. Some folks have stepped up, but there’s far too many who have devolved.
Kristen, in the hypothetical situation I gave to gdad earlier, I can at the very least guarantee that I stand a better chance of surviving than any unarmed person in that room….I’m a very good shot, even when I hold my 9mm in my beak.
#14 I don’t spend my life worrying that somebody’s going to walk into the restaurant where I eating and start killing people, huntersdad. It’s just not very high on my list of life worries. In fact, I’d say it’s not on my list at all.
That’s the difference between you and me — on this matter, anyway.
@13 – I agree with you about the over devolution of American culture. However, in a broader way, this actually *is* reflected in our government and laws and (lack of) art. On a day to day basis walking through your life, you are correct that societal progress is measured by demeanor and actions; but history will track that progress by the leaders that population elects and the justice or injustice that population tolerates on a govermental and legal level.
So while I agree with you that government cannot force this change, I think that the government reflects this change, or lack of change, for good or ill.
Hey Dan shouldn’t you have had the VCDL guy on the right side of this cartoon?
I don’t worry about it either, especially when I’m armed and won’t allow myself to be seated with my back to the entrance. Call it worry or in Kristen’s case chicken…I call it peace of mind. Doesn’t sound too important until you’re cowering in the corner amid gunfire thinking to yourself, “what’s taking the police so long to get here!” Good luck with that.
Concealed means concealed.
@18 – I think you just choose to live in a manner that I would find gave me less freedom than I currently feel that I have.
Miriam, we could likely debate endlessly how it would eventually happen…it seems to be a sort of chicken vs egg kind of debate in a sense. Certainly art, entertainment, and government action seem to parallel societal trends…I’m not sure they necessarily start or set trends though. Sometimes it’s true, but any notable changes seem to be largely reactionary to things the public is already doing.
Firearms wouldn’t be needed if criminal activity did not occur, and criminal activity would be greatly reduced (at least in theory) if everyone’s basic needs were met or somewhat exceeded. A lot of crime occurs because people perceive that they have to resort to it to survive, because jobs, education, housing, food, etc are harder to come by…but criminal activity can result in profitable gains of the means to acquire what they think they need or want, of course with a fair amount of associated risk. But, those risks are deemed acceptable compared to the criminal activity engaged upon, so it happens. People break into vacant homes because they think they won’t get caught. They rob banks while wearing masks because they think they can get away without being identified. People embezzle from their employers because they think they can hide their tracks if they do it right. They all perceive the risk as being worth the reward.
That can be solved in generally two ways: increase penalties for all crimes to an unduly harsh extreme level (which is presently unconstitutional), or work to create a society where people don’t feel a need to risk their freedom to commit criminal activity because they have access to what they need to live in a comfortable fashion. Yes, it’s an idealism of sorts, but I don’t believe it’s an impossibility. But for it to happen, it’s going to take a great deal of cooperation at all levels, along with a fundamental change in the consciousness of each person and society as a whole. I’ve seen it happen on small scales, but don;t know if it’s possible given human failings and inherent tendencies.
@21 – I don’t disagree with you in the least and we could certainly discuss it at length. The problem with what you are saying in terms of American society is who defines a “comfortable fashion”, wouldn’t you agree? I’m just not certain that a capitalistic society can achieve what you are talking about. I do think we could work towards it and improve things dramatically. I have no doubt about that. But greed is a mighty motivator.
So again, we are in agreement as to human failings and tendencies as well.
As I leave for the game tonight shortly I leave you with the following quote concerning the VCDL:
“They’re pretty effective, I have to give them credit.”
Jim Sollo, Chairman of Virginians Against Handgun Violence
Virginian Pilot – Nov 11, 2002
I really can’t think of any incident at Virginia Tech other than April 16, and that is such an odd anomaly that it can’t really count, that would require the use of a sidearm to resolve the outcome. The VCDL has an agenda and the “guns on campus” argument is just a way to get attention, a way to get more of its foot in the door to push its bigger agenda. Those who want CC on campus really can’t come up with good, valid arguments other than the usual tired “it’s for my self-protection” and “the police can’t be everywhere to stop a crime” but they can’t point to specific cases where someone at Virginia Tech needed to be armed (April 16 notwithstanding). Keep the campus gun free.
I generally support the right of sane, law-abiding citizens to purchase reasonable firearms with reasonable regulations, for legitimate purposes ranging from hunting to self-defense, but I cringe at the idea of widespread carrying of guns on college campuses. Sure, there’s a chance that it MIGHT mean a faster ending to a shooting spree once every twenty years, but it would DEFINITELY also mean more impulsive (ever been to college?) shootings EVERY year.
The protests will reflect nicely upon the Commonwealth tonight. You know ESPN had to get a few shots of these people on campus today.
Look at Virginia Tech’s Clery Report. In 2010 on the Blacksburg campus, there were:
3 Forcible sex offenses
3 Aggravated assaults
And an assortment of other crimes where we can’t determine the utility of a firearm without more details. Just because you can’t remember any incidents doesn’t mean they didn’t happen.
For that matter, what guarantee do you have that that electrical engineering faculty member won’t snap and become the crazed gunman.
His wife just left him because he did everything by the numbers and the only people who will talk to him speak of ohms and volts and watts
and ac/dc etc. His face is pock marked from acne scars and all the jocks picked on him all the way through high school. Last night he was dissed by some tawdry looking blonde in a bar. He has a son who kicks him in thje shin every time he comes into the room. But he has a CC permit and now’s his chance.
Hard to believe there are still some anti-gun nuts wanting defenseless victim zones which is where all mass murders occur after numerous examples of them occurring in defenseless victim zones
I would hazard a guess that many many more burglaries have resulted in stolen guns, in the hands of criminals, than have been prevented by anyone wielding a gun. As you probably know, the vast majority of them occur when nobody’s home.
“SALT IN THE WOUNDS”
More correctly, that would be continuing the same broken system which allowed by it’s “gun-free” ideology which attracts those wanting high body counts such as at:
Virginia Tech Massacre
Lubys in Texas Massacre
Fort Hood Massacre (Wonder why he picked the gun-free staging area instead of the gun range on base?)
What prevents your imaginary stressed out dude from doing the same thing now? a sign?
Not at Virginia Tech. It’s a gun free zone.
…and thanks again Dan, for skirting the actual point of my post, that violent crimes have occurred at Va. Tech since Cho.
How many of those aggravated assaults were the result of drunken students fighting in dorms? Do you honestly believe a gun is the answer in that situation?
Dodging the issue again. Dan, I, like you, have no idea how many of those fights were caused by alcohol. I do know that aggravated assault is a felony, which means that it’s not your typical fist fight.
Ultimately, the answer is would a reasonable person believe that they are in mortal danger or at risk of serious bodily harm. Aggravated assaults can most definitely include those. There’s probably quite a few murders that were aggravated assaults right up until the victim died.
Miriam, and therein squats the proverbial toad. I could find myself quite content in a small home with an old truck and a few niceties like a relatively new computer, decent internet, and a TV (no cable). For others, they might consider a 2500 SF Colonial, a new car, and an all-inclusive cable package as scraping by, so it would be completely subjective based on personal perceptions…which is why I believe that most idealistic societal plans will never actually work, because you can’t condition people to be single-minded drones who will all be content with the same, or relatively similar, trappings of life.
I just wonder what we would need to do to improve our current society to a point where crime wasn’t so rampant, but that didn’t involve instituting something akin to a police state or overtly harsh prison terms to people convicted of various crimes to keep them off the street. I don’t think the matrix of having a substantial portion of our citizenry locked up is a good sign, it’s a symptom of underlying inequalities in society. Solving that, or even remotely addressing that, is where the hitch comes in. We need to foster an environment where economic competition and growth brings jobs to places that need them, but usually such policies wind up undercutting established businesses or result in lower-paying jobs to be competitive in a global market…and considering what the average standard of living is typically defined as, most of the new jobs we see being created fall well short of that level, and instead support a measurably lower quality of life, unless multiple jobs are worked…or if multiple persons within the same household are gainfully employed. It’s a mess. And unfortunately, I don’t see great improvement on the horizon.
“I don’t spend my life worrying that somebody’s going to walk into the restaurant where I eating and start killing people, huntersdad. It’s just not very high on my list of life worries. In fact, I’d say it’s not on my list at all.”
The problem is that because you don’t worry about something, you feel that nobody else should, either.
Do you carry a spare tire around in your car everywhere you go? Why? Are you that worried that you’ll be stuck on the road with a blown tire. Is that what you worry about every minute that you’re on the road?
I doubt it. And, the spare tire doesn’t guarantee that you won’t get a flat, either. But it does mean that you’ll stand a better chance of getting your issue resolved more quickly if you do carry it. And, being that there really is no down side to carrying it, you do so.
Same with a gun.
#24: “I really can’t think of any incident at Virginia Tech other than April 16, and that is such an odd anomaly that it can’t really count, that would require the use of a sidearm to resolve the outcome.”
I can’t think of a single time anyone came into my house without permission… ever, in fact. That being said, I still lock the door at night.
“Keep the campus gun free.”
By the way, Joe Hokie… your statement implies that the campus is gun free now… or at least has been at some point in the past. You, sir, are incorrect. I’ve carried a handgun at Virginia Tech every time I’ve been there. It is not gun free.
Hunters dad, I have no doubt that the cemeteries are full of men who consider themselves great shots.
As for never sitting with you back to an entrance, I don’t have anything constructive to say about that.
#40 Jack, we already know that you habitually violate the rules in various places. It’s really not something to brag about.
“won’t allow myself to be seated with my back to the entrance.”
It’s cool so long as you’re not holding aces and eights.
So shooting a burglar in a dorm room is appropriate? Wow, that’s getting pretty bold. But I’ll bet if you check with the VT PD, most of those burglaries probably occurred when someone left a room unlocked when he went down the hall to the shower or to class, or were from parked cars. Three assaults are serious but hardly a major crime spree that should have people cowering in fear. You say so yourself “we can’t determine the utility of a firearm without more details.” It could be that having a gun wouldn’t have made a difference.
As to the campus being totally gun free, I know that is a fallacy, that there are those who can’t and won’t follow the rules. But for some of them, they aren’t going to be deterred from whatever they want to do by knowing there might or might not be people around who may be armed. So since it won’t make a difference, why arm people?
“won’t allow myself to be seated with my back to the entrance”. How sad to be that paranoid. A good rule of the thumb is if a place is so damn dangerous that I can’t sit with my back to the entrance, I don’t belong there. I’d rather stay home.
Is any one going to address the woman who decided to shoot at her home invaders yesterday and ended up in the hospital when they shot back?
Please no one ring in with “Oh but I’d have dropped them with one shot and with only one bullet and no one would have been left alive to shoot back”. Point is, deciding you’re going to rest your security in a gun only ups the chances of getting shot yourself.
“Overall, Branas’s study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.”
But we already knew that. Graveyard’s full of heros.
Sitting so that the entrance is visible is simple situational awareness. People who are trained in various forms of self defense or who have been through the military typically are aware of such things at a generally subconscious level…it’s just habit. You stay continually vigilant and alert for potential threats so no one gets the drop on you. After a good bit of training, it’s second nature and not much focused effort has to be expended in the process. It’s not like someone suffering from paranoia going around locking and re-checking every door and window every time they leave a house, for example.
Call me what you will Dave, Paranoid, scared, chickens**t thats fine by me.But if you believe that any upstanding local establishment such as your local Applebees, Golden Corral, etc.. can’t be turned into a scene of mass murder in the blink of an eye…I call that naive. In the reality I live in, there is to much proof to the contrary. Much like OJ stated, I would love nothing more for our society to evolve to that place where gun’s were no longer needed or even thought of…a thing of the past. If we were to suddenly arrive at that place as a society, I would stand united with every anti-gun supporter on this blog around the blast furnace as I throw my weapons into the fire. Might even hold your hand and sing Kumbaya. Until then, I’m armed and facing the door.
And I don’t get your point, Jason. Are you saying that had you or one of your gun-totin’ buddies had been around when one of these crimes had been committed, that it would have been cut short because you would have blown away the perpetrator? That’s what I don’t get, this posturing about “if I could carry my gun, the campus would be safer” without explaining how it would be so — there is this . . . that follows but the proponents don’t really follow up with the details of why they will make the campus (or anyplace else) a better place with more concealed weapons.
And please, leave April 16 out of it. The victims and their families have asked repeatedly that they not be included in any part of the “bring guns on campus” agenda. I agree. That event was bad enough. We will never forget the 32, but it is time to but that incident far behind us.
Kristen, and one day I shall join those men in that cemetery that you speak of. But if I can keep some Cho type nut from sending me there early while I’m trying to enjoy dinner with my family or attending a class at school, I will.
“So shooting a burglar in a dorm room is appropriate?”
If a burglar threatens someone’s life, yes, it’s legit. If he doesn’t, then no, you shouldn’t shoot him.
“Three assaults are serious but hardly a major crime spree that should have people cowering in fear.”
Ridiculous straw man. I never said there was a crime spree or that anyone should be cowering in fear.
“You say so yourself “we can’t determine the utility of a firearm without more details.” It could be that having a gun wouldn’t have made a difference.”
This is all COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. You are pulling a Dan; I refuted your post with facts. You said: “I really can’t think of any incident…that would require the use of a sidearm to resolve the outcome,”
“…but they can’t point to specific cases where someone at Virginia Tech needed to be armed…”
I pointed out specific cases where someone at Virginia Tech being armed would be reasonable and possibly useful. You’re point was wrong, so rather than admitting it or adding something to the discussion, you leapfrogged to another (wrong) argument.
“But for some of them, they aren’t going to be deterred from whatever they want to do by knowing there might or might not be people around who may be armed. So since it won’t make a difference, why arm people?”
I don’t care about deterrence. Carrying a concealed gun isn’t about deterrence (though many in the pro-gun movement will say otherwise). It’s about responding to a threat. Sexual and aggravated assaults are situations where guns could make a positive difference.
#44 I was going to say much the same thing, Joe. When did execution become the penalty for a burglary (not a robbery, mind you, a burglary)? Burglary is a crime against your property, sure, but NOT against your physical being. And assaults, other than drunken battles, are pretty rare.
@gdad: #40 “we already know that you habitually violate the rules in various places. It’s really not something to brag about.”
When you walk onto campus, you are not presented with a set of rules. No official from Virginia Tech has ever presented me with a rulebook for visiting campus, nor have they verbally provided me with any rules. That being said, I fall back to what is legal and what is not legal.
It is legal to carry a gun on that campus, openly or concealed (with permit).
If there are rules that I need to follow, they should either be posted, or handed to me when I come onto the campus.
I know that it isn’t realistic, but honestly it isn’t my problem. I obey the law, which doesn’t forbid me from carrying there. Just like any other private business… show me the rules, and then we’ll see.
Hunters, if I thought eating at Applebees was that inherently dangerous, I’d probably just stay home.
As for the gun movement pimping out the victims at Tech to push their agenda, shouldn’t the victims be consulted on the matter? I haven’t heard a big outcry for increasing the gun population at Tech from those who were personally impacted by what happened that day…assuming their experience to push some personal agenda – anthetical to what the victims actually feel themselves – is disgusting.
gdad’s right. Burglary is a crime against property . . . except (in many cases) on TV news, where it’s routinely conflated with robbery, a crime against a person.
The gun folks at Tech were also holding up signs about rapists. I’d have to ask them if rape is a huge problem at Tech, and how much of the problem stems from drunken bad behavior at parties and date rape? Are they implying that girls need to bring guns to frat parties so that they can handle the situation if some drunk guy starts getting pushy? Is that seriously their answer….otherwise I’d like to see their data that indicates stranger rape is an unusually big problem on campus. Otherwise it’s just sensationalism and fear-mongering.
OK, Jason, so there were crimes on campus that I missed. I was wrong.
But you didn’t answer my question. Are you saying that had you or one of your gun-totin’ buddies had been around when one of these crimes had been committed, that it would have been cut short because you would have blown away the perpetrator?
You also state this: “I don’t care about deterrence. Carrying a concealed gun isn’t about deterrence . . . It’s about responding to a threat. Sexual and aggravated assaults are situations where guns could make a positive difference.” Please explain. When was the last time you personally had to deal with forcible sex or were assaulted in an aggravated manner? Or does this mean that if you see such an act happening you would step in with gun drawn to stop it from happening by any means? This is where the . . . comes in whenever all the “allow me to carry my concealed weapon on campus” people seem to stop short in their statements.
If the price for keeping “some Cho type nut from sending me there early while I’m trying to enjoy dinner with my family or attending a class at school” is to be armed everywhere I go, I cannot accept that as a solution to “some Cho Type”. That is admitting failure IMO.
You can say that is not living your life in fear, but is sure seems like it to me.
Jason #51, “could” is definitely the operative word here. It could also be true that a sexual or aggravated assault turns into a murder when a gun is introduced. A gun certainly cannot be said to make a “positive difference” in every situation. Most especially and egregiously in the cases of untrained, non-proficient, incompetent people who should not carry a gun. Hell, even the so-called “professionals” have accidents, make bad judgments and have bad outcomes.
“Please no one ring in with “Oh but I’d have dropped them with one shot and with only one bullet and no one would have been left alive to shoot back”. Point is, deciding you’re going to rest your security in a gun only ups the chances of getting shot yourself.”
I believe it was Miriam that claimed that only one bullet is needed.
Anyway, are you saying that if the homeowner hadn’t had a gun, she wouldn’t have gotten shot?
@Dan Casey: “gdad’s right. Burglary is a crime against property . . . except (in many cases) on TV news, where it’s routinely conflated with robbery, a crime against a person.”
Yes, but when you are home when it occurs, it becomes more than that. My opinion, and it is just my opinion, is that it has nothing to do with the actions of the perp once he is in your home. The simple fact that he broke into your home is enough for you to feel that your life is threatened.
There is no reason why you should interview him about the extent of his intentions.
@61 – Actually Jack, after arguing with you and Jason for a bit (and listening to Other John), I think I’ve decided on a 10 bullet ammo clip limit. I actually changed my mind based on debate…something no one else here seems able to do.
Branas’ study has been refuted, most notably by Gary Kleck of Florida State University. Paraphrasing Kleck, his conclusion is like saying that because many diabetics carry insulin, insulin causes diabetes.
“And I don’t get your point, Jason. Are you saying that had you or one of your gun-totin’ buddies had been around when one of these crimes had been committed, that it would have been cut short because you would have blown away the perpetrator?”
That’s possible, but the more relevant scenario would be that the victim is able to defend themselves.
“That’s what I don’t get, this posturing about “if I could carry my gun, the campus would be safer” without explaining how it would be so”
You are the one using the hyperbolic and loaded language. I never talk about blowing anyone away, nor do I posture. And are you saying that there is no way that a firearm might have come in handy for those three victims of forced sexual assaults? I don’t know that it would have, but are you claiming that you know it wouldn’t?
“that follows but the proponents don’t really follow up with the details of why they will make the campus (or anyplace else) a better place with more concealed weapons.”
I don’t think concealed carry will make a statistical difference on campuses, because it hasn’t done so in the rest of the country. It’s rare enough to not move the numbers (thank goodness). However, you have not demonstrated how it would make things unsafe in any measurable manner. Dozens of campuses have allowed concealed carry for a long time and have had no issues.
“And please, leave April 16 out of it.”
You are the one that brought it up, and my only use of it was to refute YOUR assertion that there had been no incidents since then.
“The victims and their families have asked repeatedly that they not be included in any part of the “bring guns on campus” agenda.”
However, some are happy to use their involvement in the issue to advocate for an anti-gun position. That’s their first amendment right and good for them. They are activists and that’s something to be proud of. But if you stick your face out on a controversial and very personal issue, expect it to get smacked in return.
“I agree. That event was bad enough. We will never forget the 32, but it is time to but that incident far behind us.”
Great. So be a good example and stop using it. I certainly haven’t.
“When was the last time you personally had to deal with forcible sex or were assaulted in an aggravated manner?”
Never, thankfully. What in the world does this have to do with anything?
“Or does this mean that if you see such an act happening you would step in with gun drawn to stop it from happening by any means?”
If the circumstances demanded it, yes, but again, that’s not why I carry or advocate for it. It’s about personal protection.
“This is where the . . . comes in whenever all the “allow me to carry my concealed weapon on campus” people seem to stop short in their statements.”
I literally don’t know what that sentence means. Are you saying that because a CC might stop a crime against another that it is bad? Do you think that CCs will run around shooting everyone who is parked in a red zone?
“When did execution become the penalty for a burglary (not a robbery, mind you, a burglary)?”
It didn’t (for me especially since I’m against the death penalty in all cases). But a burglar turns into a home invader if you happen to be home. To repeat, I do not think you should shoot someone simply because they are in your home without permission. You should shoot only if you have a reasonable belief that you are in grave danger.
“And assaults, other than drunken battles, are pretty rare.”
Yes they are, but I wasn’t trying to prove that assaults are common. I was answering his statement that no incidents had happened since Cho where a gun would have been useful.
“A gun certainly cannot be said to make a “positive difference” in every situation.”
I never said it would.
“Most especially and egregiously in the cases of untrained, non-proficient, incompetent people who should not carry a gun. Hell, even the so-called “professionals” have accidents, make bad judgments and have bad outcomes.”
Do a search on accidental gun deaths, as well as accidental gun deaths that occur during a self defense incident. You’ll find that they are incredibly rare.
“@61 – Actually Jack, after arguing with you and Jason for a bit (and listening to Other John), I think I’ve decided on a 10 bullet ammo clip limit.”
Why? Why is ten the magic number? Why not nine or eleven?
“I actually changed my mind based on debate…something no one else here seems able to do.”
Good for you. Listening to the facts should cause everyone to change their minds on major issues throughout their lives. I have on gun control and the death penalty (twice!), just to name a couple.
Do the proponents of campus guns also believe they should be permitted at college sporting events?
@64 “Why?” Because why not? Yep. It was explained to me that 6 would be a standard revolver and so 10 seems a nice, round even number. You are just arguing with me to argue…there is no strong argument against 10 than any other number. So relax.
We’ve clearly established in other threads that you simply do not want any sort of restrictions whatsoever (besides what already is in place), so there is not real point discussing an issue that would require compromise on your part. I’ve already compromised. So we’re stuck in disagreement…which is fine as well.
What I find ironic is that those who vehemently claim to fear defensive inanimate objects betrayed their own position by feeling safe enough to stand there next to a number of folk carrying those very same defensive inanimate objects on an allegedly gun-free campus — and, by-the-way no one got shot.
No defensive inanimate objects leaped out of the holsters all by themselves and shot someone.
In spite of the taunts and insults by the anti-freedom counter protesters, no CHP holder reacted irrationally.
An anti-freedom individual used the sound system w/o permission to make a “feel good” plea and escaped with out injury or even threat.
There were a couple folk open-carrying no one stole their firearm and shot someone.
Safety was not compromised by CHP holders being armed on campus.
@Rick: Yes, I believe they should be allowed anywhere, as long as the person may legally possess the gun (location not withstanding).
Jason, plenty of studies get “refuted”. This doesn’t make them less accurate, and the insulin analogy doesn’t fit at all. Plenty of people die with wallets in their pockets…I doubt even the most ardent gun advocates would claim that wallets are equally deadly to handguns.
#67 With the number of police officers and dogs around, no wonder, Dave.
Not that I’m saying there would have been trouble without the police, but with them it would have been especially stupid to pull a gun.
When you can speak for millions of folk on any detail of an issue that might be a reasonable question.
I will not attempt to speak for all of even the quarter million CHP holders in Virginia [think Dan] — much less millions on any narrow detail of law.
“Because why not?”
Do you use this reasoning on all proposed legislation?
“You are just arguing with me to argue…there is no strong argument against 10 than any other number. So relax.”
I’m perfectly relaxed. You are reading emotion into the text that isn’t there.
“We’ve clearly established in other threads that you simply do not want any sort of restrictions whatsoever (besides what already is in place),”
Absolutely not true and I challenge you to quote any such statement. I can rattle off a long list of restrictions that I have no problem with.
“so there is not real point discussing an issue that would require compromise on your part. I’ve already compromised.”
You compromised when you wisely chose to listen. As soon as someone can give me some good rational reasons for pointless restrictions (or show that they aren’t pointless), I’ll change my mind.
“Jason, plenty of studies get “refuted”. This doesn’t make them less accurate, and the insulin analogy doesn’t fit at all. Plenty of people die with wallets in their pockets…I doubt even the most ardent gun advocates would claim that wallets are equally deadly to handguns.”
It’s the quality of the refutation that matters. Kleck’s response is easy enough for a layman to understand. You might not find it compelling, that’s cool, but I wanted the people here to understand that a properly credentialed academic (rather than an NRA flack or anonymous doofus like me) had strongly disagreed with both the methodology and the conclusions. He has never used funding from either side, is a member of the ACLU and Amnesty International and a lifelong Democrat. We’re not talking Pat Buchanan here.
As an aside, Kleck is best known for a study that concluded that over two million defensive uses of guns occur each year. Here’s what an ardent anti-gun colleague said about Kleck’s work:
“I am as strong a gun-control advocate as can be found among the criminologists in this country. …I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and maybe even from the police. I hate guns–ugly, nasty instruments designed to kill people.
What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator… I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research.
Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence. The National Crime Victim Survey does not directly contravene this latest survey, nor do the Mauser and Hart studies.
Nevertheless, the methodological soundness of the current Kleck and Gertz study is clear. I cannot further debate it.
The Kleck and Gertz study impresses me for the caution the authors exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections in advance and have done exceedingly well.”
-Marvin E. Wolfgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.
Just what we need, lots of guns among thousands of drunks.
@72 Jack, please do tell me the restrictions that you would be okay about (new ones, not existing ones). I swear, I believe we’ve been down this path before but I’m not about to weed through prior threads this later on a Friday. However, it is quite possible that it was Jason that I came to that impasse with and not you. Though I know for certain that I have absolutely requested the pro-gun folks to talk about the restrictions they would be willing to support and the response was essentially “no more restrictions than already exist”.
And as for “Why not”, I have said over and over again that the reason I think ammo clips should be limited to 10 rounds is that 10 rounds should be sufficient for civilian needs and it seems to be a common sense issue to me. We’ve also been down this road as well. We will just have to disagree.
Back to the issue of the death penalty (that you mentioned in some other post), I’ve also gone back and forth a few times on that issue and expect to continue to change my mind every decade or so…
@73 – Jason! Clearly I am confusing Jack and Jason…even on this thread. Bah! My apologies. I wish your names were a bit more different because your views are very similar and I am mixing you up. Sorry Jason!
For the record, I’m in favor of or at least am not bothered much by:
Violent felons being barred
Vigorous crackdown on straw purchasers
Enhanced sentencing for those with illegal guns
Training for concealed carriers (though low income people should have financial aid for it, and there’s no evidence it helps)
Stricter sentencing for those who negligently discharge their weapons in public
And as far as social policies that I believe would reduce gun crime:
Fix the public education system, particularly with regard to the funding method
End the drug war (I think that no single policy would have a better effect)
Better social safety nets (Oh no! Jason is a Socialist! Ooogie boogie!)
“Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime?”
Considering all the crimes that happen, it’s amazing that every year there are 2 million that don’t. How the heck did this country become so crime ridden? That’s a more interesting topic than gun control imo.
I think the way to attack gun crime (short of taking away the guns) is to address issues that pertain to ALL crime. Poverty, lack of education, etc, the usual liberal package. An invested engaged population isn’t committing millions upon millions of crimes a year.
Well damn Jason, we have sparred for so long and now I find that you and I actually agree on every one of those points. Where has our enmity emerged then?
“Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected.”
I also believe that the number is underestimated. Many times when the gun is never fired, it is not reported. It is quite possible to use a gun in self-defense without actually firing the gun. Though whether or not it is fired ends up being up to the perp committing the crime, many times it will not be fired, and I’m sure it goes unreported much of the time.
Miriam: “@72 Jack, please do tell me the restrictions that you would be okay about (new ones, not existing ones).”
#72 was Jason, not me.
@Miriam: “…the reason I think ammo clips should be limited to 10 rounds is that 10 rounds should be sufficient for civilian needs and it seems to be a common sense issue to me.”
Do you think that 70 mph is a reasonable limit for cars for civilian use? If we settle on 10 round magazines (not clips, by the way) can we also settle for 70 mph as a maximum speed that ANY car owned by a civilian is allowed to go?
Sure, there may be a chance at some point that a particular person may need to go faster, but for the greater good we should leave it at 70. I’m sure you’d agree that there is a CHANCE that a civilian might need more than ten rounds, but I’m sure the possibility of that happening has been weighed against whatever reasons you have for choosing to restrict it to ten.
So… would you support a restriction to 70 mph on cars? Any faster than that and you’re breaking the law anyway.
Thank you for acknowledging that pro-freedom CHP holders are governed by reason.
I find criminologist Gary Kleck fascinating. Jason, do you agree with this analysis:
“Therefore, the significance of the few gun control measures found to be effective should not be overlooked. There is empirical support for some moderate gun controls. I favor a national “instant records check,” which would screen for high-risk gun buyers similar to owner license and purchase permit systems, but without the delays and arbitrary administration which sometimes characterizes those controls. The system should cover nondealer transactions as well as dealer sales, and apply to rifles and shotguns, as well as handguns. Also, tighter licensing of gun dealers and increased enforcement of carry laws may be useful.
Gun control is a very minor, though not entirely irrelevant, part of the solution to the violence problem, just as guns are of only very minor significance as a cause of the problem. The U.S. has more violence than other nations for reasons unrelated to its extraordinarily high gun ownership. Fixating on guns seems to be, for many people, a fetish which allows them to ignore the more intransigent causes of American violence, including its dying cities, inequality, deteriorating family structure, and the all- pervasive economic and social consequences of a history of slavery and racism. And just as gun control serves this purpose for liberals, equally useless “get tough” proposals, like longer prison terms, mandatory sentencing, and more use of the death penalty serve the purpose for conservatives. All parties to the crime debate would do well to give more concentrated attention to more difficult, but far more relevant, issues like how to generate more good-paying jobs for the underclass which is at the heart of the violence problem.”
I also find some interesting points to ponder in this paper:
“The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner–against a criminal during the commission of a crime–will occur, for the average gun owner, perhaps once or never in a lifetime. It is a rare event. Other than self-defense, the use of a gun against another human is
socially undesirable. Regular citizens with guns, who are sometimes tired, angry, drunk, or afraid, and who are not trained in dispute resolution, have lots of opportunities for inappropriate gun uses. People engage in innumerable annoying and somewhat hostile interactions with each other in the course of a
lifetime. It should not be surprising that inappropriate, socially undesirable “self-defense” gun uses by people who believe they are law-abiding citizens outnumber the appropriate and socially beneficial use of guns.
Although most of the reported self-defense gun uses from Approach 1 surveys seem more like criminal uses, even if one believed they were all genuine socially beneficial uses, the number of criminal gun uses
would still vastly exceeds the number of self-defense gun uses in the United States. No survey using similar methodology to determine both criminal and self-defense use has ever found otherwise.”
“Considering all the crimes that happen, it’s amazing that every year there are 2 million that don’t. How the heck did this country become so crime ridden? That’s a more interesting topic than gun control imo.”
Yes, there’s a lot of crime in absolute numbers, but we’re a huge country, that’s to be expected. But per capita, crime of all types has plunged in the last couple of decades. We are very close to gun deaths (not counting suicides) dropping below 10,000 a year. That’s horrible, but remember, with a much smaller population, we were hitting well over 15,000 a year not so long ago. If a drop that big could be attributed to any one policy, we’d hail it as one of the most successful in history.
“I think the way to attack gun crime (short of taking away the guns) is to address issues that pertain to ALL crime. Poverty, lack of education, etc, the usual liberal package. An invested engaged population isn’t committing millions upon millions of crimes a year.”
Yep. Unfortunately, the needed solutions are either politically untenable or too complicated; if a program involves the government, it will be demonized as socialism. We like simple solutions and we sure as hell don’t want to pay for anything. So instead of acknowledging that crime is a ridiculously complex web of issues, both sides throw out bumper sticker solutions: “Less guns,” from one side and, “More guns, more prisons,” from the other. We also have a long standing anti-intellectual streak, so we don’t want to hear what them pointy-headed ivory tower nerds have to say.
And one last thing and I give up again for now, does it strike anyone as questionable that Kleck uses information from a survey to prove his point but also discredits Dr. Branas research because it used survey information? I am not sure I get one’s credibility over the other.
I just have to ask; with violent rape and murder being serious problems, would you rather be violently raped or murdered yourself than use a handgun for your own personal defense if it was available to you right at that very moment? This is a sincere, simple yes or no question.
The only statement that gave me pause was “enforcement of carry laws.” I need to know what he means by that, but otherwise, yeah, I’m pretty much in agreement with what he said. And thank you for posting that, I hadn’t read that particular piece.
The second piece you posted is unfortunately tainted by its source. Hemenway is a published, legitimate researcher, but Kleck has effectively rebutted some of his key work (and critiques of Kleck’s work, see http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz2.htm.)
“And one last thing and I give up again for now, does it strike anyone as questionable that Kleck uses information from a survey to prove his point but also discredits Dr. Branas research because it used survey information? I am not sure I get one’s credibility over the other.”
You’re going to have to help me here. I read Kleck’s critique of Branas’ work and found nothing about surveys being bad. In fact, that would make no sense since surveys constitute an immense part of Kleck’s research. The research that made Kleck’s name on the subject was based on a huge survey.
Thanks JohnWilburn but I don’t answer hypotheticals. In general, no one wants to die or get raped. Does that lead me to wanting to carry a gun around or have one in my home? No.
So I guess I answered it anyway.
I read something yesterday about the cops tasering some guy who ended up dying from it, and thought (as I always think when I read about some kid or cranky granny getting tasered) that tasers themselves, being considered “non deadly force” in the hands of the cops, lend themselves to being used in situations where – absent a taser, and certainly absent reason to shoot someone dead – the police would have to figure out another solution. So it leads me to the “2 million crimes prevented a year by guns” statistic, and the question…What sort of crimes are these, and how is the gun preventing them from occurring? Surely it’s not 2 million rapes and murders. Are people self-reporting “Hey some guy tried to steal the paper from my porch and I got my shotgun and he ran away” sort of crimes?
I guess my end question is…of these crimes being “prevented” by the presence of a firearm, how many of them could – and probably would – have been prevented by some other means?
#87 “This is a sincere, simple yes or no question.”
Of course it isn’t — the simple yes or no part, that is.
Like Kristen, I would like some breakdown of these 2 million crimes that are prevented with guns. Otherwise, I’m going to have to conclude that the number is made up out of thin air,
While you’re at it, could you tell us how many traffic accidents are prevented by seat belts?
2 million a year breaks down to 40K per state, every year. I’m struggling a little with that number, as I’ve lived in several states – some densely populated – and I don’t know anyone, not one person, who’s claimed to have prevented a crime with their gun. Plus, with that level of gun-driven crime prevention, surely the papers would be flooded with these reports. It would be happening constantly.
I don’t buy the number.
Kristen and Dan-
Instead of accusing Kleck of making stuff up, you could fire up that high tech wonder Google and find out for yourself what his methodology was. You’re awesome Dan, another prominent criminologist who hates guns repeatedly states that Kleck’s methodology is air tight, but you think it’s made up.
Kristen, one of the accepted facts of the number is that many of the incidents don’t get reported. That’s because the overwhelming majority don’t involve anyone getting shot or even shots being fired. Typically the appearance of the gun ends the incident. In those circumstances, the victim often doesn’t bother calling the police.
Kleck isn’t the only one to come up with a very high number. Over a dozen surveys and studies average way over a million and some are even higher than Kleck’s. None are lower than 780,000. The highest figure, ironically, is from a survey conducted by the Los Angeles Times, a paper with a hyper anti-gun editorial stance.
“The opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner to use a gun in a socially desirable manner … perhaps once or never in a lifetime.”
Given all the restrictions on ownership and on self-defense carry, he is likely correct — i.e., the opportunity for a law-abiding gun owner is unconscionably limited. OTOH, the actual need is another question.
Remember that statistics are like bikinis — sometimes, it is what they don’t show that is relevant to one’s pursuit. Throw in all the cherry picking of data and arguing methodology in a self-serving manner and one can often find what one is looking for in one’s pursuit to reinforce one’s preconceived notions.
OTOH, yes given that in 2010 there were 1,246,248 violent crime here in the US that come to less than a 1% chance for that single year. However, over an average lifetime each year’s rate is cumulative and that the over a lifetime rate is close to a one in three chance. The chance of rain in any given day in this area could be reasonably low, yet the likelihood of rain sometime in the next couple of months or so is likely to be rather high. The same applies to crime data, IMHO.
Using the violent crime rate from 1991 the accumulated over a lifetime it is more to a one in two chance. [Data from the FBI http://tinyurl.com/75pfwln ]
I don’t consider a 1:2 or 1:3 rate as being all that “a rare event.”
As always, YMMV.
In part, I suspect an underlying assumption and/or an underlying value that is not openly discussed is the question of the legitimize of Defensive Gun Use (DGU) in the cases of violent crimes that are survived or are highly likely to be survived. Here in Virginia one can use a gun to protect oneself and others when the person reasonably believes they are in danger of death or significant physical harm — but not to protect property. In other States legitimate DGUs included protecting property.
Even in the area of physical harm there is not agreement. As most women do survive rape, should stopping a rape with a DGU be OK? If one were to see a ten year old being molested in a shower, would a DGU to stop the act be OK?
Then there is the very definition of a DGU, itself. Just as the use-of-force reports filed by LEOs include far more than shots-fired, I feel that DGUs include more than shots-fired incidents.
Again, as always YMMV.
However, I doubt that we will come to agreement on the risk rates or DGU rates in our lifetime.
Re: DGU numbers
There is considerable uncertainty about the prevalence of civilian DGUs, with estimates ranging from 108,000 (using the National Crime Victimization Survey) to 2.5 million (using smaller telephone surveys) per year. The numbers are not “made up out of thin air” but they are highly debatable.
I, for one, agree with TW Smith’s call for a truce in the DGU war — http://tinyurl.com/87qf2eo
Both sides raise what appear to me to be valid criticisms of the other side’s methodology. For example see http://tinyurl.com/3bd8tb
I, for one, suspect the real number fall between the two extremes.
If one is really interested just do a search on the DGU debate. Unless you are cherry picking you will end up with your head spinning, IMHO.
I think you statement @ #89
“I guess my end question is…of these crimes being “prevented” by the presence of a firearm, how many of them could – and probably would – have been prevented by some other means.”
is key to our different points of view.
So you also believe that the number of sexual assaults and rapes reported in the papers also cover all the sexual assaults and rapes that actually happen?
Coulda, woulda, shoulda is IMHO akin having a knife in a gun fight. As Kathy Jackson says on her great site http://tinyurl.com/dx2xhn
Some folks say the most dangerous place in the world is between a Mama Bear and her cubs. It may be so. I’ve never met a Mama Bear, myself.
The most dangerous place I ever stood was between a cornered cat and an open door.
When a cat feels threatened, she gets away from the danger as quickly as she can. She doesn’t care what damage she inflicts on her way to safety, but she’s not interested in fighting for fighting’s sake. She does only as much as she needs to do in order to escape. She doesn’t deal in revenge. If she feels threatened, she simply leaves. Efficiently.
Until she needs to use them, her claws stay sheathed. She doesn’t go around threatening to maul people. She’s cuddly, she’s cozy, she likes to curl up next to a crackling fire on a cold winter’s day. She’s great company.
But don’t try to trap her in a bad situation.
This site is about women and guns, not about cats. But in a way, it’s about the cornered cat in all of us. It’s about the determination to get away from an attacker if you need to. It’s about making the decision to say, “Not me. Not mine. Not today.” And it’s about the tools to make that decision stick.
I may not be a women, but her “Not me. Not mine. Not today” backed with the tool to make that decision stick is where I come from.
FWIIW, I believe the violent crime rate is under-reported.
I also believe the DGU is under-reported even more.
Kristen, I do respect that you are willing to be violently raped or murdered for what you believe in, but no one else should have to be raped or murdered for what you believe in. Yeah, there are these unintelligent and unfortunate stories of machismo that claim something along the lines of newspaper thieves being run off with a shotgun and that type of thing, but that really digresses from the current issue, that those who lawfully carry a handgun are among the most upright of the citizenry and we should not be seeking ways to fix what is not broken when there are so many other tragic deaths from so many other things. Oh, and you know as well as I do that in addition to legitimate crimes committed by armed criminals, sensationalizing a story by noting the mere presence of gun to an unrelated incident makes it a “gun crime” to the public after it is spun and subjectively presented. That sells a lot more newspapers and gets a lot more curious viewers to “tune in” than a story about a crime that didn’t happen because of the presence of a lawfully carried gun that didn’t need to be used.
“Kristen, one of the accepted facts of the number is that many of the incidents don’t get reported.”
So, it’s a made up number.
“Typically the appearance of the gun ends the incident.”
Again…what are we calling “incidents”? Are people carrying guns being accosted by violent offenders, muggers, car jackers whatever, scaring them off with the mere appearance of their gun….and it doesn’t occur to them to call the police and mention that there are perps out there running around and the cops might want to take a look? Is there some other reason the gun carrier might not call the police…for example, because they’re waving their gun around at anything they could personally construe as a provocation, but might get them at best laughed at, or at worst investigated themselves by law enforcement?
“So you also believe that the number of sexual assaults and rapes reported in the papers also cover all the sexual assaults and rapes that actually happen?”
No, but that has no bearing on gun ownership that I can see. To assume that the mere ownership of a gun is going to prevent these crimes is magical thinking.
You all seem to live in a world where you see a murderer or rapist behind every door, every salad bar, a carjacker in every garage. Mostly, I feel for you, but if you need to live your lives with your backs always to the wall feeling all safe because you’re carrying a gun, have at it. I consider people who look at a gun as a safety blanket as short-sighted as people who stick those stupid water-wings on their kids and let them run around the pool like they’re going to be safe from drowning because of them. Magical thinking, akin to Dumbo and his feather.
JohnWilburn, your fixation on my potential rape and murder is getting, shall I say, weird as hell, and you don’t need to “respect” anything about me because you don’t have the slightest idea who I am. Drop it, why don’t you.
#98 Kristen (and others), I’ve told this one before but I remember folks over on Free Republic talking about how they’d be at a gas station or coming out of a restaurant and they’d see somebody really suspicious (probably means they weren’t white) giving them the hairy eyeball and they’d give them the “I’m carrying” swagger or show them the gun butt and — bam — end of that “threat” or “potential crime.”
I never could figure out why these sort of threatening events had happened to every one of these guys several times, and yet has never happened to me even once in my life.
“So, it’s a made up number.”
No Kristen, it’s a number that came from carefully constructed surveys. This indicates that you still haven’t bothered to read the study or even its critiques.
“Again…what are we calling “incidents”? Are people carrying guns being accosted by violent offenders, muggers, car jackers whatever, scaring them off with the mere appearance of their gun….and it doesn’t occur to them to call the police and mention that there are perps out there running around and the cops might want to take a look? Is there some other reason the gun carrier might not call the police…for example, because they’re waving their gun around at anything they could personally construe as a provocation, but might get them at best laughed at, or at worst investigated themselves by law enforcement?”
READ THE DAMN RESEARCH:
“We asked DGU questions of all Rs in our sample, asking them separately about both their own DGU experiences and those of other members of their households. We used both a five year recall period and a one year recall period. We inquired about uses of both handguns and other types of guns, and excluded occupational uses of guns and uses against animals. Finally, we asked a long series of detailed questions designed to establish exactly what Rs did with their guns; for example, if they had confronted other humans, and how had each DGU connected to a specific crime or crimes.
“Each interview began with a few general “throat-clearing” questions about problems facing the R’s community and crime. The interviewers then asked the following question: “Within the past five years, have you yourself or another member of your household used a gun, even if it was not fired, for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere? Please do not include military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” Rs who answered “yes” were then asked: “Was this to protect against an animal or a person?” Rs who reported a DGU against a person were asked: “How many incidents involving defensive uses of guns against persons happened to members of your household in the past five years?” and “Did this incident [any of these incidents] happen in the past twelve months?” At this point, Rs were asked “Was it you who used a gun defensively, or did someone else in your household do this?”
“No, but that has no bearing on gun ownership that I can see. To assume that the mere ownership of a gun is going to prevent these crimes is magical thinking.”
It’s kind of hard to prevent a crime with a gun if you don’t own a freaking gun.
“You all seem to live in a world where you see a murderer or rapist behind every door, every salad bar, a carjacker in every garage.”
No I don’t, straw man, blah blah blah.
Again, Jason, I don’t believe that there are this many potentially violent offenders being scared off by someone whipping out their handy gun, driving them off, and then not bothering to mention to the police that a putative murdered/home invader/car jacker is out there.
Again, if this were happening 2 MILLION times a year, we’d be surrounded by it, stumbling over these abortive crimes in progress. SURELY something would make the papers, regardless of how self-effacting and modest these crime-fighting gun owners are.
The only people who should be using their guns this often, as a population, are cops and drug dealers. If you find that you’re so frequently needing to protect your life with a gun, maybe it’s time to reconsider your approach to your fellow man. Maybe you’re just pissing people off a lot.
I don’t come close to believing this, sorry. And my comment about gun ownership having no bearing on the underreporting of crime, you didn’t read.
gdad, you make my point exactly. Some guy wanders out into his backyard with his gun when he hears a sound, his dog barks, the raccoonhops out of the garbage can and…voila! Another rapist foiled by the gun.
I think that if you believe you need a gun to get through life, you’ll make up reasons to need a gun to get through life. For people who don’t need that, we don’t nee to make up a bunch of boogeymen.
Kristen, I am simply trying to understand the thought process of those who are anti-self defense. You question those who simply wish to survive violent crime and would rather chance it coming to you since it hasn’t hit you close enough to home. I hope you live a long, healty life. Part of my living a long healthy life is making sure that some murderer cannot end it for me for the few dollars in my pocket. It is interesting to debate with you as you are so highly opinionated as to the absolute value of your comfort level and how it trumps everyone else’s rights. It would have been interesting had you been around when free speech or civil rights for minorities were being hotly contested. Who knows, maybe if you were to have developed an illogical phobia of those rights, you’d have been screaming for their denial too. Please don’t talk about needing a gun to get through life, there are many people who were denied the option to get through life because the vocal few like you who don’t believe their life was worth defending since it makes you a bit uncomfortable. Thanks for letting me express my views on “your” blog. Kind regards, John
I typed up one of my standard point by point responses and then, because I’m stupid, I didn’t copy it and lost it to another CAPTCHA code malfunction. So I’m not going to do it again, but that’s ok, because I realized I can sum up your entire reasoning thusly:
“If I don’t see it, it ain’t happening.”
“Over a dozen peer-reviewed studies and surveys are wrong.”
“Every gun owner expects to be a crime victim everywhere he goes.”
The only other thing to say is that some of these incidents DO get in the paper. I’ve repeatedly posted links to these stories. The Armed Citizen has thousands collected.
Can one of the “gun free” supporters give an argument that isn’t based on fear? You call us all paranoid and wackos, yet I hear the same worn out fear based rhetoric all the time. “do we really want guns in the hands of: drunk, drugged out, stressed out, etc, college students who are going to pull a gun every time they: get in an argument, get a bad grade, break up with their gf/bf, get constipated, etc.” Can we stop stigmatizing CCW permit holders and unstable sociopaths who are a just a bad day away from turning into the next Seung-Hui Cho? There is no evidence supporting this notion that allowing people to carry guns increases crime rates or that stricter gun control lowers crime rates, in fact it often found to be the opposite. What difference is there between a college campus and anywhere else that a CCW permit holder is allowed to carry? And please don’t give me this crap about “colleges are supposed to be institutes of higher learning where students can engage in reasonable debate and blah blah blah and if guns were allowed then students would feel unsafe and would not be able to learn because they would be too worried about the guy sitting behind them with a gun.” Concealed carry is already allowed on over 100 campuses in the US yet students don’t seem to have any problems learning in these environments, and even more amazingly we aren’t plagued by news reports about how some stressed out student with a CCW snapped and shot his: teacher, classmates, best friend’s dog etc, or how some careless CCW permit holder had a negligent discharge and shot himself or someone else or about CCW permit holder’s getting drunk and having shootouts with the cops or how suicide rates have jumped or any other of these scenarios that I hear so much about that are going to happen if we allow guns on campuses. Meanwhile the strategy for keeping guns off campus is to put up signs and tighten gun control until it gets to the point that no one will be able to get a gun unless they get it illegally. “Gun free” zones haven’t done one bit of good to prevent violent crimes, rapes, or mass murders yet we keep holding onto the illusion that they somehow make us safe. Why? Because it’s simpler to make-believe that we are safe than to actually take measures to BE safe. If we pretend that bad things can’t happen on campus then we don’t have to think about those things (until the next VT) but if we allow guns on campus then someone might see one of them and that would remind us that the colleges don’t exist in a magical bubble that keeps us all safe from the dangers of the real world and sometimes people do bad things. We aren’t safe just because there’s a rule that says you can’t bring a gun on campus or a law that says you can’t kill people! Is it plausible that someone with bad intentions could get a CCW or that someone with a CCW could do bad things? Yes, and I’m sure it has happened, but the stats show that CCW holders are less likely to commit crimes than the average American. Does having a CCW enable someone in any way to commit a crime? NO! All a CCW permit does in allow a person to carry a weapon, so long as they do so lawfully and responsibly. If someone is going to break a law anyway and is willing to kill someone then they aren’t going to worry about whether or not the law allows them to carry. Does having a gun make me safe? No, but it gives me a fighting chance, which is something that Emily J. Hilscher, Ryan C. Clark, Minal Panchal, Gobichettipalayam V. Loganathan, Christopher James Bishop, Jarrett Lane, Brian Bluhm, Matthew Gwaltney, Jeremy Herbstritt, Partahi Lumbantoruan, Daniel O’Neil, Juan Ortiz, Julia Pryde, Waleed Shaalan, Lauren McCain, Michael Pohle Jr, Maxine Turner, Nicole White, Liviu Librescu, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, Ross Alameddine, Austin Cloyd, Daniel Perez Cueva, Caitlin Hammaren, Rachael Hill, Matthew La Porte, Henry Lee, Erin Peterson, Mary Karen Read, Reema Samaha, Leslie Sherman, or Kevin Granata ever had. I’m sure that those that survived that day felt really safe the next day and had no trouble learning in their “gun free” zone.
Sorry, NO! I will never consider “those who lawfully carry a handgun are among the most upright of the citizenry”when they say things like “I do respect that you are willing to be violently raped or murdered for what you believe in“. Seems closer to pond scum than “the most upright of the citizenry” to me.
There is a very good and legitimate reason that guns have a negative impression on many people and the use of guns, the proliferation of guns and the advocacy of guns has done so little to help with ANY of the real and underlying causes of crime that it is hard to believe that crime prevention is even their first goal.
Sandi, you might consider upgrading you dove picture to a sheep There have been many brave men and women in our military who have died for what they believed in. Putting your life to chance, however, is another story. Perhaps I was giving too much credit. I have determined that MY gun will help keep ME safe from violent crime. You may determine that YOUR philosophies will keep YOU safe. Your philosophies, however, have no right to trump my right or anyone else’s right to self defense. It seems I have inquired too far into the anti-rights’ side of their “logic” (a.k.a. emotion masquerading as logic) for their comfort and frightened them when it almost became apparent that they really are defenseless. I’m not advocating that you arm yourselves; I’m advocating that you and those disarmed against their will have the choice. You’re advocating that my life should be left to chance the effectiveness of your philosophies and that is unacceptable. “Pond scum” doesn’t make strong statements that make you think and sure doesn’t advocate for YOUR OWN RIGHTS; pond scum walks up to you at the ATM and kills you for the $20 bill in your hand. Pondering the extremes won’t hurt us.
ed #104: This is always so rich. Some of you can’t go to the grocery store without being armed and you say WE are the ones arguing from “worn out fear”? If the world is half as dangerous as you seem to believe, we are all martyrs and courageous beyond words to go into the Food Lion’s den unarmed, defenseless and a victim waiting to be killed or worse.
The arguments presented here have been fact based, researched and debated by cool heads and scientific methodologies. What “fear based rhetoric” have you read here?
Until we feel that the gun advocates are as serious about keeping guns out of the wrong, untrained and incompetent hands as we are, no, we will not stop questioning and confronting them over it. Why should we?
WTF is a “gun free supporter”? Who here has called for a gun free society? Who even believes that is possible?
Can you stop stigmatizing gun control supporters and realize it is the “unstable sociopaths who are a just a bad day away from turning into the next Seung-Hui Cho” that motivate us? I am not at all certain that there is a gun control measure that can lower crime rates as not all crimes involve guns. But the accidents, the fear of fools with guns? Yes, I believe that stronger gun control laws, like registration, tracking databases, and required training and proficiency being required before you can carry a gun concealed while in public will save lives and help us not feel like sitting damn ducks for criminals AND “well meaning” or self-serving vigilantes.
College campuses have traditionally been “gun free zones” and if indeed such places are “victim rich” the crime rates would bear that out and they would be among the most dangerous places to be….and yet…
Let’s get real, for the vast majority of machismo gun advocates and anti-government “freedom fighters”, carrying a gun and where you can carry it is about much more than your personal safety. You do not carry guns because you are afraid, you carry guns because you know it tweaks people you feel you are punking by doing so. The posts here often prove that.
What will make things better is for criminals and ___holes not to have access to guns but no one yet knows how to accomplish that.
Standing up to the crap flung in here does not make me a sheep. There have also been many brave men and women who spoke against the majority when their rights and feelings were being ignored. Those many brave men and women in the military and the leadership of this nation also fought for my right to speak whether it pleases you or not. What you said is disgusting and typical and I am very tired of having that thrown at us for our concern.
I am not concerned with your safety in any manner, but when your need for carrying a gun is coupled with freaking ridiculously lax gun laws, I should not have to sit next to you in a restaurant or share space with an angry time bomb just because you say you have rights. If you are so concerned for your safety, stay home and barricade yourself with every weapon you can afford to own. When you decide to come into society, there needs to be restraints on you and assurances for me or your rights are most certainly trampling mine.
“Sorry, NO! I will never consider “those who lawfully carry a handgun are among the most upright of the citizenry”when THEY say things like”
Emphasis mine. No Sandi, “they” didn’t say that, one person said it. I believe his point was that (oh god, here we go) legal carriers commit crime at far lower rates than the general population.
“the proliferation of guns and the advocacy of guns has done so little to help with ANY of the real and underlying causes of crime that it is hard to believe that crime prevention is even their first goal.”
Sort of like gun control.
#108 read far more like a diatribe written by “an angry time bomb” than the comments posted by the pro-freedom bloggers.
FWIIW, I agree that “underlying causes of crime” have not been addressed or as far as I know identified and understood.
What is ironic (and I am not attributing causation) crime has gone down as anti-RKBA laws have gone down.
What is, IMHO, even more ironic the current financial downward spiral has not correlated with an uptick in crime as “conventional wisdom” assumes.
Chart: Why crime falls when the economy goes down
Posted by Suzy Khimm at 11:49 AM ET, 09/27/2011
Here’s one bright spot from the recession: crime has steadily declined since 2007, despite rising unemployment and police budget cuts. In 2010, property crime in the United States dropped for the eighth year in a row, and violent crime fell by 6 percent, dropping for the fourth straight year. Researchers are still puzzling over the decline….
Drop in crime during sour economy ‘baffles” officials
Atlanta Business Chronicle by Carla Caldwell, Morning Call Editor
Date: Wednesday, September 21, 2011, 7:02am EDT
Crimes against people and property are down in Georgia and criminologists are puzzled. The latest crime reports showing the downward turn go against conventional wisdom that suggests crime spikes in a down economy, reports Georgia Public Broadcasting.
In Georgia, there were 39,072 violent crimes in 2010 compared to 42,073 the previous year, which represents a 7 percent drop. The decrease in property crime was 2.3 percent, GPB reports.
Professor emeritus of criminal justice at Georgia State University Robert Friedmann says he and colleagues aren’t sure what to make of the information.
“Frankly criminologists are a bit baffled by how is it that given the grave economic situation the crime statistics are not complementing it so to speak,” said Friedmann.
So, what do you think needs to be done to address the “underlying causes of crime”?
I do not care what his point was, if that is how he, or anyone else has to make it, THEY have lost the argument already as far as I am concerned. It always degenerates into that kind of crap.
Gun control being effective and being worthwhile are two different arguments IMO. I think that the background checks certainly have been worth doing, as is anything that makes it harder for a criminal or mentally ill person to get a gun. The rest of the so-called “infringing” laws can be argued but not that one IMO. OUR goal is to lower crime rates, make the gun carrying among us as safe as we can and keep guns out of the wrong hands, I do not think gun advocates share that goal and except for you I have seen few gun advocates who even bother to offer solutions.
Jason, I’ve never seen Shanghai. I have no doubt it exists.
“104.Can one of the “gun free” supporters give an argument that isn’t based on fear?”
Really…as “based on fear” as the “gotta have a gun” advocates?
” You question those who simply wish to survive violent crime.”
Wrong. Everyone wishes to survive violent crime. So far nothing indicates that carrying a gun makes that any more likely. In fact, as I posted above, carrying a gun makes you several times more likely to die by a gun.
“pond scum walks up to you at the ATM and kills you for the $20 bill in your hand. ”
So explain to me when your gun will come in handy here. You keep your loaded weapon at the ready in your pocket while getting cash? Start aiming at anyone who looks sketchy?
Wow, listen to Sandi. I said I was advocating for her rigths, but she sure sounds angry. Even angrier than Kristen. The anti-rigths people are always angry. I’d bet they get angry about everything else they don’t agree with too. I don’t agree with some of the taxes we pay, but I’m not angry about it…geez. No, it doesn’t treak her to know I carry. I usually carry concealed. On occasion I have heard in casual conversation with people talking about “people with guns.” They had no idea they were talking with someone armed. I guess they don’t realize that 1 in EVERY 29 people in Virginia carry. Concealed carry doesn’t allow them the opportunity of prejudice that unfortunately comes with open carrying. And as for sitting next to me in a restaurant, we have been allowed to carry concealed in restaurants for a year and a half now (crime has dropped 5% since BTW) and Sandi has probably sat next to me many a time unaware. All of it leads to: Why demonize the known good for fear they will turn bad, but then try to force the majority to accept the known bad. I guess the good are easier for you to “do something about” because we comply with the law whether we like a particular law or not. I’m getting this wrath from Sandi when we are both on the same side of wanting to prevent personal violence; I just disagree with the ultimately deal with it. There actually does comes a point when there is a last resort. Again, keep your utopian philosophies out of my holster, please.
The difference Dave Hicks #110, there is no worry that this “angry time bomb” will shoot you.
Didn’t that study you like to reference include criminals killing other criminals who had a gun, LEOs killing criminals who had a gun, armed law-abiding citizens killing criminals who had a gun, etc.
So, you might be right a criminal involved in illegal activity while carrying a gun may very well die at a higher rate that one who was unarmed.
OTOH, in some of those reported incidents an equal number of law-abiding folk likely survived because they were armed with an effective tool of self-defense.
The devil is in the details.
“Gun control being effective and being worthwhile are two different arguments IMO” Stand back! Sandi is calling for gun control regardless of how ineffective it has proven to be just so that she will feel in control of the situation and help fix what is not broken. No Kristin, I don’t just start pointing a gun at people that look sketchy. That’s absurd. Since I have an ACTUAL means of self defense, I don’t opt or need to profile people. I guess that is a paranoia-driven thing the defenseless do. The gun can be awfully handy once some criminal pulls a knife raises it up above me and asks for my money. I may not assume someone of that kind character will take the money, put the knife down, thank me, and then walk off and catch a movie with it. Thank goodness I’m not a VT or Radford Student and am not left only to hope as much.
Sandi, I have nothing personal against you whatsoever. Outside of this issue, you might be fun to be around. You do make a good point, though. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m opinionated, but also the most cool, even tempered person you’ll meet. Sandi is showing gratuitous anger, contempt for my rights and the constitution that affirms them, and presumably feels everyone is as angry as she is. She could care less about my clean background, substantial professional training and proficeincy, 26 years of experience with firearms, the fact that I’m a firearms instructor, or anything else. To her, I’m simply dangerous and unstable. Pure prejudice. Her quote speaks better for my assessment of both the anti-rights community and why we must protect our rights from people that think that way than anything I can come up with:
“I am not concerned with your safety in any manner, but when your need for carrying a gun is coupled with freaking ridiculously lax gun laws, I should not have to sit next to you in a restaurant or share space with an angry time bomb just because you say you have rights.”
“Until we feel that the gun advocates are as serious about keeping guns out of the wrong, untrained and incompetent hands as we are, no, we will not stop questioning and confronting them over it.”
But you don’t show you are serious. The gun control movement keeps proposing the same failed policies over and over. There are still major names in the gun control movement pushing for the reinstatement of the assault weapon ban for crying out loud. I’ll know the gun control movement is serious about keeping guns out of the wrong hands when they push heavily for:
*Stomping out as many straw purchases as possible
*Tighter penalties for gun using criminals
*Most importantly, push for the social change needed to reduce all crime
Instead, we keep getting the same idiocy:
*Close the gun show loophole (there is no loophole, and doing what they want to “close” it would have no effect on crime)
*Limits on magazine capacity
“But the accidents, the fear of fools with guns?”
Do you know how many people die of accidental gunfire? For the last year available, 2008, it was 592. Here’s some numbers on other accidental deaths:
With that many guns owned by that many people, what sort of training do you think would improve on a statistical blip like 592?
“Yes, I believe that stronger gun control laws, like registration,”
How will registration save lives?
These might be useful after someone gets shot. How do they save lives?
“and required training and proficiency being required before you can carry a gun concealed while in public will save lives”
The evidence for this?
“and help us not feel like sitting damn ducks for criminals AND “well meaning” or self-serving vigilantes.”
Wait, I thought we were the ones that were living in fear. I sure as hell don’t feel like a sitting duck anywhere, whether I’m carrying or not.
“Let’s get real, for the vast majority of machismo gun advocates”
And you wanted us to stop stigmatizing gun control people.
“and anti-government “freedom fighters”, carrying a gun and where you can carry it is about much more than your personal safety. You do not carry guns because you are afraid, you carry guns because you know it tweaks people you feel you are punking by doing so.”
Yes, I dropped $600 on a gun, $100 on a holster, $100 (and twelve hours of my life that I’ll never get back) on the required training course, a buck per round for my self defense ammo (practice ammo is a lot cheaper), and around $75 for the permit and fingerprinting all so I can tweak people over the internet. It sure as hell isn’t to tweak people I actually know, because almost none of them know I carry.
“What will make things better is for criminals and ___holes not to have access to guns but no one yet knows how to accomplish that.”
Straw purchases, longer prison terms, blah blah blah.
“When you decide to come into society, there needs to be restraints on you and assurances for me or your rights are most certainly trampling mine.”
My carrying has no impact on your life. You have a right to have irrational fears, you don’t have a right to impose them on everyone else. As has been said a million times, those of us who carry legally are far far less likely to shoot you than someone from the general public.
“Gun control being effective and being worthwhile are two different arguments IMO.”
Yes, one is an argument that makes sense having, while the other is a colossal waste of time.
“I think that the background checks certainly have been worth doing, as is anything that makes it harder for a criminal or mentally ill person to get a gun.”
I am too. And virtually none of what gun control proponents put up will do that. Background checks feel right and almost certainly aren’t counter productive, but there’s no reason to believe that they stop a significant number of criminals from getting guns.
“Jason, I’ve never seen Shanghai. I have no doubt it exists.”
A Dan Casey-esque finish to an argument you lost if I ever saw one. Bravo. You literally have not replied to a single counterpoint I put up.
“Wrong. Everyone wishes to survive violent crime. So far nothing indicates that carrying a gun makes that any more likely. In fact, as I posted above, carrying a gun makes you several times more likely to die by a gun.”
You cite a single hilariously flawed study. And there is plenty of evidence that resistance, with a gun or otherwise, reduces the risk of injury. But I’m sure that research doesn’t meet your tight scholarly standards.
“So explain to me when your gun will come in handy here. You keep your loaded weapon at the ready in your pocket while getting cash? Start aiming at anyone who looks sketchy?”
Look, I’m not the kind of gun owner who talks about blowing away pond scum, but (and correct me if I’m wrong), you seem to think that no one ever defends themselves with a gun. As I said, I’ve posted (and can do it again) links to news stories of people doing just that.
Thats great. More guns in the hands of crazy asian students! Guns are scary.
#117, “the most cool, even tempered person you’ll meet” would not insult anyone they disagree with by saying “I do respect that you are willing to be violently raped or murdered for what you believe in” and that is damned sure not “simply trying to understand the thought process of those who are anti-self defense”. You made your bed so stop acting like you are some innocent, logical, thoughtful “victim” here.
Bad argument — “Do you know how many people die of accidental gunfire?”
It’s convenient for the progunners, but you’ve gotta keep in mind that almost all the deaths from guns are NOT accidents. They’re intentional.
With hardly any exceptions, all of the deaths in cars, and all drownings, are accidental. Few if any are intentional. That’s why you shouldn’t compare them.
“you’ve gotta keep in mind that almost all the deaths from guns are NOT accidents. They’re intentional.”
If they’re intentional, folk must be hitting what they are shooting at. So, why your repeated rants about CHP holders needing hands-on-training, government designed-required-proficiency-testing, etc?
FWIIW, even for the accidents (I prefer the term “Negligent Discharges”, BTW), I doubt that training will help much. Most “knew” better. IMHO, Negligent Discharges are more about stupidity than ignorance.
You can’t fix stupid — at less not with training, IMHO.
Ditto death in cars, do you think those DUI drivers didn’t know that driving under the influence was stupid? Do you think that was a lack of knowledge that training would fix? Speeders didn’t know speeding was dangerous? Do you think that was a lack of knowledge that training would fix that? Tailgating? Running lights / stop signs? Etc?
New York State Police show that the following factors (in order) cause the most accidents – and all of them are under the driver’s control:
Unsafe or too-frequent lane changing
Not using turn signals
Not yielding the right of way
Ignoring traffic signals
Driving while impaired by alcohol or chemicals.
Which of these accidental, in the sense of unforeseeable, unavoidable, etc? IMHO, they are practiced with full prior knowledge of the correct procedures. So, how did mandatory training work out there?
You should pay attention Dan. It’s the anti-gunners here who are citing accidental gun deaths, which you yourself acknowledge as being only a very small percentage of gun deaths, as a reason the average person should not be allowed ot have a gun. You’re underminging the argument of your own side.
For those of you who claim someone who has a gun “lives in constant fear”, do you have a smoke detector in your home? If so, do you live in constant fear of fire? How about a spare tire or a flashlight? If so, clearly you must live in constant fear of flat tires and the dark.
“For those of you who claim someone who has a gun “lives in constant fear”, do you have a smoke detector in your home?”
OK so now some gunners on here are trying to argue that smoke detectors and handguns are pretty much the same thing. That is how weak their arguments have become. . .
Sandi, I asked that poster directly if she would be willing to use a handgun if it were available to save her own life or prevent her own rape at the very moment of peril and as a very last resort. She said “No.” That is a sincere conviction. I suppose she would be willing to be a martyr in the name of distancing herself from handguns. I respect that level of conviction whether it is what I believe or not. It’s a tough, graphic question, but certainly fair to ask of the smart people discussing this issue where we talk in absolutes as we see them. Provocative discussion can’t always sound nice. That’s why I tolerate the way you speak of me despite not knowing me. Do you yell at your computer as you type?
#123 Yeah, Chuck, those smoke detectors require all that maintenance. And then there’s the need to practice with them all the time so you’ll stay sharp and be able to use them right when the time comes. And then you have to carry them with you everywhere you go to remain protected. And then there’s always the chance they’ll be stolen from you and used in crimes.
Those smoke detectors and guns, they’re real comparable.
When was the last time you heard of someone being shot by a spare tire or a flashlight? And I don’t carry my spate tire, smoke alarm, or flashlight with me into public places and restaursnts and make sure I don’t sit with my back to the entrance so I can use them against whoever comes through the door> What a stupid argument that was;.
#122 They’re all fairly unavoidable when it’s the other person doing them, Dave.
A few simple questions:
1) Do you believe it should be against the law for CHP holders to drink alcohol and carry?
2) Do you believe the state of Virginia should be issuing CHPs to a person who has never touched a handgun in his or her life? If the answer is yes, please tell us why.
3) Do you believe people should be able to concealed carry WITHOUT any permit, a la Arizona, Alaska and Vermont. If the answer is yes, is it rooted in the Second Amendment, or in some other reasoning?
Dan, slightly off-topic. Was there ever any information released about the ATF’s raid on P.S.S, the old On Target?
John W. The rape thing is getting weird, M’Kay? She’s already told you once.
1. I personally don’t drink a drop and know that most permit holders are mindful of their lawful alcohol consumption. Publically, it is already illegal to carry while intoxicated, but legal to consume alcohol while open carrying. I don’t believe the carrier becomes any less responsible whether he or she is carrying open or concealed. I don’t think open carrying is a decent way for a bartender to police serving a patron anyway because it is far easier to NOT notice someone open carrying than many would have you believe. In fact, a person on-the-fence about gun rigths spoke with an open carrier for 15 minutes last Thursday while we were in front of Squires at Virginia Tech and never even noticed she was carrying until they were about to say goodbye. Also, it is already legal for Commonwealth Attorneys, Assistant Commonwealth Attorneys, and police (on or OFF duty) to drink while carrying concealed. I do not believe in the double standard offered to government employees and think that the government should either trust all of us or none of us. Since, regardless of law, anyone physically CAN stick a gun in their pocket and go get lit, a law prohibiting even responsible consumption while carrying won’t prevent true criminals. As for those who might develop criminal intent after they get intoxicated, that’s not something I’m going to speculate on. It’s already against the law to commit crimes with a gun, people know the laws and consequenses when they put on the holster before even going out. I personally lean toward liberty on this one even though it will not affect me.
2. With no permit needed to open carry, what’s the real difference? By and large, the only people who have obtained a CHP without EVER handling a gun are the anti-rights people who are trying to prove that it can be done. I know more concealed handgun permit holders than the average person and don’t know even one who has never handled a gun. I want to clear up a misconception perpetuated by the antis: the bulk of permit holders are not made up of people who have 90 minute online classes. That is an extremely small fraction. Most all carriers seek to know more than the minimum. Many of us are active or retired military or police or instructors or long-time sport shooters and the like. While some of the classes are 3 1/2 hour lecture and handling drills only, most of the classes available have range time, handling proficiency drills, and shooting exercises even though it is not a statutory requirement to do so in Virginia. While I recommend everyone should do some shooting practice before getting their permit, in the interests of liberty, I’m personally okay with the online alternative for the class part if for no other reason than what we have is not broken and we don’t need to fix. The great responsibility of carrying a firearm is addressed by each individual before ever taking the class. Certainly a criminal won’t sit down to take even an online class to learn the law.
3. Yes, I support constitutional carry and think it is aptly named. Don’t forget that Wyoming no longer requires a permit either. The state-issued permission slip does not, in itself, impart responsibility (see 2.). Bear in mind, the 275,428 Virginia CHP holders won’t throw the permits in the air like mortarboards the minute constitutional carry passes here. I anticipate most wanting to keep the additional benefits like recognition and/or reciprocity with 29 other states (and growing), being able to purchase more than one gun per month from a dealer (yep, we still have that ineffective 1993 law), being free from the various long gun restrictions in cities with populations over 160,000, being able to carry in the General Assembly Building in Richmond, campus carry in buildings (like we did all day Thursday without the slightest alarm or incident), etc.
Chuck, this thread will not tolerate logical comparisons between guns and anything else. I tried that once too, but they can’t see where the smoke detector you passively live with that is there to help you preserve your own life in the event of a totally unexpected threat against your life has anything to do with a the gun you passively carry to preserve your own life in the event of a totally unexpected threat against your own life.
For folks that do not understand why we carry, apparently they don’t view guns as the piece of pure defense like you or I might. That would make a big difference.
“Slightly off-topic. Was there ever any information released about the ATF’s raid on P.S.S, the old On Target?”
Art, haven’t heard anything about it since it happened. Not surprising, given that federal cases usually wind up before a grand jury and months can go buy before any indictments (and you rarely, if ever, hear anything when there’s not one).
Art, we won’t speak of rape: Therefore it is not a concern.
Now, want to talk about wierd… my Virginia CHP is good in 30 states scattered about at random throughout the country with no discernable rhyme or reason unless you know each states litany of codes and requrements. To carry in Georgia where I have family, my Virginia permit is not accepted, but I mailed a copy of my Virginia permit to New Hampshire (where I have never set foot in my life) and got a NH permit by mail which is recognized in Georgia. I also can’t carry concealed in Nevada with my Virginia permit, but the West Virginia permit, which one can obtain with the class I teach is accepted there. I can’t get the West Virginia permit because they don’t issue to non-residents even though I have a second dwelling there. Under federal law, so long as I have a CHP issued in the same state as the school, I could work the lunch line, teach gym class, go to a PTA meeting, or otherwise hang out in an elementary school while open carrying, but would be committing a felony to even drive within 1,000 feet of that same school if my permit was from another state.
The only way to get people to follow the whole CHP reciprocity fiasco ball of yarn to the end is to tell them up front that gun control does not make sense.
“As I said, I’ve posted (and can do it again) links to news stories of people doing just that.”
And I can post “links” to stories of kids finding guns and shooting eachother, shooting themselves, shooting their parents. How about that father who didn’t know his daughter was home and shot her dead in the closet? I’m happy to trot that one out.
My comment about Shanghai was the exact answer to your charge that I don’t believe in things I haven’t personally seen. It was a more polite way of stating that the entire concept of “2 million” (hey, why not 2 zillion, 2 squadrillion) crimes are being prevented – every year – by good, better-than-the-average-person gun owners. It’s bull****. Better? And you pick and choose the studies you like, but that’s pretty common.
And I don’t think that people with guns never, ever save themselves using those guns, because that doesnt make sense either. Like everything else, it’s a cost/benefit analysis.
“132.Chuck, this thread will not tolerate logical comparisons between guns and anything else.”
Because there are none. Pardon us if we don’t spend time debating whether or not it’s possible to kill someone with a kumquat if so inclined,or that keeping a fire extinguisher under the sink poses the same level of potential threat that a gun does. There is no analogy to guns and the danger they pose that holds up, unless you’re talking about a cannon or something.
“By and large, the only people who have obtained a CHP without EVER handling a gun are the anti-rights people who are trying to prove that it can be done. ”
And do so successfully.
@Sandi Saunders: “I should not have to sit next to you in a restaurant or share space with an angry time bomb just because you say you have rights. If you are so concerned for your safety, stay home and barricade yourself with every weapon you can afford to own.”
Same statement could be flipped around the other way. If you’re scared, you should stay home.
@Sandi Saunders: “The difference Dave Hicks #110, there is no worry that this “angry time bomb” will shoot you.”
How do we know that?
@Dan Casey: “OK so now some gunners on here are trying to argue that smoke detectors and handguns are pretty much the same thing. That is how weak their arguments have become. . .”
I agree they are FAR from the same thing. But, they do represent the same thing… the “resolution” to some kind of fear.
Someone carries a gun because they fear something? Maybe. Someone installs a smoke detector because they fear something? Sure, maybe. Spare tire… of course.
It’s not that they are the same thing. It’s what they represent.
So, Dan, do you have smoke detectors in your home? Do you constantly live in fear of a fire?
Unless you “passively carry” a smoke detector, fire extinguisher, flashlight or spare tire on your person there is no comparison. Gun defense in your home is a totally different situation than carrying a concealed gun in public among people who have no idea they could be in the cross-hairs of some shoot-out any moment. And don’t bother trying to say “the odds of that happening…” because the odds of you “needing” that gun are just as unlikely and yet you do. Funny how our supposed “paranoia” is so easy for you to see but your own is invisible to you.
1. Are “most permit holders” “mindful” of the fact that criminals are almost never up in the Kroger, Applebee’s or Outback raping, robbing and assaulting people? “Most” people are not criminals at all, does that mean none of them are? Of course not, what a stupid analogy.
How often is a policeman convenient to stop the drunk who is about to drive? Well that is exactly how often they will be convenient to the concealed gun carrier who consumes alcohol and does something stupid or illegal.
2. “With no permit needed to open carry, what’s the real difference?” I can see you and avoid you at will. It is that simple. I do not trust you, I do not know if you are competent, stable and calm or looking for your victim. It is fair warning and I think we deserve it if the permitting for concealed carry is going to be a freaking joke, as it is in too many states. Statistics do not prove you need a gun in public. They simply do not.
3. Where does it say ANYWHERE in the Constitution that you can carry your gun concealed from view? Even if you support “constitutional carry”, that does not have to mean we all get tricked into sitting near a gun toting person afraid to be in public unarmed. Since there is no statistical need, there is more hubris, arrogance and machismo associated with carrying a concealed weapon than there is need in most cases.
#139 “…because the odds of you “needing” that gun are just as unlikely and yet you do.”
Nice point, Sandi. If you’re going to trot out the old odds argument, trot it out both ways.
I don’t know anyone who feels they have right to protect themself from violence that comes to their home, but not to protect themself from violence that comes to them in their car or violence that comes to them in a parking lot or wherever else. Whether at home, at work, or wherever else, I will have that same last resort of last resort, a handgun, whether the anti-rights folks are okay with it or not.
They will not tell me my life is okay to defend at home (even though they speak against castle doctrine), but then tell me that my discreet responsible carry to protect myself when I’m out is not because they are uncomfortable with our rights. My life and that of my family will not be left to chance to follow the far in the minority philosophies of two people on this blog.
At their peak, only 18 people came to oppose the VCDL and their fellow students, the Libertarians at VT, at Squires. There were at least 100 of us with most of the passersby supporting us. I personally handed out several hundred Gun Save Lives stickers and was very well received. So much for being the few pushing carry onto that campus. The majority want their rights.
I like how Kristin’s comfort level is sacred, but our basic human right to self defense is “a cost/benefit analysis.”
@138 and etc. Jack, I don’t watch this blog over the weekend but I want to say that I have no issue with speed limits. I have fire detectors in my home. I don’t believe either one of those issues is actually comparable to the issue at hand. I really think you are stretching here.
And Jason, thanks for listing the restrictions that you are comfortable with. I appreciate that.
Sandi, I don’t carry a spare tire for my car on my person because it has never had an emergency flat tire that needed changing while I am about my business a thousand feet away in some building. The comparison discrepancy can go both ways here.
Do you think I should not be allowed to carry concealed? I’ve stated that I have a checked-clean background, lots of professional training (like real firearm schools and training drills with live fire…not an online course) and many years of experience and teach. With a right to self defense and the constitution to affirm our right to bear arms being a seperate issue for a brief second, do you think that I as a person am not qualified to carry? If so, what standard must someone meet to lawfully carry in Sandi’s world (if you made the rules that is)?
Over and over on these thread, we have heard from Jason, Dave Hicks and others, that CHP holders are much more law abiding than the general public (even though they are far from perfect, no question about it, and there are hundreds of people dead in the last four years because of a relatively few of those permit holders).
Now we have John Wilburn here, saying he supports the right of everyone to concealed carry without a permit.
If it’s true that concealed carriers are more responsible and less prone to violent acts, it’s not because they’re carrying. It’s because they’re regulated, and they’ve been checked out before the state grants them the permit.
So what do you reckon will happen if JW gets his way, and everyone is allowed to CC w/o a permit?
“I like how Kristin’s comfort level is sacred, but our basic human right to self defense is “a cost/benefit analysis.”
I like it too…something we have in common!
“Where does it say ANYWHERE in the Constitution that you can carry your gun concealed ” sandi
where does it say we cant
Sandi, Ouback is “gun-free zone” because it has a corporate policy prohibiting lawful carry. Our laws already make EVERY restaurant a crime-free zone by making crime illegal. if the Outback holds 200 people, then on average, 6 permit holders would be in there, disarmed of course by policy. Attention criminals: Outback asks its guests to disarm…for your protection.
How ofen is a policeman around to prevent crime… well… gee… I guess we agree on that one.
You do not trust me. I love the warm and fuzzy open-mindedness. Do you trust cops who open carry? They have a tragic and well publicized bad-apple streak going now.
Nope, nothing that happens to anyone else satisfies Sandi’s burden of proof for the late victims’ one-time need.
Where does it say in the constitution that we can’t carry concealed. It does inconveniently say that our right shall not be infringed. Government may limit our rights, but it does not grant them.
Where on earth is the machismo associated with concealed carry!? I never get a second look while carrying concealed and want to keep it that way. it’s not your business that I’m carrying and since you cannot handle the image of my gun if it’s outside the waistband, I just have it inside the waistband. Your problem is now solved… oh yes, your *actual* problem is now solved.
I hope that you will be lobbying the General Assembly this spring. It will add all the more clarity and credibility to my efforts.
And she affirmed it! A statement to which I can add nothing:
147.“I like how Kristin’s comfort level is sacred, but our basic human right to self defense is “a cost/benefit analysis.”
Kristin’s “right” to not be offended TRUMPS your “privilege” of defending yourself.
I’ve shot a 12 gauge at traps before. The pointy-headed liberal snerts in here –both men and women–are afraid of firearms and wouldn’t know which end to point out. That’s the real reason for their anti-gun crusade.
Hubby snickers at his ex-employee in here who blabbers on about “Glocks”. He wouldn’t know a glock from a clock.
Notwithstanding the fact that criminals don’t follow the rules, I’m not advocating for anyone’s right to carry who doesn’t already have it. I just don’t think the state-issued permission slip is the ultimate barrier between who can carry outside the waistband and who had the choice to carry inside or outside of the waistband. Let’s be real here. Anyone CAN carry concealed whther they have permit or not. Alaska used to require a permit to carry concealed, but not anymore, ditto for Arizona and Wyoming. Vermont has never had one to my knowledge. Virginia and other states are thinking of no longer requiring theirs. If crime waves happened in any of these places as a result of dropping the requirement, there would be more and more states following suit. Yes, the permit holders are a good-guy bunch, but there are many other good people who don’t have or want a permit, but still may carry if allowed. It’s not the permit itself that makes for the good citizen.
There was all of this fear about what would happen if carry should be allowed if state parks, state forests, restaurants that serve alcohol, National Parks, and none of it happened. Constitutional carry will be just another in the series of much ado about nothing.
John W, it is not that we think your life “is okay to defend at home”, it is that we are not at your home and whatever you do or do not do there is not our problem until you bring it out in public with you. I have (and will use) guns at my own home, for self-protection should the need ever arise (it never has and I am 53). I am not anti-gun, anti-freedom, or anti-carry. I AM anti stupidity and the Virginia as well as some other states idea of who is OK to carry a concealed weapon in public leaves much to be desired and I have no compunction in saying so and taking the crap that causes me to take.
YOUR supposedly “discreet responsible carry” does nothing one way or the other for the issue. The system is the problem. YOU can guarantee your competence, stability, competence with a weapon all day long, it means nothing to me. Why do only YOU get to be “comfortable” in public places? Who says your right to carry a concealed weapon is more important than my right to not be around armed individuals? If the issue were all of you against “two people on this blog”, we would not be having this conversation! How utterly absurd. My life as an unarmed customer is no more left to chance than yours, the statistics are on my side.
I do not think ANYONE who has not demonstrated need, competency and proficiency should EVER be allowed to carry a concealed gun in public places. What you “state” is as valuable to me as your offensive statement about victims.
Police officers in uniform have guns where I can see them and trust me I avoid them whenever possible, I do not trust them or look to them to “protect” me either.
The statistics do not bear out your damned “need” and armed people are killed every day. If someone carried an umbrella, rain or shine, day in day out, everywhere they went, you too would laugh at them and call them paranoid (or worse).
No, it does not say in the Constitution that you can’t carry concealed, nor does it say you can. Therefore we have the debate. Duh! If the government does not “grant” rights, by what authority can it take them away?
“Where on earth is the machismo associated with concealed carry!?” In just about every post from a gun advocate. I do not expect you to see it, but the very idea that you and your family are subject to some unforeseen danger that the rest of us poor bastards are too dumb to see is freaking weird.
It IS my business if I live in a neighborhood with a sex offender but not my business if I am sitting next to an armed person? How is it that your rights trump mine?
I can “handle the image” of your gun, you SHOULD have to carry it where all of us, including those criminals you are afraid of, can see it and we can all steer clear.
I will indeed be “lobbying the General Assembly” and anywhere else I can do so when I find gun control laws that make sense to me and that I think will save lives. I am well aware it is a wasted effort as the cowboys run the town, but I will make the effort because it is the right thing to do. Your “efforts” will always lack “clarity and credibility” if anyone looks at the statistics. Guns are votes and that is all that matters.
Per Sandi, “[in regards to the validity of needing a permit ???] I can see you and avoid you at will. It is that simple. I do not trust you, I do not know if you are competent, stable and calm or looking for your victim. It is fair warning and I think we deserve it if the permitting for concealed carry is going to be a freaking joke, as it is in too many states. Statistics do not prove you need a gun in public. They simply do not.”
Guilty until proven innocent, courtesy of Sandi. There is no question as to why the public is gravitating toward our position.
Oh, and like someone open carrying is even looking for a victim, much less their next victim. I can’t even make these kind of stretches of the imagination up. They continue to make our side look good.
No I agree that someone who is “open carrying” is not at all likely to be looking for trouble, a victim or anything other than protection and deterrence. THAT I respect, and it should never require a permit. It looks pretty silly in a crowd but it is certainly honest and more than fair notice.
I cannot possibly do a better job for our side than Sandi…
“YOU can guarantee your competence, stability, competence with a weapon all day long, it means nothing to me.”
What about the police?
“the statistics are on my side.”
275,428 people don’t agree. Maybe 18 I saw Thursday do.
“I do not think ANYONE who has not demonstrated need, competency and proficiency should EVER be allowed to carry a concealed gun in public places.”
“Police officers in uniform have guns where I can see them and trust me I avoid them whenever possible, I do not trust them or look to them to “protect” me either.”
Oh, you answered that!
“Duh! If the government does not “grant” rights, by what authority can it take them away?”
I’ve been wondering that for years!
““Where on earth is the machismo associated with concealed carry!?” In just about every post from a gun advocate. I do not expect you to see it”
I don’t expect you to see the invisible green space alient behind you either, but KNOW it is there…LOL.
“It IS my business if I live in a neighborhood with a sex offender but not my business if I am sitting next to an armed person? How is it that your rights trump mine?”
Since when did we become sex offenders?
“I can “handle the image” of your gun, you SHOULD have to carry it where all of us, including those criminals you are afraid of, can see it and we can all steer clear.”
If that were a guarantee, I’d open carry all the time from now on!
“I will indeed be “lobbying the General Assembly” and anywhere else I can do so when I find gun control laws that make sense to me and that I think will save lives.”
I hope you have plenty of time to wait.
“Guns are votes and that is all that matters.”
Yep, they’re finally getting the message.
“Bad argument — “Do you know how many people die of accidental gunfire?”
It’s convenient for the progunners, but you’ve gotta keep in mind that almost all the deaths from guns are NOT accidents. They’re intentional.”
I was answering a specific concern regarding gun accidents. I think you know that I know that most gun deaths aren’t accidents.
“With hardly any exceptions, all of the deaths in cars, and all drownings, are accidental. Few if any are intentional. That’s why you shouldn’t compare them.”
Again Dan, I was talking about gun accidents due to the subject being brought up. Also, if a death is intentional, by definition it is not an accident. That is part of the categorization on the CDC site.
And once corrected on this point, you ignored it and skipped to the next one:
“OK so now some gunners on here are trying to argue that smoke detectors and handguns are pretty much the same thing. That is how weak their arguments have become.”
They are tools used to reduce the risk of death or injury in the rare event of certain disasters. And you ignored the point of the comparison anyway. We are continually called paranoid and living in fear because we carry. It’s legitimate to ask why you or anyone else wears a seat belt, has fire extinguishers, etc., when you know those are rare events. What, are you terrified of a house fire? If not, why bother with those devices?
“If it’s true that concealed carriers are more responsible and less prone to violent acts, it’s not because they’re carrying. It’s because they’re regulated, and they’ve been checked out before the state grants them the permit.”
“If” it’s true?! You know it’s true! And the reason we bring that up is in answer to people being afraid of us rather than criminals. That’s the whole point, we aren’t the ones to be afraid of. Accidentally or intentionally, your likelihood of being shot by a legal carrier is so vanishingly small as to be virtually non-existent.
“And I can post “links” to stories of kids finding guns and shooting eachother, shooting themselves, shooting their parents.”
You skipped the point. You seem to think of armed self defense as being a fantasy. I was pointing out that it is a regular occurrence and could provide you with links. I don’t need to be told that accidents are real (though they are far far less common than defensive gun uses, as I pointed out in my response to Sandi).
“How about that father who didn’t know his daughter was home and shot her dead in the closet? I’m happy to trot that one out.”
How about the elderly woman who was raped in her own home, worked with the police, and despite increased patrols around her home, her rapist returned a few weeks later. She had to shoot him.
“every year – by good, better-than-the-average-person gun owners. It’s bull****. Better? And you pick and choose the studies you like, but that’s pretty common.”
Dodging again. I pointed out that a DOZEN studies and surveys have similarly huge numbers. No response from you. No actual criticism of the research, just that you don’t believe it. This is the same as a creationist hand-waving all of the evidence for evolution.
“And I don’t think that people with guns never, ever save themselves using those guns, because that doesnt make sense either. Like everything else, it’s a cost/benefit analysis.”
But you are unwilling to use the relevant data to do that analysis.
“Because there are none. Pardon us if we don’t spend time debating whether or not it’s possible to kill someone with a kumquat if so inclined,or that keeping a fire extinguisher under the sink poses the same level of potential threat that a gun does.”
Straw man. No one said a fire extinguisher poses a risk.
“There is no analogy to guns and the danger they pose that holds up, unless you’re talking about a cannon or something.”
It’s not about danger, it’s about utility, and the idea that having a gun means you are constantly in fear of violent crime.
“Unless you “passively carry” a smoke detector, fire extinguisher, flashlight or spare tire on your person there is no comparison.”
Again, the comparison is apt when applied to the proper context. We are accused of living in fear due to our carrying a tool. We are asking if you are living in fear due to your use of different tools. House fires are very rare, I’ve never had one in my life. Am I living in fear because I have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers?
“in public among people who have no idea they could be in the cross-hairs of some shoot-out any moment.”
This is every bit as hysterical a fear as the paranoid gun owner who fears every person with brown skin. Go ahead and see how many stories you can find where a defensive gun use resulted in a third party being hurt.
“Statistics do not prove you need a gun in public. They simply do not.”
And what do the statistics prove about your fear of being shot by a legal carrier?
AHAHAHAHA! And WE’RE the paranoid ones?! Wow.
Do I really need to do this? You honestly don’t see the difference? Ok, here it is: the sex offender has already been convicted of a crime and the nature of his offense (so the argument goes) necessitates knowledge of his whereabouts. The legal carrier not only hasn’t been convicted of a crime, he also poses statistically less risk to you than a random non-carrier.
Oddly enough John Wilburn, I think that I cannot possibly do a better job for our side than you do!
“In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide
There were an estimated 403.6 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010”
Now statistically that means that in a nation of 307 million 0.5% of people were involved in a violent crime. Less than 1%! So do not pretend you NEED to carry a gun in public. You simply cannot demonstrate that need across the board.
Even if we believe your “survey” and grant that another 2 million “violent” crimes are prevented by concealed carry (and I do not), that is still just 1% of the population.
Even the Gallup survey finds only 2% of the population claimed to be victims of “violent Crime” in 2007 and everyone agrees crime is down since then.
No, you cannot prove need, you cannot prove efficacy, you cannot prove your rights trump ours so you go for the browbeating and public bouts of machismo. It is what it is.
Yes, you prove my case nicely and I appreciate it very much. You may win, but that is not the same as being right.
What about police officers not in uniform? A Secret Service agent came to my house a few years ago to ask me about someone for a background check. I did not see his gun. Sure, he’s not in uniform, but would you be scared of him at your door?
“No, it does not say in the Constitution that you can’t carry concealed, nor does it say you can.”
It doesn’t need to say the he can. If you believe that is the case, you are misunderstanding how laws work in our country. Laws aren’t created to say what you can do. They are created to say what you cannot do. Anything that is not illegal, is legal. That is how our system works.
“It IS my business if I live in a neighborhood with a sex offender but not my business if I am sitting next to an armed person?”
Actually, I disagree. It is none of your business if you live in a neighborhood with a sex offender.
Where were you last week on Thursday? The pro gun folks outnumbered the anti-campus carry folks 5:1 at Virginia Tech. Heck… even carrying INSIDE the student center building. Nobody was hurt. I cannot believe it.
“THAT I respect, and it should never require a permit. It looks pretty silly in a crowd but it is certainly honest and more than fair notice.”
When one exercises their right, “fair notice” to other people is not required.
This is true. Generally someone who wants to get elected takes a pro-gun stance.
“no worry that this “angry time bomb” will shoot you.”
“And then there’s always the chance they’ll be stolen from you and used in crimes.”
When was the last time you heard of someone being shot by a spare tire or a flashlight?
“And I can post “links” to stories of kids finding guns and shooting eachother, shooting themselves, shooting their parents. How about that father who didn’t know his daughter was home and shot her dead in the closet? I’m happy to trot that one out.”
“I do not trust you, I do not know if you are competent, stable and calm or looking for your victim.”
Sure sounds like fear driven comments / thinking to me.
“Funny how our supposed “paranoia” is so easy for you to see but your own is invisible to you.”
Hum. A pot calling the kettle…?
Definition of PARANOIA
: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others
Definition of PREPARE
a : to make ready beforehand for some purpose, use, or activity b : to put in a proper state of mind
: to work out the details of : plan in advance
a : to put together : compound b : to put into written form
: to get ready
IMHO, my insurance, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, spare-tires (not the one around my waist, BTW), etc (and yes firearms) are in place to make ready beforehand for some purpose, use, or activity; to put in a proper state of mind; to work out the details of plan in advance; to get ready.
IMHO, it’s taking responsibility. It is not based on excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others. It is being responsibly prepared. My home is paid for. I have the freedom to insure it or not. I chose to rather than take the chance that an highly unlikely event might have catastrophic results. Same thought process as to carrying a defensive firearm in case of a different highly unlikely event that might also have catastrophic results.
As always YMMV.
Yes, I believe in freedom.
I have no desire to deny you freedom to not carry. I’d be happy to see laws requiring insurance, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers, spare-tires etc appealed, also.
What I don’t understand is some folk’s desire to restrict others’ freedom.
“156.I cannot possibly do a better job for our side than Sandi…”
Don’t be disheartened…maybe you just need to try harder.
So is the argument that handguns prevented more violent crimes than actually occurred? (prevented 2 million, vs, the 1.25 million that occurred).
That is truly hard to swallow.
Dave Hicks, it is the gun carry wherever I go folks who embody the paranoia you define, not the fearless souls who do not. he statistics for crime do not bear any resemblance to need for a gun wherever you are for the vast and overwhelming majority. The crime statistics are on my side of the concealed carry argument, hands down.
Jack thanks for this response to my point “It IS my business if I live in a neighborhood with a sex offender but not my business if I am sitting next to an armed person?”
Actually, I disagree. It is none of your business if you live in a neighborhood with a sex offender.” I agree completely but wanted to point out the warning that they have to have that gun criminals do not. Where is the fairness in that?
Agreed Dan, that is why the statistics do not add up and the analogy of the aliens comes clearer as you think about it.
“It’s not about danger, it’s about utility, and the idea that having a gun means you are constantly in fear of violent crime.”
No, it is about danger, and it’s about the ludicrous proposition that walking around with an “inanimate object” like a gun poses no different risk than walking around with any OTHER “inanimate object”. If guns truly are nothing but inanimate objects that no one should be concerned about, why not walk around with a candle stick?
“Actually, I disagree. It is none of your business if you live in a neighborhood with a sex offender.”
Really? A registered sex offender was giving out candy in our neighborhood with return address labels in the baggie. I bet when your kid is old enough to be out in the world without you and your gun, you’ll be a little more interested in what sex offenders are out there.
“But you are unwilling to use the relevant data to do that analysis.”
I’ve looked at the data and I don’t want anything to do with gun ownership.
Dave Hicks, I will give you a moment to rethink this one, “What I don’t understand is some folk’s desire to restrict others’ freedom“. Really? You don’t “get” that? You have no clue even? Really? That is your story and you are going to stick to it?
Let’s try these numbers for starters:
“There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000”
Because we care that so many people are killed, either by their own hands or the hands of others, gun control is needed. Like a lot of other laws and restrictions, it may not be fair, but fair bows to need when push comes to shove.
Now, if you fellas want to talk about what you and your organizations are doing to fight the causes of crime, the proliferation of guns in crime, the theft, misuse, abuse or “law-abiding” right up until he wer’nt, the offensive use, accidents or meaningful controls on concealed carry permits, we can manage to be on the same side for that brief span of time.
“Where were you last week on Thursday? The pro gun folks outnumbered the anti-campus carry folks 5:1 at Virginia Tech. Heck… even carrying INSIDE the student center building. ”
I dunno…just a guess…anti-campus carry “folks” aren’t emotional cannibals exploiting the grief of strangers to score some idiotic political point. But I couldn’t say for sure.
“Oddly enough John Wilburn, I think that I cannot possibly do a better job for our side than you do!”
If your “side” ever organizes enough for an event, I’d be glad to come and speak to the crowd of 3. Antis are becoming more and more like the “occupy” thing. Sandi, embrace logic and flee!
“No, you cannot prove need”
People with pulses cannot demonstrate need to Sandi. We are all safe enough until we aren’t.
“Yes, you prove my case nicely and I appreciate it very much. You may win, but that is not the same as being right.”
Let me refute you one last time as my case circles the drain…
“Actually, I disagree. It is none of your business if you live in a neighborhood with a sex offender.” I agree completely but wanted to point out the warning that they have to have that gun criminals do not. Where is the fairness in that?”
Now, lawful carriers are not only compared to sex offenders, but now we’re gun criminals too. Right down there with cops in Sandi’s book!
“I dunno…just a guess…anti-campus carry “folks” aren’t emotional cannibals exploiting the grief of strangers to score some idiotic political point. But I couldn’t say for sure.”
Kristen, don’t take away the antis’ #1 weapon, emotion. Without it, all they can do is stand there.
Barack Obama was the 2009 gun salesman of the year. Sandi is in the running for #1 gun advocate for 2012. When people read Sandi’s stuff they instinctively clench their rights near. Yes, folks we live amongst angry people who care no more about their own rights than this.
““In 2010, an estimated 1,246,248 violent crimes occurred nationwide
Now statistically that means that in a nation of 307 million 0.5% of people were involved in a violent crime. Less than 1%! So do not pretend you NEED to carry a gun in public. You simply cannot demonstrate that need across the board.”
So there is not enough violence to justify carrying, but there’s so much that you don’t want to sit in the same vicinity as someone who has been vetted. Got it. Furthermore, how did you determine the threshold for what constitutes justification? What’s the number? Why is 0.5 not acceptable?
“Even if we believe your “survey” and grant that another 2 million “violent” crimes are prevented by concealed carry (and I do not),”
Why? Explain how the renowned criminologist got it wrong. Then tell me what the other dozen surveys and studies got wrong and how.
“that is still just 1% of the population.”
So apparently 1% isn’t the magic number. I look forward to hearing what you choose as the risk of crime that makes it ok for me to carry.
“Even the Gallup survey finds only 2% of the population claimed to be victims of “violent Crime” in 2007 and everyone agrees crime is down since then.”
Not 2% either apparently…
“No, you cannot prove need,”
I missed the part of the argument where it was established that I had to demonstrate need to defend myself. I missed the part where you were the arbiter of this fictional need.
“you cannot prove efficacy,”
Sure can. The fact that you cover your ears and say , “LALALALALA” doesn’t make it less so.
“you cannot prove your rights trump ours”
Yes I can. Because we’re not trumping any of your rights. Not only do I have the natural right to defend my life, the law says I have a legal right. Please point me to the law that says you have a right to not be scared of phantoms.
“so you go for the browbeating and public bouts of machismo.”
More weak name-calling.
“The crime statistics are on my side of the concealed carry argument, hands down.”
Sandi, the stats are on your side because you set the rules! How do they objectively bolster your argument? You decided that an arbitrary percentage of risk isn’t enough to justify carry.
“So is the argument that handguns prevented more violent crimes than actually occurred? (prevented 2 million, vs, the 1.25 million that occurred).
That is truly hard to swallow.”
Would you show the slightest bit of personal integrity and respond to the dozen surveys and studies with facts? Hell, the least you could do is copy and paste the few critiques of them. And could you tell me how it is that the Los Angeles Times came to a number higher than Kleck?
When someone here talks about the scourge of gun accident deaths, I quote the relevant data showing they are very rare. When someone disagrees about the criminality of legal carriers, I dig up the numbers to show otherwise. Your approach is, “Nuh uh.” You are becoming the left wing version of Stephen Colbert. You feel the truth.
“No, it is about danger, and it’s about the ludicrous proposition that walking around with an “inanimate object” like a gun poses no different risk than walking around with any OTHER “inanimate object”.”
Nope, my gun is not dangerous unless someone, by negligence or intent, acts upon it. The same can be said of a car (something far more likely to kill you than a gun) or a steak knife.
“If guns truly are nothing but inanimate objects that no one should be concerned about, why not walk around with a candle stick?”
A candle stick would do in a pinch, but a gun is the better tool for the task.
“I’ve looked at the data and I don’t want anything to do with gun ownership.”
And no sane person would have a problem with that.
“it may not be fair, but fair bows to need when push comes to shove”
Wow, the ends justify the means?
[rhetorical][sarcasm]Where have we heard that before?[/rhetorical][/sarcasm]
Is that why so few, if any, reply to my outrage in comments such as #7 or #17 or to C & P’s #18 @ http://tinyurl.com/7x9vs5g
Just how many freedoms and rights are folk here ready to give up to feel safe / feel good?
Don’t count me as one who puts “decisions and practices that placed national [or other] security on a higher plane than civil liberties. [see #17 @ http://tinyurl.com/7x9vs5g ]”
As to fighting “the causes of crime” I repeatedly speak out against various prohibitions (such as the failed “war on drugs”) which spawns large criminal enterprises. I’m sick of seeing criminals with long rap sheets passing through the revolving door court system. Deal with the criminal not the tool (which can be used for good — even if folk don’t agree on DGU study/survey/research methodology.
WOW, and you call me the loser on this argument? Now THAT is funny.
You think that less than 2% of the population (being generous) being a victim warrants so many people carrying a gun wherever they go and yet the Congress and apparently a large majority of this nation felt that over 10% of the people in this nation not having medical insurance was not even worth considering. At least you have your priorities straight?
I think I will rest my case now. You do a great job at proving why gun control is needed and will continue.
And Jason, seriously? Someone “who has been vetted”? Surely that was a joke?
No, they were there exploiting the grief of strangers, too. I just was referring to Sandi, who said she planned to lobby for the changes she was interested in.
I thought she said she didn’t think that concealed carry should be allowed on campus.
“I missed the part of the argument where it was established that I had to demonstrate need to defend myself. I missed the part where you were the arbiter of this fictional need.”
You seem to exercise your First Amendment right on a daily basis there at the newspaper. Could you please write a column justifying your need for doing so? Why do you need to be a journalist as opposed to something else, such as a mail carrier.
I believe it has been established here (by some) that in order to exercise a Constitutional right, need must be demonstrated.
You’re an excellent writer… I think it would be a wonderful piece.
“You think that less than 2% of the population (being generous) being a victim warrants so many people carrying a gun wherever they go and yet the Congress and apparently a large majority of this nation felt that over 10% of the people in this nation not having medical insurance was not even worth considering. At least you have your priorities straight?”
While Sandi may feel that 2% of our population being murdered or otherwise violated by crime is just acceptable collateral damage and is not sufficient to merit her being uncomfortable with not only average, competent CHP holders, but also experienced professionals, and police whom she explicitly distrusts to carry handguns, I feel that every life lost is a tragedy and even more tragic when compounded with their right to defend themselves taken away by a university’s elite or vocal minority anti-rights groups who guilt their legislators with emotion into making ineffective laws that not only smack liberty in the face, but are also proven losers on the public safety front. When alcohol was illegal during prohibition, guns laws were made when the problem wasn’t the guns, the problem was the criminals who could make obscene profits from the illegal liquor trade. Making the guns didn’t stop the problem, legalizing the alcohol and dealing with the criminal gangs did. The omnibus gun control act of 1968 was founded in emotion too and this country did have at least two high profile tragedies that year, but the new law didn’t have any effect on future arms availability to criminals. The law did serve its true purpose which was letting the uninformed see government “doing something about it.” I remember well, the Assault Weapon Ban going into law in 1994. It was a total joke for criminals, but did appease enough of Clinton’s voters to help his reelection (sure wouldn’t help now. That’s the ONLY reason Obama hasn’t gone there…yet). All that did was quadruple the price of semi-automatic rifles. Everything was available after that was available before. When the ban expired in 2004, there was no blood in the streets with lawful purchasers lining up to buy them new again for some imagined criminal purpose…nothing. Gun contol is a long-time, consistent, proven loser.
As for 10% of the country not having health insurance, that’s way off the topic of this particular thread, but I am in the group that does not have insurance, but does not demand it from my government either. Judging by the way they handle public safety with a calamity of 100 years of gun law failure, I don’t see them handling national compulsory insurance any better.
The people are demanding their gun rights and rebuking national health insurance. The solid majority of our people are showing their priorities…keep the federal government out of both!
“I think I will rest my case now. You do a great job at proving why gun control is needed and will continue.”
A dead case rests itself by default. On the latter, glad I could help.
#173 John Wilburn,
“As for 10% of the country not having health insurance, that’s way off the topic of this particular thread, but I am in the group that does not have insurance, but does not demand it from my government either. Judging by the way they handle public safety with a calamity of 100 years of gun law failure, I don’t see them handling national compulsory insurance any better.
The people are demanding their gun rights and rebuking national health insurance. The solid majority of our people are showing their priorities…keep the federal government out of both!”
Your battle is with reality, not Sandi. Perhaps when we finally get all aspects of Obamacare instituted, we might be able to get your meds at the proper dosage so they’re safe and effective. In any event your last paragraph convinced me you’re not a good candidate to be trusted to CC.
Guess it’s a good thing our rights are not derived from Steve C.
I know Steve C and I would trust him with our rights, more than anyone who argued for the “right” to concealed carry on a state college campus.
John Wilburn, face it: there is NO constitutional right to concealed carry. You might wish it was so but it’s not. And you’ve already outted yourself on this board by coming down in favor of the right of concealed carriers to drink, and their right to carry concealed without a permit, and without ever having touched a handgun in their life.
Something tells me that John Wilburn CC on a college campus is not a really pressing issue…
Dan, I absolutely knew you were setting me up by asking your three simple questions, but I answered them honestly anyway. I gave lots of context with those answers too, for whatever that matters. Your declaring me “outted” may carry some weight with your readers, but it really doesn’t matter to me; perhaps that is your way of squashing the pro-rights voices on this board. You are a known gun rights hater, but up until now have seemed to be more moderating the board than opinionating it, and I have participated freely since you were tolerating fair debate.
No, the constitution does not expressly say we have the right to conceal, but the government also doesn’t grant our rights, we are only protecting our natural rights to self-defense from the government. Our founders wouldn’t have it any other way.
“A known gun hater?”
What, am I on a list somewhere? Who’s keeping it?
Let me tell you something that may surprise you, John Wilburn: I don’t hate guns. I support the Supreme Court’s ruling in Heller.
I despise crazy laws that, on the surface, appear to require some form of gun training for people to whom the state has granted the privilege — not the “right” of concealed carry, but which are undermined by later amendments that undercut the entire purpose of the orginal law.
I despise arguments that concealed carriers ought to be allowed to carry in bars, because they are the most responsible and law-abiding people on the planet, especially when those arguments are coming from people who acknowledge they believe everybody ought to be allowed to concealed carry.
It doesn’t bother me if someone wants to carry openly in a bar. Because that circumstance allows me to make decisions for myself based on what else I observe there. Concealed carry denies me that ability.
I despise the reasoning outlined personally to me one day by Larry Pratt, of the Gun Owners of America, on the importance of concealed carry in bars. It’s “the element of surprise,” he informed me. What his statement suggested to me is that he’s more interested in some kind of warped vigilante justice than he is in any putative deterrent effect on crime.
I also despise self-styled constitutional “scholars” who self righteously make up crap about the Second Amendment. Which doesn’t even have the words “handguns” or “guns” in it, by the way.
Probably you fancy yourself an originalist. Well you know those two things hanging from your shoulders? What do you call them?
I call them “arms.”
Btw I don’t carry.
Oh…. all this time the Second Amendment was talking about the right to wear short sleeves? You’re on no formal list that I know of, but have certainly expressed some anti-rights views in various pieces the past.
There are some places where I’ve eaten a number of times only to later discover they have an ABC license. My rights don’t need to go out the window because of it or because they get one later. All the commonwealth attorneys, their assistants, and cops who have been drinking while carrying concealed haven’t shown the problem you’re looking for. It is an unfair privilege and I don’t really care either way; I just want it to be the same. In my opinion, you are showing a bit of contempt for true liberty. Charles Schumer, Senator from New York, says he supports the Second Amendment, but has a long voting record of thumbing his nose at gun owners. Saying your “pro-gun” or “not anti-gun” doesn’t really reflect one’s view of gun owners’ rights.
I was kidding you on “arms.” The point is, the amendment doesn’t mention guns.
Do you believe the amendment gives you the right to own a cruise missile? A tank? An aircraft carrier? A nuclear weapon?
And tell us this: do you believe the owner of private property has the right to keep you off it (or out of it, if it’s a building) if you are armed?
With your riff about the cops and states attorneys, you sound like Philip van Cleave. It comes across as some kind of weird, whiny-kid guns-in-bars jealousy. I’m not kidding about that. It really does.
Dan, since I have never even pondered cruise missiles, tanks, aircraft carriers, or nuclear weapons as part of my personal defense, I’m not prepared to discuss that.
Yes, I do believe that private property owners have the right to prevent someone from being on their property while armed, but I also believe that the being armed part is inconsequential to them having the right to not have you on their property for whatever reason they want. I defend free speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and private property.
No, it’s not jealousy at all; it’s a self-serving bonus for government employees that I do not agree with. There’s nothing special about cops and lawyers that gives them some extra sense of inebriation prevention. In that regard they are like everyone else and the law ought to reflect it. All those little grains of sand add up and one day we will realize that our beach is gone.
As for the Mr. Van Cleave comparison, I take it as a compliment. He has done more for Virginia’s gun owners’ rights than any one person I know. It’s that willingness to work the nuances and details that set him apart and a big reason why Virginia’s gun owners are freer than our friends in the neighboring states.
Keep in mind the 2nd Amendment NOWHERE mentions guns. It mentions “arms.” Now, either the framers intended that to mean 1) weapons that were common in their day and age, or they intended it to mean 2) weapons that were common in their day and age AND weapons that would be developed in the future.
If you believe it’s #1, then you are saying that there is no 2nd amendment protection for most of today’s handguns and rifles.
And if you believe they intended #2, then we are back to the question “what are arms?” Most assuredly, they are not limited to guns.
Now the question becomes, does the amendment allow for any limitation on the ownership of “arms.” And if you believe the answer is no, then you’re speaking up for the right of private citizens to own cruise missiles and nuclear weapons.
And don’t you go saying “why in tarnation would anyone want to own or carry around a nuclear-tipped cruise missile?” By your own previous arguments, it’s an unfair question. Just like there’s no sense in us asking you why you wish to walk around with a pistol.
You seem to be willing to draw a line on which arms the amendment protects ownership of (guns). But what gives YOU the right to draw that line, rather than Sandi or Kristen?
You can have my nuclear weapon when you pry it from my cold, dead, fingers.
Do I agree with a 30 minute online course to qualify someone for a CCP? No. Do I agree that CCP holders should be allowed to carry and drink? Of course not. But I do believe in the Supreme Court’s definition of a “well armed militia” that allows citizens to possess and carry firearms. I know it’s trite, but the old adage rings true. If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Fire away, no pun intended.
Dan, I drew no line, just simply have never pondered those things. In talking with a couple of philosophy majors lately, I’m reminded of some of the obscure things that don’t cross the desk of my mind. I do think the framers did have a progressive view of the constitution that would allow for our country’s growth, but keep very steadfast to the core principles like 1A and 2A by keeping it simple. There is likely some very controversial speech that would not only shock our 6G grandparents, but make even the late George Carlin blush, but it’s still protected. Even those vile, hurtful Westboro people have the right to say that stuff under the first amendment. I think of the second amedment the same way. No one has the right to not be offended. Yes, arms come in a variety of forms, but gun law is where I focus. I’ll let someone else carry that broader philosophical torch as I have more than a lifetime of gun law to work on.
” You’re on no formal list that I know of, but have certainly expressed some anti-rights views in various pieces the past.”
Formal list? You people really are nuts.
Dan, I’ve found that most ardent gun advocates are more than happy to say that they have no problem with crazy people and felons being denied the right to own guns. Now, how on earth a gun shop owner is supposed to know that the buyer is a crazy felon, I have no idea, since they also eschew all backround checks. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that the “natural rights” (which term is generally trotted out by people with no rational means of supporting their argument)of citizens are abrogated by their being criminals or insane. In other words…denying those populations their “natural right” to own guns goes waaaayy in the face of what the poor slandered “framers” wanted. It’s gun control. Not as much as I’d like, but it’s a starting point.
I’ve never witnessed one of the gun advocates on this blog have the intellectual integrity to back the rights of lunatics and those convicted of felonies to own guns like the rest of us.
“In any event your last paragraph convinced me you’re not a good candidate to be trusted to CC.”
Thankfully his ability to receive a concealed handgun permit has no bearing on anything that he says… no matter who he says it to.
President Obama himself could decide that John Wilburn is an untrustworthy loon, but it wouldn’t keep him from getting his Concealed Handgun Permit, which is a good things.
It was only several years ago that a judge could deny Dan Casey a permit because Dan is liberal… Sandi couldn’t get one because she is Methodist. Kristen couldn’t get one because the judge’s son’s ex-wife was named Kristen and she was a bit** and therefore every Kristen is a bit**.
I’m sure glad it isn’t that way anymore.
“No, the constitution does not expressly say we have the right to conceal…”
Give it up, John. These folks don’t understand how the legislative system in this country works.
In their eyes, it is illegal to cross the street unless the government passes a law expressly allowing you to cross the street.
In reality, as you and I both know, ANYTHING is legal unless it is declared illegal.
“It doesn’t bother me if someone wants to carry openly in a bar. Because that circumstance allows me to make decisions for myself based on what else I observe there.”
Not really. Sandi makes the same argument.
In reality, I open carried into a restaurant yesterday and I would guarantee you that 95% of the patrons in there did not see my gun.
They were around the gun but had no opportunity whatsoever to make a decision to leave based on it.
“All the commonwealth attorneys, their assistants, and cops who have been drinking while carrying concealed haven’t shown the problem you’re looking for. It is an unfair privilege and I don’t really care either way; I just want it to be the same.”
That is how I feel, too. As it stands right now, I think concealed carry in a bar while drinking should be allowed. But only because it is allowed for a “higher class” of citizen right now.
Take that away from them, though, put us all on the “no drinking while carrying concealed” playing field and I’m perfectly fine with that.
“With your riff about the cops and states attorneys, you sound like Philip van Cleave. It comes across as some kind of weird, whiny-kid guns-in-bars jealousy. I’m not kidding about that. It really does.”
Dan, it may seem that way to you, but let’s put it into a perspective you’ll understand better.
Suppose the government came along and said that, as a journalist, you are not allowed to write about Topic X because it is considered to be more of an intellectual topic and therefore can only be written about by people who graduated from colleges A, B and C.
Since you didn’t graduate from one of those schools, you are now considered to be in a class of citizens that is not intelligent enough to write about that particular topic. In fact, if you do, it is a crime.
Only because that other guy graduated from college B is he allowed to write about it.
Hehe. Look at that Dan Casey… only allowed to write about bicycling on the greenways because he is a second class journalist.
I would hope that you would make the argument that just because that other guy graduated from a particular college doesn’t inherently make him a better, or more responsible, more intelligent journalist or person.
John Wilburn, read back what you wrote. You’re drawing the line at guns. Why shouldn’t anyone else draw it anywhere else?
“And if you believe the answer is no, then you’re speaking up for the right of private citizens to own cruise missiles and nuclear weapons.”
Actually, a really good question… is it illegal for me to own a cruise missile? I’m not sure if it is or not. Nuclear weapons… probably because of some international treaty or something.
But a conventional explosive? No, I don’t believe it is illegal.
I can buy a grenade launcher only for a pretty small amount of money and grenades may be purchased legally by a citizen, too. It’s not cost effective, since you have to fill out all of the paperwork and pay roughly $300 in taxes for each one… but yes, they may be owned by citizens, I believe. I’m sure any conventional explosive can.
“Formal list? You people really are nuts.”
Are you talking about Dan? He bought up the list that I’ve never heard of. I don’t think that way. I don’t think the way that too many gun owners do either with Liberal versus Conservative. The latter seems to have more gun owners, but the rights to own and bear those arms are the same. I’ve taught many a “liberal” to shoot and have many liberal friends.
No Dan, I’m not drawing any line on the bigger question, but I am drawing the line at guns at this time in regards to what rights I’m willing to work toward. That’s not to say I wouldn’t address a council meeting over a knife ban or fourth amendment issue here or there, but I don’t stray too far from working for gun rights. That said, you know it would be kinda cool to own a tank! HaHaHa
Yes Jack, it might surprise many of these folks just what all IS legal. It’s perfectly legal to own full-auto machine guns, “sawed-off” shotguns, and the infamous tommy gun. It’s also legal to own all kinds of other bizarre things like pen or cane guns and the like which the National Firearms Act classifies as “Any Other Weapon.” just so long as one’s willing to register it and pay the tax. You don’t hear where these types of things are used in crimes.
Note, it is not at all because of their being registered as it is well established that any of these things may be modified or made from the unregistered stuff.
“Are you talking about Dan? He bought up the list that I’ve never heard of. I don’t think that way.”
JW, you wrote that I was a “known gun hater.”
What I wanted to know was, how you know that. I asked if there was a formal list. I never stated that I knew there was one.
If there is one, and I’m on it, the standards must be pretty low to get on it. Like, anyone who’s not whole-hog in favor of everything that Philip Van Cleave is in favor of is on it, or something like that.
Jack, I didn’t even get into the may issue versus shall issue with them. California has the most homicides, but is a may-issue state, D.C. is full of murder and mayhem and is a no-issue “gun-free zone.” There was a lot of abuse going on in those days denying people permits. When Virginia was may-issue, until 1995, there were about 13,000 permits, since, that number has surged to 275,000+. The elimination of local gun control didn’t hurt either. It turned out that the pent up demand wasn’t by the “criminals” who couldn’t “prove need” or convince a judge, but rather those that didn’t want to play ball with a too-controlling government. There very well may be more people who choose to carry if we went to constitutional carry for the same reasoning.
Dan, I assure you there is no list that I know of. If I did, I would have no problem telling you so. The pro-gun side tends to operate very openly. You are a “known gun hater” so to speak becasue of the various things you have made reference to in your columns over the years that show you have some contempt of firearm liberty. Perhaps I should have said “known gun disliker” instead. You disliked an AR-15 giveaway recently and disliked the restaurant carry ban repeal which happened a year and a half ago without consequence, by the way. True, it is a bit harder to get a gun owner friendly passing grade in my book, but that is not personal or important to who I will be friends with. I have a lot of friends and aquantances who I would give a grade of “F” on guns and they would grade me “F” on gun control, but we get along fine.
JW, yes, I disliked repeal of CC in bars. And I despised the change in the law that Cuccinelli introduced in 2009 that allowed me to get a CC permit in Virginia without ever having to touch a handgun in my life, DESPITE the fact that Virginia’s CHP law has a so-called competence clause. Because of Cuccinelli’s (and the General Assembly’s) action, that competence section is a joke. The Virginia General Assembly made a joke out of their own law when they enacted it.
And it’s because of laws like Virginia’s, and congressional action that’s now pending, that any idiot in the land with a clean criminal record may soon be able to get a 50-state carry permit. Here’s how:
Let’s say state “A” requires classroom training for CC permits, including actual firing of a handgun. And gun novice “B,” who lives in “A,” doesn’t want to go through all that rigamarole.
If the national right to carry law passes, all “B” would have to do to get a 50-state carry permit is apply by mail for a Virginia permit (after taking the ridiculously easy Concealed Carry Institute’s “online” handgun course for $39.95). Assuming “B” had a clean criminal record, he would have a permit to carry in his own state (via his Virginia permit, which would be good for all 50 states) even though his own state wouldn’t grant him one because he was too lazy to get some actual, in-person handgun training and firing practice.
That’s silly. In certain cases, it’s an incredibly shallow attempt by so-called gun-rights activists to subvert the very state laws they’ve worked so hard to enact. And it’s going to mean that even more idiots without the most basic of training will be running around with implements designed as deadly weapons. It’ll be good for permitting in Va., I reckon, because it will be the lowest-common-denominator state insofar as CC permits are concerned.
Until other states want some of that revenue, that is. Then, they’ll amend their laws to make them even less stringent than Virginia’s. It’ll be like an arms race, except that it’ll be a race to LOWER the standards for concealed carry.
As for the AR-15 giveaway: I used it to launch my own squirt gun giveaway — and yes, you could say I was making fun of the former. But I did it with the full knowledge and consent of the the guy who was giving away the AR-15. We communicated in advance on that one. He was happy for the publicity. It wasn’t so much a matter of dislike as it was recognizing an opportunity to promote this blog (and his, in a backward way).
Dan, must be losing it.
He is back to his strawman on a slippery slope clutching at red herrings, a. k. a. arguing “the right to own a cruise missile? A tank? An aircraft carrier? A nuclear weapon.”
“And I despised the change in the law that Cuccinelli introduced in 2009 that allowed me to get a CC permit in Virginia without ever having to touch a handgun in my life, DESPITE the fact that Virginia’s CHP law has a so-called competence clause.”
You’re still going on about a change that didn’t occur?
If I were to pass a law today that claimed that you need a driver’s license to drive a car. Would that change anything?
OK, Dave Hicks, then define “arms” for us.
“it’s an incredibly shallow attempt by so-called gun-rights activists to subvert the very state laws they’ve worked so hard to enact.”
Is it your opinion that a Virginia driver’s license should be valid in all 50 states?
If California had stricter requirements for getting a driver’s license, do you think that your Virgina license should still be valid in California?
Yes, I know a CHP and a DL are very different, but I’m asking strictly about whether or not they should be honored in all states.
I’d like one of our gun advocates to explain to me if they think that any punishment should be brought on parents who allow their minor child access to loaded weapons. And also…if your kid breaks your neighbor’s window playing baseball, you’re on the hook for it. Please tell me how these parents aren’t on the hook for this boys murder?
Is there any remote responsiblity at all on the part of gun owners where their kids and guns are concerned? Where does “personal responsiblity” fit into all this, exactly.
“any idiot in the land with a clean criminal record may soon be able to get a 50-state carry permit….more idiots without the most basic of training will be running around with implements designed as deadly weapons.”
You show such high regard for the masses…
I’m actually against the NRA-backed H.R. 822. Sandi, if you survived that statement, please administer CPR to Kristin who is likely in the floor over it
My reason being that while those Virginia standards have proven good enough for the “idiots” here and would be fine for other states’ “idiots” too, I see the federal government getting a thumbnail in the crack of the permit process and with a “review period” scheduled a number of months after implementation. I think the permit process will only become more cumbersome, invasive, and discriminatory as the federal government tightens it belt, so to speak. Virginia already enjoys reciprocity or at least recognition, with 29 other states. We are just a few (in my opinion meaningless) rule tweaks away from having several more. I see the national permit as a way for 5-8 of the most anti-rights states to force more unnecessary things into the permits we have now. It may not come to pass, but it’s a chance I don’t feel comfortable with since we are on such a winning streak gaining reciprocity.
Dan, what is the record for the number of comments to any one topic? If one were to print this thing out, it would likely make a crown molding-type border for my office.
How I wish these conversations would migrate to the open thread for each day and just pick up there (if they need to). I hate the huge, buried threads and lose track of them. Bleh.
The right to bear arms includes all those things. I personally would place a limit at the WoMD level, but that limit is completely unsupported by the constitution.
This is not a right to hunt. This is not a right to defend your home from Injuns. This is a right to protect yourself from a tyrannical government. It does and should include every type of weapon the Gov’t has.
“And Jason, seriously? Someone “who has been vetted”? Surely that was a joke?”
No, a joke would be you responding to yet another long list of points that you can’t deal with by picking one tiny thing.
“Now, how on earth a gun shop owner is supposed to know that the buyer is a crazy felon, I have no idea, since they also eschew all backround checks.”
I am acquainted with not a single gun owner who is against background checks. Some of us question their utility, but that’s a different matter.
“If the national right to carry law passes,”
Stop there. You’re not that stupid. The law has no chance of passing. It was a Republican House flexing a symbolic muscle. It has next to no chance of getting out of the Senate, and no chance of doing so with a veto-proof margin. Obama would of course veto it. It’s a bad law for many reasons, and many concealed carry advocates are against it.
This type of law gets proposed just about every session where it quietly dies without leaving committee. It just so happens that the Republicans wanted to preen a bit and had enough votes to pass it. Every session, Carolyn McCarthy or her ilk propose insanely restrictive gun control laws that also die in committee (even when Democrats hold the House).
And good to see you maintain your streak of not responding to any substantive arguments in favor of side issues.
Yes Jack, a CHP and and a driver’s license is very different. Driver’s licensees have something much deadlier…. a car.
Kristen, the 2nd amendment makes no distinction between adults and children, does it? Shouldn’t 5-year-olds have the right to keep and bear arms?
What part of “shall not be infringed” do certain folks not understand?
Dan, I’ve made a habit of infringing the heck out of free speech in my house…I guess I’m an unConstitutional socio-communistic oppressor.
We’re not even halfway there yet. The record # of comments on this blog is still held by this thread. And I believe this one is the runner up.
Warlock, you make a point I’ve made before about the second amendment. If you honestly think you can stand their with your Glock or whatever and take on a government that’s decided to roll into and take over your town, good luck with that.
You nailed it, Jack.
Far too many folk here are of the Elitist-Nanny school of thought — “Nanny may I”, “Nanny knows best” etc.
I don’t know how it fits in but there is also too much of the mindset that “the ends justify the means” — far too many are far too willing to give up freedoms and rights to feel safe / feel good.
As has been arguably attributed (or mis-attributed) Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — a title page motto of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759) — published but not written by Franklin.
I, for one, do not place security on a higher plane than civil liberties — be they 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A … and/or common law based “Essential Liberties.”
“Thank God! we are in the full enjoyment of all these privileges. But can we be taught to prize them too much? or how can we prize them equal to their value, if we do not know their intrinsic worth, and that they are not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature?” — “On Government No. I”, John Webbe, 1 April 1736 (also published by Franklin in The Pennsylvania Gazette)
Realistically, the only way the populace here could genuinely defend itself against a state run amok is through guerilla (aka terrorist) tactics. Head to head you have no prayer.
Ok…stand “there” before hysteria ensues. THERE
Per Kristin “I’d like one of our gun advocates to explain to me if they think that any punishment should be brought on parents who allow their minor child access to loaded weapons. And also…if your kid breaks your neighbor’s window playing baseball, you’re on the hook for it. Please tell me how these parents aren’t on the hook for this boys murder?”
The broken window is a property thing. That could be remedied with a little work and a pane of glass or a call to the insurance company and an apology. The issue of whether aside, there is no punishment greater to the parent than losing thier child…that’s assuming you even meant that…you just said access (it just became murder). My parents knew the great responibility that came with owning guns and I was always raised to respect them in age-appropriate ways. What about the child that pulls on a TV cord and topples the TV, killing himself or herself? It’s just as tragic. The parent needs to secure the TV base and cords to the stand just like they need to be secure with their guns. Should dads be liable for their son’s circular saw death? Should moms be liable for a child drowing in the washtub?
I gave a friend of mine’s 10 year old son supervised access to a rifle last Saturday to introduce him to marksmanship. Learning the right way and making good safety habits now will serve him well. The kid’s a good shot too.
“In reality, as you and I both know, ANYTHING is legal unless it is declared illegal.”
Not necessarily in Virginia, a Dillon rule state.
Just for example, localities cannot enact a tax on newspapers (at least, they cannot enact one that is enforceable) without the permission of the General Assembly.
I think this thread is a record on the RT Blog:
I don’t care much about what style of “Mother-may-I” or “Nanny-may-I” you practice in your own home or how you enforce it — albeit there is a wide range of opinion on what constitutes oppressive parenting and potential damage that by be done by it.
OTOH, your apparent assumption that that has any bearing on this thread is very telling, IMHO.
See my last comment.
KristEn, I apologize for misspelling your name earlier. As for this:
“Warlock, you make a point I’ve made before about the second amendment. If you honestly think you can stand their with your Glock or whatever and take on a government that’s decided to roll into and take over your town, good luck with that.”
Here’s a snip from our Declaration of Independence:
***But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.****
We have the right and do challenge our government. That’s why we’re free. I think our right to bear arms is being abused and, as such, I and some of the others here work through all of the proper and polite means to make a difference. Your crusades may differ.
Per Dan, “In reality, as you and I both know, ANYTHING is legal unless it is declared illegal. Not necessarily in Virginia, a Dillon rule state.”
Per the Dillor Rule reference, you are corret sir. I root out and fix illegal municipal codes and postings that ban firearms all the time.
We have a right to bear arms. It’s enshrined in the constitution. We have a right to challenge our government through petition and peaceful assembly. That’s right there in the first amendment.
JW, we do not have a “right” to armed revolt.
The Dillon Rule has to do with power, authority and enforceability of local actions — not with being criminal “illegal.” The adjudication is a civil court matter — albeit it can be used as a defense in criminal cases, no one is found guilty of “the crime” of violating the Dillon Rule.
It’s a guideline for courts based on 10A (which you seem to despise nearly as much as you do 2A). It is based on the concept that counties, cities, municipalities, etc are a “creatures of the State” and that a municipality et al have no powers unless the State decides to grant them.
In 1865, an Iowa judge by the name of John Dillon ruled in the case of Clark v City of Des Moines:
“It is a general and undisputed proposition of law that a municipal corporation possesses and can exercise the following powers and no others: First, those granted in express words; second, those necessarily or fairly implied in or incident to the powers expressly granted; third, those essential to the declared objects and purposes of the corporation, not simply convenient, but indispensable. Any fair, reasonable doubt concerning the existence of the power is resolved by the courts against the corporation, and the power is denied.”
Nice try at deflection, BTW.
Dan, that’s why when I say “I think our right to bear arms is being abused and, as such, I and some of the others here work through all of the proper and polite means to make a difference.” you should not hear ““right” to armed revolt.”
We all do universally excuse the armed revolt that freed us initially, though.
The Second is designed to give us the power to protect our rights from a tyrannical government. This is the right of ‘armed revolt’ when our liberties are restricted and removed by the government. By all means the other paths should be the first attempt, but the last resort is to defend our rights ourselves.
They are not illegal municipal codes, as I read the code. They are just invalid and unenforceable — and they may well lead to the municipality paying the court cost uncured as a result of having adopted them.
§ 15.2-915. Control of firearms; applicability to authorities and local governmental agencies.
C. In addition to any other relief provided, the court may award reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and court costs to any person, group, or entity that prevails in an action challenging (i) an ordinance, resolution, or motion as being in conflict with this section or (ii) an administrative action taken in bad faith as being in conflict with this section.
IMHO, there is a big different between the concept of criminally “illegal” and “invalid and unenforceable.” In the first case someone can pay a fine to the goverment, go to jail, etc. In the second, someone is provided “relief” by the courts.
Same as when SCOTUS strikes down a “Law” the State or National legislature that passed it or the chief executive who signed it is going to jail.
BTW — as I have posted before, I’m not an attorney-at-law nor do I play one on TV or the internet. No one should take my opinions as legal advice.
“I’d like one of our gun advocates to explain to me if they think that any punishment should be brought on parents who allow their minor child access to loaded weapons.”
I’d say no.. but I’m biased. I let my kids shoot guns any time they want.
“If the national right to carry law passes,”
I’m not in favor, either. I am in favor of each state issuing their own license. I would like, however, to see each other state that offers carry, honor the permits of the other states. Much the same way that a driver’s license is handled.
“As has been arguably attributed (or mis-attributed) Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.””
I’m sure Ben Franklin (or whoever it was that said it) never imagined that people would carry guns or fly on planes.
By the way.. can we have a discussion about TSA one day? That’s one of my other favorite topics.
“I, for one, do not place security on a higher plane than civil liberties — be they 1A, 2A, 3A, 4A, 5A … and/or common law based “Essential Liberties.””
TSA does. Welcome to the TSA job fair… Fourth Amendment and those with educations past the 11th grade need not apply.
“Ok…stand “there” before hysteria ensues. THERE”
I knew what you meant. (smile)
“Just for example, localities cannot enact a tax on newspapers (at least, they cannot enact one that is enforceable) without the permission of the General Assembly.”
Yes, the same reason that localities can no longer pass gun control legislation.
So I guess you’re agreeing that walking across the street is illegal, then?
Is cooking meat loaf illegal?
“Per the Dillor Rule reference, you are corret sir. I root out and fix illegal municipal codes and postings that ban firearms all the time.”
So do I. In fact, the Roanoke County Police Department used to have a sign up in the visitor’s entrance lobby that read “No loaded firearms beyond this point.”
Having had to go over there to drop something off one day (carrying my gun, of course)… I did read the sign. Realized it was even more worthless than Virginia Tech’s policy, and walked on in.. gun and all.
I don’t think they liked it… but as we all know (or should know by now) there was nothing that they could do about it.
I dropped off my papers, and called the Chief of Police’s office on the way home. A couple of days later, I received notification from the Assistant Chief (I guess it was passed off to him) that the sign had been removed.
If we allow our government, be it local, state, federal, to do whatever they want unchecked, we’ll be in a lot of trouble.
We will be in no less trouble if we allow people to do whatever they want unchecked IMO. Some gun control laws make sense and there is more that needs to be done, but I agree there has to remain the protection of rights for all who deserve to have them, including the right to bear arms. I do not believe I have ever said different.
#221 Right off the bat I noticed one thing that those very long and spirited threads (as well as this one) have in common.
At #229 I missed an intended “?” mark.
“Same as when SCOTUS strikes down a “Law” the State or National legislature that passed it or the chief executive who signed it is going to jail.”
should have been
“Same as when SCOTUS strikes down a “Law” the State or National legislature that passed it or the chief executive who signed it is going to jail?”
Dave Hicks, good point regarding the code. Perhaps, I was thinking of some of their continued enforcement efforts. Virginia needs what Florida recently enacted. On a certain date, local gun control became invalid. Within two weeks all signs and invalid codes were to be removed, and after one month, a locality could be fined $100,000 and a local official could be personally fined $5,000 and/or removed from office at the discretion of a judge. We wouldn’t be working on cleaning up local gun control seven years later if preemption had been done that way here.
After meeting and listening to some of the town council forum comments regarding their nearly universal contempt of the Dillon rule, I cringe to think what local gun control might try to pop up in Blacksburg if we didn’t have it. One of their council members said the only reason there were not metal detectors with firearms banned from the municipal building is that the town couldn’t afford it. She insisted “they” had the authority despite the City of Martinsville being on the verge of being sued for exactly the same practice. North Carolina has an even bigger can of worms problem with local gun control there.
And so it goes . . .
The “. . .” Jason is where those who are clamoring to bring guns onto campus never complete their sentence when they say they will make the campus safer. There is never an explanation of how they will make the campus safer. You pulled out six crimes at Virginia Tech, but admitted that you didn’t know if the presence of a gun would have made any difference in the outcome. Again, specifically, how will concealed weapons on the Virginia Tech campus make it a safer place?
What’s interesting is that just last week, Businessweek.com declared Blacksburg to be the No. 1 place in the U.S. to raise kids. One of the reasons cited was the low crime rate — so why do you need to pack heat in town and on campus?
Also interesting is that when their are reports of shootings in the Roanoke Times and on WDBJ in Roanoke and Danville and Lynchburg, they aren’t occurring at Appleby’s or other chain restaurants at Valley View Mall or River Ridge Mall or around Williamson Road and Hershburger Road or Wards Road and Candlers Mtn. Road or the better parts of Danville. They are happening in the seedier parts of town, the places you really don’t want to be wandering around in after dark (or even in daylight). So when I head to Roanoke to shop and eat, I’m not in fear for my life and concerned that I’m headed to Sam’s and the mall unarmed.
What I think is going on is that a small group of people has been told “No!” about something they think they ought to be able to do — to bring their weapons into an area where most people don’t want them, college campuses. Their response has been to temper tantrum, then to begin name calling and bullying to try to get their way. They try to throw their weight around, pull out a bunch of boogeymen and studies and numbers and weird arguments to do what they can to discredit those who disagree with them, who stand in their way, to try to make them look bad, look foolish, to yell “Chicken!” at them in an attempt to embarrass them to make them back down and go away. It might work on some people, but all it is doing for me is making me dig my heels in deeper.
Jack & John,
I, too, have convinced localities and a couple of Federal agencies to remove invalid and unenforceable signs.
IMHO, there is far too much creeping Nanny-ism and abuse of power which requires us to remember:
“Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.” –Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4,1777
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” — Irish orator John Philpot Curran in 1790:
“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property, and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Colvin, 1810
But some folk here will never get it.
“We have a right to bear arms. It’s enshrined in the constitution.”
Congrats, Dan, for recognizing that right to bear arms was simply “enshrined in” not “created by” the Constitution.
Yes Gdad, that they do!
Per Sandi, “I agree there has to remain the protection of rights for all who deserve to have them, including the right to bear arms. I do not believe I have ever said different.”
The key there is “deserve”.
Essentially, Sandi is a “may-issue” gal and I’m a “shall-issue” guy.
Just an observation
You don’t seem to know when to quit. Just an observation.
“I, too, have convinced localities and a couple of Federal agencies to remove invalid and unenforceable signs.”
Honestly, if it were me, personally, I wouldn’t mind the signs. I know they are unenforceable so they don’t bother me.
Valley View Mall’s gun ban, police department gun ban, Virginia Tech’s gun ban (examples). None carry the force of law.
The problem I have, though, is when the Roanoke Times, and even worse about it, WSLS, give the general public the impression that carrying a gun into those places is illegal.
The last really good example of it was when that guy carried the umbrella into the mall. WSLS (and I’m sure others) were making it out like it would have been a crime if it were a gun.
Would not have been, let me make that clear to anyone who hasn’t figured it out yet.
It is NOT a crime to carry a gun into the Roanoke County police department.
It is NOT a crime to carry a gun into a building at Virginia Tech.
It is NOT a crime to carry a gun into Valley View mall.
Whether or not there is a sign posted is irrelevant.
Additionally, even if Virginia Tech changes their policy to a regulation, carrying a gun into a building on VT’s campus would be no different than carrying outside food or drink into Valley View Grande as far as the law is concerned. You would be guilty of the same thing.
Per Joe Hokie, “how will concealed weapons on the Virginia Tech campus make it a safer place?”
Even an entire group of the worst of the wosrt of trigger-happy, poor-shooting carriers (like the antis all assume we are) could not possibly have made the 32 person, point-blank series of executions any worse than it already was. It is definitely safer for someone who gets a second chance at life because a criminal is denied the chance to end that person’s life.
“One of the reasons cited was the low crime rate — so why do you need to pack heat in town and on campus?”
Again, it’s apparently acceptable collateral damage in the greater picture of not making them feel uncomfartable to some (not necessarily implying you Joe Hokie), but not to me and certainly not to those who paid with their life.
“They are happening in the seedier parts of town, the places you really don’t want to be wandering around in after dark (or even in daylight).”
Yeah, like the recent church shootings, at IHOP, on VT’s campus, the Florida School Board…those are seedy places alright.
“…bring their weapons into an area where most people don’t want them, college campuses.”
Not so at all. When VCDL was in front of Squires all day Thursday, save for a few rude people, we were widely welcomed. The crowd supporting us was at least 100 with more coming and going, hanging out as their schedules permit. The antis had, at their peak, 18. Three of which, I believe are paid lobbyists. I was one of several who gave out hundreds of Guns Save Lives stickers and over 1,600 flyers were handed out too. The event was very well advertised with a HUGE full page ad in the Collegiate Times. If the majority of VT didn’t want us there, the mobs would have come out and run us off with flaming sticks.
Also, we were carrying inside and outside of the buildings, open and concealed… zero problems. Zero alarms.
Per Sandi, “You don’t seem to know when to quit. Just an observation”
I just found it interesting that you were making a may-issue style statement while clarifying that you do support rights… kinda. We’re all studying, critiquing, and debating each others’ philosophies. May-issue puts you in the company of New York, California, New Jersey, and others. That’s good company, right?
Per Jack, “Honestly, if it were me, personally, I wouldn’t mind the signs. I know they are unenforceable so they don’t bother me.”
You’re right, but I am offended by the signs that not only deceive the public, but ignore the law. The worst of which that I have seen around here is The Frog Pond between Blacksburg and Christiansburg. It says, “no unauthorized possession of weapons allowed.” I have it in writing from the county attorney confirming that the county has no authority to regulate weapons in that park, but they leave it up willfully to deceive the public.
“You pulled out six crimes at Virginia Tech, but admitted that you didn’t know if the presence of a gun would have made any difference in the outcome.”
I was responding to the statement that nothing had happened since the Cho shooting where a gun might have been useful. Clearly, forced sexual assault and aggravated assault are incidents where a gun *might* be useful.
“Again, specifically, how will concealed weapons on the Virginia Tech campus make it a safer place?”
I never argued that it would. I’ve repeatedly said that there is no evidence that concealed carry has reduced crime in the states it exists. There is also no evidence that it has *increased* crime. The science is pretty consistent on this matter; less or more gun control has little if any effect on crime. I expect VT would be similar. Carry would not make it a rainbow-unicorn paradise nor would it create a situation where running gun battles are the norm.
“The worst of which that I have seen around here is The Frog Pond between Blacksburg and Christiansburg. It says, “no unauthorized possession of weapons allowed.”"
That sign wouldn’t bother me a bit. Your weapon, weather concealed or openly carried is “authorized.”
The sign is completely legitimate. No unauthorized weapons are allowed anywhere, actually.
Granted, criminals don’t care about the sign.
You’re right Jack, I respect your right to make that desicion, and I don’t give the validity of the sign a second thought. The problem is that countless people don’t exercise their rights because they don’t know they have them. Tolerating signs that purposefully deceive the public are a little piece of perpetuating the problem. They’re being duped. You ought to see the light bulbs go off and hear all the “I didn’t know that!”‘s that I hear in every class because a lot of people didn’t know they could carry here or there. In a knee-jerk reaction to April 16th, New River bank in Christiansburg posted their bank “No Firearms.” Yeah, I could walk in there carrying and yeah, they as private property have the right to ban carry, but I successfully lobbied them to get rid of the posted policy anyway. Their president said “The more we thought about it, the more it didn’t make sense. It [the sign] won’t keep a criminal out.” Many of the bank’s employees have thanked me for the effort. Now, they aren’t discouraging lawful carriers who wish to respect their policy, no incidents have happened since, and their business has experienced an increase with several calls and e-mails from gun owners thanking them. Not one single call or e-mail in opposition.
Yes, the signs don’t carry the force of law. But whether we demand they be fixed (public property) or persuade a re-evaluation of policy (private property), there is a lot of good that comes from getting rid of the signs.
Wachovia used to have a “no guns” sign, too. Wells Fargo now does not. I carried openly into the Hershberger branch yesterday to make a deposit since the ATM was offline. No issues.
Which brings up a good point about banks in general: A lot of folks aren’t aware that firearms are legal in banks in the first place. I guess it’s because they get stigmatized with bank robberies.
On a different note, I’m hoping this is the year we get rid of the general K-12 ban altogether too.
Georgia Tech student says she was raped on campus before the VT game.
Let’s also not forget the mother and her two friends shot dead in a parking lot while out shopping for her two-year-old’s birthday cake in gun free Chicago.
DaveH, I saw your post, and I was joking with Dan about the whole oppressive thing. Not for nothing but think about growing a sense of humor. It’s necessary to this thread since it’s so full of hilarious b.s,
JohnWilburn, I don’t care how you spell my name, believe me. And that child didnt kill himself with his daddy’s gun. He killed another kid. IMO the parents should be on the hook for manslaughter. But gun advocates shy from anything that looks too much like real responsibility.
And if al, you and Jack have to do when you go out is wet yourselves about signs, you both might want to consider getting hobbies.
When did I ever say I was opposed to reasonable restrictions? But then the devil is in the details.
Yes, I am against prior-restraint on a citizen or legal resident who is of an age to be tried as an adult and who has not been adjudicated as a violent felon, or someone who has not adjudicated as a danger to him/herself or others, or someone who has not volunteer to be committed under § 37.2-814 B.
When someone actually introduces a bill proposes private ownership of nuclear weapons, I will gladly join you in working against that bill.
In the meantime, please avoid the sophistic display of a strawman clutching for red herring of a slippery slope based on the fallacy that somehow concealed self-defense firearms will lead to private ownership of nuclear weapons.
Do you really believe that concealed self-defense firearms differs from private ownership of nuclear weapons by a continuum of such insignificant changes that there is no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two cannot be drawn by various legislative bodies and courts on a case-by-case bases? Therefore, do you conclude that there is really no difference between concealed self-defense firearms and private ownership of nuclear weapons? Is that your position?
Or, do you believe that if Constitutional Carry happens, then by a gradual series of inevitable small steps (immune to legislation or adjudication) eventually private ownership of nuclear weapons will happen, too. As private ownership of nuclear weapons should not happen; therefore, do you conclude that Constitutional Carry should not happen, either? Is that your position?
“Which brings up a good point about banks in general: A lot of folks aren’t aware that firearms are legal in banks in the first place. I guess it’s because they get stigmatized with bank robberies.”
This is something that cracks me up. Whenever I encounter the rare business that posts in Ohio (no gun signs have the force of law here), I want to ask them what they know that most of the top banks in the country don’t. I mean, they are BANKS. They sort of have to consider security issues. Surely if concealed carriers were a risk, they’d post.
I’m with Kristen; no one really cares about the little circle jerk going on here about firearms. We get it. You guys are too scared to go out in public without a strap on. Do you two not have anything else going on in your lives other than worrying about evil doers shanking you at the ATM?
“since it’s so full of hilarious b.s,”
The B.S. is conveniently marked with what appears to be an ever so appropriate ivory tower.
As for the signs, we must have hobbies; that what we’re doing at all these parks, sports complexes, and civic centers with invalid signs in the first palce.
And, no I don’t shy away from responsibility at all. I have always been a very responsible gun owner. I’m just trying to figure out if it’s really a responsibility question you have or a just another contempt-for-guns problem. Would it be manslaughter of the killed the other kid with a knife he got access to? What about a toxic chemical that was stored too low? Is that manslaughter too? This is a lawyer question.
You are so angry and show gratuitous comtempt for all gun owners. Why?
Or, is it everybody you disagree with? I’m only tough with debating gun rights; I’m generally much tamer discussing most whatever else. Perhaps you’d like me or Dave or Jack had you met us on a thread about food, travel, music, or whatever else. Is that possible?
It’s nice, and refreshing, to hear that you feel comfortable drawing arbitrary lines into what is “reasonable” and what is not with regard to the Second Amendment.
I feel comfortable doing it too. So we are not any different in that regard. Except that IMHO, mine are more reasonable that yours.
Of course, YMMV
Yeah, keep pushing those distant crimes in an effort to prop up your argument for guns on campus. So far, I haven’t seen anything recent mentioned about Virginia Tech that would require an armed response. It seems it still comes down to “Wah! Wah! Wah! We can’t take our hidden guns on college campuses, so we are going to be bullies about it until we get our own way. After all, might makes right!” No one has come up with any other compelling reason, but many have managed to send the discussion way, way off topic into areas that have questionable connections to reasons to need a gun in Blacksburg or at UVa or James Madison or any other state school (or even as someone else suggested, an elementary school).
No word with “reason” in it should be attached to your views on guns. You’ve pretty much admitted it before.
By the way, am I to take from your (and Kristen’s) silence that you are still researching the methodological flaws in the dozen surveys and studies whose results you dismissed with yet another belch from the Dan Casey Gut of Wisdom?
“So far, I haven’t seen anything recent mentioned about Virginia Tech that would require an armed response.”
Forced sexual assault is not worthy of an armed response? Forget guns, no pepper spray, rolling pins, knitting needles, nothing? A woman who is being raped should depend on hand to hand combat? Incredible.
You should take from my silence that I am super-busy with a little work project that has nothing to do with guns.
I thought pepper spray was only supposed to be used on nonviolent protestors. Wink.
I’m pro-gun, but I’m not fixated on sexual assault. There are many other situations requiring armed-intervention. Clean it up, guys, you’re doing the cause no good.
I’m thinking Joe Hokie was the 19th person in Blacksburg that doesn’t want to acknowledge guns are on campus, but it wasn’t important enough to come over and hold up a “no guns on campus sign.”
And Steve C has so much to do that…. Working for gun rights is a big thing that I do. I guess popping into message boards leaving off-color comments is what he’s passionate about. If so, more power to Steve C.
“A lot of folks aren’t aware that firearms are legal in banks in the first place.”
In some places, they aren’t. I believe you cannot carry into a financial institution in North Carolina… may be Florida I’m thinking of, but I’m pretty sure it is NC.
NC has some really stupid ones… like you can’t carry into any place that you paid admission to get in to.
You are also required to inform police that you are carrying in North Carolina.
“And if al, you and Jack have to do when you go out is wet yourselves about signs, you both might want to consider getting hobbies.”
I can’t say that I’ve wet myself over any signs, honestly.
I guess the alternative would be to leave the signs up… let the police think that what you’re doing is illegal and allow them to arrest you. A couple of months later, a big payday on the taxpayer’s dime.
That’s actually starting to sound like a pretty appealing alternative.
“We get it. You guys are too scared to go out in public without a strap on.”
And WE need to keep it clean?
I think I have the perfect compromise. Since mass gun murderers (Cho, the Subway murderer, Columbine) are all committed from leftists or anti-Christian influences, let’s simply ban guns for all leftwingers or anybody whose family votes Democrat. That should eliminate nearly all urban crime since most is committed by blacks. Dyland Kliebold and Eric Harris were heavily involved in the occult, Cho was an avowed leftist railing against rich white people. The left hates guns anyway and judging by this thread doesn’t know anything about them. it’s the perfect solution.
What do you say?
I’m not fixated on sexual assault. For the millionth time, Joe Hokie keeps proposing that no incidents have occurred at VT since the Cho shooting, where a gun might be necessary. I have just been quoting VT’s Clery report, which included multiple forced sexual assaults, a crime where a gun could definitely be used. Or not if you are Joe Hokie.
A friend of mine with a daughter bought her this little pepper spray thing that looks like lipstick and goes on the keychain when she went to college. For the overwhelming vast majority of on or off campus sexual assaults, I think this would serve the same utility as a gun with a lot less downside potential.
“You are also required to inform police that you are carrying in North Carolina.”
Same in Ohio. It needs to be dropped, it does nothing but create problems.
Thanks Jason! You admitted: “I’ve repeatedly said that there is no evidence that concealed carry has reduced crime in the states it exists. There is also no evidence that it has *increased* crime. The science is pretty consistent on this matter; less or more gun control has little if any effect on crime. I expect VT would be similar. Carry would not make it a rainbow-unicorn paradise nor would it create a situation where running gun battles are the norm.” And I thank you for it.
That admission alone sort of takes a big bite out of the “reason” so many people say they carry guns though. Also, to your repeated question which I thought I already answered, “your” surveys are not more acceptable than “mine” on the issue of DGU. I do not need to refute the studies you support because you believe what you want to believe.
If there were 1.3 (being generous) million violent crimes in 2010, it is inconceivable that in 1992/1993 (when Kleck survey was taken) there were 2 million or more DGUs against violent crime so quite obviously they included “trespassing, vandalism, and malicious mischief” and totally unreported crime not necessarily “violent” crimes, so we are comparing apples and pears to a very real extent.
I am not arguing that there are not people who should be allowed to be armed in public and have very good reason to do so, but until concealed carry permitting is not a joke, revocation of a permit or gun rights is not a joke and the contempt shown by too many gun advocates is absent, or the statistics bear out that a 1 percent victimization potential merits more people carrying guns in public, I will not be swayed to support that particular right and will continue to consider it machismo for most of the gun carry in public folks.
Anyone afraid of being a victim can always stay home. Rights get trampled on every day; look at what happens when people try to exercise their First Amendment rights to assembly and redress? Have you ever been pepper-sprayed for daring to exercise your right to own or carry a gun?
#265 Gosh, Jack, that didn’t even come to mind for me until you posted a link and I clicked on it to see what the heck you were talking about.
I thought pepper spray was useful only against nonviolent protestors.
“#265 Gosh, Jack, that didn’t even come to mind for me until you posted a link and I clicked on it to see what the heck you were talking about.”
Didn’t for me, either. When he said that I go into public with a “strap on” I figured I’d Google it to see what he was talking about.
I guess, if big enough, it could certainly serve as a form of personal protection.
I’m certainly not fixated on sexual assault.
However, it does typically provide an excellent case study of when deadly force by a private citizen against another human is considered to be judicious, sensible, prudent, justified, etc.
First, it typically involves disparity of force. No one submits to rape unless the aggressor has the disparity of force to leave the victim no option of defense. True, criminal justice statistics show that 79% of rapists are unarmed. However there is still typically a disparity of force involved. The attacker are likely to be armed with ferocious aggression, greater size, more physical strength, or with strength in numbers (e.g., a gang rape), etc.
Second, it typically is a non-fatal attack that exemplifies great harm to the victim, even when death does not result.
Third, it is acknowledged to be a significantly under-reported crime.
Forth, it is (IMHO) a major driver in women being the fastest growing segment of CHP holders and gun owners. Women are beginning to understand that they can fight back effectively.
Fifth, there is little likelihood of the victim having escalated the situation / confrontation —
thereby clouding the issue of justification. Thankfully, blaming the victim (as having “Asked for it”) is becoming far less common.
Finally, rape typically contains all three of the elements of justifiable deadly force from Common Law and as contained in most States’ statutory law. In nearly all cases the three criteria are clearly present:
Ability. The attacker typically possess the ability or power to cause bodily harm or kill — through disparity of force, even if not armed.
Opportunity. The attacker is typically capable of immediately employing power to cause bodily harm or kill. Rape is not some vague, “I’ll get you”, “You’ll pay”, “You’ll hear from me”, type “threat.”
Jeopardy. Any reasonable and prudent person would conclude beyond doubt that the attacker’s intent is to cause bodily harm or kill.
True, it is not the only case where use of deadly force is justified. However, it is a text-book example, IMHO.
OTOH, I would never challenge someone as to their willingness to be raped as proof of anything or vice versa.
IMHO, we should deal with it for what it is — a heinous crime. A crime that many think of as a good reason to arm oneself. Conversely, we should acknowledge and respect others’ decision not to arm themselves, IMHO. I have never been a “My way or the highway” person. I have no desire to “force” others to arm themselves. I just ask that they not try to force be, or mine, to disarm — hence support freedom.
“Have you ever been pepper-sprayed for daring to exercise your right to own or carry a gun?”
Nope, and for good reason.
#268 Kristen, all pepper spray is not created equal. Some are more effective than others. Even at it’s best, pepper spray (Oleoresin Capsicum) won’t stop a goal oriented individual. Your friend’s daughter shouldn’t put herself into any situation with the OC that she wouldn’t go into without it. It’s a good tool, but it’s not a panacea that will make the weak equal to the strong.
I think most of these statistics illustrate the reason guns are not an appropriate solution to the overwhelming vast majority of sexual assaults, on campus or not.
“•More than 70% of rape victims knew their attackers, compared to about half of all violent crime victims. Dennison, Callie. Criminal Victimization 1998. Bureau of Justice Stats, DOJ.”
“•On average, at least 50% of college students’ sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use Abbey et al., 1996a, 1998; Copenhaver and Grauerholz, 1991; Harrington and Leitenberg, 1994; Presley et al., 199). Koss (1988), Within the study’s nationally represented sample of college students the results found that 74% of perpetrators and 55% of rape victims had been drinking alcohol prior to the assault.”
So, what we’ve learned is that the majority of rapes on a college campus are drunken date/acquaintance rapes. There are 1000 ways to avoid these situations without resorting to shooting the guy. Unless you think putting guns in the hands of drunk partying college kids to blow away other drunk partying college kids sounds like a good idea.
Weak sauce pimping out these kids for some obscure of-no-interest gun ownership agenda that garners no play with the actual subjects. If you think college students are wandering around jonesing for more guns on campus, you’re nuts. For problems on a college campus, guns are not a viable solution. And it has nothing to do with empowering poor weak female victims, so don’t even bring that. Nothing. To. Do.
““•More than 70% of rape victims knew their attackers, compared to about half of all violent crime victims. Dennison, Callie. Criminal Victimization 1998. Bureau of Justice Stats, DOJ.””
Does this mean that if you know the person that is raping you, you should just allow them to continue, rather than stop them?
By the way, just Monday I was trying to get to my car in the parking lot at Marshall’s and some old woman was loading something into her car blocking my way. Shot the old bag.
Then, not ten minutes later, getting lunch with the wife at Taco Bell, my order was missing one of the soft tacos. Shot the cashier.
I’m surprised that more of these “random” killings don’t get on the news. I’m even more surprised that they still allow me to have a permit.
“Your friend’s daughter shouldn’t put herself into any situation with the OC that she wouldn’t go into without it. It’s a good tool, but it’s not a panacea that will make the weak equal to the strong.”
Actually, VRWC, I agree with that completely. But unlike many I’d say the exact same thing about a gun. Don’t go into a situation with one that you wouldn’t go into without.
We’re evolved to have very strong instincts about what situations pose danger and which might not. We’re also the only species – and especially women – who have been socialized to ignore these instincts in the interests of appearing polite. Again, especially the case with women. Women need to know that it’s ok to walk away from that elevator, that stairwell, that ATM machine if they get a creepy feeling about it. Even running the risk of insulting the probably perfectly-fine guy standing there.
The best way to survive a violent crime is not being there in the first place.
“Thanks Jason! You admitted….”
Sandi, that wasn’t some earth-shattering news. I’ve made that point probably dozens of times on Dan’s blog.
“That admission alone sort of takes a big bite out of the “reason” so many people say they carry guns though.”
No it doesn’t. It only raises other questions, such as why do gun control policies, whether loose or tight, seem to have little effect on crime? Why hasn’t CC acted as a deterrent (I’ve got my own theories on that one)? It’s not at all difficult to find examples of the utility of carrying.
“Also, to your repeated question which I thought I already answered, “your” surveys are not more acceptable than “mine” on the issue of DGU. I do not need to refute the studies you support because you believe what you want to believe.”
Sandi, what studies of “yours” are you referring to? And again, you’ve done nothing to answer the really tough question that I put to you: what specifically is wrong with the dozen or more studies/surveys that disagree with you? Why did the L.A. Times come up with a number even higher than Kleck? What are the methodological flaws that allow you to ignore the overwhelming majority of research on the topic?
“If there were 1.3 (being generous) million violent crimes in 2010, it is inconceivable that in 1992/1993 (when Kleck survey was taken) there were 2 million or more DGUs against violent crime so quite obviously they included “trespassing, vandalism, and malicious mischief” and totally unreported crime not necessarily “violent” crimes, so we are comparing apples and pears to a very real extent.”
I understand that you think it’s inconceivable. So did that esteemed anti-gun criminologist, yet he found no fault with Kleck’s work. So could you tell me what the problem was?
Let’s take a specific example. How about National Institute of Justice (NIJ), which is under the DOJ. Their survey came to an estimate almost exactly the same as Kleck, 2.45 million per year. What did they do wrong Sandi?
Per Kristen, “I’d say the exact same thing about a gun. Don’t go into a situation with one that you wouldn’t go into without.” and “The best way to survive a violent crime is not being there in the first place.”
I agree with Kristen (did I just say that?!). I never go anywhere that looks sketchy or like there’s trouble…unless I HAVE to for whatever reason and cannot avoid it. No one would drive down a road if they though they were going to be in a wreck for doing so. It’s really unfortunate for people who are disarmed by their company’s policy, but even more so for those who must work in known high-crime areas.
Once I had to go take pictures of a six-unit apartment building for my job. Nothing out of the ordinary. I took the pictures and went on my way up the street. The street was a dead end, so I turned around and came back down. Waiting for me outside of the apartment complex were several young men that didn’t exactly look like they were holding bible study. They tried to block my egress to the main road. Yelling taunts at me, I drove through them in a dangerous fashion. I later find out, that was a drug dealers’ hangout and they must not have taken kindly to my taking pictures. I hadn’t a clue. Point being that I was not at all seeking out a problem, was there for my job with every reason to be there, and most importantly had the lethal force right at my side as always, BUT neither showed nor used it becuase very fortunately, there was another option….that time. Had the situation escalated a little more, who knows; it was threatening enough as it was! I don’t like this notion that just because we can pull out a gun if we’re threatened, that we will always elect to do so without judgment. While I’m glad there was another option, I’m equally glad that I had the handgun option too.
The CHP holders I know will go out of their way to NOT have to use a handgun for self-defense. The last resort should always be available, though.
What Kristen says in #277 is pretty much borne out by the campus crime reports found here: http://www.police.vt.edu/VTPD_v2.1/crime_logs.html or http://tinyurl.com/cbdsehy Click on a month and you can see a report of all the crimes reported on the Virginia Tech campus in that month. The majority of them are for underage drinking or appearing intoxicated. Pick October, 2011, and review it. There were a couple of sexual assaults reported, which took place in various residence halls where undergraduate students live. In the post April 16 world on campus, one doesn’t just walk in the door of a residence hall any more, access is gained only by those who live in the building or by being let in by someone who lives there or knowing someone in the building. Strangers don’t just wander in except in rare cases (yes, it happens maybe once a year but residents are quick to report it and police response is quick). Residence halls are populated by undergraduate students, the majority of whom are under the age of 21. So if you want to carry on about rape, it isn’t some coed walking alone in a dark part of campus being jumped by a stranger hiding in the bushes, its someone getting out of hand in his or her room. As Kristen pointed out in the study, more than likely alcohol was involved.
Note also there are one or two “simple assaults” listed in the report also. So not much there that would require armed intervention. So Jason, yeah, there are crimes on campus, but still nothing at the level that would necessitate people to feel the need to have weapons at their side for their self-preservation or to jump to protect someone else in danger.
“More than 70% of rape victims knew their attackers, compared to about half of all violent crime victims. Dennison, Callie. Criminal Victimization 1998. Bureau of Justice Stats, DOJ.”
And this means what? That a rape by a relative or friend isn’t as bad as a stranger rape? I’m telling you right now, if my wife or mother were being raped by someone they knew, I don’t care who it was, they’d be within their rights to shoot them and I’d want them to (assuming it was the best option).
“On average, at least 50% of college students’ sexual assaults are associated with alcohol use Abbey et al., 1996a, 1998; Copenhaver and Grauerholz, 1991; Harrington and Leitenberg, 1994; Presley et al., 199). Koss (1988), Within the study’s nationally represented sample of college students the results found that 74% of perpetrators and 55% of rape victims had been drinking alcohol prior to the assault.”
Drinking alcohol does not necessarily mean drunk. And that still leaves 45% of the victims who aren’t drinking.
“So, what we’ve learned is that the majority of rapes on a college campus are drunken date/acquaintance rapes.”
Which are apparently lesser rapes.
“There are 1000 ways to avoid these situations without resorting to shooting the guy.”
Of course, the best self defense is to avoid a conflict in the first place. But once an attack has begun, women who want the option should have it.
“Unless you think putting guns in the hands of drunk partying college kids to blow away other drunk partying college kids sounds like a good idea.”
You are a master of the straw man. No one has ever suggested such a thing, nor would the policy necessarily create it. There are dozens of college campuses that already allow carry. No problems.
“Weak sauce pimping out these kids for some obscure of-no-interest gun ownership agenda that garners no play with the actual subjects. If you think college students are wandering around jonesing for more guns on campus, you’re nuts.”
Straw man again. No one has ever said that there is a huge clamor for guns on campus, nor do I care if there is a huge demand. I only want the people who do want to carry to be able to.
“For problems on a college campus, guns are not a viable solution.”
Depends on the problem. For someone who bumped you out the way when you were hitting the beer bong? No. For a disputed grade? No. For a violent, life-threatening attack? Yes.
“And it has nothing to do with empowering poor weak female victims, so don’t even bring that. Nothing. To. Do.”
I will bring it. Guns are excellent tools because they help balance the odds. You don’t have to be big or strong to use them effectively (as the story about the elderly rape victim I mentioned demonstrates). I find it hilarious that it is a woman in the thread who is declaring what all college women want or need. I’m in favor of letting them decide for themselves. Imagine that, allowing adult women (and men as well) to make their own decisions.
#279 Kristen, I agree. I didn’t want to get involved in an argument about the stopping power of guns, but arguably most guns won’t stop a goal oriented person either – at least not quickly. Plus, a lot of people probably couldn’t shoot a person anyway and using a gun as a threat won’t always work.
Good point about women ignoring what their instincts should be telling them. If a person doesn’t think a situation looks right, she/he should avoid it.
#275 John Wilburn,, if you pull your piece on a cop who’s pepper sprayed you, I predict you will very shortly be in a world of hurt.
Sandi, tell “Anyone afraid of being a victim can always stay home” to those that must work in high-crime areas like Valley View Mall, which comes to mind. My cousin works there and is concerned about the crime, but doesn’t have the luxury of staying home. I doubt her employer would go for that and I doubt her bills would get paid if she quit. Enough bad stuff happens in her neighborhood that just staying home isn’t really a safehaven either. No ma’am, I don’t buy the idea of it being okay for her to protect herself in her home, but not out in public. Society won’t really let her open carry at work either. This creates “gaps in coverage” any way you slice it. Sandi’s philosophies have no business in her holster either.
It’s clear that you do not think college students should have the right to carry a handgun. What about faculty and staff?
Also, what about teachers and parents who are disarmed by state law (federal if they don’t have a CHP) in K-12 schools?
We’re not talking about arming kids. The law is currently disarming respected faculty, staff, and teachers. Are you concerned a teacher will “pop a cap” in some kid for sassing them?
Per gdad, “#275 John Wilburn,, if you pull your piece on a cop who’s pepper sprayed you…”
Who said I have any intetion of doing so?
VRWC says, “arguably most guns won’t stop a goal oriented person either – at least not quickly.”
That’s why I recommend large calibers for personal protection. Most women that shoot larger-caliber handguns for the first time, like them better and find them more manageable than they first thought they would be.
Sounds like JW is recommending a .44 magnum, ladies.
You’d better buy a big purse for that one!
I just wrote a big response to everyone here who addressed me and forgot to save it before captcha coding it. I’m not doing it again.
VRWC, glad we could find some point of agreement. Jason, I think you’re completely wrong.
Now it just told me…”You are posting too quickly. Slow down”.
#289 John, I agree that larger calibers are preferable for their stopping power, but they weigh more and are difficult to carry/conceal.
#290 Dan, John is probably just recommending something bigger than a .25 for personal protection. A lot of people carry the .25s because they’ll fit in a front pocket, or a small purse, but for a weaker person in an isolated spot, the .25 might not be enough.
Dan, a lot of women carry .45s. A .45 is a good threat stopper for sure. Bigger guns are oftentimes easier to control. The purse doesn’t have to be all that big, especially if you go with a something like a .40 caliber. That is a good alternative and a good bit smaller and easier to conceal. The police have generally stepped up from 9mm to .40s and .357sig caliber sidearms for the increase in threat-stopping potential.
I personally like the .380 and I really like my little .22, but they don’t have the heft for certain assailants.
A lady with a .44 magnum sounds fine to me.
I hate it when the CAPTCHA gremlin strikes!
“So if you want to carry on about rape, it isn’t some coed walking alone in a dark part of campus being jumped by a stranger hiding in the bushes, its someone getting out of hand in his or her room.”
WOW. Rape is not “someone getting out of hand”. It’s a violent assault. We are not talking about a guy who grabbed a girl’s boob for one second too long. Again, stranger or not, rape is a crime that warrants the use of a firearm.
“As Kristen pointed out in the study, more than likely alcohol was involved.”
And sometimes it wasn’t. And “alcohol involved” doesn’t necessarily mean drunk or impaired.
“Note also there are one or two “simple assaults” listed in the report also. So not much there that would require armed intervention.”
Which is why I didn’t list simple assaults in any of my responses.
“So Jason, yeah, there are crimes on campus, but still nothing at the level that would necessitate people to feel the need to have weapons at their side for their self-preservation or to jump to protect someone else in danger.”
You are flat freaking wrong and I am both shocked and horrified that people are downplaying rape as a crime worthy of a lethal response. Aside from that, you ignored the aggravated assaults which may very well have demanded that type of defense. You were wrong and you are trying to backpedal, misdirect, and dodge that fact.
I’ve lost some of my best comments that way John Wilburn!!
I try to make it a habit of highlighting and copying before submitting the code, but oh well, so much debate, so little time anyway
It’s fun to go rounds with the faithful few here, but more rewarding to do it with the private business owners and government officials. No CAPTCHA code with talking with them…lol.
Ron…my best stuff gets left on the cutting room floor. :/
I generally carry a .40 S&W, sometimes my 9mm.
My wife, however, carries a .380 Auto.
“Guns are excellent tools because they help balance the odds“. What freaking “odds”? The odds of being a crime victim in America are as low as they have been since the 60′s by some measures. In a nation of 307 million there were 1,246,248 violent crimes reported in 2010.
By far the most prevalent victimization is from people we know:
The bottom line is that we cannot know how many people own guns, how many guns, what kind of guns, nor how many people go about in public carrying them. The reason for this is that guns are not registered, not tracked and not accounted for beyond when they are sold the first time or reported stolen to my knowledge. There is no “car fax” system. We can add up the number of CHPs issued and get a fair idea of the percentage of our neighbors who are armed in public in addition to the totally unknown number of criminals doing the same but that is about it.
It is a common sense fact that surveys cannot be trusted as being accurate enough. Add in the fact that if the survey is about possibly illegal, frowned upon, feared, questionable acts or a topic that is controversial, political, “in the news” or if the respondents are uncertain “who’s asking” there could easily be problems with the data and why we have such varying “research” gathered that way.
No researcher wants to admit they have many “false positives” or lies about a “controversial topic” but that is always the potential. Kinda like the exit polling that led folks to believe Kerry was winning over Bush in 2004.
I remain convinced that it is not about crime, it is not about statistical victimization, it is not about being defenseless, and it is not about need for the vast and overwhelming majority of public gun carriers. That bothers me, as does the contempt, the anger and the attitude of those same gun advocates and I will never agree that the Virginia permitting process is adequate as “vetting” for people to carry guns in public places.
Sandi’s one time correlation between sex offenders and CHP holders made me think of this:
If anyone saw it, one of the episodes of “To Catch a Predator” on MSNBC (I think?) had the whole typical setup (for those who don’t know: of a house where a decoy is stationed and criminal internet solicitors of sex with who they think are minors would show up. Unbeknownst to them it was trap set by law enforcement). Anyway, one episode from Florida had cops not just walking up and arresting the criminal pervs as they left, like usual, but running and tackling them. The reason they gave: Because it is easier to get a concealed weapons permit in Florida! Unbelieveable! Sure, tackle them if you think they are a threat, fine, I don’t have sympathy for those who commit crimes against children, but to worry that they have a CCW (Florida’s rough CHP equivalent)? Anyone who perpetrates sex crimes against children is certainly not above carrying a handgun without a permit! Why not worry about this in the other locations where the stings have taken place? This kind of stuff makes permit holders look bad and does make an implied correlation with criminals unnecessarily. Why not just tell the viewers that the police are changing their takedown method because of the possibility that the criminal might have a gun? That would be far more fair.
You missed the flipping point, Jason, when I said the population in the residence halls are undergraduate students, the majority of whom are under the age of 21. Per the Commonwealth, “Any person 21 years of age or older may apply in writing to the clerk of the circuit court of the county or city in which he or she resides” for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. Kind of eliminates a big portion of those who you think could or should protect themselves from a rape by shooting her assailant. I never said rape wasn’t a horrible crime, but then that seems to be how this argument goes — make the opposition look bad and stupid by putting words in their mouth or implying they believe something different (even though it may not be what they actually believe). Same goes for my comment about crime, I owned up and have even pointed out where to find out better statistics than the Clery report — but you seem to be hung up on being strictly literal.
So, compare the Virginia Tech crime rate with three assaults in one year with Danville that seems to have several shootings a week and explain to me again how and why it is necessary to have a weapon on this safe campus.
“Guns are excellent tools because they help balance the odds“. What freaking “odds”? The odds of being a crime victim in America are as low as they have been since the 60′s by some measures. In a nation of 307 million there were 1,246,248 violent crimes reported in 2010.”
Perhaps we should engage in an interesting exercise: replace the word “guns” with “condoms” and “crime” with “AIDS.”
“To Catch a Predator” is the creepiest show on TV. I’m glad they stopped it. It was too weird, even for me.
Re: #291 & #291
As I suggested before:
When you finish typing the comment and before moving to the code box press Ctrl a then Ctrl c
That copies all the text to your notepad.
If something goes wrong, back arrow or otherwise reopen the thread. Put your cursor in the comment text-box and press Ctrl p
That will paste the text from your notepad to the comment text-box.
Dan #304, good point.
Sandi #301 wrote, “What freaking “odds”? The odds of being a crime victim in America are as low as they have been since the 60′s by some measures. In a nation of 307 million there were 1,246,248 violent crimes reported in 2010.”
Is Sandi saying that if the odds are 1 in 300 there is nothing to worry about? What if 1 of every 300 airplanes crashed? According to the movie Flight 93, there were 5,000 planes in the air when the planes hit the Trade Centers on 9-11. If 1 in 300 planes crashed we’d all be ducking for cover everyday.
300-1 odds would mean a one sided sporting event, but 300-1 odds of being the victim of a violent crime is not so one sided.
“The odds of being a crime victim in America are as low as they have been since the 60′s by some measures.”
He is referring to the odds once you *ARE* a crime victim. Not of being one.
For example, Let’s assume that Kristen is being assaulted by Shaq.
As you can see, Shaq is a pretty big dude. I don’t know what Kristen looks like, but I’m sure that she’s not even remotely that large.
Anyway… with just her hands, or even a knife or baseball bat, Kristen probably doesn’t stand a chance. The odds of defeating Shaq and coming out of it alive (if she really were threatened with death) are pretty slim.
Now, but a .45 Auto into Kristen’s hands… and voila… the odds are now closer to even… if not in Kristen’s favor.
“So, compare the Virginia Tech crime rate with three assaults in one year with Danville that seems to have several shootings a week and explain to me again how and why it is necessary to have a weapon on this safe campus.”
Are you suggesting that Danville would be a better place to carry a gun? If so, why? There are plenty of places that we could compare to Danville that would make it look like Disney Land.
Are you suggesting that if there is a more dangerous place than “Place A”, then carrying of concealed handguns should be disallowed in “Place A”?
If so.. you are obviously suggesting the only place where carrying of guns should be legal would likely be a tossup between somewhere in Iraq or Afganistan.
“Perhaps we should engage in an interesting exercise: replace the word “guns” with “condoms” and “crime” with “AIDS.””
The odds of contracting AIDS are pretty low… I’d suggest we do away with condoms all together.
““To Catch a Predator” is the creepiest show on TV. I’m glad they stopped it. It was too weird, even for me.”
It was awesome to watch, though. You have to admit that. Chris Hansen will forever be a household name.
Per Sandi, “I remain convinced that it is not about crime, it is not about statistical victimization, it is not about being defenseless, and it is not about need for the vast and overwhelming majority of public gun carriers. That bothers me, as does the contempt, the anger and the attitude of those same gun advocates and I will never agree that the Virginia permitting process is adequate as “vetting” for people to carry guns in public places.”
I only have contempt for you proclamation of entitlement to control my rigths. It is all about control for Sandi. I’m never asking you to agree with the Virginia permitting process. If we go to constitutional carry, you’ll no longer have a problem with our required permitting process… we won’t have one. That’ll be a win-win
Dan, I didn’t know they stopped it, but I agree, it was kind of creepy how long they ran it. Yeah, it made for a very interesting and informative sting to watch…once or twice. After that, it was nothing short of gratuitous. I don’t know how many sequals they made, but I don’t have the stomach to want to hear all that same stuff again and again.
Dan says, “Perhaps we should engage in an interesting exercise: replace the word “guns” with “condoms” and “crime” with “AIDS.”” Sounds like a fun exercise….
The problem with the logic here is that the “condom”-toter is willfully out to get a piece of, … action and hope the defensive tool will keep him from getting “crime.” AIDS doesn’t sneak up on people like crime does. The celebit and uber-faithful have a pretty-much zero chance of getting AIDS, but virtually no one (especially the unarmed) has a zero chance of being the victim of violent crime.
Re: an number of comments
I know a women who carries a Smith & Wesson Model 296 Air Lite in 44 Special to maintain stopping power while reducing carry weight and recall.
A Nosler 200 gr. JHP pushed by 6.3 gr. of W231 is a fine SD load.
Dan had an idea about replacing “guns” with “condoms.” What if we repalce “guns” with “marijuana?” What kind of restrictions would Sandi like to see on marijuana? How about Cocaine or Heroin? How about Kristen’s or Dan’s ideas on this?
Thanks Jack, I’ll get to prop my feet up and watch Kristen’s response get inflicted on someone else this time. I asked her a direct question in regards to her philosophies and made a direct example then, but I haven’t used her name for original illustrative purposes. Hope she doesn’t mind…lol.
What if she is the size of Shaq!?
“For example, Let’s assume that Kristen is being assaulted by Shaq.”
Lovely. I’d say I’m done engaging in this thread.
“Chris Hansen will forever be a household name.”
Just ask his wife about his trysts with the 25 year old blonde.
“The odds of being a crime victim in America are as low as they have been since the 60′s by some measures.”
I know all of this. It has nothing to do with my remark about a gun balancing the odds. I meant that it can balance the odds *if you are attacked*. Obviously the act of carrying a concealed weapon doesn’t reduce your odds of being involved in a crime.
“By far the most prevalent victimization is from people we know:
Has nothing to do with anything I said and it’s irrelevant. If a person fears for their life, they are within their rights, legally and morally, to use lethal force regardless of their relationship with the attacker.
“It is a common sense fact that surveys cannot be trusted as being accurate enough.”
No it is not. Surveying is actually a fairly precise and well understood tool. They are not perfect, no dispute there, but when properly administered (large enough and representative sample, questions that don’t direct the answers, etc.), they are very reliable. And when other independent surveys come up with the same or similar results, you have what scientists call reproducibility.
“Add in the fact that if the survey is about possibly illegal, frowned upon, feared, questionable acts or a topic that is controversial, political, “in the news” or if the respondents are uncertain “who’s asking” there could easily be problems with the data and why we have such varying “research” gathered that way.”
Finally! You backed into a real issue with Kleck’s research. And guess what? You just paraphrased KLECK’S words. The most likely motive to lie on his survey was because they feared that they did something illegal. That would result in an UNDERESTIMATE of defensive gun uses. Kleck tried to minimize that by making it clear that the survey was not being conducted by the government (unlike the National Crime Victimization Survey often quoted by anti-gun people; it made its governmental status clear).
“No researcher wants to admit they have many “false positives” or lies about a “controversial topic” but that is always the potential. Kinda like the exit polling that led folks to believe Kerry was winning over Bush in 2004.”
This is what was argued against Kleck’s survey, particularly by David Hemenway. The problem is, Kleck’s survey made it easy to get a negative response (false or true). All it took was for a respondent to go down as a “no” was to give that answer on a single question. Anyone lying on that point would make Kleck’s estimate TOO LOW. However, for a respondent to go down as a positive in his survey, they had to answer *19* questions in the affirmative and the answers had to be internally consistent. After that, they had to be called a second time by a supervisor to confirm their answers. Is it possible that some were jerking the surveyor’s chain? Sure, in fact, with a sample size as large as Kleck’s, it’s almost guaranteed. The point is, Kleck intentionally made it harder to give a false positive and no one, including Hemenway, has presented any evidence that Kleck’s numbers are dramatically off due to false positives.
So add that to the other surveys, including one by a government agency, another by a vehemently anti-gun newspaper, and we have to ask ourselves, “What is more likely? That a dozen or so surveys that get figures averaging well over a million DGUs/year are all wrong and the two that had it under a million got it right?”
“I remain convinced that it is not about crime, it is not about statistical victimization, it is not about being defenseless, and it is not about need for the vast and overwhelming majority of public gun carriers.”
For the life of me, I can’t think of a motive for me to carry other than self-defense. I get no bragging rights because no one but my wife and a tiny handful of relatives know (and they couldn’t possibly care less, my mother thinks I’m slightly nuts for it). I don’t feel macho carrying it and I’m not scared when I don’t. I know that I will likely never fire it in anger and I’m glad for it. It’s just a tool that I carry.
“You missed the flipping point, Jason, when I said the population in the residence halls are undergraduate students, the majority of whom are under the age of 21. Per the Commonwealth, [rules for CC]… kind of eliminates a big portion of those who you think could or should protect themselves from a rape by shooting her assailant.”
*sigh* When did I say that everyone of every age on campus should carry? When did I advocate for anyone not legally eligible to carry? I said it before, I want those who wish to carry (legally obviously) to be able to. Those not eligible aren’t relevant to the argument, particularly since I’ve never claimed a deterrent effect.
“I never said rape wasn’t a horrible crime, but then that seems to be how this argument goes — make the opposition look bad and stupid by putting words in their mouth or implying they believe something different (even though it may not be what they actually believe).”
You’re lying here because you know that what you said was indefensible. Here it is again: “So if you want to carry on about rape, it isn’t some coed walking alone in a dark part of campus being jumped by a stranger hiding in the bushes, its someone getting out of hand in his or her room.”
You are either denying that the rapes aren’t really rapes or are saying that because they are “date” rapes, they aren’t as bad as stranger rapes. They are. Rape is rape is rape.
“Same goes for my comment about crime, I owned up and have even pointed out where to find out better statistics than the Clery report — but you seem to be hung up on being strictly literal.”
Thank you for owning up. Now if only you thought that people in fear for their lives should be able to defend themselves effectively.
Never said it was necessary, never said the campus wasn’t safe, never said that carrying makes a campus safer. You’ll argue more effectively if you respond to stuff that I actually say rather than stuff you make up.
“Perhaps we should engage in an interesting exercise: replace the word “guns” with “condoms” and “crime” with “AIDS.””
Honestly, you’re going to have to give me a hand. I tried to parse that and it won’t work. You are referring to two statements, one by me, one by Sandi. I never used the word “crime” so I can’t substitute there and Sandi never used the word “guns” so I can’t do it there either. So I’m left with this:
Jason- Condoms are excellent tools because they help balance the odds.
Sandi- The odds of being an AIDS victim in America are as low as they have been since the…
So should my statement be interpreted as, “Condoms reduce the risk of acquiring HIV”? That is correct, but the mere act of carrying a condom doesn’t reduce any risk or balance any odds. It is the USE of condoms that do so. Carrying a gun does not reduce the odds of being victimized, it helps balance the odds WHEN it is used.
“The odds of contracting AIDS are pretty low… I’d suggest we do away with condoms all together.”
Perfect. I wish I’d thought of that.
Is that the same Shaq that played pretend cop w/the Bedford County Sheriff’s Department. Good grief.
Chris Hansen and Newt have a lot in common, when you think about it.
Poor Newt. (Sarcasm) Can’t wait until they put him under the microscope.
“I’d say I’m done engaging in this thread.’
Can’t say I blame you.
And Kristen retires…..
Getting Shaqed was too much. Can’t say I blame her, but then again, getting the thickness of your skin tested goes with the territory here.
I hope she doesn’t hang up the cleats for good. This place would not be as much fun without her
It could be anyone… Dan gets attacked by Charles Barkley.. or “Stone Cold” Steve Austin.
Sorry if I offended you, Kristen. Was just picking your name because I was guessing that you were smaller than Shaq and probably couldn’t stand a chance against him in hand-to-hand combat.
If you can, however, more power to you.
On the one week anniversary of this spirited and memorable thread, I’d like to wish everyone a safe and happy Thanksgiving, armed or not.
I’m with Kristen and out the door — don’t appreciate being called a liar. I hope you remaining zealots enjoy the mass debate with yourselves.
OK, let’s close this thread. at #327 Don’t want it to catch up with my two record-setting threads, not that it could.
#323 Jack, I’m guessing that about 99.99999999 percent of the population is smaller than Shaq. As far as his hand-to-hand combat skills, I don’t know.
#325 Joe Hokie,
They were doing something other than de-bating themselves for over 300 posts but this is a PG blog so we won’t get into all that grab-assing and what-not.
Attempting discourse with gun nuts is about as productive as trying to talk sense into birthers.
Joe Hokie, I didn’t say you were a liar and am not sure who may have, but I personally don’t appreciate you saying that since tragedy only comes to the 1%, that it is “acceptably low” or as one poster put it “a cost/benefit analysis”, especially in light of tangible, real, and undeniable they are.
Everyone on this thread hopes that neither they nor anyone else will ever find their way into that 1%, we just disagree on the way to ensure we aren’t. You take your odds, I’ll take precautions, and we’ll get along just fine.
Not that I’m trying to solicit any more of Steve C’s crudeness, but why is it that he feels “discourse” is not possible with the pro-rights folks? The angry-factor definitely tips to the antis. We represent rights, tangible defense, and logic. They represent privileges, theoretical defense, and emotion. I cannot imagine an attempt at discourse about some other issue where the anti-gun rights community was firmly divided. Now that kind of angry arguing would be a three-ring circus that makes this thread read like a Larry King interview!
I said I was out of here, but this is for John — “You’re lying here” Jason in #317. Add to that the fact that you zealots are putting words in my mouth by claiming that I am anti-gun rights. Standard practice, lump all your opponents into one easy-to-hate group and bullying is much easier. I never said I was against guns, gun rights, or anything of the sort. I just don’t believe there is a need for guns on the Virginia Tech campus, a place were emotions are still on edge due to April 16 even though it is several years removed. Or is that the plan, break down that barrier and watch as the rest of the state schools crumble behind.
Joe Hokie, the need was demonstrated many a time, not just on April 16th, but in the pastry shop on campus where bystanders watched one student cut off another student’s head. A gun could certainly have stopped that one too. As for emotions over there, we advertised the daylights out of that protest and yet only 18 people showed up to voice opposition. There was absolutely no question that our position was more popular and better accepted by more people. That event inevitably solicited all of the emotion the university had to offer to come out… and it did. The masses on this campus who want their rights to defense should not be denied becuase Lori Haas, Omar Samaha, Colin Goddard, Joe Hokie, and 15 others are uncomfortable with it.
Someone who loses a loved one in a pre-meditated vehicular homicide on a college campus will never convince anyone to ban cars from campus. And driving on campus isn’t even a right in the first place.
“325.I’m with Kristen and out the door — don’t appreciate being called a liar. I hope you remaining zealots enjoy the mass debate with yourselves.”
I didn’t exactly call you a liar; I pointed out that you had lied in a particular instance. Everyone lies on occasion, doesn’t make them all liars. It is hardly unexpected that rather than defend your position, you scurry off.
Of course, in the next gun thread you and Kristen will likely be back, hurling the same factual innaccuracies and falacious reasoning, and then pouting and dramatically declaring your departure when you run out of ways to respond to direct questions or hard data. See you then!
If we consider the number of students killed on Tech’s campus, it is less than 1%, which we have determined is an acceptable rate. No wonder we aren’t interested in change.
Dan, what do think about one of those bunch-of-people-in-a-house-type-reality shows with the group from this thread?! OMG. That would likely make a friendly, 334 comment war of attrition of its own! FIRST DIBS ON THE SINGLE ROOM! Just make sure the house has space for at least a pistol range in the backyard for Jack, Dave Hicks, and I.
“it’s nice, and refreshing, to hear that you feel comfortable drawing arbitrary lines into what is “reasonable” and what is not with regard to the Second Amendment.”
When did I say anything about being comfortable with “drawing arbitrary lines [emphasis added]“?
At #250, I did question your slippery slope paranoia about you not being able to distinguished between Constitutional carry of self-defense firearms and the private ownership of nuclear weapons. And I questioned that there was “no non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line between the two, which cannot be drawn by various legislative bodies and/or courts on a case-by-case bases.
As the private possession of radioactively is well regulated you whole argument is sophomoric, at best.
As to who is more reasonable, I would posit that one who repeatedly posits fallacious arguments (such as strawmen on slippery slopes clutching at red herrings) can hardly claim any high ground.
IMHO, as to reasonable examples of non-arbitrary place at which a sharp line in restriction on guns can be drawn see § 18.2-281, § 18.2-279, § 18.2-286, § 18.2-286.1, and § 18.2-286.1. I suggest that my reasonable examples trump your emotional slippery slope paranoia.
As for “drawing arbitrary lines,” people have drawn lines with things like technology, censorship, and all kinds of liberty controls before and it never works. Right now, I’m really not wanting to fool with facebook, but the speed of business and way clients comunicate don’t want to let me do that. Think of how many other liberty controls have become de-stigmatized over the years. With the proliferation of CHPs and maybe soon, the national right to carry, it will become more and more socailly accepted to see and/or know of people carrying handguns.
#337 “maybe soon, the national right to carry, it will become more and more socailly accepted to see and/or know of people carrying handguns.”
One can only hope not.
gdad, why on earth do you care about others who socially accept the carry of a handgun? Handgun carriers are one of the last bastions of fair game for society’s bigotry.
On another note, I was commenting on a Fairfax-based blog where I was being opposed by a guy who doesn’t want handguns on GMU’s campus. As I said earlier on this board, the antis always seem angry… well, turns out, this anti-rights commenter had been sentenced to an anger management program and a 12 month suspensed jail sentence for assault on an Alford Plea.
This sure lends credibilty to the old sayings “Speak softly and carry a big stick” and “An armed society is a polite society.”
Here’s a suggestion Dan. Let the RT establish a blog just for gun owners or people who want to discuss weaponry 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and 24 hours a day. Then leave off all gun threads from the rest of the blogs period. This one has beaten the subject to death again and has become truly tiresome. If I was a gun owner, I’d shoot it just to get it out of its misery.
Is this the thread that’s going to go on forever? Sure seems that way.
Dan likes to “translate” other folks comments, from time-to-time.
Let me translate dave’s latest for you, Dan.
“Here’s a suggestion Dan. Let the RT establish a blog just for gun owners or people who want to discuss weaponry 7 days a week, 365 days a year, and 24 hours a day. Then leave off all gun threads from the rest of the blogs period. You and the anti-freedom posters on this one have beaten on the subject and has become truly tiresome to see the anti-freedom faction lose, yet again.”
BTW, dave, given the Round Table blog’s format of discussing all editorials, if you are suggesting no more RT editorials?
If so, I’ll second the sugestion.
The cartoon that started this thread was absolutely soliciting a response from gun owners. So, you’re the odd comment out on this thread. The gun owners didn’t hijack it by any means. If this comment gets posted and two others, it will move into second on Dan’s all time list per his post 214. If it was comments they wanted, they succeeded!
The quickest way for us to quit talking about carry on a college campus? Quit trying to deny our right. Restaurtants, national parks, state forests, state parks, local governments, and some of the old restrictive permit processes seldom come up anymore unless there are abuses. Once carry is no longer denied on campus, we’ll likely take our message somewhere else… unless Dan’s up to opening a thread about another abuse of gun owners’ rights.
To his credit, he does seem relatively tireless.
The angry-factor definitely tips to the antis. We represent rights, tangible defense, and logic. They represent privileges, theoretical defense, and emotion.
That’s how it is with every issue, John Wilburn. The left reacts with anger and emotion and without logic; then pretends conservatives, not they, do it.
One need look no further than the Tea Party vs. the OWS Dirtbaggers.
#339 John Wilburn, there’s no “bigotry” in not wanting to see people become comfortable with everybody carrying around implements that have no purpose other than to hurt and kill things. Why would anybody want that?
BTW, “an armed society is a polite society” is undoubtedly one of the stupidest, most brainless “sayings” around, not only because there have been any number of armed societies that were FAR, FAR from polite, but also because who really cares about having a society that’s “polite” primarily because they live in fear of being shot for being rude? Sorry to see you trot it out.
gdad, some of us here don’t want to get comfortable with accepting the 1-2% becoming victims (depending whose numbers you use).
There were over 100 of the most polite people you will meet hanging out in front of Squires Thursday. Outside the Republican Roundup a couple of years ago, there were over 300 armed members at a rally. Again, quite a polite bunch. The anti-rigths folks seem angry even when they talk with each other. I have been places where there are thousands of people carrying guns, like at Hillsville every labor day and, again it seems there is something to it that gun owners are just just a generally cordial bunch.
Perhaps if our side had been losing for the last decade and a half we’d be crabby too.
I in no way denied that the cartoon solicited comments from gun owners and gun rights advocates. My point was, stop starting threads that solicit comments from gun owners and gun rights advocates. Not because I think its not an issue or even that there aren’t some points made on both sides of the issue. But the points have been made over and over and over and over ad infinitum, not only on this thread but numerous others that have covered the same subject. The issue has been beaten to a pulp
is tiresome, and has become quite circular with the same people presenting the same arguments over and over again.If people grew half as excited over resolving our economic problems, providing universal health care, getting us out of ill conceived entanglements abroad, and providing good schools for our kids, this could be a hell of a country again.
I don’t disagree that Dan beats the issue to death… But… Nobody forces you to participate, either.
I totally agree that we’ve covered the subject well. I’d like to have seen discussion on getting rid of the ridiculous K-12 ban, and seen what some of the posters thought about campus carry if it were only faculty/staff being allowed to carry and not students. I asked those new sub-topics but the same topics kept persisting. If the subject in it’s original scope was a whole orange tree when it came in here, it’s pulp free juice now.
But you know what? Gun owners’ rights have been going the right direction for a good while now due in no small part to the collective efforts of passionate grass-roots activists like some of us on this thread. I agree that this country has other very big, pressing issues and tremendous leadership problems, but keeping a government in-check and keeping them aware of what the peoples’ liberty and rights mean to them does set a better stage to work on the other things.
Want to see this thread break the 448 post record by changing topic, but keeping the same commenters? Talk about Obamacare. Wonder what divides there might be in the pro-rights community on that one? I’ve already been insulted by Steve C because I don’t believe this country needs Obamacare. As for good schools, I’ve wondered since childhood while this country has armed guards protecting our money at the bank, but nothing guarding our kids at the schools? That is the uphill morality problem that belies the others.
I like Obamacare. I can save myself a ton of money by only paying for insurance when I need it.
#347 And you’re arguing that carrying a gun is what makes these folks polite? Very, very weird. And very sad if they need the presence of guns to force them to be polite.
I was in a group of mixed Hokies and Wahoos yesterday watching the game and they were all extremely polite. And shazaam!!!! Not a single gun in the bunch!!! No one in the group even owns a gun. I wonder how on Earth they managed to stay polite????
As I said before, there have been many societies that were heavily armed and were far from polite. There’s no way you can deny that.
#347 I know, John Wilburn, just hand all those angry people a gun!!! They’ll suddenly become nice and polite!!!! Nothing like a cold, hard piece of steel designed to kill things and people to make you feel peaceful.
That’s the beauty of concealed carry, gdad. You had no idea who all was carrying. gdad sounds angry…oh, that’s right he’s an anti.
#354 “gdad sounds angry…”
Hmm, exactly how does that work through a blog on the Internet. Can you teach me to hear sounds where there’s no audio?
In the group I was in, John Wilburn, I knew that exactly no one was carrying. They were all family and no one even owns a gun. Funny how in my family we don’t feel the need to carry guns around each other.
#354 And actually, John Wilburn, there’s some definite hostility coming out of some of your remarks, such as suggesting that anybody who is “anti” (which in fact I am not) is automatically angry. You might want to get that checked out by a professional.
No, gdad, not all antis are angry, but the more “vocal” ones sure seem to be, audible or not. That seems to hold true in forums like this as well as in person. Yes, “seems” would have been more appropriate than “sounds.”
Your family does your thing, my family does mine… we might all be armed when togther, but just becasue we’re just all armed everyday anyway.
You disagree with me, therefore I’m hostile? There’s a difference between passion and hostility. The coarseness of language and name-calling was weighted toward the other side without a doubt. Thanks for your suggestion, but I’m reluctant to take advice from someone who posts under “gdad” as opposed to their real name.
#357 “gdad sounds angry…oh, that’s right he’s an anti.”
Most definitely hostility. I somehow think he’s angry (I’m not) and so automatically I’m an “anti.” Stereotype much?
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Mon, 20 May 2013 05:22:51 +0000
Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. That doesn't keep him from writing about them, however. So keep him honest!
He welcomes your rants, raves and considered opinions, so long as the language is civil (i.e. no four-letter words). He'll read all your posts and may or may not respond.