2009.06.27
Actual stories: Concealed carry = death and/or mayhem
Friday in the Guns, bars, Virginia & insanity thread, I posted a comment recounting the 1999 story of two law-abiding twins with concealed carry permits who took their weapons into a Blacksburg bar and shot the place up after a dance-floor scuffle. (It's comment #224).
Result: 1 dead, 1 wounded, 12 jurors who rejected the twins' self-defense claims, and 2 formerly law-abiding brothers in jail for 24 years each, convicted of murder.
Frequent poster Sandi Saunders then sent me a list of links to other concealed carry disasters. You can find them below. She couldn't post them as a comment because they were caught by a spam filter.
As others are sure to point out, these are anecdotes, not data regarding the safety (or not) of concealed carry. Many on this board have argued that there is data from 40 or so states that allow concealed carry in bars that show this is a safe practice. But they haven't offered that data - yet.
Of course, if you want to email me links of stories in which concealed-carry saved lives, rather than claimed them, or data that proves concealed carry in a bar is safe, I'll put that up as a post, too.
Click on "Read more" just to the right to see Sandi's list.
Here are Sandi's links:
- “The Cordova man accused of killing a man during an argument over how close their SUVs were parked says he is innocent but regrets the shooting, his attorney said Monday.”
- “Paul Kallenbach packed two pistols when he stepped out to buy a newspaper at a North Tamiami Trail convenience store one night in February. He wound up killing a man with one pistol, and being shot twice with the other.”
- “A Palm Bay man was arrested Tuesday after St. Lucie County sheriff's deputies said he pointed a gun at another driver who cut him off on State Road 9.”
- “Robert Lee Marre Jr., 55, of 384 N.W. Carole Road, Lake Placid, was arrested Monday on warrants charging with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill, impersonating a law enforcement officer in the commission of a felony and unlawful use of a police badge and law enforcement vehicle.”
- “An Eastside High math teacher who allegedly had a loaded .22 caliber Derringer on him in a classroom has pleaded not guilty to felony charges of possessing firearms on school property.”
- “A township man who has been accused of pulling a handgun on a baseball coach June 10 will go to trial.”
- “Christina Korbe has "total remorse," for firing the shot that killed FBI Special Agent Samuel Hicks last month.”
- “A Grindstone man faces charges that he brandished a gun while telling his son he was going to shoot the boy's mother.”
- “A 4-year-old girl shot herself in the chest Monday after snatching her grandmother's handgun from the woman's purse while riding in a shopping cart at a Sam's Club store, authorities said.”
- “Willie Donaldson, an Arlington resident and ex-Marine, stands accused of murder after engaging in a sexual liaison last month that went wrong.”
- “Staunton police responded to the school at about 2:50 p.m., finding Wayman Cecil Brock, 70, with an open beer and a 9 mm handgun in a holster, and Kim Darlene Schutz, 51, with a .22-caliber handgun, Staunton police Officer Lisa Klein said.”
Quoting Jason:
"Florida is one of the largest CCW states and has been for a long time. Since 1987, they have issued over 1.5 million permits. Since then, 4,072 permits have been revoked due to a crime committed after the permit was granted. That's 0.0026%. Of those, 167 utilized a firearm. So out of over 1.5 million CCWs over more than a decade, 0.00010 did *anything* with a firearm worthy of getting their license revoked. Remember, you don't have to murder or even shoot anyone to lose your license."
Comment by CWP — June 27, 2009 @ 11:15 am
I'm sure I could google "concealed carry crime stoppers" or something and turn up a handful of articles as well - but I think just watching this woman's testimony is enough to share for now.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675
Comment by jc — June 27, 2009 @ 11:46 am
Now Dan is asking us to present evidence of a negative. Un-freaking-believable.
Comment by Jason — June 27, 2009 @ 12:09 pm
Jason, re-read the post.
I'm not asking for evidence. I am saying that:
1) Here are anecdotes from Sandi that paint a dark-picture of concealed carry.
2) If you have anecdotes of the opposite, or data, I will post that, too.
Basically, I want to be fair here. I put Sandi's stuff up as a post, rather than a comment. Send me stuff that supports your position and I'll do a post about that too.
Is that so hard to understand?
Comment by Dan Casey — June 27, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
As long as there are humans and society, there is a dark side of everything. Clergy and child molesters.. Husbands/wives and domestic abuse (i guess by simply outlawing marriage, we could end that too, huh?) Cops and abusive powers... Politicians and scandals.... Anyone could take any one of these, offer a few instances of anecdotal evidence, and paint a dark picture. Does that make the clergy, marriage, police, and government all bad?
Comment by jc — June 27, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
Dan-
I'll rephrase. You said that we haven't offered that data yet: "Many on this board have argued that there is data from 40 or so states that allow concealed carry in bars that show this is a safe practice. But they haven't offered that data - yet."
The Florida data would seem to point that way. I didn't specifically link to it, but the Texas data is much the same. On the other hand, you're article makes a positive argument which you refuse to back with data, and when pointed in a direction that would show your assumption to be incorrect, you turtle up.
Regardless, I'll also do my story links up right with headlines as above. Just so I'm clear, what's the cutoff? The number of stories I can give you is limited only by how much time I'm willing to put into it and how many you are willing to publish.
Comment by Jason — June 27, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
Jason, give me as many as Sandi gave, if you care to.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 27, 2009 @ 3:49 pm
Thanks Dan,
These were just SOME of the links and info out there BTW. I do not use these stories to condemn guns or gun owners. I merely say that just as statistically YOU are not likely to need your gun at Kroger, Valley View, Carmike or The Rack Room, WE are also not necessarily "safer" with people carrying a concealed gun and the mere issuing of a permit does not a safe and responsible gun carrier make, obviously.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 27, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Well, I already posted a link to one story in the other thread that actually happened in a bar (in a state where CC in bars is legal).
Go here and you'll find dozens more stories in which concealed-carry saved lives (each with links to the original source). I won't say no lives were claimed, because sometimes the attacker was killed, and sometimes the victim was killed despite carrying.
Please note that there are five stories for June alone. It's also worth noting that these are only the stories that made the news somewhere and were found or brought to the attention of the blog's owners.
How many stories in the last month do you think didn't make the news because the attacker ran off with no shots fired?
Comment by Jake — June 27, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
Good work dan, youve found a handful of people with CHP's that have committed crimes. All the millions of people with them MUST be a danger. *shakes head*
Comment by James E — June 28, 2009 @ 1:15 am
So, now a few newspaper articles are proof that it's a bad idea to carry a firearm for you personal defense.
According to a member of Congress, after extensive research, firearms are used defensively over 2.4 million times every year. That is 4 times the number of crimes reported that involve a firearm. A very small number of these defensive uses actually involve shots being fired.
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 28, 2009 @ 2:23 am
James,
How many people have CHP's? Millions? Really?
Comment by echidna — June 28, 2009 @ 2:29 am
Folks,
Ed Lepps has emailed me a list of links regarding concealed carry saving lives. I will post these on Monday.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 28, 2009 @ 10:42 am
I think the "battle of the links" has taken this debate off the tracks. I have not said that carrying a gun cannot change any situation you might find yourself in. The original thread was whether concealed carry in establishments that serve alcohol is a good idea or a bad idea. I submit that people who receive a concealed carry permit may well be mostly the wonderful, upstanding, calm, rational person we all want them to be. The links I offered (and there are more) show that like EVERY other group, there are people who do NOT have those same good skills getting concealed carry permits and bad things have happened and obviously will continue. While it will reinforce the belief of the pro-concealed carry folks to read the links of mighty gun saving the day, the fact will remain that some of those concealed carry people are the nuts we are afraid of and there is no meaningful mechanism to prevent them from having a gun, no meaningful mechanism for the guns to be removed if the permit is revoked and therefore no guarantee for the rest of us that some (even if a small minority) of the concealed carry folks are just as dangerous to us and those we love as the criminals who are carrying concealed. Since none wear a sign, we are the ones with more of a dilemma, not less.
It could be that those who oppose citizens carrying a concealed gun everywhere in public and those who feel that a concealed gun should not be allowed in their establishments are all just ignorant, prejudiced, anti-gun zealots. It could also be that the majority of citizens feel that our society should not support the indulgence of an individual to the extent of allowing such a practice in places we deem them inappropriate. The US population is over 304 million. The individual and that individual's rights cannot trump the rights of others if that right is deemed not for the greater good of a society. If you cannot go into a restaurant (that serves alcohol) without a gun, YOU stay at home or at McD's, not you get to carry your gun and WE stay home. That is not the American way, that is not the way of a civilized society.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 28, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
Dan,
Poor poor anti-gun rights lib you! It must just hurt your feelings to live in this state that fails in so many ways to violate the rights the citizens!
Cheers,
William
George Washington: "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone... the rifle and the pistol are equally indispensable... more than 99% of them [guns] by their silence indicate that they are in safe and sane hands. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference [crime]. When firearms go, all goes, we need them every hour." (Address to 1st session of Congress)
Comment by Will — June 28, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
Echidna, yes, literally millions have CHP's. We're approaching 200,000 here in Virginia alone and the rate of issuance has been going up for the last year or so country wide....
Comment by John F — June 28, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
Sandi Saunders; You're not "likely" to need your gun anywhere. I certainly don't think I'll ever "need" it. I'm quite sure those students thought it was just going to be another day of classes. Who expects to get robbed, raped or killed? That's the nature of the beast.
But, statistically you are safer with persons CCing around you. Criminals are going to have guns or other weapons anyway. You can't stop that any more than you can stop drug possession by making that illegal. But when the people are armed the criminals do take note. They are not in the business of getting shot.
As a side note I personally, and on my own, stopped a series of burglaries by confronting the FOUR men who were commiting them. All without even drawing my gun. They just saw it and decided to move on to safer pastures. That was less than six months after I started open carrying.
Comment by John F — June 28, 2009 @ 6:30 pm
It's hard to tell exactly, but John F., in a rather backwards way may have just endorsed the legalization and/or decriminalization of drugs.
And to Will: I promise you my feelings are not hurt, neither by Virginia's gun laws nor by whatever names you call me. Ha!
Comment by Dan Casey — June 28, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
Sandi Saunders @12:44pm; Sandi, you do not understand the principle of "natural rights". Rights are not things granted by the government, those are called privileges or an entitlements. A natural right is something that the person has by the mere fact of being a person. The right to keep and bear arms is such a right and is "enumerated", not granted, by the Virginia State Constitution. We have the right to carry any and everywhere that the rights of others are not infringed upon (such as property rights).
You, do not have the right to impose your will on another who is legally exercising his right to carry a gun. You do not have a right to restrict someone else so that you might not feel nervous or irrationally afraid. Any more than you could say Black men shouldn't be allowed around white women because they make you nervous or might rape you or some such.
You talked about "The individual and that individual's rights cannot trump the rights of others if that right is deemed not for the greater good of a society". You are correct, you do not have the "right" to trump the rights of others. Why is it "I" am trumping your rights and not "you" trumping mine??? The VA Constitution specifically mentions mine, where does it mention yours? It doesn't because it is not a right.
You also implied by that statement that "rights" could be trumped if it was deemed not for the greater good of society. !!!??? Perhaps if society decided your right to free speech was not in the interest of society they could trump it and silence you!? Perhaps your free speech made people nervous and afraid, or somehow otherwise offended them. What would you say then? We do NOT have the right to NOT be offended or made nervous or anything else. If someone threatens you with a gun then there are laws of assault to deal with that. But your personally fear of someone exercising a constitutionally protected right is not enough to restrict it. Rights can only be taken away when they have been abused. Wait until then.
Comment by John F — June 28, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
Ha! Dan. You are getting ahead of me :^). There's a great argument for the legalization of drugs. It follows the same line of reasoning for the repeal of prohibition.....
Comment by John F — June 28, 2009 @ 7:12 pm
Sandi,
Perhaps you shouldn't have started this battle of the links. Not to worry, the links you provided did show what you intended. Now, go get us some links showing that licensed drivers have caused death and mayhem on our streets by breaking the law, then we can debate refusing to let people drive their cars to restaurants because, most/many/some/one of them will drink too much and drive home. I assume the Roanoke valley doesn't have some magical power preventing drunk drivers from killing people. In 2004, drunk drivers killed twice as many people as reported homicides involving a gun.
Thank you for admitting that you do not fully understanding rights. The individual's rights always trump those of the collective. I have the right to stand on a street corner and tell people whatever I like, fact of fiction, even if that gets them to vote for the wrong person. Making a poor selection for office is bad for the collective. The collective does NOT have the right to beat a confession out of a child molester, even if he will go free without it. Having a child molester wander around is bad for the collective. None of your rights are being violated by my carrying a gun. You are free to go where ever you like, with your irrational fears in tow.
None of that matters though, as your group has argued, carrying a concealed handgun is a privilege, not a right. I don't agree, but that doesn't matter so lets run with it. The lawmakers will be lobbied to extend this privilege, as some call it, to allow concealed carry in restaurants. If you don't like it, do some lobbying yourself. The anti-gun folks have published vast amounts of fabricated “facts” that you can use. The lawmakers are continuously provided with the real facts and will be able to see that other states, having fixed this law, did NOT turn into the wild west as predicted, so, the revised law will be passed. Since your area has no crime, you will notice nothing at all. In a few years, when you have NOT seen a CHP holder shoot up Chipotle, because his salsa wasn't hot enough, you will forget all about this and find something else to keep you awake at night.
Enjoy.
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 28, 2009 @ 7:24 pm
Sandi, you miss the point. Just because YOU don't like the fact that people who carry concealed feel it's their right to go into a restaurant that serves alcohol doesn't mean it's NOT right. I've already posed the question in #5 if clergy, marriage, police, and government all bad? I would think that the overwhelming majority opinion of most people would be that no, while there may be a bad person here or there in all of those instances, those "bad" people are simply a slice of society. So until you offer overwhelming evidence that the MAJORITY of otherwise law abiding citizens that have had background checks and spent money and time to get training and licenses suddenly turn into crazed kamikazes, your argument is moot. As time have changed and people have become less accustomed to seeing people openly carrying a firearm, the laws have changed to allow people to carry concealed so people like you don't freak out.
You are trying to regulate criminals before they commit a crime, which although nice in theory, doesn't hold water under our current legal system. There is always going to be a bad guy in some group. We can't, however, stop selling cars because some small faction decide to drive to fast and kill other innocent motorists, just like you say that "The individual and that individual's rights cannot trump the rights of others if that right is deemed not for the greater good of a society" - so far, you've given only isolated incidents, and you even admit "like EVERY other group, there are people who do NOT have those same good skills getting concealed carry permits and bad things have happened and obviously will continue" - but you left out anything backing up your argument that the majority of folks fit this profile. I offered evidence of a related issue of gun control in Australia with facts from the Australian government regarding an increase in crime after their gun ban of 1996 - Jason issued facts (comment #241in last Sunday's blog) from the State of Florida specifically regarding concealed carry - and the stats support your horrible world to the exact rate of 0.00010 % - not very good argumentative odds. The fact that more states are passing shall-issue carry laws and more states are allowing carrying in establishments that serve alcohol simply means that there's not enough statistical data to support your vision of the world. With all the anti-gun groups out there and the numerous people like yourself and the anti-gun propaganda like the column that suggests we'll all be smokin' folks in bars with six-shooters, the states wouldn't be changing the laws to be more gun friendly if there was any factual evidence to support your version of the world around us. Until then, you HAVE however, convinced me to start carrying openly. I'm not going to eat at McDonald's just because you want to feel safe and secure and pretend I'm a bad guy. However, you HAVE failed to address the situation I brought up where a woman who's been victimized legally carries concealed but has to make the choice to either disarm or open carry and alert potential attackers just because she wants to stop and eat at Olive Garden one afternoon. In my opinion, she has more of a right to defend herself as she sees fit than you have a right to "feel all warm and fuzzy" and be ignorant of the facts that simply don't support your hypothetical world.
Comment by jc — June 28, 2009 @ 7:30 pm
Mr. Lepps, thank you.
Sandi-
"Thanks Dan, I merely say that just as statistically YOU are not likely to need your gun at Kroger, Valley View, Carmike or The Rack Room,"
Why did you bother? We repeatedly said that we know we aren't likely to need our guns at any given time. We have repeatedly said that we don't think we will need to use our guns. Are you reading our replies?
"WE are also not necessarily "safer" with people carrying a concealed gun and the mere issuing of a permit does not a safe and responsible gun carrier make, obviously."
If it's obvious, why are you bothering? You are wasting your time proving "points" that any sane person already agrees with. We have not said that a permit makes someone safer. We have said that a permitted carrier is LIKELY to be a responsible gun owner due to the trouble that MOST of them must go through to get their permit.
"I think the "battle of the links" has taken this debate off the tracks. I have not said that carrying a gun cannot change any situation you might find yourself in. The original thread was whether concealed carry in establishments that serve alcohol is a good idea or a bad idea."
And we have offered evidence that it is at worst not a bad idea. The anti side has offered zero evidence for their position.
"The links I offered (and there are more) show that like EVERY other group, there are people who do NOT have those same good skills getting concealed carry permits and bad things have happened and obviously will continue."
Something that no one disputed before you posted those links.
"While it will reinforce the belief of the pro-concealed carry folks to read the links of mighty gun saving the day,"
And you talk about us insulting you. "Mighty gun." Condescending and/or stereotyping much?
"the fact will remain that some of those concealed carry people are the nuts we are afraid of"
But statistically, they are less likely to be than the people who don't have permits.
"and there is no meaningful mechanism to prevent them from having a gun, no meaningful mechanism for the guns to be removed if the permit is revoked and therefore no guarantee for the rest of us that some (even if a small minority) of the concealed carry folks are just as dangerous to us and those we love as the criminals who are carrying concealed. Since none wear a sign, we are the ones with more of a dilemma, not less."
Except AGAIN, we've shown that CCWs are LESS likely to commit gun crime than those who don't have permits. And Sandi, THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF BAD GUYS DON'T HAVE PERMITS AND CARRY CONCEALED ANYWAY.
"It could be that those who oppose citizens carrying a concealed gun everywhere in public and those who feel that a concealed gun should not be allowed in their establishments are all just ignorant,"
Probably.
"prejudiced,"
Sort of
"anti-gun zealots."
Sometimes.
"It could also be that the majority of citizens feel that our society should not support the indulgence of an individual to the extent of allowing such a practice in places we deem them inappropriate."
If a majority feel that way, they did a poor job of expressing themselves at the voting booth, because carry is now the law in 41 states.
"The US population is over 304 million. The individual and that individual's rights cannot trump the rights of others if that right is deemed not for the greater good of a society."
Without getting into the tyranny of the majority and all that jazz, the majority of the country is now CCW and not a single state has gone back after putting it in place, so you're wrong anyway.
"If you cannot go into a restaurant (that serves alcohol) without a gun, YOU stay at home or at McD's, not you get to carry your gun and WE stay home."
That's one option that's been occurring. Or we leave our guns at home or in the car, since we follow the law. Or we try to change the law and we usually win. And then we carry in restaurants and bars and people like you never know we carry and life goes on just like it did before.
Echidna-
As of 2004, the number of CCW permit holders nationwide was over three million, and that wasn't counting Alaska and Vermont (who require no permits to carry concealed) or Georgia and New Hampshire). The number is almost certainly much much higher now; do a search on post election CCW applications and you will see that there was an explosion. Fears of new regulation, some warranted, many not, have driven huge increases in gun and ammunition sales and prices, as well as concealed carriers.
When I took my class, the instructor was blown away, he'd never had a class over ten and ours was twenty. When I was looking for a class to take, almost every place I found was booked several months ahead.
Dan-
I know you weren't talking to me, but you'd better believe I'm in favor of drug legalization/decriminalization (prostitution and gambling as well).
Comment by Jason — June 28, 2009 @ 10:33 pm
Sandi,
You seem to be saying that your concern about concealed carry is that there are a few who will break the law and harm someone, even though the majority are law abiding. When you are thinking about that, please also think about this:
The average violent crime rate in the US as of 2005 (a href="http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html">according to the FBI) was 469.2 per 100,000 people, which works out to (roughly) 0.4692% of the population being victims of violent crime.
Now consider Jason's figures from the other thread (that CWP quoted in #1 here): "out of over 1.5 million CCWs over more than a decade, [0.010%] did *anything* with a firearm worthy of getting their license revoked." [Note: he apparently forgot to multiply by 100 to get a percentage - I have corrected it here.] Assume that this rate is roughly similar for the US as a whole, and that it represents the number of violent crimes committed by CHP holders (doing this actually overestimates the number of violent crimes by CHP holders, but we'll go with this for the moment).
Based on these (admittedly rough) numbers, you are over 40 times more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than a CHP holder is likely to commit one. The average CHP holder is over 40 times more likely to find himself in a position to need that gun to defend himself or his family than he is likely to use it in a crime.
Given those numbers, where does the greater good for society lie?
Comment by Jake — June 29, 2009 @ 12:10 am
Yeah but Jake, those crimes happen to other people. Keep your fingers crossed, and you will be safe.
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 29, 2009 @ 12:42 am
Dan,
I'm not sure your position on it, but decriminalizing drugs would actually be good for your side. Drugs and guns don't mix, so you'll be able to argue that concealed carry should not be allowed at the local crack house. That would be one more crime spree zone, oops, I meant gun free zone, for you to frequent in complete safety.
Seriously though, I will give you some credit. IF you do actually post the links I provided, you will show some courage that the rest of the anti gun community does not have. The Brady Bunch et al, refuse to allow an open discussion of their anti gun agenda, as they know their arguments have no factual basis and will be seen as the emotional bed wetting that it is, for the purpose of forwarding their political agenda. Before you get to it, yes, the NRA also has a political agenda.
You have stated: “Many on this board have argued that there is data from 40 or so states that allow concealed carry in bars that show this is a safe practice. But they haven't offered that data – yet.”
If I read the posts correctly, people have argued that additional crimes have NOT happened as a result of concealed carry in restaurants in the states that allow it (the majority of states do allow it). So, you are asking people for evidence of something that has NOT happened. I'm puzzled by this, as your position is that it will most likely happen in Virginia, yet can produce no evidence of it happening elsewhere. One news clipping doesn't prove a trend, it documents, with whatever bias the author adds to it, a single event. You might find two or three, even a dozen, but random isolated incidents do not make good law.
It should be fairly easy to find evidence of the epidemic of gun fights you believe will happen? Texas passed their concealed carry law about 12 years ago (allowing concealed carry in restaurants) and has 300,000+ active permit holders. Only 875 permits have been suspended or revoked. If 1% of those are the number of people that are likely to get drunk and have a gun fight, that is 8.7 gun fights every year for the past dozen in restaurants in Texas...a whopping 104 gun fights. Florida passed their concealed carry law 20 years ago and has 580,000+ active permits with 3,200 suspended or revoked. That's another 640 gun fights. Add in the other 38 states and you could be looking at tens of thousands of gun fights over the twenty years of concealed carry permitting. My god man, I smell a Pulitzer . How could the rest of the main stream media have completely missed this? How can this epidemic level of crazed, drunken gun slinging be kept a total secret? Check the state web sites for Texas and Florida:
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demoreportsfy08.htm
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/news/reports.html
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 29, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Dan,
Remember, you wrote “the most likely kind of bar [sic] smoke we'll see is smoldering wisps that emerge from hot pistol barrels after some permit-holding, gun-hiding patrons get into a face-off”.
Really... the most likely?
According to the US Fire Administration, there were an estimated 7,100 restaurant fires in the US in 2002. So, unless you can find about 7000+ cases of concealed carriers getting into “face offs” resulting in shots fired, in restaurants, in a single year, you are wrong. In fact, the most likely kind of restaurant smoke you will see is from a restaurant fire. Are CHP holders going to be held responsible for these? If you eliminate the imaginative picture you describe, and the provocative (your word) emotional content, your opinion is not supported by facts.
http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/statistics/national/non-residential.shtm
I always assumed it was the job of the “journalist” to do his own research to verify his work, before writing. Without research, you are just writing fiction, and no offense, but there are much better fiction authors already on the market. With all due respect, this is no better than what you'd hear from the morning shock-jock hack.
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 29, 2009 @ 1:32 am
Millions.... yup, millions.
Comment by Echidna — June 29, 2009 @ 4:30 am
So now the antigunners are so desperate as to get into the 'lets find a single extremely rare instances of negativity and broadly paint the entire population with the same brush' insanity.
Okay....i've once heard that someone was electricuted to death by a television set. BAN 'EM! I've once heard of a woman kill herself by drinking too much water. BAN IT! I've once heard of a tree falling on a house and killing a family of 3. CUT 'EM ALL DOWN!
You anti-gun nuts are insane.
Comment by Chris — June 29, 2009 @ 7:28 am
Jake, as ever, I am not quibbling with your stats, I have repeatedly acknowledged that only a small minority of idiots cause a problem with legal carry and with illegal carry. My point was not to condemn all, just as the point of others was I'm sure not to defend all. You and the less polite contributors all want me to capitulate with your assurance that those statistics are safety in themselves and even if that is true and you have every right to carry concealed anywhere you want to go and the rest of us just have to live with it because it is your right, that does nothing to make me feel supportive of that right. It is apparent that many on here could not care less about the support of society as a whole or me in particular and that is fine as well but you cannot then expect us to shut up about it. Much like the abortion, gay rights, equal pay arguments, this one isn't going anywhere and telling me to like it or lump it is not a bright solution but that is your choice. You work hard at keeping your patience and your vitriol in check and I respect and appreciate that. Gun proponents like you can do a lot to advance the cause and allay the fear. I certainly acknowledge that there are people who should be granted a concealed carry permit and that there may be a genuine need in some places or circumstances even, but a blanket, practically anyone can get one is a recipe for more disaster for a least some people. You can stat me into next week, you can white hat story me into a coma, the fact remains that some concealed carry permit holders are jerks and wackos. Should that taint the whole bunch? No. Should you all acknowledge that and work for a solution? Yes.
Frankly, I find it laughable that people who are so afraid of living that they need to be armed at all times in all places come on here an call ME irrational.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Ed Lepps,
I believe you left out the word "perhaps" that qualified the rest of the sentenced you quoted. That very much changes the nature of the sentence you're challenging, almost to the point of the challenge being deceptive.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 29, 2009 @ 8:28 am
Folks,
Ed Lepps provided some links to stories about citizens with CC permits who defended their lives. The list of links, with an introduction by me, will be posted at noon today in a post titled Actual stories: Concealed carry = saved lives and/or property
As you'll see in the introduction to that post, I take issue with whether a few of them fall under the category of "lifesaving." That's part of the reason the headline on the post says, saved lives and/or property.
Jason is also correct, however: we have kind of veered off issue of cc in bars. None of Ed's links, to my recollection, had to do with CC in bars. None of Sandi's, either, if I remember correctly.
I urge you to peruse Ed's links.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 29, 2009 @ 8:39 am
Ed Lepps, for a man so given to rhetorical flourish and hyperbole, your condemnation of Dan's commentary seems over the top. That you disagree with him is a given, that you need to insult him to refute his opinion is telling.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 8:47 am
They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. This means that I'm insane because I'm answering Sandi.
"You and the less polite contributors all want me to capitulate with your assurance that those statistics are safety in themselves"
No one said that. You're lying again.
"It is apparent that many on here could not care less about the support of society as a whole"
41 states Sandi, 41 states. We've already got it. We've already won.
"or me in particular"
That much is certain.
"and that is fine as well but you cannot then expect us to shut up about it."
It would remove much white noise from the world, but no one here wishes to remove your right to disseminate hilariously wrong information while ignoring those with the correct information.
"but a blanket, practically anyone can get one is a recipe for more disaster for a least some people."
I agree. Who in the world advocated such a thing? You are one of the most merciless straw man serial killers in history.
"You can stat me into next week, you can white hat story me into a coma,"
For those who don't speak Sandi, allow me to translate: You can give me all of the objective data that proves me wrong that you want, you can give seven billion examples of people defending themselves, and I still won't change my mind.
"the fact remains that some concealed carry permit holders are jerks and wackos."
Another headline story from the journal Obviously.
"Should that taint the whole bunch? No. Should you all acknowledge that and work for a solution? Yes."
We don't acknowledge it because we already know it Sandi. The solution is to put screening procedures in place, requiring fingerprinting, etc. Oh hey, isn't that crazy? Most states are already doing that kind of stuff. And as we've pointed out roughly 79 trillion times, CCW permit holders are less likely to be criminals than people who don't have permits. Apparently that doesn't meet the Sandi standard.
"Frankly, I find it laughable that people who are so afraid of living that they need to be armed at all times in all places come on here an call ME irrational."
Sandi, we have directly addressed this so many times it's absurd. We have addressed it with analogy, statistics, and personal stories. You are not only irrational, you are deceitful, and there is no way that anyone on either side of this argument can dispute that.
Comment by Jason — June 29, 2009 @ 9:17 am
There's your sign!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 9:56 am
Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 8:13am Sandi you said, "Frankly, I find it laughable that people who are so afraid of living that they need to be armed at all times in all places come on here an call ME irrational."
No one that carryies (or at least very few who might have a good reason to be) is afraid of anything. I'm not afraid and I open carry 24/7. I just am not so irrational to say that crime cannot happen to me, or more likely, to someone who is around me. Like the estranged husband who started stabbing his wife while she was at work at walmart. An unrelated shopper pulled out his gun and shot him dead, saving the woman's life. I bet she was happy he was carrying that day !!!
Then there was the story of someone I know personally who was standing at the bank teller's window when two masked men walked in. They saw him and his openly displayed gun and immediately left. The teller's eye's were wide open, but he had no clue what had just happened...
The likelihood of meeting a "wacko" with a legally carried gun is rather slim. I bet you have a greater chance of being killed by lightning than being killed by him. You're much more likely to be helped by someone with a gun. Or would you rather that man carrying at walmart not have been carrying :^).
You do know *you* sound like the one that is afraid.....
Comment by John F — June 29, 2009 @ 10:24 am
Nobody has to be supportive of your or anyone else's right. It is a right guaranteed regardless of whether or not it offends you, whether or not it makes you FEEL less safe, whether or not it hurts your feelings or whether or not you believe it should exist.
You do not get to take away someone's rights because you don't like them.
The fact is, if this is about violent crime, which it is NOT (it's about controlling people) then we already have laws to prevent it all from happening. We have laws that say you can't brandish, you can't murder, you can't assault, you can't shoot without fear for one's life. Laws already exist to prevent murder.
The fact is that these anti-self defense nuts don't care about the guns. Once they rid the world of these evil black guns...they will go for knives (which they have already begun). Then once they ban knives they will go after baseball bats, rope, utility blades, screwdrivers, etc. This is completely about the fact that they don't like you, don't like your stupid rights and want for a centralized fascist government to control you and your ability to defend yourself from them and from the bad guys. They want you completely dependent on the government for every last second of your life.
Its not about guns. Its about control. These anti-gun/self defense nuts aren't concerned about the guns. They are concerned with the fact that you don't need the mighty government to come pick you up and save you every time you are in trouble.
Remember that...its not about the guns. Its about YOU.
Comment by Chris — June 29, 2009 @ 10:29 am
Sandi, there really is no reason to be afraid of anyone conceal carrying anymore than there is reason to fear them otherwise. In Virginia we can already openly carry a handgun into any bar or restaurant that serves alcohol. So what's the big deal with conceal carry?
There are advantages and disadvantages to open verses concealed carry. With open carry, as noted above, criminals know people are carrying and will avoid trouble in that area. It's like having 200,000 extra cops in the state. The disadvantage is that the gun can be taken away from it's owner by surprise, perhaps by some drunk in the bar. This does happen. In fact here in Montgomery county there have been three police officers killed. Two were killed by their own guns and the third was killed by a gun taken from another officer.
Conceal carry has the advantage that no one knows you have a gun, so in a bar situation there is actually LESS probability of a problem occurring. Conceal carry also has the advantage that a criminal does not know who or if someone has a gun nearby.
Comment by John F — June 29, 2009 @ 10:40 am
Seriously, you people have insulted, maligned, misinterpreted and twisted what I have said, made it clear that you do not care what society is comfortable with, advertised that you and you alone carry special knowledge and skills the rest of us sheep do not possess, believe that you have ANYTHING that could remotely keep the black helicopters and tanks from "the government" 'in check', do not believe you can count on going safely to and from the grocery store and you think we should just stand aside and applaud you and anyone else who seems as hot headed as you coming into places that serve alcohol carrying more concealed weapons than already exist? My irrational fear comes directly from the stories I read about and the level of debate on threads like this one and the one just previous to it. It sounds less and less irrational all the time. You are your own worst enemies, you don't even need me, just turn you loose on a thread like this and the fear factor is multiplied tenfold in society. I do not trust most of you with honest discussion much less a gun in a bar.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 12:26 pm
"Frankly, I find it laughable that people who are so afraid of living that they need to be armed at all times in all places come on here an call ME irrational."
Sandi, In a slightly different discussion on guns several months ago, you admitted that your fear in that case was irrational, and reconsidered your position (the best definition of a rational person, I think). While I don't believe that you are irrational as a person, I would say that this is a similar situation, in that your fear (or worry or concern, if those might be more accurate labels) in this case is irrational. You have stated you are not worried about being a victim of a crime, but then are worried about CHP holders committing violent crimes - something that is much less common (remember the falling aircraft parts!).
Another point is that you are advocating exercising prior restraint on the activities (whether it's a right or not) of a group of people who are overwhelmingly law-abiding, and using the actions of an extremely minuscule percentage of that same group to justify it. CHP holders already have to prove that they have been trained in the safe use of a firearm, and that they have been law-abiding and non-violent citizens. How else would you regulate CHPs?
"Need" based systems are consistently abused. The current shall-issue system in Virginia (and many other states) is probably the best possible balance between preventing the criminal minded or temperamentally unsuited from obtaining a CHP and protecting the innocent from being inappropriately prevented from obtaining one.
As for CC in "bars," it has been shown here several times that it doesn't make a difference in crimes that happen in bars, and CC'ing in a "bar" does not make a difference in CHP holders' behavior. The evidence does not support the restriction.
Comment by Jake — June 29, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
While I am more pro-gun than not, I would like to chime in with a thought.
I see references to those who carry as having something wrong with them mentally or being afraid. Do we say the same thing about those who have stocked food in case of a natural disaster or those who keep first aid kits in there vehicles, etc... I see it as a tool or item you never want to have to use but you may have to. I use to think people who carried a multi-tool like a Gerber® or Leatherman® were crazy, but after thinking about it I realized there were a lot of instances in which that it could come in handy. Now I find myself carrying one on my person more often than not and not surprisingly it gets used quite regularly. Is there a reason that most law enforcement officers that I know carry off-duty? When I asked a few of them I got a similar response from them, while I am paraphrasing the response it was along the lines of, the same reason they carry on-duty for protection, since you never know when or where you will need a method to defend ones self. Several even stated they would like to see more individuals carrying. Just as a local law enforcement officer stated publicly on his blog here is a link to that particular entry.
Comment by Jon — June 29, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
@echidna: "How many people have CHP's? Millions? Really?"
There are approximately 200,000 in Virginia. So I'm sure if you look at all of the other states you'll make it to the millions.
Comment by Jack — June 29, 2009 @ 1:52 pm
Here you go... Three dead in a Reno, NV bar. CCW holder saves the day.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2021752/posts
Comment by Jack — June 29, 2009 @ 1:53 pm
"Like the estranged husband who started stabbing his wife while she was at work at walmart. An unrelated shopper pulled out his gun and shot him dead, saving the woman's life. I bet she was happy he was carrying that day !!!"
Thankfully someone called him that morning and told him he would need his gun that day. You know you shouldn't carry a gun unless you have a specific reason to.
Comment by Jack — June 29, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Jack,
I read the story you linked to. The two folks who were shot and killed in that bar most certainly DID NOT have their lives saved by the CC permit holder (who shot the killer only after he killed the others). Whether he would have killed anyone else in that bar is unclear. That was a dispute among families; the killer was not firing indiscriminately.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 29, 2009 @ 2:09 pm
You really can't expect to save everyone, Dan. The maniac who does the shooting has the element of surprise on his side.
Let's say he was shooting indiscriminately, he still likely wouldn't have gotten past a couple of victims.
If he intended to stop after two, good for him. He had no choice once someone started shooting back, though.
I don't think any CHP holder claims that he could or would save everyone. But you can help to keep the victim count a bit lower.
Comment by Jack — June 29, 2009 @ 2:29 pm
Jon and Jake, I understand that YOU think of it as a tool, an extension of your arm, whatever ("Now I find myself carrying one on my person more often than not and not surprisingly it gets used quite regularly" is indeed a scary unfinished story) but my point is that for the vast majority of citizens, people who carry guns are 1) bad guys or 2) paranoid. Your mission should be to educate, inform and downplay those fears and misunderstandings, to project as calm, friendly, just your average neighbor using a skill you have and pray you never need to use to protect yourself or others from whatever and to fight like hell against the idiots who somehow manage to make the news because they pulled a gun in a driving incident or over parking too close, NOT to denigrate, dismiss and make fun of the fear. I never read "how to win friends and influence people" but I doubt it advises using some of the techniques used here. If I have an irrational fear how does insulting me make that fear subside? If I do not understand that your world view and societal view is so different from mine that you believe you need to be armed at McD's how does saying I am a liar make me trust you. Until YOU get the message, I will not be changing my tune. Jake, I try, I do, but every time I try to see it as the last gun issue I can support, some wise butt confirms my fear that some of you should not be allowed near a gun.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 29, 2009 @ 2:43 pm
Wow, Dan, you are really splitting hairs on Jacks link. Could the killer have decided to continue shooting once he killed who he came to kill? We don't and never will know...thanks to the patron who was carrying ending it once and for all.
Comment by Patrick — June 29, 2009 @ 2:44 pm
Dan,
Fair enough. The "perhaps" does change the flavor of your statement, however, it does not change what we both know you are trying to say. You are trying to say there is a high likelyhood that gun fights will occur if this law is changed.
For your hypothesis to be accurate, there must be evidence of a high number of gun fights, in restaurants, involving drinking, that has not made it to the publics attention. Is there a secret storehouse you have access to with this data?
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 29, 2009 @ 2:47 pm
"advertised that you and you alone carry special knowledge and skills the rest of us sheep do not possess,"
Lie.
"believe that you have ANYTHING that could remotely keep the black helicopters and tanks from "the government" 'in check',"
No one of us does. An armed population of tens of millions can.
"do not believe you can count on going safely to and from the grocery store"
Bald faced lie that has been corrected too many times to count.
"and you think we should just stand aside and applaud you and anyone else who seems as hot headed as you coming into places that serve alcohol carrying more concealed weapons than already exist?"
We've never asked for your applause or approval, so that's a lie. We're not hot headed, and as we've proven over and over, carrying in public doesn't cause problems.
"My irrational fear comes directly from the stories I read about and the level of debate on threads like this one and the one just previous to it. It sounds less and less irrational all the time. You are your own worst enemies,"
Yes, we're doing so horribly for the cause. Virginia is about to drop their stupid prohibition on CCW in restaurants and Ohio is on its way. CCW for normal citizens is the law in 41 states. We won. People like you will never change their minds, so your scorn is meaningless.
"you don't even need me,"
You got that right.
"just turn you loose on a thread like this and the fear factor is multiplied tenfold in society. I do not trust most of you with honest discussion much less a gun in a bar."
Early on in the thread I would have said, "That's too bad." Now that I'm aware that you are a fanatic who either ignores or is incapable of comprehending all evidence put in front of her, I say, "And?"
The nine states left that are in effect "no carry" are the types of states where you aren't likely to ever change the law barring a huge demographic or political shift, states like New York, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and my home state of California. You are those states personified, unable or unwilling to look at the experience of the rest of the country. Nothing we said was ever going to change your mind.
Comment by Jason — June 29, 2009 @ 3:47 pm
Dan, @#45:
"I read the story you linked to. The two folks who were shot and killed in that bar most certainly DID NOT have their lives saved by the CC permit holder (who shot the killer only after he killed the others). Whether he would have killed anyone else in that bar is unclear. That was a dispute among families; the killer was not firing indiscriminately."
The story that Jack linked is the same incident that I discussed in my blog entry that I linked to in the previous thread (and again, here). The original news article I linked to in my blog has since been archived or removed, so that link no longer works, but another blogger had quoted from it. The post Jack linked to does not mention an important point:
At some point during this shooting spree Villagomez allegedly stopped and according to witnesses reloaded his ... handgun and began shooting again. It was at this point that the second shooter, the Reno resident, produced a concealed handgun and proceeded to fire upon Villagomez who succumbed to his wounds. The Reno resident was in possession of a valid Concealed Carry Permit issued through the Washoe County Sheriff’s Office... [My note: the ellipses in the middle, if I remember correctly, are where the other blogger removed the term "high-capacity" because it was incorrectly used.]
You're right, it's "unclear" whether he would have killed anyone else in that bar. But the fact that he had just reloaded and started firing again when he was stopped is pretty suggestive, don't you think?
Comment by Jake — June 29, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
"...my fear that some of you should not be allowed near a gun."
Mine is that some of you should not be allowed near a voting booth.
Comment by Patrick — June 29, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
@Dan, you stated that the two "DID NOT have their lives saved by the CC permit holder" - but what you failed to take into consideration is (again) the law. If a bad guy walks into a seven eleven and holds it up at gun point, in Virginia, I'm not legally allowed to do anything if he's pointing the gun at the clerk - even though he's committing a crime, until he pulls the trigger, there are about ten zillion things that *could* happen. Only after he pulls the trigger and I know for a fact that's he's trying to take a life and I can actually testify that i feel my life is in danger, it's a different story - what if his gun is empty? What if it's just for show? You obviously haven't had to think about the responsibilities that those who carry concealed have to think about every day. Had the person in AZ fired first, you'd most certainly be using that as a story about the horrible effects of allowing people to carry in bars, and you know it.
While we're at it, it's also perfectly "unclear" as to how many citizens on the fence one way or the other will blindly follow your religion and make an uninformed decision and thus die by failing to take personable responsibility for their safety.
@Sandy, I asked before, I'll ask again - do you steer clear of clergy, marriage, police, and voting because of the associated child molesters, spousal abusers, over the top shows of force, and scandals associated with each of the aforementioned parties? Each faction has a small segment of society which will not fit your mold of a perfect world - and concealed carry persons also have that niche of users. You state "Should that taint the whole bunch? No. Should you all acknowledge that and work for a solution? Yes." - So what do YOU propose we do? When you can tell me what the woman walking in the door of Olive Garden who has a valid reason to carry is supposed to do with an actual though-out response (other than your typical "i don't like it so your rights shouldn't triumph over my feelings" answer) I'll be glad to listen...
Comment by jc — June 29, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Correct that to say "Mine is that some of you are allowed IN a voting booth".
Comment by Patrick — June 29, 2009 @ 8:42 pm
Well here we go again.
I've been reading the posts on numerous blogs and have some observations that I'd like to share. I'm not really interested in a debate, as much as I thought I'd just throw my thoughts into the ring and let you all battle it out. I see that both sides of this argument have much stamina to continue the debate with multiple postings. Some of them are quite humorous.
I’ve noticed that some people have feelings and emotions, which should not be ignored. People shouldn’t be afraid to go about their business in the streets. It is apparent that the facts that are presented aren’t logical to them, so they cannot equate them to a conclusion the way the other side does. The mechanisms used to cope with violence in society are simply different than other peoples. Some people have a strong belief that crime won’t happen to them, or that they won’t have to take responsibility for their own safety. Some people would rather not defend themselves and can maintain a sense of superiority to others who would resort to violence to stay alive. Some people are pacifists by nature and refuse to take part in violence. There is nothing wrong with that and that is their decision. It’s my belief that society, the media and the public education system have conditioned people to associate guns with death. Since the gun symbolizes death to many, it cannot be trusted in the hands of, well, people who also cannot be trusted. The feelings people can get frustrated because the logic people don’t understand them. No piece of information provided is going to sway them from their beliefs.
I’ve noticed that other people have logic as their banner. They have numbers and statistics, which shouldn’t be ignored either. These come from a variety of sources. The FBI has studies; the DOJ has studies; each state keeps their own statistics. Other countries have their own numbers. These have been quoted, analyzed, manipulated, and provided as proof of many things. Simply quoting the decline in crime, or quoting a study from an author who’s done his own manipulation doesn’t necessarily prove anything. Proving A = B, B = C, therefore A = C is pretty simple. The relation of guns to crime is a complicated and multifaceted problem. Many of these people don’t have any intention on relying on others for their defense. They might actually have a valid requirement to defend themselves, from crime or wild animals, which some other people won’t ever understand. Many of these people have their facts ready and throw them out saying “Look, the answer is to have a gun. If you can’t see it, your stupid!” This often comes across as arrogant and demeaning regardless of whether it's intended or not. The logic people get frustrated because they don’t understand the feelings and emotions. No amount of resistance to the clear cut numbers they see is going to prevent them from keeping and bearing arms.
It can be difficult to debate this issue because neither side is going to suddenly see the light of the other side. No one likes to admit that their deeply held beliefs are wrong.
As you were.
Comment by F. Hopkinson — June 29, 2009 @ 11:52 pm
"You're right, it's "unclear" whether he would have killed anyone else in that bar. But the fact that he had just reloaded and started firing again when he was stopped is pretty suggestive, don't you think?"
Jake, you are missing the real message. If the columnist doesn't think it's a good idea, then the guy must have been wrong, and it wouldn't matter if you had or didn't have facts to the contrary, the columnist is right because he says so.
Since the Reno resident was in a bar, and alcohol and guns don't mix, he should not have had his gun in a bar, and should have just hid in the corner like good victim.
Don't be fooled by the criminal reloading. The evil Reno resident didn't have sufficient training to sneak up on the criminal and put him into the vulcan death grip.
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 30, 2009 @ 12:49 am
Comment by jc — June 29, 2009 @ 8:07 pm
"While we're at it, it's also perfectly "unclear" as to how many citizens on the fence one way or the other will blindly follow your religion and make an uninformed decision and thus die by failing to take personable responsibility for their safety."
Possible the best thing written here yet. Of course, you are wrong simply because Dan will say you are wrong.
Comment by Ed Lepps — June 30, 2009 @ 1:00 am
Come on, Ed. I asked for stories that showed the presence of an armed CC permit holder saved a life or lives. You sent me links to 13. And I read each of the stories you sent me, and I posted each one, isn't that correct?
Next, I noted that at least 2 of them obviously fit the requested criteria. But out of 13 I took major issue with one and qualified issue with 3 others, because from the facts presented one could not reasonable ascertain that a life had been saved by a CC permit holder. Not that that definitely did not happen, mind you, but that you couldn't necessarily conclude it given the facts in the stories.
So the another reader posts about the Nevada bar where the shooter kills 2 people before a CC permit holder kills him. Obviously there were two lives that were not saved there.
Then Jake chimes in that there are facts that were not in the Nevada bar story that -- good golly -- I did not take into account. And now, you're criticizing me for my best analysis based on facts that weren't even before me, and which I still can't see the source for because it has disappeared from the internet or something like that.
I might change my mind on that case -- if the facts change. But not before somebody shows me the actual story we're talking about.
You see, I have an open mind. If I didn't, I would have disagreed with you about all the 13 the stories you offered up, instead of 4 (and 3 of those weren't direct disagreements, as you know).
What I won't do is read your mind for you and tell you what you're thinking, like the 3rd paragraph of post 56.
It's a foolish endeavor and I'm better than that.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 30, 2009 @ 2:02 am
@Ed Lepps: "You are trying to say there is a high likelyhood that gun fights will occur if this law is changed."
Ed, I guess they do. Look at the link I posted to the Reno, NV thing. Had guns not been allowed in "bars" there, there would have been no gunfight. The criminal would have just shot whoever he wanted to and nobody would have been able to stop him. Much like Virginia Tech.
However, since guns were allowed in the "bar", there was a gun fight... and the criminal was stopped.
Of course I'm sure Dan Casey will come back claiming that the initial shooter wouldn't have come in there shooting had guns not been allowed in the "bars."
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2009 @ 6:48 am
Sandy and Dan...
If you don't like the idea of concealed handgun permits, I suggest moving to Vermont or Alaska. They do not issue them in those states.
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2009 @ 6:50 am
@jc: "in Virginia, I'm not legally allowed to do anything if he's pointing the gun at the clerk - even though he's committing a crime, until he pulls the trigger,"
I believe you are incorrect. You may defend the clerk exactly as you would yourself... if he is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Exactly the same criteria as yourself.
I'd say that if the gun is pointed at the clerk, his life is in imminent danger. It is up to you, though, whether you want to take on the liability of protecting someone else.
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2009 @ 6:54 am
@Dan Casey: "So the another reader posts about the Nevada bar where the shooter kills 2 people before a CC permit holder kills him. Obviously there were two lives that were not saved there."
Am I understanding you correctly? If the CC permit holder is not able to save EVERYONE he should not be allowed to carry?
Do police save everyone? They have all of this special training that you go on and on about but they don't seem to be able to save everyone.
In fact, in the Reno incident, they didn't save those two people, either.
If the gunman had kept shooting, would the police have saved victim three? Four? Five?
Sure, we don't know if the gunman was going to keep shooting or not. What we DO know is that there is no victim three.
How many lives did the police save at Virginia Tech? Columbine? I guess that being a liberal, your response will be "the rest of them."
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2009 @ 7:03 am
Very good summation F. Hopkinson! You are as close to the truth as anyone here.
jc asked again apparently: "@Sandy, I asked before, I'll ask again - do you steer clear of clergy, marriage, police, and voting because of the associated child molesters, spousal abusers, over the top shows of force, and scandals associated with each of the aforementioned parties?" While I mentioned that I avoid places I do not feel safe, I have not said I steer clear of places that people carry guns (how the heck could I when you are everywhere). This was a thread on an opinion blog and I gave mine. I am not an activist nor an anti-gun person. If the thread is about "clergy, marriage, police, and voting" safety or any other corollary, I will more than likely weigh in as well. I like to yap and I like to see what other people (except the insulting ones) think, and I do listen to reason. You can ask Jake, I have come a long way on the whole gun issue in the past 6 months alone, but if I dare speak out on concealed carry in places that serve alcohol, or note the arrogance and insults of the pro-carry "cause I can", I am an irrational, liar who is to be discounted. This is truly a no-win for me and yet I am here still listening and still trying not to be insulting and rude. BTW, Olive Garden is not some especial life need, if a woman feels unsafe without her gun, she should not go into a place that does not welcome them both. It is not even a hard decision. If I was at Olive Garden and was afraid to walk to my car, I would ask the host/hostess to grant me an escort (and I am sure they would accommodate) OR I would fix my own dinner at home packing all the heat I liked.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 30, 2009 @ 8:29 am
Jack,
The point is that I asked for instances in which CC SAVED lives. Some stories were offered in which that seemed more or less unquestionable. Based on the facts I was initially offered about the Nevada bar, it is unclear whether the 1) the shooter had already shot all the members presents of the family with whom he was engaged in a feud; and 2) whether he would have shot anyone else, because his actions were directed against certain people he knew and not apparently indiscriminate. It was hard to tell either way. What we could tell from the story is that 2 people plus the shooter were dead. It just doesn't necessarily meet the criteria of CC permit holder whose actions SAVED lives -- that is all.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 30, 2009 @ 9:07 am
Dan,
You can't really prove that he saved any lives. This is true.
The situation ended appropriately, though. The gunman wasn't allowed to take any more lives. Whether he intended to do so or not is irrelevant.
He came in, started shooting, people were in danger, and someone ended the situation. I'm sure the CC permit holder had no idea that the guy was just there to kill two people. It didn't matter... he came in and started killing people and the guy appropriately defended others in the bar.
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2009 @ 9:12 am
Jack,
I never said the citizen didn't act appropriately. And the criteria for the stories was not "CC permit holder acting appropriately." It was CC permit holder who saved lives.
There was definitely on CC permit holder among those stories who acted inappropriately, though: "Armed citizen pulls pistol, takes out shoplifters' tires as they try to flee" (in a supermarket parking lot with less than $50 in stolen goods). You should click on that link and read it. That CC permit holder should have been charged with a crime.
Comment by Dan Casey — June 30, 2009 @ 9:23 am
I did read the article about the guy shooting the tires. He did act inappropriately, but I guess that is up to the prosecutor whether or not to charge him.
Assuming that the guy in Reno was going to kill more people... a safe assumption, since he was reloading his gun... then the CC permit holder did, in fact, save lives.
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2009 @ 9:27 am
Dan, @#58:
"Then Jake chimes in that there are facts that were not in the Nevada bar story that -- good golly -- I did not take into account. And now, you're criticizing me for my best analysis based on facts that weren't even before me, and which I still can't see the source for because it has disappeared from the internet or something like that."
The information was presented to you earlier, though I won't fault you for either not connecting the two or not fully accepting the facts without a working link to the original story. However, it took less than 2 minutes of searching for me to find other sources.
As I thought, the original story was archived by the source. If you want to pay to see it, you can go here.
If you don't want to pay, it was reproduced in a forum here.
Comment by Jake — June 30, 2009 @ 10:10 am
Dan,
Here's an original source you don't have to pay for.
http://www.ktvn.com/Global/story.asp?S=8378732
To quote from this one:
Deputies say about 2:25 a.m., 30-year-old Ernesto Villa Gomez walked into the bar and starting shooting. 20-year-old Jose Torres and his 19-year-old brother Margarito Torres were killed. When Villa Gomez was reloading his semi-automatic gun, a man from Reno took out a gun and shot Villa Gomez. That man has a concealed weapons permit. [emphasis mine]
He reloaded. Do you still think he was done shooting and no lives were saved?
Comment by Jake — June 30, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Thank you Jake. I have read the story and based on the facts it presents, I would say the CC permit holder saved a life or lives.
(The supermarket parking lot cop wannabee who shot out the fleeing shoplifters' tires, however, is another story. That guy should have been charged with a crime).
Comment by Dan Casey — June 30, 2009 @ 10:56 am
"(The supermarket parking lot cop wannabee who shot out the fleeing shoplifters' tires, however, is another story. That guy should have been charged with a crime)."
He didn't fire until they threatened his life (by attempting to run him over). Even the police and prosecutor seem to agree that he only fired in self-defense. Our main point of disagreement seems to be whether or not he should have gotten involved in the first place - unless you're saying, as you seem to have implied in the "saved lives" thread, that they weren't actually trying to run him over and the witnesses were wrong. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one.
Comment by Jake — June 30, 2009 @ 12:03 pm
Thanks Sandi.
I appreciate your sentiment that I'm "as close to the truth as anyone here". That truly put a smile on my face. It really is amusing to watch the bloggers go around and around in the textbook gun vs. bad-gun argument. My research material into the matter is often scribbled with notes after a heated battle on the anonymous internet jousting ground. It’s kind of like a game of where is Waldo, where one needs patience to identify the various psychological peculiarities of various posters. Thanks for playing.
As you were.
Comment by F. Hopkinson — June 30, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
In #67, I meant to say he did NOT ACT APPROPRIATELY. Not sure how I mistyped that!
Comment by Jack — June 30, 2009 @ 12:58 pm
Yeah, well sometimes, fighting fire with fire, just burns every thing up. It is also sometimes the only option to stop the fire.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — June 30, 2009 @ 1:15 pm
Its amazing....I get Twitters everyday with a couple of new news articles detailing a robbery, rape, or potentially deadly assault that was stopped by a legally armed citizen. If you were to take the anti-gun press seriously you would think that each and every one of these articles is fabricated by the NRA.
You know what is even more astonishing about these stories, 8 times out of 10, the gun is never fired....only displayed to the bad guy. The bad guy either runs away or is temporarily arrested until the police show up.
Comment by Chris — July 1, 2009 @ 7:06 am
OK, so if you get "twitters" on NEWS stories, how exactly does that turn into "the anti-gun press". The press is the press and just like the rest of us, they see, process and report the information as they interpret it. You don't want us to blanket condemn the NRA or the pro-concealed carry group, but feel free to blanket condemn the press? Yeah, that's fair. "...temporarily arrested until the police show up" interesting phraseology. Do you yell "Citizens Arrest" "Citizens Arrest" while doing this service?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 1, 2009 @ 8:41 am
Sandi,
Why would you question someone who feels that the press is anti gun, when you have argued (without any other reason) that those same people shouldn't be allowed to do something because you don't feel safe? Why are your feelings so much more valid than theirs?
The press regularily displays their bias towards guns and gun owners. If they are trying to keep this a secret, they are doing a very poor job. Anyone that can't see it, isn't looking. At least that is the way I feel.
Comment by Ed Lepps — July 1, 2009 @ 12:36 pm