New Developments In The ‘Concealed Carry’ Debate

[Hoopla Phil]

. . .critics argue that increased gun ownership leads to more gun crime and that concealed handguns boost the chances of arguments becoming lethal, and increase the number of unintended gun injuries.

However, recent research conducted by David Burnett and Clayton Cramer, who track incidents of defensive gun use at TheArmedCitizen.com, found that concealed guns may in fact save lives.

http://www.personalliberty.com/news/new-developments-in-the-concealed-carry-debate-19814078/

[Demstud]

1. No New Developments In The 'Concealed Carry' Debate

I don't think you can classify research from a pro-gun website determining that guns save lives as a new development in the debate by any stretch of the imagination.

[billh58]

2. Imaginations are

stretched daily in the Gungeon.

[Hoopla Phil]

6. Fantasy land is a wonderful place to live. Too bad criminals are all too real.

But some will live in their fantasy land.

[billh58]

10. Ho hum...

Criminals have always been real. "Gun grabbers" not so much...

[Hoopla Phil]

12. "Ho hum..." indeed. Let's see if you can match the politician to the quote.

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

[billh58]

13. I have neither

the desire, nor the obsession, to follow quotes about what is essentially a non-issue. It is legal to own a gun in the USA. Many localities allow the open carry, or concealed carry, of a firearm outside the home. Many of my friends own firearms, and they are not constantly whining about someone trying to take their guns away. They do not incessantly get in my face about their 2nd Amendment RKBA, and I don't bug them about shooting Bambi.

I have never witnessed the government taking away anyone's legally-owned/carried firearm. I have no dog in this fight, except that this entire forum appears to be cult-like in its obsession about a single-issue which has very little to do with the economy, war, hunger, or any of the other really important issues of the day.

If you truly believe that there is a vast conspiracy in this country to take away your guns, then you most likely really, really, need one for your own peace-of-mind. Personally, I am nearing 70 years old and have never been confronted with a civilian situation where I felt that I needed a gun for protection. The time I spent in Vietnam during the latter 60s was a different matter.

[Hoopla Phil]

14. LOL. You inferred that there were no "gun grabbers" yet a U.S. senator

made that statement wanting to grab them all up. Many localities ban ownership of certain classes of firearms. I don't recall anyone whining in this thread - or are you making some sort of accusation? Who is getting in your face? You came into this forum on you own and typed your comments. So who is getting in who's face?

California has many examples of banning firearms and then arresting people for having them. One case in particular you probably don't care too much about, was a man arrested, tried, and convicted of having a prohibited SKS. Only years later was he able to prove that this particular Russian Curio was exempt from the ban (Oops, sorry). Why you seem to feel that a person, or people, that wish to protect their 2A rights equals cult like I have no idea. (perhaps it's some form or projection).

Can you show me anywhere where I have made ANY reference to a "vast conspiracy in this country to take away your guns"? Since when does acknowledging that some wish to take my 2A right away from me constitute belief in a conspiracy? While it is good that you have never really, really, needed a firearm for protection there are many examples of those that did: Some had them - others did not, perhaps you should open a newspaper for some examples.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoopla Phil]

26. Well well well. Looks like I missed something good. Ha Ha Ha. Why does it always

seem to go that way?

[billh58]

33. I was

busted for using "forbidden" words. Sorry about that...;-)

[The Green Manalishi]

19. With all due respect, just because you've never witnessed it

doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Many sites to verify this, short on time so here is one, a bit wacko in a y2K way but factually accurate on this issue:

" We spoke with Nathan Barankin, Director of Communications for the California Attorney General office, who informed us that this recent SKS gun ban issue arises from an unresolved legal definition. California was one of the first states to pass a ban on so-called "assault weapons," which included the SKS rifle -- but only if the rifle had a detachable magazine. Rifles with fixed, non-removable magazines were exempt from this confiscation order, but those with removable magazine had to be recorded ("registered") and turned over to government authorities.

Many owners of fixed-magazine SKS rifles later converted them to removable-magazine models. At the time, the Attorney General (who is not the current AG) wrote a letter to these gun owners assuring them that these rifles were perfectly legal and not subject to the gun confiscation order.

In 1996, a man owning one of these converted rifles was arrested in Santa Clara County and prosecuted by the District Attorney for possessing an illegal firearm. The case wound its way to the state Supreme Court where a decision was finally handed down: yes, indeed, these rifles are illegal, the court said.

This ruling created instant criminals. Barankin told Y2KNEWSWIRE, "So what we had in 1997 was, by judicial ruling, a law that says all these people who had been informed that these weapons were legal were now suddenly felons."

Yes: a state court decision transformed law-abiding citizens into felons. Recognizing the obvious problem here, the state legislature passed a bill that would allow owners of these newly-illegal SKS rifles a "window of opportunity" to turn them in without being prosecuted as felons. Barankin says..."

http://www.mcsm.org/sksconfisc.html


Bullshit like this that happened *HERE*, in California. I remember it, I know people who had to turn in firearms. This is why I do not trust, and shall fight by whatever means necessary, even if that includes supporting vile people and organizations that I would rather see crawl under a rock, any restrictions of any kind on my right to own, carry, and legally use in my defense if necessary, firearms as I see fit.


It happened, it could happen again, and anything I have to do to prevent it happening , I will. I'd much rather put my money, time and energy into fighting for marriage equality, environmental justice and universal health care, but fuck with my right to RKBA, or turn a blind eye to others fucking with it, and you (not you, personally, billn25) become the enemy.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. Not everyone is as lucky as you.

My wife is alive because she had a gun on her and was able to prevent her own murder. DUer "spin" has posted of his daughter using a gun to chase away a burglar who was threatening to rape her.

I personally have known several people who would have been the victims of violent crimes, except that they had a gun handy.

If you will check the FBI crime statistics you will find that there are over one million violent crimes in the US every year. That is one million times that a victim really needed and gun, and usually didn't have one.

It is arrogant to assume that because you have been lucky that everyone else will have the same luck.

[billh58]

32. I'm sorry to hear

about anyone who has been a victim of violence, and that was not the point of my statement. I'm not sure if "luck" has anything to do with whether or not one becomes a victim either.

The only point I have been attempting to make in this thread, is that I can see no viable individual, group, or movement which has the backing of the American people, that stands a chance in Hell of taking away anyone's gun.

Regulations about open carry and CCW in public venues vs. RKBA in the home (Heller)? That goes back to the same arguments that apply to ALL civil rights being exercised in the public venue: when does one citizen's rights infringe on another citizen's rights or perceived safety? Free speech vs. hate speech (KKK - permit required), or even being a public nuiscense (Hari Krishnas). Public assembly vs. terroristic threatening and implied intimidation (blood for the Tree of Life).

If both sides of any controversy adopt a "no prisioners" attitude, then no one wins -- even if the SCOTUS swings between Conservatism and Liberalism. 2A is a just one enumerated right among many others, and they all have to work together in order to fulfill the promise of the Constitution.

Yes, I know all of the statistics, but I still don't want to visit, live in, or spend any excess time in, anyplace where public-carry (especially CCW) is commonplace. That philosophy contributes to my "luck," and alerts me to the fact that if the locals don't feel safe in their own neighborhood there are most likely other negative social factors in play, therefore it's really no place for me.

To re-state, I know many people who own guns, are hunters, marksmen, and collectors, and absolutely none of them celebrate a reported righteous shooting by posting the info on a website, or are worried about losing their 2A rights to the point of obsession. It seems to me that this forum, for the most part, is crying wolf when the threat is actually a three-legged sheep with arthritis.

[safeinOhio]

35. Bill, I think you speak for the majority of Americans.

Most are for reasonable gun laws, are not all that fearful of crime everyday and don't see any big, powerful group trying to change the current laws. While it may be the main issue to the few that post here, it's not a major issue for most sane people.

It is being used by the right wing as a fear issue, along with terrorism and immigration to scare people away from more important issues.

Most people are not against gun ownership or CCW laws. They against criminals having easy access to handguns. It is a shame that most post on this forum fail to address that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. I agree with you to a degree - the right wing *is* using gun control as a fear issue

Because it works- to get people to fear Democrats. And too many Democrats have obliged them over the years.

Think about it. It's been a brilliant strategy for them- the political division of the NRA gets to raise lots of money
any time a Democrat says or does something stupid re guns, and the GOP gets to divert the attention of people away
from stuff like health care, the environment, or social injustice.

The Republicans and their allies in the NRA have made a cynical calculus: The votes of an ill-informed, one-issue
voter carry the same electoral weight as those of a graduate of the Kennedy School of Government.

Every time a Democrat puts forth demonstrably stupid ideas like:

"We can control crime by not letting people legally own handguns"- even though crooks just buy them anyway.

"We can control crime by not letting people legally carry concealed handguns"- even though it isn't a problem where
it is already legal.

"We can control crime by only letting people buy one gun a month" - without explaining why or how this is supposed to work.


Republicans smile.

And while we're at it:

Why are the legal users of guns supposed to police the illegal users? What makes you think people here aren't
against crooks having easy access to handguns?

Why should we simply accept at face value that the measures gun controllers claim will restrict
"criminals having easy access to handguns" will actually *do* that?

At least half of what they have done (or tried to do) hasn't worked or simply made it harder for the law-abiding, while impinging criminals not one whit.

The pro-control types have lost credibility on this issue. More importantly, the have been seen to have lost
credibility on the issue (I'm looking at you, Mayor Daley), and they will not be getting it back anytime soon.

[safeinOhio]

37. big city mayors like Daly

are elected by their cities. Just like Sheriffs in Arizona. It is not one size fits all. On the state and national level, few are screaming for any big change in gun laws. It is not that big of deal in most folks life. Crime is down, gun ownership is up. What's left for the NRA and teabaggers to scream about. They are ignored by most. Fear didn't stop 10 million more voters from voting for Obama over McCain. For the most part, guns are a dead issue except to the one issue people on both sides and they may cancel each other out.

Your calling those in favor of background checks on private handgun sales "gun controllers" is like calling those in favor of not allowing felons and certified insane people to legally own guns, "gun controllers". You might see how pointless it is to scare everybody with this statement, "many 2nd Amendment supporters want to make it legal for criminals, the insane and terrorist to have legal access to guns". Yet that is exactly how statements of fear about "gun controller" sound coming from the NRA types. The majority pays little attention to either argument.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. But "one size *does* fit all", Heller has seen to that.

And Daley Jong-Il is about to be smacked upside the head by it.

Daley is no different than Joe Arpaio, they just trample on different parts of the Constitution.

The trouble with with local governments restricting legal gun ownsership is that it clearly has had little effect
on crime, vide DC, Chicago, or Baltimore

I'm all for opening the NICS to private citizens, with proper privacy safeguards in place, and would use it if selling a gun. I trust you have been lobbying to help effect this?

[safeinOhio]

39. Why yes I have been and also

making it mandatory on all private handgun sales.

You miss my point on Daly. He is pushing for what the people that elected him want him to do. If not he does not get elected, just like Arpaio. In my area, ever elected person is against legal abortion. I don't vote for them, but most do even though the courts say different. They get smacked upside the head by the courts and people still elect them. Why not just call the majority of people in Chicago North Koreans.

[billh58]

40. All that Heller settled

was that 2A permits RKBA in the home. Heller did not establish the "right" to public carry, but left the issue wide open for further argument, and affirmed local and State authority to regulate open carry and CCW, along with other ownership restrictions:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v.
DICK ANTHONY HELLER

on writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{June 26, 2008}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court.

We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.


{Snip}

Justice Breyer chides us for leaving so many applications of the right to keep and bear arms in doubt, and for not providing extensive historical justification for those regulations of the right that we describe as permissible. See post, at 42–43. But since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment , one should not expect it to clarify the entire field, any more than Reynolds v. United States, 98 U. S. 145 (1879) , our first in-depth Free Exercise Clause case, left that area in a state of utter certainty. And there will be time enough to expound upon the historical justifications for the exceptions we have mentioned if and when those exceptions come before us.

In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.

*  *  *

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

It is so ordered.

{emphasis added}

Most Americans consider Heller a win/win decision, and ignore the extreme positions of both the "cold, dead, hand," AND the "no guns, no way" die-hard, take-no-prisoners, proponents. Most thinking Americans support the "castle defense" application of the law, and take a more restrictive, case-by-case, local view of public carry (one size does NOT fit all).

[jazzhound]

52. Well said.

Think about it. It's been a brilliant strategy for them- the political division of the NRA gets to raise lots of money any time a Democrat says or does something stupid re guns, and the GOP gets to divert the attention of people away from stuff like health care, the environment, or social injustice.

Don Kates points out what a great investment royalties paid to anti-gun cartoonists are to the NRA. In republishing these hateful cartoons, the NRA is repaid many times over by members who are continuously reminded that they are hated more than the actual criminals who are responsible for violent crime.

It's truly depressing to think of the multitude of ways "progressives" undermine themselves by failing to place their party before their egos vis-a-vis the gun "control" debate.

[shadowrider]

41. I have never witnessed the government taking away anyone's legally-owned/carried firearm.

Try New Orleans after Katrina. It wasn't that long ago.

[billh58]

42. I didn't personally witness

that isolated incident, which was apparently an anomaly. I can, however, understand the concern of law enforcement and peace-keeping personnel when confronted by armed citizens in public during times of civil crisis and widespread looting.

Rare incidents do not constitute a concerted and focused effort to repeal 2A or to take away your gun, nor are they indicative of the will of the American people. The wolf at the door is imaginary, and a result of unfounded paranoia...;-)

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. I notice you do not address California's confistication of SKS rifles

for no good reason, AFAIK. You act as if it did not happen, even after you were provided links to the information

And you elide a certain critical aspect of the New Orleans gun seizures, as well:

Various "law enforcement and peace-keeping personnel" entered people's houses to confiscate their guns

The wolf at the door is imaginary, and a result of unfounded paranoia...

"unfounded"- unless of course you were an SKS owner in California, or a gun owner in New Orleans after Katrina.


Blatant dissimulation like this is why gun owners don't trust gun control advocates. Why should they?

[billh58]

45. Again, an isolated

instance and an anomaly. The very fact that you know about these isolated incidents shows that wrongs have been identified, and hopefully righted, or at least addressed. People are wrongfully deprived of some civil right everyday of the week. In most cases, the legal system corrects those instances of misconduct on the part of law enforcement, which is why we are a nation of laws.

I was only vaguely aware of the incidents you cite as I am not obsessed with gleaning every story about an over-reaching law enforcement agency, or a "righteous" shooting so that I can rush to post them on an anonymous web site in order to prove a nebulous point.

Again, there is no groundswell movement to take away your, or anyone else's, guns in this country and you are free to own as many as you like. If it makes you feel better, or more relevant to the discussion, you can continue to cry wolf. As evidenced by the relatively small number of "regulars" who post in this forum, most DU-ers (and most Americans) don't see a conspiratorial threat to our RKBA civil liberties -- none, nada, zilch.

For the record, I am not a "gun control" advocate, except as the term applies to illegal firearm sales, criminals, and the regulation of public carry.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. I am trying to make the point that some candor from folks like you would be appreciated

Let's review, shall we?

You state that confiscations haven't happened. New Orleans after Katrina is then cited to you, and we are then told that those were isolated incidents.

We are then told that Katrina was a one-off, even after the previous confiscations in California were pointed
out on this thread.

We are further given incorrect information by you regarding the circumstance of the Katrina confiscations, i.e. persons
not in public and in no way a threat had their homes entered and their guns forcibly confiscated.
You had claimed it was people in public that had their weapons seized.

I don't believe I'm out of line in saying you have a slight credibility problem.

I also assert that your concerns about persons legally carrying guns in public are more than a bit exaggerated, as
those legally carrying in states that track this kind of thing have been found to be quite law-abiding as a group
(see the links in post #18)

[billh58]

48. First of all,

I NEVER said that confiscations don't happen, I said that I have never witnessed one, meaning that they are extremely rare in the general scheme of things. The Katrina and SKS incidents WERE fucked up, but isolated occurrences, and are not commonplace in the United States. They were not carried out by a single group with an agenda of taking away everyone's Constitutionally protected guns.

The Katrina confiscations, however misguided and un-Constitutional, DID indeed take place during a period of extreme civil unrest and widespread looting. I never claimed it was only people in "public," whose guns were confiscated, only that there was public unrest when the confiscations were carried out. If you understood differently, mea fucking culpa, as I did not intend to imply otherwise.

I also never said that people carrying legally in public were any more, or less, law-abiding than anyone else. That is not, and should not need to be, my concern. It is my public space as much as it is anyone's, and ALL public civil rights have certain restrictions: the right of Assembly does not allow anarchy and public displays of violence, the right of Free Speech does not allow yelling "fire" in a crowded venue, and so forth. 2A is already restricted, and most thinking Americans are only asking for "reasonable regulation" (and NOT "gun control" in the Brady sense) which ensures the public safety while erring on the side of caution.

We're not talking about spitting on someone while exercising the right of Free Speech, or "road rage" here, but the distinct possibility of inflicting grievous bodily harm, or death, on an innocent bystander. Cops do it all of the time, and multiplying the number of public carriers will also multiply the number of "accidental" occurances.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. If you fear people carrying guns, despite verifiable statistics, is this not...

...an unwarranted fear? Look up and verify these things for yourself, you can find out that the average person has more
to fear from licensed drivers than from licensed handgun carriers, both in absolute numbers and as their percentage in the population.

I would remind you that within living memory, the State of Virginia would jail people for the "harmful" practice of
marrying someone not of the same racial group. And they took that argument all the way to the US Supreme Court in 1967,
where it was found to violate the Thirteenth Amendment.

Some racists still feel the same way- should we indulge them?

What more can I say? If it can be shown that a practice does no public harm (on the whole), it should be allowed in a free
society. It's like smoking weed, marrying someone of the same sex, or getting an abortion: If it doesn't affect you
personally and is not being forced upon you, it's none of your business if someone else chooses to do it.
When the right to this practice is enshrined in the Constitution, it's a slam-dunk for me, at least.

And as "yelling 'fire' in a crowded venue"- True, but then we don't force people to have their mouths taped shut ahead
of time on the off chance that they might do so. We (rightfully) punish only those who cause a panic, without
restricting all theatergoers beforehand.

[billh58]

50. Peace...

You have your views and I have mine, and I sincerely thank you for allowing me to express mine. I should have known better than to walk into a biker bar and pick a fight...;-)

P.S. Actually, I don't fear people carrying guns just because they are carrying -- I fear people who feel the need to carry a gun.

[friendly_iconoclast]

44. "Unfounded paranoia". Oh, really?

While you're at it, you might want tobrush up on your Google-fu, as "SKS confiscation" returns circa 42,000 hits...

[billh58]

46. Sigh...

I wouldn't know an "SKS" from a Rhode Island Red, and I seriously doubt that most Americans would either.

I guess the sky IS falling where you live...;-)

[safeinOhio]

51. But that is a statistically insignificant

antidote, just like a couple of CCW holders breaking the law. In the big picture, just like most CCW holders are law abiding citizens, statistics show there is virtually no risk of you having your guns confiscated in this country.

I love your logic so much I've started to use it.

Because few legal gun owners commit crimes there is no reason, logically to fear them. Therefore, because few guns have ever been confiscated, there is no reason to fear confiscation by the government.

To drive the point home, I can think of at least 15 legal gun owners that have used their guns in a crime in newspaper reports over the last couple of years. You can only come up with 2 cased of times the government has confiscated guns in the last 20 years and both times the courts have stepped in and deemed that illegal.

How many legal guns in this country, like 80 million and only 2 times has this happened to a very few individuals. I'd say your fear of gun confiscation is as illogical as others fear of legal guns being dangerous to their safety.

[Hoopla Phil]

5. Do you have some critique of the data or how it was collected? Or are

you just pontificating without any facts?

[old mark]

3. There really is no debate.There are the facts; that violent crime has DECREASED

since the advent of shall-issue laws,this despite a huge increase in the number of citizens legally carrying guns,and there are the anguished irrational hysterical nonsense statements made by the anti-gun groups who are fearful of losing their big-pay jobs. Don't kid yourself that only the "gun lobby" is all about the money...the anti's are into greed just as much if not more. They don't even manufacture a product just sell lies and fear.


mark

[onehandle]

4. Yet another right-wing, Obama hating site posted in the gungeon.

The ever-growing list ever-grows.

[Hoopla Phil]

7. Do you have some critique of the data or how it was collected? Or are

you just pontificating without any facts?

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. Genetic fallacies are all he has, since the facts don't fit his prejudice

Take a good look, folks:

This is the depths to which the once-mighty gun control lobby has fallen.

[Callisto32]

8. More Obama-Cult babble?

If you are only going to have one trick, it should at least be a good one.

[Euromutt]

24. As does the number of times you repeat that whine when you can't refute the evidence presented

Yes, a lot of gun rights activists are opposed to the Democratic party; we're well aware of that, thank you. And given the Democratic party's attitude to gun rights at the national level over the past 40+ years, this is hardly surprising. So it's equally unsurprising that sources of information that support a pro-gun rights position will lean anti-Dem in other respects as well.

If you're so concerned about ideological purity, you might consider railing against the fact that Carolyn McCarthy got into--and remains in--the House on a Democratic ticket, despite being a Republican in every aspect except gun control, and she only converted to that after her husband was killed in the Long Island Railroad shooting (she only turned to the local Dems after the local Repubs turned her down). Sarah Brady, same story: devoted Republican until James involuntarily took a bullet meant for Reagan, and only broke with the Republican party over gun control. Paul Helmke, de facto head of the Brady Campaign, never even formally broke with the Republicans. But do we hear you cast aspersions on those who speak favorably of legislation introduced by McCarthy, or cite "research" from the Brady Campaign, even though there's nothing about McCarthy or the Brady Campaign that's particularly left-wing or pro-Obama (the Brady Campaign gave Obama an "F" rating, after all)? Oddly, no, we don't.

So maybe, just maybe, your constant whingeing about lack of ideological purity in cited sources rings more than a little hollow, hm? Maybe, just maybe, you're just a contemptible little hypocrite who keeps (as soccer enthusiasts put it) playing the man instead of the ball (aka the circumstantial ad hominem http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm) because you can't refute the evidence presented when it's pro-gun rights, but won't apply the same standard to anti-gun rights sources. Maybe, just maybe, you're also a contemptible little coward because you don't have the guts to incur the wrath of the mods by accusing anyone outright of leaning right-wing, so you just insinuate it at every opportunity; Nixon (another anti-gun rights Republican) could have taken lessons in "plausible deniability" from you.

Frankly, the only reason your use of Bobby Kennedy as an avatar doesn't make me puke is because subsequent generation of Kennedys have already done a much more thorough job of associating the family name with slime than you ever could, like RFK Jr.'s contribution to the anti-vaxxer movement.

[rotund1]

28. Thank you for penning what I might have with a bit more seniority hereabouts.

:D

:toast:

[spin]

9. The incidents are documented at...

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

The incidents are drawn from newspaper reports. For example:

Walterboro, South Carolina

From the June 5, 2010 Charleston (S.C.) Post and Courier:

WALTERBORO — An Army specialist just home from the Middle East shot and critically wounded a robber who tried to hold up his family after they stopped with car trouble late Thursday, authorities said.

Two other robbers returned fire as they pulled their wounded accomplice into a getaway car and sped away from the McCleod Road crime scene, according to Colleton County Sheriff George Malone. None of the victims were wounded, but their cars were struck by bullets, deputies said.

Deputies located the injured suspect a short time later at Colleton Regional Hospital, where he was being treated for several gunshot wounds, deputies said. David Jayquon Jakes, 19, of Smoaks was later transferred to Medical University Hospital in Charleston, where he remains in intensive care, Chief Deputy Ted Stanfield said.
…
Investigators have no plans to file charges against the serviceman who shot Jakes, as he had a valid concealed weapons permit and acted in self-defense, Malone said.

http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/

The data looks interesting and relevant to the discussion. According to the OP at http://www.personalliberty.com/news/new-developments-in-the-concealed-carry-debate-19814078/, the researchers at thearmedcitizen.com/ have documented "2,160 stories of self-defense with guns since May 2007" including 153 cases involving concealed carry.

These figures sound reasonable.

[russ1943]

15. Another perspective documented at .http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

And the May update of Concealed Carry Killers also drawn from newspaper reports, has for the same time frame (from May 2007 to thru May 2010) documented 166 people killed by people with concealed carry licenses.

Those figures sound appallingly realistic.
Just saying.

[jazzhound]

16. Do the math, as a number of folks on this board have on that statistic.

When you create a percentage by dividing that 166 with the number of concealed carries, you end up discovering only a TINY percentage of abuses by those with CC permits. A smaller number than the population at large, and even police officers.

Of course that's a problem for the VPC, so they publish inflammatory numbers like this which they know will fool the (mostly) uneducated citizenry. It's the only game they've got left.

[friendly_iconoclast]

18. It's realistic to say that CCL holders are appallingly safe.

But you knew that already, as you posted on the same subject back in March:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=304374

The trouble for you and the VPC is that your own figures demonstrate CCL holders to be far safer than
the average citizen- or cops, for that matter.

More deconstruction of your faulty math on the following threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=294892

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x282461#282464

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x278818

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=282461

[armueller2001]

23. I read that first link you posted

Hilarious!

Nothing like spewing facts that are counterproductive to your argument... LOL

Amazing how there was no response on that thread too.

[cowman]

20. Don't you just hate it when facts intevene

[armueller2001]

22. How many of those 166 people

were criminals killed in the commission of a crime?

Just sayin'.

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Notice that the VPC include murders by means other than gunfire.

If a CCW holder kills someone by poison, then their CCW has no bearing on that as they would have been able to commit that crime anyway.

Further, if you divide that number by three you get a rather low annual rate - 55.3. In fact, more people are killed by lightning ~ 60. http://www.weather.gov/om/lightning/medical.htm

But go ahead and work yourelf up into a Chicken Little lather over it.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Other interesting bullshit from your referenced site:

Gay marriage divides GOP
– 1829 comments | 48081 view(s)
Cramming Obamacare Down Our Throats
– 1627 comments | 36020 view(s)
The Worst President Ever
– 1224 comments | 48570 view(s)
Barack’s Ignoble Award
– 1218 comments | 58957 view(s)
Is Brit Hume “Too Christian” for TV?
– 1133 comments | 31766 view(s)

[PavePusher]

25. Michael Flatley ain't got nothin' on you....

Can you do the avoidance dance any faster without actually causing disturbances in the Earth's rotation?

[Hoopla Phil]

27. Do you have some critique of the data or how it was collected? Or are

you just trying to start a flame based tangent from the O.P?

[Warren Stupidity]

34. The 'data; appears to be anecdotal.

However, outside of the gungeon, linking to rightwing anti-Democratic Party hate sites is generally forbidden.

[SteveM]

53. Funny, controllers use the GOP-founded, GOP-led Brady Center with no qualms. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Now that we've got your genetic fallacy out of the way, would you care to discuss

the subject of the OP?

kthxbye