Update on LVPD Costco Shooting

[oneshooter]

Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak wants to televise a fact-finding coroner's inquest hearing into the Las Vegas police shooting death of an armed man outside a Costco store.

Coroner Mike Murphy says the seven-member inquest jury will hear testimony starting Sept. 22. The panel will decide whether lethal force was justified, excusable or criminal. Sisolak says he will ask Sept. 22 for commission approval to televise the inquest.
Sheriff Doug Gillespie and the coroner approve televising the inquest.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/aug/27/coroner-inquest-in-costco-shooting-may-be-on-tv/

Open for all to see.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MichaelHarris]

1. And

if it's found to be a justifiable shooting on law enforcement's part will you post the results? Can we then add it to the increasing list of CWP holders who are snapping?

[DongHa69]

2. Your bias is showing thru

there is an internal debate going on in metro about whether it was a justified shooting. And what increasing list of CHL holders are snapping? Links please

[MichaelHarris]

3. you

do know I've owned guns all my life right? Hey, by the way, did you find a shooting where a CWP holder stopped a mass shooting yet? Search the gun forum, there are a number of posts about CWP holders committing crimes. Quite a few actually. If you really want to see the numbers you'll do the leg work.

While you're at it: http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/29/2058190/shooting-reported-at-visalia-mormon.html

[DongHa69]

4. So whats the % of CHL holders who commit crimes

to the number of CHL holders? Very miniscule. Less that 1% if I remember correctly and I know you own guns but you never let a chance go by where you can belittle CHL holders, and I can tell you with absolute fact that the coroners inquest in Clark County is stacked in favor of the Police.
The first thing you did on another thread was insult CHL holders so you seem to have a history of bias towards CHL holders.

[MichaelHarris]

5. so tell me this

how many crimes committed report whether or not the criminal is a CWP holder? So now tell me where the 1% comes from? If no one reports whether or not the shooter carries a permit then the 1% number means nothing. go read 100 reports on shootings, come back and tell me how many said if the shooter had a CWP. Find out if this guy has a CWP http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/08/29/2058190/shooting-reported-at-visalia-mormon.html

My post may have been deleted but I don't see monsters around every corner, I don't live in fear, I AM NOT A COWARD who feels the need to arm himself to take a piss or buy a carton of milk.

[DongHa69]

6. Never said you were a coward

you choose not to have a CHL and I respect your choice, so why can't you respect our choice to obtain a CHL and why are you so inflammatory towards CHL holders?

[MichaelHarris]

7. Do you carry

out of a fear or a right? Do you support carrying in places that serve alcohol? You asked, I'll answer. I strongly believe that people who think they need to take a weapon to Toys-R-us or to buy milk or any other such daily act live an irrational life. Poll 500 CWP holders, how many had to defend themselves with a firearm. Poll the gungion, how many think it's OK to sit at a bar armed? Maybe you'll start to see the irrational.

[DongHa69]

11. I carry because the state I live in says I can if i go thru

all the hoops and yes I do support sitting in a bar armed if not drinking and just because I have not had to draw my weapon does not mean that I never will have to although the chances are miniscule. That doesn't make me a coward and I'm not some cowboy itching to pull my gun and shoot the first POS criminal I encounter, case in point, I'm in a store buying milk and an armed criminal enters to rob the place, he hasn't seen me yet, would I pull my gun and blast him? Unless he is showing signs of shooting the clerk or customers, like herding them to the back of the store or he is getting more and more hysterical, then no I wouldn't, what I would do is stay hidden, call 911 and get the best description of him or her that I could and wait for the police to arrive. Why start a shootout if you don't have to?

[MichaelHarris]

28. And I say

you live in fear.

[DongHa69]

31. I really don't care what you think or say

your opinion of me means squat. I don't live my life by what other people think of me, so on that note, have a good life and I hope you make lots of money on your internet psychiatrist business.

[MichaelHarris]

33. Thanks

it was fun and informative.

[spin]

57. You have every right to believe that those with carry permits live in fear ...

but you cause me to remember friends I've known through the years who had carry permits and had been soldiers who experienced combat or were retired police officers. They were not living in fear by any means. I have also known people who have concealed weapons permits who had damn good reason to carry a weapon as their lives had been threatened.

Perhaps your objective is to insult and infuriate those who have carry permits. If so, at least in my case, you have failed. Your opinions are an example of stereotyping and as such reflect poorly on your educational level.

Stereotypes are generalizations, or assumptions, that people make about the characteristics of all members of a group, based on an image (often wrong) about what people in that group are like. For example, one study of stereotypes revealed that Americans are generally considered to be friendly, generous, and tolerant, but also arrogant, impatient, and domineering. Asians, on the other hand, were expected to be shrewd and alert, but reserved. Clearly, not all Americans are friendly and generous; and not all Asians are shrewd. If you assume you know what a person is like, and don't look at each person as an individual, you are likely to make errors in your estimates of a person's character.

In conflicts, people tend to develop overly-negative images of the other side. The opponent is expected to be aggressive, self-serving, and deceitful, for example, while people view themselves in completely positive ways. These stereotypes tend to be self-perpetuating. If one side assumes the other side is deceitful and aggressive, they will tend to respond in a similar way. The opponent will then develop a similar image of the first party, and the negative stereotypes will be confirmed. They may be grow worse, as communication is shut down and escalation heightens emotions and tension.
http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/stereoty.htm

[Pavulon]

15. Thank you sigmund fucking freud.

I carry because I can. I can because your side lost in court, twice. Now you can go work on the law or get a sign with a dead baby, umm, dead body of some type, and go protest out in front of the clinic, nra?

Lots of people believe shit, hey life is your own personal church, believe what you want. Your belief system does not influence my RIGHT to carry a gun.

at the end of the day its legal for me to carry a gun lots of places, soon, that list will grow. And because there is no statistical correlation between and CCW and criminal acts the position you have will become more like the person throwing blood on people out side of a women's clinic.

That is where your side is going.

[spin]

61. Incidents often happen in the parking lots of stores ...

Does Your Daily Routine Put You in Danger?

Sometimes the most common places we go on a day to day basic can be risky to our personal safety. These can be places you would never expect. Such as the parking lot at your job, your local ATM, or even the laundry room in your apartment building. What makes these places to dangerous? The answer is very simple. When you're going to and from these locations there is a predefined goal that your mind is fixed on, getting to your car, taking out money, or getting a clean shirt. When your mind is fixated on the goal at hand you tend to block out things in the area that are out of place. This is when the trouble starts. When you are no paying attention to the environment around you it opens the door for a smart criminal to take advantage. A lot of criminals out there pray on these areas. They understand that most people do not think they could possibly be the victim of a crime in such a common location.

Let's say one night you are getting out of work late and you can't want to get home and watch some TV. While you are walking to your car there is someone lurking in the parking lot waiting for an opportunity. Just as you insert your key into the car door your pushed face first into your car window. You're now completely defenseless to this stranger demanding money. You're left with only once choice, give him what he wants and hope you walk away safely. This is a position that no one ever wants to be in and will undoubtedly end in permanent mental and physical scares.

What can you do to avoid finding yourself in this situation? The answer is pretty straight forward. You need to learn how to identify fringe areas. These are the "in between" where criminals usually lurk. These locations by themselves are not dangerous; it is the criminals that exploit them that make them dangerous. Everybody passes through a large number of them on a day to day basis. The best way to identify a fringe area is the area you pass through on your way to or from the crowd. The crowd can be your job, the mall, or even the grocery store.
http://ezinearticles.com/?Does-Your-Daily-Routine-Put-You-in-Danger?&id=1389632

Obviously, the point of the article was to learn "situational awareness". If you notice something strange or out of place, simply avoid a possible bad situation. But if you are caught off guard, a firearm can be an excellent self defense weapon. Often merely drawing it causes a bad situation to end quickly without anyone being injured.

You also mention carrying a firearm in a bar. You can be in a bar without consuming alcohol. For example you might be a designated driver.

[AtheistCrusader]

62. If they aren't drinking, what difference does it make if they sit at that bar armed?

Ever heard of a designated driver? I always am. Every time. I also have a CPL. I carry. I don't leave my gun in the car when I am out with friends or family. My former police chief was a good lesson on why that's a bad idea, and who knows what crimes his pistol have been involved in.

It is illegal to imbibe alcohol while carrying, in this state. What purpose is served by telling me I can't cross an arbitrary line between the part of the establishment open to everyone, and the part only open to people over 21?

[shadowrider]

68. I'm perfectly fine with somone being armed in a bar PROVIDED they aren't drinking

Which is against the law, oh, about everywhere.

[MichaelHarris]

10. interesting

http://abusingtheprivilege.blogspot.com/

numbers are only from news reports which is probably way smaller than the actual numbers: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/latest-killings-involving-concealed-gun-permit-holders

It's easy to close your eyes to these incidents, it's easy to quote percentages that can't possibly be true, what's hard is accepting the fact that we are making it easier for unstable people to kill others.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/keeping-track-of-killings_b_360572.html "Because most state systems that allow the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders" Now where did that 1% number come from again?

[DongHa69]

13. I remember seeing it some where

I don't remember where but I will try to find it. There are over 6 million CHL holders in the U.S. and the ratio of CHL holders who break the law compared to those that don't is pretty damn small and not all CHL holders who break the law involve guns.

[MichaelHarris]

27. you just completely

missed the point. The number you will be looking for is false. How can you have a 1% crime rate among CWP holders when most states don't release the data? Read 500 newspaper articles, how many identify shooters with CWPs? Choose one recent family shooting, tell me if the shooter had a CWP. You can't, most states don't release the data. THE 1% NUMBER IS FALSE!!

Did this man have a carry permit? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9041721

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. If the 1% number is false, prove it. Show us how all those other threads are wrong

You know the ones where the VPC was dismissed for the fear-mongerers they are. The ones where links to
actual statistics from permit-issuing states were given

Like these two, for instance:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=282461#284214

spin (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-21-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #181
215. If your assertion was correct, the data from Florida would support it...
Florida publishes a Monthly Summery Report for concealed weapons and firearms located at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a period of time between 10/1/87 - 12/31/09 or just over twenty two years. During this time frame 1,686,684 concealed weapons permits were issued, 684,569 of which are currently valid.

A grand total of 167 licenses were revoked for "Crime After Licensure" where a firearm was utilized. This statistic includes but is not limited to those incidents in which a firearm killed or injured an innocent person.

I'm not saying that those with a concealed carry permit are angels by any means, but they rarely misuse their weapons.

I will also contend that the legitimate and legal use of concealed firearms to stop crime is far higher than the misuse of legally concealed firearms. Unfortunately, statistics for the positive use of concealed firearms is unavailable or questionable. Many instances in which a concealed weapon is used to stop a crime fail to make their way into a database.

In my opinion, you have a unjustified paranoia of those who legally carry concealed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=294892#295390

OneTenthofOnePercent (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-20-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. PA and FL alone have about 1,250,000 active ccw permit holders.
There's likely many more when you consider the other states that allow carry.
I think the average rate for CCW in shall issue states is 2%-4% of the population. It fluctuates, but most state are around this range.
Figure that there are about 33 states are shall-issue states with 2%-4% ccw rates. (man, where did I put my calculator?)
I guess it's safe to say... there are several million active ccw holders in america.

For the sake of ease, lets just use the known numbers from PA and FL, 1.25M ccw holders.
So, the VPC could only dig up 78 incidents involving murder by ccw holders?
We'll even ignore the fact that the VPC included some ACQUITTED and PENDING cases in their shit-stain of a report.
Well I guess that's it!
Lets revoke the rights of the 99.994% of CCW holders NOT involved with killing people because of 78 incidents.

Sometimes, I think anti-2A people have never passed a practical statistics class in their lives.
Alternatively, judging by their demonstrated maturity, most may not be old enough to have taken such courses so maybe there's hope yet.

[DongHa69]

35. How the hell would I know if he had a CHL?

[MichaelHarris]

37. then

how did you get that 1% figure? Because someone told you?


Geez that was easy.

[DongHa69]

38. What are you talking about?

[MichaelHarris]

41. you cited

a 1% percent number today in relation to CWP holders who commit crimes. I'm asking you where that number comes from since most states don't release the data. Do you really carry a gun?

[DongHa69]

43. I really don't care

what you believe.
Once again, Have a good night
Peace

[Hoopla Phil]

106. Speaking of citing sources, still waiting on the proof for this one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x270147

[DongHa69]

42. Read Post #21

even though I know you won't believe it. We can go around and around all night long and not change each others minds, you have made false assumptions about me and as far as I am concerned, I am done with you tonight.
Have a good night
Peace

[DongHa69]

36. So how can you say

that it's not true if states don't release the data, which BTW, FL and TX do release the data and it is less than 1%.

[MichaelHarris]

39. you do know there

are 48 more states right? Try harder.

[X_Digger]

44. So now you're asserting that CHL holders in Texas and Florida..

.. are much more law-abiding than in other states? What makes you think they're unrepresentative?

There are 400k active licensees in TX (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2009.pdf) and 750k active in FL (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html). Out of an estimated 6M, that's a sample size of 20%- much better than most surveys.

[DongHa69]

46. Oh man

don't introduce facts into his fantasy.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. Even if you hung *all* the shootings mentioned on FL and TX permit holders

And all were judged to be manslaughter or murder- you'd still get less than 1%. Don't believe me? Do the math

Circa 1150000 permit holders in FL and TX/ 182 killings re. the VPC site= 0.000158

[spin]

58. Florida does release data on citizens with a concealed weapons permit ...

Every month the state issues a Monthly Concealed Weapon / Firearm Summary Report which can be viewed at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a time frame from 10/1/87 to 07/31/10. During this period of time, 1,825,143 concealed weapons permits were issued and currently 746,430 are valid.

Only 168 licenses have been revoked for a crime involving a firearm after the license was issued.

In Florida, statistics reveal that you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit.

[AtheistCrusader]

63. I've noticed many of those articles list a LICENSE.

IN some states, that's not a license to carry concealed, but a license to purchase a handgun at all.

And I'd also like to see you differentiate in cases where the shooter committed a crime, possessed a CPL, AND the CPL enabled the crime.

[friendly_iconoclast]

21. "Can't possibly be true" Please demonstrate why these are not true

"I don't believe the numbers" =/= "The statistics given are wrong"

And I'd point out, Florida and Texas will give you statistics on the number of their CHL permit holders who have had their
permits revoked. Go on and show us how "dangerous" CHL holders really are.

And the VPC site you linked to has already been thoroughly debunked in the Guns Forum:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=278818

You are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning that killed by a CCWer.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=282461#284214

spin (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-21-10 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #181
215. If your assertion was correct, the data from Florida would support it...
Florida publishes a Monthly Summery Report for concealed weapons and firearms located at:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

This report covers a period of time between 10/1/87 - 12/31/09 or just over twenty two years. During this time frame 1,686,684 concealed weapons permits were issued, 684,569 of which are currently valid.

A grand total of 167 licenses were revoked for "Crime After Licensure" where a firearm was utilized. This statistic includes but is not limited to those incidents in which a firearm killed or injured an innocent person.

I'm not saying that those with a concealed carry permit are angels by any means, but they rarely misuse their weapons.

I will also contend that the legitimate and legal use of concealed firearms to stop crime is far higher than the misuse of legally concealed firearms. Unfortunately, statistics for the positive use of concealed firearms is unavailable or questionable. Many instances in which a concealed weapon is used to stop a crime fail to make their way into a database.

In my opinion, you have a unjustified paranoia of those who legally carry concealed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=294892#295390

OneTenthofOnePercent (1000+ posts) Sat Feb-20-10 06:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. PA and FL alone have about 1,250,000 active ccw permit holders.
There's likely many more when you consider the other states that allow carry.
I think the average rate for CCW in shall issue states is 2%-4% of the population. It fluctuates, but most state are around this range.
Figure that there are about 33 states are shall-issue states with 2%-4% ccw rates. (man, where did I put my calculator?)
I guess it's safe to say... there are several million active ccw holders in america.

For the sake of ease, lets just use the known numbers from PA and FL, 1.25M ccw holders.
So, the VPC could only dig up 78 incidents involving murder by ccw holders?
We'll even ignore the fact that the VPC included some ACQUITTED and PENDING cases in their shit-stain of a report.
Well I guess that's it!
Lets revoke the rights of the 99.994% of CCW holders NOT involved with killing people because of 78 incidents.

Sometimes, I think anti-2A people have never passed a practical statistics class in their lives.
Alternatively, judging by their demonstrated maturity, most may not be old enough to have taken such courses so maybe there's hope yet.

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

Euromutt (1000+ posts) Mon Feb-22-10 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #73
81. The problem is that Sugarmann wants to have his cake and eat it
(Or as the French say, rather more coherently, he wants the butter and the money for the butter.)

He wants to show that issuing CCW permits creates a public safety hazard, by enabling citizens to commit homicides with firearms that they would, absent the CCW permit, not have had on hand. But to approach that in an honest fashion, the VPC would have to count only incidents in which the permit holder used a firearm that he could only have been carrying legally thanks to having a CCW permit. That means excluding homicides with anything other than a handgun (long guns, personal force, non-firearm weapons); homicides in the home (where you don't need a CCW permit); homicides in locations where even licensed concealed carry is a criminal offense (e.g. locations with "30.06 signs" in Texas), and I'm sure we can come up with a few more examples.

But, of course, if you accept those restrictions, the pickings are going to be very thin indeed; even less impressive than the numbers they've produced, and those are low enough even though they've been shamelessly padded. So they've just included any homicide in which the shooter was licensed to carry a firearm in a non-governmental capacity.

A couple of egregious examples are:
Richard TAUCH; allegedly shot his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend in Monterey Park, CA. Problem: Tauch had a Security Guard Firearm Permit, which only allows open carry while in uniform; it is not a CCW permit.

Aubrey BERRY; allegedly shot rapper Roderick "Dolla" Burton in Los Angeles, CA. Problem: Berry had a Georgia Firearms License, but was not licensed to carry in California, and was thus illegally carrying the firearm.

Tony VILLEGAS; allegedly strangled his estranged wife's best friend to death in Fort Lauderdale, FL. Problem: not having a CWP would not have prevented him from strangling the woman.

David NESBITT: charged with negligent homicide after his 5 year-old son fatally shot himself with Nesbitt's Glock, which the boy had found in a closet in their home in Cincinnati, OH. Problem: Nesbitt's not possessing a CCW permit would not have prevented this incident from occurring. Moreover, the incident was the result of negligence, not malice.

Marc KIDBY: though he was under a domestic violence protection order, Athens County (OH) Sheriff's Dept. failed to suspend his CHP and confiscate his firearms, one of which--a .38 Spl--he used to shoot himself. Problem: the guy didn't kill anyone other than himself.

As noted, examples abound of homicides committed in the shooters' own homes, where they didn't require a CCW permit to have the firearm available. There are also some examples of negligent discharges in public, the inclusion of which is fair enough if you want to argue that CCW permit holders present a public safety hazard, but not if you want to illustrate that they commit violent crimes.

But given the VPC's track record, I'm guessing they're interested in creating heat, not light, and are counting on people who cite their numbers not to have actual read the report with a critical eye. We've already got a few examples of those on this forum.

[DongHa69]

29. Jeeez

I didn't catch that, he was actually quoting Sugerman of the VPC? Give me a break. What's next, Paul Helmke of the Brady Bunch?

[MichaelHarris]

30. so now

you don't like the source? The numbers are correct but because you don't like the source so they are meaningless? How very small of you. Tell me, once again, how many mass murders were stopped by a holder of a CWP? Tell me how many recent family suicides were commited by CWP holders?

you can't, you follow made up numbers like the 1%.

[X_Digger]

34. In TX, it's 0.2612% - less than 1%

160 convictions of CHL holders out of 61,260 convictions by non-CHL holders (2007).

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[AtheistCrusader]

64. In fairness

You don't get a conviction or a revoked permit in a situation in which the shooter is also killed, even in the commission of a crime..

[pipoman]

47. Wait a minute,

isn't this the VPC report which cited CCW permit holders use of firearms? Isn't this the report which spanned 2 years? Isn't this the report which only 1 of the people in the 'statistical sampling' was actually convicted of any crime? Yea, I thought so. No, actually the stats and figures have been completely discredited. Any thinking gun control proponent who has reviewed this ridiculous opinion has decided not to cite it, ever, because it actually makes the case of those opposed to any further restrictions on the 2nd amendment. That being, the statistical risk of allowing law abiding people to carry concealed handguns doesn't even come close to meeting a threshold which would justify disallowing this freedom to exercise a civil right. Keep throwing pennies in the wishing well..

[X_Digger]

22. Here are two states..

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

From having ran the numbers in TX, you are 5 to 25 (depending on crime) more likely to be the victim of a crime perpetrated by another member of the general public than you are by a CHL holder.

[DongHa69]

14. BTW

I did not alert on you, just to set the record straight

[X_Digger]

20. Police check, silly.

I know, you're a "photojournalist" so if it isn't in the press article, you don't know it exists.

Those of us in the real world, however, know that when a person is arrested, they do things like check for a CHL. They have these things at police stations, computers, like the one you type on, that will tell you everything you want to know about someone.

What, you think that the TX DPS uses press reports to come up with their figures?

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[GreenStormCloud]

99. That is an easy one.

If a CHL holder commits a crime with his gun, he loses his CHL. Both Texas and Florida post annual statistics on their CHL population, to include licenses that are revoked. In both states CHL holders have been shown to be far safer than the general public.
You can take a look here: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm

BTW - Remember that church shooting in Colorado Springs? The church staffer that killed the shooter was able to be armed because she had a CCW.

There was also a mass shooting that was starting in a bar in Winnemucca, NV, and the shooter was killed while he was reloading. The defender had a CCW.

[safeinOhio]

16. I'm a CCW holder and

have never felt insulted by this poster. You have a very thin skin to be walking around with a gun.

[DongHa69]

17. Good for you.

And how thin or thick my skin is none of your business and I am beginning to seriously doubt that you are a CHL holder.

[safeinOhio]

23. Actually I hold CHLs in 2 states

have been a gun owner, hunter and target shooter for over a half of a century. I have also taken advanced handgun defense classes. Being a CHL holder and gun owner and sometimes carrier does not make one a crazy gun zealot. I do worry and it is my business when people that feel insulted so easy by a post are walking around with a loaded gun. I use to teach an anger management class and wonder if you might benefit from that kind of class.

[DongHa69]

24. And I wonder why you don't mind your own

business? I don't have anger problems except when someone tries to mind my business and tells me I have anger problems. I too have taken many self defense classes and have gone thru the Front Sight program and am quite aware of gun safety and the do's and don'ts of concealed carry, so once again, mind your own business please.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

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

[DongHa69]

25. And I wonder why you don'

[safeinOhio]

50. ?

So angry now you can't finish a sentence?

[DongHa69]

59. What are you?

A little kid who likes to goad people into anger, well my friend, it didn't work, I could care less if you think I'm angry or not. Oncde again, please stay out of my business, how old are you anyway, 21? because you act like an immature kid.

[safeinOhio]

71. Psychological projection

An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and redirect their libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another.

[Hoopla Phil]

101. It's very telling on who is the one having posts deleted for rules violation

isn't it?

[friendly_iconoclast]

40. So *your* guns are fine, it's those *other peoples' guns* we should worry about.

Gotcha.

[Hoopla Phil]

102. Yeah, it works out that way a lot doesn't it.

Wasn't it know anti gun news writer Kowl (sp?) that shot a person he caught in his swimming pool one night?

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. IOW: "*My* guns are fine, it's those *other* peoples' guns you have to worry about."

How can you guarantee you won't snap?

[friendly_iconoclast]

12. You seem to be ignoring the two mentioned in the other thread.

Didn't fit the agenda, eh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=336873&mesg_id=337079

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


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=336873&mesg_id=337079

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

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=336873&mesg_id=337073

X_Digger (1000+ posts) Sun Aug-29-10 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. "She didn't stop shit".. no?
The pastor of the church stated that Assam shot Murray before he entered 50 feet (15 m) inside the building, after she encountered him in the hallway, and that Assam probably saved "over 100 lives."


Funny that you want to discount that one. Why exactly, is that?

That's a good question. Care to explain, in your own words, why the church one doesn't count?


http://www.davekopel.com/2a/othwr/principal&gun.htm

This article was originally published in the Boulder Weekly, and is posted here by permission.

Oct. 15, 1999

A principal and his gun
by Wayne Laugesen



Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week."

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

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up.....

[safeinOhio]

18. What , 6 million holders

and only two cases?

[friendly_iconoclast]

19. These cases were claimed *not to exist*, remember? CHL holders were 'selfish'.

In any event CHL holders aren't auxiliary cops, they have guns to protect themselves. Occasionally, they might do something good like the two cases mentioned

[X_Digger]

26. Are mass shootings an everyday occurence these days?

The intersection of an ultra-rare event (mass shooting) plus a rare event (encountering a CHL holder) is supposed to be statistical certainty?

Rather, what was previously posited was that had there been someone there with a CHL, the outcome may have been different. Why ask that? Because in case after case, the premature end of a shooting rampage happens when the shooter encounters effective resistance. (They shoot themselves.)

That's why police have changed their response to an 'active shooting'. They realize that effective resistance may end a shooting spree, even if they can't incapacitate the shooter. Causing the shooter to pop their own top is as good as stopping them themselves- the threat is neutralized either way.

[safeinOhio]

49. Yes, multiple homicides

seem to be in the news about every day now.

I would suggest more training for CCW holders for such cases, just as police have updated theirs.

[X_Digger]

51. And the news is a reliable statistical source, how?

You're starting to sound like another poster who gets their stats based on perusal of the newspapers.

"seem to be in the news" isn't a stat the FBI publishes.

[safeinOhio]

54. I took Social Science statistics,

two anecdotes equal data. Higher power stats required more rigorous safeguards than social scientist that the FBI use. Any peer review journals on theirs?

[Euromutt]

67. Ask for a refund on your tuition

If anyone taught you that the plural of "anecdote" is "data" (i.e. usable for scientific purposes), he deserves to be stripped of his degree, and I say that as a PolSci major. And where do you think criminologists and the like get their data? The same place the FBI does: from local enforcement agencies. Or they get it from the FBI's UCR and NCVS.

And a scientific study isn't merely a matter of presenting data; it's interpreting it to see if any information can be gained from it. (I always found the most useful illustration of the difference between data and information one I got from a sci-fi novel: given the data that water boils at 100 °C, and that sodium melts at 97.72 °C, you can derive the information that you can't make a usable tea kettle out of sodium.) And whether that interpretation is supported by the data is what peer review is supposed to establish (an endeavor at which it fails remarkably often, I might add).

[X_Digger]

69. Did you pass?

The FBI gets its stats from law enforcement agencies.

The news? Not so much. An editor chooses what to cover, based on their contacts in the PD, and/or someone listening to a scanner.

If your contention were true, you'd see a change in the 'Murder Circumstances by Relationship' in the UCR data.

It dropped in 2007, 2008, and we'll have the 2009 data in a couple of months.

[safeinOhio]

70. Got an A

also in a more rigorous Statistics of Psychology.

FBI stats based on reports of politicians, chiefs and sheriffs reports, might present confounds to data. They rely on improved stats to get re-elected. Can you provide any peer reviews journal articles to back the FBI stats? When it comes to research, no peer review, now validity.

[X_Digger]

72. It's raw data. I don't think you actually understand..

.. or you're trying to be intentionally disingenuous.

It doesn't take peer review to say 'X event occurred Y times'.

It should take peer review to say 'X events tend to lead to more Y events'. That's a hypothesis synthesized from a set of data. Peer review tries to validate that the methodology used to go from point 'A' to point 'B' is at least feasible. It doesn't guarantee that the hypothesis is correct, just that the thinking is sound.

Hint, peer reviewed articles use FBI data as a _source_.

Law enforcement agencies get federal funding to report crimes to the UCR. The FBI sends out agents to train local agencies on the proper reporting criteria. They are the golden source. (That and the CDC, which _also_ uses police reports.)

[safeinOhio]

74. validating the methodology is

what I'm getting at. This is data reported by officials with an agenda to promote their own effectiveness, chiefs and sheriffs.

I still say that if the trends change direction, everyone that is promoting this line, more guns equal less crime, will have hell to pay if trends reverse in the next few years. I'm not against gun ownership. I own lots of them. I am concerned about the ease criminals have in getting them.

[shadowrider]

76. Just a question

What restrictions would you place on legal gun owners, and you claim to be one of them, that would reduce the ease with which criminals obtain weapons?

[safeinOhio]

81. background checks on all

private sales of handguns.

Not like we haven't been through all of this 1000 times before.

[shadowrider]

83. How would a background check on all prevent a bad guy from getting an illegal weapon illegally?

Bad guys, by definition, don't obey the law. I don't see how that would help.

[safeinOhio]

85. Pretty simple

Bad guy is buyer. Gun owner/seller does not wish to break the law and go to jail. Seller, good guy, takes buyer down to get background check to legally sell to him. Bad guy runs for the hills and says "never mind, I'll have to think about it". This is already the law in several states. While it does not stop the bad guy from going out of state to a gun show or add in the paper or buying from another bad guy, it makes it more difficult and would make it very difficult if it was a federal law like the one we currently have when you purchase any firearm from a licensed dealer. I'm just asking for the same law to apply to handguns for private sales. If you were to buy a handgun from a private source, wouldn't you want to know if it had been recorded as used in a crime? Wouldn't you want to know if the person buying a handgun from you is not a career criminal?
This would be simple, cheap and constitutional.

[oneshooter]

90. Haven't you also pushed for the registration of handguns? n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

91. whoop de -do!

Lets go back to Janet Reno's 1995 testimony when asked how many of the felons who had attempted to buy a gun were PROSECUTED under Brady. (Remember this was when there were periodic soundbites like, ".... umpty-ump million felons from buying guns since the Brady Law..."

In fact, for those who attempt to buy a gun and fail the check, what is done? Nothing , NADA, squat!!! ............well....almost there were four arrests. Odds for getting hit by lightning are better!!!!! 1/750000

We have the Attorney General testify the law was never meant to arrest anyone, it was only SYMBOLIC!!!!

Yes, an FFL will get prosecuted for failing to do the check, but a criminal for committing a Federal felony for the attempt, never fucking happen! A crook trying to buy a gun illegally, even alerting the system by doing it at a legitimate gunstore stands a better chance of winning the lottery then getting even questioned, much less arrested, by the authorities.

Not a damn thing has changed. The only thing has happens now if a gun sale is denied through a NICS check is the thug knows the Fed's database is up to date. END OF STORY!!!!!

He will remain completely free to find another means to get a gun. Here's one who demonstrated "symbolism" after being "stopped" from buying a gun by a Brady check.
Buford Furrow, Jr.

[safeinOhio]

95. looks like a one-eyed straw man

where did I say anyone would get arrested? I only said it would make it more difficult to purchase.

[shadowrider]

97. Sure. And bad guys ALWAYS try to persue legal means to acquire a firearm

rather than go straight to an illegal source.

I have oceanfront property in Phoenix. Interested?

[safeinOhio]

109. Have you ever thought that the reason they

don't go straight to a legal dealer is because of the law and that to find and illegal gun involves a big hassle. It is illegal to marry 7 women. That may not stop some one, but it does make it rare and hard to get away with. But, then a person that is a zealot on multiple marriages would argue different.

[one-eyed fat man]

114. Big hassle?????

Dollar to a donut you can buy a gun in Cleveland, Columbus, or Cincinnati just as fast as you can a dime bag, and probably from the same guy. Anyone who claims otherwise probably couldn't find a prostitute on Craigslist either.

[one-eyed fat man]

103. Then what the hell's the point?

It's against the law for a crook to even attempt buy a gun. He tries so you tell him, "No." BFD!!!!You haven't stopped anyone from illegally buying a gun. They are perfectly free to go violate the law somewhere else.

This is as ignorant as telling your kids you're going to bust their ass for jumping on the bed and never doing it. Empty threats, hollow gestures, wasted breath. Thugs keep doing thuggery and so you want to pass more laws that only affect people who already obey the law.

Take the felon who tries to buy a gun and arrest him for committing the crime he has committed.

Imagine if the next time you approached a green traffic light the guy approaching the red viewed the "law" as symbolic. After all, he had run red lights before without consequence.

[shadowrider]

94. You didn't answer. How will you keep bad guys from illegally obtaining illegal weapons?

By your own admission, the bad guy will just go elsewhere.

Your plan would also open up a huge, huge black market for weapons to be imported to fill a demand. These weapons will, and probably already do, come from Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Mexico and Central and South America among others. It also doesn't stop someone from making them and selling them to the bad guys out of a machine shop in Anytown, USA.

How does your plan stop that and how does it stop the bad guys from getting weapons?

[safeinOhio]

96. same way the current laws work

have you never purchased a gun from a licensed dealer? I've been in gun stores when people were denied purchase because of the background check. This would be no different. So, you are in favor of any crook being able to buy any gun anywhere and you want to repeal the current laws that require a background check for the same reasons you list above?
While this would not stop all illegal buys, it would make it harder for them to easily purchase.


Like I said, why are you asking, this has been rehashed over and over again.

[shadowrider]

98. self-delete

[shadowrider]

100. Question asked in post 94. Third request. How would you keep bad guys from illegally purchasing

and using, illegal weapons?

[safeinOhio]

108. My answer for the third time

the same way background checks do it for FFDs. If you don't pass the check, you don't get the firearm. Are you opposed to background checks when you buy a firearm from a store, or have never bought one from a dealer?

[shadowrider]

115. Self-delete

[shadowrider]

116. I understand that but you're still not answering the question posed in #94

You want to get guns out of the hands of bad guys thru federal checks for all gun sales. I got that.

Here's the question from post 94

"Your plan would also open up a huge, huge black market for weapons to be imported to fill a demand. These weapons will, and probably already do, come from Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Mexico and Central and South America among others. It also doesn't stop someone from making them and selling them to the bad guys out of a machine shop in Anytown, USA.

How does your plan stop that and how does it stop the bad guys from getting weapons?"

The sellers are people who acquire guns for $300-$400 each. They sell them on the street for $1000-$1200 and they simply aren't going to obey the law and tell some gang-banger they have to go through a federal check.

Once your plan is implemented and the black market opens up, how do you stop the bad guys from getting illegal weapons???

[safeinOhio]

119. No you do not have it.

I never said checks for all guns, only handguns.

So, what you are saying is that if crooks can't buy them from private individuals like they do now, they'll have to import them?

Where is that big number of imported guns because of current law that requires a background check on all gun bought from FFDs now? The only thing holding it back is the private sale of handguns?

Sorry, you just are not making any sense to me.

Yes, some crooks will get guns from stealing and importing. That is some. This law would lower the number and ease that a large percentage can get them now at garage sales, gun shows and adds in the paper, thus reducing the already lower gun violence. NO, it will not end it, it WILL reduce it. If you look at the number of guns used in crimes in Washington DC and NY that come from other states you will be able to see my point.

We can never end violence from illegally owned and use handguns. We can take steps to reduce it that are with in the Constitution. I lived in a state that required a permit to purchase and a background check on all private sales of handguns. I found it to be no hassle as I bought many handguns that way. I was glad to know that the steps I took would also make it harder for crooks to do the same. In the same state one could buy a long gun. 90% of all gun crimes involve only handguns.

[shadowrider]

120. Supply, legal or illegal, will catch up to demand, legal or illegal n/t

[safeinOhio]

121. Please explain why

full autos are used so little by criminals. With your free market ideas, full autos would be flooding the market. Imported to meet the demands of bad guys. What bank robber or crazy employ that goes in and shoots up his former employer wouldn't want a full auto AK47? Yet you rarely ever see them used or in the hands of the bad guys. Hard to get? You bet. Hand guns, on the other hand are easily found with no paper work or restrictions on private sales. Hand guns bought in easy to buy states like Ohio turn up all over the country in criminal cases. 90% of gun crimes are with handguns, not full autos. Kind of blows away your Chicago School of free market theory on supply and demand.

[Glassunion]

122. Because full autos are really not in demand.

#1. criminals shy away from the full autos because the penalty for possession is worse
#2. most full autos are not easily concealable, it's easy to conceal a handgun
Therefore there is not as much demand for them as there is for handguns.

[safeinOhio]

125. Both of your points support

my argument.



#1. criminals shy away from the full autos because the penalty for possession is worse

Sale of handguns to crooks without a background check would make otherwise lawful seller a criminal and subject to arrest. Therefore reducing the number of handguns sold to those not able to buy one from a FFD.

#2. most full autos are not easily concealable, it's easy to conceal a handgun
Therefore there is not as much demand for them as there is for handguns.

Handguns are easy to conceal and are use in most gun crime. Therefore, more regulations are needed to stem the flow of illegal handguns to reduce crime.
Note, I have not called for background checks on long guns. Anyone who has ever purchase any long gun(other than black powder) or a pistol from a FFD, like any sporting goods store, have had to have a background check. The software and infrastructure is already in place for fast background checks. Few people are against background checks on FFD sales. It would be easy, cheap and effective to extend it to private sales of handguns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

126. It wouldn't be easy, cheap, or effective- and here's why.

Frankly, your whole argument smells of "gun control by any means necessary", like the recent proposed ban on lead bullets and
another DUers' advocacy of higher taxes on guns and ammunition.

I note that you do not advocate stricter enforcement of laws that already ban straw sales, or attempts by prohibited persons to buy guns from FFD by means of false statements on a Form 4473.

No, you want to make it more difficult and expensive for people that haven't done any wrong. I think that
speaks volumes...


But let's get back to your latest statement:

1. "Easy"- You'd have to change Federal gun law to do this, and with the increased popularity of guns, combined with a declining
crime rate, most gun owners would (correctly) see this as a stealthy attempt at restricting guns for no good reason.

2. "Cheap"-This would amount to another tax upon legal gun owners who would have to fork over every time they wanted to buy or
sell a gun + the cost to the government for the increased number of background checks.

3. "Effective" - There are tens of millions of guns in the US that aren't connected by paperwork to anyone.
And as others have noted, nothing would prevent various undocumented pharmacutical distributors
from adding hardware to their extant product lines.

Create a larger market for firearms that aren't readily tracable, and that market demand will be met.
Bet on it.

[safeinOhio]

130. I do advocate for stricter enforcement

I think that is a great idea.

1. Would not restrict legal individuals from buying handgun. Same as background checks from dealers now do not restrict legal gun buyers.

2. Can't see it costing anymore than checks already made when buying from a FFD now.

3. Wouldn't stop and totally prevent gun violence, just slow it down and continue the downward trend.

I haven't yet heard anyone bitch about the current law when buying from a FFD.

[oneshooter]

131. Stricter enforcement and registration of handguns? n/t

[safeinOhio]

133. I'd have no problem with either.

But then I'm a legal gun owner.

[Glassunion]

135. I'm also a legal gun owner. I do however have issues with registration.

It serves as no protection to public safety. It is also ineffective at catching criminals afterthe fact. It is yet another layer of information that we give to our already over-reaching government.

[safeinOhio]

136. At least we now know your

politics.

[Glassunion]

137. And what would that be, in your summation?

[Glassunion]

127. But, your points also support his of supply and demand.

"Sale of handguns to crooks without a background check would make otherwise lawful seller a criminal and subject to arrest. Therefore reducing the number of handguns sold to those not able to buy one from a FFD."

This would lead to more demand by the criminal populace and you would probably see an infux of more straw purchasers.

"Handguns are easy to conceal and are use in most gun crime. Therefore, more regulations are needed to stem the flow of illegal handguns to reduce crime.
Note, I have not called for background checks on long guns. Anyone who has ever purchase any long gun(other than black powder) or a pistol from a FFD, like any sporting goods store, have had to have a background check. The software and infrastructure is already in place for fast background checks. Few people are against background checks on FFD sales. It would be easy, cheap and effective to extend it to private sales of handguns."

My state already requires that all sales "including private" of handguns go through an FFL to run the NICS check. Yes it costs a few bucks $32 to be exact, but I think that this is the way it should be. It prevents public abuse of the system.

[shadowrider]

123. Move the goalposts much?

You're talking about handguns, now you're talking about full-autos.

[safeinOhio]

124. No, I'm talking about your

free market theory of supply and demand as related to illegal guns and regulations.

[shadowrider]

129. Here's a supply/demand theory for you

Prohibition made drinking illegal. Al Capone illegally supplied illegal drinkers. He made millions.

Same would happen with guns.

[safeinOhio]

132. Who is talking about prohibition?

In most states a license is required to sell Booze. There is a tax on it. You must be 21 and you can't drive while fucked up or act real goofy in public. Lots of reasonable restrictions without any prohibition. Now, with all of those restrictions, no one is making millions on illegal booze.

NO where have said legal citizens should be banned from owning guns.

Now you are just making things up so you can argue.

[shadowrider]

134. We're talking supply/demand, legal or illegal. Booze or guns, the demand will be met n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

104. What happened to them?

"I've been in gun stores when people were denied purchase because of the background check."

What happened to those people? Was there any follow up? Was there any investigation of felony attempt to buy a gun?

If you go in to rob a bank and they don't give you the money do you get a pass? If you are ineligible to buy a gun and try anyway (which is a crime), why is that a freebie?

Or is it still going over your head?

[USNEO]

105. That happened to me once

it turned out that my name was a close match to a banned person, after it was cleared up, I got my AR-15 but it makes me wonder how many other people have been denied because of such circumstances such as mine.

[safeinOhio]

107. When I saw it

happen the person was told he was not allowed because of some thing he didn't remember. I don't believe it is against the law if some misdemeanor you forgot prevents you. On the other hand it would be against the law for the dealer to sell the person a gun. FFD are not the police and have no authority to hold you. They are held to account if the sell a gun to someone not legal. This would work the same for private sales. The seller would be liable to criminal charges for selling to a prohibited person. I don't see the problem you are getting at. Perhaps you may want to ask a FFD what he is suppose to do.

[X_Digger]

110. Yes, it is against the law, regardless of your cognizance.

From page 2 of the 4473- "I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony."

[one-eyed fat man]

112. Try once more

Going back to the Washington State Nazi that shot up the Jewish Day care in California. Convicted felon walked into a gun store and tried to buy a gun and was denied. He already knew he was a convicted felon, he was on parole. All his attempt did was verify to him, his conviction was in the 'system.' They didn't mix him up with someone else whose name sounded like his. You are right, FFL is not a cop, but the NICS check is done by the FBI.

Did the FBI call Buford's parole officer and say, "Hey, your boy is trying to buy a gun?" Was there any follow up?

Do you get it now? You could be Charles Manson, walk into a store, try to buy a gun and the absolute worst thing could happen is the sales clerk says, "No." No one, absolutely no one, will follow up on the denial, except maybe some poor sap who happens to also be named Charles Manson, but isn't sitting in San Quentin because he had some love-starved hippie chicks carve up people for his entertainment.

The only misdemeanors that are disqualifying are DOMESTIC VIOLENCE misdemeanors. How many times do you have to go to jail to forget beating your wife was one of the raps?

[safeinOhio]

117. I'd be all for

the FBI and state cops enforcing that part of the law. I more than agree with you on that point.

[one-eyed fat man]

118. Do you see the quandry now?

None of the proponents of the Brady Law, from its inception to its current form of NICS check made any provision for follow up. In fact, they have, as the Attorney General said so plainly, the law was never intended to arrest anyone for breaking it.

Again, the law was never intended to be enforced against criminals lame enough to test the system. Just what is the rationale for that? Is a crook who tries to buy a gun in a store under his real name considered to stupid to prosecute? Anyone who claims a crook has been STOPPED from buying a gun is only making such a claim in the absolute narrowest sense. Yes, the clerk said, "No" and he didn't get the gun in the showcase, but he then went out and traded some stolen goods to the guy he buys his dope from for one. But that's OK, he was stopped.

[oneshooter]

113. Yet, with a Texas CHL there is no call. n/t

[beevul]

111. How would that work?

"Bad guy is buyer. Gun owner/seller does not wish to break the law and go to jail. Seller, good guy, takes buyer down to get background check to legally sell to him."

And what if the seller is a bad guy? How will you or anyone else know?

"This is already the law in several states."

A tiny handful of them.

"I'm just asking for the same law to apply to handguns for private sales."

Once again, how will you or the public KNOW when that law is broken?

If you or the public wont know, whats the point?

And if you and the public WOULD know, HOW would you know?

If registration is the answer to that question, then "just asking for the same law to apply to handguns for private sales" is NOT all you're asking for is it...

[X_Digger]

77. You have provided no critique of the methodology..

.. rather, you've merely pointed at anecdotes, saying something must be wrong. At the same time that you propose an agenda for why LEO reporting might be low*, you elide over any reason why media reporting might be sensationalized.



*Since politicians use crime numbers to lobby Washington for more police funding, your suggestion would be shooting themselves in the foot (pun intended).

[shadowrider]

78. Shhhhhhh, You are introducing fact to an emotion based argument. n/t

Someone DO something, anything.

Of course, this results in more "feel good" laws which do nothing but restrict legal owners.

[safeinOhio]

82. On one hand and on the other

Chiefs need to be appointed by politicians to keep jobs and sheriffs need to be re=elected. To do so they have to appear to be effective. Some, as Daly, may use increases to scare and play to their base to keep getting re-elected, which he seems to do.

I'm not saying anything about them being wrong, only accepted at face value. People here use Chicago and Washington as anecdotes all of the time. I'd rather see them use Baltimore and its crime prevention policies that seem to work.

I'd like to see all of the studies that are paid for by non-agenda sources, far and few between.

[X_Digger]

84. Without evidence of malfeasance..

.. what is the basis for your allegation?

Are you aware of a case that was reported on the news that didn't make it into the UCR?

If you take the number of homicides reported by the FBI, and the number reported in the news, is there a discrepancy?

Or is this all a smoke screen intended to cast doubt on the more gunz != more crime line of thought?

[safeinOhio]

86. My only basis is

you are dealing with appointed and elected officials.

No, this is to cast doubt on those here that use the more gunz=less crime line of thought. But, you knew that.

[X_Digger]

87. That's pretty weak sauce, then.

You'd have to assume a systematic, wide-ranging conspiracy among police departments, coroners (who report independently to the CDC), and other politicians who would be happy to make hay with the idea that their opponents are fudging the numbers.

It stretches credibility in both the idea and your motive.

[safeinOhio]

88. I don't think that murder is

the only cited stat. They deal with "violent" crimes that can be manipulated.

[X_Digger]

89. Yet no political opponent has exposed this vast conspiracy?

No whistle-blower? No toe-the-line over-exuberant cop? Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

Since we know that the CDC numbers line up with the FBI for homicides (query WISQARS for the same year, intentional homicide, any means, any age group), what evidence do you have that non-homicides are under-reported?

[SteveM]

92. You basis is pretty weak. "gunz=less crime" is something of a straw man...

Few here have specifically said or even implied that this notion of YOURS, that "gunz=less crime," is proved. Most here have said that the more widely-used bumper sticker, "more guns = more crimes," has NOT been proved by data showing a massive increase in the number of guns in civilian hands even while the violent crime rate has gone down.

[X_Digger]

73. And no, the plural of anecdote is not 'data'.

At least not in the strict sense. Anecdotes in and of themselves are not indicative of trends, though they may be data points in a larger collection under review.

[safeinOhio]

75. and trends do not

mean correlations have positive or negative effect. Unaccounted variables confound any conclusion.

[X_Digger]

79. That's usually my line.

As a statistics prof said, years ago (paraphrasing), "A running horse's front legs' speed is correlated to his rear legs' speed. However, one doesn't control the other."

Of course I never suggested that correlation = causation, so not sure where you're pulling that from.

[benEzra]

56. "Multiple homicide" and "mass shooting" are not synonymous terms.

Two or three people dead at the scene of a gang shootout, vs. a lone nut trying to kill as many innocent victims as possible before someone with a gun shows up to stop him, are quite different scenarios. The latter are, indeed, quite rare.

[Hoopla Phil]

52. Do you turn a blind eye now to all the stories posted in the gun forum that "some" call "gun porn"?

[Hoopla Phil]

53. No, if you make a claim YOU'LL "do the leg work" to prove it. That's how it works

You don't get to make a claim as fact and make others dis-prove it. You have to prove your claim.

[SteveM]

93. Damn, Hoopla, you had to bring up Basic Speech and Debate 201.

[cleanhippie]

66. How many times do you have to be shown?

In nearly every thread, you ask for the same thing, then when somebody obliges you and shoes you a story, you run away to the next thread an ask again.

WTF, MichaelHarris?

[Glassunion]

80. There have been a few where a CCW stopped a mass-shooting.

And they have been posted in the past. If you really want them you will have to wait until I am in front of a PC. IPhone is not very easy to search with b

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. I await your explanation on why shooting someone on the ground five times in the back is justifiable

Beyond "He had a handgun", that is...

[benEzra]

55. I'm waiting for that one as well.

I wonder if he'll also weigh in on the shooting of this man by the same department, which was just ruled justifiable.


Trevon Cole shooting ruled justifiable, with questions

Or maybe Mr. Cole's tragic death was a travesty, but Mr. Scott's tragic death was OK because he was an evil CHL holder.

FWIW, so far the LVPD is 195 and 0 in inquests since 1975 (they had one go against them, once, but got it overturned).

[DongHa69]

60. Like I said earlier to MH

I know for a fact that the coroners inquest is stacked in favor of the police.

[Euromutt]

65. Why should we add it to the list of CCW allegedly "snapping?

The deceased didn't shoot anybody; he didn't even shoot at anybody. In addition, there are any number of scenarios in which police may be ruled to have been justified in shooting because they had a reasonable perception at the time that the person they shot formed a threat, even if it turned out in hindsight that he was not.

Remember Amadou Diallo? The cops who shot him were exonerated because they were judged to have reasonably believed that the black item he pulled from his pocket was a gun, even though it turned out to be a wallet.

If the three LVPD officers are exonerated, it does not ipso facto mean Erik Scott was at risk of killing someone.

[oneshooter]

128. Yes I will. And if the cops are found guilty, will you apologize in this forum? n/t

[one-eyed fat man]

138. More info

Here is a recording of the police radio traffic. Transmissions relating to the Costco incident begin about 6:53 into the recording.

http://www2.8newsnow.com/audio/costco_ois.mp3

Minutes before, employees at Costco called 911 about Scott. According to the radio recordings, Metro was told Scott was acting erratic and throwing merchandise on the ground.

Metro dispatchers told officers in the field that Scott was possibly on drugs, and may have been suffering from excited delirium. The radio recording shows what officers were hearing about Scott's state of mind.

"He's throwing merchandise around. He's still in aisle 126 in the camping area. Break. Appears fidgety. A female joined the male. She's described as Hispanic, 30's, black long hair, wearing black tank and blue jeans," said the dispatcher.

Police Radio Recordings Reveal Chaos of Costco Shooting

Nothing to indicate that a CCW holder snapped EXCEPT for the duplicitous statements apparently made by store employees in order to elicit a "sense of urgency" on the part of the responding officers.

http://www.8newsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=12801643

Chilling accounts, blasting Las Vegas police for excessive force have surfaced. At least one of these accounts was from a couple who says they were just feet away from where Scott was shot. They said he didn't draw his gun or point it at police, but officers shot anyway. They continued to shoot him after he was down. The hard drives from Costco surveillance system were sent to California for "data recovery." The 911 tapes are being withheld. It's going to take a lot to make the officers actions excusable much less justified.

One more thought on the malfunctioning Costco cameras. In the Costco stores in Texas, they have state-of-the-art surveillance video. You can look online and see footage of a robbery in a Costco in a midwest store that shows the entire robbery at the jewelry counter. Costco is a publicly traded company with a stock price at about $56-bucks a share. They have a very fine tuned risk management department. Publicly traded companies do not like to get sued. To think for one moment that the Summerlin store does not have a complete system of camera's that are checked each day and working 99% of the time is foolish. To have a one camera failure on any given day, not an issue. But an entire system failure from noon to 1:32 on July 10th. Really?

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. Looks like a massive attempt at CYA

This entire case stinks on ice, to use the classic phrase