I read one comment in here where an armed, but not in uniform, security guard stopped a robber by shooting him and I think killing him. So this would make that guard the judge, jury and executioner of the robber. Sure he was committing a crime but did he deserve to die for it? With all due respect, aren't people getting a little out of hand with this? The just shoot 'em crowd. They're a wild bunch.
2
Here the usual stream of passionate, logical arguments against those who don't think rationally at all? I dare say those who believe in open carry probably never read this paper. It's all hot air folks.
2
Handguns are a public safety menace. They account for over 90% of all gun deaths, year in, year out. A loaded handgun resting in a drawer or closet in a private home endangers everyone in that household. A loaded handgun being carried surreptitiously (concealed) on our public streets and in our public places by a person without law enforcement training or authority endangers all of us. For a state to issue a permit explicitly authorizing such a person to commit such mass endangerment is incredibly irresponsible. There has been pressure for all states to enact concealed carry statutes. What we need is organized counter-pressure to have them all repealed. By all means, NYT, lead the way.
4
To a Canadian, all the commenters sound so rational, compared to what we usually hear from south of the border. I wish you could all move to Canada and have your gun control wishes come true.
7
One of the best ads ever made is this one from The Guardian, showing how one's point of view can color their interpretation of a rapidly unfolding event. Imagine adding firearms to this situation. Allowing untrained citizens to carry guns is an insane proposition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsccRkLLzU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SsccRkLLzU
I am not a mathematical genius, and heck, really it doesn't take much more than grade school math to figure this out...if there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was a factor, out of 763 people killed, then only 2.75% of shooting deaths caused by guns held in the hands of concealed-carry permit holders were self defense. The other 97.25% were suicide or murder.
2
Here's the problem: Everyone is a law abiding citizens until the instant they are not. And in the USA when that instant happens, a gun is always close at hand. The gun people would have you believe that having a gun somehow makes you a good person who will always do the right thing. Nothing could be further from the truth.
4
When we throw around that 30,000 gun deaths a year remember that 65% of them are suicides, people who decided not to get a doctor to help them or stock pile pills or don't live out west.. So there are really only 10,000 gun deaths a year. If we got gangs off the streets how many would there be?
5
I learned early in the military and later as an employee of Winchester the fearsome killing power of the modern gun. I also learned that carrying a gun can turn any altercation, however minor or misunderstood, into a gun fight.
3
I've never understood why "carry" should be "concealed carry". Don't we want to know who is armed? That way the rest of us - presumably the saner, certainly the less paranoid - can make an informed decision about whether or not we want to sit next to the self-appointed vigilante on the bus or drink next to them in bars, have our children sit next to them at cafes, or, heck, as business owners, even allow them in our place of business. It's sort of like letting people speak their mind so you can figure out who are the crazies. One thing the pro-gun group has completely failed to recognize: most people do not like people who carry guns. It's that simple. Most people are wary of them, and see them as the problem rather than the solution. But we don't need a law to police our likes and dislikes. My prediction: if we did not grant concealed-carry licenses, and replaced them with open-carry licenses, those toting guns would feel the stigma of their own paranoia and would generally be shunned. With concealed-carry, we let them pretend instead they are heroes - a dangerous pretense indeed.
3
I support what you are claiming in general, but trying to read your statistics and explanation of those statistics is a tragedy in itself...
2
I met one elderly man early on in this gun debate, while I was camping with my three minor daughters in a California State Parkground.
He very purposely told me that if anyone bothered him, he would have the right to kill them.
It was plain that he was eager to have that opportunity and was hoping for excuses.
He very purposely told me that if anyone bothered him, he would have the right to kill them.
It was plain that he was eager to have that opportunity and was hoping for excuses.
5
To me, any amount of gun violence is too much. That the NRA is nestled so snug-ly into our government's ear is stuff that nightmares and models of totalitarianism government are made of.
That being said, I can't help but wonder HOW the notion of an individual carrying a concealed weapon never once made it into the discussion about the people masquerading as children's characters in Times Square. Again, this is only my voice, but just walking through Times Square on 42d St and seeing these furry-costumed, head-to-toe body covered individuals -- carrying on to the bemusement of tourists -- is a tragedy of epic proportions in the works.
Maybe its just me ... maybe this post 9/11 world and subsequent reality check police departments across the country have given me about their willingness to shoot first and ask questions later have made me a bit paranoid? But when I hear about some other idiot walking into a school and shooting it up ... or hear about another inner-city child caught in senseless cross-fire (committed usually by children themselves), I have started looking at people in a different way -- one that requires me to see their face, look into their eyes and yes, even how they are dressed.
That being said, I can't help but wonder HOW the notion of an individual carrying a concealed weapon never once made it into the discussion about the people masquerading as children's characters in Times Square. Again, this is only my voice, but just walking through Times Square on 42d St and seeing these furry-costumed, head-to-toe body covered individuals -- carrying on to the bemusement of tourists -- is a tragedy of epic proportions in the works.
Maybe its just me ... maybe this post 9/11 world and subsequent reality check police departments across the country have given me about their willingness to shoot first and ask questions later have made me a bit paranoid? But when I hear about some other idiot walking into a school and shooting it up ... or hear about another inner-city child caught in senseless cross-fire (committed usually by children themselves), I have started looking at people in a different way -- one that requires me to see their face, look into their eyes and yes, even how they are dressed.
So much talent is wasted in such partisan appeals from the pulpit to the choir. You cannot win over anyone with such an appeal.
What it can and will do if the NYT and others keep putting up these preach to the choir pieces is make the fearful more fearful and the righteously angry more angry. That will feed only their dogma and fantasies eventually leading to the only logical end for such false forms of argument, a physical conflict.
1. We need the issue defined in a way that all sides agree defines it. I do not think simplistic loaded phrases are going to fit the bill.
2. We need adults to engage in honest discussion without the aggressive, passive aggressive, mocking, and otherwise belittling of others that pollutes “discussion” of this matter and is the main reason no progress is being made.
3. We need to start ensuring that news media is news media and not infotainment. That means no speculation, no manipulation, no pandering for ratings. The news is a Public Service that can earn money for its owners but that earning/loss sheet should be well down the list of factors in decision making about how it is done from its primary Public Service role which should always be job #1. It is very literally a matter of our nations survival.
What it can and will do if the NYT and others keep putting up these preach to the choir pieces is make the fearful more fearful and the righteously angry more angry. That will feed only their dogma and fantasies eventually leading to the only logical end for such false forms of argument, a physical conflict.
1. We need the issue defined in a way that all sides agree defines it. I do not think simplistic loaded phrases are going to fit the bill.
2. We need adults to engage in honest discussion without the aggressive, passive aggressive, mocking, and otherwise belittling of others that pollutes “discussion” of this matter and is the main reason no progress is being made.
3. We need to start ensuring that news media is news media and not infotainment. That means no speculation, no manipulation, no pandering for ratings. The news is a Public Service that can earn money for its owners but that earning/loss sheet should be well down the list of factors in decision making about how it is done from its primary Public Service role which should always be job #1. It is very literally a matter of our nations survival.
3
The Delusional Gun Control Crowd.
The more sensational gun violence becomes, the more the nuts want to be the center of attention. And no gun laws can change that. There is nothing that can stop someone determined to commit these horrible crimes. I wish the anti-gun nuts could open their eyes and see that gun laws only affect people that won't ever be committing crimes anyway. All the background checks in the world will not stop the bad guys from stealing a gun or buying one on the street corner. And like Archie once said, would they feel better if they were thrown out of the window instead?
If making more laws worked, then should we be making more drunk driving laws? Or how about making it more illegal to steal?
The more sensational gun violence becomes, the more the nuts want to be the center of attention. And no gun laws can change that. There is nothing that can stop someone determined to commit these horrible crimes. I wish the anti-gun nuts could open their eyes and see that gun laws only affect people that won't ever be committing crimes anyway. All the background checks in the world will not stop the bad guys from stealing a gun or buying one on the street corner. And like Archie once said, would they feel better if they were thrown out of the window instead?
If making more laws worked, then should we be making more drunk driving laws? Or how about making it more illegal to steal?
4
The problem with this story is that is uses cherry-picked data to push an emotional argument. It is not in any way a logical, fact-based study. It starts with the simple premise that just because someone has a permit to carry a weapon, they are magically a "good guy". A good guy will go through the process of getting a permit to carry a gun (because they follow the law). That does not logically mean that zero bad guys will do the same.
Now to the data itself. 223 of the 763 are suicides: no permit required, so we can eliminate those. It also lists 21 as self-defense, which should not be included at all. So we're left with 579, over an 8 year period, or 72/year. Compare that to the number of gun murders by people who most likely do NOT have a permit: over 11,000. That means these 579 account for only 0.65% of all the gun murders.
You have to further contrast that with the number of justifiable self-defense killings by permit holders, which the VPC linked "study" listed as at least 1108 since 2008. It also listed 235,000 uses of firearms to deter a criminal (whether a shot was fired or not) by a victim of a violent crime, and another 103,000 by victims of property crimes, all over 5 years. So that's 338,000 protective uses of firearms (based on data from a decidedly anti-gun organization), or 67,600 per year, compared to 72 gun murders per year by permit holders.
That's nearly a ratio of 1000 protective uses for every murder committed by permit holders.
Now to the data itself. 223 of the 763 are suicides: no permit required, so we can eliminate those. It also lists 21 as self-defense, which should not be included at all. So we're left with 579, over an 8 year period, or 72/year. Compare that to the number of gun murders by people who most likely do NOT have a permit: over 11,000. That means these 579 account for only 0.65% of all the gun murders.
You have to further contrast that with the number of justifiable self-defense killings by permit holders, which the VPC linked "study" listed as at least 1108 since 2008. It also listed 235,000 uses of firearms to deter a criminal (whether a shot was fired or not) by a victim of a violent crime, and another 103,000 by victims of property crimes, all over 5 years. So that's 338,000 protective uses of firearms (based on data from a decidedly anti-gun organization), or 67,600 per year, compared to 72 gun murders per year by permit holders.
That's nearly a ratio of 1000 protective uses for every murder committed by permit holders.
10
This entire article is based on FALSE DATA. NY Times please explain why I can find this information in about 5 minutes with a quick Google search but you, the actual Media organization can't? Is Fact checking no longer done with the news? That's rhetorical. I can already tell it's not.
http://bearingarms.com/washington-post-claims-29-mass-murders-concealed-...
And I quote "Christopher Ingraham, an anti-gun propagandist apparently hired for that purpose by the Washington Post, used a propaganda report by the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC) to assert concealed carriers were responsible for “at least” mass murders.
Of those 29 alleged mass murders carried out by concealed carry permit holders, precisely six mass murders (using the accepted FBI definition of a mass murder, which is four or more victims) were carried out by concealed carry permit holders using concealed handguns.
Seven of the claimed “29 mass shootings” were not mass shootings.
Between four and eight of the “concealed carry permit holders” did not have concealed carry permits.
The Violence Policy Center has a long and well-documented history of “reports” that are nothing more or less than propaganda.
Any reporter that uses such overt and unverifed propaganda should be terminated, along with their editors."
http://bearingarms.com/washington-post-claims-29-mass-murders-concealed-...
And I quote "Christopher Ingraham, an anti-gun propagandist apparently hired for that purpose by the Washington Post, used a propaganda report by the rabidly anti-gun Violence Policy Center (VPC) to assert concealed carriers were responsible for “at least” mass murders.
Of those 29 alleged mass murders carried out by concealed carry permit holders, precisely six mass murders (using the accepted FBI definition of a mass murder, which is four or more victims) were carried out by concealed carry permit holders using concealed handguns.
Seven of the claimed “29 mass shootings” were not mass shootings.
Between four and eight of the “concealed carry permit holders” did not have concealed carry permits.
The Violence Policy Center has a long and well-documented history of “reports” that are nothing more or less than propaganda.
Any reporter that uses such overt and unverifed propaganda should be terminated, along with their editors."
13
neither side ever writes a non-biased piece...twisting 'facts' to suit themselves...so most of what is said should usually be accompanied by no more than an "eye-roll"...so if you want people to back you up you need to be honest
4
There is no liberty for any of us when teachers, ministers, pastors and ushers need to be armed, or you can't go out in public or buy groceries without being armed.
To a man/woman, I'd love to hear WW2 vets opinions on whether or not that was the country they were fighting for.
To a man/woman, I'd love to hear WW2 vets opinions on whether or not that was the country they were fighting for.
Rather than worrying over whether my lawfully carry of a concealed handgun makes me safer or not really isn't the issue. I am fully convinced lawfully carrying my concealed handgun makes it much less safe for a person of ill intent who might take the chance of attempting either doing harm to me or innocents in my vicinity. Here in Virginia it seems persons of ill intent understand there is enough of a chance the person they accost may be armed that our incidence of such problems is quite a bit lower than in places where strict gun control is the norm.
Sadly, in Virgiinia, the most dangerous places one can be are "gun free zones" in which the only people who disregard the proscription are the persons of ill intent. I avoid "gun free zones" as much as I possibly can. Bad stuff happens there.
Sadly, in Virgiinia, the most dangerous places one can be are "gun free zones" in which the only people who disregard the proscription are the persons of ill intent. I avoid "gun free zones" as much as I possibly can. Bad stuff happens there.
7
The article was clearly written by an opponent of the 4th amendment--bias radiates from the article like light from the sun.
One point absent from the slanted article, is that we cannot measure the deaths/injuries Prevented by guns. Who knows how many people have been detered from even attempting to commit a crime, because of guns in good hands?
If i was a criminal in Texas, I would be much less inclined to stick-up a convience store than I would be in a location with strict gun laws in place. My only worry would be the police. But by the time the police arrive, the clerk is dead, an innocent bystander is dead, and the ciminal is long gone.
Perhaps, that crime is never even attempted if the criminal believes there is a good chance the clerk and the public are excercising their 4th amendment rights. Perhaps, if the criminal is so bold, he is shot at by the clerk and the innocent bystander/witness is spared.
Much like drugs, guns will always be available to criminals. Question is, do you want a chance to defend yourself when/if sh*t hits the fan?
One point absent from the slanted article, is that we cannot measure the deaths/injuries Prevented by guns. Who knows how many people have been detered from even attempting to commit a crime, because of guns in good hands?
If i was a criminal in Texas, I would be much less inclined to stick-up a convience store than I would be in a location with strict gun laws in place. My only worry would be the police. But by the time the police arrive, the clerk is dead, an innocent bystander is dead, and the ciminal is long gone.
Perhaps, that crime is never even attempted if the criminal believes there is a good chance the clerk and the public are excercising their 4th amendment rights. Perhaps, if the criminal is so bold, he is shot at by the clerk and the innocent bystander/witness is spared.
Much like drugs, guns will always be available to criminals. Question is, do you want a chance to defend yourself when/if sh*t hits the fan?
3
By my lights, right conclusions, wrong justification. I’m not sure how, if at all, the cited report bears on the subject of concealed carry. The report is based on FBI Uniform Crime Report data concerning justifiable and other homicides by firearm. The data don’t indicate whether the firearm user had a concealed carry permit or even whether the firearm was purchased legally. Moreover, the data are extremely incomplete, based on voluntary reporting to the FBI from local police agencies. Some states, including NY, do not participate at all; other states have spotty reporting of unknown quality. That database provides little useful information about anything, and nothing at all on the subject of concealed carry.
On the other hand, that’s one of the best databases available. Its extreme limitations make it an excellent illustration of one of NYT’s conclusions, that we need better data if we are to make sound, evidence-based policy decisions regarding firearm regulation. And, since the FBI is devoid of relevant expertise, the “collect statistically valid data” mandate should be given to one that does, such as the CDC or the Census Bureau.
We may not have usable data on concealed carry. We may not need it to raise strong objections to the idea. Handguns sitting quietly in a drawer are a menace. Hidden handguns carried on our streets by people who lack the training, judgment, or authority to enforce the law are an abomination.
On the other hand, that’s one of the best databases available. Its extreme limitations make it an excellent illustration of one of NYT’s conclusions, that we need better data if we are to make sound, evidence-based policy decisions regarding firearm regulation. And, since the FBI is devoid of relevant expertise, the “collect statistically valid data” mandate should be given to one that does, such as the CDC or the Census Bureau.
We may not have usable data on concealed carry. We may not need it to raise strong objections to the idea. Handguns sitting quietly in a drawer are a menace. Hidden handguns carried on our streets by people who lack the training, judgment, or authority to enforce the law are an abomination.
Ken
Concealed carry is only an “abomination” in the mind of serious gun-phonics. On balance the concealed carry movement which now has expanded to almost every state in Union and has close to 12 million legal carriers has not remotely come close to being the blood in the streets scenario projected by the New York Times et al. Concealed carry laws haven’t been rescinded anywhere they have been enacted and have almost everywhere been expanded. Far from being a negative, CCW has been significantly positive.
Concealed carry is only an “abomination” in the mind of serious gun-phonics. On balance the concealed carry movement which now has expanded to almost every state in Union and has close to 12 million legal carriers has not remotely come close to being the blood in the streets scenario projected by the New York Times et al. Concealed carry laws haven’t been rescinded anywhere they have been enacted and have almost everywhere been expanded. Far from being a negative, CCW has been significantly positive.
6
I think a lot of the generation brought up on westerns and Charles Bronson vigilante movies are drawn to concealed-carry. They know in their hearts that when the bad-guy music starts, they need to take off the safety.
Problem is that the actual chaos, terror and panic that happens in REAL life don't match the movies. People whipping out their piece and emptying a clip in a general direction is more likely to hurt than help. When the streets become a replay of Tombstone, our country will be in a hole we'll have to climb out of.
Problem is that the actual chaos, terror and panic that happens in REAL life don't match the movies. People whipping out their piece and emptying a clip in a general direction is more likely to hurt than help. When the streets become a replay of Tombstone, our country will be in a hole we'll have to climb out of.
3
In 1997, right after I had obtained my permit to carry a concealed handgun, I was returning home after a Saturday night out with a date. It was in mid August when night time temperatures are still in the upper 80's-low 90's. I had parked across the street and was walking to my front door with my girlfriend, when we were approached by a stranger wearing a hooded sweatshirt and a surgical mask across his face. I had my stainless steel .45 caliber semiautomatic tucked under my arm. I locked eyes with the stranger and started reaching for my weapon. He saw my movement and probably saw the weapon too and veered away and ran off. I definitely believe that had I not had the weapon something bad would have occurred. Since that time, I have never had any similar encounters but always travel with a weapon.
Carrying a loaded weapon is a tremendous responsibility and it is always in the back of my mind. Luckily, I have never had to pull the trigger and hopefully never will, but my one incident was enough to convince me that a responsibly armed citizen is one's best last line of defense.
Carrying a loaded weapon is a tremendous responsibility and it is always in the back of my mind. Luckily, I have never had to pull the trigger and hopefully never will, but my one incident was enough to convince me that a responsibly armed citizen is one's best last line of defense.
8
Notwithstanding the legality of possessing the concealed-carry guns, reliance on deadly gun than human reason still remains a dangerous fantasy that has turned the schools, colleges, and public places into killing fields in recent years.
2
I will say once again, it is a total mystery to me as to why our nation's police are not leading the charge against tighter controls on sales of weapons to the mentally ill and those with records of domestic abuse for starters and also against concealed carry laws. They are on the front line of this problem and bear the brunt of the consequences when they pull people over or are called to homes where weapons are located. This would NOT block weapons sales and ownership to law abiding citizens, but it would clearly reduce access by those who should not have them.
2
Unfortunately, neither the Violence Policy Center nor the NRA can be perceived as unbiased players. Thus, all their data dissolves into rhetoric. Isn't there any unbiased research going on out there?
1
When you start off a story quoting results generated by a vehemently anti-gun organization, you have lost credibility. Just so you know, most of us concealed handgun carriers don't carry for you...we carry for us and our families. My top priority is to get them and me out of harms way. If that means I need to engage a bad guy to do that, so be it. However, I'd prefer to escape unscathed and without even needing to fire my gun. I have no hero complex and neither do any of the many, many gun carriers that I associate with. This is a myth that is being perpetuated by the media and organizations such as the VPC that have a clear agenda to see the American population disarmed.
8
Whenever I see images of men who are members of private militias, armed with pistols and assault rifles and carrying out battle-type exercises, I remember when I was like that. But then I turned eleven.
It is incredible how many of the comments here repeat the same old fallacy debunked by the study reported. Deniers of the importance of gun control, like deniers of climate change, are "true believers," unmoved by scientific evidence, sadly brainwashed by those with something to gain even at their supporters' unwitting expense. They just don't know what they just don't know.
New York Times quotes a "research project" by the utterly unbiased and agendaless Violence Policy Center. Echo chamber anyone?
10
I find it hard to believe that having a room full of unqualified people with firearms would make anyone safer.
If we are to favor concealed weapons lets also require that the holders of such weapons have at least proven competence in using those weapons.
The armed services follows this policy for good reason, the supporters of a well regulated militia should also.
If we are to favor concealed weapons lets also require that the holders of such weapons have at least proven competence in using those weapons.
The armed services follows this policy for good reason, the supporters of a well regulated militia should also.
1
Concealed Carry is another part of our Handgun & Firearm discussion worthy of the theoretical and practical application of a rational idea: Specifically, treating guns like cars.
When a person drives, they're in command of a complex machine that might kill people; the same is true of a gun owner. One requires a different set of licences to drive an 18-wheeler or ambulance that are earned by demonstration of real need and tested competency and care; ideally one could similarly possess a concealed-carry permit only after passing extensive background checks and tests of training, talent & temperament.
We have a State-applied, consistent licensing and testing system for driving; we do not have this for firearms, even though it would prevent countless homicides and murders.
A Car has a VIN on its body that cannot be tampered with and is used to support transfer-of-ownership paperwork between legitimate buyers at every sale; we do not have this for firearms to stop 'straw man' purchasing, but it would save thousands.
A car requires, by State law, insurance against damage as determined by the driver's record and the vehicle's cost; we do not have this for firearms, but it would help prevent stockpiling and illegal operation yet reward truly responsible hunters, sports shooters & others.
And every part of a Treat Guns Like Cars model can be applied to every weapon that is already among us and every one moving forward.
Treat Guns Like Cars.
When a person drives, they're in command of a complex machine that might kill people; the same is true of a gun owner. One requires a different set of licences to drive an 18-wheeler or ambulance that are earned by demonstration of real need and tested competency and care; ideally one could similarly possess a concealed-carry permit only after passing extensive background checks and tests of training, talent & temperament.
We have a State-applied, consistent licensing and testing system for driving; we do not have this for firearms, even though it would prevent countless homicides and murders.
A Car has a VIN on its body that cannot be tampered with and is used to support transfer-of-ownership paperwork between legitimate buyers at every sale; we do not have this for firearms to stop 'straw man' purchasing, but it would save thousands.
A car requires, by State law, insurance against damage as determined by the driver's record and the vehicle's cost; we do not have this for firearms, but it would help prevent stockpiling and illegal operation yet reward truly responsible hunters, sports shooters & others.
And every part of a Treat Guns Like Cars model can be applied to every weapon that is already among us and every one moving forward.
Treat Guns Like Cars.
9
James
Base on a complete reading of your comment I doubt seriously that you want to “Treat Guns Like Cars”. I have a Nevada concealed carry permit and I have a Nevada driver’s license. My Nevada driver’s license allows me to legally drive in all 50 states so I guess you are advocating I should be able to legally carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states-------some how I don’t think that’s what you want. Let me guess your vision is all about limiting legal gun access.
Base on a complete reading of your comment I doubt seriously that you want to “Treat Guns Like Cars”. I have a Nevada concealed carry permit and I have a Nevada driver’s license. My Nevada driver’s license allows me to legally drive in all 50 states so I guess you are advocating I should be able to legally carry my concealed handgun in all 50 states-------some how I don’t think that’s what you want. Let me guess your vision is all about limiting legal gun access.
2
Everyone knows the problem is not people owning legal guns; are you afraid of going to Vermont or Switzerland?
Legal guns can save lives and deter crime without firing a shot.
In Clacamas Mall in Oregon in 2013, a shooter with a rifle saw a bystander take out his legal gun and the shooter decided to commit suicide. The killer took two lives but many more were saved by the legal gun carrier.
Do the politicians plan on taking the concealed guns away from their bodyguards or just the citizens? You know the answer.
Legal guns can save lives and deter crime without firing a shot.
In Clacamas Mall in Oregon in 2013, a shooter with a rifle saw a bystander take out his legal gun and the shooter decided to commit suicide. The killer took two lives but many more were saved by the legal gun carrier.
Do the politicians plan on taking the concealed guns away from their bodyguards or just the citizens? You know the answer.
7
In general, do you think it's a good idea to base opinions and public policy on a single anecdote?
11
Good point, everyone should check out the FBI stats. Violent crime continues to fall, mass-shootings are rare, and there are more guns out there than ever. In other words, this article and reality are divergent.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the...
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the...
4
The gun-rights activists (aka the NRA et al.) will come out and say that the reason there are no stats on the thousands of times a legal gun owner used a gun in successful self defense is because the perp was scared away and cops not called (or called but no shots fired).
The same group(s) also call for these types of stats they claim to NOT be collected by police for some fear-based Stasi-allegory of databases being compiled against gun owners to take guns away.
It's like the cigarette companies telling us cigs are safe but blocking laws and funding of studies of tobacco and cigs. Oh wait, they tried that.
The same group(s) also call for these types of stats they claim to NOT be collected by police for some fear-based Stasi-allegory of databases being compiled against gun owners to take guns away.
It's like the cigarette companies telling us cigs are safe but blocking laws and funding of studies of tobacco and cigs. Oh wait, they tried that.
9
Strangely the latest study on gun use was by the CDC at the request of Obama. How is that possible if they are being blocked?
2
Whenever the NY Times writes about the horribleness of guns in The USA, I tremble again for what little is left of personal freedom in our country. The only reasonable reaction to the stories and opinions run in The Times, if they are to be taken at face value, is the forced, mandatory confiscation of all weapons, at gunpoint - yes, at gunpoint - by well armed employees of the government. Since there are, what, about four million guns to be confiscated, we will probably need to hire and arm even more government employees. It will probably be an economic stimulus. Since I could not get on with the TSA maybe I can get on with the GCA (Gun Confiscation Agency). I would even get to carry a gun. Cool!
The point of my sarcasm is to ask the NYTimes and its minions to be honest about what you really want. I don't own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA or any of its ilk, yet it is essential to a society in which the government is of the people, by the people and for the people that no privileges available to a government official or employee, is denied to the law abiding citizen. Neither is above the other, in philosophy or practice. The days guns are available to only a select few (and who selects them?) is the day personal freedom sustains a mortal blow,
The point of my sarcasm is to ask the NYTimes and its minions to be honest about what you really want. I don't own a gun, nor am I a member of the NRA or any of its ilk, yet it is essential to a society in which the government is of the people, by the people and for the people that no privileges available to a government official or employee, is denied to the law abiding citizen. Neither is above the other, in philosophy or practice. The days guns are available to only a select few (and who selects them?) is the day personal freedom sustains a mortal blow,
8
Whenever, I see yet another mass shooting, to quote Paul Baker, 'I tremble again for what little is left of personal freedom in our country.' You have way more rights than I do, sir! What makes you more special than my children's safety? I have, according to the declaration of independence, a right of 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness'. You, on the other hand, have the right to bear arms AS a component of a well regulated militia, as afforded by the Constitution. I would suggest your individual right to carry arms, as an individual, is unconstitutional as you are not well regulated, nor part of any government sanctioned militia.
13
How exactly does a lawful citizen going about his business do anything to violate your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Short answer: it doesn't.
As for the right to bear arms, that is an individual right unconnected to militia service. The Supreme Court has confirmed this. Even then, every able-bodied man of military age is a member of the militia per federal law.
Furthermore, "well regulated" in the context of the constitution has nothing to do with statutory regulations.
Short answer: it doesn't.
As for the right to bear arms, that is an individual right unconnected to militia service. The Supreme Court has confirmed this. Even then, every able-bodied man of military age is a member of the militia per federal law.
Furthermore, "well regulated" in the context of the constitution has nothing to do with statutory regulations.
5
Knowing the range of experiences and emotions that a person experiences throughout their life; the losses, down times, angry and confused times, it's a wonder that any of us would consider a handgun to be a helpful thing to always be at hand.
4
Full carry pistol permits in NY State, are largely held by retired Law enforcement personal , private security guards and some business owners.
Bigger question, why after the turbulent Sixties, did this country become so violent. Why are so many mentally ill Americans acting out these terrible fits of rage, in colleges , schools and places of general assembly. I'm ok with back ground checks and tougher laws against offenders. For those law biding citizens who wish to hunt and shoot fire arms responsibly. It's simple keep Fire Arms away from those who are not capable of controlling their actions.
Be diligent in every aspect of who is in possession of fire arms. Family and Friends of possible offenders must communicate with the authorities. A total out right banning of fire arms possession is not the answer. Education and Communication is a good start to safer America.
Bigger question, why after the turbulent Sixties, did this country become so violent. Why are so many mentally ill Americans acting out these terrible fits of rage, in colleges , schools and places of general assembly. I'm ok with back ground checks and tougher laws against offenders. For those law biding citizens who wish to hunt and shoot fire arms responsibly. It's simple keep Fire Arms away from those who are not capable of controlling their actions.
Be diligent in every aspect of who is in possession of fire arms. Family and Friends of possible offenders must communicate with the authorities. A total out right banning of fire arms possession is not the answer. Education and Communication is a good start to safer America.
1
Hmm, I would never think to fire shots at a fleeing shoplifter. My training indicated the only time I could use a weapon against someone was when I perceived my life or someone near me who I could 'become' and feared equally for their life or grave danger would allow the use of a weapon at that point.
Perhaps one might consider the editor's hyperbole in opposition to concealed carry to call for to better training, rather than forbidding?
Perhaps one might consider the editor's hyperbole in opposition to concealed carry to call for to better training, rather than forbidding?
3
Guns are only part of the problem. The truth of the matter is that violent video games, movies and TV shows must also share a large part of the blame. We as a society have desensitized ourselves to violence. We have become the society that we have desired to be. We've voted for this society with every dollar spent on violent entertainment. We've made our bed so now it's up to us to sleep in it or change for peace. A peaceful society needs no guns; only love and respect for the right of our fellow persons.
6
Considering that Germany, Wngland, Canada, Australia and other countries voraciously consume American entertainment but have nowhere near the # of shootings America does, your thesis is unsupported by facts. It's our dumb gun laws.
1
I just can't fathom what the gun lobby will try for next, in their effort to keep weapon sales going. Legalizing shoulder-mounted rocket launchers? Why not?The 2nd Amendment says "arms" not "guns." So we shouldn't be infringing on those launchers!
7
Technically, things like that would be considered "ordinance" not "arms".
Though, as an interesting fact, our government did have to borrow some cannons and warships from private civilians once upon a time...
Though, as an interesting fact, our government did have to borrow some cannons and warships from private civilians once upon a time...
1
Many commentators who carry guns offer some unknown threat as justification for owning. People who live their lives in irrational fears of unknown are the wrong kind to carry guns in public. They are the ones who can accidentally shoot innocent people.
10
Once upon a time, in America's wild west, the good sherif did not allow guns in town.
9
I have used guns for the past 60 years,ever since I was 7 years old -- when I learned to shoot at targets, paying as much attention to safety as to accuracy. I understand and share the "comfort" of having a gun (or two) around to defend oneself against any possible threat.
The truth, however, is American gun culture is both the cause and effect of people feeling perpetually threatened in and outside their home. It is a rational response to an irrational situation. We need to remove the source of this high anxiety. It is way past time that the 2nd Amendment is amended to significantly restrict gun ownership and use or we need to repeal it entirely.
The armed citizenry has proven itself to be a greater threat than an armed government -- a threat that the firearms industry and their lackey, the NRA, have blown so far out of proportion in order to ensure their depraved view of social relations (as in an "armed society is a polite society") cannot be successfully challenged.
I have no problem giving up my gun "rights" in order to increase the safety and security of my family and my fellow citizens, because an unarmed society is a civil society. It is past time, way past time, to drive the stake through the vampire that is the NRA (note: stake not bullet).
The truth, however, is American gun culture is both the cause and effect of people feeling perpetually threatened in and outside their home. It is a rational response to an irrational situation. We need to remove the source of this high anxiety. It is way past time that the 2nd Amendment is amended to significantly restrict gun ownership and use or we need to repeal it entirely.
The armed citizenry has proven itself to be a greater threat than an armed government -- a threat that the firearms industry and their lackey, the NRA, have blown so far out of proportion in order to ensure their depraved view of social relations (as in an "armed society is a polite society") cannot be successfully challenged.
I have no problem giving up my gun "rights" in order to increase the safety and security of my family and my fellow citizens, because an unarmed society is a civil society. It is past time, way past time, to drive the stake through the vampire that is the NRA (note: stake not bullet).
11
An unarmed society is a victim ripe for the next head full of hate.
Ask the Jews of Warsaw in 1940 about the need to be armed.
Ask the murdered Christians of the Middle East about the need to be armed.
I'm just glad JK lives across the street from a police station and not 15 to 30 minutes away like the poor neighborhoods of FAR too many cities.
The crazies and criminals will ALWAYS have a ready supply, so the rules you make are ONLY for the people who need protecting and their wives and children.
Ask the Jews of Warsaw in 1940 about the need to be armed.
Ask the murdered Christians of the Middle East about the need to be armed.
I'm just glad JK lives across the street from a police station and not 15 to 30 minutes away like the poor neighborhoods of FAR too many cities.
The crazies and criminals will ALWAYS have a ready supply, so the rules you make are ONLY for the people who need protecting and their wives and children.
3
It's interesting that the folks who place paramount importance on the 2nd Amendment as the cornerstone of the American way of life are usually those who don't give much importance to or actively oppose social programs aimed at alleviating the conditions that give rise to economic insecurity, especially in the inner city, and the concomitant emotional insecurity and powerlessness that gives rises to violence inside and outside the home. By the same token, there are so many guns in the inner city in the hands of so many, those places should be capitols of peace and quiet, no?
4
Give me a break. You live in California as do I With the multitude of gun laws why was 1,224 gun related homicides committed in 2013? (FBI Uniform Crime ReportHomicides/Weapons Table 20)
And can you explain why according to the Report Table 1, the number of homicides in the US dropped from 16,528 in 2003 to 11,691 in 2014?
I was a parole agent for CDC for 23 years. Do you think members of Nuestra Familia will give up their weapons? Hoover Crips, Rolling 60's? Bloods? TRG? Fresno Bulldogs? Asian Boyz? Mexican Mafia? MS 13? Hells Angels? Aryan Brotherhood?
Inmates laugh at people like you and I can't blame them. Take guns out of circulation. Let's see your mythical civil society when one of these people break in your house. They will kill you with no equivocation to take what you have. I dealt with enough inmates to know they hope you're not armed. You'll just make it a lot easier to victimize you. Good luck
And can you explain why according to the Report Table 1, the number of homicides in the US dropped from 16,528 in 2003 to 11,691 in 2014?
I was a parole agent for CDC for 23 years. Do you think members of Nuestra Familia will give up their weapons? Hoover Crips, Rolling 60's? Bloods? TRG? Fresno Bulldogs? Asian Boyz? Mexican Mafia? MS 13? Hells Angels? Aryan Brotherhood?
Inmates laugh at people like you and I can't blame them. Take guns out of circulation. Let's see your mythical civil society when one of these people break in your house. They will kill you with no equivocation to take what you have. I dealt with enough inmates to know they hope you're not armed. You'll just make it a lot easier to victimize you. Good luck
5
My friends who carry guns have no illusion that they will stop the next Newtown or Oregon or Colorado movie theater disaster. They carry because they want the CHANCE to survive if they ever become victims of the sick humans our society breeds with social media popularity. It is not natural for any person to sit in place and wait to be killed. The monsters of mass murder have no regard for the law.
8
It seems to me that all that is needed to put the lie to the notion that "More Concealed Carry" equals a safer public is to compare our gun laws with Western European gun laws and the results engendered. That is, we in the US are awash in guns and the results are evident, i.e. a much higher chance of being killed in random gun violence. In countries where access to handguns is tightly controlled, a much lower, by many factors, of random gun violence. Case closed.
11
Then why isn't Mexico, with its strict gun control, a safer country with fewer gun deaths than the US?
Why is the murder rate higher in Russia, despite tough gun controls?
The problem with such comparisons is: western europe had lower rates of violence long before gun control came about...
Why is the murder rate higher in Russia, despite tough gun controls?
The problem with such comparisons is: western europe had lower rates of violence long before gun control came about...
1
The answer to the Editorial Board's opinion is as simple as the Boy Scout motto: Be Prepared
5
It is also worth mentioning that sometimes "helpful" bystanders make the wrong decisions during high tension situations. Case in point: On the day that Gaby Giffords was shot, well meaning bystanders intervened but tackled an innocent person. Had those same bystanders been armed they might have added to the carnage, rather than stemming it.
As we know, police officers are highly trained, but even they make mistakes during such situations. To expect that an untrained civilian might do better is naive.
As we know, police officers are highly trained, but even they make mistakes during such situations. To expect that an untrained civilian might do better is naive.
12
So if we let the NRA have their way and everybody is now 'packin', the number of guns deaths will not be reduced from 30,000 per year but more likely to about 30,000 x (2,3....). Accidental deaths, suicides, rage,..by gun will exponentially increase.
20
Then why is it that despite gun laws loosening, states going to "shall issue" permit systems, and gun sales soaring, the gun crime rate continued to decline something like 50% since the high in the '90s?
If your logic was correct, shouldn't the gun crime rate have gone up instead?
If your logic was correct, shouldn't the gun crime rate have gone up instead?
1
It is time to ban guns of any sort.
Banning the NRA wouldn't be a bad idea, they're the problem, not the solution.
Banning the NRA wouldn't be a bad idea, they're the problem, not the solution.
34
Can anyone say domestic arms peddling?
33
Attention University of Texas at Austin:
MY CHILD IS NO LONGER APPLYING TO YOUR SCHOOL.
Concealed carry is the reason.
My out of state full freight tuition money will go to a different state.
MY CHILD IS NO LONGER APPLYING TO YOUR SCHOOL.
Concealed carry is the reason.
My out of state full freight tuition money will go to a different state.
87
Good. Send then to one of those super safe. "gun free" campuses. Crazy people and felons obey laws and signs after all.
2
Too many Americans think the movie Taken is a docum-drama when it is super-fictional nonsense. Women are most often killed by the good-guy with the gun, not a stranger. Jeb Bush's Stand Your Ground Laws, ALEC and the NRA marketing of fear and ammo increase vioence. A well-regulated militia is not a bunch of paranoid people who are armed with semi-automatic weapons and hate. They hate and are afarid of everyone that doesn't look like them.
46
MOST people in this country are well-able to conduct their day-to-day affairs WITHOUT need of a firearm. MOST people in this country enjoy being able to live their lives without lugging around 2 pounds of instant death. MOST people in this country do not have an obsession with maintaining the ability to kill another at a moment's notice. MOST people in this country would prefer not to have to worry about some other citizen randomly, arbitrarily and capriciously introducing gunplay into their daily lives.
For worse, the western frontier has become the paradigm of our contemporary civilization, which is by-and-large mostly urban and suburban. What's neglected is the fact that even on the western frontier, citizens quickly chose to enact common-sense ordinances in their communities -- NO GUNS IN TOWN! The "No Guns" policy significantly improved the quality of life for the residents. MOST people in this country would welcome a return to similar sane policies today. Sooner, rather than later.
For worse, the western frontier has become the paradigm of our contemporary civilization, which is by-and-large mostly urban and suburban. What's neglected is the fact that even on the western frontier, citizens quickly chose to enact common-sense ordinances in their communities -- NO GUNS IN TOWN! The "No Guns" policy significantly improved the quality of life for the residents. MOST people in this country would welcome a return to similar sane policies today. Sooner, rather than later.
55
You can prove anything with numbers right? The only way this will really be solved is if families are responsible for the deaths caused by members of their family. A death caused is a death owed by the perpetrators family. That way you can take any member that happens to be available in the lottery of life.
WHAT! You don't like the old Cherokee Law of Blood?
Well then pay a professional police force and turn in your guns and admit that you just owned one because you liked loud bangs for fun, just like when you were a kid and going to the movies. REH
WHAT! You don't like the old Cherokee Law of Blood?
Well then pay a professional police force and turn in your guns and admit that you just owned one because you liked loud bangs for fun, just like when you were a kid and going to the movies. REH
21
A: Conyers, Ga., May 31, 2015: A permit holder was walking by a store when he heard shots ring out. Two people were killed. The permit holder started firing, and the killer ran out of the store. Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said: “I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have [been] hit by a gun[shot]. . . . So, in my opinion he saved other lives in that store.”
B: Chicago, April 2015: An Uber driver who had just dropped off a fare “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.” Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.”
C: Philadelphia, Pa., March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barber shop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. Police Captain Frank Llewellyn said, “I guess he saved a lot of people in there.”
D: Darby, Pa., July 2014: Convicted felon Richard Plotts killed a hospital caseworker and shot the psychiatrist that he was scheduled to meet with. Fortunately, the psychiatrist was a concealed-handgun permit holder and was able to critically wound Plotts. Plotts was still carrying 39 bullets and could have shot many other people.
I have many additional cases of defensive gun uses, but the 1500 character-limit of the comment system prevents me from including them here.
B: Chicago, April 2015: An Uber driver who had just dropped off a fare “shot and wounded a gunman [Everardo Custodio] who opened fire on a crowd of people.” Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.”
C: Philadelphia, Pa., March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barber shop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. Police Captain Frank Llewellyn said, “I guess he saved a lot of people in there.”
D: Darby, Pa., July 2014: Convicted felon Richard Plotts killed a hospital caseworker and shot the psychiatrist that he was scheduled to meet with. Fortunately, the psychiatrist was a concealed-handgun permit holder and was able to critically wound Plotts. Plotts was still carrying 39 bullets and could have shot many other people.
I have many additional cases of defensive gun uses, but the 1500 character-limit of the comment system prevents me from including them here.
34
And last week in Chicago a 5 year old girl was killed when her father and another armed man got into a dispute over a driving incident.
6
I carry concealed every place I go. Especially when traveling to California, Arizona ,or any parts east of the Rockies. Lots of gun laws in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and D.C. and how much safer are they? ??. Not very. Gun control for safety sake is a myth.
1
I am amazed at the board's obsession with disarming people's second Amendmrnt rights.
The FBI Uniform Crime Report Homicides Table 1 shows that the number of homcides have dropped from16,528 in 2003 to 11,691 in 2014. That's a drop of over 4,800. Did any major gun legislation pass? No
Another fact the board fails to ever talk about are the non gun related deaths. In 2013 California had 512. What are the total non gun related deaths each year?
The board and liberals think that criminals will submit to background checks, that they will never be in possesseion of a firearm in violation of parole? I was a parole agent for the California Department of Corrections. Since the board obviously think they understand the criminal mindset better than those is us trained to do so I would like to issue them a challenge. Go with me to Corcoran, Folsom, DVI, San Quetin and Pelican Bay and see how many inmates will comply with what the board wants. If they actually tell you the truth, will you still want to disarm people? You people refuse ro acknowledge this fact and until you do? Nothing changes
Would New Town, Columbine, Virginia Tech happen if someone had been armed? Fine, disarm the 7 armed guards at Sidwell. If my grandkids don't deserve to be protected then neither do Obama's kids
The FBI Uniform Crime Report Homicides Table 1 shows that the number of homcides have dropped from16,528 in 2003 to 11,691 in 2014. That's a drop of over 4,800. Did any major gun legislation pass? No
Another fact the board fails to ever talk about are the non gun related deaths. In 2013 California had 512. What are the total non gun related deaths each year?
The board and liberals think that criminals will submit to background checks, that they will never be in possesseion of a firearm in violation of parole? I was a parole agent for the California Department of Corrections. Since the board obviously think they understand the criminal mindset better than those is us trained to do so I would like to issue them a challenge. Go with me to Corcoran, Folsom, DVI, San Quetin and Pelican Bay and see how many inmates will comply with what the board wants. If they actually tell you the truth, will you still want to disarm people? You people refuse ro acknowledge this fact and until you do? Nothing changes
Would New Town, Columbine, Virginia Tech happen if someone had been armed? Fine, disarm the 7 armed guards at Sidwell. If my grandkids don't deserve to be protected then neither do Obama's kids
24
More than 400,000 Americans have been killed by firearms since 9/11. Do you think that 400,000 dead Americans is acceptable? If you are a gun owner, if you are an ardent supporter of the Second Amendment, then you personally have special obligation to do something. I won't try to tell you what will work, but if you chose to sit there do nothing, then you cannot look yourself in the mirror and call yourself a moral descent person. With rights come responsibilities.
7
How irrelevant this paper has become. You can't have my gun. The bad guys have guns and Libs think they will surrender their weapons if law abiding citizens do the same. How ignorant you people are! More people die from Liberal policies per year than are killed by guns. Maybe we should round up all of the Libs instead.
15
That was a thoughtful and considered response. Thank you.
1
What so-called "liberal" policies have caused death?
1
More drivel from the NYT on this topic, one feels that you will not be satisfied until such time that all legally owned side arms and rifles are confiscated and the 2nd amendment is nullified. However, the big exception will be for private security guards as the NYT editorial board would (like congress) never live by the same rules as us common folk. Here is a thought, before you tell the rest of the country how to live why don't you first clean up NYC and put all the armed criminals and cop killers in jail for life. When you do that then you can come back to the rest of us with your opinions.
13
" However, the big exception will be for private security guards as the NYT editorial board would (like congress) never live by the same rules as us common folk." What an excellent point! Members of congress are overwhelmingly pro concealed carry. And yet, except for security, they don't allow anyone to bring a gun, concealed or otherwise, guns into the Capitol building. What's the matter, they don't want to be safe?
1
This is an example of commercial speech. The gun industry tells you to buy more handguns on the pretext of self defense as the hunting market declines. That having or carrying a gun makes you or your family safer is no truer than the 67% extra flavor bursting out of every bite of your favorite snack. It is surprising that the article or the comments didn't mention the armed ex-military at the latest terror shooting who chose not to go after the perp because the police might shoot him. And by the way your kids know where your guns are and where you keep the keys to your safe and take your guns out to show their friends when you aren't at home.
26
Once again, the NY Times Editorial Board is forced to lie with statistics to push their agenda. Suicides have nothing to do with concealed carry and mass shootings, except when you need to change the numbers. Such a Fox News level stunt shows how far this formerly august newspaper has strayed from the truth.
20
Forget concealed carry --- there is absolutely no reason why civilians should be permitted to own handguns in America, period. All statistics say it doesn’t work, and logic says it doesn’t work either. In situations in which one could conceivably use a handgun for self-defense, it is near impossible to do so the "right way" without several years of prerequisite military-style training.
Keep in mind, even if you are defending yourself, you are not simply allowed to shoot someone in America: you have to explain why you did it. You’re going to end up investigated by the police, probably spend time along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in court when you are sued by your assailant’s family, the end result of which might be that you end up in prison yourself, because what you thought was self-defense in the heat of the moment defense (say, shooting someone twice in the chest and once in the head) in fact surpasses the definition of permissible self-defense and is instead the definition of murder.
I can understand rifles being legal for the purposes of protecting your property from wild animals – the U.S. is the third-largest country in the world by landmass, and there are more than a few predators to be found in all areas – and can even get on board with hunting for the purposes of population control. But civilians ownership of handguns? Let’s raise our standards for gun-control, and find a way to make them illegal altogether, not just less easy to get and carry.
Keep in mind, even if you are defending yourself, you are not simply allowed to shoot someone in America: you have to explain why you did it. You’re going to end up investigated by the police, probably spend time along with hundreds of thousands of dollars in court when you are sued by your assailant’s family, the end result of which might be that you end up in prison yourself, because what you thought was self-defense in the heat of the moment defense (say, shooting someone twice in the chest and once in the head) in fact surpasses the definition of permissible self-defense and is instead the definition of murder.
I can understand rifles being legal for the purposes of protecting your property from wild animals – the U.S. is the third-largest country in the world by landmass, and there are more than a few predators to be found in all areas – and can even get on board with hunting for the purposes of population control. But civilians ownership of handguns? Let’s raise our standards for gun-control, and find a way to make them illegal altogether, not just less easy to get and carry.
32
Or to put it more simply, if having lots and lots of guns in circulation really made us safe, it should be happening already. There should be basically no violent crime at all.
No matter what data you present to gun rights folks, they will still keep insisting they are right because FREEDOM! Doctors cannot talk to patients and military commanders cannot talk to people under their command about the dangers of guns because FREEDOM!
22
By the way, I know that Bernie Sanders is quite a fan of Denmark – “What Can We Learn From Denmark,” his website puts it – because of the country’s education system, healthcare system, and other social welfare programs.
I notice that glaringly absent from his platform is praise for Denmark’s gun control laws, which have lead to a death rate from gun violence that is 1/8th that of the United States, and an overall murder rate that is 1/6th that of the United States. I’ll be more interested in Mr. Sanders’ candidacy when he explains away that hypocritical omission.
I notice that glaringly absent from his platform is praise for Denmark’s gun control laws, which have lead to a death rate from gun violence that is 1/8th that of the United States, and an overall murder rate that is 1/6th that of the United States. I’ll be more interested in Mr. Sanders’ candidacy when he explains away that hypocritical omission.
12
This article reeks of bias.
Describing the Violence Policy Center as a "gun safety group" is akin to describing the " Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (read Nazi)" as a Jewish welfare group.
Brady Campaign, etc.... these are all private gun ownership abolition groups and should be attributed as such. The German government under A.H. pioneered the very gun abolition laws the Times so fervently supports. This is well documented. I guess the Times doesn't take exception to everything Nazi.
Describing the Violence Policy Center as a "gun safety group" is akin to describing the " Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (read Nazi)" as a Jewish welfare group.
Brady Campaign, etc.... these are all private gun ownership abolition groups and should be attributed as such. The German government under A.H. pioneered the very gun abolition laws the Times so fervently supports. This is well documented. I guess the Times doesn't take exception to everything Nazi.
23
Figures lie and liars figure...
8
As soon as the world is safe for a Jew to walk down the street without fear of being stabbed or hacked to death by someone with a meat cleaver, I'll stop carrying a gun....
19
It's not just about thwarting crime. If you are going to carry a gun are you really going to kill someone over a tv or a car stereo? What are you going to say to the family of the person you just killed when they tell you he/she had mental heath problems, drug addictions, or was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. What are you going to tell your own children when you take someones child, brother, mother from this world because you got scared? America needs to wake up to the fact that John McClain was a guy in a movie, and you are never ever going to save the Nakatomi Plaza from terrorists with your glock 9.
21
October 26, 2015
What’s concealed as much is the era of recent younger generations in video gaming era where the demarcating reality of for quick response having a weapon will indeed need to be vitally concerned with today’s Editorial reflection and correct siren – at best the video, smart phones and body language responses are the safest path. I recall my year in Vietnam and Military Police graduate never carried a weapon while in service in Saigon (1967 )driving capacity - I always believe is faith to deflect and avoid bad or aberration anytime, anywhere, an age and for all times.
JJA Manhattan, N Y
What’s concealed as much is the era of recent younger generations in video gaming era where the demarcating reality of for quick response having a weapon will indeed need to be vitally concerned with today’s Editorial reflection and correct siren – at best the video, smart phones and body language responses are the safest path. I recall my year in Vietnam and Military Police graduate never carried a weapon while in service in Saigon (1967 )driving capacity - I always believe is faith to deflect and avoid bad or aberration anytime, anywhere, an age and for all times.
JJA Manhattan, N Y
1
even in th wild west cc was frowned upon
a real man wore his iron on his hip in full view
sos he could draw down on you nice and easy-like
a real man wore his iron on his hip in full view
sos he could draw down on you nice and easy-like
6
In other words, you see yourself being a killer with a gun.
4
Some of the recent mass-stabbers in Israel have been stopped by citizens who legally and safely carry weapons. The difference between Israel and the US is that in Israel most of them have been trained to use weapons during military service. Israel has crime, but I never saw the constant dribble of petty, tawdry, drive-by, inter-family, and self-inflicted gun violence we hear about every night on the local news.
The Second Amendment did say something about "A well regulated militia ...". That's the part that the gun lobby wants to ignore. Maybe we can't have it both ways. If we want to let people carry guns to deter crime then we also have to let them be regulated. That means training and certification, which, of course, means their names will almost certainly be on a list in some government computer, at least on the state level.
Do the gun lobby people think that people have a right to drive automobiles or fly airplanes without being trained, certified, and registered? I suppose some of them might.
The Second Amendment did say something about "A well regulated militia ...". That's the part that the gun lobby wants to ignore. Maybe we can't have it both ways. If we want to let people carry guns to deter crime then we also have to let them be regulated. That means training and certification, which, of course, means their names will almost certainly be on a list in some government computer, at least on the state level.
Do the gun lobby people think that people have a right to drive automobiles or fly airplanes without being trained, certified, and registered? I suppose some of them might.
12
Concealed carry, and more guns in general, as means to reduce violence and death is ludicrous. Absurd. Preposterous. Nonsensical. Add your favorite adjective...
The data is clear: more guns = more deaths. This holds in comparisons within the US as well as internationally outside the US:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america
The fever-dream fantasy of a "good guy with a gun" is just that. A fantasy. To MFW, Bejay, and Tom Paine, who say that "any individual" or "ordinary citizen" can be effective or provide deterrence I suggest you all view the video report on "ordinary" folk who WERE given training, put into an "active shooter" situation (simulated), and failed. Miserably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
Even the police, who are trained for these desperate situations, have difficulties and often injure or even kill innocent bystanders.
You want to hunt? Great. Get a long gun. Get rid of the semi-automatics and handguns.
The data is clear: more guns = more deaths. This holds in comparisons within the US as well as internationally outside the US:
http://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america
The fever-dream fantasy of a "good guy with a gun" is just that. A fantasy. To MFW, Bejay, and Tom Paine, who say that "any individual" or "ordinary citizen" can be effective or provide deterrence I suggest you all view the video report on "ordinary" folk who WERE given training, put into an "active shooter" situation (simulated), and failed. Miserably.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s
http://www.vpc.org/studies/unincont.htm
Even the police, who are trained for these desperate situations, have difficulties and often injure or even kill innocent bystanders.
You want to hunt? Great. Get a long gun. Get rid of the semi-automatics and handguns.
23
Gun control should start with the US military and police.
1
This one definitely needed a few more passes before going to press.
The takeaway is that self-defense shootings made up less than 5% of all shootings by people with concealed carry licenses since 2007, accounting for about 3% of all shooting deaths caused by people with concealed carry licenses. The gun lobby continues to stymie the collection of accurate data on gun violence, so the study relied on limited data (largely news accounts) from 38 states and the District of Columbia.
Curiously, I don't see any of that in the study linked in the second paragraph. That report (Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use) uses data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. It says that for every justifiable homicide in a five-year period there were 38 criminal homicides and that the number of yearly self-defense incidents claimed by the NRA is a wildly egregious lie, but nothing at all about concealed carry shooters, at least that I can see.
The takeaway is that self-defense shootings made up less than 5% of all shootings by people with concealed carry licenses since 2007, accounting for about 3% of all shooting deaths caused by people with concealed carry licenses. The gun lobby continues to stymie the collection of accurate data on gun violence, so the study relied on limited data (largely news accounts) from 38 states and the District of Columbia.
Curiously, I don't see any of that in the study linked in the second paragraph. That report (Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use) uses data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program. It says that for every justifiable homicide in a five-year period there were 38 criminal homicides and that the number of yearly self-defense incidents claimed by the NRA is a wildly egregious lie, but nothing at all about concealed carry shooters, at least that I can see.
2
All a concealed weapon really does is embolden the person with the gun. Without both training and experience, what makes you think they will be able to successfully defend themselves? Far more likely you will bungle the attempt, perhaps shooting a bystander in the process, have your weapon removed by the perp, who then shoots you with it. The "great equalizer" is anything but.
Without the weapon, you are likely to fall back on behaviors that keep you safe (compliance, running away) instead of boldly facing down someone else with a weapon.
Without the weapon, you are likely to fall back on behaviors that keep you safe (compliance, running away) instead of boldly facing down someone else with a weapon.
9
My experience has been that the guy who is most obsessed with the so-called "right to bear arms" and (misreading) "the second amendment" is the guy to watch out for.
The guy who is obsessed with "self defense" and equates self-defense with the number and type of guns he owns, is potentially a very dangerous person.
The gun owner who is convinced that governments are coming to take his weapons and that if he has enough firearms and ammunition, he can "fight them off" is suffering from great delusion and paranoia; and you can only hope that he doesn't "act out" as some of them do, with increasing frequency.
What I'm saying is this: The guy who loves guns, collects them, worships them, and insists he only wants them "for hunting", or "self defense" or "protection from the government" is clearly the person most likely to commit an act of violence.
The people who think of themselves as "the good guys" and our "protectors" against the "bad guys" are, in reality, the ones who are the least trustworthy and the most likely to commit an act of unprovoked violence against others.
If you love guns, you're not to be trusted. Because YOU will be far more likely to kill a person---or a group of people---intentionally or unintentionally, than a person who doesn't own guns and never will.
Despite your predictable outrage and protests to the contrary, if you're a gun lover, the odds of you killing someone are astronomically higher than someone who would never own one.
The guy who is obsessed with "self defense" and equates self-defense with the number and type of guns he owns, is potentially a very dangerous person.
The gun owner who is convinced that governments are coming to take his weapons and that if he has enough firearms and ammunition, he can "fight them off" is suffering from great delusion and paranoia; and you can only hope that he doesn't "act out" as some of them do, with increasing frequency.
What I'm saying is this: The guy who loves guns, collects them, worships them, and insists he only wants them "for hunting", or "self defense" or "protection from the government" is clearly the person most likely to commit an act of violence.
The people who think of themselves as "the good guys" and our "protectors" against the "bad guys" are, in reality, the ones who are the least trustworthy and the most likely to commit an act of unprovoked violence against others.
If you love guns, you're not to be trusted. Because YOU will be far more likely to kill a person---or a group of people---intentionally or unintentionally, than a person who doesn't own guns and never will.
Despite your predictable outrage and protests to the contrary, if you're a gun lover, the odds of you killing someone are astronomically higher than someone who would never own one.
22
Have all the guns you want pro gun people.
But let's make it illegal to carry guns in public.
This is a very very sick culture and an astonishingly under educated country.
But let's make it illegal to carry guns in public.
This is a very very sick culture and an astonishingly under educated country.
11
How useful of LBJr to attempt to solve the very serious problem of guns and killings put forward in this article by discussing another subject entirely and nit-picking the sentence structure of a commenter.
Lt. Gov. of CA Gavin Newsom has put forward an interesting proposal for solving the gun issue. If we agree that the 2nd amendment allows for complete freedom to carry weapons then lets allow it. Let everyone have all the guns their little heart desires. But, let's regulate the bullets .....all the ammunition.
Sounds worthy of further discussion.
Lt. Gov. of CA Gavin Newsom has put forward an interesting proposal for solving the gun issue. If we agree that the 2nd amendment allows for complete freedom to carry weapons then lets allow it. Let everyone have all the guns their little heart desires. But, let's regulate the bullets .....all the ammunition.
Sounds worthy of further discussion.
3
It is very easy to make your own ammunition, and these type taxes have repeatedly been shot down by Courts as too burdensome on the poor to the point of violating their Constitutional rights. You don't want to discriminate against the poor, do you?
Even legal and trained carriers of guns get angry and kill. They don't need to start as criminals or mentally-ill. Once rage sets in, a previously 'legal and sane' gun carrier is a killer.
3
If you really want to do a good job writing about guns and violence, examine statistics of shootings in cities and rural areas. I believe you will find the gunslingers are in the cities and the major appalling gun massacres occur either in cities or nearby suburbs. It's all about media gun violence that they view.
4
Like any religion or ideology there are the many myths that the faithful must abide.
1
Why does this romantic far-western vision of citizens going about with handguns, shooting bad guys have so much appeal (56%, according to the Gallup poll) ? This sorry state was the norm 100 years ago and we have evolved from there into a vastly superior society. Yet 56% of Americans want to go back in time, why? The reason is that the issue has been completely hijacked politically by the Republicans and made into a populist rallying cry against the Dems. This is irresponsible as many lives are at stake and the perpetrators should be relentlessly called out.
2
This is a tired, tired conversation. At this point it should be clear that US gun laws will not change in our lifetime. I feel awful for every family of a mass shooting victim, but in the grand scheme of things 139 lives over a decade is small potatoes.
It would be supremely refreshing if the New York Times would focus their efforts on BIG problems in America to help foster positive change in arenas where a broad base of Americans would benefit. How about hedge fund / corporate tax loopholes? What if we could engender changes in the tax system that could bring back the hundreds of millions of dollars that a rich few siphon from our system? What if that built 100 new schools in low-income areas? How many people would that affect.....every year?
It would be supremely refreshing if the New York Times would focus their efforts on BIG problems in America to help foster positive change in arenas where a broad base of Americans would benefit. How about hedge fund / corporate tax loopholes? What if we could engender changes in the tax system that could bring back the hundreds of millions of dollars that a rich few siphon from our system? What if that built 100 new schools in low-income areas? How many people would that affect.....every year?
7
The NRA narrative - indeed the theme that pervades much of their literature and communications - is the "will you be ready" fear tactic. When the door gets busted in at 4am, or you are attacked in the street, how will you defend yourself? "When seconds count, the police are minutes away" is an oft-quoted warning. Need evidence? See the "Armed Citizen" section of their website or their America's First Freedom magazine.
Think about that. The only way that the NRA promotes such ubiquitous gun ownership policies is by scaring the hell out of people by providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. When you have to resort to fear to promote your agenda, there must be something wrong.
The second amendment ensures a citizen's right to gun ownership, but not in all cases, not even close. Even Justice Scalia in the Heller case stated that firearm ownership is a right, but not an unlimited one. There can and should be so many more restrictions on gun ownership - and this would likely be found constitutional - this is why we are being scared into believing that concealed carry is a necessary and logical outcome of the interpretation of the second amendment.
Think about that. The only way that the NRA promotes such ubiquitous gun ownership policies is by scaring the hell out of people by providing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. When you have to resort to fear to promote your agenda, there must be something wrong.
The second amendment ensures a citizen's right to gun ownership, but not in all cases, not even close. Even Justice Scalia in the Heller case stated that firearm ownership is a right, but not an unlimited one. There can and should be so many more restrictions on gun ownership - and this would likely be found constitutional - this is why we are being scared into believing that concealed carry is a necessary and logical outcome of the interpretation of the second amendment.
5
I'm not sure if it's because of the election season where everyone is getting extremely passionate and partisan, but the Times editorial board has been particularly liberal lately. As multiple people have pointed out, for this to be a fair argument, you would need comprehensive data telling both sides of the story. Particularly data from sources without a stake in the outcome.
The main issue with this piece is that the writers don't seem to understand what they're asking for: a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that concealed carry is a constitutional right (trust me, I'm from Illinois where our law got revoked). If you want to take on gun laws, this isn't a reasonable starting point.
I would also have to ask them what gives them the right to take a concealed weapon away from a law abiding citizen. Your reasons for carrying are your own, but everyone has a right to defend their life. Can you imagine the anger you would feel if someone you loved was killed by a robber..."if only concealed carry hadn't been deemed illegal"? Food for thought.
The main issue with this piece is that the writers don't seem to understand what they're asking for: a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled that concealed carry is a constitutional right (trust me, I'm from Illinois where our law got revoked). If you want to take on gun laws, this isn't a reasonable starting point.
I would also have to ask them what gives them the right to take a concealed weapon away from a law abiding citizen. Your reasons for carrying are your own, but everyone has a right to defend their life. Can you imagine the anger you would feel if someone you loved was killed by a robber..."if only concealed carry hadn't been deemed illegal"? Food for thought.
7
I don't understand why the Freedom of Information Act doesn't apply to gun and gun related statistics. How does the gun lobby get away with this?
What about the rights of citizens who don't carry guns and who want to be able to take their families out in public without having to worry about the person next to them pulling out a loaded gun and threatening the lives of his family? Once again, we're the majority. What about our rights in this "democratic" republic?
What about the rights of citizens who don't carry guns and who want to be able to take their families out in public without having to worry about the person next to them pulling out a loaded gun and threatening the lives of his family? Once again, we're the majority. What about our rights in this "democratic" republic?
3
But how do we keep the anti gun lobby from equally mucking up the discussion? Just look at the numbers presented in this article.
First the 223 suicides were likely done in private and did not require a conceal carry permit to carry out. So those are irrelevant to the argument.
The same goes for the 139 people killed by 29 mass murders. As this paper and many others have pointed out in a number of articles recently, mass shootings are not spur of the moment acts but well planned. The perpetrator may have had a concealed carry permit, but its hard to credibly argue that absent the permit the killing would not have happened.
Those two simple realities eliminate about half of the quoted shootings as being valid to this argument without even digging into the research.
Finally, the goal of conceal carry is not to shoot bad guys but to prevent a crime in the first place and defend against it as a last resort. So to compare these shootings to just instances where someone was shot in defense is grossly prejudicial. The correct comparison would be to every instance where a the presence of a gun has averted a crime. Whether it was brandished or not, much less actually used.
So what is really clear is that before the Times editorial board takes the gun lobby to task for its actions, it should maybe take a harder look at its own efforts to poison a reasonable conversation on the topic of guns with twisted facts and figures.
First the 223 suicides were likely done in private and did not require a conceal carry permit to carry out. So those are irrelevant to the argument.
The same goes for the 139 people killed by 29 mass murders. As this paper and many others have pointed out in a number of articles recently, mass shootings are not spur of the moment acts but well planned. The perpetrator may have had a concealed carry permit, but its hard to credibly argue that absent the permit the killing would not have happened.
Those two simple realities eliminate about half of the quoted shootings as being valid to this argument without even digging into the research.
Finally, the goal of conceal carry is not to shoot bad guys but to prevent a crime in the first place and defend against it as a last resort. So to compare these shootings to just instances where someone was shot in defense is grossly prejudicial. The correct comparison would be to every instance where a the presence of a gun has averted a crime. Whether it was brandished or not, much less actually used.
So what is really clear is that before the Times editorial board takes the gun lobby to task for its actions, it should maybe take a harder look at its own efforts to poison a reasonable conversation on the topic of guns with twisted facts and figures.
11
A few things:
1. The process to amend the Constitution is quite clear. Get busy.
2. The ultimate prohibition already exists; Murder is against the law and punishable by death.
3. Crime is a local issue that requires local solutions.
4. Piddly incrementalism loses in court, stop wasting everyone's time and tax dollars on ineffectual lesser laws than the one stated in point #2.
1. The process to amend the Constitution is quite clear. Get busy.
2. The ultimate prohibition already exists; Murder is against the law and punishable by death.
3. Crime is a local issue that requires local solutions.
4. Piddly incrementalism loses in court, stop wasting everyone's time and tax dollars on ineffectual lesser laws than the one stated in point #2.
5
The VPC is not a "Gun Safety Group", it is a lobbying org almost singularly manned by Josh Sugarman who makes boatloads of cash for himself via his non-profit dispensing dubious research to those willing to eat it by the spoonful. Even if we accept for the moment that the figures are remotely accurate they are a statistically tiny number. Concealed carry permit holders are an incredibly safe, law abiding demographic cohort; they are involved in 'bad shoots' at a rate less than half that of Law Enforcement Officers as a whole. It isn't a perfect comparison, but it is the nearest cohort of people who lawfully carry weapons daily in public. This piece is heavy on fear mongering and assumptions and light on substance, completely neglecting the countless lives saved from harm by a CCW permit holder who defuses a potentially lethal situation without firing a shot. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment enshrines the individual citizens' right to defend herself with a firearm--and that right doesn't stop at her front door. The SCOTUS has determined this the final word on the issue, and with good reason. It's time that the NY Times and other bastions of left-leaning thought wrap their collective minds around this issue and view the right to firearms as the humanistic civil right that it is.
15
In our neighborhood, the deterrent effect of knowing people have firearms cannot be underestimated. Every street criminal will tell you of times they decided not to rob someone for fear they were armed.
1
To be blunt, most of the people I've ever met with concealed carry hero fantasies are pretty stupid. Like all stupid people, they are convinced that they are the canniest, smartest, savviest, straight-shootenest guy or gal around.
But again, they are idiots. They drop their purse and shoot someone through a wall. They execute the carjacking victim who would have gotten away unhurt. They fire wildly in a parking lot full of families and kids.
You cannot convince stupid people that they are stupid. You cannot convince incompetent people of their incompetence. Nope. They are "well trained" and "law-abiding" and "responsible gun owners." They are the good guys. They would never misjudge. They are "a really good shot." How dare we try to take their guns!!!
So the rest of us have to live with the fear that our children will catch a stray bullet to the head from some complete and total idiot with a gun and a yearning to prove how tough and street smart she is.
Hot tip. If you think you are going to save the day in an active shooter situation because you go to the gun range like, a whole lot, or spent a few years in the Guards, you are the problem, and you should not have a gun.
But again, they are idiots. They drop their purse and shoot someone through a wall. They execute the carjacking victim who would have gotten away unhurt. They fire wildly in a parking lot full of families and kids.
You cannot convince stupid people that they are stupid. You cannot convince incompetent people of their incompetence. Nope. They are "well trained" and "law-abiding" and "responsible gun owners." They are the good guys. They would never misjudge. They are "a really good shot." How dare we try to take their guns!!!
So the rest of us have to live with the fear that our children will catch a stray bullet to the head from some complete and total idiot with a gun and a yearning to prove how tough and street smart she is.
Hot tip. If you think you are going to save the day in an active shooter situation because you go to the gun range like, a whole lot, or spent a few years in the Guards, you are the problem, and you should not have a gun.
15
The notion that guns are defensive weapons is the biggest lie of all. They are offensive weapons where the advantage goes to surprise. Pack gun, invite ambush.
6
Guns are a deterrent, a huge one. Ask any street criminal, they will tell you their fear of armed victims
1
I found this piece confusing and difficult to understand.
4
Even if you think that gun violence can be stopped by concealed carry, it's ludicrous to try and prevent data collection for the betterment of public safety. This is certainly alarming news to me. While it's entirely possible that concealed carrying does greatly benefit public safety, blocking data from being passed to statisticians is only detrimental to everybody.
If you think/know you're right, why prevent data from coming out?
If you think/know you're right, why prevent data from coming out?
4
BIG problem from the pseudo intellectuals on the NYT Satirical staff.
They don't account for any concealed carriers who stop crimes without during the weapon. How do I know? I am one and have used either a weapon or the implication I had a weapon twice in my life. Once with a gun to stop an intruder from entering, once with the implication I had a gun to stop a robbery. Neither were reported to authorities, and I have talked to countless others who have had similar experiences. It appears as though no effort was made to research or obtain such data because it doesn't fit the already reached conclusion of the editorial board.
Oops! Once again, an ideological, agenda driven editorial, rather than well researched and fact based. But it is the NYT, so what else is new?
They don't account for any concealed carriers who stop crimes without during the weapon. How do I know? I am one and have used either a weapon or the implication I had a weapon twice in my life. Once with a gun to stop an intruder from entering, once with the implication I had a gun to stop a robbery. Neither were reported to authorities, and I have talked to countless others who have had similar experiences. It appears as though no effort was made to research or obtain such data because it doesn't fit the already reached conclusion of the editorial board.
Oops! Once again, an ideological, agenda driven editorial, rather than well researched and fact based. But it is the NYT, so what else is new?
7
I don't own or carry a gun.
I have, however, been the victim of a crime where deadly force was used. Twice. A knife was held at my jugular vein by a rapist and I was sexually assaulted while in fear for my life. My assailant attacked me a second time several days later, already knowing that I was unarmed and an easy mark. We often forget that rapists and other criminals are people. Too often they are called animals, which suggests they act on instinct, but that's not true. They're people who think things through. The attack happened in Brooklyn, on my own street. It happened in Brooklyn, when few citizens were armed because it was nearly impossible to get a permit. I have no doubt whatsoever that my assailant - my rapist - would have thought twice before assaulting a young woman on the street if he thought she might be armed.
On two other occasions I was nearly the victim of a violent crime. I was alone in my apartment in Park Slope late at night. I was awakened to the sound of somebody trying the force the door in. I waited there, crowbar in hand, wondering if I was going to die. Would the thugs that tried to break the door down have been so cavalier if they thought they might be looking down the barrel of a pistol when they broke through?
On one final occasion I heard someone in the hallway late at night trying to get in. I called the cops. They got there ten minutes later and PEEKED in to the hallway. They never even climbed the stairs.
I have, however, been the victim of a crime where deadly force was used. Twice. A knife was held at my jugular vein by a rapist and I was sexually assaulted while in fear for my life. My assailant attacked me a second time several days later, already knowing that I was unarmed and an easy mark. We often forget that rapists and other criminals are people. Too often they are called animals, which suggests they act on instinct, but that's not true. They're people who think things through. The attack happened in Brooklyn, on my own street. It happened in Brooklyn, when few citizens were armed because it was nearly impossible to get a permit. I have no doubt whatsoever that my assailant - my rapist - would have thought twice before assaulting a young woman on the street if he thought she might be armed.
On two other occasions I was nearly the victim of a violent crime. I was alone in my apartment in Park Slope late at night. I was awakened to the sound of somebody trying the force the door in. I waited there, crowbar in hand, wondering if I was going to die. Would the thugs that tried to break the door down have been so cavalier if they thought they might be looking down the barrel of a pistol when they broke through?
On one final occasion I heard someone in the hallway late at night trying to get in. I called the cops. They got there ten minutes later and PEEKED in to the hallway. They never even climbed the stairs.
6
The premise of this editorial is flawed. Those who lawfully carry concealed weapons are far less likely to commit gun crimes compared to criminals.
Your bias has morphed into outright prejudice against all gun owners the most of which only want to defend themselves.
You're really getting carried away with the gun issue. Maybe you could editorialize against the every decades wars by the mass murdering military.
Your bias has morphed into outright prejudice against all gun owners the most of which only want to defend themselves.
You're really getting carried away with the gun issue. Maybe you could editorialize against the every decades wars by the mass murdering military.
5
This is really a ludicrous argument.
In 2013, 11,419 people died from guns in the US.
In 2013, 32,719 people died in car accidents in the US.
If you have a gun and I have a car, who has the more dangerous weapon?
If you really want to save lives, ban cars.
In 2013, 11,419 people died from guns in the US.
In 2013, 32,719 people died in car accidents in the US.
If you have a gun and I have a car, who has the more dangerous weapon?
If you really want to save lives, ban cars.
3
I rub shoulders with a lot of gun owners and CC proponents. To a man. (and the occasional woman) they live their daily lives in fear and anger, expecting the worst of their fellow citizens and coworkers. What a horrible way to live.
I worry that one of these "good guys" with a gun kills someone over an imagined danger. Or even worse, he has a bad day and decides to become a "bad guy" with a gun. What do we do then? They all start shooting wildly to protect themselves. The one non gun toting guy among the group, said to me, "these guys fantasize about a home invasion so the can shoot somebody." Some of them truly terrify me, but my fear of them will not make me get a gun.
I worry that one of these "good guys" with a gun kills someone over an imagined danger. Or even worse, he has a bad day and decides to become a "bad guy" with a gun. What do we do then? They all start shooting wildly to protect themselves. The one non gun toting guy among the group, said to me, "these guys fantasize about a home invasion so the can shoot somebody." Some of them truly terrify me, but my fear of them will not make me get a gun.
8
I wish this important topic could be treated seriously. I'd really like to see an article that presents these and other statistics with a robust analysis. Unfortunately, the clear bias of the article renders the embedded statistics useless. I can't give them any weight because I know how carefully cherry-picked they are.
Mocking the opposing viewpoint is a very base manner of expressing your own views. Comments like "foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance" and "concealed carry does not transform ordinary citizens into superheros" are purely inflammatory. Referring to a group of people as "naïve" because you don't agree with them does nothing to help.
There's so much complaint about partisanship among politicians, but these sorts of articles divide just as much. This article is clearly an attempt to shape opinion on gun control. How often have you changed your personal beliefs because someone called them naïve or made incendiary comments about them? Please, can we treat matters of life and death seriously and dispense with the banality?
Mocking the opposing viewpoint is a very base manner of expressing your own views. Comments like "foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance" and "concealed carry does not transform ordinary citizens into superheros" are purely inflammatory. Referring to a group of people as "naïve" because you don't agree with them does nothing to help.
There's so much complaint about partisanship among politicians, but these sorts of articles divide just as much. This article is clearly an attempt to shape opinion on gun control. How often have you changed your personal beliefs because someone called them naïve or made incendiary comments about them? Please, can we treat matters of life and death seriously and dispense with the banality?
12
No wonder, as your editorial notes, that the NRA has pushed legislation that eliminates any government record-keeping about gun violence. As long as they can quash fact-based discussions, they're free to traffic in fear, intimidation, and heroic anecdotes.
7
Oh, please. All that is needed is bigger and better guns, preferably the self-driven type. Guns and cars are both deadly devices, so similar solutions are in order.
There is an obvious issue with the reasoning though. The people who are dying are not the people carrying the guns. The people carrying the guns are "safer" from their own perspectives, and they don't care about the carnage - charitably, that may be because they think that if the other people just carried guns themselves, there wouldn't be an issue.
What you are saying is that more people die because there are more guns - but if the people with the guns are not the ones dying, that's not going to persuade them to stop carrying guns.
What you are saying is that more people die because there are more guns - but if the people with the guns are not the ones dying, that's not going to persuade them to stop carrying guns.
1
I'm a very small woman living in an urban area and I feel much safer NOT carrying or owning a gun. Given that an attacker or robber has the advantage of surprise, I'd much more likely be arming my assailant than shooting him. I'd rather take my chances unarmed.
7
It is unfortunate, but the people of the United States are too stupid to educate on the basic known facts of gun violence and its causes.
5
The bottom line is this: Concealed or not, the vast majority of the American public is not smart enough, aware enough, or morally centered enough to handle the responsibility of carrying a deadly weapon.
Think about how many people you see driving cars everyday who shouldn't be -- they are either oblivious, willfully aggressive, or just generally really bad at driving. And those people each year cause over 30,000 deaths in the U.S. Now replace their car with a gun. Good luck.
And it's a similar problem: The auto industry would never allow US policy makers to toughen the requirements for obtaining a drivers license to thereby reduce auto deaths; just as the NRA will never allow for tougher gun laws to reduce shooting deaths. Because in the end it's all big business, no matter how many people die from end-user negligence. $$$
Think about how many people you see driving cars everyday who shouldn't be -- they are either oblivious, willfully aggressive, or just generally really bad at driving. And those people each year cause over 30,000 deaths in the U.S. Now replace their car with a gun. Good luck.
And it's a similar problem: The auto industry would never allow US policy makers to toughen the requirements for obtaining a drivers license to thereby reduce auto deaths; just as the NRA will never allow for tougher gun laws to reduce shooting deaths. Because in the end it's all big business, no matter how many people die from end-user negligence. $$$
9
Let's be fact-based, even though it's inconvenient for both sides in this debate.
Based on the CDC gun death reports. Non-suicide gun deaths are disproportionately high among young blacks (shooting each other) distantly followed by young Hispanics. Most gun suicides are older white men. Armed white men are unlikely to find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves against an armed young black person (unless the white guy is in the wrong neighborhood looking for drugs). The person an armed white man is most likely to shoot... is himself. Those are the facts.
Based on the CDC gun death reports. Non-suicide gun deaths are disproportionately high among young blacks (shooting each other) distantly followed by young Hispanics. Most gun suicides are older white men. Armed white men are unlikely to find themselves in a situation where they need to defend themselves against an armed young black person (unless the white guy is in the wrong neighborhood looking for drugs). The person an armed white man is most likely to shoot... is himself. Those are the facts.
4
Using a firearm is an extreme last resort, and in fact, the great warriors of all time would never concede to such a lame cop-out when confronting injustice.
If the goal of concealed carry is to protect oneself, deter crime, etc, why is nobody promoting nonlethal methods of incapacitation? You know, so you don't have to lose your job while standing trial for aggravated manslaughter?
Additionally, I agree with another poster. Concealed Carry is absurd. Open carry or not at all. I want citizens to openly menace the public with their unspoken threats of casual murder, not hide their pop toys in secrecy like some perverted fetish.
If the goal of concealed carry is to protect oneself, deter crime, etc, why is nobody promoting nonlethal methods of incapacitation? You know, so you don't have to lose your job while standing trial for aggravated manslaughter?
Additionally, I agree with another poster. Concealed Carry is absurd. Open carry or not at all. I want citizens to openly menace the public with their unspoken threats of casual murder, not hide their pop toys in secrecy like some perverted fetish.
8
I don't like the way most people drive, or the way they shop or eat or vote. I don't like the way they act crazy or lack interest in science or history. I don't like commercial TV or much of our popular culture. And I certainly don't want most people to be armed or to feel obliged to act on my behalf with a deadly weapon.
11
Mark's Smarter Half.
These gun-lobby guys remind me of the cigarette and narcotics industries of the past that tried to limit, deny and even cover-up research that showed a clear link between "smoking, or narcotics consumption, and respiratory diseases...such as lung cancer". In a similar pattern the current gun-lobby groups are trying to "deny or cover up research" linking greater gun ownership to suicides and homicides rather than effective self defense. Who'd ever think this sort of thing would be going on in the 21st century? In some countries there are is enough social research ; not enough funding for social research...even on pressing issues ; or the research that is done is shoddy and sloppy. In the US there are excellent social researchers, and lot of the research themselves are excellent: with high validity and/or trustworthiness. But you have businesses denying such research, or trying to hide it. How sad indeed.
These gun-lobby guys remind me of the cigarette and narcotics industries of the past that tried to limit, deny and even cover-up research that showed a clear link between "smoking, or narcotics consumption, and respiratory diseases...such as lung cancer". In a similar pattern the current gun-lobby groups are trying to "deny or cover up research" linking greater gun ownership to suicides and homicides rather than effective self defense. Who'd ever think this sort of thing would be going on in the 21st century? In some countries there are is enough social research ; not enough funding for social research...even on pressing issues ; or the research that is done is shoddy and sloppy. In the US there are excellent social researchers, and lot of the research themselves are excellent: with high validity and/or trustworthiness. But you have businesses denying such research, or trying to hide it. How sad indeed.
8
Advocates of concealed carry promote the fallacy of armed citizens protecting themselves and others from violent harm, conjuring some romantic vision of the "West", when in fact towns like Tombstone and Dodge City did not permit the carrying of firearms within city limits. What did they know then that we don't seem to know now?
6
You lost me at "gullible." This essay is filled with disparaging language that potrays the opposition as complete idiots:
sensational
myth
foolhardy
gullible
obvious
undoubtedly
bowing to the gun lobby
naïvely
perverse
excesses
vigilantism
mythic
peddled
Furthermore, I find myself unable to make sense of your description of the study results in paragraphs two and three even after multiple readings. I'm going to have to look elsewhere for a reasonable summary.
Citing the percentage of Americans who support concealed carry as evidence that (hypothetical) information is being withheld from them is poor logic. It makes me suspicious of the depth of understanding on the writer in this complex topic.
I find the topic of guns and whether or not concealed carry is a good or bad idea very interesting. Whereas I was once knee-jerk against it, I've come around to be in tentative support of it after reading well-considered arguments in its favor. If you would like to persuade thoughtful adults like myself it would be better to avoid the hyperbole and disparagement, and speak in a voice that acknowledges that the arguments on the other side of the issue also have merit.
sensational
myth
foolhardy
gullible
obvious
undoubtedly
bowing to the gun lobby
naïvely
perverse
excesses
vigilantism
mythic
peddled
Furthermore, I find myself unable to make sense of your description of the study results in paragraphs two and three even after multiple readings. I'm going to have to look elsewhere for a reasonable summary.
Citing the percentage of Americans who support concealed carry as evidence that (hypothetical) information is being withheld from them is poor logic. It makes me suspicious of the depth of understanding on the writer in this complex topic.
I find the topic of guns and whether or not concealed carry is a good or bad idea very interesting. Whereas I was once knee-jerk against it, I've come around to be in tentative support of it after reading well-considered arguments in its favor. If you would like to persuade thoughtful adults like myself it would be better to avoid the hyperbole and disparagement, and speak in a voice that acknowledges that the arguments on the other side of the issue also have merit.
12
Maybe we could try secession again. This time I say let the red states go their own way with our blessing.
I would have to move but it would be worth it.
If not, then time to move to one of those terrible socialist countries where people are intelligent.
I would have to move but it would be worth it.
If not, then time to move to one of those terrible socialist countries where people are intelligent.
6
At the end of the day it is Darwin at work; as a society we are reducing the population of irrational people, unfortunately they take others with them.
3
The VPC is a BOGUS group whose "research" is never included in mainstream scientific journals or peer reviewed. The fact of the matter, according to actual government statistics, is that defensive gun use happens "as many as 1.5 million times" How many of those are by legal permit holders is open to debate, but the other side of the coin shows that, as a group, permit holders exhibit exemplary behavior, not only committing less "gun crime" (and any other) than the general public, but even less than police officers. The naked bias on these pages, taking VPC propaganda seriously, tells me that the NYT had divorced itself from actual news journalism.
8
A significant number of posts on gun laws come from gun owners who are afraid of any number of things, who claim that guns are the only answer however imperfect, and that they have no other solutions. That sounds like a recipe for suicide by gun, whether in isolation, by police, or taking other people with them. The gun culture could be their very own worst enemy.
2
The " Feeling of being safe" against attackers, foes and trespassers will remain one very important reason for owning guns regardless of laws to the contrary, not to speak of our tradition of owning guns for hunting and other sports. However, there is a way to get out of the ongoing and endless debate
sparked by every new sensational killing.
That way is to recognize the power of NRA who are able to do do three things at a moment's notice: influence legislators, provoke gun owners and suggest that more guns are the answer. Once we recognize that we should start a well funded national movement to advocate that "gun ownership is similar to automobile ownership" which gun owners can understand because they own both.
Just as the automobiles would be lot more dangerous without safety features like signals, commonsense road safety laws, licensing of drivers and registration of the automobiles necessary to fix the liability in case of bodily harm and property damage caused an automobile, so would the guns be lot less dangerous with safety features, commonsense gun safety laws, licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to fix the liability in case of bodily harm and property damage caused by a gun. Like automobile owners the gun owners should carry liability insurance which acts as a market based solution to safer operation of automobiles. Just as NRA is advocating for national concealed gun permits so too these laws should be applicable nationwide.
sparked by every new sensational killing.
That way is to recognize the power of NRA who are able to do do three things at a moment's notice: influence legislators, provoke gun owners and suggest that more guns are the answer. Once we recognize that we should start a well funded national movement to advocate that "gun ownership is similar to automobile ownership" which gun owners can understand because they own both.
Just as the automobiles would be lot more dangerous without safety features like signals, commonsense road safety laws, licensing of drivers and registration of the automobiles necessary to fix the liability in case of bodily harm and property damage caused an automobile, so would the guns be lot less dangerous with safety features, commonsense gun safety laws, licensing of gun owners and registration of guns to fix the liability in case of bodily harm and property damage caused by a gun. Like automobile owners the gun owners should carry liability insurance which acts as a market based solution to safer operation of automobiles. Just as NRA is advocating for national concealed gun permits so too these laws should be applicable nationwide.
2
This article is incomplete. Mere numbers without any statistical significance or deeper analysis. It tells the number of suicides by conceal carry holders, but not the rate of suicide of permit holders compared to the population at large. It tells the number of permit holders killed in an active shooter situation, but not if the incident happened in a gun-free zone where they would not be carrying.
Judging by the facts that there has only been 2 mass shooting in areas where guns ARE allowed, and that the rate of criminal usage of a firearm by concealed carry permit holders is lower than that of police officers, I'm inclined to believe that this article is lacking any real substance.
Judging by the facts that there has only been 2 mass shooting in areas where guns ARE allowed, and that the rate of criminal usage of a firearm by concealed carry permit holders is lower than that of police officers, I'm inclined to believe that this article is lacking any real substance.
5
There are a number of responses claiming increased personal security with the liberty to conceal and carry, but there is an inherent flaw in the argument. They're based on an individual perspective, while policy must address the collective.
Here's the wrong question to ask to construct gun policy: "Would I be more safe in the Aurora theater if I had my own weapon?". Most would answer "Yes!" (even though in many cases, personal safety may be increased by hiding or fleeing, as opposed to a shoot-out).
Here's the right question: "Would I (or my child) be more safe in the Aurora theater if: (1) the perpetrator had no weapon, or (2) 15% of the audience were carrying a weapon?" It's pretty clear that the answer is #1, and for #2 there could be scenarios with even increased casualties given the confusion and fear of such moments.
So why do we focus on arming more and more random strangers?
Here's the wrong question to ask to construct gun policy: "Would I be more safe in the Aurora theater if I had my own weapon?". Most would answer "Yes!" (even though in many cases, personal safety may be increased by hiding or fleeing, as opposed to a shoot-out).
Here's the right question: "Would I (or my child) be more safe in the Aurora theater if: (1) the perpetrator had no weapon, or (2) 15% of the audience were carrying a weapon?" It's pretty clear that the answer is #1, and for #2 there could be scenarios with even increased casualties given the confusion and fear of such moments.
So why do we focus on arming more and more random strangers?
9
Whoa! NYT. Too many scare factor obfuscation's in this editorial. First, concealed carry is only for self-protection or of others in eminent danger. Second, a total of 763 killed in the past eight years. This averages out to only 95 deaths per year which is about two per state. Pumping up your editorial by characterizing concealed carry individuals as wannabe superheroes is so disingenuous as to be a disservice to your readers.
Concealed carry licensed individuals already have unfettered access to college campuses. In Roseburg, an Oregon veteran with concealed carry was close enough to hear the shots but didn't intervene, "I figured the cops would confuse me with the shooter." All concealed carry licenses are only issued after the applicant has received mandatory training, a background investigation and has been approved by the county sheriff.
If Americans truly believe that guns in the hands of vetted license holders are a threat to their safety then advocate a change to the second amendment. Quit this insidious campaign to circumvent the second amendment by passing more unenforceable restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens. Shut down the pipeline of illegal guns smuggled to NYC from the South and the armed police and unarmed citizens of NYC will be safe again.
Concealed carry licensed individuals already have unfettered access to college campuses. In Roseburg, an Oregon veteran with concealed carry was close enough to hear the shots but didn't intervene, "I figured the cops would confuse me with the shooter." All concealed carry licenses are only issued after the applicant has received mandatory training, a background investigation and has been approved by the county sheriff.
If Americans truly believe that guns in the hands of vetted license holders are a threat to their safety then advocate a change to the second amendment. Quit this insidious campaign to circumvent the second amendment by passing more unenforceable restrictive laws on law-abiding citizens. Shut down the pipeline of illegal guns smuggled to NYC from the South and the armed police and unarmed citizens of NYC will be safe again.
5
The Second Amendment clearly implies that an unregulated militia threatens the security of a free state, therefore, the unarmed are entitled to vet the would-be armed for their own safety, and Congress may issue regulations pursuant to the powers described in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
To the pro-gun posters here who insist that we should take responsibility for our personal safety by arming ourselves, I say this: I dislike guns and don't want to arm myself. I want to live in a society where I feel safe. The only reason I do not fee safe is because of all the guns out there.
The US is a great country but our tolerance for violence perpetuated through lax gun laws is astounding. It is not the sign of a progressive society, one that is to be admired throughout the world.
The US is a great country but our tolerance for violence perpetuated through lax gun laws is astounding. It is not the sign of a progressive society, one that is to be admired throughout the world.
12
Far more than I fear a lunatic shooter or a terrorist, I fear an untrained macho Seal-wannabe opening fire at a perceived criminal, spraying bullets right and left and killing bystanders with "friendly fire." Effective action in combat situations requires intensive, on-going training, which my neighbor or the guy at Starbuck's doesn't have, no matter how legally they carry concealed arms.
15
The Second Amendment should be repealed. No other nation enshrines the right to own a deadly weapon, because it is a bad idea. The right to carry a gun ultimately becomes a right to kill, and no sane government gives its citizens the right to kill each other.
Widespread gun ownership undermines the rule of law and wrecks public safety. The idea that it is necessary to defend against tyranny is pure myth - authoritarian nations with low gun ownership rates are just as likely to transition to democracy as those with lots of guns, but their transitions are a lot less bloody. The idea that we need guns for self-defense is a myth - more guns just creates more threats. The idea that illegal guns will be just as widespread after guns are outlawed is a myth - every illegal gun begins its life as a legal gun before being stolen or diverted.
The right to own a gun stands in direct opposition to the right to life. It is time for us to stop valuing guns and paranoia over human beings and common sense. Repeal the Second Amendment.
Widespread gun ownership undermines the rule of law and wrecks public safety. The idea that it is necessary to defend against tyranny is pure myth - authoritarian nations with low gun ownership rates are just as likely to transition to democracy as those with lots of guns, but their transitions are a lot less bloody. The idea that we need guns for self-defense is a myth - more guns just creates more threats. The idea that illegal guns will be just as widespread after guns are outlawed is a myth - every illegal gun begins its life as a legal gun before being stolen or diverted.
The right to own a gun stands in direct opposition to the right to life. It is time for us to stop valuing guns and paranoia over human beings and common sense. Repeal the Second Amendment.
4
Wow. As a progressive Democrat, I am mouth-open astonished by the utter lack of substance in this editorial. Did anyone think this through?
1. Confusing legal concealed-carry with the universe of gun owners is a deceitful. Only four states (Alaska, Arizona, Kansas and Vermont) do not police gun owners. The rest of the 46 require some level of police-scrutiny before a person is permitted to carry a concealed weapon. To ignore individuals who commit a crime by simply walking out their door (by concealing a weapon without a permit) is not just sophistry, but stupid sophistry.
2. That an apparent overwhelming majority of gun victims are gun owners who turn their weapons against themselves speaks nothing about guns. Yes, guns are effective suicide devices. So what? If knives replace guns as a preferred method of suicide, should the country declare war on cutlery except as available at Wendy's?
Not that the NRA's argument that an armed nation is a safe nation is the answer. But by advancing thick-headed nonsense in rebuttal, the NYT embarrasses its considerable audience by its naivete. What this country needs is level-headed discussion of gun ownership that does not begin with the premise that an armed American is a bad American. It just ain't so.
Dear Editorial Board, please resist knee-jerkism when it comes to guns. Weapons are lethal, but that is where discussion begins, not where it ends.
1. Confusing legal concealed-carry with the universe of gun owners is a deceitful. Only four states (Alaska, Arizona, Kansas and Vermont) do not police gun owners. The rest of the 46 require some level of police-scrutiny before a person is permitted to carry a concealed weapon. To ignore individuals who commit a crime by simply walking out their door (by concealing a weapon without a permit) is not just sophistry, but stupid sophistry.
2. That an apparent overwhelming majority of gun victims are gun owners who turn their weapons against themselves speaks nothing about guns. Yes, guns are effective suicide devices. So what? If knives replace guns as a preferred method of suicide, should the country declare war on cutlery except as available at Wendy's?
Not that the NRA's argument that an armed nation is a safe nation is the answer. But by advancing thick-headed nonsense in rebuttal, the NYT embarrasses its considerable audience by its naivete. What this country needs is level-headed discussion of gun ownership that does not begin with the premise that an armed American is a bad American. It just ain't so.
Dear Editorial Board, please resist knee-jerkism when it comes to guns. Weapons are lethal, but that is where discussion begins, not where it ends.
9
I grew up in Colorado with rifles in the window rack of our pickup but spent 20 years in NYC. When I moved to Portland, OR I got my concealed carry permit - because I could. After a week of "carrying" I decided that I didn't feel comfortable with so much responsibility tucked in my waistband. After living in many rough and dangerous NYC neighborhoods, I became very good at avoiding or deescalating any situation that put me at risk. Carrying raises the stakes of any situation and it reduces the need for negotiation, retreat or avoidance.
The training to get my permit was minimal - an afternoon class anyone could pass. It did require a more extensive background check and finger printing but otherwise Oregon is a "shall issue" state. This article seems to indicate that this additional vetting doesn't reduce the incidence of tragedy.
Does the additional vetting, waiting, restrictions and requirements of obtaining a Class III weapon (automatic or suppressed weapon) have a corresponding effect on the violence with those weapons? Since the chances of eliminating guns in this country is minimal perhaps the answer is to make their ownership a far greater responsibility. I have never heard of a crime with either a suppressed or automatic weapon so perhaps the more stringent requirements of this weapons class are effective at reducing the tragedy that the NRA seems to think is acceptable? I hope the Times can investigate this question.
The training to get my permit was minimal - an afternoon class anyone could pass. It did require a more extensive background check and finger printing but otherwise Oregon is a "shall issue" state. This article seems to indicate that this additional vetting doesn't reduce the incidence of tragedy.
Does the additional vetting, waiting, restrictions and requirements of obtaining a Class III weapon (automatic or suppressed weapon) have a corresponding effect on the violence with those weapons? Since the chances of eliminating guns in this country is minimal perhaps the answer is to make their ownership a far greater responsibility. I have never heard of a crime with either a suppressed or automatic weapon so perhaps the more stringent requirements of this weapons class are effective at reducing the tragedy that the NRA seems to think is acceptable? I hope the Times can investigate this question.
1
Re: "...the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides."
Over a five year period there are roughly 100,000 gun suicides, so I doubt that concealed carry laws are a significant driver of the gun-suicide rate. (I happen to agree that the suicidal impulse can be transient so that reducing access to guns might reduce the overall suicide rate. That would be good for depressed teens and maybe less good for an elderly person in the early throes of Alzheimers, but the assisted suicide debate is far to complex to tackle here.)
By way of comparison, here is a Times headline from March 13, 2014:
"303 Deaths Seen in G.M. Cars With Failed Air Bags".
That was over a ten year period (2003-2012) but surely it represents the ultimate contradiction of the idea that airbags should be a mandatory feature on cars, yes? It's just as with concealed carry - if it is not 100% safe and effective, why do it at all?
Over a five year period there are roughly 100,000 gun suicides, so I doubt that concealed carry laws are a significant driver of the gun-suicide rate. (I happen to agree that the suicidal impulse can be transient so that reducing access to guns might reduce the overall suicide rate. That would be good for depressed teens and maybe less good for an elderly person in the early throes of Alzheimers, but the assisted suicide debate is far to complex to tackle here.)
By way of comparison, here is a Times headline from March 13, 2014:
"303 Deaths Seen in G.M. Cars With Failed Air Bags".
That was over a ten year period (2003-2012) but surely it represents the ultimate contradiction of the idea that airbags should be a mandatory feature on cars, yes? It's just as with concealed carry - if it is not 100% safe and effective, why do it at all?
1
Years ago, I kept a pistol with a loaded clip in my truck and in my nightstand. Since then, I concluded the risk of an accident outweighed the potential benefit of self-defense. The pistol now remains locked away except for the times I shoot safely at a range.
The danger of guns needs respected, not vilified. Teaching safe use and storage of firearms has always been a goal of the NRA and the organization should team up with governments to provide training to permit holders. Safety education could go a long way in preventing firearm-related deaths and does nothing to infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners.
The danger of guns needs respected, not vilified. Teaching safe use and storage of firearms has always been a goal of the NRA and the organization should team up with governments to provide training to permit holders. Safety education could go a long way in preventing firearm-related deaths and does nothing to infringe on the rights of responsible gun owners.
7
The lawmakers who hide behind the concealed carry myth are not "gullible"; that gives them far more insulation, and less culpability, than they deserve. Rather, they are making a calculated political decision based on a partial truth: a vote against the gun lobby carries more electoral risk than a vote for responsible policy. It's only "partial" because the gun lobby has become relatively toothless in the voting booth, losing far more often than it wins, but it is also a "truth" because the 85% or more of Americans who support responsible regulations of guns and gun owners don't exact a political price when elected officials value campaign safety over public safety. Until that changes, death will vanquish reason in our legislatures.
2
Sadly, the Times keeps mingling the obviously preposterous position that suicides would be less if there were fewer guns without any citations to that effect. Suicide rates are all over the place - uncorrelated with concealed gun laws. Look it up for yourselves - the rate in Sweden is not much different than in the United States. Further, over 7 years, we're talking about 30 people a year among the million plus concealed permit holders who commit suicide which is actually less than the rate of the USA at large! Stick to the real crux of the argument - does restricting carry save lives or is that a myth - when guns are used in violent incidents. This fascination with suicide is not only statistically very dubious but really weakens the better argument if they are excluded from the study as they should be.
3
Armed students in university classrooms and labs? The faculty will stay home, attempt to conceal where they live, Skype in their classes, and meet in secret off campus only with A students. Who wants to meet one on one with a student who just got a grade he does not like? Another solution: just give everyone an A.
The notion that people legally carrying guns are a "deterrent" only to bad actors is a fantasy. Armed people actually threaten every structure of authority. This is why those who think that "gun rights" trump every argument are rightly called anarchists.
The notion that people legally carrying guns are a "deterrent" only to bad actors is a fantasy. Armed people actually threaten every structure of authority. This is why those who think that "gun rights" trump every argument are rightly called anarchists.
26
The report shows guns used by permitted concealed-carry shooters were used 32 times as often to commit criminal homicides as for justifiable homicides over a five-year period. We need to stop having these heroic fantasies about ourselves. 300 million guns and almost none used to thwart crimes. The "good guy with a gun"? He never seems to be there when you need him.
7
Reading all these pro-gun comments makes me want to move to another country. We, Americans, are under educated, afraid of our own shadow, gun crazy, afraid of datum people. I don't like living here for that reason. But I"m stuck. No other country will take me in. Too old. Seriously, our society is sick. And adding guns to the mix just proves the point, over and over and over.
8
Looking at the actual numbers, almost no one who has a gun has ever used it to harm another human being. Almost no one who has a gun has ever used it to harm themselves. Almost no one who has a gun has accidentally injured themselves or others. Annually, we've got 10k murders involving a firearm. 20k suicides. A few hundred accidental deaths. This is out of 350 million guns in America, with a little less than half the population owning a gun.
You are welcome to move to a place like Japan, for instance, which allows no guns in private hands. However, their suicide rates are much higher than ours. So be careful what you wish for, there are different ways in which a society can be "sick."
But anyway, where did your sense of entitlement come from? What makes you think you were promised a safe and secure world when you were born into it? Violence and criminal behavior is really part and parcel of the history of humankind. You are not guaranteed a risk-free life.
You are welcome to move to a place like Japan, for instance, which allows no guns in private hands. However, their suicide rates are much higher than ours. So be careful what you wish for, there are different ways in which a society can be "sick."
But anyway, where did your sense of entitlement come from? What makes you think you were promised a safe and secure world when you were born into it? Violence and criminal behavior is really part and parcel of the history of humankind. You are not guaranteed a risk-free life.
2
This 'gun' thing starts me thinking. I can imagine 'intelligent' beings from another planet taking a look at earth and seeing everyone killing each other with these primitive death tools. These beings were thinking of communicating with us but as soon as they saw that they just shook their heads turned around and went home.
4
A couple of statistics or the use thereof in this article or its referenced source do need some clarification:
1) Did the 223 suicides by (concealed) firearm occur in public places? Would a concealed carry law have impacted on them? Surely they could not have been prevented by another shooter.
2) The reference source quotes a total of (between 2008 and 20014) 7 justifiable homicides in Illinois, and 35 in Indiana. The two states have similar concealed carry policies, and Illinois has approximately twice the population of Indiana. Something is very wrong here.
1) Did the 223 suicides by (concealed) firearm occur in public places? Would a concealed carry law have impacted on them? Surely they could not have been prevented by another shooter.
2) The reference source quotes a total of (between 2008 and 20014) 7 justifiable homicides in Illinois, and 35 in Indiana. The two states have similar concealed carry policies, and Illinois has approximately twice the population of Indiana. Something is very wrong here.
2
I have gone through the conceal and carry classes in the State of Illinois. While firing my weapon during the competency part of the instructions you are under stress/pressure to accurately hit the target with 21 accurate shots out of 30, with a range of 10, 15 and 25 feet. During the session 4/5 other shooters are firing their weapons too. I noticed that my hands were moist with sweat; despite having ear protection on, the explosions of bullets going off were still quite deafening. Your magazine had to be changed because each distance required 10 shots. Once when attempting to reload, out of the heat of the moment, I put the bullets in backwards and had to reload. My eye goggles were moist which made it difficult to see the target. My point: In the heat of battle, I probably would have been dead. One time I had a weapon on me and was confronted by a group of thugs that surrounded my vehicle. This is several year ago. My gun was in my trunk. I exited my car and the young thugs dispersed. I retrieved my weapon; however, in the heat of the situation forgot to cock the weapon so it could discharge. I've learned a lot from these episodes. Sometimes a weapon can misfire too and leave you loss with what to do especially when you are in a dangerous situation and rushing. It's all scary but you have to do the best you can when our society is so dangerous.
3
It's very simple:
REAL MEN DON'T NEED GUNS! Period.
Offended by how bluntly that is expressed or what it implies? Too bad. There's no time for think skinned political correctness when lives are at stake!!!
REAL MEN DON'T NEED GUNS! Period.
Offended by how bluntly that is expressed or what it implies? Too bad. There's no time for think skinned political correctness when lives are at stake!!!
13
Interesting, since one of the fast growing demographics of gun ownership is women.
1
If politicians are hell bent on allowing concealed weapons anywhere and everywhere, then why do then not allow them in state or federal capitals? What are they afraid of?
11
Since many people know little or nothing about guns, an op-ed piece like this looks convincing. The NYT has lost their way as a reporter of news and merely puts forward their view oft he world. Rather than win a straw man argument it would be more helpful to include opposing views.
6
Yet you offer no facts to refute the editorial. I am very tired of being told I "know nothing" about guns and therefore cannot speak out against them; I know so little because I choose not to own a gun because they are unsafe. That doesn't make my interpretation of facts any less valid.
2
I know a great deal about guns, having grown up in a culture that worships them. Every single male in my immediate and extended family likes guns and likes to shoot them.
This NYT editorial couldn't be more correct and more accurate. If you have "opposing views," why aren't you stating them? Is it because, in reality, your views are laughable nonsense, like most pro-gun rantings, and you know that if you expounded on them you'd look foolish and even less credible?
And, if you DON'T know that, trust me when I say that you clearly WOULD look foolish and even less credible.
This NYT editorial couldn't be more correct and more accurate. If you have "opposing views," why aren't you stating them? Is it because, in reality, your views are laughable nonsense, like most pro-gun rantings, and you know that if you expounded on them you'd look foolish and even less credible?
And, if you DON'T know that, trust me when I say that you clearly WOULD look foolish and even less credible.
7
the opposing views are on tv news and in the newspaper headlines every day. school shootings, police shootings, domestic shootings, accidental shootings, suicide shootings, movie theater shootings, parking lot shootings, church shootings, hate shootings, road rage shootings. those are your "opposing views". you want more of that?
1
Try living without fear.
13
Richard:
A noble idea, however, the gun industry and in particular`, the NRA, thrive on people being afraid.
A noble idea, however, the gun industry and in particular`, the NRA, thrive on people being afraid.
A reasonable start to gun control laws consists of the following ideas.
1) Require liability insurance for each gun: $500 per gun per year
2) Require yearly safety training and re-certification
3) Require comprehensive, universal background checks: No gun until completed
4) Prohibit military assault rifles (AR-15s etc)
5) Prohibit large magazine (more than seven rounds)
6) Prohibit sale of cop-killer bullets
7) Prohibit Internet sales
8) Regulate gun show sales
9) Restrict gun ownership for people who have mental health issues and documented domestic violence complaints
1) Require liability insurance for each gun: $500 per gun per year
2) Require yearly safety training and re-certification
3) Require comprehensive, universal background checks: No gun until completed
4) Prohibit military assault rifles (AR-15s etc)
5) Prohibit large magazine (more than seven rounds)
6) Prohibit sale of cop-killer bullets
7) Prohibit Internet sales
8) Regulate gun show sales
9) Restrict gun ownership for people who have mental health issues and documented domestic violence complaints
24
Yes, but hunters should not pay $500/year for each rifle. The gun control message has to be carefully calibrated with solid support for responsible hunting. Fees for handguns and military grade weapons should be channeled into subsidies for cuddling those citizens who help manage wildlife: sponsor their continued training and insurance liabilities. Also, use fees to sponsor target shooting in regulated facilities. The 9 prohibits and restrictions you propose should be accompanied by 9 benefits to responsible gun users.
10. Create a chain of custody for each weapon from manufacture to current owner, and make each of the previous owners liable (civilly AND criminally) liable for the actions of subsequent owners. This will create an incentive for sellers to be sure they're transferring custody to someone they're confident will preserve their reputation.
4
I think gun liability insurance would be a good idea, but the $500 per gun per year for liability insurance would be considered an infringement on the right to bear arms. It's also excessive. You can buy gun liability insurance policies for as low as $50 to $200 annually, depending on the amount of coverage you want.. It would probably be better to add a $25 charge to the purchase fees that would go into an account to reimburse gun victims for damages.
1
I have seen lives saved by off-duty police officers who used their handguns to stop assaults:
"An off-duty police officer who had just paid for his meal at a diner saw the man hunched over the woman and stabbing her. He confronted the man, and shot him once in the abdomen."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/07shoot.html
I believe that people should have certification and ongoing training to have a concealed handgun.
On the other hand, these restrictions are meaningless if the police are not allowed to search people for weapons (e.g. stop and frisk).
"An off-duty police officer who had just paid for his meal at a diner saw the man hunched over the woman and stabbing her. He confronted the man, and shot him once in the abdomen."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/nyregion/07shoot.html
I believe that people should have certification and ongoing training to have a concealed handgun.
On the other hand, these restrictions are meaningless if the police are not allowed to search people for weapons (e.g. stop and frisk).
1
I am 100% anti-gun ownership by private citizens, yet even to me, this article is laughable. The authors have made such poor use of statistics that I am surprised to see this as an editorial in the New York Times. To start, the authors do not define in any clear sense how they are using the term "conceal carry shootings." We all know that conceal carry, in the typical sense, is the legal and permitted carrying of concealed weapons by an individual who has applied and been granted the necessary permits. I do not believe that is what the article is referring to... which of course weakens the argument being made, as the reader is then led to believe that the authors are using creative statistics to make a predetermined case. This failure to define the term "conceal carry shootings" is the first and most pervasive error in the article, but the biggest failing is that the statistics cited do not make any clear case against gun ownership or conceal carry. If statistics are to be used in this argument, they must be employed with more discretion and expertise than what is displayed here. Please, Editorial Board, do better next time.
2
Thank you for catching that. In 46 states it is a crime to conceal-carry without a permit. Gun owners who ignore laws of their home states by carrying illegally are themselves criminal before a weapon is ever drawn.
Not a fan of conceal and carry, but it would have been useful to indicate how many instances a person with a gun has successfully stopped a criminal in the same span.
1
The Center for Disease Control, in a 2013 study commissioned by President Obama, estimated that defensive gun uses number between several hundred thousand and several million per year in the U.S. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-t...
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-t...
in the article:
"Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor."
"Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor."
21 cases were "self defense." It's not known if there was a lethal threat.
The article also points out that successfully stopping a criminal is a foolhardy and often illegal use of a concealed weapon. You may protect yourself against a lethal threat, but despite what the NRA has you believing the chances of facing a lethal threat are teeny tiny.
The article also points out that successfully stopping a criminal is a foolhardy and often illegal use of a concealed weapon. You may protect yourself against a lethal threat, but despite what the NRA has you believing the chances of facing a lethal threat are teeny tiny.
Personally, I've never quite understood the argument that more guns = a safer world. Safer how? Guns kill. That's their purpose, their only purpose. That alone is a lot of power to thrust upon an individual, while ignorantly thinking that humans are smart, level-headed creatures 100% of the time. The simple fact is, humans are reactionary, emotional creatures. No one can know or predict what one will do given a little bit of power, nor can anyone predict who will be able to be responsible with that power (again, for 100% of the time!) That's naive thinking at best, and a downright dangerous assumption at worst.
Considering we live in a country where anyone who wants a gun can get one, this leads us to the "common sense" (I'm told) argument that having a gun on one's person in the magical solution. While I agree that this tactic significantly ups the chances of being able to successfully fight back, we're still having to deal with a trigger finger who is most likely unstable and incapable of reason at the moment. Even armed, that's a fight I don't think the average citizen could win a majority of the time. Like the article states, most people don't magically become superheroes once armed.
It's true, this tactic increases a potential victim's chances of survival, but it's also increasing the chances of having a gun pulled on you in the first place. That doesn't sound like a solution to me. We can do better to keep our people and children safe.
Considering we live in a country where anyone who wants a gun can get one, this leads us to the "common sense" (I'm told) argument that having a gun on one's person in the magical solution. While I agree that this tactic significantly ups the chances of being able to successfully fight back, we're still having to deal with a trigger finger who is most likely unstable and incapable of reason at the moment. Even armed, that's a fight I don't think the average citizen could win a majority of the time. Like the article states, most people don't magically become superheroes once armed.
It's true, this tactic increases a potential victim's chances of survival, but it's also increasing the chances of having a gun pulled on you in the first place. That doesn't sound like a solution to me. We can do better to keep our people and children safe.
3
You disarm all the criminals first, then we can talk about you taking away the weapons from the lawfully-abiding. That's where the rub is.
I do not disagree with the thesis of this editorial but boy is it badly written. Was this created by a committee or something? Or one of those computer generated essays? I had to read it several times to follow it.
6
I cannot fathom how gun suicides have anything at all to do with "concealed carry ". Particularly in those cases, of which I am sure there are many, where the gun was purchased for the purpose of suicide. Do you suppose the person went through a concealed carry class, obtained a permit, and only then killed himself with it? This is an absurd connection.
People who have previously been certified to carry concealed weapons have a simple, easy means to end their lives if they later suffer from a bout of depression. Some of them would likely not choose a more complicated way of killing themselves if the guns were not so readily available.
The number of gun suicides is far greater than those carried out by individuals with a concealed carry permit. This number represents only those with a permit.
Many studies show increased risk of suicide with a gun in the home, excluding cases where the gun was clearly purchased for the suicide. It's significant with concealed carry gun owners because they clearly intended to use their gun for self protection, else why obtain a permit, and yet ended up taking their own lives.
Many studies show increased risk of suicide with a gun in the home, excluding cases where the gun was clearly purchased for the suicide. It's significant with concealed carry gun owners because they clearly intended to use their gun for self protection, else why obtain a permit, and yet ended up taking their own lives.
the proliferation of guns in america (some 330 million+) creates a climate and expectation of gun violence, including suicide. thank the nra for that.
1
I believe that in the USA, any attempt at a comprehensive gun control law will not pass. Therefore I believe what would help would be a national gun carry permit, that would apply to all 50 states. This way, those of us that can carry legally won't be breaking the law while travelling through states like NY and Illinois. If a thug have to guess if I am armed, then I'm less of a target.
or it puts shooting you and getting another weapon the very first thing the "thug" is going to do.
Apparently you didn't even read this article. You 'legal carry' clowns are a menace to society. Look at the numbers--you are far, far likelier to kill yourself, a loved one, or an innocent than a 'thug'. We need far fewer of you, not more. You are the danger, not the mythic 'thug'.
In a NYT Pick KCY writes: "There thousands of instances, every year, where firearms are used successfully in defense." Are there? I haven't heard about them. If not the NYTimes, surely Fox News and the NRA would have told us about "these thousands of instances," wouldn't they?
But I want to know how many thousands of instances are there, every year, every day, every hour, when a legally owned firearm is used, not by a mentally ill person in a school or theater massacre, or by a criminal thug in a gangland shooting, but by an ordinary citizen--a gun-toting "good guy"-- to kill someone--a family member, a neighbor, an ex-girlfriend--in cold blood? And how many thousands accidental deaths are there every year? I suspect a lot more than in self-defense.
But I want to know how many thousands of instances are there, every year, every day, every hour, when a legally owned firearm is used, not by a mentally ill person in a school or theater massacre, or by a criminal thug in a gangland shooting, but by an ordinary citizen--a gun-toting "good guy"-- to kill someone--a family member, a neighbor, an ex-girlfriend--in cold blood? And how many thousands accidental deaths are there every year? I suspect a lot more than in self-defense.
3
Where did I consent to trust my life to the judgement of random pistol-packing strangers?
21
Since the first time you call(ed) the police.
"Where did I consent to trust my life to the judgement of random pistol-packing strangers?"
When you recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
When you recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
1
The only solution seems to be to ban all firearms, and buy them back from people, until there are no more firearms in the country.
Except, the law abiding people will do so, and the criminals will not. Thus that rule is useless, as the people who will commit a crime with a gun, will not voluntarily turn in theirs.
There is precedent, where governments confiscated all firearms from the citizenship successfully. Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Kim Young Ill, they were successful at it. Maybe out Nobel Peace Prize winner can follow their example. Hopefully not.
Except, the law abiding people will do so, and the criminals will not. Thus that rule is useless, as the people who will commit a crime with a gun, will not voluntarily turn in theirs.
There is precedent, where governments confiscated all firearms from the citizenship successfully. Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Kim Young Ill, they were successful at it. Maybe out Nobel Peace Prize winner can follow their example. Hopefully not.
2
Actually, you're wrong about this idea that dictators removed guns from the populace. Germany had plenty of weapons in the general populace. Russians were armed too, with lots of handguns and rifles in the hands of the masses after the revolution and ciivil war. Mussolini could never disarm the general population, and never would as his was a mass popular movement with lots of support from gun toting types. As for N. Korea, that is another story. The system there is so completely totalitarian that people have government loudspeakers in their homes.
A better example of effective gun control might be Denmark, Japan, or Sweden, but of course these countries are not mass murdering, totalitarian dictatorships, so we won't talk about them.
A better example of effective gun control might be Denmark, Japan, or Sweden, but of course these countries are not mass murdering, totalitarian dictatorships, so we won't talk about them.
1
Yes, there is precedent, in every other civilized country on the planet.
The Bolsheviks, the Fascists and the Nazi were all, before they came to power, a "militia", in a post-war context where almost every guy around was a gun-owning veteran soldier. How do guns = freedom?
Armed resistance to the Soviet regime was extremely important. But guns won't help against a government with the military and police means of the Soviet Union with no checks on their use.
Of course, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, did not disarm their people. They successfully armed almost every single adult male, sent about fourty million of them to fight each other, leading to fourty million of death, mostly civilian. Really, I cannot even begin to fathom by what logic you would imagine that a lack of guns could explain Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.
The Bolsheviks, the Fascists and the Nazi were all, before they came to power, a "militia", in a post-war context where almost every guy around was a gun-owning veteran soldier. How do guns = freedom?
Armed resistance to the Soviet regime was extremely important. But guns won't help against a government with the military and police means of the Soviet Union with no checks on their use.
Of course, Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, did not disarm their people. They successfully armed almost every single adult male, sent about fourty million of them to fight each other, leading to fourty million of death, mostly civilian. Really, I cannot even begin to fathom by what logic you would imagine that a lack of guns could explain Stalin, Mussolini and Hitler.
The citizen and the criminal: this is, generally speaking, a false dichotomy.
The criminal is a citizen until a crime is committed. Especially in the 'hood, guns are initially for "self protection." Then you fall on hard times, into drugs, into domestic violence, into gangs, and now you are a criminal with a gun. Or your teenager steals your gun, and now he is a criminal with a gun.
Even among criminal gangs membership is more fluid than you think. You meet a good girl, you have a baby, you get a decent job, you start college classes at night--a few hundred dollars for turning in that gun you'll never need again seems like a good way to finalize your transformation.
Smugglers and their organized crime partners will always have access to foreign guns, but if the rest of us didn't have any guns at all it would be pretty hard for them to blend in. They'd likely minimize gun usage to avoid excessive law enforcement attention, as they do in the many countries where guns are outlawed. Miraculously, no country has been overrun by crime for banning guns.
The criminal is a citizen until a crime is committed. Especially in the 'hood, guns are initially for "self protection." Then you fall on hard times, into drugs, into domestic violence, into gangs, and now you are a criminal with a gun. Or your teenager steals your gun, and now he is a criminal with a gun.
Even among criminal gangs membership is more fluid than you think. You meet a good girl, you have a baby, you get a decent job, you start college classes at night--a few hundred dollars for turning in that gun you'll never need again seems like a good way to finalize your transformation.
Smugglers and their organized crime partners will always have access to foreign guns, but if the rest of us didn't have any guns at all it would be pretty hard for them to blend in. They'd likely minimize gun usage to avoid excessive law enforcement attention, as they do in the many countries where guns are outlawed. Miraculously, no country has been overrun by crime for banning guns.
10/26/15 My Post
“The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group”
To all open minded readers any time you see a New York Times article using “gun safety” do know that its nothing be a “dog whistle” for “gun control” meant to deceive the gullible with less harsh language.
“The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group”
To all open minded readers any time you see a New York Times article using “gun safety” do know that its nothing be a “dog whistle” for “gun control” meant to deceive the gullible with less harsh language.
@usmcnam1968 nevada
They have been telling you that Obama is coming for your guns since 2008.
When he didn't come the first term, they said he was just waiting for his second term.
His second term will pass and nothing and you won't even remember they spent 7 years selling you fear to get you to buy more guns.
Not so different from that summer of "death panels." There aren't any and never were.
They have been telling you that Obama is coming for your guns since 2008.
When he didn't come the first term, they said he was just waiting for his second term.
His second term will pass and nothing and you won't even remember they spent 7 years selling you fear to get you to buy more guns.
Not so different from that summer of "death panels." There aren't any and never were.
1
This is an "Opinion" article, and you know what they say about opinions, right?
The slant is clear as it is against guns rather than against mental issues that cause deaths by guns.
The slant is clear as it is against guns rather than against mental issues that cause deaths by guns.
2
"....since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator."
Perhaps I missed it, but the linked report didn't reference any of those statistics. Nor could I glean them from the narrative and charts provided. What the report said, is that among property crimes reported far fewer than 1% of the victims was threatened with a firearm; a second sequence of analysis looked at justifiable homicides with a firearm (self defense) against a vast universe of homicides.
I believe the purpose of the study is to show that the premise of the supposedly vast epidemic of armed criminals threatening citizens - bad guys with guns - is wildly exaggerated. A second point is that justifiable homicides with firearms, apparently a proxy for life and death self-defense with a gun, is also a miniscule proportion of the overall universe of homicides - however, in a backhanded way, that supports the concealed carry movement.
I wish the Times would state how they extrapolated data that apparently shows negligent, criminal and self-destructive behavior by legal concealed carriers. That is a startling, though not completely unexpected, revelation, and one that is not referenced in the linked document.
Perhaps I missed it, but the linked report didn't reference any of those statistics. Nor could I glean them from the narrative and charts provided. What the report said, is that among property crimes reported far fewer than 1% of the victims was threatened with a firearm; a second sequence of analysis looked at justifiable homicides with a firearm (self defense) against a vast universe of homicides.
I believe the purpose of the study is to show that the premise of the supposedly vast epidemic of armed criminals threatening citizens - bad guys with guns - is wildly exaggerated. A second point is that justifiable homicides with firearms, apparently a proxy for life and death self-defense with a gun, is also a miniscule proportion of the overall universe of homicides - however, in a backhanded way, that supports the concealed carry movement.
I wish the Times would state how they extrapolated data that apparently shows negligent, criminal and self-destructive behavior by legal concealed carriers. That is a startling, though not completely unexpected, revelation, and one that is not referenced in the linked document.
3
When Brain Dead Communist Apparatchiks tell me something I can be sure the opposite is true.
Appreciate the Confirmation...
Appreciate the Confirmation...
3
You are confusing Anti-Fascists with Communists.
The gun that will kill you is the one you are caryying.
As many times as I've said it and heard it it seems nobody ever listens.
As many times as I've said it and heard it it seems nobody ever listens.
The problem with this discussion is that the left will not permit fact or logic to interfere with its irrational, ideological crusade.
If the absence of guns ended suicides, no one in Japan would ever take his own life, as there are no guns. Curiously, there rate of suicide is substantially higher than ours. Look at Australia’s suicide rate: essentially no difference between that today and that before their infamous gun ban. People who want to kill themselves find a way.
Second, comparison’s between strict and loose jurisdictions are relatively easy: compare NJ, where you need a writ from God to carry with VT, where you don’t even need a by-your-leave. In VT, in any given year, you can count the number of “gun murders” on the fingers of one hand, and still have a bunch of fingers left over. In contrast, Newark, with out 40% of VT’s population, sees that number of “gun murders” on a fairly typical weekend.
Why are guns in VT not a problem, while guns in NJ are? VT is, if anything, just as Blue as NJ. And, yet, statistics show that with 75% or so of the population armed, blood does not run in the streets like it does in Newark. Clearly, some other factor must be in play.
Perhaps THAT would merit some study.
If the absence of guns ended suicides, no one in Japan would ever take his own life, as there are no guns. Curiously, there rate of suicide is substantially higher than ours. Look at Australia’s suicide rate: essentially no difference between that today and that before their infamous gun ban. People who want to kill themselves find a way.
Second, comparison’s between strict and loose jurisdictions are relatively easy: compare NJ, where you need a writ from God to carry with VT, where you don’t even need a by-your-leave. In VT, in any given year, you can count the number of “gun murders” on the fingers of one hand, and still have a bunch of fingers left over. In contrast, Newark, with out 40% of VT’s population, sees that number of “gun murders” on a fairly typical weekend.
Why are guns in VT not a problem, while guns in NJ are? VT is, if anything, just as Blue as NJ. And, yet, statistics show that with 75% or so of the population armed, blood does not run in the streets like it does in Newark. Clearly, some other factor must be in play.
Perhaps THAT would merit some study.
5
Raw numbers such as these do not say anything. Some context is needed but not given. Without context, there is no way to know whether these are higher or lower rates than for either licensed gun owners or for the general population.
What are the numbers per 1,000 concealed carry owners, and how do those numbers compare to (1) the numbers per 1,000 licensed gun owners, and (2) the numbers per 1,000 in the population at large?
What are the numbers per 1,000 concealed carry owners, and how do those numbers compare to (1) the numbers per 1,000 licensed gun owners, and (2) the numbers per 1,000 in the population at large?
2
That's not the point here. The point here is that the majority of Americans currently think that we would be safer if we allowed more concealed carry permits to be issued. Yet when you look at what happens with regards to the people that already have them, they use them to kill others 95 percent of the time. (Actually a bit more but it's overwhelming.) Next you have the fact that the gun lobby doesn't want statistics - including context - tallied. The only reason for that is that they know what the stats would show - these weapons are used to kill the innocent, not to protect them. If would be great if it were otherwise. Personally I'd love to carry a weapon because I'm often very close to the Mexican border very late at night but statistics prove that licensing me on those grounds is simply not a good idea.
I think you missed one of the points being made: the data are not available precisely because the gun lobby has convinced legislators at the state and Federal levels (primarily Republican legislators) that collecting data to study gun related violence should be prohibited. For just about 20 years now Republicans have held funding for DHHS hostage to a provision to prevent the study of gun violence as a public health problem, which it obviously is.
The whole truth by the New York Times about America’s experience with Concealed-Carry doesn’t fit too well with its gun-phobic agenda. The whole truth would have to include the fact that since the inception of very permissive CCW laws none of these laws have been rescinded and in fact they have been greatly liberalized and expanded. Had the dire prognostications made by the New York Times (search their archives) even remotely been correct the tremendous growth in good law abiding Americans legally carrying concealed weapons would have been stopped. One more time stereotyping the many because of the actions of a few is how the New York Times tries to vilify people who never have been and never will be the problem.
5
Would you mind delving deeper into your causation theory? It sounds like you're saying that with more permissive CCW laws, more law abiding Americans carry concealed weapons. That seems about right. The article isn't questioning that, just the notion that carrying a concealed weapon does not make the "carrier" more likely to stop a crime, and provides a readily accessible lethal option for someone set on taking their own life. None of that is really that controversial, wouldn't you agree?
1
G
Not sure what you are getting at here? Of course I has a concealed carry person know that I am much more capable of stopping a crime with my legally carried handgun than without it, surely you don’t doubt that.
As to your suicide question on the scale of what remedies are appropriate and needed I would rate concealed carry so far down the list of concerns as to be almost non existent.
If you can be more specific I will be glad to respond.
Not sure what you are getting at here? Of course I has a concealed carry person know that I am much more capable of stopping a crime with my legally carried handgun than without it, surely you don’t doubt that.
As to your suicide question on the scale of what remedies are appropriate and needed I would rate concealed carry so far down the list of concerns as to be almost non existent.
If you can be more specific I will be glad to respond.
If more guns on the streets really do make us safer, then we shouldn't have 33,000 firearm deaths in this country each year. In fact, with our gun ownership rate, we should be the safest country on earth. The NRA is absolutely positive that lax concealed carry laws make us safer. Where's the proof, folks? And if there was proof, wouldn't they be clamoring for government studies to make their case--and not hampering research on gun violence? Just because you "reason" that it must be true doesn't make it true.
5
Many gun advocates don't seem to acknowledge that a "good guy" can become a "bad guy" in an instant. All it takes is a flash of anger, a fearful overreaction, a momentary lapse in judgment -- things to which none of us is immune.
In such cases, having a weapon can make tragedy far more likely. An angry guy who might otherwise have clenched his fist to fight can now reach for his gun, and thus more decisively put an end to the argument -- and to everything the other guy might have done in his life. There are many responsible gun owners who know this, but the more that gun access is promoted, the more guns will get into the hands of people who have no sense, whether permanently or momentarily. And that scares the hell out of me.
In such cases, having a weapon can make tragedy far more likely. An angry guy who might otherwise have clenched his fist to fight can now reach for his gun, and thus more decisively put an end to the argument -- and to everything the other guy might have done in his life. There are many responsible gun owners who know this, but the more that gun access is promoted, the more guns will get into the hands of people who have no sense, whether permanently or momentarily. And that scares the hell out of me.
20
So.. if its true as you say that a simple "reach for the gun instead of using a clenched fist" is the result of so many guns.. where are the daily "shootouts in the streets" and "Gunfights at the OK Corral" so many anti-CCW proponents claimed we'd see if CCW's were allowed around the country?
Or was that just you venting your fear?
Or was that just you venting your fear?
Huh? All we need to do is take about guns and folks will not commit suicide anymore? Are you really trying to imply that? Simplistic at best, deceptive at worst.
3
@Carl S
Unfortunately, I speak from experience. The other methods of suicide are not instantaneous and the person has a chance to reconsider.
Not so with a gun.
Look up completion rates of different methods.
Very sad for any case, and very hard when it is your loved one.
Unfortunately, I speak from experience. The other methods of suicide are not instantaneous and the person has a chance to reconsider.
Not so with a gun.
Look up completion rates of different methods.
Very sad for any case, and very hard when it is your loved one.
Take a look at the decline in suicide rates in Austrailia since guns were banned.
This important editorial is nearly ruined by the confused writing of the lead paragraphs:
" ...since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense."
Wow, that seems to be great news -- inferring that of the hundreds of thousands killed by guns in the past eight years all but 763 people were killed in shootings that DID involve self-defense.
Obviously that is not the case.
" ...since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense."
Wow, that seems to be great news -- inferring that of the hundreds of thousands killed by guns in the past eight years all but 763 people were killed in shootings that DID involve self-defense.
Obviously that is not the case.
3
Will President Obama, Democrat politicians and the NY Times lead by example and call for the immediate disarming of the body guard armies of the political class, the 1% and celebrities? Will the NT Times make that call its next editorial?
5
The NYT editorial board in summation: "Guns are scary! We hate guns! Let's ban them!"
Trying to legislate personal taste with distorted statistics and lies. How very illiberal of you.
Sincerely,
Rational Non-Owner of Guns
Trying to legislate personal taste with distorted statistics and lies. How very illiberal of you.
Sincerely,
Rational Non-Owner of Guns
6
No one, other than the police and the military, should be allowed to have assault weapons or to have any weapon outside the home except for hunting weapons restricted to three bullets or shells.
1
To achieve your claimed goal that "no one should be allowed to have assault weapons (what do you define as an assault weapon by the way) or any weapon outside the home except for hunting weapons restricted to 3 bullets or shells".... when will you be having the Constitutional Convention to change or eliminate the 2nd Amendment?
I have read the second paragraph of the editorial about concealed carry and I still do not understand it>
Although this editorial is about open carry, the rhetoric in the comments is more about gun control, so as one who does not (or plan to) own a firearm, I will state that I do NOT want to live in a country where only government agents are armed. That is, by definition, a police state. Please think, gun control advocates: is that really what you want?
3
Do you really think you will form a militia to fight the U.S. Army if they "attack" you? You do realize that the U.S. Military budget is that of the next 7 countries COMBINED, right? I'm sorry, but the idea that a group of citizens could band together to withstand a military led conflict and fend them off with AK47s and 9mms is mythical and delusional.
J.R. can you not read? The article is about concealed carry.
The NYTimes reminds me of a very funny scene in a movie about an old cowboy out west in the modern country. As he rides his horse down the side of a barren road, a cop in a car drives slowly behind him and turns on his lights and siren to pull him over. You are just as absurd as that fictional cop. Why do you think everyone with a gun is crazy? Why don't you worry about the city. It's no shooting gallery in the country.
4
I take it you don't watch the local news much? Gun crime is the top story 9 out of 10 nights. More guns, more bloodshed.
I would love to see the NYTimes do research and write an article on how exactly we are to unarm criminals, or those intent on committing crime, as well as those who feel the need to protect and defend against those criminals. Please purpose a solution, rather than just opinion pieces like this one. What is the solution? To do a buy back program? To amend the constitution making guns illegal? To post more Gun Free Zone signs? In an ideal world we wouldn't fear giving up our "right to keep and bear arms." Should we change our laws, or amend our constitution? Rather than tell us what is wrong with gun ownership, please tells us ALL the advantages in making gun ownership illegal! Include in your article, of course, the fact that ONLY criminals will never give up their guns or abide by any laws, new or otherwise.
7
No one wants private citizens to unarm criminals. I don't want, as per the article this article links to, citizens shooting at fleeing criminals (as though they would really know that) when I'm coming out of the local Home Depot, thereby endangering my life over a shot gone wild or a ricocheting bullet.
So far, as this article also seems to support, in my lifetime have I yet to hear about some "hero" with a concealed weapon saving anyone's life, except maybe their own in a clear, I need to defend myself, situation.
The only thing that seems to happen, rather than people saving their own or others' lives, is they manage to shoot a spouse, get themselves shot with their own weapon, or leave it around for some kid to shoot themselves or a friend or a sibling (and in a few cases, shoot them).
I can think of at least two occasions, where I would have shot someone, if I owned a gun, in a fit of anger. I'd be more in fear that I would do it or someone would do it to me if I were to ever allow a gun in my house. Instead, I keep my doors and windows locked, have noisy little dogs, and have an alarm system.
Let the trained professionals do their job.
Thank you Joe Blow but I don't need you shooting up public places.
So far, as this article also seems to support, in my lifetime have I yet to hear about some "hero" with a concealed weapon saving anyone's life, except maybe their own in a clear, I need to defend myself, situation.
The only thing that seems to happen, rather than people saving their own or others' lives, is they manage to shoot a spouse, get themselves shot with their own weapon, or leave it around for some kid to shoot themselves or a friend or a sibling (and in a few cases, shoot them).
I can think of at least two occasions, where I would have shot someone, if I owned a gun, in a fit of anger. I'd be more in fear that I would do it or someone would do it to me if I were to ever allow a gun in my house. Instead, I keep my doors and windows locked, have noisy little dogs, and have an alarm system.
Let the trained professionals do their job.
Thank you Joe Blow but I don't need you shooting up public places.
I don't know how to rid us of guns, but I know how to reduce the number of guns flooding our streets. Better gun legislation would be a good start, rather than just throwing our hands up and saying if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
OK, the lights have come down and the movie begins. You and your legal to carry gun are half way down the theater. You practice at the piston range and can group your shots on that STATIONARY paper target.
During the preview Die Hard XXI you hear shots behind you on your left. All hell breaks out. You and three other guys pull out their legal to carry guns. People are screaming and running and bumping into you. You see the shooter.
CAN YOU TAKE THE HEAD SHOT WITHOUT KILLING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DAUGHTER WHO BEHIND AND 6" TO THE LEFT OF THE SHOOTER. The target ain't paper and it ain't stationary. Your heart rate is 140 or more.
ARE YOU REALLY THAT GOOD?? And if you hit Mary instead of the shooter, what do you think your neighbor will say??
An off duty police officer in plain clothes in the lobby hears the shots. He draws his weapon and enters the theater. He sees two guys, one left one right with guns aimed at the ceiling. He sees you clearly ready to shoot. The shooter has bent down to reload.
From the police officer's point of view who is the shooter? Is there one shooter or more? The officer has a clear head shot at all the guns he sees. Who does he shoot?
Unless you have had a hell of of a lot training in high stress situations and shooting when your veins are full of adrenaline then your just another idiot with a gun. And what's the difference between you and the shooter to the officer?
In the words of Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations."
During the preview Die Hard XXI you hear shots behind you on your left. All hell breaks out. You and three other guys pull out their legal to carry guns. People are screaming and running and bumping into you. You see the shooter.
CAN YOU TAKE THE HEAD SHOT WITHOUT KILLING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DAUGHTER WHO BEHIND AND 6" TO THE LEFT OF THE SHOOTER. The target ain't paper and it ain't stationary. Your heart rate is 140 or more.
ARE YOU REALLY THAT GOOD?? And if you hit Mary instead of the shooter, what do you think your neighbor will say??
An off duty police officer in plain clothes in the lobby hears the shots. He draws his weapon and enters the theater. He sees two guys, one left one right with guns aimed at the ceiling. He sees you clearly ready to shoot. The shooter has bent down to reload.
From the police officer's point of view who is the shooter? Is there one shooter or more? The officer has a clear head shot at all the guns he sees. Who does he shoot?
Unless you have had a hell of of a lot training in high stress situations and shooting when your veins are full of adrenaline then your just another idiot with a gun. And what's the difference between you and the shooter to the officer?
In the words of Dirty Harry, "A man's got to know his limitations."
21
Olive
A nice list of all that could go wrong, any chance you left out anything that could go right. Of course there is but to enumerate things that could go right would run contrary to the sprit of New York Times reporting about guns. A quick check of the FBI’s uniform crime report shows a very large number of positive defensive gun uses but don’t let anything like the facts cloud you opinion. “A mans got to know his limitations” and the same is true for a woman.
A nice list of all that could go wrong, any chance you left out anything that could go right. Of course there is but to enumerate things that could go right would run contrary to the sprit of New York Times reporting about guns. A quick check of the FBI’s uniform crime report shows a very large number of positive defensive gun uses but don’t let anything like the facts cloud you opinion. “A mans got to know his limitations” and the same is true for a woman.
As a gun owner and avid competitor in long range rifle competitions, I marvel through sometimes clenched jaws at the lack of intellectual sophistication evident in the campaign, primarily by the NRA, for concealed carry ideals. Responsible gun owners -- hunters and competitive shooters alike -- see the logic of the concealed carry campaign as something that is surely making Aristotle writhe in his crypt. Until I'm on the firing line, prepared to shoot a match, my guns are always concealed --either in high quality, tamper-proof locked cases en route or in entry-proof steel safes in my shop at home.
12
If you think most people are going to be persuaded by data, you, too, are living in a dream world.
1
I was robbed at gunpoint in Atlanta, in a decent area called Buckhead, leaving a client dinner at 11.30pm. I never saw it coming. Two guys suddenly hop out of a car and both aim their guns at my head, take my briefcase, wallet, money, cell phone even my pocket change. All took 30 seconds. If I had tried to pull a gun from a holster I would not be typing this today.
13
Yeah, but the gun fetishists would have another story of great heroism to tell.
Clearly Catch 22, you're crazy to carry a concealed weapon and thusly only nut cases do. Armed and dangerous by neurotics, psychotics and run-of-the-mill idiots.
9
How do you think the NRA would react to an attempt to restrict the buying and carrying of guns to smart people? We just had a kid shot--thankfully not killed--apparently by someone hunting in woods next to a school football field. I've got other stories--and some cited in the editorial--of tragedies that appear to be the result of armed dumb people. What if you had to submit your SAT scores, high school GPA, or an IQ test score to buy a gun? We'd have to do a little research to decide where to set the cutting score. (For the people I would like to disarm, this is written in irony.)
1
My brothers, both ex-military and one also trained additionally as he was an INS agent, were "playing" with the former INS agent's gun. When I saw him looking down the barrel of the darn thing, I went into the bedroom and lay on the floor. I figured he'd either blow own head off, his brother's, or the shot would have a chance of going through several walls and killing me, hence, lining on the floor.
Then when the trained idiot, decided he would go in his backyard and shoot, I reminded him that though his yard fronted a wooden area, since this was, after all, a residential area, he had no way of knowing if kids were walking around back there or where the closest house was and perhaps it wasn't a good idea to shoot the thing off.
Get a guy with a gun and apparently all commonsense goes out the window.
Then when the trained idiot, decided he would go in his backyard and shoot, I reminded him that though his yard fronted a wooden area, since this was, after all, a residential area, he had no way of knowing if kids were walking around back there or where the closest house was and perhaps it wasn't a good idea to shoot the thing off.
Get a guy with a gun and apparently all commonsense goes out the window.
This is the question I ask gun proponents - do you want a world in which people are expected to carry guns to the supermarket, to the movies, to school, to church?
If you don't want such a world, then make public places safer by making it tougher for criminals to get guns. We can do that with stricter gun control laws, despite the naysayers.
However, I think a fair number of gun proponents actually want a world where people carry guns everywhere. These are the people who are the biggest danger to a safe, civil society.
If you don't want such a world, then make public places safer by making it tougher for criminals to get guns. We can do that with stricter gun control laws, despite the naysayers.
However, I think a fair number of gun proponents actually want a world where people carry guns everywhere. These are the people who are the biggest danger to a safe, civil society.
8
The Violence Policy Center has beeh highly criticized for fabricating numbers and biasing statistics. There are numerous incidences where concealed weapons holders have stopped a shooter by simply drawing a weapon. The NYT should do its own research before writing critical editorials rather than relying on unsubstantiated reports from biased sources.
1
I reviewed the report you referenced and believe the matter is more nuanced than your editorial suggests. For example, you point out that a significant number of gun murders involved individuals killing themselves or others, not for self-defense. Your editorial implies that these murders would not have occurred, if guns were not available. That’s probably incorrect. An individual who wants to commit suicide or kill a family member may simply opt for a different route if a gun was unavailable. Similarly, it is hard to deduce from the data what might have happened if more individuals were able to protect themselves from criminal attacks.
Overall, your assertions may be correct, but it strikes me that you have tried to paint a picture of certainty when the data you selected may not justify such confidence.
Overall, your assertions may be correct, but it strikes me that you have tried to paint a picture of certainty when the data you selected may not justify such confidence.
1
How many of these were heat of the moment? It only takes a second in a heated moment to pull out your weapon and shoot someone. I guess the guy who shot at the car last week in a road rage incident and killed a little girl could have run over to the moving vehicle and stabbed the tires.
Sorry, a gun is too quick, much too easy, and too convenient and then add the fact that it makes people feel powerful and you have a too often deadly combo.
Sorry, a gun is too quick, much too easy, and too convenient and then add the fact that it makes people feel powerful and you have a too often deadly combo.
Concealed carry and family relationships. During a heated exchange with my Tea Party sister - in my aged father's living room - my sister suddenly said: "I have a license to carry a concealed weapon."
My response: "Well, you don't have it on now, do you?" She never answered.
I neither own a gun, nor would I buy one. But my sister's assertion stunned me! Indeed, I was left wondering exactly what she meant. Was it a threat? Or what?
All I can say is that if someone, no matter how close to you (she was about 60 at the time), tells you they are or could be carrying a concealed weapon, it is impossible to trust them after such a statement.
The knowledge that someone could be "carrying" a deadly weapon, a concealed weapon, pretty much stops a conversation. And a relationship.
I am opposed to guns in the hands of civilians. I am pretty much a pacifist, though I understand the need to defend a country.
The threat of a concealed handgun did nort prompt me to go out and buy one. But it did convince me to stay FAR from a gun-toting woman, someone I had held as a baby when I was in first grade. But likely someone I will never hold again.
My response: "Well, you don't have it on now, do you?" She never answered.
I neither own a gun, nor would I buy one. But my sister's assertion stunned me! Indeed, I was left wondering exactly what she meant. Was it a threat? Or what?
All I can say is that if someone, no matter how close to you (she was about 60 at the time), tells you they are or could be carrying a concealed weapon, it is impossible to trust them after such a statement.
The knowledge that someone could be "carrying" a deadly weapon, a concealed weapon, pretty much stops a conversation. And a relationship.
I am opposed to guns in the hands of civilians. I am pretty much a pacifist, though I understand the need to defend a country.
The threat of a concealed handgun did nort prompt me to go out and buy one. But it did convince me to stay FAR from a gun-toting woman, someone I had held as a baby when I was in first grade. But likely someone I will never hold again.
17
"...state legislatures, bowing to the gun lobby, invite more citizens to venture out naïvely with firearms in more and more public places, including restaurants, churches and schools."
How many of those state legislatures permit weapons of any kind to be carried into their buildings or chambers? Wouldn't gun-carrying citizens be additional security in state leaders' workplaces? Why are they so afraid of a "good guy with a gun?"
How many of those state legislatures permit weapons of any kind to be carried into their buildings or chambers? Wouldn't gun-carrying citizens be additional security in state leaders' workplaces? Why are they so afraid of a "good guy with a gun?"
9
I suppose the number one requirement for self-appointed armed guardians is that they are accurate shooters. The problem is that most people, even well trained police officers, are not. Michael Slager shot Walter Scott 8 times at fairly close range. He hit him 5 times.
More to the point, a survey of shootings by the NYPD found that only a third of firearm discharges by police hit their target. At less than 6 feet from their target, the accuracy is only 43%.
See - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?pagewanted=all
So look out when Joe-Citizen beings shooting at the food court or darkened movie theater. Better to go to gun show (most prohibit patrons to enter with firearms). ..or football game, six flags, baseball game etc.
More to the point, a survey of shootings by the NYPD found that only a third of firearm discharges by police hit their target. At less than 6 feet from their target, the accuracy is only 43%.
See - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/09/weekinreview/09baker.html?pagewanted=all
So look out when Joe-Citizen beings shooting at the food court or darkened movie theater. Better to go to gun show (most prohibit patrons to enter with firearms). ..or football game, six flags, baseball game etc.
4
The Guardian paper in England has a very accurate count of death.
1
Another conservative/libertarian/Republican gift to America to go along with failed conservative economics, science denial, glib, insouciant dismissal of global warming, roll-back of voting access, neglect of the infrastructure that made the country, ...
The list keeps expanding.
I guess next up is sovereign default.
The list keeps expanding.
I guess next up is sovereign default.
6
KCY says there are "Thousands of instances" where guns have been used in self defense and saved lives. Unfortunately for KCY that does not meet the smell test but is the mantra of the lunatics who run the NRA. It is alo why the NRA and state gun whackos do not want a legitimate study done. Having said that, because there is no CDC study of gun related injury and death that deals with cause and solutions, we do not know what the most effective solutions would be. And for the record, we hear from the gun lobby that all that needs to be done is to prevent the mentally ill from getting guns. But at least here in Montana they have passed a law that says a physician who is seeing a patient who may be depressed, suicidal, or express behavior of concern (maybe a mass murder), is forbidden to ask about guns in the house and forbidden to report! Hypocrisy anyone??
4
It sure is entertaining to read the communist articles and comments here on the NYT. Keep up the funny work.
4
If more guns meant less gun violence, why do we have so much gun violence? - quoted from RichfromRockyHill
So wanting to end mass shootings is communist?
1
I'm so glad I moved to Colombia... The psychotic angry faces you see everywhere in the US and the neverending drone of gun violence you hear in whichever city you've been in (I've lived i Boston, Chicago, NY, SF, Seattle, Miami, etc.) are basically non-existent down here. Once you step outside the US border you realize how pathetic we've become, maybe we always have been (genocide of 12 million indigenous people being our way of starting the american nightmare, i mean dream.... Have fun with the violent psychos...
5
Bradford, perhaps you missed La Violencia in Columbia. For decades Columbia had the most intentional homicides of anywhere in the world. Many of these were accomplished with indiscriminate bombings-mainly car bombs-that killed adults and children that happened to be a little to close to the detonation. I agree that the illegal gun violence in our inner cities is a problem-how about we address that directly instead of going after the hundred million or more law abiding gun owners. You would be surprised how many murderers are released in under a decade and are walking the streets in our gang infested neighborhoods in places like Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, and Washington D.C.
Umm....I'd recommend checking Colombia's murder rate before you become TOO self-righteous. (Hint: It's much higher than the United States).
I am not a proponent of the 'conceal/carry" law & I appreciate this article and the studies to back it up. I also like President Obama's recent push to have federal oversight of gun laws to they are consistent across the US. As he noted, this oversight will fill the gaps that exist across state lines.
2
But we need access to every type of gun to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government. It says so in the 2nd amendment, written over 200 years ago. Doesn't matter that 200 years later the government has nuclear weapons, drones, fighter jets - heck, your local town might own a Bearcat - "protection against government tyranny" is why you need as many AR-15s as you can buy.
2
by your logic, Free Speech does not apply to the internet, or any broadcast media that didn't exist 200 years ago
NYT complains the data that went in to the study were incomplete because a few gullible states under the influence of the gun lobby don't provide complete statistics.
A quick page-turn of the study showed 205 justifiable homicides by firearms in Texas over a five year period. 0 (zero) justifiable homicides in New York.
New Yorkers are so law-abiding that no one ever needs to defend him/herself against a threat to one's life by a criminal? Really?
FBI statistics (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the... show the rate of violent crime for the two states as being roughly comparable.
I wonder why the disparity in justifiable homicides. Could it be the state of New York doesn't collect/report that data?
The fact that the number not merely a low number, but is ZERO probably answers the question.
A quick page-turn of the study showed 205 justifiable homicides by firearms in Texas over a five year period. 0 (zero) justifiable homicides in New York.
New Yorkers are so law-abiding that no one ever needs to defend him/herself against a threat to one's life by a criminal? Really?
FBI statistics (https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the... show the rate of violent crime for the two states as being roughly comparable.
I wonder why the disparity in justifiable homicides. Could it be the state of New York doesn't collect/report that data?
The fact that the number not merely a low number, but is ZERO probably answers the question.
3
In Texas it is justifiable homicide to take an assault rifle out of the trunk and shoot the "escort" he'd hired for the night, when she didn't give him what he wanted, for his $200.
People. You are being rational about guns. Guns and the people who demand their use are not operating in a rational state of mind. Don't address the guns. Address the generalized fear and anxiety that makes them attractive.
1
Wow! If these numbers are correct then as much as 1% of all handgun murders in this country may have been committed by people with conceal carry permits. We've got to do something about this.
I recently visited a US state that allows anyone to carry weapons. I was in a college town at home coming, and I really worried about all of those drinking students and alums pouring out of the stadium, either elated or disturbed over a win or loss, and the potential for violence. Bad enough to be dealing with the traffic and the hot-rod yahoos after a college game, but if all of them are also armed? To a visitor that's just plain crazy!
4
and nothing bad happened, even with all those guns. Childish fears much?
It's all about money making. The gun industry is booming and the gun makers ultimately do not care about who buys their guns, as long as they are sold and a profit is made. So they will resist gun control to the utmost, because that impedes their ability to fully maximize profits, and masquerade behind the "right to bear arms" mantra. The NRA goes hand in hand, because they want to freely buy whatever guns they choose, ranging from small arms to high powered military grade assault weapons.
When debating an issue with a party, you have to understand their true hidden intentions and then expose them for it. The opposition to gun control will always cite their own version of statistics and dismiss others are being faulty or "not representative". Naturally, they declare the "GOOD GUYS" with a weapon as assets, without addressing how many "BAD GUYS" will own them as well.
We need to FULLY INVALIDATE the obsolete premise that people have the right to own guns without restrictions. Driving is a privilege that requires vetting of the operator. Gun ownership should be also considered a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT, and have even more careful control asserted. But how can that be achieved with this massive resistance at hand??
When debating an issue with a party, you have to understand their true hidden intentions and then expose them for it. The opposition to gun control will always cite their own version of statistics and dismiss others are being faulty or "not representative". Naturally, they declare the "GOOD GUYS" with a weapon as assets, without addressing how many "BAD GUYS" will own them as well.
We need to FULLY INVALIDATE the obsolete premise that people have the right to own guns without restrictions. Driving is a privilege that requires vetting of the operator. Gun ownership should be also considered a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT, and have even more careful control asserted. But how can that be achieved with this massive resistance at hand??
1
Actually studies have concluded that the gun crime rate of permit holders is about the same as police officers. The vast majority of gun crime however, is committed by illegal weapons or criminals without the right to possess a gun.
Suicide is a big issue. So big that if you remove them from gun death stats the number of gun death victims drops precipitously. All that said, the bottom line is that our constitution grants citizens the right to arm themselves, and the chances of amending the constitution to remove that right has absolutely no chance of passing. There are plenty of gun crime issues worthy of close scrutiny, but concealed carry isn't one of them.
Suicide is a big issue. So big that if you remove them from gun death stats the number of gun death victims drops precipitously. All that said, the bottom line is that our constitution grants citizens the right to arm themselves, and the chances of amending the constitution to remove that right has absolutely no chance of passing. There are plenty of gun crime issues worthy of close scrutiny, but concealed carry isn't one of them.
4
The "study" prepared by anti- gun extremists, says that many thousands of gun homicides occur each year by criminals. Once in a while an honest citizen protects themselves or others with a gun. And there are a lot of suicides.
Earth shattering, that.
Time to stop the war on guns.
Earth shattering, that.
Time to stop the war on guns.
4
There is no "war on guns." Quite the opposite.
Since Newtown, a few states have passed strong gun control laws. However the overwhelming majority of gun laws over the past decade has been to loosen restrictions on who can buy a gun and where they can be carried.
The extremists are on the pro-gun side. Like the so-called Freedom Caucus in Congress, they refuse any discussion about guns, refuse to allow gun violence to be studied, and refuse to face reality. It's pathetic.
Since Newtown, a few states have passed strong gun control laws. However the overwhelming majority of gun laws over the past decade has been to loosen restrictions on who can buy a gun and where they can be carried.
The extremists are on the pro-gun side. Like the so-called Freedom Caucus in Congress, they refuse any discussion about guns, refuse to allow gun violence to be studied, and refuse to face reality. It's pathetic.
None of the individuals in these mass killing had the chance to defend themselves. The study acknowledges that at least 250 carriers killed felon in the course of a crime, but makes no mention of the hundreds of stories in media about carriers or home owners who scared or apprehended felons with killing them. It goes without saying that these mass shooters would have killed fewer people if a carrier had been in the vicinity. The study doesn't stop the bad guys from having guns so the killing by crook (primarily of other crook) cant be included in any numbers,. There is nothing scientific about this study.
You know, I don't even trust that other motorists are going to be paying attention to their driving. I think that their frequent inattention (texting while driving for example) is in complete disregard to public safety. Why would I trust these bozos with a gun?
8
And the myth of gun-toting cowboys is just that, a myth. Many western towns, like Dodge City, adopted strict laws whereby you had to check your 6-shooters in with the sheriff when you came into town. Couldn't bring them into bars or anywhere else in town. So, they had stricter gun laws in many cities of the Old West than we have in this country now. How ironic!
2
People should have the "right to choose." Let them carry a concealed weapon if they choose. If they choose not to then so be it.
We must protect the "right to choose."
We must protect the "right to choose."
3
Ah HA! Sixth grade logic, hard at work.
So women must then have a right to choose, correct?
So essentially you based your conclusions on incomplete stories;unverified sources and hearsay?
The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, is necessarily incomplete because the gun lobby has been so successful in persuading gullible state and national legislators that concealed carry is essential to public safety, thus blocking the extensive data collection that should be mandatory for an obvious and severe public health problem. For that reason, the center has been forced to rely largely on news accounts and limited data in 38 states and the District of Columbia.
I really thought you were taught NOT to do that in first quarter Journalism? But then :Liberals twist facts and lie to fit their political dogma.
The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, is necessarily incomplete because the gun lobby has been so successful in persuading gullible state and national legislators that concealed carry is essential to public safety, thus blocking the extensive data collection that should be mandatory for an obvious and severe public health problem. For that reason, the center has been forced to rely largely on news accounts and limited data in 38 states and the District of Columbia.
I really thought you were taught NOT to do that in first quarter Journalism? But then :Liberals twist facts and lie to fit their political dogma.
1
Examples of "twisting facts to suit an agenda": our elective war in Iraq, climate science denial, and most efforts to inject firearms into our lives. The last is facilitated by obstruction of ANY research into the health and safety issues surrounded lung it...forcing conclusions to be drawn from inadequate research. Solution? Stop the obstruction.
The Times Editorial Board is looking at this F.B.I. report in too negative a fashion. The good news is that guns are an effective way of killing people. The bad news is that they mostly kill too many of the wrong people. Which one you want to emphasize shows your bias. I'm taking the positive approach here.
Your links simply do not back up your claims.
The 'research project' that you cite does not back up your statement that "at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense", at least not as having involved a weapon, legally carried by a concealed carry permit holder.
Further, your link to the "29 mass shootings" shows very clearly that a lot of these people did not in fact hold a CCW permit and many were sold firearms by licensed dealers because the FBI background check failed to turn up information that should have prevented them buying weapons.
In short, you are lying in order to further your political agenda.
I guess that says a lot more about you than about the typical CCW permit holder.
The 'research project' that you cite does not back up your statement that "at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense", at least not as having involved a weapon, legally carried by a concealed carry permit holder.
Further, your link to the "29 mass shootings" shows very clearly that a lot of these people did not in fact hold a CCW permit and many were sold firearms by licensed dealers because the FBI background check failed to turn up information that should have prevented them buying weapons.
In short, you are lying in order to further your political agenda.
I guess that says a lot more about you than about the typical CCW permit holder.
1
The Violence Policy Center's mission, according to its web site, is to eliminate all guns being owned by citizens. Essentially it wants to abolish the Second Amendment. Gullible? That is what The Times readers are if they believe a word of the article. I'll carry, and be one of the people that will be able to defend myself. The dishonesty of The Times knows no bounds.
3
From whom are you defending yourself? Why are you so paranoid you carry a lethal weapon? Why do you hurt inside so badly?
1
We can solve the gun problem very easily: teach gun lore, and have firing ranges in school. Start the kids in kindergarten so we can have a well regulated militia of trained gun fighters by high school graduation and we'll have the safest country in the world. Have the army become part of our Board of Education. Now, why didn't anyone think of this before? Wayne La Pierre, your asleep at the helm.
1
What should be done is showing the result of gun violence. Sort of like we were shown the consequence of speeding with a real, very dead, teenager who had lost control of his motorbike and hit a lamp-post. It wasn't pretty.
The point about suicides is pointless. If someone wants to off themselves they will find a way, limiting access to guns will not change how they feel.
1
I'm concerned that my grandchildren may need to attend college in another country just to avoid being shot.
2
I am not certain if Corey Jones, the musician recently shot and killed by a police officer alongside a Florida highway, had a concealed carry permit or not. Either way, his tragic death illustrates all too well the fallacy that carrying a gun protects you. Mr. Jones' car had broken down at night and he was on the shoulder waiting for a tow truck. Someone pulls up in an unmarked car, gets out and walks purposefully straight toward Mr. Jones. He is wearing civilian clothes. He may or may not have identified himself immediately as an officer. Let's say he did. Put yourself in Mr. Jones' shoes. You are sitting vulnerable on the side of the road. You have a split second to decide whether to believe him. In that split second Mr. Jones decided to pick up the pistol he had in his car.
Mr. Jones was doing what gun-rights advocates believe a citizen should do when he feels threatened. But at that point communication between the two men failed.
It happened that the officer shot first. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened had Mr. Jones fired first. Would a prosecutor, or a jury, have believed he acted reasonably in fear of his safety? Conversely, there is a good chance the officer in this case will be found to have acted in self-defense -- and under the facts, that may be the right decision. Had Mr. Jones not had a gun, he would be alive today, and the officer would not be coping with having killed an innocent citizen.
Mr. Jones was doing what gun-rights advocates believe a citizen should do when he feels threatened. But at that point communication between the two men failed.
It happened that the officer shot first. It is interesting to speculate what would have happened had Mr. Jones fired first. Would a prosecutor, or a jury, have believed he acted reasonably in fear of his safety? Conversely, there is a good chance the officer in this case will be found to have acted in self-defense -- and under the facts, that may be the right decision. Had Mr. Jones not had a gun, he would be alive today, and the officer would not be coping with having killed an innocent citizen.
10
Why would you be suspicious of someone stopping to help you?
In Colorado a person needs a Gun Safety Certificate/Card to get a hunting license. It seems there should be something similar in order to purchase gun. In other words the animals might be safer than the people.
1
I have nightmares about being in the bank when a gun carrying criminal decides to rub a cashier. My nightmare? That two or three "concealed carry" nut jobs
will spring into action and I'll be caught in the crossfire.
will spring into action and I'll be caught in the crossfire.
4
So, it's the "nut jobs" legally carrying firearms that haunt your nightmares and not the gunman robbing a bank filled with innocent people. Right on!
1
For the record, I grew up in a house with guns. The guns were used for hunting and target shooting. I didn't hunt, but got to be a fair shot with pistol and rifle at local competitions. The guns were transported to the field or the range in locked cases, in the locked trunk of the car. At home, they were kept in a locked cabinet in the basement. The first consideration when the guns were out was safety. The guns were not loaded until you were ready to shoot at the target, or until you had reached your deer stand. The safety was kept on until you were ready to shoot and you were sure of what you were going to shoot at.
In my younger days, I hung around in some fairly rough places. Arguments were not unusual and fights were not all that uncommon. Not once did I see a situation where I wished someone had a gun. Many, many times we all breathed a sigh of relief that no one had one. I saw many heated arguments between friends who, an hour later were buying each other drinks. What if one of them had been carrying?
Not long ago, there was an incident where a gunman was robbing a drugstore. Another customer pulled a .38 and shot the robber. One slug hit him in the upper arm, the other in the leg. This defender of society was probably less than 20 feet away, and his shots landed some three feet apart. At that range, a six-inch group would be pretty sloppy shooting. I doubt if our hero took the time to see what or who was beyond the shooter.
Some stuff to think about.
In my younger days, I hung around in some fairly rough places. Arguments were not unusual and fights were not all that uncommon. Not once did I see a situation where I wished someone had a gun. Many, many times we all breathed a sigh of relief that no one had one. I saw many heated arguments between friends who, an hour later were buying each other drinks. What if one of them had been carrying?
Not long ago, there was an incident where a gunman was robbing a drugstore. Another customer pulled a .38 and shot the robber. One slug hit him in the upper arm, the other in the leg. This defender of society was probably less than 20 feet away, and his shots landed some three feet apart. At that range, a six-inch group would be pretty sloppy shooting. I doubt if our hero took the time to see what or who was beyond the shooter.
Some stuff to think about.
6
You can reason all you want with gun lovers; you'll never convince a single one.
1
These statistics won't matter one little bit to the gun nuts. They are determined to go back to the days of the old West, when everyone was armed all the time. Nothing will persuade them otherwise, and we certainly can't rely on any politician to help change it. So, regardless of how many weirdos are out the with guns in their cars, their backpacks, their purses, their brief cases, or their pockets we will continue to live in a country where people who are drunk, high, crazy, angry, mentally ill or otherwise scary are armed 24/7. And, as these statistics point out, the nuts are shooting people pretty regularly. The NRA has the answer, though. Training and education. Good idea--that way, the drunk, angry, high, crazy, mentally ill or otherwise scary will presumably hit their targets more frequently.
Oh well. It's the life we've created and the country we've decided we want our children to grow up in (if they're not shot first), so what's the point of editorials? Write about something that matters, like Donald Trump's hair. That's what people care about.
Oh well. It's the life we've created and the country we've decided we want our children to grow up in (if they're not shot first), so what's the point of editorials? Write about something that matters, like Donald Trump's hair. That's what people care about.
More lies from the gun hating left. I carry every day. Nobody is going to take that right away from me - it's called the Second Amendment. Feel free to post your liberal fantasies about "well regulated" because you have no idea what it even means. More Guns = Less Crime. Read the real statistics, not those provided by a gun control group. In every state where CWP's have been granted, crime has dropped. Period.
2
So we are stuck between having no guns or having everyone carry a gun. Talk about extremism. The debate is nonsensical and both sides trot out numbers and anecdotes with little common sense.
Thanks for nothing.
Thanks for nothing.
One aspect of the gun issue that everyone seems to forget is that the 2nd amendment was written to allow citizens to fight back against an oppressive government in case our democracy went awry. Remember that democracy was a new and untried form of government that was a reaction to the tyrannies of autocratic rule in Europe. So, if George decides to be king and take over the land we can rise to arms. That was the primary motivation.
If our government decides to shut down democracy and declare martial law, they will have to have the cooperation and support of our military. Very unlikely, but if it did, a few million normal citizens with handguns are not going to stop them. Then those few thousands of idiots who own automatic an semi-automatic assault weapons will be the first to die.
So, the rationale for owning guns is fully bogus-pretense. Men, mostly men, like guns---I like guns. But, open carry, concealed carry, any carry is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no valid rationale for it other than boys like their toys. That is the only upside to unrestricted, uncontrolled gun ownership.
The downside is painfully obvious and has been for some time. It far outweighs the upside, yet we continue to debate it and somehow the rationale, sensible view always loses. It's crazy. I know people in Texas who can hardly wait for January 1, 2016 when open carry goes into effect---even in schools. It's crazy, like I said.
Still, it's America and it's not going to change.
If our government decides to shut down democracy and declare martial law, they will have to have the cooperation and support of our military. Very unlikely, but if it did, a few million normal citizens with handguns are not going to stop them. Then those few thousands of idiots who own automatic an semi-automatic assault weapons will be the first to die.
So, the rationale for owning guns is fully bogus-pretense. Men, mostly men, like guns---I like guns. But, open carry, concealed carry, any carry is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no valid rationale for it other than boys like their toys. That is the only upside to unrestricted, uncontrolled gun ownership.
The downside is painfully obvious and has been for some time. It far outweighs the upside, yet we continue to debate it and somehow the rationale, sensible view always loses. It's crazy. I know people in Texas who can hardly wait for January 1, 2016 when open carry goes into effect---even in schools. It's crazy, like I said.
Still, it's America and it's not going to change.
1
Dirty Harry Wannabes ...
I happen to have five friends (that I know of) who are concealed carry advocates and practitioners (two merely keep their weapons in their automobile glove compartments. They are all over 65, are financially successful, four are very accomplished sportspersons, and they all sincerely believe Wayne LaPierre's -- and apparently Ben Carson's -- nonsense about the world being a safer place if we all "carried." For sure, my friends are LaPierre's "good guys."
What I wish is that every one of these concealed carry advocates had to pass the following test to qualify for carrying their weapons:
For a week they will pack a paintball version of their firearm of choice. Then, almost as Inspector Clouseau had his Cato, they will bump into a nice lady -- say someone like Ronda Rousey (remember it's just a test) -- who is intent on taking their money, or their car, or harming their companion ... something like that. Let's say that if they successfully use their faux concealed weapon once in five tries, they get their license.
My friends, skilled sportspersons that they are, would be on the ground, face down, with their paintguns sticking out of their butts before they could finish announcing "Make my day!" ... and five times out of five.
What a country!
I happen to have five friends (that I know of) who are concealed carry advocates and practitioners (two merely keep their weapons in their automobile glove compartments. They are all over 65, are financially successful, four are very accomplished sportspersons, and they all sincerely believe Wayne LaPierre's -- and apparently Ben Carson's -- nonsense about the world being a safer place if we all "carried." For sure, my friends are LaPierre's "good guys."
What I wish is that every one of these concealed carry advocates had to pass the following test to qualify for carrying their weapons:
For a week they will pack a paintball version of their firearm of choice. Then, almost as Inspector Clouseau had his Cato, they will bump into a nice lady -- say someone like Ronda Rousey (remember it's just a test) -- who is intent on taking their money, or their car, or harming their companion ... something like that. Let's say that if they successfully use their faux concealed weapon once in five tries, they get their license.
My friends, skilled sportspersons that they are, would be on the ground, face down, with their paintguns sticking out of their butts before they could finish announcing "Make my day!" ... and five times out of five.
What a country!
1
If anyone believes that the gun lobby actually thinks guns make us safer, why does the NRA, et al, work tirelessly to prevent anyone from gathering statistics on gun violence? Obviously, those who oppose data gathering know the answer is that guns make us less safe and they need to hide that information from the public.
1
Once again the Editorial Board reveals its true nature - opinion not reportage. Where is the data on guns successfully used by armed citizens in their defense? Until we know the whole of this issue, its very hard to get on board.
On including suicide data - why? This seems a much more complicated subject.
The New York Times has been beating this same anti gun drum for decades. I get controversy sells newspapers. But progress towards smart effective gun regulation won't happen till we lose the emotion, the same old arguments, and simplistic solutions. Its time for serious research and unbiased reporting.
On including suicide data - why? This seems a much more complicated subject.
The New York Times has been beating this same anti gun drum for decades. I get controversy sells newspapers. But progress towards smart effective gun regulation won't happen till we lose the emotion, the same old arguments, and simplistic solutions. Its time for serious research and unbiased reporting.
3
@TR
Notice how the Editors remain silent about deaths from alcohol:
"Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink."
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
or about drug use (including synthetic marijuana?
Notice how the Editors remain silent about deaths from alcohol:
"Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink."
http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm
or about drug use (including synthetic marijuana?
1
Many states have "stand your ground' laws that make it perfectly legal for anyone to brandish a weapon, including those who are dillusional with paranoid schizoprenia. Was George Zimmerman really innocent of killing Trayvon Martin as he took the law into his own trigger finger?
1
I think the idea of people going around with guns is a good one. We could give them special training, screen them for mental and physical issues, we could even pay them and give them nice pensions to lose if they go astray. I've even come up with a name for them : we could call them policemen.
2
There is a structural flaw in this research:
The tally of instances when someone is harmed or killed by a gun requires, obviously, that the gun be fired.
However, the presence of a weapon in law-abiding hands often inhibits violence without the gun's being discharged. The research here doesn't count those instances.
You can find many stories like that here: https://www.facebook.com/ArmedCitizens.
These stories come from a variety of sources, they describe a variety of circumstances, and they're all subject to debate and deconstruction. The significance of my sharing this link is that they're stories other media ignore completely, denying you the chance to evaluate and argue about them. have a look.
The tally of instances when someone is harmed or killed by a gun requires, obviously, that the gun be fired.
However, the presence of a weapon in law-abiding hands often inhibits violence without the gun's being discharged. The research here doesn't count those instances.
You can find many stories like that here: https://www.facebook.com/ArmedCitizens.
These stories come from a variety of sources, they describe a variety of circumstances, and they're all subject to debate and deconstruction. The significance of my sharing this link is that they're stories other media ignore completely, denying you the chance to evaluate and argue about them. have a look.
2
It will probably take a ling time for the 2nd amendment to be overturned, rewritten or otherwise be nullified by a different interpretation by the Supreme Court. Enough talk - let us begin today.
I applaud you for your tenacity on this issue and hope that you will continue to state facts about this deadly epidemic that is a part of our "exceptional" country. In truth, however, we have an electorate that believes that a deranged brain surgeon would make a good president. We also have a lobby so strong that it is literally killing off Americans. The myths about concealed carry and that only the mentally ill kill need to be conquered with facts, not idiocy. Why aren't those congressman who do not accept NRA blood money rated in the same public way as the ones that do?
1
The arguments presented in this editorial do not change anyone's mind about gun ownership. Individuals who want to own guns see the risk of gun ownership as merely statistical and inapplicable to them. They believe that they have the ability to responsibly control whether and how the weapon is used, and they believe that there is at least some possibility that the weapon might prevent their own harm. So on a risk-reward basis, in the minds of these individuals, there is no downside to owning a gun. Nothing will change these people's minds. They need to be outvoted.
2
Many good posts here exposing the NRA's and their followers fallacy on guns.
A majority of us do not want guns to be confiscated. All we ask is a background
check prior to purchasing and proper licensing. The gun culture is killing this country. Perhaps along with suing gun manufacturers and dealers, the NRA should be sued as well as a partner in this insanity.
A majority of us do not want guns to be confiscated. All we ask is a background
check prior to purchasing and proper licensing. The gun culture is killing this country. Perhaps along with suing gun manufacturers and dealers, the NRA should be sued as well as a partner in this insanity.
Lets forget for the moment that the stats reported here are fatally flawed by the admission of the author. I guess the position is that only criminals should be allowed concealed carry, since obviously they ignore the laws anyway.
1
This reminds me of how, when people learn martial arts, they are statistically much more likely to get into fights and be injured/killed than the general public. One would think that having a form of self defense would protect you, but it actually makes you more likely to pursue danger because you think you can handle it.
Facts don't matter to the NRA and its gun-peddling partners. The concealed carry hero is a theological belief.
The callous response would be that suicides outweigh the harm to other people, and so it's some kind of self-regulating behavior. But no, suicides are still devastating and we can blame Wayne LaPierre for those too.
The callous response would be that suicides outweigh the harm to other people, and so it's some kind of self-regulating behavior. But no, suicides are still devastating and we can blame Wayne LaPierre for those too.
"...the gun lobby has been so successful in persuading gullible state and national legislators that concealed carry is essential to public safety..."
This is why I can't stand liberals. Talk down to us more, you can't. If this is how you are going to talk about this issue, by belittling people, then I am not going to take it seriously.
This is why I can't stand liberals. Talk down to us more, you can't. If this is how you are going to talk about this issue, by belittling people, then I am not going to take it seriously.
ALL liberals, huh? What a small-minded excuse. Retreating from discussing an issue because you feel offended by a small segment of a political party is cutting your own nose off to spite your face. One could easily respond with a similarly ridiculous statement like "This is why I can't stand conservatives. They retreat from meaningful discussions and ignore valid data unless it serves their purposes." It adds nothing to the conversation.
I think it's telling; we are the only country that has a debate about gun control. Other, older and saner countries don't have horrifying re-runs of the bloodshed and mass shootings found in America.
Of the 33,000 deaths in the US caused by guns, 22,000 were suicides, leaving about 11,000 gun deaths a year, a bit over 1% of all deaths. Mass shootings, in schools, theaters etc. is about 1% of all gun deaths/year. Urban areas are more affected than rural areas. Criminals die of guns more than the rest of us. Armed robberies are 120,000 per year.
So a guy pulls a gun on you in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood, or breaks into your house with a gun, you have 1 chance in ten of getting killed, and 9 chances out of 10 loosing property, not getting killed. What happens if you go for your gun? That is what everyone wants to know. Maybe the shooter doesn't have bullets, or maybe he can't shoot straight, so you may have an advantage if your gun is under your pillow or up your sleeve so you can get it quick, or maybe not.
I watch the movies too, and I never understood, why the cop goes around a corner and the shooter and he are gun to gun not shooting. What is the deterrent there? The bad guy should just shoot, bang, why wait, or the cop should just shoot, bang, why wait. I think that that the deterrent advocates are watching too many movies.
What if a guy breaks into your house, you get your gun, and when you get a shot you take it, bang, the guy is dead, a 16 year old, how do you feel about that?
To quote TS Eliot. "between the thought and the action, falls the shadow"
So a guy pulls a gun on you in the middle of the night in a bad neighborhood, or breaks into your house with a gun, you have 1 chance in ten of getting killed, and 9 chances out of 10 loosing property, not getting killed. What happens if you go for your gun? That is what everyone wants to know. Maybe the shooter doesn't have bullets, or maybe he can't shoot straight, so you may have an advantage if your gun is under your pillow or up your sleeve so you can get it quick, or maybe not.
I watch the movies too, and I never understood, why the cop goes around a corner and the shooter and he are gun to gun not shooting. What is the deterrent there? The bad guy should just shoot, bang, why wait, or the cop should just shoot, bang, why wait. I think that that the deterrent advocates are watching too many movies.
What if a guy breaks into your house, you get your gun, and when you get a shot you take it, bang, the guy is dead, a 16 year old, how do you feel about that?
To quote TS Eliot. "between the thought and the action, falls the shadow"
1
Here's a comment I read that runs counter to the prevailing views in the comments:
"Nearly everyone I know who carries a gun declared that on at least one occasion, he/she averted trouble and avoided be victimized by drawing his/her gun. None of these people say they have ever had to fire it, but were certain they avoided harm by having it..."
I marvel that I've lived in this country for seven decades and have never seen anyone "draw a gun" nor have I ever wished I had one handy for self-defense, nor do I know anyone who used a gun (or just drew one) for self-defense. I know a few people who have been confronted by robbers, but no one got hurt, even if the robber was armed. So you wonder about people who know a lot of other people who carry guns and have a history of drawing them for self defense. What alternative universe do they live in where the potential for gun play is so great?
"Nearly everyone I know who carries a gun declared that on at least one occasion, he/she averted trouble and avoided be victimized by drawing his/her gun. None of these people say they have ever had to fire it, but were certain they avoided harm by having it..."
I marvel that I've lived in this country for seven decades and have never seen anyone "draw a gun" nor have I ever wished I had one handy for self-defense, nor do I know anyone who used a gun (or just drew one) for self-defense. I know a few people who have been confronted by robbers, but no one got hurt, even if the robber was armed. So you wonder about people who know a lot of other people who carry guns and have a history of drawing them for self defense. What alternative universe do they live in where the potential for gun play is so great?
1
I'm convinced that the "Hero-with-a-gun" fantasy is a form of mental illness. The recent actions of the armed citizen who decided that fleeing a Home Depot with a basket of goods is a Death-Penalty offense is a perfect example.
If I'm in the fast-food joint and someone decides to rob it, the LAST thing I want is some lunatic hero with a gun and a pre-scripted speech for his televised medal-award ceremony stepping up to "save the day."
If I'm in the fast-food joint and someone decides to rob it, the LAST thing I want is some lunatic hero with a gun and a pre-scripted speech for his televised medal-award ceremony stepping up to "save the day."
1
I have never seen a gun in public with the exception of a police officers side arm. I have never seen a civilian stop a crime with a gun. I have never witnessed a violent crime by someone using a gun. I know that medical mistakes account for 400k or more deaths per year. (http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/deaths-by-medical-mistakes-hit-reco...
Forget guns and the NRA. Doctors are the real killers.
Forget guns and the NRA. Doctors are the real killers.
1
Sadly, the problem is the dim intelligence and lack of discernment of the American electorate, coupled with the NRA's marketing that lulls them into a righteous but specious belief in and defense of the anachronistic but utterly absurd 2nd Amendment. Witness the mother of one of the Oregon's victims who is in favor of open carry and guns on campuses.
If i were in a public place where some insane person started shooting at random, i would want a gun to defend myself and my wife/kids. Wouldn't you?
No. Id want to get my family away from the lunacy ASAP.
There are always anecdotal stories about how some lucky person shot or avoided being shot by a bad guy with a gun.
If you were in the military, you know that shooting every day or so is required to keep your skills high enough to be accurate with a handgun, especially. Read gun advocate sites and see that many owners report shooting hundreds of rounds each week to keep in top form.
If you have a permit to carry a gun, you should also be required to practice using it. Well, that's silly, right? You can get a license to drive an 8000 pound truck with little or no training, so what is the difference between not knowing how to control your vehicle and not being able to use your gun? So a few people die? So what? You be the MAN, dude!
Nevermind. Fire away!
If you were in the military, you know that shooting every day or so is required to keep your skills high enough to be accurate with a handgun, especially. Read gun advocate sites and see that many owners report shooting hundreds of rounds each week to keep in top form.
If you have a permit to carry a gun, you should also be required to practice using it. Well, that's silly, right? You can get a license to drive an 8000 pound truck with little or no training, so what is the difference between not knowing how to control your vehicle and not being able to use your gun? So a few people die? So what? You be the MAN, dude!
Nevermind. Fire away!
These people exist & can potentially cause us great harm if they continue to infect the minds of the gullible or gain public office / power through election. They are ignorant, self righteous & dangerous for society. When they attempt to sway public opinion against individuals God-given right to self defense they should be countered & defeated at every opportunity. Heroism is a trait not a tool & we should be thankful it exists for it has saved many a life & will continue to despite the opinions of fools that write this hogwash.
A gun is a tool. Like any other tool you own, you must learn how to lawfully acquire and store it, how to properly maintain it, operate it, transport it and carry it. Criminals do not care about any of those items. They don't assume you have a gun. They don't want you to have a concealed gun. If you have a gun, and are trained in its use, you will react and hopefully put a stop to the killers rampage before many people die before the blue shirts arrive and start taking notes on how many people got killed. Having a concealed carry is not a guarantee that you will survive a mass shooting encounter I will add, and if your are brave enough to challenge a mass shooter, you may end up losing your life to them, as you will probably be outgunned. Policemen are report takers. Their presence is a deterrent only. If a rapist breaks into your home, intent on raping you and your children repeatedly while your husband is away on business, I hope you have a firearm and are trained to use it to stop the abuse before it happens. Think for yourself. Make your own decisions. Manage risk they way you feel most comfortable. The founders wanted that for us. Live your life the way you want to, with impeding on life, liberty or pursuit of happiness of others. I am allowed to protect my life, liberty and happiness. It is my God given right. If I choose to own a tool it is my right and responsibility to learn how to use it so I am effective and accurate in that defense.
2
The 2nd Amendment gives everyone the right to carry a musket - no more, no less.
3
If they are part of a well regulated militia.
Muskets for all ! But only as long as they are members in good standing "of a well regulated militia".
Let's ignore the distortions of the first amendment that justify carrying guns and focus on the real issue. People should not be allowed to carry guns in public as a matter of public health. If you want guns in your house that's fine, keep them there or transport them to the gun range the old-fashioned way - unloaded with ammunition in a locked container separate from the guns. Anyone who has seen a 'normal' person lose their temper is aware of the folly of carrying deadly weapons. There should be traffic stops that check for weapons as well as checking for DUI. Which begs the question - are more people killed with guns in the US or by drunk drivers. Anyone? Bueller?
1
It must be nice to either be rich and famous and have someone else carry a gun for your protection. Or you could be one of the politically elite and have your protection payed for by we the people.
But as police stand down more and more in the face of criticism and as more criminally minded people are allowed to roam our streets, average citizens are being forced to chose whether to protect themselves and their families or just become another statistic.
It is ashamed that it has come to this but the bottom line is that if you are not prepared to defend yourself then you can rest assured that no one else is going to do it for you.
But as police stand down more and more in the face of criticism and as more criminally minded people are allowed to roam our streets, average citizens are being forced to chose whether to protect themselves and their families or just become another statistic.
It is ashamed that it has come to this but the bottom line is that if you are not prepared to defend yourself then you can rest assured that no one else is going to do it for you.
Do you have statistics regarding the increase in street crime?
A properly trained, adequate police force would provide better protection than an armed individual without training. Someone, not properly trained, with a gun shooting at the Colorado shooter in a dark theater would most likely have added to the casualties.
In rural areas, where police are not at the ready, presents a different matter.
A properly trained, adequate police force would provide better protection than an armed individual without training. Someone, not properly trained, with a gun shooting at the Colorado shooter in a dark theater would most likely have added to the casualties.
In rural areas, where police are not at the ready, presents a different matter.
Read the article: "there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor."
Let me say that year after year, decade after decade, the problem only gets
worse, with no solution in sight about guns.
I'm not advocating violence. I'm just being ironic, in that the only way to handle "gun lovers" is to shoot them.
worse, with no solution in sight about guns.
I'm not advocating violence. I'm just being ironic, in that the only way to handle "gun lovers" is to shoot them.
The murder numbers from firearms from the FBI's website:
2009 - 9,199; 2010 - 8,874; 2011 - 8,653; <b>2012 - 8,897</B>; 2013 - 8,454.
For the last 5 years, except 2012, the numbers of deaths from firearms has fallen. Spreading misinformation is at the root cause of this issue. Let me say you should be ashamed of yourself.
2009 - 9,199; 2010 - 8,874; 2011 - 8,653; <b>2012 - 8,897</B>; 2013 - 8,454.
For the last 5 years, except 2012, the numbers of deaths from firearms has fallen. Spreading misinformation is at the root cause of this issue. Let me say you should be ashamed of yourself.
A gun free society is a goal of many and the government and the proponents will do anything including things undemocratic to achieve what they perceive their holy mission. Yes or No?
1
The editorial board should venture outside of New York City. Their view is wrong, detrimental, and clearly not in the majority. If American's really wanted to get rid of guns, it would have happened already. Stop using any type of gun violence to detract from the real issue - mental health.
2
It's called America's cultural gun sickness. A term widely used in Europe who does not suffer from it. It is just starting to be understood here after yrs of gun death carnage just like we tolerated drunk driving, unsafe driving, cigs, etc.
I think that it is great the many of our congresspeople, representatives and other legislators have found a reliable source of income in NRA funds. And, really, what's a couple of thousand extra deaths per year? Nothing. After all, we are a nation of 310 million people. Surely another 5, 10 or 30,000 extra deaths are just a blip in the statistics.
You want action?
1. Don't re-elect legislators who oppose gun control... and be very vocal about it. Make sure everyone knows that you will vote for legislators who favor gun control.
2. Actively volunteer and work for gun control legislators and/or organizations.
3. If you are in a business and someone with open carry comes in, leave, make sure that the manager knows why you are leaving and then take the time to write a paper letter to the CEO and every member of the board of that business.
4. If you are in a restaurant, don't tip, and make sure that the waiter knows that you are not tipping because management allowed open carry people inside.
In other words, take grown up action.
I am sure that 99% of those reading this will find 2,452 excuses why they are NOT going to follow any of those steps: too much work, afraid of making their opinion public, don't want to antagonize X, Y or Z person... but, if you don't take active grown-up steps to curb something that you see as a problem, you can't complain.
You want action?
1. Don't re-elect legislators who oppose gun control... and be very vocal about it. Make sure everyone knows that you will vote for legislators who favor gun control.
2. Actively volunteer and work for gun control legislators and/or organizations.
3. If you are in a business and someone with open carry comes in, leave, make sure that the manager knows why you are leaving and then take the time to write a paper letter to the CEO and every member of the board of that business.
4. If you are in a restaurant, don't tip, and make sure that the waiter knows that you are not tipping because management allowed open carry people inside.
In other words, take grown up action.
I am sure that 99% of those reading this will find 2,452 excuses why they are NOT going to follow any of those steps: too much work, afraid of making their opinion public, don't want to antagonize X, Y or Z person... but, if you don't take active grown-up steps to curb something that you see as a problem, you can't complain.
1
By this same logic, the tragic toll of unrelenting slaughter in the name of religion, from the dawn of recorded history to the present, should empty all churches of their followers. Good luck with that. People will believe what they want to believe. Many (if not most) "beliefs" are fact-proof.
1
So, repeal the first two phrases of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Then the 2nd Amendment won't apply to the States, and each State, as originally Framed and Intended, can enact its own laws.
I can picture the gun lobby watching John Wayne movies and looking forward to our country becoming "the Old West" again.
Can't these people cling to something else?
2
The Quran? The Bible?
More guns means more gun violence. Period.
2
You do not want to commit a crime in Nevada. Just about everyone here (except me) has a gun. if you use a gun to defend yourself in your home the police do not bother you. Prosecutors pass on these cases. Frankly I feel more secure knowing that honest citizens have guns and the appropriate concealed gun permits. Just never commit a crime with a gun in a casino. OJ Simpson did and is serving many years in prison.
2
You really need to go to the NRA's website to get the whole story.. just joking. The run a series called the ARMED CITIZEN, http://www.americas1stfreedom.org/the-armed-citizen/, where the profile legal shootings. The first article I read described how 9 people were able to defend themselves using firearms. Of course, 6 of these incidents involved shooting dogs that were attacking. If you look thru the series of postings, it looks like the list about 1 "good shooting" per week. It would take some time to analyze their listings as some incidents posted that are 30+ years old.
One final comment - We really need to push for an analysis of the gun related deaths in the US and determine how effective gun ownership is at preventing crime and a "takeover of the USA by our government." We are now forced to register our motorcycles, cars, planes, boats, houses, air travel and soon our hobby drones, but we can't seem to register the guns in this country or even get a back ground check (which are required for air travel, a pilots license, your home mortgage and in most cases your job).
One final comment - We really need to push for an analysis of the gun related deaths in the US and determine how effective gun ownership is at preventing crime and a "takeover of the USA by our government." We are now forced to register our motorcycles, cars, planes, boats, houses, air travel and soon our hobby drones, but we can't seem to register the guns in this country or even get a back ground check (which are required for air travel, a pilots license, your home mortgage and in most cases your job).
2
The NRA wants open carry, 24/7, everywhere. Its "guns on demand" mantra is the reason it opposes gun control.
1
Years ago in the Wild West, long before gun control, some towns began requiring depositing hand guns with the local authorities while in towns. Because too many people, all carrying guns caused too many shootings and shooting deaths.
We've been there. It hasn't worked.
I am NOT against guns. But - the owners need to be well and properly trained, licensed, insured and the guns ballistic characteristics registered.
Pilots need to be certified every year. So should gun owners. And some (many?) places need to have zero guns. And most places should have the ability to say "not here".
We've been there. It hasn't worked.
I am NOT against guns. But - the owners need to be well and properly trained, licensed, insured and the guns ballistic characteristics registered.
Pilots need to be certified every year. So should gun owners. And some (many?) places need to have zero guns. And most places should have the ability to say "not here".
3
Wow, I'm actually amazed 56% of Americans think we'd be safer if more people carried concealed weapons. I imagine a situation like the Aurora theater shooting where not only the shooter has a weapon, but many in the theater also have guns. Do those theater-goers get lucky and take down the shooter without any other casualties? Or do they cause mass chaos such that when the police arrive they have no idea who the bad guy is and who the good guys are? The un-armed theater-goers are then ducking not just bullets from one weapon, but from many.
The other troubling issue is how the "stand your ground" laws intertwine with vigilantes like those firing shots at shoplifters. If a vigilante shots a shoplifter (or some other alleged criminal), does the vigilante have a lower standard of behavior than a police officer carrying a weapon? That to me is quite frightening.
The other troubling issue is how the "stand your ground" laws intertwine with vigilantes like those firing shots at shoplifters. If a vigilante shots a shoplifter (or some other alleged criminal), does the vigilante have a lower standard of behavior than a police officer carrying a weapon? That to me is quite frightening.
4
I live in Albuquerque, that's why I carry. And I travel alone, your opinion could stand more factual data.
3
They shoot mentally ill old men and 4 year old girls to death in Albuquerque.
I own several guns. They spend most of the time in a locked gun safe lag bolted to two walls and the floor. I am sixty-five. I have never felt the need to carry a gun concealed or otherwise. Very few people indeed have any legitimate reason to carry a gun away from their own home or farm or similar property except for licensed hunters when hunting or to go to a shooting range. This concealed carry mania for the general public is trumped-up, NRA-fueled madness.
3
When my grandson ran for class president, I have him a campaign idea: put little glass windowed cubby holes along the halls with a hammer to "break glass in emergency." In each cubby would be a loaded pistol. That would surely make the kids a lot safer.
I don't actually understand it, but he won the election without taking my idea. Shows you haw stupid kids are.
I don't actually understand it, but he won the election without taking my idea. Shows you haw stupid kids are.
1
Keep making rational arguments for gun control...but just remember that the opposing arguments are irrational: the fantasy of the superhero, fear of the "other", the freedom to be afraid, the ascendancy of property (the gun) over people. Be careful - the irrational are armed and afraid...not a good combination.
1
All the numbers quoted don't come close to the nearly 2 million incidents per year where a firearm was used to defend a person of someone else. Sometimes the weapon wasn;t even shown just hinted at to make a would be assailant move on.
I train people to use firearms. My biggest growth has been women who have come to the realization that because of late marrying and higher divorce rates will probably be a lone a large part of their lives. They've decided to take responsibility for themselves.
The next largest new group is senior citizens who are being preyed upon by younger folks.
Two years ago a neighbor two block down was followed home from the store and mugged in his driveway. His girlfriend saw it and pulled a 38 Special revolver out and killed one assailant and wounded the other. Four months ago an 83 year old woman was car jacked at the store. The assailant knocked her down and broke her hip. A store employee tried to help but was beaten up, bitten and finally run over and had his leg broken. Two minths ago a man was climbing into an elderly woman's house through a window. He refused so she pulled her 38 Special out from under her wheelchair blanket and shot and killed him.
Any one curious for more of these can check out the magazines, Ist Freedom or American Rifleman and find a 1/2 dozen more of these defense stories every month.
I train people to use firearms. My biggest growth has been women who have come to the realization that because of late marrying and higher divorce rates will probably be a lone a large part of their lives. They've decided to take responsibility for themselves.
The next largest new group is senior citizens who are being preyed upon by younger folks.
Two years ago a neighbor two block down was followed home from the store and mugged in his driveway. His girlfriend saw it and pulled a 38 Special revolver out and killed one assailant and wounded the other. Four months ago an 83 year old woman was car jacked at the store. The assailant knocked her down and broke her hip. A store employee tried to help but was beaten up, bitten and finally run over and had his leg broken. Two minths ago a man was climbing into an elderly woman's house through a window. He refused so she pulled her 38 Special out from under her wheelchair blanket and shot and killed him.
Any one curious for more of these can check out the magazines, Ist Freedom or American Rifleman and find a 1/2 dozen more of these defense stories every month.
2
None other than Vermont has the most liberal gun laws in the country. And which state, year after year has one of the lowest, if not the lowest gun murder rate? That's right, Vermont. Perhaps the Violence Policy Center should investigate why Vermont's liberal gun laws are working.
1
There are some gun owners that believe they would be able to stop a crime by using their own firearm. I wonder how many of these gun owners have ever shot another person? Had someone shooting at them? I believe that even if a gun owner was able to pull out their pistol and shoot, they would probably miss. It is much harder than most of think it is.
1
Yes Arthur I have. One thing I will assure you of if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in a situation where someone is trying to kill you or your loved ones and that is the one thought that will not cross your mind is “gee I am glad this murderer is the only one who has a gun” --- think about it Arthur
Carrying a gun around makes about as much sense as carrying around a can of gasoline or other volatile liquid capable of exploding unintended or otherwise at the least perturbence.
2
Victims of gun crime are mostly black and poor. Because we'd have to make too many sacrifices to substantially reduce poverty, we attack gun violence with outrage. Outrage is free.
Gun owners do not read research --- they are common sense Americans who believe that carrying a loaded weapon around is not only safe, but puts them in the position of being the next Captain America.
2
I have read through enough comments to glean that most here are anti-gun. Too bad our Constitution has that pesky 2nd Amendment. I conceal carry - and have done so safely and without incident for 2 years. I do not look forward to a time when I must have to use it - but I (like most CCW people I know) train for such a time. I take it seriously. And I will help defend myself or anyone else within my power if such a time arises. This is America; land of the diverse. If you don't like guns, don't buy them - but if you think outlawing guns will make the general population safer, then we need only to look at anything else that has been outlawed to make us safer. What about murder? Heroin, meth and crack? How many NYT readers think "Oh, I would like to commit murder but there's a law against that ... so ..."? The real truth is that I feel safer when I carry - and in a world which grows ever more violent, I demand that right!
1
Wow, I wonder at the moral universe someone inhabits that thinks murder is outlawed in order to make us safer. I'm pretty sure that murder is outlawed because it is anti-social, immoral behavior, not unlike secretly carrying guns intended to harm others. Do you also, in this ever more violent world, demand the right! to shoot others that you perceive to be a harm to society?
1
Okay, we're never going to rid ourselves of guns. Period. But can't we, shouldn't we at least regulate them? And with all the technology we have invented, couldn't we, shouldn't we track them? Wouldn't it be of great value if we knew the chain of custody of weapons used in crimes? Who knows, maybe one of Wayne LaPierre's own guns was used in a mass killing. We don't know, and neither does he. But we should.
2
If you carry a gun you have to be prepared to shoot first if you encounter someone with a gun, or you could be dead. Right or wrong about a threat you have to shoot first.
I don't carry a gun, but I was held up at gunpoint. I'm sure glad I didn't have a gun because, instead of the ten seconds where I gave up all my money, it could have ended up a bloody mess with one or both of us dead.
I don't carry a gun, but I was held up at gunpoint. I'm sure glad I didn't have a gun because, instead of the ten seconds where I gave up all my money, it could have ended up a bloody mess with one or both of us dead.
2
Concealed carry = homicidal lunacy.
5
Concealed carry cowards are taking pot shots at shoplifters? Where has that been reported?
2
The link in the article for "research project" is incorrect. If you go to
http://www.vpc.org/press/concealed-carry-permit-holders-threaten-public-...
you will find the correct VPC report.
http://www.vpc.org/press/concealed-carry-permit-holders-threaten-public-...
you will find the correct VPC report.
1
Approximately 3,000 citizens died on 9/11, since 9/11 more than 400,000 Americans have died from firearms, do the math 14 years times 30,000 to 32,000 gun deaths per year more than 400,000 human deaths from all causes, whether they are from accidents, homicide, suicide etc. they are all human deaths from guns, can we consider ourselves civilized in America.
4
There is just no question that gun-owners FEEL safer when they carry a gun. The fact that they AREN'T safer makes no difference to them.
5
For years I have wondered that maybe I could have stopped a tragedy if only I had been armed when I saw the first plane outside any usual flight path and flying so low. I know for certain I could have stopped the second one. But alas I didn't apply for a concealed carry permit because anti aircraft missiles are illegal to posses despite my second amendment right to bear arms. I could have saved thousands of lives...
4
A concealed weapon beats waiting for help to arrive IF victims have time or opportunity to call for help that is !
Most armed violent criminals are afraid of potential victims being able to defend themselves es with deadly force so that justifies carrying concealed weapons !
In today's dangerous society where people are being shot and stabbed at increasing regularity across America having a concealed firearm is the only assurance of some form of protection because perpetrators are usually long gone by the time cops arrive !
Most armed violent criminals are afraid of potential victims being able to defend themselves es with deadly force so that justifies carrying concealed weapons !
In today's dangerous society where people are being shot and stabbed at increasing regularity across America having a concealed firearm is the only assurance of some form of protection because perpetrators are usually long gone by the time cops arrive !
2
Your second paragraph absolutely makes no sense! Why would an armed violent criminal be afraid that you were able to defend yourself if your weapon is concealed? Wouldn't it make more sense to have your six-shooter strapped to your hips like gunmen of old? Or maybe clearly visible in a bandolier across your chest like those scary bandoleros in the Westerns? Or better yet, wear it in a helmet on top of your head where it is most visible of all. Armed violent criminals will cross to the other side of the street when they see you coming.
1
Simply from a legal point of view C and C makes no sense. If I point a gun at someone and they reach for their gun and I shoot him, cannot I not then plead self-defense? Without witnesses, and only the word of the shooter, it is possible easily to get away with murder. Simply knowing that other people might have guns makes the shooter more likely to open fire. The one who lives tells the tale.
2
The NRA is an advocacy group/advertising agency for the gun manufacturers. It exists for no other reason than to help move product for Colt, Smith & Wesson, et al. Period, full stop, end of story.
I think very soon your tourism industry is going to suffer, if it hasn't already, as more and more people from countries with civilized gun laws choose to avoid travel in the USA. It is becoming too dangerous and unpredictable. Americans might think they are safer with concealed carry laws but nobody else does.
1
Guns are designed to kill. That is a simple fact.
When you have a lot of guns in the hands of the public, some will use them for their intended purpose out of anger, fear, or maliciousness. Some deaths will be the result of accidental use. Some will use guns for their intended purpose on themselves. There are statistical probabilities for all of these events.
We can try to keep guns from those who obviously should not have them. But there is a percentage of people who should not have guns AFTER they get them. There is a percentage of people who are perfectly sane when they get their guns, but become unstable afterwards. There is a percentage of people who will get caught up in the moment and use their guns without thinking. How do you catch those?
We know what the statistics are: When you have 300,000,000 guns on the streets, you will have 30,000 guns deaths per year. You will have a mass shooting every week. The only way to reduce the number of deaths, statistically, is to reduce the number of guns.
This is not politics. This is not the Second Amendment. This not even rocket science. This is pure, statistical math.
When you have a lot of guns in the hands of the public, some will use them for their intended purpose out of anger, fear, or maliciousness. Some deaths will be the result of accidental use. Some will use guns for their intended purpose on themselves. There are statistical probabilities for all of these events.
We can try to keep guns from those who obviously should not have them. But there is a percentage of people who should not have guns AFTER they get them. There is a percentage of people who are perfectly sane when they get their guns, but become unstable afterwards. There is a percentage of people who will get caught up in the moment and use their guns without thinking. How do you catch those?
We know what the statistics are: When you have 300,000,000 guns on the streets, you will have 30,000 guns deaths per year. You will have a mass shooting every week. The only way to reduce the number of deaths, statistically, is to reduce the number of guns.
This is not politics. This is not the Second Amendment. This not even rocket science. This is pure, statistical math.
Once upon a time, the National Rifle Association was a small organization for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, and proper training in handling of firearms. No more: they wanted to become the armed auxiliary of the Republican Party, not to mention a cheerleader for arms manufacturers.
The last thing we need in the United States is an armed auxiliary to political parties. Unfortunately, most Americans are totally ignorant of 20th-century European history, and today's GOP wants to keep them that way in their pursuit of power based on lies and mass ignorance.
The last thing we need in the United States is an armed auxiliary to political parties. Unfortunately, most Americans are totally ignorant of 20th-century European history, and today's GOP wants to keep them that way in their pursuit of power based on lies and mass ignorance.
1
The CDC and NIH started to study, wants a study and needs a study as to causes and possible prevention. Why did congress outlaw them to do so? They may shed some light on this problem.
Curtis Reeves kills a man, shooting through the hand of his wife, over texting in a theatre.
Michael Dunn kills a teenager and sprays a van with 6 others inside, over loud music.
John Spooner killed a 13 year old boy on the sidewalk ...
on and on it goes -- they were legal gun owners -- angry people with guns.
Michael Dunn kills a teenager and sprays a van with 6 others inside, over loud music.
John Spooner killed a 13 year old boy on the sidewalk ...
on and on it goes -- they were legal gun owners -- angry people with guns.
1
Cliven Bundy openly carried his gun while threatening law enforcement into the exalted realm of conservative evangelical Tea Confederate Fox News Republican iconic American hero status while white male and evading military service.
Tamir Rice was playing with a toy gun in a park while a black boy before being shot to death without mercy.
Tamir Rice was playing with a toy gun in a park while a black boy before being shot to death without mercy.
The John Wayne fantasy is alive and well in the minds of those who think the world is a safer place when everybody is carrying a gun. In this fantasy the good guy shoots it our with the bad guy --and wins. In the real world good guys get killed too.
Americans looove the idea of going all Bruce Willis and stopping criminals with a gun. Guess what: if you shoot your gun in public at a non-violent criminal, you are now a criminal. And if you miss the shoplifter and hit a kid waiting for a bus...?
Way to self-fulfill your prophecy.
Way to self-fulfill your prophecy.
1
Was the information here not worthy of the front page?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: REAL LIFE IS NOT A TV SHOW OR MOVIE.
Too many people seem to think that they are qualified to march into a dangerous situation with a gun because they've watched John Wayne movies or cop shows on TV. By this logic, I would be able to defend myself if I were on trial because one of my favorite movies is "12 Angry Men" and I've watched a lot of "Law and Order."
This is not only reckless, it's delusional and insane.
Too many people seem to think that they are qualified to march into a dangerous situation with a gun because they've watched John Wayne movies or cop shows on TV. By this logic, I would be able to defend myself if I were on trial because one of my favorite movies is "12 Angry Men" and I've watched a lot of "Law and Order."
This is not only reckless, it's delusional and insane.
“And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a man carrying a gun to enter into the kingdom of God.”
Hey why didn't Obama show up with a speech for the parade victims killed by a drunk driver? Or the 80 suicides yesterday and everyday? Or the 90 killed by cars everyday? Or the 1300 killed by tobacco everyday?
Oh, I forgot. Those deaths are far less tragic than a gun death. Those families are not as grieved, and those people are not as dead.
One day, the NYT will wake up and realize they are IRRATIONALLY obsessed by gun deaths.
Oh, I forgot. Those deaths are far less tragic than a gun death. Those families are not as grieved, and those people are not as dead.
One day, the NYT will wake up and realize they are IRRATIONALLY obsessed by gun deaths.
2
Same old false equivalency. Cars are designed for transportation; guns are designed to kill. Cars are equipped with the latest safety technology; guns are not. Cars have extraordinarily high social utility; guns have limited social utility, if any. Cars and drivers are highly regulated; guns and their owners, at least in many locations, are not. Please stop using this silly comparison of cars and guns.
1
I am a little confused about how a survey of situations where SELF-DEFENSE was not involved proves anything about carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense, other than that some folks use their guns for the wrong reasons. You may not simply shoot folks; there must be Imminent Danger of Grave Bodily Harm or Death to justify shooting someone.
Yes concealed carry is the problem, you have nailed it on the head
Bravo NYT for yet another distraction from the REAL problem which you won't touch with a 10 foot pole
Bravo NYT for yet another distraction from the REAL problem which you won't touch with a 10 foot pole
Not even mentioning the attitude of a misplaced bravado that concealed carry can facilitate in its license holders, I'll just point out the numbers of accidental gun shoot wounds that I've treated as a hand therapist over my 25 plus year career. Everything from 'Fast Draw' practicing, to half baked 'Commando Training' to half cock-eyed playing around with high powered weapons-The numbers and degree of injury is ridiculous and probably approaches close to 20. I'll close by mentioning that in this same period of time, I've never treated a gun shoot wound sustained by a non-law enforcement officer in an act of a prevention of a crime (or by an alleged perpetrator caught out by a concerned citizen).
Always a dilemma for me. As a rural farm owner who travels across the state at late hours for early meetings in Richmond, I face these concerns:
1) Home with 11-yo son, 16 miles from town, 30 minutes min response time for law enforcement... someone tries breaking in. What's the likely outcome if I *don't* have a gun?
2) En route to Richmond at 2:30 a.m. and can't keep eyes open. Pull off at rest stop, or a closed McDo's. Someone smashes my window. Do I dial 911 on my cell phone, lean on the horn, or point a 9mm at the person (running them over would also be an option)?
3) Once I arrive at my destination, do I carry the weapon with me to maintain control over it, or leave it unattended in the locked pickup?
I do have a C&C. I did take situational training classes to get it... am a good shot and know to stay out of harm's way when possible. I feel my weapon gives me the ability to go hiking alone in the woods, drive late on interstates, and sleep at my farm without constant fear. I do not support the gun lobbies at all, but I'm not ready to give up what I see as a vital tool for protecting myself.
1) Home with 11-yo son, 16 miles from town, 30 minutes min response time for law enforcement... someone tries breaking in. What's the likely outcome if I *don't* have a gun?
2) En route to Richmond at 2:30 a.m. and can't keep eyes open. Pull off at rest stop, or a closed McDo's. Someone smashes my window. Do I dial 911 on my cell phone, lean on the horn, or point a 9mm at the person (running them over would also be an option)?
3) Once I arrive at my destination, do I carry the weapon with me to maintain control over it, or leave it unattended in the locked pickup?
I do have a C&C. I did take situational training classes to get it... am a good shot and know to stay out of harm's way when possible. I feel my weapon gives me the ability to go hiking alone in the woods, drive late on interstates, and sleep at my farm without constant fear. I do not support the gun lobbies at all, but I'm not ready to give up what I see as a vital tool for protecting myself.
2
The risks and chances you should weigh are: 1) What is the risk of somebody actually breaking in and using deadly force. 2) What are the chances that you would be there, have your gun, judge the risk properly (and not shoot an innocent), not be overpowered and have the gun used against you. 3) Your 11-yo son, or any of his visiting friends finding the gun and using it at your house or elsewhere in an unintended way - injuring/killing other kids or committing suicide.
2
I've been hiking/jogging alone in the woods since I was a kid and remarkably have survived to this day with out carrying a firearm.
About time this scourge is exposed. We need more coverage on this, so please continue the good work, NYT.
1
Why is this on the Opinion Page?
The documented (a.k.a. factual) findings are absolutely newsworthy and should be reported on the front page with a series of article looking at this issue.
The hyperlinks to the tally and examples provide plenty of material for informing the public. A one-off opinion piece does not do these findings justice.
A series will force the NRA and folks running for office to respond to these documented findings.
The documented (a.k.a. factual) findings are absolutely newsworthy and should be reported on the front page with a series of article looking at this issue.
The hyperlinks to the tally and examples provide plenty of material for informing the public. A one-off opinion piece does not do these findings justice.
A series will force the NRA and folks running for office to respond to these documented findings.
1
You can't convince people who won't be convinced.
I live in Maine where the requirement to obtain a concealed weapons permit has just been lifted. Now almost anyone over the age of 18 can go to any store that sells guns and purchase one like it was a gallon of milk. It is so strange that when applying for a job, one needs to go through a thorough background check before getting hired but that same background check is no longer needed to buy a gun. Go figure.
2
It would be nice to know who is likely to bring a gun to work before hiring them.
The author seems to be implying that the 29 mass shooters were legal concealed carry permit holders. The author even provided a link to 'how they got their guns' - another NYTIMES article. The sad thing is, most of the people reading this won't catch the deception. Which of the 29 mass shooters in recent history were legal concealed carry permit holders? Just because they were carrying a gun under their coat or in a bag doesn't mean they were doing it legally. Comparing apples to oranges to try to make your point doesn't help you.
Further, can anyone point me to the change in the law that says you can't murder someone? I must have missed that. Law abiding concealed carry permit holder legally murders someone? Wow! What a leap! And there have been an order of magnitude more than 21 times in this country when a concealed carry permit holder has used a weapon in self defense. A simple google news search is all one needs to figure that out. Nice try though.
Further, can anyone point me to the change in the law that says you can't murder someone? I must have missed that. Law abiding concealed carry permit holder legally murders someone? Wow! What a leap! And there have been an order of magnitude more than 21 times in this country when a concealed carry permit holder has used a weapon in self defense. A simple google news search is all one needs to figure that out. Nice try though.
Save what you will, I'm still going to carry. Anyone threatens me or my family does so at their own peril. We are legion!
1
The question the NYT fails to answer is how many of these incidents would have happened if concealed carry had been illegal? Certainly all of the 223 suicides - you don't need a concealed carry permit to kill yourself. By definition, almost all of the others involved someone breaking the law. If you are going to break the law do you think the absence of a concealed carry permit will make a difference?
Come on Editorial Board, you can do better. This is an extraordinarily obtuse presentation of statistics. I firmly believe that arming citizens is no answer to gun violence and I still find your presentation unconvincing. Is that 579 shootings by concealed carry licensees? Yes, repeated reading does clarify that some. In any case, how often are perps stopped by a gunslinging citizen without a shot fired? What does suicide by gun have to do with the weapon's effectiveness for defense? Apples and oranges. I could go on but won't.
2
For guns to be a deterrent, they have to be everywhere (which is what the NRA wants). Would this make us safer? I doubt it. It would certainly change society and make millions uncomfortable going anywhere in public.
Perhaps this would deter a few mentally ill people from committing mass shootings. Maybe not, since most of them plan to die anyway. They can still kill quite a few people and create a chaotic shootout before they are brought down (along with many innocents caught in the crossfire) .
Arguments that would have ended peacefully or with a bloody nose will lead to shots fired. Angry people will shoot first. Suicides will rise.
Gun ownership has been dropping, even as those with guns continue to stock up. It would be impossible to actually get to a point where we have guns everywhere. We'd end up with 2 societies: those who carry, and those who feel less safe and are afraid to go anywhere.
The idea that everyone should carry is dangerous and grotesque. The fewer guns the safer we are.
Perhaps this would deter a few mentally ill people from committing mass shootings. Maybe not, since most of them plan to die anyway. They can still kill quite a few people and create a chaotic shootout before they are brought down (along with many innocents caught in the crossfire) .
Arguments that would have ended peacefully or with a bloody nose will lead to shots fired. Angry people will shoot first. Suicides will rise.
Gun ownership has been dropping, even as those with guns continue to stock up. It would be impossible to actually get to a point where we have guns everywhere. We'd end up with 2 societies: those who carry, and those who feel less safe and are afraid to go anywhere.
The idea that everyone should carry is dangerous and grotesque. The fewer guns the safer we are.
there are stories after stories and there are incidents after incident and there are statistics after statistics proving that the proliferation of guns does not provide the necessary safety and security of lives we are looking for. Police is being shot by gun owners and criminals making them vulnerable to enforce law & order. Children, the most innocents, become victims of the society's short comings. self defense and fighting the tyranny government, the ingredients of the 2nd bill of rights, cannot be left alone without proper scrutiny of what we need for the 21 century for a peaceful society without any bias of money and gun lobby.
I recently read a quote from Donald Trump about how a gun made him "feel" safer. That is when it struck me. Gun ownership is not about how people objectively being safer (or not) but about how it makes people "feel".
Information campaigns with facts, showing people in homes with guns to be less safe than those without, like the one proposed here, will have very limited effect, because gun owner decisions are based on emotions and not facts.
Information campaigns with facts, showing people in homes with guns to be less safe than those without, like the one proposed here, will have very limited effect, because gun owner decisions are based on emotions and not facts.
2
Wholeheartedly agreed. The absurdity of the equation of "bad guys with guns + good guys with concealed guns = safety for all" should be obvious to anyone except, apparently, for the Clint Eastwood crowd. Arming teachers in schools is absolutely unacceptable - are teachers to strap them on under their cardigans, or would the gun crowd prefer them to be strapped to their ankles? Either way, I do not want my children "protected" in this way.
The people I know who carry concealed weapons fall into two categories, those whose work requires them to carry - police officers, guards, and those in the military. I feel safe around them, knowing that they are highly trained in the safe handling and use of their weapons. Not one of them would pull a gun in a crowd without having eyes on a killer, also armed with a weapon, and each would, I'm quite sure, make a kill shot only if it did not endanger others.
The other group of concealed carriers I know are those who feel somehow endangered at most times in their lives, and who feel that they must always be armed "just in case". They see bogies when no one else does, and I fear for them and their families. One lady I know pulled her weapon after she was involved in a fender bender because she thought she was a victim of road rage. These folks scare me most.
The people I know who carry concealed weapons fall into two categories, those whose work requires them to carry - police officers, guards, and those in the military. I feel safe around them, knowing that they are highly trained in the safe handling and use of their weapons. Not one of them would pull a gun in a crowd without having eyes on a killer, also armed with a weapon, and each would, I'm quite sure, make a kill shot only if it did not endanger others.
The other group of concealed carriers I know are those who feel somehow endangered at most times in their lives, and who feel that they must always be armed "just in case". They see bogies when no one else does, and I fear for them and their families. One lady I know pulled her weapon after she was involved in a fender bender because she thought she was a victim of road rage. These folks scare me most.
I refuse to own a gun. No one will ever steal a gun from me so that it might fall into the hands of a criminal or insane person. No child will ever die needlessly because I might be careless in storing it. Neither I nor anyone in my house will ever commit suicide with a gun. I depend on the police to protect me in a violent nation. I'm not afraid to go to sleep at night or to walk down the street in broad daylight. I'm a veteran, and a veteran of the fire service, and I'm not afraid.
1
It's the bullet proof vest that protects against bullets. Bullets clearly don't offer any protection against themselves. Where's the mass production of bullet proof product line? Jessica Simpson is on it maybe?
Gallup Poll published a poll six days ago, "Majority Say More Concealed Weapons Would Make U.S. Safer" That poll number is 56%. Fifty six percent of Americans believe this according to Gallup. Dig deeper and you find that men think this 12 points more than women (62M-50F). However scarier and skewing the results enormously are Republicans who believe this Mularky. Eighty two percent of Republicans believe concealed carry makes you safer. Only 31% of Dems feel the same.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186263/majority-say-concealed-weapons-safer.aspx
I'll also remind people that the good guy with the gun at the shooting in Tucson which killed nine people at my supermarket, almost shot the wrong person. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/fr...
Republicans and some others need better education so they don't believe the myths the NRA peddles.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/186263/majority-say-concealed-weapons-safer.aspx
I'll also remind people that the good guy with the gun at the shooting in Tucson which killed nine people at my supermarket, almost shot the wrong person. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2011/01/fr...
Republicans and some others need better education so they don't believe the myths the NRA peddles.
"Don't bother me with facts. My mind is made up."
Thus the Know-Nothing Right including the NRA and many Republicans denies the realities of gun violence, climate change, ways that Social Security, Medicare and the ACA make all our lives better, and so on.
These people really choose to Know Nothing on such subjects. We have a culture that accepts just changing the channel, going to another webpage, or otherwise choosing not to hear or see anything which displeases us. We do not clean up messes, we mask the smell with the perfume of pleasing myths.
We dream of shooting all the bad guys, and act it out in 1st person shooter video games. To kill seven with one clip.
If we face the truth, we might be tempted to act on it. Better not to know.
Thus the Know-Nothing Right including the NRA and many Republicans denies the realities of gun violence, climate change, ways that Social Security, Medicare and the ACA make all our lives better, and so on.
These people really choose to Know Nothing on such subjects. We have a culture that accepts just changing the channel, going to another webpage, or otherwise choosing not to hear or see anything which displeases us. We do not clean up messes, we mask the smell with the perfume of pleasing myths.
We dream of shooting all the bad guys, and act it out in 1st person shooter video games. To kill seven with one clip.
If we face the truth, we might be tempted to act on it. Better not to know.
I doubt that it is practical to remove all guns from the homes, vehicles, and camps of citizens. However, I do believe that automatic and semi-automatic weapons should not be sold and should be illegal in the US. These are not needed for hunting or target shooting. Doing this will not stop all the killing, but it will stop some of it. It is a first step. Perhaps in 10 years, more Americans will see the benefits of controlling at least some types of guns, and vote accordingly. We can hope!
I have never seen a word on the liability, if any, of an armed "good guy" who, presumably in resisting an armed "bad guy," kills an uninvolved bystander. Do they get a pass based on a presumption of good intentions? Or do they get arrested, charged, prosecuted, judged, and convicted? Does it make a difference to the dead person which one killed him or her?
I would like to hear the NRA and our state and federal legislators answer a few simple questions:
How does carrying a weapon on campus enhance the educational experience?
How does bring one to church enhance the spirituality of the occasion?
How does carrying a gun into a bar enhance that experience?
How does carrying a gun while shopping make that more pleasant?
How does carrying a weapon on campus enhance the educational experience?
How does bring one to church enhance the spirituality of the occasion?
How does carrying a gun into a bar enhance that experience?
How does carrying a gun while shopping make that more pleasant?
1
One of the most frightening aspects of concealed carry - and open carry as well - is the matter of accuracy by would-be heroes. Police organizations keep tallies of rounds expended, and crime scene units routinely search for where those rounds went.
I can't relocate the article in "9-1-1 Magazine", an online periodical devoted to public safety issues and widely read by police everywhere, but a statistic in a recent article jumped out at me: the accuracy rate (i.e., the "hit rate") during criminal confrontations among all U.S. policing organizations is 37%.
Thirty-seven percent among trained police officers! The obvious question, then, is where did the other 63% of rounds fired go? With that statistic in mind, the accuracy rate among the average citizenry hardly bears thinking about, particularly when faced with a situation never confronted before, and for which one is psychologically unprepared other than in his imaginings of "heroism".
At-will concealed carry is a prescription for tragedy.
I can't relocate the article in "9-1-1 Magazine", an online periodical devoted to public safety issues and widely read by police everywhere, but a statistic in a recent article jumped out at me: the accuracy rate (i.e., the "hit rate") during criminal confrontations among all U.S. policing organizations is 37%.
Thirty-seven percent among trained police officers! The obvious question, then, is where did the other 63% of rounds fired go? With that statistic in mind, the accuracy rate among the average citizenry hardly bears thinking about, particularly when faced with a situation never confronted before, and for which one is psychologically unprepared other than in his imaginings of "heroism".
At-will concealed carry is a prescription for tragedy.
Don't think concealed carry is the right policy? Pass legislation to change. Courts strike down changes and uphold concealed carry laws? Pass amendments to change constitution.
Can't do that? Join those who feel abortion is wrong and learn to live with it.
Can't do that? Join those who feel abortion is wrong and learn to live with it.
1
For most, feeling safer is enough. It's about faith, again and again.
As a boy my mother died as a result of gun "accident" The shooter (also a relative) had no business buying and owning a weapon. There was no need for it. Her death caused ripples in my life that still exist today.
19
If you take your gun out of the house for any reason, you should be required to carry at least one million dollars in insurance for every round your magazine is capable of holding. That way, if any bystanders survive, they can get their injuries treated, and maybe get some physical rehabilitation as well.
1
Another example of progressive confirmation bias leading to statements of faith like this: "More complete research, unimpeded by the gun lobby, would undoubtedly uncover a higher death toll."
Should you start with the EVIDENCE next time and follow it where it leads, it may be more persuasive to those outside the echo chamber.
The article also fails to compare the death stats caused by other weapons; namely, knives, which are completely unregulated in most states. Are there any parallels between the gun death and knife death data? Any causative or correlative premises there for this article's conclusion that is so eager to defend its poorly substantiated claims?
Should you start with the EVIDENCE next time and follow it where it leads, it may be more persuasive to those outside the echo chamber.
The article also fails to compare the death stats caused by other weapons; namely, knives, which are completely unregulated in most states. Are there any parallels between the gun death and knife death data? Any causative or correlative premises there for this article's conclusion that is so eager to defend its poorly substantiated claims?
1
The Evilone, aka satan, Christ warned us, is The Father of All Lies. That gun toting Yahoos make us safer is one of evil's biggest ongoing lies used to destroy the souls of many. Suicide is called the 8th sacrament of satan. No wonder the evil wants more guns carried by more yahoos. Suicide, abortions, euthanasia, mercy killings, death penalty are all the same evil, all based on lies. REpublicans never stand against these evils, when they don't enthusiastically endorse and help promote them. Democrats only oppose the guns, and death penalty otherwise they're indistinguishable from the republicans. No matter how we vote, we endorse one evil of another. Welcome to godless America.
The whole idea resolves around vigilante justice. A good person with a gun negates a bad person with a gun. However every individual has their own notion of justice. Many mass-shooters claimed to be righting a wrong. Most people see the insanity of that position, but others sense that in a world where individuals aren't valued, a gun rights all wrongs. The change in thinking that is required comes when you look at college campuses, where more available weapons will mean more mass shootings, and more student gunfights.
This morning I heard that Chris Christie is perpetuating the myth that the black lives matter movement is endangering police officers lives. What I will never understand is why these dolts, like Christie, don't think that the easy access to guns for everyone might be more of a jeopardy to the lives of police officers than some rhetoric from a group that wants justice equality.
The excesses caused by the NRA are leading to a "Wild West" situation where eventually everybody will know somebody that was killed in random gun violence. Then, there will be popular calls for gun control, and maybe even calls for gun confiscation. The abomination which the NRA dreads will come to pass and it will be caused by its own excess. The original purpose of the Second Amendment was to keep the federal government from disarming slave patrols. Its legacy brings evil, death, and mayhem into the present day.
This is about the article of faith: do guns make a safer society?
Some people think concealed carry means some hero will save the day. That's exceedingly rare now. (That's why they argue more guns are needed).
I suppose the same people probably think seatbelts are unsafe... because if they crash into a lake, they don't want to get stuck on the car. Logic and statistics are unconvincing to people of faith.
Some people think concealed carry means some hero will save the day. That's exceedingly rare now. (That's why they argue more guns are needed).
I suppose the same people probably think seatbelts are unsafe... because if they crash into a lake, they don't want to get stuck on the car. Logic and statistics are unconvincing to people of faith.
The editorial and the research study say everything we need to know to do the following step-by-step:
1) See to it that each presidential candidate faces the question in debate or interview: What is your position on concealed carry given the findings in this (cite fully) study?
2) Killing by bullet is a Public Health issue for the entire nation and therefore all blocks to collecting data must be removed.
3) All organizations planning to hold conferences or annual meetings in any of the 50 states must be informed if any state under consideration has concealed-carry gun laws.
The recent killing-by-sword in Sweden resulted in 3 deaths, one of which was the killer himself, Anton Pettersson. Since he set out to kill as many as possible who were not ethnic Swedes we can give thanks that he was "only" carrying a sword and knife(knives). (To correct all NYT reports, his motive was "framlingfientlghet" - xenophobia, hatred of immigrants - rather than as reported in the Times "racial".
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
1) See to it that each presidential candidate faces the question in debate or interview: What is your position on concealed carry given the findings in this (cite fully) study?
2) Killing by bullet is a Public Health issue for the entire nation and therefore all blocks to collecting data must be removed.
3) All organizations planning to hold conferences or annual meetings in any of the 50 states must be informed if any state under consideration has concealed-carry gun laws.
The recent killing-by-sword in Sweden resulted in 3 deaths, one of which was the killer himself, Anton Pettersson. Since he set out to kill as many as possible who were not ethnic Swedes we can give thanks that he was "only" carrying a sword and knife(knives). (To correct all NYT reports, his motive was "framlingfientlghet" - xenophobia, hatred of immigrants - rather than as reported in the Times "racial".
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
1
I've been on both sides of this debate.
When I was young and in Boy Scouts, I was taught the proper handling and care for a long gun, then tried out for the rifle team in High school. I had nothing but the utmost respect for firearms and their care. I was taught.
Then along came a few years and a lot of cop shows and movies, and then the idea of trying to get a pistol permit appealed to me. The power of the media overshadowed my good firearms education making pistols look sexy.
Fortunately, my good senses prevailed and I did not try to get a pistol permit and only possessed a .22 caliber target shooting rifle my girlfriend bought me for my birthday. It doubled as a home defense weapon and I taught her it's proper use at a range following two very harrowing burglaries, one of which she was home and three gypsy women tried to break down the door. They were arrested after playing phone jockey between my girlfriend and the police, but the police released them and they gave false names and never showed up in court.
So you see, some gun owners are not totally paranoid. Although the cops arrived several minutes later, my girlfriend was defenseless until they arrived.
Now I am totally averse to guns. Guns kill. I'm older and wiser but still remember how all those cop shows and movies made pistols look sexy to me.
Older and wiser now. Get a strong door.
When I was young and in Boy Scouts, I was taught the proper handling and care for a long gun, then tried out for the rifle team in High school. I had nothing but the utmost respect for firearms and their care. I was taught.
Then along came a few years and a lot of cop shows and movies, and then the idea of trying to get a pistol permit appealed to me. The power of the media overshadowed my good firearms education making pistols look sexy.
Fortunately, my good senses prevailed and I did not try to get a pistol permit and only possessed a .22 caliber target shooting rifle my girlfriend bought me for my birthday. It doubled as a home defense weapon and I taught her it's proper use at a range following two very harrowing burglaries, one of which she was home and three gypsy women tried to break down the door. They were arrested after playing phone jockey between my girlfriend and the police, but the police released them and they gave false names and never showed up in court.
So you see, some gun owners are not totally paranoid. Although the cops arrived several minutes later, my girlfriend was defenseless until they arrived.
Now I am totally averse to guns. Guns kill. I'm older and wiser but still remember how all those cop shows and movies made pistols look sexy to me.
Older and wiser now. Get a strong door.
The study reinforces what I was thinking when I disabled my handgun upon the birth of my daughter eighteen years ago. The chances of my needing that gun for defense of myself or my home were slim to none. However, the chance that my little girl could be injured by that same gun was, in my view, unreasonably high.
My own experience of the less responsible gun-owners (by which I do not mean the people in my rural community who fill their freezer each fall) suggests that they are scared. All the macho pro-gun posturing on the part of people with concealed weapons permits, the one with military style weapons, and those with enough weaponry and ammo to kill everyone in my county—that is coming from fearful people. I am a small woman in my 60s. I walked through the U District in Seattle while Ted Bundy was keeling women who looked like me; I walked alone across campus to evening classes; I traveled alone; I walked streets in the dark. I was certainly lucky, I was certainly cautious, but I was never so scarred I thought I needed a loaded gun to survive in my own country.
It might take a few more years of mass shootings and thousands more victims of gun violence, but we as a nation will eventually conclude that repealing the 2nd amendment is necessary to save ourselves from self-inflicted mass destruction. Meanwhile, the gun freaks have us where they want us -- yelling at each other and changing nothing.
Not all states track crime perpetuated by CHL owners, but Texas is one that does, and finds that its incidence of CHL violence is about 0.02% the rate of the general population.
Moreover, CHL owners are not trained to be heroes. They are trained to use deadly force to STOP a proximal threat. Two cases illustrate this: a mall shooting in Oregon shortly after Aurora, and the recent shooting in Umpqua. In both cases, the CHL owner declined to get involved because the shooter was not providing a proximal threat. CHL training (and the law) stresses not to take undue risk, for practical and legal reasons (including the staggering criminal and civil consequences).
I am a CHL holder, and it's no big deal. I carryfor very specific situations (such as traveling Interstate, including to very bad areas). I carry a small gun every day, though, as a best-practice. It does not enhance my aggression, my confidence, or anything else. It's like carrying a cell phone. Being a CHL holder does enhance my awareness of my environment, though, and helps me avoid questionable situations.
The NYT Editorial Board does not help the general public understand either the issue of gun violence or the political issues around gun ownership by posting uninformed, biased screeds like this, based on sources which obviously have an axe to grind. It would be welcome to see more "contra" viewpoints on the issue in the paper, for fairness.
Moreover, CHL owners are not trained to be heroes. They are trained to use deadly force to STOP a proximal threat. Two cases illustrate this: a mall shooting in Oregon shortly after Aurora, and the recent shooting in Umpqua. In both cases, the CHL owner declined to get involved because the shooter was not providing a proximal threat. CHL training (and the law) stresses not to take undue risk, for practical and legal reasons (including the staggering criminal and civil consequences).
I am a CHL holder, and it's no big deal. I carryfor very specific situations (such as traveling Interstate, including to very bad areas). I carry a small gun every day, though, as a best-practice. It does not enhance my aggression, my confidence, or anything else. It's like carrying a cell phone. Being a CHL holder does enhance my awareness of my environment, though, and helps me avoid questionable situations.
The NYT Editorial Board does not help the general public understand either the issue of gun violence or the political issues around gun ownership by posting uninformed, biased screeds like this, based on sources which obviously have an axe to grind. It would be welcome to see more "contra" viewpoints on the issue in the paper, for fairness.
1
Over the weekend I wondered why there were no speeches by President Obama or articles in the New York Times about the moral outrage of a drunk driver killing four people and injuring forty more. There were no demands for more laws to eliminate driving under the influence of alcohol. There were no pleas to reduce the number of bottles a person could stick in the center console. And talk about concealed carry, how many vehicles out there in the killing fields had a person drinking from one of those bottles behind tinted windows? But I have a larger fear of being injured or killed by a drunk driver than of being shot by someone using a gun, with or without a concealed carry permit. Why are you writing about guns today instead of a cure for the tragedy this past weekend?
1
Part of the year I live in a small community near Bremerton, Washington. A few months ago this article (link below) made it to the daily newspaper. For an even more interesting (read appalling) insight into community thoughts about "open" carry, scroll down and read the comments. I'm still shaking my head over this piece of nuttery.
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/local-news/bremerton-man-carries-his-right...
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/local-news/bremerton-man-carries-his-right...
Whenever I wonder if a concealed gun makes one safer, I think of this:
The young mother who was shot and killed by her own 2 year old in Walmart. She was licensed for concealed carry. Her toddler removed the gun from her purse and shot her in the head.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-...
The young mother who was shot and killed by her own 2 year old in Walmart. She was licensed for concealed carry. Her toddler removed the gun from her purse and shot her in the head.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/31/the-inside-...
If your baby can reach for it, then you should not be carrying any guns. Or anything that can hurt you or your baby. If you know you have a loaded gun in your purse, why would you let the baby dig through it?
I am sorry, you have to be very stupid to leave a loaded gun where your toddler can reach it.
I am sorry, you have to be very stupid to leave a loaded gun where your toddler can reach it.
I own a number of firearms of all types: Shotguns mostly, then rifles and 3 handguns. I have no issue with gun registration, reasonable and effective measures to limit the sale of weapons to those with the maturity and mental stability to responsibly possess such weapons, or even the outright ban of assault rifles. But I have read the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of this editorial half a dozen times and it is obvious this was written by a committee. This piece has the precision of a sledge hammer, the incisiveness of a baseball bat, and the clarity of a glass of chocolate buttermilk.
I understand you are attempting to debunk the "good guy with a gun" trope. All well and good. And then you write: "...at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that DID NOT [emphasis mine] involve self defense." This makes it sound like the "good guy with a gun" instigated these shootings, rather than stepping in on a violent situation. I would think that if a "bad guy" is already shooting and a "good guy" steps in, that ought to qualify as "self defense." And then in the next paragraph we are informed that 223 of these deaths were suicides...of the "good guy with a gun."
The "research project" link didn't clear things up. If you pulled your numbers from this paper, I don't see where found them.
All I can say is, try again. And make sense the next time.
I understand you are attempting to debunk the "good guy with a gun" trope. All well and good. And then you write: "...at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that DID NOT [emphasis mine] involve self defense." This makes it sound like the "good guy with a gun" instigated these shootings, rather than stepping in on a violent situation. I would think that if a "bad guy" is already shooting and a "good guy" steps in, that ought to qualify as "self defense." And then in the next paragraph we are informed that 223 of these deaths were suicides...of the "good guy with a gun."
The "research project" link didn't clear things up. If you pulled your numbers from this paper, I don't see where found them.
All I can say is, try again. And make sense the next time.
3
A room full of gun-carrying civilians without serious police training is a circular firing squad.
20
J Goodwin makes a particularly foolish quip.
Concealed carry statutes -require- training. Concealed carry statutes do -not- indemnify the concealed carry licensee who discharges a weapon, a fact which particularly dictates responsibility. In contrast, police officers who "accidentally" shoot an innocent bystander in the line of duty are fully indemnified, which is quite alarming.
In San Jose CA, about 1990, Joe McNamara's SJPD responded to a black male brandishing an empty revolver. The SJPD encircled, and fired upon, that individual, killing him and killing one of their own and wounding yet another.
There's your circular firing squad, fully police trained.
Concealed carry statutes -require- training. Concealed carry statutes do -not- indemnify the concealed carry licensee who discharges a weapon, a fact which particularly dictates responsibility. In contrast, police officers who "accidentally" shoot an innocent bystander in the line of duty are fully indemnified, which is quite alarming.
In San Jose CA, about 1990, Joe McNamara's SJPD responded to a black male brandishing an empty revolver. The SJPD encircled, and fired upon, that individual, killing him and killing one of their own and wounding yet another.
There's your circular firing squad, fully police trained.
What are the regulations for pepper spray?
Remember JonBonet Ramsey, the 6 year old killed in her parents' house in Boulder, CO. I read that a girl her same age, also in a child beauty pageant, had an intruder come into her bedroom a few months later a few blocks away. Her mother heard and came in with pepper spray and the attacker fled.
Remember JonBonet Ramsey, the 6 year old killed in her parents' house in Boulder, CO. I read that a girl her same age, also in a child beauty pageant, had an intruder come into her bedroom a few months later a few blocks away. Her mother heard and came in with pepper spray and the attacker fled.
2
The combination of concealed carry and stand your ground laws are a recipe for chaos. When it is reasonable to suspect that anyone and everyone is armed, then it becomes "justifiable" to shoot anyone you may get into a confrontation with if they as much stick their hand in their pocket, backpack, or purse.
1
Once again you fail - or refuse - to address the issue of the care of the mentally ill.
No, you fail. The mentally ill exist everywhere, only the United States is subjected to this nonsense of mass shootings thanks to the ridiculous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm a betting man, and I'd bet Jefferson would be disgusted by our status quo.
1
Repeal the 2nd Amendment and permit our legislators to regulate the ownership, possession, and use of firearms.
1
Yes!—at least to the first part.
I have not researched this, so it is pure speculation - sort of like the notion that concealed carry makes you safe - but I suspect the nineteenth century Wild West was not as "wild" as it is presently.
Can we build a wall around the northeast and lock the door before the raging brain infection of guns-as-my-best-friend comes here?
Can we build a wall around the northeast and lock the door before the raging brain infection of guns-as-my-best-friend comes here?
1
The common denominator of comments here, excepting the believers in superheroes among us, is that the most threatening criminals amongst us are politicians doing the bidding of the interested for pay, for example, the interested gun lobby while cutting support of healthcare eg. treating the results of guns used on people.
It is getting harder and harder all the time to tell the good guys from the bad. Adding more guns to the mix just can't be a good thing.
It is getting harder and harder all the time to tell the good guys from the bad. Adding more guns to the mix just can't be a good thing.
2
Some people are far safer not owning a firearm. Some people are far safer owning and legally carrying a firearm. The statistics seem to miss a bigger casualty toll. Illegal concealed carry gun owners in Chicago alone have killed more Black teenagers that America has lost in the Afghanistan during the same period. The killing is mostly done by black males in a city where it is virtually impossible to legally carry a gun for self defense. And the mass killers elsewhere tend to be white males. If one of these fellows was shooting people, I would shoot him in the chest, assuming I was carrying a firearm, which I do not do.
What is wrong with self defense against criminals by a licensed CCW ?holder? Better training is needed and each gun owner should know that he can only fire under very extreme circumstances. This is a Red State/ Blue State issue. What state allows anyone to carry a concealed handgun and also has the lowest rate of homicides ? Vermont. How about that?
What is wrong with self defense against criminals by a licensed CCW ?holder? Better training is needed and each gun owner should know that he can only fire under very extreme circumstances. This is a Red State/ Blue State issue. What state allows anyone to carry a concealed handgun and also has the lowest rate of homicides ? Vermont. How about that?
The issue of access to firearms has long ago left the orbit of logical analysis, critical thinking, and statistics. Anyone who does not see the religious, faith-based overtones in the entreaties of the NRA and its bought-and-paid-for political hacks is not paying attention. Rational people will at least listen to and evaluate rational, fact-based arguments; faith-based fundamentalists listen only to their chosen "clergy" or the voices in their heads.
1
It has always been my opinion that advocates of handgun ownership simply do not have a fundamental understanding of mathematics, or to put it more simply, the laws of probability. Placing a handgun in the home opens the door to the likelihood that it will be discharged in an unforeseen circumstance.
2
I would suggest that if concealed carry on campuses is about safety, then out legislators should look of for themselves as well and allow concealed carry in statehouses across the country. After our seats of government should be the safest places in our country. When it's been tried there, and proven to increase safety, then we can talk about expanding the idea to all other public spaces.
1
The notion that there's safety in everybody carrying a gun is crazy. There ought to be a strict ethical standard to gun licensing. No, actually, that would be problematic too. The sheer number of deadly weapons out there magnify whatever problems are already out there. It's a problem with our excess in general. A double edged sword. You can't have nice stuff, some people say. Still, all in all, better to have the nice stuff than not to have it. Some of these nuts problems might be less deadly with a little scarcity. This is nutty in and of itself. Awoke from a strange dream about an hour ago. It lingers on.
I'm pretty sure the second paragraph is missing a phrase. Perhaps, "concealed carry shooters"
"This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research project showing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings **involving concealed carry shooters** that did not involve self-defense. "? I'm fairly certain more then 763 people have been in killed in shootings that did not involve self defense since 2007?
"This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research project showing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings **involving concealed carry shooters** that did not involve self-defense. "? I'm fairly certain more then 763 people have been in killed in shootings that did not involve self defense since 2007?
The Gun Control Fantasy Continues
From today's Chicago Tribune:
"34 shot across Chicago -- 6 fatally -- over weekend"
African Americans would be safer in Kabul then Chicago. President Obama's Chicago has been run by Democrats for generations. It's police department is infamous for incompetence, corruption and brutality. Ditto Baltimore, NYC, Philly LA etc.
Liberal gun control fantasies are based on denying the Constitution, history, reality and human nature. It is based on radical left wing ideology that hates human dignity and human autonomy and freedom. It is also based in an outrageous hypocrisy. How many rich liberals from Obama and the NY Times publishers and staff to Hollywood moguls and stars are protected by armed guards? Lead by example and give up your guns first. Or, begin talking about the lack of a real mental health system in this country, trial lawyers run amok and the failure of government at every level to confront gangs and organized crime.
From today's Chicago Tribune:
"34 shot across Chicago -- 6 fatally -- over weekend"
African Americans would be safer in Kabul then Chicago. President Obama's Chicago has been run by Democrats for generations. It's police department is infamous for incompetence, corruption and brutality. Ditto Baltimore, NYC, Philly LA etc.
Liberal gun control fantasies are based on denying the Constitution, history, reality and human nature. It is based on radical left wing ideology that hates human dignity and human autonomy and freedom. It is also based in an outrageous hypocrisy. How many rich liberals from Obama and the NY Times publishers and staff to Hollywood moguls and stars are protected by armed guards? Lead by example and give up your guns first. Or, begin talking about the lack of a real mental health system in this country, trial lawyers run amok and the failure of government at every level to confront gangs and organized crime.
1
This "conceal carry fantasy" sounds like something concocted by folks in New York City who have never been around guns, don't have friends or family with guns, and are socialized by Hollywood action movies.
I don't have a CCL, but I certainly would consider getting one. And the only fantasy I have is growing old and playing with my grandchildren. A little part of that is protecting your family and yourself. I was a US Naval officer and qualified expert on pistol, rifle, and shotgun and stood force protection watches on ship and in Al Basra. And yes, I am confident in my skills in case I ever had to use them.
I don't have a CCL, but I certainly would consider getting one. And the only fantasy I have is growing old and playing with my grandchildren. A little part of that is protecting your family and yourself. I was a US Naval officer and qualified expert on pistol, rifle, and shotgun and stood force protection watches on ship and in Al Basra. And yes, I am confident in my skills in case I ever had to use them.
Most of the commenters in favor of concealed carry seem to fantasize scenarios that neither they nor the vast majority of concealed carry fans will ever be involved in. Meanwhile, the mass shootings multiply and now the gun lobby is working on making it easier to buy silencers. It looks like the fantasists dominate the state legislatures (notice that state legislators are at least realistic enough to ban weapons in THEIR places of work) and as for action at the federal level, the inmates are running the asylum. Guns are a public health problem and every gun owner should have to pass a training regimen and test and carry liability insurance. These lethal, self-serving fantasies of the "romance of the gun" would evaporate in no time.
1
A biased and irresponsible press is far more dangerous than a gun. An editorial board firing away without regard for the consequences of using flawed data, misleading information and denigration to pursue political ends is much more dangerous than concealed carry.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to be used against a member of that household than an intruder. That is 4300 percent . That is the bottom line. And all these ideologues who insist that the individual's right to own a gun goes back to the Founding Fathers need to know that it actually goes all the way back to 2008, District of Columbia v Heller.
We need to explode the myths. Since the NRA ensured that Federal money cannot be used to do research or disseminate the results of research on gun violence by lawful gun owners, such research must be done with private money and shared with the American voter.
We need to explode the myths. Since the NRA ensured that Federal money cannot be used to do research or disseminate the results of research on gun violence by lawful gun owners, such research must be done with private money and shared with the American voter.
Perhaps an effective way to begin to deal with gun violence and the absolute refusal of gun extremists to allow intelligent policy discussions would be to change the laws that prevent the CDC and NIH from collecting gun and gun violence related statistics.
The first step in any public policy issue should be to acquire accurate data to allow everyone access to an accurate understanding of the issue.
Congressional Republicans have to date refused to allow the CDC and NIH to collect gun violence data. This should change, and that soon.
The first step in any public policy issue should be to acquire accurate data to allow everyone access to an accurate understanding of the issue.
Congressional Republicans have to date refused to allow the CDC and NIH to collect gun violence data. This should change, and that soon.
Table 14 (Justifiable Homicides) of the FBI Uniform Crime Report shows that in 2014 442 American civilians used firearms in self-defense to in to kill their assailants. This number includes only cases in which the assailants died; it does not include the far more numerous incidents in which assailants were wounded or frightened away. The research project citied in the New York Times article disputes gun advocacy claims that Americans use guns 2.5 million times each year in self-defense. Instead, it cities a National Crime Victimization Survey that shows 235,700 Americans used guns in self-defense over a five-year period. This works out to 47,140 cases of self-defense by firearms per year. This is nearly six times the number of murders committed by firearms each year. According to the 2014 FBI Uniform Crime Report, firearms were used in 8,124, or 67.9%, of the nation’s 11,961 murders during 2014. (About 32.1 percent of murder victims are poisoned, stabbed, beaten, kicked or stomped to death.) It is true that the 47,140 figures means that only about 0.02 percent of the nation’s 300 million firearms are used each year in self-defense, but only about 0.003 percent are used in murders each year.
The NRA seems to honestly believe that they are in a John Wayne movie, and that they are John Wayne. And they convince many gullible people that they, too, are in this movie, and ready to take on the "bad guys." This is the very definition of "delusional."
1
What paranoia fueled by the NRA. That in itself is a mental health issue. When are our politicians going to come out and make a stance against all these useless killings. Why are they allowing the NRA to call the shots. The second amendment is not going to go away but it doesn't mean that all of us non-gun owners have to be afraid of these kooks that run around with their concealed unlocked weapons thinking that they are making the world more safe. More likely, a poor kid uses the gun to kill someone elsle, a burden that the poor child carries throughout life.
The question isn't legitimate gun ownership, concealed or not, but why the gun lobby actively fights tougher background checks for would be criminals and/or sociopaths?
This is a terrible summary of the study. I'm not saying that the gist of the editorial is wrong but if you're going to summarize a piece make it clearly understandable. I read the original piece and I can't make heads or tails out of your brief summary except your rhetorical stance about concealed weapons.
1
The armed super citizen is predicated upon the myth that gun carriers are "responsible" and will always be in control and will always use perfect judgement. Nothing could be further from the truth. People are irrational, highly emotional, hot tempered, and often make poor decisions. Don't believe me? Watch how people drive cars. When a car is misused, people can get hurt. When a gun misused, people die.
Guns instantly escalate conflicts to a lethal level. There is no way to moderate their lethality. Many of the street shootings occur because young combatants are carrying for personal protection. As soon as tempers flair, the guns come out. If one pulls a weapon, they all do. No choice because of the lethality. If guns weren't there, punches would be thrown instead.
Carrying a gun makes everyone a target. A couple of weeks ago, I was out running in the early evening. I approached a woman wearing a shoulder bag. Women don't go exercise walking with shoulder bags. As I a drew near, she placed her right hand in the bag. She did not look into the bag. She removed nothing. She had a gun in that bag and was ready to pull it out. I dared not speed up or slow down and made sure I didn't trip or stumble. I was a target.
I don't want to be a target. I don't want to resolve disagreements by being a quick draw. I don't want to live in a world where everyone fears everyone else. Guns rob us of our freedom and replace it with fear.
Guns instantly escalate conflicts to a lethal level. There is no way to moderate their lethality. Many of the street shootings occur because young combatants are carrying for personal protection. As soon as tempers flair, the guns come out. If one pulls a weapon, they all do. No choice because of the lethality. If guns weren't there, punches would be thrown instead.
Carrying a gun makes everyone a target. A couple of weeks ago, I was out running in the early evening. I approached a woman wearing a shoulder bag. Women don't go exercise walking with shoulder bags. As I a drew near, she placed her right hand in the bag. She did not look into the bag. She removed nothing. She had a gun in that bag and was ready to pull it out. I dared not speed up or slow down and made sure I didn't trip or stumble. I was a target.
I don't want to be a target. I don't want to resolve disagreements by being a quick draw. I don't want to live in a world where everyone fears everyone else. Guns rob us of our freedom and replace it with fear.
2
Concealed carriers are impervious to logic because they each believe that they are the exceptional, the special person who will not commit suicide, will not leave their gun around for children to find, will not use the gun against a friend or family member in a moment of intoxication or anger, and will not get shot when going for their gun after realizing that they are actually being confronted by an armed bad guy.
And, after 95% of these self-described exceptional concealed carriers become part of the group that is not, in fact, exceptional, we'll all wonder how we could have known.
And, after 95% of these self-described exceptional concealed carriers become part of the group that is not, in fact, exceptional, we'll all wonder how we could have known.
It is interesting to hear so many pro-gun rights advocates claiming that we are safer if people are allowed to carry guns for self-defense - that shooters will think otherwise, that individuals who pull their guns are less likely to get shot, that shooters who pull their guns can avert a crime or threat to themselves, etc.
Maybe so. The stories people tell themselves certainly convince a large number of people. But the editorial board's counter claim also makes sense: that for every crime that is averted, 10 or more are facilitated by lax gun laws and a culture that encourages being armed.
But one of the main points of the article is that these claims can be evaluated. It isn't just a matter of whose story is more credible. Statistical evidence can settle most of theses claims.
Lift the ban that prevents the government from keeping gun violence statistics and doing gun violence research!!
Maybe so. The stories people tell themselves certainly convince a large number of people. But the editorial board's counter claim also makes sense: that for every crime that is averted, 10 or more are facilitated by lax gun laws and a culture that encourages being armed.
But one of the main points of the article is that these claims can be evaluated. It isn't just a matter of whose story is more credible. Statistical evidence can settle most of theses claims.
Lift the ban that prevents the government from keeping gun violence statistics and doing gun violence research!!
The people responsible for passing these conceal-carry legislation are "safe" to do so without fear of someone entering their workplace and shooting at random. For example, Florida, one of the concealed-carry states, has these "Condition of Entry" to its Capitol:
"For security reasons, access to the Capitol (and by extension the House and Senate Office Buildings and the Knott Building) is conditional upon consent to search.
All persons must go through the detection aisle and must present purses, packages, and other objects for separate inspection. Laptops, tablets, and related items must be removed from their cases and presented for inspection. Further search may be required.
No weapons or other hazards allowed.
No sealed envelopes or packages allowed.
Items may not be delivered or left behind.
Once visitors have exited the Capitol, re-entry will require reprocessing.
You do have right to refuse any or all of these security screening procedures. However, entry to the building will be denied."
College campuses and other places do not have such taxpayer-subsidized security screenings. So, "stuff happens," as former Flordia governor Jeb Bush said. Jeb Bush and other "leaders" who have security staff to protect them don't care when "stuff happens" to others.
"For security reasons, access to the Capitol (and by extension the House and Senate Office Buildings and the Knott Building) is conditional upon consent to search.
All persons must go through the detection aisle and must present purses, packages, and other objects for separate inspection. Laptops, tablets, and related items must be removed from their cases and presented for inspection. Further search may be required.
No weapons or other hazards allowed.
No sealed envelopes or packages allowed.
Items may not be delivered or left behind.
Once visitors have exited the Capitol, re-entry will require reprocessing.
You do have right to refuse any or all of these security screening procedures. However, entry to the building will be denied."
College campuses and other places do not have such taxpayer-subsidized security screenings. So, "stuff happens," as former Flordia governor Jeb Bush said. Jeb Bush and other "leaders" who have security staff to protect them don't care when "stuff happens" to others.
Recently I heard a prominent gun advocate make the assertion that more people are killed each year with hands and feet than with guns. He didn't complete the thought but the implication was that hands and feet are more dangerous than guns. The commentator didn't challenge him on this statistic and it has been bothering me ever since. Of course more people are killed with hands/feet than guns, those are the instruments that are most available in a confrontation. An interesting question would be how many people die in hand/feet confrontations compared to gun confrontations. I can guess at the result.
I have personally been in several situations with criminals, when being armed would have made a difference, in several instances it would have stopped the criminal act immediately, and in one case would have prevented me from being injured. I had called the police and followed a thief, and it was 30 minutes before the police finally showed up. I moved out of that neighborhood: after chasing and successfully helping capture 4 out of 5 burglars in the space of one year, being hurt once in the process, and being treated by 911 operators and police like I was the problem and not a good citizen, i will never involve myself again unless i am armed. I am not even sure I will bother calling 911.
1
I will pass on my urge to write about the fantasy land the gun nuts inhabit to believe that an ordinary citizen carrying a concealed weapon is going to be able, in a real-life situation, to draw that gun and, with pinpoint accuracy, take out a hostile gunman without any collateral damage to innocent bystanders--especially, in a crowded theater. Walter Mitty has been mass produced.
But let me offer this serious and practical proposal. Require any citizen who wants to go armed in public to go through training at one of those ranges with the pop-up targets where law enforcement recruits learn to react in ways that slay the bad guys without taking any good guys out in the process. My prediction is that 90 percent of the gun nuts will flunk. But, hey, those that pass will be certified to play their vigilante role. Of course, they will periodically have to undergo re-certification, just like policemen. At their expense.
But let me offer this serious and practical proposal. Require any citizen who wants to go armed in public to go through training at one of those ranges with the pop-up targets where law enforcement recruits learn to react in ways that slay the bad guys without taking any good guys out in the process. My prediction is that 90 percent of the gun nuts will flunk. But, hey, those that pass will be certified to play their vigilante role. Of course, they will periodically have to undergo re-certification, just like policemen. At their expense.
The 2nd amendment is not about it hunting.
The 2nd amendment is not about reducing crime (at least not "day-to-day" citizen-on-citizen crime).
The 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from tyranny...or at least make a tyrannical takeover a messy affair.
What we have here is a failure to understand endogeneity. An armed populace (in connection with the structure of a "more perfect union") has been so effective at mitigating the risk of tyranny, that we have forgotten our own history and the history of other nations (gun confiscation of the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, Bolsheviks in the USSR).
I completely understand that my experience with firearms is not a shared experience for all Americans. But at some level, this is the beauty of the United States of America - that we allow individuals and states to pass laws that we find disagreeable or silly - because we're free to vote for our own "disagreeable" and "silly" laws in our own states. I think we do ourselves a great disservice when we level the full artillery of federal legislation on issues upon which there is great geographic and cultural heterogeneity. Connecticut and NY are free to pass there own laws, but we should not impose our political will onto parts of the country that we know very little or nothing about.
The 2nd amendment is not about reducing crime (at least not "day-to-day" citizen-on-citizen crime).
The 2nd amendment is to protect ourselves from tyranny...or at least make a tyrannical takeover a messy affair.
What we have here is a failure to understand endogeneity. An armed populace (in connection with the structure of a "more perfect union") has been so effective at mitigating the risk of tyranny, that we have forgotten our own history and the history of other nations (gun confiscation of the Khmer Rouge, the Nazis, Bolsheviks in the USSR).
I completely understand that my experience with firearms is not a shared experience for all Americans. But at some level, this is the beauty of the United States of America - that we allow individuals and states to pass laws that we find disagreeable or silly - because we're free to vote for our own "disagreeable" and "silly" laws in our own states. I think we do ourselves a great disservice when we level the full artillery of federal legislation on issues upon which there is great geographic and cultural heterogeneity. Connecticut and NY are free to pass there own laws, but we should not impose our political will onto parts of the country that we know very little or nothing about.
The cops can not protect us.
In the recent Oregon tragedy they continue to brag that they got there in 6 minutes.
But, oh well, 9 people were already shot.
One gun on the scene might have stopped the killer.
Remember that all the politicians and millionaires urging us to go without guns to protect ourselves are people who due to being wife of ex-president or just rich enough to pay bodyguards will always be protected by armed men 24/7.
What about me? How will I be protected?
Oh, by the cops who will get to my body 6 minutes later!
In the recent Oregon tragedy they continue to brag that they got there in 6 minutes.
But, oh well, 9 people were already shot.
One gun on the scene might have stopped the killer.
Remember that all the politicians and millionaires urging us to go without guns to protect ourselves are people who due to being wife of ex-president or just rich enough to pay bodyguards will always be protected by armed men 24/7.
What about me? How will I be protected?
Oh, by the cops who will get to my body 6 minutes later!
1
There is nothing stopping the Violence Policy Center from obtaining the revocation rate for CCW holders, at least if they've ever heard of a FOIA request. Last I checked in Florida, it was about a 0.3% revocation rate in general with an even smaller percentage for committing a violent crime, and an even smaller percentage for committing a violent crime with a gun.
For VPC's study to have any meaning, you would have to measure the number of instances where a firearm was displayed in self-defense, but not actually discharged. That's been done, to some degree, but I'm not going to get into the merits of John Lott's study since it will be deemed "biased" or "flawed" because it comes from a pro-gun researcher.
But here are two simple examples: in 2015, FL has 1.5 million permit holders. PA has 1 million. So roughly 7 - 8% of the FL population carries (or can legally carry) a concealed handgun and 11 - 12% of the PA population can. Nobody goes through the burdensome process in these two states (I have been through both personally) to get a permit to then run out and commit a crime. Until I moved to MD (a "may issue" state), I carried daily for 15 years. I had no delusions of grandeur. I avoided petty arguments, and walked away from the typical daily rudeness of others. It just wasn't worth it. So the only "fantasy" I see in this editorial is that in their efforts to vilify all gun owners, VPC and NYT think 2 to 3 dozen bad apples represent the aggregate of CCW permit holders.
For VPC's study to have any meaning, you would have to measure the number of instances where a firearm was displayed in self-defense, but not actually discharged. That's been done, to some degree, but I'm not going to get into the merits of John Lott's study since it will be deemed "biased" or "flawed" because it comes from a pro-gun researcher.
But here are two simple examples: in 2015, FL has 1.5 million permit holders. PA has 1 million. So roughly 7 - 8% of the FL population carries (or can legally carry) a concealed handgun and 11 - 12% of the PA population can. Nobody goes through the burdensome process in these two states (I have been through both personally) to get a permit to then run out and commit a crime. Until I moved to MD (a "may issue" state), I carried daily for 15 years. I had no delusions of grandeur. I avoided petty arguments, and walked away from the typical daily rudeness of others. It just wasn't worth it. So the only "fantasy" I see in this editorial is that in their efforts to vilify all gun owners, VPC and NYT think 2 to 3 dozen bad apples represent the aggregate of CCW permit holders.
3
Survival fear--real or imagined--that's planted in susceptible minds--or learned through experience--supersedes statistical concealed-carry reality/rational thought. That fear; that primal fear, is what the gun lobby and the NRA shamefully exploits. That's why changing the rigid gun beliefs of the huge numbers of usually conservative-minded, low information people, who lean toward extremism is nearly impossible to achieve. The question however remains, why do they have so much power? But we already know, don't we. Money. Greed. Political power. Political contributions. Forced ideological purity regardless of what someone in power truly believes. Fear of being primaried and so on.
As we all know, a special committee of the House of Representatives just spent about 5 million dollars doing the 8th investigation of the death of 4 American citizens in Libya.
Hundreds upon hundreds of Americans have been killed here each year from gun violence, especially from mass shootings. Yet, I know of no committee hearings on this problem. No studies. No Congressional reports.
In fact, the Congress passed a law that prevents the CDC to even study the problem of gun violence in the US.
Can someone from our Congress please explain this ?
Hundreds upon hundreds of Americans have been killed here each year from gun violence, especially from mass shootings. Yet, I know of no committee hearings on this problem. No studies. No Congressional reports.
In fact, the Congress passed a law that prevents the CDC to even study the problem of gun violence in the US.
Can someone from our Congress please explain this ?
Human intelligence is traditionally defined as using our intellect to reasonably weigh constructive outcomes and moral/value systems vs any negative impact using these tools may have on our well-being. I propose that the vast number of those influencing governments and corporations are now engaged in the full blown use of human intellect in its most destructive form: to "rationalize" our need for countless guns and rifles to combat the fear that is now running pervasively, over powering our lives. Fear from crime and the drug trade (both suppliers and users), radom shootings, gang violence, violence from the mentally ill, the threat of the developement of facist styles of government, military and police forces.
The use of "one answer" solutions, as the carrying of concealed weapons or more guns in the home readily available for use is the "rationalization of destruction." It takes violence to stop violence. Perhaps there are times that this is a solution. Common citizens need not live in a world of acceptable violence and a need to protect themselves when in public.
The level of violence in American culture is way beyond and sense of "intelligent reasonableness" and can only be sustained at the highest levels due to the "rationalization" that this is acceptable if only we could carry concealed weapons.
Civil authorities, not the common citizen needs to control the reduction and removal of gun violence. Our government, NRA, gun makers, some citizens are failing here.
The use of "one answer" solutions, as the carrying of concealed weapons or more guns in the home readily available for use is the "rationalization of destruction." It takes violence to stop violence. Perhaps there are times that this is a solution. Common citizens need not live in a world of acceptable violence and a need to protect themselves when in public.
The level of violence in American culture is way beyond and sense of "intelligent reasonableness" and can only be sustained at the highest levels due to the "rationalization" that this is acceptable if only we could carry concealed weapons.
Civil authorities, not the common citizen needs to control the reduction and removal of gun violence. Our government, NRA, gun makers, some citizens are failing here.
Those who argue for concealed carry as a matter of self-defense completely ignore the fact that their asserted "right" puts my safety and the safety of everyone else in public in the hands and judgement of random strangers, without our knowledge or consent, with no greater qualification or training to act responsibly in a crisis than that they had the cash or credit to purchase a firearm.
They may feel or, to grant the case against the evidence, even be safer as individuals. But the rest of us, by their choice, decidedly are not.
It is only a matter of time before this obvious point is driven home by a mass shooting incident resulting in bystanders killed, caught in the cross fire between a murderer and reckless self-appointed vigilantes and police who can't tell one from the other.
They may feel or, to grant the case against the evidence, even be safer as individuals. But the rest of us, by their choice, decidedly are not.
It is only a matter of time before this obvious point is driven home by a mass shooting incident resulting in bystanders killed, caught in the cross fire between a murderer and reckless self-appointed vigilantes and police who can't tell one from the other.
1
Wonderful editorial. Thank you.
I still marvel at the power of the gun lobby over Congress. An Executive Order from President Obama, after the Newtown mass shootings, ordering the CDC to resume research on gun deaths. After the Charelston mass shootings, Congress limited CDC funds.
So let's not just blame the gun lobby, but also reognize Congress has been a paid "gun."
I still marvel at the power of the gun lobby over Congress. An Executive Order from President Obama, after the Newtown mass shootings, ordering the CDC to resume research on gun deaths. After the Charelston mass shootings, Congress limited CDC funds.
So let's not just blame the gun lobby, but also reognize Congress has been a paid "gun."
I am about as opposed to the NRA as you can get. But this Opinion Piece bothers me a lot. The primary reference is to the publication entitled "Firearm Justifiable Homicides and Non-Fatal Self-Defense Gun Use
An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data."
But the word "concealed" does not appear in that article at all.
Where were the editors when this article went to press ?
Why link to such an important publication of statistics, but then give the gun lobby a credible reason to discredit the NY Times, it's Editorial staff, and this article in particular.
An Analysis of Federal Bureau of Investigation and National Crime Victimization Survey Data."
But the word "concealed" does not appear in that article at all.
Where were the editors when this article went to press ?
Why link to such an important publication of statistics, but then give the gun lobby a credible reason to discredit the NY Times, it's Editorial staff, and this article in particular.
In an incident last year, a believer in the fable that only good guys with guns can stop a bad guy with guns got himself killed. A shooter killed 2 police at lunch. Then he and his girl friend fled to a nearby Walmart. They shooed everyone out of the Walmart without firing a shot. Everyone, that is, except a man with a concealed carry. That guy thought he would play hero by staying behind to fire at the male. He did, without effect, but his inexperience showed when the female he didn't account for killed him from behind.
A 'good guy' was killed because he believed the NRA propaganda. No concealed carry and he'd be alive. No 'good guy' action and he'd be alive. Common sense dictated that he leave safely with all the other customers. Trained law enforcement in the same incident cornered the shooter pair and expunged them. What a waste of a life that didn't have to happen. A misguided attempt at heroism that was produced by a wild west atmosphere promoted by the gun lobby and the NRA.
A 'good guy' was killed because he believed the NRA propaganda. No concealed carry and he'd be alive. No 'good guy' action and he'd be alive. Common sense dictated that he leave safely with all the other customers. Trained law enforcement in the same incident cornered the shooter pair and expunged them. What a waste of a life that didn't have to happen. A misguided attempt at heroism that was produced by a wild west atmosphere promoted by the gun lobby and the NRA.
24
If Guns for the Ganders...Why Not the Goose?
Legislators who vote for open gun laws should also permit "open carry" and "concealed carry" in the government offices, capitol buildings, and assemblies where they themselves work. When it comes to their own safety, gun prohibitions and metal detectors are mandatory. As with government health insurance, these court house hacks invariably vote themselves what they deny the public. Even Reagan's California quickly passed gun controls after a group of Black Panthers appeared carrying legal guns in the state house.
Legislators who vote for open gun laws should also permit "open carry" and "concealed carry" in the government offices, capitol buildings, and assemblies where they themselves work. When it comes to their own safety, gun prohibitions and metal detectors are mandatory. As with government health insurance, these court house hacks invariably vote themselves what they deny the public. Even Reagan's California quickly passed gun controls after a group of Black Panthers appeared carrying legal guns in the state house.
3
Reference "The Concealed-Carry Fantasy, specifically "...at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator..."
Your editorial is totally misleading. You are saying the mass killers had concealed carry licenses when in fact I can't find any that were licensed for concealed carry. In fact, at least one or not more were denied CCW's when they applied.
Your editorial may have some points but this one glaring lie makes me doubt anything you are saying.
Your editorial is totally misleading. You are saying the mass killers had concealed carry licenses when in fact I can't find any that were licensed for concealed carry. In fact, at least one or not more were denied CCW's when they applied.
Your editorial may have some points but this one glaring lie makes me doubt anything you are saying.
Your latest anti-gun article is flawed in so many ways.
First, as usual, you do not address the daily gun-related slaughter in American urban centers, usually effecting young minority men, but including the innocent shot and killed. Your fourth Amendment absolutist position prevents the necessary research of just how many lives would be saved if "stop & frisk" had not been suspended. No one favors illegal guns, not even the gun lobby. Black homeowners who legally carry are not the ones dying in the streets, except perhaps as victims of gangbangers carrying illegally.
Next, there are no crime statistics on the amount of attacks which did not take place due to gun owners carrying either concealed or openly. There haven't been many car-jackings of late in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Florida, or New Hampshire, as compared to Maryland, New Jersey or New York. The rate of other property and personal offenses is also probably lower in places in which citizens may carry concealed or openly. It would be enlightening to view those statistics.
As for the large number of suicides by concealed carrying citizens, you did not compare that number to the general suicide rate among the entire population. Most of these people would have found means to end their lives in a different way, if not by a legally owned gun. For you, euthanasia in Oregon is preferable to a gun. But not all share your predilections.
But keep printing your own fantasies of gun control.
First, as usual, you do not address the daily gun-related slaughter in American urban centers, usually effecting young minority men, but including the innocent shot and killed. Your fourth Amendment absolutist position prevents the necessary research of just how many lives would be saved if "stop & frisk" had not been suspended. No one favors illegal guns, not even the gun lobby. Black homeowners who legally carry are not the ones dying in the streets, except perhaps as victims of gangbangers carrying illegally.
Next, there are no crime statistics on the amount of attacks which did not take place due to gun owners carrying either concealed or openly. There haven't been many car-jackings of late in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Florida, or New Hampshire, as compared to Maryland, New Jersey or New York. The rate of other property and personal offenses is also probably lower in places in which citizens may carry concealed or openly. It would be enlightening to view those statistics.
As for the large number of suicides by concealed carrying citizens, you did not compare that number to the general suicide rate among the entire population. Most of these people would have found means to end their lives in a different way, if not by a legally owned gun. For you, euthanasia in Oregon is preferable to a gun. But not all share your predilections.
But keep printing your own fantasies of gun control.
1
So glad to hear there haven't been many car jackings in Wyoming(!) or Nebraska(!) when compared to New Jersey, for example, lol.
There are various rationalizations for owning and carrying a gun.
People want to own guns because they provide the owner with the intoxicating power to kill. Every five year old with a light saber knows that feeling.
People want to own guns because they provide the owner with the intoxicating power to kill. Every five year old with a light saber knows that feeling.
42
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he never gets his hands on a gun in the first place. The best way to stop suicide by gun is to make sure that the victim never gets his hands on a gun in the first place. The best way to stop accidental gun deaths is to make sure that the shooter never gets his hands on a gun in the first place. No one was ever killed with the gun that wasn't there.
204
The other comment denominator here is people. My gun has never picked itself up, loaded itself, and killed anybody. The biggest flaw with bad guys and suicide is their intentions. If somebody wants to rob a store and can't access a gun, they'll use a knife. If they want to end their life, they'll poison themselves. For accidental death, how many of those occur driving cars or countless other ways? I agree obtaining a gun should be a difficult and thorough process as it is here in MA, but to deny people this right is ludicrous in my mind.
To Walker: Now there's logic we can live with! Thank you.
The best way to stop the abuse of heroin, cocaine and crystal meth is to make sure they are not available in this country.
But what is Plan B?
But what is Plan B?
The fantasy perpetuates. Guns don't kill people. People kill people; that they use guns to do so is clearly beside the point.
1
The NRA is really the "NGMSA" ---the National Gun Manufacturers and Sellers Association. Once upon a time the NRA represted people who were sportsmen and hunters, hence the word "Rifle" in its name. The gun manufacturers quickly saw this as a group to help their business and, riding on the back of the 2nd Amendment claim, they discovered a gold mine. And boy has it worked!
You dont even hear the NRA talk about people needing guns for "legitimate hunting purposes" anymore. They know that they cannot market concealed hanguns, their new focus, as hunting weapons. Well, they are best used for hunting people. Once gun manufacturers and sellers started raking in the cash, it became easy to buy off politicians to support their cause and also control the debate about guns. Hiding behind the 2nd Amendment was a brilliant marketing decision. But since these people are hell-bent on suppressing truth we will never see the NRA change its name to reflect its real purpose.
You dont even hear the NRA talk about people needing guns for "legitimate hunting purposes" anymore. They know that they cannot market concealed hanguns, their new focus, as hunting weapons. Well, they are best used for hunting people. Once gun manufacturers and sellers started raking in the cash, it became easy to buy off politicians to support their cause and also control the debate about guns. Hiding behind the 2nd Amendment was a brilliant marketing decision. But since these people are hell-bent on suppressing truth we will never see the NRA change its name to reflect its real purpose.
2
what is the mental stability of those who are Concealed Carry holders who commit suicide? Apparently there are more than a few of those. How many CCH are paranoid, delusional, obsessive, traumatized by PST and be set off by a triggered threat? Students carrying guns while taking adderall, being up all night studying, drinking, drugs, relationship breakups, immature acting out, judgement lapse... yes having taught for 20 years in a Texas University- i have seen all of these pressures act out in outrages, temper tantrums , threats- including being stalked. do i feel safer now that guns can be in my classroom- No. will it be an arms race because i or u are at a disadvantage not having a gun while debating a hot issue?? there is no statistical proof that guns in classrooms will save lives. nothing!! what we do have are the statistics that of millions of students going to class over the years verses the number of students killed by gun violence in schools is almost at nil percent. the chances of being gunned down at school by a shooter is way less than by being hit by lightening. So why change the law? A 'shooter' most likely to attack a campus will be a student or employee who has a grudge, be enraged or have a score to settle and will most likely get or now have be a CCH. the last campus shooting with CCH holders did not act as they did not want to be targets of the Swat Team coming in thinking they are the shooter. if not broken, don't fix.
I don't see the difference between an editorial like this one and something I read on Gawker. It's all the same recycled thoughts that preach to the same commenter choir. I am also super impressed with how super evolved the commenters are here, just like on Gawker. Guns are mean and scary! Scary scary! Mommy does not approve!
1
Who is going to do regular psychological evaluations of these so called concealed carry permit holders? It will just make it easier for mentally unstable to carry guns with them and can create nightmares..Those idiots do not understand that in Afghanistan, even kids play with AK47 but that does not make it a safer place..
2
A modest proposal:
Limit concealed carry permits to those who are members of a "well regulated militia."
Limit concealed carry permits to those who are members of a "well regulated militia."
2
Scare tactics prevail.
An ordinary military training event was turned into a Sharia law takeover by our president. Such bluster prevailed when Joseph McCarthy held our congress hostage, claiming many prominent citizens were communists.
Sublimated racist scare tactics are resurfacing daily.
Israeli fear of an Islamic takeover warrants brutal occupation and settlement expansion.
September 11, 2001 stands as the ultimate "scare" as well, with many people who "look like terrorists" targeted for killings. With the reactive Patriot Act, we've surrendered many of our constitutional freedoms to the terror of George W. Bush.
The scare tactics prevail.
An ordinary military training event was turned into a Sharia law takeover by our president. Such bluster prevailed when Joseph McCarthy held our congress hostage, claiming many prominent citizens were communists.
Sublimated racist scare tactics are resurfacing daily.
Israeli fear of an Islamic takeover warrants brutal occupation and settlement expansion.
September 11, 2001 stands as the ultimate "scare" as well, with many people who "look like terrorists" targeted for killings. With the reactive Patriot Act, we've surrendered many of our constitutional freedoms to the terror of George W. Bush.
The scare tactics prevail.
1
One need only look to Israel, one the most heavily-armed and trained in arms nations on earth, and see how ineffective having a gun would be to stop harm. If the gun lobby's ideas were correct, every terror incident there would be stopped by a hail of bullets. But that isn't so.
I don't know how you can say you "love America" and yet feel the need to carry a concealed weapon to protect yourself from it. My observation is that the current gun lobbyists want to turn a second amendment "right" into a requirement that everyone be armed at all times. Sadly, the irrational fears and thinking of the opponents to reasonable gun law will not be moderated by the logic shown by this research.
1
People believe myths more than facts. We are creatures of story, and the NRA uses that to make sure men believe the story they are hawking. The most terrible thing these men can imagine is that they stand defenseless against someone else with a gun. They can't stand the feeling of helplessness that would bring, and the NRA knows it. That is why the NRA is successful. Men want their weapons... well not all men, but enough to keep from making any strides forward with this public health issue. And now this suicide by gun thing is another narrative that is gripping men. The mass shooter is salvaging his pride by taking others out that they believe have wronged them... on the way to taking themselves out. It is such a sad state of affairs... all the imagined slights and humiliations that haven't even happened yet that keep men wanting guns. It is pure male fantasy and the rest of us are condemned to live in the shadow of it.
85
I am an NRA member and carry concealed some of the time, but most of the concealed carry permit holders I know are women. My observation is most of them work as nurses or other medical professions on the swing or graveyard shift; most of them carry a firearm to avoid rape, carjacking, or other crimes from non-gun violent offenders lurking in and around institutional parking lots.
Lynn, are you suggesting these women (or for that matter, small statured men) should offer themselves up as prey criminals?
This NY Times article is dishonest to its roots. It sites the same sorts of specious studies that the MacArther Foundation has been cranking out for years on so-called gun violence, and probably written by the same authors as the Tobacco Institute work conclusively demonstrating the smoking is not only not dangerous, but has many healthful and beneficial attributes.
Lynn, are you suggesting these women (or for that matter, small statured men) should offer themselves up as prey criminals?
This NY Times article is dishonest to its roots. It sites the same sorts of specious studies that the MacArther Foundation has been cranking out for years on so-called gun violence, and probably written by the same authors as the Tobacco Institute work conclusively demonstrating the smoking is not only not dangerous, but has many healthful and beneficial attributes.
Yeah, if we just made it a crime to carry out your male fantasy one someone else, we could stop this whole thing in its tracks.
Then why is there been such a rise in women in gun ownership and shooting sports?
Actually it's the NY Times once again regurgitating its anti-gun position.
Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits in 2014, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.
Since Illinois started granting concealed carry permits in 2014, the number of robberies that have led to arrests in Chicago has declined 20 percent from last year, according to police department statistics. Reports of burglary and motor vehicle theft are down 20 percent and 26 percent, respectively. In the first quarter, the city’s homicide rate was at a 56-year low.
2
Could it be due to factors besides concealed weapons (correlation does not always equal causation)? Secondly, is there a meta-review that examines concealed carry laws and crime levels? I don't think so, because the NRA aggressively lobbies congress not to fund studies relating to gun usage.
Correlation doesn't prove causation. Of course, the NRA has prevented the study of gun ownership and violence, since they may not like the results.
Congratulations, you've conflated statistics involving criminal activity with law abiding gun owners. Something the Times always does. Easy to see through an agenda that always favors your biases.
1
The model of society the gun lobby pushes is the jungle. Everyone armed, paranoid, and fearful of their fellows.
The surest sign that the lobby knows full well that it is hoodwinking all of us is that they don't want research about gun violence conducted and published.
When your political position requires that you eschew knowledge, your political position is wrong.
The surest sign that the lobby knows full well that it is hoodwinking all of us is that they don't want research about gun violence conducted and published.
When your political position requires that you eschew knowledge, your political position is wrong.
155
So 223 of these were suicides? Are you blaming concealed carry on their suicides?
Sorry, but you didn't convince me. In addition, the only ones claiming that concealed carry transforms people into "Superheros" is the anti-gun lobby when trying to craft a weak quantification like this.
Sorry, but you didn't convince me. In addition, the only ones claiming that concealed carry transforms people into "Superheros" is the anti-gun lobby when trying to craft a weak quantification like this.
3
The central lie behind the 'more guns are safer' program is that everyone is a crack shot. The fact is that being a good shot requires constant practice and in particular training on when NOT TO SHOOT. The police who undergo such training, fire hundreds of rounds in a gunfight of which, only a few actually hit their intended target. The rest of the bullets keep going until they hit something else: a house, a car, someone in the area. The idea that someone with minimal or no training will be able to pull a gun in a highly stressed situation and hit the bad guy, is laughable at best and extremely dangerous in reality.
The fact is Americans have demonstrated over and over again, we are not mature enough to own guns. We kill between 10,000 and 30,000 people per year with guns. Banning them with not stop the violence (that is another issue) but it will make it less lethal. It will buy time in a very bad situation for cooler heads to prevail and that is a worthy goal all by itself.
The fact is Americans have demonstrated over and over again, we are not mature enough to own guns. We kill between 10,000 and 30,000 people per year with guns. Banning them with not stop the violence (that is another issue) but it will make it less lethal. It will buy time in a very bad situation for cooler heads to prevail and that is a worthy goal all by itself.
161
Bruce as someone who has faced a bad guy with a gun (many occasions) to wish only for the “crack shot” and highly trained as responders is the ideal but I promise you when (hopefully never) you are in this situation you wont be so picky considering the only other option is to be a helpless unarmed victim.
"More complete research, unimpeded by the gun lobby, would undoubtedly uncover a higher death toll. But this truly vital information is kept largely from the public."
Well, of course. How else are you going to stay "fair and balanced" when reality has a liberal bias? Ignorance is strength, after all.
Well, of course. How else are you going to stay "fair and balanced" when reality has a liberal bias? Ignorance is strength, after all.
1
This study, from some gun grabber think tank, is wrong. Harvard study showed more guns means less crime. The deterrent effect of armed victims ins huge.
1
Which Harvard study ?
The studies that have been done have found that you can't make the link that guns cause more or less crime. The quality of the data isn't good enough.
The studies that have been done have found that you can't make the link that guns cause more or less crime. The quality of the data isn't good enough.
1
That is why Japan and every other developed country have a low crime rates, their high levels of gun ownership and usage. Oh wait, they don't have high levels of gun ownership, but they do have low levels of crime. And I know you are going to bring up Switzerland's gun ownership rates, go look up their laws and they are incredibly different than the US's.
This fantasy is creating a nation of cowards unable to leave their homes without being armed with a gun to calm their fears. If this was about real safety, they would be lugging around AEDs and fire extinguishers.
5
It is the American legislators who create laws like Stand Your Ground and Open Carry who, by their very actions, commit murder with every vote they cast. Cowed by the NRA, they put their re-election ahead of the lives of their constituents. By showing us how tough they are, they destroy lives. Hats off to the legislators in places like Texas, Georgia and Florida for making America one big Wild West.
3
This last weekend in a Milwaukee suburb an armed man shot and injured two neighbors as the result of an argument. Who was "the good guy with the gun" in this particular situation I wonder? http://www.jsonline.com/news/waukesha/two-shot-injured-in-brookfield-in-...
3
The data don't make sense. NRA's monthly magazine reprints about 6 news articles each month were a gun was successfully used in self defense. That is the tip of the iceberg and is 576 over the 8 years, 20007-2015. The NYT comments about lack of data is pure nonsense. Murders are intensively investigated and data recorded. Victims ans suspects are clearly identified, when known, as are the weapons and who was carrying what. In many cases the NYT ignores that a concealed carry permit was not required, although the person had one.
2
Why is it the "tip of the iceberg" ? Do you have some specific data you want to share instead of anecdotes ?
Concealed-carry is a panacea for those who wish to live in a jungle; who've never been civilized or socialized.
3
Saying that "a good guy with a gun is the only a answer to a bad guy with a gun" is a total canard. Eight seconds of scrutiny proves the lie. Check the case of retired detective Curtis Reeves in Florida who shot a man dead over a petty dispute in a theater. (By the way dear GOP, it isn't mentally ill people that are the threat; it's angry ones.)
How about the Empire State gunman a few summers ago? NYPD took him down, but not before hitting 9 civilians. If that's the best trained police can do, I shudder to think of battalions of armed citizens itching for their chance to shoot. When someone carries a gun thy have already declared their desire to kill.
How about the self-appointed Home Depot security guard who took it upon herself to shoot at suspected shoplifters in a parking lot?
Or Floridian Michael Dunn who fired into a van of teenagers who were blaring their radio. Thank God Mr. Dunn "stood his ground." Or Joe Horn in Texas who killed two intruders to his neighbor's house because he, the vigilant and armed Joe Horn, wasn't willing to wait for police units which were en route. Better to take two human lives over a tv set.
In case after case. we see that the presence of the gun is the problem. Angry people are the problem, not the mentally ill. Add the gun to the anger and we get....America. Norwegian teens, wanting to say that something is violent and crazy use the expression, "That's so Texas!" The Wild West.
How about the Empire State gunman a few summers ago? NYPD took him down, but not before hitting 9 civilians. If that's the best trained police can do, I shudder to think of battalions of armed citizens itching for their chance to shoot. When someone carries a gun thy have already declared their desire to kill.
How about the self-appointed Home Depot security guard who took it upon herself to shoot at suspected shoplifters in a parking lot?
Or Floridian Michael Dunn who fired into a van of teenagers who were blaring their radio. Thank God Mr. Dunn "stood his ground." Or Joe Horn in Texas who killed two intruders to his neighbor's house because he, the vigilant and armed Joe Horn, wasn't willing to wait for police units which were en route. Better to take two human lives over a tv set.
In case after case. we see that the presence of the gun is the problem. Angry people are the problem, not the mentally ill. Add the gun to the anger and we get....America. Norwegian teens, wanting to say that something is violent and crazy use the expression, "That's so Texas!" The Wild West.
3
This issue, like so many, is reduced to simple black and white by the powerful gun lobby and the politicians that are owned by the NRA--which apparently includes every single spineless legislator in the state of Texas where "campus carry" goes into effect next year.
1
I will believe all the politicians' support of concealed carry when they allow it in the State and Federal legislative houses.
2
I recently visited my cousin, a transplanted New Yorker, in Texas. Seeing people on the street packing handguns was incredibly unnerving and I was more than eager to return home. I will not be visiting the Lone Star state again. We have totally warped the intention of the 2nd Amendment and I fear there is no rational solution in sight.
4
“...gullible state and national legislators.” No, they are not gullible, they are complicit. Right-wing congressmen are actively encouraging more gun violence and regularly block any legislation that would reduce or even halt mass murders. The GOP wants mass murders to continue, otherwise they would learn from Australia and quickly put an end to the carnage. As this article indicates, they even block efforts to study gun violence. Uneducated voters that support these incompetent incumbents are just as guilty. Think about the little children of Newtown before you choose to vote for someone that supports mass murder, then vote for someone that will work to stop the needless bloodshed of our children.
2
I agree about the motivation. Money. But as far as Newtown goes, those weapons were legally purchased by a narcissist mother for her son, a son she knew was well beyond her control. Yet she brought him to a range to be sure he would know how to use powerful assault weapons. Whatever else we do, we need to be sure civil action for damage is available under these kinds of circumstances. Money goes both ways.
1
It is inconceivable that the Gun Lobby, and its surrogate the N.R.A., can fool so many into believing its tenets, all for the greedy purpose of a most lucrative business, selling weapons. The ridiculous stance of a Wayne Lapierre trying to convince us that 'guns don't kill people, people do', a fallacy of sorts only possible when guns are so widely available. On the other hand, our politicians in power (Congress, Governors), seemingly oblivious of the wishes of its citizenry, do sell themselves to the highest bidder...so they won't be ousted by an even crazier guy, willing and ready to prop up a quasi-criminal organization (and creating chaos and suffering that, otherwise, could be perfectly preventable). This cancer in our midst must be stopped, a 'lethal disease' by way of 'well-delivered bullets'. The primal instinct for hunting, so you won't starve, is understandable, but nowadays it ought to be confined to 'sports', and not your fellow men's bull eye.
1
The statistics are overshadowed by the individual's perception of risk: "it won't happen to me." This fallacy operates in many areas of life, whether people think they can text or drink and drive, or smoke and avoid cancer.
Another aspect of the concealed carry: if the criminals think everyone is carrying, then they will carry more powerful weapons. A simple arms race.
Another aspect of the concealed carry: if the criminals think everyone is carrying, then they will carry more powerful weapons. A simple arms race.
2
There are more than 11 million concealed carry permit holders in this country. I am among them. This number has tripled in the last 15 years. During that period violent crimes have decreased significantly. While that certainly doesn't prove that more people legally carrying guns reduces crime it does prove the anti-gun fear-mongers wrong. They assured us that allowing law more law abiding citizens to carry would lead to a huge increase in gun violence which clearly didn't occur. The cherry picked statistics shown here do nothing to change that.
8
Explain that to the friends and family of the 139 people and 17 police officers who were killed by concealed carry shooters. Clearly you are NOT interested in the data.
From what I'm reading some people just don't trust the numbers in this article. Statistics and research don't sway a large number of Americans . Guns do. Many in our 330 million population don't believe in science, and apparently, math. Evolution, plate tectonics, climate science, and certainly numbers are virtual voodoo to many. The gun is their only truth.
2
Those first three key paragraphs are really confusing. I don't understand what the sample is. How many shooting were looked at? Were there exactly 600 shootings examined and only 21 of them involved self-defense? That seems like a really low number of national shootings since 2007, even assuming we are only looking at 38 states and DC.
3
I have a Florida concealed carry permit, which I got mainly because I could. I enjoy target shooting and go to the range about once a month. In no way did the required course or my subsequent "experience" on a shooting range qualify me to carry a loaded firearm or to handle a violent situation. If someone tried to break into my house, I would call 911. Shooting at a range (with ear protection so the noise is not that great, and eye protection, too) - at a piece of paper which is not only not moving, but not shooting back does not teach you anything but how to shoot at a piece of paper. Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
5
The best arguments against the idea that more people with guns will keep us safe could arise just from looking at the controversies surrounding police action over the last two years. However one may judge individual cases, it seems clear that police officers -- the very group that we would expect to have the most training in the use of firearms and in dealing with threatening situations -- have been involved in numerous cases (those reported and discussed) in which guns were not used properly or responsibly. Why on earth should we imagine ordinary citizens, facing a sudden, unanticipated and unprecedented (for them) situation, to do better?
4
If the NRA is so sure that carrying a gun, concealed or not, is the answer to all our fears and problems, then why would they block research? Why the desire to suppress data if the data is going to support their cause?
As other comments have said, since trained police often have trouble deciding when and how to shoot, bringing a bunch of untrained or poorly trained civilian shooters into a situation is hardly desirable. Even trained civilians could mess up a police strategy by inserting themselves. I keep thinking of the Aurora movie theatre shooting, where it was dark and smoky and loud, if civilian concealed carry shooters had been added into the equation. A lot more people could have died or been injured. Civilian shooters would have been arrested along with Holmes. The last thing I want is some over-excited gun nut adding to an already violent situation. I don't care how trained they think they are or how scared they say they are.
I want my police force to be better trained than they are to de-escalate situations and shoot only when absolutely necessary so that people like Tamir Rice and John Crawford remain alive. I'd say tax ammunition out of existence and use the money to train our police forces nationwide in de-escalation and better response. I'd say ungag and fund the research so that we can all see the truth. And then when it becomes apparent that civilian carry is a problem rather than a solution, let's enact laws to restore sanity and safety to our communities.
As other comments have said, since trained police often have trouble deciding when and how to shoot, bringing a bunch of untrained or poorly trained civilian shooters into a situation is hardly desirable. Even trained civilians could mess up a police strategy by inserting themselves. I keep thinking of the Aurora movie theatre shooting, where it was dark and smoky and loud, if civilian concealed carry shooters had been added into the equation. A lot more people could have died or been injured. Civilian shooters would have been arrested along with Holmes. The last thing I want is some over-excited gun nut adding to an already violent situation. I don't care how trained they think they are or how scared they say they are.
I want my police force to be better trained than they are to de-escalate situations and shoot only when absolutely necessary so that people like Tamir Rice and John Crawford remain alive. I'd say tax ammunition out of existence and use the money to train our police forces nationwide in de-escalation and better response. I'd say ungag and fund the research so that we can all see the truth. And then when it becomes apparent that civilian carry is a problem rather than a solution, let's enact laws to restore sanity and safety to our communities.
3
In recent years I've become increasingly spooked by the realistic understanding that, wherever I am out in the world -- city, suburbs, country -- some number of fellow humans out there with me are packing heat. That some of them are packing legally has not lessened the degree to which I'm spooked. Rather, it's only made me more cognizant of how easily a simple misinterpretation of a situation (or a remark, or a gesture, or a moment's poor judgment behind the wheel) can turn injurious or even deadly. Not that I get into many situations like that at all, but I'm certain that most of us try to behave in a civil enough manner that we can avoid them, and even fewer of us ever see them coming anyway.
It's actually the behind-the-wheel aspect that's left me most aware: How some people change on the road has always amazed me -- the younger person with a new driver's license who becomes overly confident or even reckless immediately, the normally timid senior who gets belligerent while piloting a 5000-lb SUV, the soft-spoken personality who can more comfortably "express herself" while driving, etc.
The vehicular parallel here is an easy example; I've tried to get my head around how it might translate to the sense of empowerment, self-assurance, and invulnerability that might come with said packing of said heat. What bugs me the most is my conviction that, just as fewer cars on the road almost assuredly equals fewer traffic accidents, fewer guns would equal fewer shootings, period.
It's actually the behind-the-wheel aspect that's left me most aware: How some people change on the road has always amazed me -- the younger person with a new driver's license who becomes overly confident or even reckless immediately, the normally timid senior who gets belligerent while piloting a 5000-lb SUV, the soft-spoken personality who can more comfortably "express herself" while driving, etc.
The vehicular parallel here is an easy example; I've tried to get my head around how it might translate to the sense of empowerment, self-assurance, and invulnerability that might come with said packing of said heat. What bugs me the most is my conviction that, just as fewer cars on the road almost assuredly equals fewer traffic accidents, fewer guns would equal fewer shootings, period.
2
How can you present a one sided story, the number of deaths, to present an accurate picture of whether it is a "fantasy" or not?
How many crimes were stopped by a CC person? How many were able to thwart a crime in seconds, as opposed to the minutes it takes a police officer to arrive?
Present ALL the facts or you shouldn't be presenting anything at all.
How many crimes were stopped by a CC person? How many were able to thwart a crime in seconds, as opposed to the minutes it takes a police officer to arrive?
Present ALL the facts or you shouldn't be presenting anything at all.
What are the facts?
The state legislators know exactly what they're doing when they pass their guns everywhere legislation. They're bolstering their re-election chances and helping gun manufacturers, the folks behind today's NRA, to increase their sales. The tell is the places they exempt from guns everywhere: the state legislatures themselves. It's OK for thee, but not for me. The misuse of power by the powerful to help themselves while subjugating everyone else is sickening.
2
"killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator."
"Killed themselves" is suicide and is very different than murder. The one is control over your own body, a right to choose, while the other is murder.
I expect removing Suicides from the statistics gives a ery different result.
Also, most mass shootings do occur in LEGAL gun free zones. Without airport like security you can never have a true gun free zone. If it were possible, airports would not have extreme security.
Its good to point out facts in an article. It is not good to lump suicide with Murder. One is sovereignty over your own body, the other is murder.
John
"Killed themselves" is suicide and is very different than murder. The one is control over your own body, a right to choose, while the other is murder.
I expect removing Suicides from the statistics gives a ery different result.
Also, most mass shootings do occur in LEGAL gun free zones. Without airport like security you can never have a true gun free zone. If it were possible, airports would not have extreme security.
Its good to point out facts in an article. It is not good to lump suicide with Murder. One is sovereignty over your own body, the other is murder.
John
Taking the life of another person can either be a justified, commendable act (e.g. in the case of self-defense or the immediate defense of another's life) or an unforgivable crime. Similarly, while suicide should ideally be looked upon as an individual's choice over his or her own life, it can also be committed spur-of-the-moment (given a convenient tool to do so) for less than measured reasons, e.g. under the influence of alcohol or drugs or strong emotions that may have passed, given time.
I recognize that they are different issues, but there is shared ground there.
I recognize that they are different issues, but there is shared ground there.
1
unfortunately, I hear almost daily about one of these CPL owners involved in some reckless use of their gun... you're correct they truly live in a fantasy world, where they're gong to save the day, take out some "bad guy" with a clean, single shot (on a crowded street with mayhem ensuing).
I'm convinced many of them think "Die Hard" was a documentary...
I'm convinced many of them think "Die Hard" was a documentary...
The NRA is not stupid. They are immune to logical argument, because their acolytes would rather believe than know. What they want is pretty clear: They want all Americans to carry a gun, because they know the outcome they want to bring about. I.e., the deterioration of law and order, a population of armed, fearful, and distrusting people, and a country where might is right, high walls, barbed wire, armed thuggery, and protected enclaves for the believers. They will float every myth to the salivating glee of certified nuts (Imus, Nugent, Republicans, Fox), and gain traction from everyone feeling remotely threatened (that would be, ahem, a large number of Americans). Sure, if everyone carried a gun! Solution to everything.
Why do we need enemies in the rest of the world who wish us destruction? We have them right here, ready to elect their leader.
Kalidan
Why do we need enemies in the rest of the world who wish us destruction? We have them right here, ready to elect their leader.
Kalidan
1
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be a gun wrapped in a flag, carrying a cross.“ - with apologies to Sinclair Lewis.
1
Gun fans don't care about data. Each one is sure that he won't make a mistake and may in fact be the person who heroically stops a terrible crime from happening.
1
"Clearly, concealed carry does not transform ordinary citizens into superheroes. Rather, it compounds the risks to innocent lives"
Fancying yourself a super-hero is not normal behavior. Guns ownership should be for the normal, sane and responsible. Thinking the government is going to take your guns away - is irrational, not normal behavior.
We have a serious problem.
Fancying yourself a super-hero is not normal behavior. Guns ownership should be for the normal, sane and responsible. Thinking the government is going to take your guns away - is irrational, not normal behavior.
We have a serious problem.
2
Ironically, and undeniably, the people likely to fancy themselves superheros also fancy themselves normal, sane and rational - often they fancy that they are the only normal, sane and rational ones in an insane, irrational world. Most people believe this about themselves to some degree - sometimes it seems like the people who actually are sane and rational are *less* married to the belief that they are.
See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil: there is no evil so prevent no evil; No?
1
Almost 13 Million concealed carry permits in the United States now. They constitute the most law abiding group in the country overall. The crime deterrent factor is impossible to count. Crime has dropped significantly while permits and gun ownership has gone up. Just the opposite of what many predicted.
7
The problem is that other countries with much stricter gun laws have also seen large drops in crime over the same period. So to claim it was due to increased gun ownership is wishful thinking.
The studies that have been done have found that you can't make the link that more guns cause more or less crime. The quality of the data isn't good enough.
The studies that have been done have found that you can't make the link that more guns cause more or less crime. The quality of the data isn't good enough.
NRA response? Facts are stupid things. I live in Texas. When I tell my gun friends that far more family, friends, and acquaintances are killed by guns than perpetrators, they don't disagree. Makes no difference. Wouldn't happen to them and besides, the good guys with the guns are protecting us from the tyranny of that black guy who's President and his government.
Do the editorial board members have "Gun Free Zone" signs on their houses?
Do mass killings take place at shooting ranges?
Did or do the police prevent mass looting, arson, murder, rape calls to violence when under orders not to "interfere"!? Such as in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago...
Do law abiding citizens or criminals flaunt the gun laws?
Fools hiding behind mythic passive-ism equals safety argument are a danger to the world. Russia, China, North Korea, are applauding your fervor.
The second amendment to the constitution has a basis in fact and experience, it is not defense against invading squirrels. The anti gun lobby might take note that every category of crime and gun violence is on the rise in Australia with the recent institution of anti gun legislation.
Do mass killings take place at shooting ranges?
Did or do the police prevent mass looting, arson, murder, rape calls to violence when under orders not to "interfere"!? Such as in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago...
Do law abiding citizens or criminals flaunt the gun laws?
Fools hiding behind mythic passive-ism equals safety argument are a danger to the world. Russia, China, North Korea, are applauding your fervor.
The second amendment to the constitution has a basis in fact and experience, it is not defense against invading squirrels. The anti gun lobby might take note that every category of crime and gun violence is on the rise in Australia with the recent institution of anti gun legislation.
1
Is it possible for once that the NYT base an article on firearms and firearms related deaths on facts and primary source research? Is that too much to ask?
Take this information from the Pew Center published on 21 October:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-aft...
Note the comments about the perception of gun violence increasing as the statistical data points to a nearly 50% decline in firearm homicides. Have we lost the collective ability to apply critical reasoning to empirical data? That also applies to the basic misunderstanding about how and where the NRA funds itself and how it motivates voters to apply pressure to their elected officials. For many in here the NRA is this vast conspiracy seeking to kill all of your children. I'm sorry but you're idiots. It's that simple even if you have you gilded Ivy League education as you sip your lattes in your posh urban enclaves you seem incapable of doing primary source research on your own. Instead you regurgitate half-truths from agenda based organizations that have at their core an emotionally based opposition to the second amendment.
I now sit back and await the 4th grade level taunts of "ammosexual", "gun-nut", "redneck", "child killer" to come streaming in from those who can't be bothered to go the DOJ/FBI/CDC websites and look at the data themselves.
Take this information from the Pew Center published on 21 October:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-aft...
Note the comments about the perception of gun violence increasing as the statistical data points to a nearly 50% decline in firearm homicides. Have we lost the collective ability to apply critical reasoning to empirical data? That also applies to the basic misunderstanding about how and where the NRA funds itself and how it motivates voters to apply pressure to their elected officials. For many in here the NRA is this vast conspiracy seeking to kill all of your children. I'm sorry but you're idiots. It's that simple even if you have you gilded Ivy League education as you sip your lattes in your posh urban enclaves you seem incapable of doing primary source research on your own. Instead you regurgitate half-truths from agenda based organizations that have at their core an emotionally based opposition to the second amendment.
I now sit back and await the 4th grade level taunts of "ammosexual", "gun-nut", "redneck", "child killer" to come streaming in from those who can't be bothered to go the DOJ/FBI/CDC websites and look at the data themselves.
1
And yet almost every high ranking government official, even those who argue for stricter gun control, has a concealed-carry body guard standing next to him. Celebrities who make public statements against guns have concealed-carry body guards. People who transport money or jewelry often have concealed-carry guns as if their papers and rocks were more important than human life.
Whenever the gun lobby talks about "responsible gun owners," keep this in mind:
Every responsible gun owner is responsible until he isn't. Don't be fooled. Every gun owner is potentially dangerous.
Every responsible gun owner is responsible until he isn't. Don't be fooled. Every gun owner is potentially dangerous.
3
A key point missed by The Times editorial staff is that a crook is going to have a gun, irrespective of what the local gun laws are. The crook often selects a soft target (e.g., school or theatre) to increase the likelihood that no one else is packing heat.
One can cherry pick the statistics cited by the NYT to a fare thee well. The reality is that the statistics that I am most familiar indicate that the margin of safety is increased when concealed carry is the law in a given locale.
One can cherry pick the statistics cited by the NYT to a fare thee well. The reality is that the statistics that I am most familiar indicate that the margin of safety is increased when concealed carry is the law in a given locale.
1
For people who have the idea that gun owners carry a concealed weapon to "take down the bad guy" let me set this straight. For most of us carrying a gun is simply for the protection of our family and ourselves. We have no intention of coming to someone else's rescue, as a "superhero". We don't run towards the gunfire, as police are required to do, we run away (if possible). The gun we carry is a last resort, when all else fails, and that should be the mantra of every gun owner. Because some gun owners are careless should not be a reason to ban all guns, just as we don't ban cars because of the actions of a few irresponsible drivers.
1
Ah, but with cars we pass laws to regulate things that reduce deaths - seat belts, airbags, etc. No one wants to ban guns. But, there are things we can do to REDUCE gun death. For example, most of the storied reduction in gun violence cited by the NRA and others occurred between 1994 and 2004 when the ban of assault weapons was in effect. No one banned guns, per se. But there sure was a positive effect. Knee jerk anti-action against common sense gun legislation just kills more people.
Fight the misinformation of the 2 pillars of classroom carry, the foundation of its appeal, with your parents, neighbors, and friends. Remember classroom carry offers a profoundly articulate appeal to reason and fear. it is not irrational. The NRA has sold as true the propaganda that diminishing crime rates are caused by the spread of concealed carrying. The NRA has also spread the misleading assertion that CC are much better behaved that the average population. But there is no way for us to know. It is illegal in all 50 states to keep statistics of cc arrests. All we know are rates of convictions. Remember George Zimmerman, who killed Trevor Martin? How many non-convicted Zimmermans are there? Well, a lot. http://gunfreeut.org/galileo-and-campus-carry/
Your points are all well taken and sane people most likely agree but Jim Croce expressed reality best when he sang, "You don't spit into the wind."
The NRA's got it covered.
The NRA's got it covered.
It's all about Television and Movie viewing and the fantasies they produce. That is why the gun culture changed from an old society dependent on long guns like rifles and shotguns and now wish to be "Dirty Harry" with his 44 caliber handgun.
It's all about Television and Movie fantasies.
It's all about Television and Movie fantasies.
It's all about male insecurity, fueled and held in place by TV and movie fantasies. I grew up in a time when real male character was shown by the guy in the movie who diffused a situation, who quietly and wisely stood up for nonviolence. The word "gentleman" had meaning for the ordinary guy.
The Times has a city mentality. Some of us live where the nearest deputy may be eight or more miles away. I purchased my first weapon back in the 80"s after a "disturbed person" showed up on my property in the middle of the night. Never had to use it but like insurance I'm glad its there.
So, based on the information provided in this article, concealed-carry shooters were acting in self defense in only 21 out of 600 times that they shot someone. That's 3-1/2%. Just think America: if you found out that you had an early-stage slow-growing form of cancer and your doctor offered you a treatment that had a 3-1/2% chance of saving you and 96-1/2% chance of making your cancer significantly worse or killing you immediately, whould you choose to take it? Let's tell Dr. NRA "No thanks! We'll try some of the many other treatment options it there that are much less likely to kill us!"
2
Good editorial, useful as reference material. But it is dropped like a stone into a pit without a bottom because it uses logical argument and facts. The pro-gun shills of the gun-makers address their twisted propaganda to a group that fears facts as if they are some satanic Trojan horses.
2
Police train and retrain to use handguns effectively, and even with all their training, they sometimes make mistakes. Why does anyone think that an untrained civilian is going to be effective in stopping crime and in not shooting the wrong person?
2
With remarkable hypocrisy, at NRA Conventions (I'm told) guns are banned. Likewise in Supreme Court proceedings, rulings for everybody else to the contrary
2
When politicians stop walking around with armed guards, I'll believe there's no reason I need a gun to protect myself.
So go whine at the politicians.
BTW, the 2nd amendment guarantees my right. You're welcome to call to have to revoked, but until you do stop pushing laws and regulations that violate it. And don't tell me about well-regulated militias. Go try to start a militia. The government will show up with guns and show you just how well regulated militias are.
So go whine at the politicians.
BTW, the 2nd amendment guarantees my right. You're welcome to call to have to revoked, but until you do stop pushing laws and regulations that violate it. And don't tell me about well-regulated militias. Go try to start a militia. The government will show up with guns and show you just how well regulated militias are.
It is disingenuous to use suicides ("the vast majority" of the shootings you cite) to show that concealed-carry should be limited. Unless you are claiming that they killed themselves because they got a concealed-carry permit? It's ludicrous to claim that laws against conceled-carry would stop people who plan on killing themselves.
1
Not at all ludicrous or disingenuous. In fact, the failure to see the connection between availability of guns and suicide is a very good example of the kind of willful ignorance that the pro-gun crowd must practice every single day. Suicide is generally a result of depression, of moments or fits or periods of deep melancholy. A gun is a very effective and quick way of killing yourself. If you have one handy when you are very depressed, you are much more likely to die of suicide, than if you have to figure out how you are going to do it, and then carry out. This is pretty simple, if you think about it.
1
People who plan to kill themselves will find a way to kill themselves; people who plan to kill others will find a way to kill others.
Carrying a portable gun on one's person at all times removes a barrier to doing either of those things in an unplanned, spur-of-the-moment way or in a moment of distress that might otherwise have passed given time.
Carrying a portable gun on one's person at all times removes a barrier to doing either of those things in an unplanned, spur-of-the-moment way or in a moment of distress that might otherwise have passed given time.
1
Mock survey for parents and students on campuses dying to enact classroom carry:
All 15,000 faculty, staff and graduate students at our state university, can all potentially become classroom carriers. Are you opposed to a teaching environment where your teacher might have a concealed semiautomatic pistol in his underwear "?
"On average, concealed carriers are convicted (there is no way to get statistics for arrest) fewer times than the average population, When convicted, however, their crimes are disproportionally related to sexual violence (50%). Are you in favor or opposed to guns in dorms"?
“Colleges with classroom carry have already reported several cases of injuries for misfire and brawling students involved in shoot outs. Not a single case of crime stopped by concealed one has been reported. Are you in favor or opposed to concealed carry in offices, dorms, and classrooms?
"Concealed carriers on the immediate vicinity of campus can also bring weapons into campus buildings. UT-Austin has are 5,500 of them in its immediate vicinity. 18-year-olds from Alabama, who get licenses with no training or exams, could legally carry weapons on campus. Texas has reciprocity agreements with 39 different states whose rules are dramatically different than ours. Are you in favor or opposed to campus carry?"
All 15,000 faculty, staff and graduate students at our state university, can all potentially become classroom carriers. Are you opposed to a teaching environment where your teacher might have a concealed semiautomatic pistol in his underwear "?
"On average, concealed carriers are convicted (there is no way to get statistics for arrest) fewer times than the average population, When convicted, however, their crimes are disproportionally related to sexual violence (50%). Are you in favor or opposed to guns in dorms"?
“Colleges with classroom carry have already reported several cases of injuries for misfire and brawling students involved in shoot outs. Not a single case of crime stopped by concealed one has been reported. Are you in favor or opposed to concealed carry in offices, dorms, and classrooms?
"Concealed carriers on the immediate vicinity of campus can also bring weapons into campus buildings. UT-Austin has are 5,500 of them in its immediate vicinity. 18-year-olds from Alabama, who get licenses with no training or exams, could legally carry weapons on campus. Texas has reciprocity agreements with 39 different states whose rules are dramatically different than ours. Are you in favor or opposed to campus carry?"
2
I live in Arizona, which has some pretty loose gun laws. In 20 years, I've seen one cowboy-type who was carrying. A couple of weeks ago, I was in a remote area of Montana where it was moose-hunting season. I talked to a hunter who said he'd waited 12 years for his permit and that he could shoot only a calf, not a bull. He was well aware of the restrictions and clearly intended to comply. I was sad there would be one less moose out there, but I was sure this guy would play by the rules.
Despite our loose gun laws, you, too, could go 20 years and not see a gun. Pretty much all the gun violence here comes from the poor side of town. If I were in charge of gun control, I'd focus on the kids of South Phoenix who get shot because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's pretty predictable that that will happen week after week. And often, illegal guns are involved. The police can do a lot more about that than about a random, unpredictable shooter.
Despite our loose gun laws, you, too, could go 20 years and not see a gun. Pretty much all the gun violence here comes from the poor side of town. If I were in charge of gun control, I'd focus on the kids of South Phoenix who get shot because they're in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's pretty predictable that that will happen week after week. And often, illegal guns are involved. The police can do a lot more about that than about a random, unpredictable shooter.
1
If I were in a mall and a shooter appeared, the last thing I would want is for several mall shoppers to pull out their weapons and start firing. Within a minute or so, no one would know who the real shooter was. And while people who have a concealed carry permit may be trained in firearm safety, they are not trained in engaging a suspect in a crowded mall the way police are.
4
Given the fondness for shooters to wear black BDUs and combat boots, it's probably not as hard to pick out the target as you suggest.
It should also be noted that CHL holders are not trained to secure a mass-casualty crime scene the same way the police are. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
It should also be noted that CHL holders are not trained to secure a mass-casualty crime scene the same way the police are. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
To the Editors,
I noticed both yourself and the researchers mention "concealed carry" perpetrators but neglect the words "licensed and permit owning".
Were the "concealed carry" shooters issued permits by their respective states?
The article seems unclear on this thus leaving the door open for the NRA and it's bag of nuts leaders to exploit your numbers in the wrong direction. I might suggest that your numbers tell me "concealed carry", either legal or illegal, doesn't work hence the need for "open carry" to deter crime a choice the folks at the NRA would just love.
When advocating against gun violence, at least try to use the right phrases and proper statistics. The knuckle draggers advocating more guns love nothing better then a 'stumble' by the opposition (Such as typifying all 'assault weapons' and 'semi-automatic' pistols as fully automatic or confusing "illegal concealed carry" with "legal concealed carry"). It's hard enough being a gun owner AND pushing for, at least, background checks and waiting periods before completion of purchase without the people I support rendering their own arguments mute because they are skewed just as much as the NRA skews it's numbers.
As for doing away with "concealed carry", be careful what you wish for as the entire country could start looking an awful lot like 19th Century Deadwood, South Dakota with people "strapping on leather" and shotguns running rampant an image we already project to the rest of the world.
I noticed both yourself and the researchers mention "concealed carry" perpetrators but neglect the words "licensed and permit owning".
Were the "concealed carry" shooters issued permits by their respective states?
The article seems unclear on this thus leaving the door open for the NRA and it's bag of nuts leaders to exploit your numbers in the wrong direction. I might suggest that your numbers tell me "concealed carry", either legal or illegal, doesn't work hence the need for "open carry" to deter crime a choice the folks at the NRA would just love.
When advocating against gun violence, at least try to use the right phrases and proper statistics. The knuckle draggers advocating more guns love nothing better then a 'stumble' by the opposition (Such as typifying all 'assault weapons' and 'semi-automatic' pistols as fully automatic or confusing "illegal concealed carry" with "legal concealed carry"). It's hard enough being a gun owner AND pushing for, at least, background checks and waiting periods before completion of purchase without the people I support rendering their own arguments mute because they are skewed just as much as the NRA skews it's numbers.
As for doing away with "concealed carry", be careful what you wish for as the entire country could start looking an awful lot like 19th Century Deadwood, South Dakota with people "strapping on leather" and shotguns running rampant an image we already project to the rest of the world.
2
Hey, a person can always carry illegally. Nothing stops them but a hefty penalty and prison time. What this article proposes is penalizing those citizens that do not want to break the law.
Put aside all your misconceptions about violence, guns, and statistics that represent drops-in-the-buckets in a nation of 320 million people, because that's what it comes down to: guns are just a means of violence that people will carry regardless of what the law states. Either provide a legal means or prepare to start putting normal people in jail.
Put aside all your misconceptions about violence, guns, and statistics that represent drops-in-the-buckets in a nation of 320 million people, because that's what it comes down to: guns are just a means of violence that people will carry regardless of what the law states. Either provide a legal means or prepare to start putting normal people in jail.
2
Require gun manufacturers to make every gun with smart gun technology. After that set up a schedule for gun recalls to include that technology. A sales tax refund could be part of the solution for those that own guns. Open carry is stupid anyways.
Great editorial, using facts to state your case. And we need more facts from the CDC on firearm deaths to present a full picture on the value or danger of so many people walking around with handguns and assault rifles. Sadly, the NRA is spending millions of dollars to prevent research into this public health problem. Why? Why are facts dangerous? I think the answer is plain.
This is an important analysis but poorly presented. If this were a graded assignment, I'd hand it back and say, "Do this again, and this time with clarity."
E.g. The second sentence of the essay: "This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research project showing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense."
This sentence is so bad I'm not sure where to start. All the statistics in this essay are hard, if not impossible, to follow. "Self-defense" is not defined in this context. Please take this essay home and rewrite it.
E.g. The second sentence of the essay: "This foolhardy notion of quick-draw resistance, however, is dramatically contradicted by a research project showing that, since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense."
This sentence is so bad I'm not sure where to start. All the statistics in this essay are hard, if not impossible, to follow. "Self-defense" is not defined in this context. Please take this essay home and rewrite it.
I agree totally. I am interested in the topic but I found this editorial completely impenetrable. I read it over twice and I still have no idea what the statistics were supposed to show.
All guns should have a marker or transmitter easily detectable by police even if concealed.
When detected, police should check for a license.
If there is no license, penalties or arrests should be made.
When 40 homicides occur in the month of May in Baltimore alone,law enforcement needs a method of removing illegal guns from criminals.
When detected, police should check for a license.
If there is no license, penalties or arrests should be made.
When 40 homicides occur in the month of May in Baltimore alone,law enforcement needs a method of removing illegal guns from criminals.
Like pro sports and fantasy sports, the ideological myth of "safety through guns" is a world of pure fantasy.
Or a fanatical love of guns like an addiction that operates at the national, not the individual, level.
Either way, it is a complete waste of time to talk about it.
We Americans have decided that the right to own guns, which is a de facto right to commit murder, is more important than the safety of our own children.
See you are the next mass shooting at a shopping mall, church, movie theater or school?
Hopefully I won't be there.
Or a fanatical love of guns like an addiction that operates at the national, not the individual, level.
Either way, it is a complete waste of time to talk about it.
We Americans have decided that the right to own guns, which is a de facto right to commit murder, is more important than the safety of our own children.
See you are the next mass shooting at a shopping mall, church, movie theater or school?
Hopefully I won't be there.
Those who want more concealed weapons make two arguments: (i) that criminals will be less willing to perpetrate a crime if they were worried that someone else might have a weapon; (ii) that an armed citizen could defend him-/her-self in case of a mass shooting. In other words, more guns around will make us safer.
This reminds me of the original arguments for nuclear proliferation - have your warhead aimed at the other country. What happened next? The huge availability of nuclear weapons meant that the "bad buys" got a hold of them.
Or the terrorists used other means to attack.
Someone bent on mass murder is going to use whatever weapons they can get a hold of and whatever approach they think will work. If they get scared off by the prospect of an armed vigilante, then they will resort to bombs or bioterrorism or poison.
This reminds me of the original arguments for nuclear proliferation - have your warhead aimed at the other country. What happened next? The huge availability of nuclear weapons meant that the "bad buys" got a hold of them.
Or the terrorists used other means to attack.
Someone bent on mass murder is going to use whatever weapons they can get a hold of and whatever approach they think will work. If they get scared off by the prospect of an armed vigilante, then they will resort to bombs or bioterrorism or poison.
2
Most of the mass shooters have shot themselves or made it easy for the police to shoot them. The danger of being shot was obviously no deterrent to them.
1
The recent case of an armed woman blasting away at fleeing shoplifters (link at the bottom of this editorial) is just the latest evidence of a strange phenomenon: The deeply held belief among many Americans that property is worth killing over.
Another, more successful, instance is the widely distributed video clip in which an elderly man, crouched in a posture suggesting he knows little about guns, chases two would-be robbers out a diner with a .22 pistol.
Proportionality is lacking when would-be Dirty Harrys and Harriets believe that gunning someone down is the first, best response to someone in possession of another's property.
Therein lies the real sickness.
Another, more successful, instance is the widely distributed video clip in which an elderly man, crouched in a posture suggesting he knows little about guns, chases two would-be robbers out a diner with a .22 pistol.
Proportionality is lacking when would-be Dirty Harrys and Harriets believe that gunning someone down is the first, best response to someone in possession of another's property.
Therein lies the real sickness.
3
In addition to the complete ban on assault weapons that have no place in the public domain, and other gun safety measures that have been proposed -- repeatedly-- there should be an excise tax of at least 80% on the sale of ALL handguns and ammunition. Let the money collected be used to at least in part pay for the misery some gun owners have inflicted on the public. Perhaps we could tax these weapons of mass destruction out of existence if we can't seem to find ways to limit their production.
2
A current GOP bill in Wisconsin proposes to allow concealed carry on our state's college campuses.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-bill-would-allow-conceale...
So, here in perhaps the most emotionally charged time in life, young people - some still emotionally adolescent, will have this option. Anecdotally, I see MOST students at one time or another, have major sleep issues - a huge factor in adding to stress and in their emotional response to multiple pressures. I mention sleep issues as the evidence of the pressure & stress in their lives. No - don't add guns to this mix. More than any other legislation the Walker administration has done, this is the most disturbing in my mind.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/gop-bill-would-allow-conceale...
So, here in perhaps the most emotionally charged time in life, young people - some still emotionally adolescent, will have this option. Anecdotally, I see MOST students at one time or another, have major sleep issues - a huge factor in adding to stress and in their emotional response to multiple pressures. I mention sleep issues as the evidence of the pressure & stress in their lives. No - don't add guns to this mix. More than any other legislation the Walker administration has done, this is the most disturbing in my mind.
4
In Roseburg Oregon the teacher was shot first. If he was armed it wouldn't have mattered because the shooter had the advantage of surprise. Other students on the campus had concealed weapons but wisely didn't respond in the way that gun advocates believe will happen in their Hollywood-Western fantasy. The problem is that once law-enforcement arrives or another student with a gun tries to restore order, nobody knows who is who.
5
The study and editorial are a little misleading. The headline would lead one to believe that the deaths are occurring while a concealed carry permit holder is carrying out in public. Reading through the vignettes it seems that many incidents took place in the home, range, or other place where concealed carry is not relevant. There were some incidents where CCW permit holders shot someone in public, but nowhere near the 579 number that draws the eye.
4
Then prove it. Gunsuckers are full of unsupported assertions, appeals to emotion "what if YOU were mugged, huh? You'd want me and my gun there, yes you would! <spitgrunt>" and general lying, like the gunsucker who claimed that there were "200 possible mass shootings stopped every year by private armed citizens," which was a total lie, as the link he posted from the FBI proved. Gunsuckers lie like dogs on the rug, because they know their whole fascination with guns is based in EMOTIONS, not reason and logic. But they'd shoot themselves in the head before they'd be honest and cop to it.
A false flag, like saying cars are bad cause some drivers make mistakes & kill themselves & others versus all that don't. Millions of crimes are stopped each year by CCW holders, often these events don't get reported as the action of drawing gets the criminal to flee. Do people accidentally shoot bystanders? Certainly sometimes they do, but less so than many police who are often badly trained with little shooting practice. Research the take down in NYC by the Empire State Building 2 years ago where I believe the police struck 11 unarmed people as they had a shootout on the street.
Mean while mass shootings, although terrible events, are trivial in the number of people killed. If anyone really cared about shootings they would go after gang & black-on-black inner city shootings which account for the majority of gun crimes. But we never hear of these unless it's a white cop that shoots so there is a payday potential. As for actual statistics the average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started. Thus, if you really care about reducing the carnage of mass shooting you need to advocate for everyone to be armed or everyone to have their very own trained cop with them at all times for as we all know when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
Mean while mass shootings, although terrible events, are trivial in the number of people killed. If anyone really cared about shootings they would go after gang & black-on-black inner city shootings which account for the majority of gun crimes. But we never hear of these unless it's a white cop that shoots so there is a payday potential. As for actual statistics the average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started. Thus, if you really care about reducing the carnage of mass shooting you need to advocate for everyone to be armed or everyone to have their very own trained cop with them at all times for as we all know when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
6
How many of these crimes that are supposedly stopped by bystanders are documented as crimes?
My brother once insisted that just pretending he had a gun in his car stopped three teens from robbing him. He and his wife exited the elevator in the hospital parking garage when she got off work and started walking up the level to their car. At the same time three teens at the upper end of the level got out of a car and started walking down toward the elevator. My brother reached his car before they got that far and pretended to be getting a gun from under the seat. "They changed their minds about robbing us and kept on walking," he said. "If they had known I didn't really have a gun they would have robbed us." When I pointed out that they might have just happened to arrive at the hospital to visit someone (as visiting hours started about the time my sister-in-law quit work), he replied, "Black teenagers don't visit people in hospitals." Even my father, who supported concealed-carry laws, was disgusted with him.
How many other such "crimes" existed only in the eye of the gun carrier?
My brother once insisted that just pretending he had a gun in his car stopped three teens from robbing him. He and his wife exited the elevator in the hospital parking garage when she got off work and started walking up the level to their car. At the same time three teens at the upper end of the level got out of a car and started walking down toward the elevator. My brother reached his car before they got that far and pretended to be getting a gun from under the seat. "They changed their minds about robbing us and kept on walking," he said. "If they had known I didn't really have a gun they would have robbed us." When I pointed out that they might have just happened to arrive at the hospital to visit someone (as visiting hours started about the time my sister-in-law quit work), he replied, "Black teenagers don't visit people in hospitals." Even my father, who supported concealed-carry laws, was disgusted with him.
How many other such "crimes" existed only in the eye of the gun carrier?
1
Twelve issues of a magazine per year since 2007 equals 96. Seven or more incidents of successful self defense use of a fire arm per issue equal a total of 84 incidents. Each incident documented from a news paper clipping. The American Riflemen magazine's Armed Citizen section refutes the silly notion that of 579 non self defense incidents only 21 involved self defense as a determining factor. This article is comparing apples to oranges. The headline has little to do with the facts. If you want to explore the "Concealed-Carry Fantasy" look at the upside as well as the downside. This article looks only at the adverse outcomes and ignores the beneficial outcomes entirely.
4
Articles such as this go looking for "facts" to prove a predetermined ideological point. It's called propaganda not journalism.
What "beneficial outcomes"?
Prove it. You've cited zero sources to back up your claims. But this is typical of gun humpers. This isn't a matter of facts to them--it's a religion.
Unfortunately, conservatives and big business in American seem to delight in being on the wrong side of everything. We've got a ton of people who foolishly believe that they and their guns are needed to protect themselves and others from bad guys. As this editorial points out, it's a myth. Guns owners tell the public they are "responsible," and that is supposed to make us feel comfortable. Just the opposite. The only thing we know about most gun owners is that they are paranoid--and we also know that everyone is responsible until they are not, and formerly responsible people do stupid things all the time--suffer from drinking problems, have anger issues, have mental-health issues. We should be banning the sale, distribution and production of all hand guns in America.
5
It would appear that the primary function of "conceal and carry" is not self-defense or even homicide; rather it is an effective means suicide without the necessity of a doctor's prescription. The downside of this is that suicide by gun is "messy". As a matter of public policy it would be far more effective and less expensive to liberalize "right to die" laws. Of course this would significantly diminish the profits of the gun manufacturers and their NRA lobby.
2
Sounds like you are for natural selection...
As a two-time victim of violent crime (one perpetrator used a gun, the other, a knife), I have been advised by some to carry a small handgun. I find this to be ludicrous advice to a crime victim: Fight violence with violence? Put my life at greater risk by carrying a weapon that someone stronger than me could easily take and use against me?
But the even bigger consideration is this: Would I have the training, the quickness, the willingness to take down someone I judge in an instant to be a danger to me? I think not.
Anyone in possession of a gun has the responsibility to know his or her own ability to control that gun in a way to minimize, not maximize, harm. I, for one, do not believe most people have that self-knowledge.
But the even bigger consideration is this: Would I have the training, the quickness, the willingness to take down someone I judge in an instant to be a danger to me? I think not.
Anyone in possession of a gun has the responsibility to know his or her own ability to control that gun in a way to minimize, not maximize, harm. I, for one, do not believe most people have that self-knowledge.
222
The vast majority of people with concealed carry permits in fact never carry a concealed weapon. I have had one for decades and have never once carried a concealed weapon.
The reason permit holders go to special classes learned about state and Federal firearms law and safety is not to go about armed but to receive a Concealed Carry Permit to produce when selling or acquiring a firearm.
A criminal background check follows the classroom activity and is done before the permit is issued and has to be periodically renewed by the state much like a drivers license.
The reason permit holders go to special classes learned about state and Federal firearms law and safety is not to go about armed but to receive a Concealed Carry Permit to produce when selling or acquiring a firearm.
A criminal background check follows the classroom activity and is done before the permit is issued and has to be periodically renewed by the state much like a drivers license.
3
If you never carry a weapon, why would you be buying or selling one? And since when do you need a concealed carry permit to own a weapon? Assuming you pass the background check, in most states you can buy, keep in your house, and sell all the guns you want; concealed carry only applies to actually carrying them on the street.
If buying and selling guns is so much a part of your life, you are a gun dealer, not a carrier.
If buying and selling guns is so much a part of your life, you are a gun dealer, not a carrier.
1
On the one side, I see individual anecdotes of cases where the gun does make a difference. On the other side, of actually trying to collect data about the situations where concealed carry guns are used, I see not merely a lack of data, I see a coordinated effort by the gun lobby to keep information from being collected.
This leads me to believe the gun lobby doesn't want the truth to be known in its entirely and rely solely on non-scientific anecdotes to sway public opinion.
Whenever data is suppressed like this, it makes me suspicious of motives and what the truth actually is.
This leads me to believe the gun lobby doesn't want the truth to be known in its entirely and rely solely on non-scientific anecdotes to sway public opinion.
Whenever data is suppressed like this, it makes me suspicious of motives and what the truth actually is.
2
Once again we are treated with a gross distortion of the social-scientific literature on gun control along with severe omissions concerning the number of crimes stopped by defensive use of guns and the promotion of data from advocacy groups as if it is on the same standing as publications in the criminological literature. This does a great disservice to the readers of this paper who deserve the full picture rather than advocacy dressed as research.
1
If "This is a Gun Free Zone" signs at colleges were replaced by "Staff and Faculty are armed and trained in the use of deadly force" signs, I bet the opportunistic killers expecting to find a sanitized area would reconsider his plans to bully and kill the unarmed.
As to the CCW legal carrier being responsible for 763 deaths in 8 years, do you have an estimate on how many patients were killed by negligent physicians during the same period? Or how about the number of people killed by drivers who were texting while driving? What are you going to do, eliminate medical treatment and automobiles and mobile phones?
As to the CCW legal carrier being responsible for 763 deaths in 8 years, do you have an estimate on how many patients were killed by negligent physicians during the same period? Or how about the number of people killed by drivers who were texting while driving? What are you going to do, eliminate medical treatment and automobiles and mobile phones?
2
Whether or not the stories in old Western movies and tv programs were true in fact, the steps certain sheriffs and marshals took to reduce gun violence in those stories spoke to the reality of the ease of having a firearm on one's hip. Maybe it was Wyatt Earp (brave, courageous and bold) who made it law that everyone with a gun had to hang it on the wall when entering business establishments, in particular, saloons. I am saying to the people who feel the need to carry a firearm in open society, get for real! You are not Wyatt Earp or Marshal Dillon. Our society created law enforcement (with weapons) in order to keep the conflicts out of the hands of ordinary citizens and wannabe Wyatt Earps. Oh, there might be a case of two where an armed citizens helped save a life or stop a robbery, but, however I view law enforcement in today's social climate, I trust the police more than any armed yahoo citizen. I've heard most of the arguments in favor of open carry. A veteran comedian suggested, let citizens have their guns, but charge $5,000 for a single bullet!
The problem with the "more guns" approach to each new mass shooting incident is that the math is hopeless. Even in the most carry-friendly states there just aren't enough people who feel like dragging around a dangerous hunk of metal. Frequency of carry would have to be much greater to have any hope of making a difference in very low probability events like a shooting in a particular theater or school on a particular day. And as this study shows, increased carry results in increased firearms death, such that any benefits of higher carry rates are overwhelmed by their associated collateral damage.
But that doesn't stop the fantasizing every time there's a mass shooting.
But that doesn't stop the fantasizing every time there's a mass shooting.
Carry permit holders would be a logical place to require insurance. As the article points out, they bring a substantial danger out into the public. In addition to the risks they present themselves, they expose their weapons to loss and theft and feed our more general homicide problem. You can find details of how to mandate gun insurance at http://guninsuranceblog.com The key is that the insurance should directly pay victims and continue coverage after guns are stolen.
1
Where is that well-regulated militia?
Deterrence is a farce based on these study results. In Wisconsin the latest craze among male Republican legislators is to force concealed carry onto university and school campuses. Just add binge drinking, poor outcomes in athletic events, or students unable to maintain a high-enough grade point average and watch the disaster unfold. Whether caused by male inadequacy, fear, or paranoia, this emphasis on increasing he number of concealed guns to curb violence is a a cruel hoax to justify the slavish devotion to the gun lobby.
Deterrence is a farce based on these study results. In Wisconsin the latest craze among male Republican legislators is to force concealed carry onto university and school campuses. Just add binge drinking, poor outcomes in athletic events, or students unable to maintain a high-enough grade point average and watch the disaster unfold. Whether caused by male inadequacy, fear, or paranoia, this emphasis on increasing he number of concealed guns to curb violence is a a cruel hoax to justify the slavish devotion to the gun lobby.
1
In an editorial in this paper, it was pointed out that polling is less effective today because it is largely conducted by telephone calls to land lines, suggesting that the data favors, older, and generally more conservative responses. Even so, it is not surprising that opinion is in opposition to fact. Examples include climate change (denial) and immigration (i.e. comments by Donald Trump).
A few of the people I know who have been granted concealed carry permits I would prefer were not. One has been in and out of work for the past 10 years and talks of being a victim of a plot against working class white men. Another loves violent video games and talks of needing a gun for when he might be "in the wrong place at the wrong time". Another sometimes drinks too much and becomes easily argumentative. Some of these are members of my extended family. To a strangers eye, they seem normal. But in that moment when they're exposed to an environment you know disturbs them, you can't help but threatened. I'm reasonably confident nothing would never escalate to that level, but knowing the risk is there I am very careful in my relations with them. And that just seems wrong. Which makes me question a system that makes it legal for anyone to carry a lethal weapon without a psychological evaluation and gun safety training.
What's most frightening is that I think almost anyone can have moments of fear or anger arising out of incidents we can't control. I can't deny having them myself on occasion. We're all human. How would having a gun in our possession impact the outcomes in those moments we feel violated or enraged? I really don't want to know.
And if you can't answer that question yourself without absolute certainty, you should be as concerned about the process as I am.
What's most frightening is that I think almost anyone can have moments of fear or anger arising out of incidents we can't control. I can't deny having them myself on occasion. We're all human. How would having a gun in our possession impact the outcomes in those moments we feel violated or enraged? I really don't want to know.
And if you can't answer that question yourself without absolute certainty, you should be as concerned about the process as I am.
2
From the Title to the tone.
This article is helping no one. It is most assuredly not changing the mind or even getting the minds of CC proponents to think about the topic and it is preaching from doctrine the dogma of the most obnoxious and least valid bunch who want there to be fewer guns in the hands of people.
Fact is this piece is proof of the people who want to take guns away that gun owners say want to do so to subjugate them.
Adults make rational arguments sans sarcasm and digs at the imaginary enemy. Either we are all in this together and putting our best argument forward allowing the whole of society to take or leave it or we are just a bunch of kids in a school yard playing for power, position, and control letting the sneakiest, most aggressive or willing to be violent win.
This article is helping no one. It is most assuredly not changing the mind or even getting the minds of CC proponents to think about the topic and it is preaching from doctrine the dogma of the most obnoxious and least valid bunch who want there to be fewer guns in the hands of people.
Fact is this piece is proof of the people who want to take guns away that gun owners say want to do so to subjugate them.
Adults make rational arguments sans sarcasm and digs at the imaginary enemy. Either we are all in this together and putting our best argument forward allowing the whole of society to take or leave it or we are just a bunch of kids in a school yard playing for power, position, and control letting the sneakiest, most aggressive or willing to be violent win.
2
To get non-hunting guns our of the hands of ordinary individuals, it will take a significant change in membership of the Supreme Court to get rid of the five Republican ideologues who intentionally distort the meaning and interpretation of the Second Amendment. Or perhaps a tragic shooting episode in the halls of Congress.
Until there is effective gun control and the plethora of firearms in this country is drastically reduced, the average citizen has good reason to worry about himself and his family in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in their everyday activities.
Until there is effective gun control and the plethora of firearms in this country is drastically reduced, the average citizen has good reason to worry about himself and his family in their pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in their everyday activities.
I am a liberal Democrat who strongly supports much needed gun control legislation, yet I own a powerful handgun. About once a year, I find myself in a situation in which my initial thought is that I wish I had my handgun with me. The last such situation occurred two months ago - I had just left my house on a Saturday afternoon, and after I locked the door a vicious looking Doberman started charging directly at me - I froze and when the dog reached me, it stopped and began sniffing around me, and simultaneously the dog's owner started yelling "don't worry he's very friendly." Within 30 yards of my door, there were at least half a dozen children and four adults. If I had my gun with me and and had drawn and fired who knows what the consequences would have been - I could have accidentally hit an innocent child or an adult. Concealed carry, with very few exceptions, has no place in America.
3
Sorry, but I'm thinking my life was saved just by pointing to my side when an illegal Hispanic guy started to approach me at the Albion, NY Walmart. A few weeks later, either he, or another, stabbed a woman to death in that same parking lot so as to steal her car. He was caught a short time later at a house full of illegal Hispanic men who worked for local farmers. The Hispanic who stabbed the woman was from Venezuala, but he registered himself as a Puerto Rican. Worse, he was wanted in Goergia for a prior violent crime. Not many people get involved in multiple victim shootings, many because they are in a gun free zone, and do not want to go to jail for carrying to protect their own life. That is why we need to undo/repeal these Victim Creation Zone laws, which leftists, I'm sure, love as they promote gun death, and their desire to disarm all becomes wanted by those who do not use logic, but instead their "feelings" when they see these tragedies. If we wish to educate, we must know that these types of murder rampages are occurring more often due to these aberrant laws. Many would step in if they knew they would not be prosecuted for breaking unconstitutional laws.
3
Since you admit you don't know if he was the same person who was later arrested, how do you know he was 1) illegal, 2) Hispanic, and 3) approaching you to harm you?
See my account above of my brother supposedly protecting himself. Furthermore, I worked in retail, and frequently we would be eyeing a person we suspected of shoplifting, trying to catch him in the act, when the store owner (from a lily-white gated community) would tell us to go watch the African American teenager who we knew from past experience was going to buy a candy bar and maybe try to sneak a look at Playboy. The owner was convinced she had stopped a shoplifter by telling us to watch him, but the reality was she probably enabled the other customer to shoplift in peace while we were diverted.
See my account above of my brother supposedly protecting himself. Furthermore, I worked in retail, and frequently we would be eyeing a person we suspected of shoplifting, trying to catch him in the act, when the store owner (from a lily-white gated community) would tell us to go watch the African American teenager who we knew from past experience was going to buy a candy bar and maybe try to sneak a look at Playboy. The owner was convinced she had stopped a shoplifter by telling us to watch him, but the reality was she probably enabled the other customer to shoplift in peace while we were diverted.
1
with 300 million guns owned in the us, i am afraid that the chances of enacting meaningful gun control are slim and none. I would love to see the democratic party publicly offer the NRA a 4 year moratorium on new gun laws if they will help the government amass statistics on the actual uses of guns, including death rates (by gunshot of owners, non owners, and times firearms were used to successfully defend someone). The NRA will either agree, which would allow the compilation of some meaningful science that they would be involved with, or be seen as irresponsible (or simply a voice for the gun trade)by many of their current supporters. Either alternative would weaken the NRA's hold on this issue in our government. But once there are 300 million guns loose in your country, keeping someone from buying yet another one doesn't seem likely to me to be making us safer.
Fact: more guns equal more deaths.
Fact: Gun restrictions work, everywhere they have been tried - see Australia and the U.S. Capitol for example.
Fact: Having a gun increases the chance of dying, nor decreases it.
Fact: In the only country where mass murders happen with great frequency, not one mass shooting was prevented by a good guy with a gun.
Fact: Not one Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is limitless.
But why should facts guide policy when ignorance prevails?
Fact: Gun restrictions work, everywhere they have been tried - see Australia and the U.S. Capitol for example.
Fact: Having a gun increases the chance of dying, nor decreases it.
Fact: In the only country where mass murders happen with great frequency, not one mass shooting was prevented by a good guy with a gun.
Fact: Not one Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is limitless.
But why should facts guide policy when ignorance prevails?
5
A reason expanded "concealed carry" laws are so dangerous is because ordinary passersby , assuming they know the facts of a situation, are as likely to kill or injure the wrong person as are police. The problem is there would be so many of them. Police are constantly making such errors on NYC's congested streets. With their new automatic pistols that can carry and fire 3 times as many bullets as the old revolvers. If passersby with pistols do the same, the chance of numerous stray bullets hitting innocent bystanders increases with every person carrying who thinks of themselves another Sheriff Matt Dillon, ready to bring peace to the concrete canyons with their guns. Owning and being able to load a pistol is no guarantee of being prescient or observant enough to only shoot at the "right" persons. If cops can't do it, why should armed civilians think themselves capable of such instantaneous and fine distinctions?
136
I agree. As a citizen with a concealed carry permit, I've expressed concern that if I was forced to use my weapon that I might be shot by someone else who mistakes me for a bad guy. For example, if I'm standing over the bad guy that I've just shot and I have my weapon drawn, and then an armed citizen enters the scene, are they going to mistake me for a bad guy and shoot me?
Without proper training and the ability to assess a life threatening situation in seconds, most people are unprepared for this situation. Further more, without proper recurrent training in the use of a handgun, it's unlikely that the outcome will be successful.
I've been handling weapons for 53 years. I can disassemble and assemble my weapon in the dark. My proficiency and marksmanship is above average. However, in the 53 years of experience that I have, I've watched average citizens make awful mistakes with weapons because using these weapons is not second nature to them. Good evidence of this is the high amount of mistakes made by military personnel and police officers who are trained and considered proficient.
Without proper training and the ability to assess a life threatening situation in seconds, most people are unprepared for this situation. Further more, without proper recurrent training in the use of a handgun, it's unlikely that the outcome will be successful.
I've been handling weapons for 53 years. I can disassemble and assemble my weapon in the dark. My proficiency and marksmanship is above average. However, in the 53 years of experience that I have, I've watched average citizens make awful mistakes with weapons because using these weapons is not second nature to them. Good evidence of this is the high amount of mistakes made by military personnel and police officers who are trained and considered proficient.
"With their new automatic pistols that can carry and fire 3 times as many bullets as the old revolvers"? Where have you been for the last thirty years or so? Police haven't been carrying revolvers for a long time now.
Your argument that ordinary CC permit holders aren't any smarter than police isn't totally unreasonable, though you provide no proof and private citizens are hopefully smarter at avoiding use-of-force situations than some police officers, but you sound woefully out of touch with the facts.
Your argument that ordinary CC permit holders aren't any smarter than police isn't totally unreasonable, though you provide no proof and private citizens are hopefully smarter at avoiding use-of-force situations than some police officers, but you sound woefully out of touch with the facts.
I think the proliferation of gun deaths in the US, particularly compared to other countries speaks for itself. The statistics show things like suicide, accidental shootings of self or others, and acts of passion all out weigh self defense shootings. The probability of a US government take over by force is so unlikely and far out weighted by mass shootings with military style weapons. It's a shame that humans are not wired to think statistically.
For self defense reasons an effective non-lethal alternative needs to be developed and offered to people in exchange for their guns.
For self defense reasons an effective non-lethal alternative needs to be developed and offered to people in exchange for their guns.
Gun control advocates continually bring up suicides committed with firearms, but a simple look at WHO data and rates for firearm ownership available on Wiki make it clear that there is no relationship between the two. England, Canada, New Zealand and the US all have about the same rate of suicide but dramatically different rates of firearm ownership. In addition a number of countries with low rates of firearm ownership have much higher rates of suicide. Regardless of the trends observed over a short term in some studies on the impact of means on rates of suicide, it appears that the longer term rates reflect something else going in populations. The Harvard School of Public Health acknowledges this on their site of suicides in the US, in spite of their reports on means of suicides.
4
I have been saving up to send my kids to an Ivy-league American University if they have good grades and manage to get admission. But the recent events and the disturbing gun madness that is pervading the USA - and the total incapability of the political class to do anything at all about it - my wife and I are reconsidering our options.
We are now seriously considering sending our kids to go to Oxford, Cambridge, London or any other top university in the UK, or to the excellent world-class universities of Switzerland and France. Apart from the fact that it will cost us a lot less than an ivy-league education, we won't lose our sleep over our children's safety: gun violence (and any kind violence, really) is totally unknown in European campuses.
We are now seriously considering sending our kids to go to Oxford, Cambridge, London or any other top university in the UK, or to the excellent world-class universities of Switzerland and France. Apart from the fact that it will cost us a lot less than an ivy-league education, we won't lose our sleep over our children's safety: gun violence (and any kind violence, really) is totally unknown in European campuses.
When gun violence is actually discussed (usually prompted when a lone, loner, teen aged white male guns down a group of people), the reflex list of solutions includes better mental health—which morphs into take guns away from the mentally ill. But what is lacking is any curiosity about the mental health issues surrounding gun ownership and gun violence itself. Rather than saying those with mental health issues should not have guns, what we really should be saying is that a subset of young white loner men may have a particular propensity for mental instability and violence. More broadly, what about the emotional suffering attached to the fear and anxiety that prompts so many people to want guns on them at all times? There is a great opportunity here for a better understanding of ourselves, and perhaps a way to convince people that guns are not the solution.
There are zones where it is reasonable to prohibit open or concealed carry.
The law of the land states that reasonable gun regulation is permitted. Lawmakers should focus on defining what is reasonable. That in itself would start a national polemic on the topic.
This Congress is unlikely to ever create a committee whose purpose is to define what is reasonable in light of the Miller, Heller, and McDonald decisions, but the creating of such a committee could become a campaign issue as we go into the 2016 elections.
Debating whether to amend or repeal the 2d Amendment guarantees that nothing will be done, and advances the purposes of congressional radicals.
The law of the land states that reasonable gun regulation is permitted. Lawmakers should focus on defining what is reasonable. That in itself would start a national polemic on the topic.
This Congress is unlikely to ever create a committee whose purpose is to define what is reasonable in light of the Miller, Heller, and McDonald decisions, but the creating of such a committee could become a campaign issue as we go into the 2016 elections.
Debating whether to amend or repeal the 2d Amendment guarantees that nothing will be done, and advances the purposes of congressional radicals.
The only people I want to see wearing guns in public are the police, even if we have the strictest possible gun laws in everywhere in this country -- which of course, we now do not have anywhere in this country.
Even if the laws make it next to impossible for those with clearly defined mental problems or criminal backgrounds to obtain a weapon, that will not exclud (but I think it should) those who have at any time in their lives been characterized as having poor impulse control -- which was clearly demonstrated the lady who shot at the car of a shoplifter a few weeks ago. These people should be walking among us with weapons? I say no.
There is also the point eloquently stated by one of the people who had a carry permit and who was also present at the last shooting atrocity, when he gave his reason for not firing being a fear that the police responding to the violence might think he is the perpetrator. An of course, I will add that having more bullets flying around with those not hitting the intended target is just crazy. Are y'all aware how difficult that is to hit a target with a handgun? Even if you are stationary, your target is stationary and you are not in a highly tense situation with lots of stuff going on? TV makes it look easy. It is very difficult even for those that are well-trained and have lots of practice. Wake up and smell the gun powder.
Even if the laws make it next to impossible for those with clearly defined mental problems or criminal backgrounds to obtain a weapon, that will not exclud (but I think it should) those who have at any time in their lives been characterized as having poor impulse control -- which was clearly demonstrated the lady who shot at the car of a shoplifter a few weeks ago. These people should be walking among us with weapons? I say no.
There is also the point eloquently stated by one of the people who had a carry permit and who was also present at the last shooting atrocity, when he gave his reason for not firing being a fear that the police responding to the violence might think he is the perpetrator. An of course, I will add that having more bullets flying around with those not hitting the intended target is just crazy. Are y'all aware how difficult that is to hit a target with a handgun? Even if you are stationary, your target is stationary and you are not in a highly tense situation with lots of stuff going on? TV makes it look easy. It is very difficult even for those that are well-trained and have lots of practice. Wake up and smell the gun powder.
1
I am one of those people who owns several firearms and I truly enjoy punching holes in paper. I also am very eager to teach my family and friends firearms safety.
I also carried weapons as part of my military duties - for over a year I carried in the hostile environment of Afghanistan, and the ability to put rounds on target a necessary skill. Another skill was safe use.
My military experience makes me wonder why people would carry firearms here stateside. To carry weapons responsibly, you must invest a significant amount of your constant attention to them. I also know that as trained as I am, that pistol marksmanship under stress is not something the majority of people do well.
I have made the probability calculation - and I will keep my firearms locked in my safe, and the ammunition locked up separately.
I also carried weapons as part of my military duties - for over a year I carried in the hostile environment of Afghanistan, and the ability to put rounds on target a necessary skill. Another skill was safe use.
My military experience makes me wonder why people would carry firearms here stateside. To carry weapons responsibly, you must invest a significant amount of your constant attention to them. I also know that as trained as I am, that pistol marksmanship under stress is not something the majority of people do well.
I have made the probability calculation - and I will keep my firearms locked in my safe, and the ammunition locked up separately.
1
Unfortunately facts don't seem to get in the way of the opinions of the Far Right. They are too ready to accept the conspiracy theory that tougher gun registration is a government plot to confiscate legal guns. Arming teachers or better treatment of the mentally ill are scapegoat measures. If the Republican Party truly cared about treating the mentally ill they wouldn't be so against the ACA. If it comes to additional funds the Far Right will not vote for it, yet if we talk about spending more money on the military or spending $500 million to train a handful of Syrian fighters that's OK.
We are a nation of over 300 million citizen with enough guns to arm each one of them.
Enough is enough it's time to elect Representatives that are looking out for our citizzens and not the gun lobby.
We are a nation of over 300 million citizen with enough guns to arm each one of them.
Enough is enough it's time to elect Representatives that are looking out for our citizzens and not the gun lobby.
While I am in no way in favor of concealed or unconcealed carry, this study does not address the assertions of proponents of supporters of weapons for all, which is that arming the citizenry is a prophylactic measure. This of course, cannot be tested. We can never and will never know how many, if any, crimes outside the home were prevented by the possibility that someone in the public was armed. The fact that someone in the public might be an off-duty police officer seems to have no effect. Of course the odds of that in a high crime area are pretty slim.
Regulating gun ownership at the Federal level would require political courage, in turn based on public revulsion at the carnage of an incident like Sandy Hook in CT, which took the lives of a couple dozen innocent school kids, let alone the wave of similar incidents since that horrific morning. As we all know, after such an unspeakable tragedy, nothing was done to significantly regulate gun ownership, not even military-style assault weapons and ammo. How could this be? Would it make a difference if some lunatic or group of terrorists smuggled automatic weapons into a football game and mowed down hundreds of fans? I don't think so. In my moral universe, we've crossed a line into some tortured depravity and political cowardice, unwilling or unable to confront the runaway train of gun violence and almost ritualized mass shootings that are the "new normal". Even the media coverage of these events has acquired the soul-deadening quality of a broken record. Can we honestly still call ourselves a "civilized" society?
The truth seems to be that mythmaking aside, us Americans like our toys, and though they may be lethal, we are the only country in the world, which takes playing with toys so seriously that we are guaranteed them as a right by our written Constitution.
There are no gun toting, super citizens with concealed weapons, who are whipping crime on the streets and in hearth and home in America. Instead we are shooting one another in astonishing numbers, and under increasingly bizarre circumstances.
We have invented the weaponized latent-American crime fighter probably out of embarrassment that we shoot each other at such a high rate of occurrence compared with other nations, that we should be embarrassed if we weren't exercising a sacred right. The Gods know; we most definitely don't want to look stupid to the rest of the world, because we are after all American Exceptional.
A Constitutional Amendment might relieve us of the awful burden of lethal toys as a right, but there are other interests who are happy to have us too dazed and distracted by the perennial Gun Issue to observe what they have done, and yet intend to do with our tax dollars, and the lives of our sons.
There are no gun toting, super citizens with concealed weapons, who are whipping crime on the streets and in hearth and home in America. Instead we are shooting one another in astonishing numbers, and under increasingly bizarre circumstances.
We have invented the weaponized latent-American crime fighter probably out of embarrassment that we shoot each other at such a high rate of occurrence compared with other nations, that we should be embarrassed if we weren't exercising a sacred right. The Gods know; we most definitely don't want to look stupid to the rest of the world, because we are after all American Exceptional.
A Constitutional Amendment might relieve us of the awful burden of lethal toys as a right, but there are other interests who are happy to have us too dazed and distracted by the perennial Gun Issue to observe what they have done, and yet intend to do with our tax dollars, and the lives of our sons.
1
What the studies cannot show are those incidents where concealed gun owners were able to protect themselves or loved ones by the mere threat of having the firearm, with the felon fleeing upon being confronted with it. These are the not-so-much reported or sought out stories that need to be considered in this debate. Each person who is eligible under the law has the right to decide for themselves whether to apply, get the necessary training, and carry the firearm for self protection. Those who chase down shoplifters and other criminals who pose no imminent threat of death or bodily harm deserve to be 'educated' in the errors of their ways by the judicial system. This is a right established by the Constitution, affirmed by the Supreme Court, and shouldn't be lobbied against by the news media. Advocate for training for legitimate firearms applicants when they get their permits if you want to be helpful.
1
The idea that "these things are happening, but no one is reporting it. I know it must be true, but I can't find any documentation for it" is, need I say it, at worst paranoid, and at best, deluded. It is a common thread running through many of the contradictory letters herein. The facts may not support what I believe is true, but they may not assail it.
1
Where is the evidence to support your claim?
If the entire public were well trained, strictly disciplined, absolutely just, unfailingly kind, deeply intelligent, and invariably sensible, and armed, then the results would be just as the gun proponents say. But in the real world, where people are all extraordinarily imperfect, concealed carry is a recipe for intimidation, threats, acrimony, discord, and murder.
It is also, of all the potential uses of a gun, the most antithetical to the second amendment. The amendment protects the right to own and carry a weapon for the explicit purpose of organized, collective, public action. A lone wolf at the mall with an arsenal in his pants seems to not fit the bill.
It is also, of all the potential uses of a gun, the most antithetical to the second amendment. The amendment protects the right to own and carry a weapon for the explicit purpose of organized, collective, public action. A lone wolf at the mall with an arsenal in his pants seems to not fit the bill.
1
Sorry but even if all the "ifs" you mention were true, it is unlikely to matter. Only in the movies does the "white hat" have flawless aim and gets the jump on the bad guy.
In an argument when both sides claim the "statistics" support them, but at the same time, one side does all it can to prevent data from being collected, it is the side that does not want the collection whose arguments become most suspect. The NRA, and their followers, may fervently believe their arguments but their resistance to collecting facts suggests a serious fear that they are wrong.
So we are left with the battle of the anecdotes. In one story we hear about a trained security guard in Charleston who kills someone robbing a store and in another we find out how a "good guy with a gun" in Houston stopped a carjacking by shooting the victim in the head.
Neither incident can be taken to be representative of either position. They are both so uncommon that on a national level they mean very little. In the absence of facts, we are left with a debate of opposing fears, and that rarely ends well.
So we are left with the battle of the anecdotes. In one story we hear about a trained security guard in Charleston who kills someone robbing a store and in another we find out how a "good guy with a gun" in Houston stopped a carjacking by shooting the victim in the head.
Neither incident can be taken to be representative of either position. They are both so uncommon that on a national level they mean very little. In the absence of facts, we are left with a debate of opposing fears, and that rarely ends well.
1
Like many foreigners who move to the US (I arrived twenty years ago), I was fearful about the apparent widespread presence of guns in the US. In those twenty years, I have never seen a gun in the hands of a member of the public despite the oft quoted statistic of one gun for every man, woman and child in the country. What is terrifying about this fact is that it clearly means that there are many guns in the hands of a much fewer number of people. Why anyone wants to have a personal armory of lethal weapons is beyond me but does seem to indicate that multiple gun ownership by an individual is a form of mental illness that will often lead to tragedies. The virulent gun lobby resistance to even the simple limit of no more than one gun purchase per month shows the terrifying nature of gun owners.
2
Where I live in Chicago, there are certain neighborhoods where there are many people who should not have guns - mostly young men in gangs, in many cases teenagers who drive around randomly shooting from their car -also people who take them to city parks and pull them out at the first provocation. The last thing we need is another person with a gun adding to the flying bullets, and due to the surprise nature of these shootings, it is hard to see how carrying a gun will make me any safer, unless I plan to point it at every car that drives by.
Densely populated urban areas are no place for guns - in fact the absence of guns is what makes it safe. It is not an irrational fear - I need to be able to go to the park with my children and not have to worry about somebody shooting. By the way, this is the current situation for most of Chicago - most of the the parks and public spaces are free of guns, and therefore safe.
Life in rural areas is different - you don't have 1,000s of people in close proximity or gangs running around randomly shooting, and in rural areas there are recreational uses for guns such as hunting. It would be helpful if those who don;t live in cities appreciate the differences and understand why a city is no place for a gun and a gun free city is a safe city.
Densely populated urban areas are no place for guns - in fact the absence of guns is what makes it safe. It is not an irrational fear - I need to be able to go to the park with my children and not have to worry about somebody shooting. By the way, this is the current situation for most of Chicago - most of the the parks and public spaces are free of guns, and therefore safe.
Life in rural areas is different - you don't have 1,000s of people in close proximity or gangs running around randomly shooting, and in rural areas there are recreational uses for guns such as hunting. It would be helpful if those who don;t live in cities appreciate the differences and understand why a city is no place for a gun and a gun free city is a safe city.
Statistics and facts will not make any difference to the gun lobby or those who support it. The connection with guns is an emotional connection that has very little relationship with logical thinking or analysis. The gun lobby depends upon its ability to generate fear, and then plays on the fear of everyday people to convince them they need a gun for safety. Survey after survey can prove definitively that a gun in the home means greater chance of death or disaster, but the fear motivation has been proven repeatedly to be more powerful than the demonstrable truth that guns are simply trouble waiting to happen.
1
The hallmark of someone who is wrong and knows they're wrong is that they refuse to permit someone the ability to gather data that could support their position. If the gun lobby is so confident they're right, bring on the study of what causes gun violence and how to stop it.
In 1996, Congress voted the following into the appropriations bill - "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control," and has repeatedly included that language in every appropriations bill since.
The NRA lobby has prevented law enforcement from tracing and shutting down those who supply illegal guns. Obviously, plenty of bad guys have guns. Why aren't we cutting off that supply? Because the NRA has hamstrung law enforcement from doing so.
The idea of a guns being within arms reach when someone cuts you off or talks too loudly in a movie should frighten you. It frightens me. People in urban areas - those with the highest incidence of crime - are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control laws. Even if they could carry guns, they wouldn't.
In 1996, Congress voted the following into the appropriations bill - "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control," and has repeatedly included that language in every appropriations bill since.
The NRA lobby has prevented law enforcement from tracing and shutting down those who supply illegal guns. Obviously, plenty of bad guys have guns. Why aren't we cutting off that supply? Because the NRA has hamstrung law enforcement from doing so.
The idea of a guns being within arms reach when someone cuts you off or talks too loudly in a movie should frighten you. It frightens me. People in urban areas - those with the highest incidence of crime - are overwhelmingly in favor of gun control laws. Even if they could carry guns, they wouldn't.
2
Four Americans died in the Benghazi tragedy. 400,000 Americans have been killed by firearms since 9/11. It has been three years since Benghazi. In that time Congress has held seven hearings on Benghazi and they are still going on. But Congress has not held a single hearing on gun violence. Apparently the lives of 400,000 Americans are not important enough to merit their attention.
3
The State of New York is a powerful enabler of concealed carry. I got a NY concealed carry permit, not because I wanted to carry concealed, but because my dad wanted to gift me a pistol he bought in 1943. The dealer transfer fees were over $100. The required permit was over $200 and took months. The police advised me to buy a new pistol, because the approval process is more likely for a gun with a receipt from a dealer. Although you can get a permit with reduced classification for target shooting only, I got full concealed carry because it gave me the most protection from arrest if I was between the range and my home. Having now moved from New York, I continue to retain concealed carry permits, but had I been able to simply possess my father's gun, I probably would never have gotten a concealed carry license in the first place. Gun control enthusiasts seldom look at the second or third order effects of their overly simplistic schemes. THAT's the fantasy here.
53
In real states, we are working to end registration of all guns. In Michigan, long guns are not registered, but pistols are. Hopefully soon all of the registration requirements will be nullified.
Very interesting and enlightening.
Right, that's why so many concealed carry permits are issued in NY state. It's because they are so difficult to get.
You can't expect a utopian solution with this. There are only imperfect solutions with which we endlessly tinker. I can both believe that there is a right to a gun to defend oneself in public and that there should be reasonable restrictions. I grew up and live now in the suburbs of NY, so guns are alien things to me. I've only handled them twice in my life some years back in recreational situations and it was moderately fun but not intoxicating for me. When I lived in a state where I could have carried one and had many at home, I chose not to do so. However, sometimes I am stunned by the effect of years of anti-gun rhetoric. And while it is hard for me to imagine owning one or carrying it around, it is as hard to imagine not desperately wanting one if I suddenly found myself in the wrong situation, crouching beneath whatever I could find because I did not have one. I don't think a responsible citizen with a gun is a fantasy. It doesn't mean everyone should have one or that training shouldn't be required and I respect reasonable age and other restrictions. What seems to me more a fantasy is that gun free zones are safe for anyone or that people should not be able to defend themselves. Mass killings are not just the result of pro-gun activists, they are also a sacrifice to anti-gun advocates. Reasonable people want reasonable solutions, not those offered by the extremists in both dominant political parties.
2