Monday, July 20, 2009
Law and Order / Politics / Woods Gun Permit Holders Have Killed Seven Cops, 44 Others in Only the Past Two Years
Posted by Jeff Woods on Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 1:42 PM
"It is an outrage that in a year thus far defined by gun violence-from massacres, to the murder of police, to hate crimes-the U.S. Senate is preparing to consider an amendment that would dramatically weaken federal and state gun laws. The practical effect of the amendment would be to reduce concealed carry permit regulations to the lowest common denominator. Currently, many states have weak laws and issue residents permits after only a simple computerized background check."The study also sheds light on the motivation of the gun lobby in promoting concealed handgun laws. Defending Second Amendment rights apparently isn't exactly priority No. 1.
Shall-issue concealed handgun laws were originally promoted by the gun lobby and gun industry to jumpstart sagging handgun sales by creating a new market for smaller, more powerful handguns. As then-National Rifle Association lobbying chief Tanya Metaksa told The Wall Street Journal in a September 1996 article headlined "Tinier, Deadlier Pocket Pistols Are in Vogue": "The gun industry should send me a basket of fruit--our efforts have created a new market." Yet in its public arguments the gun lobby neglected to mention its own financial interests, instead promising state legislators and the public that handgun carriers armed by the new law would have a beneficent penumbra effect: aiding police by stopping crimes and protecting the citizenry. And for those who questioned the wisdom of putting guns into these citizens' hands and then sending them off into the general public, the NRA's Metaksa had a ready answer. At an April 18, 1996, press conference in Dallas, Texas, Metaksa asserted: "As we get more information about right-to-carry, our point is made again and again....People who get permits in states which have fair right-to-carry laws are law-abiding, upstanding community leaders who merely seek to exercise their right to self-defense." Since the first "shall issue" law was passed in Florida in 1987, similar measures have spread across the country: today 48 states have some form of concealed carry law.
Comments (37)
Showing 1-37 of 37
Perhaps you would care to do a little research and determine:
1) The total number of permit holders nationally, from which you could calculate,
2) The percentage of permit holders actually committing the shootings.
Of course, it will be a tiny, tiny number which won't advance your cause but it would be interesting to know.
like
dislike
Emmett, I wouldn't bother. Jeff has his head so far in the sand he's talk to the Chinese. You notice in the report, it doesn't mention how many of these 'private citizens' were killed in the name of self-defense, only that they were killed. A person attempting to commit rape is still a private citizen.
But then again, the report is from the VPC whose whole goal in life is to ban firearms, and rob us of our rights. To take anything that they write seriously shows a severe lack of intelligence. Of course, this is Jeff we are talking about.
Personally, I wouldn't believe anything the VPC or Brady Campaign publishes as they are well known to twist the facts.
Bought and paid for by the Joyce Foundation!
I just knew you'd not miss the pants-pooping hysterics, Jeff.
Licensed drivers killed some 68,000 during the same period.
Bad journalistic ethics when you only cite one source. Try the FBI or maybe the ATF.
Emmett has inspired me to ask:
1) The total number of restaurant visits nationally, from which you could calculate,
2) The percentage of restaurant visits which actually have an incident of violence which may require armed intervention to resolve.
Of course, it will be a tiny, tiny number, but... etc.
I guess it would be a tiny number. But it would be a lot more significant if you or your loved on were the one shot by one of you gun fanatics in a restaurant.
What crimes have permit holders prevented? You guys should make a list and put out a report on it. There must be a lot, right?
BY ROBERT SAMUELS AND JENNIFER LEBOVICH
JLEBOVICH@MIAMIHERALD.COM
Posted on Tuesday, 03.24.09
One man was killed and another seriously wounded in a shootout inside a Miami Burger King on Tuesday, officials said.
Police said a man wearing a ski mask walked into the store at Biscayne Boulevard and 54th Street and demanded money from a clerk.
A customer, who has a concealed weapons permit, pulled a gun, said Officer Jeff Giordano, a Miami police spokesman.
The customer and robber exchanged fire.
The robber was shot dead at the scene.
----
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=6851011
----
http://conservativeculture.com/2007/12/church-shooting-update-carry-conseal-permit-holder-saves-lives/
----
http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews/2008/06/bank_customer_pulls_gun_on_rob.html
----
Do you want me to go on? Because I can keep proving you wrong Jeff. Get a life, and do some real reporting, not these fairy tale stories you keep pulling out your ass.
it would be a lot more significant if you or your loved on were the one shot by one of you gun fanatics in a restaurant.
Of course, it might also mean that the guns-in-everywhere movement was a solution looking for a problem.
With the number of events mentioned in the article being relatively low, WHY DIDN'T THEY PRINT THE NAMES AND DATES OF THESE SHOOTINGS/DEATHS??????
It seems that a short list would allow any doubters to use the internet to VARIFY THIS SUPPOSED INFO TO BE ACTUAL FACTS!!!
INstead the author leaves us to QUESTION THE INFO. as its SOURCES HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF LIEING!!!!!
The article mentions "a new study", yet NEVER GIVES THE NAME OR AUTHORS OF THE STUDY! How do they expect ANYONE to read it??? If it is SOOO WONDERFUL of a study,THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE IT EASILY ACCESSIBLE, to actually make their point STRONGER. By being vague, THEY LOSE OUR TRUST, BEFORE THEY NEED TO.
Just like those 44 shootings by permit holders are meaningless to the gun nuts, but the victims wouldn't be so meaningless if they were related to the gun nuts.
These gun nuts offer nothing except logical fallacies - strawman arguments, appeals to pity or fear, ad hominem.
Tell us, gun nuts:
How many shootings have happened in Tennessee restaurants that serve alcohol?
How many restaurants in Tennessee serve alcohol?
If you do the math, you'll see the chances of being shot in one of these establishments is almost zero . . .
But you paranoid whackos won't admit that, will you?
Woods said (Monday, Jul. 20 2009 @ 4:03PM):
"What crimes have permit holders prevented? You guys should make a list and put out a report on it. There must be a lot, right?"
You are correct. Mr. Clayton Cramer (whohas been cited by the Supreme Court) has been compiling submissions of defensive gun uses in the news, since 2003 I believe.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Also, the National Rifle Association has archived accounts of defensive gun uses since 1958.
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/
It should go without saying that criminal gun uses are far more "sensational" than are the more common lawful defensive gun uses.
Some here might not be inclined to trust anything written or published by the NRA.
Then again, I ask those people if they trust anything written by the Violence Policy Center? That group is almost wholly funded ($3,550,000 during the past 6 years) by the wealthy urban social engineers at Chicago's Joyce Foundation. Moreover, Josh Sugarmann, VPCs Director, has a history of stretching, bending, and sometimes breaking the truth to further his Center's agenda.
I regularly read articles and reports by both the NRA and the VPC ... and being pretty intimate with these issues, I can objectively state that NRA is more forthright with the information.
You know, you just can't trust a guy like Jim Brady and his pinko anti-gun cabal.
Hey? Any of youse guys been shot??? Ya might learn sumpin'.
"2) The percentage of restaurant visits which actually have an incident of violence which may require armed intervention to resolve.
Of course, it will be a tiny, tiny number, but... etc."
Notice how these anti-gun nuts try to turn the priciples of individual rights and freedoms upside down.
Thus people are not supposed to be free to exercise their rights unless they can come up with a reason that's acceptable to them.
That's not the way it works. The burden of proof is on them to prove there is a compelling reason why the right should be restricted. Not a one of them is capable of doing so.
All of the stories in the NRA's "armed citizen" are taken from news sources that are usually in the local papers. You can't expect the national news to report them,it goes against their agenda.
Unlike the author, I actually read the list of those listed, and found that the VPC cited cases where concealed handguns little or no role in homicides, and even cases where no firearms at all were used.
I'd also ask why VPC has to resort to quoting from immaterial sourcing written 13 years ago that is patently obsolete.
This was a shoddy report by VPC, and shoddy journalism to parrot such claims.
Read it: More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws (Studies in Law and Economics)
More and More I am reading that liberals and anti-gun groups are against everything this country was founded on. The right to protect one's self is a right that our forefathers bestowed upon us. Criminals, murders , drug addicts they have no morals and when they confront innocent bystanders and take their property or their lives where is the justice? If our right to protect ourselves is ever taken a way, you will then see crime against persons/property increase three-fold. Criminals will have nothing to fear and the people who complained about gun ownership what are you going to say when you get in that situation?
The number of valid concealed carry licenses is hard to come by. Florida has about 500.000 valid licenses, and another statistic listed 3.000.000 people in all the states with "shall issue" laws -which excludes some populous states.
Gun homicides in the USA run about 18.000 per year (excludes suicides)
Using the conservative number of 3.000.000 permit holders, this particular 1% of the population is causing 0.14% of the homicides. So much for the statistical nonsense. Those numbers are just background noise.
And still not taking into account that concealed carry acts as a crime deterrent.
@ OG Ben
chances are very tiny indeed. I wonder, do you wear a safety belt? Does anyone have a statistical cutoff of when something is reasonably safe? I'll let you decide and I'll keep packing so some thug can't clean out my ears over a Whopper. they are delicious...
I still do not understand why people see guns as the problem. If you take away the right of law abiding people to protect themselves there will be more deaths. Studies prove this time and time again.
I still do not understand why people see guns as the problem. If you take away the tools of law abiding people to protect themselves there will be more deaths. Studies prove this time and time again.
Why doesn't the media report on when concealed permit holders prevent a crime or save someone's life? Why do we never see that in the news?
Why isn't every murder committed with a knife or ball bat reported? I'm fed up with this! Don't just publish half truths!!! TELL THE WHOLE TRUTH!!!!!!
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
The wife and I have a vacation to the beach planned for October. I will be carrying my gun with me on the trip and if necessary, I will use it.
Actually I fear you gun nuts because I'm afraid that one night you'll come home and catch me in the act of molesting your son or daughter. I'll take my chances with the cops but I don't need a Barney Fife wannabe ruining what I consider good clean fun after I've stalked your kid.
Guns make loud noises and scare me. You don't need a gun. That's what 911 is for. You should call and wait for the cops. They know better how to deal with the rapists.
*People with carry permits tend to have IQ's 62.5% below the national average
*Guns are 91.35% more likely to kill people when the shooter is drunk and in a park
*Your aim with a pistols goes down 52.16% after 6 cocktails or 8 beers.
*74.3% of people don't like to be shot or don't like to be near guns for any reason
*Having gun restrictions saved over and not letting drunk people take pistols to parks saved over 23,432,000,000 lives in 2008 alone.
*Men with carry permits tend to have small willy's and women with carry permits tend to be married to men with small willy's
*Most citizens with no real gun training other than the carry permit turn into Dirty Harry and are cool as ice when they need to squeeze off a round in a crowded bar to stop some crazed Terrorist that has busted into the the local Applebee's for some Jihad and Japaleno Poppers!
For all the haters who think rational, law abiding people shouldn't have guns, you don't know what your talking about and need to do some research. Stop being brain washed by movies and the media to believe guns are all bad.
I've lived in Nashville,TN for 7 years and in that time period me or an immediate member of my family/friends has been in or near a situation that may have required use of a gun for self defense.
*My mother had her car almost jacked IN BROAD DAYLIGHT. She was walking out to her car and caught them, then her friend (who was with her) pulled his gun and they ran like hell. Image what might have happened had they caught them red-handed and did not have a gun to defend themselves.
*Again, my mother caught some pervert masturbating against her glass door on her closed off front porch (apartment complex) in the middle of the night. He took off but had he decided to break in, well..... he would have got a surprise. The cops didn't do anything and it took them 11 mins to get there. They even told her it was a good idea to have a gun because they couldn't be everywhere all the time.
*I was downtown one night on 2nd ave. and their was a club shooting in one of the hip hop clubs downtown where several people got shot.... I was not inside (I was outside at the time leaving another bar) and this law was not in effect at the time, but image if someone inside had a legal permit for a handgun the situation ***might*** have been avoided. As the law was at that time only the criminals would carry guns in bars... because criminals don't care when they do illegal stuff. They are going to do it regardless of the laws. That doesn't help me any.
*My fathers condo complex was burglarized in the middle of the day while some realtors where giving an open house of some of the other condos. They broke into a bunch of apartments (luckily for them not my fathers, he works from home and packs a .45) and tied one of the neighbors up and locked him in his closet because he was home at the time. They got caught because someone called the cops. My dads lived here for 3 years.
*A friend from work had a shooting take place outside his apartment in the common area. (by some thugs who thought they were gangsters, with illegal guns (no permit), now in jail) Again, my friend was ok, and doesn't own a gun but had one of the crooks decided to take refuge inside his apartment.... wouldn't he have the right to have a gun? Or maybe if he was on his way from his car to his apartment?
*I had a drunk guy try to enter my apartment at 3am (he thought it was his, maybe the old tenants?) and when I told him calmly and nicely (with the door closed) that he had the wrong one he got belligerent and started kicking my door in. Had he been successful he would have been caught staring down the barrel of my AR15 which I had pulled out of my locked case. I called the cops (again 11 mins to get there) he was gone. I had to get a new front door.
I could go on but I won't. If you've never been in a situation that might have required self defense they you are either lucky or you live in some rich gated community. Me, I'll be responsible and use my permit.
And by the way.... the 2nd amendment was designed not just for self defense but for the defense of the people against their government. Guess what killed the most people last century that were non natural causes (over 300 million people). Government.
"Gun Permit Holders Have Killed Seven Cops, 44 Others in Only the Past Two Years"
Hey, I bet if we passed a bunch of laws that made it illegal to kill people, this wouldn't happen!
I'm not a fan of misleading facts and figures, and if the pro-2nd Amendment side has done this, shame on them.
Regardless, that does NOT change the fact that anti-gun legislation does nothing but harm the innocent. If someone has it in them to shoot another person, they are going to do in spite of the law.
When will people understand the very simple concept that passing more laws won't stop criminal activity. That's what makes a criminal a criminal. They are poeple willing to BREAK THE LAW!
My first statement above illustrates this point. The article references a shooting outside of Memphis. Do you really think, if we passed a law that specifically prohibited "motorists outside Memphis from shooting another person in a fit of road rage during an argument over how close their SUVs are parked" that would stop all road rage related shootings? It's like you people think that only by passing something into law do people come to understand that it's wrong.
I have really got to stop clicking on articles from The Scene. The Scene and The Tennessean are great for fireplace kindling and potty training my puppy.
