Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Years


PDA






Titan6
July 20, 2009, 09:19 PM
Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Year Period

31 Incidents Result in Criminal Charges or Suicide of Concealed Handgun Permit Holder

WASHINGTON, July 20 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf) released today by the Violence Policy Center (VPC). The release of the study comes as the U.S. Senate is expected to take up today -- Monday, July 20 -- an amendment to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) that would create a de facto national concealed carry system, overriding the rights of states with more restrictive laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns. The amendment is sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD). Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said he will filibuster the amendment.

Because most state systems allowing the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviewed shooting incidents as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal criminal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.

The study, "Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders -- An Analysis of News Reports, May 2007 to April 2009," finds that during the two-year period reviewed --

* Concealed handgun permit holders have slain seven law enforcement officers resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All of the killings were committed with guns. An additional three law enforcement officers were injured in these incidents.
* Concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.
* In six of the 31 incidents (19 percent), the concealed handgun permit holder killed himself, bringing the total fatality count to 57.

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "State concealed handgun systems are arming cop-killers and other murderers. It is beyond irrational for Congress to vote to expand the reach of these deadly laws."

The study offers detailed descriptions of the 31 incidents, which occurred in 15 states. Law enforcement officers were killed in: Florida, Idaho, Ohio (two incidents), and Pennsylvania (two incidents). Private citizens were killed in: Alabama, Colorado, Florida (nine incidents), Idaho, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina (two incidents), Ohio (three incidents), Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah (two incidents), and Virginia.

The Violence Policy Center (www.vpc.org) is a national educational organization working to stop gun death and injury.

CONTACT: Mandy Wimmer, Communications Associate of the Violence Policy Center, +1-202-822-8200 ext. 110, mwimmer@vpc.org


SOURCE Violence Policy Center

Always consider the source.

This lovely work opens with:

For more than two decades, the gun lobby’s top priority has been establishing and expanding state
laws that allow the carrying of concealed handguns by private citizens. These “shall issue” laws
eliminate the discretion of local law enforcement and licensing agencies to determine eligibility for
permits to carry concealed handguns (commonly known as CCW, concealed carry weapon, permits).
Instead, in many states, the criteria for legally carrying a loaded, hidden handgun in public is
virtually equal to the limited requirements that must be met to purchase a handgun.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Years" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Maelstrom
July 20, 2009, 09:28 PM
They're so cute when they're panicked.

geekWithA.45
July 20, 2009, 09:30 PM
Assuming they're not outright lying or distorting as they have been caught in the past, VPC is cherry picking stats.

IIRC, roughly 50-60 policemen are killed in the line of duty by gunfire per year. (Yes, it really is that few...lots of hoopla over 50 guys, when you consider how many civilians get it.)

Let's figure since they needed a range of 2 years to get 7 permit holders, that this is 7 out of 110.

That means that of the police are being shot 16 times more by people without permits than with.

Roughly 8,000 people a year are killed by handguns. And the VPC can only find 44 shot by permit holders in a 2 year period?

Pathetic.

So, to continue, that means that people are being killed 364 times more by people without permits than with.

Titan6
July 20, 2009, 09:32 PM
You really need to read the report. Many of the people are accused of murder and not yet convicted. Of course McLendon is on there and he accounts for 11 by himself.

Double Naught Spy
July 20, 2009, 09:34 PM
Always consider the source.

Are you saying the incidents are fabricated? While VPC may be the summary article, the incidents I checked match their descriptions. In other words, they appear to be reporting correct information. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

geekWithA.45
July 20, 2009, 09:38 PM
In other words, they appear to be reporting correct information. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

*Anything* and *everything* coming from the VPC must be verified. They've fabricated and twisted stuff beyond recognition before. This doesn't mean that they also haven't used real facts, when it suits them.

Given their track record, they completely deserve not to be taken seriously until every footnote has been authenticated.

Titan6
July 20, 2009, 09:50 PM
Are you saying the incidents are fabricated? While VPC may be the summary article, the incidents I checked match their descriptions. In other words, they appear to be reporting correct information. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it wrong.

If a person has not been convicted of killing someone in America they are innocent until proven guilty. At least that used to be the law, I think.

Roughly 8,000 people a year are killed by handguns. And the VPC can only find 44 shot by permit holders in a 2 year period?

They are also counting those that killed people with rifles if they had a CCL. But, yes the math works out to roughly one in 600 killings are committed by a person with a CCL.

jnuts
July 20, 2009, 09:59 PM
some crazy crackhead came at a CCP holder and started in with insults got himself shot
http://www.districtattorney.slco.org/cmsdocuments/pressReleases/PR090408HarrisonScan.pdf
Never charged the guy guess it was a clean shoot.
Bummer for the guys family but what are you gonna do?

Zoogster
July 20, 2009, 10:01 PM
The VPC can never be trusted, the spin on anything they cite is horrible. Statistics ususaly very flawed. They cite debunked studies for years.
Anything that actualy did happen is exaggerated by them and exploited by being mentioned in so many different ways each time it sounds like they are refering to a seperate incident even as they re-use the same specific example over and over.

Titan6
July 20, 2009, 10:04 PM
If you are going to commit suicide you don't really need the CHL do you? Just buy the gun and do it. I know this runs well counter to the argument that having the gun in the home "increases your risk of suicide" but there are no hard numbers either way.

doc2rn
July 20, 2009, 10:12 PM
wonder how many of the 7 officers where out of uniform

billybob44
July 20, 2009, 10:23 PM
The stories that are never part of public record are the amount of times that a felony in progress is stopped by an armed citizen. These happen many times daily and hardly ever are reported. Think of it people-has it ever happened to you-it has to me on several occasions. This situation probably happens thousands of times per year, and is the reason that the American Citizen MUST retain the right to carry concealed firearms.:fire:

DennisB
July 20, 2009, 10:28 PM
Instead, in many states, the criteria for legally carrying a loaded, hidden handgun in public is
virtually equal to the limited requirements that must be met to purchase a handgun.

Really?!

SHusky57
July 20, 2009, 10:40 PM
an amendment to the defense authorization bill (S. 1390) that would create a de facto national concealed carry system, overriding the rights of states with more restrictive laws governing the carrying of concealed handguns. The amendment is sponsored by Senator John Thune (R-SD). Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) has said he will filibuster the amendment.

Does anyone else think this is bass ackwards? I understand Republicans are generally pro-gun, but isn't the point of the Republican party small government and state's rights? Creating a national CCW system and going over the states is being proposed by a Republican? And a Democrat is going to filibuster it?

I know it's slightly off-topic, not trying to start a political thread, but strange things are happening in the country.

And 44 homicides over 2 years by CCW holders = 22 homicides per year average. Consider the national homicide rate is something like 15,000-16,000 per year and CCW holders account for .0015% of all murders, or 1.5 of every thousand. To put that in perspective, 40,000 people die in automobiles every year, 15,000 by homicide, and 22 by CCW holder. I still think swimming pools are more deadly than CCW holders, but I can't recall the statistic off the top of my head, and I don't believe in pulling them out of the butt.

noskilz
July 20, 2009, 10:41 PM
3 of the 7 LEO's were killed by Richard Poplawski, the worthless nutjob who was terrorizing his mother. That definitely hurts the stats.

aquapong
July 20, 2009, 10:54 PM
Good...push this so they have to fillibuster instead of pushing the healthcare and cap and trade crap. The Dems are for states' rights when it suits them.

John Wayne
July 20, 2009, 10:54 PM
I wonder if they're counting justifiable shootings of "private citizens" as well. I mean, if a guy comes at you with a tire iron and you shoot him to protect your life, you *technically* killed a "private citizen."

Taking that a step further, if you consider all policemen as CWP holders, you can count all incidents where off-duty police officers shot violent criminals as "shootings of private citizens."

It's quite easy to see how these statistics can be skewed, but the sad part is most people won't read beyond the title.

Monkeyleg
July 20, 2009, 11:08 PM
Here's an example of how the VPC distorts data, something I strongly suspect they've done with this "study."

Several years back, the Texas Department of Public Safety posted numbers online for arrests and convictions of permit holders for any crimes more serious than a traffic ticket. The convictions were listed in no particular order and were not categorized.

The VPC took these numbers and created a "study." They created a class of offenses they called "weapons offenses." Into this category they inserted the number of permit holders arrested for discharging firearms within city limits, carrying in a place prohibited by the concealed weapons law, and failure to display a carry permit.

The last two offenses are ones that pretty much only permit holders would be arrested for. Thus, the VPC was able to state that in Texas, permit holders are 66% more likely to be arrested for "weapons offenses" than the general public.

It was because of the VPC's distortions that the Texas DPS started publishing arrest rates for the general public alongside permit holders.

DoubleTapDrew
July 20, 2009, 11:38 PM
They are missing important statistics such as how many lives were spared and murders prevented by CHL holders. Did they bring down any planes with their .50 calibers like the VPC warned?
Heaven forbid the VPC ever does an article on automobiles or swimming pools.
I think if they studied an equal number of off duty law enforcement officers they'd find similar results. Anytime deadly force is involved people tend to get hurt or killed.
Because most state systems allowing the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviewed shooting incidents as reported by news outlets.
But of course they did. What more authoritative source than the blatantly anti-gun media? Hang em before the fingerprints dry.

4v50 Gary
July 21, 2009, 12:01 AM
On the police killings, I read that it said concealed weapons holder, but I wonder if that statistic includes police suicides? Police suicide is not a new phenomenon.

Diamondback6
July 21, 2009, 12:42 AM
This is also a group that counts 19- and 20-yer-old gangbangers as victims of "Gun Crimes Against Children".

How many of those 44 shootings came out with "Not Guilty By Reason of Self Defense?" Or would they have it be skip the trial, you're guilty as soon as you're charged and off to the gallows?

akodo
July 21, 2009, 02:23 AM
Concealed handgun permit holders have slain at least 44 private citizens resulting in criminal charges or the suicide of the shooter. All but one of the killings were committed with guns. An additional six private citizens were injured in these incidents.

that means that 1 person wasn't even killed with a gun! Why would you even include that in the stats?

Also, here's how they work it. A person is involved in a hunting accident using his shotgun and another person is killed. Do you have a CCW permit? Yes. Good, one more 'gun death' to put in the tally.

Of course, this type of thinking totally skews results.

Further, they look at people who are charged. We all know here that people are often charged as a knee jerk reaction, and later the charges are dropped...or beaten cleanly in court. It is just to bump up their numbers that they use 'charged'

armoredman
July 21, 2009, 03:03 AM
From Gunfacts 5.1, available from gunfacts.info

"People with concealed carry permits are, 1) 5 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public, 2), 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public."
from Analysis of the arrest rate of Texas Concealed Carry handgun license holders as compared to the arrest rate for the entire Texas population., William Sturdevant, PE, September 11 1999.

An interesting statistic is this one,
"Fact - In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit.
From Concealed Weapon/License Statistical Report Florida Department of State, 1998, Florida game and Fersh Water Fish Commission, Dec 1998

Dr. Fresh
July 21, 2009, 04:15 AM
That's all well and fine, but does anyone have links to actual numbers? For example, I'd like to see total CCP holders by state as well as the number of crimes (ideally broken down by type) committed by CCP holders.

HKUSP45C
July 21, 2009, 09:55 AM
Further, if you look at the data they're using:
One nutjob killed three cops
One nut job killed ten citizens
One nut job killed thirteen citizens

Three incidents in two years account for nearly HALF of all of the "data."

I still feel dramatically safer in a room full of CHL holders than in just about ANY other venue full of ANY other "category" of people.

TexasRifleman
July 21, 2009, 10:42 AM
Notice also that many of the incidents listed were people that should not have qualified for the permit due to previous crimes.

This whole thing is dishonest, as usual.

They had to cover 2 whole years just to get some info, and still had to include dishonest statistics to pump up the numbers.

They also had to include suicides by CCW's to pump up the numbers.

What a joke.

Also note that they use a lot of incidents where there has been no trial yet. At least one of these incidents is being claimed as self defense. The shooter was indicted but has not had a trial yet. So, without a conviction how do you claim it's an unjustified shooting?


And at the end of the day, a reality check is the real issue.

It's unrealistic to believe that 100% of CCWs will be crime free. This report really just confirms what we say all along, that you are safer around a CCW than any other segment of society.

Frankly the report just gives us more ammo. They are beat and they know it.

ByAnyMeans
July 21, 2009, 12:05 PM
I think one of the main problems with the study is what they have admitted themselves. They are unable to get concrete data on permit holders so they "analyzed" news reports. This are the same media folks that can't get anything else gun related correct yet are going to have hard facts on permit holders even though they are only able to access the same info the VPC can get.

mbt2001
July 21, 2009, 12:45 PM
I hate to sound crass, but in a country of 300,000,000 people the numbers they are throwing out are 0.00000001 of the population.

I think that is about on par with the amount of people that are killed by grizzly bears per year...

Sgt.Sausage
July 21, 2009, 01:24 PM
The only good statistic I'm looking for to counter this is answered by this question: How many innocent citizens were killed and injured by a LEO with a gun.

I'm quite sure that those who are paid and trained to use a gun, those who are so-called "professionals", those who most citizens don't even think twice when they see an officer of the law with a gun ... I'm positive that their numbers are worse than just us mere citizens with a CCW. I just don't know where to find actual numbers.

Hell, the way it's going they kill more folks than that a year with just a tazer. No gun involved.

TexasRifleman
July 21, 2009, 01:38 PM
he only good statistic I'm looking for to counter this is answered by this question: How many innocent citizens were killed and injured by a LEO with a gun.

There is no doubt that number is much higher, but it's not good to use it for our argument.

Cops are by definition of their jobs in situations that "normal" people are not so they (the anti's) will throw that back in your face if you go that way, claiming it's not relevant.

Our argument should be that people with a CCW are the safest people in the US to be around, and that is clearly the case even in VPC's own study.

They even went to all the work of proving our point for us :)

ConstitutionCowboy
July 21, 2009, 01:48 PM
I know this runs well counter to the argument that having the gun in the home "increases your risk of suicide" but there are no hard numbers either way.

Not to hijack the thread, but you make a good point; and that point begs the question as to whether the gun was brought into the home for suicidal purposes to begin with.

I'll study the incidents in the VPC's "study" and report back.

Woody

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 02:05 PM
Further, if you look at the data they're using:
One nutjob killed three cops
One nut job killed ten citizens
One nut job killed thirteen citizens

Three incidents in two years account for nearly HALF of all of the "data."


Also, the VPC does not ask the question: did the permit contribute to their ability to commit the crimes?

A permit does not enable someone to carry a concealed weapon. I knew of several otherwise-law-abiding citizens over the years in California, who carried without permits. None were EVER caught.

Unless you are searched by a police officer, a permit does not impact your ability to carry a concealed weapon AT ALL.

So, even if these nut jobs were eligible for permits (apparently they weren't but "slipped through the cracks), were they EVER found by the police with concealed firearms, but not arrested or charged because they had permits? If not, the permits did not make their crimes any easier.

Deanimator
July 21, 2009, 02:06 PM
Cops are by definition of their jobs in situations that "normal" people are not so they (the anti's) will throw that back in your face if you go that way, claiming it's not relevant.
Crime is where IT finds YOU.

It's not like I can be like Adrian Monk's brother (John Turturro) and lock myself in my home for years. If I go to the grocery store, or the bank, or to lunch at MacDonalds and somebody makes himself a threat to my life, I can deal with that threat or not. VPC's choice is "not". What do they care? If the POLICE have no duty to "protect" me as an individual or liability when they fail to, VPC sure doesn't. They're like Cicciolina, the Italian porn star who in the '80s, told everybody that AIDS was a "hoax". They can say what they want, no matter how destructive, with no consequences.

You can't make them stop lying, but they can't make you believe them or stop telling other people that they're liars.

neverjeg
July 21, 2009, 02:20 PM
Does anyone remember when the truth mattered?

ACBMWM3
July 21, 2009, 02:22 PM
I hate stats.
You start with solid facts then distort them so much.
For Example:
Would you rather,
eat dirt
or
watch your family die.

Most people choose eat dirt so that means 100% of the population wants to eat dirt. We don't need to mention what the other choice is. Now you see my problem with stats :D

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 02:27 PM
Seriously, though, if the permits did not FACILITATE the crimes, it doesn't matter.

Say the permit holders were caught with their concealed guns, but allowed to go on their ways because of the permits, and then went and killed innocent people THAT DAY, then the permits would have facilitated the crimes.

Otherwise, they don't matter. There's NO causal relationship. They happened to have permits, along with many other things that thousands or millions of people in the US happen to have. (Florida ALONE has almost a half-million permit holders.)

I'll bet thousands of people wearing leather belts committed murder last year around the world, too. See what I'm saying?

Of course, some vegan activist group could use this to try to ban leather belts, using the same logic...

ilbob
July 21, 2009, 02:36 PM
I wonder how many cops committed violent crimes during the same period of time?

Madcap_Magician
July 21, 2009, 02:49 PM
I believe the police shooting statistic is an important one to find. I would only include police shootings where judgment was clearly faulty or the officer was committing a crime. I expect the number will be higher.

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 02:53 PM
When you're talking about 1 in 10 million or even longer odds, you can easily find a few examples of just about anything in an enormous country over a long period of time.

ArfinGreebly
July 21, 2009, 03:16 PM
Well, what I really want to know is how many of those shooters were Catholic?

I think a case can be made that Catholics are dangerous. I mean, think, wasn't most of the original Mob made up of Catholics?

As usual, the VPC has left out an important piece of the data.

I want the shooter's religion included in these stats.

You know, there could be a whole class of hate crime that's gone undiscovered all these years.


In other news, did you guys know that Charles Manson was a "Private Citizen?"

ConstitutionCowboy
July 21, 2009, 03:29 PM
Yup! None of these killers needed a permit to carry to commit these crimes!

Woody

divemedic
July 21, 2009, 04:03 PM
According to the "Officer Down Memorial (http://www.odmp.org/)," there were 6 police officers killed accidentally by other police officers in 2008 and 2009. Nearly 1,000 people per year die while in police custody. I could not find a list of people shot accidentally by cops. Maybe someone else can.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that there were about 861,000 police officers in the United States in 2006. (http://www.ehow.com/about_4673104_police-officer.html) (the latest numbers I could find)

In Florida alone, there are 591,000 active concealed weapons permits (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html). North Carolina reports 263,000 permit holders. Safe to say, there are many more permit holders in the US than there are police officers, yet the number of shootings involving cops is nearly equal, making a permit holder much less likely to be involved in an illegal shooting than a police officer.

In fact, in Los Angeles, a study found that 43% of officers shot in the line of duty were shot by other officers. (http://marylandcops.org/News/News%2006/aug06/lashoot.htm)

ArmedBear
July 21, 2009, 04:06 PM
Cops shouldn't have guns. Obviously, the guns only endanger other cops, since self-defense with a firearm is impossible. ABC said so.

cauberallies
July 21, 2009, 07:26 PM
Two of these killings happened in my town in early April. An US Marine veteran who was recently discharged for medical reasons after 3 tours in Iraq, with a CCW permit robbed a Subway restaraunt, killing an 18 year old employee, shooting another employee in the pelvic area, before taking the money and fleeing to a nearby apartment complex parking lot, where he shot and killed a man who just happened to step outside to get his mail. He was apprehended minutes afterwards.

It is a tragic, terrible situation any way you look at it, but these killings represent exactly what this VPC study is trying to convey, but I'm sure this incident, and incidents like this account for the minority of those numbers.


This isn't directly related to the topic, but I drove past this Subway 15-20 minutes before it happened. I had just left Dunhams after buying ammunition, and was on my way to go shooting, with all my guns with me. I was considering stopping to eat there, but I decided to get something at the Sheetz store about 1/4 mile up the road, since thats where I was meeting up with the friends who were coming with me. I always wonder if it would have turned out differently if I would have stopped there instead. The perp came in the back door, and fired shots in the back of the restaurant before coming out to the front, so someone would have at least had the chance to get out to their car to retrieve a weapon and stop the man.

mljdeckard
July 21, 2009, 10:05 PM
You notice, it doesn't say that those shootings besides the police were unjustified homicides. (I am giving the dead cops the benefit of the doubt, but it doesn't say that ANY of these killings were legitimate self-defense.) I am not omnicient, but I have never heard of any homicides in Utah by permit holders that weren't legitimate self-defense.

How many innocent people were killed by police in the same time period? Not cop bashing, but this is VERY selective data indeed.

divemedic
July 21, 2009, 10:28 PM
Hmmm... Navy Seals, Rangers or any other special forces group might make me feel safer. Or just marines in general or maybe Airborne troops. Yep. I can think of safer groups than regular card carrying CCW types.

I guess that is why most military units do not issue ammo until it is needed, you know, because they are so safe and all.

TexasRifleman
July 21, 2009, 10:52 PM
I wonder if they are counting people with CCW permits or just people carrying concealed weapons? I don't trust a word these liberal types say about anything.

They don't know the answer to that either. They are simply repeating what they found in news reports since most states keep the actual data hidden from public view.

This whole report is nothing but a string of crappy media articles spouting this or that.

happygeek
July 21, 2009, 10:59 PM
Hmmm... Navy Seals, Rangers or any other special forces group might make me feel safer. Or just marines in general or maybe Airborne troops. Yep. I can think of safer groups than regular card carrying CCW types.

I've personally seen a couple alarming weapons mis-handling incidents from Airborne personnel. I'm pretty sure none of the four individuals I'm talking about have a CCP, at least I sure hope they don't. Now the ones I know who do have a CCP, I trust completely. On that note, maybe the VPC should do a study of weapons mishandling incidents by Army personnel, comparing those with CCPs vs those without.

sig228
July 21, 2009, 11:10 PM
3 of the 7 LEO's were killed by Richard Poplawski, the worthless nutjob who was terrorizing his mother. That definitely hurts the stats.

The Florida killing was of a non-uniformed Border Patrol Agent who was reportedly in a road rage incident with an elderly dialysis patient. Old man shot him dead when BP circled back around a parking lot where they confronted each other. Old guy had no clue who or what he was.

From ABC News:
Wonder was on his way to a dialysis appointment when he and Pettit, who also was driving, exchanged obscene gestures, Segarra said. Wonder pulled into the post office parking lot, and Pettit, who was traveling with his 12-year-old daughter, followed. The men began arguing and Wonder pulled a handgun from his waistband and shot Pettit, according to police records.

Segarra said it's unclear if Pettit had business at the post office or if he was pursuing Wonder in an official law enforcement capacity. Pettit was on duty.


My question: On duty with his daughter in the car?

That's 4. What about the other 3?

Jim K
July 21, 2009, 11:47 PM
The VPC is in a panic. Remember, that whether that bill passes or not it is our bill and they are playing defense. If it fails, we are no worse off. If it passes, we are better off. For the last 45 years, since 1963, we have been on the defensive, fighting an seemingly endless barage of anti-gun legislation and proposals ranging from the moderate, even reasonable, to insane proposals for death camps, warrantless searches, and summary executions of gun owners. It feels good to be on the offense, even though this does not seem like a propitious time.

Jim

Dr.Rob
July 22, 2009, 01:53 AM
I wonder how those numbers compare to ACCIDENTAL shootings and deaths caused BY police in the same time frame?

I will BET you the numbers are higher inside the police, whom the antis TRUST with guns.

happygeek
July 22, 2009, 09:06 AM
I wasn't purporting to talk about the Seals, Rangers, SF, or any of the pros; I was really just referring to the four airborne individuals I know who were doing things wrong. It struck me as funny you lumped Airborne in with Seals, Rangers, and SF in your post and that brought those 4 individuals to my mind.

I haven't really been around many average joes with CCPs, I was referring to Army guys I know who have CCPs when I said I trusted them. Sorry to take your post too seriously though.

geim druth
July 22, 2009, 03:25 PM
Unfortunately, studies like these exist only to provide statistics for the TV news. The news program I watched last night cited the 7 LEO statistic without mentioning the source. It also included an interview with a woman whose son was shot and killed by a someone carrying an illegal handgun. Of course, that has nothing to do with whether legal CCW permit holders should be allowed reciprocity in other states, but the show wasn't news, it was shoddily produced propaganda presented by newspeople who were hired for their looks rather than their journalistic ability.

Jrob24
July 22, 2009, 04:23 PM
I read through this so called "report". Some of these homicides would have happened even if the bad guy didn't have a permit. As stated before, CCW holders are less likely to commit murder then the general population. VPC is despicable

Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 22, 2009, 04:36 PM
Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill [...] 44 [...] Citizens Over Two-Years

Wait a second - lemme see if I got this straight......

CCW laws, which were enacted to allow citizens to shoot violent aggressors who are attacking them with intent to kill and maim, has actually resulted CCW holders shooting and killing some violent aggressors who were attacking them with intent to kill and maim?

So the law worked? Next they're gonna tell us water is wet.

And just because it's an LEO, doesn't mean it's not a self-defense killing.

http://www.myfoxphilly.com/dpp/news/local_news/072009_Police_Confrontation_Caught_On_Tape

By the way, the national CCW bill died - we lost to the Brady Bunch, according to the email I got from the Brady's proclaiming victory.

SharpsDressedMan
July 22, 2009, 04:37 PM
I wonder if there are any stats on how and when a CCW holder has backed up the police in the last two years, or saved the life a "third" party...............

subierex
July 22, 2009, 04:38 PM
Since I'm an optimist who believes that few people are stupid enough to believe that people who have criminal proclivities would bother getting a CCW, I have to assume that these "institutes" who study these matters have ulterior motives. Simply knee-jerk gun grabbers who put little thought into the matter, and lots of emotion.

bnkrazy
July 22, 2009, 04:46 PM
I didn't see a link to this when skimming the responses... Here's a good look at the data and why it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics

Double Naught Spy
July 22, 2009, 06:02 PM
I am not sure that comparing CCW shootings to Police shootings is really valid or necessary. It doesn't do CCW people any good, really, but running down the cops. The questions we should be asking ourselves is whether or not there is any indication that illegal shootings have gun up as a result of CCW. If not, then the VPC's claims are spurious at best. Statistically, I can tell right now that the low numbers, compared to all other illegal shootings, are not significant (statistically significant, that is). So the VPC is grandstanding. The data may be factual, but the numbers themselves are not significant.

ServiceSoon
July 22, 2009, 08:00 PM
Where was NRA during this? I didn't get anything from them.It was because of the VPC's distortions that the Texas DPS started publishing arrest rates for the general public alongside permit holders.One of many reasons why I love Texas.

Does anyone else think this is bass ackwards? I understand Republicans are generally pro-gun, but isn't the point of the Republican party small government and state's rights? Creating a national CCW system and going over the states is being proposed by a Republican? And a Democrat is going to filibuster it?I would have agreed with you a few years ago. I believe in the long lost and supreme court trampled 10th amendment, but if you read the Gun Owners of America announcement for this you will understand that the federal government signing this law would have been constitutional. Please see below.
This provision will use the constitutional authority allowing Congress
to enforce "full faith and credit" across the country, so that each
state respects the "public acts, records, and judicial
proceedings" of
every other state (Article IV).The blurbs in quotations can be found verbatim in the constitution. It is similar to the requirement for every state to respect the Drivers Licenses of other states.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 22, 2009, 08:06 PM
After a review of the reported incidents, I must point out that some of the officers killed were during raids which I can only assume were during the execution of no-knock warrants. As TexasRifleman pointed out, most of the characters shouldn't have been issued CCW permits to begin with, and some shouldn't have had guns according to the current unconstitutional laws.

No-knock warrants need to be stopped, violent criminals kept locked up, lunatics institutionalized or under guardianship, and potential victims armed.

Woody

jfh
July 22, 2009, 08:16 PM
FYI, this VPC 'study' was just released on Monday, July 20.

While I am no apologist for the NRA, I will point out that the NRA has been spending its time on the Thune national carry amendment.

I suspect we will hear from them about this study shortly.

Jim H.

Officers'Wife
July 22, 2009, 08:17 PM
How many innocent people were killed by police in the same time period? Not cop bashing, but this is VERY selective data indeed.

Two Mark Twain quotes fit this story very well.

There are liars, damn liars and statistics.

The second is a bit too 'pithy' for this venue.

Deltaboy
July 22, 2009, 08:22 PM
Nothing like anti's playing with numbers.

Double Naught Spy
July 22, 2009, 09:53 PM
Nothing like anti's playing with numbers.

Actually, there is...pro gun people playing with numbers. As best as I can tell, but fudge pack their own versions of the data to make things look better for their perspectives.

HKUSP45C
July 22, 2009, 10:18 PM
Actually, there is...pro gun people playing with numbers. As best as I can tell, but fudge pack their own versions of the data to make things look better for their perspectives.

I agree, which is why I try to stay on the philosophical and legal sides of the debate and stry away from the numbers.

Besides, the numbers game almost always dengenerates to two sides of the coin:
1) If there were fewer (or no) guns fewer people would die needlessly and the numbers in a bunch of different scenarios prove it.
2) If there were fewer (or no) guns more people would die needlessly and the numbers in a bunch of different scenarios prove it.

Since both sides can't be right AND we can't find a way to prove either point of view without giving one side what they want and watching what happens and since neither side is willing to concede their point of view for the experiment, it gets pointless, quickly.

I choose to just maintain the moral and philosophical viewpoint that I deserve to protect myself with the most effective means and am willing to accept the consequnces of that decision, even if the other side isn't.

rainbowbob
July 23, 2009, 03:27 AM
Here's a gem from the "study":


Texas concealed handgun permit holders had been arrested for more than four drunk driving offenses per week since the law went into effect.

What one has to do with the other, or why this suggests that handgun permits should not be issued, is any one's guess.

I would be willing to bet that those drunk drivers with handgun permits were also issued driver's licenses. They may also have been issued library cards.

So what?



I wonder what percent of CCW holders were arrested for drunk driving offenses compared to the percent of persons without permits arrested for drunk driving offenses?

I also wonder what percent off CCW holders committed criminal violence with a gun compared to the percent of persons without a permit that committed criminal violence with a gun?

I don't know the numbers, but I suspect in both cases it is higher in the the non-permit group.

If so, wouldn't that prove that permit holders are safer than people who do not hold a permit?

If that is the case, I'm sure the VPC will want to know about these startling statistics immediately and begin advocating the issuance of nationwide gun permits, since public safety is their ONLY concern.

Just asking...

glummer
July 23, 2009, 03:34 PM
It is not actually necessary to read the whole "study" to know it is flawed, and likely dishonest. The synopsis in the news article clearly shows some major, disqualifying problems:

There is no comparison. Data about group A tell us virtually nothing without a comparison group. Is 44 a high number? Or a low number? There is no way to tell.

Insanely small sample size. 44 + 7 = 51 murders. Out of tens of thousands. These data, even if accurate, cannot possible be generalized with any reliability at all.

I believe that anecdotal, isolated, emotionally charged data about a category of persons, with no perspective offered, is a very reliable sign of bigotry, even if the data happen to be real.

Imagine a "study" called
"Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Blacks"
or
"Law Enforcement and Private Citizens Killed by Jews"

It would be immediately clear what the "study" was intended to accomplish.

(The definition of Concealed Permit in the study may also be distorted. In the one New York case the criminal is reported as having a pistol license, but in this benighted State, that often (depending on the issuing judge) means a restricted license, good for carry while hunting or target shooting, but not valid for concealed carry.)

ConstitutionCowboy
July 23, 2009, 03:42 PM
Yup. I see nothing about a control group.

Woody

Double Naught Spy
July 23, 2009, 06:50 PM
It is not actually necessary to read the whole "study" to know it is flawed, and likely dishonest.
...
It would be immediately clear what the "study" was intended to accomplish.

Like claims that concealed carry CAUSES the crime rate to go down?

My point here is that if your cause is just and true, then you should not have to distort the truth to make your case. Both sides of the argument claim to have causes that are just and true, but both sides distort the data and distort their interpretations. Both sides have fairly apparent intent on what they are trying to accomplish. Why would both sides resort to such a lowly tactic?

jfh
July 23, 2009, 07:23 PM
seems to be coming from John Pierce, the Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner.

He's done two articles--

In the first (http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d21-Lies-damn-lies-and-VPC-statistics), he documents some of the flaws of this so-called study. These are points largely discussed here in this thread.

The second article (http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m7d23-Brady-Campaign-joins-the-VPC-in-deception) has some real, standard investigative journalism done--and he finds that the VPC, and the Brady Bunch have simply lied for at least one incident. The supposed permittee had no carry permit at all.

Follow the links and read them, carefully.

I've already posted synopses of John's articles over on OpposingViews.org in response the VPC-BB-FSA press releases. Articulate support there would also be appreciated.

Jim H.

Zoogster
July 23, 2009, 07:51 PM
seems to be coming from John Pierce, the Minneapolis Gun Rights Examiner.

He's done two articles--

In the first, he documents some of the flaws of this so-called study. These are points largely discussed here in this thread.

The second article has some real, standard investigative journalism done--and he finds that the VPC, and the Brady Bunch have simply lied for at least one incident. The supposed permittee had no carry permit at all.




I don't think the truth or accuracy was important to the VPC. An important bill was coming up in the Senate regarding nationaly recognizing state issued permits in all 50 states regardless of which state issued the permit.
The VPC needed to make CCW holders look bad to try to influance the result of the vote.

The vote is now over, failing by just a couple votes. So the VPC's goal was accomplished and errors that are found now in the study don't matter. The end (no national CCW) justified the means (lying or exaggerating whenever necessary even if they would be proven wrong later.)

jfh
July 23, 2009, 08:01 PM
Right, the vote is done. But, as others have noted, we are finally on the offensive--and wherever we can (besides in gunny forums), we should continue to hammer on the duplicity and fraud in the antigun advocacies.

For twenty years they held a (mis)perceived high ground on high-status arguments against violence because of their trickery. We need to keep hammering at their credibility and their legitimacy.

Jim H.

Deanimator
July 23, 2009, 09:47 PM
we should continue to hammer on the duplicity and fraud in the antigun advocacies
VPC has the honesty and morality of Holocaust deniers. They're just a pack of pathological liars.

jfh
July 23, 2009, 10:21 PM
"VPC has the honesty and morality of Holocaust deniers. They're just a pack of pathological liars."

I expect to have no impact whatsoever on VPC, et.al. The purpose of the hammering is to always refute their claims, rationally, so that a 'neutral' reader will be less likely to be misinformed.

Lies unchallenged become The Big Lie; challenged, they may be seen for what they are, is the idea....

Jim H.

Deanimator
July 23, 2009, 11:26 PM
I expect to have no impact whatsoever on VPC, et.al.
Neither do I. I've been throttling their ilk in usenet for the better part of ten years. I don't care about them or what they think. I specialize in letting THEM prove that they're liars, racists, etc. The lurkers draw the appropriate conclusions.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill 7 Police, 44 Private Citizens Over Two-Years" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!