Leftist feminist with a handgun? Interesting concept
- Thread starter Shannon Harper
- Start date
- Status
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
Since there is no correlation between gun control and rates of violent crime, that's an interesting statement. Kind of ironic for a feminist to exhibit a stereotypical aversion to objective thinking.
"...The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is pretty hard to mis-interperet, unless you are willfully doing so because you don't actually belive in the contents of the Constitution, but want to be able to pretend that you do. Anti-gun folks who invoke the "militia" clause as a basis for limiting handgun ownership should read how the federal law defines "militia"... if we limit handguns to the "militia" as defined by federal law, no women could own one. Score another one for the feminist!
Assuming you actually know how to use it, you should. If anybody should be armed, it is women, given the disparity in strength between women and the men that would rape and/or murder them. Objective reality strongly suggests that a .380 in the face of a rapist will do you alot more good than trying some Tai-Bo on him.
And if you belive you can't use a gun to defend yourself because you are a girl... that's a pretty ironic position for a feminist to take.
Well, it is objectively hypocritical to not support a right for everyone else, but to exercise it yourself.
MicroBalrog
member
Actually, there probably is. Just not the one the MMM claims to exist.
Sean Smith
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 4,925
OK, here is Thinking for Yourself 101:
Who published the study? Did they have an a priori agenda they were seeking to prove after the fact? How does this influence their credibility?
If anyone NEEDS a gun for self defense, it is women. They are the ones on the ugly side of the physical disparity between the sexes. But this study is going to say, in effect, that women are stupid for noting the obvious and acting accordingly...
A superficially clever bit of playing with numbers in a dishonest manner. Your source willfully excludes the vast majority of the positive outcomes that result from a woman having a gun.
We aren't simply interested in how many criminals women kill outright, we are interested in how many attacks were prevented by the would-be victim having a handgun. The woman having the gun "did good" if the attacker was killed... or wounded (and 80%+ of people shot by handguns survive)... or just ran away (the most common outcome of all, by the way).
The fancy word for this is being "disingenuous." A good ol' boy would call it lyin'... and be right, by the way.
Again, the fixation of "killing" lets them exclude all the victimization-preventing outcomes of a woman having a gun that are vastly more common. Furthermore, self-defense shootings of slimeballs by women often don't result in an arrest at all. In Texas, odds are the cops will say "thanks" and let you on your way after a brief explanation. Hence saying that only 2% of all homicides were justifiable really proves nothing at all... it is just a low number that they found a use for based on an a priori conviction that handguns are naughty.
Already irrelevant for the reasons noted. Incidentally, about 300 or so people in the U.S. are struck by lightning each year. Of course, by the way they worded their statement, they could be counting GLOBAL lightning strikes of people too...
Non sequitur. Consider that IPV murders with frying pans are more common than stranger murders with frying pans, too.
They exclude everything but fatalities from the positive side of women owning guns (i.e. injuring or scaring away attackers), but include everything bad that can happen when arguing against them. I didn't know that Enron was in the business of cooking up VPC studies...
armoredman
Member
Shannon, I commend you for the courage to look for the other side of the argument. Well done. It is even more commendable for you to realize the police have no legal requirement to protect you, and that your self protection is entirely your responsablilty. may I interject that I am a corrections officer in a supermax lockdown prison in Arizona, and I deal with the worst of the worst day in and day out, the ones who brag about kidnapping women, gang raping them, and then setting them on fire. I have inmates who believe it is thier God given duty to kill every minority member on the planet, and others to whom killing is the moral equivelant of turning off a light. I have sex offenders who have done such terrible things I will never post even close to what it was. I have an individual who hitchiked across a state with his son's dismembered body in his suitcase.
I get 5 to 10 more of these individuals every day. AZ is actually a lower crime state, with great self defense laws, where I can carry whatever I want, almost however and wherever I want, and yes, we can own full auto, tanks and other heavy weapons if we want.
My point is there is the bare bones basic reason for carrying a firearm 24/7, and never letting your guard down, as there are 10 more on the street for every one I have locked up, and one of them lives close to you.
I carry a gun because I look into the face of Evil every day, and Evil gets out on parole on Tuesday.....
I get 5 to 10 more of these individuals every day. AZ is actually a lower crime state, with great self defense laws, where I can carry whatever I want, almost however and wherever I want, and yes, we can own full auto, tanks and other heavy weapons if we want.
My point is there is the bare bones basic reason for carrying a firearm 24/7, and never letting your guard down, as there are 10 more on the street for every one I have locked up, and one of them lives close to you.
I carry a gun because I look into the face of Evil every day, and Evil gets out on parole on Tuesday.....
Armoredman, you make a good point.
When you see the ---holes that go in and out of our prisons each day, you'll want to carry a gun!
Frankly, a lot has changed since the '50s, where guns were part of our society and no one felt uncomfortable with them.
Then along came the Gun control lobbyists...
Now we have kids that are raised in a religion-less, unpatriotic society who play Grand Theft Auto and think that they can shoot the sides of cars to make them explode, without hurting anyone inside of course
Anyone else hear that story?
Its simple: gun violence prevention through education. Teaching a kid how to use a gun responsibly is no different then giving a Sex Ed class. Sex Ed teaches you about sex, but it discourages the misuse of it, just as gun safety classes do with guns.
Fear of guns started this problem, and now we think (and by we I mean the American people) that we can stop it with gun control that only prevents LEGAL guns and gun owners from their constitutional rights.
We keep trying it, and it keeps failing on us. Duh. Keep that .380 close, and welcome to the forum!
When you see the ---holes that go in and out of our prisons each day, you'll want to carry a gun!
Frankly, a lot has changed since the '50s, where guns were part of our society and no one felt uncomfortable with them.
Then along came the Gun control lobbyists...
Now we have kids that are raised in a religion-less, unpatriotic society who play Grand Theft Auto and think that they can shoot the sides of cars to make them explode, without hurting anyone inside of course
Anyone else hear that story?
Its simple: gun violence prevention through education. Teaching a kid how to use a gun responsibly is no different then giving a Sex Ed class. Sex Ed teaches you about sex, but it discourages the misuse of it, just as gun safety classes do with guns.
Fear of guns started this problem, and now we think (and by we I mean the American people) that we can stop it with gun control that only prevents LEGAL guns and gun owners from their constitutional rights.
We keep trying it, and it keeps failing on us. Duh. Keep that .380 close, and welcome to the forum!
ReadyontheRight
Member
All the arguments against RKBA citing the limits on the First Amendment are based on ACTIONS, not possession of the ability to speak. Your right to keep and bear arms does not allow you to shoot someone for no good reason.
If the right to keep and bear arms should be limited to ling guns because you might shoot someone with a handgun, why shouldn't the right to free speech be limited to writing with quill pens and parchment paper?
Preacherman
Member
I'd like to second what armoredman says above. I'm a chaplain at a Federal max-security prison, and can testify from daily experience that everything he says is spot on! I think the strongest possible argument for the right to keep and bear arms is to take anyone such as yourself, put them inside a max-sec prison for 24 hours to listen to inmate conversations and read their records, and then remind them that for every one we have inside, there are at least 10 outside - released convicts, or the ones we've never caught. If you could read some of the criminal records of these men, you'd wake up with screaming nightmares for the next six months - and if you talked with them in a counselling setting, as I do daily, and hear them talk about what they've done that was never discovered or brought out at trial, your nightmares would last six years!
We're releasing two inmates within the next month or two, both having completed their sentences. Both are on psychotropic medication because of mental problems. Both have a history - inside the prison - of violence, instability, assaults on staff and other inmates, etc. Both have a long and tragic history of sexual violence against others. And you know what? The psychologists, the chaplains, the corrections officers, the case managers... we all agree that these two WILL re-offend as soon as they're out, and that they DO pose an immediate, real and present danger to the public - BUT WE CAN'T KEEP THEM BEHIND BARS! They've done their time, and we are forced to release them. I can only hope and pray that their next selected victim(s) is/are well armed... they're going to need to be!
We're releasing two inmates within the next month or two, both having completed their sentences. Both are on psychotropic medication because of mental problems. Both have a history - inside the prison - of violence, instability, assaults on staff and other inmates, etc. Both have a long and tragic history of sexual violence against others. And you know what? The psychologists, the chaplains, the corrections officers, the case managers... we all agree that these two WILL re-offend as soon as they're out, and that they DO pose an immediate, real and present danger to the public - BUT WE CAN'T KEEP THEM BEHIND BARS! They've done their time, and we are forced to release them. I can only hope and pray that their next selected victim(s) is/are well armed... they're going to need to be!
BluesBear
member
Personally I think that if you are going to plagerize entire sections from someone elses website, that you should at least have the decency to also post the footnotes that you negelected to remove from the text when you cut & pasted it.
Shannon, I was going to welcome you, but now I wonder if you even exist.
If you do exist, Shannon, it seems to me that someone such as yourself would be facing a moral dilema about leaving a loaded handgun in an unattended motor vehicle where it could be stolen. Surely you are familiar with the statistics regarding the chances of your car being stolen or burgled? (hint: it's a lot higher than being assaulted)
You said in your earlier post that you now feel safer since you own a handgun. Are you eager to have that safety become prohibited? Are you willing to have someone else decide if you should be allowed to feel safe or not?
Shannon, I was going to welcome you, but now I wonder if you even exist.
If you do exist, Shannon, it seems to me that someone such as yourself would be facing a moral dilema about leaving a loaded handgun in an unattended motor vehicle where it could be stolen. Surely you are familiar with the statistics regarding the chances of your car being stolen or burgled? (hint: it's a lot higher than being assaulted)
You said in your earlier post that you now feel safer since you own a handgun. Are you eager to have that safety become prohibited? Are you willing to have someone else decide if you should be allowed to feel safe or not?
Last edited:
matsaleh
Member
Shannon,
I want to welcome you to THR, and to the broader world of citizenship, brought to you in part by the right to defend yourself with a firearm.
I also commend you on your bravery in speaking out in a forum where you knew your views would be challenged. I, like the others, disagree with most of your points, although years ago I probably was 100% in line with you.
It looks like you have done some amount of reading and research to support your position, and that's good in general. You are obviously intelligent and appear eager to learn the truth. Keep reading, researching the facts, and talking with other learned, rational people. I think you will find over time, if you keep your eyes open and really seek the truth, you will come to believe that the 2nd Amendment describes *your individual* right to live in a free society.
As I said, I once believed as you did. I was fresh out of college and my most comprehensive, most recent frame of reference came from the hallowed halls of my alma mater. I was too naieve to realize that the vast majority of my teachers and other influences held to narrowly defined agendas, many of which were anti-capitalist, anti-individualist in nature, and most of which were backed up with emotionally driven, rather than fact-based, arguments.
It was not until I had been working for a few years that I had built up enough life experience to understand reality (I'm a slow learner):
* The government took a huge part of my salary against my will to provide services to people who claimed to need it more than I. I, however, had to go into debt to ensure that my wife could be with her father at his death, and to pay for his modest funeral.
* The government waged a war on drugs that created a bureaucracy that persecutes doctors who prescribe pain medication so that my wife remained in suicidal pain for 3 years before she got treatment. To this day, we spend a few thousand dollars each year just so she can travel to the one doctor who is willing to help.
* The government failed to protect my cousin, who was hunted down and murdered for talking to the wrong man's girlfriend. The murderer is out on parole today, after serving a small fraction of his sentence.
I'm not anti-government, but I do realize that the government not only will not protect me, but does not have my interests in mind at all. The points above illustrate the practical power that government has over one person.
If left unchecked, all government power will become absolute. That is why we have the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to limit government power. We are already at great risk because we, the People, have allowed our government to gradually gain excessive power. One way to counter this is to actively exercise and defend our rights, including - possibly especially - the right to keep and bear arms. It is this right, when exercised, that allows us to defend the others.
Again, welcome to THR. Please stay and learn.
I want to welcome you to THR, and to the broader world of citizenship, brought to you in part by the right to defend yourself with a firearm.
I also commend you on your bravery in speaking out in a forum where you knew your views would be challenged. I, like the others, disagree with most of your points, although years ago I probably was 100% in line with you.
It looks like you have done some amount of reading and research to support your position, and that's good in general. You are obviously intelligent and appear eager to learn the truth. Keep reading, researching the facts, and talking with other learned, rational people. I think you will find over time, if you keep your eyes open and really seek the truth, you will come to believe that the 2nd Amendment describes *your individual* right to live in a free society.
As I said, I once believed as you did. I was fresh out of college and my most comprehensive, most recent frame of reference came from the hallowed halls of my alma mater. I was too naieve to realize that the vast majority of my teachers and other influences held to narrowly defined agendas, many of which were anti-capitalist, anti-individualist in nature, and most of which were backed up with emotionally driven, rather than fact-based, arguments.
It was not until I had been working for a few years that I had built up enough life experience to understand reality (I'm a slow learner):
* The government took a huge part of my salary against my will to provide services to people who claimed to need it more than I. I, however, had to go into debt to ensure that my wife could be with her father at his death, and to pay for his modest funeral.
* The government waged a war on drugs that created a bureaucracy that persecutes doctors who prescribe pain medication so that my wife remained in suicidal pain for 3 years before she got treatment. To this day, we spend a few thousand dollars each year just so she can travel to the one doctor who is willing to help.
* The government failed to protect my cousin, who was hunted down and murdered for talking to the wrong man's girlfriend. The murderer is out on parole today, after serving a small fraction of his sentence.
I'm not anti-government, but I do realize that the government not only will not protect me, but does not have my interests in mind at all. The points above illustrate the practical power that government has over one person.
If left unchecked, all government power will become absolute. That is why we have the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights - to limit government power. We are already at great risk because we, the People, have allowed our government to gradually gain excessive power. One way to counter this is to actively exercise and defend our rights, including - possibly especially - the right to keep and bear arms. It is this right, when exercised, that allows us to defend the others.
Again, welcome to THR. Please stay and learn.
A recent study titled Guns in America found that only 6.6 percent of adult American women owned a handgun—less than one out of every 10 women
This from Guns in America:
"Pro-gun groups claim the number of women owning guns has continually grown, with anywhere from 15 to 43 percent of women having them.
But a 1994 study by Tom Smith and Robert Smith, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, estimates that the gender gap in gun ownership has not shifted markedly since 1980.
Their study found that about 11.6 percent of adult women in the United States own firearms and 7.4 percent own handguns. "
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part3/gunside5.html
Gee, I wonder what percent of women in the U.S. have access to firearms thru a relative, spouse or boyfriend and therefore don't feel they need to own one.
This from Guns in America:
"Pro-gun groups claim the number of women owning guns has continually grown, with anywhere from 15 to 43 percent of women having them.
But a 1994 study by Tom Smith and Robert Smith, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, estimates that the gender gap in gun ownership has not shifted markedly since 1980.
Their study found that about 11.6 percent of adult women in the United States own firearms and 7.4 percent own handguns. "
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part3/gunside5.html
Gee, I wonder what percent of women in the U.S. have access to firearms thru a relative, spouse or boyfriend and therefore don't feel they need to own one.
Shannon Harper
Member
So many posts so little time
I can't believe I have gotten so many posts! How fabulous! I am still reading some of the posts. My computer moves so slow! However, as for my statistics, I apologize if I didn't make their origin clear (VPC), I believe one of the other posters pointed that out. I didn't do a very good job with that post because I only wanted to post the stats to open up more debate. In all honesty, I am not convinced of one side or the other. Earlier this year, I wrote a column about a conceal and carry debate on my college campus (University of Utah). I wrote the column in defense of the students who didn't want guns allowed on their campus. Although I can understand the popular pro gun viewpoint, students at the U did not feel safe with weapons on campus. The Constitution does not give people the right to feel safe, that is correct, however, my University guarantees its students that it will promote their academic freedom first and foremost and that their safety and feeling safe is the top priority. Allowing guns on campus would trample on those objectives. I understand what most of you are saying, but have yet to hear what your alternative is to the current gun issue in the U.S. How do you propose that allowing the free sale and purchase of guns without all the ridiculous legal ties will actually prevent harm to human life? I don't see how one alternative is better than the other. Is your argument against the fact that there are laws on the books or against the flaws of the laws on the books lol, if that makes any sense?
I can't believe I have gotten so many posts! How fabulous! I am still reading some of the posts. My computer moves so slow! However, as for my statistics, I apologize if I didn't make their origin clear (VPC), I believe one of the other posters pointed that out. I didn't do a very good job with that post because I only wanted to post the stats to open up more debate. In all honesty, I am not convinced of one side or the other. Earlier this year, I wrote a column about a conceal and carry debate on my college campus (University of Utah). I wrote the column in defense of the students who didn't want guns allowed on their campus. Although I can understand the popular pro gun viewpoint, students at the U did not feel safe with weapons on campus. The Constitution does not give people the right to feel safe, that is correct, however, my University guarantees its students that it will promote their academic freedom first and foremost and that their safety and feeling safe is the top priority. Allowing guns on campus would trample on those objectives. I understand what most of you are saying, but have yet to hear what your alternative is to the current gun issue in the U.S. How do you propose that allowing the free sale and purchase of guns without all the ridiculous legal ties will actually prevent harm to human life? I don't see how one alternative is better than the other. Is your argument against the fact that there are laws on the books or against the flaws of the laws on the books lol, if that makes any sense?
Shannon Harper
Member
My bad on the website postings. I copy and pasted it in a hurry and forgot to put in the one important part. For some reason, I thought I made that clear, where they were from. I got most of my stats from VPC, more directly, from this website http://www.vpc.org/press/0101myth.htm and links to this website. I did mention where the stats came from I think, their orignial origin? I hope so. I'm a journalist--lol, my mistake, how terrible!
Thumper
Member
Shannon!!! I'm glad you're back. I really respect that.
Ask anyone with even a passing contact with the criminal element: Criminals have NO trouble getting guns already, through their own means.
Laws, by definition, only effect those who obey the law...like us.
The ridiculous legal ties you mention only affect the law abiding. Someone here can tell you the percentage of the population that commits 90 something % of violent crime...I think it's like 5 percent, but I don't have the figures.
Don't worry about responding to EVERY post...just promise us you'll read 'em.
I'm glad you're back. I really respect that.Ask anyone with even a passing contact with the criminal element: Criminals have NO trouble getting guns already, through their own means.
Laws, by definition, only effect those who obey the law...like us.
The ridiculous legal ties you mention only affect the law abiding. Someone here can tell you the percentage of the population that commits 90 something % of violent crime...I think it's like 5 percent, but I don't have the figures.
Don't worry about responding to EVERY post...just promise us you'll read 'em.
MicroBalrog
member
First of all, it will prevent harm to human life by allowing access to better means of self-defense, both against the street thug and the government agent. (Preventing genocide)
Second, it's a senseless squander of human liberty. If you cannot prove it does any good, and we know it does some harm, why keep it?
I believe you should be able to buy any conventional weapon with no further problems/paperwork than buying a handgun. Maybe keep NICS, but make REAL damn sure it's not used for a registration list Reno-style.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Just pickin out this one specific Shannon ....... it is much like someone saying in a house ''I don't feel comfortable with guns in the house''.
I am usually drawn to wonder exactly why this is said ..... bearing in mind here I am considering ONLY legit ownership/carry. We must remember that even on a Uni campus .. the non-law abiding will still potentially bring in a weapon ... and it is they who need to be feared, not the legitimate people.
It is for just that reason that carry could have obviated or at least reduced, a death toll such as Columbine.
So ... the students who make this statement ''don't want guns on campus'' .... what is their rationale for this?? Are they just straight up Hoplophobes? Or do they actually think that a legitimate carrier is some sorta threat? Either way - it seems, sadly, that the liberal brain washing so common these days has taken hold. And also, I wonder if most in that category actually stop and think this thru ... rationally ... without gallons of emotion ..... and just look at the whole picture.
Bad guys cannot be legislated for .. they exist!!! It is however one of the superb aspects of this great country that for the most part ... there is some option at least to balance the books a bit ..... and have a means of defence.
Note well what Preacherman and Armoredman (sorry dude . not sure I remember your nick properly) .... said ... re the convict mindset .. note it very well. There are some sicko's around .. and there is no guarantee one will not make it inside the gunfree portals of the Uni.
WvaBill
Member
Shannon,
First, welcome to the High Road. I hope you feel treated well.
These goals are often mutually exclusive. No true academic freedom, e.g. speech or press, will often conflict with feelings of safety. Skokie IL as example.
Does the University promote "feelings" of safety or true safety.
I will not try to convince you that CCW will cause the University to be safer, but please find the evidence to the contrary. As the party which is limiting rights, especially a right many scholars (Tribe) believe is an individual right guaranteed by USC, the duty is upon the University to show that failure to act will cause unsafe conditions. This demonstration needs to be based on the known facts rather than emotive speculation.
My understanding of the original post is that you felt safer with your Bersa. If this is so you should be outraged that you are arbitrarily denied the freedom to feel safer. Just as you should feel outraged were you not allowed to debate the wisdom of our governments policies.
I live in a state which "allows" CCW. I routinely excercise my right. IME, crimes are committed by criminals. Not by CCW permit holders.
Thanks for stopping by. Folks coming round gives us all a reality check rather than validating each other.
Hope to see you around.
First, welcome to the High Road. I hope you feel treated well.
These goals are often mutually exclusive. No true academic freedom, e.g. speech or press, will often conflict with feelings of safety. Skokie IL as example.
Does the University promote "feelings" of safety or true safety.
I will not try to convince you that CCW will cause the University to be safer, but please find the evidence to the contrary. As the party which is limiting rights, especially a right many scholars (Tribe) believe is an individual right guaranteed by USC, the duty is upon the University to show that failure to act will cause unsafe conditions. This demonstration needs to be based on the known facts rather than emotive speculation.
My understanding of the original post is that you felt safer with your Bersa. If this is so you should be outraged that you are arbitrarily denied the freedom to feel safer. Just as you should feel outraged were you not allowed to debate the wisdom of our governments policies.
I live in a state which "allows" CCW. I routinely excercise my right. IME, crimes are committed by criminals. Not by CCW permit holders.
Thanks for stopping by. Folks coming round gives us all a reality check rather than validating each other.
Hope to see you around.
Monkeyleg
Member.
Whew! Shannon, you're really getting an earful!
One thing you want to avoid is using VPC statistics. I know of more than one gun-control advocate who refuses to use them because they know that they're garbage.
Here's an example: in a so-called study on the issue of concealed carry, the VPC claimed that Texas concealed carry permit holders were 66% more likely to commit "weapons offenses" than the general public. How did they arrive at this figure?
The Texas Department of Public Safety, which is charged with issuing permits and tracking offenses by permit holders, publishes arrest and conviction data right on their website. They don't break offenses down into any categories, they just list them with the accompanying arrests, dismissals and convictions.
The VPC took some "weapons-related" offenses such as discharging firearms within city limits, brandishing, etc, and created their own "weapons" category. To that category they added two offenses: failure to have a permit on the person while carrying, and carrying in a place prohibited by the concealed weapons permit statute. There were over 800 offenses in their "weapons offenses" category. Over 600 of those offenses were for the two I just mentioned. Those two offenses--not having the permit on the person, and carrying where prohibited--are offenses for which only permit holders can be arrested. In other words, permit holders are 100% more likely to be arrested for those two offenses than the general public.
That's just one example of dozens that show why VPC stats are not reliable when presenting an arguement.
As for gun control laws in general, I haven't been able to find one that actually does anything. In other words, they don't work, except to at best inconvenience the law-abiding, and at worst disarm them. Homicide rates more than doubled in the five years following passage of the most sweeping gun control law in our history, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Following passage of the 1994 Brady Law, the BATF reports that the number of criminals who got guns increased 16%. The number of gun suicides declined after passage of the Brady Law, but the suicide rate stayed the same; in other words, people found another way to do themselves in.
The 1994 "assault weapons" ban didn't do anything except ban the further manufacture of semi-automatics that had certain cosmetic features. The manufacturers removed those cosmetic features, and the guns are still legal--as they should be, since they function no differently than any other semi-automatic. The only tangible result of the ban was to drive prices of the pre-ban semi-autos through the roof.
If gun control laws really worked, then Chicago and DC, both cities where gun ownership is now virtually illegal, should be the safest cities in America.
I could go on and on. Actually, I already have.
Looking forward to your next post!
One thing you want to avoid is using VPC statistics. I know of more than one gun-control advocate who refuses to use them because they know that they're garbage.
Here's an example: in a so-called study on the issue of concealed carry, the VPC claimed that Texas concealed carry permit holders were 66% more likely to commit "weapons offenses" than the general public. How did they arrive at this figure?
The Texas Department of Public Safety, which is charged with issuing permits and tracking offenses by permit holders, publishes arrest and conviction data right on their website. They don't break offenses down into any categories, they just list them with the accompanying arrests, dismissals and convictions.
The VPC took some "weapons-related" offenses such as discharging firearms within city limits, brandishing, etc, and created their own "weapons" category. To that category they added two offenses: failure to have a permit on the person while carrying, and carrying in a place prohibited by the concealed weapons permit statute. There were over 800 offenses in their "weapons offenses" category. Over 600 of those offenses were for the two I just mentioned. Those two offenses--not having the permit on the person, and carrying where prohibited--are offenses for which only permit holders can be arrested. In other words, permit holders are 100% more likely to be arrested for those two offenses than the general public.
That's just one example of dozens that show why VPC stats are not reliable when presenting an arguement.
As for gun control laws in general, I haven't been able to find one that actually does anything. In other words, they don't work, except to at best inconvenience the law-abiding, and at worst disarm them. Homicide rates more than doubled in the five years following passage of the most sweeping gun control law in our history, the Gun Control Act of 1968. Following passage of the 1994 Brady Law, the BATF reports that the number of criminals who got guns increased 16%. The number of gun suicides declined after passage of the Brady Law, but the suicide rate stayed the same; in other words, people found another way to do themselves in.
The 1994 "assault weapons" ban didn't do anything except ban the further manufacture of semi-automatics that had certain cosmetic features. The manufacturers removed those cosmetic features, and the guns are still legal--as they should be, since they function no differently than any other semi-automatic. The only tangible result of the ban was to drive prices of the pre-ban semi-autos through the roof.
If gun control laws really worked, then Chicago and DC, both cities where gun ownership is now virtually illegal, should be the safest cities in America.
I could go on and on. Actually, I already have.
Looking forward to your next post!
Hkmp5sd
Member
Do you suppose that some of the students and teachers at Columbine High School might have felt safe if the teachers had been allowed to carry concealed handguns?
The NFA, '68 GCA, '86 MG ban, '89 import restrictions, '94 AW ban, Brady Bill and the thousands of other gun control laws currently in effect across the US did not prevent two teenagers from illegally acquiring firearms. Of course, the restrictions on explosives didn't prevent them from making bombs either. The only thing that prevented that was their own incompetence.
I've never understood the logic behind preventing CCW holders from carrying in places such as schools and churches. If I can safely carry outside those locations, why would I not safely carry inside them? In the event I decided I wanted to kill a teacher or priest, that prohibition wouldn't stop me and more than the law against murder.
Only law abiding citizens abide by the law.
Shannon-
The 'collective rights interpretation' requires that you take the Second Amendment completely out of the context of the rest of the Constitution. You have to ignore the following facts:
1) In no other place in the Constitution are the federal or state governments referred to as "the people". In fact, the Tenth Amendment draws a clear distinction between the US, the states, and the people.
2) In no other place in the Constitution are the federal or state governments referred to as possessing rights. This is because only people have rights, while governments have powers derived from the people. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments illustrate this principle. The Ninth Amendment tells us that the enumeration of rights within the Bill of Rights shouldn't be construed to restrict other rights retained by the people; there's no mention of government at all because it's talking about rights. The Tenth Amendment mentions that powers not specifically granted to the US in the Constitution are reserved for the States or the people. In that case it mentions powers but not rights because it discusses government rather than individuals alone.
Since the above are true, the 'militia clause' is essentially irrelevant. '[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so clear and so complete that putting a nebulous phrase in front does nothing to change its meaning. It is far more likely, then, that the militia clause is merely the chief political reason for the amendment's inclusion rather than a limiting factor, as David Hardy suggests.
The 'collective rights interpretation' requires that you take the Second Amendment completely out of the context of the rest of the Constitution. You have to ignore the following facts:
1) In no other place in the Constitution are the federal or state governments referred to as "the people". In fact, the Tenth Amendment draws a clear distinction between the US, the states, and the people.
2) In no other place in the Constitution are the federal or state governments referred to as possessing rights. This is because only people have rights, while governments have powers derived from the people. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments illustrate this principle. The Ninth Amendment tells us that the enumeration of rights within the Bill of Rights shouldn't be construed to restrict other rights retained by the people; there's no mention of government at all because it's talking about rights. The Tenth Amendment mentions that powers not specifically granted to the US in the Constitution are reserved for the States or the people. In that case it mentions powers but not rights because it discusses government rather than individuals alone.
Since the above are true, the 'militia clause' is essentially irrelevant. '[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so clear and so complete that putting a nebulous phrase in front does nothing to change its meaning. It is far more likely, then, that the militia clause is merely the chief political reason for the amendment's inclusion rather than a limiting factor, as David Hardy suggests.
"We don't feel safe with guns on campus"
Do you feel safe with a gas fired water heater? Clothes dryer?
They injure people far more than lawfully acquired handguns.
"Yes folks.....we need to ban natural gas and propane powered appliances. FOR THE CHILDREN"
The same points will get raise over and over again here, while the pro's say, "YES!" and the anti's continue to ignore.
Let's face it....If one of us logged onto the VPC site and entered into a meaningful debate (Assuming that could happen) would we ever admit to seeing the other side and send our firearms to the melting pot?
Do you feel safe with a gas fired water heater? Clothes dryer?
They injure people far more than lawfully acquired handguns.
"Yes folks.....we need to ban natural gas and propane powered appliances. FOR THE CHILDREN"
The same points will get raise over and over again here, while the pro's say, "YES!" and the anti's continue to ignore.
Let's face it....If one of us logged onto the VPC site and entered into a meaningful debate (Assuming that could happen) would we ever admit to seeing the other side and send our firearms to the melting pot?
Let's revisit the Militia for a moment - or two.
Shannon - first, another welcome to The High Road. And second, thank you for joining and starting this thread, it has really taken off.
Re the Militia: This following is an excerpt from an article I wrote for a hopeful OpEd in a local paper in Sept 2001 about a week after 9/11. It was deemed too long, and I wouldn't shorten it so it wasn't published. For those interested, find the full article, "The Case for an Active Unorganized Militia in the War on Terrorism" here
By the way, there is, by congress ordained, an option for states to create for themselves a State Defense Force (SDF) which is not subject to being federalized. See TFL thread, http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82987
(Please note, my web site, ironbarr.com, is no longer available - the link won't work. The article contains SDF source links - for whatever the value.)
Again, welcome, and thanks.
-Andy
Shannon - first, another welcome to The High Road. And second, thank you for joining and starting this thread, it has really taken off.
Re the Militia: This following is an excerpt from an article I wrote for a hopeful OpEd in a local paper in Sept 2001 about a week after 9/11. It was deemed too long, and I wouldn't shorten it so it wasn't published. For those interested, find the full article, "The Case for an Active Unorganized Militia in the War on Terrorism" here
So you see - YOU are the militia; in this case probably the Unorganized Militia. Therefore, your right to keep and bear arms is more than essential as, one day, it may be obligatory for you to muster with your firearm(s)... hopefully those that are reasonably in vogue with the times.
By the way, there is, by congress ordained, an option for states to create for themselves a State Defense Force (SDF) which is not subject to being federalized. See TFL thread, http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=82987
(Please note, my web site, ironbarr.com, is no longer available - the link won't work. The article contains SDF source links - for whatever the value.)
Again, welcome, and thanks.
-Andy
WvaBill
Member
If it were an`honest debate? I've not seen many anti's that are able to stay away from racial and/or ideological invective. Off course by demonizing us(gunowners), antis can convince fence sitters they are on the side of gods and angels.
:banghead:
Welcome but hold on:
Shannon:glad you took the time to come vist with us and hope you find a place among us.
That said:
There is no law,and there will be no law ever passed that will prevent the missuse of a tool.It is very easy to look at a murder,robbery,ect. and If one doesn't know any better say"well if we only could control/eleminate guns this wouldn't have happened;orwe can prevent his from happening again.
The Genie is out of the bottle-guns exsist and will exsist for the rest of your life time.
I maintain that the gun isn't the problem,I have yet in almost 50 years of being around guns ever see or hear of a gun acting on its own.
So you have a situation where the gun isn't the problem,nor is the soulution to the problem makeing more laws as I think you can understand that people that commit Murder,ect.by definition don't obey laws.
If what you want is to be safe lock up ie remove those among us that violate the laws against murder robbery ect.
Want a contrast go to Washington D.C where guns are not legal and no one has a gun within the law,go for a walk at about 9 pm walk until 10 I dont think you will make it till 10.
Then try a walk at about the same time in Austin,San Antonio,Dallas, or Houston-you get to carry your .380 in Texas.I do believe you will have a better chance of seeing 10 pm in Texas.
One last point:What is the response time for police on the campus of the U of Utah?I would guess 10 min would be very good.
I would like you to look at your watch and then time ten min.
while you are waiting I want you to think of all the things on of Preachermans convicts could do to you in those ten Min.oh and he doesn't have a gun just his hands or a knife or a baseball bat.
Have a nice night
Shannon:glad you took the time to come vist with us and hope you find a place among us.
That said:
There is no law,and there will be no law ever passed that will prevent the missuse of a tool.It is very easy to look at a murder,robbery,ect. and If one doesn't know any better say"well if we only could control/eleminate guns this wouldn't have happened;orwe can prevent his from happening again.
The Genie is out of the bottle-guns exsist and will exsist for the rest of your life time.
I maintain that the gun isn't the problem,I have yet in almost 50 years of being around guns ever see or hear of a gun acting on its own.
So you have a situation where the gun isn't the problem,nor is the soulution to the problem makeing more laws as I think you can understand that people that commit Murder,ect.by definition don't obey laws.
If what you want is to be safe lock up ie remove those among us that violate the laws against murder robbery ect.
Want a contrast go to Washington D.C where guns are not legal and no one has a gun within the law,go for a walk at about 9 pm walk until 10 I dont think you will make it till 10.
Then try a walk at about the same time in Austin,San Antonio,Dallas, or Houston-you get to carry your .380 in Texas.I do believe you will have a better chance of seeing 10 pm in Texas.
One last point:What is the response time for police on the campus of the U of Utah?I would guess 10 min would be very good.
I would like you to look at your watch and then time ten min.
while you are waiting I want you to think of all the things on of Preachermans convicts could do to you in those ten Min.oh and he doesn't have a gun just his hands or a knife or a baseball bat.
Have a nice night
BluesBear
member
Welcome to The High Road Shannon and welcome back. Glad to see you do exist.
Since the University quoted above "guarantees" that safety is the top priority what will they say when a studen it attacked? Will they just say, "Oh well we tried, but we need tougher policies?" Or will they admit that they really can't guarantee anyone safety anytime?
One university in one thread even went so far as to reason that they needed more WALLS around the campus to protect their students.
If someone goes through all of the trouble to get a concealed weapons permit, that means that they have passed the background checks and other criteria, should they not be allowed to carry anywhere?
Since you are interested in statistics, find out how often a permitted person misuses a firearm. you'll find the number incredibly low.
Ask this question of the students; If you were in the company of a group of people you know and normally associate with on a social basis and 50% of them carried, and knew how to effectively use, mace or pepper spray would you feel safer in their presence?
Then ask them this; If you were in the company of a group of people you know and normally associate with on a social basis and at least ONE of them carried, and knew how to effectively use, a firearm wouldn't you feel safer?
If you look through other threads here you will see several discussing attacks on campus'.
Since the University quoted above "guarantees" that safety is the top priority what will they say when a studen it attacked? Will they just say, "Oh well we tried, but we need tougher policies?" Or will they admit that they really can't guarantee anyone safety anytime?
One university in one thread even went so far as to reason that they needed more WALLS around the campus to protect their students.
If someone goes through all of the trouble to get a concealed weapons permit, that means that they have passed the background checks and other criteria, should they not be allowed to carry anywhere?
Since you are interested in statistics, find out how often a permitted person misuses a firearm. you'll find the number incredibly low.
Ask this question of the students; If you were in the company of a group of people you know and normally associate with on a social basis and 50% of them carried, and knew how to effectively use, mace or pepper spray would you feel safer in their presence?
Then ask them this; If you were in the company of a group of people you know and normally associate with on a social basis and at least ONE of them carried, and knew how to effectively use, a firearm wouldn't you feel safer?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked