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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Kill [...] 44 [...] Citizens Over Two-Years
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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...............
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Gun Owners of America said:
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).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
Where was NRA during this? I didn't get anything from them.

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.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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...
 
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.)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
The best analyses of this propaganda piece

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.

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...




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.)
 
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.
 
"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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
VPC's latest "study"
Replies
3
Views
374
Jeff White
J
D
  • Locked
Concealed Carry Permit Holders are One Third as Likely to Commit Murder as Police Off
2 3 4
Replies
86
Views
4K
Robert
Robert
S
  • Locked
NYT article: "Concealed Carry's Body Count"
2
Replies
40
Views
4K
bearcreek
B
Trent
  • Locked
Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III
2 3 4
Replies
77
Views
3K
Al Thompson
A
A
  • Locked
Article: Police Commit More Gun Crimes Than Concealed Carry Permit Holders
Replies
15
Views
868
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Back
Top