You do realize that shootings by private citizens with conceal and carry permits are justified at the same rate as LE officers. You rarely hear about someone with a ccp shooting someone on accident or without cause. How about LA LE shoot to women in a truck 100+ times? Zimmerman is the only case I can think of recently that was shit for a ccp shooting.
I swear, I have no idea why this very simple to understand concept is so very hard for a few lefties to understand.
What was the first thing your momma and daddy taught you when confronted by a bully? If he hits you, you hit him back. How simple is that?
If someone shoots at you, you shoot at them back. How hard is that to understand?
On 9/11 planes were flown into buildings. In one of those planes, people decided that if they were going to die, they might as well go fighting.
Since that day, whenever anyone causes some shit on a plane, NOBODY FUCKS AROUND. Everyone assumes upon themselves the duty to prevent crazy asshole from starting some shit.
Case in point:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/iceland-air-passenger-duct-taped-seat-caught-tape-18168058
Do you know what you call duct taping crazy drunk guy to a seat when he's on a plane? It's called SELF DEFENSE.
So why can't we do the same thing on the ground? When some crazy asshole gets out of line and causes some shit, EVERYONE assumes upon themselves the responsibility of rectifying the situation. Crazy asshole storms a school with an AR-15? Put a cap in his ass. Crazy jack off wants to rob a convenience store? Put a cap in their ass. Crazy motherfucker wants to make himself famous by bringing a gun into a movie theater? Put a fucking cap in their fucking ass.
How hard is that?
Here's a couple of shitheads wanting to rob an internet cafe. Guess what? Old man put a cap in their ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbarunzTtc
Some fucking creep tries to kick in the door to rob an 89 year old woman? Granny put a cap in his ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3jURuXjjJ8
Some motherfucker wants to kill a convenience store clerk on Christmas? Motherfucker got a cap in his ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4
Some dumb shits want to break into a house with two kids inside? The dumb shits get a cap in their ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLhp6OGq2ko
Now, if children can do this, if an 89 year old woman can do this, and if an old man wearing old man pants in an internet cafe can do this, then surely, teachers who want to volunteer to do this, can do this, after they get the REQUIRED 40-60 hour training to do so.
What's so fucking hard about that?
Body armor is compleatly on the defensive . There is nothing agressive you can do with body armor alone.
at another kid, you and all of the other lunnies will "rectify" the situation by opening fire on the kid. Only when you get closer do you notice the pistol was a "water pistol." Opps.
Or you walk into a convenience store and see a robber pointing a gun at the clerk. You open fire and take out the robber, saving the clerk. But you also hit a mother and two kids in the back of the store. Opps.
And as for your theatre example, as I pointed out to Ed, last month, anyone who opened fire on that shooter would most likely have been shot himself by another gun carrying lunny who couln not tell which was the bad guy. Opps.
See the problem? You are conflating self defense with defense of others. Self defense is alive and well as long as you honestly and reasonably believe you are in danger and use proportionate force. Defense of others, however, has to be more narrowly limited bc you are never quite sure what is happening in a tense and evolving situation on which you stumble.
And 40 to 60 hours training on "how" to use a gun is not the same thing as being trained on "when" to use it. Let's leave defense of others to properly trained LE in all but the clearest of situations.
You do realize that shootings by private citizens with conceal and carry permits are justified at the same rate as LE officers. You rarely hear about someone with a ccp shooting someone on accident or without cause. How about LA LE shoot to women in a truck 100+ times? Zimmerman is the only case I can think of recently that was shit for a ccp shooting.
Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection.
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person – about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000. And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.
Permit holders more law-abiding than average population -- even more so than cops!
The VPC wants to focus on the few bad apples in the concealed carry community and suggest that citizens can’t be trusted to carry firearms. But using their own logic, they should be arguing for cop disarmament, because they break the law far more often.
As compared to concealed carry permit holders, the average American is almost 8 times more likely to be convicted of crimes and over 40 times more likely to be convicted of burglary -- and police officers are almost 800 times more likely to violate the law.12
There are an estimated six million citizens who possess a concealed carry permit.13 The number of legal concealed carriers is probably higher, considering the growing number of states that recognize the right of their citizens to carry without a permit.
Press reports indicate that concealed carry is at an ALL TIME HIGH, even while crime rates have been dropping in the U.S. over the past few years. Yet, we’ve been hearing the Chicken Little cries of doom and gloom as far back as the mid-1980s, when Florida kicked off the modern concealed carry movement with the enactment of its “shall issue” law.
Prior to its passage in 1987, there was a vigorous debate in the Florida legislature. Opponents of the law claimed that a carry law would turn the Sunshine State into the “Gunshine State.” It was a cute jingle, but their dire predictions never materialized. Murder rates started dropping immediately after the passage of the law, prompting one of the chief opponents, Rep. Ron Silver, to admit that he had been wrong about concealed carry.
Such was the case in Texas, as well. One of the chief opponents in the Lone Star State was Senior Cpl. Glenn White, who is president of the Dallas Police Association. White lobbied against the law in 1993 and 1995 because he thought it would lead to wholesale armed conflict.
Senior Cpl. White admits, though, “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn't happen. No bogeyman. I think it's worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I'm a convert.”
It takes guts to look at the evidence and admit you were mistaken. Kudos to Rep. Silver and Senior Cpl. White for being “man enough” to admit they were wrong.
Who knows, maybe the VPC will own up and admit they were also wrong about all the fear and paranoia they’ve peddled in their faux report. But then again, don’t hold your breath.
http://gunowners.org/vpc10122011.htm
http://hawaiiccw.com/gun-myths/accidental-gun-fatalities/citizens-incompetent/
Even Willy will acknowledge that this group is right of the NRA. And Spades you didn't bother to check where they were getting that stat, did you?
Well it came from the Gun Facts book which in turn based the stat on a 1994 book. We don't where the 1994 book got the stat but I would bet money that there is valid source. Here's why. Aside from the stat being nearly 20 years out of date, we the stat is invalid because - no one keeps records on how often a defensive gun use kills an innocent person. 1 in 26,000 is a made up number. The best evidence we have are the police reports forwarded to the DOJ and those reports do not support your statistic.
Citizens use guns to prevent crime 2,500,000 each year? Not according to the DOJ stats.
And even worse, now you have misled the impressionable Panthera12. I guess that drone I sent to his house missed
I ll find the other sources tonight but even LE has even admitted that firearms are used for self defense 2 million times a year. Ccp holders have very similar wrongful death shooting rates as police and will find other stats to back it up. Its idiots with out proper training killing their children or wives accidentally. Cant now though, gotta work
I can find state number much easier, but here is a bit more on the post earlier. I'll try and track down recent numbers. The FBI has stated that CCP holders with valid permits closely mirrors police officers statistics for innocent bystanders shootings. I'll find more.... if you find a different source or stats to support something else I'd like to see them. There are reasons states are making it easier to get a CCP...
Under President Clinton, the Department of Justice conducted a survey in 1994 that placed the usage rate of guns used in personal defense at 1.5 million times per year.
In fact, the courts, including the Supreme Court, have ruled consistently that the police are responsible only to the public at large and not to individual citizens. This means that even when police do their best, the courts recognize that there may be some individuals who they just can't to get to in time. It happens all too often. When it does, the citizen is left to fend for himself until the police arrive. That's the time when even gun control advocates wish that they had a gun, as happened with many gun control advocates during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Imagine their distress when they learned that they had to wait 15 days to get a gun.
Accidental police shooting examples.... http://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2008/05/police-accidental-shootings-of.html
Background for the earlier posting with study references. Armed Citizens Make Fewer Mistakes Than Police. Police shoot innocent people over 500% more often than armed civilians do. Civilians are there when the crime or altercation began & know who the bad guy is. Police have no clue when they finally arrive on scene & end up shooting the wrong person. Police often live on the edge, they naturally tend to shoot first and ask questions later. The Supreme Court has ruled consistently that the police are not required to protect you.
"Don't think that just because the police are trained in the use of firearms that they are less likely to kill an innocent person. A University of Chicago Study revealed that in 1993 approximately 700,000 police killed 330 innocent individuals, while approximately 250,000,000 private citizens only killed 30 innocent people. Do the math. That's a per capita rate for the police, of almost 4000 times higher than the population in general. OK, that is a little misleading. Let's just include the 80,000,000 gun owning citizens. Now the police are down to only a 1200 times higher accidental shooting rate than the gun-owning population in general.
That still sounds high. So let's look at it in a different light. According to a study by Newsweek magazine, only 2% of civilian shootings involve an innocent person being shot (not killed). The error rate for police is 11%. What this means is that you are more than 5 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. But, when you consider that citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as do police every year, it means that, per capita, you are more than 11 times more likely to be accidentally shot by a policeman than by an armed citizen. That is as low as I can get that number.
The Kleck study shows that police shoot and kill around 600 criminals each year. Yet the University of Chicago study shows that police killed 330 innocent individuals in 1993. That means that for every two criminals killed by police, one innocent citizen is killed by police. Although I have the greatest respect for the police and how they must respond under pressure, I think that I would much rather trust an armed populace."
Well it came from the Gun Facts book which in turn based the stat on a 1994 book. We don't where the 1994 book got the stat but I would bet money that there is valid source. Here's why. Aside from the stat being nearly 20 years out of date, we the stat is invalid because - no one keeps records on how often a defensive gun use kills an innocent person. 1 in 26,000 is a made up number. The best evidence we have are the police reports forwarded to the DOJ and those reports do not support your statistic.
Citizens use guns to prevent crime 2,500,000 each year? Not according to the DOJ stats.
And even worse, now you have misled the impressionable Panthera12. I guess that drone I sent to his house missed.
...time after time, I hear the same arguments. Typically, it boils down to this: Gun control advocates assume that everyone is as incompetent as they are.
Has there ever been a single case where a CCW holder confused a water pistol for a real one?
If a customer is hit in a legitimate case of self-defense, you know that it's the robber who's ultimately responsible, under the law. Of course, what you don't hear is when CCW permit holders DON'T fire because they're specifically trained to know what lies beyond their target.
Case in point: A mall in Portland. Watch the news story that begins 1 minute into this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuLgO4wo4xI
Mari, not only are you taught how to use a gun in CCW classes, you're also taught when to use it. Here is a lecture from Massad Ayoob, an expert on self-defense law, talking about precisely when and under what conditions you're allowed to use a gun. This lecture took place shortly after the Zimmerman shooting at the Cato Institute.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irnD34P2l1w
http://classic.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=205204&boardID=39&page=
Like I said, with 49 states allowing concealed carry in one form or another (and soon to be 50 with my home state being forced to concede) show us even one anecdotal story of neighbor killing neighbor in some modern keystone kop version of the gunfight at the OK corral. Face it. These mass murders have taken place in gun free zones.
Read my old response to you and then reply.
You expressly said "If I could carry in public it would only be for the personal protection of me and my family." That is self defense - Willy -after watching a few Charles Bronson movies - wants citizens packing heat to "rectify" crime whereever they see it. That is having untrained citizens use their guns for the protection of others - borderline -and illegal - vigilantism in many situations. That is what I am excoriating Willy for today.
As to not responding to your post, you posted that one after my bedtime. Shame on you - you know better than that.
As to "show us one story where this has happened", I'll take that one under advisement for the moment, although the Zimmerman shooting and the Oscar Pistorius shooting would be two examples if you believe the shooter. But here is an idea - instead of waiting till it happens and then say "oh no," let's prevent "neighbor killing neighbor" in a misguided attempt to prevent crime BEFORE it happens.
Capice?
While I agree that Willy seems all too anxious to put a cap in someone’s ass, most of his examples were pure self defense, not vigilantism.
Your hopeful examples of Zimmerman and Pistorius are irrelevant distractions to your argument. Neither has been shown to be a well intentioned gunman accidentally or wrongfully shooting another well intentioned gunman because a second gun was brandished causing confusion. Just as I earlier stated that if I wrongfully shoot someone I will be due the wrath of the criminal justice system, just as these two fellows will be examined by theirs. If I get shot, well that may be on me too.
Regarding your specific criticism of a theater shooter example where willy suggests another ass capping that may result in one of the armed good Samaritans being shot by another, your preemptive plans to disarm me in public places may very well save some innocent person from an ass capping. But the bigger problem it creates is to deny me my Constitutional right to self defense. How many courts have you seen award injunctive relief where no evidence of probable future damages exists? Legislatures are not so constrained but creating a preemptive prohibition law with little or no evidence of past wrong doing doesn't past the smell test, ESPECIALLY when it restricts my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
-- Modified on 4/4/2013 8:47:02 PM
At least, not yet. To the extent there is any constitutioal right of using firearms for self defense, that right is limited to self defense in your home as I read the Heller decision:
“we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation,
…
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.
…
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,… banning from the home "the most preferred firearm in the nation to `keep' and use for protection of one's home and family," 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
But seeing how the federal courts are now forcing even the last holdout, Illinois, into allowing concealed carry it would seem that my means to public self defense is to now include a firearm.
and not be charged for the killing or the injury of the suspect.
IT HAPPEN TO A FRIEND OF MINE. he was charged with discharging a weapon!
What was the first thing your momma and daddy taught you when confronted by a bully? If he hits you, you hit him back. How simple is that?
If someone shoots at you, you shoot at them back. How hard is that to understand?
On 9/11 planes were flown into buildings. In one of those planes, people decided that if they were going to die, they might as well go fighting.
Since that day, whenever anyone causes some shit on a plane, NOBODY FUCKS AROUND. Everyone assumes upon themselves the duty to prevent crazy asshole from starting some shit.
Case in point:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/iceland-air-passenger-duct-taped-seat-caught-tape-18168058
Do you know what you call duct taping crazy drunk guy to a seat when he's on a plane? It's called SELF DEFENSE.
So why can't we do the same thing on the ground? When some crazy asshole gets out of line and causes some shit, EVERYONE assumes upon themselves the responsibility of rectifying the situation. Crazy asshole storms a school with an AR-15? Put a cap in his ass. Crazy jack off wants to rob a convenience store? Put a cap in their ass. Crazy motherfucker wants to make himself famous by bringing a gun into a movie theater? Put a fucking cap in their fucking ass.
How hard is that?
Here's a couple of shitheads wanting to rob an internet cafe. Guess what? Old man put a cap in their ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbarunzTtc
Some fucking creep tries to kick in the door to rob an 89 year old woman? Granny put a cap in his ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3jURuXjjJ8
Some motherfucker wants to kill a convenience store clerk on Christmas? Motherfucker got a cap in his ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUff31LRPE4
Some dumb shits want to break into a house with two kids inside? The dumb shits get a cap in their ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLhp6OGq2ko
Now, if children can do this, if an 89 year old woman can do this, and if an old man wearing old man pants in an internet cafe can do this, then surely, teachers who want to volunteer to do this, can do this, after they get the REQUIRED 40-60 hour training to do so.
What's so fucking hard about that?
Tell him to get a good attorney and sue. They want to limit his right to self defense, esp if he used it in a judicial manner. Clear violation of his rights. Esp if it was in his home.