http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/30/1426395/-Carjacking-victim-allegedly-shot-in-head-by-responsible-gunowner-who-started-shooting-at-carjackers



Now you might respond with another post, and I can respond with another example.

was legally carrying the gun?

First, the gun owner shot the wrong person.
Second, the two people who attempted the theft were fleeing. They were leaving the scene.
Third, and this is somewhat repetitive, the wrong person was shot by the gun owner.

Interesting deflection on your part.

...that the idjit shooter in Texas was doing so.

Deflection, indeed...

people carry guns, bad things can happen.

Posting something about a rare instance where someone with a gun actually accomplishes good by preventing a crime is an attempt to justify carrying a gun, concealed or not.

I remind the disinterested reader that the interviewee, John Hendricks, was trained and is
a strong advocate of training:

You are to free to imply that all gun ownership is problematic because some gun owners
are undoubtedly negligent to the point of criminal liability.

However, were you to do so I'd have to ask if you apply to the same metric to other
identifiable groups that have members that do wrong...

...for issuance of concealed carry licenses. They seem to work in my own state, as well as Illinois

to "protect" themselves from the hordes of criminals? This notion that untrained civilians can be judge, jury, and possible executioner whenever such civilians perceive a "need" to use a weapon is unrelated to reality.

...kindly point them out to me and I'll disagree with them myself.

As for "untrained civilians", the subject of the OP IS trained, a fact you seem to have 'forgotten'

When you have an argument that isn't made of straw, get back to me, mmkay? Work calls...

I seem to recall a similar argument about a different readily identifiable group being
made by Donald Trump, et al.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for us?

He attempts to blow up isolated incidents into a massive problem to accomplish his goal.

The NRA, and many gun owners, attempt to blow up and exaggerate the threat of criminal violence to justify open/concealed carry of weapons by civilians.

Are you not doing the very same thing?

But, in a nutshell, that seems to be the SOP for DU gun control with violent crime dropping.

Find an incident, post it here as if it's the norm and try to make it the poster child for all gun owners.

Above all never differentiate a criminal from a law abiding gun owner. Because as we all know their favorite bumper sticker philosophy lately is; "You're law abiding, until you aren't"

This post was quite obviously put here to justify concealed and open carry as being crime preventative.

...preventative" Which post would that be? Certainly not one of mine.

The most I will claim is that concealed carry is not generally dangerous to the public at large, and I have years of statistics from the state of Texas that back up that assertion

I'll thank you to stop attempting to put words in my mouth.

Yes, I agree with you. With the passage of time and the invention o new technologies and weapons are increasing crime rate, murder fights etc. But the main question is that how to remove these things and spread happiness??

In fact, most gun owners have carry permits.

That's about 1 in 20 of all residents, a ratio which would be higher if only residents over 21
were counted.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/20/gun-laws-tightened-mass-number-permits-spiked/KDbdE52Cvdf4xNfIL4r0hN/story.html

We are not known for either high levels of gun crime or lack of education, so wherein lies the problem?

Note: 'It offends my sensibilities' or 'I don't see a need for them to do so' aren't really answers...

morning-mix/wp/2015/10/08/woman-with-concealed-gun-permit-shoots-at-fleeing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/



It is just this type of incident that makes a strong case for an absolute ban on concealed carry by civilians.
One: As far as I know, shoplifting is not a death penalty offense.
Two: The woman had a valid permit. Presumably she had some training, but she also demonstrated a complete lack of sense.
Three: How many of these incidents will it take to demolish the myth that untrained civilians can make a difference?

...civilians" Why? Is this one case indicative of a demonstrable trend? Or
is this another "If it saves one life..." argument?

that such action will somehow deter criminals. That this notion has no way of being proven does not matter. It is simply used to justify the carrying of guns.

Given that 10s of thousands of people die from gun violence every year in the US, the logical position to take would be that regulation and restriction of carrying weapons would be the response. Such regulation and restriction works in other countries. but gun rights advocates talk about American exceptionalism and supposed rights based on a deliberate misreading of the Constitution by the Roberts' SCOTUS.

If ISIS was killing thousands of Americans each year the outcry would be deafening.

by CCW permit holders?

What did you read?

*that* particular argument is specious

"Given that 10s of thousands of people die from gun violence every year in the US,...)

This thread is about CCW permit holders and specifically, about an incident Chicago. Sure, the are too many gun homicides, but most of those are because of criminal activity.

I've read stories that the vast majority of gun murders are committed by people who already have a criminal record and thus arguably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun in the first place (or should already be in prison). For example, the Atlantic has this piece from 2013 about gun control/violence - http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/gun-violence-in-america-the-13-key-questions-with-13-concise-answers/272727/ - that contains this quote:

In principle, it's not necessary to keep guns away from everyone, just those who would misuse them. Background checks are promising because a high fraction of future killers already have a criminal record. In one study in Illinois, 71% of those convicted of homicide had a previous arrest, and 42% had a prior felony conviction.

make a better effort to convict straw purchasers of firearms used in crime.

Here's a link that provides the statistics that you'll need for Texas, one of the states
you named while giving us an example of the 'danger' . Go ahead and make your case:

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

Texas is notoriously lax, IMO, in its training requirements, so I'm sure if things are as parlous as you claim them to be, you'll be able to find the statistics above to support your argument(s)

MURDER in Texas in 2013
Non-CHL: 363 homicides
CHL holders: 3 homicides

A much lower rate when comparing non-CHL to CHL holders, but that is small comfort to the three people killed.

And how many crimes were prevented by all of these CHL holders running around?

and those three homicides, were they murders or were they self defense? That matters.
How many crimes are prevented? That's unknowable.

The line is that if criminals know that many civilians are carrying weapons the criminals will be less likely to commit crimes. This theory is unprovable, but that does not stop advocates of civilian carry from spreading the word.

Thus we have a solution with no proof that it is in fact a solution.

but your idea never works and has proven to be a complete failure. It never works as advertised. However, self defense is a inalienable human right. It isn't really about deterrence, it is mostly about mitigation.

If it can be found to lower crime rates, all the better. But carrying firearms is primarily for self-defense.

Either way, the gun manufacturers profit from fear and death.

And since the practice in the main has little or demonstrable ill effect upon others, the
various levels of government rightly have little say in the matter.

Others' feelings on the matter are simply that- their feelings

Given that approximately 30,000 people die in gun related incidents every year, your statement about carrying guns having little or no effect is puzzling or could exhibit a lack of empathy.

But the fact remains that there is no true protection. Armed police are regularly killed in spite of the fact that they are obviously carrying weapons. People who have weapons sometimes have those weapons turned against them. Guns confer the illusion of protection, an illusion that carrying will enable the carrier to react heroically in a situation.

And if an individual's choice makes others less safe, is that really a choice to make?

My statement that "the practice in the main has little or demonstrable ill effect upon others"
is both true and proveable, as you know from my previous reply to you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181878

You would do well to consider altering you style here, as you will find that the
Second Amendment advocates here have far higher levels of media literacy than,
say, the average numpty that "Likes" any of the various Bloomberg online enterpots.

And again, your feelings on the matter are irrelevant along with those of the aforementioned
numpties since they do not go to to the polls in sufficient number to effect change.
They are the very definition of 'slacktivists'

And, as I pointed out, and as others in this group have admitted, carrying a gun does not truly protect against being murdered by a gun, or no armed police would ever be murdered by guns.

The fact that licensed users, according to Texas statistics, "only" murdered 3 people in a year is small consolation to the three people. And given that most people do not kill other people, what is the point?

People kill for many reasons, passion, substance impairment, financial gain, but carrying a gun is no real protection from these things unless one is both trained and/or lucky. The illusion of safety for the financial gain of the arms industry. An illusion and an obsession with ownership that applies solely to the US in all the western countries.

... and thankfully you and your ilk have no say over the choices others may make and, based on the voting patterns, gun control continues to be a losing issue nationally and in many states as well as in the courts.

"...carrying a gun does not truly protect against being murdered by a gun, or no armed police would ever be murdered by guns."

I have no idea who said something that incredibly stupid. Perhaps you can link to that statement by anybody? Or is that just another of those straw fellows gun controllers love to make up, that nobody ever really said?

Those of us that choose to carry, including most of the cops I know, are fully aware that a gun is not some universal magic talisman against bad things happening. But we poor ignorant, simple folk like the idea of having that choice.

Even when our moral and mental "betters' feel otherwise and continue to lecture us for our own good.

True- but beside the point. Carrying a gun gives a person more options, and the subject
of the OP found one to be useful.



The point was (for those unfamiliar with statistics) that licensed CHL holders are less
likely to murder and/or commit other crimes than the either cops or the public at large.

Thus, your views on the desirability of the practice are strictly your opinion
and not borne out by empirical evidence of harm (or lack thereof) in this case.

Your views on the efficacy of the practice are, of course, entirely valid and you are
free to express them.

In a free polity, given the lack of demonstrable harm, they are not valid
as a guidline for public policy. Nor should they be.



Which is why both John Hendricks and myself both strongly urge training, and practical, live, range testing made a prerequisite for concealed carriage licensure.

The disintested reader will note that many other, if not most, progun posters here
feel the same way.



In an industrial society, you will find that most, if not, all activity eventually benefits
large industries.

Internet use not excepted of course...



That is your opinion, and you are free to expound it- and we are free to disagree.

Lawyers profit by making out your will, grocers profit from your fear of GMOs, fire extinguisher manufacturers profit from your fear of fire.

It has always been there.

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2013.pdf

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2013.pdf

1) that gun carriers are more law abiding than average, or
2) that gun owners are less law abiding than average, or
3) that gun owners are no more or less likely to commit crimes than non gun carriers?

Civilian carry, like voter ID legislation, is a solution in search of a problem.

and even more so than the cops.

... and that's what he cares about, not statistics or some disconnected "faculty lounge point of view", but the ability to protect himself and his family in the real world he lives in. Pretty much like the rest of us that carry daily.

It's not a philosophical discussion for him or us, it's the real world and how we have the ability to protect ourselves.

The good news is not one state is trying to repeal concealed carry, in fact they are generally expanding the right.

So either it's more popular than most gun control fans want to admit, or the gun control people are just too lazy to start petitions.

Probably both.

Apparently, no one has disabused you of the notion that "I have repeatedly and emphatically stated
that..." and "I have proved that..." are synonymous and/or functionally equivalent.