Collegiate Times

I'm left wondering if Andrew Goddard actually has a Kroger card. If so, he might know the difference. In order to receive my Concealed Handgun Permit, I had to be over 21, have a background check performed (yes, it included fingerprints), and undergo training. I don't recall such requirements for my Kroger card. No, Virginia does not require applicants to qualify at fifty yards. That's fine. As L.W. Seecamp (one of the best gun makers in the business) notes, if you're shooting someone at fifty yards, it's probably not self defense. The fact is, Virginia's permitting procedures are adequate as they are. Especially when you consider that a criminal won't go through the trouble of registering himself with the state. He'll just carry anyways. In other words, the CHP is a "Certified Good-Guy" card.

To CCW problems. You are not allowed to purchase a gun if you have a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence.

@CCW - you assume that everyone is cool with the online certification process in attacking all gun rights activists, which is wrong. Many of us believe heavily in the educational aspects, and I know SCCC has it at the center of their mission. But even if the requirement were a problem, wouldn't it show up more in places like Vermont, where anyone over 16yo can carry openly or concealed with NO permit and NO training? Yet, what do you know, gun owners cause no problems and they enjoy the lowest homicide rate in the entire country. Further, the permit is NOT about 'showing who the good guys are,' it is about demonstrating who has gone through the process so they can legally carry. It is no guarantee; however, statistics show that less than 0.01% of permits are revoked for any kind of violent crime (let alone gun crime), so it really isn't a problem like you try to make it into. Let's also not forget that gun control advocates have supported senseless laws over the years to make it difficult and confusing to own a gun (try memorizing 30,000+ laws on this), while having exactly zero effect on reducing crime. Prove me wrong.

You're completely wrong. The U.S. has weaker gun laws and more guns than any other industrialized democracy on earth. We also have a higher rate of homicide and an astronomically higher rate of gun death than other industrialized democracies. As one quick example, our homicide rate is more than 3 times as high as Britain's and our gun death rate is more than 30 times as high as Britain's. Within the U.S., states with tougher gun laws have lower rates of gun death, according to the annual data from the CDC (available via their WISQARS tool). Smart gun laws work, and work well, wherever they're implemented. You've exposed the hypocrisy of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. You talk about responsibility, education, and training, but your organization did nothing to oppose a new Virginia law that now allows people to qualify for a permit through an online 20-question multiple choice exam. It's a joke, and authorities can't even verify that it was the applicant who took that test.

I don't speak for SCCC, so your conclusions about their org from what I said are unfounded at best. I do know a lot about them, and they are the active group here at VT. My guess is that they didn't know about it, as I heard a discussion asking about it last night. As for where my stats come from, I did the calcs straight from various states' State Police info - you can do the same. You can also look at http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html which refutes pretty much everything you just said. I mean let's face it - you lump criminal gun owners in with good ones, which is a logical fallacy. Also, substantiate the "4 permit holders commit mass murder" claim; I've found it to be patently falsified.

Every gun-related special interest group in the state knew about Cuccinelli's bill to weaken Virginia's CCW training requirements, and so did SCCC. The NRA formally supported it. SCCC did nothing to oppose it. They love to talk about "safety" and "training" until someone's actually required to do real training, then they fight it. Most state police release no data whatsoever on concealed carry permit holders. In fact, the NRA has gotten laws passed in about 30 states that ban the public from accessing any information about concealed carry permit holders, so it would be impossible for you to obtain that type of data on a national level. Here are articles that confirm the four MASS shootings by concealed carry permit holders so far this year (and these are just the ones that have been confirmed, there have likely been others): “LA Fitness Shooter Had Lethal Plan,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 6, 2009 “Shooter Prepared at Home, Leaves Hit List,” The Enterprise-Ledger, March 11, 2009 “Poplawski Bought Guns Through Shop in Wilkinsburg,” Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, April 7, 2009 "Slaying Suspect Denied Gun Permit 3 Times Before Getting 2007 OK," Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 19, 2009

You discredit yourself there: "Every gun-related special interest group in the state knew" - who the hell are you to know that? I know you aren't involved with these groups, so are you psychic? "The NRA formally supported it." Congrats. What does that have to do with SCCC? There is no affiliation. And your news articles are exactly the ones that were debunked. The NY one defeats your point, too - he was denied 3 times. Even if you were right, which you aren't, the stats don't lie. But you do, and at the possible expense of over a million people who use a gun to protect their lives every year. Way to go.

Who am I to know that? Someone who reads a newspaper. Cuccinelli's bill was reported on regularly by the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Roanoke Times, and other major VA dailies. I'm assuming someone in Virginia SCCC reads the paper and follows state legislation. I don't think that's a stretch. And no one has "debunked" the fact that these 4 individuals had concealed carry permits and committed mass shootings this year. The articles I provided state outright that they held such permits, using local law enforcement as a source. Denying truth is a bad tactic even for the gun lobby, particularly when you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. There is also no evidence that more than a million people use guns every year to defend themselves. Official government estimates, using actual data on reported attempted crimes, peg that number at 80,000, and they make no value judgments on whether such gun uses were appropriate or not like SCCC does. This is in a country with 600,000 gun crimes every year.

Straight up nonsense. You just keep digging a deeper hole. 14 studies done on defensive uses, NONE of which go below 100k (which was the only one that low) http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html. Your ignorant trust of the media (and 1 source, at that) shows that you are incapable of critical thinking. I didn't intend for this to get personal, but you've made it so by lying. You fit perfectly into what psychology calls "confirmatory bias" - you see only what you want to see because it goes along with your opinion.

No studies on defensive gun uses that go lower than 100,000 per year? Here's one by the Department of Justice that I cited below, which found 83,000 defensive gun uses per year. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt And only 35% of those 83,000 individuals were actually facing an offender with a firearm. DOJ made no value judgments on whether these guns uses were appropriate or not. And now let me get this right. People should trust you, Jeff, over credible media sources who obtained information from local law enforcement about concealed carry permit holders who committed mass shootings this year? That goes beyond conspiracy theories, that's just goofy. Again, I offer - if you have evidence to disprove the information reported by local law enforcement in these cases, let's see it.

Thanks for proving my point - confirmatory bias. You take one source and call it truth, call media sources "credible", then ask how anyone can refute your points. Until you can play by your own rules, you're just blowing smoke with me and any other educated persons reading this. And the unprovoked "conspiracy theory" assertion shows you're just trying to defame me with your remarks. You're done!

So, are you saying that would-be criminals will decide to register themselves with the government before starting their crime sprees? Oh, and I never said we were prefect people. The system does allow for people to overcome... youthful indiscretion, so long as they didn't result in felonies. None the less, we've kept our noses clean for years and are willing to register ourselves with the state. That's a pretty big vote of confidence in my book. It's also why the crime rate for CHP holders is so low.

Jeff, you're amusing. You make claims and never provide a single citation to back them up. Then you demand citations from others and when you get them, claim the sources are lying, corrupt or involved in some other mysterious conspiracy (maybe Glenn Beck knows). And Ken, does SCCC EVER provide a citation? What's your citation for "the crime rate for CHP holders is so low" claim? A quick look at CDC data via the WISQARS tool will actually show that states with lax concealed carry laws have higher rates of gun death.

Oh, and here's a good example of a concealed handgun permit holder overcoming "youthful indiscretions." This guy "overcame" a total of nine criminal convictions, including a recent one for assaulting a woman, just before he carried his two handguns outside a presidential speech in Minneapolis: http://csgv2.blogspot.com/2009/09/gunning-for-president.html Further evidence (along with the four mass shootings committed by concealed handgun permit holders this year) that the screening system in most states is an absolute joke.

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I was getting rather irritated at "CCW Problems" apparent inability to click the "Comment" button only once per thought... I hate to do it, but I submitted "Flag Abuse" notes for all his/her duplicate posts. "CCW Problems" - feel free to continue your discussion, but please, for the love of the Internet, stop it with the dupe posts.

CCW Problems - why are you using a Minnesota incident to condemn Virginia law? He wouldn't have been eligible here. Just out of curiosity, do you know what the crime rate is for CHP holders?

CCW apparently has trouble reading webpages, like the ones I shared. That would explain the inability to post replies correctly!

Using CCW as a target for criticism is silly. In Virginia there is no requirement for training to own a handgun. Why, oh why, does the WAY it's carried make any difference? CCW Problems: You really should take a look at the information available and the problem with your DoJ report is that those are REPORTED defensive uses! In other words, most incidents are not reported. Using this report, however, still indicates that there is merit in defensive use of a handgun. Regardless, what you fail to understand is that gun ownership is a right. Carrying a gun is a right in Virginia, and implying that some level of training is going to keep people from killing each other is misguided. Again and again your side claims 4 people this year alone! FOUR? Really? How many homicides are there this year (12,272 in 2008)? OK, so 20 of them were killed by CCW licensees? Hm, I love stats, and that, my friends is not a statistically significant number. Are you in higher ed, or what? How can you point to 4 people's actions out of thousands of murderers and make any claims?

CCW Problems: Your DOJ link included stats from 1987-92! Shall issue concealed carry did not hit VA until 1995. I would submit that using data from 1992 (17 years old) may be a bit outdated and irrelevant. YIKES! This is what happens when gun grabbers try to do "research". See, I use things like the FBI's Universal Crime Report (2008) and it shows a dramatic decrease in violent crime as gun ownership has increased. I don't make any claim of causality, but I do think it odd that you seem to think CCW holders are the problem, while citing numbers that were collected before any major state went to shall-issue concealed carry! NICE. Disingenuous cherry picking of numbers? Anyone? Going once, twice. SOLD to the ignoramus with the CCW Problems handle!

@Rip: Quit being a jerk. I don't think anybody does this to be famous.

In 1989 the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice published a report showing that the Canadian homicide rate remained, for the most part, stable in the decade following the passage of the 1977 law requiring citizens to receive a Firearms Acquisition Certificate from police before purchasing a firearm. If you compare 1976 homicide statistics to 2006 homicide statistics, both the U.S. and Canadian homicide rates have declined by 33%. Strictly based on those numbers, there is no evidence that the Canadian gun controls implemented in 1977 have accomplished anything. Gun control advocates never mention countries like Mexico and Russia, in which gun control laws are VERY strict and murder rates are three to four times higher than in the United States. In truth, you can no more compare the United States to England, where virtually nobody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low, than you can compare the United States to Switzerland, where virtually everybody has a gun and the violent crime rate is very low.

In the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s, the homicide rate in England was 1/10th the homicide rate in the United States. In 1987 English citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a public market. In 1989 American citizens were shocked by a mass shooting at a fast food restaurant. England responded by implementing the strict gun control laws currently in place. Americans chose not to implement stricter gun control. By the early ‘90s, the homicide rate in England was 1/8th the homicide rate in America. Today the homicide rate in England is 1/4th the homicide rate in America. Since the implementation of England’s strict gun control laws, England’s homicide rate has gone up; whereas, America’s homicide rate has gone down.

Gun control advocates tend to focus on the NUMBER of GUN crimes in countries with strict gun control, rather than focusing on the RATE of VIOLENT crimes in those countries, for two very simple reasons. First, focusing on crime numbers, rather than crime rates, allows gun control advocates to give the appearance that there is a much greater disparity than there actually is between the level of violent crime in America and the levels of violent crime in much smaller nations, such as England. Also, focusing on the low numbers of gun deaths in countries with strict gun control allows gun control advocates to avoid mentioning that many of these countries, such as England, have actually seen an increase in their overall homicide rates, since the implementation of strict gun control laws. And most of the countries, like Australia, that have seen a decrease in their homicide rates, since the implementation of strict gun control laws, have not seen as sharp a decrease during that time period as the United States of America, where gun control laws have remained virtually unchanged.

The current gun control laws now enforced in England--virtually banning civilian ownership of firearms--were implemented in the late 1980s and mid '90s, following two mass murders. In the first, a licensed gun owner killed eighteen people with a handgun and a semiautomatic Kalashnikov (AK-47) rifle. Because England lacks the strong gun culture of the United States, a strong media outcry for stringent gun control was met with little resistance. Though this massacre was the first and only time a centerfire, semiautomatic rifle was used to commit a murder in England, it led to the confiscation of every centerfire, semiautomatic rifle in the nation. The only protest from what passes for a gun lobby in Great Britain was an insistence that the government pay the owners of confiscated guns a small fee (a fraction of the actual value of most of the guns) for each firearm confiscated.

As for your comments about gun control working in England, you’re not looking at the whole picture. England never had significant gun crime, even before the implementation of gun control. Gun control was first implemented in Great Britain not because of any great need to curb gun violence but because in the early 1920s the British government feared the possibility of a working class uprising, similar to the Bolshevik Revolution that had just occurred in Russia. Gun controls were strengthened in the mid-1960s as a way of appeasing public outcry for a reinstatement of the death penalty, following an incident in which three police officers were murdered with illegal revolvers. Because the revolvers used to murder the officers were already heavily regulated, the British government chose to respond to this crime by implementing shotgun control (despite the fact that recent studies had indicated that gun crime in Great Britain was under control and that shotgun controls would have no practical effect).

CCW Problems, when I was on the board at SCCC, the official policy was to refrain from taking a stance on gun legislation not directly related to the issue of licensed concealed carry on college campuses. Just as SCCC doesn’t endorse open carry legislation, legislation that would allow concealed carry in high schools, and legislation supporting unlicensed carry, they also don’t oppose legislation to weaken the requirements to obtain a concealed carry permit. Likewise, I notice that The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Protest Easy Guns, and Students for Gun Free Schools ALL claim that they’re not anti-gun; yet, they never speak out against anti-gun legislation. It doesn’t make good political sense for such organizations to burn bridges with people and groups whose support they desperately need. The only time in recent memory that I recall any gun rights or gun control group crossing the aisle is when the NRA backed a law to strengthen the federal NICS instant background check system.

Dewd, keep in mind that the most crucial portion of a person's CCW training only comes in handy if and when that person has to use his or her concealed firearm. Most CCW holders have never brandished their weapons in self-defense, so most of their training has never been needed. But to anyone forced to use a concealed handgun in self-defense--not to mention the innocent bystanders around that person--training could prove invaluable. Aside from the training specifically related to safe gun handling, self-defense, and shoot/don't shoot scenarios, it's beneficial to the applicants to be well educated on the applicable state and federal laws.

Personally, I'd like to see the training increased in the area of use authorized use of force. Since received my initial handgun training in the Navy, as part of the Master-at-Arms force, the laws were thoroughly drilled into my head. I think we could do better at that. None the less, most people know, instinctively, when it's time to shoot. I don't need a law to tell me it's ok to defend myself or my family.

I spent a sabbatical year at a university in the Middle East. Soldiers carried guns in public. Officers were required to carry handguns. I felt safe, because they knew how to use their weapons. However, having a CCW permit in VA does not mean the user really knows how to use the weapon. Moreover, the CCW holder may not have the instincts/wisdom to make a judgment about possible threats/implications. In my mind, that's the heart of the debate.

In self-defense situations, it doesn't take much knowledge to be able to use a handgun effectively. Most situations take place at short range, and most encounters in which a weapon is used in self defense, it is never even fired. But if you want better training, push for more training. Don't disarm the rest of us in an attempt for you to feel safe.

You want the best training? Go here: http://www.right2defend.com/apf.htm or take a Gabe Suarez class. Hell, even your LEOs that you hold so dear probably trust these classes more so than their own academy training. That's training for ya.

While that type of training may be interesting, I doubt it's anything most armed Virginians need. CHP-holders are generally fairly peaceful people who want to be able to defend themselves and their families in an emergency, not defend themselves against the Red Army.

The question should be how to respect the right to bear (bear = carry, not simply own) arms without endangering others as a result. If that means more training, great. I'm all for training. If that means hovering a magical magnet above the US that only attracts illegally owned or purchased guns, all the better. Personally, I can't understand how someone would feel comfortable carrying without rehearsing every conceivable scenario in the first place, but if we're convinced that a number carry without the slightest idea of what they're doing, I'll submit to stricter training laws. Hey, how about if we make extensive training mandatory, but the government pays for it for those who want it. They pay for so many other things that are not directly related to preserving constitutional rights that this shouldn't be too much to ask. It's important to remember that many carry as a reaction to the fact that it is easier to own and carry a gun illegally than it is to do so legally. This doesn't mean that laws should be relaxed to make purchase and carry easier, only that making laws stronger without effective enforcement doesn't do any good either.

To CCW Problems: First of all great job comparing the US to Great Britian. The fact that officals in Great Britian have admitted to falsely reporting gun violence in order to make it look like gun control is working over there is marvelous. Thank you for once again disproving yourself. On another note, I would like to congratulate Mr. Goddard and Lily Habtu on receiving their concealed carry permits.

Former Organisation,leaf initial completely division kind revenue association influence require estimate male internal college award fire not grey many foreign grant touch understand pain interview origin coal patient meal fish understanding comment have may bit propose reality organise need you not sea reply fix contact surround growing panel north quality all commit what future above month while face recent wave friend actual substantial may settlement bottom okay most approve beginning enemy personal war warn passage near rest responsible cultural advise learn sky hope picture either master gold someone business youth publication restaurant centre admit result