Resize 
Related
- Rational debate is still needed
- Response to Friday's guest column
- Statistics show concealed carry saves many lives, takes few
TOPICS: gun control, concealed carry
For the safety of the students and faculty at Virginia Tech, I hope Ken Stanton is wrong in his prediction that our state legislature will pass legislation this January that will force universities to allow concealed handguns on campus (CT, “Concealed Carry is Coming to Virginia Campuses,” Nov. 8).
After a new law passed earlier this year allowing Virginia residents to satisfy the “training” requirement for a concealed carry permit by taking an online course, I was curious to see how easy it is to obtain a permit online. My first step was to complete an online training course from the Concealed Carry Institute. Let it be clear that I have never touched a gun, never mind fired one. The closest that I have ever been to a gun is when being under attack in Norris Hall on April 16, 2007.
The “training” I received was simply to watch a 30-minute instructional video on handgun safety and to successfully answer 15 out of the 20 questions on the multiple-choice test. The following is a question that actually appeared on my test:
When talking about semi-automatic handguns, the magazine is:
a) A brochure that describes the firearm
b) An instruction manual for the firearm
c) The part of the firearm that holds ammunition
d) The mechanism that puts the firearm on safety
Needless to say, I passed the test. Although the test is not difficult, and I can retake the test many times, there is a great potential for cheating online. Anyone can easily have another person take the test for them, or one can open a separate Web browser to search for the correct answers.
My next step was to apply to my local circuit court and pass a computerized background check. Despite my total lack of experience with firearms, in a few weeks I had received my concealed carry permit.
That was it. There was not a firearms instructor to show me, in person, how to use a gun, and no requirement to fire at a shooting range and demonstrate my proficiency with a handgun. This is the training regimen that Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC) want us to believe will “protect” us in classrooms if facing a lethal threat.
Ken Stanton lauds these requirements as “some of the best measures in the country to ensure responsibility when carrying,” but is the bare minimum truly enough to protect you?
SCCC claims that all concealed carry permit holders are law abiding citizens, but it is possible to qualify for a concealed handgun permit in Virginia even with multiple misdemeanor convictions on your record. Individuals who have previously been the subjects of restraining orders, convicted of drunk driving, or treated for mental health illness can also obtain a permit.
It’s shocking but not surprising that there have already been four confirmed shootings this year by concealed handgun permit holders: Michael McClendon in Alabama (killed 10, wounded six), Frank Garcia in upstate New York (killed four, injured one), Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh (Neo-Nazi who killed three police officers, injured one) and George Sodini in Pittsburgh (health club shooter who killed three women, injured nine).
Like the Editorial Board of the Collegiate Times, I was deeply disturbed when the SCCC invited Eric Thompson to Tech shortly after the one-year anniversary of the shootings. The online gun dealer sold guns and accessories to the Tech shooter, to the Northern Illinois University shooter, and to George Sodini, the aforementioned concealed carry permit holder and mass murderer.
SCCC’s featured speaker on Monday night, Philip Van Cleave of the Virginia Citizens’ Defense League (VCDL), is equally such an extremist on the gun issue. Van Cleave and the VCDL have pushed to force guns to be allowed everywhere, including in government buildings, restaurants where alcohol is served, and now on school campuses. At a recent speech at Liberty University, Van Cleave noted with pride: “At the end of the day, I don’t think there should be restrictions of firearms. Period.”
That means no background checks to help prevent dangerous individuals, like the Virginia Tech and NIU shooters, from wreaking havoc with easily obtained handguns and assault weapons. SCCC and VCDL might be content to settle matters by engaging in shootouts with disturbed individuals who have gained easy access to firearms, but the rest of us deserve more thoughtful, practical solutions on how to prevent violence on America’s college campuses.
Leave a comment 323 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
You make freedom, liberty, independence and responsibility seem like things to be shunned. What a backward view of American ideals.
Reply to this Top
I don't think it's backward. None of the four virtues you mentioned will save you when you have a gun pointed at your head -- and neither will another gun. By then it's too late.
I'm also quite sure the founding fathers put the words "well-regulated" in the Second Amendment for a reason.
Reply to this Top
The founding fathers thought militias should be well regulated, they thought people's rights to obtain weapons should not be infringed upon.
Top
"Well-regulated" in the days of our founding fathers meant disciplined. If they wanted it to be well regulated as we think of today, why would they have added in that pesky "shall not be infringed" part?!
Top
Tell that to the up to 2.5 million people every year who successfully use firearms to defend themselves from violent criminals.
A small sampling can be found here: http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Top
That 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses statistic by Gary Kleck is completely without merit.
David Hemenway applied Klecks methodology to a 1994 ABC News/Washington Post survey in which people were asked if they had ever seen an alien spacecraft or come into direct
contact with a space alien.
The results indicated that almost 20 million Americans have seen a spacecraft from another planet and more than a million have actually met space aliens.
'Nuff said.
Top
Anon, you conveniently neglect the other 13 surveys that confirmed Kleck's study. Sorry to burst your bubble with your non sequitor.
Top
Oh, you want your bubble burst? How about the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted at the same time as Kleck's survey that found only 65,000 defensive gun uses annually?
Keep in mind there are over 600,000 gun offenses in the U.S. each year.
Top
Hey Anon:
I stopped a group of young men who were doing a series of B&es in my area after I confronted them with my openly carried .45.
I never reported it to the police. Does your stats include those events that were never reported :^).
Top
Hey John Woods - A gun worked quite well to stop the fanatic muslim at Fort Hood from murdering more people.
Top
Actually Eds, I'm glad you brought that up, though it might not suit your anti-rights crusade.
When soldiers step on a military base, they lose the right to carry they have everywhere else. Being armed is instant jail time.
So the terrorist fanatic was unloading on an unarmed crowd. Funny how they consistently pick Disarmed Zones (colleges, post offices, military base) to go on killing sprees...
Top
I'm glad you brought it up, too.
Nidal Malik Hasan was a concealed handgun permit holder in Virginia. Because of a reciprocity agreement, that permit was also valid in the state of Texas.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/10/critics-point-to-terror-gap-in-gun-control-laws.aspx
So BobbyT, your proposed reform would allow future Hasans to carry handguns on military bases. Great idea.
Top
These comments are pretty off-base -- pun intended. Nothing about having a permit makes a person an angel. Not one has been saying otherwise. On the other hand, statistics show that people who apply for gun permits and carry regularly are not troublemakers - less than 0.01% are revoked for any crime, let alone a gun crime. Yet I have a feeling anti-gun folks will continue to use even one example to advance their agenda.
Also, on the offensive vs. defensive uses: Kleck's study was only 1 of 13 that found defensive uses in the millions. The NCVS study was the only one that low, and was full of errors.
So the burning question for anti-gunners is:
Why do you take the one lone example as your shining star argument? It makes you look as stupid as your agenda.
Top
It's far from one lone example. There's now been 5 confirmed mass shootings by concealed handgun permit holders so far in 2009, and a host of other documented violent criminal acts:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
And that's just what we know about from media reports, the tip of the iceberg. The NRA has banned public access to even basic information about concealed handgun permit holders in 29 states, so a national accounting of permit holder behavior is now impossible.
Top
As for the Kleck study, it is without merit.
An identical survey, using the exact same methodology, found 20 million American who claimed seeing a UFO and 1 million who had personally met aliens.
'Nuff said.
No government survey has ever found more than 80,000 defensive gun uses in a given year because they actually require documentation of these incidents and not just unverified self-reporting. The government's studies have made no value judgment as to whether those uses were appropriate or not. That Kleck repeatedly does apply value judgments to events he can't even document (much less substantiate with detail) is telling.
Top
So, Philip, you agree with me that gay marriage, abortion and health care are civil rights that protect American ideals?
Reply to this Top
You could apply this to any other study and get the same results. Therefore, all studies are Without merit. Can you cite any peer review critical of the Kleck study? I would not expect ABC or the Washington Post, two of the most firearms rights hostile news outlets in the country, to give this study a fair assessment.
Nuff said.
Top
"How about the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted at the same time as Kleck's survey that found only 65,000 defensive gun uses annually?"
What do you mean only 65,000? Thats just over 178 a day. However, the problem with the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is it is only sent to victims of crime that have been identified by police. However, not all victims receive the survey, and many people who have used firearms to defend themselves dont fill it out because they dont consider themselves victims.
For example, when my sister lived in Tennessee she was an advocate gun control, and she supported a total ban on handguns. When she moved to Atlanta with its high rate of violent crime her views changed, she got her firearms carry permit, and she took up competitive shooting. In two separate incidents while she was stopped at traffic lights intruders tried to force their way into her car. Both times, she brandished her Glock, and both times the attackers fled.
Most criminologists would side with Kleck study as being the more accurate number, but if cant bring yourself to trust his study a Los Angeles Times study placed the number of times citizens use firearms to defend themselves annually against crime at 3,052,717 or just over 8,383 a day.
Theres more at http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm
Top
You think it's fine for someone who's never even touched a handgun to get a concealed carry permit but it's Ms. Habtu who's "backwards"?
Yeah, right...
Love that idea of "responsibility" you've got there, Phil.
Reply to this Top
The point is that most people who apply for permits aren't like Ms. Habtu. They already own guns and plan to carry them. They aren't people who choose to get a permit simply because they can. There's an implicit responsibility involved with carrying a deadly weapon, and I don't know any permit holders who aren't well-versed in handling and shooting their firearms, even though it is not required. Personally, I've spent many hours going through scenarios in my head and how I'd react to each, practicing presenting a weapon from a holster, target shooting at the range, etc.
Top
Jason, I'm glad you have an active imagination and have prepared yourself for all contingencies. But the notion that you can somehow vouch for the good character and training of millions of individuals who hold concealed handgun permits in this country is laughable.
I don't want Jason's Word (or Nostradamus-like clairvoyance). I want an adequate screening process in place that makes DAMN SURE that someone who is carrying a handgun around me and my family is mentally stable and well trained.
Top
The problem is less about vouching for people with permits and more about the people who carry weapons around you and your family illegally. I'll gladly put down my arms if there is a way to ensure that they do not exist. Just because someone doesn't have a permit does not mean they are not carrying a tool (gun or otherwise) that can be used to do you harm. Therein lies the problem. A permit holder who is carrying a properly concealed, properly holstered firearm for self-defense is not the person you need to worry about. The point is that if the gun ever leaves the holster, it's either because you're about to be assaulted, in which case whether the person has a permit doesn't matter, or that person is being assaulted and wants to have a fighting chance.
Top
Anonymous, I'm pretty sure implementing such a system is near impossible- look at the licensing process we have for drivers, yet thousands more people die every year from car accidents than do from guns. How do you ensure your families safety from a car accident?
Top
If the screening process allows individuals with criminal records to get permits, and does nothing to assure they have adequate training, then damn straight I have to worry about concealed handgun permit holders.
Denying guns to criminals is not rocket science. Every other democracy in the world does it just fine with tough gun laws.
Top
Anonymous,
Claiming other countries deal with guns better than us may be true, but they also have different other laws that come into affect.
A large majority of US gun crimes can be attributed with drugs and prostitution being prohbited and strictly enforced. This results in higher prices to accompany the high risk in selling and using drugs in the U.S. These higher prices drive people to carry guns to protect their "assets" and also results in users needing more money to pay for their addictions.
If we look at Switzerland, they have one of, if not the lowest violent crime rate in the world, because a large majority of their citizens own and carry firearms. More % of Swiss own guns than Americans and it acts as a deterrent from violent crims from being committed. Also, they don't have a "war on drugs" as we do in America, but a responsible drug policy that helps treat addictions not punish them.
Top
Anon - maybe you're not familiar with the concept of "Open Carry," but it's allowed in VA (and MANY other states for that matter) for those 18+. You need NO permit, NO training, NO background check, but you can carry a firearm openly virtually everywhere.
Top
First of all, most homicides in this country are not drug-related. That can be verified through a quick look at the FBI Uniform Crime Report (under the table that describes the Circumstances surrounding homicides). So that theory goes right out the window.
Second of all, drug addiction is not a problem unique to the United States. It is a problem in all industrialized democracies.
As to Switzerland, their militia members do not carry their weapons in public, and there are extremely strict regulations on how those weapons are stored at home. Militia members are required to keep ammunition sealed and stored separately from their rifles. Ammo is inspected regularly by the government to make sure it is not used for non-military training purposes.
Top
As the Open Carry guy, I think all you gun nuts should carry your guns openly, so that when we see you we can get our families away from you immediately.
Top
What does paranoia sound like?
"As the Open Carry guy, I think all you gun nuts should carry your guns openly, so that when we see you we can get our families away from you immediately."
Top
Actually, staying away from people who openly carry handguns in public and who have NO REQUIREMENTS OR SCREENING WHATSOEVER in doing so, well that's not paranoia. That's good ol' common sense.
Top
"Gun-Rights Mom Killed in Apparent Murder-Suicide" (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562801,00.html)
Top
You are the epitome of a backwards America Philip Van Cleave. You want to turn American back years to the Wild West. Get yourself together.
Reply to this Top
You are the one who is backwards, Philly boy...you wanna take this country back to the Wild West...you are the epitome of backwards
Reply to this Top
Anyone still follow the saying "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind"? Legally allowing guns to be carried on campus will only make it easier for someone with malicious intent to terrorize the university. I would not feel comfortable with someone next to me in class or walking toward me on the Drillfield having a gun slung to their belt, knowing that all they had to do was pass an online test. It will be a huge disappointment if Virginia legislation allows this one to pass.
Reply to this Top
Two things wrong with what you just said. First someone who is going to hurt you with a gun will not be stopped by a gun law. Second you do not have a right to feel comfortable however there is a right to not have the government restrict a citizens use of firearms. Real Rights > Imaginary Rights
Reply to this Top
Actually, this is the only industrialized democracy in the world that doesn't stop maniacs from wreaking havoc with guns. The United States has more guns, weaker gun laws, and astronomically higher rates of gun death than any other industrialized democracy in the world.
Those countries do a wonderful job of denying guns to criminals and those who are clearly disturbed.
Top
Actually you're wrong Switzerland has more guns per square mile than any other country in the world. Most people there own assault rifles even. They have much lower deaths because they armed the law abiding citizens instead of taking their rights away like you guys want to.
Top
Your description of Switzerland's gun laws is totally inaccurate. The people you are describing with assault weapons are members of the country's MILITARY and they are required to undergo regular MANDATORY training in how to handle a gun. The regulations governing how they keep their rifles and ammo stored at home are also incredibly strict. Furthermore, Switzerland licenses all private citizens who want to buy firearms not associated with military service.
And those already tough laws could be strengthened again in Switzerland very soon:
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Move_to_ban_rifles_at_home_gathers_pace.html?siteSect=105&sid=10366555&cKey=1235392065000&ty=st
Top
It doesn't matter because in America your point is wrong because it goes against the United States Constitution. Which gives as the right to own and bear firearms free of government infringement. Besides it's a drop in the bucket compared to what else kills us in this country. I'll give you 4 things that kill more people every year the flu, cars, cigarettes, and alcohol.
Top
Nice try, but Justice Scalia made it perfectly clear in the Heller decision that laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns are constitutional.
Top
Scalia isn't the know all and end all when it comes to interpreting the constitution he's an activist judge. The Supreme Court also ruled that segregation is legal. Did that make it right?
Top
Scalia is one of the most pro-gun, right wing judges in the entire country. Exactly how extreme are you?
Top
I'm 100% behind the constitution, but as far as Scalia goes he's shown how not pro-gun he really is in that decision.
Top
Scalia (DC vs Heller): Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
Top
Visitors to the university can carry guns -- just not students or faculty. By the way, anytime you leave campus to go shopping at Wal-Mart, you almost certainly cross paths with a few people who are concealed carrying. The truth is counterintuitive in this instance, in that you are actually safer in the presence of law-abiding gun owners than you are in a place where carrying arms is restricted, like on campus at Virginia Tech, NIU, or at Fort Hood. If you don't feel comfortable walking next to people who are carrying, I recommend you not leave your apartment so long as you are in this state, because you do it all the time without knowing. There are hundreds of thousands of Virginians who possess a CHP.
By the way, that quote is often attributed to Gandhi. It was Gandhi, that champion of non-violent, civil disobedience, who also said: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest", and "The ideally non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy. That State is the best governed which is governed the least."
Reply to this Top
Actually, gun-free zones are the safest places in the U.S., by far.
A 2001 study by the U.S. Department of Education found that the overall homicide rate at postsecondary education institutions was 0.07 per 100,000 of enrollment in 1999. By comparison, the criminal homicide rate in the United States was 5.7 per 100,000 persons overall in 1999, and 14.1 per 100,000 for persons ages 17 to 29.
Another study, conducted by the Department of Justice, found that 93% of violent crimes that victimize college students occur off campus.
As for Ghandi, anyone who believes that SCCC guys are experts on nonviolence, well, I've got a bridge to sell to you.
Top
Your not qualified to speak on this subject Elita Habtu. You have no education on the subject, you got shot, big deal you lived. Using that logic I can credibly argue against free speech on the basis that my feelings were hurt in grade school. That event is supposed to trump any logic that disagrees with your world view isn't it. Your a dumb broad that is misusing a tragedy to push a social agenda. Your just as bad as Brady the only difference is you have all of your brain. Go away and come back when you finally decide to learn something instead of making emotional knee-jerk reactions to the word gun. You destroy your own credibility more than you attack those of us that believe in the Constitution.
Reply to this Top
* We affirm the inherent dignity and value of every person and strive to maintain a climate for work and learning based on mutual respect and understanding.
* We affirm the right of each person to express thoughts and opinions freely. We encourage open expression within a climate of civility, sensitivity, and mutual respect.
* We affirm the value of human diversity because it enriches our lives and the University. We acknowledge and respect our differences while affirming our common humanity.
* We reject all forms of prejudice and discrimination, including those based on age, color, disability, gender, national origin, political affiliation, race, religion, sexual orientation, and veteran status. We take individual and collective responsibility for helping to eliminate bias and discrimination and for increasing our own understanding of these issues through education, training, and interaction with others.
* We pledge our collective commitment to these principles in the spirit of the Virginia Tech motto of Ut Prosim (That I May Serve).
Reply to this Top
Thank you very much for posting this. It's certainly needed given some of the disgusting comments that have been directed at Ms. Habtu.
Top
Too long didn't read
Top
As a Concealed Carry permit holder, I think she's qualified to talk about the process of getting a Conceal Carry permit.
Reply to this Top
Apparently she is qualified to get a concealed handgun permit though (even though she's never touched a handgun.
Reply to this Top
That's a truly disgusting comment, and reinforces Ms. Habtu's point that guys like this should never get permits to carry a concealed handgun in a million years.
Reply to this Top
So we agree that shes trying to take away our second amendment rights. Only your side is against the Constitution.
Top
There's nothing I agree with you about, starting from human decency and moving on from there.
Top
Actually, Anon, to be calling someone a 'dumb broad' goes far in revealing your own ignorance. If you can't make a valid argument without using misogynistic insults, you obviously have much research of your own to be done on the subject. And on that matter, Elilta's immersion into the world of gun legislation has been far-reaching and complete; one must, after all, study the laws themselves in order to formulate an opinion and refute arguments from those like yourself. Having suffered the effects of gun violence, Elilta is the best to speak upon the havoc such easy access to deadly weapons can wreak. And keep in mind as you call yourself one who 'believes in the Constitution', you are actively asking someone here to surrender their right to free speech.
Reply to this Top
I'm not saying she shouldn't have the right to speak. If you look at what I wrote you can clearly see I said she shouldn't speak on the basis that she's spewing drivel with the I've been shot excuse to cover up any logical retorts to her ignorant opinion. You should re-read what wrote.
Top
Where are those logical retorts? You haven't addressed a single substantive issue she raised in her piece (probably because you know there are no good explanations). I guess you're too busy insulting women and victims of gun violence to formulate an actual argument.
Top
My retorts are all over this comment section take a look I didn't just limit myself to 2 posts.
Top
Actually, gun-free zones are the safest places in the U.S., by far.
Try telling that to any family member of a victim of Columbine massacre, the Virginia Tech massacre, or any woman who has been raped on a college campus.
Reply to this Top
Ms. Habtu is certainly misguided, but you are rude. Comments like yours undermine the credibility of people who value their civil rights, and seek to protect those rights from well-intentioned but misguided souls like Ms. Habtu.
I guess it just goes to show that anti-civil-rights groups do not have a monopoly on boorish behavior.
Reply to this Top
My comment above is directed at the Anonymous Coward who called Ms. habtu a "dumb broad". There is simply no justification for such rude behavior.
Reply to this Top
You're a fag she's a dumb cvnt that needs to be gagged with a big unclipped c@ck. Everyone here can see that.
Top
Who says it should be hard to get a CC permit. We practically give out driver's licenses which isn't a right and kills far more people every year. It would be logical that the permit for a safer and constitutionally protected activity would be easier to obtain. Frankly we shouldn't need a permit to exercise a constitutional right. You don't see speech permits or privacy tests (4th Amendment for the non-Constitution buffs).
Reply to this Top
THANK YOU!!!! I dont know how many posts I read until I read yours, but you hit the nail on the head! i read somewhere that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"... not sure where but i think it might have some merit in this discussion
Reply to this Top
I think you meant "you're".
Reply to this Top
I'm fairly certain I lost a few IQ points by reading this article.
Reply to this Top
Then you've now become an ideal candidate for a concealed handgun permit in this country.
Reply to this Top
"You make freedom, liberty, independence and responsibility seem like things to be shunned."
In America, one should have the FREEDOM to walk around their country in the company of RESPONSIBLE CITIZENS and RESPONSIBLE legislation that is passed by an elected government. The average citizen should be able to exercise their independence without use of a firearm, and those who are legally qualified to protect our citizens with firearms should be the only ones able to protect our LIBERTIES in such a manner. We have a perfectly qualified military and police force, so I'll leave it to the professionals to protect my life, liberties, and pursuit of happiness. A concealed permit test conducted in such a haphazard manner should be of extreme concern to every citizen. It's frankly jeopardizing public safety to at least not thoroughly screen applicants. Even the fact that the idea of a "concealed permit" existing for an average Joe, is also deeply worrying as a concept in itself. The average classroom, as Ms. Habtu experienced, should not revert to the antics of a Wild West saloon with concealed gun permits being granted to scared students as easily as food stamps. The "let's combat guns with more guns" is just as absurd as "let's combat cavities with more candy": it just doesn't work.
Reply to this Top
Tell me, Common Sense, did the police protect Elita when she was shot?
Reply to this Top
Who stopped Nidal Hasan last week and why has the US military never allowed CC on US bases?
Top
Regarding Hasan, it has been reported that he got a concealed handgun permit in Virginia!
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/declassified/archive/2009/11/10/critics-point-to-terror-gap-in-gun-control-laws.aspx
Top
Great comment, Common Sense Brigade. And right on. The primary duty of any government is to provide for the public's safety. We have a right to be free of the gun madness that is caused by weak laws in this country.
Reply to this Top
Weak laws? News flash Bobby: CRIMINALS DON'T FOLLOW LAWS. No matter how many "strong" laws you have on the books, they will be broken by the lawless.
Top
Ah, the gun nuts' favorite line: "Criminals don't follow laws."
How many of you guys realize that that is an argument for anarchy?
Top
It's not an argument for anarchy it's pointing out the fallacy in thinking that a criminal will be stopped by additional laws.
Top
There's nothing about "additional laws" in what you wrote.
You wrote, "Criminals don't follow laws." And then you added that it doesn't matter how many laws you have, criminals will never follow them.
That is a clear argument for anarchy.
Top
If you look at what lawless actually said he said that the lawless will break laws no matter how many you have. He's not arguing anarchy as you claim he is pointing out that laws only stop the law abiding.
Top
Exactly, and his inference is: Since laws only hurt the law-abiding, why have them?
As I said, anarchy.
Top
That's not at all what he's saying. For the thousandth time he's saying you can't stop criminals by passing more laws. He's not saying we shouldn't have laws he saying if you want to to stop a criminal you don't do it by passing additional laws.
Top
Sorry, that makes no sense. If criminals don't obey laws (and laws only hurt law-abiding citizens), why have the original laws? What do "additional" laws have to do with anything? His comment was a blanket assertion about laws in general (not a specific category of proposed laws), and a clear argument for anarchy.
Top
See you're making a mistake in your assumption that "laws only hurt law-abiding citizens," which no one here claimed except you and is false. He was saying that putting strong laws on the books would have no effect because the criminals would break them just as easily as the laws we have now. It was an argument for leaving the laws as is not abandoning them. In conclusion you're a moron.
Top
Yeah you're a regular Glen Beck of common sense. You talk about freedom but you're really talking about restricting it. You invent these scenarios but they are never going to happen because history shows us that they don't. Anyone carrying a handgun would a college senior it wouldn't be arming everyone as you so hysterically wright. At the end of the day we are talking about a Constitutional right not a privilege. I got to ask you is it common sense to undermine the Constitution.
Reply to this Top
That would be persuasive if Glenn Beck wasn't on your side in this debate.
Top
Glen Beck's a twit just like common sense I don't care what side he's on
Top
He loves you regardless. He's encouraged Americans to stockpile weapons against the "dictator" Obama and carry them everywhere. You should watch his show, you'd love it.
Top
Ms. Habtu illustrates the point beautifully, that the facility in how she was able to gain a permit is just as troublesome as the gunshow loophole, and when these wrongs are corrected, then will we see the light at end of the tunnel for the safety of the average citizen.
And for those who treat the Constitution as a holy text that cannot be altered must be reminded that the Constitution has been altered many times, in the form of Amendments. If it were not, we'd still have slavery and a host of other evils in this country. Hence, why keep the guns? Do we live in a day and age where we join militias to defend out rights in a lawless land? No. So bringing up the Constitution as a seemingly untouchable text is asinine.
Ms. Habtu should have been able to sit in the safety of her classroom and conduct her studies without fear of being shot. In America, nonetheless. Unfortunately, she didn't have that luxury. But she's fighting to make sure that others do, and that, my foes, is admirable.
Reply to this Top
I have to agree with the person before me.. whom ever they may be they pretty much took the words right out of my mouth.
I really think people are missing the picture. Look at how easy it was for her to get the license and just because there are more people that die in car crashes and it's easy to get a license in Virginia does not mean that it makes it any better. Plus, we are talking about two different things subject here.
As for the Constituion, look at the time in which it was written. Don't get me wrong I am not picking a side but, really think about what you're posting and her main points; to just throw the Consitution out thereto me is the lazy approach. All that does is makes it easier for you to not have to explain anything right way to go about the subject matter. How about back it up with good and valid reasoning that pertains to our society and the way things are going today; not in the era in which it was written. Lets face it our society today is completely different than it was during the time when the Constitution was drafted up which was what, Sept. 17, 1787?
Reply to this Top
Wow. Just wow.
"Hence, why keep the guns? Do we live in a day and age where we join militias to defend out rights in a lawless land? No."
When you bring up the Constitution, it's automatically about more than just concealed carry on campus...
If you honestly think that doing away with the Second Amendment is a good idea, then you really are not informed about other countries who have been enslaved by their governments. I believe it was Hitler who expressed his love of an unarmed society - they're easier to take over that way.
Reply to this Top
Thomas Jefferson,
Not only Hitler, but Mao and Stalin, rulers who are responsible for many more deaths than Hitler, all supported disarming their citizens.
Top
That's absolute nonsense. Every other industrialized democracy in the world has very tough gun laws, and none of them have given way to dictatorships. The citizens of these countries are every bit as free as we are and a heck of a lot safer. They're just not able to indulge gun fetishes that put everyone else at greater risk.
Top
No they make you safer, those of us with legal guns protect idiots like yourself everyday. You assume that a law will stop a criminal it won't. They will get guns the way they always get guns illegally. If you legislate against legal guns the end result will be that there will be fewer people to stop illegal guns. Gun control makes all of us less safe.
Top
Interesting data, anonymous, but I went to CDC and used 2006 firearm death data, then went to North Carolina State Center for Health Statistics and found the whole story. For starters, DC, which has 3.8% gun ownership, has the highest firearm death rate in the country, at 19.92 per 100,000 (using 2000 census population data). There are many other cases which weaken your correlation, and it shows why the VPC study only shows top 5 and bottom 5 states...
Top
Highest ownership, then lowest - middle 21 states omitted.
State/% Ownership/Gun Death Rate
WY/59.7/15.02
AK/57.8/16.8
MT/57.7/12.25
SD/56.6/9.7
WV/55.4/13.42
MS/55.3/16.6
AR/55.3/15.21
ID/55.3/12.74
AL/51.7/16.84
ND/50.7/6.79
KY/47.7/12.53
WI/44.4/7.54
LA/44.1/19.27
TN/43.9/15.36
UT/43.0/9.49
---------
DC/3.8/19.92
HI/8.7/2.44
NJ/12.3/5.84
MA/12.6/3.19
RI/12.8/4.24
CT/16.7/5.01
NY/18/5.08
IL/20.2/7.98
CA/21.3/9.13
MD/21.3/12.15
FL/24.5/11.17
DE/25.5/9.31
NH/30/6.15
AZ/31.1/15.87
OH/32.4/9.63
Top
Here's another superlative way of twisting data: 4 of the 15 most gun-toting states have death rates among the 21 lowest, and 3 of the least gun-toting states have death rates among the 21 highest.
Top
Yeah, the data above shows a correlation between gun ownership and gun death even if you include DC. I know...it works with autos too so make a graph if you want to see it.
States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm
Top
So I took your advice, but I did more than just take a naked eye glance at a graph, which you misrepresent; it is a jumbled mess as a scatter plot, with x-axis ownership percentage, y-axis death rate. The correlation coefficient between gun death rate and firearm ownership across all 50 states and the District? 0.444. Pretty weak, considering that means that only 19.73% of the variation in gun death rate is related to the variation in ownership rate.
Top
Is this the appropriate place to mention that 97% of D.C.'s crime guns come from the states with high gun ownership rates that you cite here (i.e., VA, NC, SC, GA, etc.)?
Or that D.C. is an entirely urban area and not a state?
Top
I commend you for doing your own analysis.
Here's some others to crunch on....
Firearm Injury In The US (State Comparisons)
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/ficap/resourcebook/Final%20Resource%20Book%20Updated%202009%20Section%201.pdf
Child Firearm Deaths Tied to Gun Availability
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2002/march8_2002/injury_control.html
Top
Let's keep in mind, though, that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with allowing a bunch of angry, far right-wing, anti-government types to walk around with concealed handguns 24/7.
Reply to this Top
Yeah I know because "The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means that the government can tell us when and if we can carry guns.
Top
How logical, because none of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are regulated, right?
And then there's that pesky part about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
You know, those state militias that no longer even exist.
Top
They aren't you have free speech, 0 slaves and no soldiers quartered in your house. The militia part is one of the reasons we have the right to own firearms. The founding fathers wanted a well armed citizenry so we could form a militia if need be. As a result we have the right to own firearms.
Top
Disarming lawful citizens will not make Ms. Habtu safe in her classroom. It will only insure that only criminals will be armed. Many of the fully automatic rifles confiscated in Mexico have no manufacture name or serial numbers. They come from illegal arms plants, and if the Second Amendment is repealed than those weapons will start coming into the United States.
Reply to this Top
The only way to disarm US citizens is for a brainless & gullible electorate to keep putting more shallow, brainless politicians into public office as "their" representatives. Even Obama will cave! That will be the "Fifth Column" that will take us down from within.
Considering present direction, soon our friends won't trust us & our enemies won't fear us. And our citizens will live a much more risky life!
Top
Elita - Students for Gun Free Schools, Students for Non-Violence, and the Center for Peace Studies were all personally invited to attend SCCC's events this week, but we have not seen a single one of those organizations yet. When we attended the showing of the 20/20 If I Only Had a Gun special put on by the SNV, we were told by all members of the panel that we had "a lot of things in common" and needed to continue the dialogue as opposed to just fighting with each other. If you want to obtain more information about our cause and rationally discuss the issue, please come out to our events.
Reply to this Top
That's a nice invitation, but you certainly have every opportunity to respond to Ms. Habtu's points right here - and to explain why someone who's never so much as touched a handgun should be able to get a concealed handgun permit.
Reply to this Top
It's her constitutional right as a law abiding citizen to have one that's why.
Top
Yeah, and it's my even more basic right ("Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness") to not have dangerous, untrained individuals walking around me and my family and deciding when to open fire.
Top
Actually that's not a right you have. You have the right to not be hurt but you don't have the right to feel safe.
Top
The majority of people here are missing the point completely. The VT shooter didn't need a permit to commit his cowardly crime. He didnt need any form of training either. He also didnt need any permission and he ignored all the laws prohibiting guns on campus.
The question of how easy it is to get a permit is moot. Criminals don't need a license to commit a crime. And vilifying law abiding citizens is not winning people over to your side either. Consider the extremely large number of permit holders who do not commit a crime.
Top
I'm really interested to know if Elita is nervous when she goes to the grocery store? How about the movies? or mall? or Walmart? or her hair salon? or the Capitol building in Richmond?
These are all places where concealed carry is already allowed.
Reply to this Top
She's terrified, I'm sure. She lives in paranoia of others exercising their rights, including free speech and the right to bear arms. Check out any of the things she's a part of - they all censor their opposition, just like the 20/20 event mentioned above, because they know they are wrong. SCCC has proved them wrong dozens of times, and Elita hates it.
Reply to this Top
What's interesting is that in all of this name-calling, whining, and generally rude behavior, not one of you guys has substantively addressed a single issue brought up in Ms. Habtu's piece.
Top
Yes we have re read our comments.
Top
Let us see what is wrong with this picture, consider grammar lessons please. You got shot, big deal you lived, Seriously? Are we really supposed to feel comfortable allowing people like you who have no sensitivity to the event play The Wild West? Did you really compare feelings being hurt to getting shot? How do I know youre really sane enough to carry a gun? From the looks of it, I think you should also consider a bit of psychiatric help.
Reply to this Top
Your ad hominem is laughable. Anon's point is that being shot didn't make her an expert in gun control. Elita has been spamming the globe with lies and emotional arguments, but some are afraid to call her out because they feel sorry for her. I think she needs to move on and find something she is qualified to talk about.
Reply to this Top
Hey Jeff, apparently she's qualified to get a concealed carry permit. How does that make her different from any of you gun nuts?
Reply to this Top
Hey Anon she's a law abiding citizen exercising her second amendment rights. I'd say that makes her alot like us "gun nuts" as you so eloquently put it.
Reply to this Top
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it, as the Heller decision noted that prohibitions against concealed weapons are perfectly constitutional.
Reply to this Top
"The Second Amendment has nothing to do with it, as the Heller decision noted that prohibitions against concealed weapons are perfectly constitutional."
Multiple people have mentioned this here in the comments section. All of you should understand that Scalia's comment was just that... a comment. It has no legal bearing on any future case. It is just a comment or a personal opinion made by the judge and not a part of the formal ruling. IANAL, but I believe those of you quoting this piece from Scalia are misrepresenting the legal weight it actually carries.
Top
The Supreme Court also said segregation was ok does that mean that they were right?
Reply to this Top
It's great that the people trying to argue for concealed carry are making personal attacks at the author of this piece. Really? If you want to argue, stick to whatever "facts" you have. Comparing someone who has been shot and survived to being called a name in grade school is ridiculous. Put yourself in that situation. Imagine being in a classroom with your friends and colleagues, and watching many of them be shot and killed. Imagine being shot and not knowing if you will live. Think about having to relive that every time you walk into a classroom from that point forward. It's great to see how compassionate these pro-gun carriers are. Case in point why the people fighting so hard for this are specifically the ones who should NOT be allowed to legally carry a concealed weapon...I don't trust their judgement or their sanity.
Reply to this Top
Actually her experience is the reason a lot of us are pushing for gun rights. No one should be defenseless against a criminal.
Reply to this Top
"Permits? We don't need no stinking permits!!!"
-Dangerous criminals are going to obtain a weapon illegally more likeley than legally. The people who are harmed by making these permits hard to get are the law-abiding citizens who are going to protect themselves and the general populace from the criminals.
But it shouldn't matter because guns are illegal on campus, so that stopped 4/16, right?
I personally don't believe that one should have to register oneself with the authorities if he/she owns a gun. The reason for the 2nd ammendment is to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government and to protect their property. Every person has a RIGHT to their personal property and it is up to that person if they would like to protect their property with arms or not.
Reply to this Top
This certainly lends credence to Elita's theory that you SCCC guys want to arm everyone (law abiding citizens and deranged criminals) and shoot it out to see who's left standing.
Maybe you guys can be placed on an island somewhere so you can fulfill this violent fantasy without doing collateral damage to the rest of us.
Reply to this Top
Yeah it's called the United States of America where the founding fathers so believed in the right to own guns that they put it into the nation's founding document. You're free to leave if you don't like it.
Top
I have never heard of the SCCC before this article. I am a recent alum that was staunchly anti-gun until witnessing the events of 4/16.
A armed society is a polite and non-violent society, unfortunately America hasn't seen this type of society for quite sometime.
Top
If an armed society was a polite society, the U.S. would be the safest country in the world. It's just the opposite, we have a higher rate of gun death (and higher rate of overall homicide) than every other industrialized democracy in the world.
Top
To wow. You are obviously misleading people, you liar. No good person WANTS to arm deranged criminals.
Top
OK, I'll bite.
Name one thing that either SCCC or VCDL is doing to prevent criminals from buying guns.
Top
To wow. First of all I am not SCCC, but I am pro gun. You aren't biting anything. You stated that SCCC guys want to arm everyone (law abiding citizens and deranged criminals). SCCC doesn't have to do anything to try to stop criminals from getting guns, it isn't their job. Just wanted you to know that it is highly likely that they DONT want criminals getting guns.
Top
SCCC can support any measure they want to prohibit criminals from getting guns, and it wouldn't cost them a thing.
They haven't supported a single measure to stop criminals from getting guns. In fact, if you look at their Facebook page, the talk there is all about eradicating EXISTING measures that curb criminal access to guns (and general moaning about even modest existing laws).
Top
Great article, but it's sad the point is still lost among 2nd Amendment idealists. To those to take this issue in the most literal of senses, please tell me, how many cases in history has proper crack down of illegal possession and regulation of legal possession FAILED to reach its goal? Who here ACTUALLY thinks that a few handguns are enough to overtake the US government in its "tyrannical ways?" Who here has perfect judgment, both in a sober and intoxicated states? Who has never let their temper get the best of them? And among those of you who want unlimited freedom to carry concealed weapons wherever you want, who would stand up and say, "It was their right to have a gun" when your best friend, brother, sister get killed by a firearm in a bar, due to an otherwise petty fight?
I graduated from VT three years, and knew many people who died in the shooting. I've literally traveled and worked around the world, and I still get questions about what happened that fateful morning. As much as I want to defend the situation, defend our state, defend our school, seeing irresponsible legislation and support therein breaks my heart. It's time to responsibility for our actions. Don't let some fantasy or power trip allow situations as dangerous as this. There is no excuse, and don't pretend our constitution supports such extreme cases.
Reply to this Top
Thanks for those words.
Top
"To those to take this issue in the most literal of senses, please tell me, how many cases in history has proper crack down of illegal possession and regulation of legal possession FAILED to reach its goal?"
Oh you mean like prohibition? And its a good thing we have that war on drugs, otherwise drugs could be found just about everywhere!
Top
I still think there is much confusion on the issue on what is "law" and what is a campus policy. Do people here not realize that I, if not a student/faculty/staff at VT, CAN LEGALLY carry on our campus. The restriction is a campus rule applied to the campus community only.
Reply to this Top
I think the issue at hand is actually more, "Who exactly is getting these permits?"
Reply to this Top
Actually, you'd be trespassing if you did that. That's illegal.
Reply to this Top
http://www.oag.state.va.us/OPINIONS/2006opns/05-078.pdf
Attorney General's opinion, January 2006:
"Accordingly, it is my opinion that the governing boards of Virginia's public colleges and universities may not impose a general prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons by permitted individuals. Pursuant to specific grants of statutory authority, however, it is my opinion that colleges and universities may regulate the conduct of students and employees to prohibit them from carrying concealed weapons on campus."
Top
Incorrect. The campus is public property, anyone can come onto campus.
Top
Interesting sidenote here. Cuccinelli is the guy who sponsored the ridiculous law that now allows Virginians to get a concealed handgun permit after a one-hour online course. Bob McDonnell is the Attorney General who issued the opinion cited here which allows members of the general public to carry guns on Virginia's campuses.
Top
The University has in its power the ability to ban certain individuals from campus arbitrarily, and restrict who enters which buildings. If you enter a dorm without an escort, you are trespassing. Why should it be any different if you violate school policies by carrying the gun onto campus as a guest?
Top
You are a brave and intelligent young gift to the world and I thank YOU for realizing that freedom, liberty, and independence mean very little without real responsibility and duty. By the time the statistics are big enough to matter to the "no infringement" crowd, it will be too late to salvage.
Reply to this Top
So you think its ok then for the government to take away Constitutional rights. I assume then that you must be all for the Patriot Act.
Reply to this Top
Yeah, right-wingers really hammered Bush for that Patriot Act, I tell ya'...
Laughable...
Top
You left wingers sure did and the second you got in power you attacked the second amendment.
Top
Actually, Obama hasn't signed a single piece of legislation or issued a single executive order that strengthens gun laws in this country.
But I understand the SCCC crew is paranoid by nature, so I understand your confusion.
Top
I'm not talking about just Obama I'm talking about the left in general. People like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy (RIP). All of whom were critical of the Patriot Act all of whom undermine the second amendment.
Top
Obama et al is best thing to happen to the NRA in years. Gun shops certainly want him re-elected in 2012.
Top
I have had a great laugh at all of the comments posted here that are against her article. She wrote this piece to show that CCW permits are not these sacred, only for the best most up-standing citizens. And everyone is yelling that she is being emotional and afraid and blah blah blah but no one has actually discredited anything she wrote.
I freaking love interwebs debate!
Reply to this Top
What are we more likely to see first, a substantive response from SCCC/VCDL, or a pig flying?
Reply to this Top
It is atypical for a formal organization to have a representative post their entire platform in the comments section of an article. This is more for discussion among individuals. If you want to see the substance behind an organization's platform, perhaps you should visit their websites. http://www.sccc.org.vt.edu/ and http://vcdl.org/
Top
The SCCC President has already commented here, as have a zillion SCCC and VCDL members. Why hasn't a single one addressed the serious substantive issues raised in this article?
Top
Hi, this is Jason. Just showing that anyone can post as "SCCC President." An organization's formal response to an article generally comes in the form of a letter to the editor or an op/ed piece. Perhaps, since this article was just released today, we should wait to see if a response is forthcoming.
Top
The discredit comes from the fact that gun control is imperfect. To be fair, permitting procedures are imperfect as well. We don't live in a "Minority Report" world that can predict future actions, after all. But unless you can install gun detectors on sidewalks and completely eradicate all tools that can be used for violent assault, there is a perceived need for self-defense measures. A permit is a way for a citizen to follow a process to declare their intent to carry a weapon for legal defensive use only. The fact that permits are rarely revoked and that their holders rarely use their weapons for violent acts of aggression tells me that the permitting process is, while not ideal, acceptable. Also, we tend to get the issues of gun ownership and concealed permits muddled as well. Plenty of people own guns but don't have a permit to carry them. The only time a permit makes someone more likely to commit a crime is if a previously law-abiding person makes a bad decision while carrying, when otherwise the gun would be locked up at home. Until I see evidence to suggest that permit holders commit "crimes of opportunity" merely because they have a gun on them at the time, I'm inclined to believe that most people carrying who use their weapons maliciously have premeditated their actions.
Reply to this Top
Perhaps you should send this memo to every other industrialized democracy in the world...you know, the ones that have enacted tougher gun laws than we have and now have astronomically lower rates of gun death.
Top
Let me be clearer. Enforcement of gun control laws without infringement upon personal liberties is difficult to achieve. It's easy to crack down on guns if you, say, throw the 4th amendment out the window. Perhaps you can shed some light on exactly how the gun laws in these other nations are enforced?
Top
The only "infringement" in these democracies is on gun fetishes. No freedoms have been lost. Their citizens vote, speak their mind, and are far safer than we are.
Top
Perhaps you aren't following. How are we to be sure that nobody has guns without illegally searching and seizing them? Or should we not care about the 4th amendment either?
Top
You don't need to be sure. In other democracies, if someone if found to be in possession of a firearm without having followed the proper licensing and registration procedures, they are charged with a criminal offense and the firearm is confiscated at that point. There has never been any situation in these democracies where police have gone door to door to every residence in the country.
The Confiscation Myth is a fundraising tactic designed by the NRA (or perhaps "The Turner Diaries).
Top
It's a moot point because in this country we have the right to own firearms and the right to privacy. Both of those rights means that government stays out of our business when it comes to firearms.
Top
So you think that we don't confiscate every gun once it's found to be illegally owned or is used to do something illegal? We do, and there are still plenty of illegal ones out there. You have to get rid of the existing supply and dry up the supply line. Show me how.
Top
This might be hard to understand, but other industrialized democracies have enacted tough gun laws and dramatically reduced their gun death rates without going door to door and confiscating guns. The key issue is to have accountability (legal, commercial) for individuals who transfer firearms.
Top
Those countries have worse gun violence than ours when you look at percentages and count the crimes that get misrepresented. Do some research and quit spamming lies.
Top
Patrick, a lot more people in this country drive cars every day than handle guns. This country has taken extensive steps to make sure cars are safe, and to make sure our roads are safe. And those regulations have saved countless thousands of lives since the 1970s when they started to really come into place. Thanks to the NRA and groups like SCCC and VCDL, we've done absolutely nothing to assure that dangerous individuals don't get guns (or carry permits).
Reply to this Top
Anonymous,
Gains in highway safety are due to innovations created by car-manufacturers in persuit of proift and creating a better, safer vehicle than their competitor, not regulation.
Still, tens of thousands of motorists die every year in America.
There are several similarities between the two issues, gun control and highway safety.
Just like criminals obtaining guns, people are always going to speed, be it out of necessity or habit, its not going away.
To remedy this problem is not to lower speed limits to 55, but rather to abolish speed limits altogether on highways.
Once this happens, those who wish to drive at a moderate pace of 65 - 70 can and will still be able to do, but they, out of safety reasons will stick to the right side of the road.
Those wishing to drive faster than that will have the passing lane open to pass the slower traffic, much like it is supposed to be now.
This works in Germany and they have lower rates on their highways than we do.
We would see accidents reduced, thereby reducing accident-related traffic and rubbernecking.
Back to gun control. Society was not always as violent and dangerous place as it is today. This is because a gun-ownership and America go hand in hand and violent criminals would not be able to flourish in a society in which every citizen was capable of shooting back.
Reply to this Top
Actually, it is regulation. The government regulates automobiles for consumer safety. The government also regulates our roads for traffic safety.
Guns are now the only product in America that is NOT regulated for consumer safety.
Thanks NRA!
Reply to this Top
Hey, I just wanted to thank you for giving us the credit for what the citizens of the US have done for their country. By falsely attributing it to the NRA, you bring us lots of donations every year!
Top
No problem, when we finally begin to save lives in this country, I want it to be clear who was primarily responsible for getting all those people killed unnecessarily!
Top
Regulation does not cause safety, it merely follows a backlash that is correctable by markets.
Regulation did not create seatbelts or do seatbelt laws make the US safer, people still choose not to wear them. Car-makers created seatbelts as well as engines that drop below on impact to avoid crushing the driver.
Regulations did not create airbags or anti-lock brakes, car-makers did. Regulations only insist these accessories are necessary, but if a car is sold without seatbelts not many people would buy that type of car and the company would be bankrupt. Regulations have no hand in increasing safety, this goes for other industries, not just automobiles.
Same for guns. More gun control isn't going to make the U.S. a safer place.
Top
Wow Alumnus, that's the second argument for anarchy we've seen from a pro-gunner on here.
Top
Yes, because German highway system is complete anarchy, yet it has a lower death rate than ours.
Free markets, they regulate themselves, it is not anarchy, it's natural.
Top
Actually, if you drive in Germany (I did once in a rented car) you'll find they have strict road regulations and cameras covering every inch of the autobahn. You can open up there, but that's about it. http://octane.ie/news/article.php?id=517
Top
Guns are highly regulated. Guns are only tools and like any tool they can be misused by criminals. I carry a gun because a bodyguard is too expensive and police cant be everywhere.
Top
Guns are more weakly regulated in the U.S. than in any democracy on earth.
Guns are also the only consumer product not regulated for safety by the government (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Top
Guns are weapons that are designed to kill. By contrast, we expect that consumer product should not kill under any circumstance. Gun ban zealots are attempting to make civilian firearms ineffective by regulating them consumer products.
Top
Without guns our country would not have existed. Without guns now our country would no longer exist as it once did. Guns are a necessary evil. They may have deadly consequences, but I can live with that due to that fact that without them things would be much worse.
If a criminal decides that we is going to do harm, whether he has a gun or he picks up a stick he is going to do some type of harm. Personally I would rather have a way of defense rather than just watch him whack me.
Responsibility is what we need. The more responsible people we have with guns. There will be better outcomes in situations that require their use.
We need to open our eyes and understand without guns, things get a lot worse, because the criminals will still be criminals and they know that they can not be matched by the future victim.
Reply to this Top
You understate matters vastly when you say that four confirmed shootings by concealed carry permit holders have taken place this year. Those are just the mass murders, involving three or more deaths. The actual number of deaths, not to mention criminal shootings, by concealed carry permit holders is much higher. My survey of news reports found 60 murders, suicides and other unjustifiable deaths attributable to concealed carry permit holders in the year ended in August. I estimate that understates reality by at least a factor of two, because concealed carry permit records are confidential in most states, and reporters rarely ask whether a killer had a concealed carry permit. Otherwise, however, thanks for your article. It is an inappropriate distortion of Constitutional rights to indulge the desire of 1 percent of people to carry loaded pistols hidden under their clothing as they go about their daily business among the unknowing, unarmed rest of us.
Reply to this Top
soooo...60 murders and suicides from licenced CCP holders this year...out of?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/14/national/main5309836.shtml
there were 14,180 murders reported to the FBI in 2008, 8648 of them used a firearm. assuming your numbers continue, there will be 90 deaths this year from CCP holders. if you pretend that all 90 are murders, that means 1% of the total number of firearms murders in the country are committed by those with permits. but that is pretending that your survey had no agenda.
using the date from the violence policy center (vpc.org)
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
in 2 years, CCP holders killed 6 cops and "at least 43 private citizens" with firearms (a seventh police officer was killed without a firearm).
so, in 2 years, 49 people were murdered by CCP holders. 49 out of roughly 16000 murder victims were killed by CCP holders. STAGGERING! .3% of all firearm-murder victims were killed by permit holders. that is POINT-THREE PERCENT.
Reply to this Top
Part 2..from above...
i also find it absolutely hilarious that anyone actually believes that limiting concealed carry permits would create any real reduction of murders. because the guy who plans on committing the irrational act of killing someone will act rationally and try to register and get the proper permits for the weapon he plans on using. you cannot apply rational thought to irrational people.
and everyone keeps wondering why don't those in support of gun rights don't respond to habtu's "issues" presented...she has none. she has proven that a normal, safe, citizen can obtain a CCP. that's it. she's not crazy, she has no ill-intent, so what did she prove? she doesn't have a background that didn't pop up on the check and she is responsible enough to know that her CCP doesn't mean she can actually handle a firearm.
Top
The truth is that there's no way to find out how many crimes have been committed by concealed handgun permit holders, as the NRA has gotten laws passed in 29 states that ban the public from accessing ANY info about permit holders.
Thanks again, NRA!
Top
You're absolutely right, Mark. First of all, those four MASS shootings (3 or more killed) by concealed handgun permit holders are just the ones that have been confirmed this year. There might have been others (i.e., George Zinkhan, Joshua Cartwright, etc.) where it is unclear at this point whether they had a permit.
The Brady Campaign has a list of all types of criminal activity by concealed handgun permit holders that is incredibly disturbing:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
Reply to this Top
it still does not change the fact that concealed carry permit holders account for less than 1% of all murders committed. so we will enact more legislation that doesn't actually address a real problem, so that we can be protected from .5% of those committing crimes. people laws for law-abiding citizens to follow to protect themselves so we can be protected from .5%?
Top
Show me a citation for a national study that shows that "concealed carry permit holders account for less than 1% of all murders committed"?
It doesn't exist. There's never been any national study of the kind.
Top
The Brady Campaign isn't exactly a neutral source. I could give you a whole list of cancer statistics from the fine people at Marlboro. How well would you trust them?
Top
So the report has 21 people doing what they shouldn't in 2009 out of over 3 million with permits, and roughly 30 murders (if we project out for the rest of the year) from these cases. (http://blogostuff.blogspot.com/2004/12/percentage-of-adults-with-carry.html)
That's less than 1 crime per 100,000 permit holders and less than 1 murder per 100,000 permit holders. In contrast, considering murder committed with firearms alone, the rate in the US in 2008 is 4.7 per 100,000 people. Eliminate the permit holders from the equation, and non-permit holders commit murder with firearms at a rate of 4.75 times the rate of permit holders. It's amazing how raw data becomes a lot less striking when you put it into per capita perspective.
Top
Before you ask, the murder statistics for permit holders were taken from the Brady report. I'm guessing that they go digging for this information everywhere, so I assume it's a complete list. The overall US murder rates were obtained from the FBI uniform crime report from 2008.
Top
you need a citation? its numbers. theres no need for a study...but here are all the numbers, posted right above in my first post:
"soooo...60 murders and suicides from licenced CCP holders this year...out of?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/14/national/main5309836.shtml
there were 14,180 murders reported to the FBI in 2008, 8648 of them used a firearm. assuming your numbers continue, there will be 90 deaths this year from CCP holders. if you pretend that all 90 are murders, that means 1% of the total number of firearms murders in the country are committed by those with permits. but that is pretending that your survey had no agenda.
using the date from the violence policy center (vpc.org)
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
in 2 years, CCP holders killed 6 cops and "at least 43 private citizens" with firearms (a seventh police officer was killed without a firearm).
so, in 2 years, 49 people were murdered by CCP holders. 49 out of roughly 16000 murder victims were killed by CCP holders. STAGGERING! .3% of all firearm-murder victims were killed by permit holders. that is POINT-THREE PERCENT"
Top
No one needs to trust Brady at all. The document cited above links to news stories that confirm all those criminal acts by concealed handgun permit holders. Each incident can be independently verified.
Top
And the Brady report certainly isn't complete. The NRA has banned the public (including the media) from accessing any information about concealed handgun permit holders in 29 states. So the Brady report provides just a small snapshot of criminal activity by concealed handgun permit holders.
Top
Correct me if I'm wrong but no mass murderers had concealed weapon permits, right? If they did then maybe she has a valid point...if not then leave those of us in support of the freedom to have a gun alone!
Reply to this Top
you are completely wrong...there have been mass murderers with CCW permits...did you read the article? you're way off
Reply to this Top
The following articles confirm it:
George Sodini, LA Fitness Shooter Had Lethal Plan, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 6, 2009
Michael McClendon, Officials Identify Alabama Gunman, The Enterprise-Ledger, March 11, 2009
Richard Poplawski, Poplawski Bought Guns Through Shop in Wilkinsburg, Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, April 7, 2009
Frank Garcia, "Slaying Suspect Denied Gun Permit 3 Times Before Getting 2007 OK," Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 19, 2009
Top
Poplawski was dishonorably discharged from the USMC. It's illegal to have a permit under those circumstances.
As for Garcia, "It's easy to second-guess it, knowing what we know now," said state Supreme Court Justice Thomas VanStrydonck, administrative judge for the 7th Judicial District. "But that would be unfortunate second-guessing. I'm not even sure that denying him a pistol permit would have denied him a pistol."
New York is a "may-issue" state, and with no consistent standards, permitting has the potential to be more of a corrupt, good-old-boys network than in shall issue states with uniform policies.
Top
OMG! The permit process didn't prevent them from shooting people? I thought that pieces of paper - like laws and restraining orders - would keep people from ever doing anything wrong!
Well, these 4 people definitely should ruin it for the other 6 million permit holders in the US. Let's also take away knives, bats, and swords, then sticks, stones, fists, and bad words. Then we'll have perfect peace!
Oh before I forget - we can keep our cars, right? I know they are the biggest killer in the country, but I have good insurance to cover me.
Top
You're assuming the record of Poplawski's discharge was located when he applied for his permit. Millions of disqualifying records are missing from the NICS database. Furthermore, there's no reason why Poplawski's friend would have lied about seeing his concealed handgun permit. Finally, your theory fails because Poplawski legally BOUGHT firearms. That same dishonorable discharge would have prevented those purchases had it been in the federal NICS database. It clearly wasn't, or an error was made.
Top
He DID NOT legally buy them if he was dishonorably discharged. Just because you can pass the NICS check does not mean it's legal for you to buy the gun. If you can grow a beard and pass for 21 when you're 18, just because you dupe a cashier doesn't mean that the booze is legal.
Top
OK, let's assume it was illegal. Why the heck is Pennsylvania selling guns and giving concealed handgun permits to people who are prohibited by law?
Top
No I didn't read the article because I'm tired of her lying articles with facts that don't add up.
Top
Anonymous, NOW you're asking the right question. Interestingly, it is exactly these breakdowns in enforcement that lead many people to arm themselves against those who have obtained weapons illegally and may use them to do harm.
Top
So your proposal is to arm more people through insufficient screening processes, as opposed to fixing those processes?
Top
I'm suggesting that the way to fix poor enforcement of laws is not to make more laws that are difficult to enforce. People who arm themselves for defensive reasons do so largely in response to a perceived threat. This threat exists not because laws are too lenient, but because they are poorly enforced, or may in fact be unenforceable without violating privacy, etc.
Top
Actually, she lists 4 mass shootings just this year that were executed by concealed carry holders (10th paragraph, starting with "It's shocking but not surprising"). And the term "freedom to have a gun" is way too simple a summary for the most controversial and still highly-debated amendment in any industrialized nation's governing document. If you think the situation is as cut and dry as that, you have some history to catch up on. Tell you what, you can keep the gun, but nobody can have any ammunition after all, that's not part of the amendment.
Reply to this Top
You're right Jeremy the "freedom to have a gun" is a gross oversimplification of the second amendment. It protects the citizen's right to keep and bear arms, which means that it covers more than guns and will cover laser weapons once we invent those.
Top