First of all, let me begin by saying that Elilta Habtu submitted a well-written and well-researched article in Thursday’s paper. I was impressed at her determination to go through the process of obtaining a concealed carry weapon permit for the sake of the column. I do, however, wish to dispute some of her findings.
As a CCW permit holder, I am legally able to carry a concealed handgun for my personal protection in all but a few places. I am a current student at this great university, and have been a lifelong hunter as well as an avid participant in the shooting sports. My love of hunting and target shooting has led me, through experience and a hunter’s safety course, to be very comfortable and safety-conscience when handling firearms.
Whereas I have learned safe firearms training through my own determination, Habtu readily admitted that she had no experience or any desire to carry a handgun when she applied for her permit. The majority of people who are going to apply for permits are those who are already comfortable with firearms and wish to be able to legally protect themselves. As a member of the Virginia Tech Clay Target Team, I have many friends who either currently carry or plan on carrying in the future. We are all competent with firearms, and we have all taken classes to receive our permit.
If Habtu were actually planning on carrying and wished to actually know what she was doing, she would take the initiative to attend a classroom version of the CCW permit class. I will agree with her that the online class requirement seems easy to pass. This is a new amendment to the requirements. People who wish to do harm usually do not go through the process to become CCW permit holders. Habtu failed to mention the real deterrent to a criminal in receiving a permit, something that makes it much more difficult to obtain one than she admits to. The permit requires you to submit fingerprints and have a background check, something that a typical criminal would not submit to. In my opinion, the online class makes it easier for legal, eligible, upstanding citizens to mark off one step of the process. Those who wish to do harm to others wouldn’t bother to go through the process of obtaining a permit or taking classes. Denying responsible permit holders from carrying does nothing to stop the gun violence of criminals.
Habtu’s article also brings up the statistic that four CCW permit holders have committed firearms-related murder this year, four in almost an entire year. How many crimes are committed each year by people illegally carrying firearms or with illegal firearms themselves? The U.S. Department of Justice states on its Web site that of the 16,137 murders in 2004, 66 percent or 10,650 were committed with firearms. The four occurrences she has listed seem to be outweighed by this statistic. The Texas Department of Public Safety released a study in May of 1999 that showed that permit holders in Texas accounted for 0.246 percent of all aggravated assault crimes that involved a deadly weapon, four out of 1,629 convictions. It also shows that there were 3,303 convictions for people unlawfully carrying a weapon: One percent of these were permit holders. In the year 1999 the rate of murder convictions for permit holders in Texas was zero percent. There were none. I think that you will find that the ratio of crimes committed by permit holders to total permit holders is a tiny percentage compared to crimes committed by those without permits.
Permit holders have had to prove to a court that they are upstanding citizens with clean records. They are statistically the safest and most well informed people to be carrying guns, so the law allows them to. How many lives have been saved this year by those carrying concealed handguns? The article “Richmond Store owner grateful for man who shot owner” (Richmond Times Dispatch, July 15), tells the story about a shooting in a convenience store that is not far from my home near Richmond. On July 13, 2009, a man entered the Golden Food Market on Jefferson Davis Highway in south Richmond. The man entered the store, shot and wounded the clerk, and fired at several of the store patrons before being wounded and subdued by a gunshot from a CCW permit holder who was in the store.
Police determined that the shooter had run out of bullets and was attempting to reload at which point he was shot by the permit holder. In this case, the permit holder saved the lives of the eight people in the store. News reports also stated that the other citizens in the store urged the permit holder to shoot the man again and kill him. The permit holder refused and calmly awaited the arrival of police. There are a significant number of these cases in the U.S. each year. According to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck of Florida State University, there are approximately 2.5 million cases of people using firearms for self-defense in America each year. Also, according to the Department of Justice’s 2007 Uniformed Crime Report, states with right-to-carry laws have a 30 percent lower homicide rate, as well as a 46 percent lower robbery rate. Four shootings by permit holders continues to be a tiny minority in gun crimes statistics.
I will finish by saying that I fully support concealed carry on campuses, and I hope that in a life or death situation someone with a CCW is around. Statistics prove that the smartest and most responsible citizens carrying guns are permit holders. Do you think a deranged person is going to worry about whether or not he has a permit to carry? No; it’s the responsible people who care about those around them that choose to concealed carry. God forbid that Tech, or any other institution, experience a tragedy such as that of April 16, 2007. However, if a tragedy such as that were to occur, I could only hope to have the safety of Tech’s concealed carry permit holders.
Statistics show concealed carry saves many lives, takes few
Leave a comment 115 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.
Great article Andrew!
Reply to this Top
Excellent commentary by Andrew. When I was a grad student at VT, we often kept firearms in our offices (Price) on the way to hunting or shooting sports activities. In my view, the possession of firearms on campus by law-abiding students and faculty made everyone safer than they now may be.
Reply to this Top
Then they should make CC legal for 17 year olds too!
Top
Up here you can CC at 18, no permit required. See, we teach our kids how to live - how to drive, how to grow food, how to treat other people, how to shoot a gun... As a result, we have the lowest homicide rate in the country. Come join us!
Top
What a bunch of claptrap.
Kleck's statistics - often repeated by the gun manufacturer's lobbying group and offshoots - were roundly disputed by a Harvard School of Public Health review of Kleck's claims.
Overestimates of self-defense gun use
The Harvard study uses epidemiological theory to explain why the "false positive" problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the incidence of rare diseases or rare phenomena such as self-defense gun use.
The Harvard study then tred to validate the claims of many millions of annual self-defense uses against available evidence.
Their mMajor findings: The claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens appears to be invalid.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html
Youse people are delusional in the myth that guns are of any use for personal safety.
Reply to this Top
"johnwalsh2" - You really should read all the comments before you post - my comment directly below this one (Nov 12 @ 11:37pm) addresses your argument. No one could ever argue that a single study is perfect. That's what follow-up studies are for - repetition and varying the study methods are key to validating findings, as has been done.
Top
"Youse people are delusional in the myth that guns are of any use for personal safety" Well I hope those words are enough to hide behind when a criminal wishes to do you harm. The rest of us however chose to not be victims.
Top
Yeah, you're right johnwalsh2: I wasn't feeling safe at all after the guy who broke down my door took off after hearing the sound of a 12-gauge pump action shotgun pumping into action.
Top
So, reading your post, I detected a certain amount of intentional rhetorical/logical flare. But calling people "delusional" would fall under "Ad Hominem," a logical fallacy. If you want us to take you seriously, engage in a serious manner.
Top
LOL I read that report. They asked criminals in the Washington D.C. jail how they were shot. What is laughable about this is that Washington D.C. does not allow concealed carry. The other Best sources were anecdotal and not true.
Top
LOL I read that report. They asked criminals in the Washington D.C. jail how they were shot. What is laughable about this is that Washington D.C. does not allow concealed carry. The other Best sources were anecdotal and not true.
Top
So I accessed the link you provided. I read the summaries of the studies and analysis of the data... I'm not sure who the heck Kleck is, but in these comments about the article written by Mr. Buyalos, the argument is about citizens actually licensed (ID'd, finger-printed, documented) to carry a weapon. In the summaries published by the Harvard School of Public Health, the concept of legal, licensed carry of weapons is apparently not used as a criteria for any of the studies. It seems that they only analyzed data compiled from "criminal gun use." In my opinion, there really is no true comparison of that data to the article above.
Top
many successful leaders in the past have implemented gun control, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Che Guevera, and now we have Pelosi in palace. I feel bad mentioning her name in the same sentence, at least the others had charm or talent...
Top
I've got 2 "possible" self-defense uses in without ever firing a shot. One was a guy that ran at me from behind in the dark on an empty street and the other was a guy that tried to open my car door when I was at a stop light at night.
It's possible that in neither case was I in any real danger - maybe they were both just very eager to give a total stranger a big warm fuzzy hug.
P.S. The police here have issued statements saying that you enter the city at your own risk and that crime is spiraling out of control. I refuse to be unarmed, so please keep your opinions away from my proven last line of defense.
Top
How interesting that almost every one of the papers cited at your link are by the same author. Biased researcher anyone? That is at least as plausible as some of the conclusions in his abstracts--which is all you can see at that link, i.e., the author's own summation of his conclusions, NOT whether or not his research methodology, data set or conclusions are worth the electrons it would take to transmit them.
Top
you're an idiot.
Top
Great article. Can I share this on my Blog? I have a Concealed Carry Permit, and got mine at the age of 18, after I enlisted at the Age of 17. I CC every day, every where. If someone has so much disregard for the law that they will murder, they illegally carrying isnt going to stop them. Concealed Carry isnt a good idea - Its a fundamental Human Right, far more so than Healthcare. People like John Walsh would have you believe Gun Control work. Tell me, when you make something illegal, who abides by the law? The CCW owners are the ones who give up their guns...Not the ones the CCW holders are trying to protect themselves from. Gun Control makes no sense, and has no logical foundation. Only Concealed Carry does.
Reply to this Top
Great article, Andrew - well reasoned and well researched! One point you hit on well in there is that too many people try to apply rational thinking to irrational people. Criminals don't care if they have a permit if they are going to commit a crime, so why should we assume they will obey these rules?
Let me add one thing about the Kleck study. Many people criticize that study, and any critical thinker should. However, they should also note that 13 other studies have substantiated the high number of defensive gun uses, with the lowest one being 800,000 per year.
Also, we've challenged people to find a gun control measure that actually works. No one has come forward with a valid, researched answer to date!
Reply to this Top
Fantastic article, you reasoned well without making it a personal attack.
Reply to this Top
Good article. It is of my opinion that allowing CCW holders to carry on campus is very low in risk, and would demonstrate that the collegiate community is safe not only from crime, but also from the grasp of those who would take away common rights from students that they would otherwise have off campus.
Just a comment:
Fingerprinting is not required by state law for a CCW permit. It is determined by "local ordinance in the county or city where the applicant resides." In fact, the state law states that fingerprinting cannot be required by local ordinance "if the applicant has an existing concealed handgun permit issued pursuant to this section and is applying for a new five-year permit pursuant to subsection I."
18.2-308
Reply to this Top
Firearms prohibited from carry on baggage with limited exceptions for law enforcement officers. http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/assistant/editorial_1666.shtm
Reply to this Top
Note that you can check your firearm in provided you use the correct luggage type with the appropriate locks and secure ammunition correctly. It depends on the airline, but many do allow it with no additional cost (beyond the cost for check-in luggage these days of course) so long as you can legally possess the firearm in the destination city/state.
Reply to this Top
Note that many airlines allow you to check your firearm provided your luggage meets their rules (usually a separate case with a lock, and ammunition must be transported in their original boxes, etc). So long as you're legal to possess the firearm at your destination they have no problem with it.
Reply to this Top
Did you know that statistics also show that 100% of gun deaths are caused by someone shooting someone else!
Who knew!
Reply to this Top
I suppose this also includes gun-produced suicides, my fellow M.D.? (Muddled Debater) Apparently you "didn't knew"!
Reply to this Top
Did you know that statistics show that 100% of moronic comments come from morons? Who knew.
Reply to this Top
100% of murders are caused by people killing other people. This "people" thing sounds really bad - let's outlaw people!
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Top
Even people that shoot themselves? Nice try hippie.
Reply to this Top
Well if they are commiting suicide then it is debatable that they are shoting someone "else" because they obviously are not very sane...woah that blows my mind!
100% of sarcastic and satirical comments always get overlooked by morons so yes you got me there Mr. LOL I mised putting that statistic in there.
Reply to this Top
In ANY case, the result is always the same: "He's DEAD, Jim!".
Reply to this Top
Yes Yes thank you for pointing out my mistake earlier to not include suicides, I may have depressed them by leaving them out...oops that may have been a bad taste joke...oh well.
Top
Hell yeah, Dr. House. You are not alone.
Reply to this Top
There's a very good study by the Wisconsin Public Research Institute that discusses a number of issues around allowing concealed carry, including some very interesting statistics on things like the number of revocations of CHPs in various states.
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf
Reply to this Top
One day guns will be limited to our militias on the east and west coast. This is because states will get the right to decide. The supreme court will create this ruling. I believe this because less and less young people hunt and carry guns, and the supreme court will reflect our generation. Guns aren't common to own in large urban centers where most young people are moving. They're almost a taboo. There's a place for guns in rural hunting communities and those states will continue to allow them. This is just my prediction.
Reply to this Top
This isn't about hunting anon. It is about having a device that can help provide some measure of personal protection from violent criminals (who don't appear to be going away, also they spend much of their time in "large urban centers"). By the way, states already control many aspects of firearms ownership and possession. Many states have their own constitutions and many of those documents protect firearms ownership just like the 2nd amendment.
Reply to this Top
Thank you Andrew for an excellent article. Education of the student body is definitely the way forward and I'm happy to see all the efforts being put forth by the SCCC this year. Great job to everyone.
Reply to this Top
I encourage ALL who are interested to take the time to join Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. If your school does not have a chapter, START ONE.
This article very clearly and concisely sums up the situation. Law-abiding citizens are NOT the problem. Criminals are the problem. Make more laws, and guess what? The criminals will IGNORE them, too.
Reply to this Top
Are you advocating for anarchy?
You're saying that laws only hurt the law-abiding and are ignored by criminals.
That's an argument for anarchy.
Reply to this Top
He's not saying that you're putting words in his mouth.
Top
Wow, that anarchy comment was a stretch. The point here is that gun laws - those which attempt to control when and where a lawful individual can carry - do nothing. Not one single gun control measure, including all 30,000+ laws have ever been shown to mitigate crime.
That is not an argument for anarchy, it's an argument for reason -- stop impinging on the right to bear arms under the guise of "public safety" as it accomplishes just the oppose.
Top
you are correct. under that philosophy, everyone should be oppressed so the government can commit the crimes.
Top
How is wanting good laws that don't infringe on lawfull gun owners an argument for anarchy? Law-abiding citizens can't be "Law-abiding" if what you say is true. Anarchy is what the CRIMINALS are already doing!
Top
Your average law abiding citizen actually needs few laws. Therefore, laws are made because of the lawless which inevitably restricts the law abiding citizen.
Top
snip...
"Many people deal with the problem of crime by convincing themselves that they live, work, and travel only in special "crime-free" zones. Invariably, they react with shock and hurt surprise when they discover that criminals do not play by the rules and do not respect these imaginary boundaries. If, however, you understand that crime can occur anywhere at anytime, and if you understand that you can be maimed or mortally wounded in mere seconds, you may wish to consider whether you are willing to place the responsibility for safeguarding your life in the hands of others."
From A Nation of Cowards, something you all should read: http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html
Reply to this Top
Just a general comment on this whole issue...
The law does not give us the right to do anything, it only restricts. People have the backward thought that there must be a law to allow you to do something, which is completely backward from the whole point of government.
Reply to this Top
Actually, Ms. Habtu's article noted that there have been four MASS shootings by concealed handgun permit holders this year. Mass shootings involved three or more innocents killed.
The list of ALL murders by concealed handgun permit holders in 2009 is far larger. A Brady Campaign documents others (though only murders and criminal acts that could be gleaned through media reports):
http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
Reply to this Top
Because the NRA bans the public from accessing even basic information about concealed handgun permit holders in 29 states, it is impossible to document all the criminals acts by concealed handgun permit holders, whether we're talking about mass shootings, robbery, rape, whatever.
Reply to this Top
#1: The NRA can't ban anything.
#2: Permit holders don't have a "License to kill" and I suspect the few that do kill would have killed even if they didn't have a permit.
#3: Information on who has a permit can't save you from a criminal act. Most gun crimes are committed by people who don't have a carry permit. So tell me why anyone but police need to know?
Top
You praise Brady's biased information but take shots at the NRA? It's funny how badly you wear your bias on your sleeve.
Anyway, as was said in another post, there is nothing about a piece of paper that stops crime be it a permit, a restraining order, or a law. The point is that the overwhelming majority of people who get permits are good people, but just like everything there are no guarantees in life as humans aren't perfect.
Oh, 2 more things: one of the 4 was denied his permit, and even if it were 4 that is out of 6+ million. Ever heard of statistics? By my count, that's 0.0001% of permit holders. But you'll go after them nonetheless, as any gun scares you obviously.
Reply to this Top
There's nothing "biased" about the Brady Campaign's document. Every shooting reported there is linked to an independent media report. They're not asking anyone to take their word on anything.
None of the four mass shooters was denied a permit. Frank Garcia held a concealed handgun permit the day he committed his shooting rampage.
And the four is just the four we know about. There likely have been far more mass shootings by concealed handgun permit holders this year.
And the confirmed number is now at five, because it was revealed that Nidal Malik Hasan held a concealed handgun permit in Virginia.
Top
For anon below. If someone (like Hasan at Fort Hood) legally buys a gun (ie. they have clean record) and then snaps and kills innocent people at some later time, what can the government or anyone do about that?
Top
how can you say, "there likely have been far more mass shootings?" what is "far more?" either way you split it, 40-50 murders have occurred from concealed carry permit holders in the years between may 2007 and april 2009. according the the FBI, on average, the US has 8000 murders a year attributed to firearms. so in a 2 year span, concealed carry permit holders committed 50 out of 16000 murders.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdf
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/14/national/main5309836.shtml
Top
There's nothing biased about the Brady Campaign, that's like saying Fox News doesn't lean right or Marlboro cigarettes correctly informs it's customers about the risks of smoking.
Top
Some facts on Death law.
Even if a CCW holder legally defends himself with a firearm. The deceased death certificate will show the death as a Homicide. Since it is not an Accident, Natural Cause, Suicide, Undetermined, or Pending investigation.
Reply to this Top
Homicide merely means that one person has killed another. It is not the same as murder, which is a subcategory of homicide.
Top
As for the 2.5 million Defensive Gun Uses statistic by Gary Kleck, it is completely without merit.
David Hemenway applied Kleck's 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.
Furthermore, a National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted at the same time as Kleck's survey that found only 65,000 defensive gun uses annually (and it made no value judgment as to whether these uses were appropriate).
Reply to this Top
As I said in the second post on this article, 13 other studies substantiated Dr. Kleck's. You, as most anti-gun folks do, exercise confirmation bias and refer to the one study that claimed about 1/10th of what all the other studies did. Did you also know that study never actually asked participants if they've used their gun defensively, and that the interviewers were acting as a branch of law enforcement?
You might want to learn a little more about the issues before you assert these things, especially as this is one of the most tried-and-true facts in all of the gun rights arguments.
Reply to this Top
You might want to send that note to the Department of Justice. They've never found a DGU number higher than 80,000 per year, and they've certainly never said these DGUs were a social good like Kleck does.
The Kleck methodology was deeply flawed, and not a single report of a defensive gun use made to him was actually verified through police reports or any other documentation (just as the contacts with aliens weren't - and couldn't be - verified in Hemenway's survey).
Top
Department of Justice you say?
"Subsequent to Kleck's study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck's, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU's annually."
http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
There has never been a study that got a number less than 100,000, and only one of 15 studies did:
"There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU's annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others?" (answer follows on the guncite.com page listed above)
Top
Hey Dr. House,
Statistics show that 100% of the time when someone shoots at me, I'm going to shoot back. The law gives me that right. How about you quit with the your "statistics" as you probably only have a GED at this point. Good afternoon, DR.
Reply to this Top
Heh people show their brilliance more all the time...
Reply to this Top
"The majority of people who are going to apply for permits are those who are already comfortable with firearms and wish to be able to legally protect themselves."
What about the rest, who can get a permit through Virginia's joke of a permitting process without demonstrating anything?
Reply to this Top
What about them? You make an assertion with no point. How about the state of Vermont that has NO requirements to carry openly or concealed, yet enjoys the lowest homicide rate in the country? What about open carry being legal here in VA with no permit and no training, and at the age of 18, yet no problems?
Again, an empty point by those paranoid of others carrying firearms lawfully.
Reply to this Top
I entirely agree with you, but I need to correct one thing you said. The legal open carry age here in Va, and most state is 21, not 18, as you need to be 21 to own a handgun
Top
Mike,
Virginia law may prohibit someone under 21 years of age from purchasing a handgun (or ammunition), but they may still own and carry a handgun (received as a gift or other legal means) as young as 18. Concealed Handgun Permits are still limited to 21 years or older.
Top
@Mike
Actually, the law regards purchasing a handgun from a dealer, not possessing it or acquiring it privately. An 18 year old can certainly open carry in VA, and there are legal ways for them to get handguns.
Top
Anonymous, the question is why on earth anyone would even bother to apply for a permit if they have no intent of knowing how to use a gun. For the permit to do any good, you have to own a gun. I don't know many people who own a gun that don't know how to use it. Why would you spend a lot of money on something if you intend to let it collect dust? This flies in the face of all the suggestions often made by dissenters that "gun nuts" are the ones who want to carry concealed. So which is it? Are uninformed, unpracticed novices getting permits, or is it only the "gun nuts?"
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
And yet, having a CCW permit means absolutely nothing if you don't have a gun to go with it. I mean, the argument here is ludicrous. Driver's licenses are just as easy to get (except for the fact that you have to wait in line at the DMV the first time) - and I believe that there are more automobile-related fatalities each year than gun-related fatalities. I'd contend similarly, based on my experience as a driver in Northern Virginia, that possession of a driver's license doesn't really mean that the licensee is a qualified driver . . . the point here, ultimately, is that the relative ease by which one can obtain a CCW permit isn't really relevant to the discussion. In order to carry a weapon at all, much less in concealed fashion, you must first OWN a weapon which can be carried.
Top
right...you pass the test, you pass the background check, and now, if you want, you can carry the previously openly visible firearm concealed.
Top
We get Habtu's argument. The argument in this article has nothing to do with the ease of obtaining a weapons permit. He makes the argument that if you are someone intending to do harm, you won't go through the process of obtaining one. This is a valid argument and a well-written article.
Reply to this Top
If students can start carrying on campus, should they report to the school that they intend to carry on campus? and should the school be able to deny certain students from carrying on campus due to mental health related issues or somebody determined to be high risk or something to that effect?
Reply to this Top
The process to acquire a CC permit would rule out someone with a mental illness. You have to remember the state has laws in place to prevent dangerous people and the mentally ill from legally purchasing guns.
Reply to this Top
I get that. I was thinking more along the lines of a student already has a permit to carry, but later on is deemed to be unfit to have a permit. Would the school have to notify the issuing authority of the permit and have it revoked or is there a renewal process where it would be later denied? and the point os Habtu's article is that the government requirements are a joke. So there's the government at work for you. but permits are a good way to raise money for the state, maybe theyll institute fees for exercising the right to remain silent next.
Top
That ultimately would fall to the states to decide. As soon as it was discovered that you have mental illness your right to own a gun can be revoked by the state. Ms. Habtu is a law abiding 21+ citizen with no history of mental illness, she shouldn't have been denied a permit.
Top
Bravo. Excellent article. And commenter "Ken" has added significant useful information, as well. Well done.
(married to a Hokie)
Reply to this Top
Thank you. I've been studying this topic objectively for over 2 years now and am wholly behind the right to carry on campus. How can I say objectively? Because before I learned about the facts and arguments of this issue, I was against it too.
Reply to this Top
It's funny you should say that. Until the early 1990s, I was firmly against civilians owning firearms, much less carrying them around. I was doing research for a book I was writing at the time, and did a great deal of reading on the subjects of history and criminology. It took a mountain of evidence, but eventually I realized that I had been mistaken about the importance of free people being armed.
As Benjamin Franklin is reported to have said, "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn."
Top
Great article, these gun control idiots are as delusional as the people that think Captain Picard was the best. Shatner #1
Reply to this Top
What the hell are you talking about Picard was way better than Shatner. He was man enough to admit he was bald and he reasoned with his enemies which was distinctly different from Shatner's shoot first ask questions later policy.
Reply to this Top
Picard was a tea sipping ninny. At no point in the series did Kirk ever stand up to straighten his shirt, which by the way wasn't some gay 80's spandex. Say what you will about Kirk he at least got laid more than once a season.
Top
Picard was responsible for Beverly Crusher's husband dying, berated her son constantly in her presence, yet still manged to make her fall for him. Also unlike Kirk, Picard kept his security officer alive for six seasons.
Top
The difference is Picard never went with the away team if anyone deserves credit for Mr. Worf lasting it's Commander Will Riker the best starfleet officer there was. He defeated a Klingon bare handed and got a truckload of babes. He was a more successful version of Kirk.
Top
More successful Hah, Riker couldn't even accept a captain's position until the final movie. By the time Riker was captain Kirk had already become an admiral and retired at that age.
Top
Shatner may have been Admiral first but Picard saved the Federation, the Klingon Empire and all life while still a captain.
Top
Well Kirk changed the time line in the new Star Trek film thus eliminating Picard and Riker from ever existing. Checkmate
Top
Andrew,
You've let facts and sense get in the way of your emotions and fear. You sir are an extremist. Keep it up!
Reply to this Top
What are you talking about? Emotions and fear? The article was about statistics!
And the only extremists in this debate are the ones who advocate violating the Second Amendment because they are paranoid of their fellow citizens owning and carrying firearms.
Reply to this Top
Jeff you might want to re-read that comment you've missed the sarcasm.
Top
Haha I did indeed!
Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
Strongly written article. Fact is, the criminals are already carrying their weapons concealed. It only makes sense that the law-abiding citizen (having the where-with-all to protect themselves) should be given a legal opportunity to do so.
Speaking of weapons...
It really befuddles me that our requirements for drivers in this nation are so lax. They allow any knucklehead to legally drive a car if they can pass a fairly simple written test and a ridiculously simple driving test. Yet everyday people are killed, families are wiped out by drivers making bad decisions with 4,000 lb weapons on our streets and highways. Guns will never kill as many people as cars do.
Reply to this Top
I beg to differ.
30000 gun deaths per year out of 200 million registered guns
0.015%
42000 vehicle deaths out of 250 million registered vehicles
0.016%
Reply to this Top
A higher percentage of cars are registered in the US than guns.
Reply to this Top
That doesn't stop anyone besides no one is infringing on my 4th amendment rights.
Top
Perfectly logical, reasonable, and well thought out piece covering all the bases. Very good work Andrew.
I can sum it up with one little sentence that can't be disputed by any of the naysayers, and objectors here;
THE SAFEST PERSON IN A GUN FREE ZONE IS THE ONE WITH A GUN.
Reply to this Top
Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan has now become the 5th concealed handgun permit holder to commit mass murder in the U.S. in 2009. Here's a detailed accounting of these five confirmed cases:
www.csgv.org/ccwmassshooters
Reply to this Top
What nonsense. Are you implying that people who have reached 21 years old, have passed a background check, and have had training are somehow inclined to become mass shooters? That's like saying people who get their driver's license are more likely to become drunk drivers. So really, what is your point?
Reply to this Top
A great point Mr. Anonymous. Let me fill in the rest of the details that you forgot.
According to the Violence Policy Center, permit holders are responsible for 85 murders, which include the ones you mentioned.
Permits to carry a concealed weapon are held by about 2% of the population.
If 2009 ends up anything like 2008, somewhere around 16,000 murders will take place.
Permit holders will be responsible for 0.5% of those 16,000 murders.
That means that the remaining 98% of the population (all of you non-permit holders) are responsible for the remaining 99.5% of the murders. Hmmm.
Reply to this Top
I agree that it is the responsible person that has a CCW and that crime is down where people can have a CCW I feel safer with knowing that there are people out there that have a CCW and are there to protect themselves and others I also carry and I am proud of the fact that I can protect what is mine
http://firearmsforyou.com
Reply to this Top
I welcome any of you to come visit me at Colorado State University, where CCW has been allowed for 10 years now with zero problems. I moved here after graduating from VT, because VT wouldn't change their policy despite the OVERWHELMING research showing it was the right thing to do - and I thought VT was a "research" institution?! Oh, also, CSU has a BAR ON CAMPUS! Imagine that - all these drunk armed people, and no shootouts! All the stereotypes are destroyed at CSU and other places that allow carry - self-defense does NOT equal murder.
Reply to this Top
How many mass shootings have occurred inside gun stores?
Reply to this Top
I used a gun 3 times during my life to stop crimes against myself. I never shot anybody, but pointing a rifle inches away from a nasty criminal's head instantly turns them into sweet and likable people.
Reply to this Top
I knew the Department of Justice was up to no good in publishing those findings. That silly little Department of Justice. Not using their own data and using gun lobbyists made up statistics. What a bunch of crazy loons. I have also heard the Department of Justice is where Santa Clause lives.
Reply to this Top
SCC at Saint Petersburg college has just started a chapter. Come and join us!
Reply to this Top
Thank you for your moronic comment. We are all now dumber for having read it.
Please refrain from ever attemptimg commumication with another living being be it human or animal. That isn't advocating for anarchy you twit.
What describes a criminal? Someone that is breaking the law. So if we add more laws , what is going to make them abide by it ? If they aren't abiding the previous laws . What keeps them from breaking one more. It's not quantum physics were talking about here. Police are nothing more than a clean up crew. They investigate your death, haul your corpse away and hopefully one day catch THE CRIMINAL that killed you. Betcha wished some one with a ccw was around before the cops showed up 20 mimutes later lol
Reply to this Top
Then if guns aren't any good for defense why do we let the police carry or the military?
Reply to this Top
Generally I do not read article on blogs, but I wish to say that this write-up very forced me to try and do so! Your writing style has been surprised me. Thank you, quite great article. male shoe lifts http://www.deelsonheels.com/$1799__Silicone_Shoe_Lifts__Free_Delivery/p133745_317467.aspx
Reply to this Top
We found many great DVDs which we were excited to view again. burberry bags http://www.burberrycanada.info/
Reply to this Top
Hi there excellent blog! Does running a blog like this take a large amount of work? I have very little knowledge of computer programming however I was hoping to start my own blog soon. Anyhow, should you have any suggestions or tips for new blog owners please share. I know this is off subject nevertheless I simply wanted to ask. Thanks! breast actives http://breastactivesdigest.com/
Reply to this Top
Hey there this is somewhat of off topic but I was wanting to know if blogs use WYSIWYG editors or if you have to manually code with HTML. I'm starting a blog soon but have no coding know-how so I wanted to get guidance from someone with experience. Any help would be greatly appreciated! breast actives http://breastactivesdigest.com/
Reply to this Top