Correction: This story has been modified from its original version. — This article has been modified from the original version to include the author's name. The Collegiate Times regrets this error.
Andrew Buyalos, author of “Statistics show concealed carry saves many lives, takes few” (CT, Nov. 13), makes a number of statements, which misrepresent concealed carry laws.
While undoubtedly a responsible permit holder, he takes for granted that everyone else is.
The fact that he has taken the classes does not demonstrate that everyone else will. He asserts that all his friends have taken the class, but this seems natural — because his friends probably applied before the online option (recently added, he admits) was available.
The author mentions a background check is required — but tier one universities mostly only admit students who would pass background checks anyway; even Cho would have passed a background check when applying to Virginia Tech. Frankly, a background check does nothing to assure me that keg-stand guy next door knows how to exercise proper restraint or firearms safety. (Sorry, keg-stand guy, I’m sure you’re still awesome.)
There are several outright falsehoods in the column. The piece comments on the four occurrences of murders committed by licensees — but, in fact, Elilta Habtu was citing four mass murders by licensed individuals in her column. We have no way of knowing how many murders have been committed by licensees because of the so-called firearms “privacy” laws, which exist in most states. Further, Virginia does not require fingerprinting of applicants, as the column’s author claims.
He also says felons would never submit to background checks, but between 1994 (when the Brady Act became effective) and 2008, 1.8 million ineligibles have applied. Around half of those rejected at the federal and state levels were felons (according to the Department of Justice), as well as 23 percent at local levels.
Indeed, the LA Times reported in 2000 that Texas mistakenly gave out hundreds of concealed handgun licenses to felons in the first five years of its concealed carry program. Note that Texas concealed handgun licenses are valid in Virginia.
But the biggest problem is that so few reliable statistics are available. The NRA claims having a gun makes a person less likely to be shot. When statistics contradict that claim, the NRA introduces a bill to prevent reporting of those statistics, citing individual privacy. The LA Times analysis from 2000 could not be repeated today in Texas because of NRA-sponsored “privacy” laws.
Buyalos holds up Texas as a shining example of concealed carry states. Yet, “From 1996 to 1999,” — pre-“privacy” laws — “Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 66 percent higher than that of the general population of Texas, aged 21 and older,” according to a Violence Policy Center study using statistics easily obtained from the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Buyalos cites further unreliable statistics. Kleck’s study claims 2.5 million uses of firearms for self-defense; however, David Hemenway of Harvard demonstrated in 1997 that by applying Kleck’s own methodology “we might conclude that 20 million Americans have seen alien spacecraft, and 1.2 million have been in actual contact with beings from other planets.”
The data does not support Students for Concealed Carry on Campus’ conclusion that concealed carry would make campus safer. Indeed, 93 percent of violent crimes against students happen off campus, according to the DOJ. By introducing additional guns to college campuses, we stand not to prevent mass shootings — which are extraordinarily rare — but to facilitate smaller-scale crimes of passion.
The 22 states with the highest levels of gun violence are all “shall-issue” (law enforcement has little or no discretion about who gets to carry). The six states with the lowest levels are either extremely restrictive with permits (“may-issue”) or do not allow concealed carry at all (“no-issue”), despite mostly having much higher population densities.
John Woods
Tech alumnus, '07
Leave a comment 120 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.
How convenient - this author (not identified for some reason) swept up all of the defeated arguments from the comments section of the past few LTEs and disposed of them in one article. So typical! CT, if you claim to fact check your articles, you slept through this one - it is full of misrepresented data and outright lies!
Reply to this Top
This comment has been buried by moderation (show comment)
Reply to this Top
Wow, the author could not be more wrong if he tried. This LTE was so bad I think it gave me cancer. The six states with the lowest per capita gun homicide rate are New Hampshire, Vermont, Hawaii, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Maine. Hawaii is the only state that does not issue Concealed Carry permits. Every other state is Shall Issue, except Vermont. In Vermont, no permit is needed at all! Oh the horror! Vermont, by the way, has the second lowest per capita gun homicide rate.
Reply to this Top
Gee John G....all my neighbors carry guns...laughter. No crime around here for YEARS...small town, practical people. Come visit...laughter.
Reply to this Top
Woods was talking about the gun death rate in total, not just gun homicides. The only state that you mentioned above that is in the bottom five for overall gun death rate is Hawaii.
Reply to this Top
The total "gun death rate" is a meaningless statistic b/c it undoubtedly includes suicides by gun. While I can see how it would be convenient for you to want to lump these in with homicides, they are irrelevant in this discussion.
Top
Americans who die from suicide or accidental death are "irrelevant"? How so?
Top
The anonymous author nit picks and brings up all the exceptions in addition to finding some slant to discredit FACT and TRUTH as opposed to the pliable, silly putty minds of those he is appealing to...The author is a whack head...lets move on to reality, OK?
Reply to this Top
I was born in New Orleans and had my first gun when I was 5 years old. I have been carrying a pistol on my person since I was 9 (NINE) years old. Crime trys but never succeeds around me and HEY, I haven't had to shoot aome felon YET. Get responsible, get patriotic, become an upstanding member of the community, protect your family and neighbors...Get armed now!
Reply to this Top
States with Higher Gun Ownership and Weak Gun Laws Lead Nation in Gun Death
http://www.vpc.org/press/0905gundeath.htm
Top
It's not anonymous. I wrote it. If the CT didn't include my name, it was their oversight, not an attempt to hide the source.
Reply to this Top
John, you didn't write this. You copied everything from the comments of the past few articles and called it your own.
Top
More great advice from SCCC. Give your toddlers loaded pistols to carry.
Reply to this Top
haha I love how now everyone who supports gun rights speaks for SCCC. I figured I would too while we're at it. Because we all know that everyone is using their real names here!
Top
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324
"In 1998 and again in 1999, the Violence Policy Center, a research organization opposed to concealed carry, released reports highlighting the numbers of Texas' concealed carry licensees who have been arrested since the law went into effect. Using Texas Department of Public Safety records, the center pointed out that Texas licensees had been arrested for nearly two crimes a day through 1998 - with more than one arrest each month for a violent crime.
In isolation these numbers paint a troubling picture. However, the reports are misleading for several reasons. First, they do not separate crimes that involve concealed weapons from those that don't. In addition, they ignore the fact that more than 55 percent of licensees arrested for violent crimes are cleared of the crimes for which they are arrested. Most tellingly, when the arrest rates of Texas' concealed carry holders are compared with those of the general population, licensees are found to be more law-abiding than the average person.
In an unpublished report, engineering statistician William Sturdevant found that concealed carry licensees had arrest rates far lower than the general population for every category of crime. For instance:"
Reply to this Top
* Licensees were 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public - 127 per 100,000 population versus 730 per 100,000.
* Licensees were 14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public - 386 per 100,000 population versus 5,212 per 100,000.
* Further, the general public is 1.4 times more likely to be arrested for murder than licensees [ see Figure I ], and no licensee had been arrested for negligent manslaughter. "
Reply to this Top
I do agree with the Author on one point. We should do away with background checks. A background check won't assure you someone won't abuse a gun, just as a drivers license doesn't assure you that a mass murdering driver won't start aiming his deadly 3500 pound weapon of a vehicle at people and killing them at will. As free men, we should adopt Vermont style carry. No more asking permission to defend yourself and your family from murderers and rapists.
Reply to this Top
The Author, John Woods, certainly never suggested doing away with background checks. In fact, he makes it clear that background checks through the Brady Bill have prevented 1.8 million prohibited purchasers from buying guns since 1994.
Reply to this Top
And in all those checks, less than 100 convictions. Goooo gun control!
Top
You can thank the NRA for that. They've emaciated the ATF budget over the years to the point where they can't even inspect licensed dealers on any kind of regular basis, much less make cases against guys who fail background checks.
Top
Oh it's the big bad NRA! My god you use them for every instance of needing a scapegoat. Can't even respond to your comment, anon, as there is just no substance to it at all. Pure allegations!
Top
Hardly allegations. The NRA in the past has even called for the total abolition of the ATF:
http://books.google.com/books?id=VvNb5s8Z3b0C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=NRA+called+for+the+abolition+of+the+BATF&source=bl&ots=JNnROVJDFX&sig=7TK6vxQ9rpJ_DJi6PbYPiLJZxlo&hl=en&ei=riIES_XCEtW9lAf09O3WAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=&f=false
http://supak.blogspot.com/2002_11_01_archive.html
Top
There are all kinds of reasons to abolish the ATF. That's not the argument. Try to stay on topic.
Top
The topic is NRA influence over the ATF budget, so I'm right on topic.
And what are those "all kinds of reasons" to abolish the agency charged with enforcing federal firearm laws?
Top
To anon. You are unbelieveable. Do you really believe that the NRA has control over the budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? You have quite and imagination.
Reply to this Top
The NRA exercises a great deal of influence over the ATF and all matters of gun policy in our Congress. The NRA amends the ATF's appropriations bill on an annual basis. The Tiahrt Amendments are one obvious example, but their influence goes far beyond that to authority, manpower and resources.
Top
Fact: Anon has no facts.
Top
Anon, you don't need ATF to arrest someone for illegally trying to buy a firearm. All you need is local law enforcement and a DA willing to prosecute. That's the NRA's whole point - why bother to pass more gun legislation if the laws already on the books aren't enforced?
Top
That depends, Hokie Vet, on whether that individual is being arrested for a violation of a local/state law, or a federal law.
Top
I don't know of a single locality that allows felons to buy firearms, so local law enforcement has jurisdiction to arrest one trying to do so.
Top
If a felon is involved in violating federal laws, then federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors will be involved in that case from start to finish.
Top
Unfortunately, the feds don't enforce our laws and when they do the felons receive very light sentences.
Top
False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Reply to this Top
Jefferson never said any such thing.
That quote is actually a passage, written in Italian, from Cesare Beccaria's "Essay on Crimes and Punishments." It was included by Jefferson in his "Legal Commonplace Book," a book of extracts related to important legal cases and precedents that were a convenient source to Jefferson during his years of practicing law.
Jefferson's only notation in the book on this passage was, "False idee di utilit."
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Laws_that_forbid_the_carrying_of_arms...%28Quotation%29
Reply to this Top
Again we're conveniently ignoring DC, which is a no-issue district, yet has the highest rate of gun deaths. Also, there are currently 37 shall-issue states, so saying that the top 22 violent states are shall-issue is not really as telling as the author hopes, considering that 74% of all states are to begin with. This suggests that gun violence was a pre-existing condition. Perhaps we should look at whether the rates of gun violence increased once shall-issue was adopted? On another note, in 1986, the rate of gun deaths in the US was 11.09 per 100,000. despite only 8 states having shall-issue permitting laws. In 2006, when 37 states were shall-issue, the rate was 10.22. Excluding suicides, the rate of being killed by another person was 4.75 per 100,000 in 1986, and 4.68 in 2006. This suggests that, on a national scale, concealed carry didn't exacerbate gun violence.
Reply to this Top
More to the point, between 1986 (11 shall-issue or unrestricted carry states) and 2006 (39 shall-issue or unrestricted carry states), the overall change in rate of gun deaths was a decrease of 0.86 per 100,000. States that introduced shall-issue or non-restricted carry account for an increase of only 0.05 deaths per 100,000 (adjusted to account for the overall decrease in death rates - in other words, least favorable numbers - assuming that all decrease in gun deaths is independent of law changes), while the states that remained restrictive saw a decrease of only 0.19 deaths per 100,000. These numbers suggest that the introduction of may-issue laws is not a boon for gun death, but rather that the climate of gun death predated the issuance of permits. The conclusion is that permitting had nominal impact on gun death rates. *All raw data from CDC firearm deaths data for 1986 and 2006.
Reply to this Top
Apologies, there were 9 total shall-issue or unrestricted states in 1986, not 11.
Reply to this Top
Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries (CDC)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046149.htm
Reply to this Top
That doesn't mean that gun laws were the cause however. There are many social issues that we have as country that are much more likely to be the reason for high gun deaths.
Top
Not really, the main difference is we have a lot more guns and far weaker gun laws than those other countries.
Top
I would say it has much more to do with the fact that we have a much higher rate of mental illness than the other industrialized democracies. Combine that with our piss poor healthcare system. We have the greatest wealth inequalities of any other industrialized nation. We're in the top 5 for drug use. We have problems with minority groups and large gang activity. I would point to all of that being the cause long before guns.
Top
Do you have actual evidence for anything you're claiming there? And then, following that evidence, any explanation of how that results in us having dramatically higher gun death rates than other industrialized democracies?
And what "problems with minorities" are you referring to that we supposedly have here in the U.S.?
Top
Well certainly I can show you my sources.
Here's a graph that shows mental illness rates and wealth disparities
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/mental-health
Here's our health systems ranking
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html
Top
This next graph is about drug abuse
http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/why/evidence/drug-abuse
Then this graph ties my argument together it's about how the mental ill and drug abusers are more violent.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/355/20/2064/F1
By problems with minorities I'm talking about the simple fact that we don't get along as a group. It's not unique to this country or any specific minority we just don't get along.
Top
But wait Mrs. Anonymous Author, according to the Brady Campaign to Maximize Victims, the Brady Background Checks have been super successful at stopping violent crimes. WTF? Are you saying that they are wrong? How can this be? Maybe they are just lying?
The Brady Background Checks dont prevent Mr. Awesome Kegstand from shooting anyone, nor do they prevent him from getting into a car and killing a group of people, drunk or sober, nor do they prevent him from turning into Ted Bundy.
Reply to this Top
I am confident that the Firehouse Pizza robbers are not concealed carry permit holders. Who wants to bet against me!?
Reply to this Top
Why wasn't anyone there to pull their CCW and put those criminals to rest!
You carriers are slacking in your vigilante duties!
Reply to this Top
We're only 2% of >21 population, we can't be everywhere at once.
Top
And you seriously think that it would have helped? No one got hurt (correct me if i'm wrong) so if a CCW had been there would not there have been bloodshed, either the robbers getting shot or the robbers panicking when they saw the CCW's gun and started shooting?
Top
Yeah, and we were really lucky to not have any police there either. Someone might have really gotten hurt with all those evil guns!
Top
The point is not that guns are bad but that judgement may be. If an armed robber (who is most likely amatuer (spell?)) is robbing a pizza place, they don't want to go to jail. So if the cops showed up they may have made the situation worse but the first thing the cops did would not be to pull out the gun and shoot the robbers.
A CCW person may draw and shoot in an attempt to be a hero.
Killing these robbers would not be the right call unless they took shots at people and honestly pulling a CCW would more then likely have made them start shooting.
Top
James, let's not even note the massive difference in the training that is required for law enforcement officers compared to concealed handgun permit holders in Virginia.
If the SCCC guys get to draw their guns and play Dirty Harry, it's ALWAYS a good result, even if we get caught in the crossfire!
Top
Well I tell you what, next time a nut wants to execute every person in a restaurant, we'll save ourselves and let you hide behind your words. A 10 minute police response time isn't too hateful what's ten minutes when your being lined up and executed.
Top
Please do save yourself. I don't want your guns anywhere near me or my family.
Top
What's the difference between a shootout between robbers and police officers vs between robbers and ccw carriers?
Top
What's the difference? No training requirements versus very stringent training requirements (that are also ongoing throughout a law enforcement officer's career).
Top
Actually most police have very little time to practice shooting. As a result many are very poor shots. I'd put my money on CCW carrier.
Top
The CCW holder probably spent more time playing HALO
Top
CCW holders know that shooting someone committing a robbery is not a lawful use of a firearm. The reason people carry concealed firearms is not to stop a robbery, to enforce the law or to play the hero - it is to be in a position to protect themselves if necessary. If you don't want to exercise your right to protect yourself, preferring to depend on others to do so, that's certainly your prerogative. If you want to call CCW holders gun nuts, go right ahead. It only makes you look childish and name calling is merely tacit recognition that you have lost the argument on substantive grounds.
Top
I think the training requirement for the Texas CHL is the same as the qualification trials for the state police...
In either case, if training was required, then what?
Keep in mind that you don't always have to play hero, but you can use your firearm to defend YOURSELF and LOVED ONES.
Go to right2defend.com or check out Gabe Suarez, those are some good training regimens out there, even some of your beloved cops swear by them.
But in the end, a shootout is, well, a shootout, with no predictable start or end time, no matter what the skill level of the combatants are. Timing, initiative, cover, etc all play a role.
Top
The CHL training requirement in Texas is a one-time, single-day, 12-hour class. That's all the training that is required, no matter how many times you renew your permit over the years.
That doesn't even scratch the surface of the lifetime training a Texas law enforcement officer undergoes, both before they serve and once they are serving.
Top
I don't think so, it is a whole lot cheaper to get a gun without a permit where i am from. If you are going to use it in a robbery you are even better off getting it from a source that doesn't register the gun to you.
Reply to this Top
When faced with the decision of getting shot for a robbery (or murdering the armed resistors) or running and trying again some other time, I don't think we can presume that the perpetrators would have opened fire if armed resistance was encountered. Most data I've seen suggests that defensive uses of guns generally stops at brandishing and doesn't end in woundings or deaths unless the aggressors have already fired.
Reply to this Top
Also, I love the "Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate 66 percent higher than that of the general population" assertion. It's safe to assume that 100% of permit holders own guns. Interestingly, a permit holder is about 65% more likely to have a gun than a randomly selected non-permit holder. Since you can't commit a gun crime without a gun, even if only one permit holder commits a single crime, it gets amplified by the fact that it is being compared to a population sample in which the lower percentage of gun ownership gives a bias to the numbers.
Reply to this Top
Great piece, John. Thanks for writing it!
Reply to this Top
Attempting to establish correlations between states' gun control policies and their murder rates is futile; a multitude of factors determine murder rate, such as population density, poverty levels etc etc etc. However, the extreme case, such as DC where I am from, proves that gun control does not control guns. The point is that CRIMINALS DO NOT BUY GUNS LEGALLY! Therefore, by disarming law-abiding citizens, they are put at a disadvantage.
Reply to this Top
If you are from DC, then you know that the gun violence problem is not a result of gun laws. Gun violence in DC is a direct result of gangs, drugs, and poverty. With so many people unemployed, addicted to drugs, and out of cash, you cannot seriously think that the solution is to add more guns into the mix. Gun control does work; when a police officer picks up someone who has a handgun the officer confiscates the handgun. This lowers the number of handguns on the street. Remember, all guns owned illegally were once owned legally.
Top
97% of D.C.'s crime guns come from outside states with far weaker gun laws. Criminals and traffickers can't get guns from inside D.C.
Top
The problem with that is while other States guns end up in D.C. they do so illegally. It's illegal to transport guns across state lines without proper permits. More guns laws will not stop a criminal they'll buy them illegally in addition to illegally transporting them. The only ones you'll affect are legal gun owners.
Top
Bull. Tougher gun laws will stop these guns from entering the hands of criminals and traffickers at the original point of purchase - a gun store. They will also prevent these guns from changing hands after that from undocumented private party sales.
Top
If that were true, Anonymous @ 4:47, then DC wouldn't have a gun problem at all.
The simple truth is that tougher gun laws will do absolutely nothing except place responsible, law-abiding citizens at an even greater disadvantage.
Top
Quit whining about DC. The DC gun ban was overturned. Now, you can be as safe as New Orleans.
Top
Especially now that George Bush took care of the problem in New Orleans.
Top
D.C. has a gun problem because criminals and traffickers are able to easily purchase crime guns in outside states. Keep in mind that D.C. doesn't even have its own vote in Congress, much less the ability to improve state gun laws in places like VA, NC, GA, etc.
Top
D.C. has a gun problem because of criminals. If the laws were the issue than wouldn't states with lax gun laws be worse than D.C. You don't see that however Virginia for example has a much better crime rate than D.C.
Top
D.C. is a major city, an entirely urban area.
Compare D.C. to major cities in Virginia, like Richmond, and you will see very similar rates of homicide and gun death.
Furthermore, Virginia is the source of 25% of D.C.'s crime guns.
Top
Actually no, if you look at 2005 data which was when D.C. had the gun ban. It had more than double the homicide rate of other large American cities. Here's a Washington Post article that sums up what I'm saying.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2007/11/13/GR2007111300221.html
Top
D.C. currently has the third highest murder rate among cities with 500,000 residents or more:
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-06-03/news/0906020063_1_baltimore-decline-in-homicides-city-homicide-rate
But again, with 97% of D.C.'s crime guns coming in from outside states, the city's gun violence is being directly fed by weak gun laws that the District's elected officials have no control over.
Top
The problem is the criminals if the gun laws were the problem than Richmond would have similar crime rates. The Washington Post link disproves that. In fact ever sense DC vs Heller homicides have declined in D.C.
Top
I am still not sure why the SCC are so set on concealing their guns. Wouldn't open carry be much more of a deterrent?
Reply to this Top
Ann, we would like to conceal for many reasons. As far as fellow citizens are concerned, we do not want to alarm them and make them feel threatened by the presence of a firearm. Although many gun rights advocate will argue that we need more show of firearms so that people lose their stigma against them, let's be honest, people will still be alarmed when they see a citizen with a gun. Concealing it eliminates needless fear by those around us, who mean them no harm.
Secondly, in the event of an attack, who would the attacker like to shoot first? The armed citizen with the gun in plain view. Concealing it allows for the element of surprise which can mean saved lives.
Reply to this Top
A.H.
Your first point is valid, but the second point is questionable. Do you have any evidence of anyone, anywhere, ever being the first target in an active shooter situation simply because they were openly carrying a gun? No one has ever been able to produce a single case of this happening when making the case of CC vs OC.
Top
The second point is common sense and doesn't require a scientific study to corroborate it.
IF you're going to victimize a group and you see someone with a gun and several people without guns, who is your first target going to be?
Granted, a more likely scenario is the criminal seeing the OC and deciding to try again later.
Top
There are disadvantages. Its why most our military are in uniform and don't all dress like the locals (special ops excluded)if it was always advantageous. In a firefight, friendly fire is a common problem so knowing ids & positions are key. Civies also keep a distance since they know you are likely to draw fire, ieds, whatever..
Top
Anonymous @ 10:55, the reason soldiers are in uniform and carry arms openly during combat operations is because the Law of War requires it. Wearing civilian clothes and carrying concealed weapons would jeopardize their status as lawful combatants.
Top
Ah yes...the common sense argument. Common sense is what the anti's use to try to take the guns away. Common sense is neither common, nor sensible.
I'm not looking for a study, just a single case. Just one. Since I OC on a regular basis, I have been looking for years for that one case. It's been asked for repeatedly by many people in the OC movement, and a single instance of an OC'er being shot first has never been produced.
It's hard to tell how many robberies and other crimes have not taken place because a criminal has noticed that the target is not as soft as he would like.
Top
So let me see if this makes sense. Antigun folks on here are worried about regular citizens not being "properly trained" to carry concealed. And you are advocating that folks just open carry. Am I correct to assume that you don't have a problem with someone carrying in the open even though they may not have practiced in order to be able to shoot accurately?
Reply to this Top
Ferrum Student Shot, Killed By Hunter
FERRUM, Va. (AP) - A deer hunter faces manslaughter and other charges in connection with the fatal shooting of a Ferrum College student and the wounding of another.
A college spokeswoman says three students were collecting frogs for a biology class at about 4 p.m. Tuesday when two were shot along a trail about a mile west of campus. A female student died after being shot in the chest. A male student was shot in the hand.
The other student wasn't injured. The victims haven't been identified.
Sgt. Karl Martin the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries says 31-year-old Jason David Cloutier of Ferrum was charged with manslaughter, reckless handling of a firearm and trespassing.
Top
Anne,
Yes, open carry would be much more of a deterrent. Great observation. Lets fix the situation to allow either type of carry!
Reply to this Top
I'd prefer you guys carry openly so I can see your gun and move my family out of the way as quickly as possible. Thanks.
Reply to this Top
Do you also keep your family locked up in your house and never go out in public? You're around people with concealed carry permits every day when you leave your house. The more you know.
Top
Yeah, do they CARRY personal liability insurance...uhhhhhh
Top
How many times can you repost this paranoid statement? Are you afraid to drive down the road every day? Cars kill almost 10x what guns do. Or do you justify that by saying "they have a purpose" like every other hypocritical anti-gunner?
Top
Since "pro-gunners" always point to only homicide by gun deaths (without suicide deaths) how many homicide by vehicle deaths are there?
Top
Just look up drunken driving/negligence deaths and see what you come up with...
Top
Good point. There were "11,773 alcohol-related crash deaths in 2008". Less that number if you include crashes where only the drunk driver was killed (suicide). Either way, definitely too high a number. That number has been decreasing every year through drunk driving awareness (MADD), tougher DD laws and auto safety (seatbelt laws, airbags, etc). In 1982, there were 26,173 alcohol-related crash deaths. A more restrictive environment, attitudes & awareness leads to fewer deaths.
Top
Ok seriously with the cars argument, stop just stop you make yurself look so idiotic.
There were 30k gun deaths and 42k vehicle deaths so first that is not 10x but nice try.
Second when looking at registered guns versus registered vehicles you have 200 million and 250 million respectively.
Do the math and the percentage of deaths comes out to be almost indentical with cars ahead by a whopping 0.001%
So please please please stop it with this childish argument. Holy Moly Batman.
Top
Point to drunk driving and negligence deaths? No No, here is how this works. If you want to look at it in equality then fine do it this way.
Deaths by unpremeditated homicide or accident, cars are probably way ahead maybe even 10x.
Deaths by homicide or suicide (intent to take life) I'd say the shoe is far gone on the gun side, more like 99% of the time. How often do you hear about someone hopping in their car to go run down pedestrians or forcibly mass murder by causing a huge pile up? Not that often.
Top
Nah, really, you SCCC Rambos, just do us a favor and carry those guns openly. We'd appreciate it, because it will allow us to spot them and stay far away from you guys as you live out your "freedom" fantasies among the "wolves" and "sheep."
Top
Virginia does require fingerprints.The directions that posted on the State Police site will verify this. Wow, how do you know that "tier one universities" accept students that will almost all pass the background check? You haven't even looked at an application for concealed carry. In VA, it is MANDATORY to take a gun safety class. It is in the application for concealed carry permit, AND you must present the certificate at time of applying. The Brady Act - NRA lobbied hard FOR the passage and money allowance of a Federal data-base instant background check. NRA does not endorse the waiting period. NRA endorses a national instant background check, not state. Background check for Concealed carry also require records of juveniles to be examined. Is this the background check you refer to? Oh, then there is the age 21 before a person is eligible to apply. All of what I listed can be found on the VA State Police site. Since you are wrong about all of this, your statistics (which are not cited so that I can see for myself)are not to be believed. As a recent college student, I think that you would have learned about citing sources to give credit where it is due. Even when citing books, you must cite the page, not just the book in general.
Reply to this Top
Actually, Elita Habtu just got a CHL permit from her circuit court without being fingerprinted at all. It is not required.
Also, former Sen. Ken Cuccinelli's bill now allows for "training" to occur for CHL holders through a one-hour online class.
Finally, the NRA's long-fought opposition to the Brady Bill (both before and after it passed) has been well-documented. I would recommend the following sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_Handgun_Violence_Prevention_Act
http://books.google.com/books?id=X1LEQd2r1sYC&dq=osha+gray+davidson+under+fire&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=ozpj4y6v6X&sig=joSk7XNVCWt0QGLRBdiPq-1g8Fg&hl=en&ei=yjAES_imKIWNlAeEuJDaAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false
Discussion in latter source occurs between pp. 193-275.
Reply to this Top
From D.C. vs. Heller
"[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and that the Districts ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment"
and
"Nothing in our opinion should 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"
There goes your 2nd amendment argument. It is not against the amendment for the school to have no carry policies.
Reply to this Top
You might want to learn something about law. The definition of "schools" does not include colleges and universities. Sorry!
Reply to this Top
Nonsense. Scalia says no such thing in the decision.
Top
What are you talking about? It's a legal definition, it doesn't belong in the decision.
Top
because the supreme court is always correct just like they were with the dred scott decision and that whole separate but equal business
Reply to this Top
Or maybe also with that whole "the Second Amendment is an individual right business."
Top
yeah because "the people's right to keep and bear arms" isn't at all talking about the people's rights
Top
"sensitive places, such as..." not "ONLY SCHOOLS AND GOVT!!!!"
Please read before commenting thank you.
Second:
This was just the last part in a slew of decisions that I read about the second amendment, all of which (spanning from 1887 to 2008) said the same thing, that owning a private gun is allowed as stated but regulation is ok as long as it comes from the states and not the federal govt.
Top
What well-regulated state militia are you currently serving in?
The SCCC?
Top
No, but they did draw on previous decisions upholding prohibitions by states.
DC vs Heller:
"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose... For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. .... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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..."
Top
The BOV is not a legislative body. They set policies and consequences, not laws. Ask VTPD. If you break a policy but not a law, you get a JR, not a criminal charge. The question is whether the school should be able to hold those affiliated with it to a double standard - non-VT people can carry away, but VT people can't?
Reply to this Top
What a grotesque misreading of Supreme Court case history. Even Scalia didn't say that the federal government can't regulate guns. In fact, as quoted above here, the decision clearly laid out that a broad range of federal regulation is permissible and constitutional.
Reply to this Top
Yes you're right I did misread that, I stand corrected. My other points stand as are though.
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
That's really good 5 in a year is fantastic when you compare it to the total homicide rate.
Reply to this Top
And out of what, 5-6 million permits in the country? What is that like 0.0000000001%? Gee, looks that we can conclude all people with permits are murderers!
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
Anonymous #110 | November 18, 2009 @ 4:43 PM
"What well-regulated state militia are you currently serving in?"
Virginia Militia. And you are a subject of which country?
Reply to this Top
It is depressing that so much energy is being dedicated to this issue by both sides. CCCW is trivial when comparing with common causes of violent death. If CCW is allowed on campus starting tomorrow, I couldnt care less. If it is banned tomorrow, fine with me too. Either decision leads to inconsequential changes in my personal safety -- although it would surely drive more paranoid gun owners or more paranoid gun haters into a legalistic frenzy. So what? The consequences of allowing or banning CCWs on campus pale by comparison with threats that kill every day. Stronger drunk-driving prevention programs would make my family safer. Strict laws penalizing severely those who text message when driving would make my family safer. If CCW holders show up on campus tomorrow, my safety is unlikely to improve or worsen notably. Lets not waste time. Let CCW on campus and move on to deal with issues that really matter.
Reply to this Top