Kraft plant killings

[MichaelHarris]

"Police say Yvonne Hiller drove back to the plant and pointed her licensed .357 Magnum handgun at two unarmed security guards, forcing them to let her through the gate."
http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking/102619659.html?cmpid=15585797

[slackmaster]

1. Unarmed security guards are pointless

[virginia mountainman]

2. Just another "gun free zone" failure...

[MichaelHarris]

43. So tell us

How many concealed weapon license holders have stopped a mass shooting in 20 years? Not the church lady, she didn't stop shit, the guy killed himself. Now we do have an increase in this: "Hiller was charged with two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, aggravated assault and other charges. She had a permit to carry the gun, authorities said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFK9CR8fFn0QDUYxm6ST6jHN_lQQD9I5BS100

[X_Digger]

44. After suffering multiple hits from Assam, Murray shot himself.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TFEJO00&show_article=1

Matthew Murray, 24, was struck multiple times by a security officer at New Life Church Sunday but died after firing a single shot at himself, the El Paso County Coroner's Office concluded after an autopsy.

Volunteer security guard Jeanne Assam shot Murray after he entered the church. Investigators had earlier suggested his death could have been a suicide, but credited Assam's bravery with averting a greater tragedy.

The object was to stop him from killing anyone else, not to "get points" for killing him, and she succeeded.

[krispos42]

48. If a CCW holder shoots an armed robber at a 7-Eleven...

...before the armed robber shoots anybody (or maybe after only shooting one person), how can you tell if he stopped a mass shooting?

You can't. Therefore, anytime a CCW who's carrying uses it, they've potentially stopped a mass shooting.

[Euromutt]

51. By your reasoning, the police didn't stop Seung-Hui Cho or Larry Phillips

By all accounts, when Cho heard the noise of the breacher shotgun destroying the chains he'd placed to isolate Norris Hall, he "turned his gun on himself." Similarly, Phillips (one of the two North Hollywood bank robbers) capped himself when he became too heavily wounded to continue resisting. But in your book, both those fuckers just capped themselves, well, just because, right?

I can see why you gravitated towards photojournalism, because you obviously have no fucking clue about analyzing what motivates people (which, I acknowledge, puts you on a par with every other journalist in America). A mass shooter does what he does because he wants his name to be remembered, and to have it feared, even after his death. The last thing a mass shooter wants is to die by any hand other than his own, because that undermines the mythos he has built for himself; if he kills himself, there's no evidence he wasn't invincible. In effect, therefore, when a mass shooter caps himself, it's a de facto acknowledgement that the opposition has won. Matthew Murray shot himself because he realized that, given the wound Assam had inflicted, he was in no state to commit any more killings, so he killed himself rather than let someone else do it for him.

Do you get that: Murray killed himself because Assam stopped him; it's not that Assam failed to stop Murray because he killed himself.

Jesus, that shit should be fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain, or at least half a brain dedicated to accepting and analyzing reality, rather than imposing preconceived notions on the way the world works.

[Callisto32]

54. You are either crafty and think us stupid, or just plain don't get it.

You CAN'T produce evidence of what you ask. If it is stopped, it isn't a mass shooting. If people are killed, and then the shooter is stopped, a mass shooting still happened.

[RSillsbee]

59. How do you see not relation between the two events?

Pardon me, but that is an absolutely ridiculous statement. Matthew Murray chose to kill himself only after being shot multiple times by a private citizen who was allowed to carry a handgun by the Pastor of the Church.
How could you see no relation between the two events? Do you think Mr. Murray would have chosen to kill himself before entering the main auditorium of the church had Jeanne Assam not intervened?

[Taitertots]

62. How could you tell if it was going to be a mass shooting if it was stopped

That you would even ask this demostrates that you have no intention of rationally discussing the topic.

[county worker]

3. Well, now that someone is dead we can identify a person who shouldn't be permitted to carry a gun.

So were it the tipping point where we go back to some sensible laws about who and where a gun can be carried? I say if you can prove you need to carry a gun for protection like some jobs which are dangerous, fine other wise no!

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

4. So in your opinion, do the people who got shot here now have a valid reason to carry a gun?

Two out three of them were killed... surely that justifies one as requiring defensive measures. I mean, ya can't be in much more danger than having been killed, right?
:sarcasm:

The law should allow people to reasonably defend themselves. Laws can't protect you from determined individuals and until the cops arrive (minutes? hours?) you're on your own. I think everyone should have a stragety when faced with life-threatening situation when at home, in the car, or at work.

[county worker]

8. In your opinion we are again the wild wild west!

Give me a break! Even Marshall Earp knew better.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. No you're not in the wild west again. Man, you're just a honeypot of memes, huh?

People encounter dangerous situations all the time. Accidents, fires, criminal activity... whatever. A prudent person at least acknowleges the possibility that tradgedies exists and that even mild preparation or just mental excercise can dramitcally alter thier outcomes. Simply knowing what to do is extremely valuable and requires no materials at all - just premeitated knowlege.

At home: Change your smoke alarm batteries annually, check CO meters for functionality, keep a fire extingisher on each level of your house, have a few first aid kits, have some sort sort of security or warning system to avert intruders, where are the nearest defensive articles... etc.
At work: Do you know where the nearest fire extinguisher is, what's the nearest exit, where's the nearest source of potable water, hiding spots, how can security be notified or contacted... etc
In your car: don't box yourself in when there's bumper-bumper traffic, seatbelts, airbags, fuses, battery jumper, fire extinguisher, blankets, roadflares, water, cellphone/onstar, if approched by a suspicious individual what do you do... etc

The truth is, when an OH SHIT moment happens and you decide to rely on somebody else for help they will take minutes or even hours to come to your aid. That's the truth and it certainly applies in 21st century urban america. Only idiots stick thier head in the sand and act like the world is made of rainbows and lollipops. But keep babbling about the "wild west" though... because that's exactly what I was talking about. :eyes:

[county worker]

16. You don't win arguments by that shit.

Why were there laws against carrying guns in the first place? In your world there was no rational thinking that went into the making of those laws.

Calling me names doesn't lend support to your claims.

[rrneck]

26. Of thoses who you feel have no need to carry a gun

do you have a self defense solution for them if they are assaulted by somebody using a knife, club, fists or feet?

And can you determine exactly who they are going to be?

[county worker]

31. Use statistics again and maybe the chance of needing self defense doesn't

show there is need for it.


I'm 64 yrs old. I lived in one of the toughest neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The week before school opened the gangs were recruiting. You had to shoot someone to become a member. We didn't go out during that time. My apartment manager's husband was shot getting into his car. He had it reupholstered in Rosarita Mex and drugs were sewn into the seats. He didn't know. The gangs came for the drugs. I never felt that I needed to carry a gun there.
I am a Vietnam veteran and even though I did need to use weapons there I never wanted to carry them again after I got home. I just don't want to see killings and I don't want to live in fear.

[rrneck]

32. That's nice.

But you didn't answer the question.

[county worker]

34. I'm telling you that I think hardly anyone in civilian life needs to carry a gun or something to

protect themselves. It is just paranoia I think.

[PavePusher]

35. Yet legal Citizens apparently had to stay in their homes for a week...

and you see no need for self-defense tools?

There are none so blind....

[rrneck]

37. "Hardly anyone..."

What of the others? Do you have a solution for them?

[X_Digger]

38. So the 1.3M violent crimes in 2008 were a myth? n/t

[mjane]

70. hardly anyone NEEDS fire insurance

Very very very few make fire claims on their houses and.or have their houses burn down.

We have fire insurance to protect us from a devastating, but extremely unlikely occurrence.

Ditto for firearms.

The "need" thing is a false argument.

Most firearms rights advocates recognize that a person needing to use their concealed weapon is an unlikely occurrence.

That's not in dispute.

[pipoman]

45. Statistically you don't need fire insurance, tornado insurance,

locks on your doors, seat belts, snake bite kits, etc., etc.

Statistics are absolutely the measure which should be used when determining public policy. You are free to live your life based on statistics if you want. I live my life based on anecdotes. I keep fire insurance because, while I know the odds are low I will need it, I don't want to loose all I have worked for. I still keep a tool kit in my car even though I haven't needed one for 10 years because I might need it.

You have the right to live any way you wish, nobody cares. You seem to want to live the way you want to live AND tell others that they must live just as you do enduring risks they would rather not endure, your position is selfish.

[Euromutt]

49. The fact that you couldn't get a permit in the first place might be coloring your recollection

See, you say you lived in Los Angeles, which means that anywhere in past forty-odd years that you've been eligible for a carry permit, your chances of actually acquiring one, either from the LAPD or the L.A. County Sheriff's Office, have been as close to zero as makes no odds.

There exists a cognitive bias known as the "choice-supportive bias," which is that people have tendency "to retroactively ascribe positive attributes to an option one has selected." In your case, the choices were between carrying illegally and not carrying. It is entirely possible that the rationale behind your behavior was that you were at least slightly more scared of being made, arrested, charged and convicted of illegally carrying a firearm than you were of getting into a situation where an illegally carried firearm would have saved your life.

You didn't choose to not legally carry a gun, because that was never an option to begin with. Now, saying that you chose not to carry because "<you> never felt that <you> needed to carry a gun there" sounds a bit more brave than saying that you chose not to carry because you were more scared of the LAPD than you were of the gangs (even though you had plenty of reason to be scared of the gangs, which arguably says more about the LAPD and the L.A. County prosecutor than it does about you). And that's where choice-supportive bias comes in; rather than admitting "I chose not to carry because I couldn't do so legally and I was too scared to do so illegally" you'd rather recollect your decision as being motivated by not feeling a need to carry.

I can't read your mind, so I can't assert that my speculation is correct. But you might want to consider that it might be, and think twice about branding people who do choose to carry in jurisdictions that don't deprive them of the ability to do so as "living in fear" or "being paranoid." Because if my speculation is correct, you're actually the one who lived in fear, and you're simply projecting your emotions onto others to make yourself feel better.

[lawodevolution]

73. Answer

To stop black people from being able to defend themselves against the KKK

[backwoodsbob]

68. im 45 years old

I've had guns since I was 12.I have NEVER pointed a gun at anyone.

How is that the wild west?

[SteveM]

5. The laws you advocate were indeed "going back." To Jim Crow. nt

[proteus_lives]

12. He doesn't want to say it but it's true.

He doesn't want "those types" having access to their rights.

[spin]

6. If that person was not "permitted" to carry a gun, would that fact have stopped them?

there are also laws against murder. Apparently they failed.

[county worker]

9. It would stop some future killings.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

15. By what mechanism would the law have prevented future murders?

Specifically, what physical mechanism would such a law employ to govern the lawless?

Newsflash: In the real world laws are obeyed voluntarily.

[county worker]

17. It only stands to reason, the more people carry guns the more people will be hurt by them.

I know you have some poll that trumps reason!

[Pavulon]

21. Thats like , just, your opinion man.. I assume you dont have numbers

that back that right?

[county worker]

25. Ever hear of the study of statistics?

If ten people carry guns and one of them shoots someone, what is the propensity that someone will get shot if 100 people carry guns?

Now we are talking about the future here, so no I don't have numbers for the future.

[X_Digger]

29. No need to look to the future, we can look at the present and immediate past..

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) found that of defensive gun uses, less than 10 percent actually involved discharging a firearm, and some smaller percentage of those involved hitting anyone, and some smaller percentage of those involved the perpetrator being killed.

http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/NCVS/

[PavePusher]

36. The published statistics...

do not support your "stands to reason".

[Pavulon]

46. post it up friend. anything that supports your caca..(nt)

[Callisto32]

55. Um, yeah, I went to college kinda for it.

Not math, but I did a helluva lot of work with polling data, and it totally doesn't work that way.

What you mean is "if one out of every ten people who carry a gun WILL shoot someone." Those are TOTALLY different things, and your proposition is demonstrably false.

[slackmaster]

64. The study of statistics is a branch of mathematics that deals with analysis of actual measurements

Not conjecture.

[mjane]

72. You make a fatal statistical error

You lump all people who carry guns into one variable.

The reality, as statistics show, is that people who carry with a CCW act differently than the average thug, the vast majority of whom don't have a CCW and most CAN'T have a CCW since they are convicted felons.

The reality is that when right to carry is passed, the amount of people carrying via CCW skyrockets, but the thugs are not affected by the law (except when they are shot by a CCW'er or they choose not to commit crimes where they could come into contact with an armed citizen).

Your "statistics" lump these two together. That's the fallacy.

And empirical evidence shows that we have had greater carry of firearms over the course of decades (mostly due to states passing right to carry laws) at the same time that shootings, and most importantly UNJUSTIFIED shootings have gone DOWN.

iow, the facts dispute your "logic"

[spin]

24. While that sounds logical, much depends on who carries guns ...

honest citizens who have concealed carry permits are far less likely to commit crimes with their weapons than any other group of citizens including cops.

Florida publishes a monthly statistical report which covers a time frame between October 1, 1987 to August 31, 2010. In that almost 23 year time frame, Florida issued 1,842,237 concealed weapons permits of which 754,548 are still valid. Only 168 permits have been revoked for a crime involving the use of a firearm after the license was issued. That's not 168 permits last year but in the entire lengthy time frame. Nor does that mean that all the licenses were revoked because someone was shot. Your license can be revoked if you break the law and enter a court house or a school or the secure area of an airport.

The report can be viewed at: http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

But I am not going to claim that Floridians with a concealed weapons permit are angels. Some have shot and even murdered other people. You might argue that had they not been allowed to carry firearms, this would have never happened. I could counter by saying that while every shooting is tragic, many lives have been saved and many crimes averted by those Floridians with carry permits.

But citizens with permits are not cops. They are simply people who go about their everyday lives and VERY infrequently find themselves in a situation where the use of their concealed firearm is legal and will prevent serious injury or death to themselves or another individual.

Your argument states that the more people carry guns, the more people will be hurt by them.

1) Obviously if there were no firearms no one would be hurt by them.

2) If citizens were not allowed to carry firearms and honest citizns obeyed the law, but criminals disobeyed the law than honest citizens would be helpless prey for criminals.

3) If honest citizens are licensed to carry concealed there will be times when they shoot other people. Statistics show that few such shootings will be criminal in nature and the overwhelming majority will be considered as legitimate self defense. There will also be times where the permit holder will merely have to show that he is armed and the situation will end without any violence.

So you might be right that allowing more people to carry firearms will result in more people being shot, but there are times when some fool deserves to be shot to prevent him from doing serious harm to others. Self defense has been accepted by civilizations throughout history as a legitimate response to attack.

And there will also be times when a person with a concealed carry permit stops a mass murderer. For example:

2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings

The 2007 Colorado YWAM and New Life shootings occurred on December 9, 2007, when Matthew J. Murray attacked the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado, and New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado. These attacks caused two fatalities in each location. The second attack was stopped when Murray was wounded by Jeanne Assam, a church member and volunteer security guard. Murray then took his own life.<1>

A shooting at New Life Church occurred when Matthew J. Murray opened fire in the foyer of New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado, United States, on Sunday, December 9, 2007. Three people were wounded and two people were killed before Murray was shot by Jeanne Assam, a church member acting as security, which stopped his attack.<5><6>

The shooting

At about 1 p.m. MST (20:00 UTC), 30 minutes after the 11 a.m. service had ended at New Life Church, Murray opened fire in the church parking lot shooting the Works family and Judy Purcell, 40. Murray then entered the building's main foyer where he shot Larry Bourbonnais, 59, hitting him in the forearm. At this point, Assam opened fire on Murray with her personally owned concealed weapon. Police say that after suffering multiple hits from Assam's gun, Murray fatally shot himself.<1>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

[county worker]

27. Yes you are right much depends on who carries guns.

It also depends on how many are capable of going nuts in an instant and shooting someone.

[X_Digger]

30. That meme you're hinting at? Largely a myth..

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=138:kates201086&catid=20:firearmsinc&Itemid=24

[spin]

33. If a significant number of people with carry permits went nuts ...

the number of people in Florida who had their licenses revoked because of a crime committed with a firearm after the license was issued would be MUCH higher.

[Euromutt]

52. "It stands to reason," the phrase is practically a lure to me

A lure to apply the slappeh, that is. The fact is that, even while more and more states became "shall issue" with regard to concealed carry permits, the rate of violent crime in general, including firearm crime specifically, dropped by around 50% (~1993-2000) and did not (notably and/or permanently) rise subsequently. Now, I don't believe there is sufficient evidence to support the hypothesis of "more guns,less crime" but I not only believe but am quite certain that the evidence supports the hypothesis that "more legally carried guns" ≠ "more people hurt by guns."

And that's not a fucking opinion poll, that's data collated by the FBI.

Now, it does, to some extent, stand to reason that the more people who are already prediposed to inflict harm on others carry firearms, the more people will be hurt, but the people who are predisposed to inflict harm on others are usually ineligible for a carry permit (due to a prior felony conviction) and are also not deterred from carrying a firearm by the fact that it is illegal for them to do so. In other words, "if carrying guns is outlawed, only outlaws will carry guns." Which is pretty much the case in every country with tighter guns laws than the United States. You can't get a carry permit in the UK, the Netherlands, or Japan, but the local organized criminals have no compunction about carrying. Sheez, career criminals don't obey laws, whodathunkit?

[Callisto32]

56. Euromutt, you are one of my favorite posters down here.

You have the self-control to remain much more calm and rational than I, while loosing none of possible snark. It is a beautiful thing.

[slackmaster]

63. All the "stands to reason" in the world doesn't outweigh actual statistics

Of which you have none to support your position.

[PavePusher]

65. Unfortunately for the poster...

since they didn't use reason, they have nothing to stand on...

Legless logic strikes again...

[mjane]

71. It only stands to reason that a heavier object will fall faster than a lighter object in a vacuum

and outside a vacuum if we discount air resistance effects.

But darnit... there's conflicting EVIDENCE

It only stands to reason that the colder the water, the faster it will turn to ice when subjected to cold.

Except the evidence says otherwise.

It only stands to reason that...

When real world evidence conflicts with "reasonable" predictions, we discount those predictions.

At least those of us who respect reality do this.

[rrneck]

28. Who would it stop from getting killed? nt

[RSillsbee]

61. I have to ask

How can you know for sure that outlawing guns would stop more future killings than it would cause?

[PavePusher]

66. Didn't you know?

These folks have precognition. They know that these things will happen. Just because their accuracy rate is Zero, doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means it hasn't happened yet. But it's going to. Any day now....

[PavePusher]

7. You're going to have to change the Constitution to get there.

Good luck with that....

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

11. Who's the arbiter of need for other civil rights?

Who determines if you really need to write a letter to the editor? Do you have to prove that you need to go to church?

[57_TomCat]

20. Seems to me you are missing the woods by looking at a tree.

Bad people carry guns because they need them to terroize and hurt others. They also tend to ignore laws about where and when they can carry their illegal guns. Since you mention someone is dead maybe we should outlaw killing innocent people. By you logic a simple law is all you need. Problem solved. Oh wait... it is already illegal to murder innocent people. That lady simply must not have known about that law. Better law knowledge implementation is the key right??? That way the bad people will know NOT to do bad things right???

We already HAVE a bunch of laws that describe where you can or cannot carry a gun and what you can or can not do with it. We need better programs to prevent violent people from becoming violent and misusing guns, and sticks, and knives, and feet, and hands, and cars, and ...

[beevul]

39. Questions

"So were it the tipping point where we go back to some sensible laws about who and where a gun can be carried?"


What were the laws at the time, and venue of the shooting that is the subject of the OP?


Did those laws work?


Is the failure of that law proof enough of the need to carry concealed legally?


If it isnt, what is?

[Euromutt]

60. See, we have this notion of "innocent until proven guilty"...

I know it sucks, but much of the ideal of liberty brings with it the idea that, merely because a minority of individuals can't handle their freedom responsibly, is insufficient justification to strip everybody of those freedoms.

To compare, every year a fairly large number of holders of state-issued driver's licenses get their license suspended or taken away because they fucked up repeatedly, big time, or both. And yet, and yet, we do not strip all licensed drivers of their licenses on the basis that a percentage of their number proved unequal to the responsibility that the privilege of driving brought with it.

In other words, we could re-write your subject line as "now that someone is dead we can identify a person who shouldn't be permitted to drive." Does the fact that this person, in retrospect, shouldn't have been permitted to drive mean that we should suspend all driver's licenses, and "go back to some sensible laws about who and where a motor vehicle can be operated"?

Or should we acknowledge that this person was a statistical anomaly, upon whom no public policy should be based?

[proteus_lives]

13. Breaking: Millions of gun-owners did not shoot their co-workers today.

I had an argument with a boss yesterday. I managed to avoid shooting him.

[county worker]

18. A couple of million people didn't get killed on the highway so we are going

to stop caring about highway safety!

The majority of people flying today made it safely to their destination so we don't need to have air safety standards.

Did you ever think that many gun owners think carrying a gun around is a stupid idea! I am one!

[proteus_lives]

19. Then don't carry one!

I have no problem with that. Just don't tell other people what to do.

Cars? Highways? That works. If my neighbor goes drunk driving and kills someone, I don't lose my license too.

[pipoman]

47. This completely destroys your own position

some people did get killed..why not advocate for no more cars? Some were even killed by drunk drivers...why not advocate prohibition on alcohol? Some people every year are killed in plane crashes....why not outlaw planes? Some people misuse guns and kill someone...why not outlaw guns? All of these solutions are just as stupid as the other.

[Callisto32]

57. What many gun-owners think doesn't MATTER.

A lot of white people in the past thought it was a good idea to own black people.

Difference: Highway and air safety procedures help prevent accidents. Places where guns are banned are like a flame to loony-toon moths.

[Euromutt]

53. Your gun must be defective

Since everybody knows that merely owning a firearm will cause you to employ it against anyone and everyone with whom you have even the slightest personal conflict. The fact that you not only failed to shoot your boss, but also failed to shoot the barista who made your latte two degrees too hot, is saign that your gun is malfunctioning. Please return it to the manufacturer/importer, who will happily provide with a replacement with full homicidal mind-control powers.

[PavePusher]

69. Ooooooo, I want one of those!

I must be going to the wrong gun stores...

:evilgrin: :rofl: :rofl:

[PavePusher]

67. Ahh, but you're going to...

Any day now... It's coming... Just ask araound.

[cleanhippie]

22. yeah, and?

Your point?

[cleanhippie]

23. SOMEBODY PLEASE POST THE LINK TO CCW'ers THAT SAVED SOMEONE. You know he will ask for it.

Again.

[MichaelHarris]

40. Found this

"Hiller was charged with two counts of murder, one count of attempted murder, aggravated assault and other charges. She had a permit to carry the gun, authorities said."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iFK9CR8fFn0QDUYxm6ST6jHN_lQQD9I5BS100

Is that what you were looking for?

[X_Digger]

41. How bout this?

I compared the conviction rate of CHL holders (per 100k permit holders) to the conviction rate of the general public (per 100k population > 21 yoa).



Population data: http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm
Conviction data: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. And don't forget this one: 182 felony convictions out of 403,914 CHL holders

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=338457&mesg_id=338473

Short version- Texas has 402,914 CHL holders. Among them, they had 182 felony covictions in 2007 (some of which might be repeats on one person).

4 of those were for assault with a deadly weapon

4 were for murder

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=338457&mesg_id=338898


friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-09-10 01:47 PM

37. I get 182 felony convictions from 402,914 people = 0.00045% of CHL holders
or 1 per 2214 (rounded up)

Stuff like the Kraft shootings happen, but very rarely.


I wonder what the felony rate for the Philadelphia PD is? Damn sure more than 1 per 2214 sworn officer, I'd reckon

[Callisto32]

58. It is important to remember

that felony does not necessarily equal violent. I can easily imagine a non-violent person with no designs on hurting ANYONE who has a CCW permit and then gets picked up for, say, growing pot or something similar.

[Euromutt]

50. Why fucking bother?

He'll just come with some chickenshit excuse to dismiss it anyway.