Violence Policy Center makes us CCW license holders look pretty damn good!

[Logical]

A anti-gun friend sent me a link yesterday to a place called the Violence Policy Center. The link is http://www.vpc.org and there is a section called dramatically enough "Concealed Carry Killers"!

They track deaths caused by Conceal Carry (CC) license holders. They have tracked 298 deaths since May 2007 caused by CC. These include suicide, murders, etc. Any illegal deaths cause by CC. Of course many of these deaths would have happened even if the person did not have a CC license but lets use the worse case numbers.....298 over 4 years or about 75 per year.

The death rate by firearms in the USA is between 10 and 14 per 100,000 a year based on who's numbers you use. I'll use the lowest number of 10 per 100,000.

So lets assume there are 6,000,000 million CC holders, and that is the lowest number I have seen. Most estimate 8,000,000. But lets use 6 million.

So the rate for CC holders is 1.25 deaths per 100,000 CC holders (6,000,000 / 100,000 = 60, 75 / 60 = 1.25 per 100,000 CC holders).

This means CC license holders are 8 times less likely to kill someone with a firearm than the average American.

So why the VPC thinks they are helping their cause with their numbers is confusing. It seem like it is hurting their cause more than helping it. It is basically admitting that CCW license holders kill at a rate 8 times less than the average citizen.

So the VPC is using CCW murders to make CCW holders look bad and they are actually doing the opposite. Makes us look pretty good. CCW holders are 8 times LESS likely to use a gun than the average American!

Sources:
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=6166
http://www.vpc.org
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[peacebird]

1. you posted this yesterday also, why the repost?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x405758

[Logical]

4. It was locked. I fixed the issue and reposted. n-t

[jpak]

13. spam

:rofl:

[GreenStormCloud]

15. That's your specialty. N/T

[rl6214]

16. No those are your posts.

No rofl here, it's true.

[Bold Lib]

35. I believe that is called projection.

yup.

[TheCowsCameHome]

2. This got locked last night - try something original....

...if possible.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=405758&mesg_id=405758

[Logical]

5. I fixed the issue and reposted. Thanks for the support! n-t

[Bold Lib]

7. Yes it had issues that have been resolved. Now it can be debated. Have anything?

[Logical]

8. Nothing to debate unless you think the VPC is correct. n-t

[Kolesar]

3. You have friends?

:P

[Logical]

6. bada bing! good one! :-)

[ThatPoetGuy]

9. You removed the word "yup."

Please don't spam the forums.

[Logical]

10. I was given permission to repost. You can ignore the post if it offends you. n-t

[cleanhippie]

21. Apparently, using the word "yup" is a trademarked phrase that only one can use.

:shrug:

[Callisto32]

25. Given the context...

"please don't spam the forums" is the funniest thing you could have said.

[spin]

11. The VPC is using emotion to further their cause ...

and they really do not expect that those who believe in draconian gun control will bother to realistically analyze their statistics. They do expect that those who support RKBA will pick their report apart and show its failings, but to them that doesn't matter. The mainstream media will not point out the inconsistencies in their report or even mention that those who legally carry concealed commit far fewer firearm crimes than the average gun owner.

Facts and statistics do not support those who favor draconian gun control such as bans and confiscations, so such people and organizations hope to use emotions to gain support for their position. Many people in our nation are basically unfamiliar with firearms and the shooting sports and see no need to own one and believe statements like, "Guns are only good for killing". Many people have suffered personal tragedies in their families caused by the misuse of firearms by criminals, people with severe mental problems and individuals who had never received training in basic gun safety. It's entirely understandable why such people have a dislike of guns and react emotional rather than rationally when the subject is brought up.

For example, I had a neighbor who was opposed to firearms and had an INTENSE dislike of them. I asked her why and she replied, "My bother committed suicide with one and I had to clean his brains off his bedroom wall." Explaining to her that he might have committed suicide in any number of ways would have been irresponsible and mean, so I just expressed my sorrow that he died. I can understand how such a tragedy will color her views for her entire life.

My daughter stopped an intruder breaking into our home by pointing a large caliber revolver at him and my mother stopped a man rushing her after she got of a bus in a remote area by shooting two shots over his head. Obviously, I will be far more favorable toward gun ownership than my neighbor was.

For many years most people who owned firearms were the police, hunters, target shooters, collectors and criminals. Few citizens carried them. At first when concealed carry became common many people opposed it and felt that if you were not a cop and you carried a firearm you must be a very dangerous person. Over time "shall issue" concealed carry has become common in our nation and now many people know rational, sane and honest people who own and legally carry firearms. The majority of people I worked with before I retired owned firearms and a good percentage had concealed weapons permits. Of course there were those co-workers that had no interest in owning a firearm or carrying one, but they were used to those who did and since they realized that they were honest and rational, they didn't fear them and really could see no reason for taking their firearms or their right to carry away.

That's why today most people have little interest in banning or confiscating firearms or other schemes that the organizations like the Brady Campaign propose.

[Logical]

12. Great points and great examples of two defensive gun uses that no shots were fired at a person which

is most of them. Thanks!

[spin]

17. If you noticed my mother did fire two shots over the attackers head ...

but she lived in a very remote area and she endangered no one. She was quite capable of shooting the attacker but she felt she made the right decision. This incident happened in Pennsylvania in the 1920s.

The shots did attract her father's attention. He left their house to find out what was happening armed with his Colt .45 auto.

[Logical]

18. Sounds like it was effective enough! n-t

[spin]

19. The best result you can hope for when you use a firearm for self defense ...

is the the situation will be resolved without anyone being injured.

[Logical]

20. So true.....

Mr. Ayoob has really stressed that point in his writings and books. And my CCW instructor did also.
And even though most anti-gun people would not agree because of their bias, most CCW holders know that to draw and then shoot is the very last option.

[one-eyed fat man]

14. Who would have thought

that was "yup® ?"

That sure makes the concept of "intellectual property" an oxymoran

[DrDan]

22. so one CC-caused death every 4 days or so is acceptable?

even something to be proud of?

[PavePusher]

24. Of course not, despite your mendacious insinuation that anyone has even vaguely implied so.

What is being said is that it's not a valid reason to ban or otherwise restrict the Right.

[Logical]

27. And the non-CCW holders shoot 8 times as many. Would you rather be around them or us?? n-t

[DrDan]

29. not convinced either is that safe

http://www.ky3.com/news/ky3-story-accident-shooting-class-kills-mountain-grove-police-department-employee-20110309,0,4494185.story

[Logical]

31. Why do you think one news story means anything. I can find a story about.....

kitchen knifes being used to kill someone and cops getting drunk and shooting someone. Means nothing.

[DrDan]

32. ignore it then - your choice

[Logical]

33. When you have a real solution to the gun issue that will have a chance to pass...

I would love to hear it. I am not a gun-nut, I am just being really practical about the fact that we lost the battle and need to focus on stuff we can actually change.

And good luck in the Big 10! Ohio State in Lincoln will be a great game!

[DrDan]

36. thanks - looking forward to the season - whole bunch of new

stadiums to visit

[Logical]

38. Pretty exciting. I will miss Nebraska in the big 12. Class program! n-t

[Euromutt]

39. What do you mean by "CC-caused"?

Because that's the root of the incoherence of the VPC report: it lists every homicide committed by CCW holders it can find (as well as some suicides, and at least one case of a non-CCW holder), and asserts that these crimes were made possible by the perpetrators having CCW permits. That is, that if it weren't for these individuals having CCW permits, the victims wouldn't have died.

However, it's hard to see how, for example, not having a CCW permit would have prevented Tony Villegas from strangling Melissa Britt to death. Also listed are any number of incidents in which the perpetrator wouldn't have needed a CCW permit to be legally in possession of the firearm, e.g. in their own homes or businesses, and crimes committed using non-concealable long guns.

Basically, Rand and Sugarmann want to have it both ways: they want to argue that CCW permits facilitate homicides that, absent those permits, would have been preventable, but they don't want to discard any instances of CCW permit holders being involved in a homicide.

[DrDan]

23. I am a bit confused by your conclusion

You take a few liberties to demonstrate that "CC license holders are 8 times less likely to kill someone with a firearm than the average American."

Then you conclude "CCW holders are 8 times LESS likely to use a gun than the average American!"

How was the leap made - from a death rate to a gun-use rate?

[Logical]

26. Did you read their stats trying to prove CCW holders are irrresponsible? Well.....

Considering the rate CCW holders use their guns illegally it proves we are 8 times less likely to use our guns illegally.

If you disagree let me know why.

[DrDan]

28. but your conclusion was about gun use - not illegal gun use

8 times less to use a gun

[Logical]

30. OK, I should have said "illegal gun use" since that is what the VPC is talking about. Thanks....

for pointing it out.

[Hoyt]

34. What they should study is rate among those who could get permit, but think it's disgusting to tote.

Bet the rate is even lower.

[Euromutt]

37. I'll reiterate my repeatedly posted critique of the VPC report

As I've remarked before, its primary flaw is that its thesis is incoherent.

If the VPC's point were to prove only that some CCW killers are responsible for homicides, be it through malice (murder) or negligence (manslaughter), then most of the incidents listed would be valid examples.

However, the VPC has not been content to leave it at that. From the VPC's press release when "CCW Killers" was launched (http://www.vpc.org/press/0911ccw.htm ):

The thesis, then, is not merely that some CCW permit holders commit homicides, but that these killings were made possible by their being issued CCW permits; and, by extension, that these killings would have been prevented by not issuing CCW permits. That contention sets the bar significantly higher for including incidents in the list. For example, it is hard to see how Tony Villegas (Florida) would have been prevented from strangling Melissa Britt to death by not having a CCW permit. One must also discard all homicides that occurred in locations where state or local law did not require a CCW permit to possess a concealed firearm (e.g. in the shooter's home); all homicides that occurred in locations where the shooter's permit did not allow him to carry a firearm (e.g. Aubrey BERRY, whose Georgia Firearm License did not allow him to carry in California, where the killing occurred); and all homicides committed with non-concealable firearms (i.e. rifles and shotguns).

The problem is that Rand and Sugarmann want to have it both ways: they want to argue that CCW permits facilitate homicides that, absent those permits, would have been preventable, but they don't want to discard any instances of CCW permit holders being involved in a homicide.

What also doesn't help the study's credibility is that it counts at least two suicides as "homicide victims," lists at least once incident of a murderer who didn't actually have a CCW permit (he had a California security guard firearm permit, which only allows the bearer to carry openly while in uniform and on duty and while traveling between home and work), and defines a "mass shooting" as three or more victims rather than the more usual four or more for no readily apparent reason other than that it allows them to count almost three times as many incidents as "mass shootings" (but don't expect to find that definition in the press release).

[drpepper67]

40. There was another thread started about this topic.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. From time to time an anti discovers the VPC counts and think they really have something.

They bring it here see their own numbers used against them.