A Study I Would Like To See Done.

[GreenStormCloud]

There have been lots of studies done by both sides of the gun control debate, and various objections to all of them. I would like to see a study that would track 1,000 CCW holders who actively carry, 1,000 people who could qualify for CCW but choose not to, and 1,000 random citizens, for five years. Once per year interview each of them about any incidents they may have had. Carefully judge the claimed DGUs to screen out false ones.

I think the results would be interesting, but I suspect the study would be expensive.

[jmg257]

1. Would the results change YOUR perception of carrying?

If none of them ever needed to use their cc piece, would you give up yours?

If it turned out 100 of them were/would have been better served to be armed, would someone like mike the blogger start carrying?

Not likely. That's why I find all the numbers presented by both sides, and usually in a way to show THEY are right, so silly...Having lots of hard data is nice, especially if it supports your view, but let's face it...in the long run we all have to make the decisions and weigh the benefits based on our own take on things.

It's like the idiotic practice - like its a contest or something - of posting good shoots and bad shoots. Trying to selfishly take advantage of isolated tragedies & incidents that in the long run don't mean enough to change anyone's mind.

Great thing about rights...YOU get to decide to enjoy them...or not.

[flamin lib]

7. You and Mineralman (#2 below) are far too reasonable to be

posting in this forum. Careful, you might get yourself banned!

I tried saying the same thing, phrased differently, and was flamed to medium well.

Some people like guns (I'm one of 'em) and can accept it for what it is. Others find it necessary to raise guns to a divine level.

[jmg257]

8. Sounds like you and I have enough in common...

Sorry to hear your attempt at being rational didn't work out so well! :)

[GreenStormCloud]

16. Maybe.

I really would like to see genuine objective data that covers CCW people.

[MineralMan]

2. I'd bet there would be very little difference. Most people who

actively carry have no need for those firearms in any given year. I can't imagine that the numbers would be high enough for the study to produce any meaningful results. I have a CCW, but almost never carry. There just isn't any reason to in my normal activities. In the past 6 years, not a single incident would have require any thought of using a carry weapon. I think that's most people's experience.

[safeinOhio]

15. Same here MM.

Use to but now find it useless. The stats show that if you mind your own business, stay out of love triangle, avoid illegal drugs and take reasonable precautions, the chances of needing a fire arm all of the time are about the same as for a normal healthy person needing to wear depends all of the time, just in case.
I am all for legal and trained people carrying, if the wish. I find it crazy to make it a religion to worship with an evangelist's zeal. It seems to me like the 14 year old that lives next door and his life revolves around computer games. He really needs to get a life.

[ileus]

3. I personally hope I never have a need for my EDC.

after 5 or 6 years of carrying on a daily basis I haven't used, or even thought it was needed. I'll continue to keep it handy...

[gravity556]

4. I carry every day.

And if I die an old old man, never having to have drawn a gun in anger, I will be a happy man. But I'd still rather die an old old man having HAD to draw in anger than die bleeding on the side of the road unarmed.

[PavePusher]

5. I am sure you meant "draw in defense"....

wording is so critical with some of the Mrs. Grundy's around here picking at every mispercieved nuance... or just plain inventing them.

[Hoyt]

14. No, he meant draw a gun in "anger." I've known gun "carriers" who have done just that.

Or, they carry because they are angry.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. I don't know, I'd be pretty pissed if some asshole pulled a knife, a gun, or in some other way

threatened my personal safety.

Wouldn't you?

[GreenStormCloud]

19. "Fire in anger" is a term that is used in books to mean...

..deliberately fired to shoot someone. It does not mean the personal emotion of anger.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/radio/specials/1837_aae/page22.shtml

In a military context, 'to fire in anger' means to shoot for a purpose in war. For example, a submarine that 'fires in anger' shoots missiles at an enemy ship. Shots fired in anger are never just for practice; they're fired to deliberately cause damage or harm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_in_anger

"Fire in anger" is a phrase used in military contexts to describe the use of a projectile weapon to deliberately cause damage or harm to an opponent, as opposed to training exercises or warning shots.<1> For example, Napier of Magdala Battery "never fired a shot in anger"; the battery never engaged in combat. Despite the use of the word "anger", the phrase is not intended to describe the emotional state of the firer.

He was using the phrase in its military context.

You lose again.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. That was...

...just another case of an anti inferring a meaning from a statement that the source never intended.

Antis don't discriminate when misinterpreting meaning based on the age of the text; 2+ hours or 200+ years either or in between is fine.

[petronius]

28. No, I think it was extremely kind of Hoyt to illustrate Pave's point so convincingly

Some might say that Mr. H has never once contributed anything of the slightest value to this forum; I hope those naysayers will at least look at this post and reconsider... ;)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

22. So...

...is your real name "Mrs Grundy"?

[ileus]

24. You hang around the wrong people....I know maybe 50 or 100 "toters" with 0 incidents.

and that includes a bunch of wannabe LEO security guards.

As for the angry people....In my close circle if friends there's 4 or 5 of us that carry everyday. None are the "angry" types you describe. We're all middle to upper middle class living the American dream...happily living the American dream that is. We carry to assure that dream remains alive and well.

[Hoyt]

33. You could not objectively assess a gunner -- you even support the ones you admit are wannabes.

Also correct me if I am wrong -- but you've jumped in in support of shooting unarmed teenagers fleeing a minor criminal act, and started a thread about the best gun to use to shoot people fleeing Irene while it was approaching the shore.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. Can you objectively assess someone with a CCW?

You decry them at every turn..

[ileus]

56. Yeah you're wrong....about starting the Irene thread at least.

I'm sure you're probably wrong about the unarmed criminals also.


And there's nothing to suspend my support of the "toters" that strap guns to their bodies and walk around in public that I know of....so yeah I'm being overly objective IMHO.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

44. You actually know people with CCWs?

I am amazed you would socialize with such ahhh...social misfits.

[rrneck]

6. If You put 1000 people in a room

And told them that 3 of them would be assaulted raped or murdered in the next year 500 of them would go out and buy a gun tomorrow.

Statistics can tell us how many but it cannot tell us who, And that's what everybody wants to know.

[safeinOhio]

17. But, if you show them the statistics

Who Is Most Affected by Gun Violence?

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
Data table | Text description
People between the ages of 15 and 24 are most likely to be targeted by gun violence as opposed to other forms of violence. From 1976 to 2005, 77 percent of homicide victims ages 15-17 died from gun-related injuries. This age group was most at risk for gun violence during this time period.
Teens and young adults are more likely than persons of other ages to be murdered with a gun. Most violent gun crime, especially homicide, occurs in cities and urban communities. <1>
Intimate partner violence can be fatal when a gun is involved — from 1990 to 2005, two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims were killed by guns. The overall number of firearm homicides among intimates has fallen considerably during the past 30 years, however.

If they are over 17 years of age and in a healthy relationship and don't live in a big city, that number drops to less than one half of a person in that room.

[GreenStormCloud]

20. Most of those teens will also be gang members.

Gang membership and criminal activity would be greater predictors of the likelyhood of being killed by a gun than anything else.

[rrneck]

29. When it comes to persoal matters

like self defense people view it in a personal way. Nobody likes to be treated like a number. Especially by elected officials.

Every time someone hears the words"probably not" what they hear is some arrogant ideologue gambling with their life. That's what loses elections.

[Hoyt]

9. What you gonna do if you end up with a few Loughners or Randy Weavers in your sample?

I'm betting most gunners would continue toting and encouraging others to keep buying more and more guns for their caches, while endorsing more toters in public.

[rl6214]

10. toters, gunners, caches and more toters

You just can't make a post without the rhetoric, can you?

[Hoopla Phil]

11. Hate is a hard thing to give up.

[Hoyt]

13. Yes it is -- and people encouraging carrying of guns in public are often haters, and worse.

Most members of the so-called "gun culture" are right wing fanatics who began encouraging folks to arm up when Obama was running. There are a few here who don't fall in that category, but there are some here who'd denounce a Democratic candidate and vote Republican in fear of any restriction on their guns. That's sad and hardly a reason to embrace folks who think more guns are the answer to anything.

[gejohnston]

23. So would you vote for a Republican like Rudy Giuliani

or Bloomburg who wants the Sullivan Law nation wide over say, Peter DeFazio or Brian Schweitzer? Sounds like it to me.

[Hoyt]

39. I would not vote for them -- but some here would vote Republican if they thought their pipeline

to guns might be restricted by a Democrat. They have posted as much.

[Hoopla Phil]

46. Link please to any active DU member that has said such.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. gmta -- beat me by 2 minutes ..

:fistbump:

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. links to that -- I want proof of the DUers that said this:

"some here would vote Republican if they thought their pipeline to guns might be restricted by a Democrat."

That is against the rules, IIRC. I hope you alerted on the posts and it might be a tombstone-able offense...not sure.

[Hoopla Phil]

35. Just the opposite is what I find to be the case. Those pushing for gun control are often

blinded by their hate of an object and project that hate, by extension, to those that own, use, or keep them for self defense. Such legal owners are often conflated with criminal activity by those that hate the gun and cannot see beyond that hate. It is truly a shame.

[Hoyt]

12. Kinda tough when dealing with people who think more guns in public is rational.

How would you like me to refer to people who carry guns into public parks, Chuck E Cheez, churches, etc.; have multiple "assault" type weapons and encourage others to buy more; are irrational as to the odds of needing a gun?

Please, what terms can I use to adequately express concern about people who consider themselves part of a "gun culture;" who, upon approach of hurricane Irene, ask here what gun is most useful in shooting people fleeing a natural disaster; who think it OK to shoot a unarmed teenager in the back who is running away after breaking into an unoccupied car and stealing something insignificant. I could go on with more examples of the callousness expressed here by people who carry guns into public, and have no regard for the damage it does to society.

And, no, I'm dang sure not going to refer to them as "armed citizens" like it's OK to be a member of some right wing militia living in a compound somewhere plotting all kinds of crud.

[gejohnston]

30. please show me where this person said that was his intent

Please, what terms can I use to adequately express concern about people who consider themselves part of a "gun culture;" who, upon approach of hurricane Irene, ask here what gun is most useful in shooting people fleeing a natural disaster;

Or did you just assume it? I do believe the issue was how to deal with predators, FASs, (or white racist assholes for that matter) wanting to take advantage of the situation.

[PavePusher]

55. You couldn't be a better parody of the stereotypical gun-banner if you tried.

Thanks so much for providing such an easy foil.

[ileus]

27. toters with strap-ons always shooting special loads....

:)

[GreenStormCloud]

21. Who did Randy Weaver kill?

His son and wife were killed by the FBI. He didn't shoot anyone.

[oneshooter]

32. He doesn't know. Just a name he pulled out of his anal orifice. n/t

[Hoyt]

34. Marshal was shot on Weaver's compound, where the gun criminal and member of Aryan Nation lived and

honed his hatred and weapons cache.

Why is it so many gunners defend Weaver a racist gun crimina? -- some even applaud similar criminals like Timmy McVeigh and David Koresh.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. So who did Randy Weaver kill? N/T

[Hoyt]

38. Had it not been for Weaver, the Marshal would not have been shot on his property while agents were

trying to capture the worthless racist and gun criminal (weaver). Why do you continue to defend the man who lived by "The Turner Diaries?" -- something in common with way to many gun carriers.

Your question is like saying george bush or dick chenney didn't kill innocent people because our military pulled the trigger in Iraq. A Marshal was shot by members of Weaver's gang, trying to keep Weaver from being arrested for his gun crimes which originated at meetings of the Ayran Nation.

Sorry, I'm not going to memorialize/condone the Weavers of the world.

[RSillsbee]

40. Who shot first? NT

[Hoyt]

43. Had enough discussing the worthless POS whose crimes ended up with death of agent and has spurred

proliferation of gun nuts in the country.

Weaver was not shot either, notwithstanding his gun crimes, membership in Ayran Nation, and no telling how many folks he is directly or indirectly responsible for hurting, even killing or torturing.

Defend him, if you like. Heck, hold a memorial on his birthday if you like.

[oneshooter]

45. You are right (finally) but who was shot, and killed, at the cabin? Do you know, or care? n/t

[RSillsbee]

52. No, he's dead wrong... again

Weaver and Kevin Harris were both shot under the "Shoot any adult seen outside the house" ROE. Vicky was holding the back door open for them to try to get back in when she was shot because she was holding a deadly high capacity assault baby

[RSillsbee]

53. You do know that a jury of YOUR peers decided

that he was acting in legitimate self defense right?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

57. Like it or not Hoyt

Weaver did nothing illegal.

You may disagree with his views, but that's a different thing.

Racist assholes have the same rights as anyone else, like it or not.

[GreenStormCloud]

41. The charges against Weaver were dismissed.

The government used entrapment and that is forbidden. Weaver was a racist asshole, but racist assholes have rights too. I you grant rights to only those whom you agree with then ultimately you would lose your rights too.

Randy Weaver did not shoot anyone. And the marshall was shot in self-defense according to our courts.

[ileus]

26. It would be kinda silly not to....safety first after all.

[spin]

31. Considering that there are probably 10 million people in our nation ...

with carry permits, the chances of SEVERAL people who are as insane as Loughner is extremely slim in a sample of 1000 CCW holders.

I definitely do not agree with the views that Randy Weaver held as I am not a racist. However I should point out that that Randy Weaver acted in what the court ruled was self defense.

Aftermath of the Ruby Ridge incident

Weaver was charged with multiple crimes relating to the Ruby Ridge incident, a total of ten counts including the original firearms charges and murder. Attorney Gerry Spence handled Weaver's defense, and argued successfully that Weaver's actions were justifiable as self-defense. The judge dismissed two counts after hearing prosecution witness testimony. The jury acquitted Weaver of all remaining charges except two, one of which the judge set aside. Weaver was found guilty of one count, failure to appear, for which Weaver was fined $10,000 and sentenced to 18 months in prison. The reason he failed to appear was because he was officially told the court case was on the 20th March when in fact it was on the 20th February. He was credited with time served plus an additional three months, and was then released. Kevin Harris was acquitted of all criminal charges.<16> emphasis added

In August 1995, the federal government avoided trial on a civil lawsuit filed by the Weavers, by awarding the three surviving daughters $1,000,000 each and Randy Weaver $100,000 over the deaths of Sammy and Vicki Weaver. The attorney for Kevin Harris pressed Harris' civil suit for damages, although federal officials vowed they would never pay someone who had killed a U.S. Marshal (Harris had been acquitted by a jury trial on grounds of self-defense). In September 2000 after persistent appeals, Harris was awarded a $380,000 settlement from the government.<17>

Controversy over the Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement led to a standardization of deadly force policy among federal law enforcement agencies, implemented in October 1995 after the Ruby Ridge hearings by the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information, Senate Committee on the Judiciary.<18><19>

***snip***

In 1997, the District Attorney for Boundary County, Idaho charged Horiuchi with involuntary manslaughter, but the indictment was removed to federal jurisdiction based on the Supremacy Clause and eventually dismissed at the federal prosecutor's request. Kevin Harris was also charged with the murder of Bill Degan in spite of the fact he had been acquitted on that charge in federal court; that charge was dismissed also.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weaver

I should also point out that Loughner did not have a concealed carry permit. It is true that he was legally carrying his handguns concealed under Arizona law which is a state that allows concealed carry without a license. However murder is against the law in every state and murderers often carry their firearms concealed despite state laws.

What bothers me and SHOULD also bother you is that Loughner was able to legally purchase his firearms at a store which means he passed the NICS background check. Loughner had waved numerous red flags but as often happens the system failed.

I happen to agree with President Obama on this issue.

President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am

It's been more than two months since the tragedy in Tucson stunned the nation. It was a moment when we came together as one people to mourn and to pray for those we lost. And in the attack's turbulent wake, Americans by and large rightly refrained from finger-pointing, assigning blame or playing politics with other people's pain.

But one clear and terrible fact remains. A man our Army rejected as unfit for service; a man one of our colleges deemed too unstable for studies; a man apparently bent on violence, was able to walk into a store and buy a gun.

***snip***

First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.

• Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.

Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.

Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1XgR3fLAv

I would also like to see the NICS background check required for all private purchases. I personally refuse to sell any of my firearms to an individual who I don't personally know and who does not have a valid concealed weapons permit. Obviously this limits my sales of firearms and if I ever decide to sell off my collection, I would like to be able to insure that I was selling my weapons to people who were honest and sane.

I realize that you do not like people to carry legally concealed firearms and will post your views which reflect negatively on those who have concealed weapons permits and carry on a regular basis. You also absolutely love to insult those people who have carry permits and actually do carry their firearms by insinuating that they "live in fear and will not leave their houses without multiple firearms strapped to their bodies." Having had a concealed weapons permit and having carried a concealed firearm for fifteen years, I often point out to you the reality that some people differ from you and prefer to be prepared for the unlikely event that they might find themselves in a situation where there is a legitimate use for lethal force.

I don't feel insulted in the least by your false accusation that I live in fear. I love to reply to your posts because I come to DU for the fun of debating those who disagree with my views.

But honestly, if you are truly concerned about firearm violence in our nation, why do you not work with me to do as Obama has suggested and join to enforce existing laws and also to improve the NICS background check system? Surely you realize that you will NEVER convince people like me to stop carrying. I spent the time, the expense and the effort to get a concealed weapons permit and I have no desire to leave my concealed weapon behind in my safe when I am out and about. As I have explained, I really believe and hope that I will never find myself in a position where I have to use my weapon for legitimate self defense. In fact I practice "situational awareness" to avoid such situations and I have some martial arts training and carry less lethal methods of self defense such as pepper spray.

I have found in my life that being prepared for most eventualities makes commonsense. For example, I have fire extinguishers throughout my home and there is one within ten feet of where I am sitting. I have a first aid kit readily available for an emergency. I practice defense driving and in fifty years of driving have never been the cause of an accident although I have been in several accidents that were caused by inattentive people who ran into me from behind. (I don't live in fear when I drive but I can remember several incidents where if I had not been alert to traffic, I could have easily ended up in the hospital or six feet under.)

Some people are optimistic and believe that they can journey through life and never encounter any serious problems. Others, like me, try to be prepared. I have this odd belief that the Gods above watch us and laugh at those who are unprepared when they teach them a valuable lesson. Therefore, I do my best to be prepared. So far my life has worked out well for me.

I sincerely hope that your approach to life works as well for you.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. Great post. N/T

[spin]

42. No problem. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[Union Scribe]

54. You can just have the FBI murder their spouses.

You know, 'cause they're the only ones we should trust to be totin'.

[DissedByBush]

50. It would depend on who's doing the study

If the Violence Policy Center did it, the results really wouldn't matter.

They'd be spun so that the guns were the source of all evil anyway.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. True. It would be hard to find a neutral party to do the study. N/T