Man points gun during road-rage incident

[MichaelHarris]

A Sugar Land man was charged in connection with a road-rage incident, accused of pointing a handgun at Galveston residents, authorities said Monday. Bruce Jay Snider, 51, was jailed on a $60,000 bond on two felony counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Officers collected two handguns during the stop, a Sig Sauer from a belt holster and a 9 mm Smith & Wesson from the glove box, Heyse said. Snider had a concealed handgun license, Heyse said.http://galvestondailynews.com/story/264046

[safeinOhio]

1. try this link

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/264046

[MichaelHarris]

2. thanks!

fixed it now :)

[DrDan]

3. "Snider had a concealed handgun license . . . "

Pretty clearly demonstrates that all concealed toters are not as responsible as claimed

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. Statistically, it does not demonstrate that "concealed toters are not as responsible as claimed"

A) a single event does not inticate trends

If you want to apply any generalization to any specified group you need a statistically significant sampling of events. You have cied just ONE event in a selected demographic of over 6 millions. A single data point cannot realize the generalization you are trying to make.

B) the claim you offer up for rebuttal is a straw man

Pro-toter supporters don't make the claim that "every" toter is free from criminal action... only that lawfully compliant toters are extremelety law-abiding (statistically, as a group) when compared to the general population. The former statement is a sraw man representation of pro-toter claims and the latter statement would require much more than an isolated incident to defeat.

[Atypical Liberal]

7. Bookmarking for future use.

This is exactly the correct response.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Feel free to fix the spelling, too... lol. I needed more coffee. (n/t)

[Atypical Liberal]

8. How does one case demonstrate anything about "all"? n/t

[rl6214]

12. What's a toter? Is that like a purse you carry around?

http://www.ebags.com/category/totes/20024884

[cleanhippie]

17. The only thing clearly demonstrated is your ignorance on the subject.

What makes it even worse is that its WILLFUL.

[SteveM]

20. Source to "concealed toters are not as responsible as claimed?"

Anecdotes don't demonstrate.

[Callisto32]

41. You just keep up the straw men and abusive ad hominem attacks.

Clearly you have a knack for them.

[Hoyt]

4. Naw, folks with permits don't do chit like that according to toters here.

[GreenStormCloud]

5. Please show where any poster here has claimed that.

You can't, because we haven't made that claim. When you have to lie to support your position, then you have already lost.

[Atypical Liberal]

9. The rate of revocation for concealed toters is less than 2%.

Naw, folks with permits don't do chit like that according to toters here.

No one claims that concealed toters never break the law. Just that it is extremely rare. Concealed toters are less likely to be convicted of any kind of crime, let alone firearm-related crime, than the rest of the non-concealed-toting population.

[Hoyt]

18. First, things don't always get reported. Worse, if you are correct -- 200,000 idiots are packing.

[Atypical Liberal]

19. But the data that IS reported is overwhelming.

First, things don't always get reported.

But the data that is reported is overwhelming, and all we can look at is actual DATA, not speculation.

And what the DATA shows is that CCW permit holders are much less likely to be involved in any kind of crime, let alone firearm related crime, than your average non-CCW carrying citizen.

Worse, if you are correct -- 200,000 idiots are packing.

I don't understand. Are you saying that the people who had their permits revoked are still carrying concealed weapons?

[Hoyt]

21. You need to compare kumquats to kumquats. Compare crime stats for CCW to those who could qualify

for a permit if they felt the need to carry a gun. See how your CCW holders compare to that group, not the general population that includes felons.

If 10M people pack, then at one time there were roughly 200,000 walking around who would eventually have their permits revoked. That's a lot. Plus, I think your 2% is low because a lot of actions that would require revocation don't get reported. Besides, almost every gunner I've known shouldn't have been allowed near a gun, much less to carry one into public parks, churches, restaurants, etc.

[oneshooter]

23. Try these stats, from the Texas Dept. of Public Safety.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Hoyt]

27. Once again, compare it to people who can get permit but know that people don't need a gun in public.

Who cares if you include felons in your misuse of statistics, they have nothing to do with this debate. Compare those who feel they need a gun (so that get a permit) to those who could meet criteria for a permit but know that they don't need a gun in public. The post back.

[oneshooter]

35. Do you realise how really stupid that statement makes you sound? n/t

[Hoyt]

40. That's what I think when one of you guys bring that BS argument up.

I guess it plays well to those who pack. But to the hundreds of million more who don't, it's just more "gun culture" BS.

But you guys will be posting the same crud later.

[Callisto32]

43. I explained Hoyt's poor survey planning it in post 42.

The mere fact that it is in 42 means that my post must be taken as important to life, the universe, and everything.

[PavePusher]

25. "I think your 2% is low because a lot of actions that would require revocation don't get reported."

Ah, your omniscience is back from the shop, eh? Finely tuned now? I am unaware of any other mechanism for your knowledge....

"Besides, almost every gunner I've known shouldn't have been allowed near a gun, much less to carry one into public parks, churches, restaurants, etc."

I'm not sure your screenwriter credentials qualify you to make those determinations.

[friendly_iconoclast]

26. He also thinks you need a permit to buy and own a long gun in California.

Spoiler: you don't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x467867
(numerous posts)

"...the Washington Generals of gun control advocacy."

[Hoyt]

28. I'm not sure your irrational need to carry a gun qualifies you to participate in this debate either.

[friendly_iconoclast]

30. Aww, poor Hoyt doesn't get to decide who's allowed to discuss guns here.

Nor does he get to decide who's got the 'correct' line on politics. I feel for him, I really do.

Besides, ignorance of relevant law, statistics and firearms technology hasn't disqualified you yet, has it?

So, I'd say it's pretty much an open forum...

[Hoyt]

31. Who gives a chit about that? No one really needs a gun in public. Most who think so are irrational.

[friendly_iconoclast]

32. Did you get your degree in statistics at the same place you studied telepsychology?

And do let us know when the Senate confirms you as Secretary of Need, hmm?

[Hoyt]

33. And where did you get yours? NRA BS.

[oneshooter]

38. Hoyt ain't got no degree, don't need one, he just knows. n/t

[Callisto32]

44. What is irrational is beliving that you know what is best for everyone, everywhere.

It's a common condition among those such as yourself.

Cognitive dissonance, I mean.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. No one really needs a gun in public. Oh really ??

you do understand that when you say "No ONE" that means EVERY ONE -- as in LEOs. Is this what you really intended to say?

Inherently, isn't that statement automatically false?

:shrug:

[Hoyt]

34. Poor hoyt ain't shackled by the need to rationalize carrying guns in public.

[oneshooter]

37. Just by rationalizing your fear of what you can not see. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

39. But you still own guns, and could snap at any moment and start toting one in public.

Funny thing: The guy that dislikes and fears gun owners is himself a gun owner, while the guy that doesn't obsess about dumbed-out bullets, thigh holsters, and rude toters at Chuck E. Cheeze- isn't.

Got projection?

[Callisto32]

42. Your methodology is unnecessary, and overcomplicates things.

We DON'T have to compare to people who could qualify but don't. What we are comparing is concealed permit holders with the general populace. The general populace includes the people who could qualify, but choose not to, as well as those people who DO have a permit. We are interested in how much difference there is between EVERYONE and those that have permits. Those that are have or could get a license are included in everyone, so we DON'T have to compare as you suggest, and to do so would add close to zero useful data.

I also love how you have declared yourself arbiter of who should be allowed near a gun, and would like to use guns to force the us to disarm, for not meeting your standards.

Don't say you don't want to use guns to disarm us. If you want government laws disarming people, that disarmament will be backed up by, ultimately, men with guns.

[Spoonman]

45. MARK FOR FUTURE REFERENCE!

"things don't always get reported"

You finally grasp the concept of why more guns equal less crime!

[rl6214]

13. Thanks to Onetenthofonepercent for this response

A) a single event does not inticate trends

If you want to apply any generalization to any specified group you need a statistically significant sampling of events. You have cied just ONE event in a selected demographic of over 6 millions. A single data point cannot realize the generalization you are trying to make.

B) the claim you offer up for rebuttal is a straw man

Pro-toter supporters don't make the claim that "every" toter is free from criminal action... only that lawfully compliant toters are extremelety law-abiding (statistically, as a group) when compared to the general population. The former statement is a sraw man representation of pro-toter claims and the latter statement would require much more than an isolated incident to defeat.

[rrneck]

22. Hey,

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chit
chit
1    /tʃɪt/ Show Spelled Show IPA
noun
1.
a signed note for money owed for food, drink, etc.
2.
any receipt, voucher, or similar document, especially of an informal nature.
3.
Chiefly British . a note; short memorandum.
Origin:
1775–85; short for chitty < Hindi chiṭṭī


The word you are looking for is shit. Everybody knows it, so using the wrong term as a euphemism
just makes you look like an affected sanctimonious prude.

Oh wait...

[oneshooter]

24. As usual Hoyt has no idea of what he speaks. n/t

[Hoyt]

29. You are biased because you can't even imagine venturing out without a gun.

[oneshooter]

36. Your fear of that what you can not see makes you biased. n/t

[ileus]

10. I cry when I see guns and ammo in the hands of civilians.

[rl6214]

11. And your point is?

[ileus]

15. silly wabbit....point is gun threaten people.

hidden criminals, rude toters, ect...

[jmg257]

14. Those Galveston people are soo crazy! nt