Gun law sparks debate on safety
Secured firearms allowed in vehicles on campuses
By Liz Segrist
Read the bill
Read more
Learn more about concealed weapons permits at scstatehouse.gov
A third-year sociology and psychology student at the College of Charleston said hearing that it's now legal for firearms to be in enclosed compartments in vehicles on her campus makes her feel anything but safe.
But that's exactly what soon could be the case since South Carolina's concealed weapon permit (CWP) holders now can legally have firearms in closed compartments of their car while on school property, furthering the reach of the pro-gun-rights activists and angering the anti-gun-rights movement.
"I think they should not be anywhere near a school or near any sort of students in our teenage years," Christeen Faucette, 20, said. "If people know there could be guns in a car next to them, it could definitely affect the college campuses and schools with crime."
The state has long allowed any legal gun owner to keep a firearm locked in their vehicle, in a glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk or secured container in the vehicle. Just not on school grounds.
But after Gov. Mark Sanford signed a bill into law this week, CWP
holders are now allowed to take guns onto school property. However, guns must remain secured and in the vehicle. And non-CWP holders still are banned from taking firearms onto school property.
Sen. Jake Knotts, R-West Columbia, worked on the committee that considered the bill. He said it will not have any effect on gun violence on campuses.
"It's not in any way going to increase any type of shootings on campuses," Knotts said. "The people who do the shootings on campus are not law-abiding citizens."
South Carolina GrassRoots GunRights Executive Officer Bill Rentiers said he supports the law because "it corrects an inefficiency or a wrong within the law." For instance, if a parent with a CWP has to pick up their child from school, they no longer have to go home to remove the firearm before picking up the child.
However, some anti-gun groups disagree with the efficiency reasoning.
"I think the more places that guns are allowed, the more chance there is of more injury and gun violence," said Evelyn Dolven, the South Carolina Million Mom March chapter spokeswoman.
Dolven, a 70-year-old retired public school teacher, said she doesn't think having guns on campus would increase safety, even in the event of a shooting.
"It's best to leave protection to the people who are trained to protect, such as the campus police and the campus security people," Dolven said. "Untrained people often cause more problems than they think they would, resulting in more injury."
Rep. Joe Daning, R-Goose Creek, said that although he is a Second Amendment supporter, his work within higher education led him to vote against the bill.
"I just don't like the idea of having guns on campus, any campus," Daning said. "And I understand the reason why they did it. I understand what's behind it. It just concerns me."
Rentiers said he believes this law will increase safety because CWP holders are trustworthy people who have been through training and background checks. Therefore, they could provide protection.
"Any area or zone that is a gun-free zone, with no exceptions, has no protection," Rentiers said. "Crazed killers or criminals don't obey the laws. The law-abiding citizens, like concealed weapons permit holders, do obey the laws."
Sen. Shane Massey, R-Edgefield, said before this law, law-abiding citizens were prevented from protecting themselves.
But Faucette maintains that she does not advocate guns for any reason, especially on her campus."It could definitely increase the possibility of school shootings too," Faucette said.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly versionComments
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
It's amazing to think there are this many naive sheep around - "It could definitely increase the possibility of school shootings too," Faucette said.
The only stupid part about this law is that it maintains "crime safe zones" in schools by preventing law abiding CWP holders from carrying their pistol inside the school. Thus guaranteeing for the criminal that all victims are unarmed.
How many firearms crimes have been committed by CWP holders in SC schools? Zero, I'm sure.
June 5, 2009 at 12:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rocks66 (anonymous) says...
After reading this student's comment, I think it's safe to say that the former Miss Teenage S.C. who was featured in the famous YouTube "geography" video can finally pass her crown on to someone else.
June 5, 2009 at 1:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malthus (anonymous) says...
"Untrained people often cause more problems than they think they would, resulting in more injury."
This statement shows the ignorance of the anti-gun activists. they should do more research before making statements. A concealed weapons permit means you have taken and passed a state certified weapons training course. Now personally, Would like to see an annual re-qualification to maintain the permit, but that is my personal belief that a CWP holder should have to be able to demonstrate continued proficiency. I also think that the anti-gun activists need to realize that in every society that bans guns only takes guns from the law abiding citizens, no anti gun measure has ever truly affected crime. We will only see a change in crime rates when the judges toughen up and start passing harsher sentences on violent felonies where weapons of any type are used. Mandatory minimums of 30 years, with no plea bargains, no good time and no time served credits would make a thug realize the error of their ways at sentencing. Maybe the pro-gun advocates should compile a list of the sentences handed down for criminal weapons uses and the sentences or lack of sentences passed down from judges. I doubt even the most hardcore anti gun activist could believe have those charges are often dismissed or traded away for short time pleas. How about someone being given three years for three armed robberies? How does that make everyone feel? A thug can get a nice short stay for putting a gun or knife to you and two of your loved ones, rob you and then suck up your tax payer dollars for a three year bid of exercising and snacking on honeybuns. Think about that. I personally love the idea of a thug pulling a knife on someone they think is a helpless victim, only to end up at the business end of a legally carried firearm. Hopefully the last thing they feel is the loss of bladder and bowel control. Until crime pays pound for pound the average citizen needs every tool possible to protect themselves.
June 5, 2009 at 1:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Creeker01 (anonymous) says...
"It's best to leave protection to the people who are trained to protect, such as the campus police and the campus security people," Dolven said. "Untrained people often cause more problems than they think they would, resulting in more injury."
Except you've apparently never heard the adage "They're never around when you need them"... Its Ok, Granny, you can keep your head in the sand with the rest of the sheeple.
Joe Daning: I am ashamed of you. Pack your bag, you PC maroon.
June 5, 2009 at 2:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
scmariner (anonymous) says...
Its good because if a crazy comes on campus, someone has a way of dealing with the issue. Immediately. And I think it would discourage a shooter if he/she knew that someone may be carrying.
June 5, 2009 at 3:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ReadyD (anonymous) says...
The people who take the time and make the effort to legally purchase a handgun for self defense, take the CWP course, which is largely about gun safety are not the folks to fear. They have obviously thought more about the safety of themselves, their family and the community around them than those who say "It concerns me." The police also legally have guns for the same reason. For those interviewed who gave silly responses because they hadn't thought it through or never engaged in intelligent debate on the issue - I can forgive you on that. Joe Daning, your vote is without excuse.
June 5, 2009 at 4:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ForPnC (anonymous) says...
Anti-gun weirdos...
A few months ago I took an anti-gun nut to the range with me.
After about an hour of showing her the different weapons, how they fire, the rules and safety precautions, and watching me shoot, she tried it. She was very scared and nervous to hold a weapon in her hand. She fired a round and barely hit the target. After another half hour she still wasn't hitting center mass but she was doing much better. She was relaxed and having fun.
She comes to the range with me about every other week now. She enjoys watching her skills improve. She still doesn't own her own weapon but I'm sure she will one day. I told her before she does to please take a an official course from a certified trainer. She didn't know this kind of thing existed.
I've converted one. I get ten points!
June 5, 2009 at 5:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
ForPnC, That's a 30 pointer there. That is the main reason people are against guns it is a lack of knowledge and the colleges suck their indepndent thinking brains from their heads!
June 5, 2009 at 6:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spengler (anonymous) says...
"Gun Free" zones are very effective-- for criminals. One armed student or prof could have stopped the VA Tech shootings. If I were a crook, any place that advertised disarmed citizens would be my place of choice to commit crime. Remember-- the anti-gun people don't want to control guns-- they want to control YOU and your freedom. Thank you, legislators and Mr. Rentier.
June 5, 2009 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
PoliGadfly (anonymous) says...
Mr Danning, weren't you elected to represent your constituents rather than subordinate their wishes to your ideas? Send out your mailer surveys to determine what they think if you're out of touch on the issue, but you aren't there to impose your personal views regarding anything.
Now be a good little politician and do what you're told.
June 5, 2009 at 6:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jammer (anonymous) says...
I'm all for this, thank you Gov Sanford!
IMHO you should train at least once a month, stress drills included...
just be careful not to leave a firearm in your vehicle if you plan on leaving it unattended for hours...
parking lots are smrgåsbords for thief's
June 5, 2009 at 6:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
moonpie (anonymous) says...
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives,socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, Hollywood, we have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement or just use the red and blue model?. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.We don't like re- distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah,Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are,however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys,hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and FOX & give you NBC, MSNBC, CBS and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill. We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors or just use the TV docs?. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right. We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba freaking Ya or We Are the World. We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS THE LANGAUAGE OF OUR NEW FOUND COUNTRY. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag. We'll send you 30 per month so you can burn at your leisure. Would you agree to this?
In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely, MOONPIE
June 5, 2009 at 6:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
DougHuffman (anonymous) says...
Re permitted firearms (concealed or not), which part of un-infringed, found in both the U. S. Constitution and the S. C. Constitution, is not understood?
The NRA and the million moron mommies play their useful-tool fools against each other, 'good cop bad cop' like. Send more money and get more training or the Booger Man will get'cha! Safe gun-education should be like safe sex-education but not in the hands of private for profit entities.
Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth.
June 5, 2009 at 6:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
10216340 (anonymous) says...
Loved the post moon!!!
June 5, 2009 at 6:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
wow moonpie...a little pent up frustration? You convinced me....hardly.
Try using some good old fashioned logic like some of the previous posters. I don't agree with most of them, but I will listen to their argument and respectfully disagree.
June 5, 2009 at 7:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Halcyon (anonymous) says...
You really can't blame the students for thinking this way, they're just kids. "If you're not a liberal when you're young, you're heartless. If you're not a conservative when you grow old, you're an idiot."
This story reminds me of when I used to live in a college town in upstate New York. The campus police being armed was at the discretion of the college president. This particular president chose to have the police be unarmed and there was an article in the local newspaper about it. One of the quotes from a student was, "I don't see why the police need to have guns. Guns aren't allowed on campus, so you don't have to worry about anyone else having one." Wow.
June 5, 2009 at 7:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tc1 (anonymous) says...
One of the quotes from a student was, "I don't see why the police need to have guns. Guns aren't allowed on campus, so you don't have to worry about anyone else having one." Wow.
How can you have a logical discussion with someone like that?
June 5, 2009 at 7:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MP (anonymous) says...
An armed society is a polite society.
June 5, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Larz13 (anonymous) says...
"It could definitely increase the possibility of school shootings too," Faucette said.
The typical student that the CoC attracts--someone please tell her that the swine flu doesn't come from eating pork.
June 5, 2009 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Posted by Cid95 "It's amazing to think there are this many naive sheep around."
No, I have ceased to be amazed at the growing number of mind numb sheeple.
"But that's exactly what soon could be the case since South Carolina's concealed weapon permit (CWP) holders now can legally have firearms in closed compartments of their car while on school property, furthering the reach of the pro-gun-rights activists and angering the anti-gun-rights movement."
This only makes common sense. If you have a full time job or go to school full time, and a CWP, what good is carrying your weapon if you cant take it with you the majority of the time due to the fact that where you are going does not allow you to keep it in your vehicle while in school or work.
Oh, and the anti-gun-rights movement people need to get a life, like go to a high crime rate area in N. Chas. and try and tell bad guys to surrender their ill-gotten weapons.
June 5, 2009 at 7:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
moonpie said - "We don't like re- distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah,Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are,however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys,hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and FOX & give you NBC, MSNBC, CBS and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values....'
That is funny stuff but sadly so true. Good post moonpie!
June 5, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Oh, and moonpie, if what you proposed were to happen, the lefty lemmings wouldnt last a month. No producers, earners are rugged individualist to do the work and provide for them.
June 5, 2009 at 7:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chum_r (anonymous) says...
We should all stop and take a long look at ForPnC's approach to this issue. This is one of the best ways we can help the cause. It's a free Country: so if we don't change the people: The people will change us. We need to all be helping people that don't understand guns and are willing take the next step, to do just that: take the next step. I like to take new ones to the Blood drives at ATP, we give blood, they get a free range pass for 90 days and we hit range to get them started. We all have to do our part.
June 5, 2009 at 7:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
What would really be poetic justice, would be to ride down Calhoun St. see a Collge of "Crackhead" student getting mugged, and do nothing about it since they are on college property and I'm not.
Did miss "third year sociology student" have her FEELINGS hurt by this law? She will probably go on to become a Social worker, and "give back to the community". She will work with all of the trash of society, the same trash that cause's me, and other CWP holder's to be proactive about our own safety, and not have to wait on 911.
While I like the City of Charleston Police, the most I ever see of them, is when I am on I-26, and it seems like they are either coming or going from work. I can spend a whole day in the City, (downtown) and barley see one or two officers, and around the campus, NEVER see a campus cop.
I will never depend on 911 for my safety, I am responsible for myself, and family and friends if they are with me.
My prediction for Joe Danning, "TOAST". Your done, you are no supporter of the second amendment if you voted against this law. Your political career is over.
June 5, 2009 at 8:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
majorjohnson (anonymous) says...
This 20 year old apparently thinks she's a teenager, and that teenagers can hold a CWP. Stick to your sociology courses young lady so you can get a government job handing out welfare checks, else you're gonna be frying taters at a fast food joint.
June 5, 2009 at 8:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
And I thought Obama was going to take all of the guns and gun rights (shh, keep buying ammo, sheep!)...
I _speculate_ that if people were walking around armed, unfettered at a school there would be a massive increase in shooting deaths. I _speculate_ that you will be replacing the potential danger of a school shooting rampage with a large net increase in shooting deaths that would not have occurred. I can't say this is how it will be because it hasn't happened. I for one would not feel comfortable in an academic setting with armed cohorts and professors (I would SO do all my homework on time though!); rather I think that gun ownership and permitting would increase exponentially in a feedback loop (they've all got guns, I'll feel better if I have one). Imagine if all of a sudden the (tens of?) thousands of altercations that occur every day suddenly had one or more persons armed. People make crappy decisions when their blood boils.
One thing that I do keep reading here, and that I believe to be true, is that the people who take the time and effort to get a CWP are NOT the ones who cause a problem (in general). Down the road someone with a CWP may engage in a mass shooting, but that is really a matter of statistics, and I say that for those who resist expansion of gun rights/seek more regulations, you should pick a fight with a different population than CWP holders, who pretty much are the most responsible gun owners there are.
June 5, 2009 at 8:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
moon --
You can have your divirce. Gladly. And, you get to keep the kids!
June 5, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
I see everyone who is in favor of this measure is completely ignoring the fact that CWP training and certification doesn't prepare someone for the reality of an armed conflict. Police have training not only on how to handle their weapons but also on how to react in a dangerous situation including keeping a level head and not firing unless absolutely necessary.
Soccer moms and other parents who dutifully go out and get their CWP's to protect their family don't have that training, and that is precisely what makes them dangerous in an armed conflict. It's all well and good to believe that you'll react in the right way to protect your family, but if you get so nervous that you can't hit your target, or worse, hit some innocents, then you've thrown the entire "CWP's make us safer!" argument right out the window.
An everyday citizen with a CWP will never be an adequate replacement for a properly trained law enforcement officer. Even knowing how to use their weapons, civilians aren't trained to think straight in combat.
This measure doesn't necessarily mean that campuses will be safer. It's far more likely that if something should happen, it will allow a bad situation to become a whole lot worse.
Still, ForPnC and Chum are right in that *educating* people who take gun control stances - especially overzealous gun control stances - is the best way to affect change. Spewing hatred and rhetoric doesn't help anything.
I have to say that it's depressing to see all this blind hatred for people who are being labeled as liberals. Suggesting, as BlackReign does, that liberal-minded people don't work for a living is deplorable and intolerant, and Moonpie's deluded rant about separating the country is inane drivel that shows no understanding whatsoever of social or political problems and solutions.
June 5, 2009 at 8:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
zekemire (anonymous) says...
Sociology student answers the question, WHO IS THIS FOOL? Million mom march group would be better suited to a tea party with crumpets!
June 5, 2009 at 8:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GeneralSumter (anonymous) says...
1 Timothy 1:8-9a
8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels...
My favorite quote from the story was, "It's best to leave protection to the people who are trained to protect, such as the campus police and the campus security people." Are they talking about the unarmed, overweight, old people with a plastic badge whose only power lies in the number of keys on their key chain? What are they going to do to protect you from an armed assailant? Lock the GLASS door?
GIVE ME LIBERTY, OR GIVE ME DEATH! It's time to stand up!
June 5, 2009 at 8:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Acecool (anonymous) says...
Sorry to tell this student, but we are already allowed to keep our firearms in our car ANYWHERE that is open to public vehicle traffic...
Meaning, when we park on campus, on the streets or in the parking garages, we are already allowed to keep them in our cars!
June 5, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Sumter, a lot of private security forces on campuses, in shopping centers and other businesses come from retired police officers and inactive military personnel. Many of them have not only weapons training but also combat or stressful situation training to be able to handle a situation properly should a conflict arise.
Many of these private security agents do have CWPs and carry when a job permits them to, and these are the people who will do the best job of defusing or bringing an end to a situation in the absence of an active police presence.
June 5, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
"I have to say that it's depressing to see all this blind hatred for people who are being labeled as liberals. Suggesting, as BlackReign does, that liberal-minded people don't work for a living is deplorable and intolerant, and Moonpie's deluded rant about separating the country is inane drivel that shows no understanding whatsoever of social or political problems and solutions."
it's narrowminded generalizations like the one above, lt, that all liberals are lazy bums and leeches on society that give some of my good conservative friends a bad name.
June 5, 2009 at 8:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Charleston_21 (anonymous) says...
Even thought the CWP classes may not teach real life situations, I think if a situation like the VA Tech or Columbine happened, people would be able to pull theirself together and take care of it. In any situation where your life is in danger, you may have a million thoughts running through your head, but I think someone would be able to take care of it.
At first I was kind of sketchy about hearing about guns being okay to be on campus, but I do feel like it is a good thing because you never know what could happen and how long it could take authorities to get to a location.
I am just confused as to why Sanford was ALL for this one... but yet when it came to passing the bill on us getting money for school, where was Sanford :P
June 5, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
citizenmom (anonymous) says...
Thank you, ltgrunt, for inserting intelligent, thoughtful points into this thread. I wish it could be called a discussion rather than a thread, but I see little in terms of substance here, just loathing and hostility.
June 5, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chum_r (anonymous) says...
I don't see an empty class if our local police departments would offer a day class of gun and safty training for our local CWP holders. This would be time and money well spent.
June 5, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CHRISJIII (anonymous) says...
Guns do not belong on school campuses except by those trained in law enforcement. This like so many of Sanford's ideas is a bad one that will only lead to trouble.
June 5, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Harold, gun and ammunition sales have historically risen both in times of recession and during political regime changes. When the two overlap *of course* you're going to see a spike in sales. It's about as significant and unexpected as the sun rising and the tides going in and out.
Not a bad idea, Chum. Frankly, I've always favored the idea that colleges and universities should widely offer firearm safety and training courses. It would certainly put more firearm education and proper training out there in the general public, and it would probably make it easier for a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise have or make the time to get their CWP.
June 5, 2009 at 9:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
GeneralSumter (anonymous) says...
itgrunt, i agree, there are some trained, and some armed. But you obviously haven't been to CSU lately. As a grad student, I don't feel safer with them around. And I bet they're not armed.
I agree that CWP holders (I am one) need constant practice and "stress" training. I commit myself to hitting the range twice a month practicing various drills. I realize it's not what the police do and I'll never be fully trained as they are, but when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
June 5, 2009 at 9:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
It's not in any way going to increase any type of shootings on campuses," Knotts said. "The people who do the shootings on campus are not law-abiding citizens."
************
Isn't everyone a law abiding citizen until they aren't?
June 5, 2009 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
Guns do not belong on school campuses except by those trained in law enforcement. This like so many of Sanford's ideas is a bad one that will only lead to trouble
------------------------------------------------------------
TO CHRISJIII, the same thing was said back in the late 80's when Florida was the first state to have a real CWP. Every one of the anti-gun crowd said that there was going to be mass shootings over parking spots and small things, but the reality and the FACTS proved much different.
Violent crime dropped by record rates, and after 10 years of having their law, less than 1% of the CWP holders engaged in criminal acts with their guns.
Why can't people get the FACT's straight, the numbers are there to prove that " More guns = less crime". By the way, that is also the title of a book by a former liberal John Lott. His book proves that where the populus is armed, or are allowed to be armed, crime is nearly non-existant.
I suggest that anyone who can dis-prove this, give me your source and I will look at it to see if it rings true. I don't expext to be doing any reading any time soon, but if you want to argue this point go do some research first, you will find that what I am stating is fact not fiction...
June 5, 2009 at 9:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Creeker, there seem to be a number of studies which contradict Lott's conclusion:
* David Hemenway, 'Review of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws', New England Journal of Medicine, 1998. Hemenway's review states
"Lott finds, for example, that both increasing the rate of unemployment and reducing income reduces the rate of violent crimes and that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws."
* Rutgers sociology professor Ted Goertzel stated that "Lott's massive data set was simply unsuitable for his task", and that he "compar[ed] trends in Idaho and West Virginia and Mississippi with trends in Washington, D.C. and New York City" without proper statistical controls. He alleged that econometric methods are susceptible to misuse and can even become junk science.
* Ian Ayres, Yale Law School, and John Donohue, Stanford Law School, 'Shooting Down the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis'. Stanford Law Review, 2003.
* Jens Ludwig, Georgetown University, "Concealed-Gun-Carrying Laws and Violent Crime: Evidence from State Panel Data", published in International Review of Law and Economics, 1998..
* Dan Black and Daniel Nagin, "Do 'Right-to-Carry' Laws Deter Violent Crime?" Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 209-213 (January 1998).
* Mark Duggan, University of Chicago, "More Guns, More Crime," National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. W7967, October 2000, later published in Journal of Political Economy.
* Steven Levitt, University of Chicago, 'Understanding Why Crime Fell in the 1990s: Four Factors that Explain the Decline and Six that Do Not'. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2004. Levitt lists 'Laws allowing a right to carry concealed weapons' as number five in his list of 'Six Factors that Played Little or No Role in the Crime Decline'.
* Jeffrey Miron, Boston University, 'Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis'. The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001.
* Tomislav V. Kovandzic and Thomas B. Marvell, "Right-To-Carry Concealed Firearms and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol?" Criminology and Public Policy 2, (2003) pages 363-396.
* John J. Donahue III, Stanford Law School, 'The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis', Criminology and Public Policy, 2003.
June 5, 2009 at 9:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
katrenavantassle (anonymous) says...
Read in the news yesterday that a man who repeatedly raped an 11 yr.old girl, was attacked by the townspeople and beat the **** out of. (I would have been right there helping kiss his *** too most likely if I knew it true.) And when it went to court the townspeople who did it were NOT charged with anything by the judge! Good old vigilante justice working again? This is what I forsee happening at the schools when the guns are locked in gloveboxes, and some younger macho CPW holders with attitude feel the need for justice and will not wait for the authorities to get there.
June 5, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mypointofview (anonymous) says...
Posted by Rocks66 on June 5, 2009 at 1:28 a.m.
After reading this student's comment, I think it's safe to say that the former Miss Teenage S.C. who was featured in the famous YouTube "geography" video can finally pass her crown on to someone else.
BRILLIANT!
To Moonpie...STANDING OVATION.
June 5, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
What is wrong with the P & C? What EXACTLY makes the fears of one paranoid college student so profound?
June 5, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
Utterly awesome post, Moonpie. On a scale of 1-10, it's an 11!!! You, sir or ma'am possess a superior intllect. You have found your way out of the woods of LEFT WING and seen the light. Of course you want a divorce!!!
June 5, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
harold, your response to my post had absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Nice comic book reference by the way- kryptonite only works on us if we actually read comic books instead of something with a bit more substance. :) I gave them up when I was 8.
June 5, 2009 at 9:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
postman, it was a nice piece of prose, however contained no substance. A 11? Yeah maybe in Sean Hannity land (aka Fantasyland).
June 5, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Here is an interesting non-scientific study, Chicago, Detroit, DC, all have strict gun control laws, but yet they have some of the highest murder rates.
Mass shootings that have made the news over the last couple of decades, have occured in places (schools, malls, job sites, churchs.) where there is a strict ban on bringing guns into those places.
Gun shops, gun shows, gun ranges, dont seem to have the problem of a lone gunman going nuts and killing people.
Bad people do bad things. Its that simple. Guns are a means to an end, if a bad person can get a gun they will use it for bad things, and a good person with a gun, may be able to save their lives and maybe the lives of others.
In states where CWPs are issued, you dont have daily shootouts in the wal-mart parking lot or outside of the Tasty Freeze, between a CWP holder and a bad guy.
But in almost every major inner city in this nation where there are gangs and thugs you have drive-bys and shootouts almost every couple of hours.
Go figure. I know, it must be because of the poverty in the inner cities...right? But hold on, the democrats are still fighting that war on poverty, 40 years and trillions of $$$, we are almost victorious!
Other than the mafia style gangsters of the 30s, people didnt go around killing each other during the great depression.
June 5, 2009 at 10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"Other than the mafia style gangsters of the 30s, people didnt go around killing each other during the great depression."
I can guarantee you that they did. People have been murdering each other since humans first learned to stand upright and use our opposable thumbs to make tools.
"Here is an interesting non-scientific study..."
When you acknowledge that it is non-scientific, you immediately forfeit any presumed legitimacy in whatever conclusion you were explicitly or implicitly presenting. It's just as easy to present an "interesting, non-scientific study" about the correlation between waffles and homicide rates. This is why real scientists understand that correlation does not equal to causation.
"Mass shootings that have made the news over the last couple of decades..."
There has also been no evidence to support the idea that one or more armed individuals would have successfully stopped any one of these school, workplace or church rampages. Pulling out a gun and standing up to a sociopath on a killing spree doesn't guarantee that you'll stop him; it does, however, guarantee that you take top priority as a target.
June 5, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"vmirat90>
You don't read comic books yet you put your faith in the worst comedian/politician ever concieved: Barack HUSSEIN Obama who is dumb enough to insist car makers make smaller cars for the ever incresing homeless people to sleep!!!!"
Harold, what does his middle name have to do with anything? I can tell you with absolute certainty since I've seen his short form birth certificate online that it isn't spelled in all capitol letters like that. I can only guess that you're trying to place emphasis on it to play on the old falsehood about his religious preference.
Also, it seems you have a distinct misunderstanding of the new CAFE standards. They aren't meant to make automakers manufacture only small cars. Rather, the standards are being changed to increase efficiency demands on all vehicles, regardless of type. So GM, Chrysler and Ford are all free to make whatever kind of vehicle they want, so long as they can make it safe and efficient. If GM has or can hire some engineers smart enough to make one of their land whale SUV's functional AND efficient, more power to them. Personally, this is why I'm looking forward to Chrysler's line of ENVI extended range hybrid and all-electric vehicles. The Dodge Circuit EV looks especially tempting.
June 5, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
grunt - "Other than the mafia style gangsters of the 30s, people didnt go around killing each other during the great depression." I can guarantee you that they did.'
geez grunt, can you back that up with reliable sources?
"Here is an interesting non-scientific study", step down off your high horse and try and grasp the concept of sarcasm. What I posted was my personal non-scientific study.
My observations about gun use in America, and my opinion on it. Sorry, it doesnt fit into your perception of reality.
LMAO, grunt get a grip, you are not the Alpha and Omega of all knowledge. People have opinions, and obviously, you have a massive ego that needs feeding.
Good luck.
June 5, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
I love when someone emphasizes the HUSSEIN in Obama's name, HAROLD Reems ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_S... ) - you must be a serial killer!
June 5, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
Moon--Gold Star for the day.
To all who give a F Lock and load.
June 5, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
smithdr2 (anonymous) says...
Most of the folks are just dropping off their kids. They are Not staying or hanging around the school the whole day. A brief 2 to 3 mins in the car at the school vs unprotected the whole day around town or where-ever?
June 5, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
hey Harold...you don't know who I support. I dislike both parties, so I would suggest that you don't paint me with that broad brush that you always seem to do here. People who make those kind of generalizations are ignorant. I don't put my faith in anyone or entity. Alot of my views are liberal, yes, but I'm hardly a partisan democrat. One piece of advice, mr. broad brusher: before you call anyone stupid, spell-check your post. It's conceived, not concieved.
June 5, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"geez grunt, can you back that up with reliable sources?"
Sure, just look at newspapers printed between late 1929 and mid 1941 and you'll get a quick and thorough understanding of the fact that crimes still happened during the Great Depression - even when the people involved weren't gangsters.
"What I posted was my personal non-scientific study."
Right, which as a study is inherently meaningless. You do, however, correctly identify it as an opinion, which is fine when we consider that opinions are independent of and often unsupported by facts.
"LMAO, grunt get a grip, you are not the Alpha and Omega of all knowledge."
I have a grip, BR, and you don't have to insult me to disagree with or show that you don't like the things that I'm saying. I've never said that I'm perfect or that I know everything; it just seems to bother you to no end when I offer insight on any given topic.
June 5, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Like I said; "Other than the mafia style gangsters of the 30s, people didnt go around killing each other during the great depression."
'Looking at the historical record, there is little doubt that prohibitions have had the biggest impact on crime and crime statistics. The murder rate prior to alcohol prohibition ranged between 5 and 6. During alcohol prohibition the murder rate leaped higher, and continued to climb, until alcohol prohibition was repealed in 1933, reaching a rate of almost 10 murders per 100,000 population. After the repeal of alcohol prohibition, the murder rate declined sharply throughout the Great Depression.'
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/h...
June 5, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chum_r (anonymous) says...
There has also been no evidence to support the idea that one or more armed individuals would have successfully stopped any one of these school, workplace or church rampages. Pulling out a gun and standing up to a sociopath on a killing spree doesn't guarantee that you'll stop him; it does, however, guarantee that you take top priority as a target.
On the Brady site : maybe not, but give this site a try. http://claytoncramer.com/gundefensebl...
June 5, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Oh, beleive me, you dont bother me, I just find it funny.
"New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. have the strictest gun controls in the country, and the highest murder rates. Cities such as Indianapolis, where concealed carry of a firearm is perfectly legal, have much lower rates of violent crime. John Lott's studies have clearly shown a causal relationship between enactment of concealed carry laws, and a decrease in violent crime."
http://www.dsgl.org/Articles/flick2.htm
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbar...
June 5, 2009 at 10:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
guidedbystewart (anonymous) says...
Posted by BlackReign on June 5, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"moonpie said - "We don't like re- distributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah,Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are,however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys,hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and FOX & give you NBC, MSNBC, CBS and Hollywood. You can make nice with Iran and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us. You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values....'
That is funny stuff but sadly so true. Good post moonpie!"
YEEE HAAAWWWW! YUCK! Yuck!
June 5, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
counterpoint (anonymous) says...
I know I've made a valid point when the response turns from the debate to how someone can kick my a**.
Next!
June 5, 2009 at 11:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
You're still assuming that all murders during the Great Depression - and now apparently all of prohibition, which stretched for almost another decade before the Depression - were only a result of "mafia style gangsters." Your assumption couldn't be more wrong - granted, those were the most famous of the era, but just look in any major newspaper over that time period and you'll find plenty of boring murders for plenty of boring reasons.
It also appears that you missed my 9:42 AM post listing quite a number of findings that contradict or question the methods and legitimacy of Lott's conclusion. Pay close attention to the criticism that Lott's data also supports the conclusion that crime rates are lower in areas with fewer black women over 40. When one set of statistics lead to two wildly different and unrelated conclusions, what makes one conclusion more valid than the other, and more importantly, what does that say about the gathered data and the methods used to interpret it?
One of the accounts on that site doesn't give such a pleasant view of CWP holders, Chum. Relating to the Oklahoma City pharmacy robbery:
" The charge alleges Ersland [the armed citizen] shot Antwun Parker, 16, while he was incapacitated and lying on his back. Ersland's account of the incident doesn't match the video or the evidence collected at the scene, according to the affidavit written by Oklahoma City Police Detective David Jacobson.
Parker was shot once in the head and five times in the stomach area. The autopsy found Parker was still alive after the head shot and died from the stomach wounds.
The surveillance video does seem to confirm that while the first shot was in self-defense, subsequent shots were not even close to being in self-defense. Nonetheless, the initial use was lawful self-defense."
He winged the kid in the head and could have left him lying on the floor incapacitated, but instead chose to go out of his way to put five more slugs in the kid's stomach. That's EXACTLY the kind of person we don't need getting a CWP and playing cowboy.
June 5, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chum_r (anonymous) says...
ltgrunt I completely understand your point. Did you stop at that one or did you keep reading?
June 5, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Chum, I browsed a handful, but I don't have the patience to go through what looks like years of blogs. Believe me, the point about responsible gun owners protecting their homes, families, etc., is hammered home in the first couple of pages. I don't really feel the need to belabor the point by getting it drilled into my head with a few thousand more entries.
Still, there is the fact that CWP carriers don't actually *prevent* crime so much as they immediately respond to it.
At best, having more people with CWPs in more places is just a stopgap measure to deal with crimes as they happen. We still need actual crime *prevention.*
June 5, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Edwin435 (anonymous) says...
"There has also been no evidence to support the idea that one or more armed individuals would have successfully stopped any one of these school, workplace or church rampages."
I beg to differ, There was a lady, who was a security guard, shot and killed the perp in one of those deadly rampages. Now I can hear you say " but she was a security guard" and I concede that point but the overall tone of your statement was that it would not have helped. I bet my paycheck that it would have. Just look at the many articles that have been written about good law abiding citizens who have a CWP and have stopped crime. I suggest using GOOGLE and then applying that logic....
June 5, 2009 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Do you have any details on that incident, Edwin? Name, place, time, date - anything at all to identify the incident?
And yes, I would make a point about the training that a security guard has - depending not only on their background prior to become a security agent but also on the specific security company they work for and the training that company provides - as opposed to a soccer mom or weekend warrior dad in the same situation. Typically, a trained professional will deal with a situation within their field much better than an untrained neophyte.
Chum, looking back not on that gun self-defense blog but on Clayton Cramer's personal blog, I'm seeing a decidedly one-sided zeal. The self-defense blog proves its point, but the personal blog is self-righteous and unaccepting of even mild, open-minded opposition.
June 5, 2009 at 11:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
grunt, I didnt miss it, I wonder if you missed mine link?
"As ten studies have shown, in any year, about 1 to 2.5 million Americans use guns to protect themselves and their families. and about 400,000 of those defenders believe that they would almost certainly have lost their lives if they had not had a gun for defense.[11,22] Even if only one-tenth of those defenders are correct, the lives saved by guns would still be more numerous than the lives lost to guns.
These benefits can be weighed against the human costs of guns - recently
about 38,000 gun deaths from all causes and about 65,000 additional serious
injuries annually (the remainder of gun injuries were so minor as to
require no hospital treatment at all). Totaling all gun deaths, injuries,
and criminal mischief with guns leads to a generous estimate of about 1
million criminal misuses of guns annually (involving less than one-half of 1% of America's more than 200-million guns)[7,11] So, all things
considered, the human benefits of guns at least equal and likely exceed the
costs of guns to society by a factor of 2.5.
Of the 38,000 gun deaths, a majority are suicides.
Gun ban advocates routinely portray good citizens with guns as inept and
dangerous, but good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as
frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals[11] and
they do it with a better safety record than the police. About 11% of
police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing
an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000.[49] Citizens intervening in
crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.[49] "
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbar...
June 5, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
Liberal shackles? Spitballs? I won't stoop to your level. But hey, if you get to prop your insecure self up by "thinking" that you are winning posts that mean absolutely nothing, or will earn you the same, knock yourself out. My weekend is ruined- I lost a post to harold! What am I going to do? I will tell you what I'm going to do- live my life- have beers and cheap mexican with my wife and friends after work, and enjoy the weekend.
So many of you people are way too uptight, including you Harold. You say conservatives are kindler and gentler? Look at your last response to me- hardly kindler and gentler. You tend to talk out of both sides of your mouth. Lighten up and live a little. You are going to have a heart attack and die long before me with your attitude.
June 5, 2009 at 11:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
Black- appreciate the stats, however I will never agree that people ever need assault weapons or anything of the like. I don't want to take away personal handguns or rifles, but there is no reasonable justification for assault-type weapons. I got in an argument with someone at work that believes he should own a bazooka if he wanted. He, of course, is an idiot.
June 5, 2009 at 11:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
"A kinder gentler machine gun hand"
Rockin' in the free World.....Neil Young and Crazy Horse
June 5, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Some polls claim that Californians support "more restrictive" gun laws, yet many Californians were surprised to discover that existent "waiting period"
law thwarted their attempts to arm themselves for protection during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. The police department was so overwhelmed that residents discovered that they were virtually abandoned to a "let burn" policy.
Indeed, without causing even a single death or injury, it was those good citizens displaying their fearsome "assault weapons" who turned back mob and gang violence, protecting their lives, their families, and their livelihoods. It was good citizens displaying such weapons who turned back
looting police and out-of-control US Army National Guardsmen during Hurricane Hugo.[50] It was armed African-Americans that protected themselves and their families from Ku Klux Klansmen and other racist terrorists (terrorists that often included local law enforcement officers).[51,52,53]
When faced with multiple assailants, mob and gang violence, terrorism, or civil insurrection, it is precisely high-capacity "assault weapons" that are necessary for good people to defend themselves - particularly when
police resources are stretched to the breaking point.Notwithstanding gun control extremists' politicized research, histrionics, and unprophetic imagery , the observed reality was that most crime fell, in
part, because vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police[12] or fear our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida's tourists are targeted by predators - predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida's citizens, tourists are unarmed."
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbar...
June 5, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
UrGatorbait (anonymous) says...
They listen or embrace rap music that glorifies killing and mistreatment of women, yet these same uniformed ditzes are now influencing policy for 15 minutes of fame? Daning you are another spineless political hack. Shut up and sit in a corner with this ditz.
IT grunt pulls the old show-me laundry list to help me prove MY point. How do you know what they prevent IT? Is that backed up by pages of facts you don't have time to browse through? Save the condescending attitude bub.
Liberals, those "understanding and inclusive tolerant types, are anything but vmir, but keep up the good fight.
June 5, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Of course, grunt, you can go read it all your self, there is even a proposal section at the end that advocates some of what you are saying...just to be fair.
vmirat90 - read my 11:44 a.m. But the bottom line is simple semi-auto rifles that are being called "assualt rifles" ARE LEGAL, if I want to buy one, I will and can.
You can get a Ruger mini-mag .223 that fires the same publicly available ammo that an AR-15 does.
June 5, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhatMeWorry (anonymous) says...
Before you all go congratulating Moonpie for the post, know that none of it is original. It's all plagiarized:
http://www.renewamerica.us/bb/viewtop...
June 5, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
ty gator, at least someon else sees frunts pompous clap-trap for what it is.
- you can go to the site I posted and every stated fact has a reference listed at the end.
June 5, 2009 at 11:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Edwin435 (anonymous) says...
Yes I do, just Google it. She was a cop that left the service. She was probably more qualified than most security guards that I have come across. But my point was that the statement that there was no evidence that armed individuals would not have helped the situation is wrong. There may be no direct evidence as people cannot carry a weapon in these atmospheres but there are many many cases that will indirectly prove that a brave, armed, legally qualified person with a CWP has in fact thwarted violent crime. That was what I was referring to. Also just because one has not had official training does not mean one cannot exercise correct judgment and be effective in these situations. There are a multitude of CWP individuals that practice and use their firearms. I do believe that these same people can and will be effective given that they are in these situations. I know because I would be one of those people....
June 5, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
96whaler (anonymous) says...
A little different approach:
The heads of members of The White Rose Society were cut off after distributing anti-Nazi propaganda on campus. These were kids! dropping flyers outside of their classrooms.
The right to bear arms is essential for free thinking and open debate of ideas/education/politics/law.
June 5, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhatMeWorry (anonymous) says...
Boy, it sure would be great if we lived in a crime-free society in which no one had access to guns. Less violent crime, no cases of kids getting into daddy's guns and ammo and blowing his brother away by accident.
Unfortunately, we don't live in that society. Though I am one who would pick a fist fight over a gun fight to settle a dispute any day, I cannot ignore the stories in which a local business owner defends his person and property using his personal firearm.
There is no doubt that the presence of a weapon on a campus, in a home, or in a car increases your risk for a devastating accident infinitely. However, it's hard to argue against the protection they provide against illegally armed criminals. Criminals will always find a way to get guns.
Regarding civilians' ability to defend themselves in the face of a campus rampage, the best example of this occurred in 1966 at UT Austin. As you know, Texans are some of the best armed citizens in the country, especially back then. While the armed students shot for hours at the killer in The Tower, it took a group of trained police officers to actually take him down.
June 5, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
WhatMeWorry - opps, I now withdraw my "great post moonpie" and re-state my position - great post John J. Wall
Law Student and an American!
I like his P.S. Please take Barbra Streisand too.
Now this is something that I think is insane;
Handguns Will Be Allowed in Tennessee Bars and Restaurants
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,5...
Alcohol and guns do not mix!
June 5, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
Edwin435 (anonymous) says...
LOL Black....just say no...wow. Guns in bars.....Stymied
June 5, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
Maybe this is more for the sake of actually being able to keep your gun on you (in the car) at all times. If you have a CWP and you are in the car a lot, you shouldn't have to make sure you drive back home, drop off your gun, and then drive back to school.
As far as being a hero during a school shooting. I'm pretty sure here that the majority of people, if they can get to their car during a shooting, they are probably going to leave. Having a gun in the car or not. Most people buy them for personal protection, not to save the day. With cell phones, as soon as somebody comes in blastin, 911 will be called. I think in the same time that you can get to your car, get your gun out, actually make a clear decision that you are gonna go take this guy out, and get back inside, the police are already going to be there. Most schools don't have front row parking, and they all have trained guards.
June 5, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
I think that a bar in Tennassee is the best place for a gun ever! Just think of the possibilities...
June 5, 2009 at 12:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fowler (anonymous) says...
okay I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that more guns produces less crime is just false. Please note the comparison in gun deaths for countries with strong gun laws vs. countries without them. I'm not arguing that people with CWPs are less likely to commit a crime with their firearm than those without. I'm purely speaking to the number of people killed by firearms each year.
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
# 5 Philippines: 7,708
# 6 Mexico: 2,606
# 7 Slovakia: 2,356
# 8 El Salvador: 1,441
# 9 Zimbabwe: 598
# 10 Peru: 442
# 11 Germany: 269
# 12 Czech Republic: 181
# 13 Ukraine: 173
# 14 Canada: 144
# 15 Albania: 135
# 16 Costa Rica: 131
# 17 Azerbaijan: 120
# 18 Poland: 111
# 19 Uruguay: 109
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri...
June 5, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
In fact, I think that people should be able to bring in their semi-automatic rifles and such into bars! Talk about crime prevention!!!HA!!! I think Tennassee is on to something here!
June 5, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
Black, I KNOW they are legal. I SAID...repeat...I SAID that you will never convince me that they shouldn't be banned. As for the moron in my workplace that said he should own a bazooka- he's still an idiot.
June 5, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wjhamilton3 (anonymous) says...
A lot of people really overestimate their chances of taking out a shooter with their handgun. Trained soldiers and police officers, with months or even years of experience and training, don't do a very good job of killing people when they have to. The SWAT team doesn't do it until they're ready, which takes a while. Real life is not like the movies. Believing someone with a records check and a few hours of training, years ago, can handle it is a fantasy. Mistakes are going to be made one day and if you screw up, the Government will lock you up for a decade or two.
For every NRA hero you hear about, there are several children who kill themselves or others with a handgun, a mistaken killing or two and someone who kills their family in a fit of anger. Dynamite is useful too, but you shouldn't keep it in your house around your kids.
South Carolina continues it's slow retreat into it's own, elaborate paranoid fantasy world. Slow to teach and create, quick to kill and punish.
June 5, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
halfsheli (anonymous) says...
Funny how countries like U.K. and Ireland (in which firearms are completely illegal -- cops don't even carry them) are not even on fowler's list. Wonder why that is? Surely if the logic that more guns (in "law-abiding" hands) equals less crime is true, then...
And before the "gentler and kinder" conservative 2nd amendment fans out there start with the liberal-bashing name calling and accuse me of wanting to murder innocent babies and then pay for their mama's welfare so that she and her drug-dealing brother can bring down capitalism by voting for our muslim, non-citizen, socialist, terrorist-sympathizing president...
I do not propose banning of all weapons. I just understand that when the second amendment was written, the authors could not foresee the levels of violence and crime that run rampant in our fine country. They had no way of knowing what types of weapons would fall under the blanket of the 2nd amendment.
June 5, 2009 at 12:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
Jefferson was well aware of violence within the human nature and suggested revolution every 25 years, why do you suppose?
June 5, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
vmirat90, are bazookas legal? I wouldnt think they would make a good CWP weapon.
wjh, it is not about being a 'hero' it is about a individual right.
'...there are several children who kill themselves or others with a handgun..'
In 2005, there were 3,582 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 710 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents.1, 2
More than one in four fatal drowning victims are children 14 and younger.¹ For every child who dies from drowning, another four received emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1
Children: In 2005, of all children 1 to 4 years old who died, almost 30% died from drowning.1 Although drowning rates have slowly declined,1, 3 fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death for children ages 1 to 14 years.
Between 1990 and 2000, 147 children ages 14 and younger died from playground-related injuries. Of them, 82 (56%) died from strangulation and 31 (20%) died from falls to the playground surface. Most of these deaths (70%) occurred on home playgrounds (Tinsworth 2001).
Cause Number of deaths resulting
Motor vehicle collisions 260,000 per year
Drowning 175,000 per year
Burns 96,000 per year
Falls 47,000 per year
Toxins 45,000 per year
http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationa...
I dont see guns in the top 5...
Quick, close the playgrounds, close all pools, stop all kids from riding in cars, if it saves just ONE life!
Just like pools and cars, it is irresponsible adults that are at fault, not the car, pool OR GUN!
June 5, 2009 at 12:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
BBC NEWS | UK | Robberies with knives rise by 72%
An independent charity's report reveals the number of robberies with knives has risen markedly in the last year.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF...
Thugs committing 350 knife assaults EVERY DAY, as blade menace spreads to rural areas
Results from the British Crime Survey showed nearly 130,000 attacks took place last year - a figure which does not include those against under-16s.
Separate figures recorded by police forces reveal 22,000 serious knife assaults including 231 attempted murders, almost 14,000 robberies and more than 8,000 woundings.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic...
Knife and gun crime have been under reported, police memo admits
Violent offences including gun crime and knife crime are far more common than official figures currently suggest, a leaked police memo discloses.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknew...
Quick, ban knifes!
June 5, 2009 at 12:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
I saw the piece that moonpie ripped off. Way to go, moonpie! You are now an official plagiarist!
If you are going to make a statement and try to be clever, try your own work for a change.
June 5, 2009 at 12:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
Black, assault rifles wouldn't make a CWP either. Once again, you completely missed my whole point. I have yet to hear any valid argument as why anyone needs an assault rifle, or an arsenal of weapons. I have head alot of excuses, but not one valid one. "Just because it's my right!!" isn't really a valid reason. That's like when your parents told you "Because I said so" when you're younger. A BS reason.
June 5, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
vmirat, the bazooka, comment was sarcasm. As for "assualt rifles" I dont ask you to explain why you need the 5th, or 4th or 1rst amend of the constitution. In addition, a semi-auto rifle, be it an AK-47 or AR-15, is not an assualt rifle.
Please read my post below from earlier;
"Some polls claim that Californians support "more restrictive" gun laws, yet many Californians were surprised to discover that existent "waiting period" law thwarted their attempts to arm themselves for protection during the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
The police department was so overwhelmed that residents discovered that they were virtually abandoned to a "let burn" policy. Indeed, without causing even a single death or injury, it was those good citizens displaying their fearsome "assault weapons" who turned back mob and gang violence, protecting their lives, their families, and their livelihoods.
It was good citizens displaying such weapons who turned back looting police and out-of-control US Army National Guardsmen during Hurricane Hugo.[50] It was armed African-Americans that protected themselves and their families from Ku Klux Klansmen and other racist terrorists (terrorists that often included local law enforcement officers).[51,52,53]
When faced with multiple assailants, mob and gang violence, terrorism, or civil insurrection, it is precisely high-capacity "assault weapons" that are necessary for good people to defend themselves - particularly when
police resources are stretched to the breaking point.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbar...
Keep in mind, as a law abiding citizen and on that is entitled to my constitutional rights, as long as semi-auto rifles are legal for me to buy, than if I want to, I will.
As for assualt weapons, one must have a Class 3 License per the National Firearms Act, to own a fully automatic (machine gun) weapon. Last I checked.
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
CHAPTER 23.
ARTICLE 3.
MACHINE GUNS, SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS AND RIFLES
SECTION 16-23-210. Definitions.
When used in this article:
(a) "Machine gun" applies to and includes any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any combination or parts designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person."
That is the law defining a machine gun or assualt rifle. The anti-2nd amen crowd have continued to try and convince the weak minded that a semi-auto is an assualt weapon, maybe they have convinced you.
June 5, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
Posted by wjhamilton3 on June 5, 2009 at 12:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
A lot of people really overestimate their chances of taking out a shooter with their handgun. Trained soldiers and police officers, with months or even years of experience and training, don't do a very good job of killing people when they have to. The SWAT team doesn't do it until they're ready, which takes a while. Real life is not like the movies. Believing someone with a records check and a few hours of training, years ago, can handle it is a fantasy. Mistakes are going to be made one day and if you screw up, the Government will lock you up for a decade or two.
For every NRA hero you hear about, there are several children who kill themselves or others with a handgun, a mistaken killing or two and someone who kills their family in a fit of anger. Dynamite is useful too, but you shouldn't keep it in your house around your kids.
South Carolina continues it's slow retreat into it's own, elaborate paranoid fantasy world. Slow to teach and create, quick to kill and punish.
------------
I have very mixed feelings about this one. On one hand, if a student or faculty member who had previous training in the use of firearms was on the campus of Virginia Tech they may have been able to stop the shooter before he could take any more lives. On the other hand, I think it would increase the statistical likelihood of a gun being used on campus. Not to mention what would happen if it gets stolen. University parking lots aren't exactly known as the safest places to park your car.
Campus security is actually better off to have increased surveillance in public areas, especially parking lots to prevent break-ins, and increased patrols at night when students are walking back to the dorms. Training female students on how to use pepper spray isn't a bad idea either. It's not lethal and it would give the person enough time to run.
It's one thing to have a gun in your home, but if you own a gun you better be prepared to use it. I believe that we need more training and safety courses required, particularly on storage. If someone tries to break in your home you would hope that by having a gun in one hand and a phone in the other that they would realize you're not only armed, but calling the police, and take off. If they're inside your home however, then all bets are off. You don't know what their intentions are and should protect yourself and your family by any means necessary.
June 5, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
iceman1978 (anonymous) says...
Posted by fowler on June 5, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
okay I'm all for gun rights, but the argument that more guns produces less crime is just false. Please note the comparison in gun deaths for countries with strong gun laws vs. countries without them. I'm not arguing that people with CWPs are less likely to commit a crime with their firearm than those without. I'm purely speaking to the number of people killed by firearms each year.
# 1 South Africa: 31,918
# 2 Colombia: 21,898
# 3 Thailand: 20,032
# 4 United States: 9,369
# 5 Philippines: 7,708
# 6 Mexico: 2,606
# 7 Slovakia: 2,356
# 8 El Salvador: 1,441
# 9 Zimbabwe: 598
# 10 Peru: 442
# 11 Germany: 269
# 12 Czech Republic: 181
# 13 Ukraine: 173
# 14 Canada: 144
# 15 Albania: 135
# 16 Costa Rica: 131
# 17 Azerbaijan: 120
# 18 Poland: 111
# 19 Uruguay: 109
-------------
I don't see Norway or Finland on this list, or Switzerland. Norway has more restrictive gun laws than the US, but still has a high rate of gun ownership.
S Africa, Colombia and Mexico don't surprise me. I wonder why Slovakia is on the list? Theirs is nearly ten times the number in the Czech Republic.
June 5, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
BR, if those LA citizens were so concerned and resposible they should have already owned some firearms. Making a run after an emergency is irresposible at best. Those people likely would have been incapable of protecting anything.
Seeing the variety of conflicting statistics, the best conclusion we're left with is that there isn't a causal link between gun ownership and safety.
It's awesome how you're always willing to ignore my points and jump on personal attacks, though. Super great debate style!
June 5, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SCHoser (anonymous) says...
Guns in possession of college students on campus is a horrible idea. I firmly believe in the right to bear arms, but this is not a solution but would be another problem. Common sense will tell you this is a bad idea that will just lead to more problems. I wonder if anyone considers all the drinking, theft and other issues that go on at colleges around the country daily? Throw some guns in there and you have set off a powder keg. Colleges should provide much better security-I wonder what the ratio is for students to security personnel on campuses? Bet it's not a good one. Anyone who thinks that only reasonable, responsible sober kids will have guns is just kidding themselves and need to wake up.
June 5, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
and if you want to use the "it's in the constitution" argument, hey income tax is allowable via the 15th amendment? Make it right? Hardly. Prohibition was an amendment- was repealed. Maybe they need to tweak the 15th amendment to ban assault rifles or anything of the sort.
Speaking of another moron- I heard someone on talk radio the other day say that he wasn't going to pay income tax anymore because it's not in the constitution. First of all, try looking at the 15th amend that allows for it, and secondly, you go ahead and try that. See how that works out for you. That's David Koresh type of thinking.
Of course the tin hat wearing, armageddon-coming types probably totally believe that nonsense.
June 5, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
deputy216 (anonymous) says...
My wife and i travel to Charleston twice a month and i carry my fire arm with me. I am from the middle Georgia area and crime is not only bad here but is also bad in South Carolina. I have a saying, i would drather be tried by twelve that carried by six.
June 5, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fowler (anonymous) says...
Iceman - Check out the link I provided. I'm pretty sure all of the scandinavian countries were grouped together at the bottom of the list (It was the top 50).
You can also check out the ratio of gun deaths per 1000 if the whole number total thing isn't enough info.
June 5, 2009 at 2:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Hoosier_Guy (anonymous) says...
"If people know there could be guns in a car next to them, it could definitely affect the college campuses and schools with crime."
You bet it will affect school crime! The bad guys will be less likely to try something.
June 5, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
theronce (anonymous) says...
Watch the trembling and hand-wringing continue.
June 5, 2009 at 3:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rocks66 (anonymous) says...
ItGrunt,
YOU seem to be the one who has a "...distinct misunderstanding ..." of the new CAFE standards. Every maker will be forced to make smaller cars with their attendant better mileage so that when they're added to the mileage of that maker's big cars, the AVERAGE of the TWO vehicle sizes will fall below the government mandated threshold. That's why GM in years past introduced such hot cars at the Chevette and the Vega. Look for more of the same, as well as a replay of the same consumer attitudes that greeted these econoboxes the last time they were offered.
Oh, and are you suggesting that you would actually buy one of Chrysler's proposed new cars? Great. If you think it was a hassle getting them to honor their warranties before, imagine what it'll be like when the government provides the second-party backing. These are, after all, the same capable folks who gave us FEMA and the Postal Service.
June 5, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Note to self: viewing article comments on an older, non-Java/Flash capable Blackberry doesn't work so well.
I see the rest of your post now about concerned citizens in LA defending themselves during the riots, BR. It seems a bit odd, though, that gangs, looters and all sorts of other criminals in the height of a massive riot would be deterred not by being shot or even shot at, but simply by the sight of armed citizens. I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do that most of the gang violence was against other gangs and police and not directed at innocents.
And for every story of an armed vigilante stopping some hooligans or criminals during those riots, there are stories like that of Bobby Green Jr., an unarmed black man who stood up to a mob to rescue Reginald Denny, who had been pulled out of his truck and was being beaten. Apparently having the confidence and conviction to stand up to people is at least as important, if not moreso, than having a weapon.
Looking at the source you've provided, I would say that "politicized research, histrionics, and unprophetic imagery" is just as applicable to that information as well as some other pro-gun advocacy as it is to some of the most rabid gun control advocacy. Once again, the most likely best alternative is likely to be found in the middle, through compromise and mutual understanding.
June 5, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Rocks, you might not be aware, but the government won't actually be administrating Chrysler or GM. They'll be a majority stakeholder until such time as each company can generate the funds to buy the government out.
As Car as the new CAFE standards, "[the] program covers model year 2012 to model year 2016 and ultimately requires an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 miles per US gallon (6.63 L/100 km; 42.6 mpg-imp) in 2016 (of 39 miles per gallon for cars and 30 mpg for trucks), a jump from the current average for all vehicles of 25 miles per gallon. ... Stated goals for the program included: saving consumers money over the long term in increased fuel efficiency, preserving consumer choice -- the new rules do not dictate the size of cars, trucks and SUVs that manufacturers can produce; rather it requires that all sizes of vehicles become more energy efficient, reduced air pollution in the form of greenhouse gas emissions and other conventional pollutants, one national policy for all automakers, instead of three standards (a DOT standard, an EPA standard and a California standard that would apply to 13 other states), and industry desires: clarity, predictability and certainty concerning the rules while giving them flexibility on how to meet the expected outcomes and the lead time they need to innovate. The new policy will result in yearly 5% increases in efficiency from 2012 through 2016, 1.8 Billion barrels of oil saved cumulatively over the lifetime of the program and significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to taking 177 million of today's cars off the road."
The average computations for mileage which were a hallmark of some of the past CAFE standards will be dropped, so automakers will no longer be able to make more efficient cars to average out terribly inefficient trucks and SUVs.
June 5, 2009 at 3:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
iceman1978,"I have very mixed feelings about this one." "On the other hand, I think it would increase the statistical likelihood of a gun being used on campus. Not to mention what would happen if it gets stolen.
================================================
That may or may not be the case iceman1978. Those predisposed to use a gun for violence will bring a gun on campus despite the ban against it.
As for guns being stolen, that could be prevented by an alert security guard (trained professional!) keeping a watchful eye on the parking facilities.
Now, I don't give a rats butt about what sociology and psychology student, Christeen Faucette, 20, has to say about anything.
Dolven, a 70-year-old retired public school teacher has nothing sensibile to offer as it pertains to my right to cover my own butt.
This "student" needs to remain a student and try to learn something useful so she can support herself.
The retired teacher most likely has had a lifetime of living in the cloistered world of academia and possibly has never been in a life threatening situation that might have required some form of extreme countermeasure so her opinion on weather or not I or anybody else should be allowed to carry a gun is without merit.
Many carried long before it was legal. Now that it is legal many more carry. How many of these gun related murders that grace the pages of the paper so frequently are committed by CWP holders ?
I'll answer that question for you. None. I'm sure that my good friend Ltgrunt can probably find an isolated case to prove me wrong.
I don't give a damn about that either!
I just base my "assumption' on the premise that if there were one, the anti gun screwballs would be foaming at the mouth as they vilified all CWP holders as potential armed lunatics ready to kill at a moments notice.
Also the media would be contributing to the public feeding frenzy over these disguised vicious killers in waiting.
June 5, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cidgrad89 (anonymous) says...
"But Faucette maintains that she does not advocate guns for any reason, especially on her campus."It could definitely increase the possibility of school shootings too," Faucette said."
Really, for any reason? I hope she spoke to this reporter in German. if not she is a hypocrite.
June 5, 2009 at 4:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
Yeah, ok cidgrad.
June 5, 2009 at 4:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malthus (anonymous) says...
"At best, having more people with CWPs in more places is just a stopgap measure to deal with crimes as they happen. We still need actual crime *prevention.*"
Better yet we need the criminals to serve hard time not go on tax payer sponsored trips to easy short time. Rec yards, honeybuns, and fun in the shower. What happened to Corrections? Liberal or wishy washy judges and frustrated law enforcement who can barely arrest the criminals before the judge and bondsmen have them back on the street to rob, rape and pillage again. And as far as the argument about law enforcement having needed training to bridge the gap between a CWP and an officer, I beg to differ. Someone ought to actually look into some of the training budgets, many officers have to supply their own equipment and ammunition and there are agencies where training barely meets the minimum state requirements. Its hard to get administrations to justify training expenses when it is cheaper to just pay off the law suit when an error occurs. I would bet that the next time a big fiasco occurs the P&C will be tearing apart that agencies records just like they did with the Charleston Fire Department.
June 5, 2009 at 4:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Again with the anti-intellectualism, Yird? I'd comment on how distasteful and inconsiderate of others that kind of attitude is, but considering the way you're typically so quick to dismiss me as an educated, liberal socialist, I doubt that my disapproval would mean much.
Still, Ms. Faucette is learning Sociology and Psychology, two quite useful and potentially profitable fields, as most people will recognize. "Most" of course being those who aren't burdened with the superstition that Sociologists and Psychologists are quacks.
As far as a person with a CWP committing a crime, it's hard to pin down numbers, as the incidents don't seem to be widely publicized. It's more telling to look at CWP revocations by Attorneys General. There is, however, a Texas Conviction Rates Report for 2007 that compares CWP incidents against general population incidents. In many crimes, CWP holders fall in the <1%, <5% and <10% categories.
CAPITAL MURDER OF MULTIPLE PERSONS 9 (total convictions) 1 (conviction of CHL holder) 11.1111% (rate).
Granted, that's only one single person with a CHL (Concealed Handgun License) going on a mass-murder rampage, but it certainly disproves the idea that all CHL/CWP holders are saints who are only out to save the world.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administ...
June 5, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Lovely_One (anonymous) says...
LMAO @ moonpie. You guys must never read her posts because if you did you would have realized that she is a deep as a Slip 'n Slide! LMAO!!!!!!!!
Way to go moonpie. You gave me another reason to laugh at you each day! Thank you, Thank you!
June 5, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mon_Kie (anonymous) says...
"It's best to leave protection to the people who are trained to protect, such as the campus police and the campus security people,"
At VA Tech, here's what the Campus Security folks did.
First, at 7 am, he shot a girl to death in a dorm.
The campus security sent out email about the shooting and did not lock down the campus. Then two hours later, he went to the campus and a massacre took place.
Police and campus security responded, but most hid behind trees or cars until it was safe to be out in the open.
See photo in link below:
http://www.bcrevolution.ca/images/160...
June 5, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
postman01 (anonymous) says...
There's too much interest in this topic. There are "issues" that affect us everyday. This has little or no effect on most of us most if not all of the time. Yet people OBSESS with this kind of thing and dodge concerning themselves with "issues" that affect them night and day. Why?!!!
June 5, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
post...I at least give you props for the proper use of "affect" and "effect". I see the same people posting here everyday using them incorrectly, while patting themselves on the back as to how intelligent they are.
June 5, 2009 at 4:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"At VA Tech, here's what the Campus Security folks did.
First, at 7 am, he shot a girl to death in a dorm.
The campus security sent out email about the shooting and did not lock down the campus. Then two hours later, he went to the campus and a massacre took place."
I don't recall there being any indications from the scene of the first murder that there would be another incidents or more murders throughout the day. Do you expect every police officer to come onto every murder scene and shout "lock down the city! this is going to be a killing spree!"?
"Police and campus security responded, but most hid behind trees or cars until it was safe to be out in the open."
Yes, it's called "cover." As I understand, it's an enviable position to be in during a firefight.
June 5, 2009 at 4:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malthus (anonymous) says...
postman this is an issue that affects people everyday. A while back it was illegal to have a gun at a rest area even if you had a CWP, guess what, there was an increased crime rate at rest stops. Those were everyday normal people who became victims. Criminals these days are smart enough to know the areas where CWPs are not allowed to carry and that puts everyone in danger. And this is not a case of people carrying their gun on campuses, read carefully, it allows the gun to be secured in your vehicle in a closed compartment. This law allows CWP holders to drop their children off at school without leaving the gun at home. This law will help make some areas less appealing to criminals.
June 5, 2009 at 5 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
Posted by vmirat90 on June 5, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
"Black, I KNOW they are legal. I SAID...repeat...I SAID that you will never convince me that they shouldn't be banned.
Thats because of you ignorance of firearms. The so called "Assault weapons" function no differently than any semi-auto hunting rifle,the only differences are cosmetic.
"I have yet to hear any valid argument as why anyone needs an assault rifle, or an arsenal of weapons. I have head alot of excuses, but not one valid one. "Just because it's my right!!" isn't really a valid reason."
So using your argument It's safe to say that we don't need computers, or the internet to practice our first amendment right of free speech. So you would have no problem with banning them also.
Neither is NEEDED. But how much freedom are you really willing to sacrifice?
June 5, 2009 at 5:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
I am willing to sacrifice that one. Nuff said.
June 5, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
Lovely, you know that moonpie plagiarised that, don't you? you are giving credit to a thief.
June 5, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malthus (anonymous) says...
As an avid hunter and target shooter, there is no reason to ban any type of firearm that is not fully automatic. There are specific permits and processes for those who wish to own that type of firearm. I have been shooting for twenty-two years and have yet to go on any killing spree. I have been trained to carry an issued firearm while on duty and have taken a concealed carry course for the experience. As of now I see no reason to go through the hassle and expense when the state and federal laws already allow me to have the firearms I chose to own and use for recreational shooting when I want to. I do remember the gun ban during the Clinton years where it was obvious that special interest groups in the gun industry profited immensely. As soon as the "ban" was implemented he prics of "pre-ban" firearms and magazines with a capacity in excess of ten rounds doubled or tripled in price. Honestly if the first ten rounds don't do the trick, the extra two or three rounds probably won't help. With the return of the Democratic Cabinet mostly from the Clinton era people have gone rabid snatching up guns and ammunition in fear of a ban or that bills may be passed such as one, I do not have the specifics, but it would make ALL existing ammunition illegal and require a specially encoded primer to be legal. Sorry if this is a bit rambling, but my point is most of the restrictions only hurt law abiding gun owners, and make the wealthy wealthier. A least this law gives individuals who are state licensed to carry a few more protections to their carry status.
June 5, 2009 at 5:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
Hitler, Stalin and Mao beleived in banning guns, big body count because of those 3 A hole's.
June 5, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
AF: Britain and most of Europe do now, and their murder rates are far less than ours.
June 5, 2009 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
Assault weapons are perfect for those that know how to use them, semi or full auto is fine with me, both types can be had, grenade launchers, cannons etc. can also be had, those numb nuts in Washington can come up with all the BS they'd like and good weapons of warfare will always be available. Better to be heavily armed, legal or not than to not have a fighting chance.
June 5, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Come on Ltgrunt, you typically argue with every poster no matter what their position.
Again with the anti-intellectualism, Yird?
I'm not anti-intellectual. I've got a granddaughter that jut finished her first year at Charleston Southern with a 4.0 GPA in the second semester this year and I applaud her achievement. Can't get much more intellectual than that.
I might add that she is blessed with a good deal of sense to augment her scholastic ability, which is not overly common. But look who the lucky kid had for a grandfather!
I'm just, anti-know-it-all-intellectual. Those with a undeserved superiority attitude, of which there seems to be no shortage.
A s for me being distasteful and inconsiderate of others I pale in comparison to yourself.
I just say exactly how I feel rather than attempting to mask my feelings in a web of pseudo compromise and feigned understanding of the other persons point of view.
A classic example is your comment,""Most" of course being those who aren't burdened with the superstition that Sociologists and Psychologists are quacks." as you try to imply that because I don't mention her chosen fields of study with what you consider the proper deference, that I'm just another slack jawed neanderthal.
The point i was making which you apparently missed in your zeal to find something to chastise me or argue about is that his young lady is hardly in a position to make an intelligent decision on who should or should not have a weapon and why. She's a student who would do herself and others a service by keeping her eyes and ears open and her mouth shut.
One thing you got patenetly correct was when you wrote,
"I doubt that my disapproval would mean much."
June 5, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Yird, congrats on your daughter! Now if someone could get that forum troll Yukon_Suggit (AKA hehatemebro, getserious...and the many other deleted screen persons) a 5th grade education, it would be great.
I mean really, can she do anything more than post the same old tired and weak crap? Pathetic and irrelevant.
yird said - "Come on Ltgrunt, you typically argue with every poster no matter what their position.....I just say exactly how I feel rather than attempting to mask my feelings in a web of pseudo compromise and feigned understanding of the other persons point of view."
LMAO, on the money again!
June 5, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"A s for me being distasteful and inconsiderate of others I pale in comparison to yourself.
I just say exactly how I feel rather than attempting to mask my feelings in a web of pseudo compromise and feigned understanding of the other persons point of view."
So now you're calling my moderate, objective views a falsehood. Rather than accept the fact that I understand a myraid of viewpoints and have purposely selected to not adhere to extreme views, you choose to say that I'm feigning understanding and masking my feelings. Bravo, Yird, call me a liar - how very tasteful and considerate.
"[As] you try to imply that because I don't mention her chosen fields of study with what you consider the proper deference, that I'm just another slack jawed neanderthal."
Hardly. You didn't express any such skepticism towards those professions - indeed, you didn't seem to express anything other than your typical disdain for education and intellectuals and the naivette that you assume they all suffer from. But surely you recognize that there are a handful of people - a handful being less than "most" - who think that professionals in those fields are "quacks." You don't always have to be so defensive Yird; unlike some people, I'm not always making tasteless, undeserved personal attacks.
"The point i was making..."
So you freely admit that you do not respect Ms. Faucette because she is a student, and that you don't think she deserves to voice her opinions because of the same? The old and set-in-their-ways aren't the only ones allowed to have and express opinions, Yird, and they also aren't the only ones who can be right about the world. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that you should be open to listening to others and understanding their views. I find it hard to believe that you could be so zealous about guns that you don't understand that some people don't feel safe or comfortable knowing that they might be around.
"One thing you got patenetly correct..."
Apparently I didn't get that one correct. It meant enough to get you into self-righteous and condescending mode.
June 5, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"I've got a granddaughter that jut finished her first year at Charleston Southern with a 4.0 GPA in the second semester this year and I applaud her achievement. Can't get much more intellectual than that."
Excellent, by the way. There are all those scary statistics about 75% of freshmen dropping out, but on the flipside, the same statistics say that those that stay on and do well typically make it all the way through their chosen course of study. It sounds like she's well on her way to a degree and a few Dean's List awards.
And hey, if the optimistic estimates are at all accurate, by the time she finishes, the market will have turned around and she won't have any trouble putting her hard-won degree to work.
June 5, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Apparently I didn't get that one correct. It meant enough to get you into self-righteous and condescending mode.
Thats you right grunt? lol. you crack me up!
June 5, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
you people should really look in the mirror. You insult others if they don't agree with you. I am sure that your "lord" would really approve of the way you live your lives. Bravo.
June 5, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
First of to ltgrunt, while you may have some data to the contrary to John Lott, I DARE you to put a sign in your front yard that proclaims your home and property to be a "gun-free zone", while your neighbors put up sighns to say their homes are guarded by gun-totin 2nd amendment lovers. Lets see who's house gets broken into.... Your dismissed
Second of to Fowler, your data is a combination of ALL firearm deaths, that include legit police shootings, homeowerns defending their property, and criminal on criminal shootings. None of these matter in the big scope of things, the only ones I am concerned about are the random type, which are very miniscule,
I don't care if a cop shoots a criminal,
I don't care if a homeowner shoots a criminal,
and I really don't give a flying rip if one drug dealer shoots another drug dealer.
One more little stat for you, more children die in backyard pools than die in shootings. Why don't we register backyard pools if they are so dangerous,,,,,,,
June 5, 2009 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Creeker, why would I do that? I support the 2nd Amendment, and if I put up a sign like that and then shot an intruder with one of my sidearms, it would probably come out as entrapment or some other nonsense. No thanks.
I'm just all for being honest and realistic, and in this case that involves acknowledging that Lott's work has been called into question and never satisfactorily answered for.
June 5, 2009 at 6:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
I like it when cops and homeowners shoot criminals.....I like it better though when they kill 'em.
June 5, 2009 at 6:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
A conservative estimate from the largest scale, methodologically sound
study to date, the study by Kleck and Gertz, suggests that there are 2.5
million protective uses of guns by adults annually.[22] As many as 65
lives are protected by guns for every life lost to a gun. For every gun
tragedy sensationalized, dozens are averted by guns, but go unreported.
Whether or not "newsworthy," scientific method begs accounting of the
benefits of guns - enumeration of the lives saved, the injuries prevented,
the medical costs saved, and the property protected. Such an accounting is absent from the medical literature. The protective benefits of guns - and
the politicized "science" that has been used to underestimate or totally
deny those benefits and to exaggerate the costs of guns - have been
extensively reviewed.[4-12]
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbar...
June 5, 2009 at 6:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
US Bureau of Justice Statistics samples show that defense with a gun results in fewer injuries to the defender (17.4%) than resisting with less powerful means (knives, 40.3%; other weapon, 22%; physical force, 50.8%; evasion, 34.9%; etc.) and in fewer injuries than not resisting at all (24.7%).[11] Guns are the safest and most effective means of self defense. This is particularly important to women, the elderly, the physically challenged, those who are most vulnerable to vicious and bigger male predators.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbar...
well, gtg, its Lou Dobbs time!
June 5, 2009 at 6:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Posted by vmirat90 on June 5, 2009 at 6:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you people should really look in the mirror. You insult others if they don't agree with you. I am sure that your "lord" would really approve of the way you live your lives. Bravo.
Hey, watch that "you people" stuff. That could get you all sorts of admonishment from the politically correct crowd.
And just what do you mean by "your" "lord"?
June 5, 2009 at 7:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
To ltgrunt, at least you didn't ramble on this time. You made my point for me, if a criminal has the slightest idea they MAY encounter an armed homeowner, they will move on to one they know is unarmed.
While you can look at your stats in one light, I look at them in another. The fact remains that if a criminal thinks somebody may be armed, they will move on. If they realize that someone at any particular school MAY have a firearm in their vehicle, that will hopefully be enough to make them think different about commiting a crime there.
Just go to any jail, and ask any convicted robber or burgler if they would have done their crime if they knew that they might encounter an armed "victim". I will tell you from experience the vast majority will answer with a resounding "HELL NO"....
June 5, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
Posted by vmirat90 on June 5, 2009 at 6:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
AF: Britain and most of Europe do now, and their murder rates are far less than ours.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politic...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/14...
Actually, violent crime has risen since the ban on handguns.So now there is a call to ban knives and swords.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/458...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/sc...
There are many other factors that decide violence in a culture more than the availability of firearms. Social,racial and economic issues tend to figure more into the equation than anything else.
June 5, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
Posted by vmirat90 on June 5, 2009 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am willing to sacrifice that one. Nuff said.
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
Benjamin Franklin
Nuff Said!
And FYI FBI stats show that more people are killed with "Hands,fists,feet,etc" than with long guns. This includes all types of rifles and shotguns combined.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/...
You bring one word to mind,naive! Just because your favorite politician says it's so doesn't mean it's true.
June 5, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
carolinadrifter (anonymous) says...
It's funny how people that don't like guns will call a somebody (the police) with a gun to save them but given the response time of law enforcement it is often to late case in point Virginia Tech.
June 5, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
I have a question for the gentlemen out there. Do you think a female that carries a pink gun will be taken seriously by a person intending them harm?
I own a black, S&W .38 airweight. I am expecting my CWP in the mail anytime. I chose a black gun, as I thought it would be much easier to have as a concealed weapon.
One guy at a gunshop thought that a pink gun would not be taken as seriously as a classic color. Another guy had a differing opinion. He said that when you see a female with a pink gun then you know that it is HER gun, and she knows how to use it. I never had thought of it that way, but I still don't intend on getting pink grips just to make a statement.
I would appreciate some more opinions from the male bloggers.
June 5, 2009 at 7:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
I did a bit of research on this before I purchased a handgun for my wife.
What I decided best may be contrary to what others think but for what it's worth;
Purchase a revolver(wheel gun) no automatic.
Simplicity of use, one hand operation and 100% dependability if ammo is good.
Silver colored as opposed to black. High visibility may be all the deterrent needed to thwart an attack thus eliminating the need to actually shoot and suffer all the consequences that can result from such action.
June 5, 2009 at 8:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
Thanks, yird. I'm sure you know that the gun I have is a wheel gun. It is so very simple to operate, and because I have chronic tendonitis in my thumbs, an automatic gives me fits. The only problem I encountered with an airweight was the kick. Some different grips and lots of practice have taken care of that problem.
I seriously encourage all gun owners to make the range a regular place to visit. I find target shooting a great stress reliever, as it takes all of my concentration, and I totally forget about all of my worries. I also think it is ridiculous to purchase a weapon and just stick it in a safe.
I truly hope I never have to use my weapon against anyone, but if I do I will definitely know how to use it.
June 5, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
RTC, be sure to use Personal Protection rounds, they have hollow point design for maximum stopping power ... and unlike a FMJ (full metal jacket) they should not penetrate a body. Also, for home protection, the weapon and ammo you use needs to be as safe as possible when it come to 'wall penetration'
A little more $$$ but, you dont want a round to pass through the bad guy and hurt an innocent.
June 5, 2009 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Time4action (anonymous) says...
OK if everyone else is going to have a gun, I want one too. Anyone know where I can get free trainging lessons. The only problem I fear is I have four daughters. If anyone should ever hurt one of them, I would spend the rest of my life in jail.
June 5, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
Posted by Time4action "I fear is I have four daughters. If anyone should ever hurt one of them, I would spend the rest of my life in jail."
Not to be insulting, but owning a weapon is not about vengeance, but about protecting your self and family.
Training can be had at many gun shops, for a charge.
June 5, 2009 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RTC (anonymous) says...
BR, thanks for the ammo info. That is something I am trying to study up on.
June 5, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WSM (anonymous) says...
Yes, the evil guns will jump out of the locked glove box and go on a killing rampage! Maybe it will be accompanied by an SUV that runs over people that the gun didn't shoot? Who know's after the shooting and road rampage, then all of the sodas and the sugary snacks will exploit the students' grief, and causing obesity, type II diabetes, and tooth decay?
I am sorry to have to point the obvious out to the pinnnacle of the catagory of "must never question or doubt": A retired public school teacher. But in each and every school shooting, notice that the bodies were piling up before the police ever got there? Notice that the shootings where the people had a chance to shoot back, the bloodletting ended very quickly.
I am sorry, but to sacrifice someone else's life for someone else's exaggerated sense of noblesse oblige is the hieght of conciet and narcissism.
June 5, 2009 at 9:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
creeker (anonymous) says...
RTC,
look into the Glaser safety slug, very expensive for 5 or 6 bullets, but WILL NOT over penetrate, and don't offer much recoil. Much better than hollow points or FMJ ammo for personal protection, but please, practice with them. Know what you are shooting before you have to pull the trigger, again it may be an expensive venture, but Glaser safety slugs are best for the average "Joe", God forbid you ever have to use them.
One thing I would like to ask the gun owners on this site, when referring to your firearm remember it is not a "weapon" until it it used against someone else. Anything can be a weapon, such as a pen, or a hammer or even a car in the hands of a drunk driver. The left feeds off the term weapon, just like they feed off the terms "assault weapon" and "saturday night special". Just some food for thought. You'al have a great night.
June 5, 2009 at 9:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
BR, you keep citing the same study, but you're ironically overlooking its bias while it offhandedly claims that any contrary findings are just politicized and unscientific. If a study has to come out with both arms swinging on the "those other guys aren't doing it right!" attacks, it's a good sign that there's less method than doctrine to be had.
Good suggestion on the protection rounds, however. Given the choice, I would rather wound than kill. Even those who kill to protect their own families can go through emotional trauma, so less-than-lethal methods can go a long way to preventing or alleviating guilt.
Yird, good call on the silver. Visibility is good, and to be honest I would assume that pink would get written off as trendy, like a pink cell phone, and wouldn't be immediately recognizable from a distance.
June 5, 2009 at 10:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
stanleyt (anonymous) says...
I agree with Faucette. This is not a good development. Compare the number of murders in America with any other "first world" country and you will see there is a strong correlation with the number of handguns in each respective nation. We're going in the wrong direction. Problem is, lobbying groups rule this country. You don't want to mess with the NRA if you plan to get re-elected. Politicians can't do what many know is right and would lower violent crime rate. Instead, they cave in.
We could have a compromise someday. People who want to go hunting, have your 12 gauges, while those who want to go to a psychology class at CofC should be free to study in a gun-free zone. Both groups could be happy.
June 5, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
I have Glaser rounds for 38sp. Bought them years ago, $13.00 for six. Tremendous stopping power since they practically explode on impact with anything.
Ltgrunt, never having killed anyone I don't know how I would react afterward. I know I'm still a fair shot but in a split second life or death situation accuracy would surely run the risk of being compromised.
Using a Glaser round will certainly increase the probability of the intended target being killed if he/she is hit.
On the other hand use of FMJ or even a hollow point rounds that missed the intended target could conceivably pass through some other medium and kill or injure an innocent whereas the chance of that happening with the Glaser round is nil.
So it comes down to a choice based on what ifs. Naturally we all hope to never be in a situation like that but it happens.
I been on the receiving end of a couple of shots from weapons that were, fortunately for me, loaded with rounds far less lethal than the Glaser.
The assailants fled after firing and I resisted the temptation to blow a manhole in their backs as they departed but I did have an option. Had they reversed direction I would have had no choice but to try and kill them.
If someone breaks into your home at night you cannot be concerned about the possibility of collateral damage. Use of the Glaser round eliminates that fear and allows you to concentrate fully on the threat. Also shooting to wound is something the Lone Ranger did on a regular basis but in real life that luxury escapes us.
Years ago a Charleston County police officer pumped five 38 special rounds into a drugged up criminal and did not even slow him down. The officer was shot and ended up in wheel chair. I think his name was Smith but I'm not sure. Anyway he became a permanent dispatcher after a long painful recovery.
So as gruesome as it may seem to some, use ammo that will do the job and aim at the biggest target, always hoping for the best.
June 5, 2009 at 11:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"Also shooting to wound is something the Lone Ranger did on a regular basis but in real life that luxury escapes us."
Not necessarily - a hit away from center mass or in the extremeties is likely to wound or cripple without killing, and is a probable shot if you don't have time to draw a proper bead. I'd wager that statistics place more home defenders hitting or winging non-vitals than landing killing blows, just by size and layout of the human body.
Then again, a leg shot in the femoral artery is a sure thing to bleed out all over your kitchen, so even *trying* to just wound might not work out right.
Still, having never fired at another human being, and certainly not under duress, I can't say how accurate I would be or how merciful, given the situation, and the only time I've ever had a gun pointed in my face I had to deal with the situation without any hardware to protect myself. All I know is that I can give a watermelon with a bad attitude the what-for from a fairly good distance.
June 6, 2009 at 12:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MP (anonymous) says...
Time4Action- simple solution. Enroll your daughters in a weapons safety course. I've required everybody in my family to take such a course. One of my daughters enjoyed it so much she went on to major in Criminal Justice and is now a police officer. Another is in Federal law enforcement. I have carried a weapon almost all of my life thanks to Uncle Sam.
The people who whine the most about guns usually do so out of ignorance. They have probably never owned or even fired one. It is likely they have also never been in a circumstance where having a weapon probably saved their life.
One more thing. Have you noticed that pistol ammunition is getting extremely scarce in stores?
June 6, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SirRobin74 (anonymous) says...
A lot of good comments her, as usual, those that want to deny others of their second amendment right, are out in force. But the Pro-second amendment, commemters have made many valid and irrefutable points.
Good comments and points from MP, yird, creeker, WSM, RTC hairy1663, blackreign, malthus, and a few more. I agree with maybe 20% of some of ltgrunt's comments. Not that my agreement means much, but he or she at time laid out some good info and thngs to consider.
Of course there are always the small percentage of attention-seeking trolls that try and incite, derail and disrupt, but they are quickly ignored as they should be.
I own a Smith & Wesson Model 637, Chiefs Special Airweight .38 Special, its a 5-shot & light. If I remember my CWP class, most encounters would be within 3-5 feet, and a "shootout" is unlikely. The snub is quick to pull, and fire, no need to do anything more than point and shoot. If you cant do it with 5 shots, give up your CWP. I keep 1 extra reloaded with me.
For the home, I just count on Remington 870, 7 shot / 18" barrel & standard 2-3/4-inch, 00 buck.
June 6, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
MP,"One more thing. Have you noticed that pistol ammunition is getting extremely scarce in stores?"
Pistol ammo isn't all that's getting scarce. I picked up the last two boxes of Win.30 30 from one store a few days ago. The shelves where ammo is usually stocked looked like the shelves in a supermarket a day after martial law was imposed.
Since around 2000 I have purchased gold which at current value comes just a tad shy of six figures. I realize it's a sterile investment with no real growth component but it is an absolute hedge against inflation and a lot of people must feel similarly because a number of the sites that sell the items I'm interested in are "out of stock"!
One poster took me to task writing,
"It's socially and in all likelihood morally irresponsible for you to encourage people to abandon money - and engage in the run on banks that would entail - and go about such paranoid antisocial behavior as becoming armed shut-ins."
but I never looked at it in that way and apparently from the scarcity of both ammo and gold I'm not exactly alone.
Maybe everything will turn out peachy in the coming months/years and I can spend a lot of time at the range shooting off the ammo I have "stockpiled" and convert my gold back into the inflated dollars that will surely materialize even if nothing else does.
June 6, 2009 at 8:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"One more thing. Have you noticed that pistol ammunition is getting extremely scarce in stores?"
It's not a big surprise, MP. There's a run on guns and ammunition during every significant recession and during every major political regime change. People get nervous and they can sometimes get a little defensive, as well as the fact that fears of gun control go up, so you get a lot of people heading to suppliers and buying before "things get bad" or before "They (notice capital T on They) take them away."
June 6, 2009 at 8:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SirRobin74 (anonymous) says...
I went to the gun show last weekend and bought everything I needed. There were folks walking out of there with boxes and boxes. Their right, but where do you store that much ammo?
Yird, I like the Glaser rounds also.
June 6, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
LMAO, you are such a liar yukon, (the deleted hehatemebro, getserious, donttasemebro...)
NOW I am sirrobin, wow.
You are a deluded little troll.
Prove it, post the e mails. I dare you. You are by far the most twisted and laughable troll around. You should be able to cut and paste them with a few minutes...
you wont though, because you are a simple and weak minded liar.
June 6, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BlackReign (anonymous) says...
so, no emails to post huh liar? LOL, you are pathetic. I see your back to using d-bag, does it have sentimental value? Remind you of mom perhaps?
come on , lets see the e mails you simple liar.
June 6, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SirRobin74 (anonymous) says...
Well, I guess I was right this morning at 8:37 a.m when I said; 'Of course there are always the small percentage of attention-seeking trolls that try and incite, derail and disrupt, but they are quickly ignored as they should be.'
Looks like the same guy that went after me in the Obama tours camp story is here also, trolling & seeking attention.
Very sad when all a poster can do is post controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages, in other words *troll comments* and can not even express themselves on the article or topic.
June 6, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malthus (anonymous) says...
RTC I wanted to comment on the question you had about the pink grips. For the most part the color accents available for guns is a marketing tool to introduce the firearms to a different type of consumer and to make the firearms more hip. The positive side of this is that individuals male or female may find the gun more visually appealing and be more likely to seek education and use the firearm more at the range. There have always been pains taken to improve the aesthetics of firearms at the same time raising the sale price. Mover of pear, stag grips, carving or engraving and colored grip inserts. Personally I invested in a pair of Sambar Stag grips for my Para LDA, A bit pricey, but they do look very nice. For the most part these embellishments do not do more than increase the prices or create an accessory market where dealers and companies can continuously generate revenue.
And for your ammunition question, Glazers are a good option for self defense, but I personally recommend investing in 38+p ammunition or if your firearm is rated for 357 magnum ammunition choose the magnum round. Gold Dot Hollow points and Hydra Shok hollow points are both excellent choices. Several ladies who choose to carry a revolver will shot the 38 at the range and occasionally add a +P or a 357 to the chamber. After several trips they only notice a slight difference in the recoil. Under stress with an adrenaline rush the difference is not noticeable, however the difference in stopping power may save your life. Case in point being the state trooper killed after unloading six 38 rounds into an attacker and being killed by a .22 passing into a gap between his armpit and the upper portion of his vest as he turned to reload. There is no way to say that a heavier round would have saved his life, but the death did lead to most agencies converting to high capacity semi-autos.
It appears that you did excellent research on the firearm you chose and made a responsible decision carry. Thank you for being a positive example of a responsible gun owner. Encourage your anti-gun friends to take a trip to the range with you, given positive experience and education very few people can honestly say guns are evil once they learn about them.
For the commenter who stated that guns should not be referred to as weapons, you are equally correct and incorrect with that statement. Civilians use firearms for recreational purposes, but military, law enforcement, CWP holders and criminals carry weapons. Once the choice has been made to carry the firearm as a defensive tool, it should be thought of as a weapon, you must be mentally prepared to use it as such or leave it in the gun cabinet. I am sorry for those who will disagree, but the training I have received was very clear on this point.
June 6, 2009 at 4:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malthus (anonymous) says...
I missed a typo in the the last statement, it was meant to be "Mother of Pearl"
June 6, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jammer (anonymous) says...
Itgrunt most police don't train anywhere near as much as the civilians with cwp's, many barely train enough to pass the once a year qualification
I know many that only pull out their dirty shotgun once a yr for qual day, and hit everything but the target on that day!!
you should see the holes in the ceilings where they train, I have... and have heard to stories to go along with it
when they train with pistols/semi-auto's it's usually at a mere 7 to 10 yrds, maybe a box of 50 rds if they don't get bored first...
the new ar's m4's? most don't even know how to break these guns down... saw a cop showing his off to another cop at a gas station last week, he went to try to remove the collapsable stock for some unknown reason and springs n pins went flying everywhere... he had no idea how to put it back together
watched as a civilian walked up to help them out, the sillyvilian fixed it and then pulled to front pen to take a peak at the bolt and the cop almost freaked... the cop had NO idea the thing "broke down like a shotgun" as he said... rofl...
don't be fooled, most of these cops aren't trained very well at all... they should be but they aren't
I train all the time, with and without professionals... we sillyvilians may have to be the first responders of the future one day, and we aren't just untrained everyday people
no combat experience, but then again even many in or out of the military have never seen combat either... no disrespect meant, I have nothing but the utmost respect for those that have and do serve...
but lets be real about who's protecting us, those old retired cops playing security are old and retired... they aren't capable of helping anyone in a serious situation, they are merely a deterent by being present
it's like a locked car, it only prevents the honest from being seduced
June 7, 2009 at 3:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"I know many that only pull out their dirty shotgun once a yr for qual day, and hit everything but the target on that day!!"
Query: wouldn't such terrible shooting disqualify those officers? Your anecdotal, completely unproven claims are self-defeating. If the officers really were so bad they couldn't hit a target, they wouldn't qualify to be police officers.
"when they train with pistols/semi-auto's it's usually at a mere 7 to 10 yrds"
According to FBI statistics between 1989 and 1998, most handgun incidents involved officers engaging criminals in a space of ten feet or less. Doesn't it make sense for officers to usually train for the conditions they'll most often encounter?
"saw a cop showing his off to another cop at a gas station last week"
Again, anecdotes aren't evidence. You're also misattributing one police officer's alleged incompetence to be indicative of a wider trend, a claim which you have no proof to support. Was the officer issued that weapon, or was it a personal armament? Had he been properly trained on it? How long had he had that weapon? Did you bother to ask any questions at all before making assumptions?
You can claim to have all the training in the world, and you can claim that you honestly believe you'll hold up under pressure, but there's only one way to find out. If, God forbid, you should find yourself in such a situation and you break down out of fear, or worse, hurt an innocent or a family member because you couldn't keep your head on straight, will you be okay with your previous attitude of allowing police to underperform and thinking you could do fine without them?
Now I'm certainly not saying that every person with a CWP will fail when presented with a stressful, life-threatening situation, but this invincible, Dirty Harry, "cops are worthless" attitude that a small but annoyingly vocal minority has certainly doesn't give CWP holders in general any good press.
June 8, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
Coming in late here, I read most but not all of the posts above. Comments:
1. The list of firearms deaths per country is suspect - source? Brazil is not listed, an obvious omission as there are high rates of firearms crime there, perhaps the highest in the world. Brazil also has stricter gun laws than the USA (as does the #1 nation, South Africa).
2. Finland, Norway, Israel, Switzerland, Canada and other nations have high rates of gun ownership but much lower gun crime than the US. Why? Obviously, criminals are the relevant variable not guns. This is common sense though.
3. If you have a choice of being accompanied by an armed citizen who is a licensed CWP holder or fellow unarmed citizens when confronted with a homicidal nutjob, which would you choose? When seconds count, the police are only minutes away...
4. The term "Assault Weapon" is silly. It's like calling any car capable of going faster than the speed limit a "Deathrace Car" - why do you NEED that? Speed kills, we need more speed control now! There is no REASON for anyone to own a car that can go faster than the speed limit! Hysteria, Hysteria, think of the children!
See how stupid that sounds?
5. It's not unscientific to note that cities with high levels of gun crime often have very strict gun control laws. Quite the opposite, it's very relevant to the task of proving that laws are irrelevant to criminals.
June 8, 2009 at 3:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Cid -
1. That list may have been built specifically of countries whose GDP exceeds a certain amount or some other qualifier.
2. What is so obvious or common sense about your claim? Is your common sense conclusion that colder countries have fewer criminals?
3. How far away is the homicidal nutjob? Do we know he's homicidal before he approaches us? Assuming we don't, what good is having a friend with a CWP if he's the first person killed? Uh-oh, looks like I still need the cops., and now the homicidal nutjob has stolen my slain buddy's sidearm.
4. We don't call them "Deathrace Cars," we call them sports cars. You know, the silly little reason that fast cars are more likely to be watched by cops and are charged higher insurance rates. Honest names for things - and not hyperbolic ones - go with their use. A hysterical name for an assault weapon would be a "sunshine sprayer."
5. It is unscientific if you don't have the studies or the relevant data and cerifiable methods to back your conclusions.
June 8, 2009 at 6:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
malthus (anonymous) says...
"Query: wouldn't such terrible shooting disqualify those officers? Your anecdotal, completely unproven claims are self-defeating. If the officers really were so bad they couldn't hit a target, they wouldn't qualify to be police officers."
If it is a shotgun qualification in question then this could be accurate as some agencies may not even hang a target. Shotgun quals can be more a familiarization course in properly operating the weapon. But the poster you responded to was in the right ballpark. With budgets being cut so thin many agencies often only issue rounds for specific training. What this means is that specialty areas will be given priority such as SWAT and other officers will get the annual qualifying shoot. If an agency is too hard pressed they can even extend that one year period to consolidate the training days into a single block of days to save money. In some cases the only time these officers will shoot is when they choose to on their own time and on their own dime. Some do go to the range to take their families and teach them safe shooting practices, but there is a lack of training that is scary. At the same time I doubt the taxpayers would be willing to pay the extra cost of officers being required to shoot once a month, pay for ammunition, ranges if they needed to or pay the overtime the training would require.
A second problem is keeping the officers in the classroom focused on the lesson plan. Adults make the worst students in my experience. I have seen it time and time again where the adults in the courses I have to teach are balancing check books, writing their bills out, texting or ducking out of the room to answer phone calls. Keep in mind that many agencies train on the officers days off, days they need to complete their own business and days they may not get monetary compensation for with the current budget disasters that have been created. I suspect the officers the previous poster was describing did not get the training, did not pay attention during the training, or the training was several years past. It is sad but true, the officer might have been a crack shot with that weapon and not know how to break it down to clean it. The same goes for civilians, that is how I got one of my carbines, the owner thought he knew everything put it together incorrectly after cleaning it and practically gave it to me free.
You have made some great points ltgrunt, but there are times like this one where I have to disagree.
June 8, 2009 at 10:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Thanks, Malthus. I can certainly see how some agencies are underfunded, undermanned, etc., and can end up not having sufficient training, but I took issue with the way Jammer tried to use that fact to suggest that all police are inherently unreliable.
I find it hard to believe that every police agency is that underfunded, or that the officer who didn't know how to field strip or reassemble his M4 is representative of every officer assigned that weapon.
I'm all in favor of CWP's and the people know have them for honest reasons, but I'm always a bit wary of people who think they're better equipped to handle any violent situation better than any police officer just because they got their CWP. It's these slightly overzealous folks who seem like they got their CWP's simply because they're just itching to get into a firefight. I'm a great deal more receptive to CWP holders who are just trying to be responsibly prepared for the unpredictable but otherwise follow - probably unintentionally - an old Japanese saying that "the greatest samurai lets his sword rust in its scabbard."
June 8, 2009 at 11:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Cid95 (anonymous) says...
IT,
1. About that list of countries - your guess is wrong. Note that Zimbabwe is listed, but Brazil's per capita GDP certainly exceeds Zimbabwe's. The list is dubious and discredited, not that it proved anything in the first place.
2. Israel is in the Levant, on the Med. Basel was warm and pleasant when I was last there in mid Oct, 2008. Neither are cold weather countries, and that point was irrelevant anyway.
Stop obfuscating. Try to live up to the standards of debate which you are advocating.
All those countries have high rates of gun ownership yet much lower rates of gun crime than the US. Guns are not the relevant variable in gun crime, criminals are.
3. Is the murderous nutjob susceptible to hypnotism? Would you be better off learning that skill instead of how to shoot? Should you carry a pocket watch on a chain which you can quickly deply as a mind-numbing pendulum?
Your questions are silly and, again, avoid the point. I'll rephrase things for you though, because I'm a nice guy. An ex-coworker is in the hall of your office shooting people and coming in your direction. The cops have been called. You and/or your coworkers can be armed or unarmed. Which would you choose? I expect another pedantic avoidance of the question but hey, at least I tried to give you a second chance.
4. Oh, a Sports Car? I see. How active and healthy sounding. Because breaking the speed limit is a sport now, in addition to a leading cause of death in the US? And because even a little Kia can exceed the maximum speed limit on any US interstate, so I guess that makes it a sports car too? Fail.
People choose emotionally evocative names for things they don't like, even when the names make no sense. We don't NEED cars that can go over 75mph. WHY are they legal? Their ONLY PURPOSE is to speed - which we KNOW kills. BAN THE DEATHRACER MACHINES NOW!!! And BAN the Drowning Pits (aka swimming pools), as they are the LEADING cause of child death in the US!!!
5. Niether I nor any intelligent person needs "studies or the relevant data and cerifiable methods" to tell me the obvious - criminals don't care about laws, no matter how many multiples of the same one you make. That kind of newspeak BS may work for Airstrip One, but not the US. Not yet anyway.
IT - Your arguments aren't strong but I would like to commend you on, for the most part, good grammar and spelling. Proper use of the English language is very much lacking on this forum, and it brightens my day to read posts that aren't filled with errors.
June 9, 2009 at 3:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Cid,
1. If you'll notice, I said "or some other qualifier." I've seen gun death by country lists which have had separate listings according to GDP and other qualifications. Even if that isn't the variable at play in the list someone provided earlier, it certainly doesn't mean that there isn't some other variable at play to explain Brazil's absence.
2. I actually overlooked Israel in your list, however my point was and still is that there's nothing obvious or common sense about your conclusion.
3. Your question assumes that if I am armed I am guaranteed survival, and that if I am not, I am guaranteed to die. Both assumptions are inherently flawed. Of course given the choice I would want some method of protecting myself - and I've mentioned several times that I support CWP's and CWP holders - but realistically, it's no guarantee. Even if I have a gun, I might miss or he might be faster on the draw than I am; in that case, even armed, I'm dead. If I'm not armed, I still might be able to brain him with a weighty office accessory; in this case, even unarmed, I come out on top.
4. Sports car is a realistic, honest name for a car that has performance capabilities which are greater than a typical sedan or compact. Assault rifle is a realistic, honest name for a firearm which has capabilities that are greater than a typical hunting rifle or pistol. I'm not the minister, chief or fairy of naming things, but as far as names go, these make sense. There are much more outrageous, hyperbolic names which we could use to name assault rifles, but those would fall in line with your exaggerated examples on sports cars and swimming pools.
5. Nothing I said is "newspeak BS," and while your assumption that criminals don't care about laws is a rather obvious conclusion, the extended conclusion that you drew about more gun laws creating more gun crime isn't methodologically sound. I could say that sunshine creates waffles, because the sun rises every day and at least one person makes waffles every morning, so therefore the sun creates waffles. It isn't a sound conclusion, but it takes two facts and joins them together and asserts they are true.
June 9, 2009 at 7:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
The knee jerk canned responses that were put out by the anti gun zealots before CWPs became a reality described scenarios that never materialized.
It was going to be a return to unabashed lawlessness reminiscent of the sensational fictional accounts of the "wild west" portrayed in the eastern paperback novels.
I'm sure that was a major disappointment to anti gunners, but like a bunch of squirrels trying to gain access to a bird feeder, they never give up.
So now a little college girl who is so knowledgeable about human behavior because of her real life experiences "in the classroom" offers opinions about something she knows nothing about. Why should anyone even care?
There are folks that post regularly that "feel" because Obama claims he's not going to do anything about restricting the ownership of guns by private citizens, that it must be so.
The man has reversed his position on just about every issue that he talked about when making his sales pitch for the top slot in DC.
But on the gun issue we can be assured that he meant what he said. Right!
In the past I've read a lot of praise for college students by a number of posters.
They've been described as responsible and representative of the best of society as they diligently strive to become better citizens.
How then in good conscience can anyone think to deny them the same ability to defend themselves should the need arise that is afforded to the rest of us non student individuals?
June 9, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"How then in good conscience can anyone think to deny them the same ability to defend themselves should the need arise that is afforded to the rest of us non student individuals?"
Won't someone think of the children! Right? Isn't that the same argument that's used by those evil liberals to justify making all the fun and normal things illegal?
"So now a little college girl who is so knowledgeable about human behavior because of her real life experiences "in the classroom" offers opinions about something she knows nothing about. Why should anyone even care?"
She's educated on human behavior, emotions and motivations, Yird, so it's a bit much to say that she's "offering opinions about something she knows nothing about."
"There are folks that post regularly that "feel" because Obama claims he's not going to do anything about restricting the ownership of guns by private citizens, that it must be so."
And there are regulars who post here frequently about how he's an evil Muslim socialist who's trying to destroy us all. Of the two, taking a man at his word or believing crazy conspiracy theories and lies, which one is the more honest, decent thing to do?
June 9, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
ltgrunt You are so predictable. Since when is a 20 year old a child other than when they get shot?
I think the government counts any one under 26 being killed from gunshots as a child.
But then your a government devotee so you that's okay with you for sure.
How about the government deciding that for tax purpose the last year one can take a deduction for a child is when the child has not reached 18?
Please spare me a lengthy lecture about a student deduction to age 23 or whatever it is at present.
Just a simple deduction for a simple child of simple parents. Seventeen and their adults according to the IRS.
More good government working for us?
I knew when I commented about the student's lack of knowledge that you would chime in about the courses she's taking as though that qualifies her to have some insight into how people will behave relating to the issue of guns.
Apparently you are unaware that there is a profound difference between sitting in a lecture hall listening to some professor professing and having hands on expereince.
Using your logic I guess I could partially complete a course in criminology, then go to a newspaper like I know what I'm talking about and suggest how local detectives with years on the force could do a better job.
" And there are regulars who post here frequently about how he's an evil Muslim socialist who's trying to destroy us all. Of the two, taking a man at his word or believing crazy conspiracy theories and lies, which one is the more honest, decent thing to do?"
And there are people like yourself, naive apologists for a man who has been lying through his teeth since he started on the campaign trail at the 2004 democratic convention.
Taking the word of a known liar is not the "decent thing to do". It's dumb and grossly irresponsible.
This president is either tremendously crafty or tremendously stupid. Either way his actions do not bode well for the country as a whole. Even progressives are starting to tire of his repetitive blame Bush mantra.
But,as I said before you are so predicable.
I could probably write your response for you and be pretty close to mirroring what you write.
Now back to the yard work which takes precedence over this foolishness.
June 9, 2009 at 2:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"But then your a government devotee so you that's okay with you for sure."
Score another lie for Yird.
"I knew when I commented about the student's lack of knowledge that you would chime in about the courses she's taking as though that qualifies her to have some insight into how people will behave relating to the issue of guns.
Apparently you are unaware that there is a profound difference between sitting in a lecture hall listening to some professor professing and having hands on expereince."
You knew when you made a baseless, misinformed, anti-intellectual attack that I would respond with logic and rationality? Shocking!
Her entire field of study is human behavior, Yird. That's her specialty, like how your specialty is being a bitter old curmudgeon.
Any broad, sweeping argument about experience being better than education is fundamentally flawed. Having years of experience is worthless if you lack the capacity to learn from or understand those experiences. Folksy "wisdom" gleaned from shallow firsthand observation only takes you so far.
"Taking the word of a known liar is not the "decent thing to do". It's dumb and grossly irresponsible."
Which makes me wonder why so many people listen to Rush Limbaugh. You're aware that today he actually started organizing a boycott of GM, right? He wants GM to fail, meaning that he wants hundreds of thousands of hard-working Americans to lose their jobs, and he wants the American government and the American people to lose billions that they have invested in GM.
"This president is either tremendously crafty or tremendously stupid."
You really consider his insistence upon federal "pay as you go" budget balancing to be stupid? It's becoming increasingly clear that you aren't working from an objective point of view, Yird.
"But,as I said before you are so predicable.
I could probably write your response for you and be pretty close to mirroring what you write."
In order to do that, Yird, you would have to actually understand viewpoints that people other than yourself hold, and I'm not convinced you're able to do that.
June 9, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Your reading more into my statement about Ms. Fauscette than I actually said and overlooking the obvious which I left out because it was----obvious.
In nearly any field the classroom preparation is just that.
It takes hands on experience combined with that learned in the lecture hall or classroom to reach a level of acceptable competence.
If I have given you the impression that I am opposed to classroom instruction I've given you the wrong impression.
I've had plenty myself over the years but never really felt comfortable with what I had learned until I actually got "out in the field" and applied it, often times finding out that what was taught as theory was not always applicable in practice.
"Folksy "wisdom" gleaned from shallow firsthand observation only takes you so far."
Not only do I agree with that but I don't place much credence in the advice of country store philosophers either.
"Which makes me wonder why so many people listen to Rush Limbaugh. You're aware that today he actually started organizing a boycott of GM, right?
No I'm not actually aware of that because I was not listening to Rush today as you apparently were. Your a fan I take it!
"You really consider his insistence upon federal "pay as you go" budget balancing to be stupid?"
Since when is taking on huge debt "pay as you go". Looks to me more like "buy now pay later".
"Yird, you would have to actually understand viewpoints that people other than yourself hold, and I'm not convinced you're able to do that."
Ah ltgrunt, you underestimate me. I understand perfectly viewpoints that people other than myself hold.
What amazes me often is the how and why.
The parallel between what is happening in this country today today and what happened in Nazi Germany prior to WWII is hard to refute.
And NO, I'm not saying that Obama is another Hitler so no need to go there.
Hitler was a charismatic, gifted orator who could galvanize a throng and convince them of his sincerity, same as Obama.
Reparations imposed on the German republic by the Versailles treaty had the effect of putting their economy in the toilet. Our economy is pretty much in the same shape.
Germany experienced hyper inflation and admittedly we're no there yet but the probability of it happening is high.
The Industry and finance sectors are slowly being subjected to more government control as was the case in Germany.
No Ltgrunt, it is not necessary to panic and cringe in fear over what might not happen but to accept the premise that everything will be alright, on blind faith alone, is unwise.
Now I'm tired, got to take my Geritol, put on my Depends and take a little nap.
Caio!
June 9, 2009 at 7:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"Reparations imposed on the German republic by the Versailles treaty had the effect of putting their economy in the toilet. Our economy is pretty much in the same shape."
No, it isn't. When our exchange rate to other currencies hits something like 4.2 billion to 1, *then* we'll be in the same shape. When children play with blocks of millions of dollars because it's cheaper than buying toys, *then* we'll be in the same shape. When a wheelbarrow full of money is just barely enough to buy a loaf of bred, *then* we'll be in the same shape.
"The Industry and finance sectors are slowly being subjected to more government control as was the case in Germany."
No, actually, the government didn't exert control over industry in Nazi Germany. The government had almost no control, but rather control was held by the single party in power, the Nazi party. Industry, economy and military leaders either joined or were coerced into the party, and the control and power of the Nazi party grew to the point that the government itself became more or less irrelevant.
Our situation is nothing like that, but your exaggeration is entertaining nonetheless.
"No I'm not actually aware of that because I was not listening to Rush today as you apparently were. Your a fan I take it!"
Another no. I just stay informed, and an article referencing that topic came up on one of a dozen tech news sites I skim.
"Since when is taking on huge debt "pay as you go". Looks to me more like "buy now pay later"."
Evidently you missed today's news, when President Obama again put forward insistence on legislation which would institute and make it harder for Congress to work around "pay as you go" funding, returning the US government to the kind of fiscal responsibility that led to the surplus we had at the end of the Clinton administration.
June 9, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Of course all the tech sites you skim keep you well informed.
"No, it isn't. When our exchange rate to other currencies hits something like 4.2 billion to 1, *then* we'll be in the same shape. When children play with blocks of millions of dollars because it's cheaper than buying toys, *then* we'll be in the same shape. When a wheelbarrow full of money is just barely enough to buy a loaf of bred, *then* we'll be in the same shape."
Oh yes our economy certainly is in a mess.
The conditions you refer to were the result of the hyper inflation that followed the initial decine of the economy.
As I stated,"Germany experienced hyper inflation and admittedly we're not there yet but the probability of it happening is high."
These things didn't happen overnight in Germany but Obama does have us on a fast track so we might reach that point sooner instead of later.
"No, actually, the government didn't exert control over industry in Nazi Germany. The government had almost no control, but rather control was held by the single party in power, the Nazi party. Industry, economy and military leaders either joined or were coerced into the party, and the control and power of the Nazi party grew to the point that the government itself became more or less irrelevant."
1) No, actually, the government didn't exert control over industry in Nazi Germany.
2) Industry, economy and military leaders either joined or were coerced into the party,
3) the Nazi party grew to the point that the government itself became more or less irrelevant.
At the point things digressed to the level you wrote of in line 3, the Nazi Party, with the Fuhrer at the helm was the government and he controlled the whole mess, screwed up as it and he were.
If you have a decent dictionary look up the word government next time you take a break from skimming!
Like I said before, you just want to argue for the sake of arguing.
June 9, 2009 at 10:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"The conditions you refer to were the result of the hyper inflation that followed the initial decine of the economy."
No, the hyperinflation that the Weimar Republic of Germany faced was a direct result of the reparations forced upon Germany by the European powers after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles. It bears mentioning that President Woodrow Wilson - a Democrat - was opposed to the terms of the treaty, the reparations and the vilifcation of Germany. Wilson argued for "peace without victory," and the European powers ignored his suggestions and imposed abject punishments on Germany, directly causing not only the hyperinflation of the German currency but also World War II.
For claiming to have so much experience and knowledge of history, Yird, I would have expected you to know that.
"Oh yes our economy certainly is in a mess."
Our economy was also in a mess during the Great Depression, while Germany was also suffering. What we're left with is two models to potentially follow to overcome recession, the fascism of the Nazis that stole control away from the Weimar Republic of Germany or the spending and public works programs instituted by Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt here in the United States. Judging by the actions of this administration so far, the model being followed is unquestionably that of Roosevelt's New Deal.
"Like I said before, you just want to argue for the sake of arguing."
Says the man who keeps posting and keeps arguing. What's that old line about the pot and the kettle, Yird?
June 9, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
I wrote in a previous post "Reparations imposed on the German republic by the Versailles treaty had the effect of putting their economy in the toilet."
Plus,"Germany experienced hyper inflation and admittedly we're not there yet but the probability of it happening is high.
YOU wrote"No, the hyperinflation that the Weimar Republic of Germany faced was a direct result of the reparations forced upon Germany by the European powers after World War I in the Treaty of Versailles."
Plus,in relation to the terms of the treaty you wrote, "directly causing not only the hyperinflation of the German currency but also World War II."
So your comment
"For claiming to have so much experience and knowledge of history, Yird, I would have expected you to know that"
, is based on what?
For someone who claims to be able to understand the other persons point of view you seem to have trouble understanding them even when they concur with your own
It appears that all your about is oneupmanship.
Goodnight Ltgrunt.
June 10, 2009 at 12:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
You should have stuck with what you said about reparations and not tried to put so much effort into mismatching history to make comparisons between the Obama administration and Nazi Germany. You got lost and started reorganizing facts and history to suit your metaphor somewhere in your urge to make a sensational point.
"The conditions you refer to were the result of the hyper inflation that followed the initial decine of the economy."
When you wrote that, Yird, you had it backwards. The hyperinflation precipitated everything. The economy in the Weimar Republic was stable before reparations payments were started; the reparations were the direct cause of Germany's economic collapse post-WWI. Germany eventually recovered from the hyperinflation, but then shortly afterward joined the rest of Europe in experiencing the Great Depression.
It's great that you know some of the broad strokes, Yird, but when you get the details exactly backwards it puts a damper on your insistence that I don't understand your points.
"It appears that all your about is oneupmanship."
Nothing so vain, Yird. All I'm about is truth and accuracy.
June 10, 2009 at 7:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"He did not inherit a mess."
Annoying little things like reality, facts and the truth would like to disagree.
Yes, blaming all of the world's problems on the Bush administration would be wrong. But that's not actually what President Obama is doing. He has accurately pointed out that he has gained the office of president after our nation had already become embroiled in two wars and sunk into a recession. Claiming that Obama has created the mess we're in is dishonest and deluded.
And really, Holycow, Rush Limbaugh doesn't cause the left to fear and tremble. He causes all responsible, intelligent people to groan and roll their eyes.
June 10, 2009 at 8:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
Rush only says one thing best..."Can I supersize that value meal? And does it come with a side of oxycontin?"
June 10, 2009 at 8:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"The left hates Limbaugh because he puts their idiotic ideas into the arena of debate."
I disagree. I think most people hate Limbaugh because they recognize that he isn't making astute observations, he's just stirring the pot and drumming up controversy because it makes for good ratings.
Saying something sensational, regardless of whether it's true, accurate or ethical to do so, makes people listen. Listeners drive advertising, and advertising pays Rush to sit in his studio and say more offensive, insulting things. It's bought and paid for radio drama, as fictitious as those old The Shadow serials.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr4VZ8...
Listen to everything that Evan Thomas is saying about Obama's position. He isn't claiming that Obama is God or God-like, he's pointing out how Obama's position gives him the responsibility of considering the entire world and all viewpoints. Admittedly, the omniscient viewpoint isn't the best analogy, but Thomas certainly wasn't lauding Obama with praise. It's sad that people are trying so hard to denigrate the journalistic profession, especially compared to a deplorable sideshow act like Limbaugh.
And hey, NBC anchor Brian Williams even gave Chris Matthews a good ribbing for that thrill comment. Clearly one person's emotional response isn't an indication of bias on the part of the journalistic establishment.
"How about Barack Obama's drug use when he was in high school and college."
How about Bush's cocaine use? Is that fair game, or is that more leftist, Democrat smearing?
June 10, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
You Know Ltgrunt, I had considered a lengthy detailed reply to your latest google search but decided, why bother?
You just go ahead and keep digging up all the pieces for what you perceive to be "truth and accuracy."
Much of what you spend so much time detailing is like the old question about which came first, the chicken or the egg?
What difference doe's it make?
I'll just focus on the big picture and leave you to pick and choose which statements from which posters you care to waste time on searching for rebuttals.
June 10, 2009 at 9:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
You're trying to suggest that I don't really know these things and that I just get everything that I say off of Google? That's such a cute attempt at passively dismissing me and insulting my intelligence, Yird. You get a gold star for effort.
"Much of what you spend so much time detailing is like the old question about which came first, the chicken or the egg?
What difference doe's it make?"
Well, when it's factually accurate that one thing came before another, it makes all the difference in the world. It's the difference between being right and wrong; between knowing the truth and believing in stories.
June 10, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"Does anyone find it strange that the US is now just printing money and it is basically Fiat money '..money declared by a government to be legal tender.'
And now Fiat, is buying Chrysler"
Fiat isn't buying Chrysler, Fiat is buying *into* the new Chrysler. Fiat isn't allowed to have anything more than a small stake in the new company until such time as the new Chrysler can repay the loans in the form of the US government's stake. Essentially, this means that Fiat will be helping to pay off Chrysler's stimulus loan, which further means that the US government and US citizens will be making a slight profit off of Fiat once all is said and done.
But hey, let's not tell it for what it is, let's spin it as an awful plot by this evil administration.
"Edward E. Whitacre Jr. built AT&T Inc. into the biggest U.S. provider of telephone service over a 43-year-career. By his own admission, he becomes chairman of General Motors Corp. knowing nothing about the auto industry."
He can't be any worse than the previous CEO who supposedly knew something about the auto industry.
June 10, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
vmirat90 (anonymous) says...
holycow, I don't hate Rush...I do listen sometimes because he is entertaining- he distorts truth, and takes soundbites out of context, but sometimes entertaining. That is alot more than I can say for Sean Hannity. He clearly takes things out of context, and yes, I can give you clear examples of that, and says things that are outwardly untrue. He has a clear republican agenda, as he is their lackey. Anyone that takes him seriously is one of the "Sheeple" that you call Obama supporters. Obama could cure cancer, and he would criticize him for it. He is no better than Olberman, who obviously pulls things out context for his agenda. Call a spade a spade.
June 10, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
With only an 8% stake in Chrysler, this means that the government doesn't have controlling interest in the company. Notice how since that information became publicly available, all the cries about Chrysler becoming nationalized and becoming a tool of the socialist government dissipated.
Now the big worry is about the UAW. But let's think about this for a moment. Most importantly is the fact that the VEBA health care trust is handled as a separate entity from the UAW, and is only there to make sure that retired autoworkers get some portion of the medical benefits they were guaranteed. Still, even with the UAW in a position to have partial ownership of the new Chrysler, all this guarantees is that the UAW now has to look at the bottom line of the company instead of only looking for better pay and more benefits for employees. With UAW leaders actually invested in the company, the idea that the employees pay and benefits need to come first and foremost will quickly become limited by the idea that the company needs to remain solvent and profitable.
Optimistically speaking, this is an encouraging way to limit the excesses of the unions and impose some responsibility on them for the company's well-being.
June 10, 2009 at 11:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
What are my thoughts on what, Holycow?
Offensive reverend says more outlandish, potentially offensive things. Awesome. So what?
June 10, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
Posted by ltgrunt on June 9, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I just stay informed, and an article referencing that topic came up on one of a dozen tech news sites I skim.
Posted by ltgrunt on June 10, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
You're trying to suggest that I don't really know these things and that I just get everything that I say off of Google? That's such a cute attempt at passively dismissing me and insulting my intelligence, Yird. You get a gold star for effort.
Yes Ltgrunt that exactly what I'm saying, not just suggesting!
You are very selective in the responses you make avoiding anything that you cannot refute by going into the numerous sites available to find information supportive of your position.
You spend countless hours admonishing, correcting, and lecturing nearly every individual that has anything to say that might be considered negative as it relates to the Obama administration and all democratic supported issues.
You jump from thread to thread, sometimes all day long with ample time between posts to find something that will give the appearance that you know what your talking about.
The vast variety of subjects and the detail that you provide leads one to think you are either real good at "skimming" for information or your a genius.
I seriously doubt that your a genius.
Your attempt to portray yourself as an broad minded, analytical thinker not given to extremes falls short in light of your persistence to always, without exception offer opinions that if not favorable are certainly non incriminating, at least as they pertain to progressive ideas and especially with regards to the Obama administration.
I doubt you could fare nearly as well in a face to face discussion with myself or many of the other posters you have
attempted to sway to you way of thinking with your voluminous diatribes.
You can have the last word.
You have mine.
June 10, 2009 at 10:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
What a surprise, Yird is making dishonest allegations about me. In other shocking news, the sun rose this morning.
You're taking two quotes out of context and applying them against each other, Yird. Yes, I do skim various online news outlets every day. What intelligent, informed person doesn't? Do you not look over various news sources? Do you not keep informed about the world?
The second failure in your falsehood is your assertion that I *must* be doing this just to prove points and feel smart. Quite the contrary, I don't go running off to Google every time you post a falsehood. Per the specific line of incorrect assertions you made about the hyperinflation of the Weimer Republic of Germany, the counterpoints I provided were not freshly gleaned from Google, but were rather facts I learned quite a while ago.
It's dishonest of you to try to muddle those two statements like that, Yird. I'm beginning to think that nothing is beneath you in your quest to prove you're so much better than me.
"You jump from thread to thread, ... I seriously doubt that your a genius."
I doubt it to, but somehow I think you're intending to be more haughty and insulting when you say it. And yes, Yird, just like yourself I might comment on more than one article in one day. Being knowledgeable, well-read or experienced in a variety of subjects doesn't make me a genius, it just makes me a Jack-of-all-trades. I'm aware that I'm not a genius, though; your smug self-righteousness, insults and belaboring of the point are hardly necessary.
My rational, even-headed disposition only falls short in relation to extremes like your own, Yird. As I've pointed out time and again, your criticizing my moderate views from the standpoint of your own extreme conservative views doesn't make me a liberal, it just means I'm not as fervently conservative as you are. I'm not nearly as liberal or "progressive" as you habitually misrepresent me to be.
Case in point, I haven't defended this administration, spoken highly of Obama or spoken out in support of liberals' or Democrats' goals. I have frequently corrected misinformation, but in the real world that's not taking a side, that's just contributing to a fair and balanced view. Your criticisms about me being such a liberal or progressive or whatever else it is you say when you want to malign my as-yet undocumented political views is based purely on the fact that I don't criticize Obama, this administration or liberals in general enough for your taste.
Putting aside my propensity to say "um" and "ah" more often than is strictly considered proper, I doubt that your arrogant, dismissive and disrespectful attitude of me would hold water in the real world. Still, it is amusing seeing you playing the "if you were really in front of me" card, which you so often criticize Yukon and his previous usernames for. Let me guess, it's only wrong to do something if it isn't the great and venerable Yird doing it?
June 10, 2009 at 11:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
"You can have the last word."
I would guess not. The on-topic conversation has been dead for quite some time, but you just keep bumping this article back up to get in more cracks on me. I'll keep playing along for as long as you want to keep being hateful and deceitful, but let's really bury the needle here and admit that you're the one picking the fight.
June 10, 2009 at 11:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
- Most Commented
- Most Emailed
- S.C. losing port traffic to other states
- Out with old ...
- Water — 'The smell is gone'
- Cart gives Buddy new lease on life
- Schools plan to update visitor-security system
- GenPhar site 'red-tagged'
- Man, 17, killed in motorcycle wreck
- Off campus
- Historic manor house used by Girl Scouts is among buildings that might be torn down to make way for future
- Tough times have taught comedian's sister to love life
