Debating an Anti-Gunner, Part III

[Trent]

Back again!

Tonight I spotted this nefarious quote on facebook.

With everyone posting links to the news about the concealed carry ban being struck down, I was curious if the "common sense" wisdom that people who conceal carry are law abiding, and generally do not use their guns for unlawful purposes. Can anyone refute these statistics? Since 2007, fourteen police officers, 485 private citizens, twenty-three mass shootings, and thirty-five murder-suicides were commited by concealed carriers.

link: http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

My Response (part 1/2)

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-15

From 2007 to 2010, 1,333 violent felons were KILLED by private citizens in self defense.

This does NOT count those who WOUNDED violent felons (most estimate 20x the number of killed, conservatively, firearms aren't nearly as lethal as the movies would have you believe).

Nor does it count violent felons which fled the scene when presented with an armed victim, or who choose victims or venues which are less likely to present armed opposition.

Part 2 /2

(I typed up after dinner, following other people in a heated debate)

After dinner I gathered up a couple of other stats which may interest you (from a purely statistical point of view):

Total Law Enforcement justifiable homicides 2007-2010 (violent felons killed): 1,622
(source, FBI: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-14)

Percent effectiveness of private citizens vs. law enforcement on violent felons killed: 82.18%

Anecdotal, but worth noting; Tax dollars saved annually by private citizens by killing violent felons dead, dead, dead (estimate): $51,011,244

(Using Illinois cost per inmate as a baseline; here: http://www.vera.org/files/price-of-prisons-illinois-fact-sheet.pdf)

68,720. <<< That's how many people were murdered between 2007 and 2011, all weapon types.

534. << Violence Policy Center claims on concealed carry holders committing murders during this time period.

0.77% - contribution to the overall murder rate by concealed carry holders. (Less than 1%).

8,817,028. Number of Concealed Carry holders in United States (Source: http://legallyarmed.com/ccw_statistics.htm)

Concealed carry holders as percentage of population of US (estimate): 2.968%

(NOTE: THIS DOES NOT COUNT WYOMING AND OTHER "NON PERMIT" STATES WHERE RESIDENTS DO NOT NEED A PERMIT TO CARRY: IN EFFECT, *ALL* RESIDENTS OF THESE STATES ARE PERMIT HOLDERS.)

Percent of concealed carry holders committing homicides between 2007-2011:

0.00605%.

Yes, that's an extremely small percent.

Concealed carry holders represent around 3% of the population of the US.

Meanwhile concealed carry holders contribute less than 1% to the overall homicide rate.


*****

The conclusion to be drawn from this - and the data is VERY conclusive - is concealed carry holders are MUCH safer people to be around than the average citizen.

 

[Librarian]

You missed this: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2095754.

That VPC document is hugely inaccurate.

 

[horsemen61]

Nice I like your approach .

 

[Trent]

Perfect. Thanks a bunch!

That'll put the nail in the coffin.

Someone in the thread mentioned:

PRO:

I wonder how many women who were armed have been raped as opposed to unarmed women. that, unfortunately, is the only statistic that really matters to me. Mass shootings are scary, robberies are scary and accidents are scary. but none of these things scare me as much as the thought of my wife, mother, or sister being a victim of sexual assault

The next reply was ANTI:

I doubt her having a gun would make a difference. Id bet they would still try to rape if the had that on their mind , then steal the gun and use it to shoot her. I hope we never return to the wild west ways.

In my closing post;

To return to your original question - "can anyone refute these statistics", try this sociology thesis. It cites 139 sources which combine to definitively show the VPC incorrectly, falsely, or otherwise mis-reported the number of people "killed by concealed carry holders" to vastly inflate their numbers and increase the "shock factor."

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2095754

Once you take this in to account, it becomes crystal clear that the VPC just wants to scare the bejeesus out of people to advance their political agenda.

To address another fear above;

Wild West is what we have RIGHT NOW in Chicago.

Concealed carry is the civilized answer.

 

[Trent]

With the Federal court rendering Illinois' ban on concealed carry unconstitutional, and a battle in the legislature of epic proportions on the horizon, it's more important than ever to sway the public opinion in our direction, in a polite, concise, and effective manner.

Every chance you get.

 

[horsemen61]

Way to finish strong leave em speechless loved the Chicago line lol.

 

[olafhardtB]

You are casting your pearls before swine, it is arguring with a manhole cover

 

[mjkten]

Arguing with a manhole cover maybe, but demonstrating to other viewers that this person is indeed a manhole cover may be more to the point.

 

[hq]

There are always two sides in every legislative action:
1. The positive effect, ie. how effective the suggested means are in correcting a problem.
2. What will the side effects and collateral damage be.

Prohibition of alcohol is a prime example of a noble and idealistic law that went horribly wrong. Negative side effects far outweighed the perceived gain, which also was nonexistent because it impacted only those who wanted to obey the law and didn't pose a problem that was addressed.

Most importantly, there's a constitutional principle of innocence until proved guilty. No-one can't be punished for crimes he didn't commit and a loss of means to defend oneself is in effect a punishment. Convicted felons have lost it for a good reason, they've caused it themselves. Accusing the vast majority of CCW holders for being potential murderers because some murderers have had a valid CCW permit is not only childish but insulting, illogical and downright idiotic. It lacks even the most fundamental basic of understanding causality; absolutely no-one commits a murder because they just happen to have a CCW, and even suggesting that banning CCW could prevent a homicidal person from committing a crime is beyond any logic and reason. A determined killer isn't the slightest bit concerned about having a permit to carry a firearm when he doesn't even care about being sentenced to life in prison or even death for what he is determined to do on purpose. As we've seen countless times, the only thing criminals like these are concerned about is the balance of power - just one, equally determined law-abiding citizen with a firearm can stop them. Some of these citizens wear a blue uniform, most don't.

I've never comprehended the level of utter stupidity and denial of logic required for someone to become an anti, not to mention failing to correct his misguided and propaganda-induced beliefs in the face of overwhelming contradicting evidence. Anti-gun mindset resembles a religion, a cult of the worst kind that has a self-righteous doctrine of disregarding all facts and counterfeiting "evidence" to prove their predetermined point at all costs, ad nauseum.

 

[Pilot]

The irrational anti (legal) gun religion is similar to the Green religion of man mand global climate change. Brainwashed, indoctrinated, self important, synchophants.

 

[oneounceload]

If any of your antis are arguing from an emotional basis, you will never convince them - just look at politics and religion - also both highly emotionally charged issues.

Keep it clear like you have, but do NOT let them drag you down into a "shouting" match; that will help make the point even more - that gun owners are calm and rational, not hyper emotional and out of control

 

[Justin]

Over the years, it's become abundantly clear that studies released by the VPC have about as much academic credibility as The Flat Earth Society.

Kudos to Trent for being willing to strike a blow against the ignorance spouted by that dishonest cult.

 

[holdencm9]

Well done Trent. I like to follow your endeavors with debating antis here, because I don't have the patience to do it on facebook or any other websites. I used to, but not anymore. I think you had good facts and well-presented this case, that report about the VPC's fraudulent data is golden. And you know the good folks here at THR will keep you from straying too far in the direction of emotion-based arguments.

And like mjkten points out, you may not ever convince the initial poster he is wrong, but you will perhaps convince (or at least give pause) a lot of other quiet observers. We must remember we aren't only visible to those we directly address in facebook but possibly anyone can read those messages.

 

[Trent]

Woke up to this;

I took my famliy to Chicago for a week this Spring, never saw a gun, shooting, or violence. I did see about 1 miilion people I would not feel comfortable sitting next to if they were armed. Guns are not toys. The general population does not have training to use them, or even know how to aim. Having a gun does not make you safe it just adds to the amount of stray bullets hitting innocent kids near your gun battle when you "protect" yourself.

I need coffee before I go off on this dude, try to keep it civil. (Brother of original guy who posted the VPC link and sludge, must run in the family)

 

[hq]

I need coffee before I go off on this dude, try to keep it civil. (Brother of original guy who posted the VPC link and sludge, must run in the family)

Ouch. That was predictable; a loud but well-funded ideological minority and its diciples claiming to speak for the masses, without being able to substantiate absurd claims about "feelings" of no less than a million people. Likewise these individuals are completely incapable of providing any evidence about any regularity or probability of collateral damage - that kind of imaginary scenarios are 99.9% a product of their own, sick imagination.

They live in a massively biased, hollywood-brainwashed fairyland they've created in their own imagination, not reality.

 

[Trent]

Since we've switched from a statistics argument (which I won) to an emotional argument (which is nigh-impossible to win), my response followed suit:

The general population which does not have training... does so by choice. Have YOU ever shot a gun or received training? If not, I can see where this sentiment comes from. There are plenty of folks who have received training, both in marksmanship and the legality behind application of lethal force. These folks understand that every bullet which leaves their firearm has a lawyer attached to it, and don't go around "shooting up kids."

You're confusing the good guys with the bad guys.

The bad guys do NOT care where their bullets go. They do NOT care if you are uncomfortable around weapons. They do NOT receive training on marksmanship, legal, or otherwise. And they certainly don't care about gun laws, as evidenced by Chicago's incredibly high murder rate by firearms in the face of a total ban on carry and possession.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

A week in the murder capital of the USA without a single act of violence or homicide?

 

[Solo]

I took my famliy to Chicago for a week this Spring, never saw a gun, shooting, or violence. I did see about 1 miilion people I would not feel comfortable sitting next to if they were armed. Guns are not toys. The general population does not have training to use them, or even know how to aim. Having a gun does not make you safe it just adds to the amount of stray bullets hitting innocent kids near your gun battle when you "protect" yourself.

One cannot doubt the truthiness of his opinion.

 

[Trent]

Original poster responded

I don't like being around guns, and I worry that somebody carrying a concealed weapon might leverage it in disagreements with people, even if they never actually intend on firing it or even getting it out. Having a heated dispute with your neighbor because he's trying to cut down your favorite lilac bush? Let your gun become a little less "concealed" and hope he notices. Cut me off at the intersection? Wave my gun at the *******. Does this ever happen? I don't think they screen people for tendency to throw temper tantrums when they issue gun licenses, do they?

That being said, I don't think I care whether concealed carry is permitted or not.

My Response

Patrick - threatening someone with a firearm is, and will remain, assault with a deadly weapon. Each of the cases you illustrated already are and will REMAIN a felony - with, or without, concealed carry.

Since 2009, it has been legal for me to transport a firearm in my center console with a loaded magazine next to it. (IL Supreme court ruling http://www.state.il.us/court/OPINIONS/SupremeCourt/2009/October/106367.pdf).

I carry an empty 9mm with a loaded magazine next to it in my car - have for years. Not once have I ever had an urge to spend the 2 seconds taking it out of the console to load it, over a traffic or any other incident. Even when some idiot cuts me off. But I sure as hell feel better having it there when I'm waiting in a dark alley in Peoria at 2 AM on a Friday night. I have to sit there 2 minutes for the security gate to open at the datacenter; which is located 1/2 block from Taft Homes in downtown Peoria. Every single time I've gone there I've seen gangbangers on that block, drinking and doing whatever else gangbangers do. Often I've had to get out of the car to remove empty 40's in paper bags, or other obstructions, so I don't run them over and shred my tires.

This being said, the main difference we're looking at here is my 110 pound wife will stand a chance against a 220 pound rapist / robber. Firearms are nothing more than a tool, one that can be used for good or evil. Right now we do NOT have the right to use them for good. Period.

Not to mention that even down state we have a serious crime issue to be concerned with. 15 heroin overdoses in Tazewell county this year. Increased home invasions, burglaries, and assaults. Just a few miles from here *5* armed intruders broke in to a house a few weeks ago. They waited for the husband to leave for work (3rd shift). His wife and two small children were home. Held at gunpoint while the house was emptied. Was the second of TWO armed robberies in Delavan on that day. Followed an armed bank robbery by a couple of weeks.

So even little farm towns aren't safe anymore. You used to not have to lock your doors. Now I won't send my 15 year old boy outside at night without a sidearm. (Jr. has an FOID card and has received extensive training on firearms).

I appreciate your views - and respect them. Everyone has a right to their opinions - both you and I, and Tyler. We don't have to see eye to eye on the issue; but through debates like this we, we can all learn a little more about each other's views, reasons, and rationale. Ultimately it's up to the law makers to decide the issue.

I will say this; if you travel OUTSIDE Illinois, to a state which allows open carry - you'll see all sorts of people carrying firearms. In Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio, I've run across plenty of ordinary people carrying firearms. Not once have I ever felt uncomfortable. WE are unaccustomed to it because Illinois has always banned them. In many of the other 49 states... it's become very commonplace and doesn't raise any eyebrows.

 

[Trent]

There is an ultimate irony here, is the original poster of the VPC stuff used to WORK for me.

In my lifetime I've had to draw a firearm ONE time in self-defense or defense of others. And it was to save HIS scrawny butt.

When he worked for me, he fixed a customer's computer. Left a voice mail saying he removed the virus, what website it came from, and told the customer to be careful visiting sites like that.

The website happened to be a porn site, and the customer's fiancee/wife got the message before he did.

So suddenly and quite unexpectedly we have a 220 pound body builder crashing through the front door of the office. He screams "you're dead -------------" and tries to jump over the counter to get to my tech.

I step back and pull a firearm from under the counter (mainly so HE isn't between ME and the FIREARM). I don't POINT it at him, just back up a few steps at low ready.

I yell STOP.

Guy freezes in his tracks at the sight of the firearm. Says "that's not a real gun."

Continuing to point the weapon at the floor, I say "it most certainly IS real. And you need to leave. Right now."

Guy backs up and leaves. Goes to the POLICE station and turns me in. Detectives come. Investigate the incident. Determine I didn't break any laws. No charges filed.

Anyway.. for a guy who was SAVED one heck of a beating at one point, by me - he should know better than question the benefits of firearms in self defense.

 

[jrdolall]

The only point I will give to an anti-gun person is this: If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the USA then there would be absolutely no gun violence in the USA. If they can guarantee me that EVERY gun in the country would magically disappear then I would agree with them. I don't care about reduction in numbers or what happens in England or Australia. Our culture has always involved gun ownership and personal responsibility (though the personal responsibility is fading).
The news does not report when a legal gun owner defends himself, his family or his property with a gun because it is rarely newsworthy. They ALWAYS report when a person uses a gun for bad reasons. Anits will never respect your ideas just like I will never respect theirs. As one person put it, the best you can hope for is that someone who is sitting on the fence sees your facts and realizes that you are correct.

 

[MoscowMike]

jrdolall said "The only point I will give to an anti-gun person is this: If there were absolutely no guns anywhere in the USA then there would be absolutely no gun violence in the USA."

I, on the other hand, don't care if I'm shot, knifed or hit over the head with a cricket bat. Without access to firearms the smaller, older or weaker person is at the mercy of the bigger and stronger goblin.

The anti's want to focus on gun violence. It's a red herring. Firearms are an equalizer.

 

[Pilot]

It is frustrating to try to apply logic, and reason to a person that relies purely on emotion which is displayed by most antis. The arguments they've derived from indoctrination, brainwashing, and the liberal media do not hold up to facts, and data, but they could care less.

 

[Trent]

His brother Tyler chimed in again.

I have shot guns since I was 6. Hunting fine, strapping to your side as you walk Walmart, Not in my opinion. While I understand legal people want to protect their rights, I feel it tramples my right to feel free ans protected by the
Police. There are too many nutjobs who will be able to carry for my comfort. Its too hard to tell the good guy from the bad.

I responded.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1

So, where were the police when those 68,720 people were murdered between 2007 and 2011? I mean, the people are dead, so they probably don't care anymore, but the loved ones of those people probably still do.

Where were the police for the 441,169 women that were forcibly raped from 2007 to 2011? Sure all those ladies would have appreciated the help, which they didn't get.

Where were the police for the 2,023,114 robberies and home invasions from 2007 to 2011? That's right, they show up after the robberies are done and file a report so people can claim insurance.

Where were the police for the 4,055,530 aggravated assaults from 2007 to 2011? No worries, the medics will patch you up after you're bludgeoned with a tire iron for your car keys.

Police are great - at writing reports. Someone has to write those reports so the FBI can compile the murder statistics.

 

[Solo]

I feel it tramples my right to feel free ans protected by the
Police.

Toss this one out.

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

Of course, if he's talking about his right to feel protected by the police... well, I suppose he can to feel whatever he wants, but I don't think feelings are a protected right under the law.