New York Times & The Concealed-Carry Fantasy
The New York Times editorial board wades clumsily into the concealed carry discussion yesterday with a piece that leans heavily on supposition;
The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group, is necessarily incomplete because the gun lobby has been so successful in persuading gullible state and national legislators that concealed carry is essential to public safety, thus blocking the extensive data collection that should be mandatory for an obvious and severe public health problem. For that reason, the center has been forced to rely largely on news accounts and limited data in 38 states and the District of Columbia.
More complete research, unimpeded by the gun lobby, would undoubtedly uncover a higher death toll. But this truly vital information is kept largely from the public. A Gallup poll this month found 56 percent of Americans said the nation would be safer if more people carried concealed weapons.
Clearly, concealed carry does not transform ordinary citizens into superheroes. Rather, it compounds the risks to innocent lives, particularly as state legislatures, bowing to the gun lobby, invite more citizens to venture out naïvely with firearms in more and more public places, including restaurants, churches and schools.
No one wants to be a superhero, well, except the New York Times editorial board maybe, but many Americans do want to be safe when they leave their homes, you know, to live their lives. I suspect that some of the members of the New York Times editorial board take advantage of concealed carry laws in some shape or form.
No statistical evidence exists, so the New York Times just assumes that their suppositions are correct.
But, we here at This Ain’t Hell have been keeping a daily tally of citizens who protect themselves, their property and their families with their legally-owned guns with our “Feel Good” stories. We’ve been writing about these stories first thing every morning for the past three years. Usually there is more than one, but, just to keep my own poll away from being guess work, I’ll say that at least once a day, there’s a legal gun owner using his legal gun for protection. That’s more than one thousand and ninety five times. One thousand and ninety five Americans who are alive, who might not be so if the anti-gun lobby and the New York Times editorial board had their way.
How about that poor lady a few weeks ago who waited for more than an hour for the police (because of a 9-1-1 dispatcher, apparently) until she shot her assailant at the very last minute. Would the New York Times like to throw her on their gun control pyre? Then there was the couple that was walking back to their car from a restaurant when an armed gunman tried to rob them, and the gentleman used his concealed firearm to end the threat against his wife. The father and son who were threatened at a Craig’s List solicitation gone wrong and had to ventilate the pair of armed thugs. A woman in Tulsa took a career criminal off of the street when she shot Bruce (not-so) Jolly as he tried to force his way into her home. The fellow with a legally concealed weapon who took down a bank robber a few weeks ago. The list is endless, so I wont belabor the point.
Are all gun owners acting responsibly all of the time? Nope. But, that comes with education and training – and by not shaming gun owners into the shadows with phony statistics and creepy little opinion pieces about whiny “modern men” in skinny jeans who don’t own guns.
Thanks to Chief Tango for the link.
Category: Gun Grabbing Fascists
Calling the Violence Policy Center a “gun safety group” is like calling the KKK a neighborhood welcoming committee.
If they were truly concerned about firearms safety, they’d be certifying instructors and RSOs.
“Are all gun owners acting responsibly all of the time? Nope. But, that comes with education and training ….”
Also appropriate charges against those CCW holders who do truly dumb-@ss stuff. Here in Michigan a woman is facing charges for blazing away at the vehicle of two shoplifters who boosted some stuff from a Home Depot. Maybe shoulda spent more time reading the law and less time watching cops-n-robbers TV shows.
The loss of some items from a hardware store vs. the loss of someone’s life because they happen to be in the path of the bullet??
This situation annoys me because it gives fodder to the gun grabbers.
The best response would be throwing articles at the gun grabbers about criminals gunning down helpless people. Then force them to explain how it’s different beyond “Shut up!”
You people live in SUCH a dream world!
Gunzzgrabbers are not scary piipulls. They are SCAREDY piipulls. Trying to reason with them is like trying to turn a raisin into an apple.
In my humble, uncertified, untested, uneducated (obviously) opinion, it would be FAR more effective to require training in firearms for EVERYONE, INCLUDING AND ESPECIALLY, GUNZZ scaredy-kats before they get a driver’s license or register to vote.
In fact, I think they should meet the requirement of GUNNZ knowledge B4 they get a driver’s license, because a GUNZZ is at least as lethal as a motorized vehicle.
In regard to those ‘whiny “modern men” in skinny jeans’, they aren’t real men. They are all TG-ing into whatevers they really want to be.
Another thing the bleeding hearts bawled about was the inevitable bloodbath resulting from the passage of CCW Laws, that never happened either. They conveniently ignore the big drops in per capita violent crime rates that follow the passage of said laws, but since when have liberals allowed facts to get in the way of their crusades?
Here are a coupla questions for the NYT et al:
How many CCW permits are there around the US? Whatever that number is would be the low end of how many legally owned firearms committed no violence today or any other day of the year. It would be fair of you to say that however many that number is that the total number of legally owned firearms would likely be considerably greater than that. But being fair is not on your agenda is it.
How many legally owned vehicles driven by legally licensed operators killed someone yesterday? If your concern for people killed by vehicles is less than for those killed by firearms then your priorities are very skewed. Normal, sane people are concerned about every life lost unnecessarily.
Good questions. May I add another?
What alternative to self defense does the NYT editorial board suggest? Should we shelter in place, and die, until the police, who do not have a Constitutional duty to protect us, protect us? Do we offer our killers Skittles®™ while we are on our knees waiting?
I suggest the NYT exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech and expression by printing cartoons of Muhammad before they formulate an answer… no armed security, that’s cheating.
“If a Muslim hears a Christian or anyone else defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) he has to denounce him in strong terms. It is permissible to insult that person because he is the one who started it. How can we not stand up the Prophet(peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him)? It is also obligatory to report him to the authorities who can carry out the punishment on him. If there is no one who can carry out the hadid punishment of Allaah (Death) and stand up for the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then the Muslim has to do whatever he can, so long as that will not lead to further mischief and harm against other people. But if a Muslim hears a kaafir defaming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) then he may not keep quiet and must respond with the law of Allaah.(Death)”
As a proud Kaafir, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to defame Muhammad in the strongest possible terms. He is a false profit, his word false, his teachings repugnant.
De nada, you big teddy bear.
I was visiting relatives this past weekend and caught part of this on the TV as it was being broadcast.
http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2015/10/08/censored-america
Stossel makes a great point that our pussyfied “free press” (bless their hearts) self-censors themselves when it comes to “The Prophet”. If they’re willing to forsake their 1st Amendment rights that were purchased in blood, it is no surprise how they regard the 2nd.
Try as they may, I suspect they will still end up cowering under their desks and dying on their knees… Allah willing.
Funny how they’ll say anything and everything about Christians, who will generally just quietly take it, or at worst call them assholes. But if you say anything bad about moslems, who tend to try to murder people over it, it’s “hate speech.”
That was a great show. I made sure my kids watched it to understand what they inevitably will encounter as they grow up.
Anybody who still believes we have free speech in this country hasn’t tried to speak freely lately.
It’s profit (PB&J). Fixed it for you…
Your the reason I cant prophet from writing, it two hard too make all of ewe happy.
I am afraid this woman took all the DNA related to spellin. I was just left with the runt DNA.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/susanhardin
She also got all of the Left sided genes. When I was getting my security clearance to roam around places that can not be mentioned with a gun, I was asked if I knew my sister was a registered socialist. True story.
I would do a linkedin profile but all it says is:
GED
Marines
/////////Nothing follows.
“The tally by the Violence Policy Center, a gun CONFISCATION group,. .. ”
There. Fixed it for ya.
The “Gun Lobby” is really hundreds of thousands of ordinary people (voters) like you and me.
Think about that, grabbers and their politicians. Maybe that’s why “gun safety” laws have to be passed in the middle of the night by a legislature and not in sunshine by referendum.
Some of you might be shocked to know that I often use sarcasm to make a point. There are these moments when I drift into the harsh reality of a topic. The number of Concealed Carry Permits being issued nation wide has increased dramatically in the last decade. http://concealednation.org/2015/07/report-1-in-20-adults-have-a-concealed-carry-permit-in-the-us-and-theyre-extremely-law-abiding/ It would be naive to believe that there will be no increase in negative statistics concerning those obtain permits. Roughly 5% of adults nation wide now have a permit. As is the case with all trends on a graph, there will be a point of diminishing return. Right now the data clearly shows the trend for violent crime to decrease as the number of permit carriers increases. That trend will not continue Ad infinitum. If I really wanted to make a case against Concealed Carry I could do a much better job at it than those currently attempting it. Last year 9 states made significant changes to their gun laws that made it easier for citizens to carry in public. West “By God” Virginia, home to our own Chief Gun Nut and his bunker of back door purchased assault weapons, passed a Constitutional Carry Law. That particular law was vetoed by the Governor. It will come up again next year and will probably have the votes to override his veto. Laws like that which require no training, either practical or academic will undoubtedly result in an increase of incidents by those who choose to carry in public. Florida allows those with a DD214 to forgo any training. It does not matter what is on the DD214 as long as it is honorable. No to pick on my high flying friends in blue, but being a postal clerk in the Air Force does not mean anything when it comes to carrying a firearm in public. Furthermore, being trained in the Marine Corps to set up a sector of fire and preparing a final protective fire plan is not particularly useful at the local Mall. Constitutional Carry will cause that point of diminishing return to slide in favor of our opponents. The statistics… Read more »
I’m in complete agreement with you on that. There is a ‘sweet spot’ (of gun ownership, laws, etc.) where a well-trained and armed percentage of the population leads to a decrease in crime and loss of life. Err to the side of that point too much, and the statistics will go against the merits of gun advocates.
Once more people accept this, we can work on solidifying that position based on the numbers instead of arguing unhelpful extremes.
You’re right about that. As pro-2A as I am, there’s a percentage of the population that shouldn’t be allowed to have sharp pencils, much less firearms.
There are indeed those who should not lawfully be permitted to possess firearms. Federal law does a good job at defining the majority of such individuals. However, we definitely need to proceed carefully in formally determining who those individuals are, and in implementing such restrictions. The law of unintended consequences often has harsher penalties than one can foresee. Many compare firearms to driving an automobile. Indeed, a comparable number of persons are killed by both annually in the US; and there is a fair degree of overlap between those who should not be permitted to drive and those who should not be permitted to own a firearm. But the two are fundamentally different. Driving an automobile is not a right. Rather, it is a permission to perform a regulated activity (driving on public highways) for which authority is legitimately granted by the state after demonstration of requisite levels of maturity and competence. Because it is not a fundamental right, it may legitimately be regulated by the state. Loss of that privilege can be effected by administrative actions (e.g., accumulation of excessive points) as well as forfeit as a consequence of legal due process. In contrast, firearms ownership and possession is a fundamental right guaranteed under the US Constitution. This right has been held by the SCOTUS to apply at all levels of US government – Federal, state, and local – as have most other rights guaranteed by the US Bill of Rights. By the 14th Amendment, it requires due process of law for such a right to be forfeit. We would be ill-advised to allow “due process of law” in this context to be defined as anything less than a formal court hearing in a court of law (NOT before an ALJ) of competent jurisdiction. Allowing anything less is IMO tantamount to allowing a bureaucrat somewhere in an office to remove an individual’s Constitutional rights by fiat. Allowing that in any way/shape/form/fashion for the 2nd Amendment establishes the precedent that doing so is allowable “because it was necessary”. And if it can be done for the 2nd Amendment, it can… Read more »
The Law of Unintended Consequences is often cited by gun control advocates. The framers of our bill of rights could not foresee the advance in ammunition and weapons delivery systems. One would have to search hard to find a supporter of his neighbor owning an RPG for example. The Constitution and the rights therein are already limited by fiat if you are meaning a formal authorization rather than an arbitrary order. Our right to freely assemble for example is limited, often requiring a permit or authorization in advance. Freedom of speech is limited. Although incorrectly cited the traditional quote, “You cannot scream Fire in a crowed theater” for example. “Hate Speech” is another example. Justice Brandeis stated “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.” If fully agree with his and your assessment of prudent caution. I see no serious encroachment by the ‘Shall Issue’ laws adopted by most states. They put the burden of responsibility on the Government to prove a reason for denial. States with other rules that require an individual to substantiate reason to carry a weapon have been ruled overly burdensome. Establishing a Shall Issue policy protects the rights of law abiding citizens to carry a weapon. Heller v DC struck down the long standing restrictions enacted in 1975. The fact is gun laws have been moving toward a less restrictive standing by the courts, as it should. The pendulum of opinion cannot be allowed to swing so drastically in either direction that it results in injury to the rights or safety of free people. Law generally restricts those who abide by it and is ignored by those who do not. Current gun laws make it completely legal to arrest and confiscate guns from the majority of people committing violent crime. We should demand the enforcement of current gun laws. Our right to worship as we choose has limitations. Parents may not refuse life saving medical treatment from their children in most states because of their religious beliefs. When we lose our ability to see divergent opinions… Read more »
Not too sure what an unattended consequence is. I think is was an unintended auto correction. My intentions are never very clear.
I seriously need to get another wireless keyboard. Ya, that it, its the keyboard.
Your points above are valid, DH. But your argument leaves out one key point. All of the restrictions you named above have been affirmed by or resulted from formal court action. That is, those restrictions on rights have been allowed via due process of law – generally, via SCOTUS decision. That has generally been the case with all restrictions on fundamental Constitutional rights – except for those involving the 2nd Amendment. In that case, for over a century states and localities were allowed to do pretty much as they pleased, in spite of the plain language of the Constitution to the contrary. It wasn’t until DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago that the situation was clarified with respect to the 2nd Amendment – and even now, it hasn’t been fully clarified. Specifically, courts have recognized that “reasonable restrictions” may be imposed on the right to possess arms (your RPG example would be one such reasonable restriction). That is generally the case with all Constitutional rights – but the allowable “reasonable restrictions” with respect to the 2nd Amendment have not yet been fully defined by the courts. Further, the meaning of the “and bear” clause of the 2nd Amendment has not yet been clarified. Does it mean the right to concealed carry? The right to have a firearm at one’s house or business, but nowhere else? Open carry only? Some combo of the previous? Something else entirely? At this point, we don’t know. The courts haven’t considered that. I can live with the limitations imposed on Constitutional rights that have been imposed through full due process of law – either those due to SCOTUS decisions clarifying what is and is not permissible, or those due to an individual having criminal convictions/being formally involuntary committed/ruled mentally incompetent. What I cannot agree to is the imposition by fiat – still present in many states – of restrictions on Constitutional rights imposed by administrative action only, without due process of law; or which appear to contradict at least the intent (if not the letter) of recent SCOTUS decisions regarding the Constitutionally guaranteed right… Read more »
The Shall Issue states so not require anything special to own or purchase a gun. The right to carry that weapon in public is what the process concerns.
Some states like Indiana require a permit to carry concealed or open. Most Shall Issue rules only relate to concealed weapons.
That “Shall Issue” process was set up to specifically stop local authorities from creating boards to approve a permit based on their own criteria.
I am equally as concerned with restrictions to our rights as you are. I worry about the “give and inch, they take a mile” analogy.
Even doing the paperwork to own a gun bothers me. The have my name, ssn, address, make, model, and serial number to every gun I but. Nobody will convince me that does not give them a database of know weapons holders. It does.
I disagree with Virginia’s Gov. Terry McAuliffe who just the other day used the power of his pen to alter gun rights. That has got to be stopped.
During Hurricane Katrina weapons were take from private law abiding citizens. That was an outrage. The law has since been modified.
We agree on the vast majority of this. We have different perspectives, kind of like Jefferson and Adams, since you have the pony tail you can be Jefferson.
Semper Fi
Dave Hardin, or whatever name you are using today, I am waiting for that Hobo dude to analyze your statements and do the math before I disagree or agree with your post above. Although it really doesn’t matter since I gave you all my guns. Either way, I won’t be one of your statistics.
The guy is bad news. I hope you did a criminal background check on his seedy past before you gave him your guns.
I doubt the man could get a passport.
Whether being trained in setting up a sector of fire is useful or not depends on what neighborhood the mall is in and what clientele the mall has.
It drives me nuts when gun grabbbers claim that the NRA blocked funding for research.
What it is a moratorium on CDC handing millions to third party researchers after funds were used to do a debunked study claiming gun owning homes were more dangerous, which completely ignored available data on proportions of gun violence in criminal homes which were 90% of the shootings in the database used. Millions of tax dollars were spent on a study that used the SAME methodology as “proving” going to the hospital kills you! The taxpayer funded study used the same methodology as the Stats 101 example of specious methodology and assumption of random data sample.
In fact when you control for homes of felons and persons with three or more arrests, remaining gun owning homes are significantly safer than unarmed homes, just as controlling for the 4% of hospital admittees with fatal conditions who are 90% of hospital deaths inverts the claim that visiting a hospital increases chance of death — to it increasing chance of living
Most of what I posted I didn’t write, I Joe
Bidened it.
“An armed society is a polite society.”
–Robert Heinlein
Is that why New Yorkers are such assholes?
As an avid supporter of the Second Amendment, (the rest go without saying), I consistently talk about the virtues of carrying a firearm and the responsibility that goes with it.
Just the other day a man with obvious issues wanted to literally kill me for driving too slow and not moving out of the way when he laid on his horn for at least a mile. (I was doing the speed limit BTW)
Fortunately for both of us I had an escape route as I had planned on and was able to leave without having to pull or use my weapon.
My life was saved many years ago in San Francisco by a neighbor with a gun.
Remember, behind every round you fire a lawyer is hiding behind it.
I support the NRA and the good work that it does and also Texas Law Shield, for $20 a month you get free legal coverage if you ever have to show or use your firearm.
That in itself is cause to breathe a sigh of relief.
Be careful with what you do and who you see, you never know where evil might be and it will come back to haunt you if you use your firearm wrongly.
Was that you? Sorry man, I was rushing to get a few new shooters to the range so I could pick up my free boxes of ammo.
I fully expected to click the link and see another drooling, retarded screed by the NYT’s resident frothing hoplophobic fruitcake Fox Butterfield. I was disappointed, because Fox always provides such fun fisking, but not surprised, to see that this was an editorial board effort. Effort may be too strong a word, since everything they have written in this wackadoo editorial can be easily proved wrong. Including the word “the.”
Until they regulate vehicle ownership, which claims more lives than any firearms, then it’s just them barking and hoping they get their way because they want to rule people.
I’ve said this before, and will say it again: No one in this country is REQUIRED to own, use or carry a weapon of any kind. No one is REQUIRED to own, use or drive a 4-wheeled personal conveyance of any kind. And no one in this country is REQUIRED to own, use, or live in a private home.
These are rights and privileges. They are CHOICES, NOT REQUIREMENTS.
Tell the gunnz grabbers that next time you see them.
Damn, and all this time I actually believed removal of flags and statues had made the world safe!
A little off topic here. The State of Virginia election for Senate is scheduled for November 3. We are one Senator away from giving our carpetbagger governor the ability to take away our gun rights. Last week he issued an executive order (Like his hero O’Bummer)taking away open carry in Virginia government offices, like D.M.V.. His plan is to take C.C.away in these same places. One senator away from losing our rights, VOTE November 3 and let’s see our carpet bagger go home with his tail between his legs. This applies to all of you since he was bought and paid for by Bloomberg and owes him for buying him the office. If he is successful he wants to be Hillery’s V.P.. Then he is everybody’s nightmare. Get the word to any Virginia voters you know.