HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » "Concealed carry sho...

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 05:29 PM

 

"Concealed carry shootings now part of Chicago's gun reality"

"John Hendricks recalls a split second between impulse and action before he took aim and shot Everardo Custodio just before midnight on April 17 after Custodio opened fire on a group in Logan Square.

(Edited for length)

Hendricks was not charged for shooting the 23-year-old because he had a concealed carry gun license and was determined to have acted in self-defense. But he said he was questioned for hours by detectives after the shooting and, seven months later, hasn't gotten his Springfield Armory .45 back from authorities. Still, the 48-year-old South Sider said he doesn't begrudge police for the glacial movement.

"This is all new," Hendricks said, "because of the concealed carry."

How many times these Illinoisans unholstered their guns and fired remains unclear, as state police say no mechanism exists to track such incidents.

To be sure, they're nowhere near as frequent as those involving unlicensed shooters and illegal firearms. But a handful of high-profile shootings involving licensed concealed carriers since the law went into effect in January 2014 highlight this latest evolution in Chicago's relationship with guns.

He said the 16 hours of training required to receive an Illinois concealed carry license are "very, very good."

"I'm a strong advocate of training," Hendricks said. "Training, training, training."

He said he owns "quite a few" guns and has several holsters and fanny packs for when he's out in public. During a recent interview, the gun on Hendricks' hip was not apparent until he pointed it out.

"You're not always conscious of carrying," he said, just like you aren't always conscious of carrying a wallet."


Very stable, common sense approach taken by Mr. Hendricks. Of course the Chicago PD can't seem to find his .45 to return it to him now.

Waiting momentarily for the "could'a, might'a, what if" "innocent bystander" memes to come up, as always with no examples given. Maybe the redneck Bubba comments too ... from the people who won't bother to click the Tribune link.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-concealed-carry-shooting-interview-met-20151120-story.html

57 replies, 5226 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 57 replies Author Time Post
Reply "Concealed carry shootings now part of Chicago's gun reality" (Original post)
DonP Nov 2015 OP
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #1
Snobblevitch Nov 2015 #2
beevul Nov 2015 #3
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #5
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #6
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #8
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #9
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #11
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #14
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #13
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #15
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #17
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #19
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #20
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #26
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #29
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #31
DonP Nov 2015 #36
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #37
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #43
LinneaTench Nov 2015 #57
ileus Nov 2015 #4
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #7
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #10
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #12
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #16
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #18
Snobblevitch Nov 2015 #21
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #22
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #24
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #28
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #34
Snobblevitch Nov 2015 #25
TeddyR Nov 2015 #35
Snobblevitch Nov 2015 #46
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #23
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #27
gejohnston Nov 2015 #30
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #33
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #38
gejohnston Nov 2015 #40
Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #47
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #49
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #50
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #51
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #52
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #53
DonP Nov 2015 #54
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #55
Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #56
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #32
guillaumeb Nov 2015 #39
gejohnston Nov 2015 #41
DonP Nov 2015 #42
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #44
friendly_iconoclast Nov 2015 #45
Eleanors38 Nov 2015 #48

Response to DonP (Original post)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 05:38 PM

1. Since you asked so nicely:

A couple of nights ago a Houston man was injured after being carjacked at a gas station. He wasn't injured by the assailants, he was injured by the responsible gun owner who decided to open fire on the fleeing suspects.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/9/30/1426395/-Carjacking-victim-allegedly-shot-in-head-by-responsible-gunowner-who-started-shooting-at-carjackers

Houston police said around 11:15 p.m. Saturday, two men attacked another man who was parked in the Valero parking lot near Jensen Drive and Caplin Street.
When the assailants attempted to take his truck, a witness parked at the gas pump started shooting at the men, according to authorities.

Police said he accidentally shot the victim in the head. The victim was transported to a nearby hospital where he remains in stable condition. Police say the witness who shot at the suspects picked up shell casings and left the scene. Police found the stolen pickup truck about a mile down the road but are still searching for the suspects.


Now you might respond with another post, and I can respond with another example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 06:19 PM

2. What evidence is there hat the shooter

was legally carrying the gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 06:31 PM

3. Now you went and did it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #3)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:06 PM

5. Nice graphic. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #2)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:10 PM

6. Why did you not ask about the fleeing suspects?

First, the gun owner shot the wrong person.
Second, the two people who attempted the theft were fleeing. They were leaving the scene.
Third, and this is somewhat repetitive, the wrong person was shot by the gun owner.

Interesting deflection on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #6)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:13 PM

8. Because the thread was about people CCing legally, and you produced no evidence...

...that the idjit shooter in Texas was doing so.

Deflection, indeed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #8)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:20 PM

9. The issue for many here is that when untrained, or minimally trained

people carry guns, bad things can happen.

Posting something about a rare instance where someone with a gun actually accomplishes good by preventing a crime is an attempt to justify carrying a gun, concealed or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:37 PM

11. Which would be relevant, if that what was happened in the OP- but it didn't

I remind the disinterested reader that the interviewee, John Hendricks, was trained and is
a strong advocate of training:

He said the 16 hours of training required to receive an Illinois concealed carry license are "very, very good."

"I'm a strong advocate of training," Hendricks said. "Training, training, training."


You are to free to imply that all gun ownership is problematic because some gun owners
are undoubtedly negligent to the point of criminal liability.

However, were you to do so I'd have to ask if you apply to the same metric to other
identifiable groups that have members that do wrong...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #11)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:41 PM

14. BTW, I agree with Hendricks on training, and have no problem with training requirements...

...for issuance of concealed carry licenses. They seem to work in my own state, as well as Illinois

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #9)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:40 PM

13. see my post #12 eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #13)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:43 PM

15. Your post #12 advocates collective guilt, an unattractive notion on a progressive site

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #15)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:48 PM

17. What is progressive about the notion that Americans should all be carrying a gun

to "protect" themselves from the hordes of criminals? This notion that untrained civilians can be judge, jury, and possible executioner whenever such civilians perceive a "need" to use a weapon is unrelated to reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #17)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:54 PM

19. When someone *actually makes* the argument "that Americans should all be carrying a gun",...

...kindly point them out to me and I'll disagree with them myself.

As for "untrained civilians", the subject of the OP IS trained, a fact you seem to have 'forgotten'

When you have an argument that isn't made of straw, get back to me, mmkay? Work calls...



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #19)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:55 PM

20. I suggest that you read post #12. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #20)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:07 PM

26. I did. A few examples still do not prove that the many are dangerous

I seem to recall a similar argument about a different readily identifiable group being
made by Donald Trump, et al.

Perhaps you could explain the difference for us?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #26)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:19 PM

29. I hate to bring this up, but I am glad you mentioned Trump.

He attempts to blow up isolated incidents into a massive problem to accomplish his goal.

The NRA, and many gun owners, attempt to blow up and exaggerate the threat of criminal violence to justify open/concealed carry of weapons by civilians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #29)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 01:21 AM

31. "He attempts to blow up isolated incidents into a massive problem to accomplish his goal."

Are you not doing the very same thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 10:49 AM

36. Ouch! That's gonna leave a mark

 

But, in a nutshell, that seems to be the SOP for DU gun control with violent crime dropping.

Find an incident, post it here as if it's the norm and try to make it the poster child for all gun owners.

Above all never differentiate a criminal from a law abiding gun owner. Because as we all know their favorite bumper sticker philosophy lately is; "You're law abiding, until you aren't"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #31)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 03:21 PM

37. I am attempting to counter NRA inspired propaganda with reason.

This post was quite obviously put here to justify concealed and open carry as being crime preventative.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #37)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 05:23 PM

43. "This post was quite obviously put here to justify concealed and open carry as being crime...

...preventative" Which post would that be? Certainly not one of mine.

The most I will claim is that concealed carry is not generally dangerous to the public at large, and I have years of statistics from the state of Texas that back up that assertion

I'll thank you to stop attempting to put words in my mouth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #9)

Sat Nov 28, 2015, 02:18 AM

57. I agree

Yes, I agree with you. With the passage of time and the invention o new technologies and weapons are increasing crime rate, murder fights etc. But the main question is that how to remove these things and spread happiness??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 06:43 PM

4. In todays day and age there's really no excuse for not carrying in most areas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #4)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:11 PM

7. What day and age are you referring to? The 1860s in the US frontier?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #7)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:28 PM

10. How about the 2010s in Massachusetts? 318,000 people have carry permits here, as of last year

In fact, most gun owners have carry permits.

That's about 1 in 20 of all residents, a ratio which would be higher if only residents over 21
were counted.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/20/gun-laws-tightened-mass-number-permits-spiked/KDbdE52Cvdf4xNfIL4r0hN/story.html

We are not known for either high levels of gun crime or lack of education, so wherein lies the problem?

Note: 'It offends my sensibilities' or 'I don't see a need for them to do so' aren't really answers...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:39 PM

12. Just one example of why untrained people should not be carrying guns:

On Tuesday, customers were coming and going in the parking lot of a Home Depot near Detroit when a shoplifter suddenly came tearing across the blacktop. The shoplifter, who appeared to be in his 40s and wore a black shirt and hat, was pushing a cart full of stolen power tools and welding equipment worth more than $1,000.

As a Home Depot loss prevention officer came running after him, the shoplifter shoved the stolen goods into a waiting black SUV and jumped in.

That’s when a female bystander pulled out a concealed pistol and fired several shots at the fleeing shoplifters, possibly striking one of the SUV’s rear tires.

The shoplifters nonetheless escaped, according to a press release from the Auburn Hills Police Department.

The female shooter stayed at the scene and is cooperating fully with the investigation, according to police. Cops have not identified her but have said she is 46 years old, from the nearby city of Clarkston and holds a valid concealed pistol license.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/
morning-mix/wp/2015/10/08/woman-with-concealed-gun-permit-shoots-at-fleeing-shoplifter-could-face-charges/

Hankins and other firearms instructors told the newspaper that concealed weapon license holders should only pull their guns if someone is in imminent danger of death or serious injury, including a sexual assault. Those who draw their pieces too quickly and frivolously fire at people can face serious felony charges, from the reckless use of a firearm to assault.



It is just this type of incident that makes a strong case for an absolute ban on concealed carry by civilians.
One: As far as I know, shoplifting is not a death penalty offense.
Two: The woman had a valid permit. Presumably she had some training, but she also demonstrated a complete lack of sense.
Three: How many of these incidents will it take to demolish the myth that untrained civilians can make a difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #12)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:47 PM

16. "It is...this type of incident that makes a strong case for an absolute ban on concealed carry by...

...civilians" Why? Is this one case indicative of a demonstrable trend? Or
is this another "If it saves one life..." argument?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:54 PM

18. Advocates for concealed and open carry make the point

that such action will somehow deter criminals. That this notion has no way of being proven does not matter. It is simply used to justify the carrying of guns.

Given that 10s of thousands of people die from gun violence every year in the US, the logical position to take would be that regulation and restriction of carrying weapons would be the response. Such regulation and restriction works in other countries. but gun rights advocates talk about American exceptionalism and supposed rights based on a deliberate misreading of the Constitution by the Roberts' SCOTUS.

If ISIS was killing thousands of Americans each year the outcry would be deafening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 07:58 PM

21. Are 10s of thousands of Americans killed each year

by CCW permit holders?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #21)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:00 PM

22. This is what I actually wrote:

Advocates for concealed and open carry make the point

that such action will somehow deter criminals. That this notion has no way of being proven does not matter. It is simply used to justify the carrying of guns.

Given that 10s of thousands of people die from gun violence every year in the US, the logical position to take would be that regulation and restriction of carrying weapons would be the response. Such regulation and restriction works in other countries. but gun rights advocates talk about American exceptionalism and supposed rights based on a deliberate misreading of the Constitution by the Roberts' SCOTUS.

If ISIS was killing thousands of Americans each year the outcry would be deafening.
.


What did you read?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:04 PM

24. If they aren't statistically dangerous, there's no problem. Since you're not Secretary of Needs...

*that* particular argument is specious

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #24)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:15 PM

28. They are not "statistically dangerous" unless or until they become so. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #28)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 01:38 AM

34. Much as anyone else, to be sure...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #22)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:07 PM

25. This is what I read.

"Given that 10s of thousands of people die from gun violence every year in the US,...)

This thread is about CCW permit holders and specifically, about an incident Chicago. Sure, the are too many gun homicides, but most of those are because of criminal activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Snobblevitch (Reply #25)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 08:58 AM

35. Yep

 

I've read stories that the vast majority of gun murders are committed by people who already have a criminal record and thus arguably shouldn't be allowed to own a gun in the first place (or should already be in prison). For example, the Atlantic has this piece from 2013 about gun control/violence - http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/gun-violence-in-america-the-13-key-questions-with-13-concise-answers/272727/ - that contains this quote:
In principle, it's not necessary to keep guns away from everyone, just those who would misuse them. Background checks are promising because a high fraction of future killers already have a criminal record. In one study in Illinois, 71% of those convicted of homicide had a previous arrest, and 42% had a prior felony conviction.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeddyR (Reply #35)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 06:53 PM

46. I think law enforecement and prosecutors need to

make a better effort to convict straw purchasers of firearms used in crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #18)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:01 PM

23. One thing that *can* be proven, however- the number of legal CCers that commit crimes

Here's a link that provides the statistics that you'll need for Texas, one of the states
you named while giving us an example of the 'danger' . Go ahead and make your case:

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

Conviction Rates

The following reports represent the number of Concealed Handgun License (CHL) holders with convictions versus the entire Texas population with convictions. The criminal history conviction data is not considered “final” until a year after the conviction. Each report is generated for the current year minus two years (for example, the 2006 Conviction Rates Report was run in mid-2008 to allow for “final” conviction status on the 2006 Criminal History records). Each report contains descriptive text regarding the data content.


Texas is notoriously lax, IMO, in its training requirements, so I'm sure if things are as parlous as you claim them to be, you'll be able to find the statistics above to support your argument(s)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #23)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:14 PM

27. From the statistics:

MURDER in Texas in 2013
Non-CHL: 363 homicides
CHL holders: 3 homicides

A much lower rate when comparing non-CHL to CHL holders, but that is small comfort to the three people killed.

And how many crimes were prevented by all of these CHL holders running around?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #27)

Fri Nov 20, 2015, 08:33 PM

30. now compare CHL holder to cop

and those three homicides, were they murders or were they self defense? That matters.
How many crimes are prevented? That's unknowable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 01:37 AM

33. He attempts to blow up isolated incidents into a massive problem to accomplish his goal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #30)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 03:25 PM

38. Civilian carry is touted by the NRA and others as being a crime preventative.

The line is that if criminals know that many civilians are carrying weapons the criminals will be less likely to commit crimes. This theory is unprovable, but that does not stop advocates of civilian carry from spreading the word.

Thus we have a solution with no proof that it is in fact a solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #38)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 04:57 PM

40. It wasn't the NRA, it was some academic

but your idea never works and has proven to be a complete failure. It never works as advertised. However, self defense is a inalienable human right. It isn't really about deterrence, it is mostly about mitigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #38)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 02:08 PM

47. Uh, no, actually. CCW is for self-defense, not for affecting social policy...

 

If it can be found to lower crime rates, all the better. But carrying firearms is primarily for self-defense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #47)

Tue Nov 24, 2015, 03:03 PM

49. Or to confer the illusion of self defense.

Either way, the gun manufacturers profit from fear and death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #49)

Tue Nov 24, 2015, 03:09 PM

50. That choice is for individuals to make for themselves

And since the practice in the main has little or demonstrable ill effect upon others, the
various levels of government rightly have little say in the matter.

Others' feelings on the matter are simply that- their feelings

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #50)

Tue Nov 24, 2015, 03:19 PM

51. "Little or (no) demonstrable effect"?

Given that approximately 30,000 people die in gun related incidents every year, your statement about carrying guns having little or no effect is puzzling or could exhibit a lack of empathy.

But the fact remains that there is no true protection. Armed police are regularly killed in spite of the fact that they are obviously carrying weapons. People who have weapons sometimes have those weapons turned against them. Guns confer the illusion of protection, an illusion that carrying will enable the carrier to react heroically in a situation.

And if an individual's choice makes others less safe, is that really a choice to make?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #51)

Tue Nov 24, 2015, 03:39 PM

52. We are talking of licensed concealed carry. Your '30,000' includes *all* guns, and suicides

My statement that "the practice in the main has little or demonstrable ill effect upon others"
is both true and proveable, as you know from my previous reply to you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=181878

Response to guillaumeb (Reply #27)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 01:34 AM

Star Member friendly_iconoclast (12,412 posts)
32. 3 murders and 158 total convictions out of a group of 708,048 people

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2013.pdf

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2013.pdf


You would do well to consider altering you style here, as you will find that the
Second Amendment advocates here have far higher levels of media literacy than,
say, the average numpty that "Likes" any of the various Bloomberg online enterpots.

And again, your feelings on the matter are irrelevant along with those of the aforementioned
numpties since they do not go to to the polls in sufficient number to effect change.
They are the very definition of 'slacktivists'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #52)

Tue Nov 24, 2015, 05:29 PM

53. Death due to guns is still death whether the user is licensed ot not.

And, as I pointed out, and as others in this group have admitted, carrying a gun does not truly protect against being murdered by a gun, or no armed police would ever be murdered by guns.

The fact that licensed users, according to Texas statistics, "only" murdered 3 people in a year is small consolation to the three people. And given that most people do not kill other people, what is the point?

People kill for many reasons, passion, substance impairment, financial gain, but carrying a gun is no real protection from these things unless one is both trained and/or lucky. The illusion of safety for the financial gain of the arms industry. An illusion and an obsession with ownership that applies solely to the US in all the western countries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 24, 2015, 06:01 PM

54. Good for you, that's your choice to make ...

 

... and thankfully you and your ilk have no say over the choices others may make and, based on the voting patterns, gun control continues to be a losing issue nationally and in many states as well as in the courts.

"...carrying a gun does not truly protect against being murdered by a gun, or no armed police would ever be murdered by guns."

I have no idea who said something that incredibly stupid. Perhaps you can link to that statement by anybody? Or is that just another of those straw fellows gun controllers love to make up, that nobody ever really said?

Those of us that choose to carry, including most of the cops I know, are fully aware that a gun is not some universal magic talisman against bad things happening. But we poor ignorant, simple folk like the idea of having that choice.

Even when our moral and mental "betters' feel otherwise and continue to lecture us for our own good.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #53)

Tue Nov 24, 2015, 06:28 PM

55. That would be relevant only if the licensed are held responsible for the acts of the unlicensed

And, as I pointed out, and as others in this group have admitted, carrying a gun does not truly protect against being murdered by a gun, or no armed police would ever be murdered by guns.


True- but beside the point. Carrying a gun gives a person more options, and the subject
of the OP found one to be useful.

The fact that licensed users, according to Texas statistics, "only" murdered 3 people in a year is small consolation to the three people. And given that most people do not kill other people, what is the point?


The point was (for those unfamiliar with statistics) that licensed CHL holders are less
likely to murder and/or commit other crimes than the either cops or the public at large.

Thus, your views on the desirability of the practice are strictly your opinion
and not borne out by empirical evidence of harm (or lack thereof) in this case.

Your views on the efficacy of the practice are, of course, entirely valid and you are
free to express them.

In a free polity, given the lack of demonstrable harm, they are not valid
as a guidline for public policy. Nor should they be.

People kill for many reasons, passion, substance impairment, financial gain, but carrying a gun is no real protection from these things unless one is both trained and/or lucky.


Which is why both John Hendricks and myself both strongly urge training, and practical, live, range testing made a prerequisite for concealed carriage licensure.

The disintested reader will note that many other, if not most, progun posters here
feel the same way.

The illusion of safety for the financial gain of the arms industry.


In an industrial society, you will find that most, if not, all activity eventually benefits
large industries.

Internet use not excepted of course...

An illusion and an obsession with ownership that applies solely to the US in all the western countries.


That is your opinion, and you are free to expound it- and we are free to disagree.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #49)

Fri Nov 27, 2015, 11:18 AM

56. Fear & death: Always a profitable industry in any sector...

 

Lawyers profit by making out your will, grocers profit from your fear of GMOs, fire extinguisher manufacturers profit from your fear of fire.

It has always been there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #32)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 03:28 PM

39. And this means:

1) that gun carriers are more law abiding than average, or
2) that gun owners are less law abiding than average, or
3) that gun owners are no more or less likely to commit crimes than non gun carriers?

Civilian carry, like voter ID legislation, is a solution in search of a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 04:58 PM

41. legal gun carriers are more law abiding than average

and even more so than the cops.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 05:14 PM

42. It was a good "solution" for the man in the OP ...

 

... and that's what he cares about, not statistics or some disconnected "faculty lounge point of view", but the ability to protect himself and his family in the real world he lives in. Pretty much like the rest of us that carry daily.

It's not a philosophical discussion for him or us, it's the real world and how we have the ability to protect ourselves.

The good news is not one state is trying to repeal concealed carry, in fact they are generally expanding the right.

So either it's more popular than most gun control fans want to admit, or the gun control people are just too lazy to start petitions.

Probably both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #39)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 05:27 PM

44. I fear you have been done a great disservice in the past

Apparently, no one has disabused you of the notion that "I have repeatedly and emphatically stated
that..." and "I have proved that..." are synonymous and/or functionally equivalent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #44)

Sat Nov 21, 2015, 05:32 PM

45. Or that "I declare *this* practice to be unnecessary" = "*This* practice should be made illegal"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonP (Original post)

Sun Nov 22, 2015, 03:36 PM

48. Links to improbable storm of stories and ads; only a pic of a man & story title.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread