The gunman accused of killing five people in cold blood Wednesday had a concealed weapon permit

[MichaelHarris]

SEATTLE - The gunman accused of killing five people in cold blood Wednesday had a concealed weapon permit even though he was becoming noticeably more volatile over time, his father said in an interview with KOMO News....A few years after his discharge, Ian Stawicki started collecting guns, but his family thought he had given that up in recent years - though they knew he still carried a concealed weapon.

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Family-Seattle-killer-had-a-concealed-weapon-permit-155978205.html

Stawicki’s family told the Seattle Times that he apparently had mental health problems but that he had not sought treatment.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/31/11994382-cafe-regulars-had-tried-to-connect-with-seattle-shooter?lite

[slackmaster]

1. Without that permit, he couldn't possibly have done what he did

[Hoyt]

15. Another CCWer goes mad - yet you guys accept more like him toting.

[ManiacJoe]

27. If you say so.

It would probably be more accurate to say that "we" prefer he had received the mental health care he needed, which would have disqualified him from the CCW permit.

[rl6214]

106. And without that permit he couldn't possibly have done that

thingy just in case you needed it.

[doc03]

16. How do you figure that? n/t

[slackmaster]

46. Well DUH! MichaelHarris's point is obviously that if the guy had no permit, he wouldn't have...

...had a gun because IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL!

He would have been afraid of getting in TROUBLE for carrying a gun ILLEGALLY!

[Starboard Tack]

26. Of course he could. The permit was unrelated.

However, it does raise some valid questions. Should permit holders submit to a psych evaluation? Should military discharges include a psych evaluation? I don't know, but something went tragically wrong and I doubt anyone wants people suffering from severe depression or other psychological/psychiatric disorders, to be carrying guns around. From what I understand, those who carry legally, do so for self protection from potential predators.

After two decades of Bush shit wars, we now have to deal with hundreds of thousands of military personnel trying to reinsert themselves in a society that is both indifferent and ill equipped to deal with the residual effects of sending kids into wars they didn't sign up for. I'm not saying this event has any connection to Stawicki's military service, but logic dictates that incidents like this are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

[SGMRTDARMY]

31. This is why I really enjoy reading your posts

no insults, no insinuations, well thought out responses and some damned good suggestions

Keep up the good work.

[Starboard Tack]

37. Thanks. I try.

Reasonable minds usually arrive at reasonable solutions. Reactionary minds usually lead us into disasters.

[hack89]

42. Good luck with making vets second class citizens

by implementing unique obstacles to overcome in order to exercise their Constitutional rights.

[Starboard Tack]

47. Why would I ever want to make vets second class citizens?

What an outrageous suggestion. Nobody deserves more respect than our vets. Please don't try to turn this into something ugly. Totally unnecessary.

[hack89]

56. Then don't suggest that every vet get a psych exam that could result in the loss of a civil liberty.

nt

[Starboard Tack]

64. Do you care more about losing the right to carry a gun

than the mental health of our vets and the well being of the public? That's what they fight for, the well being of America, not to be turned into a ticking bomb.

[Glaug-Eldare]

65. I can sympathize, but I see a problem...

Requiring servicemen to be psych-screened on separation would be creating a unique barrier, and it would have to be justified. The only justification I can think up is that people in the military often experience unusual stress. If that's enough justification to pore through their brains and start removing rights, that means the rationale can be extended to police officers, firemen, athletes, rape survivors, laid-off workers, etc. In my state, I believe it would be used maliciously.

In most cases, it's ultimately a voluntary decision to seek treatment. Quick and cheap psych screens won't uncover the folks who know they're sick, but don't want to go through the garbage disposal of mental illness treatment. Removing the social/legal stigma and cost of even seeking mental help will go a lot further toward preventing violence than a sanguinary law that discriminates against vets.

[Starboard Tack]

67. I don't want to discriminate against vets.

But if all potential CC permit holders were screened, there would be no discrimination. You're right, many suffer from PTSD beside vets.

[hack89]

66. The vets deserve better mental health services than they are getting

just don't let any exam be used to remove a civil right. If there is a valid fear use existing due process with the courts.

The problem is twofold. One - "ticking bomb" is meaningless term because it is imprecise and unmeasurable. What scale, for example, do you use to determine risk? Is a one percent risk of going postal grounds to lose your guns? 10% 20%? You see the issue here? It is so subjective that it is impossible to assign any reasonable risk.

Secondly, do you think soldiers will cooperate if they think that being honest will cost them their guns? All you do is undermine the very program they need to get better.

[Starboard Tack]

68. I don't think I said anything about losing their guns

I was talking primarily about CC permits.

[hack89]

75. Meaningless distinction. Too dangerous to carry but safe enough to have guns at home?

no - it is clear where that will end up.

[Starboard Tack]

80. I don't think it is meaningless at all.

What one does in the privacy of one's home is not the public's or the government's business. What you do in the street is everyone's business. That's why we have municipal codes to regulate how we conduct ourselves within the community. If the gun owner is a known risk, there are laws and agencies, like child protection, already in place to deal with that. How well they may function in any given community is another question.
I don't advocate imposing useless obstacles or wasting taxpayers money with more bureaucracy, but this is about public safety and a serious concern to everyone. The more guns, especially handguns, that enter the market, the more likely we are to experience these kinds of senseless tragedies. If we can increase public safety with minimal restriction of individual rights, then we will be on the right path.

[hack89]

86. So mentally unbalanced people will never illegally take guns from home

to kill people? OK.

[Starboard Tack]

92. If you're suggesting removing guns from homes

it will be a long uphill battle. Not going to happen. We have to draw a line somewhere.

[hack89]

93. Then why bother with psych exams for CCW?

if the issue is.public safety then access to guns is the issue. Not having a CCW is not a barrier to carrying in public if you don't care about the law.

[Starboard Tack]

98. It's a step in the right direction. What's your solution?

Hand out CCW permits to everyone or have psych tests for everyone who wants to own a gun? I find neither of those to be realistic. If you've got a better idea, let's hear it.

[hack89]

99. The present laws are adequate

as demonstrated by the extremely low number of problems with CCW owners.

[krispos42]

60. The valid questions raise even more questions.

Should these evaluations go beyond concealed-carry permits? Driver's licenses immediately come to mind; especially when you consider that a person in a car is armored to a great extent against any physical damage he or she may choose to inflict upon others, and is also already in a fast-moving means of escape.

Should people need permits to simply own guns? Should people need permits to simply own cars?

Should CCW permittees be required to prove competence and take a psych evaluation every few years? Should driver's permittees be requires to prove competence and take a psych evaluation every few years?




And I agree 100% with your second paragraph there.

[Starboard Tack]

69. Your last paragraph makes sense.

[Atypical Liberal]

63. No, and I'm ambivalent.

Should permit holders submit to a psych evaluation?

No.

Should military discharges include a psych evaluation?

I'm ambivalent.

I don't know, but something went tragically wrong and I doubt anyone wants people suffering from severe depression or other psychological/psychiatric disorders, to be carrying guns around.

I agree. And anyone who has been adjudicated mentally incompetent or involuntarily committed to a mental institution after due process of law is prohibited from carrying guns around.

If you want to broaden the disqualifying scenarios for owning firearms, that's fine, as long as it is subject to the due process of law.

[Starboard Tack]

70. The evaluation should be made to qualify, not disqualify for a CC permit.

[Atypical Liberal]

71. No.

You should automatically qualify (shall issue) unless you already have a disqualifying condition as a consequence of the due process of law.

[Starboard Tack]

73. Well that's where we differ.

[Glaug-Eldare]

74. I disagree as well, but let's examine this idea a bit

If carry is ruled to be guaranteed by the 2A, requirements like this would be an unconstitutional restraint on a civil right. But, let's say SCOTUS rules that carry is not protected, and it can be regulated the way you're suggesting. What kind of objective standard can be set for the results of a psychiatric evaluation? That is, how can a decision be made that doesn't depend on a doctor making a personal judgment call? If this is allowed to be a subjective decision, that allows for discriminatory decisions by bigoted or biased examiners. The point of "may issue" and "good and substantial reason" and "apprehended fear" statutes in the first place was so that the Sheriff or other government agents could issue permits or enforce carry laws on the basis of race, and I suspect that "mental fitness" statutes would be used in this and similar ways.

[Starboard Tack]

78. Excellent points you make.

All my reasoning is based on SCOTUS seeing the light and ruling against carry being a protected right. You are absolutely correct that the "may issue" statutes lend themselves to corruption and cronyism. I would suggest standardized tests, similar to MMPI, where examiners would be blind, followed by a safety and knowledge test. Those who do not qualify can appeal to a board if they fail the psych test and retry if they fail the safety and knowledge parts. The score on the psych test would determine whether the applicant requires further screening by a panel of mental health professionals. These are just a few ideas.

[Glaug-Eldare]

81. That's an interesting way to do it!

I didn't realize there were discrete psychiatric evaluations available. I'd still oppose a test like you proposed, but it's a hell of a lot better than what the fanatics on either side want. Unfortunately, few legislators are truly honest about gun issues, and almost none will actually sit down and fairly weigh public safety and civil rights.

[Atypical Liberal]

83. It's probably a waste of time.

Most homicides are committed by people with extensive prior criminal histories, not crazy people who just snapped.

If you want to reduce firearm crime you would be far better served with tactics designed to target criminal firearm ownership than ownership by the mentally ill.

[Atypical Liberal]

82. But now you've traded one gate keeper for another.

You are absolutely correct that the "may issue" statutes lend themselves to corruption and cronyism. I would suggest standardized tests, similar to MMPI, where examiners would be blind, followed by a safety and knowledge test. Those who do not qualify can appeal to a board if they fail the psych test and retry if they fail the safety and knowledge parts. The score on the psych test would determine whether the applicant requires further screening by a panel of mental health professionals. These are just a few ideas.

So now instead of a local sheriff playing gatekeeper for people's rights while pushing and agenda, you have a psychologist playing gatekeeper for people's rights while pushing an agenda.

No thanks.

I'd rather have better availability for health care in general, including mental health care, so that people with mental health issues can be found at earlier ages and then flagged through some due process outside of just carrying a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

84. Wrong, not a psychologist. A psych evaluation.

A standardized test, not some individual that may not like the way you dress or the color of your eyes or skin.
A test that would easily filter out those who are not suited to carrying loaded firearms in public. I'm sure the police academies use similar tools. If not, they should.

[Atypical Liberal]

89. They do.

I'm sure the police academies use similar tools.

They do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Criminal_Justice_Officer_Selection_Inventory_-_NCJOSI

I don't have a problem with this. I suspect it will be an additional expense and waste of time and resources, though, given how few CCW permit holders are involved in crime.

You'd be far better served putting those resources into tracking known criminals.

[Starboard Tack]

95. Any expense can be absorbed in permit fees.

If cops go through psych evaluations, why shouldn't everyone else who wants to carry a gun around?

[SGMRTDARMY]

97. Interesting theory

have to mull this one overnight, although to be fair, the psych eval isn't just firearm related, it evaluates the recruits as to their overall ability to handle the enormous stress of being a police officer.

[Atypical Liberal]

100. I think it should be taxpayer funded.

The taxpayers pay for the police psych evaluations, why not for CCW permit holders?

What I don't want to see is the CCW permit become so expensive as to disenfranchise poorer Americans.

Here in Alabama a CCW permit costs $10. $20 if you want your picture on it. I think that is about the most it ought to cost.

Hopefully a standardized test would not cost much anyway - you should be able to complete it online.

[Starboard Tack]

103. The police are public servants

That's why the taxpayer should foot their bill. Why should I pay for some guy who wants to carry a gun around? Another $10 bucks won't break the bank.

[Atypical Liberal]

105. I just don't like regressive taxes.

Why should I pay for some guy who wants to carry a gun around?

I think you should because I believe you benefit from him doing so, for starters.

But anyway, the more financially onerous you make it to carry a concealed weapon, the more the poor will be adversely affected. But like I said, if it's a standardized test, it can be automated and you could take the test online for virtually no cost, and get instant results.

[Starboard Tack]

117. Taking a test online is pointless.

And I'm sure there are thousands of poor people who can't afford ten bucks lining up to buy guns and CCW permits.
How the heck do I benefit?

[Atypical Liberal]

125. Why is it pointless?

Taking a test online is pointless.

Why? A standardized test is like multiple choice, like the SAT. It can easily be implemented as an online test.

And I'm sure there are thousands of poor people who can't afford ten bucks lining up to buy guns and CCW permits.

Except I don't believe the goal is ten bucks. I suspect the cost will be pushed by some to be like it is in New York City, where the cost is currently $340 for the handgun license, and another $91.50 for fingerprinting. Many anti-gun folks see these fees as a way to effectively prohibit concealed carry.

But sure. If you are really talking about keeping the cost to get a CCW permit under $20, I'm OK with that.

How the heck do I benefit?

I suspect such efforts are a waste of time in any case, so I don't think you'll benefit one way or the other. All stringent CCW requirements do is highlight how law-abiding CCW permit holders are. I suspect this is why some states are doing away with the requirement for such permits altogether - they are discovering there is little point in tracking such people.

[Starboard Tack]

127. Taking a test on line is pointless because anyone could take it for you

It needs to be taken in a controlled environment.

[Glaug-Eldare]

128. How do you ensure the examiners are blind,

when the applicant appears in person and all their personal information is attached? My suspicion is extreme, I know, but it's a result of knowing how Maryland government operates presently and historically.

[Starboard Tack]

129. The exams are taken in groups.

I envisage an exam where no personal info is attached. The exam is a separate thing, no names, only a number. The result then goes through the vetting process with all other personal info. No flags, you get your permit. Get flagged and the process becomes more cumbersome, but not necessarily insurmountable. Remember, it is, or would be a filtering process in the name of public safety, while still providing those who want to carry, an opportunity to do so. That way everyone's rights are protected.
Look, if I can think this shit up off the top of my head, then Maryland or the Feds should be able to come up with something at least as reasonable.

[GreenStormCloud]

102. Cops do much more than just carry guns.

Cops directly represent the authority of the state.

[Starboard Tack]

104. And I'm not suggesting CCW applicants take all the police exams.

Only a psych evaluation, SIMILAR to the one the police take. Maybe our fellow DUers in LE want to chime in on this.

[GreenStormCloud]

116. Why should CCW applicants take such an exam.

We already have a better safety record than the police. There are many more of us than there are of cops, yet we shoot fewer innocents.

In 2009 in Texas, out of 402,000+ Concealed Hangun Licensees, only one (1) was convicted of murder, and none of manslaughter. Among the general population there were 600+ convictions that year for the various forms of murder and manslaughter.

Since we are already doing much better than the cops, why bother with such a test?

The resources used to find that one in almost half a million could better be used somewhere else.

[Starboard Tack]

119. Why? Did you miss the OP?

My question to you is "Why not?" What makes you and your fellow gun carriers so special, that you should be exempt? What possible harm could it cause to filter out those with psychological problems that could well pose public safety problems? Not everywhere is as perfect as Texas.

[GreenStormCloud]

120. Use of resources must be prioritized.

Even if one uses the highly inflated VPC numbers we still have an extremely safe record. The Texas experience is not unique. You will be spending a LOT of money that will get loads of false positives that will deny innocent citizens their rights and will likely still have people who misuse their permit. It would be another expensive feel-good law that accomplished nothing.

The test would have to be standardized. As soon as the test was made there would be books for sale to coach a person on how to pass the test.

Do you really, really believe that lack of a CCW would have stopped that guy? "Oh, darn. I can't go kill a bunch of folks as I don't have a permit to carry." Do you believe that?

And you will push more people away from voting for Democrats. The Republicans would love to see Democrats try such an idea.

[Starboard Tack]

121. A few points

First, what resources are you talking about? The test would be paid for by the applicants. Try coaching someone to pass a MMPI test. "The gunman accused of killing five people in cold blood Wednesday had a concealed weapon permit". That doesn't count, why?
The Democrat - Republican thing is a non-issue. This isn't a partisan thing, it's a public safety issue. Even Republicans get driver's licenses and wear seatbelts.

[GreenStormCloud]

123. Here is why he doesn't count.

Do you really, really believe that lack of a CCW would have stopped that guy? "Oh, darn. I can't go kill a bunch of folks as I don't have a permit to carry." Do you believe that?

You ducked that question. When someone decides to commit a deadly crime then lack of a government piece of plastic will not be a deterrent.

Gun control has become highly partisan.

[Starboard Tack]

126. By your reasoning the only solution is to evaluate all gun owners.

[friendly_iconoclast]

130. So those that would shoot up a mall wouldn't buy a gun illegally?

What you want is what I call a "beer keg law"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x362693

[GreenStormCloud]

131. We already do that.

It is called the NICS. The best predictor of a person future actions is their past actions. If they have already been law-abiding and peaceful then they are very likely to continue to be so.

You don't really want to sceen to catch the extremely rare individual. You want to throw a roadblock to make legal gun ownership and carry so difficult to do legally that it would be next to impossible.

[Starboard Tack]

132. No, I don't want mentally unbalanced people walking around armed

You have a problem with that? Or do you just want convicted felons to be banned, even though they may have no record of violence? Hand out guns to severely depressed individuals and disarm some guy convicted of tax fraud. Not too smart.

[GreenStormCloud]

135. CCWers who murder are extremely rare.

In some years, Texas, with almost half a million CHLers has had zero murder, zero manslaughter convictions of CHLers, others years one, very rarely more. Trying to screen out that one in half a million is like looking for a needle in a haystack. You will mistakenly deny many safe people trying to catch that one in a half million.

Admit it. You are just anti-gun and have latched onto this issue as a way to try to ban concealed carry. The statistics show that we are much safer than the police.

Do you really think that the lack of a government piece of plastic will stop someone who has decided to murder? You keep avoiding that question because it exposes the weakness of your position.

[Starboard Tack]

137. Rare doesn't cut it when people keep dying, sorry.

You can think I'm anti-gun all day long. I'm not. I'm ANTI-CARRY, same as I'm ANTI-STUPID. I've stated my views many times. Carry if you have a good reason to and I mean a very good reason, not because your wife once, or twice, had a problem, or your cousin's best friend's sister once saw some guy follow her baby sitter's sister to her parked car.
I am pro-reality checking. When you and your ilk say the word RARE, it would imply you know the meaning of the word. Count how many times you've been attacked and then try to rationalize that little number with how many times you've carried a loaded gun in public. Then go to a mirror and seriously ask yourself "WTF do I think I'm doing and who am I trying to convince?"

[GreenStormCloud]

139. You still keep ducking the question.

Will lack of a piece of government plastic keep a person who has decided to murder from carrying a gun? Will lack of that piece of plastic stop a gangster from carrying?

Lack of that permit will only stop the law-abiding, and they are no threat to anyone, except to violent criminals. In 2009 there were 50 justified homicides by private citizens in Texas (Unknown how many of those citizens had CHLs but certainly some of them did.) versus only one murder conviction of a CHL holder. (He probably would have killed anyway.) The balance is that more innocent lives are saved by CHLs than are lost to them.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/10/citCh3.pdf page 15
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

We have proven that we are trustworthy, yet you would deny to us the best effective tool for self-defense.

[Starboard Tack]

140. Sorry, I thought your question was rhetorical. Simple obvious answer "No!"

Apparently those who have the plastic and kill do pose a threat, same as anyone carrying a loaded firearm does.

We have proven that we are trustworthy, yet you would deny to us the best effective tool for self-defense.

What a crock. You have proven nothing except you feel the need to protect yourself with a gun. I may comment on the mind boggling absurdity of that, but I would never deny your right to defend yourself. Most of us wait until we are attacked or threatened before we feel a need to defend ourselves. We don't go strap on a gun because we know someone else who might have been attacked. That's what we call a reality check. Let me ask you an honest question. Don't you feel ridiculous when you carry? I'm serious, because I cannot imagine how stupid I would feel carrying a gun. I remember, back in the sixties, the OPP were recruiting heavily in the UK, offering young bobbies about four times what we were making at the time. I had a few friends who signed up. Every one came back within a year, because of the gun culture they were expected to embrace. And that was Canada.

[GreenStormCloud]

141. I have indeed proven that we are trustworthy.

I even posted the links for the stats. It appears that you don't want to accept the reality that CHL holders save more innocent lives than are killed by CHL holders.

One murder conviction in 2009. Only one, that all. Out of over 402,000+ CHL holders.
Fifty justified homicides, some of which were by CHLers. In Texas all homicides have to go before a grand jury, so those fifty were accepted as genuine self-defense by a grand jury. Each one of those was defending a life. So there are a bunch of innocent lives saved by CHLers, versus one taken.

But you want to deny us the best tool of self-defense.

To answer your question: No, I don't feel ridiculous when I carry. I have been doing it for years. The gun is just part of my clothing.
If you don't want to carry that is your choice and I respect your right to your choice.

Who were the OPP?

[Atypical Liberal]

79. That is precisely why I am against such subjective requirements.

If this is allowed to be a subjective decision, that allows for discriminatory decisions by bigoted or biased examiners. The point of "may issue" and "good and substantial reason" and "apprehended fear" statutes in the first place was so that the Sheriff or other government agents could issue permits or enforce carry laws on the basis of race, and I suspect that "mental fitness" statutes would be used in this and similar ways.

This is precisely why I am against subjective requirements, and why nearly every state in the Union is now "shall issue".

"May issue" gets you scenarios like Washington DC and New York City where only those who are wealthy and/or have political connections can exercise their right to bear arms.

I have no problem with requirements, including background checks, for people who want to carry concealed weapons. But these checks should only look for disqualifying traits that have been earned through the due process of law.

Years ago it was common to institutionalize or even lobotomize unwilling people because their families or others deemed them mentally unfit or otherwise a burden.

The Rosenhan experiment showed in 1973 that many completely sane people were regarded as insane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Rosenhan's study was done in two parts. The first part involved the use of healthy associates or "pseudopatients" (three women and five men) who briefly simulated auditory hallucinations in an attempt to gain admission to 12 different psychiatric hospitals in five different states in various locations in the United States. All were admitted and diagnosed with psychiatric disorders. After admission, the pseudopatients acted normally and told staff that they felt fine and had not experienced any more hallucinations. Hospital staff failed to detect a single pseudopatient, and instead believed that all of the pseudopatients exhibited symptoms of ongoing mental illness. Several were confined for months. All were forced to admit to having a mental illness and agree to take antipsychotic drugs as a condition of their release. The second part involved an offended hospital challenging Rosenhan to send pseudopatients to its facility, whom its staff would then detect. Rosenhan agreed and in the following weeks out of 193 new patients the staff identified 41 as potential pseudopatients, with 19 of these receiving suspicion from at least 1 psychiatrist and 1 other staff member. In fact Rosenhan had sent no-one to the hospital.

The study concluded, "It is clear that we cannot distinguish the sane from the insane in psychiatric hospitals" and also illustrated the dangers of dehumanization and labeling in psychiatric institutions.

One of the consequences of this study was to accelerate the reform of mental institutions and de-institutionalization.

My first thought was that mental institutions have a vested interest in diagnosing people as mentally ill, so that they continue to have patients and thus funding.

I do not want such people having a say-so over whether or not people get to exercise a Constitutional right. Especially since the people lining up to have the say-so probably are eager to push an anti-gun agenda.

You correctly note that in the past such subjective requirements for gun rights and other rights have usually been used to push prejudice in terms of race.

I'm not interested in having people with anti-firearms prejudices trying the same thing.

[CreekDog]

133. exactly right

because guns are about the most efficient weapon the average person has access to.

[slackmaster]

134. Without a permit, he wouldn't have had a gun because it would have been ILLEGAL

I'm sure he didn't want to get into trouble.

[CreekDog]

136. so you're against permitting because you will follow the rules and a criminal will not

so i take it you're against driver's licenses because you will follow the rules by having one when you drive but a criminal will not bother.

[slackmaster]

138. I have no problem with requiring a permit to legally carry a concealed, loaded weapon in public

It's very analogous to driving a car on public roads, and I have no problem with requiring a license to drive either.

My sarcasm is directed at the implication in the OP that the fact that the assailant had a concealed-weapons permit had anything to do with the crime. Obviously someone who is willing to shoot a bunch of innocent people in cold blood isn't going to be deterred even slightly by not having a license to "legally" transport his loaded, concealed weapon to the scene of the massacre.

[sarisataka]

2. It sounds like he may have had a concussive brain injury

from the grenade that affected his hearing.

I cannot understand why his family was waiting for a small violent incident to intervene. Couldn't they have urged him to see a doctor over the years to try and find a reason for his unusual behaviors?

[ManiacJoe]

13. The current WA state laws

make it very difficult to involuntarily commit folks for mental health treatment.

They did lots of urging. He kept declining.

[sarisataka]

14. I understand the process

to prevent abuse of the mentally ill but it is sad that it can allow things like this to happen

[FLyellowdog]

3. I, for one, am against carrying concealed weapons.

I'd MUCH rather have the weapons out in the open so I know who's packing. Hidden weapons make me nervous. At least with them carried openly, I'd know who to keep from offending. But that's just me.

[HockeyMom]

6. You might have a point there

If I saw somebody who was packing a gun in public, I would RUN as fast and as far as I could from there.

[PavePusher]

51. Run from cops much? n/t

[Hoyt]

107. Who knows, you could be in line at ChuckeCHeeze when Swastika screws up.

[Glaug-Eldare]

108. Does Chuck E. Cheese have a corporate policy on firearms? n/t

[Hoyt]

109. Such policies are meaningless to those who worship 2nd Amendment.

[Glaug-Eldare]

110. Some dinguses ignore the signs, some take their business elsewhere.

I do find it to be a dick move to say "it's concealed, they'll never find out." They're all about their gun rights, even if it means stepping on the property rights of those owners who don't want guns in their stores. Call 'em on it, and the statistics come out, as though the owner is required to justify himself to them. What a bunch of crumbtumblers.

[PavePusher]

111. Another broad-brush attack from you. n/t

[PavePusher]

112. Who is "Swastika"? And what are you insinuating? n/t

[Glaug-Eldare]

113. Probably a rude toter n/t

[Hoyt]

114. Sorry, I think it's Stawicki. Just another law-abiding gun dude until he shot innocent people.

[Glaug-Eldare]

115. Most people are law-abiding until the stop abiding by the law

Unless you want to prosecute people in anticipation of crimes..?

[Hoyt]

118. Yep, and according to the gun culture, we just sit and wait until they shoot people.

In fact, we are supposed to support more marginal people getting guns and carrying them in public.

Don't want to prosecute anyone in "anticipation of crimes." I do want to severely restrict people from buying lethal weapons, especially to carry in public.

Finally, the gun culture would have embraced Stawicki -- just like Zimmerman -- as a fine example of a law-abiding gun toter right up until he shot innocent people.

[Glaug-Eldare]

122. Still operating from the presumption of guilt...

Fortunately, you're not able to balance your desire for public safety with the reality of carry rights in 2012, so your table-pounding demand for prohibition is going...nowhere.

[friendly_iconoclast]

124. Occasionally, I've thought about getting a CCW permit simply to annoy gun-wowsers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser

The Australian writer C.J. Dennis defined it thus: 'Wowser: an ineffably pious person who mistakes this world for a penitentiary and himself for a warder'.

They seem to have gotten quite exerised recently, as if they don't actually understand statistics- or don't expect us to...

[Meiko]

8. How can you be nervous about

something you don't even know is there. Are you naturally suspicious of everyone around you?

[Hoyt]

17. We know you are there, standing in line at Chuck E Cheeze with a gun.

[SGMRTDARMY]

32. Is X-ray vision another of your many skills?

[BiggJawn]

39. Spidey-Sense

Hoyt tingles when he's near gilding metal...

[petronius]

41. Do you ever go out to eat at a place that isn't Chuck E Cheeze?

Seems like you mention the place rather a lot.

And just a hint: Mrs. (or Mr., or the future either) Hoyt would probably appreciate a dinner conversation that wasn't punctuated by skee-ball clatter and singing rats once in a while...

[rrneck]

62. Zimmerman eats there all the time.

It's a neighborhood watch thing. Gotta keep an eye on the gun nuts.

[FLyellowdog]

36. Not at all

but there are places I might go where I'd suspect persons of carrying and would just feel more comfortable knowing it.

It's not any different than one's driver's licenses having the CC notice on them and an established protocol for if they're stopped by police. Law enforcement is entitled to know and I'm just suggesting that maybe I should be to.

Why the need for secrecy? Seems to me that seeing someone's weapon would be a deterrent to crime, assault, etc. In fact, I might even feel safer knowing that someone has a weapon...it's possible. Not probable, but possible.

[gejohnston]

38. In some places cops know by running the plate

But the guy you know has a gun isn't the danger, it is the guy you don't know.
When I was a kid, Wyoming conservation officers would set up a check point on any dirt road in the wilderness during hunting season. It amazed me that these guys would leave their gun, including a pistol if they had one, in the truck while stopping and approaching a vehicle they knew had at least one gun. The last one to get shot in the line of duty was in 1913.

[PavePusher]

52. A cop is NOT...

entitled to know anything.

[PavePusher]

50. Decent people generally don't go out of their way to offend anyone....

armed or not.

I find this works well as a life philosophy. It does not, however, prevent some people from going well out of their way to be offended. To bad for them.

[alp227]

96. Would open carry laws really make criminals think twice?

On the other hand, would you really want to live in a society where you had a perpetual fear of being shot?

[demosincebirth]

4. Oh hell, lets just pass a law that every one over 18 should carry a concealed weapon...that way

there would be no crime, except white collar crime, or course.

[Hoyt]

18. Apparently, that is gun culture's plan. Many make money off the dang things too.

[mvccd1000]

49. How can I get in on this money-making thing?

Apparently I've been doing "gun culture" all wrong.

[GreenStormCloud]

57. You type that like you think it is a bad thing to make money off guns. N/T

[Hoyt]

58. Small scale military industrial complex type stuff. Do you think trading in lethal weapons is cool?

[Johnny Rico]

61. Absolutely, it's cool. Here's what I just picked up: Browning 1910/55 .380 ACP in 98%(!) condition

Gorgeous, isn't it?

[PavePusher]

85. Wow! That is a stunning collection piece. Well done!. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

76. Of course it is. Using them is even cooler- your avatar was proud of his:

C'mon Hoyt- you're not even trying anymore...

[DonP]

5. None of the gunmen that killed 11 last weekend in Chicago had a a CCW

What an incredible coincidence, huh?

But I'm sure it was the carry permit that caused it ... somehow. Otherwise why would you post it again after we already have 4 other posts on the same incident?

[baldguy]

7. Criminals will always be able to get guns

Because "law abiding gun owners" will always be around to sell them.

[Hoyt]

19. Exactly. And they'll support NRA and other right wing gun "advocates."

[hack89]

43. So the solution is what?

to not allow anyone to own guns?

[DonP]

59. Obviously, the solution is to write more angry, rude posts online

Since none of our gun control supporters ever seem to actually do anything in the real world about it, the obvious solution is to write many more angry, rude posts impugning guns and all gun owners every time there is a crime that involves guns in any way.

Not that they are ill informed but ... we had one poster that went off on a typical rant about concealed carry in a thread about re-importing M1 Garands and M1 Carbines from Korea. Another bragged in a thread about NICS checks, that he didn't know what a Form 4473 was, didn't really care and it didn't matter anyway. If you're going to be ignorant, be proud of it!

They don't want discuss repealing the 2nd amendment, even with "everybody supporting gun control" and "fewer gun owners than ever". None of them are trying to get CCW repealed in their home states. They can't seem to win in court or even find anyone running for office that supports gun control as a major part of their campaign.

Now they're down to only one state that doesn't allow CCW and the blood still isn't running in the streets. Damn those dropping violent crime statistics!

So what's left for them?

More angry, ill informed posts, that'll do it.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. There is a process to remove the right of an individual to possess a firearm, or have a CPL.

It was not used.

Not sure what anyone expects if the process isn't used.

[Hoyt]

21. How about strict gun laws and beginning to close the pipeline.

This gun culture idea that nothing can be done, is simply BS

[gejohnston]

22. That worked so well for

DC, Chicago, UK (murder rate was lower than ours before), Jamacia (has strict gun laws but makes us look like Singapore), Brazil (see previous), etc.

[safeinOhio]

28. Works well in Switzerland.

[gejohnston]

35. or Czech Republic

Switzerland would have the same none problem even if it were like Vermont. There are so many factors, gun laws are not even relevant.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. That has nothing to do with this issue.

It would be nice if you could stay on topic for one thread.

[hack89]

44. Why don't we model them on the drug laws?

they are strict and designed to close the pipeline.

[Speck Tater]

10. Are you implying that a person's constitutional right to own a gun should be violated...

...just because he's a stark raving insane homicidal maniac?

[Cali_Democrat]

11. So it looks like he was indeed a gun nut

Gun nuts love their conceal carry permits.

[hack89]

45. Does that mean everyone with a permit is a gun nut? nt

[Common Sense Party]

53. A certain other poster (who has been conspicuously absent from these threads lately) said just that.

On DU2, he once said that anyone who owns a gun for anything other than hunting is crazy. Hunting is the only "sane" reason to own a firearm.

[GreenStormCloud]

12. Out of over 10 million with CCWs there will be a few bad apples.

Legal concealed carry saves more innocent lives than it takes.

In Texas the detailed statistics are compiled annually by the Department of Public Safety and published on the internet. It is likely that the Texas experience with Concealed Handgun Licenses would be about the same in other states. The last year for which statistics are published is 2009 for convictions. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/index.htm

In 2009 there were 402,914 people who had CHLs. Out of those people there was exactly one (1) murder conviction and no manslaughter convictions. Out of the general population there were 600+ convictions for murder in its various forms and manslaughter.
So very, very few CHL holders go bad, but some do.

The DPS also publishes an annual Crime in Texas Report. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/crimereports/09/citCh3.pdf
From that report, page 15:
Statistics on murder circumstances, victims, and
victim/offender relationships on the next page
include justifiable homicides. Justifiable homicide
is the killing of a felon by a peace officer in the
line of duty or the killing (during the commission
of a felony) of a felon by a private citizen. In
2009, there were 106 justifiable homicides, of
which, 52 were felons killed by private citizens,
and 54 were felons killed by police.

In Texas all homicides, even those that are clearly self-defense, have to go before a grand jury which will rule if the killing was justified or not. So those 52 justified private citizen homicides were ones in which the defender genuinely feared for his life. Since most shooting are merely woundings there would be a much larger number of justified woundings in which the defender genuinely feared for his life, but that number is not kept. Obviously there are dozens of cases each year in which a CHL holder uses their gun to save themselves.

Dozens of innocent lives saved versus one innocent killed shows the concealed carry is working in Texas. As already stated, there is no reason to believe that other CCW states have a different experience.

Legal concealed carry saves lives.

[Hoyt]

23. There's more than a "few bad apples. "

IMO, anyone that wants to carry on city streets should be suspect. And yes, I understand it's a Catch 22. So what?

Damn, I guess I'll have to start carrying my machete to defend myself against all the gun nuts, or nuts with a gun.

[GreenStormCloud]

29. You ignored the proof that CCWers save more innocent lives than they kill.

For every innocent killed by a CCWer, there are dozens of innocent lives saved.

[friendly_iconoclast]

48. Don't bother. Anslinger-Wertham types don't "do" statistics.

Messes with the distribution of...



...dontcha know?

They're not too fond of the Fourteenth Amendment, either, as evinced by their responses
when states like Ohio, Iowa, and Minnesota went "shall-issue"

[Atypical Liberal]

90. How many are there?

There's more than a "few bad apples. "

How many are there, exactly?

[ileus]

20. I carried mine today and didn't shoot anyone.

As a matter of fact I didn't even think about shooting anyone....or anything....not even a target.

[Hoyt]

24. Yeah, but because you can carry - a lot of sick people are legally toting. M

Maybe someday you'll put 2 & 2 together and realize you don't really need a gun in public. And that your irrationality simply enables SOBs like this guy to easily acquire and carry a gun.

The gun culture isn't protecting anyone when you come right down to it.

[oneshooter]

30. And what are YOU doing to make CCL illegal in Georgia?

[Fredjust]

33. Once again...

a mentally disturbed gun nut takes his death spewer and murders innocent people. This is why the second amendment needs t be desperately repealed.

[SGMRTDARMY]

34. So what are you doing to repeal it?

[BiggJawn]

40. Right, because that worked so well with alcohol.

What was that quote attributed to Rachel Maddow about Rights not being subject to majority vote because they're RIGHTS?

You need to go re-take your Civics class from last semester. That piece of parchment doesn't GRANT rights, it enumerates and promises to uphold the rights we have as free human beings.

[Glaug-Eldare]

54. "[...] he had not sought treatment."

This is a very important point. Why didn't he seek treatment? Why would anybody, knowing that his family is concerned about his mental health, decline help? Two big reasons:

1) Stigma

Being diagnosed or treated for any mental illness is frightening. It means that you have to place tremendous trust in a psychiatric professional not to betray your privacy. It means that you have to be concerned about laws restricting your civil rights. It means you have to be concerned about your employment opportunities and social standing if you ever disclose (or are required to disclose) your diagnosis. Declining treatment means that, as far as the government, your work, your insurance, and your neighbors are concerned, you're perfectly alright.

2) Cost

Mental health treatment can be extremely expensive, and most states have little, if any, social programs designed to make it accessible. Seeking treatment can mean extreme debt or even bankruptcy, particularly when that illness interferes with a person's ability to keep a job. When you don't have the money and there's nowhere to turn for help, it's not a simple thing to lie down on that couch.

On another note, while it's tragic that there wasn't adequate intervention to prevent these killings, it's a good thing that the police didn't revoke his permit or start an investigation on him on the basis of phone calls from "concerned individuals." If they made that policy, it would open the door for Hoyt to report every permit holder he could find for mental illness. (After all, he must be mentally ill to hold a permit!) The local Klan chapter could report every black gun owner they could identify, so the police could do their dirty harassment work. People with murderous intent could finger and have the police disarm their victims before they attack. The presumption of innocence needs to be strong, or else it doesn't mean anything.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

55. and 3) Denial

To seek treatment, or even to take your prescribed medicine after treatment, means you admit you're not "right". Or, maybe this is just part of your reason 1): Self-directed Stigma.

[Atypical Liberal]

72. Yup - CCW permit holders sometimes commit crimes. Fortunately, they do it less often than non-CCWers

Yup, CCW permit holders sometimes commit crimes.

Fortunately, they do so very rarely - much more rarely than people without such permits.

The Seattle shooting is a rare occurrence, and no justification for compromising the rights of everyone else.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. It's not so fortunate for the AWS types that hate guns and gun owners.

[DanTex]

87. As has been pointed out before, that is not the correct comparison.

The talking point that CCWers commit less crimes than the "average citizen" is grossly misleading, because CCWers are not drawn from the population at random. The correct comparison to draw would be between CCWers and a demographically comparable group of non-CCWers. In addition to passing a background check, CCWers tend to be older, whiter, wealthier, and more rural than the average citizen, all qualities which make them statistically less likely to commit crimes (and also less likely to be victims of crimes) than average citizens.

As far as I know, there has not been a properly controlled study comparing crime incidence rates between CCWers and non-CCWers. This is partly due to the fact that there isn't good comprehensive data concerning crimes committed by CCWers, so we really don't know whether CCWers commit crimes more or less often than non-CCWers.

[Atypical Liberal]

88. As I have corrected you before, it IS the correct comparison.

The talking point that CCWers commit less crimes than the "average citizen" is grossly misleading, because CCWers are not drawn from the population at random.

Yes, but again, THAT IS NOT THE POINT.

People who are against CCW permits are against it because they believe it makes them less safe.

Less safe than what?

Less safe than the other random people they are likely to encounter in their daily lives.

The random people they are likely to encounter includes people from all segments of society.

So if you want to make an argument against concealed carry as such people are making thing unsafe, then it is reasonable to compare them against all the other people in society that you are already surrounded by. And when you do that, we see that they are much safer than other people you are likely to encounter.

In addition to passing a background check, CCWers tend to be older, whiter, wealthier, and more rural than the average citizen, all qualities which make them statistically less likely to commit crimes (and also less likely to be victims of crimes) than average citizens.

But you don't get to walk around in society surrounded only by older, whiter, wealthier, rural people.

You basically want to compare CCW permit holders to other good people. But when you are out in public, you are not surrounded by only good people.

[DanTex]

91. You're wrong here.

The question is whether a person with a CCW license is more dangerous than that same person would have been without the CCW license. If the answer is "yes", then allowing CCW is making society less safe. If "no", then it isn't. At least not directly. There are possible indirect effects in both directions (on one hand, the presence of CCWers could deter criminals, on the other it could cause an "arms race" where criminals would be more likely to carry guns themselves, and more likely to shoot at the first hint of resistance by the victim), but that's a different matter.

Like I said, I don't know of any study that actually addresses this question, and I don't even think the data is publically available to answer it fully.

[Atypical Liberal]

94. I don't think that is the question at all.

The question is whether a person with a CCW license is more dangerous than that same person would have been without the CCW licensee.

I don't think that is the question at all, from what I have heard around here.

People are against concealed carry because they claim that they feel less safe when such people are carrying firearms, as opposed to the people who are already all around them in everyday society.

You don't get to choose to surround yourself just with people who are eligible for concealed carry permits.

It's silly to debate whether obtaining a concealed carry permit makes a single person more dangerous. Obviously they are no more or less dangerous with a piece of paper than without it. That simply makes no sense. If they were hyper-law abiding before applying for a permit, then they will probably by hyper-law abiding afterwards.

The real question is, when you walk around in society are you less safe when there are also CCW permit holders present.

The answer to that question is definitively, "no".

Consequently there is no case to be made for disallowing CCW.

[GreenStormCloud]

101. It would take a lot of work but it could be done.

I am NOT volunteering to do all the work.

Chart the violent crime rates of each state over the last 20 years. Note the year that each state became a shall-issue state. Does that state's rate drop in the following years more than surrounding states do? What happens in the states that aren't yet shall-issue?

The information is available on the internet.

[L0oniX]

142. I'm sure that if he hadn't had a CWP this would never have happened.