Drunk CCW Dad crashes with his 2 kids.... and his 2 guns in car.

[RealityInSeattle]

http://www.wreg.com/news/wreg-dad-wild-ride,0,7892825.story

But...what happened to the magic good-judgement-granting CCW?

Was his broken too?

[Skittles]

1. this isn't really a statement about guns

it's more a story of criminal idiocy

[MrModerate]

2. Agreed. I'm a gun-grabber of the first order, but . . .

This guy is a garden-variety fool. He'd be almost as dangerous (at least to himself and those who care about him) naked and on foot.

[RealityInSeattle]

3. Thats the point

except he was fool with two guns.

That makes him not just funny or sad but extremely dangerous.

And he won't lose his gun license for this either.

[MrModerate]

4. I can't believe I'm saying this . . . but in this instance . . .

His car was much more likely to kill than his guns.

OTOH, now he's all depressed about being arrested and his wife going forward with the divorce, and no sane family court judge is going to give him even visitation rights, so he's frighteningly likely to show up on the news having gone postal with his (unconfiscated) guns, and taking out X number of innocents as he trundles up immolation road.

[rd_kent]

23. "he's frighteningly likely to show up on the news having gone postal" - Really? Just HOW likely?

Can you provide any evidence or stats to back up that most absurd AND ignorant claim?

[MrModerate]

40. Boyo let me parse that for you.

"Frighteningly likely." It bugs me; from a distance, it frightens me. Hence it is frighteningly likely. It was a statement of my personal point of view.

I know nuance is for wusses, but you might try it now and again.

[rd_kent]

56. I know facts are for rational thinkers, but you might try it now and again, boyo.

Perhaps you are better suited for the emotional hyperbole, seems to be what you are good at.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

85. Since you are so easily frightened, your opinion on firearms is useless.

[paulsby]

65. actually, in WA state you CAN confiscate a gun if a person is DUI and in possession of same

it's a little used statute, but it exists.

it doesn't mean the person's CCW will be revoked, or that they won't get it back, though

[SteveM]

19. No, your approach is typical of the prohibitionist: smear people

who possess the hated object or who engages in the prohibited behavior by ANY MEANS NECESSARY, so you can support your morally-driven desire to punish others you loathe.

You views have NOTHING to do with fostering the common good, lessening social problems or protecting the public. It has EVERYTHING to do with animosity and smear... and getting your juice by these attacks in this forum.

Thank you for the opportunity to examine -- and reveal -- your motivations.

[MrModerate]

41. Project much? n/t

[cabluedem]

54. You did the same to me on another thread. Go look in a mirrior, Steve. You use smear tactics on..

those you dislike, even when the slander against me made no sense at all.

Cabluedem: a "shill for the gun controllers" according to Steve.

[X_Digger]

20. Actually he will lose his license.. the idiocy that spews from your mouth..

http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/handgun/qualifications.htm

The applicant has not been convicted of the offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant in this or any other State two (2) or more times within ten (10) years from the date of application and that none of such convictions has occurred within five (5) years from the date of application or renewal.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Wrong.

In that state, DUI Child Endangerment is a class D felony. He'll lose not only the CCW permit, but the guns too.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RealityInSeattle]

10. Hey, I don't write the stories, I just find 'em.

[proteus_lives]

11. And alter them to fit your agenda.

Because grabber logic is full of holes.

[MrModerate]

12. And your fact-free post is supposed to compel agreement how?

The poster has made a pretty direct observation: someone judged by the authorities as competent to carry a concealed weapon has proven dramatically unfit to do so. Happens every day. Those of us who think American gun fanaticism is a disease that injures more than those directly infected note these things all the time.

If it ruffles your feathers, tough.

[proteus_lives]

13. You're adorable.

People are also judged unfit to carry driver's licenses as well. What disease would you call that?

Tell, when it becomes painfully obvious to you that Americans won't ever forfeit their 2nd Amendment Rights, what will you go after? Authoritarians have to try and control something. Books? Music? Abortion rights? Equal marriage?

[MrModerate]

14. Well . . . when people are judged unfit to carry driver's licenses, I expect society . . .

To take their fuckin' licenses away. There's no question in my mind that improperly operated motor vehicles are highly lethal. Kill more people than guns, if I'm not mistaken.

But cars have a nonlethal purpose, which in fact is their primary purpose: transportation. Guns don't have a nothlethal purpose. All "gunplay" such as target shooting and the like is just preface to or ritualization of killing.

You pretend that those who want to control guns do so because it's some sort of political hobby; that gun grabbers would be happy imposing their will in some other area if guns were adequately controlled.

Which is bullshit. Those who are opposed to uncontrolled citizen ownership of firearms are opposed to firearms, not freedom. You can conflate the two if you insist, but when you do so you just start sounding like a standardized moron-American gun nut.

And maybe Americans will never give up the right to carry death in their pockets . . . and maybe they'll never give up cigarettes either.

Let's just see.

[Euromutt]

16. Why do you assume that's not the case here?

As far as I can determine, possession of a firearm while under the influence is a Class A misdemeanor (Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1321), and conviction of a Class A misdemeanor will result in the Handgun Carry Permit holder being required to surrender the permit to the court (TCA § 39-17-1352(f)). A DUI conviction in the past 5 years is grounds makes you ineligible to apply for an HCP (TCA § 39-17-1351(c)(11)), and is consequently also grounds for revocation (TCA § 39-17-1352(a)(6)).

So this guy should lose his Handgun Carry Permit.

In Washington state, possession of a firearm while under the influence is grounds for revocation of one's Concealed Pistol License and forfeiture of the firearm(s) in question. For all I know, the latter may also be the case in Tennessee, but I'm not prepared to troll through the TCA to find whether there's any such provision.

[MrModerate]

39. And those sound like reasonable laws, if . . .

You buy into the notion that people should be walking around with concealed handguns in the first case.

[X_Digger]

48. Take a break, that goal post looks heavy.

First it's about removing a driver's license on conviction of DUI, then when you find out that's also the case with CCW, you heft those goal posts to talk about CCW at all?

[MrModerate]

62. The OP conflated DUI and CCW, which is what all the sound and fury on this post is about . . .

It ain't heavy to follow the whole thread's line of discussion. Light as a feather.

[proteus_lives]

17. But you don't take away the licenses of people who don't abuse them.

But that is the goal of grabbers. Punishment without cause.

"Guns don't have a nothlethal purpose."

Yes, they do.

"All "gunplay" such as target shooting and the like is just preface to or ritualization of killing."

And you've revealed your true ignorance in the matter. "Gunplay", you watch too much television.

"Which is bullshit. Those who are opposed to uncontrolled citizen ownership of firearms are opposed to firearms, not freedom. You can conflate the two if you insist, but when you do so you just start sounding like a standardized moron-American gun nut."

You're funny. It's not about the firearms and you know it. You support taking away people's choices. I took a look at your profile, another Ozzie. Well, I can't expect you to understand something you've never had.

[MrModerate]

42. Opinion is not necessarily fact.

Tell me what nonlethal purpose guns serve. For the purpose of rational discussion target shooting and similar gunplay (sorry if you don't like the term) doesn't count, because while it's something you can do with a gun, it's not what a gun is for.

As for choices, I don't think any gets the choice to shoot someone "just because." That choice I would deny you. If you insist on expanding that to mean all choices, then you're intellectually dishonest and not to be taken seriously.

I'm an American. I live in Australia. I've owned guns, I've fired them, I've been fired on.

I know nothing about you except that you demonstrate willful ignorance with every post. Beyond that I decline to make an ass of myself and ascribe to you motivations without evidence. You might try that, too.

[proteus_lives]

55. If you want intellectually dishonesty....

Go to your bathroom and look in the mirror.

You've already stated the non-lethal uses of guns. It doesn't matter if you say they don't count. Because they do.

"I don't think any gets the choice to shoot someone "just because." That choice I would deny you"

:rofl: I don't want to shoot anyone. I do want to be able to defend myself if the need arises. Grabbers are fringe types because you refuse to acknowledge self-defense. That's why I don't take you seriously.

"I'm an American"

It's always sad to see a citizen so eager to give up their rights. Do you vote in US elections? Would you give that up if some man in a suit promised you that you'd be safe?

"I've been fired on."
Yeah, right.

[MrModerate]

58. Riiiight . . . the primary use of guns is target shooting . . .

They were invented specifically for that purpose and that's why they're so popular. Their lethality is an inconsequential side effect, an unfortunate outcome arising (occasionally) from their misuse.

Give me a break. Guns are for killing. If you pretend otherwise then you are definitely unqualified to carry one.

I've lived in multiple countries and multiple states, in cities and towns and rural areas. In no civilian circumstance in my life has a gun ever proved useful for self defense. I don't know *anyone* who has had occasion to defend themselves with a gun (outside of Iraq and Vietnam which which were, ya know, wars and all). While I don't deny the existence of violent crime, the notion that the best response to the risk of violent crime is for the citizenry to walk around carrying weapons is preposterous, at least anywhere society hasn't broken down entirely.

I don't know where you live, but if society in your area has broken down to that extent, move somewhere else. Most Americans *don't* go armed because they don't need to. And because they think it would be unwise to do so.

I acknowledge that the Constitution apparently gives me the right to personal gun ownership. I (and millions of other Americans -- a bit more than the fringe) happen to think that's a terrible idea and the Constitution should be changed. And in the meantime the laws limiting civilian gun ownership should be strengthened at every turn. That's the sort of thing I support when I vote (not having missed an election since I came of age some several decades ago).

And yes, I have been shot at. I didn't like it. I consider it worthwhile to work toward an America where it doesn't happen. And that starts with controlling guns.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

30. What do you think about civillian ownership of bows and spears?

Should people be allowed to own and use bows & arrows, crossbows & bolts, spears, and swords?
All were invented for use as weaponry?

People have an inalienable right to self protection... survival. To deny people the most useful tool on the planet to practice self-defense is to encroach on one's freedoms and abilities to defend themselves.

[MrModerate]

43. All of the weapons mentioned are subject to some restrictions or the other . . .

Depending on location and circumstance. So yes, I agree with the law that their ownership should be controlled.

There are a million other mechanisms for the protection of society and individuals that don't pose the risk inherent in personal firerm ownership and I prefer those mechanisms.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. Name protections that are as effective

Name the forms of protection you feel are as effective as personally owned firearms against violent crime.
If you feel that disarming citizens is not a restriction on their natural right of self-defense... make your case.

[MrModerate]

63. I've got a long list:

Social cohesion; neighborliness; civility; public-spiritedness; professional law enforcement; reasonable caution; clearheadedness; mature behavior.

They're not foolproof, but in the collective, they're a million times more effective than a gun in your hand.

[paulsby]

66. when some person is faced with a criminal, none of those things matter

i'm professional law enforcement. i'm minutes (or more ) away.

you are alone, and faced with a criminal intent on doing you harm. i'm not going to be able to help you (most of the time). clearheadedness is great, but clearheadedness AND a gun is better than clearheadness without it. ditto for all the other stuff mentioned


a gun is simply a tool.

if you have one, you can use it.

the VAST majority of gun uses do NOT involve firing it. that holds for cops and for people in general.

all of those things you mention are great, but DESPITE them, crime still happens, including violent crime, and either you believe individuals should be trusted with the means to protect themselves or they shouldn't.

i believe the former

and our constitution recognizes that right

[MrModerate]

75. You're one of the bricks in the societal wall I was alluding to. Do I expect you . . .

to hang around my doorstep to protect me at a moment's notice? No.

While a gun may just be a tool, it's a tool for killing. That's what makes it an effective deterrent. I happen to believe (and I'm not alone) that as a deterrent it's just too damned dangerous. Kind of like nuclear weapons, but in miniature, and with millions and millions and millions of them distributed throughout the population.

I acknowledge the Constitution's (probable) granting of the right to personally own some sort of firearm, although there are many gun control laws in place that in actual fact do infringe on that right -- so by law and custom that right is far from untrammeled.

I think the Constitution should be changed and civilian ownership of firearms not necessarily eliminated, but highly controlled (such as through community armories/firing ranges).

While that may seem impossible to you, given the American attitude toward personal gun ownership, one could have made the same prediction about cigarette smoking 25 years ago and we've certainly seen some societal change on that front since then.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

69. That list is pretty weak in terms of defense.

The only one that might be "defense" is professional law enforcement and clearheadedness is always helpful.
The rest are preventative in nature and do address situations in action. Your list amounts to "Hope".

Tell me, you wake up to a crash and realize someone is in your house. You have a wife and children.
Which of those options there will protect your family? Calling the police? Police take time to respond (if they respond)
Just hope that the intruder doesn't take more than a few minutes to find your family and isn't armed.
Will he stay downstairs? Most thieves know the jewelery is in the bedroom. Is he only there to steal?
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

I'm not saying the items on your list are poor - just that they don't address criminals that have targeted you. You could be the freindliest, most social, nice, level-headed and cautious person in the city. If you've got something a criminal wants or some drugged up thugs find your house in the middle of the night... Your ONLY option is to wait for the cops. Cops that have NO duty to protect you or even respond to your call. NO ONE here will claim firearms are mutually exclusive substitutes to any of the options you listed. Supplementing the passive efforts you have listed (which are effective) with the active effort of skilled use of a firearm, your protection becomes more comprehensive. You'll find that many gun owners do everything on that list. In fact, many firearms instructions classes touch on most of the list you've provided!

[Glassunion]

74. Not to be rude in any way, but that list is not reality

Social cohesion: I doubt will ever happen. It would be nice, but how many people can honestly exist in a cohesive manner? Just look at the Health Care plan... we can't get 2 people to agree an anything, let alone an entire Senate.

Neighborliness and civility: I can't drive one trip to work where I either do not get cut off or refused entry to a road. How would you propose to "make" everyone be nice? I doubt people will do that on their own.

Public-spiritedness: This one is possible, however again I feel that it would have to be forced on the public. Think North Korea, Nazi Germany, etc... How would you suggest that we attain this without totalitarianism?

Professional law enforcement: I agree with this one however with one big question. Is your idea of professional law enforcement armed?

Reasonable caution, clearheadedness and mature behavior: Again we are dealing with behaviors, and I cannot see a way to enforce behaviors and not violate liberties. What happens in your world if someone violates one of these behaviors?

"They're not foolproof, but in the collective, they're a million times more effective than a gun in your hand." I totally disagree with this statement. In America we are one of many, not a collective. And at the end of the day the police do not owe us protection. To protect and serve is a good mission statement, however the Supreme Court has ruled that they are under NO obligation to protect or save us in any form whatsoever. A gun in my hands does not guarantee my safety, however it is a million times more effective than any collective or police force can offer.

[PavePusher]

80. "Professional law enforcement"

And how does he propose the ensure they will be available at the point of need?

That'll be a nice trick...

[PavePusher]

79. And when (not if) those fail? n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

35. People can have their licenses taken for disabilities, and no one suports uncontrolled ownership.

[MrModerate]

44. In this case, the process that led to this guy being judged competent . . .

To carry a lethal weapon seem to have failed. While no bureaucratic system can be expected to be perfect, the potential consequences from this failure are more dire than, shall we say, giving a license to an incompetent hairdresser. Handguns are no scissors, and vice versa.

[friendly_iconoclast]

45. The process that led to this guy being judged competent to drive seem to have failed

While no bureaucratic system can be expected to be perfect, the potential consequences from this failure are more dire than, shall we say, giving a license to an incompetent hairdresser. Cars are not scissors, and vice versa.

[MrModerate]

57. No disagreement. Sounds like they need to take his driver's license too.

And any scissors he's carrying concealed.

[Euromutt]

60. So it's not an insurmountable problem they gave him the driver's license in the first place, then?

I mean, I know that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and all that, but given that you seem to take the position that state governments shouldn't be handing out CCW permits to people because they might go off the rails like this guy did (even though he didn't actually cause any mayhem using a firearm), then why do you think it's sufficient that the guy lose his driver's license after the fact, instead of fulminating about the fact that the Tennessee Dept. of Safety issued him a driver's license despite not being absolutely certain that he would never commit a DUI at some unspecified future date?

[MrModerate]

61. Nooo . . . here's a simple thought experiment:

• Automobile
• Bicycle
• Skateboard
• Handgun

One of these is not like the others. Which might it be? Yes, it's the one that's designed for killing.

But how are they the same? Under the right circumstances, you can kill yourself (and others) with them.

The same is true of cold toast, but rational people would say that you should apply different rules to machines whose primary and usual purpose is transportation versus machines whose primary and usual purpose is killing.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. Handguns aren't designed for killing.

[MrModerate]

72. Perhaps they're designed for planting daisies? C'mon. n/t

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

76. They are designed to fire a projectile. Mine fire projectiles into paper, soda cans and golf balls.

[MrModerate]

83. And nitroglycerin is designed to accelerate the release of energy . . .

from an unstable compound.

While you may want to pretend that the concept of a projectile is somehow isolated from the gun designer's intent, or that practice killing (as in target shooting) somehow means that real killing is not what guns are about, I think you know as well as I that such a justification is completely phony.

Guns are for killing; that's why you can use them the threaten people. Or defend yourself, in what I assume would by your definition.

But projectile, once fired, have consequences.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

84. Nitroglycerin is a vasodilator that decreases cardiac preload.

What are knives designed for?

[rd_kent]

71. No, your are 100% wrong. You should change your name to Mr. Ignorant.

gun–noun
1. a weapon consisting of a metal tube, with mechanical attachments, from which projectiles are shot by the force of an explosive; a piece of ordnance.
2. any portable firearm, as a rifle, shotgun, or revolver.
3. a long-barreled cannon having a relatively flat trajectory.
4. any device for shooting something under pressure: a paint gun; a staple gun.
5. Slang. a person whose profession is killing; professional killer: a gangland gun.
6. British. a member of a shooting party.
7. electron gun.


Do not see where the definition of a gun is for killing.

Besides, most gunshot wounds do not kill, so even if they were designed for killing, they do not do that job very well.

Mr. Moderate, you should change your name to Mr. Ignorant.

[MrModerate]

73. My mistake in assuming your ability to identify from context . . .

That we're talking about firearms. That this entire forum is about firearms.

Silly of me to expect a thoughtful response and not mindless piffle.

[rd_kent]

77. Well, you certainly made a mistake, again...

fire⋅arm –noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.


Still nothing about being designed to kill.

[MrModerate]

82. Here's the deal: there is no way you can be so thick . . .

as to believe that a definition that does not address the purpose of the object described consequently means that purpose doesn't exist. Your definitions are (deliberately) incomplete, and you are being (deliberately) obtuse. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la-la-la" when challenged by the question "what are guns for" doesn't lend much weight to your side of the argument.

I get that you disagree with me on this issue (as do most people who frequent this forum), but spare me the sillyass bullshit that would embarass a 7th-grader.

[rd_kent]

86. No, HERE's the deal: There is no way YOU are going to frame this so that YOUR ignorant

stance on gun control is acceptable. You tactics are disingenuous and your point of view, IMO and supported by facts, is wrong.

So, why don't YOU spare ME the silly ass bullshit that only embarrasses yourself?

[eqfan592]

88. There's nothing "sillyass" about it

If you really wanted to bring INTENDED purpose into things, then at best you could say that firearms are designed to INCAPACITATE another person. Gun shot wounds are not always immediately nor automatically fatal. Guns CAN be used to kill people, but more often than not, especially when being used in by the police or in self defense (which is far more often than in the commission of a crime, mind you) they are intended to dissuade, and if necessary, to incapacitate, which MAY result in death. The same can be said for most military small arms as well.

[Euromutt]

81. In that case, I have a thought experiment for you

In the United States in 2006, 30,896 people died of gunshot wounds; of these, 30,034 deaths were the result of intentional infliction of harm (56% of which were suicides).
The same year, 45,509 people died as a result of injuries sustained from motor vehicles; of these, 45,316 deaths were unintentional.

Now, which is the more dangerous item: the one that was used to kill ~31K people, 97% of whom intentionally; or the one used to kill ~45K people, 99.6% of whom unintentionally?

Call me strange, but I think the item that racks up a body count almost half again as high as the other almost entirely without deliberate intent to do so is the one that demands a more stringent level of licensing to ensure that prospective users know what they're doing. And arguably, that is to a large extent precisely because of arguments like "well, cars aren't designed to kill"; the fact that they aren't designed to doesn't mean they are not readily capable of doing so, as the annual body count of over 40,000 in the US alone attests. As the saying (attributed to Massad Ayoob) goes: "a Honda Civic has more stopping power than a .45 ACP."

You keep repeating that firearms "are designed for killing" as if that is somehow meaningful, in and of itself. From my point of view, that fact that firearms have the capability to inflict lethal trauma does not mean that that is the only purpose to which they may be put. That capability may also be used to force compliance without actual injury being inflicted. And both the threat and the use of force can be used for good or for ill. It can be used to put food on the table (and during the Great Depression, hunting formed a major source of food--directly or indirectly--for many people). It can be used to prevent harm to innocent life and limb by incapacitating the attacker (be it human or animal) or compelling the attacker to flee or surrender. There is nothing morally objectionable about either use, even if the extinguishing of life is involved in either.

[Euromutt]

87. Addendum

In your post #75 in this thread, you state:

I happen to believe (and I'm not alone) that as a deterrent it's just too damned dangerous. Kind of like nuclear weapons, but in miniature, and with millions and millions and millions of them distributed throughout the population.

Your belief is not supported by evidence. According to various studies conducted in the early to mid-1990s, the number of violent crimes prevented from being completed by defensive gun uses (DGUs) outnumbered the number of violent crimes completed using firearms. Even David Hemenway and Deborah Azrael, two public health researchers noted for cranking out a large volume of studies that invariably conclude that Guns Are Bad, came up with an estimate of 900,000 DGUs annually in 1994; the same year, the number of gun crimes reported to police was 542,529. Admittedly, the total number of "firearm incidents" was (as best as can be determined) ~1,070,000, but the other, less biased, research indicates the number of DGUs annually in that period was most likely in the 1.5-2 million range. In short, there's a pretty good basis to assume that DGUs outnumber violent gun crimes by 50-100%.

And what's "too damned dangerous" about a nuclear deterrent? When has anyone actually deployed a nuclear weapon intended to serve as a deterrent? Unless there's been a belligerent detonation of a nuclear warhead since 1945 that I'm strangely unaware of, the answer is "never." The only time nuclear weapons have been used in warfare, they almost certainly saved more lives than they took; by averting the need to invade the Japanese home islands, or impose an indefinite naval blockade, perhaps as many as half to a full million Japanese civilians didn't die who otherwise would have.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. I've known police officers who've gotten DUI's. It seems many systems fail.

[paulsby]

67. i work with one

it's not a firing offense (first time) in my agency.

and to my knowledge, he wasn't armed when he got the DUI.

he's a good cop. he fucked up. he took the suspension, and the classes, and moved on.

[GreenStormCloud]

78. No process that involves millions of people is going to be perfect.

There will always be some errors. But our group record is excellent.

[Euromutt]

7. Perpetuating that straw man, eh?

When has anyone on this forum that possessing a CCW permit causes a person to develop superior judgment?

Now, I'm not going to defend this guy's actions; I don't have lot of sympathy for anyone caught in a DUI, and in Washington state, being caught under the influence while in possession of a firearm in public would cost the guy his CPL and the firearms in question, and I am totally fine with that.

But let's not pretend that the stuff that went wrong here wouldn't have happened if he hadn't owned any firearms. Sounds like he embarked on some self-destructive behavior as a result of depression, and all the damage he did was achieved through the combination of alcohol, medication, and a motor vehicle.

[MrModerate]

9. Yeah, he was too drunk to draw a bead on his wife . . .

when she presented him with the papers. Small favors, I guess.

[Euromutt]

15. Funny how the article didn't mention that detail

Oh, right, that's because you made it up.

[MrModerate]

38. Yeah, what's the emoticon for irony? I didn't find it in the list.

Funny thing, I didn't find one for humorlessness either.

[eqfan592]

53. Irony? Where?

That only works if Euromutt was making something up, which he wasn't. You, on the other hand.....

[MrModerate]

59. Can I congratulate you on your masterful grasp of the concept of irony? n/t

[safeinOhio]

18. Thank God

he didn't shoot up his truck.

[SteveM]

21. He probably crapped his pants, too. With underwear on. So?

[rd_kent]

22. Ignorant RealityInSeattle posts ignorant spew on message board.... .....

[paulsby]

68. realityinseattle should consider moving to a more "enlightened" locale

here in seattle (and WA state), LOTS of people have CCW's. a lot more than he/she would ever know. if you are walking around downtown seattle, you are walking right past people with concealed guns. walk around for 20 minutes on a busy day, and it's a near certainty.

this is a shall issue state and there are many people in seattle and surrounding areas with gun permits and guns.

yet, it's a very safe city

seattle repeatedly ranks in top 10 amongst large cities for murder.

in 2002, for example our rate was 4.5/100,000
whereas the average american city with a pop over 250k had an average murer rate MUCH higher than that

Vancouver was 3.45/100,000 in the same year to make a comparison

when one compares demographic to demographic (age and race and gender), seattle actually ranks equal or better than vancouver in many crime respects, including violent crimes and murder.

the point is this. vancouver has very strict gun laws.

seattle doesn't.

they both have relatively low and very comparable violent crime

[rrneck]

24. magic good-judgement-granting CCW

No such thing.

[PavePusher]

25. You are way over the line of being deliberately obtuse.

Your willful ignorance, predjudice and arrogance are not pretty. And your flame-bait trolling does not lend itself to reasonable debate. Good day to you.

[east texas lib]

26. Isn't it time for your cookies, glass of milk and nap?

There there, you poor dear. That's better. :hug:

[rrneck]

28. Or a diaper change. nt

[rd_kent]

29. I think he should get pizza instead!

[Hangingon]

27. This is a drunk driving story.

The guns seem to figure in it only because they were in the car. In Texas, he would lose his CHL. He would likely be convicted of child endangerment (driving under the influence) and operating a vehicle under the influence.

[GreenStormCloud]

31. Out of about 5 milion CCW holders, some will screw up.

But our percentage of screw ups is far less than the general population. We don't claim perfection, just right next to it.

[GreenStormCloud]

32. In Texas, you don't need a CHL to have a loaded gun concealed in the car.

All you need is to be able to legally own a gun. We have always had a Traveling Doctrine. One has been allowed to have a gun handy if one is travelling, but the definition of "travelling" was fuzzy. Now it mean going anywhere in your vehicle. The legislature cleared it up in 2008, at the same time they passed the Castle Doctrine.

[gorfle]

33. That is called an anecdote. Check the statistics.

That is called an anecdote. Check the statistics on CCW permit holders. You will find that CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW permit holders. CCW permit holders are hardly every involved in crime in general, much less firearm crimes, and the rate of revocation is less than 2%.

This CCW permit holder will probably lose his permit over this.

[rd_kent]

34. RealityInSeattle has no interest in statistics or honesty.

[Tim01]

36. Alcohol is too easily accessible. Alcohol should be resricted. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

37. The guns emboldened the DUI!

Hey, somebody had to say it....

[Dr. Strange]

47. So the lesson here is...

ban guns?
ban CCW?
ban drinking?
ban driving?
ban drinking and driving while under the influence of CCW?
ban fatherhood?
ban driving with kids?
ban nonsensical threads?

[Euromutt]

51. You missed a couple

Ban depression.
Ban divorce, or perhaps marriage, or perhaps just pair-bonding all together.

[Glassunion]

49. Your right, let's ban CCW because of one idiot.

For the sake of argument... Because there are many different stupid things that an individual can do, we will just look at Drunk Driving.

There are only about 5 million (need citation) CCW holders. I for the life of me could not find that many stories about CCW'ers driving drunk. I was able to find an additional 6 incidents of CCW'ers (from the Brady Campaign Website) that committed the offense of driving under the influence. That brings our percentage up to 0.00014% of the total population of CCW'ers.

Of course to ban CCW, would be quite hypocritical of the lawmakers that it would take to pass this new legislation. Let's do a little exercise. Just Republicans lawmakers. All Democrats, Independents, etc... will be intentionally left out of this exercise. Also no Democrats were harmed in the making of this example. I learned the hard way we are not allowed to make fun of ourselves around here.

Here are just some that I was able to find. You want proof or references, wikifuckingpedia it yourself.

Eugene Maysky (Mayor) - 4 DWIs
Bob Biggins (State Representative)
Vito J. Fossella (Congressman)
Randy Scott (State Senator)
Joe Boylan (State Representative) Caused an Accident
Wade Stroupe Jr (Mayor) Caused an Accident (that knocked out power to the city)
Craig Westberg (District Attorney) Caused an Accident - 3 DWIs
Ben Harbin (State Representative) Caused an Accident
Chris Healy (Conn. Republican Party Chairman) 2 DWIs
Trish Groe (State Representative)
Scott Boggio (State Representative)
Jeffrey Kaelin (State Representative) Caused an accident
David Law (State Representative)
Kevin Brady (Congressman)
David Graves (State Representative)
Livvy Floren (State Representative)
Lee Constantine (State Senator)
Joe Thompson (State Representative)charged with drunken driving hours after attending a bill-signing ceremony to highlight the state's newest effort to crack down on DWI offenders. (The irony... It Burns!)
Lana Oleen (Senator)
Edward Pugh (State Senator)
Louis Blessing (State Senator)
Tom Burcham (Representative) 2 DWIs
Johnny Nugent (State Senator)

OK... So lets break that down a little.
This equals 30 DWI offenses by Republican Representatives. Now I am going to be a bit liberal with some numbers.
I am going to add all (not just Republicans) of our state and federal law makers up into one number...
As we all know we have 435 members of Congress and 100 Senators. We will add to that the number of state House of Representatives and Senates which is 7381, giving us a total of 7916 Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, etc... lawmakers. To that we will add the number of mayors in the united states. 8,291. giving us a total of 16,207.

So with those numbers let's look at the percentages: 0.3% of our total population of our lawmakers where the Republicans have committed a DWI offense.

You are 2,142 times more likely to be killed by an elected Republican than someone carrying a CCW.

What do you think the number would look like if I added in the all of the offenses by all of our lawmakers?

We have got to fucking ban Republicans. They are a ticking time bomb. One thing is for sure, they can party.

Here are more fun facts... 1 in every 139 drivers or .71% have been arrested for DWI. So you are more than 5,000 times more likely to be killed by just the general drunk public than a drunk CCW'er.

[paulsby]

64. ah, the strawman emerges

statistics say and smart gungeoners mention that CCW'ers are amongst the most law abiding demographics.

NOBODY said that CCW'ers never commit crime.

and god knows DUI's (i've arrested a few hundred DUI's myself) are pretty equal opportunity- white, black, old, young, married, single, male, female, i've seen em all.

and yes, i've arrested CCW'ers for DUI.

i also arrested a 60 yr old woman for DUI not too long ago

60 yr old women are another demographic that is not particularly crime prone.

this woman's arrest doesn't change that.