I work in a field where violence is part of daily life. At the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, my day will typically start with a run through the national headlines, where one can readily find gory details about the 30,000+ gun deaths that occur each year in the United States. If that doesn’t sufficiently dampen my spirit, I can easily scroll to the comment threads of these articles and see pro-gun activists minimize this loss of life and argue for even weaker gun laws.
It can be depressing—and also intimidating. Recently, I spoke to gun violence prevention activists in Virginia who were preparing to support their mayor at a city council meeting. You see, this mayor had the temerity to join a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns and that outraged the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), who believe there should be no regulations concerning gun ownership. One other thing about VCDL: their members pack heat 24/7, including at city council meetings. Several well-meaning individuals concerned about gun violence felt compelled to stay home that evening after considering the prospect of facing 60 some-odd armed men at the meeting.
I really can’t blame them. I’m not scared of these guys myself (I’ve been around them long enough to think of them more as weird uncles, or the like), but what am I supposed to tell the mother of two young children who’s trying to be supportive and do the right thing? “Don’t worry about that guy with the Glock 40 and ‘Guns Save Lives’ decal on his jacket”? That would be a tough pitch even for Ricardo Montalban.
If one person can inspire the courage necessary to face such situations, however, it is Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I find myself repeatedly going back to a passage in his autobiography that is striking—and absolutely inspiring.
As we all know, Dr. King faced constant threats to his life during his time as a prominent civil rights leader in America, and was eventually felled by an assassin’s bullet in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1968. During his life, he wrestled often with the question of whether or not to carry a gun for self-defense. After his house and the house of a friend were bombed in 1956, Dr. King wrote the following:
After the bombings, many of the officers of my church and other trusted friends urged me to hire a bodyguard and armed watchmen for my house. When my father came to town, he concurred with both of these suggestions. I tried to tell them that I had no fears now and consequently needed no weapons for protection. This they would not hear. They insisted that I protect the house and family, even if I didn’t want to protect myself. In order to satisfy the wishes of these close friends and associates, I decided to consider the question of an armed guard. I went down to the sheriff’s office and applied for a license to carry a gun in the car; but this was refused.
Meanwhile I reconsidered. How could I serve as one of the leaders of a nonviolent movement and at the same time use weapons of violence for my personal protection? Coretta and I talked the matter over for several days and finally agreed that arms were no solution. We decided then to get rid of the one weapon we owned. We tried to satisfy our friends by having floodlights mounted around the house, and hiring unarmed watchmen around the clock. I also promised that I would not travel around the city alone.
I was much more afraid in Montgomery when I had a gun in my house. When I decided that I couldn’t keep a gun, I came face-to-face with the question of death and I dealt with it. From that point on, I no longer needed a gun nor have I been afraid. Had we become distracted by the question of my safety we would have lost the moral offensive and sunk to the level of our oppressors.
I think of these words often. Here was a man who had a wife and four young children, a man whose house had been bombed, a man whose phone rang incessantly with death threats (in a pre-caller ID era)—and yet King decided to disarm himself and his bodyguards. Furthermore, he felt safer after doing so.
Why? Did Dr. King realize that a man who arms himself and see his neighbors as potential enemies is more likely to find the trouble he is seeking to avoid? Or is the secret to King’s sense of peace that, in his own way, he was armed? “Nonviolence is a powerful and just weapon,” he wrote, “which cuts without wounding and ennobles the man who wields it. It is a sword that heals.”
Thinking of Dr. King’s example, I would feel shame to ever cower in the face of intimidation or frustration in seeking justice. And seeing how he continues to inspire generations that were born after he left this earth, I am more confident than ever that King’s peaceful path is the powerful and just weapon he described.
Ladd, thank you for writing this. As a mother of 2 small children with a 3rd on the way, I am now more than ever against guns or other weapons in my home. I wish that I knew that these weapons were not in homes at all.
My father has quoted and read to us from the many letters and speeches of Dr. King since I was a small child. His Letter from a Birmingham Jail was quoted regularly, with long passages recited after dinner. The commitment to purposeful non-violence exhibited by him is astounding. I was happy to be reminded by you how committed we need to be to end gun violence and to be reminded in such an eloquent and powerful way.
I am going to follow this blog now. I need to be reminded more often!
It is better to die standing up to injustice then on your knees and believe me you would think differently if you had to watch each of your children shot in front of you.
Thanks, Ladd, for this powerful reminder that peace is so much more than a word – it is a way of life we need to strive for.
How do we reconcile the fact that gun prohibition would be enforced by violence or the threat of violence?
“Own a gun and men with bigger guns will come and take you to a violent place (jail)”.
So basically everyone should be defenseless and allow criminals to do as they please? We should allow our children to be raped and killed and allow ourselves to be robbed and killed? Does a father not have a duty to protect his wife and children? Does a mother not have the duty to defend her children?
Sure you may feel safer without a gun, but there’s a difference between feeling and actually being safe. Guns are tools, neither good nor evil. If someone took a car and mowed down a crowd of people, you wouldn’t call cars evil and try to ban them would you? It all depends on whose hands they are in. It is unfortunate that “bad guys” have guns, but the sad news is that people have been killing long before guns existed and they will kill with any tool they can find, including their bare hands. The beautify of guns is that they are the great equalizer of mankind. What other way can a person in a wheel chair or an elderly person defend themselves? Run? You see, guns put a stop to the whole strong preying on the weak trend. A 90 lb girl can defend herself with a gun against a 250 lb 6’4″ rapist. My point is that a gun can save your life and if you are armed, then you don’t have to be a victim and neither does your family.
I know there’s the whole “fear factor” caused by the media, but I assure you that guns are not “magical tools of death”. Most modern firearms have safeties, some with even a secondary safety. Without the safety off, a gun cannot fire. If you do not have a round chambered, but the gun loaded, it still cannot fire. Even when the safety is off and a round is chambered, it’s almost impossible to cause the firearm to discharge without pulling the trigger, which is often stiff and can only be pulled deliberately.
Finally let me add about the whole concealed carry issue that everyone has a right to life as specified in our constitution. This is also a universal law. Since we have a right to life, we have a right to defend it against all who wish to take it. Criminals will carry firearms regardless of the law–so why shouldn’t law abiding citizens as well to defend themselves and others? The firearms cannot discharge in their holster and I can prove this if need be.
I assure you that you had nothing to fear from those who were packing heat—concealed carry licensees are 5x less likely to commit a crime than you and if anything, you should feel safer being around them. If someone came into that meeting wishing to do harm, who would stop them?
I agree that we should promote a peaceful lifestyle, but lets be honest. Gun ownership for the purpose of protection actually discourages violence more than it encourages it. Think about it…in areas where guns laws are more lenient and concealed carry has been allowed, we’ve seen a decline in violent crime. I believe Texas and Florida are states were stats can readily be found. In countries and states were more restrictive gun laws have been enforced, we’ve seen a huge increase in violent crime, including homicide, rapes, assaults, armed robberies etc. (See the UK and Australia as recent examples) Not fighting back may encourage MORE violence as the attacker may reason he/she can do more without risk of death or injury, and maybe come back in the future knowing there will be no resistance. A man in the UK was robbed and attacked six times before fighting back, and for doing so, he is now in prison while his is using state funds to sue him for defending himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)#Compensation_claim).
Dr. King was a great man, and we can learn alot from his words and example. He was greatly loved, and for this reason was able to “deal with the question of death face-to-face.” I’m sure Dr. King knew that if he died, his family would be well taken care of…If I die, who knows what will happen to my wife and children… He was able to accept the question of death, but I am not ready for that, nor am I willing to let my wife be a victim. If you are, that’s fine…but why should your decision or readiness be OK for me? You can still be gun free AND not be effected by decision.
What always baffles me when it comes to this debate is the focus on stopping “gun violence” and not stopping violence. I was under the impression that killing and/or shooting someone was already illegal, yet we make more laws to make it MORE illegal? Drunk driving is illegal, should we make it more illegal by banning Alcohol? Or maybe we should have a more “common sense” alcohol laws, and only ban people with alcohol related offenses from buying it. Drunk Driving kills about 15,000 people a year, which is about the same as the “gun-related” homicide rate (the 30,000 gun death a year includes suicides…and believe me, someone who is determined enough to use a gun, won’t stop because he/she doesn’t have one…hanging is also more lethal, and you can’t ban rope).
Lastly, I don’t “See my neighbors as potential threats” anymore than you see other motorists as potential drunk drivers. People who go to city hall meetings shouldn’t be afraid of the “gun-totting” citizens there, either. Just because someone puts on their seatbelt doesn’t mean they will all of a sudden drive more recklessly. I never have understood how opponents of gun rights fear that as soon as a person becomes a gun owner, they “all of a sudden” are more prone to “snapping and killing someone” over a simple misunderstanding, or simply see them as a “weird uncle.”
If violence could be stopped without guns, why should we allow our police to carry them? I carry a gun because a police officer is to heavy.
Do some research, be a critical thinker…look at both sides of the issue and look for bias, faulty research methods, or skewed data. That’s what I did a long time ago, and why I support gun rights.
I agree with “Colman McCarthy’s student.” If you’re against violence, how can you justify government enforcement of gun control laws, which involves aggression against non-violent people?
“Weak” gun laws are not incompatible with low crime, including a low murder rate. For an example, look at Vermont, where people can carry guns openly or concealed without a permit. It is generally ranked as one of the 5 safest states in the nation.
Nonviolence is a noble method. There is a problem however, by using this method, one becomes reliant on the good-will of others. While this can be effective to sway 98% of the population, there is a small percentage of humans who simply do not grasp the evil of inflicting senseless violence on others.
In practical terms, there must be some way to protect the innocent from that small percentage of evildoers.
I am proud of the fact that people can solve problems without resorting to violence. I fully support your choice to use this philosphy. I choose to live a different way. I desire to be able to stop attacks against the innocent. I firmly believe that, sometimes, the only way to stop an attack is to use force. This is certainly not the prefered solution, but sometimes it is the only one which will work. I simply ask that you respect my decision, and leave me to choose the best defensive options.
One of my friends was murdered by an active shooter. I earnestly wish the whole situation had never happened, and that everyone involved could have been spared that pain. I firmly believe that once the man started murdering people, the only way he could have been stopped would have been to use or threaten to use force. Perhaps the use of force is not righteous, but sometimes it is the alternative with the least negative consequences.
Most people I know who carry guns do not want to ever have to use them. They believe that it is better to protect and defend, even if it means injuring the attacker, than to sit back and let harm come to them, those they love, or other innocent people. Are those the kind of people you really need to be waging a political war against?
Just a couple quick thoughts. Those of you advocating for carrying weapons, how do you deal with the recent study by the University of Pennsylvania that “found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.” Here is a link to an article to read more: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html.
That’s not exactly great evidence for the benefits of having a gun.
Also, when you really dig in to nonviolence you come across amazing stories of people getting out of violent situations without resorting to violence. To name just a couple, remember the story of Brian Nichols? He was the guy who went on a killing spree at the courthouse in Atlanta. When he went on the run, he ended up at a woman’s apartment. She told him about her faith as a Christian, ended up building a rapport with him, and even cooked him a meal. Then he turned himself in. She was able to nonviolently defuse a very dangerous situation with a man who had just killed three people. If she had had a gun or reacting violently in some other way, what do you think would have happened? Most likely she would have been killed. Clearly, it couldn’t have turned out better than the way she handled it. Here is his story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Nichols.
And here is another story, that shows a different way of handling a situation with a guy with a gun: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071202356.html
It’s really incredible. Please give it a read. And these folks clearly weren’t trained in nonviolence. They just handled it the way that came naturally. Now imagine if we all were actually trained in how to nonviolently defuse situations like this.
These are just two stories off the top of my head. But there clearly are alternatives to violence that work.
TELL IT TO THE HUTUS IN RWANADA…
Yes, you find a few stories where it worked out, and a lot of stories where someone chose the ‘non-violent’ option and lost their life.
Firearms prevent between 1.5 MILLION and 2.5 MILLION crimes a year. The non-violent option prevents considerably fewer. My friend, you place far too much faith in the assailant, and that’s a gamble. If that’s a gamble you’re willing to take, by all means, do so. And I hope that, should you ever be confronted with a violent individual looking to perpetrate violent acts upon your person or your loved ones, I hope and pray that you survive. But it’s not a gamble I’m willing to take.
Where do you get your stats of crime preventions? Please see the study in my comment about how owning a gun makes it more likely that you will be shot, not less so.
And Ladd’s evidence of gun violence in the US compared to countries where there are fewer guns and stricter laws is hard to refute.
Austin is referring to Gary Kleck’s study that estimated that there are 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the United States. The problem with that study is that it was based on a very small sample done done through a phone survey. Similar phone surveys have found the same % of Americans saying they have been contacted by aliens.
DOJ studies have found a small lower # of defensive gun uses per year, 80,000. And DOJ made no value judgment whatsoever on whether those uses were appropriate or justified.
yes but the study that Eric Stoner is refering to is not a study of Conceal Carry Liscense holders, but of victims who were carrying guns (not legally carrying guns), a majority of these victims were known gang members or had gang or drug related ties, which as it so happens put them in dangerous situations
Mr Everitt,
So according to you, 30,000 lives are lost via guns each year (including suicides) and the DOJ recognizes “only” 80,000 uses of guns in a defensive situation.
That looks to me like a net positive of 50,000 lives potentially saved each year. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if you actually cared about saving lives you would be for gun use by law-abiding citizens?
More Americans are affected than the 30,000 killed by gun violence each year. For starters, approximately 70,000 Americans are injured by shootings every year. And there are more than 600,000 criminal offenses involving guns in the U.S. each year.
Additionally, the positive value you are attributing to the 80,000 defensive gun uses per year reported by the DOJ is your own judgment. DOJ never makes any such judgment on whether these gun uses were appropriate or not.
Go to the following web site and then come back and tell us that these people should not have used guns to protect themselves. These are not statistics, they are actual accounts of people using firearms for defense.
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Thanks to everyone for your wonderful comments. There’s a great dialogue going on here.
Colman McCarthy’s Student, regarding your question, “How do we reconcile the fact that gun prohibition would be enforced by violence or the threat of violence?”
A few thoughts there. For starters, no one’s talking about gun prohibition. What is being discussed, and what is desperately needed here in the U.S., are tougher regulations to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons, terrorists, domestic abusers, and other dangerous individuals. Or, as Dr. King noted in his autobiography, “By our readiness to allow arms to be purchased at will and fired at whim…we have created an atmosphere in which violence and hatred have become popular pastimes.”
Secondly, every single law in our society is enforced by coercion, or more simply put, the threat of punishment. Let’s keep in mind here that Professor McCarthy is an anarchist. He does not believe in having a government, and therefore, he does not believe in having laws. That means not only no laws concerning firearms, but also no laws against theft, murder, rape, etc., etc.
It’s funny you’d bring Professor Colman up, though, because my next entry on this blog will focus on whether peace can be achieved through anarchy.
ENFORCE THE CURRENT LAWS, STOP PLEA BARGAINS
Ladd,
MAIG claim to want to “close the terror gap” (see http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/federal/closing_gun_gap.shtml ) and I’m guessing you agree based on your inclusion of “terrorists” in your list of people we should prohibit from possessing firearms. I certainly don’t want terrorists to possess firearms either, but the problem is that the FBI’s no-fly list is a HORRENDOUS vehicle to accomplish that goal. It would lead to the infringement of the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms of many thousands of innocent Americans without due process. The list is bloated, out-dated, and riddled with errors. I’ll let the ACLU make the rest of that argument: http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus If you want to come up with a focused, workable mechanism to keep guns out of the hands of bad guys without infringing on the rights of the innocent, I’m sure you’ll have boatloads of support. MAIG hasn’t yet done that.
Brent, I’m not sure what legislation to prevent those on the FBI’s Terror Watch List from buying guns has to do with this blog. Nonetheless, that legislation does have a review mechanism to correct errors that might be made in adding individuals to the list mistakenly. Specifically, under the legislation, all decisions by DOJ to block individuals on the Terror Watch List from buying guns would be subject to judicial review. The bill lays out this review process in detail.
Ladd,
I thought the connection was fairly straight-forward, but I guess I’d better explain it:
You said you “spoke to gun violence prevention activists in Virginia who were preparing to support their mayor at a city council meeting.” The mayor was under fire for being a member of MAIG. As noted, MAIG supports “closing the terror gap”. My initial comment was in response to your comment which said, “What is being discussed … are tougher regulations to keep guns out of the hands of … terrorists, …”
While the initial blog topic may have only tangentially related to adding the names on the Terrorist Watch List to the list of prohibited persons, your subsequent post, to which I was replying, specifically said it was “being discussed.”
As for the legislation, I haven’t read the specifics, but I trust that you consider the Brady Campaign a legitimate source of information. http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/terrorgap says that the “Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act” would “implement due process safeguards so an affected person would have an opportunity to challenge a denial by the AG.”
The problem I have with that is that it turns my (and I think the ACLU’s) understanding of “due process” on its head. See, here in American you’re supposed to be “innocent until proven guilty” and only lose your rights AFTER you’ve gone to court and been convicted. This bill would take your rights away on whims and suspicions and then generously grant you the opportunity to go to court to try to win them back again. That’s bass ackwards of how things are supposed to work in this allegedly free country.
Actually, Ladd, the only such bill, written by Lautenberg, does not really allow for much ‘review’ for adding individuals by mistake. It also does not allow people accused of being terrorists to confront their accusers or the charges against them, requiring basically that they prove they’re not doing something they’re not aware they’re being accused of.
Considering the rarity of a terrorist getting a firearm, that’s not an exchange anyone should be willing to make. Of 75 MILLION firearms purchases, less than 800 were by people who were then, or would later be, part of any terrorist act, organization, or group. It is, as of RIGHT NOW, illegal to sell firearms or explosives to any terrorist or terrorist organization, as well as felons and people convicted of certain misdemeanors. So, the law would have no effect other than to give a frightenening amount of power to the Attorney General to place people on the terrorist watch list without reason and without recourse for removal from said list.
Actually Austin, the Lautenberg bill requires judicial review anytime DOJ blocks a sale to an individual on the FBI’s Terror Watch List. The process is quite well defined in the legislation. Additionally, the FBI has removed many individuals from the list over the last few years who were added mistakenly (or who were accidentally tagged because of a similar name to someone on the list). Finally, as a blog we published at our website indicates, it is disturbingly easy for terrorists in this country to get guns given that the majority of states currently have very weak gun laws:
http://csgv2.blogspot.com/2009/10/tale-of-two-terrorists.html
@Ladd
After about two years of litigation and nonstop complaints people are able to get off the list.
Of course they work very efficiently if you are a legislator on the list.
Ladd,
Once you’ve managed to convince the ACLU that the list is a lean and efficient tool for fighting terrorism, and that it’s not unnecessarily scooping up innocent Americans in its wide net, and that it’s a smooth and painless process to get yourself removed from the list if you’re mistakenly added, then maybe we could begin talking about using it for something like this. Right now, you guys aren’t anywhere near that point though:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/fact-sheet-federal-watch-lists
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/coalition-wins-challenge-watch-list-policy
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-letter-senate-expressing-strong-opposition-%E2%80%9Cterrorist-surveillance-act-2006%E2%80%9D-
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-backgrounder-aviation-watch-lists
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-calls-stricter-oversight-terrorist-watch-lists
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/terrorist-watch-list-attacked-size-ineffectiveness-house-committee-grills-governme
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/terror-watch-list-counter-million-plus
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-skeptical-about-latest-dhs-watch-list-band-aid
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-mark-one-millionth-addition-tsa-terrorist-watch-list
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/terrorist-watch-list-hits-one-million-names
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/aclu-calls-probe-secretary-chertoff%E2%80%99s-use-terrorist-watch-list
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/fuzzy-math-fuzzier-list
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/department-homeland-security-inspector-general-report-underscores-flaws-syste
Well, you gentlemen are entitled to your views, but you represent only a very small minority of American opinion.
A national poll conducted in 2008 found that 89% of Americans favor prohibiting people on the Terrorist Watch List from
purchasing guns (including 89% of gun owners). Only 7% of Americans opposed this reform.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/polling_memo.pdf
Ladd, I think it’s hilarious and demonstrative that you state that “no one is talking about gun prohibition”.
See the following:
Our goal is to not allow anybody to buy a handgun. In the meantime, we think there ought to be strict licensing and regulation. Ultimately, that may mean it would require court approval to buy a handgun.
Michael K. Beard
The best way to prevent gun violence is to ban handguns.
Michael K. Beard
Letters to the Editor, Wall Street Journal.
It is our aim to ban the manufacture and sale of handguns to private individuals . . . the coalition’s emphasis is to keep handguns out of private possession — where they do the most harm.
Recruiting flyer, “The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence”
The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of most handguns and assault weapons from the United States. CSGV seeks to ban handguns and assault weapons from importation, manufacture, sale, transfer, ownership, posession and use by the general, American public. Reasonable exceptions would be made for the police, military, security officers, and gun clubs where the guns are secured on the club’s premises. Gun dealers would also be permitted to trade in antique and collectable weapons kept and sold in inoperable condition. Hunting weapons, such as shotguns and rifles would un affected by these bans,as those weapons do not pose a large threat to the American public in comparason to handguns and assault weapons.
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Recruiting flyer (spelling errors intentionally left in)
We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal. — Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc., New Yorker Magazine, June 26, 1976, pg. 53
And my personal favorite: “I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.” – Barrack Hussein Obama
At least be honest.
Honesty is a two-way street. Those quotes (assuming they are indeed legitimate, as several are not properly sourced) are over 25 years old in all cases. I noticed you did not provide any dates for the quotes you attributed to our organization.
Is is public knowledge that our organization’s name was the National Coalition to Ban Handguns up until the late 80s, and that we advocated for a national ban on handguns, with several exceptions (which you refer to above).
But that is not something we have advocated for in the last 20 years. And with the D.C. v. Heller decision by the Supreme Court, handgun bans are not even on the table as a policy option anymore.
All that said, just about every other industrialized democracy in the world has passed very tight restrictions on handguns without banning firearms altogether. The “all or nothing” scenario typically presented by the gun lobby (to avoid substantive discussion about policy) is a false choice.
Mr. Everitt,
Please expand on this quote if you would:
“Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence urged tighter gun control laws and insisted that “the government must have a monopoly on force” to maintain domestic security.
Thank you.
Sure. Our organization’s rejection of the gun lobby’s insurrectionist interpretation of the Second Amendment is detailed in our briefs in the McDonald v. Chicago and D.C. v. Heller cases:
http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/ed%20fund%20amicus%20brief%20mcdonald%20v.%20chicago.pdf
http://www.csgv.org/storage/documents/EFSGV%20Heller%20Brief.pdf
As for the Barack Obama quote you mentioned, the only “source” for that quote is the word of John Lott, a right-wing activist who has criticized the president on a range of issues going far beyond gun control:
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/
Lott was also caught impersonating a female college student on Amazon to praise his published work:
http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/August-2006/The-Shootout/
Regarding Britain and Australia, the U.S. would be absolutely blessed if our gun death rate (and overall murder rate) was as low as theirs. Here are stats from 2004, with per capita rates in parentheses:
Total # of Homicides in 2004: Australia 305 (1.52), England & Wales 853 (1.61), USA 16,148 (5.50)
Total # of Gun Homicides in 2004: Australia 53 (0.26), England & Wales 68 (0.13), USA 11,624 (3.96).
Total # of Gun Deaths in 2004: Australia 289 (1.44), England & Wales 191 (0.36), USA 29,569 (10.07).
The U.S. is conspicuous in that we have more guns, weaker gun laws, higher homicide rates, and astronomically higher gun death rates than any other industrialized democracy on the face of the earth.
Regarding the 50 states inside the U.S., Vermont had the 34th highest gun death rate per capita in 2006, the most recent year for which CDC data is available. Here are the rankings for the 50 states, highest gun death rate per capita to lowest:
LA, AL, MS, AK, NV, AR, WY, TN, AR, NW, SC, WV, OK, MO, NC, MT, KY, ID, GA, MD, IN, FL, MI, PA, KS, VA, CO, OR, TX, SD, OH, CA, DE, UT, WA, IL, NE, ME, WI, ND, IA, MN, NH, NJ, NY, CT, RI, MA, HI
What you see in that list is that states with very weak gun laws have the highest rates of gun death per capita. The bottom five states with the lowest rates are notable in that they have some of the toughest gun laws in the country.
SO WHAT…AMERICANS HAVE RIGHTS PROVIDED BY GOD..WE ARE NOT SUBJECTS OF THE GOVERNEMENT. YOU MAY LIKE TO BE SAFE IN A CAGE BUT I WILL CHOOSE TO SELF DETERMINATION WITHOUT GOVERNEMNT PERMISSION
Regarding the comments from John and Matt about respecting your right to carry a gun in public, I think there is a fundamental flaw in that thinking. When you arm yourself in your home, you are making a personal decision that primarily affects your own safety and the safety of your family (although if you store that gun insecurely it could certainly end up being used to do harm outside your home).
When you carry a gun in public and make unilateral decisions on when to use lethal force, however, you are making decisions that affect the safety of everyone around you.
I certainly do not want concealed handgun permit holders opening fire around me or my family under any circumstances (particularly given the lack of screening and training requirements for these individuals). I did not ask for your protection and do not seek it. I am content to let law enforcement do the job that they are paid to do, in part by my tax dollars.
It is also good to heed the words of Dr. King on this subject. In a speech titled “Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom,” he stated that, “Violence, even in self-defense, creates more problems than it solves. Only a refusal to hate or kill can put an end to the chain of violence in the world and lead us toward a community where men can live together without fear. Our goal is to create a beloved community and this will require a qualitative change in our souls as well as a quantitative change in our lives.”
Amen.
Thank you for the response Ladd.
I was wondering what CSGV’s stance is on the current drug war given that much of the violence we see in poor neighborhoods is often drug-related.
We don’t have a position on the drug war. As for gun violence in the U.S., it is certainly not majority drug-related or restricted to poor neighborhoods. For homicide, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports give some interesting data on the Relationships and Circumstances surrounding murders.
YOU SIR ARE AN IDIOT. HAVING SURVIDED VIOLENT ASSAULTS AGAINST MYSELF AND FAMILY IN A PUBLIC PLACE THANK GOD I WAS ARMED. AS A POLICE OFFICER I HAVE ALSO CALLED ON ARMED CITIZENS TO ASSIT WITH APPREHENSION OF VIOLENT SUBJECTS. POLICE ARE NOT YOUR PRIVATE SECURITY, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN IN PROTECTIGN YOUR FAMILY. POLICE ARE GREAT AT FIGURING OUT WHO KILLED YOU NOT SAVING YOYUR BUTT.
What happens when there are no cheeks left to turn, Ladd?
What a douche Ladd. You wont even protect your family in public…. The police are not paid to protect you dumbass. They are paid to investigate and deter crime not prevent violence. A gun saved Zimmerman’s life. What would you do if some 6’3″ man (I use the term man because he could be fighting in Afghanistan right now) was using your head for a basketball? Good job on lying your ass off to support your own opinion.
The study done in Philadelphia was poorly executed. It is a great comparison of apples to spacecraft. If you look at the methods, their “control” group was vastly different than the “variable” group. They compared those who were shot to those who were not. It completely neglected facts like whether the person shot was a drug dealer actively engaged in crime and the person not shot was sleeping at home. They then performed a direct comparison…who is more likely to get shot, do you think? The unarmed person sleeping at home, or the illegally armed person in the act of committing a crime?
Ladd,
Law enforcement is under no duty to protect any citizen. Their duty is to investigate crime, and attempt to apprehend criminals.
A citizen’s decision to use force (at whatever level) is their choice, but it must conform to legally established rules. This is not a “wild west” fantasy. The decision to arm one’s self is still primarily a personal consideration. It can benefit third parties, but is generally aimed at self-defense. The act of carrying a weapon gives no one more latitude to act. They are governed by the same laws as those who choose not to be armed.
While you may not desire to be defended, the majority of the population would. Personally, I view refusing to aid someone in distress to be wrong. In my view, helping others is a moral (but not legal) duty.
Dr. King’s advice is spot on, for the circumstance he faced. Using violence against a member of a hostile majority group would be detrimental to securing guarantees of your own rights from that group.
Dr. King also stated, “Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration”
Defending one’s self with necessary force is a human right. It may not be politically sound to do so as part of a mass movement. If you think the sacrifice is worth it, go ahead. It was a brilliant tactic for the Civil Rights Movement.
Dr. King, Ghandi, and the Dalai Lama agree(d) that violence may be used to protect. It should always be used as a last resort, and only to a minimum level. The use of violence is governed by law, and vigilantism should not be tolerated. Self-defense is a human right, even if it may not always be politically sound in advancing a cause.
Mr. Stoner,
Fortunately for the residents of both nations, the UK and Australia have had lower rates of violent crime than the US for many decades. This is not the result of attempts at weapons control, but a cultural issue. The factors in this cultural gap include ethnicity distribution and mixing, poverty levels, economic disparity within regions, justice systems, education levels, cultural norms, population density, weapons availabilty and the cultural norms associated with weapons and violence. It is a highly complicated issue that studies have only begun to shed light upon.
What the US faces is much more than a simple “gun problem” but a cultural violence problem.
I don’t advocate violence or weapons as a solution. They should only be used as a last resort to lessen the evil occuring. Violence is a fallback measure, the least evil in a situation with only worse alternatives.
I often use somewhat utilitarian ethics. In my view, it would be acceptible to kill someone trying to murder others, if no other solutions were available. If you feel differently, please let me know how you came to that conclusion.
I do feel differently. And having studied cases of nonviolent resistance of all sorts over the last several years, I only have come to believe more strongly in the power and effectiveness of nonviolence. One place where you might want to look is a book called “On Killing,” by Dave Grossman, who was an Army Ranger and taught psychology at West Point. He concludes after much research and talking to many veterans who killed in war, that the most important reasons why people kill are 1) to protect their comrades and 2) to protect themselves. Therefore, the use of nonviolent tactics takes away the two primary justifications that people use to kill. That is not to say that nonviolence will always work. There is no magic bullet. People will suffer and will die during nonviolent resistance. But violence clearly regularly fails as well. Even looking at it from a utilitarian perspective, I believe that far more people are going to die using violence than nonviolent methods.
And around the world people have successfully used nonviolent methods, like the kind we chronicle here on this site, to resist dictators and repressive regimes that were extremely brutal and didn’t think twice about killing thousands of their citizens. Those who think violence is the ultimate form of power have to contend with this amazing history of nonviolence winning the day in so many scenarios.
Well said Eric, and certainly Dr. King and the civil rights movement is an unbelievably inspiring example of nonviolence prevailing over violence. At the core of it, though, I think Dr. King embraced nonviolence on principle, because his heart told him it was right, and because, as he said, he knew he would be no better than his oppressors if he emulated behavior which he found abhorrent.
Eric, you have taken something applying to one group and applied it to another. His work ‘On Killing’ was written about soldiers, not about criminals. Criminals do not act as soldiers do, nor follow the same belief system, and as such, your argument is lacking. Also, as much as I respect Lt. Col. Grossman, USArmy Retired, the premise of his book is hardly based on hard statistic. He suggests, for example, that the vast majority of soldiers in WWII did not fire at the enemy, even though the data on that is very unreliable at best.
Actually his book is about the psychology of killing, hence the title. He looks at what factors make it easier or harder to kill, and that would apply across the board, not just in war.
And the studies that he used about WWII were studies that were done by the military itself, and are widely cited. For the study they talked with thousands of soldiers coming off the front lines about their experiences. And as a result of the study the military greatly changed the way they train soldiers to get their kill rates up, which they have effectively been able to do. Apart from disagreeing with it, or being surprised by it, do you have any concrete reason for calling it “very unreliable at best”?
Eric,
It’s cited as “unreliable at best” due to the fact that any such statistic or data would have to be based on eyewitness accounts.
If you know anything about the court system, you would remember that there have been instances in which eyewitness accounts have been used to convict innocent men.
What other way would you use to actually “quantify” who shoots and who doesn’t in a hectic battlefield scenario?
I have read On Killing. It is a quite interesting psychological examination of the processes involved.
What happens when on the recieving end of someone trying to kill you or a comrade/loved one? Obviously, the “payoff,” as Grossman would call it, of ending the threat is substantial.
Defense against a brutal government is different than against someone actively trying to kill you. Governments tend to care about their reputations (in some form or other). Killers (within that small percentage of the population who do not feel remorse for killing) generally do not have the same concerns.
In the grand scheme of things, especially when considering political reforms, nonviolence is a much better method to solving most problems. Nonviolence retains the “moral high ground” and exposes the abuses of the offending party. That’s a great thing to influence opinion.
At the individual level, things may not work the same way.
What do you feel is the correct response to someone actively engaged in murder? What process do you use to come to this conclusion?
John, a few comments & questions regarding your post:
Comments:
1) The methodology used in the University of Pennsylvania study was hardly novel. The study’s controls actually followed a model that epidemiologists have historically used while analyzing public health issues such as smoking and drunk drinking. And the results of the study were hardly surprising, given that it is well-established that the United States has more guns, weaker gun laws, and astronomically higher rates of gun death than other industrialized democracies.
2) As for law enforcement, they absolutely have a duty to protect the public. What they don’t have a duty to do is take instructions from individual citizens on how to specifically allocate resources or officers. Put more simply, citizens cannot sue every time they are dissatisfied with a 911 call (thereby bankrupting law enforcement departments across the country and degrading public safety for all).
3) Regarding legally established rules for the use of lethal force, they are becoming progressively weaker over time. States with Castle Doctrine or Shoot First laws in most cases now allow individuals to use lethal force in public when they SUBJECTIVELY feel that their under threat of serious bodily injury. The key word is subjective, because decisions as to whether such shootings constitute crimes have now been taken out of the hands of juries that would traditionally OBJECTIVELY determine if the use of such force was appropriate. This is a very serious issue that has led to a great deal of unjustified violence in these states.
4) Your reading of Ghandi, King and the Dalai Lama is flawed. All three men have stated that violence, even in self-defense, degrades the human condition. Your attempt to minimize Dr. King’s support for nonviolence as a politically expedient tactic is also flawed. This was a man whose life, and whose family’s life, was being threatened on a daily basis. His decision to disarm himself and those around him was a deeply personal decision with real consequences for those he loved.
Questions:
1) What data do you have to support your assertion that a majority of Americans want to be defended by concealed handgun permit holders in public?
2) What is the source for your claim that Britain and Australia have lower rates of violent crime than the United States? Recent data from the British and Australian governments indicates something far different—that the rates of violent crimes in those countries is strikingly similar to what we see here in the U.S. The difference is that citizens in those countries are far more likely to walk away from crime scenes with their lives (i.e., their rates of overall homicide are lower).
“Put more simply, citizens cannot sue every time they are dissatisfied with a 911 call”
And by dissatisfied you mean raped and tortured for 14 hours?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
What’s really sick about the Warren v. DC case is that these women would have been thrown in prison for the simple malum prohibitum of owning a gun.
Well, one thing is now sure after that comment. While you might have been a student of Colman McCarthy’s at one time, you are certainly no adherent of his teachings.
Ladd!
I love that passive-aggressiveness!
(Questions)
1) I do not assert that. I assert that, when in distress, the majority of Americans would want someone to aid them. Whether this be from criminal attack or first aid after a car crash, I assert that people in need generally want help.
In the case of a violent attack, most would want help, be it a law enforcement officer, armed citizen, or unarmed citizen.
Concealed handgun permit holders are NOT supposed to be an auxiliary police force. They are simply supposed to act as reasonable people.
2) You are right. I did err in my claim. The UK and Australia have had a lower homicide rate. Total crime and violent crime is quite high in the UK. Interestingly, gun crime and knife crime rates have both dramatically increased in the UK (although some of that may be due to changes in reporting methods). Gun crime in the UK has dramatically increased after the handgun ban.
(Points)
1. Is it a good comparison for the conclusions drawn? People who were shot in Philadelphia during the studied time were more likely to have a gun than those not shot during the same period. OK, what conclusions do we draw, and how confident can we be?
Even commonly cited studies like the Kleck study or the Kellerman study contain certain error potentials and limitations.
2. LE has no duty to protect individuals. Warren vs. DC. and Castle Rock vs. Gonzales
I think this is rather intuitive, considering the distribution of LE officials and human limitations.
3. What standard would you suggest other than “reasonable fear of grevous bodily injury or death?”
4. All three made statements about defense.
The Dalai Lama stated “If someone is trying to kill you with a gun, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” He then went on to say it would be better to wound the attacker by shooting them in the leg or arm, rather than to try to kill them.
(Legally, any use of a firearm against another is lethal force. If the attacker can be stopped via non-lethal shots, great! If not, the normal legal standard remains the same.)
Gandhi stated
No doubt the non-violent way is alawys the best, but where that does not come naturally the violent way is both necessary and honourable. Inaction here is rank cowardice and unmanly. It must be shunned at all cost. (I-402)
>He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honour by non-violently facing death, may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden.
(I-77)
Clearly, Gandhi viewed non-violence as the higher form. What should one do when one cannot “protect himself or his nearest and dearest” by “non-violently facing death”?
You may choose to die rather than bring violence on your attacker. Does that nobility transfer to letting others die? (Does that change if they accept or resist being murdered?)
I cannot justify allowing violence to be done to my loved ones, when I have the ability to stop the attacker (even if violence is required). Would you justify this, and if so, how?
MLK (in Nonviolence: The Only Road to Freedom)
[the soldier] “is there because he believes that the freedom of his country is worth the risk of his life. The same is true of the nonviolent demonstrator. He sees the misery of his people so clearly that he volunteers to suffer in their behalf and put an end to their plight.”
Here, the idea of fighting back submits to the larger goal of peace and feedom. It is sacrifice for a larger purpose.
Apparently, I am missing the larger purpose of allowing suffering/death from a criminal attack. What is the goal/ideal here?
So you can provide no data (polling data or otherwise) to prove that a majority of Americans (or even a significant minority) want to be protected by concealed handgun permit holders. No such data, of course, exists.
You’re also factually wrong with your claims about gun crime in Britain. Gun crime in Britain is practically non-existent.
For the last year recorded, Britain only had 9,308 total firearm offenses OVERALL. The U.S. has more than 12,000 gun HOMICIDES alone in a given year, and more than 600,000 total firearm-related offenses annually.
As for your claim that overall violent crime is very high in Britain and Australia, what is your primary source for that claim?
NOTE: I am talking about rates, not total numbers. The crime rates are generally more telling than absolute numbers (especially considering population differences).
The Rate of UK gun crime has increased. Yes, it is lower than the US. The problem is, even with strict gun control, the rate is increasing.
The Rate of crime in the UK is quite high. Granted, the reporting standards are different than the US, and have changed recently.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6960431.stm
(Note the graph at the top)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html
(tries to score political points, but the data is interesting)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf
British BCS crime survey
CDC injury reports available here: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html
FBI UCR 2008: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/index.html
John, quite a few of the weblinks you provided confirm that Britain has virtually no gun crime compared to the U.S. (and the majority of Britain’s “gun crime” is with air guns).
Regarding violent crime rates, the data shows violent crime going down in Britain, not up. There was a 13% decrease in gun crime in Britain from 2005/06 to 2006/07, and only a small increase of 2% the following year according to the Home Office.
Finally, you provided a newspaper article that suggests a higher rate of violent crime in the U.K. as compared to the U.S., but it does not provide any sources for its data or explain how these different countries define “violent crime” in terms of determining these rates.
What we do know is that Britain has a homicide rate that is more than three times as low as the United States’. Guns certainly don’t causes crimes, but they do make them far more lethal.
P.S.
Thanks for a polite discussion!
Martin Luther King stated that, “Violence, even in self-defense, creates more problems than it solves…”
He was wrong.
Self-defense is a fundamental right, which is why Gun Right ARE Civil Rights.
Mr. Everitt,
There are several flaws in the logic of “let law enforcement do the job that they are paid to do, in part by my tax dollars,”
First, Law Enforcement do not and can not serve to protect you from criminals. The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) established this in Warren v. DC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Reading through this case you will see that Law Enforcement are not your personal protectors.
Second, you are assuming that a LE officer’s salary of ~$40K is worth it to him (her) to sacrifice his (her) life to save yours.
Third, on a personal note I would consider it strict cowardice to ask the LE officer to sacrifice his (her) life, when you are unwilling to sacrifice your own.
Your next statement also contains flaws: “When you carry a gun in public and make unilateral decisions on when to use lethal force, however, you are making decisions that affect the safety of everyone around you.”
The decisions on when you are allowed to use lethal force are very well defined, both legally and morally. For the legal part, there must be a threat of severe bodily harm to yourself or others in order to be able to use lethal force. IE someone else has violated your most basic right to life, and you are only protecting it.
If and when someone decides to act outside the definitions of legal lethal force, they are (and should be) committing crimes. Those crimes along with the use of a firearm, constitute felonies. These types of people are referred to as “criminals”, and do not abide by any laws by definition.
You are right about those decisions affecting the safety of everyone around you, however. Would you feel safer knowing there is a uniformed LE officer in your presence? How about an undercover LE? If the answer is yes to either, why would your feelings change if it is a law abiding citizen carrying concealed? In FACT, Concealed Carry holders have lower crime rates than the general population. It is a FACT that you have a greater chance of being shot by NYPD on accident, than being shot by any CCW holder either accidentally or intentionally.
In adding the VTech massacre to the discussion, what is more dangerous than allowing a disturbed shooter the chance to continue uncontested for 20 minutes of shooting, ammassing 37 victims? Imagine sitting in a classroom with someone walking around shooting people in the head. At the 1st sign of resistance (police were the only ones armed) he killed himself. According to the FBI, the “active shooter” profile is not ended by any force of the police, but rather by the shooter’s decision to end his own life.
Or perhaps the contrast of the New Life Church in Colorado, where an armed member of the congregation shot an killed a man intent on another active shooting spree (1K rounds of ammunition, rifle, and pistol). 2 died instead of hundreds. Lives were protected in a house of God by a regular Jane (Jeanne Assam) and her firearm.
Your quote of Dr. MLK Jr. might have been taken out of context: “Violence, even in self-defense, creates more problems than it solves.” As it is a quote, it is not an all accompasing fact, and may simply be an assertion against a societal issue. But if in the absence of self-defense, you are removed from your mortal coil, discussions and problems are now irrelevant.
All that is required for Evil to take over is for Good people to do nothing.
A correction on my 1st point:
It was not a SCOTUS decision, but a DC District Court of Appeals that had this to say: “Judge Hannon based his decision in No. 796 on “the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are
under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual
citizen.” See p. 4, infra. The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.”
http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf (Only copy of the appellate decision I could find)
John, I’ve actually read both the Warren v. District of Columbia and Castle Rock v. Gonzalez decisions, and neither decision indicates that the police do not have a duty to protect me, my family, and my fellow citizens.
The Warren decision’s primary conclusion was the following: “Dereliction in the performance of police duties may…be redressed only in the context of a public prosecution and not in a private suit for money damages … Although recognizing the obligation of public employees to perform their duties fully and adequately, the law properly does not permit that obligation to be enforced in a private suit for money damages.”
Why did Warren preclude civil lawsuits as a remedy for dissatisfaction with police services? The decision explained that as follows: “An enormous amount of public time and money would be consumed in litigation of private claims rather than in bettering the inadequate service which draws the complaints.”
That said, Warren made it clear that plenty of remedies remain available: “Public officials at all levels remain accountable to the public and the public maintains elaborate mechanisms to enforce its rights — both formally in the courts and less formally through internal disciplinary proceedings. In the case of the Metropolitan Police Department, officers are subject to criminal charges and a penalty of two years imprisonment for failure to arrest law breakers. D.C. Code 1973, § 4-143. Additionally, officers are answerable to their superiors and ultimately to the public through its representatives, for dereliction in their assigned duties. D.C. Code 1973, § 4-121.”
The Warren decision was reinforced 24 years later in the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Castle Rock v. Gonzalez. In that opinion, Justice Scalia ruled that state law did not entitle the holder of a restraining order to any specific mandatory action by the police. The restraining order in that case simply provided grounds for arresting the subject of the order. Justice Scalia ruled that the specific action to be taken in such a case should be left up to the discretion of the police. As Scalia stated, “Although the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 17 Stat. 13 (the original source of §1983), did not create a system by which police departments are generally held financially accountable for crimes that better policing might have prevented, the people of Colorado are free to craft such a system under state law. Cf. DeShaney, 489 U. S., at 203.”
Scalia also explained the importance of allowing police to exercise discretion in fulfilling their responsibilities: “The deep-rooted nature of law-enforcement discretion, even in the presence of seemingly mandatory legislative commands, is illustrated by Chicago v. Morales, 527 U. S. 41 (1999), which involved an ordinance that said a police officer “shall order” persons to disperse in certain circumstances, id., at 47, n. 2. This Court rejected out of hand the possibility that “the mandatory language of the ordinance…afford[ed] the police no discretion.” Id., at 62, n. 32. It is, the Court proclaimed, simply ‘common sense that all police officers must use some discretion in deciding when and where to enforce city ordinances.’ Ibid. (emphasis added).”
As with the Warren decision, Scalia emphasized the numerous remedies that remain available to Americans, including the ability of state legislators to craft legislation that allows civil lawsuits against the police. That such state laws are rare or nonsexist is telling, and confirms the judgment of Warren that such litigation would rapidly bankrupt law enforcement department to the detriment of all citizens.
John, regarding your comments about law enforcement officers, I found those somewhat offensive. Through my volunteer work, I’ve had the opportunity to do ride-alongs with my local law enforcement department and my opinion of their officers’ devotion to duty couldn’t be higher. I have witnessed officers doing work that is physically and emotionally demanding, and exhibiting zero hesitation to put themselves in situations that are directly threatening in order to help others.
Furthermore, your claims that “concealed carry holders have lower crime rates than the general population” and “you have a greater chance of being shot by NYPD on accident, than being shot by any CCW holder either accidentally or intentionally” are without a source. There has never been any comprehensive national study conducted about concealed carry permit holders. It would be impossible to do so – the NRA has enacted legislation in approximately 30 states that prohibits the public (including academics and researchers) from accessing even basic information about concealed carry permit holders (much less their arrest or conviction records).
What we do know is this. Law enforcement officers undergo psychiatric screening and extensive training before they serve the public. Concealed carry permit holders do not undergo either before getting their permits (no state requires more than a single day-class in training of permit holders; some states require no training at all). Law enforcement officers are also required to qualify multiple times per year with their sidearm to demonstrate proficiency. Concealed carry permit holders are not.
We also know that there have already been four confirmed MASS shootings by concealed carry permit holders in 2009: Michael McClendon in Alabama (11 murdered), Frank Garcia in upstate New York (four murdered), Richard Poplawski in Pittsburgh (killed 3 cops) and George Sodini in Pittsburgh (health club shooter who killed 3 women).
“LA Fitness Shooter Had Lethal Plan,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, August 6, 2009
“Shooter Prepared at Home, Leaves Hit List,” The Enterprise-Ledger, March 11, 2009
“Poplawski Bought Guns Through Shop in Wilkinsburg,” Pittsburgh-Post Gazette, April 7, 2009
“Slaying Suspect Denied Gun Permit 3 Times Before Getting 2007 OK,” Rochester Democrat and Chronicle, February 19, 2009
There likely have been more than that (including shooters like George Zinkhan), but those are the ones that have been confirmed to date.
The study was only of missouri so it is only a sample. You will have to scroll down to the section, “Can Citizens Use Guns Competently” about two thirds of the way down.
http://rkba.org/ccw/shall-issue.html
This article calls for consideration on who should be allowed to carry guns, I am in no way saying that police should not have guns.
I was raised in a community were firearm ownership is taboo. Commonly held that only police should have the guns. Well growing up in this area i came to discover that, largely, the only ones who had guns were the police and the criminals. And the criminals take advantage of this.
The police in almost all cases will be present after a deadly assault has taken place. In most assualt cases there is a rather distinct “disparity of force” between the attacker and the victim. This may stem from a physical strength and/or size advantage, a weapon the attacker posesses or if nothing else surprise and a determined mind set. The only tool that can make the odds more favorable for the attacked in a firearm and the training and knowledge of how to use it. It is an equalizer that make a well trained 5ft 100lb victim into a equal force of a 6ft 230lb attacker.
Police have this advantage and it is the most powerful and gravest tool a peace officer has. They also have training on how to resolve a crisis without the use of force, but the option if all others fail is there.
I believe that a trained citizen, not meeting criteria that would prevent them from owing or carrying a firearm (this is a whole discusion in and of itself), should be able to go armed for their private defense and for the common defense of others.
Although the idea of allowing citizens to go armed, in a concealed or open carry fashion, without first having the knowledge and training to use firearms competently is the main reason we may see our right to bear arms eroded. It is the duty of all armed citizens to get the training and have the knowledge needed before carrying in public. Statistcally irrelevant examples will always be sensationalized to the detetrement of responsible majority.
The law does hold those with conceal carry permits to a higher degree of responsiblity and rightfully so.
Conceal Carry Permits cannot be issued to anyone whose has any criminal convictions, so being able to view their criminal record would be a pointless violation of their rights.
That’s factually incorrect. Every “shall-issue” state in the country allows individuals with misdemeanor convictions to obtain concealed carry permits. Individuals who have previously been the subject of restraining orders, convicted of drunk driving, and treated for mental health illness can also obtain permits.
My mistake, i should have worded that as “felony” not criminal, that was defiantely my bad.
I have an inquiry as to whether or not you, Ladd Everitt, think a misdemeenor would make someone inelgible for a CCL or firearm ownership for that matter. But this is really another type of discussion entirely and probably not within the confines of the topic at hand.
Though on a federal level a restraining order prevents you from purchasing a firearm of any kind so even if you could get a concealed carry permit you would be unable to get a firearm to carry, and the same applies to those abjudicated as a mental defective
I am not sure about other states but there is langauge in Floridas conceal carry laws which prevent anyone who has a felony conviction, is committed to a mental hospital or has 2 drunk driving convictions (I would say that one would be enough for me to not want them having a CCL) there are other criteria you can see here
http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/Sec06.HTM
I would also like to thank you for this blog, most others i see end up being a shouting match (with whoever is the loudest and most stubborn winning) and less of a debate
Well, for restraining orders, let’s be clear. Only those who are ACTIVELY under such orders are prohibited from getting concealed carry permits in “shall-issue” states. You could have previously been under three, four orders, whatever, and still get a permit.
As for what I support, I support a “may-issue” policy. I believe that law enforcement should be able to review an applicant’s background in total and make a reasoned judgment as to whether they present a threat to public safety. One of the primary problems with the “shall-issue” system is that millions of disqualifying records (and 9 out of 10 disqualifying mental health records) are missing from the NICS database:
http://www.thirdway.org/data/product/file/86/Third_Way_Missing_Records_Report.pdf
So states that conduct actual background INVESTIGATIONS (in addition to computer checks) on applicants do a much better job of catching pertinent criminal and mental health history.
Thank you for your polite dialogue as well.
Restraing orders are a very broad criteria, they can issed for a number of reasons and require only the word of one person. Denying someone permenantly a priviledge (or a right) based upon a restraining order would be worse than denying them on the grounds that they were accused of a crime.
A restraining order does not even require the claim that a crime has been or will be committed. Many could very well be groundless. But they allow for a provision to prevent certain priviledges to those under restraining orders until it is resolved.
I don’t dispute that. Someone could have been under a restraining order for a disputed matter like you describe or for a very serious threat or act of violence.
My point is that a system that puts public safety first (and the safety of women, in particular, in this case) would allow law enforcement the discretion to review the circumstances associated with these orders and then make a decision about whether to issue a concealed handgun permit accordingly.
I can’t speak with any authority on how effective NCIS system is. But from http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/backgroundchecks/nics i can see that they list a problem and there should be better enforcement of the reporting.
I have always been or enforcing reasonable legistlation (this again is a debate in and of itself as to what is reasonable)i just don’t think that more laws are the answer, enforcing the ones we have would be a good first step. Once the one we have are being enforced then we can see the problems and fix them.
NICS has had its successes (1.8 million prohibited purchasers have been stopped from buying guns to date), but it is still limited because states have not supplied all the necessary data to the system – in particular, mental health data.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on new laws, particularly when it is still lawful in 40+ states to sell someone a gun without running a background check on them. That will continue to be a recipe for disaster until it’s fixed.
As to how restraining orders are processed I am not too familiar. But don’t they either have to be resolved in court or the complaintant has to drop the restraining order? Meaning that the immediate “percieved” danger to the public or individual would have passed?
I don’t like the fact that we found out that a overwhemling majority of Conceal Carry Liscensees are not prone to commit crimes by issuing them with a broad criteria and seeing what happened. But we did and we found out that the CCLs are extremely law abiding through a direct experiement. But i would not be opposed to a more comprehensive background check. But i would not consider a single restraining order from years ago as criteria for denying. I would also not have Conceal Carry as a discretionary priviledge, at least not as it stands in my state.
The vasy majority of conceal carry permits that are issued in NJ, are to policitians, judges, celebrities and well connected individuals. Almost none are issued to to the general public. The same applies to NYC to my north.
We can agree on the selling without background checks, all sales should be run through NICS. Private individuals should be able to access the system easily. Especially at gun shows, maybe NICS booths or something so you can pay the fee to the operator without having to pay a FFL.
There are many arguements for background checks being required.
Any way you cut it makes sense, that is so long as there is no record kept as to background checks, as is currently the system. Though this is sometimes broken a little in NJ, the records are required to be destroyed at the end of each day.
My impression is that most restraining orders are good for a set period of time, typically a year, but I am not expert on that.
As for the behavior of concealed carry permit holders, we know shockingly little. The NRA has gotten laws passed in 29 states that ban the public (or researchers) from accessing info about permit holders. In part for this reason, there has never been a national study on permit holders and their criminal behavior.
What we do know, anecdotally, is disturbing:
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/facts/ccw-crimes-misdeeds.pdf
Yes but the number of misdeeds carried out by permit holders in areas we do have records in show a tend to be more law abiding than the populacer as a whole by several times.
I believe that totals numbers and reasons for licenses being revoked without revealing names or exact dates and locations should be available for study.
http://sbi2.jus.state.nc.us/crp/public/other/conceal/Sept302004stats.pdf
In Florida from 87 to 09 the number of liscenses revoked was 5,139 out of 664,056 which is 0.008% and this is revoked for any reason which can include the training received being found not up to state standards, illegible prints on liscense, clemency rule chaneg or legistlative change. Though the majority 4,942 of revoked licenses was for criminal activity by the permit holder.
sorry incorrect link for above, correct link below:
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html
I don’t really put a whole lot of faith in revocation statistics. In every state where independent audits have been conducted, they have revealed that individuals with violent criminal histories have been able to get – and retain – concealed handgun permits.
This includes Florida, where a 2007 investigation by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel uncovered more than 1,200 permit holders who had previously been found responsible for offenses including assault, burglary, sexual battery, drug possession, child molestation, and homicide. Before the newspaper published its investigation, the State of Florida admitted to only 158 criminal CCW license holders, almost 10 times fewer than the actual number:
“License to Carry: A Sun-Sentinel Investigation”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-guns.storygallery,0,2214651.storygallery
Similar disturbing discoveries have been made in Tennessee:
“Domestic Violence Cases Shoot Down Gun Permits”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/dec/09/tennessee-domestic-violence-cases-shoot-down-gun-p/?local
“Felons Slip Through Cracks in System to Carry Firearms”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/aug/03/wrong-fingers-are-on-the-triggers/
“Tennessee Law Lets Thugs Pack Heat”
http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/{79FD0842-518D-42AC-8228-AE59B7990689}/TENNESSEE LAW LETS THUGS PACK HEAT.PDF
And Texas:
An investigation published by the Los Angeles Times revealed that more than 400 individuals in Texas received CCW licenses between 1995 and 2000 despite prior criminal convictions and that over 3,000 others were arrested after obtaining their licenses. Although Texas does not release the names of “problem licensees,” the Times was able to track down information on some 200 licensees with criminal records. It found that licenses had been issued to persons being treated
for mental illness and individuals with previous convictions for offenses such as armed robbery, rape, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and domestic violence:
“Felons Get Concealed Gun Licenses Under Bush’s ‘Tough’ Law”
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=209940
I don’t really put a whole lot of faith in revocation statistics. In every state where independent audits have been conducted they have revealed that individuals with violent criminal histories have been able to get – and retain – concealed handgun permits.
This includes Florida, where a 2007 investigation by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel uncovered more than 1,200 permit holders who had previously been found responsible for offenses including assault, burglary, sexual battery, drug possession, child molestation, and homicide. Before the newspaper published its investigation, the State of Florida admitted to only 158 criminal CCW license holders, almost 10 times fewer than the actual number:
“License to Carry: A Sun-Sentinel Investigation”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-guns.storygallery,0,2214651.storygallery
Similar disturbing discoveries have been made in Tennessee:
“Domestic Violence Cases Shoot Down Gun Permits”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/dec/09/tennessee-domestic-violence-cases-shoot-down-gun-p/?local
“Felons Slip Through Cracks in System to Carry Firearms”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/aug/03/wrong-fingers-are-on-the-triggers/
“Tennessee Law Lets Thugs Pack Heat”
http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/{79FD0842-518D-42AC-8228-AE59B7990689}/TENNESSEE LAW LETS THUGS PACK HEAT.PDF
And Texas:
An investigation published by the Los Angeles Times revealed that more than 400 individuals in Texas received CCW licenses between 1995 and 2000 despite prior criminal convictions and that over 3,000 others were arrested after obtaining their licenses. Although Texas does not release the names of “problem licensees,” the Times was able to track down information on some 200 licensees with criminal records. It found that licenses had been issued to persons being treated for mental illness and individuals with previous convictions for offenses such as armed robbery, rape, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and domestic violence.
“Felons Get Concealed Gun Licenses Under Bush’s ‘Tough’ Law”
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=209940
You are forgetting that there is a difference between a weapons permit and a concealed carry license. Also, you are forgetting that police officers have in fact killed innocent people in cold blood. Far more than concealed carry permit holders have:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28650273/
http://blog.oregonlive.com/commuting/2009/11/further_south_on_i-405_police.html
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/former-police-officer-pleads-guilty-to-bank-robberies/
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/01/23/chicago-police-officer-pleads-guilty-of-beating-60-year-old-man-handcuffed-and-shackled-to-wheelchair/
My point is not that police officers are bad, but that even those who pass the “stringent”, as you suppose, requirements, evaluations and tests can be corrupt and do evil deeds. The fact is that there will always be a bad apple that slips through, but that does not affect the whole. Criminals will conceal carry regardless of the law. Mass murderers will carry out their deeds regardless. Even without a gun, they can easily kill far more people with a bomb made from common household items or by mowing down a crowd of people with their car.
All that disarming good citizens does is give more power to the criminal element and give them a free pass to kill as they please without consequence. Oh yeah, I guess the police will eventually arrive to stop them–after everyone is already dead that is. There are not enough cops to be on every street corner, there are definitely not enough to follow every single citizen around, and seeing as how they can’t magically teleport to you when your life is endanger, it is up to you to defend your own life and the lives of those you care about. The police will not follow you around to do so and even if they did, they probably would not be able to do so better than an armed citizen can. Most CHL holders I know go out to the range about every to every other week to train. Cops do so maaaaaybe twice a year and to pass, they just have to hit the target.
I did not get the point of the first part of your two part post or else I would have addressed it…
According to the CDC in 2006, Last up to date numbers, 30,896 total, OF WHICH: 642 were ACCIDENTAL, 16,883 were SUICIDE, 12,791 WERE HOMOCIDE, 220 were Undetermined and 360 by Legal intervention.
(I guess the purpose of this article was to tell people to kill themselves with knives.)
Remember that in the same year, 43,664 were killed in Motor vehicle accidents, 37,286 died from poisoning, 20,823 died from unintention falls. In 2005 CDC reported 652,091 people died from heart disease, 559,312 from cancer and 143,579 from stroke.
About that person who stayed home… People DON’T need permission to shoot up a town hall!
Do I care if I’m supposed to ask permission for to MAYBE walk around with a firearm HIDDEN on me, when criminals DON’T GIVE TWO FLYING CUPS OF **** about needing approve to batter, rob, shoot, kill, abduct, rape, sodomize, or any other Mala in se violation against another human being?
(I meant to get all anti-Fourth Amendment on that four-letter word.. any way to delete my first comment?)
Dr King ALSO SAID THIS:
“As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of ‘self-defense.’ In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one’s home and one’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law” (“Where Do We Go From Here: Chaos or Community?” (1967) Chap. II, pg 55)
Why pick-and-choose what the man said?
Brian, please refrain from profanity.
It tends to send discussions into “shouting match” mode.
http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm
The study showing Texans with a CCW permit were 5x less likely to commit a crime than the general public.
John, a word about the shootings at Virginia Tech. Those who were intimately affected by that tragedy – the victims of the shootings and the families who had loved ones killed or injured – have rejected your agenda to put concealed handguns in college classrooms.
Two victims of the shootings (Lily Habtu and Colin Goddard) and two siblings of Reema Samaha (one of the exceptional young people killed in the tragedy) founded Students for Gun Free Schools (www.studentsforgunfreeschools.org) after the shootings, an organization that “opposes efforts to force universities and colleges to allow students and faculty to carry concealed handguns on their campuses.”
The families have also become some of the most ardent advocates for gun control at the state legislature in Richmond. In April, 50 individuals who were either victims of the shootings or who had loved ones killed or injured, published a letter in the Richmond Times-Dispatch. They wrote: “As we observe the two year anniversary of the tragedy, we remain extremely disappointed in Virginia lawmakers for not closing the gun show loophole, and we hold them accountable for their inaction on gun violence prevention. They abdicated their responsibility to protect citizens of the Commonwealth by failing to pass legislation to prevent the easy access to guns by the mentally ill, convicted felons, and others ineligible to purchase weapons.”
http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/%7B79fd0842-518d-42ac-8228-ae59b7990689%7D/FAMILIES%20LETTER%20RTD%204-9-09.PDF
Working with these individuals has been one of the greatest pleasures and honors I have experienced during my time at the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. They are exceptional and courageous human beings, and inspiring leaders in the field of nonviolence.
Not a single victim of the Virginia Tech tragedy, or any family member who had a loved one shot in the tragedy, has called for weaker gun laws, or to allow concealed handguns on college campuses. Not one.
Finally, the Virginia Tech Review Panel, which interviewed more than 200 witnesses and reviewed thousands of pages of documents, called for stronger gun control laws in Virginia and stated that “The Virginia General Assembly should adopt legislation in the 2008 session clearly establishing the right of every institution of higher education in the Commonwealth to regulate the possession of firearms on campus if it so desires. The panel recommends that guns be banned on campus grounds and in buildings unless mandated by law.”
http://www.governor.virginia.gov/tempcontent/techpanelreport-docs/10%20chapter%20vi%20gun%20purchase%20and%20campus%20gun%20policies.pdf
Virginia Tech WAS (and is) a “gun-free zone.” The problem is it is not enforced. People don’t want to pay or submit to airport style security just to go to class. Policy statements and signs will not stop someone bent on murder.
VT also has one of the largest chapters of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. Don’t think that people who support that side are uninformed, uncaring, or separated from these tragedies. (I don’t think you implied that, but I have seen it stated or implied by the people you referenced.)
Those adjudicated as dangers to themselves/society, felons, and people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence are prohibited from possessing firearms. Oddly, people who fail NICS checks (trying to buy firearms while prohibited) are rarely investigated or prosecuted. The NICS system is also unavailable to private citizens. If Elmer Fudd wanted to sell his shotgun to someone, he would have no way to confirm they are not prohibited. As such, enforcing these laws becomes difficult.
You’re right, private firearm sellers are barred from conducting background checks on purchasers – because of the NRA-drafted “Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986.”
One of the main Virginia Tech Review Panel recommendations was to require background checks on ALL private gun sales, whether they occur at gun shows or elsewhere.
This at a cost of $15 per check, i think we can agree upon, although i would like a provision preventing this from destroying gun shows. (primary reason one has not passed yet)
I don’t have a solution for this as both sides would try and either make the law too much of a burden and seeing to the end of gun shows or too weak and not be enforceable.
Actually, 17 states have passed laws to close the Gun Show Loophole and gun shows are still occurring in all of them. This includes even states like California that have strict firearm regulation across the board.
The $15 per check is far higher than any figure I have ever seen. In Virginia the current charge by State Police is $2 per check. In some other states I’ve seen it as high as $7, but it’s in that range. Over 90% of these checks are completed in just a few minutes and involve little cost.
NJ State police charge $15 for each NICS at time of purchase, i dont complain about this mind you, though when buying a handgun, a individual permit to purchase must be aquired before you can purchase the the handgun, a individual permit is required for each handgun, cost is $2 a permit, there is also a $30 for a background for any number of handgun purchase permits applied for at the same time at the same time, though these purchase permit expire after 90 days
with new legistlation we are limited to one handgun a month, meaning we can really only use three permits if aquired under the same background check, that is asuming of course that you are able to use one of the three permits on the same day they were issued, then use one exactly thirty days after that and one more exactly thirty days after that to stay within the 90 day expiration period but not violating the no more than one handgun every thirty days.
meaning each handgun purchase costs $27 with permits and two background checks included (NICS $15 + permit to purhcase a handgun $2 + background check for permit to purchase a handgun $30)
the handgun permit requires my finger prints to be on file with my Firearms Identification Card (which costs approx. $60 depending on jurisdiction) this is legally limited to $5 but the price you are charged is always higher, you must submit the names and birthdates of all persons living in your residence, you must supply the names and contacts of two individuals who will attest to the fact that you should be able to buy guns, you must list all former employers who may be contacted in reference to their belief if you have a firearm, if either decline to respond or say they do not believe you should be able to purchase firearms your permit will be revoked (it has been upheld in NJ court that this is legal)
each handgun purchased has a copy of the permit with your name, address, SSN, employer, the make and model of the handgun and serial number, and date of purchase forwarded to the NJ state police, your local police department and copies must be kept by the seller and purchaser
the one gun a month law was passed because they believed that individuals in NJ were buying handguns with all this information on record, after waiting up to 9 months to get their permit to purhcase a handgun and then selling them to gang members
guns purchased illegally “on the street” in NJ are often found with prices less than half that of the retail price, which begs the question as to why anyone would go through all the trouble of getting their permit, having the purchase on file in multiple locations then sell said handgun for a 50% loss
When said “gun show lope holes” were closed in nj, effectively they made it illegal for anyone to buy or sell guns at guns shows in nj (thats how it is enforced) the one remaining gun show where FFLs actually sold guns (this was with a NICS check, which was $10 at the time, now $15)closed as a result.
And yes the NICS check take approx. four and half minutes for a long gun and about five for a handgun.
The background check to get your permit to purchase a handgun takes as little as 30 days to as long as nine months depending on your jurisdiction, legally limited to 30 days but the only way to expedite this is by paying a lawyer, i am lucky enough to have a approx. 45 day turn around in my town and friendly police.
What statute are you referring to that made gun shows “illegal” in New Jersey? I’ve never heard of such a law, I’d be curious to see the language.
In total, the laws you’re referring to in New Jersey are all good laws, and they help explain why an overwhelming majority of New Jersey’s crime guns come from outside states. Criminals and traffickers have a very difficult time getting guns in New Jersey.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/trace_data/2008/newjersey08.pdf
And while these laws might involve some cost and inconvenience to you, they make the entire community safer, and don’t stop anyone from acquiring a virtual arsenal of firearms over the course of their life (if that is their desire for some reason).
I forgot to mention that even though the NICS in NJ is a service, thereby not subject to sales tax, the department of revenue wants sales tax collected on it anyway, hence you pay 7% sales tax on the $15 NICS so $16.05 is the price you will pay including tax
http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_ag2.html
click on NJ AC Title 13 Chapter 54
basically to understand the law you need to read a good portion of the statute concerning FFLs and how they may conduct business
a big part fo NJ gun law is that all guns in NJ are by law Illegal, sale posession and transfer are only allowed by exemption, it is a permisive based system
The “Long story Short” is all sales and transfers in NJ must go through an FFL, even private sales, for an FFL to do business he must comply with N.J.A.C. 13:54-3.4 Standards and Qualifications subsection (e) which reads
“No retail dealer shall conduct a retail business in a mobile or temporary facility (“Mobile ”
meaning a facility easily moved from one location to another. “Temporary” meaning a facility
not having indicia of permanency). A temporary facility includes, but is not limited to, places for
garage sales, flea markets, gun shows and exhibits.”
and gun shows are specifically mentioned in this, so therefore they are not exempt and it therefore illegal to sell guns at gun shows and no more gun shows in NJ
unless you meet the criteria of N.J.A.C. 13:54-3.5 Exemptions for physical handicap and then they may or a licensed employee may go to the residence of a handicap person and conduct the sale there but the paper must still be sent from the FFls place of business
It gets pretty complicated when you begin trying to understand New Jersey gun laws. A important part of understanding them is that all fireamrs in NJ are illegal by law. They are only allowed by exemption. It is a permissive system.
On the NJ state ploice site listed below
http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_ag2.html
click on the link “N.J.A.C. Title 13 Chapter 54”
N.J.A.C. 13:54-3.4 Standards and qualifications
“(e) No retail dealer shall conduct a retail business in a mobile or temporary facility (“Mobile ”
meaning a facility easily moved from one location to another. “Temporary” meaning a facility
not having indicia of permanency). A temporary facility includes, but is not limited to, places for
garage sales, flea markets, gun shows and exhibits.”
As gun shows are specifically mentioned as “Temporary” and therefore not covered under the exemption, it is illegal to sell firearms there.
Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn. – Gandhi
Ladd,
It is logical to assume that the victims of the V. Tech tragedy have an irrational fear of guns. They had a very traumatic experience and obviously fear guns because they view them in such close association to their injuries and the deaths of their friends. These people are not rationally thinking about the situation. How could they? They don’t think that they or their friends could have been killed 1000’s of other ways by the murderer. They don’t think about the fact that armed citizens could have stopped the murderer and saved countless lives. They probably view everyone who owns a gun as being evil (it’s quite the opposite way).
Just because they were in this situation does not give them credence and it does not make them experts. It also does not make them right.
If someone walked into your classroom and locked the door, then walked around shooting everyone–what are your chances of making it out of there? 0% And if you arm several students, then your chances of survival dramatically increase. Even if the guy walked into the room with a machete or an axe–do you seriously think someone would stand up to him? No, and everyone in the room would be just as dead. Guns=equality. If someone walks into the room wanting to kill everyone, they can Easily be stopped by any person in that room if they are armed.
This is pure logical thinking and an expression of the ironically termed “common sense”.
Has anyone noted the obvious? King was shot.
Besides, his protests were non violent on one way, that there was no overt violence, but he still used force to press his message. By using marches, chants, get arrested campaigns, and swamping the jails, he forced everyone to listen… the black community still does this today by using every means possible to promote their personal cause and use the tide of public opinion and fear to quiet dissenters.
This has little to nothing to do with guns, or self defense. It only trades one type of violence for another more accepted type of violence.
Ladd,
I find it amusing that you wish to further discuss VTech.
Quoting SGFS implies that their efforts are to enact a change to prevent the massacre from happenning again.
In fact, SGFS only promotes the current Status Quo at VTech, choosing to ignore that Cho completely ignored VTech’s stated “Gun Free Zone” with his attack. I believe that none of the proposed legislation, either by victims’ families, or by SGFS would have in retrospect stopped the massacre.
Evil people who wish to do harm most times cannont be stopped from their attempt. It is only after the evil has been committed that good people are able to step in.
As for sales between private citizens being legal, I for one am glad I don’t have to go the government to be able to sell my car, one of my horses, a power tool, or a book. Of the aforementioned, only the book is a RIGHT that I am given by the US Constitution. In fact, our 1st ammendment rights are what give us the ability to discuss this issue without asking for permission from the government. Maybe I should have every person who posts on this page inspected by someone in the government.
When discussing the ability for someone to sell a legel firearm from one private citizen to another, again I don’t see why the government should give its permission for one to engage in rights which predated said government. The 2nd ammendment didn’t give the people the right to keep and bear arms, but only said it “shall not be infringed.”
If you are to regulate every sale between 2 private individuals for things they can have by the baic laws of nature, then I guess the government should regulate the sale of every tiny piece of property, including who would be able to purchase food. After all, food is not protected by the US Constitution.
A problem noted with the VTech review panel is that this vessel of the government (receiving Virginia tax dollars), wishes to take upon itself a level of governance over its lands and buildings, imposing rule upon its students and staff, without any oversight or consequences (they do not face elections). In lording over its proposed subjects, VTech would pose to pursue restrictions that seem to be antithetical to basic natural laws of self preservation. Many schools have attempted to restrict Constitutionally protected rights only to be rebuffed by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Most of these cases involve 1st Ammendment liberties. Why should this not extend to the 2nd Ammendment as both are binding law?
Your rebuff will most likely be that 1A (1st Ammenment) liberties are not “dangerous” and do not cause death, thus apples to oranges. I can retort that they are both Constitutionally protected RIGHTS, thus to infringe on one RIGHT, is to infringe on them all. If one right can be made obsolete, then they all can. So ignoring the 2nd Ammendment (2A), is to condemn free speech as well.
Still guns KILL people! As already noted in this discussion, so do a lot of other inanimate objects.
It was already against the law for Cho to purchase a firearm: he did so anyways even when the FBI background check should have said no (but it said yes). It was already against the law for him to take his pistol into campus buildings at VTech: he did so anyways. It was already against the law for him to shoot people with his sidearm: he did so anyways. Add more laws, he would have probably still broken them to commit his acts.
I once heard a definition of stupid being “to do the same thing over and over again, each time expecting a different outcome.” DC has some of the most stringent gun laws in the country, more strict than California, and on par with Chicago. Yet DC has the highest rates of armed crimes relative to the areas with less stringent regulations.
History says those laws do not decrease crime, yet you want to call for more laws in these areas Mr. Everitt. Current analysis shows cities with more regulations have higher crime. You wish to increase the amount of regulations. My conclusion may be that you wish for more crime. I hope this is not the case Ladd,
Awaiting your retort……..
One armed citizen being present in this tragedy could have ended the crisis. Maybe he or she would have failed but at least they would have had a chance.
I am only posting here as i can’t seem to respond to a post above.
I said “When said “gun show lope holes” were closed in nj, effectively they made it illegal for anyone to buy or sell guns at guns shows in nj ”
Found on the NJ State Police Site
http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/about/fire_ag2.html
N.J.A.C. Title 13 Chapter 54
N.J.A.C. 13:54-3.4 Standards and qualifications
Subsection E
“No retail dealer shall conduct a retail business in a mobile or temporary facility (“Mobile ”
meaning a facility easily moved from one location to another. “Temporary” meaning a facility
not having indicia of permanency). A temporary facility includes, but is not limited to, places for
garage sales, flea markets, gun shows and exhibits.”
effectively made gun shows illegal as who would run one if they can’t sell firearms, we still have flea markets and swap meeting, just no guns are sold there
Also an important part of NJ gun law is understanding that it is a permissive system. Guns are by law illegal for anyone to own, transport or posess. They are only made legal by exemptions. If it does not specifically state what you want to do concerning firearms is legal than by law it is illegal. Enforcement is not always uniform and the courts do not always rule the same on any one issue. Ask me about hollow point bullets if you want an example. This will also bring in an interesting point o restraining orders.
NJ Accountant, I don’t really put a whole lot of faith in CCW revocation statistics. In every state where independent audits have been conducted they have revealed that individuals with violent criminal histories have been able to get – and retain – concealed handgun permits.
This includes Florida, where a 2007 investigation by the South Florida Sun-Sentinel uncovered more than 1,200 permit holders who had previously been found responsible for offenses including assault, burglary, sexual battery, drug possession, child molestation, and homicide. Before the newspaper published its investigation, the State of Florida admitted to only 158 criminal CCW license holders, almost 10 times fewer than the actual number:
“License to Carry: A Sun-Sentinel Investigation”
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-guns.storygallery,0,2214651.storygallery
Similar disturbing discoveries have been made in Tennessee:
“Domestic Violence Cases Shoot Down Gun Permits”
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2008/dec/09/tennessee-domestic-violence-cases-shoot-down-gun-p/?local
“Felons Slip Through Cracks in System to Carry Firearms”
http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/aug/03/wrong-fingers-are-on-the-triggers/
“Tennessee Law Lets Thugs Pack Heat”
http://www.csgv.org/atf/cf/{79FD0842-518D-42AC-8228-AE59B7990689}/TENNESSEE LAW LETS THUGS PACK HEAT.PDF
And Texas:
An investigation published by the Los Angeles Times revealed that more than 400 individuals in Texas received CCW licenses between 1995 and 2000 despite prior criminal convictions and that over 3,000 others were arrested after obtaining their licenses. Although Texas does not release the names of “problem licensees,” the Times was able to track down information on some 200 licensees with criminal records. It found that licenses had been issued to persons being treated for mental illness and individuals with previous convictions for offenses such as armed robbery, rape, manslaughter, aggravated assault, and domestic violence.
“Felons Get Concealed Gun Licenses Under Bush’s ‘Tough’ Law”
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=209940
So then are you suggesting that the government agencies in charge of issuing the permits, checking records and providing statistics are either fudging the numbers or not proforming their due diligence in reviewing and processing applications?
I don’t think I have to suggest that, these investigations make it patently clear that – for whatever reason – serious errors are indeed being made.
But I also think it has a lot to do with the “shall-issue” process and the lack of discretion given to law enforcement in those states. That breeds a rubber stamping-type mentality that fails to closely analyze applicants.
Then we can agree on that, the system for keeping track of criminal records and issuing these permits is flawed.
I will have to disagree on the current methods used in certain “may-issue” jursidictions for various reasons but one is common throughout that they lead to inherent discrimination by their nature. But a better system is needed regardless. (I can discuss this in detail but once again i believe those details are beyond the scope of this discusion.)
I think, this is my opinion but i base it upon observable fact, that the constant tug of war between both sides of gun control are what is preventing the correct steps being from being taken.
You make a fair point that the May-Issue process is susceptible to being subjective and biased, but I think I prefer to err on the side of public safety and allow for appropriate appeals processes where necessary.
I just don’t see much getting done either way until both sides stop blindly opposing and lobbying against each others attempts to fix this.
Effectively the nonviolent movement on each side of gun control has a tremendous amount of support and power but they nullify each other almost completely in a figurative war of attrition.
I will state one idea that i hold to be true, that i am positive that you will not agree with me on, at least the part about firearms anyway.
There is an erroneous belief in thinking that the governement has the ability to effectively regulate the ownership of firearms for the general welfare of the people.
And i believe this holds true for free speech and all of our other freedoms as individuals.
I thought this was fun, just found it on the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=logo#/topic.php?uid=2383535699&topic=14008
Topic: From the Coalition to Stop Gun Ownership…
From: Robby Epstein
http://dev2.wagingnonviolence.org/2009/10/a-powerful-and-just-weapon/comment-page-1/#comment-1514
Have fun!
Given that you are talking to peace activists, approach them from the angle asking what makes it right to threaten people with violence for owning a gun?
Looks like most of the critical posters here are members of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus.
Here’s an interesting comment from Chase Jennings (“John” and “John M.” on this Comment thread) on the SCCC Facebook Discussion thread:
“I wonder how these people who are against us sleep at night…or maybe some people just don’t own a conscience or common sense?”
It would appear that this goes to support the assertion that one side will attempt to railroad the other on anything that they attempt to do.
The fact that it is students is interesting to me.
I saw a video not too long ago about students in Washington arming themelves and i noticed they not only going to carry the guns loose without hostlers* but they were intending on forming armed patrols which is borderline illegal and in most cases will remove their claim of self defense as they put themselves in an avoidable situation. That means murder charges.
A good argument for required training of conceal carry permit holders.
*(Safety issue, one for others as they may snag clothing on the trigger and the gun may go off, i know this unlikely with the trigger on a glock requiring both parts to move in unison and also to themselves as drawing a gun without a proper holster reduces draw speed and increases the likelihood of the assaliant rushing them)
yeah so it’s me–big deal; that’s not a huge discovery. It’s clear that had I of used my real name, you would have immediately opposed everything I said–assuming you know of me that is.
Regardless, a fatal flaw in all of those statistics against concealed carry is that criminals will carry with or without having a concealed carry license. They will commit their crimes just the same. All that preventing legal citizens from concealed carrying will accomplish is to make them defenseless against these criminals. Law abiding citizens are the only ones prevented from concealed carrying by these laws–the ones who can save lives.
Yes the system isn’t perfect, and that’s why we need to enforce it more strictly–we need better records and accountability where criminal records are concerned. Everyone agrees on that–in an ideal world, those with mental illnesses or criminal records wouldn’t be able to get cars, chainsaws, hammers, etc with which are also used to kill with.
Regarding my comment, please do tell me if you are still against concealed carry on campus and why if you still are? If you are, then in all honesty I do not know how you can sleep knowing that you support the “gun free” zones that have prevented so many lives from being saved.
The problem the author fails to mention is the 30,000 gun deaths is less than the number who die from the normal flu each year in the USA. The statistic of 30+ thousand includes the people killed by police officers so that stat is bogus. Less than 1000 people die of gun accidents each year in the USA, accidental OD on tylenol kills about 2000. One can argue that tylenol is honestly not necessary because it does not provide the benefits of aspirin against MI (myocarial infarction), but no one is going to ban it just to save 2000 people in a nation of 300 million. Guns kill a lot less in accidents and the gun accident is the only thing you can use to argue that we should remove guns from law abiding people, because criminals will find guns, make their own zip guns and make their own ammo (I make my own ammo). The reason why there should be no regulations of gun ownership is because it is a right in the constitution and if you think you get to pick and choose those rights then the other side will think they get to pick and choose the rights that apply to you, in fact I think you shouldn’t vote. If I can’t own a gun, you shouldn’t be able to vote. ok? The other reason is that if someone is not able to be trusted with a gun that person should either be in a mental hospital or a prison thus removing any need for any gun control and that solution will actually work. You democrats creat most of the problems with guns. I was raised by a conservative and freedom and liberty minded father who taught me that guns must be respected and that guns are not to be used in agression (use a bat instead lol) and people like me do not commit crimes, ever. but many children of democrats do not teach their children to respect guns (in fact you teach your children to disrespect guns) and no wonder your children go out and use guns as tools of agression. The problem is not the gun but you! The problem will not disappear when the gun disappears, you’re democrat children will simply use knives. The problem will end when you teach your children conservative values and to respect weapons and others and when they start thinking of the gun as a tool of defense only and not for aggression then the problem will end.
Is being a private detective really that dangerous? I noticed on another post someone asking about this.
A Glock 40…..? Really when they make that please someone email me… I want it… don’t care what caliber it is. Or was the dumb bitch talking about a Glock 22 (standard),23 (compact),24 (competition) ,27 (sub-compact and will fit in your pocket) and my personal favorite 35 (long slide)… Collect the whole set before the local gangs do. Know your shit before you talk about guns losers.
PS super hi-cap mags are available for all your favorite .40 S&W glocks. Because nothing says I love my family and if you try to hurt them I will lay down suppressing fire, flank, and eliminate the threats like 33 hollow points.
Peace through superior fire power
Your loving sheepdog
Tadd Everitt