Defensive Carry banner

Help Defend CC

4K views 52 replies 25 participants last post by  mprp 
#1 ·
Our local anti-gun newspaper columnist is asking for examples on his blog where concealed carry permit holders have thwarted mass killings. I've searched and posted 9 stories myself. I need you guys to help me inundate his blog with stories (or summaries of stories). Here's the link, please post in the blog comments to this article:

Let’s prove those Violence Policy Center rascals wrong! | Dan Casey's blog: Roanoke Times metro columnist writes what's on his mind - Roanoke.com

He has given a timeframe since 2007, but he regularly draws on stories dating back to 1997 in his efforts to paint concealed carriers in a very negative light. I have pointed that out to him already, so I'm using his own standard of relevance of 1997.

Thanks guys, we need all of the stories we can get. Please glance at the ones already posted so we don't get repeats. Thanks!!!
 
#3 ·
I submitted one.
 
#5 ·
...just commented.

Isn't the formula, "Here are some crimes committed by CWP holders, so show me some examples of crime being prevented by CWP holders" inherently flawed?

How about the guy who takes a gun to a crowded place intent on killing people only to lose his nerve as a result of recognizing that he lives in a right to carry state and that he stands a very good chance of dying quickly, because undoubtedly at least one of these people has a gun? How would you know that the shall issue law and concealed carry concept prevented the mass murder that would have taken place? You wouldn't. And it stands to reason that this has happened before.

Which is a good segue into my next point that I believe speaks to another flaw to the formula. Criminals recognize that getting shot sucks, so when going on their shooting rampages, they often target our super-safe gun free zones. So how many of these mass murders that have taken place in hospitals, schools, etc. would have been prevented by a CWP holder, but wasn't because that CWP holder is a law abiding citizen and abided by the gun control laws you so champion, and thus would have been an example to cite here but now is not. Luby's comes to mind... Suzanna Hupp's gun was out in the car in the parking lot.

Comment by JPC — June 13, 2010 @ 8:44 am

I left out another point I meant to make....

The premise of your question that includes, "...that have been stopped by a permit-carrying hero" assumes that permit holders carry so that they can stop mass shootings.

Most don't. Most carry to protect themselves and their families and would not choose to wade into a screaming, rushing crowd of people while gunning for the perpetrator, when they would be better off getting themselves and their family to cover in a defensible position, calling 911 and being a good witness.

We as permit holders are not police officers, superheroes or your volunteer unpaid bodyguards. We have no obligation to save you when some crazed lunatic comes into the mall and decides to make you his first of many victims that day. It's your responsibility to protect yourself and your family. Or you could rely on local law enforcement to do that for you. Good luck with that, by the way.

So your entire premise that relies on the supposition that all permit holders aspire to be, or are required to be, mass shooting heroes, is fallacious to begin with.

Comment by JPC — June 13, 2010 @ 8:59 am
 
#11 ·
. . . . (with some ommissions)

Most don't. Most carry to protect themselves and their families and would not choose to wade into a screaming, rushing crowd of people while gunning for the perpetrator, when they would be better off getting themselves and their family to cover in a defensible position, calling 911 and being a good witness.

We as permit holders are not police officers, superheroes or your volunteer unpaid bodyguards. We have no obligation to save you when some crazed lunatic comes into the mall and decides to make you his first of many victims that day. It's your responsibility to protect yourself and your family. Or you could rely on local law enforcement to do that for you. Good luck with that, by the way.

So your entire premise that relies on the supposition that all permit holders aspire to be, or are required to be, mass shooting heroes, is fallacious to begin with.

Comment by JPC — June 13, 2010 @ 8:59 am
:hand10: +++101 . . elloquently says it all! Well done.
 
#6 ·
You need to explain that CC SD is not meant to thwart "mass" killings. It's meant to thwart individual killings. Otherwise, we'd be CCing assault weapons that are more capable.
 
#25 ·
Really good point! It's not likely your average CCer will be able to stop a mass killing, especially if, as is likely, the BG has something more powerful than a handgun.
 
#10 ·
Yep, that's a given. He absolutely despises concealed carry by citizens and has stated such many times. I argue with this guy about firearms every week to no end and regardless of how many independent statistics you lay out there, he will never change his mind. My goal is to put enough good information out there that the readers are able to sift through his kool-aid drinking dribble and see the true facts.

He always has "honest errors" in his columns regarding guns, and it's funny they always seem to be towards the point he's trying to make. I call him on them every time and he has to publish a correction.
 
#12 ·
A little more of the back and forth...

JPC,

In that case, I would adopt Tom's tactic and urge you to consider the "good news" the media ignores about the mass shootings that DON'T occur in gun-free zones.

Because as we both know, and is easily proven, there are many, many, many more gun free zones where mass shootings NEVER happen than where they do happen.

Comment by Dan Casey — June 13, 2010 @ 9:31 am
 
#13 ·
Mr. Casey,

I agree. But doesn't that then solidify the point that the puzzle you present is flawed to begin with?

I'm also curious to hear your response in regards to my second post.

Comment by JPC — June 13, 2010 @ 9:37 am
 
#14 ·
JPC,

I disagree with your statement that the premise of the question assumes permit holders carry to prevent mass shootings.

We know there are permit holders who commit mass shootings. The question is, are their permit holders who prevent them, or stop them?

Yes or no? (if yes, then please give me the details). It in no way assumes for those permit holders any reason why they would be carrying them their weapons.

Comment by Dan Casey — June 13, 2010 @ 9:48 am
 
#15 ·
Mr. Casey,

I, of course, allow for the possibility that I may just be confused...certainly has happened before. And we all know that things get lost in text...but,

You mean to tell me that the following statement...

"So I am seeking to add that balance here. The only problem is, I don't know of any shooting rampages since May 2007 that have been stopped by a permit-carrying hero."

...does not rely on the supposition that in order to add balance to the VPC's latest report, one must find examples of permit holders who have thwarted mass shootings?

And what if I do have examples of permit holders thwarting mass shootings? Am I to understand that if I bring you 16 examples of "permit-carrying heroes" stopping shooting rampages to balance out the 16 examples of permit holders committing mass shootings you will rescind your position that gun control is the answer? (That last part was an assumption on my part. Feel free to correct me, if your position differs)

And what is the correlation between permit holders who have committed mass shooting and permit holders who have prevented mass shootings, anyway?

We, the defensive carry community, the pro 2A community, the loony gun nut community, however you want to refer to "us"...believe in the LAW ABIDING citizens right to bear arms as a means to DEFEND themselves. The moment anyone, permit holder or otherwise, pulls out a gun and OFFENSIVELY starts shooting innocent people...they are a criminal. (Please excuse the caps...not yelling...I just don't have any way to underline, italicize, or otherwise provide emphasis)

Comment by JPC — June 13, 2010 @ 10:47 am
 
#16 ·
I've swapped e-mails with Casey in the past. It didn't take but 2 or 3 to decide the man is an idoit and not worth wasting my time and breath on.
 
#19 ·
IMHO, It's not a matter of wasting time on him.

It's a matter of giving his readers something to think about.

The lie repeated w/o rebuttal become the truth to those lied to.

We need to keep taking the fight to the antis. :argue:
 
#18 ·
My post

56.

As you say "35.News is news, Tom. It means something out-of-the ordinary happened that people will want to know about. Some of it is good, and much of it is bad."

So yes, Dan, you are right. It isn't good vs. bad. It is different (i.e., newsworthy a.k.a. will increase readership/audience %) vs,commonplace (i.e., not newsworthy a.k.a. will not increase readership/audience %), in part. To some degree, therefore the commonplace (the something not-out-of-the ordinary) is not covered or at most covered very locally w/o national coverage. So, yes, the very rare the very out-of-the-ordinary [thankfully] big horrific shooting gets wide coverage. OTOH, the more commonplace ordinary self-defense gets little coverage or is ignored. So, a challenge like yours in the thread is highly suspect. To be sure, some cases such as the Golden Food Market shooter saving a number of lives was covered in Richmond store owner, shot, golden, market, store, robbery - wtvr But did this case make national front pages? Why not? Because it was so commonplace? If commonplace, why your question in this thread? OTOH, if not commonplace why not national coverage?

Thirty some people killed at one time in an "Unarmed-Victim-Rich" zone, it will be all over the major papers and TV news for a very-very long time. OTOH thirty times thirty folk defending themselves (most often w/o firing a shot) will get little if any local coverage -- because it is so ordinary. Even when it is out of the ordinary such as the Appalachian School of Law at Grundy case it doesn't get the coverage of the horrific VT tragedy. So there is no question that the media does present a misleading picture.

So, why do you have a problem with the fact that Guns are used for self-defense between 2.1 Million and 2.5 Million times every year most w/o much national coverage. The following facts from the Kleck/Gert's study, relate directly to this fact.

•In the vast majority of those self-defense cases, the citizen will only brandish the gun or fire a warning shot.
•In less than 8% of those self-defense cases will the citizen will even wound his attacker.
•Over 1.9 million of those self-defense cases involve handguns.
•As many as 500,000 of those self-defense cases occur away from home.
•Almost 10% of those self-defense cases are women defending themselves against sexual assault or abuse.
•This means that guns are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of law-abiding citizens than to take a life.

Comment by DaveH — June 13, 2010 @ 12:26 pm
 
#20 ·
Thanks guys, this thread of his alone is enough to demonstrate his idiocy. Keep pressing him!!!

Here was my latest point:

57.55.Tom,

You are so wrong about the media always ignoring good news that it truly undercuts your credibility on just about every other argument.

Comment by Dan Casey — June 13, 2010 @ 10:26 am

The only credibility being undercut in this thread is yours. I never said the media ALWAYS ignores good news. But you yourself demonstrated in your posts that it isn't what people want to see and isn't what gets reported on. You contradicting yourself.

The fact that you are calling out for stories where 2% of the population have stopped mass crimes that happen mostly in places they aren't legally allowed to carry and trying to draw any reasonable conclusion about that population is absolutely absurd.

These points truly undercut YOUR credibility on just about every one of your arguments.

Comment by Tom — June 13, 2010 @ 11:08 am
 
#21 ·
Got my $.02 in.
 
#22 ·
Sent a 2nd one

My 1st one finally showed up, here's my second one

I wonder if purgatory entails endless gun threads. Kinda like being sentenced to a chamber with looped Barry Manilow music or tapes of Joy Behar's voice.

Comment by Suzie — June 13, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Likely to continue, until the anti-gun, anti-2A, anti-RKBA quit introducing all their hoplophobic attempts to ban guns, carry, etc.

Once Virginia adopts "Constitutional Carry" along the lines of AZ, AK, & VT and once papers like the RT quite their scare tactics maybe the purgatory of endless anti-gun threads will end here -- albeit I have little hope for NY, CA. etc.

According to MSNBC, some six million Americans have permits and carry discreetly. In Virginia anyone who can posses a firearm can Open Carry it. The fears of shootouts at stop lights, bullets for slow waiters and Wild West-style belligerence have been repeatedly proven false and dispelled as hoplophobic fantasies.

Statistics have shown that crime uniformly drops when states reduce infringements on the right of law-abiding people to keep and bear arms. Society is safer when criminals don’t know who’s armed.

It is only the alarmist that keep the tune ringing in your ears.
 
#23 ·
#26 ·
Need to me careful in defining that, if you post it/quote it.

For example, the Virginia Tech tragedy took place where "students and employees" could non carry. Non-students and non-employees can carry. BTDT.

I suspect that there may be others example.

That said, it's a great point and I'll use it in my ongoing debate with Dan et al.
 
#27 ·
Dan Casey is baiting people. He doesn't give one lick about the position of gun owners. He is in the business of sensational journalism. He makes his living by applying heat to an already hot topic. He gets people all riled up and frothing and makes his point by calmly pointing out the "crazy gun owners".

Those who read, and agree, with his statements are not going to be swayed from his/their viewpoint. He writes things that, on one hand tick off gun owners and, on the other gives gun control advocates more propaganda.

God help Roanoke.
 
#30 ·
#31 ·
If someone stops a potential killer before he/she kills...how can we know what was in the BGs dark soul...

So, how can one know if a "mass killing" has been successfully stopped???

Faulty logic...faulty question...something folks here understand, I know...

But this opinion writer doesn't really care about it...does he...
 
#32 ·
I'm affraid you are correct sir. But hey, what color do all of you think we should have our capes? Should they be blue with big gold "CCW" on them too? I'm just about to "add to cart."
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top