Jump to content
2018 UJ SUMMER SILENT AUCTION HAS LAUNCHED Read more... ×
Sign in to follow this  
PartridgeCartridge

The Concealed Carry/Self Defense dilemma

Recommended Posts

Dave Hamming
Bonasa, you want to quote statistics about handguns and raise concerns about them out there in society, please re-read my earlier post which is a letter printed in the liberal Portland Press Herald. Let's worry less about guns and what negatives they bring because their positives outweigh them. Just the facts folks.

"The recent anti-gun liberal letter writers consistently ignore one thing - the facts! Here are the things either they don't know, or that they don't want you to know.

1. Despite gangs, and drugs, and 50% more guns in circulation, the annual homicide rate in the US according to the FBI, is the lowest since 1965.

2. Homicide rates in the US are lower than the world average of 7.6 per 100K people.

3. Vermont has a high gun population and permits residents and non-residents to carry concealed without a license yet there are 1.1 homicides per 100K people: MA = 2.6, NY = 4.0. CA = 5.3, IL = 6.0.

4. 2.5 million times each year a gun is used to thwart a crime according to the study performed by Dr. Gary Kleck, Criminologist at Florida State University. How many more homicides might there have been if the victim was unarmed?

5. FL saw a 30% drop in violent crime when citizens were allowed to carry concealed.

6. Nationally, all violent crimes and property crimes have reached an all time low, and some believe that this is because evil-doers now fear that their prospective victims may be armed.

7. The National Academy of Sciences reviewed dozens of studies and could not find a single gun regulation that clearly led to reduced violent crime or murder.  

We have more crime than any of us want, but let us recognize that our more liberal permissive society where anything goes, and where "it's not my fault" is an accepted excuse, and where liberal judges continue to release repeat offenders are among the real problems that must be corrected, the gun is not the real problem  as statistics prove."

I realize my position is not popular here and I don't really care.  As a former prosecutor in Detroit for many years, I have seen the results of handguns on the street (both permitted and non-permitted).  I blame handguns because they are designed to be concealed and kill people.  The danger starts when people carry.  I think my fact speaks volumes about the problem.  When 86% of the violent crimes are committed with handguns, it is denial to suggest that they are not a problem.

You have stated that your statistics prove guns are not the problem and that the positives outweigh the negatives.  You state these things as though they are fact, but they are not.  They are simply your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of many others, but calling it fact doesn't make it fact.

1. You have not offered any proof that the lower homicide rate is due to permitted handgun owners.  I don't believe that and believe there are numerous factors responsible for that decline.

2.The homicide rate in the US is nearly double that of Europe.

3. The homicide rate and Vermont carry comparison with states with huge metropolitan cities is an absurd comparison and an argument with no legs.

4. Guns displayed to thwart a crime is nothing but speculation? There are statistics about the deaths caused by handguns.

5. How much of a drop might they have seen if they took handguns off the street is the real question?

6. More speculation,  You said: "just the facts."

7.  They couldn't find a regulation that "clearly" led to reduced violent crime.  Pretty meaningless....

Not all people who dislike concealed weapons are liberal.  I am very conservative.  As I said, I don't expect my views to be popular.  I would love to take handguns out of everyones possession except the police.  I think it could be done by giving people a chance to turn their guns in and make it a mandatory 5 or 10 years prison to possess a handgun.  Then anybody with a handgun could be presumed to be a criminal with felonious intent.  It would take a while but eventually the guns could be removed from the general population.

I have mixed feelings though.  If it could be done without jeopardizing our rights to long guns to protect our families in our households, I would be for banning handguns.  However, at this time, I fear the zealots who would use that as an opportunity to attack all of our gun ownership rights.  I will always be for an individuals rights to protect his household with guns.  I just don't think it is necessary or desirable to have people armed in the streets.  I understand all the logistical arguments against this position ( all the criminals would be the only ones armed, etc. ).  I don't think that matters.  Most people go on the streets now and only the criminals are armed.  If we made it a serious crime with bite (mandatory prison), we could make this country a safer place for our children to go to school.  I won't change my position and beliefs just because it is logistically difficult to achieve...

That post scares me as much as anything I've ever read on this or any other board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bonasa
Yea, I guess I should keep my mouth shut and get with the program... We wouldn't want to express our ideas and respect each other's right to an opinion..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
patriot
I have a hypothetical question.  

Say you live in a place that doesn't allow CCW.  Like New Jersey.  Then say there's some form of event that causes significant civil unrest.  It could be a natural disaster like Katrina, or something like the Rodney King riots or like the protests the middle east right now.  The rule of law has broken down and police, fire and medical services are not available. And say that for whatever reason you have a real need to venture out into public areas and expose yourself to potential danger.

Do you break the law or not?

I don't know what all was said after this, but I was getting cross-eyed reading.

Most know how anti-gun Chicago is.  A few years ago, an elderly lady who was wheel chair bound, was being robbed by two young thugs.

They made the mistake of wheeling her into her bedroom so she could show them where the valuables were; leaving her by the night stand.

She opened the drawyer and pulled out her deceased husband's .45 revolver and I believe killed one; the other fled or  was captured.

In 1983, hand guns were grandfathered in, when the hand gun ban was enacted.  By law, the gun should have been turned in when her husband, the legal owner, died

No charges were filed in gun hating Chicago because there would have been an uproar that the left coast could have heard.

I've often wondered the same thing Scratch, but we still have the jury system.  And I believe the jury, even though a law was broken, can rule 'not guilty', but not innocent.

One of the founding fathers stated the jury was a free society's last defense for freedom.  I hope it still is.

As far as losing one's assets to defend himself, we need serious tort reform.  They can begin by making the accusing party and thier lawyer responsible for the defense costs of the other if the accusing party loses.

I say 'and thier lawyer' because the accusing party in many cases wouldn't have the proverbial 'pot to pee in.' and most of the times it is the lawyer who prompts the action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dakota Dogman
Most people go on the streets now and only the criminals are armed.

ummm... no... unless you really think that owning and carrying a handgun makes me a criminal.  Otherwise this statement is too broad.

Don't mind you expressing your opinion... don't mind Dave expressing his either...

God Bless,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MAArcher
The danger starts when people carry.  

Are you sure?  I thought the danger started when bad men decided to do bad things, or is that the gun's fault too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PartridgeCartridge

The curious case of Joe Horn:

He was aquitted in Texas. Many other states would have incarcerated him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BigHink66

If you go to the FBI's website where they have the statistics on homicides you will see that homicides for 2009 were roughly 13,000.  Slightly less than 50% of those were commited with handguns and around 13% were committed with knives.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr....08.html

There were 406 justifiable homicide and the majority were using pistols.

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr....14.html

Now, it stands to reason that most people are going to use some sort of tool to commit murder.  But how can we justify the reasoning that if handguns were banned that it would prevent those murders.  Likely people would turn to long guns and knives.  When those are banned, blunt objects will lead as the preferred tool of homicide.

Its illogical to think that banning handguns will reduce crime.  Its nearly the same logic to think that owning a pistol means that you are likely to commit a crime.

It would make more sense to fight drugs harder and ban the use of alcohol.  Most crimes of all types are committed while under the influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobman
Guns were invented around 1200, there were no murders previous to that date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quailguy

Grand Jury Clears Texan in the Killing of 2 Burglars

By ADAM B. ELLICK

Published: July 1, 2008

HOUSTON — A grand jury on Monday refused to indict a 62-year-old man who fatally shot two burglars last November as they fled his neighbor’s house.

Skip to next paragraph

Joe Horn

In a case that raised questions of ethnic bias, self-defense and property rights, the jury rejected charges against the man, Joe Horn, who is white. Both victims were illegal immigrants from Colombia.

“Joe is not some wild cowboy,” Mr. Horn’s lawyer, Charles T. Lambright, said at a news conference on Monday. “He was put in a place where he didn’t have any other choice.”

But others reacted angrily to the decision. “There is not a snowflake’s chance in hell that an African-American man could do what Joe Horn did and get away with it,” said Quanell X, a local black activist. “The message that Harris County sent to the entire world is that Houston, Tex., is God’s city. There is no longer a need for the criminal justice system, police, judge or jury. You can be all of that on your own.”

Mr. Horn, a retired computer manager who testified before the grand jury, called 911 on Nov. 14, saying two men were burglarizing his neighbor’s house in Pasadena, a Houston suburb. He described the men as black.

“I’m not going to let them get away with it,” he told the emergency operator. “I’m going to shoot.” He added, “I’m going to kill them.”

The operator repeatedly told Mr. Horn not to shoot, and the police had just arrived at the scene when Mr. Horn fired three blasts of 00 buckshot from his 12-gauge, striking the men in their backs.

The men — Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, and Diego Ortiz, 30 — ran short distances before collapsing and dying, leaving behind a tire iron used to break a window and a pillowcase holding jewelry and about $2,000 from the neighbors.

Many questions went unanswered, including the events that transpired before Mr. Horn told the operator, “I had no choice,” adding, “Man, they came running in my yard.”

The Texas Penal Code allows the use of deadly force if the “actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary.” Deadly force can also be used to protect property when “the other is fleeing immediately after committing burglary.”

One lawyer, while endorsing the grand jury’s decision, raised questions about the process.

“I wonder if Joe Horn were black if he would be free tonight or in the Harris County Jail,” said the lawyer, Joseph Gutheinz Jr., of the National Republican Lawyers Association. “It’s a sea of white faces that doesn’t look anything like the county,” Mr. Gutheinz said.

In a news release, District Attorney Kenneth Magidson of Harris County said the grand jury had “conducted a thorough review of the evidence and testimony” and noted that every case involving deadly force “stands or falls on its own particular facts.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/us/01texas.html

The grand jury no billed Mr Horn. He is therefor NOT guilty of committing any crime, no matter what some of my Yankee friends might think.

Getting the opinion of a Malcolm X supporter counts as "an informed dissenting opinion" only in the NYT.

People in Texas are tired of crooks and bad guys, period. Most folks here were tryin' to think of some way to give him a gold medal....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bobman
ever notice how when they don't get their way they play the race card that gets so tiring

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PartridgeCartridge
ever notice how when they don't get their way they play the race card that gets so tiring

I think the case law governing the facts of the matter are very interesting.

Granted, Texas is a devout Castle Doctrine state and, of course, it's Texas, which is kind of its own country of sorts.

I'm quite positive that many other areas of the country would have prosecuted him for manslaughter. Or worse. Especially given he left his home to chase them and they were both shot in the back.

I'm not disagreeing with his (Joe's) actions, I'm merely making the observation that the same behavior in other parts of the country would end with completely different outcomes for a shooter.

And the race card pisses me off too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
grousehunter 61

As a 23 year Leo retired , I carry, 24 -7 - 365. As I type this I have a 1911 45 auto on my hip..here is why

One well known home invasion is the November 15, 1959 quadruple murder of the Clutter family by Richard "Dick" Hickock and Perry Edward Smith during a home-invasion robbery in rural Holcomb, Kansas. The murders were detailed in Truman Capote's "nonfiction novel" In Cold Blood.

More recently, two paroled criminals were charged with six counts of capital murder during a home invasion into the Petit family home in Cheshire, Connecticut on July 23, 2007. During the invasion, the mother died of asphyxiation due to strangulation and the two daughters died of smoke inhalation after the suspects set the house on fire. The men were charged with first-degree sexual assault, murder of a kidnapped person, and murder of two or more people at the same time. The state attorney is seeking the death penalty against the suspects.[8] The first defendant, Steven Hayes, was found guilty of 16 of 17 counts including capital murder on October 5, 2010 and on November 8, 2010 was sentenced to death. His co-defendant, Joshua Komisarjevsky, will stand trial in January 2011. (See Cheshire, Connecticut, home invasion murders.)

Another home invasion occurred on November 26, 2007 when Washington Redskins star Sean Taylor was murdered during an overnight home invasion of his suburban Miami home. Four defendants were charged with this crime.[9]

Many U.S. states (particularly those that endorse the Castle Doctrine) include defending oneself against forcible entry of one's home as part of their definition of justifiable homicide without any obligation to retreat[citation needed].

and another reason

•One property crime happens every 3 seconds.

•One burglary occurs every 10 seconds.

•One violent crime occurs every  20 seconds.

•One aggravated assault occurs every 35 seconds.

•One robbery occurs every 60 seconds, or 1 minute.

•One forcible rape occurs every 2 minutes.

•There were over 2 million burglaries in 2005.

•An increase in burglary offenses was the only property crime to increase in 2005 compared with the prior year data

Don't think it can't happen to you, dream on.......My family comes first, regardless, I am not a victim and never will be, you on the other hand are a victim already, worried more about your material things then the safty of your family.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
popplecop

To say that handguns are designed to conceal and kill people is ridiculous!  They maybe used for this but to claim all handguns are in this catorgory is not true.

I do have some small concealable handguns and they were designed for personal protection and in an extreme case might be used to defend oneself.  Funny thing is my small handguns such as a Ruger LCP, Para LDA, S&W Chief's Special and my late wife's Beretta Tom Cat I love shooting them.  Granted they are not target handguns but I get a charge out of shooting them.  My Para is very accurate at 25 yds, the rest I shoot at 7 Yds. or less.

Then there are my target and hunting handguns and were designed for that.  I'm a big fan of Single Action revolvers and they woul be the last I would choose for CC.  Yes they did account for the demise of many in years back, but now adays?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad Eden

....race, illegal immigrants...not a chance in hell.

Been a great Topic--another that will end up in the Archives Forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×