Gunman, victim killed in Colo. church attack

[mark3748]

Quote by: Cephus If you are under 21, you must complete a motorcycle rider training course given by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and provide a certificate of Completion of Motorcycle Training (DL 389) to DMV to be issued your license. Driver License and Identification (ID) Card Information

IF you're under 21... that's not a requirment for everyone, so your analogy doesn't work

[mark3748]

The statistics don't lie, if this had happened in a state with no CCW or an effective ban on legal carry, many more would have died, it is irrelevant that she had police training or was acting as a security guard, either way she was just a member of the church carrying her personal firearm for the protection of her and her fellow church members. The shooter was in no way affiliated with the church and had no way of knowing there would be anyone there to protect themselves.

The statistic from Ohio:
Ohioans For Concealed Carry - Analysis: Violent Crime DOWN since Ohio concealed carry became law

Between 1995 and 2001, 11 states enacted right-to-carry laws. Since the laws went into effect, these states' average annual drop in homicide was 3.9%, compared to an annual drop of 3.4% in the 18 states without right-to-carry during that time period. New right-to-carry states saw an average annual drop in rape of 1.6%, compared to 0.5% for non-CCW states.6 Also, the ATF estimates that an average of 4.5 million new firearms are sold each year.7 FACT: More guns, less crime.

FACT: In 2003, our nation's capitol experienced a murder rate of 44.2 per 100,000 population, nearly 8 times the national rate, and over 8.7 times the average rate of all concealed carry states. The D.C. violent crime rate is 2.5 times the national average and four times the rate of RTC states.11

NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets

RTC and crime trends. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., John Lott and David Mustard found, “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths. If those states which did not have Right to Carry concealed gun provisions had adopted them in 1992, approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly....[W]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by 8.5 percent, and rapes and aggravated assaults fell by 5 and 7 percent.”5

• False predictions. Dave Kopel has written, “Whenever a state legislature first considers a concealed carry bill, opponents typically warn of horrible consequences....But within a year of passage, the issue usually drops off the news media’s radar screen, while gun-control advocates in the legislature conclude that the law wasn’t so bad after all.”6 A article related to Michigan’s RTC law said, “Concerns that permit holders would lose their tempers in traffic accidents have been unfounded. Worries about risks to police officers have also proved unfounded....National surveys of police show they support concealed handgun laws by a 3-1 margin....There is also not a single academic study that claims Right to Carry laws have increased state crime rates. The debate among academics has been over how large the benefits have been.”7

Before 1987, there were 10 RTC states. Indiana, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Washington had “shall issue” permit laws. Alabama and Connecticut had fairly-administered discretionary-issue systems. Georgia’s “shall issue” law was interpreted as discretionary in some jurisdictions. Vermont allowed carrying without a permit. Other states had restrictively-administered discretionary-issue carry permit systems or prohibited carrying altogether. These laws remain in effect. In 1987, Florida enacted a “shall issue” law that has since become the model for other states. Anti-gun groups, politicians and news media interests predicted vigilante justice and “Wild West” shootouts on every corner. The predictions proved false. Through 1992, Florida’s murder rate decreased 23%, while the U.S. rate rose 9%; thereafter, murder decreased both nationally and in Florida.9 Then-Florida Licensing Division Director, John Russi, noted that “Florida’s concealed weapon law has been very successful. All major law enforcement groups supported the original legislation....[S]ome of the opponents of concealed weapon legislation in 1987 now admit the program has not created the problems many predicted.”10 In a 1995 letter to state officials, Dept. of Law Enforcement Commissioner James T. Moore wrote, “From a law enforcement perspective, the licensing process has not resulted in problems.”

So you'll excuse me if I believe the TRUTH about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens curbing the rate of violent crime.

[Cephus]

Quote by: mark3748 IF you're under 21... that's not a requirment for everyone, so your analogy doesn't work

You're the one who said it isn't a requirement in any state, I proved you wrong. It most certainly is a requirement in California. Stop trying to squirm out of it.

[Cephus]

Quote by: brien The reality is Koresh could have been arrested any number of times upon his frequent trips into Waco. Janet Reno's thugs didn't need to go out and provoke a heated controversy at the Davidian Complex. That's the reality of the situation.

Whether that's true or not is irrelevant (and I've already agreed that they should have done that), the fact that they showed up at the front gates was not, in any way, a justification to open fire. Had Koresh simply surrendered himself at the gates, those people would all still be alive.

That's the reality.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Cephus You're the one who said it isn't a requirement in any state, I proved you wrong. It most certainly is a requirement in California. Stop trying to squirm out of it.

I said as far as I know, and your "proof" just showed me that people under the age of 21 had to take a class, and not even a proper class, a CHP class, while every other state uses the MSF as their class.

So if the point you're arguing is whether we should require people under 21 to to take a saftey course before purchasing a handgun, then I agree. It's a far better idea than completely prohibiting people under 21 from handguns.

[Jack]

So if the point you're arguing is whether we should require people under 21 to to take a saftey course before purchasing a handgun

I'd rather see anyone of any age required to receive training. Knowing how and when to use a firearm is not instinctive.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Isherwood I'd rather see anyone of any age required to receive training. Knowing how and when to use a firearm is not instinctive.

I want to see training, but not a requirement. Informal training can be as, or more effective than formal training. One-on-one with a friend or family member that is competent with a firearm is far better than 2 hours of classroom, 1 hour of range with 50 other people that is fairly standard with NRA-type classes.

I learned everything I need to know about firearms from my parents, starting at the age of 7. Is someone that's never held a gun in their life that decides to purchase a gun and take a 3-hour class more suited to defend themselves than I am? Then why would you restrict my right to purchase a firearm because I haven't taken a formal "class"?

I don't agree with any restrictions on purchasing a firearm beyond a simple background check to determine if you're an escaped convict or mental patient.

[The Decider]

Quote by: mark3748 The statistics don't lie, if this had happened in a state with no CCW or an effective ban on legal carry, many more would have died, it is irrelevant that she had police training or was acting as a security guard, either way she was just a member of the church carrying her personal firearm for the protection of her and her fellow church members.

The New Life Church posted a guard for a reason--it feared an attack by some nutter with a grudge against its fundamentalist ideology. Whether or not the state permitted CCW and legal carry, the church would still feel the need for security which it would pay for from a legitimate company. Private organizations do it all the time.

Quote by: mark3748 [b]The shooter was in no way affiliated with the church and had no way of knowing there would be anyone there to protect themselves.

False. The shooter had visited both the missionary school and the New Life Church, but formally belonged to the school before his expulsion. He had ample opportunity to case both buildings prior to the attacks.

"[The shooter], again going by the handle Chrstnghtmr, describes going with his mother to a conference at New Life. The poster said he "got into a debate" with two prayer team staff members, who monitored him, then tracked down his mother and "told her a story that went something along the lines of I 'wasn't walking with the lord and could be planning violence.'"

Colo. church gunman left twisted trail - Yahoo! News

Quote by: mark3748 The statistic from Ohio: Ohioans For Concealed Carry - Analysis: Violent Crime DOWN since Ohio concealed carry became law NRA-ILA :: Fact Sheets So you'll excuse me if I believe the TRUTH about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens curbing the rate of violent crime.

But in Florida, criminologists found no correlation between reduced crime and a concealed carry law. And the Lott thesis of "More Guns, Less Crime" has a number of problems, not the least of which is a lack of peer review of his research by an independent panel of experts. The "truth" remains elusive.

"In the recently published study “Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns: Crime Control through Gun Decontrol?,” Kovandzic and Marvell examine what, if any, impact Florida’s right-to-carry law has had on its rate of violent crime. They find that the 1987 passage of Florida’s RTC law appears to have had no statistically significant effect on violent crime. They proffer several explanations for the no-effect finding. First, they point out that few people have taken advantage of the concealed carry law? “despite millions of Floridians being eligible for permits… 12 years after the [RTC] law was in effect, there were only 248,O49 valid concealed weapons permits in Florida, representing 2.1% of the Florida adult population.” They further speculate that the benefits of allowing potential victims to carry concealed handguns might be cancelled out by an increased number of potential criminals securing permits to carry concealed handguns of their own. Kovandzic and Marvell conclude “there may be numerous reasons for state policymakers to support RTC laws, but the belief that these laws reduce crime should not be one of them.”

SSRN-Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol? by Tomislav Kovandzic, Thomas Marvell
SSRN-The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis by John Donohue
Deltoid » 2003 » August

[mark3748]

Quote by: The Decider "In the recently published study “Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns: Crime Control through Gun Decontrol?,” Kovandzic and Marvell examine what, if any, impact Florida’s right-to-carry law has had on its rate of violent crime. They find that the 1987 passage of Florida’s RTC law appears to have had no statistically significant effect on violent crime. They proffer several explanations for the no-effect finding. First, they point out that few people have taken advantage of the concealed carry law? “despite millions of Floridians being eligible for permits… 12 years after the [RTC] law was in effect, there were only 248,O49 valid concealed weapons permits in Florida, representing 2.1% of the Florida adult population.” They further speculate that the benefits of allowing potential victims to carry concealed handguns might be cancelled out by an increased number of potential criminals securing permits to carry concealed handguns of their own. Kovandzic and Marvell conclude “there may be numerous reasons for state policymakers to support RTC laws, but the belief that these laws reduce crime should not be one of them.” SSRN-Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns and Violent Crime: Crime Control Through Gun Decontrol? by Tomislav Kovandzic, Thomas Marvell SSRN-The Final Bullet in the Body of the More Guns, Less Crime Hypothesis by John Donohue Deltoid » 2003 » August

RTC laws work passively as well as actively, so the fact that not many Floridians decided to get CCW permits is irrelevant. Criminals have no way of knowing if you are a CCW permit holder prepared to defend yourself or not. Criminals prefer easy targets and would prefer to not have a victim put up a fight.

Criminals with CCW permits pose no threat as the statistics show that they do not get CCW permits:

Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state (due to its large population and having had an RTC law since 1987) has issued over 1.2 million permits, but revoked only 157 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders

Criminals don't care about gun laws. Do you think that someone that is willing to do something illegal in the first place is going to be worried whether the way they carry their weapon of choice is legal or not? They carry concealed regardless of RTC and CCW laws. The statistics are similar in every RTC state, far less than 1% are revoked, and the reasons they are revoked are almost never related to violent use of their legally owned and carried firearms.

And this little tidbit, combining Florida's RTC and castle doctrine laws:
MCRGO - Gun Control: No Illusion Without Collusion

from 1988 through 2004, the overall U.S. violent crime rate fell 27.3%, but those “scary, shoot first” folks in Florida saw a 36.4% drop, 33% more than the national rate. In Florida, murder fell 50% more, rape fell 59% more, robbery fell 49% more, and aggravated assault fell 11% more than the national rates.

Florida isn't an isolated case, in states and cities with severe restrictions (up to and including outright bans) on firearm ownership, the violent crime rate is significantly higher than RTC states:

Sorting FBI data by violent crime rate uncovers some interesting results. The seven least violent states are all shall-issue right-to-carry (RTC). Of the seven most violent states, three are non-RTC (includes D.C.) Since about 75% of all states are RTC, 43% of the worst being non-RTC makes these states over-represented at the unpleasant end. The five states with the lowest murder rate are RTC, but two of the five worst are non-RTC. The eleven states with the lowest robbery rate are RTC, but of the eleven worst, 5 are non-RTC. Nine of 10 states with the lowest assault rates are RTC, while 3 of 10 with the highest rates are non-RTC. The only exception is in rates of rape, where three of the 10 lowest are non-RTC, while only one non-RTC state is in the 10 worst. Overall, non-RTC states average 27.8% higher violent crime rates, most notably 43.8% higher murder and 85% higher robbery rates, than RTC states. (See Table 4) The exception is rape: non-RTC states averaged 21.1% lower rates, reversing a 9-year trend where 10 states with RTC laws enacted during 1995-1996 saw their rates of rape drop faster than non-RTC states

And this doesn't even take into account the metropolitan areas in RTC-states that claim "home-rule" to deny the right that everyone else in the state enjoys. Living in Colorado, Denver is a prime example of this, Denver claims to be above the law, including our own state constitution.

Anyway, the main point I'm getting at is that when you disarm law-abiding citizens, criminals have an easier time doing their job. The statistics support it, if you want to be skeptical of Florida, look at the other RTC states and see what you find.

[brien]

Anyway, the main point I'm getting at is that when you disarm law-abiding citizens, criminals have an easier time doing their job. The statistics support it, if you want to be skeptical of Florida, look at the other RTC states and see what you find.

Right on the mark, there mark. Excellent posts.

[brien]

Had Koresh simply surrendered himself at the gates, those people would all still be alive.

And had the government bullies chose to wait them out for a peaceful solution, which they could have done, those people would still be alive today. The government picked the fight.

[Sonart]

.

And had the government bullies chose to wait them out for a peaceful solution, which they could have done, those people would still be alive today. The government picked the fight.

No, Koresch picked the fight and chose to end it, ala Bob Jones. He never intended to surrender, but to fulfull his prophecy by going out -- literally -- in a Blaze of Glory.

Quote by: Mark The statistics don't lie

No, they don't. You guys can nitpick all you like about this or that carry law, but the fact remains that, thanks to America's outdated gun culture, America is the most murderous civilized nation on earth. These shootings are simply a symptom, the frayed fringes of our society acting out in what our culture has immersed us all... problems get solved by the great equalizer, guns.

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart said: No, they don't. You guys can nitpick all you like about this or that carry law, but the fact remains that, thanks to America's outdated gun culture, America is the most murderous civilized nation on earth. These shootings are simply a symptom, the frayed fringes of our society acting out in what our culture has immersed us all... problems get solved by the great equalizer, guns.

More denial of logic, with a bonus of denial of statistics when they aren't in "your favor".

[ZNFYRH]

Why the constant repetition of "an armed citizen"?

It wasn't an armed citizen. It was an armed, and employed, security guard.

I would completely support the, "Finally the 2nd Amendment is a good thing" rant if it were the soccer mom who did it.

But it wasn't.

It was someone who was on the premises paid to be armed.

Presenting this article doesn't lend support to anything other than the benefits of, at best, privatized security services.

Anything else about mandatory training for private gun owners is a red herring.

[mark3748]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Why the constant repetition of "an armed citizen"? It wasn't an armed citizen. It was an armed, and employed, security guard. I would completely support the, "Finally the 2nd Amendment is a good thing" rant if it were the soccer mom who did it. But it wasn't. It was someone who was on the premises paid to be armed. Presenting this article doesn't lend support to anything other than the benefits of, at best, privatized security services. Anything else about mandatory training for private gun owners is a red herring.

Have you not been paying attention? SHE WAS NOT A HIRED OR PAID SECURITY GUARD, she was a member of the church that volunteered to carry her PERSONAL firearm to protect herself and the other members of the church. She was just like a large number of other people in this city who do the same thing day in and day out. If this had happened in any other part of her daily life, the same thing would have happened, and no one would have anything to say about her being a "security guard"

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Osborn F Enready More denial of logic, with a bonus of denial of statistics when they aren't in "your favor".

What could possibly be more logical?

More Guns = More Gun Crimes

You bandaid gun carry permits are like prescribing aspirin for cancer. Sure, it might make you feel a bit better, but doesn't do a damn thing to solve the underlying problem and probably makes it much worse by arming that many more unqualified and/or unstble people. For every (actually rare) hi profile shooting stopped by an armed citizen, you'd have that many more moronic armed citizens drawing guns and shooting each other for cutting in line at the super market.

.

[mark3748]

Quote by: Sonart . For every (actually rare) hi profile shooting stopped by an armed citizen, you'd have that many more moronic armed citizens drawing guns and shooting each other for cutting in line at the super market.

This is more of the rhetoric that precedes the passage of every castle doctrine law. Wild West shootouts, blood in the streets, etc. It NEVER happens, and one or two isolated incidents mean nothing. Stuff like that happens regardless of gun laws.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: mark This is more of the rhetoric that precedes the passage of every castle doctrine law. Wild West shootouts, blood in the streets, etc. It NEVER happens, and one or two isolated incidents mean nothing. Stuff like that happens regardless of gun laws.

What are you talking about? It's ALREADY happening. The elephant in the room is staring straight at you.

[shawmutt]

Why are anecdotes where the gun saved the day accepted as irrefutable proof of the benefits of CCW, but anecdotes showing otherwise dismissed?

If you accept this story and others like it as the overwhelming evidence for carrying a firearm for protection, then you must also accept the anecdotes of people who tried to pull a gun on criminals--and getting shot and killed--as overwhelming evidence against carrying a gun for protection. Furthermore, you must accept anecdotes about irresponsible gun owners as overwhelming evidence that people with guns are dumb. It all involves the same logical fallacy.

I'll restate my premise. Anecdotes are never, ever, "proper documented evidence", whether there's 2 or 2 million. Here's an excerpt from a blog by Dr. Steven Novella, president of the New England Skeptical Society, that has a weekly podcast called "Skeptic's Guide to the Universe":

We also have history to inform our opinions about anecdotes. Western practitioners relied upon the humoral theory of health and illness for thousands of years. Apparently thousands of years of anecdotal experience did not inform them that their treatments were worthless or harmful. Dr. Abrams became wealthy by selling a machine to diagnosis and treats ailments. His devices were widely used, with millions of people swearing by their effectiveness. It worked for them, and their experience was unshakable. When Abrams died it was discovered that his machines (previously protected from inspection) were filled with useless random machine parts.

(Here's the blog in its entirety if interested) So yeah, even millions of anecdotes don't convince me.

You can tell all the stories you want and post all the news articles you want, just don't try to change public policy with them.

A little secret about me, in case you didn't know. I'm an NRA member. I support a person's choice to carry protection. I carry my knife everywhere I go so I can possibly have a slight advantage if needed (but am more likely to clean fish and open letters with it--try THAT with a gun! ). Honestly, if my wife would let me get away with it, I'd own more than a rifle or two for home defense as well.

While I’m all for the legal ownership of guns, I am against a few things.

I am, first of all, against bullshit. If someone wants to debate guns, they need to bring something of substance to the table, not anecdotal evidence and especially not news stories with at best a double bias (the person telling the story, the person writing the story, possibly the copy editor, etc.). I said it over and over; anecdotal evidence is worthless in debate and a logical fallacy. Anecdotal evidence should never be used in public policy, and results in a lot of really stupid laws (like overzealous gun control).

Secondly, I am against exploiting victims to further an agenda in an attempt to spread availability heuristic. The stories I read in my monthly American Hunter, while anecdotal and still not convincing me of anything, thankfully focus on the gun owner’s success in circumstances. Some other folks rub their hands with glee at every school shooting and church shooting, because it somehow “proves” their point that everyone should be carrying a firearm or else.*

Third, I am against extremes. I am against false dichotomies--in this case, either I own and carry a gun with me everywhere and I’m a safe, independent, and responsible citizen, OR I’m a hoplophobe--an unsafe, irresponsible America-hater who is dependant on authority and wants to outlaw the Second amendment. Most people don’t argue from these extremes, but some do. Those few extreme folks are the ones I take to task.

In short, what does it take to convince me? Logically sound, rational argument based on scientific study and/or my own personal experiences.

*This really rubs me the wrong way because of a similar past experience and present conditions. I was raised a Baptist, and when I was a kid I was constantly warned of the growing threat of the “cult of Mohammadism”. Basically, our prison missionaries were constantly running into newly converted Muslims and not liking the competition one bit. Since 9/11, Baptists and other Christian groups have used the terrorist attacks significantly to their advantage, spreading their message of hate throughout the U.S. with a fervency not seen in since the Cold War and their vendetta against atheists. Ever wonder why before 9/11 almost nothing was heard about the "Muslim world", and now we hear nearly daily reminders of the "evil it represents"?

[mark3748]

Quote by: Sonart . What are you talking about? It's ALREADY happening. The elephant in the room is staring straight at you.

Your chart doesn't have anything to do with availability of guns to individuals, it's mostly cultural from what I can tell. Most countries don't have little gangsters going around shooting each other. Those statistics clearly include criminals shooting other criminals. Look at Sweden way down there on that list, where nearly every household has a machine gun sitting in their closet.

And while we're on that subject, why is the violent crime rate so high in places like Chicago and DC? they have an outright ban on firearms, how far did that get them?

Most violent crime happens in places with severe restrictions on gun ownership, to me it's quite obvious that taking away guns does more harm than good. Prohibition creates crime, whether it's drugs, alcohol, or firearms, it is historically proven that it causes far more problems than it solves.