The Concealed Carry Fantasy

[Anonymous]

Why do gun promoters not take the data into consideration? Concealed carry does more harm than good:

...since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator.

The death toll includes 29 mass killings of three or more people by concealed carry shooters who took 139 lives; 17 police officers shot to death, and — in the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides. Compared with the 579 non-self-defense, concealed-carry shootings, there were only 21 cases in which self-defense was determined to be a factor.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/26/opinion/the-concealed-carry-fantasy.html

[Anonymous]

I see you annoyed a devoted gun nut, OP.

You're right. Concealed carry is a joke, and just another pathetic attempt by the NRA to link toting around a dangerous weapon to the idea of freedom.

[Anonymous]

Statistics are meaningless as applied to individuals. You never know if you'll be the one in a million. People choose to carry thinking that they will be one of the ones who use it for self defense. Just like people choose not to vaccinate because they don't want to risk their child becoming one of the handful who end up killed or disabled by a rare reaction. You can scream all day about how irrational it is, but the fact is, people have the right to do what they think is best for themselves and their families within the bounds of the law.

[Anonymous]

The way I figure it, those who accidentally kill themselves are the by-product of natural selection. They die due to a poor personal decision. It is harsh but it is best to have them out of the gene pool entirely.

Those who kill others due to their bumbling is another matter entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Statistics are meaningless as applied to individuals. You never know if you'll be the one in a million. People choose to carry thinking that they will be one of the ones who use it for self defense. Just like people choose not to vaccinate because they don't want to risk their child becoming one of the handful who end up killed or disabled by a rare reaction. You can scream all day about how irrational it is, but the fact is, people have the right to do what they think is best for themselves and their families within the bounds of the law.

so then we need to change the law to defend ourselves from the selfish. smallpox ended because people had to be vaccinated, there was no opting out.

[Anonymous]

Utter bullshit OP. You conveniently forgot the fact that legally owned guns are used defensively to save lives and stop crimes (including rape) between 110,000 to 2.4 million times in the U.S. every year:

http://guncite.com/kleckandgertztable1.html

You also failed to mention that gun homicides of every type have decreased by 50% since the 1990s despite huge increases in gun ownership and the ability today to get a concealed gun permit in every single state plus DC (which was not the case in the 1990s).

Stop lying.

[Anonymous]

It's magical thinking on the part of the gun lobby.

[Anonymous]

Legally owned guns have helped instigate a plethora of domestic murders and suicides. They help bring families closer together (not).

[Anonymous]

The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fault in that logic is that a gun can be used for self-defense without resulting in a homicide. But the biased NYT (redundant) chooses to misinterpret the statistics.

No...no...no...it ain't about biased and misinterpreted statistics.
A gun is for killing - period. The argument of self-defense comes in after the fact when somebody is already friggin dead and if he's got a good attorney a guy can pretty much shoot a nun in the back of the head while she's walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket and get off on self-defense. After the acquittal the case falls under the category of self-defense statistically but the reality is dude shot a nun in the back of the head while she was walking down the produce aisle of the supermarket. F--- the statistics.

What are you prattling on about?

A gun can also be used as a deterrent. That's the part you're ignoring, and the NYT ignored. All your other words are just useless blather.

Rather than being used for self-defense, guns in the home are 22 times more likely to be involved in accidental shootings, homicides, or suicide attempts.
For every one time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS) Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010

Useless blather?

[Anonymous]

Barbara Comstock

Throughout her career in the Virginia House of Delegates, Barbara Comstock has been a proven leader and stood up to every attempt by anti-gun extremists to degrade and erode our Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage.

Opposes "Universal" Background Checks
Opposes semi-auto ban
Supports buying as many hand guns as you want, no limits

https://www.nrapvf.org/campaigns/2014/vote-comstock/

[Anonymous]

I don't own a gun and never have but sometimes they are useful:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-charge-dropped-against-dc-man-who-shot-pit-bull-attacking-child/2013/07/23/c9f6e6f6-f2e4-11e2-bdae-0d1f78989e8a_story.html

Police can't be everywhere in 10 seconds. The poor young boy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't own a gun and never have but sometimes they are useful:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gun-charge-dropped-against-dc-man-who-shot-pit-bull-attacking-child/2013/07/23/c9f6e6f6-f2e4-11e2-bdae-0d1f78989e8a_story.html

Police can't be everywhere in 10 seconds. The poor young boy.

A friggin machete is useful - that doesn't mean folks should walk around wielding one.