Why concealed handguns don't result in blood running in the streets

[spin]

The last state mandated report from the Ohio attorney general showed nearly 143,000 concealed handgun licenses had been issued in the Buckeye State since the program's inception in 2004. Considering the substantial increase for 2008 over the previous year, it is safe to assume that the number is over 150,000 by now.

When concealed carry was being considered, those opposed to such licensing claimed that it would lead to shootouts over soccer matches and fender benders, that CCW holders would be dropping their guns at the mall leading to accidental discharges, that cops would be killed during routine traffic stops and that violence in Ohio would skyrocket. Five years later, that still hasn't happened. So why haven't more guns led to more violence?

****snip****

After jumping through all the hoops and passing all the tests and checks, you are issued a CHL which is valid for five years. After the five years, you must get the license renewed, which requires another background check and range recertification after your first renewal.

The fact of the matter is that people who can go through this entire process successfully are the kinds of people who don't commit crimes in the first place. Most crimes are committed by repeat offenders, and you can't get a CHL if you have an extensive criminal history. Not to mention the fact that criminals, by definition, break laws. If hey have no qualms about robbing, raping, and murdering, why would they be concerned about carrying a concealed firearm without a license?

The responsible people who obtain a concealed handgun license are careful not to lose that privilege (only open carry is a right under current Ohio law). They don't violate prohibitions on where their firearm may be carried (and there are a lot) and they're not the kind of people in the first place who are inclined to escalate disputes into violence. If they were, they'd have a disqualifying background since rarely do violent tendencies just suddenly appear.

CHL holders are among the most law abiding subsets of society and it is for this reason that the concealed carry program has been and will continue to be safe and successful.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2206-Cleveland-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m5d26-Why-concealed-handguns-dont-result-in-blood-running-in-the-streets

[jgraz]

1. I'm cool with restricting handgun ownership to those who qualify for a CHL

Provided that their arsenal is restricted to the specific handgun they will carry.

[rl6214]

3. But what if someone doesn't want to carry

They just enjoy the shooting sport. And as far as restricting their arsenal to the specific handgun they will carry, in Texas if you qualify with a semi-auto pistol you can carry either a semi or a revolver whereas is you qualify with a revolver, you can only carry a revolver. I can carry either but that shouldn't limit what I can actually own.

[jgraz]

5. Then establish a similar licensing process for shooting enthusiasts

but we need something to help keep firearms out of the hands of idiots like these parents:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8071512.stm

[rl6214]

8. You already have to pass

an FBI check in order to purchase a firearm so that should meet your criteria. Sometimes though you just cannot legislate stupidiy or negligence.

[jgraz]

9. An FBI check is insufficient, clearly.

Sometimes you *can* legislate against stupidity and negligence. The problem with our gun policy is we don't even have the debate.

[inkool]

12. What criteria would you..

purpose to use to decide who can and cannot own a handgun?

[jgraz]

14. The first step is admitting you have a problem.

I don't see why state CCW requirements shouldn't apply to every handgun purchaser.

[spin]

19. I agree...as long as the gun owners would than be allow to carry. (n/t)

[rl6214]

21. Which in too many states

they (we) are still not allowed to.

[spin]

28. Work to change your state laws...

I'm sure you can find a organization to join and support. If one doesn't exist, start one.

for example:
http://www.illinoiscarry.com/

http://www.californiaconcealedcarry.com/

Note: I have no affiliation nor am I familiar with the organizations in the above links. Exercise care before joining or supporting.

[rl6214]

66. My Texas CCL will work in most states

But there are many like Nevada which will not recognize it.

[Statistical]

82. You can get a FL non-resident permit.

It is accepted in a lot of states and likely your training requirements for TX are good for FL.
It can be done by mail w/ a notary.

http://www.handgunlaw.us/LicMaps/ccwmap.php

Lets you see combined maps (check just TX, just FL, or TX & FL).

FL gains NV, OH, WV & NH it looks like.

MN doesn't support FL but it does support TX so you are still covered there.

[X_Digger]

83. Well, not WV..

WV doesn't honor non-resident permits from FL.

This trip planner for CCW covers both resident and non-resident applicability- http://apps.carryconcealed.net/packngo

(There may be a better reciprocity map out there that covers both resident and non-resident, but I haven't found it yet.)

[jgraz]

25. I'm totally fine with that

Then, if some licensed idiot goes off on a shooting spree, you have a process that you can examine and change.

[spin]

30. Very true. (n/t)

[Statistical]

84. Do you examine the process everytime some idiot kills someone driving recklessly?

The truth is the govt can neither protect people from everything nor should it always try.

How would a class prevent someone from going on a shooting spree.
"Lesson #1: Shooting bystanders is bad."

[inkool]

32. It does in PA.

The criteria for getting an LTCF (License to Carry Firearm) and buying a handgun are basically the same. The big difference is that a LTCF may require some addition background checks beyond that of PICS (PA Instant Check System, basically just NICS done by the state police). There are no classes or tests.

Basically if you pass the background check you get your LTCF/Hand Gun.

[spin]

42. I like the idea of a class before allowing a person to carry concealed...

and I favor a gun safety class for anyone wishing to purchase a firearm.

While I am a very strong supporter of gun ownership and concealed carry, I have seen individuals who have legally purchased firearms and had absolutely no idea of how to check to see if their weapon was loaded.

They were an accident waiting to happen.

[inkool]

44. I can definitely see you point,

and agree that anyone getting into shooting should get some training.

Back when I was frequenting public ranges I would spend a good bit of time teaching people basic gun safety and handling. I would also give away a good amount of foam ear plugs. It still amazes me the number of people who go shooting without ear and eye protection.

I also agree that someone going for there carry license should understand what they are doing. However the PA constitution is very strongly worded regarding bearing arms.

The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Legally it may be difficult to require a test, but I am no lawyer and this may be a topic for another day.


My main point was that in some states the criteria is the same for purchasing a handgun and obtaining a carry license.

[spin]

46. I wasn't aware of the law in Pennsylvania...

the law in Florida does require more requirements for a carry license than those for merely purchasing a firearm.

In my opinion, I would like to see the requirement for range time increased.

If you take the firearms class at a gun show you merely have to show minimum proficiency with a supplied firearm at a gun range.


1. The class is offered at every gun show - four times during the weekend.
2. The class is approximately two (2) hours in duration.
3. The fee for the Firearms Safety Course is $45.
4. After the classroom lecture is completed, all students must go to the firearms range and safely discharge a firearm in the presence of the firearms instructor. This only takes a few minutes. The firearms instructor will supply the firearm.
5. All students must attend the range training. The range fee is $5.
6. Your fingerprints, passport pictures, and notary is required to submit your application to Tallahassee. These services are available at the show for $14.
7. The State of Florida concealed weapons license is good in thirty (33) states.
8. The State of Florida concealed weapons is now good for five (7) years.
9.The State fee for the license is $117. (Cashiers check, money order, or personal check). You send the fee to Tallahassee after completion of the training.
10. All instructors are Police Firearms Instructors or NRA Firearms Instructors and are certified through the State of Florida.
11. Cash or check is acceptable payment for the gun show firearms safety course.
12. Be sure to bring Photo ID (Drivers license or State ID card) for your notary and application.
http://www.suncoastgunshows.com/html/concealed_weapons_permit.htm

Of course, many excellent firearms instructors are available who will provide a much superior training course which includes much more time on the gun range. I would recommend taking such a course to anyone who is considering obtaining a concealed carry permit.

But I haven't read of any problems caused by those who attend the course at the gun shows.

[inkool]

10. Plus they were breaking the law...

by not securely storing the firearm per California law. Passing more laws will not stop someone who already does not follow the law.

[jgraz]

13. If laws reduce the number of available handguns, they will help.

The problem is that once you allow the idiots to buy the gun, you're pretty much fucked. Given the state interest in not having toddlers shooting infants, it's at least something that should be considered.

[rl6214]

15. Anyone can put on a show

and jump through hoops in order to obtain a firearm if that's what is required. So they take the classes and pass the tests, then what's to keep them from "storing" their firearm under the bed or on the nightstand table? Again, you can't legislate stupidity or negligence.

[jgraz]

17. But negligent idiots are less likely to jump through the hoops

The argument you're making can also be used against requiring drivers licenses. Yes, there are bad drivers out there, but it doesn't mean we completely abandon any attempt to screen for idiocy.

[inkool]

40. If the gun was..

legally owned then many a hoops were already jumped through. Yet this person still decided to disregard the law and basic safety practices.

From http://www.ag.ca.gov/firearms/pubfaqs.php#7

What is the process for purchasing a firearm in California?

All firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process. California imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a buyer or transferee. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To buy a handgun, a person must be at least 21 years of age, and either 1) possess an HSC plus successfully complete a safety demonstration with the handgun being purchased or 2) qualify for an HSC exemption.

As part of the DROS process, the buyer must present "clear evidence of identity and age" which is defined as a valid, non-expired California Driver's License or Identification Card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. A military identification accompanied by permanent duty station orders indicating a posting in California is also acceptable.

If the buyer is not a U.S. Citizen, then he or she is required to demonstrate that he or she is legally within the United States by providing to the firearms dealer with documentation that contains his/her Alien Registration Number or I-94 Number.

Purchasers of handguns are also required to provide proof of California residency, such as a utility bill, residential lease, property deed, or government-issued identification (other than a drivers license or other DMV-issued identification).

Notice where it says HSC that stands for Handgun Safety Certificate.

How do I get an HSC?

You may obtain an HSC by passing the DOJ HSC test administered by a DOJ Certified Instructor.

Not being from CA I am not sure exactly what a HSC includes. Is there anyone from CA that might know?

[Caliman73]

47. The HSC is basically a test that measures your ability to memorize safety rules, basic laws...

and guidelines. You can take a class, but you don't have to. You just read the manual and take the test. The CCW class is more intensive and in many jurisdictions it is nearly impossible for the average citizen to get a permit. If you are politically connected you can get one though.

[jgraz]

55. You can look up the HSC test online. It's pretty much a joke

Lots of questions like:

It's OK to let a toddler play with my handgun.
a) true
b( false

[inkool]

74. Joke or not...

This person should have payed more attention to the test.

So back to the big picture. What additional hoops should be in place to obtain a handgun?

[one-eyed fat man]

85. Maybe

they "dumbed down" the test so they wouldn't get sued that the test discriminated against people from California?

[krispos42]

78. So if the goal of such laws...

... to make handgun ownership safer, or to discourage handgun ownership under the banner of making handgun ownership safer?

[Tim01]

18. More people die from alcohol and alcohol is accessible to almost everybody.

[jgraz]

45. Alcohol poisoning only kills about 1400 people a year.

Drunk driving, on the other hand, kills around 16,000 per year and is strictly illegal.

And, of course, we have around 30,000 gun-related deaths in this country per year.

[friendly_iconoclast]

49. Alcohol kills in far more ways than DUI and acute alcohol poisoning

Alcoholism, for one.
Alcohol as a part of polydrug (AKA "garbagehead) abuse.

Yet America's second favorite psychoactive substance has few seeking its' prohibition.

We saw what happened the last time it was 'prohibited'

[Statistical]

50. Half of which are suicides. n/t

[jgraz]

52. Compared to 12,000 gun suicides per year

[Statistical]

53. Oops I replied to wrong post.

That was my point; about half of all gun deaths are suicides.

Another large % is criminals killing criminals primarily over the drug trade.

So discounting those a law abiding citizen (not involved in drug trade or planning on killing themselves) is about as likely to die from another persons DUI than they are from another persons gun.

Why not comprehensive system in place before people are given access to alcohol?

[jgraz]

54. You're cherry picking, and in kind of a chilling way

Are you implying that it's somehow OK that people are using guns to kill themselves or that it's OK that people involved in the drug trade shoot each other?

That's pretty cold.

[Statistical]

59. No.

I am saying as a law abiding citizen you are no more at risk from being killed by a firearm than by a drunk driver.

Your risk of dying by a firearm increases if you are involved in crime.
Criminals have more to fear from firearms than drunk drivers.

As far as people killing themselves. I don't think it really matter how they kill themselves. A suicide is a suicide.

[jgraz]

60. Guns turn attempted suicides into successful suicides

I had a friend who was a law-abiding citizen. He was also a gun enthusiast.

Then he lost his job, lost his healthcare, lost his girlfriend and was diagnosed with a chronic illness.

Then he blew his brains all over his apartment.


Guns just make killing yourself a helluvalot easier.


From http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/hgbanfs.htm:

The largest category of firearms fatality is suicide, not homicide. In 1997, 54 percent of all gun deaths were suicides, and 42 percent were homicides.

About six out of 10 suicides are committed with firearms.

For firearm suicides, it is estimated that handguns are used twice as often (69 percent) as rifles and shotguns.

For all suicides, it is estimated that more than four out of 10 were committed with handguns.

From 1990 to 1997—

there were more than 147,000 suicides committed with a firearm
an estimated 90,000 involved a handgun
People living in a household with a gun are almost five times more likely to die by suicide than people living in a gun-free home.

Oh and..
I am saying as a law abiding citizen you are no more at risk from being killed by a firearm than by a drunk driver.

Got anything to back up that speculation?

[Statistical]

61. Not true.

Look at suicide rate (successful suicides) by country.

There is no correlation between suicide and gun ownership.

People use the most effective tool. Without access to firearms they use the most effective available tool.

Japan has virtually no private ownership of firearms.
Japan has virtually no firearm suicides.
Japan has the world HIGHEST suicide rate.

There is no statistical correlation even inside the US between higher suicide rate in states with high ownership vs low ownership rates of firearms.

[jgraz]

62. You just cannot deny reality this completely.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/index.html
Every study that has examined the issue to date has found that within the U.S., access to firearms is associated with increased suicide risk.

and another
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-04/hsop-gih040607.php
Boston, MA -- In the first nationally representative study to examine the relationship between survey measures of household firearm ownership and state level rates of suicide in the U.S., researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) found that suicide rates among children, women and men of all ages are higher in states where more households have guns. The study appears in the April 2007 issue of The Journal of Trauma.

and another
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1756560
Across the nine regions for the early 1990s (n = 9), household handgun ownership rates are positively correlated with the suicide rate (r = 0.59) and are not correlated with either the lifetime prevalence of major depression or suicidal thoughts. After controlling for major depression and suicidal thoughts (and any of the four additional control variables), handgun ownership rates remain significantly associated with the overall suicide rate.


In case you're wondering how I found this out, here's a hint:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=suicides+household+gun+ownership

[Statistical]

76. Correlation does not imply causation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

Maybe people who are likely to own firearm are more likely (all others thing being equal) to commit suicide.
That if the people with firearms had their firearms taken away they would still commit suicide.

It is the most basic logical fallacy to confuse correlation with causation.

We can however look at other countries and see that eliminating firearms doesn't change suicide rate.
By looking at countries that either strictly regulated or completely banned firearms recently and comparing suicide rates before and after we can look for causation.

There isn't any. People kill themselves for a variety of reasons.

Given that US has high firearm rate and horrible mental health system if firearms lead to higher suicides then US suicide rate should be off the chart.

Improving mental health system has shown to correlate well with a drop in suicides. Wouldn't it be better to focus on solutions that work?

However for some people it isn't a matter of the best solution it is a matter of faith. Guns = bad and the faithful will seek to take them away.

[Euromutt]

77. What do you mean "and another"?

Two of your references refer to the same study: Miller M, Lippmann SJ, Azrael D, Hemenway D. "Household firearm ownership and rates of suicide across the 50 United States." Journal of Trauma 2007 Apr;62(4):1029-34.

The other study is Hemenway D, Miller M. "Association of rates of household handgun ownership, lifetime major depression, and serious suicidal thoughts with rates of suicide across US census regions." Injury Prevention 2002;8:313–316

Notice something, though? Both papers were written by Matthew Miller and David Hemenway. Call me strange, but I'd always been given to understand that it isn't corroborating evidence when you replicate your own research findings. That's kind of a recurring problem with studies regarding firearms in the public health literature: they tend to be written by a very small circle of researchers, who all keep doing similar studies and coming to similar conclusions. If there's a study that gets any degree of publicity, you can bet it has the name Arthur Kellermann, Garen Wintemute or David Hemenway among the authors. Terms like "groupthink" and "circle-jerk" come to mind.

Here's an interesting thing from the CDC:

During 2000--2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, "shall issue" concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.) This report briefly describes how the reviews were conducted, summarizes the Task Force findings, and provides information regarding needs for future research.

Emphasis mine.
That's the summary of the Task Force's initial report; http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

I do love the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" disclaimer at the end there. When that many people have been looking that hard, and you still haven't found anything, you're dealing with the dragon in Carl Sagan's garage (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm).

[Taitertots]

80. American suicide rate is lower than Japan by a large margin

With more guns than people in America we still have among the lower suicide rates world wide. Comparable to the prohibitionist countries.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

67. Of course murder is also strictly illegal and to be fair the majority of gun deaths are suicides.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

68. The CDC thinks you need to add 35,123 to your 16,000 and 1,400

Mortality
Number of alcohol-induced deaths, excluding accidents and homicides: 22,073
Number of alcoholic liver disease deaths: 13,050
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2006, Tables 10, 23

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

79. Does this pass for honesty where you live?

You criticize people for not counting gun suicides and then you ignore 52,000 alcohol related deaths to try and make a point.

David

[TheWraith]

56. That's exactly the system we have in New York. It doesn't work worth shit.

Inconveniencing legal gun owners does not make illegal guns go away.

[jgraz]

63. That's because it's only part of the equation

The other part is going after the gun manufacturers for supplying the criminal market. Unfortunately, that civil right has been taken away from ordinary citizens.

[TheWraith]

64. Why not make going after illegal supplies the only part?

How does inconveniencing legal gun owners make anyone safer? I don't own a pistol because I can't be bothered to go through the time and expense I'd need to get a pistol permit. Does that mean people around me are safer? The statistics on crime by legal gun owners show it to be exceedingly rare.

As for going after gun manufacturers, first you'd have to be able to prove that they're deliberately allowing weapons to be sold to criminals. The people you really want to target are straw purchasers and other illegal resellers.

[jgraz]

65. Because both are important

How does inconveniencing legal gun owners make anyone safer? I don't own a pistol because I can't be bothered to go through the time and expense I'd need to get a pistol permit. Does that mean people around me are safer? The statistics on crime by legal gun owners show it to be exceedingly rare.

Yes, it makes people safer. Especially you. See the stats I posted below on suicide rates in gun-owning households.

As for going after gun manufacturers, first you'd have to be able to prove that they're deliberately allowing weapons to be sold to criminals.

Yes, you would have to prove that. You know why? Because in 2005, Congress stripped you and me of our rights to sue gun makers in civil courts. Any other industry can be sued for negligence. But it's illegal to bring such a suit against gun makers.

If you want to see how much the RKBA advocates really believe in civil liberties, try suggesting that Congress repeal that (blatantly unconstitutional) law.

[TheWraith]

75. Correlation is not causation.

"Yes, it makes people safer. Especially you. See the stats I posted below on suicide rates in gun-owning households."

And study after study has specifically said that there is NO provable causative link between guns and suicide. Furthermore, the US suicide rate is far below countries like Japan, where they have virtually no guns.

Second, why do you assume you have the right to protect people against their will? Isn't that exactly what the right wing does when they're making laws "for your own good" against immorality, abortion, gays, etcetera?

"Yes, you would have to prove that. You know why? Because in 2005, Congress stripped you and me of our rights to sue gun makers in civil courts."

No, they didn't. They made it illegal to sue gun companies on the SOLE grounds that a gun they manufactured was used in a crime. You don't sue a car maker because a vehicle of theirs was involved in a hit-and-run, and you can't sue a gun maker for a crime they had nothing to do with. If you can prove that they in any way were involved with knowingly supplying the weapon or allowing it to fall into the hands of a criminal, then you've got a case. Otherwise it's just nuisance lawsuits intended to try and harass the gun manufacturers or make it too expensive for them to do business. You know damn well that if the right-wingers were allowed to do that with abortion clinics we'd be on the warpath.

[one-eyed fat man]

86. Do you deny or disavow

the stated intent of those whose strategy was to bankrupt all domestic gun manufacturers by bleeding them dry through endless litigation?

"Using the deliberate infliction of litigation costs to obtain leverage over an opponent was once considered a breach of legal ethics, but times have changed. Litigators boasted that their attacks would bleed the thinly capitalized gun industry into submission. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Andrew Cuomo warned gun makers that unless they cooperated they'd suffer "death by a thousand cuts." Several makers have in fact gone bankrupt since the courtroom siege began."

Do you lament this cudgel has been denied Mayor Bloomberg, the VPC, the Joyce Foundation, Charles Schumer, Judge Weinstein?

By analogy, imagine this scene. A man walks into a liquor store, presents a legitimate I.D. showing that his true age is 35, and buys a fifth of Smirnoff vodka. A mile away from the store he gives this vodka to a 16-year-old boy, who proceeds to get drunk, steal a car, and kill an innocent lady in a crosswalk.

Who is most responsible? According to your reasoning clearly the most guilty party is not the boy who did the killing. It is not the man who gave the boy the vodka. It is not even the liquor store who legally and properly sold the bottle.

No, according to your logic the most guilty entity here is Smirnoff, the manufacturer of the vodka that was legally distributed to a licensed dealer, who sold it to a sober citizen of legal age.

And even if you don't really believe that to be true, by repeatedly suing Smirnoff until they run out of money, you are using the same legal strategy as Mayor Bloomberg and his gang of mayors (at least the ones not in jail already for corruption charges). They compound their perfidy by using tax-funded city attorneys to wage their "sue them to death; win by wallet" campaign.

If, and I think it's a mighty big IF, you were so Seventh Amendment pure, you'd be willing to adopt "Loser Pays". After all, if these suits you feel are so meritorious that they are not just a deceitful and back-handed attempt to accomplish in civil court what can't be accomplished in the legislature then what do Bloomberg and his buddies stand to lose? Their constituents might resent their tax dollars being spent on legal fees rather than city services?

[spin]

87. Very well put. (n/t)

[rl6214]

2. But, but, but you only carry a gun because

you are a coward and have a small penis.:sarcasm:

[jgraz]

4. Ironic how that same argument used to be employed against gun control advocates

And still is, judging from many of the posts on this forum.

[rl6214]

7. I don't think I have EVER seen a post

where someone has called a gun control advocate a coward or said they have a small penis. EVER.

[jgraz]

11. One of many

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5734938&mesg_id=5735036

Just check this forum (assuming the messages have not been deleted). I've been called a coward, a crybaby, had my sexuality questioned, the whole lot. Like it or not, a lot of gun enthusiasts more than live up to the stereotype.

[rl6214]

16. Nope, I don't think that one covers it

I was speaking specifically about posters, here in the gun forums that have called gun owners in general and specific members of these boards cowards and have said they are compensating for a small penis.

[jgraz]

22. You're moving the goalposts

I don't think I have EVER seen a post where someone has called a gun control advocate a coward or said they have a small penis. EVER.

I just gave you one that fits that criteria. Many of the worst posts have been deleted, but here's another one that's still hanging around:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=223992&mesg_id=224238

Note that this is how the poster opens his interaction with me.

[rl6214]

24. No

That thread has only one post about Bill Maher being "ascared of guns". That's not calling anti gun posters here cowards or saying they have small penises.

[jgraz]

31. Ah, you're playing the "exact words" game. I'll pass.

The implication is clear and a common theme for that poster.

I suspect that I could continue to provide links for you and nothing would satisfy your (malleable) criteria. One problem is that most of the most egregious posts are no longer in existence.

How 'bout this: the next time a gun control advocate is called a 'fraidy cat' or a 'little girl', I'll PM you the link and you can jump all over them. OK?

[rl6214]

26. Still not the same

I still don't see where you were called "COWARD" in big caps or where is says you are making up for your lack of manhood or that you have a small penis. You've been around the gun forum, I have seen your posts so I know you know who I am refering to when I talk about the COWARD posts.

[Caliman73]

36. I would say that Dave's comment was not called for...

There have been calls for more civility on this forum.

You too opened your interaction with the thread by making a ridiculously sarcastic remark that was intended to ridicule people who support the right to own and carry arms responsibly. No one on this board has advocated arming children and the post was specifically about a 13 year old with emotional problems, accessing an improperly stored firearm and shooting his 9 year old brother after stabbing his mother. You used that tragedy to beat people over the head with your ideas of gun control. People argued back and some used inappropriate language. No one called you a coward because you are pro gun control, Dave said (inappropriately)that your tactic in arguments is to run away crying. You answered back with just as much venom throughout the thread. I have see way more often, gun control advocates call gun owners "cowards", use phallic references, and other insults. As I said, we are not clean and innocent in the way we address our opponents, but no one has the high ground here.

[jgraz]

41. You mean like the sarcastic comment that opened this thread?

If we can't handle sarcasm and hyperbole, we should probably stay off teh internets.

However, I agree that we all should probably use a lot more restraint when posting on this forum.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

71. Another example of your handiwork.

jgraz (1000+ posts) Sun May-24-09 02:15 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. Whatever, big guy

Don't you have an ex you can drunk-dial?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

70. My aren't we sensitive. Gimme a break. Not even close to the same thing.

[Caliman73]

20. I think you need to choose another link of the many...

The one you posted is a link to people bashing on Bill Maher labeling himself a libertarian. The only reference to guns was someone stating that Bill was "ascared of guns.." which made no sense since many libertarians are pro 2nd amendment rights. No indication that messages were deleted, unless the mods have a new way of completely erasing any trace of the message. Normally you would see "message deleted" and "name removed" for posts that violated the rules.

I have no doubt that some firearms advocates might resort to name calling, but as the other poster said, I have not seen any references to gun control = penis issues, here on DU.

[jgraz]

23. Ah, so you want to see deleted messages?

Again, one of many:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8422404#8422621

[Caliman73]

37. Again, I see debate where both sides are calling names

Dave told a poster that if they were so scared that they should not leave the house. The poster responded with this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8422404#8425106

I would say both were inappropriate.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

73. I found one that didn't get deleted.

jgraz (1000+ posts) Sun May-24-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Well, if I bought I gun I could be just as brave as you, couldn't I?

Too bad you can't buy anything to help your ... shortcoming.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=223992&mesg_id=224245

[NewMoonTherian]

58. Which stereotype?

I was confused by the last part of your post. Are you just referring to the general stereotypes applied to gun enthusiasts? I just have to say that the same can be said of any stereotyped group you can name. That doesn't make the stereotypes any more valid.

I also agree with you on the subject of pro-RKBA's using coward/sexual slander against anti's. Particularly I've seen the famous Freud quote, "A fear of weapons if a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." thrown around. In my experience, the anti's are far more apt to resort to irrelevant personal attacks, but my ideology may leave me biased on the subject.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. He called him annoying. Is that the best you got?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

72. Here is a great example, oh wait that's you.

jgraz (1000+ posts) Sun May-24-09 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #81
83. Well, if I bought I gun I could be just as brave as you, couldn't I?

Too bad you can't buy anything to help your ... shortcoming.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=223992&mesg_id=224245

[onehandle]

6. What about the guy who shot himself in the penis as he was "concealing" his handgun?

Pretty sure there was blood running in the streets that day.

[slackmaster]

33. I would bet big bucks he didn't have a permit

Most states make you take at least a basic firearm safety class before they will issue a concealed weapons permit. That individual either never took such a class, or flunked it.

[Euromutt]

35. That story's a fabrication

It came from the Sun, and it didn't run in any German news media. I checked. The Sun is rather well known for fabricating details, or even complete stories.

But even if the story weren't made up, the purported victim was German, and Germany does not issue very many concealed carry permits.

[spin]

48. I do remember an incident where a security guard shot himself in the ass...

He was off duty and while in the rear seat of a car, he stuck a loaded .45 auto in his pants behind his hip.

It discharged because of poor trigger discipline and unsafe gun handling.

When he recovered, his company sent him to the range to qualify again, one on one, with an instructor.

I watched out of curiosity. As I remember, the instructor passed him. If I had been the instructor, he would have failed. The individual thought he was a gun expert and tried to act like Dirty Harry. He impressed me as a total idiot.

I've often watched security guards qualify and I've seen some excellent shooters as well as some who need more range time to become truly proficient. But the guy with a scar on his ass was by far the worst.

[onehandle]

57. That must be a new story. I am talking about a stateside guy a few months ago.

Seems like every year there's a story about someone shooting themselves in the crotch.

And I laugh, and laugh, and laugh...

And then a child finds a gun and shoots his sibling dead.

Then I stop laughing.

[Caliman73]

38. That was in Germany

He injured himself and is also facing prosecution for illegal possession of a firearm, which are very tightly controlled in Germany.

[damntexdem]

27. What, too much of the blood spurts and runs down walls, so doesn't run in the streets?

I don't consider any community safe that allows concealed carry.

Nutcases in Congress have just voted to make our national parks more dangerous places to visit.

[rl6214]

29. That would cover more than 75% of the nation

[slackmaster]

34. Your state was one of the first to adopt a "shall issue" law, and concealed carry is permitted...

Pretty much everywhere, certainly in every "community".

[spin]

39. The argument that concealed carry will change the state that allows it...

is very old and has been proved wrong over and over again.





Using most recently published state population data from the US Census bureau:

65.7% of the US population lives in "Right To Carry" (Vermont,
Alaska & 37 "Shall Issue") states,

28.1% in "Right Restricted"
(9 "May Issue") states, and

6.3% in "Right Denied" (2) states.
http://www.moccw.org/map.html

Although the current trend toward adopting concealed carry laws has been met with opposition, no state which has adopted a "Shall-Issue" concealed carry law has reversed its decision. As of February 2008, 48 US states allow some form of concealed carry<5> (though 9 of them have discretionary "may-issue" policies, a few of these being effectively "no-issue" in practice) and all but 6 provide for some variant on non-concealed "open-carry".<6> The states of Wisconsin and Illinois, and the District of Columbia do not have any form of concealed-carry licensing; Wisconsin allows for open carry in most situations, while Illinois only allows it in rural areas subject to county restriction. The District of Columbia had a blanket ban on ownership, possession and carry of handguns in its jurisdiction which began in 1976; this was struck down June 26, 2008 by the United States Supreme Court.<7>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

You state:

I don't consider any community safe that allows concealed carry.

While I respect your opinion and obviously have no knowledge of events that may have caused you to come to your conclusion, I suspect that your views are based on emotion.

If indeed communities that allowed concealed carry were more dangerous, the laws that allowed this privilege would have been repealed. So far, no state has chosen to do so.

[Tim01]

43. You are too emotional. Parks are more dangerous than other places right now.

You probably "feel" safe in parks because people with permits can't carry their concealed guns.
Criminals already do carry weapons in parks and use isolation to their advantage to hurt innocent people.

Do not think you are safe in national parks. Because you are not.

[Statistical]

51. I'm sorry.

Very few places left where you can feel "safe" anymore.

[old mark]

81. Because the anti's who imagined this scenario

are fucking dismally ignorant and precudiced.


mark