Wait … what? The very premise upon which the “study” is based is the fact that these shooters are permit holders. And this key, threshold issue was determined by relying upon news reports?
Hmm. I wonder where the info in the news reports came from. Okay, I might not bet my entire fortune on it, but I'd bet something considerable that it came from
the police, and the news reports so stated.
If I say that the temperature yesterday was 30C and I know this because I read it in a news report, and the news report cited the Environment Canada weather service ... well, I guess you should rightly disbelieve the newspaper report, and call me all sorts of names.
In many states and jurisdictions, a citizen who properly and legally defends themselves from an attack may well expect to be initially charged with a crime.
In some of the incidents in question, the victims were police. Good luck with that one. Then there was that mass murder ...
The VPC study identifies and describes each incident included in its study. Funny how your source doesn't identify a single one that could actually be characterized as being an instance of self-defence, or any other situation in which doubt might legitimately be cast on the charge or allegation.
It should come as no surprise that the VPC does not support the concepts of “due process” or “innocent until proven guilty” any more than they do the right to defend one’s self or one’s family.
And it comes as absolutely no surprise whatsoever that a gun militant is lying, and that you would quote a lying gun militant with approval. Whether motivated by deceit or out of pure dimness, who knows?
Carry permits allow a person to carry a handgun for personal protection. In cases where rifles or other weapons are used to commit a crime, the fact that the person may or may not have been a permit holder is a moot point and not germane to the issue at hand.
Really. It isn't germane to the issue
of whether holders of permits to carry concealed weapons violate the criminal law in the most egregious ways, e.g. by killing cops, that a number of them have killed cops? Huh.
The issue at hand is not
whether holders of permits to carry concealed weapons killed cops with the weapons they had a permit to carry, regardless of how much you and your new best friend would like it to be.
The VPC concludes their report by stating that these examples illustrate clearly that concealed carry laws are not good public policy because permit holders are dangerous. Furthermore, there is a clear implication that they are more dangerous than the general public.
Your friend fails to offer a foundation for his allegation of an implication, i.e. his alleged inference. Can you?
If that implication was not made, which I believe it was not, does he have a point? It seems not. It seems he can only dismiss the plain facts to which the VPC study points by constructing a straw argument. Quelle surprise.
Here's what it actually concludes, fyi:
The conclusion is inescapable that state “shall issue” concealed handgun laws sanction the carrying of concealed handguns by many dangerous individuals. At worst, they have resulted in the expenditure of state funds to arm many individuals who have murdered numerous law enforcement agents and innocent private citizens. The evidence to date not only clearly stands in clear opposition to any effort to federalize CCW reciprocity in a manner that would establish a de facto national concealed handgun system, but also makes clear that such laws on the state level should be repealed.
Now, speaking of surprises. Why don't you astound me and tell me that you have actually READ THE VPC STUDY you are talking about here?
What a gas. I know you haven't read it, and you know you haven't read it. But you claim to agree with all of the talking points against it. Well, some people do enjoy making themselves look the way this makes you look.
Here.
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ccw2009.pdfGive it a shot. Then take your best shot at demolishing whatever you find there, for your own self.
I have to say I liked this bit from your source:
In other words, even if they are 100% correct in their wildly flawed report, they have simply proven that permit holders commit murders at a rate that is 1/10th of the general public.
That calls for a celebration, surely!
Oh, and you've been here a while. Read the copyright protection rules of the site yet?
"Copyright © 2009 Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com. All Rights reserved."