CCW holder opens fire on unarmed, fleeing iPhone thieves.

http://www.kptv.com/news/23680215/detail.html

He wasn't even the victim of the robbery, just a bystander. In a busy street, right in front of City Hall, the moron tries to shoot out the tires of a fleeing car.

The right guy went to jail this time. Idiot.

Part and parcel of the evergrowing littanly:

What is wrong with America today?

Or do you read the contents of every thread before posting?

...just in case a point of interest to them had been made there.

But to answer your question, I don't start a new thread without making reasonably certain nobody's already started one on that same topic. I'll at least skim the current first two pages of the forum.

Would you title a hit and run article, "Licensed driver hits bicyclist and flees"?

:eyes:

Yes, in a group where threads like this were posted:

"Licensed driver stops bus hijacking" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=311812
"Licensed driver stops bank robbery" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=310015

Can't help but notice your lack of nitpicking on those threads. :eyes:

How I didn't comment on those threads.

:eyes:

Well, we all knew that.

"Even I, a gun "hater", cannot make the claim that this is a likely consequence of carrying a weapon; it's just unbelievable rash ignorance and stupidity."

So pleasant to encounter an admitted "hater" with a functioning brain!

by the glee derived from posts glorifying an incident involving the legal use a of firearm in self or home defense. Often these incidents result in the death of an intruder. Circumstances vary widely but the bottom line is that said incidents can be legally justified and are joyfully pointed to as evidence that gun owners are good self-righteous people who are intent only on defending themselves and the 2nd - or that the bad guy was a stupid dolt whose luck had run out and deserved what they got. No one complains about those posts, and if someone does point out the macabre nature of a post of that type, the flames are not far behind.

The relation to this post, the post about the tire shooter that is, is that the shooter had a CCW permit, or legally possessed the firearm used in the incident.

The tire shooter post simply demonstrates something that is too often ignored. That is that not all licensed gun owners exercise good judgment all the time. This is not hating. It is not 'anti'. It is reality. It is reality and it can be fixed. But it can't be fixed by shooting messengers and burying our collective heads in the sand.

Having said that, I do agree that the tone of the post was a bit cynical with a bit of an attack flavor. But that's par for the course around here. Get a skin.

on edit - edited various typo's and spelling

They're just less likely to do wrong, even with examples like the idiot in the OP.

Good point, this.

That is a blatant violation of self-defense law and existing gun law, and he'll never carry a gun again (and will likely lose the right to so much as touch one for the rest of his life, once he gets out of jail).

I don't think anyone has ever made the argument that CHL holders are perfect, merely that they are far less likely to commit crimes like this than the non-CHL-holding public.

Would you care to quantify the number of unlicensed individuals that shot at cars, buildings, and people in the last month? Or the number of police officers who have fired similar unjustified shots in the same time frame?

Of course, you're stacking the deck from the outset. The fair question is not about the raw numbers of individuals but the percentage of each group who are involved in illegal shootings. I'd love to see your data showing that CCW holders are proportionally less likely to violate gun laws than the average, non-CCW-holding citizen.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

160 crimes committed by CHL holders, out of 290,000 odd license holders (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/PDF/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2007.pdf). Now that doesn't account for multiple crimes charged and convicted by one permit holder, but it gives us a raw rate of 55 per 100,000.

Based on TX Health department data on number of people 21+ (http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/CHS/popdat/detailX.shtm) the rate for crime in general is 374 per 100k. (I took people 21+ so as to compare apples to apples. The crime data also doesn't include those under 21, see the bottom of page 4 of the 2007 report.)

So proportionally CHL holders in TX are 6.8 times less likely to commit crime. (No it's not specifically 'gun' crime, but you can do the math given the above links if you feel so inclined.)

And Florida produces a lot of stats on their CHL holders

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

We're not talking about people getting nabbed for shoplifting here.

Some aren't specifically listed as 'gun crime' but we can assume that crimes like assault with a deadly weapon are likely to involve guns.

17030 crimes by the general public, 77 by CHLs.

CHL rate: 27 / 100k

General public (21+): 104 / 100k

3.85 times less likely.

eta: If we just go by those identified as gun crime specifically..

8306 / 47

CHL: 16 / 100k

GP: 51 / 100k

3.1 times less likely

The link you posted to the PDF is incorrect. I poked around on the site, but didn't see it.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2007.pdf

Second column

It would be nice to see gun crimes called out. However, it's a reasonable estimate.

significantly from state to state, it's pretty fair to assume that what is true in Texas and Florida is true in the rest of the nation.

Apparently lawmakers proceed (albeit, slowly) on this assumption -- given the ever-increasing number of states that now allow for concealed carry.

And expect a backlash.

Basic human character traits (individually and collectively) aren't malleable. If you're a person with restraint and character without a firearm, you're a person with restraint and character with one.

If the number of concealed carry permit jumps, obviously the number of irresponsible gun owners will increase. But the ratio of responsible to irresponsible owners remains the same.

Another issue to consider is that the cost/benefit ratio to society remains stable due to the fact that the incidences of irresponsible (possible fatal) gun uses are offset by a greater number of defensive uses which in some cases save lives.



Like the backlash that has occurred since 1986, where the number of states that allow for concealed carry (shall-issue permits) has approximately quintupled? A backlash like that?! As usual you're grossly intoxicated, lying flat on your back in the Gun Control Reality Distortion Field.

I agree that it's dishonest for pro gun rights folks to disavow irresponsible CCW permit holders while taking credit for the responsible ones. And executions for theft are, IMO, reprehensible.

In terms of absolute numbers- yes, there will inevitably be more fools like the shooter in the OP, as more people get
CCW permits.

Percentage wise- CCW holders are safer to be around than cops.

Sorry, gun control as a political force is failing visibly, and your predictions of slaughter are just the latest
in a whole line of similarly hysterical warnings that haven't panned out.

grr

Expecting people to read through the content of every cryptically-titled thread before posting is a bit much, don't you think?

No sense ruining some perfectly good tires.

Death penalty for stealing an iPhone! You go get'em, cowboy.

I spoke with Mr. Witter about the incident. Apparently, the thieves tried to mow down his cousin moments before he fired. Does that change things for any of you?

http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/05/robert-farago/the-car-was-headed-for-my-cousin-roger-witter-shooting-self-defense/

Have fun in jail, Bobby. You moronic, gun-happy asshat.

Of course, no initial reports put out by a breathless news organization have ever been wrong before--in the history of the world, right?

But if this is the media's first mistake in human history, if this is the first mistake that just happens to sell advertising better than the truth would, if a jury of Bobby's peers reviews all the facts and disagrees with your instantaneous judgment, you'll rush back here to retract your statement, won't you?

You are a man of integrity, right?


Yeah, it tells me Mr. Witter is scared and making shit up.

Have fun in jail, Bobby. You moronic, gun-happy asshat.

Trial by ordeal ?

not really applicable to vermin (like people accused of gun crimes, for instance).

Never mind, they should go with something more traditional. Put his hand in boiling water, throw him in the river, or something...

Mea culpa.

(Or a gunowner...)

I'm sure none of you would have problems judging his guilt then.

so that you could determine the intent of the intruder.

Your precognition being so much better than average... You could help the Citizen defend themselves... or just help them give the intruder their belongings. Safety in the work-place, or something...

a story.



They used footage of a hollow point round fired from a semi-automatic pistol at a watermelon to indicate what happens when a watermelon is struck with a round from an "assault weapon".

Of course the watermelon exploded in dramatic fashion. When called out on it on camera the news anchor originally (and dismissively) denied the allegation, but CNN later admitted the allegation was correct.

EDITED TO CORRECT ERROR:

I confused two separate dummied stories, and don't recall the source of "the watermelon" story. Regarding the CNN story, it was Wayne LaPierre who called out CNN for falsely characterizing banned assault weapons as fully automatic rifles, and apparently the NRA which forced CNN to retract their dishonest characterization.

Sure you will...

I don't know that you are, so I haven't claimed that you are.

I only claim that you're wrong to judge him so harshly in the face of conflicting claims this early in the process. If a jury finds him guilty, you will still have been premature and biased.

No matter what the jury finds, I will still be right to have criticized you.

See the difference?

Hokay, then. :eyes:

If I had to bet, I would bet with you, but your level of certitude is unsettling.

Your prejudice is showing.

(And while I am not claiming that you would bring your bias to a trial, your post reminds me of many of your fellow travellers who will and do bring theirs.)

Innocent until proven guilty does not apply here. And yeah, I'm pretty certain this guy is full of shit. It has nothing to do with the fact that he's a gun owner. it has to do with the fact that his statements are consistent with someone trying to cover their ass.

drew the distinction that you stress in your post. I even avoided the temptation to put you on the wrong side of it. I even agreed with your judgment.

The least you could do is not insult my intelligence. For one post.

Or, if it is, it's prejudice against dumbasses, not gun owners. This guy is pretty obviously a clown who shouldn't be trusted with a sharpened stick.

I have a lot more reasons to believe that you are prejudiced than this single post, but I am willing to admit that I may even be wrong on that.

My doubts notwithstanding, it's possible.

"Yeah, it tells me Mr. Witter is scared and making shit up. Have fun in jail, Bobby. You moronic, gun-happy asshat."


Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe, right?

Try reading post #46 R--E--A--L--L--Y S--L--O--W--L--Y.

Given the one-sided nature of press coverage on the gun "control"/gun rights issue?

Assumed guilty 'till proven innocent in your world?

Nothing like flaunting your bias.

:eyes:

Unless they're completely making up the guy's quotes, it's pretty obvious he's a moron. Trying to shoot out a car's tires on a busy street? Seriously?

Even pretending that there's an excuse for such stupidity shows your bias. No shooter is a bad shooter, eh?

As long as you're questioning my reading comprehension skills, let's deal with this statement:



Where in the article does it state the area of the shooting was a "busy street"? Or give any indication of how many people were around or the specifics as to their location? The shooter claims that he took safe, controlled shots. While I'm not willing to blindly accept his version of events, I'm also not willing to invent a "busy street" scenario as you have.



Another one of your very predictable strawmen. Show me one statement I've made which suggests that I exonerate the shooter. I've done no such thing. All I've suggested (as TPaine7 has) is that we don't have enough solid information to either exonerate him or suggest that he endangered others with his action. We've been given zero credible information on whether or not innocents were either in the line of fire or in danger of being struck with a ricochet. Further, if you think that the media portrayal of gun owners has been "fair and balanced" I really want whatever it is that you're smokin'.

On other threads, I've made it clear that I disfavor the brandishing or discharging of a weapon except when to do so is necessary to protect life and limb from a dedicated attacker. I feel that the behaviour of the shooter in this story is grossly irresponsible. What I'm not willing to do is assume that he put others at risk without solid evidence. So your assertion that I assume that "no shooter is a bad shooter" is strawman #569 for you.

that says he just shot some fleeing thieves. It's funny how the anti-gunners will leave out little details like the perps tried to run someone down. Well, not funny...just disgusting.

nowhere in the article does he ever mention his "cousin." and these idiots stole the phones from a retailer; this wasn't a robbery, per se. this stupid fuck is unloading rounds to stop some shoplifters. unbeleiveable that someone would even try to defend this irresponsibale behavior. it's dumbasses like this that give gunowners a bad name. and yes, i own guns.

Careful with those ass-umptions....

The media has been anything but even-handed in reporting on gun "control"........even going so far as outright lies. (as in CNN on "assault weapons")

Assuming that the article faithfully reported all of the facts based on the history of media coverage on this issue is excruciatingly naive.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

to care about an issue that sends large numbers of votes to the GOP?!

How dare they, I say!!! :sarcasm:

Here's a sincere welcome to any "newbie" that "starts their career" in The Gungeon.

:nuke:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...that prison sentences--preferably ludicrously long ones--are the appropriate response to the poster's pet aversion; certain pro-RKBA types think minimum five-year sentences are the answer to any and all illegal possession, while certain anti-RKBA types want to see the same for the slightest infraction by any legal gun owner.

Maybe it's because I'm Dutch, but I rarely see what purpose is served by putting as many people as possible into state prisons at the drop of a hat (or a cartridge case). Whatever happened to suspended sentences and probationary periods? In the case of Mr. Witter here, given that he didn't actually injure anyone, what would be wrong with giving him--if he were convicted--a suspended sentence? The felony conviction would remove his right to possess firearms, but given that there's really no mens rea here (the guy was trying to halt a felony in progress, albeit in an ill-advised manner), what social good is served by locking him up?

completely batshit-crazy.

We have never recovered.

We have never even admitted we have a problem.

_{help us.}

Buh bye, crazy person.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=258589