The Gun Control Debate Thread

[PeterMP]

could you cite a few?....preferably ones not adjusted for other factors

 

I've already cited one in this thread.  The loosening of restrictions in AZ has resulted in more violence.  Not less.

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/393762-the-gun-control-debate-thread-discuss-everything-gun-control-related/?p=10372055

 

(Though I have no idea why if you were doing some sort of comparison between two things where you knew there were factors that should be adjusted for why you wouldn't want to adjust for those factors.)

[TheGreatBuzz]

Just out of curiosity, is there studies that show the same rise in violence for when a state passed an open carry law?  I see we just keep talking about CCW. 

[mistertim]

So if a responsible gun owner with a CCW takes training that simulates firing your weapon under stressful conditions, that would make some more comfortable with a CCW holder actually carrying. At the same time, that gun owner taking a course in firing your weapon under stressful conditions would trigger some to call for that person to be placed on a watch list and possibly lose their right to own a gun, because why does a regular citizen need to take that training. It becomes a red flag to anyone anti-gun folks and a person who is "training to kill." Seriously.

Sure, there might be "some" on the more extreme end of the debate who would want people who take a course like that put on a watch list, but I think most level headed people wouldn't. Again, there is a difference between someone taking a course like that and the more militia style doomsday preppers who train specifically to fight the government in the event of some sort of martial law takeover or whatever else is rattling around in their conspiracy-addled minds.

[Burgold]

 

 

As someone who does constitutional interpretation every single day, just reading about this whole thing is extraordinarily frustrating.     

Thank your for the insight.

 

Now, I'm frustrated too, but at least I know my interpretation is correct. :kickcan:

Edited October 7, 2015 by Burgold

[PeterMP]

Right, except that's not really my point.

 

You cite these studies about an increase in gun violence correlating with an increase in concealed permits.

 

You (and I presume the studies you cite) then say one is caused by the other.

 

Yet we have a way of measuring the actual influence (to a degree) of concealed permits on gun violence, and that's the revocation of concealed permits.

 

I don't expect it to be a one-for-one, in either direction. You can have your permit revoked for things other than gun violence, and I'm sure there are situations where the person isn't identified so you cannot revoke a permit, or maybe there's not enough evidence to say what they did was wrong so they cannot revoke the permit (even if what they did was wrong.)

 

Yet you don't don't seem to know what those numbers are, or even a trend, so I take that to mean that information is not in these studies you cite.

 

You don't see a problem here? You're drawing conclusions about something while leaving out a very meaningful piece of data related to it. You're making conclusions using two numbers going up at the same time, completely ignoring another number that should be strongly tied to the conclusion you're making if that conclusion is indeed valid.

 

Why is this information missing? Why should I give any study any level of credibility when they do not include this piece of information?

 

I'm sure they could even get a list of permits revoked only for gun violence, if they asked nicely. They wouldn't even have to play the game of "well maybe some of these are revoked because he got caught with <preferred drug of choice>"

 

1.  Again, in AZ, you don't even need a permit so to ask researchers to do the study based on revoked permits is non-nonsensical.  How can you do a study based on revoked permits if there are no permits?

 

2.  I'll point out studies that have looked at states in a few years directly before and after gun laws have changed across different times and different states.  While correlation does not prove causation, repeated correlation with an accompanying hypothesis (i.e. effectively using a gun in a live shooting situation requires training and skill and places that have loose gun laws are going to have people that don't have such training/skill carrying guns and so such people aren't going to be effective in those situations) becomes very good evidence for causation.

 

3.  I'm not at all sure if you could get numbers and reasons associated with revoked gun permits.

 

4.  I'm not sure why you think this is an important number.  Nobody is claiming that a large number of people with carry permits are hurting people.  It is rare, but so are people being saved by people with carry permits.  If somebody came in and said that a significant number of people with conceal carry permits were committing gun related crimes, then looking at the number of total permits vs. revoked permits would make sense.

 

But that's not the point that anybody is making.  The question up for debate is does minimizing restriction on concealed weapons increase or decrease violence and crime (at least from my perspective).

 

Can you lay out a study or a reason a study should look at the number of revoked permits?

 

You're making a big stink about a number whose significance I don't see, and you've not addressed why you think it is significant.

 

Do gun laws that make it easier to carry guns reduce crime or violence?

 

To me, that's a significant question, and there are people out that have argued the answer to the question is yes.

 

Why does the number of revoked permits based on gun related crimes mater with respect to that number?

 

Certainly, some people with legal guns have shot other people.  That point isn't arguable. 

 

The only real question is that some how balanced by other people using guns to prevent crimes or the general idea that people might have guns reduces crime, and that isn't going to result in a somebody's license being revoked.

 

What is the question you think is significant?

And why is the number of revoked carry permits meaningful (especially with respect to ONLY gun related crime)?

 

As far as I know, nobody is arguing that a large number of people with conceal carry permits are using their guns to commit gun crimes.

Edited October 7, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

I've already cited one in this thread.  The loosening of restrictions in AZ has resulted in more violence.  Not less.

 

http://es.redskins.com/topic/393762-the-gun-control-debate-thread-discuss-everything-gun-control-related/?p=10372055

 

(Though I have no idea why if you were doing some sort of comparison between two things where you knew there were factors that should be adjusted for why you wouldn't want to adjust for those factors.)

 

because adjustments are ripe for bias or error....I prefer to make my own

 

your brookings study explains in the conclusion.

[PeterMP]

So if a responsible gun owner with a CCW takes training that simulates firing your weapon under stressful conditions, that would make some more comfortable with a CCW holder actually carrying. At the same time, that gun owner taking a course in firing your weapon under stressful conditions would trigger some to call for that person to be placed on a watch list and possibly lose their right to own a gun, because why does a regular citizen need to take that training. It becomes a red flag to anyone anti-gun folks and a person who is "training to kill." Seriously.

 

Who in this thread has made the argument that a person with a CCW that takes training should be put on a watch list much less have their gun taken from them?

[tshile]

PeterMP

Early on in the conversation you said this:

To bring this conversation back to reality, the fact of the matter is that studies show that states that have loosened their concealed permit laws have more violence and death...

Now if I recall correctly, you have said that at least twice (including the one I quoted) with the obvious implication being that less restrictions on concealed permits -> more violence/crime. I believe one time you pretty much outright state one has to do with the other.
 
If you've changed from talking about that to talking about other things involving guns (specifically the AZ law you keep citing), then I apologize for missing the change in topic. I have been responding to you for the last two pages solely about this idea that it seems like you're pushing that concealed permits -> more violence/crime.  I'll address the points related to the concealed permit in your last post below, but largely ignore the rest of it because I don't really disagree with you in terms of the general sense of gun laws and violence/crime.
 
I'm not really interested in whether it leads to less, I have no reason to defend that argument because I don't subscribe to it.
 

4.  I'm not sure why you think this is an important number.  Nobody is claiming that a large number of people with carry permits are hurting people. 
...
But that's not the point that anybody is making.  The question up for debate is does minimizing restriction on concealed weapons increase or decrease violence and crime (at least from my perspective).
 
Can you lay out a study or a reason a study should look at the number of revoked permits?
 
You're making a big stink about a number whose significance I don't see, and you've not addressed why you think it is significant.
 

It's important because you are drawing a direct causation from concealed weapons laws to violence. Taking states that do not have permit requirements (like AZ) out of the picture...

 

Permits are revoked for committing certain types of crimes; violent and gun crimes are on that list, among others. If there is this causation, you should see the permits being revoked. The only reason they wouldn't be revoked is if they do not know who the person is, or if there is not enough evidence that there was wrongdoing. I realize that because of that, there will not be a 1-for-1 in the numbers. Also realize you can have your permit revoked for other reason, like drug possession, that won't show up in the violence stats.

 

You want to know where minimizing restrictions on concealed weapons increases or decreases violence? I think you'll have a hard time quantifying that, but one thing we do know is that your permit is revoked for committing a violent crime. Yet... you don't know these numbers.

 

Worse off, you fail to see how they're even relevant or important!

 

As for a study...

Check out this one (Not for the study, but for the references):

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf

 

On page 15 they start referencing where their stats came from. You'll see some they had to obtain from the states, but others have links. Some have links to dead pages. I bring it here to point out:

 

Yes, you can get this information... FOIA, or just simply asking, should get it for you. It's not something you can easily find for every state, but most states will give it if you asked.

 

Did your studies even ask? I keep asking if the numbers are in any of your studies, you haven't said one way or the other yet... If they didn't even ask... why?

 

South Carolina

active permits in 2014 253,339

Revoked: 895

That's 0.3%

 

Virginia State Police, at one time, had their revoke % posted, it was also in the fraction of a percent range.

 

These numbers are available. The ones I've seen have all shown that concealed permit owners are BY AND LARGE law abiding citizens; across the board. If they weren't the revocation numbers would be... i don't know... something higher than a fraction of a percentage point.

 

The bottom line is that if you want to say that permits have some affect on increasing crime, then you should be able to show this by looking at permits being revoked. Because that's what happens when you have a permit and you get caught committing a crime (well most crimes), you get your permit revoked.

 

What you're proposing would be like if over the last 10 years we slowly lowered the drinking age from 21 to 16, and over that same time the number of DUI related crashes, deaths, and arrests went up. And you came in here and started posting studies about it, none of which included in their numbers the # of people arrested under the age of 21; data that is available and directly relates to the conclusion you're arriving at and then telling everyone else to subscribe to. Yet you, and your studies, concluded that lowering the drinking age is the cause of the problem. Why? Because more people can drink, there are more deaths/arrests, therefore more people drinking is the cause of more deaths/accidents.Completely ignoring available data that is strongly linked to the argument. In this case - the age of the person that was driving drunk when the incident occurred.

 

Sure, that conclusion sounds good, more alcohol drinkings -> more drinking and driving, that sounds perfectly reasonable. But you're ignoring data that would actually show a direct link and instead giving us a good sounding argument. Why? Why ignore that data?

 

The obvious possible answer - Because it doesn't fit your narrative.

 

Another possibility - Lazy researchers.

 

I'm sure there are other reasons too. Maybe they just don't understand the topic they're researching as well as they should before conducting the research.

 

If an increase in concealed weapon permits IN ANY WAY is linked to an increase in crime, then you should see an increase in revocations. Unless:

- They aren't solving the crimes

- There's some level of corruption there.

Edited October 7, 2015 by tshile

[Larry]

I'm sure there are other reasons too. Maybe they just don't understand the topic they're researching as well as they should before conducting the research.

 

If an increase in concealed weapon permits IN ANY WAY is linked to an increase in crime, then you should see an increase in revocations. Unless:

- They aren't solving the crimes

- There's some level of corruption there.

- The increase in guns are leading to an increase in violence, that isn't being committed by the permit holders.

- The increase in violence isn't leading to permit revocations.

Anecdotal example. I THINK we can all agree that Martin Zimmerman's gun resulted in a death that wouldn't have happened without one. (You can argue that MAYBE it also prevented one. But there is absolutely one death in the stats that would not have been there without laws enabling freer carrying, and use, of firearms).

That incident of violence, however, did not result in a permit revocation.

The fact that there was no revocation, does not mean that the violence didn't happen.

(No, I'm not trying to claim that that one case represents all cases).

In short:

- The linkage that you're trying to apply "X must happen, or else Y didn't happen" just might not be a linkage.

Peter's studies say "when you make permits easier to get (and yes, passing a law that says you don't even need them, makes them easier to get), then violence goes up". They do not say "because permit holders are personally committing said violence".

[PeterMP]

If an increase in concealed weapon permits IN ANY WAY is linked to an increase in crime, then you should see an increase in revocations. Unless:

- They aren't solving the crimes

- There's some level of corruption there.

 

Okay, but you yourself have now introduced confounding factors.

 

You made a statement and than IMMEDIATELY after that had to say it wasn't really true (I love how you used bold to make a point that in your next statement you said wasn't actually true).

 

Right?

 

In addition, you weren't looking just for the number of revocations, but the reasons.  But your own link actually points in multiple states you can't even get the numbers.  Much less get the reasons behind them.

 

There are various explanations of why gun crime might be up without an increase in the number of revoked carry permits beyond the ones you've listed.

 

Beyond what you pointed out, what about people have just gotten better at fighting having the permit revoked.  How about their is now a cottage industry of lawyers who work to keep people from getting their concealed carry permit revoked?

 

How about possibly the laws have been changed to make it harder to revoke concealed carry permit?

 

What if criminals are quicker to shoot other people because they might have guns?

 

Larry laid out the argument instead of a robbing the old woman and not hurting her I'm now going to hit her over the head and then rob her.

 

Robberies aren't down.  Assault and potentially even murder are up (because sometimes the assault causes the old woman to die).

 

Now, the other issue that is incorrect is that your post you are talking about lowering the drinking age slowly.

 

That's not the studies I'm posting.  The AZ law didn't change slowly.  It changed at one time.

 

I posted some other things earlier in this thread about the repeal of a MI law.  It wasn't a situation where something changed slowly.

 

And it is over and over.

 

Even in your own link states:

 

"Unfortunately, it is often too difficult to account for them. A much better approach is to study how crime rates vary before and after changes in permit rules have occurred."

 

Well, guess what, people did that in AZ and they found that it didn't work. People did that about the MI revoking their gun laws.  They found it didn't work.

 

People did that in states that adopted defend your castle laws.  Guess what, they found it didn't work.

 

(all links I've posted in this thread.)

 

When people did what YOUR link has suggested would be best practice, they found these laws haven't reduced crime.

[The Evil Genius]

Thanks for the history lesson, Predicto.

[Burgold]

Real life example of Peter and Tshile's debate happened today. Apparently, a woman with a concealed carry permit saw Home Depot security guards chasing after a pair of alleged shoplifters. She removes her gun and starts shooting. She doesn't hit anyone, but may have damaged the suspects' car. the pair drove away.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/good_woman_with_a_gun_shoots_up_home_depot_trying_to_take_down_suspected_shoplifters/

 

Is she a hero or did she go overboard? She's currently in police custody now. No word yet on if she will be charged or is just giving a statement after "shooting up" the Home Depot parking lot.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Burgold

[mistertim]

Real life example of Peter and Tshile's debate happened today. Apparently, a woman with a concealed carry permit saw Home Depot security guards chasing after a pair of alleged shoplifters. She removes her gun and starts shooting. She doesn't hit anyone, but may have damaged the suspects' car. the pair drove away.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/good_woman_with_a_gun_shoots_up_home_depot_trying_to_take_down_suspected_shoplifters/

 

Is she a hero or did she go overboard? She's currently in police custody now. No word yet on if she will be charged or is just giving a statement for "shooting up" the Home Depot parking lot.

I think this was brought up a bit ago. IMO she is an idiot who should be charged with reckless endangerment with a firearm.

[tshile]

Okay, but you yourself have now introduced confounding factors.

 

You made a statement and than IMMEDIATELY after that had to say it wasn't really true (I love how you used bold to make a point that in your next statement you said wasn't actually true).

 

Right?

 

I don't know, I'm so confused at this point. I didn't bold anything.

 

You keep talking about an AZ law I said I was excluding because you already said they don't even require permits anymore and so it can't be measured.

 

You keep talking about general crime after I had a whole paragraph explaining I was talking about one specific issue.

 

Whether it's slowly or not is not the point, what I was saying was not dependent upon the speed. It was a simple example. Change the rate of change however you feel, it's irrelevant.

 

I'm not the one trying to prove anything here. I don't have a side on the 'do guns increase/decrease' crime argument. You're the one with the side, and I'm just asking why key information is missing. It's missing. You don't seem to be able to explain it without changing the topic you're discussing; many of which you change to I have no disagreement with you over.

 

Another thing I agree with you on - it's really hard to quantify all of this. Yet you seem to be quite comfortable reducing it to two simple stats (violent crime and laws changing). I don't get it, but have at it.

Edited October 7, 2015 by tshile

[The Evil Genius]

Common sense tells you more guns = more total crime. Just like more cars on the road equal more fatalities and serious injuries. 

 

I think it's really the crime rate per capita that you should be looking at when trying to make a decision on the effect of gun ownership and crime (and even then I would be looking at population density shifts and other mitigating factors before making an absolute correlation).

[mistertim]

Common sense tells you more guns = more total crime. Just like more cars on the road equal more fatalities and serious injuries. 

 

I think it's really the crime rate per capita that you should be looking at when trying to make a decision on the effect of gun ownership and crime (and even then I would be looking at population density shifts and other mitigating factors before making an absolute correlation).

Yeah but what about concealed cars?

[twa]

I think this was brought up a bit ago. IMO she is an idiot who should be charged with reckless endangerment with a firearm.

 

I agree....unless something important is being left out.

[tshile]

Anecdotal example. I THINK we can all agree that Martin Zimmerman's gun resulted in a death that wouldn't have happened without one. (You can argue that MAYBE it also prevented one. But there is absolutely one death in the stats that would not have been there without laws enabling freer carrying, and use, of firearms).

That incident of violence, however, did not result in a permit revocation.

The fact that there was no revocation, does not mean that the violence didn't happen.

Right, but that violence was justified by State law, according to a jury of his peers. That's not a problem - someone followed the law.

 

If you want to say the law is stupid and should be changed (which is how I feel) then that's one thing, but at the end of the day he was legally allowed to do what he did. The State of Florida called that self defense.

 

Martin didn't attack Zimmerman with a gun. The violence is not gun related. The self defense aspect of it is, but not the violence that initiated the incident. This shouldn't show up in a 'gun violence' stat or discussion, unless you're intentionally being dishonest about it. Or unless your premise says FL law is stupid and you don't want to factor in their laws but instead want to use other laws; which is fine, I think the law is stupid myself, but at least be upfront an honest about it (in the fact that you're skewing the stats.)

 

Furthermore, since Zimmerman was found legally not guilty, he shouldn't have his permit revoked... If he was found guilty, I'd bet his permit would have been revoked... this is what I'm talking about. If a permit holders' ability to have a permit led to him committing a crime, in this case violence with a gun (specifically murder), then he would have lost his permit.

 

If the two were linked it should show up on that side of the stats... But it doesn't... because he didn't have his permit revoked... because what he did was legal...

 

Now if you want to say Zimmerman was only able to shoot Martin because Zimmerman had a gun, when you get no disagreement from me there

 

- The linkage that you're trying to apply "X must happen, or else Y didn't happen" just might not be a linkage.

Not that it must happen, that it should happen often enough that you should see some impact on the # of revocations.

I already said there are reasons why an incident might not lead to a revocation, or why a revocation might not be related to an issue of violence.

It's not a one for one, but there should be some impact if we are to believe the two are related.

Remember, I didn't start this saying it proves anything. I didn't demand the number match. I simply asked what the numbers are (or specifically how they've changed) because there should be something there. Come to find out - the people doing the research don't know; or worse, they do know, but they didn't include it in their report.

 

Where we got to here was you and peter basically telling me I'm being ridiculous for asking about this. Saying it's completely irrelevant.

 

Peter's studies say "when you make permits easier to get (and yes, passing a law that says you don't even need them, makes them easier to get), then violence goes up". They do not say "because permit holders are personally committing said violence".

The only reason to say that is to imply that one has to do with the other. There is no other reason. It's to try to convince people that it's bad that people have concealed permits.

It's the same reason idiots on the other side run around trying to link any drop in crime to any gun law that has changed recently in their favor.

For some reason you guys don't seem to have an issue seeing through their bull****...

[Predicto]

Of course, one of the main reasons that we don't have the data and studies that we all seem to want is because the NRA has pushed through a ban on federal research into the effect of gun ownership on public health.  Funding for gun safety studies has dropped by 96% since the mid-1990s.  

 

 http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

 

but of course "both sides" are equally interested in a healthy, fact-based public policy debate, right?  

[@DCGoldPants]

Boehner Criticizes Democrats Over Mass Shootings

 

WASHINGTON -- If Democrats really cared about gun violence, they would have done something about it when they were running Washington, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) charged Wednesday.

 

Boehner was responding to a question about whether or not Congress should reconsider barring the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from studying gun violence as a health issue, especially since Republicans have repeatedly argued that addressing mental illness is the way to prevent mass shootings.

 

Congress has been writing restrictions against such study since the late 1990s.

 

Boehner said the the topic has not come up in his talks.

 

"I don’t think there’s been any discussions at this point. It’s not been part of the discussions," he told reporters on Capitol Hill before expressing sympathy for the nine people killed and nine more wounded in last week's massacre in Roseburg, Oregon.

 

"We’ve seen far too many of these," Boehner said, before putting the onus on Democrats.

 

"In '09 and '10, we had Democrat majorities in the House and Senate. We had a Democrat president. And this clearly was not a priority for them. The president can rail all he wants," Boehner said, referring to President Barack Obama's angry denunciation last week of Congress' failure to address the issue.

 

Indeed, the gun legislation that Congress considered in 2009 and 2010 tended to expand gun rights.

 

However, there have been numerous proposals since then, starting after the 2011 shooting of then-Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) and the horrific slaughter of children in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012. Bills to restrict magazine capacity and assault weapons have gone nowhere. Even popular bipartisan measures to strengthen background checks have failed.

 

Asked specifically about whether or not the current background check system was working well enough, Boehner demurred. "I'm not the expert on each of the individual policies, but I would like to see us work together on finding effective ways to reduce these horrific incidents," he said.

 

Instead, Boehner again said Congress needs to focus on mental illness, although he did not offer a specific proposal.

 

 

 

More from the link.

[tshile]

Real life example of Peter and Tshile's debate happened today. Apparently, a woman with a concealed carry permit saw Home Depot security guards chasing after a pair of alleged shoplifters. She removes her gun and starts shooting. She doesn't hit anyone, but may have damaged the suspects' car. the pair drove away.

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/07/good_woman_with_a_gun_shoots_up_home_depot_trying_to_take_down_suspected_shoplifters/

 

Is she a hero or did she go overboard? She's currently in police custody now. No word yet on if she will be charged or is just giving a statement after "shooting up" the Home Depot parking lot.

 

I'm not sure how that applies to what Peter and I are discussing?

 

I think that woman is an idiot that should go to jail for brandishing a weapon, endangering the public, and maybe even attempted murder.

 

I don't know what the state laws are there, but I think she should also lose her permit.

 

Edit: To clarify - I think she should be treated according to the laws there, but if I were writing the laws there what she did would put her in jail; possibly for a long time.

 

There's nothing heroic about shooting a shop lifter. It's dangerous.

 

Though I can't help but wonder if those two will shoplift again.

Edited October 7, 2015 by tshile

[bcl05]

Of course, one of the main reasons that we don't have the data and studies that we all seem to want is because the NRA has pushed through a ban on federal research into the effect of gun ownership on public health.  Funding for gun safety studies has dropped by 96% since the mid-1990s.  

 

 http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1

 

but of course "both sides" are equally interested in a healthy, fact-based public policy debate, right?  

Agree wholeheartedly. I wrote this earlier- repeated for effect.

 

I’d like to see some real science applied to the problem.  One of the most frustrating things for me is how actual academic research into mass shootings (and gun deaths in general) has been so summarily suppressed.  This is clearly a national health problem.  Tens of thousands of people die from bullet wounds here every year – vastly more than any other country.  Why?  Its not a simple question, nor is it going to be a simple answer.  I’d love to see the CDC devote a ton of money and manpower to try and get to a real, data-driven, non-political answer.  I suspect that the answer will be some variant of “all of the above.”  The approach to reducing death will need to address drug violence, suicide, “random” mass shootings by crazies, and accidents.   It won’t be straightforward, but if we don’t study it systematically, it all comes back to overheated empty arguments.  Let’s really try to identify where the problems are, and what the most effective and painless ways to address them will be.  We have a system for this.  The CDC does mostly great work at identifying root causes of complex health/safety problems and can find real-world approaches to fix them.   Let’s unleash some science on this.  I’m a scientist at heart (physician by profession) and that’s where I see a potential for real, meaningful answers.   We can’t be afraid of the results of research.  I bet they’ll tell us (basically) that we are all wrong.  The problem is not just guns and not just culture and not just law enforcement and not just mental health.  I suspect all of these as well as that there is some component that might be identified by research that isn’t on our collective radar screen yet.   

 

The suppression of scientific research into gun violence by the NRA (and its adherents) is just infuriating and is a huge part of the problem. 

[Burgold]

I'm not sure how that applies to what Peter and I are discussing?

 

I think that woman is an idiot that should go to jail for brandishing a weapon, endangering the public, and maybe even attempted murder.

 

I don't know what the state laws are there, but I think she should also lose her permit.

 

Edit: To clarify - I think she should be treated according to the laws there, but if I were writing the laws there what she did would put her in jail; possibly for a long time.

 

There's nothing heroic about shooting a shop lifter. It's dangerous.

 

Though I can't help but wonder if those two will shoplift again.

Weren't you discussing whether having people armed in public might prevent mass shootings or other crimes? May have gotten my protagonists and antagonists confused.

 

Here's a woman witnessing a crime taking action. Isn't that what was argued in this very thread that they wished would happen if a crazy started shooting bullets. This scenario is even saner because the shooter doesn't have to worry about running, screaming civilians or people shooting back.

 

It is an example of how guns help in these kinds of situations.

[Kilmer17]

 

 

 

 

More from the link.

 

I agree with him.

 

I don't think the Democrats are interested in ACTUALLY doing something meaningful.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Weren't you discussing whether having people armed in public might prevent mass shootings or other crimes? May have gotten my protagonists and antagonists confused.

 

Here's a woman witnessing a crime taking action. Isn't that what was argued in this very thread that they wished would happen if a crazy started shooting bullets. This scenario is even saner because the shooter doesn't have to worry about running, screaming civilians or people shooting back.

 

It is an example of how guns help in these kinds of situations.

I don't think ANYONE was arguing that a gun owner should be using their weapon, much less discharging it, to stop a shoplifter.  To try to imply otherwise is a intentional misrepresentation and just another example of why nothing will ever get done.  Both sides are equally guilty of twisting words to meet their agenda.