I hear people on DU say those with CWP rarely use their guns to shoot others

[Generic Other]

Well here's an exception to that rule: This weekend near Seattle, a guy with two maybe three prior domestic violence arrests and a CWP shot and killed 4 people at an apartment complex. His girlfriend, bystanders who confronted him, even the blockwatch person before the police killed him.

"Police say Clark had a valid concealed weapons permit. He had no prior criminal history, but was involved in two previous domestic violence calls in Seattle and Federal Way. Those involved women who were not the same as the victim of Sunday’s shooting. A court computer search turned up a domestic violence petition filed against him in 2002, but was dropped days later. Clark would have been a juvenile at the time.

Federal Way Police said they had the suspect in their records with a “caution” because of his DV history and because he was known to carry firearms."

http://www.king5.com/news/cities/federal-way/Police-5-dead-in-shooting-in-Federal-Way-204044421.html

What struck me was that here if ever there was a person who should have lost his right to possess ANY firearm was allowed to have a concealed weapon permit even when the police had a file on him which they flagged because of his history of domestic violence. Now my question is why is this guy allowed to have a CWP after two maybe three DV charges? Why is he allowed to own a gun at all? This is not the law abiding gun owner that so many on DU are quick to defend. This is a man who was a menace to society.

If we can't even get the guns out of his hands, I don't see how we can ever hope to change gun laws in this country. My question is how do we get guns out of the hands of individuals like this? I can hardly believe anyone would defend his gun rights. Perhaps, some one will argue he had no prior criminal history, just three DV calls. Sorry, but that equals a history of violence to me! Seriously, why weren't his prior actions enough to trigger some law that would revoke his CWP? That seems like a reasonable response. Would the NRA defend his rights? Would the DU gun lobby? I am sick to death of gun violence. People should go to jail when their guns are used to commit crimes. They should permanently lose their right to own a gun if their weapon is used to commit criminal acts of violence. And that includes homes where kids accidentally shoot themselves because of parental carelessness. Or homes where guns are stolen and used to commit crimes. The legal owners should lose the right to own a gun based on not being able to secure that weapon. Based on being too irresponsible to be trusted with a weapon. And people who have a history of making threats of violence against others should not be allowed to own guns at all, let alone CWP.

Get the guns out of the hands of the hands of as many irresponsible and dangerous people as possible. I would think the law abiding gun owners would be the first to to advocate taking a tough stance in these instances. Unfortunately, I sense they could care less. Or maybe many know they would lose their guns even under this kind of lenient gun regulation because they do have such histories. Still, it seems like this is a reasonable compromise. That and background checks to establish one's right to own a gun. If you have a history of violent behavior, you should be sent to a shrink, not be handed a gun permit. If you are a responsible gun owner, your rights should be protected.

In Washington state, we are starting a petition drive to get background checks on the ballot since our spineless legislators voted against such a law. Public safety is not a priority in our state capital, but maybe this year, the people will make their voices heard. I for one will sign the petition. It's the least I can do for the people who lost their lives due to the lax laws we currently have.

[The Straight Story]

1. DV calls are not convictions

Open that floodgate and anyone you don't like personally with a gun you can make such calls about.

Gun owners want guns out of the hands of idiots as well. Problem is that some here on the left hate all gun owners and think they are all idiots and want only the magical people in government (their neighbors and such who happen to get a paycheck from taxpayers which makes them magically more responsible than us regular citizens) to own them since we trust those people so much (like bush, boehner, etc).

It's hard to have a meaningful conversation on how to restrict certain people from having them when one group at the table wants no fellow citizen to own one.

[Generic Other]

2. Three DV accusations from three different sources equals a history to me conviction or no

Let the burden be placed on him to prove he is capable of being a responsible gun owner.

Are you really okay with his having kept his CWP under the circumstances, no questions asked? He has to kill four people before you consider revoking it? That says it all right there. No reasonable compromise possible, I guess.

So background checks and psychological profiles. Criminal history or no. If you have a history of violent behavior and/or serious problems (including as a juvenile), no CWP and no right to possess a gun. 3 accusations of DV from three different women? I don't give a shit about innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proving he is responsible enough to own a gun should now shift to him. As it is, you could have multiple arrests for violent behavior and never lose your gun rights.

[The Straight Story]

3. What says it all is:

" I don't give a shit about innocent until proven guilty."

Sounds like a lynch mob mentality to me and an irrational fear of others.

[NYC_SKP]

4. +1 (nt)

[CreekDog]

64. your only contribution to this thread is concern for the murderer

like your concern after Newtown was for the guns.

odd, but sad too.

[geek tragedy]

11. I'm sure the families of the 4 victims will find comfort in the fact that their murderer

had his right to self defense protected.

[AndyA]

59. As all surviving friends and family should!

"I sure miss Joe, but thank God that man's right to bear arms was protected!"

With some, it seems the 2A right is the only one that counts. There are others, like the right to life. I'd say life trumps bearing arms.

[Threedifferentones]

63. Your talk of rights presents a false dichotomy

There is not a hard choice between the right to own a gun and the right to life. It is impossible to know who would have lived or died if he had been reduced to a lesser weapon. Certainly death tolls multiply when someone with violent intent has a gun. But your post implies that if personal gun ownership were banned all of these victims would still be alive, and even that getting rid of guns would get rid of murder.

Abusive men have been killing the women who share their very bed for much longer than guns have been around.

The other victims I think would PROBABLY still be alive if he did not have a gun, but that does not mean people who are in favor of private guns are not in favor of your right to live.

[AndyA]

91. NRA talking points

Your interpretation of my post is inaccurate.

You may feel that there isn't a hard choice between the right to own a gun and the right to life, but all I hear about lately is 2A rights and protecting them.

[Threedifferentones]

113. You say my interpretation of your post is inaccurate, then you repeat my interpretation of your post

"You may feel there is not a hard choice, but..."

There is not a hard choice. Gun control has obvious logic, and I believe the evidence is conclusive that banning private ownership would reduce violent deaths, both homicides and in particular suicides. It is clear to me that many murders and suicides are committed by people in the heat of emotion who would calm down before they acted if violence were not made so easy by guns.

It is also clear that mass murderers would have a much harder time if they had to make do with small magazines, say 6 rounds or less. But, from any sort of larger perspective mass shootings are statistically irrelevant. You are much likelier to go crazy and blow your own brains out, numbers prove that easily, and you can do that with a single shot.

All of this does not equal a hard choice between a right to live and a right to own guns. It's hard to believe that all you hear about lately is the 2nd amendment. On DU the vast majority of people are for greater gun control. How are you missing all their posts when I see them every day?

My post is not an NRA talking point. You are the hyperbolic one here.

[AndyA]

149. From a survivors point of view, my feelings are not exaggerated

Unless you've lived through the murder of a loved one at the hands of a licensed, "responsible" gun owner, you really can't understand. You are the one misinterpreting posts, and you have from your first response.

Enough.

[Threedifferentones]

197. Your posts are not that opaque. You repeated my interpretation yourself.

"You say there is not a hard choice, but..."

All I can do is believe you mean what you say.

This indicates you believe there is a hard choice.

The fact that you fall back on traumatic experiences to justify your position is just further proof you are not relying on logic.

You do not know me either. I guess your tragedies are greater than mine? I guess there is no pain affecting my decisions?

The hard choice is not what you FEEL it to be. You won't be able to refute that using reason instead of emotion. Enough indeed.

[99Forever]

86. And you sound like a murder facilitator.

4 times over in just this one case. If this gunfreak didn't have his gun, in all likelihood, 4 innocent people wouldn't have lost their lives so people like you can hang on to the object of your deadly fetish.

[The Straight Story]

87. My fetish? I don't own one.

If you don't like due process, just say so. Don't try to hide your dislike of it behind guns.

Where else would you like to apply this to?

[99Forever]

90. Oh please.

Who do you think you are fooling?

[The Straight Story]

92. Hah - well, let me tell you a little secret

I am a man.

I can't have an abortion.

But I stand up for the rights of women who may want one.

I am also not gay.

But I can stand up for gay people who want to get married.

Funny how being consistent works.

Try it sometime.

[Walk away]

181. And yet you don't seem to care about the rights of...

Mothers and Fathers who live in fear that their children will be slaughtered by someone who has to own a gun and carry it around our neighborhoods legally!

[99Forever]

199. Nice.

Letting violent freaks own and carry weapons = Treating all human beings equally.

False equivalency much?

[The Straight Story]

212. There was no proof he was violent before

But lynch mobs never listen to reason.

[99Forever]

213. Who the fuck said ANYTHING about lynching him?

I mean, besides you?

Hyperactive drama much?

[Generic Other]

95. LYNCHMOB?????

Would you let your daughter date this man? Now don't be a hypocrite.

So what if three former girlfriends warned you of how dangerous he was, one even talking of how she pleaded for her life. He's innocent. How dare the cops make a file on him, huh? How dare I turn on him with my lynch mob mentality? Because I want to take away his right to conceal a gun in public after numerous complaints about his violent temper. That's the same as saying I want to hang him.

Here is why he didn't get arrested:

"I didn't open up my door right away because I was scared. I had a feeling he was going to attack me, which he did. He got on top of me and took my phone."

She started screaming and her neighbors called police.

"I was begging for my life, saying please don't hurt me. I want to see my kids again. And he said 'I would never hurt you. I'm going to be a doctor.'"

In the incident last month, Clark left the scene before police could talk to him. Since she was not physically assaulted, Clark was never arrested.

http://www.king5.com/news/Woman-says-Federal-Way-shooter-was-stalking-her-204389271.html

But he's an innocent man. And you are going to help your daughter pick a dress for her date, right?

[The Straight Story]

100. To answer you

She is only 12. So no.

And what I would do and what we as a society do are two different things.

Unless you want people who say they personally wouldn't allow they kid to have an abortion - I mean, do you really want people using their personal decisions to affect those of others (I KNOW some here do - from smoking in bars where you choose to go to what size soda you drink, there are some here who love the idea of controlling choices based on their own personal ones).

This guy (below) was accused of rape. Falsely.

Doing a DNA test is a waste of taxpayer money?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022774452

She was not physically assaulted as you noted. So now yelling at people and such, with no evidence for the cops, means people should be arrested.

I have caught red handed people stealing from homes in this hood and the cops have yet, ever, to do anything or arrest anyone since they were gone by the time they got here. No evidence, no crime to bring charges on and even if you do chances are you won't be convicted.

So how about this - how about we just set up a data base and let people like you, who might get mad on an internet board, add names to the list for people you want denied their rights.

But let's add some other ones. Abortion for one. You see someone speeding? No need to call the cops, add their name to a list and send them a ticket and add points on their license. Three people add the same name, away goes their license.

You want your kids to grow up in a world like that? Maybe you do. But if you want guilty until proven innocent head over to another country where you might feel more safe because of control freaks, like Saudi Arabia.

[Generic Other]

106. He was a juvenile when he started abusing women

Of course you believe he's innocent since there was no arrest. So will your daughter when she goes off with him. And will you believe her?

I am sorry if I made it personal. But Aurora and Newtown and Gabby Gifford made it personal to me.

I have not posted much on this subject. Mostly I read the arguments on DU. I tried to listen to both sides. Wanting to find a middle ground. And I have watched gun rights' advocates twist themselves into pretzels to defend any and all gun use. And shoot down anyone who is ready to take a middle ground. I am not against a responsible person owning a gun. I am against violent individuals being allowed access to them. Just as I am against drunks driving cars whether they have been convicted or not.

And so that makes me some authoritarian asshole who wants to witch hunt people and put them on a list. I don't give a crap about someone's driving habits unless they endanger others. Then you can be damn sure I will get out a pencil and take down your license. I don't care if you own a gun. I do care if you shoot it at me. Or threaten to. Or have been accused multiple times of being violent. Holy bejeebus!

[The Straight Story]

110. I didn't say I believed he was or he was not

I don't know. You don't either when it comes to those charges.

And yeah, you might write down the plate of someone driving erratically, many do, but that does not mean because you saw it the police will impound their car and take their license unless you have some proof.

And so that makes me some authoritarian asshole who wants to witch hunt people and put them on a list.

If you want to remove the rights of others without facts to back it up, yeah, it seems pretty authoritarian to me.

And as noted with my daughter - I am not society nor am I trying to remove the rights of others, if I don't like someone and all it impacts is if they get to date my daughter that is one thing. Now if I were to try to extend that and say no one could ever date that person it would be something else - something some folks would like to have the power to do obviously.

[Generic Other]

114. Not my daughter, but feel free to terrorize everyone else's daughters?

That right there is why we are all at this impasse over gun rights. I think your argument displays a disturbing and callous attitude toward your peaceful neighbors. You think mine infringes on your right to be violent as long as you haven't been convicted of a crime. Where is the middle ground? I am sinking into the quicksand here.

[The Straight Story]

117. Who said anything about a right to be violent?

Was this person convicted of being violent before this? If so, throw them in jail.

Owning a gun does not make someone violent. If so why do less than 1% of gun owners use them in a violent way?

If someone is terrorizing someone press charges, file reports, fund out system so that we have enough cops/etc (as noted in another reply) to deal with it all.

[Starboard Tack]

185. Carrying a concealed gun around other people is an inherently violent act

The fact that it may be legal does not change that fact.

[CTyankee]

9. Yes, that's right. That's why it is important for us to do nothing. Will that make you feel better?

[The Straight Story]

72. Nice. Who said that? Oh...you did. Not me

What do you want to do? Ban all guns? Have monthly background checks on everyone who owns a gun (hope that includes cops/military/security forces, etc....oh wait, I forgot, those people are better than the rest of us).

What percent of gun owners use their guns in a crime?

You want to do something? Fine - we need funding for background checks that states can't keep up with. We need funding to enforce the laws we have.

But no, that takes too much thought and work. So let's make even more laws we don't have the money to enforce because it will makes us feel like we did something. Cause feeling good is better than actually getting off our asses and doing the job.


A little info on background checks, how they work, cost, and mental issues
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022774001

Majority of Gun Dealers Haven’t been Inspected in Last 5 Years

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, told USA Today that ATF has “an appalling lack of resources” to do its job.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022772542

I don't see the people running around yammering about solutions talking about those things.

[CTyankee]

79. don't blame me about the lack of funding for ATF. Lay it squarely at the feet of

the gun enthusiasts who have done everything in their power to keep safety laws from working. And it has gotten us to this point. It's shameful and disgraceful. It is also insane. I have been active in this issue since my family lost a lovely young woman to gun violence. That was in 1987! That's how long my commitment has been on this issue.

[The Straight Story]

80. Well we find something to agree on

Fix what is broken first. I am all for more funding for enforcement, no point in making laws if you don't have the money to enforce them.

And making new laws will only add more to that pile and won't do much but make people think things have changed.

Many gun owners (of which I am not one) I know have no issue with funding and I think that would be a great issue for things to get started on in a bipartisan way.

But no one seems to bringing that issue that.

[CTyankee]

83. I will believe their commitment when I see it. Here's a thought for them:

join with gun safety groups to add a gun owners' own ideas for gun safety that do not insult anyone's intelligence. Let's start with funding for enforcement. That should be tried first and foremost. Alternately, start a Gun Owners for Gun Safety group and take on the issue of funding for current enforcement. Do I hear any support here?

[CreekDog]

62. i hate that gun owner, i'm sorry you don't

[The Straight Story]

71. What has that got to do with the actual conversation here?

Do you think people should be entered into a data base and denied rights without any sort of conviction?

You are falling into what the RW does with everything when it comes to muslims and terrorism - and you want everyone treated as a suspect.

My how our society is fallen - we are all guilty of something even if we didn't do anything. If someone calls the cops on you falsely you are to remain a suspect for life in a data base.

How is it that we trust our everyday citizens to tell the truth all the time to cops but we don't trust them anywhere else???

Got hand lotion and boarding a plane? Suspect. Own a gun? Probably a gun nut who wants to kill others. Buying a one way ticket, most likely a terrorist. Hell, you can't even help someone change a tire or open a door anymore without someone assigning a motive to it.

But call the cops - we trust that you didn't do so in a drunken rage or out of spite or vengeance to get back at someone.

People don't need evidence anymore, they just like accusations - helps in their efforts to control other people.

[Generic Other]

101. I used to help women make third party police reports after they had been raped

and for their own reasons would or could not come forward. You think the police didn't have valid reasons to read those reports?

I see where you are coming from on the issue of improper data collection; however, the information is no different than information sent to CPS would be. It triggers further investigation and your name in a file. Sure it could be abused. But its intent is to protect the vulnerable.

I just was surprised such a person had a CWP. I did think gun owners had to exhibit a level of maturity and responsibility to be eligible. My bad, I guess.

[The Straight Story]

104. If America was a church and we reported sins that might work

But we are a society that has a level of doubt on charges - ie, there needs to be evidence.

The cops can still arrest someone over basically anything they want, but unless that person is found guilty it should not be something we use against them in any way.

And I have been a cop and seen domestic abuse. Including a guy who pulled a shotgun on his wife, she grabbed the barrel to pull it away from him and it went off and blew her face off. Both were drunk.

Can we change some things? Yep - but removing basic rights of people is not solving a problem it is creating more of them.

Increase funding, education, etc from our courts to our cops to the ATF etc so that we have the needed people and resources to do the job of enforcing the laws.

And while a call could trigger something (it does, a police response and report) that does not mean that trigger should have consequences unless a person is found guilty of having done something.

[Generic Other]

111. Again, do you want your daughter to date a person accused of being a violent rapist?

Accused of such a crime by a frightened woman who so fears for her life or maybe the lives of her kids that she won't come forward, choosing instead to hide out in a battered woman's shelter. Meanwhile, he's strutting around town, inviting your daughter to go to the movies.

I do not believe you are going to loan such a man (no prior criminal history but a trail of stories about his violent past) the gas money to take her to the cinemaplex. Whether the daughter is 12 or 29. You are being intellectually dishonest to suggest you would do anything differently than I would in these circumstances.

In fact your failure to act might suggest irresponsible parenting on your part. Not all bad people get brought to justice. They are still bad people. But don't take anyone else's word for it. Let your daughter find out for herself. And I am talking a rhetorical daughter here, but I am sure you do think about protecting your own kids too.

Sorry if making it personal bothers you; however, many of us have no choice. Gun violence has touched our lives firsthand.

My husband teaches at one of the schools where a shooter went on a rampage. There have been 57 school shooters since then. And 127 students of all ages have lost their lives while seeking an education. One of the teachers locked down her class. She found a gun in the wastebasket after they left.

It kinda is personal. My next-door neighbor shot himself in the head. He was a teacher for 30 years.

A future notorious serial killer lived down my street.

It is personal. And my ranks are multiplied every time someone pulls a trigger in this country and kills someone else. There will come a tipping point when you can find no one in the nation untouched by gun violence on a personal level.

You are not going to change our minds. We've been traumatized. PTSD caused by your cohorts. Some reasonable decisions need to be made. Either we agree to a treaty of peace as a people and stop the gun violence directed against our loved ones or we declare open warfare and divide into warring city states. Sometimes I think that's what some gun owners want. Their damn prepper fantasies are other people's nightmare.

So, does that mean there is no middle ground at all? Or is that where the target is hanging?

[The Straight Story]

116. And again

What I prefer for my daughter has nothing to do with society at large.

I prefer her not to date a lot of people, but that does not mean what I prefer should be applied as a template to all.

And obviously it is personal to you. I know a 3 time killer and have a friend who was murdered.

There are around 50 million gun owners in the US and few of them ever use their guns to harm others - it is already against the law to kill, rob, rape, beat others. And when people are convicted of such, versus accused, then yeah - yank they gun rights like we do other rights (although in Ohio you can still own a gun - it just has to be a black powder one and such).

And as you noted, you have been traumatized and no one will change your mind - and how you use your mind to apply policies to your life and family (like who your kid can date) is your business.

When you use that and extend it to others are when problems occur.

There is a middle ground - more funding for enforcement, more education, getting people to press charges. We don't have the resources often and even prosecutors have to be picky at times which cases are worth the time and money.

If we want change it will take money to work with what we already have, making new laws won't do much of anything but add a burden to a system already cash and resource strapped. Add 100 more laws and no more cops, judges, case workers, etc and you won't get anything real done - except feel better about things.

[Generic Other]

121. Bet you think OJ Simpson was innocent too

just because he had a slick lawyer.

[The Straight Story]

126. Once more - it does matter what I think

It matters what the law is.

I know you don't like laws and such, they seem to be getting in the way of the mob and vigilantism, but it is what it is.

People are innocent until proven guilty. If you don't like that fact start a thread saying you don't and see how it goes.

[Generic Other]

170. I would not let my daughter date OJ Simpson

No matter what a court said about his innocence. Also, a civil court awarded the victim's family a whole lot of money based on their presumption of his guilt in spite of his being acquitted by a criminal court. Oh the fucking injustice of it all.

CWP is a privilege, not a right. Some behaviors should mean suspension of the privilege. A history of DV is one of those behaviors in my opinion. But you keep defending the rights of men such as this guy. That's why you are all in danger of having this privilege curtailed by the public. It's coming. Wayne La Pierre will not save you from the day of reckoning. Because the public is growing sick of your ridiculous lax attitude toward gun ownership. 70% already have indicated they are ready for meaningful legislation with reasonable new rules to regulate gun ownership. They want men like this one evaluated before being allowed to carry a gun let alone a CWP. The fact that he obtained permits and weapons given his history and subsequent actions proves to me that we need to better regulate gun owners to weed out the ones who are a menace.

So you have now convinced me. Thank you. Background checks of all gun owners. Suspension of rights for those deemed a danger to themselves or others. Those who are flagged as problematic can go through the hoops to prove they have resolved the issues before having their right to carry a concealed weapon honored.

[The Straight Story]

130. And what about these:

Bizarre: Falsely Accused Ricin Suspect Claims His Campaign Against Donating Cancerous Organs Led To Arrest

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bizarre-falsely-accused-ricin-suspect-claims-his-campaign-against-donating-cancerous-organs-led-to-arrest/

Reddit publicly apologizes 'for the pain' caused to family of falsely accused student
-Martin noted that while "some of the activity on Reddit fueled online witch hunts and dangerous speculation which spiraled into very negative consequences for innocent parties," the crowd-sleuthing began "with noble intentions."

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/reddit-publicly-apologizes-pain-caused-family-falsely-accused-student-6C9553154


Calif school district sues woman who falsely accused one-time top football prospect of rape
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/e500cb746b194ad1badbb061f115f1c0/CA--Rape-Conviction-Challenged-Lawsuit

[Newest Reality]

151. Did you type that without thinking about it

or maybe you could read it again?

If you consider that you are using a fallacy to support your argument, it really takes the wind out of your sails and lends favor and credence to The Straight Story's valid points about the importance of vigilance in matters involving due process.

Maligning someone for holding to that seems to be more of an emotional issue on a personal level. I would like to assume that you would reserve a right to a strict adherence to due process if charges were ever brought against you, guilty or not.

That's an assumption.

[Generic Other]

163. We are talking about a guy who had three previous accusations of DV

I did not advocate anything other than investigating and taking away his CWP. I didn't deny him his freedom, just the right to intimidate others. As it is, he subsequently killed four people. He obviously proved himself to be a danger to the public. So yeah, I am the big bad anti civil liberties advocate because I think he should not have been allowed his CWP after that many complaints about his behavior. But off course, DU is now a place where we defend the rights of gun owners no matter what they do even after they prove to be a menace to society.

This is not about a criminal complaint, it is about a fucking piece of paper that allows him to conceal a weapon! If he is accused three times of DV, there should have been an automatic investigation and he should have forfeited his CWP. All individuals who are accused of DV should lose this right automatically for the safety of the community. The only thing that deprives him of is the legal ability to carry a concealed weapon in public. Let him prove he is not a threat to the community. Let him go get another piece of paper after a mental health evaluation.

I am beginning to wonder why so many freak out over reasonable measures meant to protect the public. Must mean a lot of folks afraid that such a regulation would endanger their right to be a violent asshole with a gun. We can't have that. Oh no. Even a guy with a known violent history, that cops identify as likely to commit more acts of violence. You think he deserves the right to carry a concealed weapon because the accusations of 3 women mean nothing in establishing a pattern of violent behavior. You don't even think the police have a right to flag his name. They obviously were concerned about his prior history. The accusations should trigger an automatic investigation and a subsequent suspension of the CWP. If he felt like his rights were violated, let him go to court and prove he is a responsible gun owner. As it is, the 4 dead have family members who will sue the state and win because the state failed to protect them from a known menace.

edit: typos

[Newest Reality]

169. Was that a response to me?

You use "you" in there.

Hmmm.

So, I gather you feel strongly about this subject. Is that so? What do you intend to do about it, personally? It seems like you have enough energy and commitment to get involved and take some action in this matter.

I have a general tip I would like to share about discussion online because I see this over and over. Try to avoid telling people what you think they think, (feel, know, believe, etc.) otherwise, it seems like you are having a conversation based on internal conflicts and not a discussion intended to gain insight and influence others. That tends to become obvious, counterproductive and might cause some people with valuable insights and opinions to avoid entering the discussion.

It helps to ask questions rather than think what others are thinking or telling them who or what they are based on a few lines or paragraphs of text. It can be more flexible and fruitful to ask, inquire more, and respond in kind based on responses.

My only response to your statement is that, to me, due process is a vital aspect to our individual rights and it trumps other issues, no matter how emotive or personal the reaction. We are at a very critical stage concerning our rights-at-large and so, while I can empathize with and agree with your overall stance and critique about CWP, you may want to consider the potential outcome of the implications of that stance, as well.

Anyway, great talking with you. It would be great if you put that energy into active measures to assure that law enforcement is more diligent and concerned about the potential problems while staying within the constrictions of Constitutional rights.

[Generic Other]

171. Excuse me you are the one who butted into my conversation with The Straight Story

to criticize my reading comprehension skills. I merely included you in the discussion you butted into.

[Newest Reality]

172. Oh,

you did not indicate that this was a private conversation.

I mistakenly thought it was a public forum

Have a great day.

[Generic Other]

175. Like I said happy to include you

Sorry, if I am on a different page this many posts into the conversation. Did not mean to insinuate anything about you personally.

[Newest Reality]

178. Thanks so much!

I appreciate your response.

Well, I bet we can agree it is a lively and heated conversation. That might lend some credence tot he issues at a hand, and that's what I like about DU.

Regards

[premium]

179. Well, he damned sure wasn't innocent of the armed robbery

charges in Las Vegas, NV., he didn't manage to get out of that.

[Generic Other]

187. I didn't know he did that!!

I see lawsuits in the state's future.

My pocket is starting to feel pinched!

[premium]

189. Yep.

Nevada did what California couldn't do.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/oj.simpson.verdict/index.html?_s=PM:CRIME

He's now spending his time in the crossbar motel courtesy of Nevada.

[Generic Other]

196. Oh sorry I misunderstood

I thought you meant the CWP shooter in Washington. My bad.

[Aristus]

5. But...but...but...

doesn't his right to carry a gun outweigh the rights of the victims to, you know, be alive?

[TheKentuckian]

6. His presumption of innocence dictates he not be sanctioned without a conviction.

Accusation can never be conflated with guilt.

[Lizzie Poppet]

7. Precisely.

The principle of presumption of innocence arose for a very good reason: people all-too-commonly use false accusations as a weapon against others.

[CTyankee]

10. therefore, it follows logically that since that may be true, it makes it right to ignore dv and

simply dither and say "Oh, dear. How dreadful. Too bad we can't do anything about it!"

[hack89]

15. No - the solution is to aggressively prosecute domestic violence

so we can legally disarm violent people.

[CTyankee]

18. well, that's ONE thing we should be doing....but surely not the only thing...

[hack89]

21. You cannot restrict a constitutional right without due process

and due process means a transparent process with a neutral judge, where the burden of proof is on the government and the accused has the right to examine and refute the evidence against him.

Any solution that meets that criteria would be fine.

[CTyankee]

25. we have a "time, place and manner" exception to certain first amendment rights.

[hack89]

28. But to completely remove someone's 1st amendment rights

requires due process.

We are not talking reasonable restrictions on a right - we are talking about the complete revocation of a right.

[CTyankee]

30. Well, IMO, it is a "reasonable restriction" to assure people of their right not to be

shot.

[hack89]

34. By that logic, any and all constitutional rights can be severely restricted.

how many lives would you save if the police had unrestricted powers to stop and search every person, car or home they wanted?

Do you support Bloomberg's stop and frisk tactics in NY?

btw - can you show legal precedence for a "right not to be shot" that overrides enumerated Constitutional rights?

[CTyankee]

46. Sane public safety. Please, do I HAVE to explain this elementary idea to you...

[hack89]

48. So you do support stop and frisk? Unlimited search and seizure?

or is it just the 2nd amendment you have problems with?

[CTyankee]

53. OF COURSE, I have a problem with the 2nd A. in the way this Supreme Court

interpreted it. I can't wait for the court to change so we can get rid of that decision and have a rational law of the land on it.

I take it from your passionate cri de coeur on the 4th amendment that you are in love with this Supreme Court and esp. that good ole civil libertarian Antonin Scalia and the other shining examples of upholders of Constitutional rights (as long as they DON'T involve gun rights) on the Court. You just love 'em, right?

[hack89]

54. No - I just passionately support due process.

nothing more and nothing less.

Revoking a constitutional right should be hard as hell. Do I really have to explain why that is a good idea?

[CTyankee]

67. Well, what can be done should be done IMO.

It's not impossible. Perhaps when this country comes to its senses and realizes the true horrors of this so-called "constitutional freedom" we will rid ourselves of it. It is SHAMEFUL.

[hack89]

74. Do what every you must within the constraints of due process.

Due process is what protects all of your rights.

[Kolesar]

33. the right to join a militia? ... eom

[hack89]

37. Or the right to self defense in the home with a handgun.

yes - it applies to all rights.

[Generic Other]

94. I believe three accusations from different women (clearly afraid to press charges)

is enough to revoke a damn CWP.

The last time I went out in my boat (an 11 foot rowboat on American Lake), I was cited by cops in a surplus HS gunboat for not wearing a life jacket within ten feet of the shore and got ticketed because my tabs were stuck on in less than the regulation fashion. I had to go buy new tabs before being allowed back on the lake. If they can do this to me because I was in violation of public safety, they can freakiung take a guy's damn CWP if he has three complaints leveled against him for DV.

Christ on a breadstick. When are we allowed to be alarmed? When do we have a right to take action? Someone upthread said I had a lynchmob mentality.
Hell, then I hope you would urge your daughters to date this man. So what if three former girlfriends warned you of how dangeroas he was, one even talking of how she pleaded for her life. He's innocent. How dare the cops make a file on him, huh? I defy you to tell me you would be okay with him dating your daughter, convicted or not.

Here is why he didn't get arrested:

"I didn't open up my door right away because I was scared. I had a feeling he was going to attack me, which he did. He got on top of me and took my phone."

She started screaming and her neighbors called police.

"I was begging for my life, saying please don't hurt me. I want to see my kids again. And he said 'I would never hurt you. I'm going to be a doctor.'"

In the incident last month, Clark left the scene before police could talk to him. Since she was not physically assaulted, Clark was never arrested.

http://www.king5.com/news/Woman-says-Federal-Way-shooter-was-stalking-her-204389271.html

[hack89]

102. Accusations do not equal guilt. That is why we have courts and judges. nt

[Generic Other]

112. Again I ask, are you going to let him date your daughter?

"Accusations after all do not equal guilt."

Ever interviewed a woman making a third party rape report to the police? Too afraid to press charges? Ever seen what a woman looks like in that condition? Ever listen to the account of a terrified person with a black eye, a lip busted, at least some "proof" she's not "making it up" to try and frame an innocent man?

I know lots of cases where accusations may not equal guilt, but they do warrant action to protect someone's safety. CPS for example. If they have reason to suspect a problem, they are legally bound to step in. Afterwards, the burden of proof lies with the parents to satisfy the state that they are not a threat to the safety of the children.

Anyway, I suppose you could tell your daughter to keep a close eye on her "alleged" violent boyfriend. And if he beat her up, you could assure her that her word was as good as his in your eyes, and you'd let an impartial jury decide who you should trust -- your daughter or a guy with an "alleged" reputation for violence. And naturally if he is acquitted by the law, then that beating your daughter received never happened.

[Generic Other]

123. Are you saying they never deny or revoke permits over multiple allegations?

CPS routinely denies custody to parents over allegations. Then there is an investigation.

In the case of a person with a history of DV, that is an infraction serious enough to warrant investigation and the revoking of one's CWP. A civil matter.

[hack89]

127. A tempory revocation is fine.

That person may be an actual threat. But if he is not charged with a crime then he should get his guns back.

There are some here that are arguing that allegations are sufficient to permanently revoke someone's right to own and carry guns.

[Generic Other]

174. Allegations of child abuse trigger action by CPS

How is this different?

That man should have been investigated. Three women should have been interviewed. Even if his stalking an ex-girlfriendm showing up at her apartment, jumping on top of her when she answered her door and leaving her begging for her life was not enough to arrest him for assault, it did constitute threatening behavior that should have called into question his right to carry a CWP. It made the cops flag his file. Funny that a guy with no prior convictions has a flagged file because LEOs consider him a potential risk. So, why shouldn't he lose his privileges until he can prove otherwise? I am not advocating imprisoning him without trial. I am advocating suspending a privilege.

[hack89]

180. He should have been investigated.

I am not saying otherwise.

And he should have had his CWP revoked while that investigation is ongoing. But at the end of that investigation, if he is not charged and convicted of an actual crime, then he is an innocent man in the eyes of the law and he gets his CWP.

[Generic Other]

182. He is as innocent as OJ Simpson

He should not have been carrying a CWP. The citizens of our state will pay the victims' families when they sue as the Goldman's did in civil court. Just because he is not convicted does not mean he can't be held responsible for his actions.

[hack89]

184. He is innocent in the eyes of the law. We are a nation of laws.

we don't punish innocent people.

[0rganism]

52. we've disagreed a fair bit in the past, but I'm with you 100% on this

Rigorously investigating and prosecuting DV really is the way to approach this. Once the wackadoos are convicted, then talk about revoking their CWPs. Anything less ignores due process.

[Lizzie Poppet]

22. Actually, there's nothing remotely logical about that progression.

I suspect you are perfectly aware of this, but the "assumption of innocence" principle is one which is applied in context. That context is that of the legal system.

Obviously.

[CTyankee]

31. Then, what is YOUR plan?

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. A couple ideas:

I'd like to see more strict regulation of just which mental health diagnoses disqualify someone from possessing firearms. Currently, the only prohibitions of this type are for persons who have been "adjudicated mentally defective" or somesuch language. I think that behavioral healthcare professionals could determine a list of diagnoses that would disqualify an applicant, and this information could be used to provide a "yes/no" answer to a background check (without divulging any confidential medical records information).

I would also like to see even misdemeanor convictions for violent crimes disqualify a person from firearms possession. A lot of simple assaults and DV crimes are not felonies (and I suppose that's okay), but I think they indicate that a person is unsuitable for possessing weapons. Perhaps there should a way to be granted an exemption (after, say, being certified as having successfully undergone treatment for mental health issues leading to violent behavior), but such exemptions should be difficult to get.

Just a couple of ideas...

[CTyankee]

70. then you should get busy and work to get these things accomplished.

Why don't you start by working with a well established gun safety organization or, if you can't stand the thought of standing with them, start your own "Gun Owners for Rational Gun Laws." It would do wonders for your cred on this board.

[Warren Stupidity]

135. A CWP is not a right it is a privilege.

Your permit should be revoked for all sorts of reasons, including accusations of dv, that are not misdemeanors or felonies.

[hack89]

136. Perhaps - but that person can still own guns

they just can't carry in public. There are some here saying that accusations are sufficient to permanently take that person's guns away.

[Warren Stupidity]

161. "some here are saying" - that his CWP shouldn't have been revoked.

Based on the theory that this would be depriving the asshole of a "right", which is exactly the bullshit I was responding to, not some other irrelevant gunner point.

[hack89]

165. Lets look closer at the OP, shall we?

if ever there was a person who should have lost his right to possess ANY firearm

[Warren Stupidity]

191. I didn't respond to the op. I responded to assertions that due process and in fact a conviction

should be required to take somebody's CC license away. I disagreed. It aint a right. It is a privilege. You responded with an utter irrelevancy. Perhaps you posted your reply in the wrong place?

[sarisataka]

8. I am not sure about WA law,

in MN, even though we are a shall issue state a permit application can be denied if the sheriff believes there is "a substantial likelihood the person is a danger to themselves or others". This does not require a conviction on record as that would prohibit firearms ownership.

A person so denied may appeal this decision and it is up to the sheriff to prove to the court that the person is a danger.

So in a case like this, multiple DV accusations could result in a permit denial but if challenged there is still a presumption of innocence.
To avoid abuse of this system from either side it is a looser-pays all court costs. This discourages people who rightly know they will not qualify from trying up the courts and also is a check on anti-gun sheriffs who would deny on the slightest presumption, such as parking tickets.

[CTyankee]

13. that sounds like a good solution. I'm glad SOME people are not just giving up but trying to

solve the problem rationally.

[sarisataka]

27. I truly believe

there is a way we can balance rights, responsibility and public safety. Unfortunately that is hard. It is easy to shout more guns and more laws back and forth but never actually get anything accomplished

[geek tragedy]

12. This is the problem with treating ownership of a deadly weapon as a fundamental right.

But, that's our fucked up gun-loving culture for you.

Every sane society has evolved past the "right to kill others" thinking.

[CTyankee]

14. Exactly the case. It is the shame of America...

[geek tragedy]

16. It is America. The love of violence is a distinctly American vice.

Sure, there are other societies where there is even more violence (e.g. Honduras, Venezuela).

But, nowhere are violence and weapons elevated to sacrosanct status the way they are here.

If Americans wrote the bible, Adam would have had an AR-15 come out of one of his ribs.

[CTyankee]

19. And it is only getting worse...

[hack89]

24. No it is not getting worse

violence in America is at historic lows - you have to go back 60 to find a lower murder rate for example.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

[CTyankee]

26. Oh,yes..."you were never safer" right?

Been there, heard that (again and again, ad nauseum).

[hack89]

29. Care to address the actual crime statistics?

oh, that's right, you can't.

[CTyankee]

36. YOUR crime "statistics"? Surely you jest..

[hack89]

40. No - the FBI's and DOJ's crime statistics

you know - those guys that work for President Obama and AG Holder. Are you saying they are cooking the books?

[CTyankee]

43. YOUR "version? please...

been there, seen that again and again (ad nauseum).

[hack89]

45. No - the official version on the FBI web site (I sent you the link). nt

[mikeysnot]

47. To lump all violent crimes with gun deaths

is disingenuous but nice try.

Domestic violence abuse is very, very hard to prosecute or get the woman to go through with charges especially if married and children are involved. Ask any cop that has to deal with Domestic Distrubances reports. Three cop friends and two family members are cops, so I am speaking from their experiences.

This man should not have had a cwp and allowing idiots to carry guns in public is the stupidest solution to our sick perverted gun fetish culture.

The NRA and other gun nut groups are selling snake oil.

[hack89]

50. Guns deaths are at a historic low as well.

go read the stats.

the only thing that stops them from going lower is a stubbornly high suicide rate, which is three times higher than our murder rate and responsible for two thirds of all gun deaths.

[mikeysnot]

55. So guns are the problem

I like it when gun supporters give arguments for better gun control thanks!

Once again you attempt at pointing out "Guns deaths are at a historic low as well." is moot.

Posting a link to a spreads sheet without defining the numbers you present is a tired tactic by the pro gun death crowd.

Explain your "fact" please. Don't post a link with ambiguous statistics and then put the onus on the opposition to refute your non existent argument.

Besides, the NRA makes it almost impossible to record and track gun crimes in the US, that was on purpose so they can sell their snake oil solutions. And lumping all violent crimes into one category is how gun supporters hide the fact that the weapon is the problem not the solution.

[hack89]

58. It is not complicated - it just takes some time and real interest on your part.

the FBI puts out an annual report on crime in the USA - a huge compilation of national statistics. In them you will find reams of data on murder and manslaughter and the weapons used.

Look at a report from the 1990's and then the report from 2011. Compare the numbers. It will all make sense.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Crime


Here is the 1995 report on murder weapons.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/1995/95sec5.pdf

Here is the 2011 report

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

In 1995 there were 16, 305 murders with firearms, in 2011 there were 8,583

[Bay Boy]

60. That must be one of those NRA

talking points I keep hearing about.

[mikeysnot]

61. thank you for this

Getting rid of easy access to guns will help reduce crime, your right it was easy... now with the cold dead hand bullshit.

[hack89]

65. I would reduce suicide first

gun suicide deaths are twice that of crime related deaths.

I am not sure what you mean by the "cold dead hand bullshit." There is no danger of anyone trying to take away my guns - anyone with a lick of sense understands that.

[mikeysnot]

81. I would like a psych test for all gun owners

if they fail, bye bye precious... anyone with a lick of sense would understand that. They have to prove their competent, have a need for a gun and are of sound mind.

Why do you think the gun lobby fears any background checks. Or any competence test or regulation on sales at all.

It would limit the sales of guns and profits would plummet.

Amerikaner sind dumm und inkompetent.

[hack89]

89. And I would like free beer and chocolate.

we all have our impossible dream it would appear.

So tell me - since it would be a never ending gravy train for mental health professionals (since I am assuming these tests will not be free), how long do you think it will take them to figure out that a reputation for saying no will significantly reduce their potential income?

[mikeysnot]

96. You are assuming?

Wasting my time.

[hack89]

103. So these psych evals will be free?

free mental health care just for gun owners - that will be a big hit with the public.

Since you must have given this great thought, how about you tell us how these exams will work. Who will do them and who will pay for them?

[mikeysnot]

119. "free mental health care just for gun owners - that will be a big hit with the public. "

No one said that but you.

No, they will be part of the purchase price. For each gun. deal with it.

it might even help with the fixation of hoarding guns.

Be able to single out the nuts from the hunters.

[hack89]

124. "Deal with it"? Deal with what - your personal fantasy ?

Last edited Wed May 1, 2013, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)

No - ignore it is more like it. Perhaps laugh at it. But there is nothing to deal with.

[mikeysnot]

152. You sounds very troubled.

I pity you.

[hack89]

157. Troubled about what?

life goes on. You are the one spinning fantasies on gun control - pointing that out does not reflect a troubled mind.

You have nothing to pity me for - I have a good life with a wonderful family. My daughter is kicking ass in her freshman year of college while my teenage son is developing into a wonderful young man. On top of that, my job is both interesting and rewarding.

This is an internet discussion board - I don't invest much emotion into anonymous posters disagreeing with me because it has no real meaning. I do enjoy the give and take but nothing beyond that. So no - I don't need your pity.

[mikeysnot]

159. It is not about disagreeing

it is about developing solutions to this nations fixation with killing and out of control gun proliferation.

I am offering solutions, and you just are throwing wrenches in the gears complaining that nothing is going to work. It is not fantasy.

Enjoy this video....

[GreenStormCloud]

115. There aren't enough psychiatrist & psychologists in the U.S. to give that many tests.

Basically you want to outlaw civilian ownership of firearms. Further, the U.S. does not have a Dept. of Needs that we must prove a need to so we can have/do something, as long as that something is legal.

[mikeysnot]

120. Sounds like you know you would fail.

Scared?

There aren't enough psychiatrist & psychologists in the U.S. to give that many tests.

BTW you assume too much...

[GreenStormCloud]

132. I have already passed multiple FBI background checks.

First FBI background check was for Top Secret (Crypto) clearance in 1964.

In 1975 I passed the PRP program which gave me access to nuclear weapons.

I have had a completely clean record ever since.

In 2002 I passed the Texas requirement and investigation to hold a Private Investigator's License, which included another FBI background investigation.

You assume way too much.

[mikeysnot]

154. For some reason I believe

2013 would be different for you.

[GreenStormCloud]

166. Probably be much the same.

At least as regards my Concealed Handgun License. After all, 1/3 of the year is already past and nothing has happened.

[mikeysnot]

193. FYI this guy passed an FBI background check

just saying...

[GreenStormCloud]

198. Nothing is 100%.

No one here claims that any system is 100%.

[CTyankee]

82. Oh, I am so DONE with even bothering to debate the gunners on their deceiving charts.

You are right, it's a tired tactic, and some of us here are tired of seeing the same damn tired tactic over and over again. I don't bother any more. It's like watching a bad movie over and over. Won't do it. The funny thing is that they don't seem to understand that we're not new to this. I guess they consider everyone opposing them to be newbies which is foolish but it is certainly a window into their ability to understand reality.

[mikeysnot]

97. Actaully I like bad movies!

better than trying to reason with someone that is unreasonable....

they are like sticks in the mud, refusing to see the trees through the forest.

[hack89]

137. "deceiving charts" = facts I can't refute

but know in my heart of hearts that they must be wrong.

[CTyankee]

138. Yep, right on cue, heard THAT one over and over again...

OK, next?

[hack89]

139. You are the one denying official FBI and DOJ crime statistics

because they do not support your world view.

[CTyankee]

141. "You were never safer"

"What about swimming pools?"

[hack89]

142. 16,700 gun murders in 1995, 8600 in 2011.

A 50% percent reduction is a good thing, right?

[CTyankee]

143. buddy, I've already been thru all of this with another pro-gunner and seen the cherry

picking and distortion. I'm way ahead of you. I know your game.

Give it up...

[hack89]

144. Those are straight from the FBI - are you saying AG Holder is cooking the books? nt

[CTyankee]

146. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2776607

[hack89]

147. So you have no actual facts or statistics to refute the FBI?

Why don't you simply say so?

[CTyankee]

150. Pay more attention next time to those who have refuted your "interpretation" of the

stats. Then go after THEM.

Been there, done that...

[hack89]

153. I didn't interpret anything - I simply presented hard numbers and statistics

I simply pointed out that that FBI documented a significant drop in gun violence in America. Are you saying that those facts are wrong?

What interpretation do you give them?

Why don't you give us your statistics?

[hack89]

145. So show us all where you get your crime statistics from.

Last edited Thu May 2, 2013, 09:19 AM - Edit history (1)

you do have actual statistics to back up your view, don't you?

[CTyankee]

200. Here, among other places

http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-gun-policy-and-research/

But I know you won't bother but if you like I can keep posting other reference sites for your information.

[hack89]

201. I meant hard numbers on gun violence

number of incidents, number of victims, types of weapons.

This entire conversation started with you questioning my assertion that gun violence has fallen dramatically in the past 20 years. That is what the FBI crime data shows. You have yet to provide a source with other data that refutes it.

Your link is an excellent on for describing policy and its impact on gun violence. But their source of raw data is the FBI as far as I can see. The FBI has no analysis attached - it is simply raw data. What other source of raw data do you have?

As an example, the FBI shows a drop in gun murders from approximately 16,700 in 1995 to 8700 in 2011. Do you have different numbers for 1995 and 2011?

[CTyankee]

202. Look, we've been thru this and I can tell you that in past discussions on these data

questions have been raised about interpretation. There are various discussions in the Gun Control Activism group.

I think you know what I am referring to.

My original point was with the statement "You were never safer." You obviously believe that and use FBI stats that have been used by your side quite selectively and I am certain you know that too since you are an avid gun supporter. But for me gun control and DU are not my full time jobs. And this is a full time job for pro gunners here. What I was trying to tell you was that I have seen these debates and how they turn out over and over again. And we use the same arguments against each other again and again.

I am not going to change your opinion and you are not going to change mine.

[hack89]

203. Hard numbers don't need to be interpreted

if there were 16,000 gun deaths in one years and 20 years later there were only 8700 then the only conclusion is that gun violence has significantly declined.

Why are you so desperately trying to avoid acknowledging that basic fact? Do you really believe that gun violence actually increased?

[CTyankee]

204. well, then, gun control works!

More of it will make it work better!

[hack89]

205. So you view the past 20 years as an era of increased gun control?

because from my perspective, I see a relaxing of strict gun control with many pro-gun laws being passed (the growth of concealed carry being the best example) in addition to the revocation of many strict gun control laws (the AWB being the best example).

You must admit it has not been a golden age of gun control. Yet gun violence has drastically diminished.

[CTyankee]

206. Oh, from your "perspective." I see. Kinda like "interpretation."

But no matter, you do stand ever so proudly here at DU, shoulder to shoulder with the NRA! And you must feel that all of us here owe you thanks and gratitude for your and your NRA's part played in achieving this magnificent outcome!

Do you get a special NRA award or medal for your exceptional bravery? Do you get to tell your wonderful story at the next NRA convention? Maybe you could put photos of you and Wayne up on DU! We'd all love to see them!

[hack89]

207. I am just asking for you to at least acknowledge reality

1. Gun deaths fell significantly in the past 20 years.

2. Gun control laws did not get stricter in that period.

Why are you compelled to answer reasonable questions with vitriol and personal attacks? Does it appear for one second I care what your personal opinion of me is?

[CTyankee]

208. Evidently you do. And what personal attack is saying you stand with the NRA?

I fail to see how you differ from them. Perhaps you could enlighten not just me, but the rest of DU.

Here I am giving you all kinds of and you get all mad...my feelings are hurt

[hack89]

209. I support every gun control proposal the president wants

with the exception of the AWB. I somehow doubt the NRA stands with me.

I can understand you not wanting to discuss hard numbers - they are not really on your side. "Gun violence is not falling fast enough" isn't as catchy a slogan for controllers as "OMG OMG gunz are evil there is blood in the streets."

Why do you think for a second I am mad? Lets remember who is acting like the 5 year old, lashing out with insults to avoid facing reality.

[CTyankee]

210. I dunno. You seemed a little hurt.

Oh, well. You STILL don't understand why I won't argue the numbers yet one more time after I have seen this argument played out over and over and I keep telling you that over and over. So I guess this is the end. Trying to argue my point with you is getting close to the definition of insanity.

We will not agree. Simple as that...

[hack89]

211. I understand just fine. They don't support your view of gun violence

you have never actually argued the numbers - you first dismissed them and now you simply ignore them.

How hard is it for you so simply say "there is less gun violence now then there was 20 years ago"? Don't you understand that refuse to acknowledge this is not rational unless you are able to present statistics that say otherwise. Despite your desperate deflections, this is what we are actually discussing.

But you are right - we will never see eye to eye. I just wish you could be civil in your disagreement.

[mikeysnot]

155. Just imagine how nice it would be to be more like

all the other western civilized nations if we had guns off the street and out of the hands of idiots.

I do not think 8000 + gun murder/suicides is something to brag about, But then again I live in the reality based community.

[hack89]

158. I agree that mental health reform and suicide prevention should be a national priority

considering two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. It would save more lives than any gun control legislation ever could. Perhaps one day we will make it a genuine priority

[mikeysnot]

160. It would save more lives than any gun control legislation ever could.

Israel implemented gun control and their suicide rates dropped dramatically...

Israel’s gun control laws are the opposite of America’s, say Israeli officials. “Only those who have a license can bear arms and not everyone can get a license,” the head of the firearms licensing department told the Jerusalem Post. To qualify for a license, Israelis must at least age 21, pass a physical and psychological examination, undergo a background check and then qualify at a licensed shooting range. Gun owners are retested every three years, they get a one-time supply of 50 bullets when they order their weapon, and as of next year, they must keep their gun in a safe.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpeck/2012/12/20/israel-looks-at-tougher-gun-control-laws/

When you get back from fantasy island let me know.

[hack89]

164. Actually, Israel's suicide rate has remained pretty consistent over time

http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/isra.pdf

BTW - your link doesn't even mention suicide.

[mikeysnot]

167. Here you go....

The use of firearms is a common means of suicide. We examined the effect
of a policy change in the Israeli Defense Forces reducing adolescents’ access to
firearms on rates of suicide. Following the policy change, suicide rates decreased
significantly by 40%. Most of this decrease was due to decrease in suicide using
firearms over the weekend. There were no significant changes in rates of suicide
during weekdays. Decreasing access to firearms significantly decreases rates of
suicide among adolescents. The results of this study illustrate the ability of a relatively simple change in policy to have a major impact on suicide rates.

http://gsoa.feinheit.ch/media/medialibrary/2010/12/Lubin_10.pdf

[hack89]

176. So how do we take away access to guns like the Israeli army did?

what is your proposal?

[mikeysnot]

192. Well what ever I propose

You will just reply

"It won't work, you're living a fantasy" Lalalalaaaa...

[hack89]

194. Some of your proposals may work, other perhaps not

but until you gain the courage of your convictions and actually detail your thinking, we will never know, will we?

What laws would you want Congress to pass?

[mikeysnot]

195. I will just start with

NOT ALLOWING IDIOTS TO BUY GUNS...

http://www.kentucky.com/2013/04/30/2621458/5-year-old-boy-accidentally-shoots.html

[Jennicut]

69. Gun suicides are a problem. My cousin killed himself

last summer with his father's gun. No easy solutions to that. Overall gun deaths are down, that is true. What is unique is mass shootings. They seem more pervasive. Of the 12 deadliest shootings in US history, 6 of them have happened since 2007. Mass shootings not involving gangs or robberies are getting worse. I don't have any answers but there is an issue there. The perpetrators were all men, many of them 45 and younger.

[hack89]

75. There is a theory that mass shootings are another form of suicide

which makes sense when you realize how many mass shooters kill themselves. Mental health reform and an aggressive suicide awareness and prevention program would save many lives.

[Pelican]

32. So...

... are you complaining that you heard a fact again and again?

[CTyankee]

38. old...

[CTyankee]

88. I see that you are new. That must explain it.

Once you are here for a while you'll see that same ole chart and then it will be revealed as disingenuous and misleading, but that will not prevent our gun enthusisasts presenting once more and once more and once more, under some strange idea that we've not caught on to what they are doing. It would be laughable if it weren't so destructive. But there it is.

[Bay Boy]

35. Are you disputing that comment?

Based on what?

[CTyankee]

39. lame...

[Bay Boy]

44. That doesn't help move

the conversation forward. What is lame?

[CTyankee]

51. I will say this once and I will not say it again. I have seen those arguments.

Your side repeats your "version" of what they say, again and again. It gets lamer and lamer the more your side repeats it. You guys can't seem to understand that there are those of us who are ON to what you are doing.

[krispos42]

17. In this case, as is the case in a good chunk of other shootings by CCW permittees...

...his CCW permit had nothing to do with his ability to cause the carnage he did.

He was in his home when things went sour and he decided to get out a gun and start shooting, so his ability to carry legally concealed in public had nothing to do with his ability to commit violence in his private residence.

Now, the story doesn't say specifically what kind of gun was used; it does say he shot the unofficial "neighborhood watch captain" with a shotgun after chasing him up to his apartment and kicking his door in, and also after shooting and killing two bystanders that came to help.

It would seem very likely that the shotgun was used in all four murders, which, again, would have nothing to do with his concealed-carry permit or his carrying concealed in public.

[loyalsister]

23. umm

I think the point is that it is a little jarring that a person who is will in to shoot 4 people within an hour probably isn't a good candidate for a CCW permit.

He sounds like the old classmate who unsurprisingly winds up in jail. Not only because you know about his tendencies, but because they have been documented.

[krispos42]

66. No argument there.

My point is that his permit status in no way contributed to the situation.

The larger issue is that we can never say for certain that a person that gets a CCW permit is absolutely safe. Which is the norm for all types of permits and other relationships such as love and sex and such.

[loyalsister]

76. except...

Maybe if the permit process were more thorough he wouldn't have gotten it.

[krispos42]

85. Entirely true...

...we don't know what skeletons are in his closet. It wouldn't have affected the murder we're talking about, though.

[loyalsister]

98. They knew at the time that he had some DV accusations

The idea that there should have been a conviction before his "right" to carry a weapon was questioned is defies reason.
It doesn't take a conviction to connect the dots and realize a person has anger issues. If it were noted in his record by a reasonable process he might not have gotten his permit.

[morningfog]

108. Don't you tire of your shameful apologia?

[krispos42]

125. Sorry if facts keep interfering with what you'd like to believe.

If a CCW permittee yanks a shotgun out of his closet and kills his girlfriend, then the fact that he could carry a concealed pistol in public has nothing to do with the murder.

If you'd like to believe otherwise, then go right ahead.

[morningfog]

128. It's always something.

Always something. I hope you are compensated for your efforts.

[Marrah_G]

20. I would like to see Ma gun laws implemented across the whole country

[Bay Boy]

41. Oh great...

...then we all be hurling pressure cookers at each other.

[sigmasix]

42. NRA supports felons with guns

The NRA worked for years to get guns back in the hands of violent felons, child rapists and wife beaters. The felons with NRA-given gun rights have a 60% recidivism rate and are often caught trying to exact revenge on thier past victims. The NRA just LOVES it when violent felons have guns and use them to murder thier fellow Americans. This is the new America the gun nuts want to erect; an America ruled by regional warlords with gun collections and hatred for "The Other". An America broken into several smaller regional governments and ruled by gun nuts with AntiAmerican right wing notions about the destruction of liberty and the rule of fear.
Domestic terrorist organizations like the NRA are being utilized by right wing extremists in thier efforts to destroy America and leave Americans gripped by fear and racist conspiracy theories about the POTUS.
If you support the NRA you are supporting violent felon re-arming, the murder of children and the destruction of America.
It really is that simple.

[freshwest]

77. You nailed it. Fiefdoms like Belle Isle, Independence Park, the Citadel, to name a few of them.

Where they make their own guns, put all the kids in church schools, don't pay any taxes, nor follow any state laws. Enter and exit by their rules, walled off from the public.

In the future they'd end up having to raid the surrounding countryside like the old robber barons did. The heads of the movement are modern day robber barons who want the state destroyed that stands in the way of their taking more plunder. Human rights, civil liberties, property rights will go poof at the barrel of a gun.

The all government is BAD crew don't realize what the end result will be. They don't want to work through anything, they want to leave society, let it all break down and figure they will have Liberty©. They have not thought it through. They will be sitting so pretty then, subject to the whims of a petty dictator with no limitations.

This is why this bunch never gets excited about minority rights, voters rights, any of that old stuff. Discrimination will be explained away, no longer will that matter. Freedom isn't an issue in that society. You're free to submit or die. Period.

[marlakay]

49. Link to petition, I live in WA

I would vote for this...

[Generic Other]

122. This is where I saw that info

OLYMPIA, Wash. -- Gun control advocates in Washington launched an initiative campaign Monday, enlisting the help of voters to expand firearm background checks after lawmakers declined to pass a similar measure.

The group Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility will need to collect nearly 250,000 valid signatures, with state officials recommending the submission of more than 300,000 to account for duplicates and invalid signatures. Organizers are still finalizing language for the initiative and will begin gathering signatures in the summer months.

Snohomish County Sheriff John Lovick was among those who are supporting the campaign.

"For law enforcement, criminal background checks are essential in protecting lives and property," Lovick said.

http://www.king5.com/news/politics/WA-gun-control-voter-initiative-205277221.html

[Hoyt]

56. Yep, plenty of examples. Heck, NRA Prez's son was convicted of shooting an unarmed motorist.

NRA President Keene raised his son in the gun culture, and now visits him in jail for a gun crime.

There are plenty of examples of permit holders shooting people -- Zimmerman, Holmes, Stawicki, etc., to name a few. There will be plenty more.

And -- No gungeoneers -- permit holders are not less likely to commit a crime than those who qualify for a permit, but choose not to carry lethal weapons on city streets, in parks, etc. So, please don't repeat that crud.

Gun crowd fudges statistics by removing any CWPers who get caught from the count. Sorry, almost anyone who trains to shoot people, and carries a gun in public, is a tragedy waiting to happen (and for the fools who'll say, "what about Law Enforcment?", figure it out yourself).

[liberal N proud]

57. They will also tell you that people with conceal carry permit don't have tempers

I worry more about the conceal carry owners than I do the crockpot bombers


I ask the question, why does one need to have a concealed weapon? What is so frightening that you need to pack a gun while you go out in public?

[Hoyt]

73. No joke. There are folks right here that say they are better behaved with a gun in their pants.

I always wonder what they were like before, and whether they should really be toting and standing in line next to our kids at Chuck E Cheeze?

[Lizzie Poppet]

84. Actually, I'm probably one of them.

Pretty much ever since I could talk, I've been accused of having a "smart mouth." I do not, as they say, "suffer fools gladly," and it's taken me years to put some roadblocks in the otherwise direct path between "inside voice" and "outside voice," at least when I encounter someone being an idiot. It's not at all that I feel violent or even particularly aggressive (I'm something of a 'cold fish' emotionally, actually), it's just that I didn't tend to filter my opinions all that well. I speak snark fluently...

However, since I took to carrying a concealed handgun (well over a decade ago), I find that it's a lot easier for me to avoid saying things to people that might prompt a confrontation. Since I have a deadly weapon in my possession, I have the moral responsibility to try to avoid confrontation that might escalate to violence. For me (a rather small person), I can't assume that I can ever fight my way out of a physical confrontation without some kind of force multiplier. Thus any such violent encounter would likely turn deadly in short order. If that occurred and I caused this escalation because of what I said, then even if the other person was the one to first resort to violence, in my estimation a significant portion of the blame for the incident would be mine.

I realize I'm probably not typical in this regard, but it really did work this way for me.

[Hoyt]

93. Sad that it takes a gun to help you act decently. It also shows you have a temper, which does not

mix well with guns. It has been my experience, that most gun toters do have a temper. That is one reason they are so afraid of fellow citizens.

I think you should leave them at home, and quit fooling yourself (like many of your gun carrying buddies). I know you won't, though because you too have fooled yourself into believing guns make you a better person.

Heck, I guess we should just give guns to all those in prison, all those released from prison, spouse abusers, etc. Sounds silly, doesn't it?

[Lizzie Poppet]

99. FFS, did you even READ what I wrote?

I very specifically stated that I don't act in anger and am something of a cold fish, emotionally. In other words, the exact opposite of having a temper. You either didn't bother reading my post with anything resembling due care, or you're indulging in half-baked amateur psychoanalysis. Regardless, you couldn't possibly be more off-target.

Actually, some of the nonsense you followed on with makes me pretty sure it's the latter issue: flailing amateur psychoanalysis. I've no use for that sort of twaddle, Hoyt. If you can't manage to present a cogent argument without indulging in that sort of vacuity, I'll be happy to put you (back) on Ignore. Let me know, m'kay?

Bit hypocritical to imply that my tendency to say things that might be considered insulting isn't "acting decently," when your posts are continually filled with insults, innuendos, and otherwise aggressive behavior. Just sayin'...

[Hoyt]

107. You stuck your gun into conversation using gun lore about how a gun made you behave better.

That's bull. A gun in your pants will hardly change a callous/cold person. Like I said, if it did we should hand them out to violent criminals, abusers, etc.

I hope you do yourself and society a favor by leaving them at home, where they belong.

[Lizzie Poppet]

109. Into a conversation about guns...imagine that!

[GreenStormCloud]

133. Perhaps you should review some statistics on the matter.

You are more likely to be struck by lightning than to be illegally shot and killed by a CCWer.

Take a look at these stats for the entire state of Texas: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

[liberal N proud]

134. I can take cover from lightning and reduce that risk

The only way to avoid the crazies with guns, is to stay at home and still then, you can get struck with stray bullets if you are in the wrong neighborhood.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stray%20bullets&source=newssearch&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDAQqQIoADAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wishtv.com%2Fdpp%2Fnews%2Fcrime%2Fstray-bullet-strikes-mom-nears-toddlers-bed&ei=JvaAUbmOIKr-0gGZj4CwAw&usg=AFQjCNEIhncKjNGFsYxpq_3P3kOiY4r_xg&bvm=bv.45921128,d.dmQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stray%20bullets&source=newssearch&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQqQIoADAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nola.com%2Fcrime%2Findex.ssf%2F2013%2F04%2F8-year-old_struck_by_double_mu.html&ei=JvaAUbmOIKr-0gGZj4CwAw&usg=AFQjCNGIgvTEblPqN245F3E-DeCr8hHyEg&bvm=bv.45921128,d.dmQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stray%20bullets&source=newssearch&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CDoQqQIoADAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.standardmedia.co.ke%2F%3FarticleID%3D2000081873%26story_title%3DKenya-Boy-injured-by-stray-bullet-in-army-firing-range&ei=JvaAUbmOIKr-0gGZj4CwAw&usg=AFQjCNHbwmq_W3kRnPuoLPgrTwQo8XK01Q&bvm=bv.45921128,d.dmQ


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stray%20bullets&source=newssearch&cd=6&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQqQIoADAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kansascity.com%2F2013%2F04%2F08%2F4169462%2Fvictims-of-pl-shooting-were-hit.html&ei=JvaAUbmOIKr-0gGZj4CwAw&usg=AFQjCNH5SZP0lIzoBE0aPA3FGiwuspmC5A&bvm=bv.45921128,d.dmQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stray%20bullets&source=newssearch&cd=7&cad=rja&ved=0CD8QqQIoADAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.examiner.com%2Farticle%2Fmother-shot-holding-baby-10-day-old-son-loses-mother-by-stray-bullet&ei=JvaAUbmOIKr-0gGZj4CwAw&usg=AFQjCNFJe3ROZAAdtjbcduT6MKjSDwlDMw&bvm=bv.45921128,d.dmQ

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=stray%20bullets&source=newssearch&cd=9&cad=rja&ved=0CEUQqQIoADAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwhtc.com%2Fnews%2Farticles%2F2013%2Fapr%2F18%2Fsaugatuck-talks-camp-sale-olive-twp-dealing-with-stray-bullets%2F&ei=JvaAUbmOIKr-0gGZj4CwAw&usg=AFQjCNGuWy6gUBijp_xzPQKEcATvLFEwjA&bvm=bv.45921128,d.dmQ

Don't give me that statistic shit, because all it takes is one gun nut popping off with his semi automatic weapon and we can't hide. I'll take my chances with the lightening.

[GreenStormCloud]

156. Let's take a look at them.

Your 1st: No evidence that this was by a CCWer. Likely it was gang related.

2nd: No evidence that this was by a CCWer. Likely it was gang related.

3rd: Stray bullets from an Army firing range, in Kenya. Nothing to do with USA or CCW.

4th: No evidence that this was by a CCWer.

5th: No evidence that this was by a CCWer.

6th: Stray bullets from a nearby game area. Nothing to do with CCW.

It is extremely rare for a CCWer to illegally use their concealed gun.

[liberal N proud]

173. That line is so full of crap, it stinks!

Just because I pack on a 6 shooter, doesn't mysteriously make me passive

[11 Bravo]

78. Are you aware that "rarely" is not synonymous with "never"?

[Generic Other]

186. Yes

I was pointing out that this man should not have been allowed to have a CWP. He didn't end up being that responsible gun owner you claim most CWP holders are. And yet, a lot of CWP holders here at DU are defending his "rights." To me, that calls into question their judgement as well.

And I am glad that CWP holders "rarely" shoot people. They appear to be among the most responsible of gun owners for the most part. And they should want stringent conditions to be met in order to grant a CWP. Most of them would not be considered a threat and would pass such background checks.

Ah well, once the state settles all the lawsuits the victims' families will file, the citizens will no doubt be mad enough to change some laws here. We have a long and nasty history of discovering shooters with histories of violence targeting our communities. Also of paying huge settlements because the state failed to protect individuals from these people.

Clearly, we will be collecting signatures to put a background check law into effect this year. 70% of the citizens desire some meaningful form of gun legislation. Hopefully, it will mean men like this shooter will not be eligible to have a CWP or a gun based on a past record of violence against three women unless he can clear up the questions and pass a psychological evaluation! If he can, then give him his permit. At least the state will have attempted to determine whether he is a threat to the community or not.

[GreenStormCloud]

188. Most of the pro-gun people here support background checks.

I support stringent requirement for CCW, as long as those requirements are reasonable and are shall-issue. The requirements should be within reach of any ordinary law-abiding citizen who wants one.

Background checks are better than psych evals. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. So the background checks are superior to psych evals.

[tblue37]

105. Here in Kansas our Republican legislature amended our

laws a few years ago because they did not like that blind people were deprived of the right to have a CWP. They just didn't see any reason why vision should be a qualifier for having the right to carry and shoot guns!

[Neoma]

118. ...

[sylvi]

129. Not to be pedantic, but...

...a single anecdote is not an "exception" to a rule that contains no absolutes. "Rarely" is not an absolute. Now

Now if someone said CWP holders never use their guns to shoot others, you would have "an exception" to the rule.

[Pelican]

140. IOW, its more of a confirmation...

Usually X doesn't happen but here is one time that it did...

[Silent3]

148. I was thinking the same thing

A related phenomena is the way people react to stories of studies that state mere tendencies and rough correlations. To make up a fictitious example, imagine a poster links to a study that says, "People who own bicycles tend to read more".

Not only will other posters feel a great need to leap in with their own personal anecdotes about their aunt who reads a lot and doesn't own a bike, and their illiterate brother who does own a bike, but many posters will relate these anecdotes in a sneering tone that says, "So that stupid study is full of shit!".

It seems like a lot of people can't help themselves from turning ideas with shades of gray into binary propositions, and then getting angry at the predictably stupid results of their own oversimplifications.

[johnwarde]

131. CWP

I have a CWP and have never shot anyone, I'm also a liberal.

[Warren Stupidity]

162. Some people smoke a pack a day on never get lung cancer. nt.

[GreenStormCloud]

168. It is extremely rare for a CCWer to illegally shoot anyone.

Your chances of getting struck by lightning are greater than those of your being illegally shot and killed by a CCWer.

[Generic Other]

183. I am very glad to hear that

Many on DU have said so. I also assumed they knew CWP was a privilege not a right. And those who abuse that privilege should lose it.

BTW, lightning struck 4 times a few miles from my home last weekend. And we ignored previous storm warnings!

[Warren Stupidity]

190. Oh look another irrelevant gunner argument.

CC is a privilege not a right. Even the slightest sign that the licensee is misbehaving should be immediate grounds for revocation.

[Generic Other]

177. I am not advocating taking your permit from you

Unless you have multiple complaints from individuals accusing you of violent behavior. Then I want you investigated and if the allegations are proven, that you lose your privilege. It's not about people like you, is it?