U.S. judge denies Texas professors who sought gun ban in their classrooms

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

U.S. | Mon Aug 22, 2016 8:34pm EDT

U.S. judge denies Texas professors who sought gun ban in their classrooms

By Jon Herskovitz | AUSTIN, TEXAS

A U.S. district judge on Monday denied a motion from three University of Texas professors who wanted to ban guns in their classroom after the state gave some students that right under a law then went into effect this month.

The professors had argued academic freedom could be chilled under the so-called "campus carry" law backed by the state's Republican political leaders. The law allows concealed handgun license holders aged 21 and older to bring handguns into classrooms and other university facilities.

But U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel said the professors "have failed to establish a substantial likelihood of ultimate success on the merits of their asserted claims," and denied a motion for an injunction to ban guns.

"It appears to the court that neither the Texas Legislature nor the (university's) Board of Regents has overstepped its legitimate power to determine where a licensed individual may carry a concealed handgun in an academic setting," Yeakel said.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-texas-guns-idUSKCN10X2AV

[enough]

1. The Gun rules over all. (nt)

[Duckhunter935]

2. Not really surprised

Since several states already allow this, I am sure they had many cases ready to validate their claims, right? Must be hundreds.

[chillfactor]

3. I am a college professor retired

I would never teach in a higher education setting if students were allowed to bring guns into my classroom. That is a situation just waiting to explode.

[aikoaiko]

5. I'm in the college classroom, too, it wouldn't bother me.

In fact I assume there are people with guns in my classroom even though it is not legal to do so.

[DonP]

8. So, with 10 states allowing it, where's the explosion?

10 states already allow campus carry, some for almost a decade, so where is all the blood in the History department?

Must be the same place all that blood from all the concealed carry permit holders is, huh?

[Duckhunter935]

10. Like I said in my post

I am sure the posters here will also come up with at least hundreds of cases over the years. Any minute now, lol

[elehhhhna]

88. Such a funny gun topic, lol?

[Duckhunter935]

91. Not really

What I said was just factual. Firearms are not a joking matter in my opinion.

[friendly_iconoclast]

15. Yours is a question that has been assiduously dodged for *years*:

Note the dates:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x364698

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x310169

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x322788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

[scscholar]

28. There's constantly school shootings, so that proves guns shouldn't be allowed

Those gun owners can't be trusted.

[friendly_iconoclast]

52. "Those gun owners can't be trusted." Empirical evidence indicates otherwise:

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

[scscholar]

92. Thanks. That proves they're unsafe. 108 criminals with guns in public!

[friendly_iconoclast]

105. Out of a population of 940,877-that's *1* conviction for every 8711 permitees

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2015.pdf

Active License/Certified Instructor Counts
As of December 31, 2015


Active License Holders:
937,419
Certified Instructors:
3,458

These numbers reflect the number of licensed individuals and certified instructors

Not a math major, were you?

[Duckhunter935]

114. Numbers don't lie

I am sure that poster did not want that number posted, lol

[scscholar]

122. It still proves those gun owners are criminals.

[friendly_iconoclast]

123. It proves that those 108 convicted criminals are criminals

Last edited Thu Aug 25, 2016, 12:47 PM - Edit history (2)

Are there any other identifiable groups that you would like to restrict due to the behaviors
of a minority of their members? That approach seems to be quite popular
in certain political circles lately...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. By tha standard everyone who drinks alcohol is responsible for all alcohol-related crime.

[beevul]

126. Uh oh.

The prosecutors say Graham picked up a .45-caliber handgun -- and shot the wrong man.

In the months after her son's death, Graham became active in Mothers on the Move Spiritually, a Prince George's County group that helped organize the Million Mom March last year against gun violence. Graham spoke out at the march and helped memorialize the dead.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2001/01/24/mother-goes-on-trialin-ambush-shooting/00c9c8e7-38d5-4b0e-b075-8742774dc3a3/

Lets see if hes willing to apply that standard now.

[DonP]

93. And how many of those shootings were by people with a CCW permit?

Short answer - none.

No law you can create will stop a criminal from carrying illegally.

But please tell us you are at least able to tell the difference between a criminal and a law abiding citizen that jumped through all the hoops to get a permit?

Now, use all your Google Fu skills and find us a school shooting that was done by a person with a permit. (That is ... if you haven't already looked, found bupkus and are now just grasping at straws to hear the sound of your own voice.)

We'll wait here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

108. That is a question for which that sort dares not offer an accurate answer...

...for to do so would reveal their arguments to be faith-based, at best.

[DonP]

109. I expected the usual response; "Hey look over there!"

Or just conflating all criminals that use guns with people with lawful carry permits and pretending they don't see any difference.

Then there's always the more universal and "well thought out" Grabnutz argument; "Guns and anyone that has a gun is icky, except for the police ... the same police that I've been whining about for the past year ... only they should have guns".

[friendly_iconoclast]

110. Conflating all criminals that use guns with people with lawful carry permits is being tried upthread

Last edited Wed Aug 24, 2016, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

I have been fighting it with a remedy that works on all but the most case-hardened
of True Believers: verifiable statistics

[Duckhunter935]

116. Squirrel!!!!

[pablo_marmol]

17. "That is a situation just waiting to explode."

Then why hasn't it at learning institutions that allow concealed carry, and have for many years?

Funny how some college professors refuse to look at the data on this issue.

[DonP]

18. Science Denier or just Factose Intolerant?

(Probably Social Science or another "soft science&quot

[pablo_marmol]

19. Selective respect for the verdict of empirical evidence.

One of the things I like about one of my best friends is that he doesn't believe that character correlates with political orientation. Ironically, he's a completely irrational gun hater......and falls for every gun restriction prevarication out there. (Like me, he's never voted GOP)

In an e-mail exchange I had with Dr. Gary Kleck, he commented that criminologists tend to stick with whatever belief system on gun violence they started with........confirming what research has proven. When confronted with evidence that contradicts a person's beliefs, most folks get upset, and double-down on their irrational beliefs.

Edited to add:

http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/

[DonP]

21. Interesting, sounds a lot more like religious belief than science

Wow! Holding to a set of beliefs, regardless of any and all evidence to the contrary.

People like Hemenway and their ilk sound more like a 14th century Jesuit in some remote monastery than "scientists".

If medical science worked that way we'd probably still be bled to remove all the "evil humours" and balance our "bile".

I've always respected Kleck and his work, mainly because he was willing to adapt and change his POV based on what he actually found, even when it was contrary to his initial hypothesis. He didn't take the easy road like so many others have.

[pablo_marmol]

22. "I've always respected Kleck and his his work..........

.......mainly because he was willing to adapt and change his POV based on what he actually found, even when it was contrary to his initial hypothesis. He didn't take the easy road like so many others have.

Same goes for liberal criminologists James Wright and Peter Rossi, (RIP) who started their careers assuming a relationship between the raw number of guns and gun violence.....and changed their views as the evidence began to contradict that assumption.

Kleck published Targeting Guns after Point Blank in part to respond to critics of his work. Before going to press, he gave his manuscript to said critics to give them an opportunity to respond to his rebuttals of their critiques. None responded. Telling.

[beevul]

32. Factose intolerant science denier. N/t

[Eleanors38]

31. Taught government at a CC for 3 yrs. No problems.

[aikoaiko]

4. It was obvious that the outcome would be this way.

It all comes down to this:

"There simply is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas."

[guillaumeb]

6. No, it all comes down to THIS:

"There simply is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas."

should read:

"There simply is no legal justification to deny licensed, law-abiding citizens on campus the same illusory measure of personal protection they are entitled to elsewhere in Texas."

I added illusory because personal protection is an illusion. Guns give the illusion of protection. If they really protected there would be no police officers killed.

And any minimal protection that they might give will be negated by the increased risk of violence that will be the outcome of allowing thousands of students to carry guns on campus.

[aikoaiko]

7. I'm can live with the word illusory because that's fair and it doesn't really matter.

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. If there is an "increased risk of violence", then why hasn't it happened elsewhere?

As DonP observed above:

10 states already allow campus carry, some for almost a decade, so where is all the blood in the History department?

[elehhhhna]

89. Probably the same place campus cops put the rape and assault reports.

Hidden.

[friendly_iconoclast]

90. Do you have any evidence of such a coverup? Or even a media report of same?

Last edited Tue Aug 23, 2016, 11:19 PM - Edit history (1)

If so, kindly show it to us. I would think that such a shooting would be all over our
'if it bleeds, it leads' mainstream media.

Rape and assault can be passed off as 'he said, she said' (and too often are)
It's kinda hard to deny a gunshot wound or shooting death.

[elehhhhna]

146. My kids a TA in grad school in Tx who just completed her mandatory wtf to do

Re: campus carry so eff off. My thoughts and opinions are as valid as yours gunsucker.

[sarisataka]

147. Gunsucker?

Back to homophobia I guess. I predict it won't catch on as much as ammosexual.

[Duckhunter935]

149. What's with the insults?

[friendly_iconoclast]

154. Eh, I'll live-the devoutly religious can get quite emotional when they feel their faith challenged..

[beevul]

150. As 'valid'? Yes.

The difference however, is that your thoughts and opinions on this matter don't bounce off of reality nearly as well as those who you go out of your way to attack.

[friendly_iconoclast]

153. Instead of producing evidence, you get angry and spout insults. I don't take it too much to heart.

Faith-based movements are also emotion-based...

[Straw Man]

156. Ladies and gentlemen ...

Re: campus carry so eff off. My thoughts and opinions are as valid as yours gunsucker.

... I give you the voice of reason and enlightenment re gun control.

[Duckhunter935]

157. Indeed, some can do nothing but insult others

Actually very sad.

[beergood]

151. "Probably the same place campus cops put the rape and assault reports."

so you acknowledge that there is a sexual assault crisis on our college campuses, so would it seem to reason to allow those students the proper tools to defend themselves.

[Duckhunter935]

11. So where are all of these cases?

Don asked a very legitimate question, do you have an answer?

[friendly_iconoclast]

13. This is about virtue signalling, not demonstrable threat

These three professors will now be able to sit around faculty parties and tell of when
they stood up against that icky gun culture and how The Man shut them down...

[Duckhunter935]

14. Wonder if they know

any calculus teachers?

[virginia mountainman]

12. We are all entitled to our opinions. nt...

[pablo_marmol]

16. "If they really protected there would be no police officers killed."

What utter nonsense. Nobody claims that guns protect 100% of the time......the police certainly don't believe it. It's pretty obvious, however, that without the protection of firearms many more cops would be killed. How childish and dishonest it is to take this all or nothing position!

[DonP]

26. Hey! That's their favorite straw man you're picking on

They seem to have, shall we say, "flexible" standards and situational ethics on these things.

On one hand they demand that a gun must be able to magically protect it's owner all the time and in every situation or carrying is a waste of time and a danger to the public.

On the other hand, every time a concealed carrier actually does protect themselves or their family with their gun, well ... then it's a total fluke, an accident, an anomaly and won't be repeated.

But it's really not a double standard (LoL)

Easy peasy to understand, ... you just have to speak stupid fluently.

[Straw Man]

20. Kind of makes you wonder ...

I added illusory because personal protection is an illusion. Guns give the illusion of protection. If they really protected there would be no police officers killed.

... why the police carry them, doesn't it? I mean, since they offer no protection and all ...

Nope. Flag on the play: faulty generalization.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. "any minimal protection that they might give will be negated by the increased risk of violence"

And yet, governments keep as many of them as possible in as wide a variety as possible and it trains to bring as many to bear as quickly as possible.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

24. taking those 2:

"And any minimal protection that they might give will be negated by the increased risk of violence that will be the outcome of allowing thousands of students to carry guns on campus."

"...governments keep as many of them as possible in as wide a variety as possible and it trains to bring as many to bear as quickly as possible."

Good argument for anarchy.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. "Good argument for anarchy."

Guilty as charged.

[guillaumeb]

35. And reliance on violence has always been the first position of the US.

And how safe has that made this country?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. Violence has been the first position of every nation-state and NS-wannabe.

The state exists to project violence either on behalf of its elite or (in the rarest of cases) its constituents. ALL law is predicated upon the threat of violence for those who would break the law and/or resist the state in enforcing the law. The different levels of law, i.e. infraction, misdemeanor, felony, etc. merely speak to the amount of delay until violence is deemed appropriate but all offenders will be brought to heel either by surrender or by violence.

It is the inseparable definition of nation-state.

Please keep this simple fact in mind as you petition for the state to be the sole possessor of the means of violence.

[guillaumeb]

39. And is there any difference between individual violence and state violence?

Other than differences of scale?

If not, why encourage individual violence?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. The difference is people protecting themselves versus the elite protecting their power over people.

Why do you resent the former while facilitating the latter?

[guillaumeb]

53. And who are "the elite" of whom you are so fearful?

An alien occupying force from another planet?

An oppressive overlord crushing the American peasantry?

You do realize that the British left after your revolution, correct?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

62. Are you saying there is no valid reason for citizens to keep arms to protect themselves from

those who hold power?

You neglect post-War for Independence events such as miners protecting themselves from hired "detectives;" the 1946 battle of Athens, Tennessee; Deacons for Defense protecting African American civil rights leaders from the KKK which often included local police and other government officials; The Black Panthers; etc.

Why do you resent individuals protecting themselves and their families but make excuses for the elite protecting their power?

[guillaumeb]

67. Do you see your own government as an occupying force?

If so, that explains much of this dialogue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

76. Do you see your government as a perpetual source of benevolence and good will?

If so, that explains much of your resentment towards individuals being allowed to defend themselves.

The day the Klan messed with the wrong people.

You saw those cars coming, and you knew who those men were. They wanted you to see them. They wanted you to be afraid of them."
- Lillie McKoy, former mayor of Maxton talking about the KKK

By the mid-1950's the Civil Rights Movement was gaining momentum and the KKK decided they had to fight back. Their campaign of terrorism swept through many of the southern states, but largely fell flat in North Carolina.

James W. "Catfish" Cole, the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan in South Carolina, decided he was going to change that. Cole was an ordained minister of the Wayside Baptist Church in Summerfield, North Carolina, who regularly preached the Word of God on the radio. His rallies often drew as many as 15,000 people. As Cole told the newspapers: "There's about 30,000 half-breeds up in Robeson County and we are going to have some cross burnings and scare them up."

Cole made a critical mistake that couldn't be avoided by a racist mind - he was completely ignorant of the people he was about to mess with.

...

Dr. Perry was a black doctor in Monroe, NC, and helped finance a local chapter of the NAACP. One night at a meeting, the word was received that the Klan threatened to blow up Dr. Perry's house. The meeting broke up and everyone went home to get their guns.

Sipping coffee in Perry's garage with shotguns across their laps, the men agreed that defending their families was too important to do in haphazard fashion. "We started to really getting organized and setting up, digging foxholes and started getting up ammunition and training guys," Williams recalled. "In fact, we had started building our own rifle range, and we got our own M-1's and got our own Mausers and German semi-automatic rifles, and steel helmets. We had everything."


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/01/17/826081/-The-day-the-Klan-messed-with-the-wrong-people?detail=email

You're effectively saying Dr. Perry, his family and friends were obligated to accept whatever fate the government occupied by members of the KKK deemed fitting to dispense.

Why do you resent these people defending themselves while making excuses for the KKK who was seeking the commit violence against them?

[guillaumeb]

79. So this was an official government action?

Your link does not support this. This was organized violence, not government sanctioned violence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

83. It was official to Dr. Perry, his family and friends.

Why do you resent their defending themselves while making excuses for the KKK?

[friendly_iconoclast]

84. The Klan, in many cases, were a de facto part of local power structures

[guillaumeb]

95. True, but that still does not make this action

a governmental action.

[beergood]

189. have you ever seen

the movie mississippi burning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Burning

The pair find it difficult to conduct interviews with the local townspeople, as Sheriff Ray Stuckey and his deputies exert influence over the public and are linked to a branch of the Ku Klux Klan.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. I don't. Then again, to regard the possiblity that it *might* become one as ludicrous...

...seems to me to be both ahistorical and frankly Pollyannish.

Consider the more unpleasant implications of a Trump presidency, given many of his
public pronunciations and the behavior of his voters....

[guillaumeb]

96. And we might both agree that fascism has appeal to a certain portion

of the electorate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. In your own words, who or what is "encourag(ing) individual violence"?

[guillaumeb]

54. There are many reasons that people commit violence.

And guns make it relatively easy to commit violence.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Yet persons with concealed handgun licenses tend not to commit it

And not just 'gun violence'- any violence:

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

The following reports represent the number of Handgun License holders with convictions versus the entire Texas population with convictions.

[beevul]

40. It is amazing how easily some forget this.

And even more amazing how some never consider it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

45. It is not an easy thing to come to terms with the implication that

every preferred policy statement is a declaration that those who resist ought to bear the brunt of the state's capacity for violence.

[beergood]

155. self defense

is not a violent act, its a justified response to violence.

[guillaumeb]

159. George Zimmerman also killed in "self-defense".

And the idea that carrying a gun makes campuses safer is a solution in search of a problem. Texas college campuses are quite safe, especially compared to the rest of the state. Where the gun carriers are.

[beevul]

160. And?

And the idea that carrying a gun makes campuses safer is a solution in search of a problem.

Not nearly as much of 'a solution in search of a problem' as trying to prevent people who are statistically more law abiding than police from carrying a gun.

Not nearly as much of 'a solution in search of a problem' as screaming for background checks after an atrocity in which the perpetrator passed one.

Yet you and many like you are not given pause, so why should anyone else be?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

158. re: "And how safe has that made this country?"

Violence: is a world wide problem; the US does not have a monopoly.

What I infer from your history of assertions on the topic:
'Restricting weapons would have a positive effect on violence.'

My reaction:
THE MOST weapon restrictive areas of the US are prisons.
Prisons are far from non-violent.

My conclusion:
Working on anything that doesn't solve the causes and issues behind violence all of the following:
A waste, a lie, political agenda without a real purpose, a distraction, a talking point for a number of politicians and a means for certain people to hold and maintain power.

[beevul]

161. Show me a modern society that doesn't rely on violence as the 'stick'...

Show me a modern society that doesn't rely on violence as the 'stick', regardless of what they use as the 'carrot'.

[Eleanors38]

186. "...how safe has that made this country?" Well, crime-wise things have improved...

if FBI figures are accurate enough to escape the scourge of "NRAtalkingPoints®." Don't you concede that murder rates -- by gun or anything else -- have gone down?

[guillaumeb]

193. If murder rates have gone down,

why are more guns needed?

[friendly_iconoclast]

194. "If murder rates have gone down ,...why are more guns needed?" Murder still happens...

...as well as other crimes, even on college campuses- a fact that you're well aware of because
you were reminded of it just last week.

Displays of faux ignorance do not speak well of the person doing the displaying:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172198417#post121

Murder is not the only crime that occurs on campuses- but you knew that already


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or Clery Act, signed in 1990, is a federal statute codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), with implementing regulations in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations at 34 C.F.R. 668.46.

The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education, which can impose civil penalties, up to $35,000 per violation, against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs.

The law is named after Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University student who was raped and murdered in her campus hall of residence in 1986. Her murder triggered a backlash against unreported crime on campuses across the country.[2]

For example: In 2014 (last full year available) UT Austin had:
1 murder
48 rapes
3 fondling:

Fondling. The touching of the private body parts of another person for the
purpose of sexual gratification, without consent from the victim, including
incidents where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age
or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

2 robberies
9 aggravated assaults
43 burglaries

http://sites.utexas.edu/compliance/files/2015/09/ASR-9_29_15.pdf

So we have real, reported crime vs. theoretical (and apparently so far nonexistant) harm

[guillaumeb]

198. 106 reported crimes, with 1 murder, versus 30,000 actual gun deaths.

Making Texas campuses very safe places indeed.

Carrying on campus is indeed a solution in search of a problem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

200. How many of those "30,000 actual gun deaths" were caused by CCW holders?

This is like giving the pollution caused by internal combustion engined vehicles
as a reason to ban electric cars.

[guillaumeb]

201. Here is a source that may help you out:

Concealed carry permit holders are supposed to be the “good guys” with guns. In reality, far too many permit holders are a direct threat to public safety.

Concealed Carry Killers is a resource maintained by the Violence Policy Center that includes hundreds of examples of non-self defense killings by private citizens with permits to carry concealed, loaded handguns in public that took place since May 2007. These incidents include homicides, suicides, mass shootings, murder-suicides, lethal attacks on law enforcement, and unintentional deaths. Only a tiny fraction of these cases are ever ruled to be in self-defense. Any homicide that is legally determined to be in self-defense is documented and removed from the Concealed Carry Killers database and the ongoing tallies.

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/

You can thank me later.

[Duckhunter935]

202. 3 in Oklahoma

Out of tens if not hundreds of thousands of permit holders.

[guillaumeb]

206. Oklahoma? A 10 second Google search got me here:

More than 40,000 Oklahomans received a license to carry a handgun in 2015, according to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, which issues the licenses.

The data, released annually, show drops in 2014 to 2015 after a dramatic spike of permits in 2013 — the first full year after state law was amended to allow license-holders to carry openly. Previously, the permits were for concealed-carry only.

http://newsok.com/article/5474436

Not quite your hundreds of thousands, but.........

[Duckhunter935]

207. But my tens of thousands was

So I bet you can figure the percentage of 3 out of 40,000

[friendly_iconoclast]

204. "You can thank me later." Feel free to hate me for these right now:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117219362

Once again, the VPC hopes you are both easily frightened and poor at math

The Violence Policy Center has cranked up its evergreen moral panic
"Concealed Carry Killers"- and the gullible and doctrinaire fall for it:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22concealed+carry+killers%22&sitesearch=democraticunderground.com

http://www.democraticunderground.com/126210658

Concealed Carry Tragedies Include Workplace Shooting, Six-Year-Old Unintentionally Killing Father.

Washington, DC — Concealed handgun permit holders are responsible for at least 873 deaths not involving self defense since 2007, including 29 mass shootings that killed 139 people, ongoing VPC research shows. Since there is no comprehensive record keeping of fatal incidents involving concealed carry permit holders, this tally most likely represents a small fraction of the actual total.

I couldn't be arsed to look for any 2014 or 2015 screeds from them, so let's
look at one from 2013:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023118413

Research Details Hundreds of Examples of Innocent Lives Lost to “Concealed Carry Killers"


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2013
3:18 PM
CONTACT: Violence Policy Center
Avery Palmer, 202-822-8200 x104, [e-mail]

As Zimmerman Case Begins, VPC Research Details Hundreds of Examples of Innocent Lives Lost to “Concealed Carry Killers

WASHINGTON - June 27 - Washington, DC— As the trial opens this week over the deadly shooting of Trayvon Martin, research shows that similar fatal incidents are shockingly common. The Violence Policy Center has uncovered hundreds of examples of non-self defense incidents involving private citizens legally allowed to carry concealed handguns. These incidents resulted in 516 deaths — including 24 mass shootings and the killing of 14 law enforcement officers.

Doing the math, and according to the VPC, concealed carriers are responsible for 357
deaths over the last three years, or 119 a year.
Lets stipulate, for the sake of this argument, that all of those deaths were murders
even if they were not.

Now comes the part where the wheels fall off the panic mongering.

The lowest estimate I can find for the number of concealed handgun permit holders
in the US is 11.1 million- other figures cited were a high of 12.8 million but
I'll stick with the low one. Taking that number, and using the numbers given by the
VPC, we see that 119/11100000 = a murder rate of 0.93 per 100,000 permit
holders, a rate about one-fifth of the US population as a whole

Source for US murder rate:

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-1

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/preliminary-semiannual-uniform-crime-report-januaryjune-2015/tables/table-3

Worse for the controllers, these numbers mean that those 'concealed carry killers'
kill at a lower rate than does the populations of the UK, France,
Australia (where have I heard that name recenly?), Ireland, Canada...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html

and at par with Norway and Sweden

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172193622#post8

Read it again ... slooowly. No debunking is involved

Debunking would indicate the OP was trying to prove the VPC wrong with it's claimed numbers.

The OP accepts all of the VPC numbers as is, with no argument.

They then compare it to the factual number of concealed carriers in the country. That's not debunking, it's what we call "Math"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172193622#post19

9 years of data...less then 100 deaths a year, including suicides...

"Concealed handgun permit holders are responsible for at least 873 deaths not involving self defense since 2007, including 29 mass shootings that killed 139 people, ongoing VPC research shows.
...
In the vast majority of the 684 incidents documented in Concealed Carry Killers (585, or 86 percent), the concealed carry permit holder either committed suicide (293), has already been convicted (222), perpetrated a murder-suicide (53), or was killed in the incident (17). Of the 74 cases currently pending, the vast majority (64) of concealed carry killers have been charged with criminal homicide, four were deemed incompetent to stand trial, and six incidents are still under investigation. An additional 25 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder."

http://www.vpc.org/press/latest-concealed-carry-tragedies-include-workplace-shooting-six-year-old-unintentionally-killing-father/

Once incident in DC was about a Texas permit holder who killed 13 with a shotgun at a Navy Yard in DC.

"Alexis purchased his Remington 870 shotgun and two boxes of shells from Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Newington, Virginia just two days before the shooting. Alexis had a concealed carry permit from Texas and had previously held one issued in the state of Washington."

[guillaumeb]

208. Some math that you keep ignoring:

30,000 gun deaths per year. You can keep refining your search to lower the numbers for each subset of Americans that you wish to define, but the total of 30,000 remains.

Gun enthusiasts apparently feel some need to minimize or explain the 30,000 gun deaths each year.

[friendly_iconoclast]

210. Mere collective guilt-tripping. You blame a verifiably safe subgroup for the actions of the entirety

How, exactly do you differ from Pamela Geller or Donald Trump, aside from
the identity of your particular bêtes noires?

[guillaumeb]

211. Dismissing 30,000 deaths a year is what is sad.

And your sentence:

You blame a verifiably safe subgroup for the actions of the entirety

is false on its face. If the subgroup was verifiably safe there would be no list of concealed carry killers.

As to Geller and Trump, I am a non-lawyer, differing from Geller, and I am white, differing from Trump.

Again, why do you feel the need to keep splitting gun owners into sub-groups? No matter how you split, the 30,000 are still dead.

[friendly_iconoclast]

215. "30,000 deaths/dead" as used in this thread is a 'thought-terminating cliche':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clich%C3%A9#Thought-terminating_clich.C3.A9

Thought-terminating cliché

In his 1961 book Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of "Brainwashing" in China psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton introduced the term "thought-terminating cliché".This refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the clichéd phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.

Lifton wrote:

"The language of the totalist environment is characterized by the thought-terminating cliché. The most far-reaching and complex of human problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive, definitive-sounding phrases, easily memorized and easily expressed. These become the start and finish of any ideological analysis."

In George Orwell's 1949 novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, the fictional constructed language Newspeak is designed to eliminate the ability to express unorthodox thoughts. Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World society uses thought-terminating clichés in a more conventional manner, most notably in regard to the drug soma as well as modified versions of real-life platitudes, such as "A doctor a day keeps the jim-jams away".

In her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt described Adolf Eichmann as an intelligent man who used clichés and platitudes to justify his actions and the role he played in the Jewish genocide of World War II. For her, these phrases are symptomatic of an absence of thought. Arendt wrote, "When confronted with situations for which such routine procedures did not exist, he [Eichmann] was helpless, and his cliché-ridden language produced on the stand, as it had evidently done in his official life, a kind of macabre comedy. Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence."

[beevul]

212. And you don't?

Gun enthusiasts apparently feel some need to...explain the 30,000 gun deaths each year.

And you don't want to explain them?

I thought you said you care.

[Duckhunter935]

209. That will leave a mark, lol

[Eleanors38]

195. Gun ownership is for personal protection. To answer your question is to subsume gun

ownership is social policy; that is it affects societal conditions. I don't subsume that (though some think more guns equals less crime). I see the larger question as that of personal self-defense. To many gun-owners, the crime rate, though lower, is still enough of a threat to keep and/or bear arms. But long term, the right to keep and bear arms has been very much restricted until the "civil rights era." Now, the Second is enjoying a liberal expansion as have most all other rights, save the Fourth. (I note some casual disregard for the Due Process clause of the 5th as well, esp. in these threads.) That long term "renaissance" probably drives liberal legislation to better enable gun-bearing more than the crime rate.

Having guns, to be clear, is both blamed and lauded as affecting crime rates. Clealy, I can't buy into the blame game as the number of guns has skyrocketed even as gun-homicides have fallen. Converesely, that does not mean that crime rates have fallen as a result of a gun number increase. That has not been studied too well, imo. For now, the answer to falling gun homicides is still out there.

[guillaumeb]

199. The number of guns sold has increased,

but mainly to existing gun owners. Indicating that gun ownership is not an indicator of "more people buying guns", but some few people buying many guns.

Again, gun ownership is a solution in search of a problem. And the gun manufacturers laugh as they profit from fear.

[Duckhunter935]

203. Why have some states seen a large spike in FOID cards

Required for new firearms purchasers and not required for existing firearms owners. By the way, please link to the source or are you just making that up?

[guillaumeb]

214. The link.

The average gun-owning household now owns an estimated 8.1 guns, compared with 4.1 guns in 1994. But, at the same time, less households actually own guns. The ownership estimates come from the Post's Wonkblog, which analyzed results from surveys and data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.Oct 22, 2015



A new estimate on how many guns the average gun owner has ...



www.chron.com/.../A-new-estimate-on-how-many-guns-the-average-...

Houston Chronicle

[Eleanors38]

213. Actually, you misconstrue a major controller/banner talking point...

The argument for years by controllers is "more guns = more crimes." That is how it is stated, guillaumeb. Most arguing this still take ownership of it.

The problem is the fallback position, accepting for the moment that it is the usual suspects purchasing more guns: Controllers now say it is the number of guns IN CIRCULATION that is causing the rise in homicides. Either way, homicides-by-gun are dropping. Admittedly, it is a flimsy fallback, but the "more guns in circulation" is the prevalent one, now.

[jmg257]

27. If they can ban guns based on illusions of safety, surely they may allow them for the same reason?

Courts often defer to the legislative efforts when laws are constitutional.

ETA:
“In the context of firearm regulation, the legislature is ‘far better equipped than the judiciary’ to make sensitive policy judgments (within constitutional limits) concerning the dangers in carrying firearms and the manner to combat those risks.”

[beevul]

29. "If they really protected there would be no police officers killed."

I added illusory because personal protection is an illusion. Guns give the illusion of protection. If they really protected there would be no police officers killed.

Applying those same standards to gun control shows it to be a complete utter failure - if gun control worked, we wouldn't have 30 thousand deaths annually.

On edit: Ok, I'm braced for the impact of the 'wait, that's different' argument, which is all you really have left, other than shamed silence.

[guillaumeb]

33. "Shamed silence"? What an interesting phrase.

What US history demonstrates is that guns are seen as the solution for some problems. This country has always been at war, has always seen war as the only viable solution, and that is reflected in your attitudes and beliefs.

And the ridiculously high level of gun homicide in this country reflects that distorted world view.

So many, far too many Americans share two beliefs:
1) That guns will somehow protect you from whatever you fear, and
2) that one of the things that you fear is your own government.

Truly insane beliefs, but quite common among a subset of Americans from both political parties.

[beevul]

37. I was giving you credit, and assuming you were capable. My bad.

...and that is reflected in your attitudes and beliefs.

Tell me more about my attitudes and beliefs, carnac. You don't by chance have a telepsychology diploma signed by someone named hoyt, do you?

So many, far too many Americans share two beliefs:
1) That guns will somehow protect you from whatever you fear, and
2) that one of the things that you fear is your own government.

Where as you have a couple beliefs yourself (since were engaging in telepsychology and all):

1) That guns never protect anyone from anything - a notion that is laughably false and easily disproven.

2) The one thing you trust no matter what, is your own government. I'll be sure to check back with you on that if by some quirk of fate trump gets elected. In the mean time, I suggest you refer to the archives, and expose yourself to some of the sentiments right here on DU, expressed about our government, circa 2001-2007.

This country has always been at war, has always seen war as the only viable solution...

Yes, those war thingies are what happens when one group of people attempt to dictate to another group of people and the group being dictated to says "No", and means it (among other causes).

On edit:

You never addressed this: Applying those same standards to gun control shows it to be a complete utter failure - if gun control worked, we wouldn't have 30 thousand deaths annually.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why you didn't address it.

[guillaumeb]

44. And I gave you credit for understanding, however.......

The "your" clearly referred to the "Americans" that was the subject of the paragraph. Do not take it as a personal possessive.

And I did not address gun control because there has never been a national level gun ban that was enforced. The US does not have gun control in any meaningful sense. It has a series of state laws that are under-enforced and generally weak.

[beevul]

47. Sure you did.

And I did not address gun control because there has never been a national level gun ban that was enforced. The US does not have gun control in any meaningful sense. It has a series of state laws that are under-enforced and generally weak.

It almost sounds like you're saying that our gun laws are worthless.

[guillaumeb]

56. You also are a mind reader?

What an incredible coincidence.

And yes, US gun laws are worthless and were never really intended to limit access to guns. The industry is far too profitable, contributes to many politicians, and gun ownership obviously fulfills some type of American emotional need.

[beevul]

59. No, I just hear the gears grinding from time to time.

And yes, US gun laws are worthless and were never really intended to limit access to guns.

An effort to repeal them all could be started and it wouldn't bother you in the least then, right?

If 'limit access to guns' is your goal, I'd suggest trying it in another nation where 3/4 of the populace don't diametrically oppose such things.

The industry is far too profitable, contributes to many politicians, and gun ownership obviously fulfills some type of American emotional need.

I'm pretty sure that the need to control others fits that definition far more than gun ownership does.

[guillaumeb]

65. I think the key phrase here is:

obviously fulfills some type of American emotional need. I should have said "Desire disguised as need".

On a certain level, some few US citizens feel the desire, (called by them a need) to have a gun, and feel the desire/need to carry a gun everywhere that they go.

That fulfilling this desire/need makes people less safe is irrelevant because the desire must be met.

[beevul]

75. I think the key phrase is 'biased control freaks'.

I think the key phrase here is bviously fulfills some type of American emotional need. I should have said "Desire disguised as need".

On a certain level, some few US citizens feel the desire, (called by them a need) to have a gun, and feel the desire/need to carry a gun everywhere that they go.

That fulfilling this desire/need makes people less safe is irrelevant because the desire must be met.

I think the key phrase is 'biased control freaks' who have no interest in dealing with problematic individuals and just hate guns/gun owners/people that resist their petty biased need to control others.

[guillaumeb]

78. Projection on your part?

You obviously have that right.

[beevul]

80. Who is it that I'm trying to control? Whos choices am I trying to dictate?

Who is it that I'm trying to control? Whos choices am I trying to dictate? That part being a prerequisite, and all.

The answers to those questions when they're applied to you are obvious: Everyone.

[guillaumeb]

94. You are trying to control both the framing of the question

and the terms of the debate. As do we all.

[beevul]

104. You accepted the framing when you brought up 'projection'.

The fact of the matter, is that you wish to control the actions of tens of millions of people who aren't harming ANYONE, and I do not.


That says about all that needs to be said, and supports my point.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Background checks are a national law. So is the Lautenberg (sp?) Amendment.

[guillaumeb]

57. Background checks are easily avoided.

The illusion of accomplishment to appease people.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. We are discussing people who did not avoid background checks- in fact, passed them

[guillaumeb]

69. Which does not invalidate my point.

I drive the posted speed limit. Does that mean all people drive the posted limit?

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. Should you be banned from driving because others choose to speed?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

64. So are drug laws in spite of the fact they're as restricted by a regime of laws and agencies as

restrictive as what many GC advocates would see unleashed on good people engaged in sports or self-defense.

[beevul]

162. How often, in practice, are background checks actually avoided? N/T

[guillaumeb]

165. Think about your question and the answer is apparent.

The Chicago Tribune had a series about straw buyers purchasing guns in Indiana.

[beevul]

167. In a straw prchase, a background check is done.

I'm referring to gun sales where no background check is done.

[guillaumeb]

170. If a person who cannot pass a background check wishes to buy a gun,

going through a straw purchaser avoids the background check.

I trust that this explanation (that I felt was unnecessary) is obvious enough.

[beevul]

172. Except that I wasn't referring to that

When I said "How often, in practice, are background checks actually avoided?", I was referring to specific times when no background check was done.


Sorry I wasn't clearer.

[guillaumeb]

173. Were you then referring to gun sales in parking lots,

and multiple gun sales by gang members,
and out of state multiple gun sales in Mississippi?

All part of the Tribune series.

So are you asking how many times a criminal gets a gun without going through a background check? Probably every time that a criminal buys a gun. And how exactly would statistics be compiled?

[beevul]

175. How often does a gun sale happen in which no background check is done?

A straw purchase not only accesses the background check system, it is unlawful.

I'm referring to when the system is not accessed at all.

[guillaumeb]

176. Reread 173. I answered it.

[beevul]

177. That was an answer to...something...just not the question I asked.

That's becoming a habit with you.

[guillaumeb]

178. As is your habit of asking unanswerable questions.

I said that it is easy to avoid background checks.

You asked for a specific number of people who avoid background checks.

How does one compile such a number? That would be like me asking you:

What number of legal gun owners will go on to commit homicide?

How do we determine in advance which legal gun owner will later commit homicide?

If criminals have no problem getting guns, we can assume that every criminal with a gun has avoided a background check.

[beevul]

180. I have this habit or requiring substantiation...

I have this habit or requiring substantiation when it comes to problems, before I can be sold on the idea that a solution is required.

Everyone who lives in the reality based community has that same requirement - I.E. most people.

If you can't show that its more than a hypothetical problem, I'm not going to buy into a solution beyond the hypothetical level.

[guillaumeb]

192. The problem is 30,000 gun deaths each year.

And the NRA solution of carrying guns everywhere is the very hypothetical solution that you claim to oppose. Consistency is key.

[friendly_iconoclast]

197. Which are caused at a lesser rate by CCW holders than the general public- or cops, for that matter.

I must admit that there's something almost admirable in your persistence in eliding
those inconvenient truths....

[beevul]

205. If thats the problem, start focusing on causes rather than instrumentality.

I.E. Act like you care about the deaths rather than the guns.

Like you say, consistency is key.

[Nancyswidower]

183. " How do we determine in advance which legal gun owner will later commit homicide?"

That would be inappropriate to ask....BUT thankfully we have an idea of that data...always in hindsight of course. Minuscule amounts per the data.

There is a question in your post that is of concern...."..How do we determine in advance..."...what, pre crime standards(?).......then you go on to say... "If criminals have no problem getting guns, we can assume that every criminal with a gun has avoided a background check."....silly statement.. on it's face.

Adam Lanza(not subject to back ground checks), a criminal after his actions, killed his Mom ...felony 1. Stole her firearms...felony 2. Stole his mothers car..felony 3(in commission of a homicide). Took stolen firearms onto school property and discharged them...felony 4....and then....26 more felonies later....

MOST criminals do not steal firearms or avoid background checks...again a tiny portion.

You ask..."What number of legal gun owners will go on to commit homicide?" FBI reports on just those data points...not as a prediction but as a tally after the fact....very tiny number but you know that.

[friendly_iconoclast]

38. Why do you believe that it's possible to diagnose psychiatric disorders at a distance?

And what leads you to believe that you have the ability to do so?

For that matter, you have also not demonstrated that:

1) Holding political beliefs that clash with yours is a symptom of insanity, or

2) The practice of allowing licensed persons to carry concealed handguns
on college campuses is a dangerous one, claims of 'moral harm' notwithstanding.

[Mugu]

30. Vaccinations do not provide perfect protection from disease

Last edited Tue Aug 23, 2016, 02:59 PM - Edit history (2)

and have some level of dangerous side effects, but I still get immunized.

[guillaumeb]

34. But no one walks around with a needle killing people,

and vaccines are not designed to kill.

[beevul]

41. Nor do people defend themselves with a needle.

People do defend themselves with guns quite regularly, but you knew that.

[guillaumeb]

50. Does the defense outweigh the 30,000 homicides?

Perhaps in your view it does.

[beevul]

51. The lowest DGU estimates are over double that figure.

Perhaps in your view that doesn't matter.

[guillaumeb]

58. So potential homicides outweigh actual homicides?

Again, an interesting perspective that so-called prolife people use in their debate.

[beevul]

68. If we're only talking homicides...

So potential homicides outweigh actual homicides?

Then the low end starts out at between 6-7 to 1, and the high end around 50 to 1. When the difference is 6-7 to 1 on the low end, and as many as 50 or more to 1 on the high end, absolutely.

Again, an interesting perspective that so-called prolife people use in their debate.

You'd have to take that up with one of them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

42. "(V)accines are not designed to kill." But they still kill people on very rare occasions.

Which raises a question: What has killed more people- reactions to vaccines, or licensed
non-law enforcement concealed firearms carriers on college campuses?

[guillaumeb]

49. 30,000 gun homicides every year, on average.

Vaccine deaths:122.

Comparing 122 to 30,000, which is demonstrably far more dangerous, 300 times more dangerous in fact, than the other?
If you chose guns, you would be correct.

We looked at 2014 VEARS data, which covers reports processed as of Dec. 14, 2014. VAERS data shows (as of Feb. 3, 2015):

1,244 cases of people reported hospitalized
416 cases of people reporting a disability
122 reported deaths
388 reported life-threatening cases

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/feb/03/bob-sears/what-cdc-statistics-say-about-vaccine-illnesses-in/

[beevul]

55. Thats an answer to a question you weren't asked.

The question you WERE asked is this:

What has killed more people- reactions to vaccines, or licensed
non-law enforcement concealed firearms carriers on college campuses?

Painful to answer that one, is it?

[guillaumeb]

61. The "question" was a nonsense type of question.

Like asking how many left-hand, red haired piano players have ever been convicted of treason. And given that this supposed "right" has just been enacted, let us wait until the school shootings start to answer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

70. Given that this has been legal in colleges elsewhere for years, without apparent problem...

...a claim that somehow, "school shootings (will) start to answer" is nothing more than Colonism:

"Sergeant Colon had a broad education. He'd been to the school of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. The question is legitimate.

You're complaint is about people who are not a part of law enforcement being allowed to carry a gun.

So, what is the percentage of those people who have undergone the requisite checks who have later gone one to commit an unlawful shooting?

[guillaumeb]

77. What is the percentage of homicide victims killed by guns?

How Prevalent is Gun Violence in America?

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, 467,321 persons were victims of a crime committed with a firearm in 2011.[1] In the same year, data collected by the FBI show that firearms were used in 68 percent of murders, 41 percent of robbery offenses and 21 percent of aggravated assaults nationwide.[2]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/pages/welcome.aspx

The relevant number is 68%.

As to your second point:

"

Yet the statistics on gun-related deaths discussed in chapter 3 make clear that this Hollywood-cultivated dichotomy bears little relation to reality for most gun-related homicides, in that many homicides are the result of impulsive actions taken by individuals who have little or no criminal background and who are known to the victims. According to the government's Uniform Crime Reports from 1991, almost half of all murders that year (two-thirds of which were committed with guns) were committed by an acquaintance or relative of the victim. More than a quarter of all women murdered were killed by boy friends or husbands. Arguments precipitated 32 percent of all murders. Only 21 percent of murders resulted from the commission fo felonies such as arson, robbery, and the like. . . .

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html

So the fact that these non-criminal background people have passed the check proves nothing other than the fact that they have no previous record of violence.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. That is not the quesiton being asked. The question was --

What percentage of DULY LICENSED people go on to commit gun crimes?

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. It is a question that is obviously being avoided.

I suspect we'd sooner get an honest discussion of climate change out of Rick Scott...

[guillaumeb]

98. Unanswerable, and the reason is apparent if you read my citations.

[friendly_iconoclast]

107. Actually, it is easily answerable for concealed weapons permitees in Texas. 27

Out of a population of 940,877 people.

This *is* the group of people we are discussing, remember?

There were 108 convictions for all crimes, which yields a rate
of 1 criminal conviction of any sort for every 8711 permittees

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/ActLicAndInstr/ActiveLicandInstr2015.pdf

Active License/Certified Instructor Counts
As of December 31, 2015


Active License Holders:
937,419
Certified Instructors:
3,458

These numbers reflect the number of licensed individuals and certified instructors

I tried to find every sort of conviction which might plausibly have involved shooting someone,
and found the following. YMMV:

http://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/CHL/Reports/ConvictionRatesReport2015.pdf

Conviction Rates for Handgun License Holders
Reporting Period : 01/01/2015 - 12/31/2015

AGG ASSLT CAUSES SERIOUS BODILY INJ 1

AGG ASSLT W/DEADLY WEAPON 10

DEADLY CONDUCT 11

DEADLY CONDUCT DISCH FIREARM INDIV(S) 2

MURDER 3

[guillaumeb]

118. So "only 27" cases of assault with a weapon in one state in one year.

When, not if, but when the first case of assault with a weapon happens on campus in Texas, you can tell the survivors or the relatives of the victims that this type of crime is relatively rare. I am certain that will be a huge comfort to them.

Meanwhile, how many murders occurred on Texas campuses in 2015?

Aug. 26, 2015
Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas
1 killed, 1 injured

Oct. 9, 2015
Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas
1 injured

Oct. 9, 2015
Texas Southern University, Houston, Texas
1 killed, 1 injured

http://time.com/4058669/northern-arizona-university-school-shootings-2015/

So the "reason" that these guns are needed is to protect students on campus. There were two murders and three injuries on campus in 2015. And these three murders, compared to the 1184 murders that took place in the state of Texas, shows that schools are quite safe.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

The so-called need to carry guns on campus is a solution in search of a problem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

119. What leads you to claim that trouble is somehow inevitable that in Texas, when it hasn't...

...been elsewhere where it is allowed, Borkian claims of 'moral harm' aside?

[guillaumeb]

120. Guns are required for a gun homicide to occur.

And if statistics show that campus murder is not a real issue, why the "need" to allow guns on campus? To defend against a non-existent problem?

[friendly_iconoclast]

121. Murder is not the only crime that occurs on campuses- but you knew that already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act

The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or Clery Act, signed in 1990, is a federal statute codified at 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f), with implementing regulations in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations at 34 C.F.R. 668.46.

The Clery Act requires all colleges and universities that participate in federal financial aid programs to keep and disclose information about crime on and near their respective campuses. Compliance is monitored by the United States Department of Education, which can impose civil penalties, up to $35,000 per violation, against institutions for each infraction and can suspend institutions from participating in federal student financial aid programs.

The law is named after Jeanne Clery, a 19-year-old Lehigh University student who was raped and murdered in her campus hall of residence in 1986. Her murder triggered a backlash against unreported crime on campuses across the country.[2]

For example: In 2014 (last full year available) UT Austin had:
1 murder
48 rapes
3 fondling:

Fondling. The touching of the private body parts of another person for the
purpose of sexual gratification, without consent from the victim, including
incidents where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age
or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity.

2 robberies
9 aggravated assaults
43 burglaries

http://sites.utexas.edu/compliance/files/2015/09/ASR-9_29_15.pdf

So we have real, reported crime vs. theoretical (and apparently so far nonexistant) harm

[guillaumeb]

128. SO the solution for this tiny number of crimes

is carrying guns?

And there is no theoretical harm when guns are involved.

Ask the 30,000 yearly victims of gun homicide.

Sorry, they are all dead and cannot be asked. So you are free to ignore these dead as you seek to put guns everywhere.

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. That was the most concentrated Gish Gallop I've seen to date

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The Gish Gallop (also known as proof by verbosity) is the fallacious debating tactic of simply drowning your opponent in such a torrent of small, interlocking arguments that your opponent cannot possibly rebut each one in real time. It is similar to the on the spot fallacy, because it's unreasonable for someone to have an answer immediately available to every single argument presented.

Although it is a trivial amount of effort on the galloper's part to make each point before skipping to the next (particularly if they cite from a pre-concocted list of gallop arguments), a refutation of the same gallop may likely take much longer and require significantly more effort (per the basic principle that it's always easier to make a mess than to clean it back up again).

The tedium inherent in untangling a gish gallop typically allows for very little "creative license" or vivid rhetoric (in deliberate contrast to the exciting point-dashing central to the galloping), which in turn risks boring the audience or readers, further loosening the refuter's grip on the crowd.

That post has, in order-
First sentence: a loaded question
Second sentence: a strawman argument
Third sentence: an appeal to emotion
Fourth sentence: another appeal to emotion
Fifth sentence: Two more appeals to emotion followed by another strawman argument

Six sub-fallacies in five sentences (possibly seven, if one counts the implied claim
to telepsychological ability in that last sentence)

Would that others of the Prohibitionist persuasion had such conciseness of style.

I would be happy to engage you in a discussion sans handwaving and
shouting should you choose to engage in one.

[guillaumeb]

132. Allow me to simplify:

Guns are designed to kill.
Putting guns in more places increases the likelihood that killing will take place in those places.

And your verbiage pointing out what you feel are the weaknesses in my arguments ignores the fact that many gun enthusiasts on DU ignore the 30,000 gun homicides each year, or seek to minimize it by "explaining" that 1/2 or more are suicides. As if suicide is no problem.

[friendly_iconoclast]

139. Yet again, you are employing a strawman argument against claims that I have not made.

Last edited Sat Aug 27, 2016, 05:45 PM - Edit history (2)

And your verbiage...ignores the fact that many gun enthusiasts on DU ignore

Of course I ignored it, because I am not those people

Take up your concerns with those unnamed and as yet unidentifed others.


As I said, if you care to discuss without handwaving, shouting,
strawman arguments, or attempts to imply responsibility for
the statements of third parties, I'll be here...

[beevul]

163. There aren't 30 thousand gun homicides every year.

And your verbiage pointing out what you feel are the weaknesses in my arguments ignores the fact that many gun enthusiasts on DU ignore the 30,000 gun homicides each year, or seek to minimize it by "explaining" that 1/2 or more are suicides. As if suicide is no problem.

There aren't 30 thousand gun homicides every year. There are 10-ish thousand. Calling them what they actually are, and acknowledging that 20 thousand of your 30 thousand are self inflicted, isn't minimizing them, its correcting the disservice you do them by pretending that they're something else, in order to prop up your failing and faulty arguments.

[guillaumeb]

166. Homicide refers to killing a person.

Suicide is self-killing of a person.

Some gun enthusiasts, in an attempt to minimize the massive gun carnage each year, try to separate out one class of killing a person. A ridiculous argument that also minimizes suicide.

Keep telling yourself that suicide is not homicide.

[beevul]

169. So you know the proper definitions, you just aren't willing to use them.

Some gun enthusiasts, in an attempt to minimize the massive gun carnage each year, try to separate out one class of killing a person. A ridiculous argument that also minimizes suicide.

Properly identifying them as what they are, doesn't 'separate them out' it acknowledges them for what they actually are.

Pretending that violence against others is the same as a decision to end ones own life, is what minimizes them, as you continue to do in an effort to prop up a faulty failing argument.

[guillaumeb]

171. Keep avoiding or minimizing suicide.

As long as it supports the argument that guns are not really responsible for 30,000 homicides every year. It is all part of the NRA mandated "framing the issue" that goes on in every discussion about guns.

[beevul]

174. You're the one avoiding it.

We cannot discuss them for what they are, without first acknowledging them for what they are.

I'm willing to do that, you aren't.

As long as it supports the argument that guns are not really responsible for 30,000 homicides every year.

Its not an nra argument, its common sense. Inanimate objects can not be responsible for the choices people make.

That's not 'framing', that's reality. Avoid it at your own peril.

[Eleanors38]

187. The terms "suicide" and "problem" are extinct; now the one is "homicide," the other "issue."

Brought to you by the Departmemt of Obfuscation, College of Jive.

[beevul]

188. Pretty much.

What gets me is that poster actually thinks it isn't clear as day, that that's exactly what hes doing.

[Eleanors38]

196. Or as the old school hip-hop song said...

"Pump up the volume, pump up the volume, pump up the volume, Dance! Dance!"

It seems close to Orwellian word smithing.

[Waldorf]

144. There are about 11,000 yearly victims of gun homicides.

The rest are suicides.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

125. Is a student be allowed to defend herself against a rapist?

[guillaumeb]

127. Defense necessitates a gun?

How about theft of a purse?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

129. A gun is the best means of defense against a rapist.

[guillaumeb]

130. Your answer is pure assumption.

You assume that:
the victim is aware that rape/assault is intended,
the victim has the gun in his/her hand,
the victim is ready to fire,
the victim can aim under extreme stress,
and finally, and very importantly,
the assailant is totally unaware and does not disarm the victim and use the gun on the victim, thereby adding to the gun homicide total for the year.

But that will not stop you in your belief in the gun as defense.

[friendly_iconoclast]

133. "You assume that:" You know what they assume, how exactly? Telepsychology?

[guillaumeb]

135. The post was basically a "Dirty Harry" argument.

Gun fantasy generally requires a ready. alert, capable gun owner who always kills the evildoer. But life rarely obliges.

All of my arguments were responding to the silliness that mere possession of a gun protects from anything.

[friendly_iconoclast]

140. That post contains two strawman arguments and an argument by assertion

Gun fantasy generally requires a ready. alert, capable gun owner who always kills the evildoer.

That poster did not mention killing. You did.

All of my arguments were responding to the silliness that mere possession of a gun protects from anything.

That poster made no such argument, and possession of a gun can protect someone.

There is no guarantee that it will, and no such claim to that effect has been made.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

136. It's not an assumption to those who defend themselves.

[guillaumeb]

138. All of my points are still valid.

This fantasy/fallacy that possession of a gun automatically equates to protection is one that persists among many gun enthusiasts.

[friendly_iconoclast]

141. No, they are not. You are still arguing mightily against an assertion that poster did not make:

This fantasy/fallacy that possession of a gun automatically equates to protection
persists among many gun enthusiasts.

Were one of these purported 'gun enthusiasts' to show up, even I would argue
with that premise.

But since they have not- and in fact, have only 'appeared' in this thread
in *your* posts, it remains a remarkably persistent strawman argument

[guillaumeb]

148. I argued against what I inferred from the poster's remarks.

And that is what I said. And again, the poster has said nothing while you seem to insist that you know what was intended.

So are you saying that people do not buy guns for self-protection? I have read numerous posts here that advance statistics purporting to show how many possible crimes have been prevented by gun-owners having weapons. Perhaps you have never read any of these posts.

Or perhaps you have never read any stories such as these:

The vast majority of gun owners say that having a gun makes them feel safer. And far more today than in 1999 cite protection – rather than hunting or other activities – as the mai3-12-13 #1reason they own guns.
A national survey finds that nearly half of gun owners (48%) volunteer that the main reason they own a gun is for protection; just 32% say they have a gun primarily for hunting and even fewer cite other reasons, such as target shooting. In 1999, 49% said they owned a gun mostly for hunting, while just 26% cited protection as the biggest factor.

http://www.people-press.org/2013/03/12/why-own-a-gun-protection-is-now-top-reason/

Or this article:

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- President Barack Obama has made strengthening gun control one of his top priorities this year, focusing on expanding background checks and a partial assault weapons ban. Gallup finds that those who already own firearms mention personal safety/protection most frequently as a reason for ownership (60%), followed by hunting, at 36%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/165605/personal-safety-top-reason-americans-own-guns-today.aspx

So this "straw man argument" as you have termed it, is one that 48-60% of gun owners believe. So I believe that your argument is with them.

[friendly_iconoclast]

191. Their reasons for buying guns are not subject to your approval

As long as they buy them legally, and own and operate them in a manner that does not
illegally harm others (as legal self-defense may indeed entail physical harm, even death
to an attacker), any objections to their doing so can only be some variation on Robert Bork's
theory of 'moral harm':

"But, in any event, physical danger does not exhaust the categories of harms that society may seek to prevent by legislation, and no activity that society thinks immoral is
victimless. Knowledge that an activity is taking place is a harm to those who find it profoundly immoral."

Robert Bork, The Tempting of America, p. 123

[Nuclear Unicorn]

145. A gun doesn't equate automatic protection, it equates better protection than defenselessness.

Just because you want to make baseless derisions doesn't mean others are obligated, legally or morally, to simply lie back and try to relax while rapists have their way.

[beergood]

190. you sound like sen Hudak

[friendly_iconoclast]

134. A strawman argument-your interlocutor made no such claim

[guillaumeb]

137. A nice try that ignores what was asked.

But to refresh, here it is:

Is a student be allowed to defend herself against a rapist?

1) The implication is that a gun is required for defense.

2) My response pointed out all of the preconditions required for a successful defense.

3) Your response was pointless.

[friendly_iconoclast]

142. A reply to your points: 1) The 'implication' is entirely yours, not voiced by that poster.

2) Similarly, the preconditions are also entirely yours, apparently based upon an old movie.

3) That is merely your opinion, which you are of course welcome to express.

[guillaumeb]

143. I repeat myself, at the risk of seeming rude:

This was the question:

Is a student be allowed to defend herself against a rapist?

Now, given that the OP is about carrying guns on campus, and given the arguments here about using a gun for self-defense, I feel that it is reasonable to assume that the poster was implying the use of a gun to self-defend against rape. Or any other crime. And, the original poster did not actually take exception to my response the way that you did.

You can, if you wish, attempt a lawyerly parsing of responses but such a tactic would require that each response be about 500 words or so to make crystal clear what is/was intended. And that is not how things generally work here.

So I will persist in my belief that the poster did intend to link self-defense with gun possession, and I will continue to assert that:
1) self-defense is not as easy assimply carrying a gun, and
2) statistics show that very few students are killed on campus. This is a solution in search of a problem that just happens to fit the need of gun manufacturers to keep profiting at the expense of the American people.

[friendly_iconoclast]

152. You still argue vigorously against an idea that *no one* here seems to have to expressed.

That is the very definition of a strawman argument.

Even if some fool, somewhere, had erroneously claimed that self defense
was "as easy as simply carrying a gun" (a notion that I already took up against in
post #141), that would still not somehow invalidate anyone else's carrying
a concealed firearm legally on a college campus.

BTW: if it makes you feel any better,
I devoutly believe that no one who thinks of a guns as magic talisman ought to
own one, much less carry one in public. But these aren't the people we've been
talking about- Texas has rather strict licensing requirements, and their licensees are remarkably
law abiding as has been demonstrated by verfiable statisics to you more than once

Whether you approve of the practice is neither here nor there, because (as Thomas
Jefferson put it) "it neither steals your purse nor breaks your leg".

2) statistics show that very few students are killed on campus.

True- but irrelevant. Statistics also show that there is a non-zero chance that students
may be robbed/mugged, raped, fondled, or assaulted.

[beevul]

164. It necessitates leaving the decision up to the individual...

It necessitates leaving the decision up to the individual who certainly knows more about their own situation and the particulars, than you possibly could.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

111. It is answerable because others have answered it.

Duly licensed civilians are less likely to be involved in criminal gun use than law enforcement officers.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

115. Not sure but most of them get a...

...paycheck in connection with that "license".

[beevul]

73. No, it isn't.

And given that this supposed "right" has just been enacted, let us wait until the school shootings start to answer.

And there it is in all its shining glory: A gun control talking point based on a false premise.

The 'right' you refer to has been in effect in numerous schools for numerous years, so you already have some data with which to draw conclusions.

But you'll draw your conclusions without it, in spite of it, that is your methodology after all.

[friendly_iconoclast]

66. You appear to have either misunderstood the question, or *did* understand it and don't like...

...the answer as it apparently does not accord with your religious beliefs

Over the years, I've noticed that persons of your ...faith have tended to pretend that
they haven't heard it. Kindly note the dates when the following were posted:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x364698

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x310169

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x322788

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x382537

[Straw Man]

106. Incorrect.

30,000 gun homicides every year, on average.

Wrong -- 20,000 of those are suicides.

Vaccine deaths:122.

Comparing 122 to 30,000, which is demonstrably far more dangerous, 300 times more dangerous in fact, than the other?
If you chose guns, you would be correct.

The topic is licensed campus carry. If you want to extend it to all gun deaths, then we should revise the vaccines analogy to include all medical misadventure, don't you think?

[guillaumeb]

168. So you are minimizing suicide to defend gun carnage?

Homicide:

Homicide is the taking of a human life. Every state in the US has its own unique classifications of homicide, but these classifications generally fall into three general categories. Those general categories are murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide.

https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=30970

Suicide:

the act or an instance of killing oneself intentionally. 2. the self-inflicted ruin of one's own prospects or interests: a merger would be financial suicide. 3. a person who kills himself intentionally.

www.dictionary.com/browse/suicide

So, if homicide is the taking of a human life, how is suicide not a form of homicide?

[Straw Man]

179. Loading the question a bit, aren't you?

Nobody is "defend{ing} gun carnage." And nobody is "minimizing suicide."

So, if homicide is the taking of a human life, how is suicide not a form of homicide?

Lexical sophistry aside, homicide and suicide are two different terms denoting separate and distinct acts. Even your citations bear this out. Insisting on calling a suicide a homicide muddies the waters and borders on deliberate disinformation.

You might wish to consult additional dictionaries.

Simple Definition of HOMICIDE
: the act of killing another person

Full Definition of HOMICIDE
1: a person who kills another
2: a killing of one human being by another

--http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homicide

[beevul]

181. Thats the intended purpose...

Insisting on calling a suicide a homicide muddies the waters and borders on deliberate disinformation.

Thats the intended purpose, or the design, of that argument. It isn't accidental or happenstance.

[guillaumeb]

182. Dueling definitions.

30,000 deaths due to guns each year is the equivalent of ten Sept 11 attacks. So in what seems to me to be an apparent to minimize this carnage, the NRA apparently decided to separate categories of death. Thus avoiding talk about suicides allows the NRA to frame deaths due to guns as only 10,000 a year.

[Straw Man]

184. Not at all.

Dueling definitions.

No. One imprecise definition and one precise one.

So in what seems to me to be an apparent to minimize this carnage, the NRA apparently decided to separate categories of death. Thus avoiding talk about suicides allows the NRA to frame deaths due to guns as only 10,000 a year.

The NRA didn't create the categories, nor did it ever claim that there are only 10,000 gun deaths a year. The policy implications for reducing suicide and reducing homicide are drastically different. If anything, conflating the two is an attempt to frame the issue as one of guns pure and simple, rather than a complex one involving crime, social issues, and mental health.

[beevul]

185. I thought you were reaching before, but this newest is really bullshit.

Last edited Sat Aug 27, 2016, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)

30,000 deaths due to guns each year is the equivalent of ten Sept 11 attacks.

September 11 attacks were all for the same reason, all for the same purpose, all with the same goal, and carried out by a group of like minded individuals.

20 thousand of the 30 thousand you refer to, wanted to end their own lives, all for their own separate reasons. The only way they're alike in any meaningful way, is the unrelated yet alike choice they all made. You and your argument ignore those choices and the reasons for them, and pretend they're exactly the same as crime related violence with different causes.

They aren't, and no amount of hand wringing or repetition of absurdities by you can change that.

So in what seems to me to be an apparent to minimize this carnage, the NRA apparently decided to separate categories of death.

Every group that tracks deaths differentiates between gun homicides and gun suicides, except gun control groups, and they've been making that distinction for many decades now. That fact in mind, "how it seems to you" really isn't relevant, as it doesn't reflect fact or truth.

Thus avoiding talk about suicides allows the NRA to frame deaths due to guns as only 10,000 a year.

You're the one that wants to avoid talking about suicides, you can't even be bothered to count them that way. Your side of this issue is the ONLY side that doesn't make a distinction between homicide and suicide where guns are concerned. Every governmental agency that keeps track, makes that distinction. Blaming the nra for that is laughable, even for you.

[Ilsa]

74. If looks could kill...

If I was in a government, history, or philosophy class, I think I'd be less inclined to speak up and debate liberal points in my region, at least until I got a handle on whether there were any crazies in my class. Men have felt perfectly justified in shooting doctors and nurses who provide birth control and abortions. (Maybe women have too, but I haven't read any news reports of women murdering healthcare workers.) I'm glad I'm not a muslim here, too.

Anyway, "if looks could kill,"... I mentioned in a campus hallway to a friend that I voted for Bill Clinton. Some 18yo looked at me like he was going to strangle me and tried to pick a fight with me. I ignored him.

Guns on campus may not make any difference whatsoever. But I know I'm glad I don't have to be there any more.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. "Guns on campus may not make any difference whatsoever" They probably won't:

http://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm

The following reports represent the number of Handgun License holders with convictions versus the entire Texas population with convictions.

It appears that (in Texas, at least) you're less likely to be unlawfully shot by a CCW holder
than a cop...

[Ilsa]

87. I was never worried about being shot by a cop on campus.

I rarely saw any. I have less desire to return for another degree, though. I don't like being surrounded by guns that can accidentally go off.

[Duckhunter935]

97. How many have done that in the 10 states

That allow licensed Concealed carry on campus?

[Ilsa]

99. It doesn't matter how many accidents there are specifically

on campuses. They happen in restaurants, retail stores, automobiles, etc. Why would a classroom be exempt from accidental weapons discharge?

[Duckhunter935]

100. Just a small point

It is almost impossible for any modern gun to go off accidentally. 99% are negligent discharges after pulling the trigger. I feel those people should be charged and at least temporarily lose access to any weapon until a fine and they attend firearms training.

[Ilsa]

101. And put in prison if their negligence kills someone.

It's happened, and I don't care if it is called an accident or negligence. It's all the same to me when innocent people are hurt.

[Duckhunter935]

103. Hard to hold a person accountable for a true accident

If they were doing everything right and a problem happened out of their immediate control. But I agree with your main point.

[Ilsa]

117. "It is almost impossible for any modern gun to go off accidentally. 99% are negligent discharges..."

Sure. The 1% will be the exception.

[guillaumeb]

102. But you are even less likely to be shot if no one is carrying a gun.

I know, that sounds ridiculous. Imagine a US where citizens did not have this desire (disguised as a need) to carry weapons that facilitate dealing out death.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

112. If a person is determined to shoot at someone else that someone else will be shot at.

Recent events in Europe show that regardless of how strict gun control laws may be the killers are still armed. Gun free zones only apply to victims.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

113. re: "Gun free zones only apply to victims."

And potential victims. The loss of the freedom of effective defense for which one has trained and prepared only serves to add the individual to the pool of potential victims. We call it 'the honor system'.