The Topic of Gun Control and How it Relates to Recent Mass Shootings

This data is two years old...

Killings by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders Top 200, One-Third of Incidents Involved Family Violence--VPC Concealed Carry Killers September Update

WASHINGTON - September 30 - Concealed handgun permit holders have killed at least 202 individuals since May 2007 with 34 percent of the killings involving family violence according to the September update of Concealed Carry Killers, a Violence Policy Center (VPC) on-line resource that tallies news reports of killings by concealed handgun permit holders. The update comes one day before the beginning of Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October.

Forty-two of the 122 incidents involved family violence. Of these, 29 involved intimate partner violence. Fifteen of the 42 family violence incidents ended in murder-suicide, accounting for 65 percent (15 of 23) of all the murder-suicides committed by concealed handgun permit holders tallied by the VPC to date.

Violence Policy Center Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, "A permit to carry a concealed handgun has become one more weapon in the arsenal of domestic abusers who ultimately kill their intimate partner or other family member. Contrary to the false assurances of concealed carry proponents, too many of those with valid permits kill in anger, not self-defense."

Of the 122 incidents in 27 states that resulted in the 202 deaths, in more than half (66 incidents) the concealed handgun permit holder has already been convicted, committed suicide after the incident, or was killed in the incident. Of the 56 cases still pending, the vast majority (46) of concealed handgun permit holders have been charged with criminal homicide, two were deemed incompetent to stand trial, two incidents were unintentional shootings, and six incidents are still under investigation. Of the 122 incidents, 16 were mass shootings where concealed handgun permit holders claimed the lives of 65 victims.

A summary of each of the 122 incidents is available at http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm,

clicking on each category leads to a state-by-state breakout for the incidents with current known status. To review all killings by concealed handgun permit holders, click on "Total People Killed by Concealed Handgun Permit Holders." While the incident summaries of the few concealed handgun permit holders eventually found not guilty of their crimes are listed on the site, those numbers are not included in the VPC's totals.

Because most state systems that allow the carrying of concealed handguns in public by private citizens release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the VPC reviews and tallies concealed handgun permit holder killings primarily as reported by news outlets. It is likely that the actual number of fatal incidents involving concealed handgun permit holders is far higher.
###
The Violence Policy Center is a national tax-exempt educational organization working for a safer America through research, investigation, analysis, and advocacy. The VPC provides information to policymakers, journalists, organizations, advocates, and the general public.



http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm

Interesting updated data at the link.

 

Sounds like a little bit of these two:

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question

The argument leaves no interpretation other than "criminals gonna criminal", when in reality, criminals ain't gonna criminal. They are not beings made of pure, concentrated evil who break any and every law that we make. They weigh the cost-benefit just like anyone else. The exception are the psychopaths, whom are far fewer in number. And while psychopaths care not for laws, making it harder for them to break a law is always a good idea.

 

Madmax (another lawyer btw) I think nailed this one on the first page.

 

One of 23 mass murderers who was a conceal carry upstanding citizen...

Concealed Handgun Permit Holder: Michael McLendon
SUICIDE

Date: March 10, 2009
People Killed: 11 (including shooter)

Circumstances: On March 10, 2009, Michael McLendon, a self-proclaimed survivalist, killed his mother at their family home, beginning a shooting rampage that stretched across 24 miles. By the time McLendon took his own life in the midst of a police shootout at a factory where he had previously worked, he had shot four more relatives, including his 74-year-old grandmother, and five strangers, including the wife and 18-month-old daughter of a local sheriff’s deputy. McLendon had a concealed handgun permit for two handguns. Police later found at the home he shared with his mother numerous how-to DVDs on committing acts of violence.

Source: “Officials: Alabama shooter depressed over failures,” Associated Press at philstar.com, March 13, 2009.

 

You're making the murderer's job a little tougher, but with the wrong legislation, you could be making millions of lawful citizens' lives tougher.

There is no clear cut answer. States with stricter gun control laws tend to be more violent. Texas ranks like 24th in firearm homicides and we have 5 metropolitan areas and an avid hunting tradition. We haven't had many issues with guns since the '69 UT Tower shootings, Fort Hood was an Army base so laws re: guns would be moot.

People who want to commit violence, will commit violence. It doesn't matter which weapon you put in their hands. Yes, guns are easier. According to the DOJ, 80% of homicides committed using a firearm were done so via illegal means (i.e. stolen, borrowed, black market). The vast majority of gun owners are using them for legal means.

In other countries where they have had similar events and passed strict gun control laws, it has not stopped mass shootings.

The question shouldn't be what do we do about guns? It should be what do we do about violence in America, period. We need a stronger mental health system, stop the war on drugs, get people off the street with programs that utilize people rather than supplement them, and get some leaders back into the community.

On a side note, may all of the victims RIP and may their families grieve peacefully, without the disgusting interference of the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

Why do people keep saying this?

Most violence is preventable. A handful of instances are not.

We do not need laws that act as if the handful of unpreventable instances are the rule, and not the exception.

 

You: How many criminals are shooting up schools killing teachers/students/little children???? You see criminal have track records just like every other abiding citizen/ mentally ill people on the other hand???

 

Also should point out that a DOJ study of homicides over the last 30 years or so, show that 1) we saw a dramatic decrease in the mid 90's coinciding with the federal assault weapon ban, 2) those most likely to commit these crimes are between the ages of 14-24, after 24 it appears the numbers go way down.

These statistics are not current, they reflect the time period from '74-2005, looks like it dropped across the board around the time of the ban, and plateud until 2005. I am curious to see how it has changed in the last 8 years, especially since that ban was lifted in like 2004. *looking for more current data.

Someone before said it perfectly, both sides are going at it like it's a winner takes all, we need compromise for exactly the reasons I listed before. The vast majority of gun owners present no threat to themselves or others. We should work on legislation that ensures weapons that serve no purpose for safety or sport are allowed on the streets. You don't need a high powered semi-automatic to hunt. Is it more fun? Probably to someone who enjoys that kind of thrill. However, is it worth the risk of them falling into the wrong hands?

There are so many questions that need to be answered before we jump onto any kind of legislation band wagon. I feel like whatever Obama is going to try and push through is only going to reflect their position and not the reality of the situation. It's fresh in our minds because we are sickened about what happened in Connecticut, Aurora, and many other places over the years, but they are outliers and we need legislation that reflects that.

 

Because it's 100% true. You can not stop a violent person if you don't know they are violent. The only way someone could have stopped Lanza was if they had committed him earlier, or there had been an armed person at the school. Arming teachers is dangerous though, I simply think we need to have actual officers at our schools.

Donny, 22 children were stabbed in China last week. Guns would have murdered these kids, and I don't know the extent of their injuries, but it's enough to show you that there are sick people in this world. We can try our best to find them before they commit these acts, but taking away 1 means to harm people is not going to make violence itself go away.

 

No...it hasn't.

Not to mention there are a lot of other factors besides simply comparing 1 law. Data collection, societal factors, our justice system, etc.

 

You are referencing the exception (undetected and untreated psychopaths) and ignoring the rule.

 

Wait, this was like the worst reason you could use for promoting anti-gun control, if that's what you're after.

 

I havent read a single post but my opinion is that im from canada and i belive we have great gun laws that americans can also adopt. People have to be registered and what not to get a gun but large semi automics are utright banned. mostly hand guns and hunting rifles that are not automatic are allowed.

I know in the states you have that right to bear arms but it should be changed to at least ban automatics.

 

I am not necessarily for either. I was illustrating the point that violence doesn't come strictly from guns. We know guns are more powerful, which is why I certainly advocate particular models be removed from the market, but if someone wants to hurt someone, they will. People have been murdered by fists, by forks, knives, cars, bats, poison, hundreds of other things.

It's not so simple to say, ban guns and we'll all be safe.

Someone said it earlier, bombings in the US could become the new norm if we do, they could either way actually.

Could you please clarify? I referenced that most gun owners were lawful owners, and that there are violent people who will commit violent acts regardless. Is this not true? I may just be missing your point, I am attempting to debate while at work and I am confusing myself haha.

 

I don't think anyone has said anything of this sort without the same sort of qualifiers that you are peppering your posts with, much to everyone's confusion.

 

I don't generally read through every page of comments if I don't catch the beginning, but there have been a lot of comments referring to this sort of solution on many other media sites.

Continuing on why I think strict gun-control laws won't solve our problem, it hasn't worked anywhere else. Washington DC's homicide rate using firearms increased 74% during the years they were banned.

In Britain, they first implemented gun-control legislation in 1920, revamped it in 68' to include shotguns, and then an all out ban in 97', the homicide rate is 52% higher since '68, and 15% higher since 1997. These numbers do not include 2000: 58 Chinese people suffocated to death in a shipping container en route to the UK; 2002: 172 homicides reported when Dr. Harold Shipman was exposed for killing his patients; 2003: 20 cockle pickers drowned resulting in manslaughter charges; 2005: 52 people were killed in the July 7th London subway/bus bombings.


In Chicago, since the ban took effect they have seen an increase in homicides using a firearm by 40%. Interesting part about Chicago, it seems in that same time, their overall murder rate (which includes all weapons), was 17% less than the rest of America. Also, in 2005 96% percent of murders using a firearm were used with handguns. So here at least, shotguns and rifles don't appear to be an issue. Which is what most legislation being discussed would address.

Texas has been a right to carry state since '96, since then our murder rate is down 30%.

We could look at a lot of other cities and countries, but that was a quick overview. I've also read a paper on Russia and how they saw a dramatic increase in crime when guns were banned.

It doesn't mean more guns are the answer, it just goes to show gun bans and gun-control (strict registration and such), has not been effective in the past.

 

Gun nuts tend to cite Chicago a lot, but it's really a great case for more broad-based gun restrictions.

It's true, Chicago has a lot of gun violence, and a fair amount of illegal firearms floating around. Why? Because the areas immediately surrounding Chicago don't have restrictive gun laws, and gun manufacturers/distributers/retailers send a huge supply of guns & ammo to those counties, more so than any of their residents could use, in order to keep up with largely illegal Chicago demand.

This basically outlines the need for national gun restrictions rather than local ones.

 

The 5 boroughs surrounding Chicago enacted similar if not identical laws at the same time, 4 of those 5 only recently repealed theirs with the Supreme Court Decision in 2010.

 

I do agree that whatever we do, it needs to be a national law. Things that effect the entire country should be dealt with this way, like marriage imo.

 

Israel leads the way

Spoiler