MSNBC article on gun-friendly laws

[MillCreek]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34382626/ns/us_news-life


This article was linked on the MSN front page tonight.  Interesting article, although some statements on the second page will make you roll your eyes. 

[Scout26]

A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said.

"They shoot each other over parking spaces, at football games and at family events," Rand said. "The idea that you're making any place safer by injecting more guns is just completely contradicted by the facts."

F'n prove it.

I think what happened was that too many bad guys were getting shot by CCW holders.....

[Viking]

F'n prove it.

I think what happened was that too many bad guys were getting shot by CCW holders.....

Well, we can't have that happening! The democrats will lose voters!
Also, nine cops killed by CCW holders in two years? I call bullshit. Each case would be all over the news, and while I'm not a total news junkie, even I would've spotted it.

[lupinus]

First page actually wasn't to bad for MSNBC. Though the second page quickly reminded me that this was an MSNBC article.

[Perd Hapley]

A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said.

So these killings were all bad shoots? 

[Perd Hapley]

Chattanooga retiree Ken Hasse, 71, said he worries about the possible consequences of allowing people to carry their guns in places like parks. "It's going to tempt somebody to use one," he said.

LOLZ.

Academics are divided on the effects of liberalized handgun laws

I'm shocked that they would admit this. 

[HankB]

F'n prove it.

Nope - when people of a left-leaning bent make a statement, the dominant media (since MSNBC is hardly dominant, maybe I should say "traditonal") virtually NEVER ask for proof or sourcing, they just accept it and report it without criticism. Yet they'll assign as many as 11 reporters to "fact check" a conservative, as is currently happening with Sara Palin's book.

I think what happened was that too many bad guys were getting shot by CCW holders.....

The way the original statement was carefully parsed, this was my first thought as well.

[Standing Wolf]

More tired old Marxist lies. For supposedly "intelligent," "creative," "leading edge," "aware," et cetera people, leftist extremists sure don't seem to be able to come up with very many new lies.

[Perd Hapley]

Nope - when people of a left-leaning bent make a statement, the dominant media (since MSNBC is hardly dominant, maybe I should say "traditonal")...

"Establishment press" is the best term.  It's accurate, but also works well in convo's with lefties.  They don't like to think of their side as being "established."  Makes them sound all conservative and reactionary.  Which they are.  Makes them think a bit.   

[Monkeyleg]

I went to the VPC's site, and they have citations from newspaper stories for the cop shootings. Having studied Kristen Rand's "research" for several years, though, I'm certain there's a whopping distortion in there somewhere.

[Matthew Carberry]

They merely count killings of police by permit holders.

They don't note whether the killings took place with a firearm (which would seem to be relevent), they further don't note if it was a CCW-capable firearm (versus long gun), they finally fail to note where the killing took place, which is relevent as the permit is meaningless if the shooting occured on private property.

Snowflakes in Hell has more info on how stupid their "research" is, noting that even if 9 police were killed by CCW holders with CCW weapons in CCW relevent locations in that time, hundreds were killed by non-CCW holders.   Ipso facto, the way to reduce killings of police is to force all eligible people to get CCW licenses, as they kill far fewer cops than non-permit holders.

Typical anti, idiotic sound bite stuff that falls apart with any thought.

[Perd Hapley]

Might it also be relevant to compare the percentage of licensed drivers that cause serious accidents, etc?

Of course, the only important point is that human beings have a right to carry weapons.  This should be sufficient. 

[HankB]

Were all 9 cops in uniform, acting properly in accordance with both the law and proper law enforcement procedures?

How does this compare with the number of officers shot by other cops during the course of a year?

(Not making any assertions, just asking questions.)

Mere numbers are not particularly useful without knowing the circumstances - which ought to be readily gathered, since the number is so small.

[StopTheGrays]

A Violence Policy Center project has mined news reports to find that more than 100 people have been killed by holders of handgun-carry permits since 2007, including nine law enforcement officers. The project originally intended to list all gun crimes by permit holders, but there were too many to keep track of, Rand said.

"They shoot each other over parking spaces, at football games and at family events," Rand said. "The idea that you're making any place safer by injecting more guns is just completely contradicted by the facts."

http://vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
According to the VPC website 85 people were shot and killed by CCW holders (8 LEOs+77 Private Citizens=85) which is a bit less than the "more than 100 people" reported in the story. 

[Matthew Carberry]

And again, they don't bother to separate out weapon, location and whether they were righteous shoots, accidents or actually adjudicated criminal acts.

Further, they ignore crimes prevented without injury.  Typically bloodthirstyness.

[Jimmy Dean]

I went looking through their numbers, nearly half of all the officer deaths (3 out of 8) were in a single shooting (that guy in April who killed 3 officers this year),  and nearly half of the non-leo deaths (33 out of 77) are all included in 8 shootings.   One of those shootings was 11 deaths for a single one.

Honestly,  8 people, responsible for 37 deaths, over 2 years, out of a group of how many?  Not a bad record.

[BReilley]

From the article's bullet points on recently-enacted firearm laws: "Tennessee is the home to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the maker of a .50-caliber shoulder-fired rifle that the company says can shoot bullets up to five miles and is banned in California."

So... what would the rifle be, if it weren't shoulder-fired?  Crotch-fired?  I know, I know, vs. mounted, but was it really necessary?  Doesn't everyone assume that a weapon described as "a rifle" will be man-portable and shoulder-fired?

Also, why not state that *all* firearms greater than .50 caliber are banned in California?(possibly excepting black-powder etc., I am not particularly familiar with CA laws)?  Why mention Barrett at all?

Lastly, almost as an aside, cannot most modern firearms propel a bullet several miles?  When a slug leaves my rifle's barrel it is scooting along at a crisp 2900fps - or greater than a half-mile per second.  Could I not send that projectile into the next city, if I were so inclined?  Maybe not, but it sure seems to me that there's plenty of energy behind that bullet to keep it going a good distance.

Journalists these days just boggle the mind.

[erictank]

From the article's bullet points on recently-enacted firearm laws: "Tennessee is the home to Barrett Firearms Manufacturing, the maker of a .50-caliber shoulder-fired rifle that the company says can shoot bullets up to five miles and is banned in California."

So... what would the rifle be, if it weren't shoulder-fired?  Crotch-fired?  I know, I know, vs. mounted, but was it really necessary?  Doesn't everyone assume that a weapon described as "a rifle" will be man-portable and shoulder-fired?

Also, why not state that *all* firearms greater than .50 caliber are banned in California?(possibly excepting black-powder etc., I am not particularly familiar with CA laws)?  Why mention Barrett at all?

IMO, most likely because Barrett had the sheer AUDACITY to take note of that ban and decide that his business would no longer sell Barrett .50BMG rifles to CA law-enforcement agencies, nor service those currently owned by those agencies, until such time as the ban on civilian ownership of such rifles is rescinded.  His disturbing revolutionary outlook simply MUST be crushed, lest the proles get the unwarranted idea that they are supposed to be the MASTERS of their government, rather than the SERVANTS.

That, and Barrett really has become "the face of .50BMG rifles", as it were.

[Balog]

Man, I do love Ronnie Barrett. One of the few people hard line enough to out his money where his mouth is, and reduce his business so as not to support anti-2nd bigots.

[Firethorn]

I think what happened was that too many bad guys were getting shot by CCW holders.....

I remember the football game.  That was an undercover cop being shot by a uniformed police officer...