For police, the goal is vigilance, not vigilantes

[Suudy]

You ask and listen to their response.

And you’ve asked “most people”?

 

[Robert_Sock]

And you’ve asked “most people”?

A random sample.

 

[Robert_Sock]

As others have mentioned, the conceal carry laws began changing in the mid-'80’s. We’ve had thirty years to gather data and produce studies. Thirty years, folks from your side of the fence have been looking as closely as my side. Thirty years - every study I’ve read says the same thing - permit holders, no matter which demographic group they’re in, are less likely to commit crime than nonpermit holders in the same group.

Truth has emerged my friend. The jury’s out, the verdict has rendered. Your fears, no matter how rooted in common sense you believe them to be, have not played out. There are 35,000 conceal carry permit holders in California according to a Govt Accountability Office study published in July 2012. Where are all your reports of armed California vigilantees?

As I stated before, where is your rational that vigilantes would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder?

As others have mentioned, the conceal carry laws began changing in the mid-'80’s. We’ve had thirty years to gather data and produce studies. Thirty years, folks from your side of the fence have been looking as closely as my side. Thirty years - every study I’ve read says the same thing - permit holders, no matter which demographic group they’re in, are less likely to commit crime than nonpermit holders in the same group.

Truth has emerged my friend. The jury’s out, the verdict has rendered. Your fears, no matter how rooted in common sense you believe them to be, have not played out. There are 35,000 conceal carry permit holders in California according to a Govt Accountability Office study published in July 2012. Where are all your reports of armed California vigilantees?

Again, in due time the truth will emerge.

 

[Suudy]

A random sample.

A statistical sample? One sufficiently random to accurately predict the attitudes of others? Perhaps you have a link to the study you’ve published with your results?

 

[Suudy]

As I stated before, where is your rational that vigilantes would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder?

Why are you asking us to prove a negative? And a notion that you posited in the first place? The burden is yours to prove that vigilantes want a CCW permit.

Also, I don’t see any evidence of a rise in vigilantism since the liberalization of CCW permit issuance. Do you have a study you can cite that shows the outbreak of vigilantes?

 

[SamH]

Why are you asking us to prove a negative? And a notion that you posited in the first place? The burden is yours to prove that vigilantes want a CCW permit.

Also, I don’t see any evidence of a rise in vigilantism since the liberalization of CCW permit issuance. Do you have a study you can cite that shows the outbreak of vigilantes?

Are you really expecting that?

We all know what is true and what isn’t, Bob has been most helpful with that.

 

[NeuroTypical]

As I stated before, where is your rational that vigilantes would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder?

Did you want to interact with my reasoning?

Here’s some reasoning to the contrary for you:

Definition of a law-abiding person: Someone who obeys the law.
Definition of a lawbreaker: Someone who breaks laws.

Therefore, a lawbreaking vigilante won’t care much about a permit to carry a gun. They’re going to carry anyway. Because lawbreakers break laws. Because that’s what the word ‘lawbreaker’ means.

Robert - why do you assume that a bad guy needs a permit to carry a gun?

Having a permit to carry a gun doesn’t allow you to “get away with bloody murder”. Why would anyone think this?

 

[SamH]

Having a permit to carry a gun doesn’t allow you to “get away with bloody murder”. Why would anyone think this?

That’s a great question that has been asked and avoided several times.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Did you want to interact with my reasoning?

Having a permit to carry a gun doesn’t allow you to “get away with bloody murder”. Why would anyone think this?

Yes, I would like your reasoning.

Reread my post, please. I’m referring to vigilantes, not CCWs.

 

[MaryT777]

Yes, I would like your reasoning.

Reread my post, please. I’m referring to vigilantes, not CCWs.

Right and there are vigilantes with and without CCW’s.

 

[MaryT777]

You’re setting up contradictory statements. The current CCW system has nothing to do with taking the law into their own hands, it does not provide powers of arrest, or even detainment. It provides no law enforcement authority whatsoever, just as NW positions have no law enforcement authority.

If you propose doing so, than you are proposing deputizing them and changing the laws to provide them that authority. Which would not be taking the law into their own hands but simply exercising lawful duties under their authority as a deputy in accordance with the system you propose.

Similar in most aspects to volunteer reserve police officers. Folks who’ve been through the relevant LEO training and can be called upon to augment the paid police force. (I have a friend who does this)

Yes, my point is that if we have citizens with weapons on them let’s put them to use
in a manner where they are TRAINED to arrest and detain. The police can’t be everywhere why not utilize these vast numbers of people who are armed. We could pay them by arrest or detainment which leads to an arrest and they can keep their normal employment.

Yes I am proposing deputizing them. No reason for citizens armed and ready to go to go to waste.

 

[maryjk]

I have not.

But my father has. My mom was with him, and he was at a local diner.

It wasn’t robbed, because he was there.

And MaryT, this statement explains a lot about what you have posted about guns and concealed carry.

I don’t know that you understand why concealed carry permits are used. A concealed permit allows me to leave my property, with a weapon (concealed.)

If someone is IN my home, I don’t need a concealed carry license. There is no reason to carry concealed while IN your own home. And as long as you weapon is legally owned, no law officer will ever question you about carrying concealed, IN your home.

So, your question? It doesn’t make any sense. And I wonder if it because you don’t understand concealed carry.

MaryT777,

Since you are back, could you explain what you meant by the above quoted statement?

 

[april32010]

Yes, my point is that if we have citizens with weapons on them let’s put them to use
in a manner where they are TRAINED to arrest and detain. The police can’t be everywhere why not utilize these vast numbers of people who are armed. We could pay them by arrest or detainment which leads to an arrest and they can keep their normal employment.

Yes I am proposing deputizing them. No reason for citizens armed and ready to go to go to waste.

illegal

 

[styrgwillidar]

Yes, my point is that if we have citizens with weapons on them let’s put them to use
in a manner where they are TRAINED to arrest and detain. The police can’t be everywhere why not utilize these vast numbers of people who are armed. We could pay them by arrest or detainment which leads to an arrest and they can keep their normal employment.

Yes I am proposing deputizing them. No reason for citizens armed and ready to go to go to waste.

Ok. I think the vast majority of CCW holders wouldn’t want anything to do with being deputized. However, its an interesting concept to deputize and train those who would be willing to participate.

I think paying them by arrest or detainment could end up incentivizing the wrong behavior. Kind of like the way cops abuse the drug related profit confiscation laws to augment their own budgets.

If they’re sworn in as reserve officers, I don’t see how it would be illegal.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Right and there are vigilantes with and without CCW’s.

Yes, we agree!

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, we agree!

You agree with what, that a very small limited percent exists?

“But according to the Florida Department of State, of the 798,732 permits issued in Florida between 1987 and 2002, authorities revoked less than one percent or 146 permits due to firearm crimes committed by the carrier.”

buckeyefirearms.org/node/1107

People carry firearms for protection and because they either experienced or thought out very real and tragic events, and decided they don’t want to be on that list of statistics. They by large enter into a state of prevention, not aggression, which aggression is a preposterous claim you continue to insinuate as if to wish it into reality. Yet you have never offered a shred of evidence “:again” no statistics, no links “NOTHING”.

Criminals, determined on committing crimes to obtain your money, property, virtue or life, will and do harm people, that’s “why” people protect themselves. Concealed firearms take the crime of opportunity out of the equation, even the field, and deter crime.

Here’s another state…

legallyarmed.com/totalpermits.html

Here’s another view in CT.

cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0156.htm

What percent is revoked?

ralphdsherman.com/LegalOpinion/Pistol%20permits%20-%20who%20really%20gets%20revoked.htm

Your claims have no basis, all the more troubling is that this suggested gun control measure may result in what we all fear, just another ridiculous political agenda which risks innocent life and places more control in the misguided agenda of this party, there is absolutely no reason to believe the vision this party suggests will work, nor do they, or can they project the consequence of their proposition.

They work on the same premise as you TOTAL ASSUMPTION which leaves one unarmed and in harms way. And your solution is that AMERICA embrace Christian martyrdom in these situations.

 

[GaryTaylor]

vigilantes want a permit so they could get away with bloody murder

A claim you cannot support and continue to talk right past others and suggest there is some basis to this illogical false claim.

!] Not a fact that all gun permit owners are vigilantes, nor do you have the “CHRISTIAN” right to “JUDGE” the [intentions] of others. FACT: you are assuming and judging which the Pope just spoke on this past weekend with gays.

2] Nor is it a statistical fact. In fact permit holders consist of but a very small percent who ever have an issue with their permit. Fact is they comprise of a very large percent of very good US Citizens which you certainly slight and judge in your false claims. Its insulting.

3] Your conclusion has no rational logical basis.

 

[Robert_Sock]

A claim you cannot support and continue to talk right past others and suggest there is some basis to this illogical false claim.

!] Not a fact that all gun permit owners are vigilantes, nor do you have the “CHRISTIAN” right to “JUDGE” the [intentions] of others. FACT: you are assuming and judging which the Pope just spoke on this past weekend with gays.

2] Nor is it a statistical fact. In fact permit holders consist of but a very small percent who ever have an issue with their permit. Fact is they comprise of a very large percent of very good US Citizens which you certainly slight and judge in your false claims. Its insulting.

3] Your conclusion has no rational logical basis.

Cutting off half of my quote is misleading and deceptive. Here’s what I really said:

Again, my claims are based on common sense; what vigilante would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder? Please provide your reasoning to the contrary.

You carefully avoid answering my question.

 

[GaryTaylor]

my question.

Your question is answered just by the existing statistics and facts of Americans who do indeed have a legal permit and are law abiding citizens. Obviously by the factual reality they are not vigilantes, and obviously they didn’t obtain a permit to become one that is, “FACT”.

You are still on assumption and intent which I already addressed.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Your question is answered just by the existing statistics and facts of Americans who do indeed have a legal permit and are law abiding citizens. Obviously by the factual reality they are not vigilantes, and obviously they didn’t obtain a permit to become one that is, “FACT”.

You are still on assumption and intent which I already addressed.

Again, you avoid my question. Why?

Again, my claims are based on common sense; what vigilante would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder? Please provide your reasoning to the contrary.

Here’s another question that I asked about carrying a loaded gun that nobody has yet to answer:

The fact is that guns are more likely to be used against oneself or a loved one. For example, a suicidal person, perhaps within one’s own family, will seek out the opportunity to gain access to the weapon.