PDA

View Full Version : MSNBC Article on CCW


Apocalypsenerd
03-24-2010, 8:13 AM
Not as anti-2A as i thought it would be. It actually acknowledges the lack of statistical information supporting the banners.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life//

Glock22Fan
03-24-2010, 8:35 AM
Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.

Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.
Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.


Excellent.

Maestro Pistolero
03-24-2010, 8:40 AM
There's poll. Let's go vote. This is pretty balanced for MSN.

sepiid
03-24-2010, 8:42 AM
hehe, you and i posted the same story almost at the same time.

BluNorthern
03-24-2010, 8:46 AM
Pretty balanced article, especially for MSNBC. Unfortunately, Rachel Maddow on the same network had this...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36017782/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/

Constitution Open-Carry Rally. This is a gun rights rally scheduled for
April 19th at Fort Hunter National Park in Virginia.
Why Fort Hunter National Park? Well, according to the rally‘s
organizers, they believe that is the closest location to Washington, D.C.
in which they can legally, openly carry their firearms.
Again, what these people are doing is very explicit. They‘re trying
to get publicity. They admit that they are just trying to get media
attention. But their other goal is to try to intimidate the political process in
this country. Because they can‘t get people to do what they want through
the voting process, they are instead using guns as a means of intimidating
our national politics and their fellow citizens along the way.

This gun theme has been a very consistent threat over the past year.
You might remember this tea party protest sign that we kept seeing lots of
different events over the past year, “We came unarmed (this time).”
Remember all the people showing up at politics events last summer with
guns strapped to their side. You might remember the guy in New Hampshire
who showed up at one of President Obama‘s town hall events brandishing a .9
millimeter pistol and he had the t-shirt on with the quote—excuse me—
the sign with a quote on it about “replenishing the Tree of Liberty with
blood.”
This gun fervor that we‘ve seen, this effort to intimidate through the
show of force carried on this past weekend in the lead-up to the big health
reform vote. This sign appeared right outside the Capitol dome, warning if
Brown, as in Senator Scott Brown, can‘t stop it, a Browning can.

And the armed and dangerous theme isn‘t just in the streets and at the
protests. It‘s now the vernacular by which supposedly mainstream
conservative politicians address their followers now. Sarah Palin tweeted
to her followers today, quote, “Commonsense conservatives and lovers of
America: ‘Don‘t retreat, and instead—reload.‘ Please see my Facebook
page.”
What she was directing people to on her Facebook page was this message
from her political action committee. Twenty Democratic congressional
districts that she says she‘s targeting with rifle scopes images over each
of them.
There‘s one other thing to note here about what‘s going on at the edge
of politics and why this is a big deal. The big “show your guns” rally
that‘s going to happen on April 19th, where the “throw the bricks through
the windows of Democratic Party headquarters” guy is going to be speaking,
the list of the speaker at that event.
That event is symbolic also in its timing. April 19th isn‘t just some
convenient date for these folks to get together. It‘s not just a random
Monday in April. We mentioned before that Mike Vanderboegh is a former
militia member, former leader of the Alabama Constitutional Militia back in
the ‘90s, which was sort of a heyday for the patriot movement, the militia
movement, gun rights movement in this country.
Well, April 19th is like Christmas Day for the militia movement,
overshadowing the fact that it was the first day of the American
Revolution, the Battle of Lexington and Concord. For them, it‘s also the
anniversary of the Branch Davidian Siege in Waco, Texas, in 1993 -- which
these groups see as a call to arms against the American government. It is
not a coincidence that April 19th is also the day that Timothy McVeigh
deliberately chose for his bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in
Oklahoma City.

a1c
03-24-2010, 8:47 AM
Who said a .32 handgun lacked stopping power?

Roadrunner
03-24-2010, 8:56 AM
Good article. I particularly like the interactive map that shows California being left behind.

Window_Seat
03-24-2010, 9:06 AM
Poll results so far:

Very safe: If a crime is committed or a threat of violence made, they’ve got the means to respond: 75% with 13,864 votes.

In danger: These people could be trigger-happy yahoos or stumblebums whose weapon might go off by accident. 25% with 4,886 votes.

Not sure: How would we know? Wouldn’t it depend on the state laws involved and circumstances? 4.1% with 789 votes.

I love the term "Stumblebums". The writer and pollster has to be pro-2A, a rarity for MSNBC. Good for them!:cool:

Erik.

Maestro Pistolero
03-24-2010, 9:24 AM
The Very Safe crowd outnumbers the In Danger Crowd 3 to 1. but the comments displayed are more like 1 to 1. I guess no matter how hard they try, they just can't help themselves.

SeanCasey
03-24-2010, 9:25 AM
The anti-comments were rather funny here are some of my favorite anit arugments:


“Absolutely not. My ex-husband always carried and we had a dozen guns in the house. It just made me paranoid.”

My guess is that her husband left her and her paranoid behavior for greener pastures?


“I consider anyone (other than the police) who carries a hand gun to be instable and dangerous.”

Welcome to la la land.

“The american nazi brown-shirt thug movement is alive and well. Too many nutcases in this country to trust people with guns.”

Dang it, we just got demoted from right wing terrorist to nazi... With their attitude I wonder who the real nazi is?


“Carrying guns is what the police are for.”

The police should have guns, heck, they should have the best guns money can buy. I just want my right to purchase that same piece of gear for myself.

“Most of them are just men compensating for their shortcomings in other areas, but eventually a permit holding gun owner will kill someone.”

Yes a permit holder may kill someone, usually a criminal trying to kill them....


“Here we are back in the days of the bad old west, my God what an idiot country we live in”

Yes we are idiots... Overal crime rate wasn't that bad in the 1800's, so going back to lower crime rates is idiodic... It takes criminal jobs away.


“This in one reason I'm staying in Germany! America is not the land of the free any more it is now land of the scared.”

Its not land of the free because people like you are taking our rights away.


“Just by having the gun, it's more likely to be used. I despise guns and would never carry one.”

Well that fine, don't stop other people from it just because you wont.

“There are too many nuts out there, and too many are openly advocating violence using guns. The American Taliban is alive and well in the US”

Comparing gun owners to the Taliban. Dang it, where did my turban go? At least I have the AK thing down.

“I have lived all over the world, including the third world, and the United States is the only country in which I have never felt safe.”

I suppose if you live in inner-city Chicago I could agree with that. Of course you can't carry there....


“Violence brings Violence. The only people that should have guns are the Police and Military.”

Yes criminal being violent, bring a violent response in defense. I think the founding fathers would beg to differ on the last part though.

“These laws are the bastion of the Redneck Culture, who think guns are their manhood. Newsflash: The civilized US isn't all Wild West.”

Redneck? Well I guess my neck did get fiar red from sunburn at our last Shoot 'n Q


“The violence-inclined Tea Party types tend to carry guns, but not to exercise reason or civility. That should make everyone anxious.”

So I am now an "unreasonable nazi taliban redneck nutjob yahoo". Can I get a shirt with that on it?

Blackhawk556
03-24-2010, 9:34 AM
good article, I voted did you????

are you guys reading some of those comments????

every time i hear people say, "This isn't the wild west" i say No really??

why do the antis always use the wild west as an example. Damn these people really are outdated

BluNorthern
03-24-2010, 9:47 AM
good article, I voted did you????

are you guys reading some of those comments????

every time i hear people say, "This isn't the wild west" i say No really??

why do the antis always use the wild west as an example. Damn these people really are outdated

I just had to wonder, when the authors of these stupid comments, lots stating that anyone but law enforcement who even own a gun are psycho rednecks just living for the chance to shoot anybody "I consider anyone (other than the police) who carries a hand gun to be instable and dangerous."
When confronted by a violent criminal about to have their way with them, have a change of heart in their last minutes.

NoahH
03-24-2010, 9:50 AM
good article, I voted did you????

are you guys reading some of those comments????

every time i hear people say, "This isn't the wild west" i say No really??

why do the antis always use the wild west as an example. Damn these people really are outdated

The fun part is pointing out their knowledge of "the wild west" is 100% based on western films. That would be like 150 years from now someone wondering what life was like in the 1990's and watching "Pulp Fiction" to figure it out.

Casual_Shooter
03-24-2010, 9:53 AM
"Instable"?

cineski
03-24-2010, 9:54 AM
Wow, the title says it all: "Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns." Shocking for MSNBC.

BluNorthern
03-24-2010, 10:05 AM
"Instable"?
Don't know what to tell ya...that's what one of the 'anti's' wrote.:confused:

Lone_Gunman
03-24-2010, 10:07 AM
From the article: "Some other states were known as “may issue,” meaning concealed weapons permits were dispensed at the discretion of state or local law enforcement officials. That system often was dogged by charges of political favoritism, and it continues to be in states such as California and New York, where it is still in place."

Nice.

yelohamr
03-24-2010, 10:09 AM
Maddow rhymes with Mad Cow.

stag1500
03-24-2010, 10:22 AM
Who said a .32 handgun lacked stopping power?

A well placed shot with even a .22 can be just as deadly as a shot from a .44 magnum.

stag1500
03-24-2010, 10:23 AM
Wow, the title says it all: "Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns." Shocking for MSNBC.

Who would have thunk?

bigcalidave
03-24-2010, 11:55 AM
It's great having articles like this tilt strongly in our favor!

1BigPea
03-24-2010, 12:18 PM
Seriously, those against CCW comments are just plain funny. It's the same thing over and over again, those people are just so out of touch with reality it's impossible to rationalize with them.

inbox485
03-24-2010, 12:40 PM
Who said a .32 handgun lacked stopping power?

I for one. The guy ran 100 feet after being the recipient of three well placed shots. It stopped him eventually. It killed him. But if he was determined in his attack those 100 feet of running could have been spent pounding the victim into the ground. If I shoot somebody, I want the shot to drop them like a sack of potatoes, not send them running.

bigcalidave
03-24-2010, 12:43 PM
I for one. The guy ran 100 feet after being the recipient of three well placed shots. It stopped him eventually. It killed him. But if he was determined in his attack those 100 feet of running could have been spent pounding the victim into the ground. If I shoot somebody, I want the shot to drop them like a sack of potatoes, not send them running.

Gut shots are NOT well placed shots. If those shots had been into his eyes / sinus cavity, he would have dropped instantly. He also could have taken three .45 +p hollow points in the stomach, and continued to attack the victims. Or worse, use his own gun.

yellowfin
03-24-2010, 12:48 PM
"Fair and balanced" = we don't like calling the truth what it is, so we'll mix in lies with it to make it blandly palatable = order 2 burgers, end up getting one with beef and the other with a turd in it.

inbox485
03-24-2010, 12:55 PM
Gut shots are NOT well placed shots. If those shots had been into his eyes / sinus cavity, he would have dropped instantly. He also could have taken three .45 +p hollow points in the stomach, and continued to attack the victims. Or worse, use his own gun.

Article says he was hit first in the the gut and then again in the neck and torso. Sounds like pretty good shots to me. The first was likely from the hip during the draw, the second and third were likely sighted. A shot to the neck with a major caliber round would have dropped the guy from hydrostatic shock alone.

timdps
03-24-2010, 1:30 PM
Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group, said the movement “has to do with selling more guns.” While it was pushed by groups like the NRA, it also “dovetailed with the gun industry’s desperate need to find a new market.”

:rofl2: Boy, they are getting desperate... The "gun industry" is just now barely catching up from the huge run on guns that Obama created by being elected.

Had not realized the the gun buying surge stated in 2006:

8.5 to 9 million checks from 1999 to 2005
10 million in 2006,
11 million in 2007,
nearly 13 million in 2008
more than 14 million last year

tim

a1c
03-24-2010, 1:57 PM
Article says he was hit first in the the gut and then again in the neck and torso. Sounds like pretty good shots to me. The first was likely from the hip during the draw, the second and third were likely sighted. A shot to the neck with a major caliber round would have dropped the guy from hydrostatic shock alone.

We weren't there and didn't read the autopsy report, so we can only guess. I get to sometimes read police or autopsy reports, and the resilience of some people who've taken several rounds can be amazing. Or maybe it's not, and we've just been conditioned by watching too many movies and TV shows where a single bullet or two always kill instantly.

I don't think anybody - including me - is going to argue that 9mm, .40SW or .45ACP has less stopping power than a bullet from a .32. I was just jokingly making a point that a .32 in the right hands can drop a bad guy. Case in point.

inbox485
03-24-2010, 2:39 PM
We weren't there and didn't read the autopsy report, so we can only guess. I get to sometimes read police or autopsy reports, and the resilience of some people who've taken several rounds can be amazing. Or maybe it's not, and we've just been conditioned by watching too many movies and TV shows where a single bullet or two always kill instantly.

I don't think anybody - including me - is going to argue that 9mm, .40SW or .45ACP has less stopping power than a bullet from a .32. I was just jokingly making a point that a .32 in the right hands can drop a bad guy. Case in point.

You are right in that neither of us were there, and in any case it is anecdotal. As anecdotes go, every time I see a story about "stopping" a bad guy with one of the pocket calibers, the story involves the guy running off. That's all I was pointing out.

Casual_Shooter
03-24-2010, 2:48 PM
Don't know what to tell ya...that's what one of the 'anti's' wrote.:confused:

That was my point. ;)

nick
03-24-2010, 3:05 PM
The anti-comments were rather funny here are some of my favorite anit arugments:


My guess is that her husband left her and her paranoid behavior for greener pastures?




Welcome to la la land.



Dang it, we just got demoted from right wing terrorist to nazi... With their attitude I wonder who the real nazi is?




The police should have guns, heck, they should have the best guns money can buy. I just want my right to purchase that same piece of gear for myself.



Yes a permit holder may kill someone, usually a criminal trying to kill them....




Yes we are idiots... Overal crime rate wasn't that bad in the 1800's, so going back to lower crime rates is idiodic... It takes criminal jobs away.




Its not land of the free because people like you are taking our rights away.




Well that fine, don't stop other people from it just because you wont.



Comparing gun owners to the Taliban. Dang it, where did my turban go? At least I have the AK thing down.



I suppose if you live in inner-city Chicago I could agree with that. Of course you can't carry there....




Yes criminal being violent, bring a violent response in defense. I think the founding fathers would beg to differ on the last part though.



Redneck? Well I guess my neck did get fiar red from sunburn at our last Shoot 'n Q




So I am now an "unreasonable nazi taliban redneck nutjob yahoo". Can I get a shirt with that on it?

Page T-shirt vendors here, they'll make it happen :)

Paragun
03-24-2010, 4:05 PM
I like this, on page two:

But Third Way’s Kessler, while agreeing there is “no evidence” that more concealed-weapons permits have led to lower crime rates, said, “I’ve not seen any evidence on the other side that it creates havoc either.”

Then on page three:

The highest gun homicide rate is in Washington, D.C., which has had the nation’s strictest gun-control laws for years and bans concealed carry: 20.50 deaths per 100,000 population, five times the general rate. The lowest rate, 1.12, is in Utah, which has such a liberal concealed weapons policy that most American adults can get a permit to carry a gun in Utah without even visiting the state.

What do you mean "NO EVIDENCE"??

champion
03-24-2010, 4:25 PM
They use the "Wild West" term because they have seen too many movies and think that what Hollywood portrays is how it really was. Yeah there was some crazy stuff but overall it was a more law-abiding time in history.



good article, I voted did you????

are you guys reading some of those comments????

every time i hear people say, "This isn't the wild west" i say No really??

why do the antis always use the wild west as an example. Damn these people really are outdated

Zomgie
03-24-2010, 4:26 PM
I like this, on page two:



Then on page three:



What do you mean "NO EVIDENCE"??

It's a common statistics issue when looking at 'trends'. You have to be careful and realize that correlation =\ causation.

That's not to say that they aren't related, just that no official 'study' has been done. And really, even if there had been a real study (taking all the variables into account and proving causation), you think he'd publicize it? =)

Paragun
03-24-2010, 4:35 PM
Yep, I see your point. :o

inbox485
03-24-2010, 5:09 PM
Yep, I see your point. :o

Specifically if you trend all 50 states +DC, rather than just two of them, there is a trend, but a very weak one. Weak enough that you could say statistically there is no evidence.

thebronze
03-24-2010, 5:18 PM
I like this, on page two:



Then on page three:



What do you mean "NO EVIDENCE"??


Funny how the article didn't even interview one of the most preeminent gun scholars out there, John Lott.

He's got plenty of evidence that "More guns = Less Crime".

Apocalypsenerd
03-24-2010, 5:55 PM
Statistical Correllation is not evidence of one impacting the other.

There is Statistical Correllation that the more pig farms there are in a state, the less PhD's there are in the same state. The Correllation is there and it is statistically significant, but one does not cause the other.

To assume that one equals the other can result in what's called a spurious conclusion.

What they need to do is take very similar towns in different states but with very similar populations as far as demographics are concerned and track them over the course of 10-20 years. That will give a better idea than saying that DC has less guns and more crime.

DC is a *****hole compared to other cities of similar size.

Apocalypsenerd
03-24-2010, 6:01 PM
Of course, I believe much of this research has been done by neutral parties and there is very little evidence that gun ownership influences crime in either direction. There is an indication that it slightly reduces crime, but that's it.

People need to look at neutral or referreed studies though. Research done by Brady or the NRA cannot be trusted.

Ducman
03-24-2010, 11:20 PM
I'll bet MSNBC regrets starting this poll! ;)

cdtx2001
03-25-2010, 7:51 AM
I'll bet MSNBC regrets starting this poll! ;)

So far, 79% in favor.

cineski
03-25-2010, 8:47 AM
They remind me of the logic of my cousin's boyfriend who wants America to be communist (he literally said this once). Whenever he opens his mouth, all I can do is stare blankly as his words bounce through the air.

Seriously, those against CCW comments are just plain funny. It's the same thing over and over again, those people are just so out of touch with reality it's impossible to rationalize with them.

MP301
03-26-2010, 5:28 PM
I'll bet MSNBC regrets starting this poll! ;)

No, Not at all. Have you not noticed that more and more
Main stream news articles are at least being gerally fair on gun issues recently? This, I believe, is because the population in general has shifted it's views on guns or at least more have come out of the closet thanks mainly to the last election and current economy.

So, this means that even if the organization leans anti gun, it's still a business.... A business with heavy competition from alternative news sources. Main stream media is taking it in the shorts more and more, and you can't spread whatever your agenda is if your out of business. And right now, being overly critical on guns is not the best way to reach the biggest audience.

There are still strongholds in places like here, new York, etc., but it is obvious that the anti media here has even toned it down a bunch, yes?

Note: To spelling Nazis. I'm on an iPhone and will not be attempting to correct spelling errors if they exist. If this doesn't work for you, take a hammer and go into the bathroom and...........

Milsurp Collector
03-26-2010, 6:11 PM
No, Not at all. Have you not noticed that more and more mainstream news articles are at least being generally fair on gun issues recently? This, I believe, is because the population in general has shifted it's views on guns or at least more have come out of the closet thanks mainly to the last election and current economy.



+1

In U.S., Record-Low Support for Stricter Gun Laws (http://www.gallup.com/poll/123596/in-u.s.-record-low-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx) :D