Well in that case they need their licenses revoked immediately, as they are most incompetent
No double O rating for them.
From the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, CCW is bad M'kay
- Thread starter Decoy
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Well in that case they need their licenses revoked immediately, as they are most incompetent
No double O rating for them.
tkd4life
Ultimate Member
Wasn't the recent church shooting in Texas stopped by an armed civilian with a gun?
- Jun 28, 2009
- 4,172
perhaps the "School of Public Health" should show how many people were killed due to MEDICAL malpractice and then draw a contrast comparison? or perhaps show the totals of folks over dosing on PRESCRIBED opioids?
Matlack
Scribe
- Dec 15, 2008
- 8,560
I'd like to see where and how they were able to connect concealed permit carriers to a specific shooting and how they determined it wasn't justified self defense.
MigraineMan
Defenestration Specialist
They mention that one, but exclude it because the bad-guy had already left the church, so *technically* he wasn't "stopped" by the good-guy with the gun.
Besides, including it would have screwed up their statistics and the desired outcome.
Mr H
Unincited Co-Conservative
- Nov 14, 2010
- 20,274
Attachments
Look, what Hopkins, which is VERY poltially active part of the gun control lobby since getting over one billion from Bloomberg, and over 300 million specifically for the University branch doing this "research" is doing is taking facts and data that support gun ownership and inoverting them with smemantics. EG:
What they do with they above bogus claim to look at whether the shooter was proven to intentionally "target" the venue based on its gun free zone status. What the Bloomberg School at Hopkins fails to note is that the motive is not at issue, but the EFFECT is. A flu virus does not have to intentionally "target" elderly to kill a higher proportion of elderly who are infected. The fact is that when -- for whatever reason -- an active shooter r commits his crime in a gun free zone, killing rates are about four times as high because it is a gun free zone. Anyone with a functioning brain knows Lanza did NOT have to decide he would attack the school because it was a gun free zone, for the fact that it was a gun free zone to be a major factor in the death rate, yet absent proof Lanza was looking for gun free zones, Bloomberg's Hopkins group implies the gun free status was irrelevant to death rates. That is BS
The sophistry is also present in this tautological claim:
1) they just pick the 111 they want. No criteria other than they satisfy the researchers parameters for disproving defensive gun use in such a situation.
2) they refuse to consider cases where a mass shooting did not occur or was not converted from a multiple shooting to a mass shooting, because a civilian gun owner used a firearm to limit the amount of death to the threshold.
not mentioned? the fact that using the methodology the FBI used, "unarmed civilians" were 40 times more likely to "end" a mass shooting than were armed law enforcement. Does this argue for removing firearms from police??
if you only count judicial finding of justifiable homicide, as that FBI "analysis" you leave at the curb all the cases where the good guy brandished, fired without hitting, or where even if they hit the shooter and killed him, where authorities decided not to prosecute the good guy with a gun.
Bloomberg's Hopkins group insists that the only usable number for this is where gun owner kills bad guy and gets ruled justifiable.
Hopkins wasn't as heavily engaged in Gun Control research until Bloomberg wanted them to be. Statistics are made to further your cause.
This is just more rubbish from those who want more gun control.
This is just more rubbish from those who want more gun control.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,351
So what is the total number of CCW, both licensed and people who carry where no license is required, so we can calculate the percentage that this number represents over 10 years? And were any of these "...non self defense shootings..." justified for other reasons?
mjester93
Member
I've attempted to find the number of CCW in each state. Turns out it nearly impossible. I've compiled it into Google Sheets in case you're curious.
- Jan 30, 2013
- 34,285
When your research starts with the conclusion that you want to reach, then you search only for arguments and statistics that tend to support your conclusion, or at least appear to when looked at in a vacuum.
Mr H
Unincited Co-Conservative
I've encountered the same problem in the past.
The best number I could come up with for MD (2013) was that those who were even INTERESTED in concealed carry was around 0.3%, probably much of it due to an understanding that it was unattainable. There was a 'more formal' study that roughly mirrored my information. I don't remember where it was from, though.
I haven't attempted to dig into the current numbers. Anecdotally, though, along with some few actual numbers that have been uncovered (here and other places), I'd guess that the number of people who are actually carrying, and those interested, has jumped up to somewhere in the .7 to .8 percent neighborhood. Again, this is just a personal estimate, purely unofficial, and not to be counted on.
mjester93
Member
Not sure if you're aware, but I do a monthly PIA request with the State Police and receive numbers. Check out my last one here . There's about 0.45% of the MD population with a W&C.
Mr H
Unincited Co-Conservative
Good... that was about my guess, but hadn't seen that number yet. Add an appropriate "interested" number, and it might even be approaching 1% overall??
Thanks
No_comment
Active Member
- Oct 19, 2013
- 103
Gack. Lots of comments in this thread, some reasonable, some not.
It's not reasonable to dismiss the research because we don't like the outcomes. It has to be based on other evidence and reasonable discussion. Some comments drill down into the stats and numbers, and to me at least, that makes more sense. I've read Webster's research and when he is the PI, it can be pretty solid. But other stuff with his name on isn't so good.
In the case of concealed carry, most of the instances were suicide or those who should not have been issued licenses (the numbers are from a gun control site, but I can't find it this second). Overall, others have pointed out that the numbers look very low, possibly lower than in the overall population.
In terms of the mass-murder sub-thread, here's a great discussion. The upshot is that almost by construction mass murder doesn't occur when citizens are armed because if they are, the "mass" in mass murder doesn't occur.
Mr H
Unincited Co-Conservative
Someone needs to make Wee Widdle Danny Webster cry over REAL facts.
Biggfoot44
Ultimate Member
- Aug 2, 2009
- 33,460
Hard to find real time current number . But for actual Shall Issue states, that have been so for a cpl years , and don't delibertly discourage ( hello Illinois) is minimum of 1% of overall population, up to 5% . Still a huge range , but gives an idea of the order of magnitude. Another hint - Any state with less than 1% CCW holders , is de facto evidence of delibert supressing .
But look at exactly what they say , and don't say .
Non- Self Defense "Incidents' .
Every suicide , mostlt eldery and/ or terminally ill . Not street crime , or endangering the public as implied .
Doesn't specify anything along the lines of " involving the use of firearms " , so they're including non- firearm events . Add all vehicular , boating , and industrial accidents resulting in fatality , where at least one person was holder of CCW Permit , whether they were carrying at the time or not .
While the number of actual gun accidents , and hunting accidents is very small , so are " actual inadvertent or mistaken shootings by CCW carriers " , and combining them is larger than not.
And of course , as they did with the Texas church incident , arbitrarily reclassify defensive shootings , as not counting as Self Defense .
Lies . Damn Lies . Staticians.
If instead , the parameters were " CCW holders , indicted and convicted for unlawful killings , while otherwise lawfully carrying in Public " , the percentages would be extremely small , rounding off to Zero .
But look at exactly what they say , and don't say .
Non- Self Defense "Incidents' .
Every suicide , mostlt eldery and/ or terminally ill . Not street crime , or endangering the public as implied .
Doesn't specify anything along the lines of " involving the use of firearms " , so they're including non- firearm events . Add all vehicular , boating , and industrial accidents resulting in fatality , where at least one person was holder of CCW Permit , whether they were carrying at the time or not .
While the number of actual gun accidents , and hunting accidents is very small , so are " actual inadvertent or mistaken shootings by CCW carriers " , and combining them is larger than not.
And of course , as they did with the Texas church incident , arbitrarily reclassify defensive shootings , as not counting as Self Defense .
Lies . Damn Lies . Staticians.
If instead , the parameters were " CCW holders , indicted and convicted for unlawful killings , while otherwise lawfully carrying in Public " , the percentages would be extremely small , rounding off to Zero .
offthepaper
Ultimate Member
That's a study that will never see the light of day. Doesn't meet the desired conclusion.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
MD Wear and Carry initial and renewal May 18/19 Worton MD- Started by Mark75H
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-