A random mass shooter question

YellowSnow

Does any one know if any of the mass shooters in the past 20 years or so were licensed to conceal and carry? In other words, had any of them gone through this licensing process?

For reference, here are the regs for WA:

https://www.usacarry.com/washington_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Sledog

YellowSnow said:

Does any one know if any of the mass shooters in the past 20 years or so were licensed to conceal and carry? In other words, had any of them gone through this licensing process?

For reference, here are the regs for WA:

https://www.usacarry.com/washington_concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Not that I can recall. CCW people on the whole are extremely law abiding. Arrest rate is minuscule. In fact last time I saw it it was lower than for law enforcement.

Swaye

Tons of them:

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

I have not validated that info so no idea if it is true or not, but I do know the last entry for the Navy Yard killer is accurate - he had CCW, so I assume it's somewhat accurate. Still, by total numbers of those killed over the last 15 years it's got to be a small percentage. Also, I do not think all CCW are created the same - i.e. there are some "Shall Issue" states, so no idea how that plays into this.

RaceBannon

Conceal carry deserves extra scrutiny because you're out there with a gun. I could pass the check but I shouldn't be driving with a gun.

So I don't

YellowSnow

Swaye said:

Tons of them:

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

I have not validated that info so no idea if it is true or not, but I do know the last entry for the Navy Yard killer is accurate - he had CCW, so I assume it's somewhat accurate. Still, by total numbers of those killed over the last 15 years it's got to be a small percentage. Also, I do not think all CCW are created the same - i.e. there are some "Shall Issue" states, so no idea how that plays into this.

So let me ask you and @Sledog this: Do you feel CCW permitting process is a violation of 2A rights?

Sledog

Pretty sure this guy didn't have a CCW.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/50292/dayton-attacker-was-hardcore-leftist-pro-warren-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=080719-news&utm_campaign=position2

dflea

Sledog said:

Pretty sure this guy didn't have a CCW.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/50292/dayton-attacker-was-hardcore-leftist-pro-warren-ryan-saavedra?utm_source=cnemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=080719-news&utm_campaign=position2

Fagging out the thread.

Swaye

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/26/people-with-concealed-carry-permits-have-committed-at-least-29-mass-shootings-since-2007/?noredirect=on

Don't trust the Washington Compost but this is what they say: 29 CCWs have committed mass shootings (3 or more?) between 2007-2015. So, an almost statistically insignificant number (not to those killed obviously but trying to use maff here) in the total number of shootings over that time period.

In short, it would seem that CCW screening clears out lots of potential crazies. 29 over 9 years is basically 3 incidents per year. All states. That is a very small number when taken in context. The linked article says itself that hundreds of mass shooting take place each year nationwide (gang related on a bunch of them I'd imagine?).

Swaye

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

Tons of them:

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

I have not validated that info so no idea if it is true or not, but I do know the last entry for the Navy Yard killer is accurate - he had CCW, so I assume it's somewhat accurate. Still, by total numbers of those killed over the last 15 years it's got to be a small percentage. Also, I do not think all CCW are created the same - i.e. there are some "Shall Issue" states, so no idea how that plays into this.

So let me ask you and @Sledog this: Do you feel CCW permitting process is a violation of 2A rights?

Nope. Not one bit for me. I quite like it. Look, for home defense and all the "bulwark against unchecked aggression" stuff from yesterday, for guns you will be keeping at home, the government can fuck off (after the required NCIS check and aforementioned mental health checks), but carrying a gun out and about requires a different layer of scrutiny to me. And training. I can't speak for other states, but Virginia requires a safety and ethics class. And there are tons of rules you have to understand - this isn't a stand your ground state so you must *try* to flee or back away from any potential conflict first. So you must understand your requirements to carry a weapon. I am fine with people being held to a higher standard than home use. I don't want backwoods dipshits toting guns around WalMart.

WilburHooksHands

Swaye said:

I don't want backwoods dipshits toting guns around WalMart.

I would guess the vast vast majority of people open carrying ARs fall into this caregory.

Sledog

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler#

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/5/21/fbi-report-highlights-effectiveness-of-concealed-carry/

Swaye

WilburHooksHands said:

Swaye said:

I don't want backwoods dipshits toting guns around WalMart.

I would guess the vast vast majority of people open carrying ARs fall into this caregory.

Signs point to yes.

WilburHooksHands

Sledog said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler#

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/5/21/fbi-report-highlights-effectiveness-of-concealed-carry/

Concealed carry of a handgun is a world apart from bringing your kitted .308 to starbucks imo.

Sledog

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

Tons of them:

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

I have not validated that info so no idea if it is true or not, but I do know the last entry for the Navy Yard killer is accurate - he had CCW, so I assume it's somewhat accurate. Still, by total numbers of those killed over the last 15 years it's got to be a small percentage. Also, I do not think all CCW are created the same - i.e. there are some "Shall Issue" states, so no idea how that plays into this.

So let me ask you and @Sledog this: Do you feel CCW permitting process is a violation of 2A rights?

Nope. Not one bit for me. I quite like it. Look, for home defense and all the "bulwark against unchecked aggression" stuff from yesterday, for guns you will be keeping at home, the government can fuck off (after the required NCIS check and aforementioned mental health checks), but carrying a gun out and about requires a different layer of scrutiny to me. And training. I can't speak for other states, but Virginia requires a safety and ethics class. And there are tons of rules you have to understand - this isn't a stand your ground state so you must *try* to flee or back away from any potential conflict first. So you must understand your requirements to carry a weapon. I am fine with people being held to a higher standard than home use. I don't want backwoods dipshits toting guns around WalMart.

As originally intended yes I do. A large number of the signers were probably carrying firearms when they signed it. Jefferson for one never ventured out without a pistol. Usually two.

In 1785 Thomas Jefferson wrote to his fifteen-year-old nephew, Peter Carr, regarding what he considered the best form of exercise: "... I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprize, and independance to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."1

Sledog

WilburHooksHands said:

Sledog said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler#

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/5/21/fbi-report-highlights-effectiveness-of-concealed-carry/

Concealed carry of a handgun is a world apart from bringing your kitted .308 to starbucks imo.

They'll both kill you. But I think open carry is stupid. Just hangs a sign on you to bad guys "shoot me first". Surprise isn't overrated.

Our founders expected that people would hold this right in high regard and act appropriately.

YellowSnow

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

Tons of them:

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

I have not validated that info so no idea if it is true or not, but I do know the last entry for the Navy Yard killer is accurate - he had CCW, so I assume it's somewhat accurate. Still, by total numbers of those killed over the last 15 years it's got to be a small percentage. Also, I do not think all CCW are created the same - i.e. there are some "Shall Issue" states, so no idea how that plays into this.

So let me ask you and @Sledog this: Do you feel CCW permitting process is a violation of 2A rights?

Nope. Not one bit for me. I quite like it. Look, for home defense and all the "bulwark against unchecked aggression" stuff from yesterday, for guns you will be keeping at home, the government can fuck off (after the required NCIS check and aforementioned mental health checks), but carrying a gun out and about requires a different layer of scrutiny to me. And training. I can't speak for other states, but Virginia requires a safety and ethics class. And there are tons of rules you have to understand - this isn't a stand your ground state so you must *try* to flee or back away from any potential conflict first. So you must understand your requirements to carry a weapon. I am fine with people being held to a higher standard than home use. I don't want backwoods dipshits toting guns around WalMart.

So here's the deal: whether the numbers are statistically irrelevant - they are for terrorism too and yet we spend a shit ton preventing it - we've got a big problem vis-a-vis crazy, socially alienated males and the most popular long arm in America. And whether we? like it or not, popular opinion at some point is going to force a DO SOMETHING compromise on the matter. We can agree CCW requires a different level of scrutiny to try and weed out those who shouldn't be carrying. So why not some similar level of scrutiny for ownership of all semi-auto rifles greater than .22LR in caliber? If you want to own an AR type rifle then fine; but let's make the process a similar vetting to CCW.

WilburHooksHands

Sledog said:

WilburHooksHands said:

Sledog said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler#

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/5/21/fbi-report-highlights-effectiveness-of-concealed-carry/

Concealed carry of a handgun is a world apart from bringing your kitted .308 to starbucks imo.

They'll both kill you. But I think open carry is stupid. Just hangs a sign on you to bad guys "shoot me first". Surprise isn't overrated.

Our founders expected that people would hold this right in high regard and act appropriately.

Shut the tug down becuase I agree with Sledog. Not right! Not left! FORWARD!!!1

2001400ex

RaceBannon said:

Conceal carry deserves extra scrutiny because you're out there with a gun. I could pass the check but I shouldn't be driving with a gun.

So I don't

I'll feel much better next time I'm in California knowing that you are not carrying a gun in your car.

2001400ex

Swaye said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/26/people-with-concealed-carry-permits-have-committed-at-least-29-mass-shootings-since-2007/?noredirect=on

Don't trust the Washington Compost but this is what they say: 29 CCWs have committed mass shootings (3 or more?) between 2007-2015. So, an almost statistically insignificant number (not to those killed obviously but trying to use maff here) in the total number of shootings over that time period.

In short, it would seem that CCW screening clears out lots of potential crazies. 29 over 9 years is basically 3 incidents per year. All states. That is a very small number when taken in context. The linked article says itself that hundreds of mass shooting take place each year nationwide (gang related on a bunch of them I'd imagine?).

This is exactly my point. Relatively few mass shootings (and shootings overall) are done by those educated on guns.

Sledog

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

Tons of them:

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

I have not validated that info so no idea if it is true or not, but I do know the last entry for the Navy Yard killer is accurate - he had CCW, so I assume it's somewhat accurate. Still, by total numbers of those killed over the last 15 years it's got to be a small percentage. Also, I do not think all CCW are created the same - i.e. there are some "Shall Issue" states, so no idea how that plays into this.

So let me ask you and @Sledog this: Do you feel CCW permitting process is a violation of 2A rights?

Nope. Not one bit for me. I quite like it. Look, for home defense and all the "bulwark against unchecked aggression" stuff from yesterday, for guns you will be keeping at home, the government can fuck off (after the required NCIS check and aforementioned mental health checks), but carrying a gun out and about requires a different layer of scrutiny to me. And training. I can't speak for other states, but Virginia requires a safety and ethics class. And there are tons of rules you have to understand - this isn't a stand your ground state so you must *try* to flee or back away from any potential conflict first. So you must understand your requirements to carry a weapon. I am fine with people being held to a higher standard than home use. I don't want backwoods dipshits toting guns around WalMart.

So here's the deal: whether the numbers are statistically irrelevant - they are for terrorism too and yet we spend a shit ton preventing it - we've got a big problem vis-a-vis crazy, socially alienated males and the most popular long arm in America. And whether we? like it or not, popular opinion at some point is going to force a DO SOMETHING compromise on the matter. We can agree CCW requires a different level of scrutiny to try and weed out those who shouldn't be carrying. So why not some similar level of scrutiny for ownership of all semi-auto rifles greater than .22LR in caliber? If you want to own an AR type rifle then fine; but let's make the process a similar vetting to CCW.

We already have background checks for gun purchases. Most all of the recent mass shooters legally purchased their guns. With no criminal background they'd pass your check too. Wouldn't do a thing. Then when it happens the mantra will be "outlaw everything!"

The left wants nothing less than total bans on all guns and confiscation.

creepycoug

Swaye said:

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:

Tons of them:

http://concealedcarrykillers.org/mass-shootings-committed-by-concealed-carry-killers/

I have not validated that info so no idea if it is true or not, but I do know the last entry for the Navy Yard killer is accurate - he had CCW, so I assume it's somewhat accurate. Still, by total numbers of those killed over the last 15 years it's got to be a small percentage. Also, I do not think all CCW are created the same - i.e. there are some "Shall Issue" states, so no idea how that plays into this.

So let me ask you and @Sledog this: Do you feel CCW permitting process is a violation of 2A rights?

Nope. Not one bit for me. I quite like it. Look, for home defense and all the "bulwark against unchecked aggression" stuff from yesterday, for guns you will be keeping at home, the government can fuck off (after the required NCIS check and aforementioned mental health checks), but carrying a gun out and about requires a different layer of scrutiny to me. And training. I can't speak for other states, but Virginia requires a safety and ethics class. And there are tons of rules you have to understand - this isn't a stand your ground state so you must *try* to flee or back away from any potential conflict first. So you must understand your requirements to carry a weapon. I am fine with people being held to a higher standard than home use. I don't want backwoods dipshits toting guns around WalMart.

This right here. Totally agree. I'm also against the 'arm the teachers' idea for the same basic family of concerns. What could go wrong?