Saturday, December 22, 2012


Warning! Warning! Long post! Only those who can read at above a 5th grade level should attempt to read this post.

There are 49 states that have “Right to Carry” laws on the books. Seven of those states are disputing the current laws, seeking to either have them overturned or to have them amended.

There are differing types of “Right to Carry” laws. They are: Shall-issue; May-issue; Unrestricted and No-issue.

An "Unrestricted" jurisdiction is one in which no permit is required to carry a concealed handgun.

A "Shall-Issue" jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, but where the granting of such permits is subject only to meeting determinate criteria laid out in the law; the granting authority has no discretion in the awarding of the permits, and there is no requirement of the applicant to demonstrate "good cause".

A "May-Issue" jurisdiction is one that requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun, and where the granting of such permits is partially at the discretion of local authorities (frequently the sheriff's department or police), with a few states consolidating this discretionary power under state-level law enforcement.

A "No-Issue" jurisdiction is one that - with very limited exceptions - does not allow any private citizen to carry a concealed handgun in public.

Shall-issue states are: Alabama (in practice); Alaska; Arizona; Arkansas; Colorado (in practice); Florida; Georgia; Idaho; Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Maine; Michigan; Minnesota; Mississippi; Missouri; Montana (Outside of city limits is unrestricted); Nebraska; Nevada; New Hampshire; New Mexico (although a ban is practiced); North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; Pennsylvania; South Carolina; South Dakota; Tennessee; Texas; Utah; Virginia; Washington; West Virginia and Wisconsin.

May-issue states are: Alabama (disputed); California; Connecticut (in practice and disputed); Delaware (in practice and disputed); Hawaii (in practice but “No Carry” is in practice); Maryland (with a ban in practice and disputed); Massachusetts; New Jersey (a ban is in practice); New York (disputed); Rhode Island (local permits only and disputed). All military installations have May-issue policies.

Unrestricted states are: Alaska (Shall-issue is in practice); Arizona; Wyoming allows only residents to carry a concealed weapon.

Concealed weapons are not permitted in: Washington D.C. or Illinois (although some counties are in practice).

It is worth noting that the two states with a ban on concealed weapons have very high crime rates across the board, with Washington D.C. having the highest in the nation per capita.

You can view a Guide to Mass Shootings at Mother Jones' website (hardly a conservative site).

Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass murders carried out with firearms across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii.

For the record, mass shootings (4 or more people injured or killed) have occurred in:

1982  - Miami, Florida (11 injured or killed);
1984  - San Ysidro, California (41 injured or killed);
1984 – Dallas, Texas (7 killed);
1986 - Edmond, Oklahoma (21 injured or killed)
1987 - Palm Bay, Florida (5 killed);
1988 - Sunnyvale, California (11 injured or killed)
1989 - Louisville, Kentucky (21 killed);
1989 - Stockton, California (35 injured or killed);
1990 - Jacksonville, Florida (14 injured or killed)
1991 - Iowa City, Iowa (7 injured or killed)
1991 - Kelleen Texas (44 injured or killed)
1991 - Royal Oak, Michigan (10 injured or killed)
1992 - Watkins Glen, New York (5 injured or killed)
1992 – Olivehurst, California (14 injured or killed)
1993 - San Francisco, California (15 injured or killed)
1993 - Fayetteville, North Carolina (12 injured or killed)
1993 - Garden City, New York (25 injured or killed)
1993 – Aurora, Colorado (6 injured or killed)
1994 - Fairchild Air Force Base, WA (28 injured or killed)
1995 - Corpus Christi, Texas ( 6 injured or killed)
1996 - Ft. Lauderdale, FLorida (5 injured or killed);
1997 - Aiken, South Carolina (7 injured or killed)
1997 – Orange, California (1997 – 7 injured or killed)
1998 -  Newington, Connecticut (6 injured or killed)
1998 -  Jonesboro, Arkansas (15 injured or killed)
1998 - Springfield Oregon (29 injured or killed)
1999 – Littleton, Colorado (39 injured or killed)
1999 - Atlanta, Georgia (22 injured or killed)
1999 - Ft. Worth, Texas (15 injured or killed)
1999 – Honolulu, Hawaii (7 injured or killed)
1999 - Tampa, Florida (8 injured or killed)
2000 – Wakefield, Massachusetts (7 injured or killed)
2001 - Melrose Park, Illinois (9 injured or killed)
2003 - Meridian, Mississippi (15 injured or killed)
2004 - Columbus, Ohio (12 injured or killed)
2005 – Brookfield, Wisconsin (11 injured or killed)
2005 - Red Lake, Minnesota (15 injured or killed)
2006 - Goleta, California (8 injured or killed)
2006 - Capitol Hill, Washington (9 injured or killed)
2006 - Lancaster County Pennsylvania (11 injured or killed)
2007 - Salt Lake City, Utah (10 injured or killed)
2007 - Blacksburg, Virginia (56 injured or killed)
2007 - Crandon, Wisconsin (7 injured or killed)
2007 - Omaha, Nebraska (13 injured or killed)
2008 - Kirkwood, Missouri (8 injured or killed)
2008 - DeKalb, Illinois (27 injured or killed)
2008 - Henderson, Kentucky (7 injured or killed)
2009 - Carthage, North Carolina (11 injured or killed)
2009 - Binghamton, New York (18 injured or killed)
2009 - Ft. Hood, Texas (43 injured or killed)
2009 - Parkland, Washington (5 injured or killed)
2010 - Manchester, Connecticut (11 injured or killed)
2011 - Tuscon, Arizona (19 injured or killed)
2011 - Carson City Nevada (12 injured or killed)
2011 - Seal Beach, California (9 injured or killed)
2012 - Atlanta, Georgia (5 injured or killed)
2012 - Oakland, California (10 injured or killed)
2012 - Seattle, Washington (7 injured or killed)
2012 - Aurora, Colorado (12 injured, 59 killed)
2012 - Oak Creek Wisconsin (10 injured or killed)
2012 - Minneapolis, Minnesota (8 injured or killed)
2012 - Newtown, Connecticut (28 injured or killed)

It is interesting how many of these mass shootings took place in California, Florida and Wisconsin. One was in Massachusetts, in 2000.

At Mother Jones, there is a rundown of the psychological character of each shooter. Most were mentally, emotionally or socially unstable and had serious, recognizable issues from childhood.

Many (about 1/3) of the shooters did not own the guns they used. They were stolen, "borrowed" or otherwise obtained.

About 2/3 of the shooters owned their weapons.

OK, what do we conclude from all of this?

First, there is little correlation between gun laws and illegal gun use in mass shootings.

California, which is a "May-issue" state and where it is tough to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, had a lot of shootings. So did Florida, a "Shall-issue" state where it is pretty easy to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Secondly, in every case where the shooter was killed [by either a regular citizen or a police officer (police officers are almost always citizens, too)], was physically stopped or killed himself, there were no more killings.

Thirdly, the shooters were almost all in a state of real or imagined chaos, mental distress, emotionally stressed or certifiably insane. Most had had a history of exposure to long-time bullying or beatings. A few were diabolical to the core and were enamored with the idea of killing, by way of violent video games, etc.

Back in my school years, some teachers would punish the whole class when one or two acted up. That was patently unfair, as the good guys had to pay a penalty they did not deserve. The teachers expressed the hope that the good guys would exercise influence over the bad guys so they would not act up any more. It never worked.

Considering the 62 or so mass shootings since 1982 and the very small percentage of the population they represent, it is just as unfair to punish law abiding citizens by taking away their right to bear arms. And it won't work.

You don't solve crimes committed by a few by placing sanctions on the many. You identify and stop or punish the few.

It is time to educate our society to the behaviors that indicate a person might break, to make it socially acceptable to "tattle" on those who are at risk of committing evil acts, to release the restrictions on teachers, principals and other in authority to deal with anti-social behavior and to hold responsible parents and relatives who refuse to admit their child has a problem.

It is already illegal to kill without cause. It is also illegal to shoot at people indiscriminately or otherwise, except in self defense.

We don't need more laws, and we don't need to take guns of any kind away from law abiding citizens, we need to deal with the ones who aren't law abiding before they commit their dastardly deeds.

Surely we are advanced enough as a society to do that. Right?


Radical Redneck said...

Joe said"You don't solve crimes committed by a few by placing sanctions on the many. You identify and stop or punish the few.

Exactly, just like they did with the Shoe Bomber, since then Millions of American's have to take off their shoes in the Airports.

The Dumbs, & the Lame Brain News
Media are insane.Why punish the innocent majority for a very small lot of sickos? This is exactly what they did with the shoe bomber, One sick Muzzie did his dirty work and millions of innocent American's now have to take off their shoes every time they board an airplane.

Radical Redneck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Redneck said...

I Hope that ALL you brainless Libs who voted for this cretin, choke on some bad tofu

Shaw Kenawe said...

States with Strong Gun Laws and Low Rates of Gun Ownership Have Lowest Firearm Death Rates

Washington, DC—States with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of 2009 national data (the most recent available) from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

The analysis reveals that the five states with the lowest per capita gun death rates were Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. Each of these states had a per capita gun death rate far below the national per capita gun death rate of 10.19 per 100,000 for 2009.

Each state has strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. By contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death.

Ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand states, “Massachusetts’ low gun death rate stands as proof of how long-term, comprehensive firearms regulation can increase public safety and protect communities and families.”

Reported 4/12/2012

The mass shooting in Wakefield, Mass. in 2000 was before Gov. Mitt Romney enacted revisions to gun laws in 2004.

On July 1, 2004 , Governor Mitt Romney signed into law one of the greatest of reforms to Massachusetts gun laws in recent history. In what should have been a day of celebration for GOAL and its members, the Romney administration took a major shot at lawful gun owners and showed their true colors.


Governor Romney then took the podium to make a few remarks before signing the bill. Although the Governor did make mention of being a "sportsman" and the reforms in the bill that would help other sportsmen, he spun the bill as a ban.

"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts ," Romney said. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

When asked by a reporter if he supported the renewal of the federal "assault weapons" ban and if he had spoken to the senators about it, Governor Romney replied that it was not really his job to lobby on federal legislation, but that he shared Senator Kerry's and Senator Kennedy's position on the issue!

Radical Redneck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Radical Redneck said...

Take that incoherent comment above for what it's worth bearing in mind the bizarre, paranoid, and whining progressive mind that wrote it.

Joe said...

RR: "I Hope that ALL you brainless Libs who voted for this cretin, choke on some bad tofu."

Come on, guy, we don't need that here, do we? Really?

SK: "States with Strong Gun Laws and Low Rates of Gun Ownership Have Lowest Firearm Death Rates."

Of course this post was regarding mass shootings like in Newtown.

Still the overall use of gun shootings is low compared to the over 200,000,000 guns privately owned. The overwhelming majority of them never get used in a violent situation.

But, to the liberal mind, if a few do it, everybody should be punished for it.

Oh, and by the way, Romney lost.

Shaw Kenawe said...

First of all, Joe, I said nothing about punishing anyone. So I don't know what you mean by writing "everybody should be punished."

Second, I mentioned that as governor, Romney passed sensible gun control laws. And that has nothing to do with the last election, even if in your mind you think it does.

Third, your commenter, RR, has in the past, left in my blog comment section pornography depicting female genetalia, a vulva and an anus, as well as men sodomizing each other, and, also, for good measure, a photo of the First Lady dipicted as a gorilla.

You friend, RR has what most normal people would describe as anger, women, and sexual "issues."

Good luck with dealing with that entity.

Radical Redneck said...

You friend, RR Loves women... well mostly all.

Joe said...

SK: "...I said nothing about punishing anyone."

Enacting Draconian gun laws that restrict Second Amendment rights IS punishing people.

"...Romney passed sensible gun control laws."

Not what I would call sensible.

Radical Redneck said...

Lefties are Lefties, they are all nuts, except the Progressives, they are total IDIOTS, and way beyond help.
Look Joe, here is the bottom line:
We arm our airline pilots. Our "leaders" be them "leaders" or Dictators or whatever. One way or another all of the Hollywood elite are protected by armed men. Rosie O'Donnell has an ARMED bodyguard. Why do we arm all these people are they so Freaken special? Are they more special than our children. Why is there Protection for the elite but not for the rest of us? Is it ok to be slaughter our 5-6 years olds and protect these liberal Hollywood weirdos, Basketball thugs and Football players? Don’t let the media and celebrities do your thinking. Blaming a gun for someone being murdered is like blaming the spoon for making Rosie O'Donnell fat.
The elite Leftie bunch of Democrats. And the imbecilic Progressives are do as I say - not as I do hypocrites, and Rosie O'Donnell is a perfect example

Ducky's here said...

it is just as unfair to punish law abiding citizens by taking away their right to bear arms.

I imagine most all of them are "law abiding" till they decide to shoot out the lights.

Ducky's here said...

Yes Joe, there was a workplace shooting in Massachusetts. As I remember now he thought he was killing Nazis.
I'm going to step up and say, mentally ill and also that the single incident is proof of the need for all Massachusetts residents to carry.

You're being a sophist again Joe.

Ducky's here said...

Not what I would call sensible.
No but laws the people of Massachusetts consider sensible.

I'd love to read your proposals.

Ducky's here said...

Secondly, in every case where the shooter was killed ... there were no more killings.


I'm stunned.

Radical Redneck said...

Joe, you spoke about Evil, Anti-social behavior,Psychotic people, Mental disorders, Serious Problems.

Are you referring to the shooter or just Progressives in general?
If you are talking about Liberal Progressives, you are right!

And for the record, I love women, but not lying women. I can not put to any words or even try to explain to anyone how I truly despise Liberal's, Progressives or anyone else who is on record desiring to destroy this wonderful country of ours.

Fredd said...


Quick and dirty anaylsis of the stats above:

941 total deaths and injuries from mass shooting as described above, compared to total population of the U.S. as of 1997 (the mid point in the stats of above) at 266 Million.

Total percentage of the U.S. population on average affected by mass shootings in 30 years: .0000035%.

That would be 3.5 MILLIONTH OF ONE PERCENT. Statistically speaking, mass shootings affect almost nobody. And when I say 'almost' statistically, of course it is not zero, and those unfortunates that are affect are profoundly affected.

My point and yours, Joe, if I may be so bold, is that there have been many fold more people in that 30 year stretch struck by lightening. Have we clammoured for anti-lightening death measures? No.

There have been way more many deaths and injuries than this by people falling in their bathtubs. Have we fallen all over ourselves to outlaw bathtubs? No.

And car accidents resulting in injuries and death? Liberals should be screaming bloody murder for the banning of cars.

Mass shooting are horrible. But the knee jerk answer by liberals is to outlaw guns, and expose the entire population of the U.S. to unimaginable violence on the part of those who would ignore such laws.

As Wayne LaPierre said on Friday, the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun.

It's not even arguable.

Ducky's here said...

Fredd, if it were your kid who gets blow away you wouldn't be so cocky.

Joe said...

Fredd: It's called selective caring.

Ducky: "Fredd, if it were your kid who gets blow away you wouldn't be so cocky."

That tired old line is so typical of the response of the left, until it's one of their sacred cows in the sights (if you'll pardon the pun).

Nobody wants to lose a child or a loved one...of course. But the clamor is not to prevent more mass killings, it is to disarm law abiding citizens.

Neither you nor the entire federal goventment is smart enough to get all of the fire arms that might cause harm out of circulation.

Fredd said...

Ducky The Simple Minded Retard:

My kid has a .0000035% chance of getting whacked by a mass murderer. About the same as getting whacked by a meteor. I'm fine with that, if the 2nd Amendment is still intact. My odds are increased because my kid has a dad who is armed to the teeth, unlike you, you filthy, pathetic coward.

You pinkos are just not numbers guys. Much to your (and OUR) detriment.

Xavier Onassis said...

Fredd - "My odds are increased because my kid has a dad who is armed to the teeth, unlike you, you filthy, pathetic coward."

I've got $20 that says if you were confronted with a hostile individual with a firearm you would piss your pants and do whatever they told you to do.

You don't strike me as a "Warrior".

Ducky's here said...

I really can't imagine (or don't want to) the type of world you wish to live in.

You figure the violence won't effect you either by virtue of geography or probability so why bother.

A women putting up decorations in a church the other day was killed by a random shot but that's the way we have to live. No point looking for solutions.

Hunting declines in America and the gun makers need to find a way to make cash so they market semi-automatic Bushmasters and convince the gun loons they really have to have one. All bow to Kapital.

Innocent bystanders get gunned down in poor neighborhoods? Tough, they should move, right? Not worth bothering trying to keep the guns out.

And that's the world you want to raise your kid in. Sad.

A world with no imagination, no creativity, the gun as an icon and an old man who can claim not much more than he's armed to the teeth. That's what you offer your son?

I'm glad I've been able to offer my nieces and grand niece much more. And no, I'm not armed.

You are such a sour, little nihilist.

Joe said...

Ducky: Yesterday there was a brief CBSinterview with a lady who took part in a California county's buy-back program. She paid probably $150-$300 for her gun. She turned it in for $50.00. She indicated that she did it to "...get guns off the streets."

I wonder how many guns are off the streets because she turned hers in?

You would rather let a mass gunman fire away for five minutes, while the cops make their way to the scene, than to have somebody take him out after, say, two minutes.

I wonder how many people he could kill in 5 minutes? Let's be sure its enough. We don't want any failed mass shootings on our hands.

Ducky's here said...

Don't know how gun buybacks crept in. I don't think they're effective either. But pitch till you win, Joe.

The more firearms there are, the more they are used and statistics indicate they are more likely by far to be used against someone you know or a bystander.

Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and Bonnie,

Ducky's here said...

I Didn't Know This

Joe said...

Ducky: It has become clear to me that since crazed shooters are going to get guns somewhere, the best course of action is to just let them keep shooting until they run out of ammo.