[GGReporter]

Now consider this statistic: Concealed handgun permit holders have killed 107 people since 2007. That news, from the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C., sounds pretty bad until you put it in context. How many Americans have been issued a permit to carry a concealed weapon?The Violence Policy Center doesn't say. And it's probably impossible to pin down a precise number, because records are kept on a state by state basis, and reporting criteria differ from state to state. But NRA estimates put the number in the neighborhood of 5 million, as of a couple of years ago. (The NRA adds that permit applications have jumped 50 percent since the 2008 elections which seems borne out at least here in Virginia. At present there are 211,435 active permits in the commonwealth. Just this year, Virginia courts have granted more than 62,000.)If that's true, then the percentage of concealed carry permit holders who have killed someone with a firearm comes to two one thousandths of 1 percent.

More...

[nathangdad]

have always noticed gun control advocates seek the sensational
over the truth to grab the attention of media friendly to their cause.

[Cyrano]

I'd be a trifle more impressed with the Violence Policy Center if the useless bastards provided a little more information.

The jackasses allege that "concealed handgun permit holders have killed 107 people since 2007." I'd love to know where they got that figure, since the FBI does not even bother to track the number of individuals killed by CCW holders. But let us presume for the sake of discussion that number is correct: 107 people in two years.

The VPC people phrased their statement in such a way that they imply these deaths were all criminal acts, cases of murder or at least manslaughter. That's what they want the reader to infer from their statement.

But is that inference correct?

How many of those 107 deaths caused by CCW holders were what the police call "righteous shoots," acts of self-defense or in defense of others? How many of them occurred during a home invasion, a physical assualt or an attempted carjacking when the CCW holder was in imminent risk of being killed, one of the standards Law Enforcement and the courts use to determine whether or not a homicide is justifiable? Funny how the VPC does not talk about that, isn't it?

How many of those 107 deaths were the result of a citizen coming to the aid of a lawman? I'd bet at least a couple of them qualify. But the VCP spokesperson doesn't comment on that either.

In how many of those 107 deaths did the bad guy shoot first? Silence on the part of the VPC.

So let's go to a source that is rather more reliable than the nanny-staters of the VPC, "The Armed Citizen" column of the American Rifleman. I have the half dozen most recent issues to hand. Here's what I found concerning pistol shootings as reported in the newspapers.



In May of 2009, a CCW holder in Georgia dispatched a would-rapist with a pistol.

That same month, a permittee shot and killed a burglar climbing through her window in Detroit. No charges were filed.

Also in May, a Lousiana man caught two burglars in the act of ransacking his garage. One of the burglars drew down on the man, who fired two shots from his pistol and killed him. The dead crook had a rap sheet a mile long, including for armed robbery and illegal carriage of a firearm. This was not a choirboy who got himself killed.

An elderly Tallahassee man was zapped several times by a stun gun by an intruder who broke into his home in July of 2009. He managed to get his hands on his .357 Magnum revolver and shot and killed the intruder who had already demonstrated hostile intent.

In Hanover, Pennsylvania this past August two freelance socialists attacked a neighbor who had just had a prescription for pain medications filled. The neighbor had a pistol and used it, killing one of the two goblins on the spot. The other was captured by police shortly afterwards.

Also in August 2009, in Knoxville, Tennessee two unexpected early morning visitors tried to push his way into a homeowner's home. He had a pistol in his pocket and fired two shots, hitting both and killing one. The second intruder fired a return shot but missed as he bolted the scene. Score: Honest Citizen 1, Criminals 0.

In September 2009, two intruders broke into a home in Dayton, Ohio and began rummaging through a safe looking for money. The homeowner, to protect his niece, retrieved his pistol and shot and killed one intruder. His partner fled and committed suicide during a standoff with police.

In Columbus, Ohio this past October, a great-grandmother with a CCW who had inherited a .357 Magnum from her late husband used it to defend three generations of her family from a burglar. He forced the family down on the floor; she took out her gun and fired on shot, killing the burglar.



So that's 7 out of the 107 incidents according to the Violence Policy Center in which CCW holders killed a bad guy that are considered justifiable homicides, righteous shoots, self-defense, call it what you will. That's in five months.

I have no way of knowing how many of the 100 remaining shootings are considered justifiable homicides; but if this admittedly small sample is anything to go by, I feel safe in stating that it looks like the VPC is grinding an anti-gun axe because they don't believe citizens should have the right to keep and bear arms. Or to put it into the vernacular, the morons at the Violence Policy Center have their collective heads up their ass.

[spinecracker]

Think of it this way - how many of these 107 incidents saved the life of a potential victim? The cases mentioned in the prior post seem to indicate that at least 11 innocent people were saved (have no idea how many were included in the 3 generations mentioned, so could be quite a few more), and 9 assailants were killed. Those numbers look like a win-win situation to me. Gun ownership is 1 of the few effective deterrents we have left against criminals thinking they can attack the innocent without retaliation. Anyone who enters my house to harm my family better book their funeral in advance, because they will be dealt with quickly and legally. If they survive, I'll sue them to cover costs of redecorating.

[SightNSqueeze]

That was an excellent article. It makes me want to subscribe to the Tampa Tribune. It might be worth cutting and pasting it for future reference when arguing this wild claim by Violence Policy Center (VPS) who is peddling these same lies and misrepresented statistics on other sites.

The Tampa Tribune