Concealed Carry Saves a Life In Ohio
Concealed carry may or may not reduce crime, but it stopped this one and probably saved an innocent life.
A man who has a permit to carry a concealed gun shot and killed one of two teenage robbery suspects he encountered on his front porch, police said.
City prosecutors decided yesterday that the 25-year-old Cleveland man was justified and would not be charged in the shooting Saturday night of 15-year-old Arthur Buford, a freshman at John F. Kennedy High School.
Buford and another teen approached the man on his porch and one of the youths pulled a gun, prompting the resident to pull his gun and shoot Buford several times in the chest, police said.
Also, for all of you “concealed carry will lead to more random shootings and the streets will run red with the blood” people…
Toby Hoover, director of the Toledo-based Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said she had not heard of any other fatal shooting involving someone who has a permit to carry a concealed gun under the state’s 3-year-old law.
she had not heard of any other fatal shooting involving someone who has a permit to carry a concealed gun under the state’s 3-year-old law.
How exactly would one find out that information? Isn’t the information about CC permit holders publicly unavailable?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1155 hrs
Fatal shootings are public information.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 1211 hrs
Yeah? And is it also public information which shootings were done by CC-licensed individuals?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1213 hrs
Scott,
The laws vary by state.
Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1220 hrs
So when I ask if we have information on how many CC-licensed individuals used their guns in negligent or criminal ways, the answer is going to be “we’re not sure”?
Look, I’m not against this. I’m just against so many of the trumped up rationales for it. Anecdotes about someone thwarting a crime are emotionally satisfying, but it tells us nothing meaningful about the trade-offs involved in CC.
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1228 hrs
It’s more than emotionally satisfying for this guy.
Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1252 hrs
If a licensed CC ever is found negligent- it will be on the news and available-believe me you will be able to Google it forever. The “antis” will insure that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 1427 hrs
How exactly would they “insure” that, Ron, if nobody knows who is licensed and who isn’t?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1430 hrs
Scott, you make it sound like it is some sort of miracle that we even know that the guy in the article had a CC permit. Obviously these things will come to light when a crime is committed.
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1510 hrs
When some drunk guy in Minnesota murdered a bouncer a few years ago it came out pretty quickly that he had a permit because witnesses said he had been bragging about it and threatening people all night. I think it was considered confidential by the state, but was unofficially confirmed by someone in law enforcement.
Glad this guy wasn’t victimized, but last time I checked, Ohio allowed for open carry, and he would have an affirmative defense against prosecution for carrying concealed because he was in his home, or what would likely to be considered a part of his “home” (ORC 2923.12(E)). If he’d had a shotgun in his lap I doubt those children would have even approached him, so the fact that his weapon was concealed probably arguably made the scene worse.
Whatever the situation, I think trying to use this as an example of a conceal and carry success is a stretch.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 1520 hrs
So who here is in favor of permit holders being a matter of public record?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1523 hrs
The fact that a person is licensed would almost certainly be reported in the police report of any gun crimes committed by that person. I do not remember who did the study and I don’t have it right know, but I did see a study that found that a minuscule number of gun crimes were committed by licensed folks.
I found a pro-gun site that made the claim that several states have released statistics showing that less than 1% of permits have been revoked and that most revocations are for things other than misuse of a gun. The site also claims that only .35% of Michigan permit holders have been charged with any crime (not just gun crimes) since July 2001 – when the law went into effect. (The site does not link its source data but this seems in line with the study I referenced)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 1527 hrs
What have I missed? The man was on his property, on his porch, and confronted by an armed robber! Unless there is a “duty to retreat law” in Ohio, it would seem he was justified and who the hell cares if he had a CCW. I do not believe CCW’s should be public record. It can have negative results for those who are licensed and those who are not. That topic is already old news. Bottom line is if a CCW holder is ever found negligent, the MSM will play it to death.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 1540 hrs
who the hell cares if he had a CCW
Apparently Owen, does, if you take a gander at the headline of this post.
do not believe CCW’s should be public record. It can have negative results
Really? What are they?
if a CCW holder is ever found negligent, the MSM will play it to death.
That could be true - kind of like how the MSM is making a big deal of the CC guy shooting a robber, right? But it kind of assumes they actually have information on which gun crimes are committed by permit holders. Do they have that information?
Posted by scott on April 25, 2007 at 1545 hrs
Ohio law allows for the release of permit holder status upon reasonable inquiry by the media, which is a pretty common approach. Discretion rests with the Sheriff, who is custodian of the records, as to what is a reasonable request.
It seems like most of the demand for concealed handguns is kind of a pre-emptive attack on a perceived threat of the government disarming all Americans, or at least that’s how the gun industry has chosen to frame the debate. Most CCW proponents that I’ve met speak of “the list” using a lot of Nazi Germany and kicking in doors rhetoric. Based on that observation, I’m going to go out on a limb and say most pro-CCWers are anti-registration.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 1611 hrs
I don’t have a problem with CC permit holders to be publicly available knowledge. I think what Jason described the Ohio law being seems quite reasonable.
Ron, what are the negative effects of public access to the list of CC permit holders?
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1720 hrs
Matt,
There are a few problems with it.
1) It provides crooks with a list of people to avoid confronting.
2) It provides the same crooks with a list of people who own guns that they can steal when they aren’t home.
3) People who aren’t on the list may be more likely to be targeted for crimes.
4) It provides a list of people who may be discriminated against. For example, an employer may use the list as a qualification or disqualification for employment (not officially, of course).
Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1744 hrs
2 seems unlikely, besides if you carry then when you’re not home, neither is your gun
1 and 3 seem like good reasons to get on the list. There’s no law that says you have to actually own a gun to be have a permit to carry a concealed one.
Regardless, I like how Jason described the Ohio law, it’s not public knowledge, per se, but will be released when there is an incident involving a CC permit holder if relevant.
Posted by Matt on April 25, 2007 at 1818 hrs
2 seems unlikely, besides if you carry then when you’re not home, neither is your gun
People who are likely to sign up for CC also likely have more than one gun. I have several. Jed has many.
1 and 3 seem like good reasons to get on the list. There’s no law that says you have to actually own a gun to be have a permit to carry a concealed one.
Agreed, but why should people feel compelled to pay the fee and take the time to get a permit just to avoid being targeted?
Regardless, I like how Jason described the Ohio law, it’s not public knowledge, per se, but will be released when there is an incident involving a CC permit holder if relevant.
I agree. In practice, this information is only released after a shooting of some sort. I think it’s reasonable to ask after a shooting if the person had a permit.
Posted by Owen on April 25, 2007 at 1824 hrs
Today, a home invasion was stopped here in Las Vegas by a home owner who put the home invader out of his misery and reduces the DNA pool. That makes about 6 times this year here in Vegas where a robber or home invader has been shot and killed by someone protecting themselves.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 2245 hrs
Owen- thanks for post #17- saved me some time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 25, 2007 at 2329 hrs
That’s about 100 justifiable, 39,000 unjustifiable.
The benefits of excess handguns don’t stack up. Those few times when it does provide protection don’t even come close to outweighing the harm. This doesn’t even count suicides, which ar really high in the gun tottin’ countryside.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 0917 hrs
Really kr, where are the facts that suicides are higher in the “gun tottin’ countryside.” And the next time somebody gets shot in their own house, on a street corner, or anywhere else for that matter, feel free to tell them that the possible harm of using a gun for their protection outweighs their life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 1006 hrs
kr- please get out of the box- I do not know where your head is, but I would well expect to find “Prepartion ‘H’ ” behind your ears!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 2034 hrs
Really kr, where are the facts that suicides are higher in the “gun tottin’ countryside.”
You make it too easy—http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/02/12/national/20050213_rural.html—that is if you are even going to read the damn thing.
Takes one minute on the internets to find what I know exist.
As for your other statement, I could give a crap about your single point data.
Here’s another one from today’s Times, Bob Herbert’s column—
Children in the states with the highest rates of gun ownership were 16 times as likely to die from an accidental gunshot wound, nearly seven times as likely to commit suicide with a gun, and more than three times as likely to be murdered with a firearm.
Only a lunatic could seriously believe that more guns in more homes is good for America’s children.
Now that’s keeping your home safe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 26, 2007 at 2202 hrs
So kr, how do you propose to get the guns off the streets and out of the homes and businesses? You can blather all you want about how we should get rid of guns. So, how are you going to do it. You are very good at complaining, but you really don’t have rational solutions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on April 28, 2007 at 1706 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 96
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 05:22 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).