Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friday, February 3, 2012

The problem with gun permit holders in public parks

Here's the thing. Gun permit holders who get mad about something small can easily turn an incident into something big when they grab their guns. In a case like this one at a Portland, Oregon area park, someone without a gun would have had words with the park attendant and maybe a little shoving. But when a gun enters the picture, everything changes. From the story:
"Neustel placed the gun in his pocket and walked away from police before briefly lifting his hands into the air and grabbing his daughter off the merry-go-round. He used her -- in the words of police -- as a human shield. One police officer testified that he didn't know that the girl, who was hysterically crying in Neustel's arms, was Neustel's daughter.
"I'm thinking ...this is an armed guy who has kidnapped a child. ...We're probably going to have to take a head shot to save the kid," testified Officer Julian Carroll, during a trial in Multnomah County Circuit Court earlier this week. 
Carroll also radioed for an officer with a rifle to show up. But before that officer got there, Neustel gave up when another officer pointed the beam of his Taser at him."
This is the problem with people carrying guns around in public places. Police and others don't always know who is the good guy and who is a bad guy once a gun is shown. The more people who are carrying in more places, as is what is taking place with all of the new carry laws in states all over the country, the more times we will see incidents such as this one. And it turns out this "law abiding" gun permit holder, or at least he must have been because he got a permit, is really not. From the article:
Neustel also has a rough road ahead with his daughter. At the time of the incident, Neustel had visitation with his daughter. But since the incident, a judge refused to let Neustel go trick-or-treating with the girl or spend time with her on Christmas. Relatives say she was so traumatized by the incident she was afraid to return to Mt. Tabor Park to play. She has been receiving counseling.
Also, according to his own public defender, Jessica Minifie, Neustel has a long history of substance abuse -- most recently with inhalents. Minifie told the judge that jail time wouldn't help her client.
Wait- what's that in the article? "Neustel has a long history of substance abuse..." I thought that was a dis qualifier when applying for a gun permit. Apparently not. Apparently our gun laws are not protecting us from dangerous people getting guns to carry around with them in public places. We are not safer when people like this get permits in spite of factors that should disqualify them. This, dear readers, is what the pro gun activists want. This is what they have lobbied for. This is what they asked our legislators to pass forward as laws that would make us all safer. This is the kind of communities they want for us. They have imposed their stupid and dangerous ideas about guns and gun rights on the rest of us. This is not acceptable and should not be considered normal. Laws can be changed and made more strict. If incidents like this keep happening, that is what will happen. Where is common sense?

29 comments:

  1. Again, there's no aggregate evidence showing that this is the issue that you seem to believe it is.

    The data clearly shows that gun permit holders commit crimes at a rate far less than that of the general population.

    In fact, gun permit holders commit crimes at a rate less than the mayors that are members of "Mayors Against Illegal Guns".

    A series of hand picked stories do not change the underlying data.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really Bryan, I can't believe you dragged out that trite and irrelevant point.

      Delete
  2. japete writes: "I can't believe you dragged out that trite and irrelevant point."

    All of the points I've made above are accurate and factual - and based upon aggregate data, not individually selected examples.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Bryan- they are false. I just can't believe you have fallen for this nonsense.

      Delete
  3. japete writes: "No Bryan- they are false. I just can't believe you have fallen for this nonsense."

    I look forward to your explanation of how this information is false.

    To be clear, I am stating the following as facts:
    * Permit holders in Minnesota commit crimes at a rate far less than that of the general population
    * Permit holders in Minnesota commit crimes at a rate far less than the members of Mayors against Illegal Guns.

    I look forward to your explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ridiculous. Give me sources. We have gone around about this before. It is a totally stupid and irrelevant argument and not true.

      Delete
    2. It's completely true. Let's start with the Minnesota permit holder argument. We'll use 2010 data because the 2011 data is not yet available.

      Sources:
      * 2010 MN Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Permit to Carry Report
      * 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Report Data

      2010 MN Permit Data:
      * Permit holders on 12/31/2010: 79,180
      * Non-traffic crimes committed by permit holders in 2010: 186
      * Violent crimes committed by permit holders in 2010: 70
      * Violent crimes committed by permit holders involving a firearm in 2010: 7
      * Total crime rate per 100,000 population committed by permit holders in 2010: 234/100k
      * Total violent crime rate per 100,000 population committed by permit holders in 2010: 88/100k

      FBI UCR Data for Minnesota in 2010
      * Total population: 5,303,925
      * Total crimes in MN in 2010: 136,431
      * Total violent crimes in 2010 in MN: 12,515
      * Total crime rate in MN per 100,000 population in 2010: 2,572/100k
      * Total violent crime rate in MN per 100,000 population in 2010: 236/100k

      Conclusions:
      * MN Permit Holders commit crime at a rate that is approximately 1/10th that of the general population (234 versus 2,582 on a per capita rate)
      * MN Permit Holders commit violent crime at a rate that is approximately 1/3rd that of the general population (88 versus 236 on a per capita rate)
      * Only 7 violent crimes were committed by permit holders involving a firearm, including zero arrests for threats with a firearm.

      I'll be back later with the MAIG data. I look forward to your rebuttal w/ sources.

      Delete
    3. Good grief, Bryan. We've gone over this before. I am saying that permit holders are not who you guys have said they are. They are not all careful people. They have misused their guns many times and been involved in plenty of shootings. As to overall crime, they may not be more apt to be involved in more crime acts than non permit holders. But non permit holders aren't carrying their guns around in public. Also, we don't always get good figures on this stuff because laws have included keeping this stuff private. We often find out that a permit holder has done something wrong when it hits the papers and then it is revealed. You have totally missed my point. As to Mayors, we've gone over that before too. You guys just love that one but it's not true. Try as you might you can't convince the public that Mayors in MAIG have been involved in criminal activity. I am thinking of the ones I know in Minnesota. It is not true. And what's the point of bringing that up? Just because you hate the mayors who have some common sense doesn't mean you have to trash them and find them guilty of crimes.

      Delete
    4. Plenty of non-permit holders carry guns. They are called criminals, and criminals don't care about the law. They will carry regardless.

      Delete
    5. Yup. And we're doing little or nothing to keep them from carrying.

      Delete
    6. Well seeing as how we don't have X-ray vision, stopping them from carrying is rather difficult unless they do something to draw attention to themselves.

      Anyway, the point is that you said non-permit holders aren't carrying their guns around in public, which you now admit is false. Non-permit holders are the one who commit the vast majority of murders in this country. They are the ones you should be worrying about.

      Delete
    7. I love how you were nice enough to change your argument to the same exact one we use. Get the criminals behind bars and keep them there. Permit owners are safe and do not go around shooting people. In-fact they are less likely to shoot anyone at anytime than the general public.

      Delete
    8. With the exception of course of all the permit holders who have shot people and are careless with their guns.

      Delete
  4. Here's a Mayor who committed a crime. She shot her daughter and then herself. Is that what you are talking about? http://articles.cnn.com/2010-07-17/justice/texas.mayor.death_1_suicide-notes-council-meeting-mayor?_s=PM:CRIME. By the way, I am not going to get into a p%$$ing match with you over this. It is ridiculous. I'm finished with this one Bryan. It's a beautiful day in Minnesota. Go outside and clear your head. I just did that and it feels refreshing.

    ReplyDelete
  5. By the way, Bryan, spending almost an hour and a half on my blog is just not a good use of your time on a beautiful spring like day in Minnesota. You have to think of something else to do besides bother bloggers. Take a rest.

    ReplyDelete
  6. japete:
    "I am saying that permit holders are not who you guys have said they are. They are not all careful people. They have misused their guns many times and been involved in plenty of shootings."

    Above you argued that my point about MN Permit Holders was not true. I posted data that showed that my points were true.

    Are you in agreement that my data is correct and my point above about MN permit holders is accurate? The data (government provided data) fully supports the conclusions I drew above.

    "Also, we don't always get good figures on this stuff because laws have included keeping this stuff private. We often find out that a permit holder has done something wrong when it hits the papers and then it is revealed."

    MN statutes require the release of this data in aggregate to the BCA by county government on an annual basis - no personal information is included, however detailed offense data is included in the annual report.

    Nothing is missing, hidden or private from a statistical perspective in the MN report. It fully supports the conclusions I posted above.

    "Try as you might you can't convince the public that Mayors in MAIG have been involved in criminal activity."

    Several mayors that have been members of MAIG have been arrested for felony criminal activity. I'll provide a summary of that later.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please don't bother, Bryan. I'm done with you for now. We've gone over this before. It is not true and I won't publish it. As I said, it's time for you to do something else now.

      Delete
  7. "Wait- what's that in the article? "Neustel has a long history of substance abuse..." I thought that was a dis qualifier when applying for a gun permit. Apparently not."

    No, apparently not. Many states, including Oregon, have done a VERY poor job of reporting names of criminals arrested for drug crimes to the NICS database. The FixGunChecks bill will help with this, if passed.

    This case highlights a very important fact: a short temper combined with the easy access of a gun is a potentially dangerous situation, not to mention the stupidity of defying police AND getting your young daughter in the middle of a potential firefight. This guy is a poster boy for why conceal carry is not a good idea without a more thorough background check system in place. And before you gun guys cry "Not me! I'm nothing like him!", think about what this guy would have said prior to the incident. Likely he would have shouted the same thing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Exceltoexcel---your comments are not only rude and offensive but also totally irrelevant and immature. You are not welcome on my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Joan, You have said on a few occasions that you don't want to ban carry, just put "common sense" resctictions in place...

    How does that reconcile with a statement like:
    This is the problem with people carrying guns around in public places. Police and others don't always know who is the good guy and who is a bad guy once a gun is shown.

    What "common sense" measure would solve this for you? While retaining a citizens right to defend themselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't heard from you in a while, Rob. It's no secret that I don't like the Shall Issue CCW law in Minnesota. I worked hard in opposition to it. My beliefs have not changed but the law passed and it is legal for people to carry. I believe people should have to show a good reason for carrying a loaded gun around in public. I don't think, given our current law, that people should be allowed to carry in bars and restaurants. I guess if they think their lives are at great risk in public parks and other public places, that is a choice that just a few people have made- 2-3% in fact. My problem is that even though gun permit holders claim they will be responsible and safe, we are seeing more and more cases of permit holders in many places, not necessarily in Minnesota, doing irresponsible things when they carry in public. That wasn't supposed to happen. They, in some cases, have become killers. In others, they have become careless and lucky not to have shot someone when practicing carelessness with their guns. That is why I don't think a lot of people should be allowed to carry in public. It could put others at risk. If even one person gets shot accidentally or intentionally by a permit holder, that is a problem for me because it is a senseless loss of life that may not have happened had that person not had their gun in public place. Those law abiding permit holders are also shooting people in their own homes or shooting themselves by mistake. As you know, I write about that regularly on my blog. As long as too many people are being shot every day in our country, I will be calling attention to the gun deaths and to the supposedly responsible owners of guns who are involved in shootings.

      Delete
    2. It's good to be back... I see you've remove the ability to post anonymously... Hopefully that will prevent well thought posts from being overlooked, and non posted.

      I do think it's throwing the baby out with the bathwater to limit the right to carry to those that "need" is, citing the potential danger of innocent people, when so often, a firearm saves the life an innocent person.

      There are a few bad apples in every bunch... (Catholic Church comes to mind) But you can't hold the crimes of a few, against the group as a hole. Especially when in most places like MN, the crime rate of permit holders is much lower then the general populous.

      Delete
    3. " If even one person gets shot accidentally or intentionally by a permit holder, that is a problem for me because it is a senseless loss of life that may not have happened had that person not had their gun in public place"

      Intentionally as in murder or intentionally like the first CCW shooting in WI after the state changed the CCW laws?

      Delete
    4. So what's your point, Anthony? Give me a citation.

      Delete
    5. Do you want the news story. I am surprised that you are not aware of it you seem to watch shootings rather closely. The question really does not need a specific story I was just wondering in "intentionally" included self defense uses or if you were talking about murder.

      Here is a video
      http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/video/?bcpid=13960334001&bckey=AQ~~,AAAAAGgk8Us~,dLqgruaIT6qax7DY_kjdAMdXZHYCM8zP&bctid=1431827729001

      Delete
    6. Not sure this is the poster child for your cause- http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/aldi-customer-wont-be-charged-in-shooting-sk42et0-138688529.html

      "He said he did not notice the sign at Aldi prohibiting weapons in the store, and that if he had, he would have gone elsewhere.

      He said since he began to carry a concealed gun, he does not patronize places with signs banning weapons.

      Al-Mujaahid said he hopes the incident will deter criminals from using guns in areas where law-abiding people may defend themselves.

      Al-Mujaahid said he'd never shot at a person before Monday, and he admitted to making some mistakes as a youth.

      Court records show he was adjudicated as a juvenile of armed and masked robbery and was incarcerated.

      But because the offense occurred before April 21, 1994, it did not prohibit him from getting a concealed carry permit.

      Legal run-ins

      He's had other run-ins with the law related to guns, but none led to convictions.

      Charges of being a felon with a gun, furnishing a gun to a felon and pointing a gun at someone were all dismissed, records show.

      He has successfully petitioned for the return of guns seized by police during other investigations, even writing extensive legal briefs to the Court of Appeals.

      But his main work is promotion and consulting, he said.

      At his news conference, Al-Mujaahid plugged his new website, ccwadvocates.com. It reads in part:

      "Learn from Real People like you and me, normal Ordinary Citizens that have awaken the spirit of personal responsibility and freedom that this country was founded upon!

      "Sign up to hear exclusively from the Man that stopped an Armed Robbery at a Milwaukee Aldi store. Many have called him a hero, we like to call him our brother!""

      He fired 6 or 7 shots and managed to hit the robber with only 2. It's a darned good thing the other 5 didn't hit someone else. In addition, the gun of the robber was not loaded. This would likely have been an "armed robbery" with the robber getting away with the money if the CCW holder wasn't there. Yes, he would have gotten away with the money and hopefully been caught at some point. The risk of someone getting seriously injured or killed here were great. Robberies happen every day. Many times they go wrong and this guy could have made this so much worse. He was just plain lucky it came out the way it did. He does not have a stellar reputation.

      Delete
  10. By the way, "Lol Fail" is also not welcome on my blog. Anyone who calls me a "retard" can just take their comments somewhere else. I hope they don't since these types of comments only highlight the problem the gun rights extremists have with their "base". If this is the best you can do, you don't have a message or an idea worth considering.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Man shoots himself in the foot with his own gun thinking someone is breaking in when he hears a noise. Just another law abiding gun owner making a mistake with his gun. http://ohhshoot.blogspot.com/2012/02/thinking-someone-breaking-in-to-his.html

    ReplyDelete