Matty over a RABid continues to intentionally misrepresent gun control efforts in what can really only be termed celebrating a 25 year old man using a concealed weapon to defend himself – and kill – a 15 year old would-be criminal.

The PD’s blog post said, “Opponents said [Well’s gun] took Buford’s [life] – that the 15-year-old might be alive if a citizen had not been armed.” And that statement is true- But if Toby Hoover and other anti-2nd Amendment types had their way, Damon Wells might be dead.

No – if Toby Hoover had his way, Buford wouldn’t have had a gun, and thus would still be alive. Right there, at the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence website, they state their #1 goal is to keep guns out of the hands of criminals.

Ohio must stop gun sales to criminals

  • Close loopholes that allow 40% of guns purchased in Ohio to be from unlicensed dealers, without the instant background checks required by the Brady Law.
  • Pass a one-gun-a-month law to prevent the illegal practice of secondary gun sales to criminals.
  • Mandate the registration of all handguns: handguns are used in 3/4 of firearm deaths and the public overwhelmingly supports handgun licensing and registration. See the results of this independent poll.

Funny – I don’t read anything there about being against the 2nd Amendment, or wanting guns outlawed, or really anything that justifies the “gun grabber” label.

Frankly, that’s a giant scare tactic by wingnuts who for some reason don’t mind criminals having easy access to firearms.

So, in the end in the three years the concealed-carry law has been in effect in Ohio, it’s been used for it’s stated purpose exactly once. And it wasn’t some hardened criminal, with priors for rape and armed robbery who ended up dead – it was a kid. It’s true we don’t know what the outcome would have been had Wells not been carrying, but I suspect his wallet would have just been a little lighter. So while the outcome could have been worse, it’s hard to say that this outcome was a good one.

Tagged with:
 
  • Come on Eric, you know better than that, how many times did merely brandishing a concealed weapon scare someone off? We don’t know because those records probably aren’t kept.

    and of OCGW had it’s way Buford would still have that .38 because criminals don’t obey gun laws.

  • whoops, you’re not Eric, you’re Brian, my bad…

  • Not me, but I’ll take it. You ask a nice hypothetical. I’ll follow-up with one. How many times did brandishing a conceled weapon end up in a gunfight? The only reason your scenario wouldn’t have records is if the victim didn’t report it. Why wouldn’t someone report that?

    Or we could ask this: how many times did brandishing a concealed weapon end up in the carrying party being shot and killed? If Buford was a better shot, then what? The bottom line is that someone ends up dead. If we want to treat life in this way, I find that a bit pathetic. Black-white. Bad-Good. Alive-Dead.

    Let’s take another recent case. A Cincy area man was confronted by two robbers, one of whom had a shotgun. Robbers demanded money. Victim complied. No concealed carry. No shoot ’em up. No death. However, the victim does run into his house after the criminals flee to their car. Dude gets his gun (now probably swelling with masculinity) and fires at the car as it drives off. Nothing good whatever can come of that one. Either way the second gun to me is the reason there would be any loss of life. Sure it’d be nice if only rational, reasonable, law-abiding types ran around with guns and no criminal anywhere could get hands on one. Pretty sure nirvana follows such scenario – or La La Land.

    If someone wants to kill you, they can. Walking around with a .45 and spurs on your heels won’t stop it. Let’s do real police work. I suggest a bit less on the revenue generating speeding ticket racket and a little more time getting to know those who might commit crimes and patrolling those neighborhoods making friends.

    Oh, and raise the standard of living and education of everyone in the state. Might go a long way too. Or learn to be a quick draw and hit a spitoon from 10 yards. Either/Or.

  • Come on [Brian], you know better than that, how many times did merely brandishing a concealed weapon scare someone off? We don?t know because those records probably aren?t kept.

    You are right – we don’t know. It is my opinion that concealed-carry doesn’t work because it doesn’t deter conflict, it only escalates after the conflict has started. Brandishing is a clear threat, and if the perp runs… yeah, it’s ended well. But what if he doesn’t? What if he’s packing, and draws? What if he’s not, and grapples for the gun?

    For a weapon to act as a deterrent, the perp has to know you have it before any conflict begins. If you wear a gun openly, crooks will give you a wide berth. So will most everyone else.

    and of OCGW had it?s way Buford would still have that .38 because criminals don?t obey gun laws.

    C’mon. You’d really prefer to make it trivial for criminals to acquire weapons? Background checks combined with purchase rate limits would dramatically limit the flow of weapons to the criminal element – especially non-organized crime.

    You might as well make DUI legal because drunk drivers don’t obey DUI laws. (Responsible drunks call a cab.)

    Of course, we are assuming Buford got his gun illicitly – he might well have “borrowed” it from a family member who did not properly secure the weapon. That person ought to be held responsible.

    I’m pro-gun. But that doesn’t mean I’m against reasonable controls on acquisition. Controls that might have saved Buford’s life, and given the rest of us a chance to rehabilitate him.

    BTW, owning a gun does not mean you are trained or prepared for home or self defense. I suspect I’ll never take advantage of the concealed-carry law not just for the above reasons, but also because without a tremendous amount of training (well beyond the license requirements) I would not feel prepared to use the weapon safely and decisively if needed. (There are lots of studies showing how trained soldiers were often not prepared to actually kill during WWII.) Similarly, after watching many episodes of It Takes a Thief I’m mostly convinced that a gun for home protection will much more often be a liability than an asset. Secure all weapons in gun safes, and properly secure your home so that your family – and guns – are safe from criminals.

    There is really no legitimate reason to oppose the instant background checks or purchase rate limitations. Neither are undue burdens to legal firearm owners.

  • BTW, owning a gun does not mean you are trained or prepared for home or self defense.

    Great point. Having had a gun pointed at me after having had intense military training, I can tell you nothing prepares you for that feeling.

  • Aside – the modern view of the Wild West as a rough-and-tumble armed free-for-all is wildly inaccurate. Most places out west had requirements that weapons be “checked at the door”. In fact, the Shootout at the OK Corral was because the “perps” refused to follow the Tombstone ordinance preventing firearms.

  • Modern Esquire

    First of all, I have to disagree with your characterization of the kid as a “would be” criminal. Attempted armed robbery with a handgun is a crime, and that’s what this kid did.

    Second, why is this even a concealed weapon issue? If this guy was on his porch on his home, I’m pretty sure that you don’t need a concealed carry permit to have a gun on your person on your own property.

    Third, why are we blaming the homeowner? If the kid didn’t use a gun illegally in the commission of a felony, this guy would not have been JUSTIFIED in using lethal force.

    If we’re going to respect the rule of law, then we must respect that under the law what this homeowner did was LEGAL and what this kid did was not. The kid was not justified in using a gun to threaten someone’s life, nor to take their property, but well-established law holds that the property owner was justified in using lethal force to respond to that threat.

    While I view the loss of any life to be tragic, I can’t blame anyone except the kids (who can’t legally possess a handgun) who thought it was ok to threaten a man’s life for some quick cash.

    Where’s the criticism for their blatant disrespect for life?

    If the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence isn’t against the Second Amendment and lawful ownership of handguns, then exactly why are they criticizing Buford again?!?

  • First of all, I have to disagree with your characterization of the kid as a ?would be? criminal. Attempted armed robbery with a handgun is a crime, and that?s what this kid did.

    Assuming the facts as reported by the paper are correct, you are right. I could weasel around on this one if I wanted to, but I don’t really care. Consider that phrase retracted.

    Second, why is this even a concealed weapon issue? If this guy was on his porch on his home, I?m pretty sure that you don?t need a concealed carry permit to have a gun on your person on your own property.

    Again, correct. I was neglegent and failed to link the original post, which framed this in a concealed-carry discussion, so here it is.

    Third, why are we blaming the homeowner?

    Who blamed the homeowner? Not Eric, not I, not Matty Boy, and not even Hoover, who flatly admitted that the gun was used legally to stop a violent crime.

    I’m simply saying it’s a tragic outcome when a 15-year-old kid is dead. That kid still could have had a positive future.

    If we?re going to respect the rule of law, then we must respect that under the law what this homeowner did was LEGAL and what this kid did was not. The kid was not justified in using a gun to threaten someone?s life, nor to take their property, but well-established law holds that the property owner was justified in using lethal force to respond to that threat.

    I do not disagree, nor have I.

    If the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence isn?t against the Second Amendment and lawful ownership of handguns, then exactly why are they criticizing Buford again?!?

    Huh? I think you mean Wells, and I’m not sure how pointing out that there’s a dead kid is criticizing Wells. The only people criticizing Wells are Buford’s family, and you can’t really blame them for feeling that way.

    What we are trying to point out is that if Buford didn’t have a gun, this whole mess would likely have been avoided. He probably wouldn’t have been bold enough to walk up to a guy on his own porch to attempt to rob him. Gun control is about trying to take steps to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals or would-be criminals (eg, the mentally-unstable VT shooter), not about keeping guns out of the hands of responsible citizens. Look at OCAGV’s website – they explicitly talk about closing loopholes that allow guns “into the wild”, and about strengthening training and safety requirements for legal owners. They give away gun locks! That doesn’t sound at all like trying to make firearms illegal to me.

  • #3

    Eric sometimes it works out that the robber is just in for the money, but sometimes the robber wants more and decides to not leave any witnesses.

    So I would argue that the second gun is the only reason for a loss of life, in fact I argue that the facts support the opposite, that the second gun makes a violent confrontation less likely overall.

    I would also argue that when a criminal is stopped by any means two absolute goods are accomplished. One is that that crime is foiled, and the second is the object lesson served to every other would-be criminal smart enough to learn from the mistakes of others (there’s ar eason most criminals are box-of-rocks dumb).

    Re: #4 Brian most evidence now in supports the conclusions that the CCW laws enacted in most states have in fact reduced crime levels. Check with Google, but I feel comfortable enough to state it as fact without citation at this point (it’s late, im tired, sorry).

    The perp would like to know if you have a weapon sure, but the fact of the CCW laws makes it always a question mark.

    OTOH let me make it clear that I don’t want to make it trivial for criminals to get weapons, in fact I support common sense laws that keep guns out of the hands of violent felons and the violent mental cases like Cho.

    I also actually support instant background checks in favor of the above as long as the records are destroyed near immediately. but am vehemently opposed to a registry, as it serves no purpose whatsoever. (ever see Red Dawn) but that’s another whole discussion.

    This whole thing is a tragedy, but the tragedy started when someone assaulted someone elses civil rights. Let’s keep that in mind, and think about what it would really take to prevent such tragedies in the future.

    I find it interesting that we’re not really that far apart on the fundamentals here.

  • As you have noted elsewhere, it is now proven that the Plain Dealer was wrong about this being the first time a CHL-holder defending themselves resulted in a criminal’s death. In fact, the Plain Dealer reporter who co-wrote the story knew that in advance because we told him in advance.

    Arthur Buford broke a multitude of gun control laws in the commission of his crime. Short of banning guns altogether (like that would work – wasn’t cocaine banned sixty or seventy years ago?), what additional gun control law would you or Ms. Hoover suggest would have stopped this thug kid, who was already on parole for another aggravated robbery last year?

  • It’s difficult to speculate as to what might have helped, since I don’t know how Buford acquired his gun. Obviously, criminals are criminals because they break laws, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t steps we can take to make guns more difficult to acquire for criminals.

    I rather like OCAGV’s suggestion of closing instant background check loopholes. I suspect the number of guns purchased this way that end up being used in violent crime is relatively low, but it might be just enough barrier-to-entry to deter people like the VT shooter. (Acquiring illegal firearms requires some knowledge of where to go, which someone like Cho probably wouldn’t have had.) If people labeled by the courts as a public danger can legally purchase firearms, then maybe they shouldn’t.

    Similarly, the gun purchase rate limitation suggested by OCAGV makes some sense. Unless you are a wealthy collector, one purchase per month seems to be plenty. That would prevent people who can legally purchase from buying a bunch and turning around and selling them on the black market.

    I think I’d also support increased liability for stolen guns that were improperly secured, and reporting laws for stolen weapons. Yeah, once the gun is gone, it’s gone, but 100% of stolen guns end up in the hands of criminals, likely to be used in violent crime in the future. Just like the gov’t holds you responsible if classified material is stolen while in your care, firearms are high-value, high-damage-potential objects that should be stored at a higher security level than a flat-screen TV. Proper gun safes, bolted in place and locked. Added benefit of requiring guns to secured: fewer accidental discharges from curious kids.

    Banning things is generally a bad idea, ignoring the 2nd Amendment issue for a moment. Prohibition didn’t work. Anti-marijuana laws are preposterous, and basically are filling our jails with non-violent, non-dangerous “criminals”. Outlawing guns would be similarly counter-productive. Even if the 2nd Amendment “went away” I wouldn’t want that – because then how could I go shoot?

    For that matter, many parts of the various “assault weapon bans” seem pretty nonsensical to me. No collapsible stocks? Minimum barrel length? Those don’t make a lot of sense. Banning high-capacity magazines, however… that I can see. You don’t need a 30 round magazine to hunt, or defend your home (unless you are fighting off a squad!).

    I don’t think my position is that far off of that of most Americans. Polls I’ve seen have shown that the vast majority – 80-90%, IIRC – support firearm restrictions, yet well less than 50% support handgun bans. I don’t think the kinds of things in this post put an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, or unfairly restrict their rights.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!