MSNBC in favor of "Concealed Carry"?!?

Gun related chat that doesn't fit in another forum

MSNBC in favor of "Concealed Carry"?!?

Postby Stradawhovious on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:14 am

Well, maybe not in favor of..........but all things considered, if you remove all the quotation marks around key phrases it's not a terrible article! (well, coming from MSNBC anyways.......)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/

Record numbers now licensed to pack heat
Firearms deaths fall as millions obtain permits to carry concealed guns


Waving a chromed semiautomatic pistol, the robber pushed into the building in the bustling Five Points neighborhood of Columbia, S.C., just before 11 p.m. on April 11, 2009. “Gimme what you got!” he yelled, his gun hand trembling.

Attorney Jim Corley was one of four people in the room, the lounge area of a 12-step recovery group’s meeting hall. “He said, ‘Give me your wallet,’” Corley recalled. “So I reached around to my back pocket and gave him what was there.”

Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.

Reports filed by officers who arrived at the scene a short time later called it an “exceptionally clear” case of justifiable homicide. Following South Carolina’s “Castle Doctrine,” which allows the use of deadly force in self-defense, police did not arrest Corley. They did not interrogate him. Corley was offered the opportunity to make a voluntary statement, which he did.

Helms’ friends and relatives were left to mourn, barred by the same Castle Doctrine from filing a civil lawsuit.

Jim Corley became an unintentional spokesman for a burgeoning movement of millions of Americans who secretly and legally pack pistols in waistbands, under jackets, strapped to ankles, stashed in purses or — like Corley — tucked in hip pockets.

From its beginnings in the 1980s, the “right-to-carry” movement has succeeded in boosting the number of licensed concealed-gun carriers from fewer than 1 million to a record 6 million today, according to estimates from gun-rights groups that are supported by msnbc.com’s research. And while hotly debated, the effect of this dramatic increase is largely unknown.

Gun enthusiasts claim a link between more private citizens carrying concealed weapons and the nation’s dramatic decrease in violent crime. Gun-control activists argue that concealed-carry permits are being handed out to people who should never get them, sometimes resulting in tragic, needless shootings.

Effect on crime is hotly debated
But even with the push to expand concealed-carry rights now in its third decade, no scientific studies have reached any widely accepted conclusions about the movement’s effect on crime or personal safety.

Statistics from the national Centers for Disease Control do indicate that the murder and mayhem predicted by many opponents of concealed-carry laws have not come to pass. But even that point, while celebrated by gun-rights activists and conceded by some concealed-carry opponents, is disputed by others.

Both sides do agree on one thing: More Americans than ever are carrying hidden guns.

Firearms laws have been growing more relaxed across the United States for years. Gun-control activists have failed in efforts to re-enact the nationwide ban on certain semiautomatic rifles they call “assault weapons.” They were unable to block a change in federal law, signed by President Obama this year, which allows guns to be carried in national parks. And they watched in dismay as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2008 that the Second Amendment grants residents of Washington, D.C., the right to own and keep loaded handguns in their homes.
If you're reading this, there are better than even odds you are a d-bag.
User avatar
Stradawhovious
 
Posts: 11868 [View]
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:39 pm
Location: South Mpls.

Re: MSNBC in favor of "Concealed Carry"?!?

Postby GregM on Wed Mar 24, 2010 9:50 am

I tend to judge an article by its introduction and its conclusion. In this case, the author opened with a case of self defense against an armed attacker and closed with the same case, without indulging in the usual moral equivocating that we see in most MSM essays on the subject of guns. So, even though he presents a lot of testimony on both sides of the armed self defense issue, I'd say he comes down on our side. I'm surprised he didn't mention John Lott's research. On the other hand, he did depict the gun control crowd as weakened by their internal disagreements.
FLEE IF YOU CAN. FIGHT IF YOU MUST.
User avatar
GregM
 
Posts: 884 [View]
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 8:31 pm

Re: MSNBC in favor of "Concealed Carry"?!?

Postby Paul on Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:42 pm

MSNBC Article wrote:Unfortunately for the gunman, later identified as Kayson Helms, 18, of Edison, N.J., that was Corley’s tiny Kel-Tec .32, hidden in a wallet holster and loaded with a half-dozen hollow points. Corley fired once into the robber’s abdomen. The young man turned. Corley fired twice more, hitting him in the neck and again in the torso. Helms ran into the night and collapsed to die on a railroad embankment 100 feet away.


Unrelated to the article, this is exactly why I wouldn't carry a small caliber weapon. Three shots, three hits, and the suspect still managed to run a hundred feet and eventually bled out. The suspect could have easily kept attacking, or fighting for a pretty good chunk of time. I realize that the shot placement may not have been perfect, but real life isn't perfect. Why handicap yourself needlessly with an underpowered caliber. There is no guarantee that three shots with a .45 will stop a person in there tracks, but I like your odds a lot better.
Paul
Moderator
 
Posts: 5879 [View]
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:46 am

Re: MSNBC in favor of "Concealed Carry"?!?

Postby Magnum Mikie on Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:09 am

Unrelated to the article, this is exactly why I wouldn't carry a small caliber weapon. Three shots, three hits, and the suspect still managed to run a hundred feet and eventually bled out. The suspect could have easily kept attacking, or fighting for a pretty good chunk of time. I realize that the shot placement may not have been perfect, but real life isn't perfect. Why handicap yourself needlessly with an underpowered caliber. There is no guarantee that three shots with a .45 will stop a person in there tracks, but I like your odds a lot better.

No doubt, a .45 would have more stopping power. That said, maybe this lawyer prefers to carry a .45, but at this time it was only convenient to carry his .32 Keltec. I know I prefer carrying my .45 during colder winter months when I can conceal it properly. But, when summer comes I'll be carrying a .380 in a pocket holster most of the time. I like my chances with a .380 vs leaving the .45 at home and going out unarmed.
User avatar
Magnum Mikie
 
Posts: 287 [View]
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 6:13 pm

Re: MSNBC in favor of "Concealed Carry"?!?

Postby MNBud on Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:28 am

Sounds like a 32 caliber round did a fine job to me. Possibly, even gave dirtbag time to rethink his stupidity. :o
MNBud
 
Posts: 123 [View]
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:00 pm


Return to General Gun Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

cron