Posts Tagged ‘concealed carry’

5 Huge Gun Lobby Lies Exposed During This Summer’s Bloodshed

Monday, August 1st, 2016

 

From “bad guys don’t obey gun laws” to “it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun,” gun lobby dogma is repeated so often it appears true. But this summer’s bloodshed reveals how illogical and insulting the banal sayings are.

 

Wayne LaPierre - Google SearchHere are some of the biggest lies.

 

  1. The Only Thing That Stops a Bad Guy With A Gun Is a Good Guy With A Gun

 

Thanks to Texas carry laws, there were so many carriers at the Dallas protest that ended in 12 police officers being shot, law enforcement did not know the “good guys with guns” from the “bad guys with guns.” But none of the good guys with guns, who consider themselves citizen law enforcers, stopped the bad guy or spared law enforcement officers being shot.

 

Last year National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) studied the role of training in gun self-defense, using simulators, at the Prince George’s County police department in Maryland–with shocking results. Even with their guns drawn, highly trained civilians were “killed” and failed to stop bad guys. “They didn’t attempt to issue commands to their assailants. Their trigger fingers were either too itchy — they shot innocent bystanders or unarmed people, or not itchy enough — they didn’t shoot armed assailants until they were already being shot at,” said the Washington Post.

 

In a growing number of states, gun advocates have made it illegal to require training for carriers because it is a violation of “gun rights.” Why should people carrying a lethal weapon know how to handle and use it? How many municipalities knew the thousands they could save by realizing police training and retraining is optional?

 

  1. Criminals Don’t Obey Gun Laws

 

Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter who killed 49 people and wounded 53, was a legal gun owner. So were Micah Johnson, who shot 12 Dallas police officers, and Gavin Long who shot six Baton Rouge police officers. Singer Christina Grimmie’s murderer, an apparent deranged fan in Orlando, had no criminal record. Allen Ivanov, who allegedly killed three people in Mulilteo, Washington on Saturday, was a legal gun owner. The Austin shooter, who killed one and wounded four on Saturday, has not yet been identified.

 

Criminals do obey laws. In fact, of 81 mass shooters since 1981, all but 12 were legal gun owners says Mother Jones.

 

  1. Gun-Free Zones Cause Gun Violence

 

When mass shootings occur in gun prevalent zones like the recent Dallas and Baton Rouge police shootings, the NRA likes to change the subject. Last year, gunmen attacked the “gun-free zones” (not) of the Dallas police station, Little Rock Air Force Base and Chattanooga recruitment centers. The gun lobby tried to pretend the Chattanooga recruitment centers were gun-free, but the military press reported that servicemen had personal weapons on them and shot back—saving no one and not stopping the murderer. Again, the good guys with guns did not stop the bad guys with guns. And yes, the murderer was a legal gun owner.

 

  1. Guns Provide Self-Defense

 

President Reagan was surrounded by hyper-vigilant Secret Service and local police officers but a would-be assassin with a cheap handgun was able to shoot all six of its bullets–hitting the president, his press secretary and two officers before being subdued. (Imagine how many people would have been hit if the assailant had a semi-automatic handgun.) Clearly, the element of surprise trumps training and preparedness whether President Reagan’s shooting or the 18 police officers shot this summer. Another example, of course, is the “American Sniper,” Chris Kyle, arguably the best shot in the United States but shot and killed on a gun range.

 

  1. High Capacity Magazines Make No Difference in Numbers Killed

 

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, parents testified that 11 children would be alive today if the murderer had had to reload. The NRA’s Wayne LaPierre (pictured) however, retorted that law-abiding gun owners often need high capacity magazines for “self-defense.” Right. Military style weapons and high capacity magazines are the clear choice of mass shooters including recent ones from the Dallas police murderer who used an AK-47 to the Baton Rouge police murderer who used an AK-15 style weapon to last week’s Mulilteo, Washington murderer who used an AR-15.

 

 

 

 

 

Are You Dining or Shopping Next to A Gun Carrier? Probably.

Sunday, March 13th, 2016

For over six years, NGVAC has pointed out the sheer insanity of US gun laws—that anyone on the Terror Watch List can buy a gun, that 90 percent of mental health records are missing from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and that carrying a gun, unless someone is highly trained and periodically retrained, does not even offer self-defense.

 

We have highlighted the insanity of allowing civilians to own sniper weapons as snipers have terrorized Washington DC, Pennsylvania and major highways. And in a popular series called “Beware the Law-Abiding Citizen” we have exposed how most gun perpetrators are not “bad guys” but “law-abiding citizens.”

 

Now, NGVAC is pointing out that all US corporations ban guns from their headquarters and boardrooms–yet only a handful protect their customers and employees in the same way. The new feature is called “Corporate Hypocrite of the Month” and followers are asked to notify the hypocrite that they will withdraw their business until guns are banned.

 

Companies like to say they are following “local laws” but local laws allow a business or property owner to ban guns. The truth is businesses won’t get off the sidelines and take a stand against gun violence even though they can.

National Gun Victims Action Council È Blog Archive CHOM- Home De

Home Depot Is The First Hypocrite

 

Home Depot welcomed Texas’ newly legal handgun carriers this year despite the fatal shooting of a Home Depot manager by a disgruntled employee at a Chelsea, NY store last year and a shopper brazenly shooting at alleged shoplifters at an Auburn Hills, MI store in October. Home Depot hosted “open carry” rallies on its property.

 

Like all customers entering businesses that allow guns, Home Depot customers are shopping next to gun carriers without their knowledge or consent. Worse, the carriers may not even know how to shoot or handle the weapon since West Virginia, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Vermont and Wyoming now all allow people to “carry” with no training required! (Untrained carriers also heighten the financial risks that businesses allowing guns already face.)

 

No Smoking But Guns Allowed?

 

In many ways, public awareness of gun dangers parallels that of secondhand smoke. There was a time that people would shop or dine next to smokers oblivious to the clear cancer dangers we now know exist and the violation of their right to a safe environment. Now, many chains like Starbucks, Panera Bread, Sonic Drive-In, Chili’s Grill & Bar, Chipotle, Jack in the Box and Target are requesting that patrons do not bring in guns. But requesting is not enough.

 

“They do not ‘request’ that people do not bring guns into boardrooms or corporate headquarters—they ban them,” says NGVAC’s founder and CEO Elliot Fineman. Tell Home Depot you are withholding your business until it bans guns.

Click here.

 

 

ngvac_petition_bttn


 
 

Corporate Headquarters Are “Gun-Free Zones–Not Too Many Shootings There

Thursday, February 18th, 2016

Edit Media Ü Gun Victims Action Council Ñ WordPress

It is hard to believe that every store, restaurant and public place in the US bans smoking yet people carrying lethal weapons–some not even trained or permitted–are welcomed. (more…)

Shooting at Aurora, CO Starbucks—No Gun “Requests” Not Enough

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2016

starbucksphoto610_custGuns
February 3, 2016
 
Last weekend in Aurora, Colorado a juvenile was rushed to the hospital after a shooting at a Starbucks. (The same Aurora where 82 were shot at the movies.) Police said there were no arrests or suspects. Was it an “accident”? (more…)

The Law-Hating NRA Rolls Out More Laws

Friday, November 20th, 2015

 

While the nation watches the NRA try to explain why people on the Terrorist Watch List have “gun rights” as reported by the New York Daily News (pictured) it’s easy to forget the NRA’s other mission: hunter rights. In 2006, the NRA helped Safari Club International defeat an amendment to the Marine Mammal Protection Act in the House of Representative in 2006 that banned the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies from Canada. Yes polar bears.

 

waynetwo
(more…)

Who is a Bad Guy? Someone Who Makes You Mad?

Wednesday, June 10th, 2015

Gun advocates have managed to legalize “concealed carry” in every state and recently on Texas campuses so they are ready for “bad guys.”

 

But how do you know a bad guy? On the first day of Georgia’s “guns everywhere all the time” law, one carrier accosted another in a convenience store–both thinking the other might be a bad guy. Maybe they should have been wearing white hats.

roadrage-picture-1-255x300

In the last two years in Florida, often called the Gunshine state, men carrying Skittles, popcorn and playing loud music have been mistaken for bad guys and shot dead on the spot. Sorry about that.

 

Last year, gun owners shot and killed an unarmed black woman, an unarmed elderly Alzheimer’s patient and an unarmed foreign exchange student on their property because they thought they were bad guys. Sorry about that too. Several times a year gun advocates shoot their own family members, thinking them bad guys trying to break into the house.

 

Another problem is that gun advocates’ definition of a bad guy changes when they get mad. A few weeks ago, a 74-year-old man who police say was lawfully carrying a concealed gun shot another motorist in the face in Warwick township, PA over a road rage incident. In February, Ashley R. Curry was charged with shooting Jamie J. Roland in the abdomen after a road rage incident in Columbia, PA. This month, in Omaha, police arrested Randolph Headrick for shooting at a motorist in another road rage incident. Hey, the motorist cut him off.

 

Sometimes a boss, doctor or authority figure seems like a bad guy. Last year, Tony DeFrances, a law-abiding citizen and chief technology officer got mad at his company’s CEO and fatally shot him in a Chicago Loop high-rise. Last January, Stephen Pasceri, described as a “churchgoing Army veteran and father of four,” got mad at cardiovascular surgeon Michael Davidson in Brigham and Women’s Hospital and shot him dead. Also last year, Michael Hrnciar, a “law-abiding citizen” who worked at an Illinois chemical business for ten years without incident, decided to ambush and murder a police officer because he got mad. Hrnciar may have been “law-abiding,” but he moved to gun-friendly Indiana from Illinois so he could legally carry a handgun.

 

Of course when gun advocates get mad, their families and loved ones can also appear like bad guys. This week, a Montana man killed his three children and wife. In the last year, there have been four other instances of men shooting and killing their whole families including Don Spirit who murdered his daughter and six grandchildren at his Florida home last summer.

 

The truth is when someone has easy access to a lethal weapon, anyone is or can be a “bad guy” if they make him mad.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beware the Law-Abiding Citizen–Legal "Carrier" Shoots Man in Face Over Road Rage

Thursday, May 7th, 2015

image_beware_mainA 74-year-old man who police say was lawfully carrying a concealed gun shot another motorist in the face yesterday in Warwick township, PA. Hey, he got mad. The road rage incident happened in the parking lot of Family Cupboard Restaurant and Buffet. The 29-year-old victim was understandably not able to speak to police. The shooter was not charged nor was his identity revealed. Maybe he felt threatened and was standing his ground.
 
Join our action to tell corporate America to get off the “sidelines” and take a stand against gun violence including the “can’t miss” sniper rifle sold to civilians. When corporations want sane gun laws, we will have sane gun laws. Follow us at @GunVictimsAct
 
 

Who Needs Gun Laws? Our Top Editorial Graphics in April

Monday, May 4th, 2015

dogsNRAztrackingpoint 12-year-old - Google Searchtown meetingWisconsin Carry Issues Statement In Support Of 'Open Carry Texas
National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) is a non-profit network of 14 million gun victims, survivors, the faith community and ordinary people leveraging their buying power to change America’s gun laws. NGVAC initiated the successful action that caused Starbucks to change its gun policy. NGVAC pursues novel legal strategies to reduce gun violence and encourages corporations to be proactively involved in advocating for sane gun laws. NGVAC can be found at www.gunvictimsaction.org.
 
Join our action to tell corporate America to get off the “sidelines” and take a stand against gun violence including the “can’t miss” sniper rifle sold to civilians. When corporations want sane gun laws, we will have sane gun laws. Follow us at @GunVictimsAct

NRA uses Baltimore Riots as PR for the Second Amendment

Wednesday, April 29th, 2015

Gun-toting business owner saves reporter from angry Baltimore mob. The claim, which appeared on the NRA’s Facebook page according to Sam Biddle on Gawker, sounds riveting except that it isn’t true.
 
When asked on Twitter if the claim were true, the reporter, Justin Fenton said, “No. A group of gang members surrounded me, saying they were protecting me. The guy with shotgun was protecting his business.” And the fabrication gets worse! Fenton was actually protected by a gang member according to another tweet which the reporter confirmed.
 
This is not the first or last time the gun lobby has attempted to use racial unrest to sell white people guns. A few years ago, a racial-fear mongering NRA brochure draft was leaked to the press that shows an Aryan nation under siege by African-Americans. The brochure, called Freedom In Peril; Guarding the 2nd Amendment in the 21st Century, featured high budget illustrations of homeowners defending themselves from rioting minorities by shooting from their rooftops. “Thousands of lawful Americans were reduced to the final and purest form of self-reliance in the face of terrifying anarchy,” said the brochure about the unrest after Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.
 
untitled
 
Last week in Chicago, another “citizen-defense” event happened which seems to have the gun rights agenda written all over it. An Uber driver allegedly shot a man who was “shooting into a crowd.” As more and more unbalanced gunmen commit mass shootings, the gun lobby tries to present “carriers” as a way to stop the bad guys.
 
But there were many questions about the Uber hero story that ran in Chicago papers. First, why was the identity of the driver protected by police and reporters? Isn’t he a hero–didn’t he stop a bad guy? Certainly his identity was known since he showed his concealed carry permit to police according to news reports. Why did Uber refuse to identify the driver or confirm that it lets its drivers carry lethal weapons?
 
Did anyone see the bad guy “firing into the crowd”? Police arrived after the Uber hero had shot the alleged gunman Everardo Custodio who was on the ground. The unnamed hero said Custodio was shooting at him and others. Was he the only witness? No one in the crowd was grazed or injured by bullets or taken to the hospital with gun shot wounds. Did a shooting even take place? Or was this a personal spat between two gun carriers, as the neighborhood it occurred in, Logan Square, is gang territory?
 
Why did Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn appear so suddenly and reflexively tell the press the unnamed driver had defended himself and would not be charged? With no investigation? Was he at the scene of the incident?
 
While an unnamed Uber driver certainly shot Everardo Custodio last week in Chicago, the carrier’s heroism sounds a lot like the heroism of the gun-toting business owner in Baltimore. A creation of the gun rights movement.
 
 

Commercial and Residential Building Owners Face Massive Financial Risk Unless They Post “No Guns Allowed” Signs—Law Firm

Friday, April 24th, 2015

By Elliot Fineman

CEO

National Gun Victims Action Council

NGVAC Tell and Compel Initiative

 

Since “Concealed Carry” has become the law of the land, and open carry is allowed in several states, National Gun Victims Action Council (NGVAC) has speculated that property owners would be liable for gun injuries on their property if they did not ban guns. Now, Mayer Brown LLP, a top-ranked international real estate, finance and litigation law firm, has weighed in on the question at our request.
 
Mayer Brown, named “Firm of the Year” in the Appellate Law category by U.S. News & World Report for the second consecutive year, advises that “a property owner who did not put up the [no guns allowed] signs” would face the argument that it was entirely “foreseeable” that gun violence, injury or death “would occur, since he or she failed to prohibit” guns carried either concealed or openly on his property. Click Link for Illinois Property Owners Research Memorandum
 
Just as supermarkets would be responsible if someone slipped on a spilled liquid and coffee shops would be responsible if someone burned themselves with a hot liquid, property owners are governed by a “common-law standard of care,” Mayer Brown LLP told us, that requires them to provide a safe environment for employees, visitors and customers. Failure to satisfy the common-law standard of care has resulted in massive financial awards against property owners. Several years ago, airlines, theme parks and health clubs began to be sued under this precept for failing to keep external defibrillators available for customers and employees.
 
Property owners who fail to put up signs banning guns may well be found guilty of not maintaining a “common-law standard of care” and face significant financial risks, says Mayer Brown. Even defending such a suit would prove extremely costly.
 
What does this mean to you if you own property or are injured on a property by a legal gun carrier? It means that:
 
If you are shot accidentally or otherwise in a gun-related incident whether in an office, retail, mall or residential building, you can sue the property owner if “No Guns Allowed” signs were not posted.
 
Additionally, if a Building Owner does not put up a sign, you are at increased risk of being a victim of a gun incident at your place of business, where you shop or where you live.
 
The Mayer Brown memo centers on Illinois in response to the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, implemented in 2014, but the principles are the same in every state including states with laws immunizing property owners.
 
Of course, the NRA will reflexively argue that people are less safe in a building that bans guns because they cannot “defend” themselves and others. But the Mayer legal research memo makes clear there is a body of evidence demonstrating that armed citizens do not protect themselves and others the way they think and, in fact, make the environment far less safe than if no guns were present. This is why all major corporations/companies—including the NRA—ban guns from their headquarter buildings.
 
Further, the memo reports that even fully trained law enforcement officers miss about a third of their shots. “It is not foreseeable or likely that armed individuals could successfully defend themselves in a crisis situation” and they may “create more danger,” says the memo, “A court could hardly claim that a duty of care was violated because a property owner put up signs to help prevent this additional danger posed by would-be heroes.”
 
If the NRA threatens to sue a business or Building Owner for not allowing guns, the owners will be on strong legal ground defending such a suit. Nor is the Building Owner even taking a position in favor or against guns. Owners are prudently making a risk avoidance (elimination) decision.
 
The Mayer Brown memo also removes the necessity of individual businesses located on the property owners’ property from having to make individual decisions about gun signage; the Building Owner or property owner’s ban accomplishes that in one felled swoop for all the chains and businesses located in a shopping center, mall, office or residential complex.
 
What can you do? You can discuss the financial liability risk and dangers of allowing guns at the places you shop, work, visit and live. Now that this legal research memo is public information, a property owner cannot claim he did “not know” as a defense. The memo establishes that the danger of gun injuries when guns are allowed is entirely “foreseeable.” Foreseeability is the legal standard for establishing liability.
 
This legal guidance is good news for anyone who wants to shop, dine, work or be in public spaces without the heightened risk of gun violence. Concealed and open carriers can walk up and down the street with their guns—but if they enter restaurants, stores, theaters, offices and other businesses with signs up they will be in violation of trespassing laws and subject to personal liability. The memo provides many powerful reasons for Building Owners to post “No Guns Allowed” signs.

 


Visit Us On TwitterVisit Us On FacebookVisit Us On YoutubeVisit Us On Google PlusVisit Us On Pinterest