SubscribeThe rate of revocations per permit holder was highest in 1994 before the new law at 4 revocations per 1000 permit holders. By comparison, the 1998 revocation rate was 2.5 revocations per 1000, almost half the 1994 rate. The data suggests there is not a causal link between increasing crime rates and the number of concealed carry permit holders in the community. Currently, approximately 25,000 Utahns have permits, a 17-fold increase, at the same time the rate of the crimes of assault, robbery, and personal property have been decreasing or remaining stable. The decline in firearm injuries would suggest improved safe use of firearms in the community. Additionally, the data does not suggest a link between permit holders and the increase in murder and rape by young men as this would be reflected by increasing revocation rates as opposed to the decreasing rates in the data.I have a concealed carry permit for my state, and have never even considered shooting someone over a misunderstanding (in a retail store or anywhere else). If I'm not about to be killed or seriously injured, I don't freak out and start shooting people. I would guess that most people carrying openly would also be able to control themselves.
All three victims were store employees: Mary Bratcher, age 46; Fred Jones, age 58; and Mabel Scruggs, age 57. Each victim died from head injuries that were consistent with a bloody hammer found at the scene. In addition, Mary Bratcher suffered at least ten stab wounds to her left hand consistent with a bloody flat-head screwdriver found in a field near the store, and Fred Jones suffered a nonfatal, facial gunshot wound. Police officers also found a bloody Phillips screwdriver, a pair of gloves, a pair of jeans, and a brown jacket in the field next to the store.Why are people so scared of guns that they would prefer being killed with a hammer and screwdriver to being able to protect yourself?
Hair on the gloves was consistent with that of Mabel Scruggs. Blood on the gloves was consistent with that of Mabel Scruggs or Fred Jones. Hair on the jacket was consistent with that of Fred Jones. Blood on the jacket was consistent with a mixture of the blood of all three victims.
Linda Riss, an attractive young woman, was for more than six months terrorized by a rejected suitor well known to the courts of this State, one Burton Pugach. This miscreant, masquerading as a respectable attorney, repeatedly threatened to have Linda killed or maimed if she did not yield to him: "If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you". In fear for her life, she went to those charged by law with the duty of preserving and safeguarding the lives of the citizens and residents of this State. Linda's repeated and almost pathetic pleas for aid were received with little more than indifference. Whatever help she was given was not commensurate with the identifiable danger. On June 14, 1959 Linda became engaged to another man. At a party held to Page 584 celebrate the event, she received a phone call warning her that it was her "last chance". Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused. The next day Pugach carried out his dire threats in the very manner he had foretold by having a hired thug throw lye in Linda's face. Linda was blinded in one eye, lost a good portion of her vision in the other, and her face was permanently scarred. After the assault the authorities concluded that there was some basis for Linda's fears, and for the next three and one-half years, she was given around-the-clock protection.
...
Linda has turned to the courts of this State for redress, asking that the city be held liable in damages for its negligent failure to protect her from harm. With compelling logic, she can point out that, if a stranger, who had absolutely no obligation to aid her, had offered her assistance, and thereafter Burton Pugach was able to injure her as a result of the negligence of the volunteer, the courts would certainly require him to pay damages. (Restatement, 2d, Torts, § 323.) Why then should the city, whose duties are imposed by law and include the prevention of crime (New York City Charter, § 435) and, consequently, extend far beyond that of the Good Samaritan, not be responsible? If a private detective acts carelessly, no one would deny that a jury could find such conduct unacceptable. Why then is the city not required to live up to at least the same minimal standards of professional competence which would be demanded of a private detective?
Linda's reasoning seems so eminently sensible that surely it must come as a shock to her and to every citizen to hear the city argue and to learn that this court decides that the city has no duty to provide police protection to any given individual. What makes the city's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense (former Penal Law, § 1897). Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection Page 585 on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.
« Older Danzig gets knocked out.... | When mobile phones attackget ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I only scanned the article...surely Virginia doesn't require property owners to allow people to bring in their guns?
Anyway, there are some nuts who think that it's somehow an insult to their rights that a property owner would disallow someone carrying in a weapon. These are some very confused libertarians, I suppose.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:35 PM on July 15, 2004