Quote of the Day: Frog in the Frying Pan Edition

“I am willing to accept that the majority of concealed carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens. That’s not where this debate or conversation needs to be. It needs to be on the percentage that are not.” Dan Gross, Brady Campaign president, arguing for a national database of gun owners

34 Responses to Quote of the Day: Frog in the Frying Pan Edition

  1. avatarLLARMS says:

    Maybe we should maintain a database of users of his hair products. Lets see how he feels about that!

    - Damien

    • avatarBill F says:

      Yes, Gross’s barber is a serious threat to society and should be jailed. If we can stop that hack from cutting one child’s hair…

  2. avatarKelly in GA says:

    As the oft quoted Florida carry statistics show, only 0.3% of permit holders are criminals. By that logic, we should investigate all drivers for DUI and all politicians for taking bribes. Better yet, we should regulate journalists’ freedom of press for libel. Slippery slope, isn’t it?

    • avatarPyrotek85 says:

      That’s such a ridiculously low number. Only some crazy group like the Brady Bunch would think permit holders are the problem.

      • avatarKYgunner says:

        I’m sure a lot of those 0.3% are only included for bogus gun law violations also. Things like improper transportation of a firearm and the such.

        • avatarPyrotek85 says:

          I don’t recall the source at the moment but you’re right. In one particular year only a couple of maybe 70-80 revocations were for anything violent. The ‘concealed carry killers’ they like to harp on are rare like unicorns lol.

    • avatarAnon in CT says:

      If it prevents just one more Jayson Blair or Stephen Glass, it will be worth it.

    • Actually it’s much higher than 0.3%, and you damn well know it. The reporting is incomplete.

      • Oh, and let’s not forget the ones who commit crimes and plea bargain down enough to keep their permit. You guys are such sticklers for law and order except when it’s gun owners.

        • avatarDan says:

          1) I know no such thing. Got a study showing that it’s under reported?

          2) Got any statistics on how many people are able to make plea bargains that allow them to keep their permits? Besides, that statistic isn’t the number of permits who were revoked for a conviction, it’s the number of permit holders who were convicted of a crime (a plea bargain results in a conviction).

        • You know what, Dan, I just realizes something. You’ve got me confused with a guy who wants to convince you of something and change your mind.

          I don’t.

          My remarks are simply my opinion. If you don’t agree, fine, but I’ll betcha lots of people do, or at least they consider that what I say makes a bit of sense. So please stop asking for proof and evidence and stats, as if your asking for them nullifies what I said. It doesn’t, at least not for thinking people who are honest.

      • avatarDan says:

        Mike, you can have an opinion. You can voice it. Those are rights you have.

        But exercising those rights means that you do have to enter into the free exchange of ideas. This means that you will have your opinions challenged, especially if you start acting as though your opinions have the weight of fact.

        And trying to hide from that free exchange by saying “I’m not trying to convince you, it’s just my opinion” is not only cowardly, it’s a demonstrable falsehood. You are trying to convince people. That’s why you’re here. That’s why you have a public facing blog.

        • avatarsoccerdad says:

          Well said Dan. What say you Mike?

        • In this instance I meant “you” singular.

        • avatarDan says:

          Then mike, if you want to convince anyone, you’re going to need to step up your ability to defend your ideas. Because in the free exchange of ideas, yours will be challenged, whether they can stand up to the challenge is up to you.

        • So says Dan the Challenger.

          You know what, Dan. You sound more and more like you’re whistling in the dark.

          When I say things like 1. there are too many “accidents” with guns and not enough holding the negligent people responsible, you resist?

          When I say 2, gun flow from the lawful gun owners to the criminals is too easy due to the 4 major ways in which this happens, and simple gun control restrictions could help that, you resist.

          Your response is always the same, like a broken record. You want proof and evidence otherwise you won’t agree. You’re kidding yourself if you think everyone thinks like you do, if you think everyone rejects those two ideas of mine because I can’t or won’t come up with proof and evidence, you’re mistaken. To many people on both sides of the debate those things are self-evident. It only takes honesty and open-mindedness to see that and admit it.

        • avatarDan says:

          Mike, there are approximately 23,000 accidental injuries and 1,500 accidental deaths involving guns per year.

          Let’s play “compare”
          Motor Vehicle Accidents: 43,000
          Accidental Falls: 15,000
          Accidental Poisoning: 8,600
          Accidental Drowning: 4,000
          Accidental Fires and Burns: 3,700
          Accidental Suffocation: 3,300
          Accidental GSW: 1,500

          All numbers from http://www.soyouwanna.com/soyouwanna-top-ten-causes-accidental-death-america-4008.html

          If you want to ban/control guns on the basis of reducing accidents, how are accidents with guns different from the 6 categories of accidents that kill more people every year than accidents with guns?

          On 2, not a single one of your proposed gun restrictions would provide any significant reduction in criminal access to firearms. Some of your proposals punish victims of crime. Some punish everyone equally. And some have no possible logical connection to criminals getting guns (May Issue for CCW, how does that affect criminals getting guns?).

          The burden of proof in a debate is on the one making the positive claim. You keep making claims without providing any evidentiary support. If the claims you make are so? If they’re easy to prove, why are you so resistant to doing so?

        • avatarDan says:

          Sorry, part of my post got lost in the typing.

          If the claims you make are so self evident, wouldn’t they be easy to prove? If they’re easy to prove, why are you so resistant to doing so?

  3. avatarSilver says:

    If a CCW permit holder is not law-abiding, and thus a felon, that negates his ability to own a CCW permit and in most (all?) cases, to even own a gun. Thus, it’s impossible for a CCW permit holder to not be law-abiding.

    Further, I’m waiting for it to sink in to these thick skulls out there that a criminal determined to break laws won’t give two shits about CCW laws or “gun free zone” signs. Regulating the law-abiding does not affect criminals at all, except to make their prey easier targets…which is likely the goal of these blood-dancers all along.

  4. avatarBrett says:

    You can’t really get a concealed permit if you’re a criminal, that’s the whole point of the background checks. I’m sure there is a small percentage that slips through the cracks, but then again, having a CCW is not suddenly going to make you knock off a 7-11 when you wouldnt have otherwise now is it?

    More absurdist logic from the grabbers.

  5. avatarMotoJB says:

    This guy looks like a whimpy fool that expects to fight off would-be killers of his children with a tactical throw-pillow.

    Umm-kay – so your point is that there are many “concealed carry permit holders” that are not law-abiding citizens? Wow, what a tool. You’d think the “President of the Brady Campaign” would be a bit more knowledgable on the whole CCW permit process.

  6. avatarAharon says:

    There already is a national database of elected politicians and look how much good that has done us.

  7. avatarChris Dumm says:

    In my community, the number of *police* charged with crimes exceeds the number of ‘civilian’ CCW holders charged with crimes. Of course, the Brady Bunch wouldn’t focus on such inconvenient truths.

  8. avatarJimB says:

    A simple Google search reveals that in the United States, deaths involving cars outnumber deaths involving guns by almost 3:1.

  9. avatarLevi B says:

    A national database of non gun owners would go further towards preventing crimes, as permitted gun owners are one of the most law abiding segments of society.

  10. avatarIdahoPete says:

    OK, Brady-tool, I am willing to accept that a small minority of anti- self-defense members of the Brady Bunch group are NOT useful idiots. That’s not where this debate or conversation needs to be. It needs to be on the substantial majority of your members who ARE idiotic brain-dead twits.

    If any readers of this forum are offended by this post, too bad.

  11. avatarSanchanim says:

    {FLAME DELETED} Followed by more {FLAME DELETED}
    Seriously??? Are you kidding me???
    Out of all the CCW holders who are involved in some infraction, how many of those are violent crimes with the use of guns? I mean law of averages says it is going to happen right?
    If we eliminated all other crime and only had crime perpetrated by CCW holders we would be living in Utopia…
    Even his statement with out further thought sounds like BS to me…

  12. avatarSteve says:

    “I am willing to accept that the majority of concealed carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens. That’s not where this debate or conversation needs to be. It needs to be on the percentage that are not.” Dan Gross

    Mmm-hmm. Yeeh, he thinks that if he can steer the conversation to the .01% of CCW permit holders who have their permit revoked (for any reason at all, not necessarily for a violent crime) , he can paint us all (gun owners) with the same brush.

    So, naturally, that IS where he wants the conversation to be.

    Understandable, in his case. A conversation about the 99.99% of CCW Permit holders (and the overwhelming majority of gun owners) who never get their permits taken away (for any reason, gun related or not), or commit a crime with a gun, would be a boring conversation indeed . And a conversation that would undercut Mr. Dan Gross’ arguments for more and stricter gun control.

  13. avatarGS650G says:

    He’s just not into you owning firearms, that’s all.

  14. avatarRKflorida says:

    Let’s turn it around:

    I’m sure a significant percentage of the the Brady group are well meaning folks, but let’s not focus on them, how about we focus on the percentage of your people who are absolute nut jobs and know nothing about guns, gun laws, self defense, etc.? They just want to parrot a liberal cause so they can feel good about themselves.

  15. avatarExNuke says:

    Or, I realize that the majority of the Brady Bunch are well programmed transnational progressives who can’t bear the thought of being responsible for their own choices and actions, that’s not where the conversation needs to be, it needs to be on the tiny minority who make their living as Judas Goats who try to lead the sheep into the slaughter house.

  16. avatarTom says:

    “I am willing to accept that the majority of concealed carry permit holders are law-abiding citizens. That’s not where this debate or conversation needs to be. It needs to be on the percentage that are not.”
    Which is very, very small and not really a problem in the violence and crime picture. I recommend this wonderful ( Nazi ) man concentrate on the real criminal element.

  17. avatarRoadrunner says:

    He’s not really serious about debating 0.3% of CCW permit holders. As soon as the minuscule numbers come to light, and how the huge majority behaves well, and how crime drops, you can bet they’ll be changing the subject. First it’s rifles, then it’s handguns, then it’s semiautomatics, then it’s background checks, then it’s waiting periods, then it’s gun shows, now it’s CCW. You’d almost begin to think they were really just trying to get your guns.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.