Originally Posted at Free Market Shooter
In what is most likely an attempt to drum up liberal opposition to National Concealed Carry (CCW) Reciprocity and recent Republican efforts to push its passage through the US Senate, 60 Minutes aired a segment titled “The Showdown Over The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” – a piece featuring the typical biased and anti-gun reporting that Free Market Shooter has come to expect from CBS’s “marquee” investigative reporting program.
To be fair, this was one of the least biased firearms segments ever posted by 60 Minutes – they featured USCCA President Tim Schmidt and Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), and detailed the story of Shaneen Allen, a single mother whose only “crime” was carrying a firearm in New Jersey with “just” a Pennsylvania CCW permit. But in typical 60 minutes fashion, they allotted far more time for the anti-gun advocates, and shaped their argument to avoid hard truths pushed by gun rights advocates.
60 Minutes gave the most airtime to New York City DA Cyrus Vance and New York City Police Commissioner James O’Neill:
Cyrus Vance: I think it would be a disaster for New York City. And I think for major cities around the country.
James O’Neill: I think it’s insanity.
Vance and O’Neill have established a formidable coalition of prosecutors and police chiefs from nearly every big city in America to lobby senators to keep the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act from becoming law.
Amusingly, these two individuals are responsible with putting tens of thousands of “licensed” armed individuals on the streets of New York City that are poorly trained and even more poorly equipped. This is none other than the New York City Police Department, which as Free Market Shooter, Bearing Arms, The RAND Corporation, and many others have detailed in the past, gives its officers bottom-of-the-barrel firearms training and a mandated 12lb trigger on all department firearms:
in a September, 2013 article—New York City Police Shoot Up the Citizenry Again—I wrote about one of several shootings where the police accidently shot citizens. In one infamous case, two officers shot not only an actual killer, but nine innocent bystanders. Fortunately, all of them survived. In almost all of these recent shootings, the officers were justified in using deadly force. They just couldn’t help shooting up the innocent.
A major contributing factor is the NYPD requires 12-pound triggers on their officer’s issued handguns. Twelve-pound triggers greatly complicate accurate shooting, particularly when repeat shots are required. The heavier and longer the trigger pull, the more difficult it is to obtain consistent shot to shot accuracy. Triggers in the 12-pound range predictably cause officers to miss, and to miss badly. Consider that standard Glock triggers, those sold to the public, require only a 5.5 pound pull. Combine extremely heavy triggers with the mediocre training common to police agencies, and it would only be surprising if the police didn’t shoot innocents.
Many Law Enforcement Organizations (LEOs) are inherently anti-gun. They don’t trust their officers, and they fear accidental discharges far more than the consequences of accidently shooting citizens. Rather than spending the time and money necessary to maximize shooting accuracy and effectiveness, they focus on trying to prevent accidental discharges through mechanical means.
Of course, 60 Minutes is a program Free Market Shooter has documented peddling a worthless “smart gun” that was later hacked using $15 worth of magnets. Only they could hold up the NYPD and its 12lb trigger as the “gold standard” in firearms safety.
In addition, the “formidable coalition” against CCW Reciprocity described by 60 Minutes is also glaringly inaccurate, according to GunFacts.info:
Fact: In a survey of 15,000 officers, 91% said concealed carry should be permitted citizens “without question and without further restrictions.” 39
Fact: 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates of violent crime. 40
Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen …I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.” 41
Fact: “I … [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless.” 42
60 Minutes wisely chose to give the Giffords anti-gun group only a smidgen of actual airtime, as they have been apt to explain their firearms ignorance time and again. They likely would have followed the lead of many anti-gun organizations and cited a “study” from the Violence Policy Center (a well known anti-gun group) which attempted to paint CCW holders as brutal killers:
Gun owners who were legally allowed to carry a firearm have killed more than 900 people in shootings that did not involve self-defense over the last decade, according to a new report from a gun control group.
…a study which, like most anti-gun studies, uses firearm suicides to inflate its statistics:
The Violence Policy Center found at least 921 people have been killed by concealed-carry permit holders since 2007 during incidents ranging from mass shootings to suicides.
It would be interesting to know how many non-suicide killings are part of those statistics, as even liberal media has pointed out that at least 60% of firearm fatalities in the US are attributed to suicide. If you take VPC’s 921 deaths, annualize them, and break out the 60% of suicides, you arrive at 37 people killed per year by CCW holders. We’ll call it 40, just to round up and give the anti-gunners the benefit of the doubt. And according to the Crime Prevention Research Center, there are 14.5 million people in the US with a CCW permit.
This calculation leads to a firearm “non self-defense firearm homicide rate” among CCW holders of 0.27 per 100,000. The US has a nationwide homicide rate by firearm of 3.60 per 100,000, with an additional 0.24 for “unintentional” or “undetermined” firearm deaths, for a “total” of 3.84 per 100,000 non-suicide firearm deaths.
For reference, there are only 6 countries out of 219 listed on Wikipedia that have an intentional homicide rate below 0.27 per 100,000. As a group, US CCW holders are safer individuals than even the uber-safe Japanese.
And yet somehow, 60 Minutes and their NYC anti-gun peddlers consider CCW holders to be the “unsafe” ones, once again using suicide to bolster their argument:
They’re not just worried about more crime, but an increase in suicides, gun accidents and heated arguments turning into lethal altercations.
South Korea, Japan, Russia, Belgium, India, Hungary, Poland, Finland, Sweden – this is what you would consider a “diverse” group of nations. However, they (and many other nations) all have two things in common – more stringent gun laws than the US, and a higher suicide rate. If there is a correlation between firearm ownership and suicide rate, it is certainly not borne out in worldwide suicide statistics.
Even worse is that 60 Minutes and NYC’s “representatives” on its program tried to use NYC’s stringent gun laws as evidence that it is the “safest big city” in America:
Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance and New York City Police Commissioner James O’Neill say their city has the most to lose. Every year, New York takes in nearly 50 million visitors from all over the country into a congested, sometimes chaotic city. Even if a tiny fraction were legally carrying concealed weapons, it would mean hundreds of thousands of additional guns for what is right now the safest big city in America.
60 Minutes would do well to look at its own reporting (which Free Market Shooter once did) that examined the ever-increasing violence in Chicago, a city with even stricter firearm laws than even New York City. Again, if there is a correlation between legal firearm ownership and low gun violence, it is not something that can be seen when you compare New York City to Chicago, or Washington DC, or Baltimore, or any of the other high-crime cities where legal gun ownership is heavily restricted.
So, what did 60 Minutes get right in their segment? The fact that, in America, nothing “divides” quite like guns:
Of all the political and cultural issues that divide red states from blue ones, none is more volatile than guns and who can carry them.
With many other organizations airing and publishing biased and uninformed reporting on firearms just like 60 Minutes, the nation’s monumental divide on firearms is all but certain to continue. That is an awful thing, as just a little bit of firearms education could bring about a push for a broad consensus on guns.
O’Neill is doing Diblasio’s political bidding or he’s out of a job he’s only had for two years and who the fuck cares what a DA says?
Also, has anyone that reads this ever been effected by any of the “crisis” that those idiots on Sixty Minutes yammer on about every Sunday?
Remember when they had that annoying little fucking Mick, Andy Rooney? His voice alone was enough to make you want to grab that Taurus PT111 G2 in the cover pic and shoot him.
Alli G. trolled him good in one of his episodes.
How about they poll rank and file cops, who, as a rule own entirely different views than their respective, politically motivated chiefs?
In the words of the great American Gomer Pyle surprise surprise surprise
Japan has around twice the suicide rate that the US has, yet very few of their citizens own or carry guns (like, maybe, a few of their police and no one else).
Maybe they need to get better samurai sword control? But, wait, they already have that too.
FWIW, Mexico already has every gun control law the anti gunners want for the US, plus a lot more such as only one gun store in the country that you have to have special permission to even enter.
See how wonderfully it works there?
A question, why do we never see an honest public discussion of the racial breakdown of gun violence by the anti gunner crowd? Take out a certain minority and the US is as safe, and sometimes safer, as any place in Europe.
It’s the intent of the person, not the availability of weapons of any kind, that determines violence.
You will notice that the situation in Europe is rapidly changing due to the influx of human scum from trud world countries. Their violence stats would mirror the US if they were reported properly.
I lived in New Orleans during the early 90’s, when it was the “Murder Capital” of the U.S. However, I never had any issue with crime because I knew that there were certain sections of town which were mostly of a certain ethnicity that I needed to avoid at all costs. They were just mostly killing each other.
Traitor Republican liars could pass reciprosity today if they weren’t traitor Republican liars. A few scum RINOS are giving several stealth Manchurian candidate RINO’s political cover.
The officers in Baltimore that had there own criminal enterprise shaking down citizens are on trial now . These badge wearing minions were members of the “GUN TASK FORCE” and there duty was to get illegal guns of the street . The word got out real quick , don’t hang around in the city after an event because even the cops are criminals . Being as pro 2nd ammendment as anyone a Penn State Trooper friend asked me why I stay in Maryland , I replied should I give in to the left and run or stand and fight . Recently 2 pro gun guys got arrested by Annapolis City Police for protesting in front of the state house against the states anti gun policy , of course the system piled charges on . Waiting to hear the outcome but a pro constitution & Bill of Rights Radio station had them on and the very next time they could they went back to the same spot !
Yes we do live in a police state ! To quote the Star Wars “ The tighter you grip something the more likely it slips thru your fingers !
We know MSM and most politicians will lie continuously and twist the facts regarding CCW and private ownership of firearms AGENDA 21 anyone ??
Curious, were those to pro gun guys that got arrested carrying guns with them? Or were they simply exercising free speech in a public place?
Is their arrest a 1st or 2nd amendment issue?
No guns
https://www.google.com/amp/www.capitalgazette.com/news/for_the_record/ac-cn-annapolis-charges-dropped-0210-story,amp.html
” AGENDA 21 anyone ??”
A link to the UN document known as Agenda 21 is below. I’ve read it, and I saw nothing in it about confiscating firearms or restricting Second Amendment rights. (remember, those most outspoken about protecting your gun rights will ultimately be the ones who order confisation)
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/Agenda21.pdf
Democrats and some Rhinos really just want to control everyone. It’s all about disarming the public and re-educating everyone into their version of sheeplike compliance and conformity. The ultimate goal of most of these people are beyond obvious, their end game remains getting rid of the 1st/2nd/4th ammendment–which have all been weakened for years. Via legal fiat or via the cult adherence the goal remains to cull the herd. There is absolutely no arguing with most of these people, statistics are meaningless when you are arguing via emotionality or their desire to control and bully you. So for most its just a game and a form of virtue signaling as they attempt to destroy whats left of a free country. They have arbitrarily banned magazine size, basically banning ar type guns in a few states already. CA has almost no 2nd ammendment left and they continue to destroy whats left of it. Clearly all the news articles show the 1st ammendment is well on its way toward turning everything that isn’t sanctioned by the communists as hate speech. It is a scary time to witness the downfall of yet another country torn apart from within.
60 minutes and nearly all these shows are an utter joke. State rights has turned into a strange mix of increased freedoms and also authoritarianism by certain states and cities. We are in a full blown soft-civil war and its not really a war of ideas, its a pure power struggle. Dividing people into groups and amplifying differences to the point that the peasants are so busy fighting amongst themselves that their rulers can manipulate and laugh their way to further power and control. No way this country holds together for another 30 years, put a fork in it. The economic nosedive we are staring at in terms of exploding debts next decade will destroy purchasing power. We also are staring at serious longterm food/water issues and ultimately those are tipping points and stressors that no amount of funny money or lying can gloss over.
Stalin, Mao, and Hitler removed guns from the general population.
Before he initiated his own Gun Control, Hitler’s first act after gaining Presidency of Germany in 1934, he took control of the media; he knew this was the most important element over the population.
I hope people are just responding to the article ….. I mean, surely no TPBer actually watches 60 Minutes Of Bullshit.
Remember all the lies about Benghazi? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
Stucky,
I mostly watch for the purposes of rebutting their anti-gun arguments. While the TBP reader knows they are full of shit, they are unfortunately taken way too seriously by the rest of the world, especially when it comes to guns.
It’s a dirty job, but someone’s gotta do it, right?
Duane
1. A handgun (concealed or not) will save your life…
2. A shotgun will protect your family and home….
3. An assault rife (with mags, ammo, and gear) will protect your liberty and freedom from its greatest threat…the government…
Here is a worthy brief history of where those of U.S. who will never bow the knee to “them” come from: http://www.ushistory.org/people/minutemen.htm
The modern day assault rife is the musket of today.
FYI: If your not prepared to fight (organized tyranny) at night…your a dead man walking with a gun in his hands…just saying.
Stucky,
I often watch 60 minutes depending on the segment…my wife brought this one to my attention.
Know your enemy, their plans, their lies, their propaganda.
I used to think an AR was entirely unnecessary amongst the civilian population. I have changed my view of that over the years. I bought one fearing the worst in the summer of 2016. Stocked up on 30 rd. mags as well. My only regret…and it’s one I am happy to have, is the same AR sells for about $150 less now.
I’m contributing to Russian collusion Bigly…I bought a shit ton of Brown Bear ammo.
Have you actually shot and trained with it?
Having a rifle in the closet and not working with it is about the same as skydiving for the first t
me with a parachute packed by the local crack-head….
It may work out fine for you, but I myself wouldn’t take the risk.
Look how well the police shoot with “training” and large ammo budget. Can you do better than them? (pro-tip: they shoot for shit, and there’s a lot more people who are much better trained that you will have to watch out for)
No…I never shot a fucking gun nor received any training in my life. But I watched Hickock45 a few times on YouTube. ..does that count?
You must be a real operator. Will you train me?
Let me set you straight about cops and firearms training. Most large state, county and municipal departments run squared away firearms training. Continued proficiency beyond annual qualifications which are at a minimum, twice annually, is up to the individual cop. Most guys worth their salt practice routinely.
Guys in tactical and specialized units train extensively. Your notion of the old cop with a coffee stain on his shirt and a donut in his hand is both outdated and misguided.
Figure out how I know this.
Pro tip. Shove your pro tip up your ass.
I’m cool with carry permits, but the concealed part bothers me. What’s the issue with just carrying open?
And the liability issues:
1-If a good guy with a gun shoots at a bad guy, misses, and hits me, who do I sue?
2-If a good guy with a gun shoots at a bad guy, bad guy returns fire, misses, and hits me, who do I sue?
3-will the CCW holder have mandatory liability insurance?
Carrying open just asks for trouble. Keep them guessing.
Keep who guessing? The criminal has the advantage of knowing when & where the crime will occur, leaving the good guy at a signifcant disadvantage.
One down side of shall-issue CCW is the police may adopt policies where they presume eveyone they encounter is armed, and every stop will become a felony stop.
I noticed no one wants to touch my mandatory liability insurance point. lol
They already know if you have a CCW in my area…got pulled over for doing the rolling stutter stop at a stop sign (with no one coming either way) and then I forgot to let the Cop know I was packing. He gave me a stern warning verbally, in writing and then on camera,
for both the stutter and the I should have had a V-8 about the gun – actually two guns, one on me and the big boy under the seat.
You can lose your CCW for not telling them. I haven’t been pulled over in a long, long time.
Now, this is in a small town and the Cop engaged me in small talk and checked me out thoroughly. He was a Jarhead too…that little decal paid off big time!
And he really liked my custom made bumper sticker:
A Socialist is Just a Progressive in a Hurry
A Communist is Just a Socialist in a Hurry
I’m Constitutional Carry…PERIOD.
If you knew anything about the practice of law, you’ know you always sue the one with money regardless of actual fault.
Actually, you have to sue all joint tortfeasors. And of course you collect from the one with deepest pockets under joint and several liability. (I’ve been doing this law thing a while)
Now you know everything you need to know about bottom-feeders.
It’s not about your rights, it’s about: “who do I sue?”
And lawyers wonder why they’re so despised.
MarshRabbit,
Nothing personal buddy…you have strong opinions, thats cool. I’m just not a fan of lawyers in general.
I once heard a story, a young lawyer moved into a town and for 10 years barely made a living, almost starved to death. He was getting ready to give up and move to the city…then another lawyer moved in. Ten years later they were two of the richest men in the town.
I edited a newsletter many years ago and wrote a regular column. The masthead had a picture of a alligator in a three piece suite carrying an attache case. The column was titled: “Lawyers and Other Reptiles”
Dick the Butcher was right!
“Let’s kill all the lawyers” is a line from William Shakespeare’s Henry VI, Part 2, Act IV, Scene 2. The full quote is “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers”. It is among Shakespeare’s most famous lines, as well as one of his most controversial, and has been used as the title of movies and books. Shakespeare may be making a joke when character “Dick The Butcher” suggests one of the ways the band of pretenders to the throne can improve the country is to kill all the lawyers. Dick is a rough character, a killer as evil as his name implies, like the other henchmen, and this is his rough solution to his perceived societal problem. There is some disagreement with the interpretation that one of Shakespeare’s sympathetic characters would make a joke suggesting that killing lawyers would make the world better. The Florida Bar Association contends the quote was a lawyer joke.
“Kill all the lawyers” does NOT mean what most people today think it means …. that killing lawyers would result in a better society. That’s completely out of context, ascribing to lawyers back then how we feel about them today.
Dick the Butcher was a follower of the rebel Jack Cade, who thought that if he disturbed law and order, he could become king. Shakespeare meant it as a COMPLIMENT to attorneys and judges who instill justice in society. In other words, in Shakespeare’s era chaos would result if lawyers were killed, because it was lawyers who stood between the common folk (as their advocate) and the King.
What’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
One’s a scum-sucking bottom feeder and the other is a fish.
Ok,
Let not kill’em…just castrate them?
Let me begin by saying that I do not think that ANYONE should have to beg their government for permission to protect their life or the lives of their family members in whatever way they so desire. Yes, that means that I support the right of everyone to carry wherever and whenever they wish (respecting the private property rights of others and their wishes for behavior on THEIR property).
What exactly does a “federal” approach to this current issue ultimately open the door for? Currently there are some states where NO permit is required at all (Vermont I believe, but not sure of others). Some states have quite minimal requirements for obtaining a permit. Some have nearly prohibitive requirements for obtaining one. What happens once the federal government steps in? Do all of you who support this federal “intervention” honestly think that immediately or in the near future (certainly if the Democrats or gun-hating republicans gain enough votes) there won’t be mandates put upon ALL the states to “standardize” their permitting process? Do you honestly think it will look more like Vermont’s or more like California’s? Be honest. Just look at the “Real ID” issue. For OUR protection? Seriously? And once the fed’s get their nose in the tent on this issue, they will NEVER relinquish the power. And don’t look to the GOP to ever end this power. They began promising to get the feds out of the education business back in 1994 and have had the votes and the presidency TWICE since that time and STILL haven’t done it. As more and more states loosen their restrictions, THEY can also allow reciprocity, won’t be hamstrung by federal regulations, and freedom can spread in the only way it EVER spreads in this country – at the state (versus) federal level.
Be careful what you wish for. This, like everything else the government holds out and claims is about “freedom” comes with a very big string attached that may ultimately hang us all.
I think the Constitution is pretty clear….”To Keep And Bear Arms ” . If I’m going to Bear Arms I have the right to have it on me in case a situation arises that I need my weapon.
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/concealed-carry/
Here are some pro gun concealed carry points.
I do open carry once in a while, but I prefer concealed…as overthecliff rightly said concealed is a tactical advantage.
I have lived in blue no gun states and red heavy carry states – maybe its the culture (defiantly the culture in the South) and maybe its the culture and the guns, but strangers in the gun states are just more polite and civil.
I’ve thought of getting the NRA carry insurance as I am always armed and when I have to go into the “city” to Wally World or Home Depot or my wife insists to try a certain restaurant I’m packing heavy.
But, to be honest I think we are getting so close to turning the corner into the SHTF storm…I’m just going to put the money into more Prep.
Carry insurance is actually fairly cheap. My USCCA policy for me and the missus is less than $400/year. Pretty cheap when folks like the Swamp Bunny will be around wanting to sue you, instead of hugging the tar baby in the bushes. I might be wrong about the NRA policy, but I believe they only cover you if you use a firearm. My policy will provide coverage for any weapon or object used for self defense.
Carry insurance is a scam for wannabes that dream of being in the firefight they should pray never happens.
The same group of idiots that carry two guns and call one a BUG…douchebags.
Obviously anyone who dreams of being in a firefight has never been in one.
But, I feel reassured in certain places at certain times with a back up on my calf in this.
https://www.sneakypeteholsters.com/the-bugbite-ankle-holster/
The Pro: https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/carrying-a-backup-gun-do-you-or-dont-you/
The Con:
I’ve looked at the USCCA & NRA carry insurance policies, and it appears they both leave a lot to be desired. Both policies are limited to self-defense. That makes sense, but it means if a court finds the policy holder did not act in legitimate self-defense, you will be on your own and your personal assets will be in jeopardy. Both polices cover “Bodily Injury & Property Damage”, but they become less clear on the tort of Wrongful Death, and that’s the big one.
Also, both policies are silent on impleading. For example, if good guy draws a gun, and bad guy opens fire injuring an innocent third party, third party’s lawyer will implead good guy into the lawsuit against bad guy. Both of these policies may leave good guy exposed. And since bad guy is unlikely to have any assets, good guy will get slammed with the whole judgment under joint and several liability.
Guns require us to act with extreme caution because these cases are always more complicated than they appear.
USCCA:
“Act of self-defense” means the act of defending one’s person or others by the actual or threatened use of a firearm, or other weapon, that is “legally possessed”.
This insurance applies to “bodily injury” and “property damage”
“Bodily injury” means bodily injury, sickness or disease sustained by a person, including death resulting from any of these at any time.
https://www.usccacoverageform.com/
NRA:
“Self-Defense” and “Bodily Injury & Property Damage”
https://www.nracarryguard.com/