Fight Crime

[Infohawk]

I said I'm open to the possibility that guns are a positive force here. I'd like to see more conclusive studies though.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I have no beef with permit holders. I have a beef that anyone can pack. Its a bad recipe for society.

I'm not trying to belittle you, I want to understand peoples position on the issues. What I've encountered in my decade+ debate on gun issues is that MOST conflict is caused by ignorance. Not stupidity mind you, just ignorance. People honestly don't know or understand the truth. Generally after a long involved discussion of the issue MOST often people admit that their opposition to firearms or firearm policy is entirely an emotional response and that they have no deeper support. At that point it changes the nature of their arguments. My arguments have the benefit of being somewhat honest...I admit that Lott's numbers could be wrong for instance, I admit that trying to correlate concealed carry with reduction in crimes is too simplistic without much deeper studies accounting for numerous variables. I think beyond those items of support there are more concrete and valid ones that effectively answer the debate.

What do you mean by 'anyone can pack'? Why is it a 'bad recipe for society'? What is your understanding of the situation, your exact complaints, and your support for your concerns? If you tell me that, maybe I can better understand your position.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I said I'm open to the possibility that guns are a positive force here. I'd like to see more conclusive studies though.

Well who wouldn't? 😎

Clinton ordered a full investigation in order to support the largely democratic/liberal attack on firearm ownership. It was the largest most well funded research since Lott's. It just concluded and they basically said, there's no hard evidence that gun ownership is a problem. They were unwilling or honestly unable to specifically declare gun ownership good (after all, the point of the study was to prove it was bad), but still...all that time and money and there's no factual support that it's bad. That says something.

I'm curious if you have any ideas of how to do more conclusive studies in a way that might work? I've thought and thought and thought, and I can't come up with any way to come to a true answer...all I can do is shoot holes in the existing arguments and follow what I believe is the basic logic that remains (ie if it ain't broke don't fix it, and deal with the biggest problem first, and deal with the causes of problems instead of their symptoms).

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I'm curious if you have any ideas of how to do more conclusive studies in a way that might work? I've thought and thought and thought, and I can't come up with any way to come to a true answer...all I can do is shoot holes in the existing arguments and follow what I believe is the basic logic that remains (ie if it ain't broke don't fix it, and deal with the biggest problem first, and deal with the causes of problems instead of their symptoms).

Are we talking about license to carry laws or just about ownership generally?

I think ideally there would be enough states with and without license to carry laws, then you would study them over many years. You would see which ones had self-defense events, which ones have accidents or problematic events, and the effect on crime. I would also love to have a state with no gun ownership at all in the study but this is unrealistic. Then you'd look at the results and go from there. Honestly though, I don't know of a perfect method. I think statisticians and social scientitists could probably think of something decent.

 

[MadRat]

POW-

"anyone can pack" = NRA has actively lobbied in my state - as probably in every other state - to allow any citizen that can legally own a firearm the right to carry a concealed firearm.

"bad recipe for society" = possession of concealed firearms is a good tool against meth producers and has been a substantial catalyst in getting them off my streets. My home town has a profound meth problem amount the blue collars. (Although to be fair I should mention the white collars laso have had many a scandal with white powder...) Meth heads stay awake for days on end and their chemical balance in their brains is so whacked that they get fixated with an extreme level of paranoia. Allowing these boneheads that are running around high on meth to carry firearms is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: MadRat
POW-

"anyone can pack" = NRA has actively lobbied in my state - as probably in every other state - to allow any citizen that can legally own a firearm the right to carry a concealed firearm.

"bad recipe for society" = possession of concealed firearms is a good tool against meth producers and has been a substantial catalyst in getting them off my streets. My home town has a profound meth problem amount the blue collars. (Although to be fair I should mention the white collars laso have had many a scandal with white powder...) Meth heads stay awake for days on end and their chemical balance in their brains is so whacked that they get fixated with an extreme level of paranoia. Allowing these boneheads that are running around high on meth to carry firearms is a disaster waiting to happen.

Ok, so you're talking about 'shall issue'...where the state MUST provide license to an individual who qualifies. Now, some states which are 'shall issue' still have requirements...like a mental health records check, basic training course, etc. Some don't, but some do. The only real thing that 'shall issue' means is that the state can't deny you a license just because they don't want citizens to have guns. There has to be a valid REASON not to provide you one, instead of 'discretionary' states (like california) where the opposite is true and no matter how qualified you are you have to prove to the state that you absolute NEED one, and they can still turn you down. Does that in any way alter your perceptions of it?

It sounds like say concealed carry is great to protect people from the meth epidemic, but is also dangerous because those same meth-heads might end up carrying. Let's examine that a bit. How many 'meth-heads' are honest enough citizens to go to all the trouble to get a permit? I see how someone could have been honest and gotten a permit, and then became addicted though. Anyway, if there was no concealed carry, would a criminal or someone whacked-out on meth perhaps still choose to carry, even though it was illegal? I mean, if they're seriously breaking the law anyway, why not? If it's not just concealed carry, but any access to guns we're talking abou, the same thought applies. Why would gun laws stop a criminal that doesn't obey the law in the first place? Doesn't it just stop law-abiding citizens who wouldn't be a problem in the first place? Only now those law-abiding citizens can't carry for their own protection. Taken to a further extreme, why would any gun law help stop someone from comitting murder or robbery...offences that carry stiffer penalties than merely violating weapon laws?

In your specific example of the meth epidemic, isn't the real problem the meth, not the guns? I mean, if it's the only thing that worries you, why not get rid of the problem instead of trying to treat a symptom by affecting everyone and not just those at fault? Taken further, is the meth the real issue, or is it social failures that drive people to do drugs in the first place? If that's so, then shouldn't we spend money to stop people from doing it in the first place? It seems to me that just removing the firearms won't stop the problem...might cut down the casualties a bit, but that's all. And that's assuming it could even be attempted, which I don't believe it could in America.

Does that make sense? If not I'm happy to attempt other explanations or expound as needed.

 

[MadRat]

I think you seem to be under the impression that all states that allow concealed weapons require permits. That is not consistent from state to state.

In my state, Nebraska, you need only prove you may have $1000 or more on your person while in the conduct of business, which is not uncommon for small business owners. If you live in Omaha city limits the rules get muddier and the permit is a hassle. The hassle has turned people off of getting them although its more a red tape issue than anything else.

I see no problem with these regulations.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: MadRat
I think you seem to be under the impression that all states that allow concealed weapons require permits. That is not consistent from state to state.

In my state, Nebraska, you need only prove you may have $1000 or more on your person while in the conduct of business, which is not uncommon for small business owners. If you live in Omaha city limits the rules get muddier and the permit is a hassle. The hassle has turned people off of getting them although its more a red tape issue than anything else.

I see no problem with these regulations.

Can you quote me the law on that? I see this:

28-1202 Carrying concealed weapon; penalty; affirmative defense.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any person who carries a weapon or weapons concealed on or about his or her person such as a revolver, pistol, bowie knife, dirk or knife with a dirk blade attachment, brass or iron knuckles, or any other deadly weapon commits the offense of carrying a concealed weapon.

(2) It shall be an affirmative defense that the defendant was engaged in any lawful business, calling, or employment at the time he or she was carrying any weapon or weapons and the circumstances in which such person was placed at the time were such as to justify a prudent person in carrying the weapon or weapons for the defense of his or her person, property, or family.

But that doesn't give any specifics, like having $1000 or anything. I'm curious where that all comes from.

According to my research Nebraska gives no state permits and doesn't allow concealed carry, though it grants the rights to individual cities of second-class status to make their own determinations on open carry.

Find info here.

Basically there are five kinds of states possible with regards to concealed carry: shall issue (36 states), discretionary (9 states), not issued (4 states, including nebraska), not required (vermont), distributed (currently no known states). Shall issues must unless otherwise, discretionary it's up to the state authority (usualy sheriff or chief of police), not issued you can't do it, not required states give you your full 2nd amendment rights and no permits are required, and in distributed it's left up to the individual counties/towns etc.

Granted I don't have this years modifications to every states laws. It would just be a hell of a thing to find out one of the 4 most restrictive gun states in the country was actually pretty open.