totalitarianism. alive in Wisconsin and blocking the democratic process?

[controversial]

Good article. While there are some places where certain crimes did increase when CC was enacted, the vast majority of the time, crime decreased.

"Carrying a gun does not guarantee you won't get hurt," says Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a Texas legislator who crusaded for her state's law, "but it changes the odds."

 

[kgraeme]

First off: THIS IS NOT COMMUNISM!!!!!!!:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|:|

At best it's a form of totalitarianism.

Really though, it's practicality and reasonableness. The basketball tournament is in town. The CC gun issue would have gone on in debate forever. It's a hot issue and won't go away. Given a choice, I would rather have a bunch of people enjoy a fun and harmless basketball game sooner than a bunch of people I don't know being allowed to carry firearms.

And like I said, the issue won't go away. He has seen to it that it will now be a hotter issue than before. I neither support nor oppose CC laws. However, the delay in no way restricts a person's right to own a gun, and a basketball game has killed far fewer people than even legally owned guns.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Furthermore, Black and Nagin demonstrate that for homicides and rapes -- the categories that account for 80% of the social benefit Lott and Mustard ascribe to RTC laws -- supposed RTC deterrent effects vanish when a single state, Florida, is removed. For several reasons, the sensitivity of the estimates of RTC effects to the inclusion of Florida casts serious doubts on Lott and Mustard's claims that RTC laws reduce homicides and rapes. First, the RTC effects in Florida are not apparent until four or more years after the law was implemented and may be due to factors not accounted for in Lott and Mustard's analyses. For example, the reductions are coincident with the passage of mandatory background checks and waiting periods for handgun purchases in that state. Other criminal justice interventions were also launched in Florida in response to sharp increases in violence during the late 1980's, and were not accounted for in Lott and Mustard's study.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics

Second, when Black and Nagin examined the adequacy of Lott and Mustard's statistical models for Florida, the models failed standard tests of statistical adequacy for each of the categories of crime.

Finally, if RTC laws do reduce homicides and rapes, one would expect to see consistency in these effects across other states, but that is not the case.

So CC is a good idea in ME but a bad idea in WV?

The "delayed" deterrent effects of RTC laws on aggravated assaults and robberies claimed by Lott and Mustard are driven by two states, Florida and Maine. The problems with their statistical models for Florida are discussed above . . .the downward trend in robberies and aggravated assaults in Maine began well before 1985. Thus, it is difficult to attribute apparent declines in these crimes to the law when the declines begin long before the law was implemented. With Maine and Florida excluded, no RTC effects on robberies and aggravated assaults are apparent.

So in FL and ME the criminals are slow learners so it took them a while to figure out that some people might be armed . . .

But Lott and Mustard's results indicate that RTC laws had little or no effect on robbery rates.1 Instead, the strongest deterrent effects estimated were for rape, aggravated assault, and murder. But most rapes are committed in homes by someone known to the victim. Aggravated assaults also usually involve people who know each other,10 and only 15% of murders for which the circumstances are known are the result of predatory crimes such as robbery. Thus, the strongest RTC law effects in Lott and Mustard's study were for crimes in which a victim carrying a gun in public would usually not be relevant. Lott and Mustard argue that criminals, in response to RTC laws, substitute property crime for crimes likely to involve contact with victims. But their theory and findings do not comport with any credible criminologic theory because theft is the motive for only a small fraction of the violent crimes for which Lott and Mustard find RTC law effects. It is difficult to rationalize why a criminal would, for example, steal a car because he felt deterred from raping or assaulting someone.


The worst part about Lott's study (as is often the case with research) the lay public cannot disintangle his statistical findings from their reality. If you live in a place with no murders CC has no benefit; it may even increase your risk of violence. If you live in a place with a lot of violence, CC may help but most high crime areas also deploy more cops and new laws to try to control crime. Lott's study really doesn't prove anything . . . and the ESTIMATE of crimes interrupted b/c someone CC has minimal validity.

 

[Dill]

first off..WOW is this place slow tonight.




<< Dill , this doesn't come any where near communism. Maybe you could change your title so that you don't seem like such an a$$hole. >>



how about...you crawl back into your cave until you can learn some manners. Sure guys, I'll change the topic.





<< But you have a gun, right? So you could protect yourself. If you don't want to be a target, don't carry a gun. >>



this can work both ways. A criminal knowing you have no gun could make you a target, as well as if you carried a gun OPENLY it could make you a target..say I was in a bank, some guy comes in, sees I have a gun, and pops me first thing.


Anyways...wether you agree or disagree with CCW laws, this BS Risser pulled to stop a law from being voted on (and most likely passed) is a slap in the face of democracy.

 

[Tominator]

<< So CC is a good idea in ME but a bad idea in WV? >>



Maine has open carry laws for ANY citizen that wants too WITHOUT a license....your argument destroyed in one sentence...try again bozo..that fact is ignored...

Several journalists have asked imprisoned felons what they fear most. It is not the police or our justice system, but an Armed Citizen!

All arguments aside...if you cannot show how the freedom to carry a firearm either concealed or not leads to more crime, HOW DARE YOU DENY THAT RIGHT?

Marion Hammer, past President of the National Rifles Association defended herself and/or her children 3 documented times with a legally carried firearm but you would sacrifice her and many others for no good reason.

 

[Russ]

Whenever I read stuff like this, I am grateful I live in Washington State. Our constitution leaves ZERO doubt on this issue. No matter how hard the gun-grabbers try, they can't take our rights.

Sec. 24. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired

Russ, NCNE

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Whenever I read stuff like this, I am grateful I live in Washington State. Our constitution leaves ZERO doubt on this issue. No matter how hard the gun-grabbers try, they can't take our rights.

Let me admit up front, I despise handguns. Last discharge of a firearm I was 10 y.o attempting to shoot pine cones out of a tree. The scope left a ring of blood around my eye (butt not on my shoulder). Mother really let the old Man have it for that one.

Anyway, keep your guns Russ. Carry 2, 3, as many as you like. Keep hundreds in your home, for any reason. I don't care. But if you intend to carry them in public I want to see it . . . so I can cross the street.

Maine has open carry laws for ANY citizen that wants too WITHOUT a license....your argument destroyed in one sentence...try again bozo..that fact is ignored...

I'm not going to defame anyone, but did you people ever learn polite conversation . . . geez.

Lott and Mustard identify 1985 as the year in which Maine liberalized its concealed carry policy. It is unclear why they chose 1985 as the year of policy intervention because the state changed its concealed carry law in 1981, 1983, 1985, 1989, and 1991.

Part of the criticism of Lott's findings is that he wants to credit CC with decreases in Maine crime but which CC law produced the effect?

Oregon's RTC law was associated with lower violent crime, but the legislation which eased restrictions on concealed gun carrying also extended waiting periods and strengthened background checks for handgun purchases. The reduction in crime could be just as easily attributable to the new restrictions on handgun purchases as to the eased restrictions on carrying permits. As discussed above, there are several factors that could just as easily explain the declines in Florida's homicides during the early 1990's that Lott and Mustard attribute to the delayed effects of the 1987 RTC law.

Several journalists have asked imprisoned felons what they fear most. It is not the police or our justice system, but an Armed Citizen!
That's all fine and dandy. Sounds like we need to beef up our police and justice systems. But Lott makes broad claims that are not substantiated by his research. More damaging is change in public policy based on broad claims not substantiated by his research.

All arguments aside...if you cannot show how the freedom to carry a firearm either concealed or not leads to more crime, HOW DARE YOU DENY THAT RIGHT?

If I try to deny your right (which is not absolute, Supreme Court has made it clear that there are limits to all of our Constitutional rights) to keep and bear arms the burden of proof is on me. If I deny you freedom to carry a concealed firearm the burden is on you to prove that right exists. You will never enter any establishment I own, classroom I teach in, hospital I work at, or home I occupy with a weapon concealed or otherwise unless you are law enforcement in the act of duty . . . hopefully not looking for me.

Marion Hammer, past President of the National Rifles Association defended herself and/or her children 3 documented times with a legally carried firearm but you would sacrifice her and many others for no good reason.

Good for her. Sounds like she should move to a better neighborhood . . . sacrifice of others isn't my MO try the Old Testament. As I noted for Russ at the outset, you can have as many guns as you want for whatever reason you want but you do not have a right to carry a concealed weapon.

So if the dispute becomes the privilege? to CC versus my privilege? to choose not to associate with people that carry firearms . . . how can that be settled?

 

[Tominator]

<< Good for her. Sounds like she should move to a better neighborhood >>



She lives and works in Washington DC...all three times...



<< So if the dispute becomes the privilege? to CC versus my privilege? to choose not to associate with people that carry firearms . . . how can that be settled? >>



Easy, go to some liberal pinko site that can put up with your rhetoric...

We've batlted this subject around on this Forum since 1999 and I've yet to see a credible argument against CC laws. The facts are against you plain and simple...

Youre arguments have all been completely discussed and dismissed long before you got here....

 

[docmanhattan]

<<

<< Good for her. Sounds like she should move to a better neighborhood >>



She lives and works in Washington DC...all three times...



<< So if the dispute becomes the privilege? to CC versus my privilege? to choose not to associate with people that carry firearms . . . how can that be settled? >>



Easy, go to some liberal pinko site that can put up with your rhetoric...

We've batlted this subject around on this Forum since 1999 and I've yet to see a credible argument against CC laws. The facts are against you plain and simple...

Youre arguments have all been completely discussed and dismissed long before you got here.... >>

Can you EVER come up with something better to say than "the facts are against you." Especially when there are clearly effective arguements on both sides. You are just choosing to listen to what you want to hear. Oh, and I like the "pinko" comment. Hopefully the *wink* means you're kidding otherwise it sounds like you've been listening to old McCarthy rants. ( ironic given the threads title. ) And regardless of what you say, there is nothing in the Constitution to imply, infer, or quote that says that you're guaranteed the right to conceal your guns . Now relax, you can keep your guns, you just don't need to hide them.

 

[glenn1]

<< The facts are against you plain and simple... >>



That's never stopped them before. Arguing with them using logic or facts is like trying to teach a pig to sing. And as for the actions of the Senate President in Minnesota, what comes around, goes around. You better hope your side's majority in that state lasts forever.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

We've batlted this subject around on this Forum since 1999 and I've yet to see a credible argument against CC laws. The facts are against you plain and simple...

You have no way of knowing that I've published research before (FASEB, as if you cared) and developed laboratory and clinical protocols. Lott's research took a database (FBI crime statistics) and used various statistical techniques to assess the effect of one intervention (CC laws) on various crime outcomes. I didn't read his whole project just the methods and conclusions . . . I should go back and look at the results. As for facts . . . his research fails one (amongst many) very simple analysis. In order for magnitude of effect to be justified an interventional model should be able to predict what crime looked like before the intervention. FL was a glaring example of how Lott's analysis fails this test. In the case of FL, there was less crime before CC than the model predicts, which makes the intervention appear to have a greater effect than reality.


A reanalysis of Lott and Mustard's data by Dan Black and Daniel Nagin of Carnegie Mellon University clearly demonstrated that: (1) crime rates in states adopting RTC laws commonly deviated from national trends during the five years prior to enactment of the laws; and (2) Lott and Mustard did not adequately control for these out-of-the norm crime trends.2 Indeed, when the states where disaggregated, Lott and Mustard's statistical models produced systematic errors in predicting pre-law crime trends, and thus failed 32 out of 40 tests of statistical adequacy. Jens Ludwig (Georgetown University) found that RTC laws had no significant effect on states' murder rates after controlling for changes in poverty and crime cycles.3

I repeat don't let anyone take your firearms. And when you are ready to rally give me a call and I will protest with you against assaults on your constitutional right to bear arms. BUT . . . and it's a big@ss but . . . you have NO right to conceal them. B/C private citizens and private businesses can exclude you from their premises. As a compromise maybe you want to conceal your weapon on the street but you have to take it out whenever you enter a building or domicile. I could live with it. Declaring you have a gun may work but most facilities I associate with will either require you take it elsewhere or take the gun/and your person elsewhere.

 

[rufruf44]

Instead of never ending round of flame from both gun lovers and haters, why don't people address the real issue, such as the US judicial and law enforcement system. Criminal never got enough punishment that will deter from committing more crime, and the police can't really do much to protect the citizen until they become victim. I hate guns personally, but in the same time, I definitely sees the reason why some people deemed it necessary. What upset me even more is that these people are partially right, in that they have to choose to arm themselves, because this great country cant offer enough safety for its own citizen. Granted this is not the norm in most areas, but still its quite disturbing. Heck, the government can double the tax and I won't complain a single word if they can guarantee a safe environment for my family.

 

[controversial]

<<

<< Marion Hammer, past President of the National Rifles Association defended herself and/or her children 3 documented times with a legally carried firearm but you would sacrifice her and many others for no good reason. >>



Good for her. Sounds like she should move to a better neighborhood >>



So...you're saying we should prevent crime by moving people to better neighborhoods? LMAO - that makes absolutely no sense!

 

[glenn1]

<< Heck, the government can double the tax and I won't complain a single word if they can guarantee a safe environment for my family. >>



Congratulations. You're the liberal's wet dream model voter.

 

[rufruf44]

<<

<< Heck, the government can double the tax and I won't complain a single word if they can guarantee a safe environment for my family. >>



Congratulations. You're the liberal's wet dream model voter. >>



Let just say I value my family safety a tad more than you might expect. $$$ means nothing compared to family.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The government can't do that . . . the only place you see such crime control success is Cuba. I don't think we should be copying Cuba.

The government should not impede people arming themselves. But for the public that will never arm itself (the majority) should not have to wonder if you are packin'. If I go to the firing range, I'm not worried about who has a gun . . . everybody does. If I'm at ToysRUs, I shouldn't have to worry. And if a robber comes into a bank I will keep my eyes on two people the robber and the security guard. Shootouts with public CC are rare b/c the majority of people with permits do not get many opportunities to use them for self defense or to defend others (before the peanut gallery gets out of hand, if you divide the number of estimated firearm deterrence episodes by legal firearms you get a tiny fraction). That's a good thing . . . they face less crime, we face fewer ricochets.

 

[Tominator]

BaliBabyDoc

I've no problem agreeing that CC is not a right under the Constitution as it is now interpreted. The role of the Government IS spelled out in that document we hold so dear and it DOES NOT prohibit the CC of firearms and that that same document limits the scope of government and it should not even be making the decision! The role of Government is ti insure freedom and not to dent it!

Part of that freedom is it's denial on certain public and private properties. NO ONE has ever disputed that!

You cannot deny that an armed society with legally owned firearms is safer that the places that have outlawed them. You have no argument...

 

[glenn1]

<< that same document limits the scope of government and it should not even be making the decision! >>



If you mean the Federal government, i agree. CC is not a Constitutionally addressed issue, and is therefore appropriately and entirely a matter for the individual states to decide. By reasoning of the Tenth Amendment, the federal government has no business telling any state whether CC should be legal or not, allowed or illegal. If Wisconsin wants to make CC legal, that's fine. If they want to make it illegal, that's fine too.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Before my words are used against me . . . when I say they face less crime . . . it has little to do with the fact that they have CC permits.

He also found that the only hint of a decrease in murder rates associated with RTC laws was for murders involving victims less than 21 years of age.3 But individuals less than 21 years of age are not allowed to obtain gun carrying permits in any state, so how could they be protected by RTC laws?

Lott and Mustard use arrest ratios (arrests per crime committed in a given year) in their statistical models for predicting changes in crime rates. A National Academy of Sciences panel of experts determined nearly two decades ago that arrest ratios and crime rates can not be sufficiently disentangled from one another to permit analyses such as those used by Lott and Mustard.8

the strongest RTC law effects in Lott and Mustard's study were for crimes in which a victim carrying a gun in public would usually not be relevant.

rape, murder, aggravated assault

 

[Tominator]

glenn1

If you deny CC then you nust have no problem with non-concealed carry?

Do you have a problem with Federal Funds used to sway state passage by popular vote of this issue!

BaliBabyDoc

You keep cutting and pasteing from the anti gun sites....VOLUMES have been written on the subject and even Law Enforcement views Professor Lott's findings as gospel. He is recognised as the country's foremost expert in crime statistics by anyone with any credibility...

In states with CC laws crime is down a greater amount that those states without it. Citizens with CCW permits are less likely to be involved in crime that the general public.
Go ahead and try your best here...

 

[Maetryx]

<< My point here is that concealed is unnecessary. Carry a gun if you want, it's your right, but it is not for you to choice whether people know or not because when you're out in public the gun can affect more than just yourself regardless what you may think. At least if it's in plain view, people can choose for themselves as to whether they want to be in the vicinity of an armed civilian. >>



Does this apply to people with AIDS too? I don't particularly want to hang out with AIDS carriers, myself. I know there is evidence that says that I'm irrational, but I'm gonna just go ahead and blow off that evidence so I can infringe other people's rights. AIDS carriers should be forced to wear emblems so everyone knows they are carrying a dangerous disease, and who know when they're going to get all pissed off at you (say road rage) and spit on you.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

You cannot deny that an armed society with legally owned firearms is safer that the places that have outlawed them. You have no argument...

The overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children aged less than 15 years was nearly 12 times higher than among children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. CDC 1997

In 72% of unintentional deaths and injuries, suicide, and suicide attempts with a firearm of 0-19 year-olds, the firearm was stored in the residence of the victim, a relative, or a friend. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine 1999


How about you listen to informed facts before you parrot . . . "you have no argument". Cuba is very safe. Australia apparently had some reactionary response to a crazed gunman and banned private firearms. Crime has increased in Australia. Is crime up b/c private law-abiding citizens don't have their guns? I don't know; I'm sure you THINK you do. When I read a good study I will let you know . . . better yet I'm sure you have so I would appreciate a link. Many European countries and Japan have firearm bans. You may fear for your nose on some European streets but it ain't DC, Detroit, or Philly. On the flip side, Switzerland has a very high firearm possession rates and very low crime. So it seems like the best argument would be . . . it's very difficult to draw ANY particular conclusion about firearm possession and crime rates.

I agree with you in a visceral common sense kind of way that legally owned firearms are used effectively for self defense. I will even buy into the hypothesis that presumed gun ownership may deter some criminals (not all that different from home security systems, signs that say "killer dog in yard" or "nosey neighbor community watch". If gun in your home makes you feel safer go for it. If gun on your person makes you feel safer go for it. Gun in your possession in my presence definitely unnerves me. If it's your house I leave, but if it's on the street I can protect myself from you ONLY if I know that you present a threat; which I can avoid by not going to places that allow CC and being able to ID you on the street so I can take a different route . . . or just give you a snotty glare as I walk by . . . but not aggressive snotty.

Perception has very little to do with reality. Non-adult firearm deaths peaked in 1994 hmm year after the Brady Bill . . . suicide rates due to firearms have basically been steady since 1990. The decline since 1994 has been almost entirely homicides. The greatest beneficiary; black males are killing each other at the lowest rate in decades. Deaths amongst white males are down as well.

Gun laws may have profound effects or no effects. It depends on the law and quality of enforcement. The Columbine shooters violated 20 in acquiring their arsenal. Clearly unenforced gun laws don't help . . . and provide a false sense of security.

2001 CDC report
3,365 children and teens were killed by gunfire

1,990 were murdered by gunfire

1,078 committed suicide using a firearm

214 died from an accidental shooting

1,934 were White

1,301 were Black

605 were Hispanic

488 were under age 15

153 were under age 10

73 were under age 5

More children and teens died from gunfire than from cancer, pneumonia, influenza, asthma, and HIV/AIDS combined.

Deadly statistics but note if 488 were under 15 that means that 2,777 were 15-19 . . . conduct disorder, drug dealers, whatever.
But the safest place for a child is in a home (and neighborhood) without firearms.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

So...you're saying we should prevent crime by moving people to better neighborhoods? LMAO - that makes absolutely no sense!

Hahahaha . . . you're right . . . that makes absolutely no sense . . . that's why it's a joke, Nimrod!

 

[docmanhattan]

<<

<< My point here is that concealed is unnecessary. Carry a gun if you want, it's your right, but it is not for you to choice whether people know or not because when you're out in public the gun can affect more than just yourself regardless what you may think. At least if it's in plain view, people can choose for themselves as to whether they want to be in the vicinity of an armed civilian. >>



Does this apply to people with AIDS too? I don't particularly want to hang out with AIDS carriers, myself. I know there is evidence that says that I'm irrational, but I'm gonna just go ahead and blow off that evidence so I can infringe other people's rights. AIDS carriers should be forced to wear emblems so everyone knows they are carrying a dangerous disease, and who know when they're going to get all pissed off at you (say road rage) and spit on you. >>

Please, no comments from the peanut gallery. Silly examples do not make any point and while i'm sure you feel clever with your analogy, it hardly applies seeing that a gun is a manufactured weapon and AIDS is a virus.

Say what you want, but you're just as irrational to take only ONE person's studies and claim that it's fact when there are just as many facts to say otherwise and ones to counter those. It's a vicious cycle that goes on and on and frankly this constant proclamation of "fact" and "logic" in every thread is getting a bit silly. This isn't a issue that's decided by skewed facts and biased logic, it's a question of which/ whose right out weighs the other. You can crap facts all friggin' day and at the end it doesn't matter. It's not about crime statistics, it's about my right to say, "No, I don't want to be around people with guns." That's not in the Constitution either Tominator, but does that mean my claim has more precendence over yours? It does if the majority people in the country think so. In fact, there's a worth while fact: what percentage of people in the country own guns? And along with that, how people in the US think allowing people to carry concealed guns is a good idea? Those seem like the only two pertinent facts of this whole thread. Every other factoid is gravy if you win and get CC laws or whining if you lose.

 

[controversial]

<< Gun in your possession in my presence definitely unnerves me. If it's your house I leave, but if it's on the street I can protect myself from you ONLY if I know that you present a threat; which I can avoid by not going to places that allow CC and being able to ID you on the street so I can take a different route . . . >>



I don't understand why there need to be a law that would only serve the purpose of make you more comfortable. What role should the government have in controlling how unnerving a situation is? If guns unnerve you, deal with it! Taking away the right to carry concealed weapons should not be justified because guns unnerve you! Furthermore, you make the assumption that someone with a gun is a threat. Maybe by this you mean that a gun toting person is a threat to your comfort level. Thats understandable. I'd be at least a little nervous if there was a stranger around me with a gun. But I'm not gonna go ask the government to ban concealed weapons because they make me nervous!