totalitarianism. alive in Wisconsin and blocking the democratic process?

[BaliBabyDoc]

Tominator . . .

I cut and paste from anti- and pro-gun sites. As for Lott's research being gospel . . . I'm not sure if you've ever read a Bible but gospel is the "good news". I wouldn't categorize research implying the whole nation needs to carry around weapons for security to be good news. But if you are the NRA or it matches some other ideological bent I can see how you would gravitate to the findings.

If I just post links people don't read. If I post an excerpt at least you have a clue about the link that you're not going to read.

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...

Hmm, well if you read my post about CDC gun-related deaths; the most prominent decline is amongst people who can't CC (under 20) and are least likely to have parents that CC (black). I'm not sure if you don't know any better or fail to acknowledge some very basic facts. Lott analyzed arrest ratios (arrests per crime commited in a particular year) to predict changes in crime rates. It's a naughty no-no b/c no one has found a valid method to analyze intervention effects on outcome variables when you pass it through a complex entity like arrest ratios.

Lott analyzed county data (excluding counties w/o rape, murder, etc reported) then included those counties in his estimate of crime reduction. Furthermore his model overestimates crime before CC and does not account for other proven factors in crime rates. So the model credits CC with a large effect on crime rates (within the included counties) then extrapolates to the gen pop even though much of the gen pop could not realize benefits from CC b/c they experienced very little crime to begin with.

If you can find a state that made absolutely NO changes in crime control policies, had a flat economy, no changes in drug use, and instituted CC . . . that would be interesting. I would be hard pressed to find fault with a study that then calculated changes in crime rates and attributed it to a single intervention.

PRO-GUN site citing Lott's research
If these results are accurate, the net effect of allowing concealed handguns is clearly to save lives. Similarly, the results indicate that the number of rapes in states without "shall issue" laws would have declined by 4,177, aggravated assaults by 60,363 and robberies by 11,898.

I believe Lott to be an honest researcher. That's the reason he used that clause before citing his conclusion. Unfortunately, those with an ideological axe to grind conveniently ignore it and cite the conclusion.

The arrest rate for murder variable produces interesting results as well. The percent of white victims and the percent of victims killed by family members both declined when states passed concealed handgun laws, while the percent of black victims and the percent that were killed by non-family members that they know both increased. The results imply that higher arrest rates have a much greater deterrent effect on murders involving whites and family members. One explanation is that whites with higher incomes face a greater increase in expected penalties for any given increase in the probability of arrest.

Well maybe blacks were less likely to get CC permits so that's why arrest rates continued to increase . . . then again it might have something to do with coincident rise of crack cocaine in the inner city and various crime control measures employed to stop it.

For most violent crimes such as murder, rape, and aggravated assault, concealed weapons laws have a much greater deterrent effect in high crime counties, while for robbery, property crimes, auto theft, burglary and larceny, the effect appears to be greatest in low crime counties.

Wait a minute a thought the greatest effect was on white people?! When did they move to the hood? If my 'burbs are high crime I'm moving to the stix. Remember the greatest effect from Lott's study was on murder and rape . . . 80% of which depends on FL where the effects lagged the law by FOUR years.

Everybody with some stat skills take a gander at this gem . . .
The arrest rate produces the most consistent effect on crime. Higher arrest rates imply lower crime rates for all categories of crime. A one standard deviation change in the probability of arrest accounts for 3 to 17 percent of a one standard deviation change in the various crime rates. The crime most responsive to arrest rates is burglary (11 percent), followed by property crimes (10 percent), aggravated assault and general violent crimes (9 percent), murder (7 percent), rape, robbery and larceny (4 percent) and auto theft (3 percent).

So his best tool is arrest rate (arrests per crime commited) which must increase for CC laws to have been effective (ala lower crime rates). But this powerful tool will account for 1/30 to 1/6 of one SD change in crime rates. I still haven't look at the raw results but these error bars have to be whoppers.

I bet you didn't know Lott said . . .

Also surprising was that while longer prison lengths usually implied lower crime rates, the results were normally not statistically significant.

The evidence indicates that the effect varies both with a county's level of crime and its population.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Try again . . . you do not have a constitutional right to bear a concealed firearm. As Tominator would chime there is not a constitutional prohibition to it either. So as much as I abhor firearms and CC laws . . . majority rules; sometimes. I live in a CC state NC. Do I worry? No, I live in Chapel Hill. Most people carrying a combustible are looking for a place to smoke it.

But the majority of the population does not and will not carry firearms. The vast majority of CC are probably nice people. And I might even know one. But it's not like knowing if someone is gay or a lawyer. Gays aren't a threat . . . hell, they better my odds and give great clothing tips. Lawyers . . . well they unnerve me a little. I'm 29, have walked streets alone at night from NYC to Jakarta, Indonesia but the closest I've been to a gun-threat is a cop who almost unholstered after pulling me over for an expired license tag. Most confrontations can be avoided and even disputes defused. But sometimes people are out to do you harm but guess what . . . it's usually somebody you know. I'm willing to depend on available law enforcement. You may choose a firearm. I'm just saying your firearm is a real threat to my safety and increasing the number of firearms increases the threat. If you ever protect me or anyone while using a firearm I salute you. It's just highly unlikely to happen.

 

[b0mbrman]

I'm just glad you're not badmouthing commies in the title anymore

(Even though they should be badmouthed for other reasons)

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Have you ever met a commie?

 

[controversial]

<< I'm just saying your firearm is a real threat to my safety and increasing the number of firearms increases the threat. >>



I have never seen it definatively proven that increasing the amount of firearms increases criminal activity. If you could definatively prove this to me, your arguement would be a lot more credible. The problem with proving this is that every regions statistics show something different. If you are very selective in what places you look at, it would be possible to 'prove' both that it is true and that it isn't!

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Fair enough. Here's my point. You don't have to prove to me that carrying a weapon makes one iota of difference in crime statistics . . . they don't but you have a constitutional right to carry. I dislike it but I'm not going to fight it. You say that having your weapon increases your security. Well, that makes sense to me. You now have a means to defend yourself if you can't escape a dangerous situation.

I, on the otherhand, will NEVER carry a firearm. I would never threaten to harm someone. Although trained (albeit not in many years) in the martial arts (tae kwon do and judo) as well as submission holds and pressure points have NEVER found myself in a situation that I could not talk my way out or just leave (not run). I neither need nor want to carry in any fashion.

I make no claim that CC or other RTC laws increase criminal activity. General availability of firearms are a clear and present danger to children but I make no other claims. The exception is that my personal safety is in jeopardy if you have a firearm around me. Technically, I'm in jeopardy if a cop has a gun around me. He certainly has no intention of shooting me (well, I hope not) but if there is no gun there's no chance of me needing Kevlar boxers.

Common sense, if you like. Random crime doesn't strike people like me . . . and random crime in general is rather infrequent. Now an ex-GF she might pop a cap or current-GF ex-BF or ex-GF father he might pop a cap, our typical threats come from the people we know. And per Lott's study (I'm not subscribing to his conclusions) if you are white, the people you know are the ones most likely not to threaten violent crime b/c they think you might be carrying. So if I lay off the gangsta hoes (hos) how the hell do you spell it . . . and keep JC's (or Ghandi or Buddha) golden rule close at hand. I don't need no stinkin' gun.

But if I bump into you in a club. You wanna take it outside. I say no prob just a misunderstanding. But you're drunk, pissed, and trying to impress your company (I don't drink, smoke, and have probably already told my company how great I am). There are plenty of ways I could parry your attack but my favorite is to ignore you. Do you have any idea how annoyed people get when you ignore the fact that they are pissed off? My point is if all else fails and the highly unlikely scenario arises that I have to defend myself or someone else (far more likely) I use the least amount of force to accomplish my goal. In theory, you could brandish your weapon. But that increases the likelihood that I HAVE to be more aggressive. You have no other strata of force control other than shooting for a leg or arm but I know that's not what they teach. If you pull you have to pull with intent.

The data I've seen implies there is not a significant increase in firearm violence amongst CC permit holders. That's fine population data but I'm worried about me. My problem is any firearm. A random criminal wants to take my valuables . . . hell, I would ask a robber if he takes checks and ask him how to spell his name. That's part of my problem I'm probably just as likely to get shot for being a smart@ss as anything else. And if that's my relative risk then firearms in my environment harm my security not enhance it.

 

[controversial]

Ok...I understand that for you, owning and carrying a firearm is unnecessary. As you say, you are able to avoid situations in which you'll need to use a gun. However, my concern is for people who are put into situation where their security will immensely be increased by carrying a handgun. Take the example of my friend Norwood. He's African American. He used to live in Texas, a state with a bad streak of racism. He lived not very far from where that one guy was dragged to death from the back of a pickup truck. Norwood has even been beaten nearly to death by a mob. Needless to say, Norwood carries a handgun. Why? Because he doesn't know when the next mob is going to attack him, or the next time racist people will threaten his life. He carries a gun because he knows that he could be put in a situation where using a gun would be the only feasible way of escape. Another reason he carries a gun, is for when he's out in the wilderness in case a bear attacks him. I know that the vast majority of people do not need to carry a handgun in order to 'enhance' their safety, but I do not dare take away that right from the people whose lives depend on it. And there are people whose lives depend on it.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

No argument here . . . but . . . TX has some serious problems that Texans need to deal with. At least Norwood, used to live in TX. Tell him to leave the white women alone and many of his problems will disappear.

Racist mobs in TX may be quite common. I can understand your position on RTC. But seems like an even better justification for open instead of CC. Pop the redneck before he exits his pick 'em up truck if not discourage an attack at all.

 

[controversial]

<< Tell him to leave the white women alone and many of his problems will disappear. >>

Considering that Norwood is in the running to be our next Surgeon General, I don't think that would be a very good idea. In fact, he would probably consider it a racist comment.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Considering that Norwood is in the running to be our next Surgeon General, I don't think that would be a very good idea. In fact, he would probably consider it a racist comment.

And why pray tell would Norwood consider it a racist comment?

 

[Amused]

<<

<< It's hardly unnecessary, especially if you're a woman, live in a bad area, or have to carry cash. The police are NOT obliged to protect each individual, only clean up after the fact.

As long as criminals carry guns, I'll demand the same right.

I refuse to be convicted of crimes I have not committed and give up my freedoms simply because you have unfounded, irrational fears about me. Yes, me. By claiming an arbitrary ban on civilian CC is necessary, you are punishing EVERYONE for your fears. Taking away EVERYONE'S freedom simply because you have irrational fears is oppressive, to say the least. >>

And your irrational, unfounded dreams of heroism are what give more and more opportunity to individuals to committ violent crimes. I'm saying no concealed weapons not no guns at all. If you want to walk about with a flaming hat that signifies that you're armed, do it because then at least people have the option to avoid being around you. It is NOT your right to decide for others whether it's okay for them to know whether or not your armed. IMO, if you're armed, you are obligated to let people know. period. >>



Bullsh!t. This is not about heroism, it's about self preservation. If you choose to allow your safety to be left up to an underpaid and understaffed police force with no legal obligation to protect you, fine. I do not.

I also have NO obligation to placate YOU, or your irrational, unfounded fears.

FYI, in ALL states that have passed CC on demand laws, not ONE has seen an increase in crime. In fact, ALL have seen a DECREASE in violent, gun related crime. Your fears are unfounded, and therefore irrational, as they are 180 degrees from reality.

We do NOT pass laws based on "opportunity to commit" crimes. What kind of fascist world do you live in? You own a computer, I fear you could hack me. Therefore I wish to limit your use of your computer.

See how f'cking stupid that is? You don't limit the rights of law abiding people with no criminal history simply because you fear they MIGHT commit a crime. That is punishing them for crimes they have not committed. My carrying a gun poses no risk to anyone, other than your unfounded and irrational fears.

 

[Amused]

Let me explain why concealed carry is better than carrying in the open.

1. A weapon not seen is a weapon that cannot be grabbed and used by a criminal. Ask any cop. A street cop is more likely to have their gun used against them per incident than a plain clothed cop who's gun is not out in the open. You can't grab something you can't see. Have people running around with guns in the open, and "gun snatching" will become as popular as purse snatching. Also, when they know you have a gun, and can see it, all they have to do is sneak up behind you and snatch the gun. CC is better because you cannot snatch what you cannot see and do not know is there.

2. Not knowing who is armed, and who is not armed is a FAR greater deterrent for criminals than knowing who is armed. CC laws make criminals insecure, as they never know who has a gun, and who doesn't.

3. It's unreasonable. If I carry my gun in the open on my belt, then throw on a winter coat, I'm suddenly in violation of the law. If a woman wants to carry a gun in her purse, she's hosed.

And finally, CC laws have LOWERED crime rates in every place CC permits are offered on demand. Therefore any fear that they may raise crime rates or make the general population unsafe are 100% unfounded.

 

[Tominator]

<< I'm not sure if you've ever read a Bible but gospel is the "good news". I wouldn't categorize research implying the whole nation needs to carry around weapons for security to be good news. >>

Not one person or group ever proposed this.

It is groups like the NRA that pushed for truth in sentencing laws and lobbied for longer jail terms.

You suppose that because of an opening statement in a research paper that you can show bias yet you ignore that Rrof. Lott is a self proclaimed Liberal that set out initially to destroy the Second Amendment. When his research pointed to the opposite he became outspoken about it.

Then you attempt to talk about today's crime statistice while quoting studies that are several years old. It takes years to compile those statistics and accurately analyze the data.

There is no doubt that there are hundreds of factors in the rise or fall of crime but again the Government is not in the business Constitutionally to deny freedoms.



<< But if you are the NRA or it matches some other ideological bent I can see how you would gravitate to the findings >>



And unless you are too lazy to read about the NRA and how it spends more money than the US Government in training firearms safety which has led to the largest decline in firearm accidents in history or how it lobbies for longer sentences for violent criminals which is the biggest reason for the decline in crime you will indeed realise that they have an agenda, That is to make us safer without denying freedom to protect ones self because no one else can.

The CDC has an agenda and it has been exposed and totally shown to be the worst piece of research ever done on the subject! It was so bad that Congress threatened to cut funds if they continued.

To deny that the huge increase in firearm ownership and that near 50% of the US population has the opportunity to carry a firearm has in no way affected the decrease in crime while accidents are at all time lows is ridiculous.

Canada, the UK, and Australia all have severly restriced the use of firearms and all have seen violent crime increase. But I'm sure you see no correlation here.

Lott has covered all your arguments in at least one of his many books and to sit here and pick it apart with what ifs and inuendo is boring at best...

Martial Arts are a joke unless you are a true devotee and in supberb physical shape and very few people are. I've never had to defend my self or family either as I avoid dangerous areas, like Washington DC , and live in a small town in which nearly everyone has access to firearms and violent crime is unheard of in large part because of those firearms.

 

[Dill]

I found a couple of posts interesting as I read this (went to bed early last night) both posted by the same person.




<< 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). >>



So, albeit small compared to the overall population, these people that CC helped would probably be dead now. Do you want to tell them its bad?


and this one made me laugh...and laugh hard.



<< Random crime doesn't strike people like me . . . and random crime in general is rather infrequent. >>



yea, random crime doesn't strike people like you...tell that to all the people who's innocent family members were killed at the WTC. Most of the time it happens to someone who 'thought it would never happen to me'

 

[docmanhattan]

<< Fair enough. Here's my point. You don't have to prove to me that carrying a weapon makes one iota of difference in crime statistics . . . they don't but you have a constitutional right to carry. I dislike it but I'm not going to fight it. You say that having your weapon increases your security. Well, that makes sense to me. You now have a means to defend yourself if you can't escape a dangerous situation.

I, on the otherhand, will NEVER carry a firearm. I would never threaten to harm someone. Although trained (albeit not in many years) in the martial arts (tae kwon do and judo) as well as submission holds and pressure points have NEVER found myself in a situation that I could not talk my way out or just leave (not run). I neither need nor want to carry in any fashion.

I make no claim that CC or other RTC laws increase criminal activity. General availability of firearms are a clear and present danger to children but I make no other claims. The exception is that my personal safety is in jeopardy if you have a firearm around me. Technically, I'm in jeopardy if a cop has a gun around me. He certainly has no intention of shooting me (well, I hope not) but if there is no gun there's no chance of me needing Kevlar boxers.

Common sense, if you like. Random crime doesn't strike people like me . . . and random crime in general is rather infrequent. Now an ex-GF she might pop a cap or current-GF ex-BF or ex-GF father he might pop a cap, our typical threats come from the people we know. And per Lott's study (I'm not subscribing to his conclusions) if you are white, the people you know are the ones most likely not to threaten violent crime b/c they think you might be carrying. So if I lay off the gangsta hoes (hos) how the hell do you spell it . . . and keep JC's (or Ghandi or Buddha) golden rule close at hand. I don't need no stinkin' gun.

But if I bump into you in a club. You wanna take it outside. I say no prob just a misunderstanding. But you're drunk, pissed, and trying to impress your company (I don't drink, smoke, and have probably already told my company how great I am). There are plenty of ways I could parry your attack but my favorite is to ignore you. Do you have any idea how annoyed people get when you ignore the fact that they are pissed off? My point is if all else fails and the highly unlikely scenario arises that I have to defend myself or someone else (far more likely) I use the least amount of force to accomplish my goal. In theory, you could brandish your weapon. But that increases the likelihood that I HAVE to be more aggressive. You have no other strata of force control other than shooting for a leg or arm but I know that's not what they teach. If you pull you have to pull with intent.

The data I've seen implies there is not a significant increase in firearm violence amongst CC permit holders. That's fine population data but I'm worried about me. My problem is any firearm. A random criminal wants to take my valuables . . . hell, I would ask a robber if he takes checks and ask him how to spell his name. That's part of my problem I'm probably just as likely to get shot for being a smart@ss as anything else. And if that's my relative risk then firearms in my environment harm my security not enhance it. >>

Well stated.

in other news, tominator sez...
Canada, the UK, and Australia all have severly restriced the use of firearms and all have seen violent crime increase. But I'm sure you see no correlation here.

tominator

Are you even reading all of what BaliBabyDoc is saying? I particularly like how you convienently disregarded this portion of one of BaliBabyDoc's posts:


<< 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. >>

He obviously concedes that there are examples of both cases here. *geez*

It seems like CC might be something that needs to be adressed on a smaller scale than the State level. A regional or town level of laws maybe. Make it like motorcycle helmets. Someplaces you need to wear it, other you do not. Someplaces you need to make it visible that you're packing heat and others your can stuff in your pants an inch from your schlong. whatever. That way people have control with their local governments. Wasn't it AmusedOne that mentioned in another thread that thre's some town in Georgia that requires that each house have a gun? :Q

I prefer the idea of a grassroots control over CC than Federal or State level. CC isn't in the US Constitution so would that mean that it's delagated to the state level? HAve the states send down to a district level, similar in size to school districts.

I wouldn't ever own or carry, but I can see where the pro-CC arguements are coming from, it just seems too region specific to be able to make a blanket law for the country or even an entire state.

 

[docmanhattan]

<< yea, random crime doesn't strike people like you...tell that to all the people who's innocent family members were killed at the WTC. Most of the time it happens to someone who 'thought it would never happen to me' >>

Statistically he's right. You can laugh and reference 9/11 to lend credibility to your statement, but given where he says he lives, the chances are probably very slim. A lot it depends on the situations that you put yourself in. That's not saying that you couldn't get mugged grocery shopping, but the chances of a random crime happening in a downtown city alley are dramatically higher than the ceral ailse at your local grocer.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

<< how about...you crawl back into your cave until you can learn some manners. >>



LOL, you're funny. You call my state communistic, totalitarian, and post discription of senate proceedings that is pure yellow journalism and then get a little pissy when someone points out that your acting like an a$$hole? And you wonder why people don't want you to carry a concealed weapon? hahahaha

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Geez, you people get angry.

So, albeit small compared to the overall population, these people that CC helped would probably be dead now. Do you want to tell them its bad?

For particular people in particular places CC may be a GOOD idea a conclusion supported by Lott's work. But his work does not prove 1) CC is superior to open carry, 2) CC is the most important element in decreasing violent crime, 3) CC has actually saved a life (it's presumed but as several have noted here actually brandishing a weapon has protected particular people), 4) the positive outcomes attributed to CC can be extrapolated to counties he did not include in the initial analysis, 5) universal CC laws at the state or federal level would be better than county level CC statutes (the focus of his research), 6) a mechanism other than theory that criminals are discouraged by risk aversion and some criminal interviews that endorse it (in fact one of the greatest weaknesses in Lott's work - which he acknowledges - is that the varying temporality, varying outcome effects between counties and states, variations dependent on population characteristics, and statistical increases in some areas that institute CC are difficult to explain.

If you want to follow his research fine. Institute CC and reduce prison terms at the same time (one of Lott's conclusions was that longer prison terms do not significantly effect crime rates. But the peanut gallery chimes . . . "keep the criminals in jail and there will be less crime". Most criminologist agree depending on the offender and the crime. Longer terms for habitual offenders work but since mandatory mins guidelines cloud the picture b/c all criminals face those sentences. How could Lott's model miss such an issue? B/C he does NOT use actual crime rates to calculate reduction in crime. He uses arrest ratios.

For the uninspired . . . if use possessions divided by field goals can I figure out who won a basketball game? No, but I can make a decent estimate. The problem is the other variables are numerous and many are hopelessly enmeshed . . . teams with a lot of turnovers may have aggressive offenses or they may be bad ballhandlers . . . Anyway the higher the possession number goes the more it looks like the team sux but if a team rarely turns the ball over possessions become a good surrogate for field goal attempts. But if my team shoots a terrible percentage it doesn't matter if I use field goal attempts or possessions . . . the outcome is the same. In this environment who gets the blame if the team does well . . . the coach. Is he the reason? In part, so if the coach changes his strategy, tries new lineups, and signs up with Nike which intervention is responsible for the teams improvement? Which of course is extrapolated into one outcome how many more games does the team win. Which definitely relates to possessions but the significance is dynamic.

Take some time to read an explanation of confounding, correlation, and causation. Then you will have appropriate tools to determine the significance of Lott's work.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Who gets the blame if the team does POORLY . . . the coach. OK, now it makes sense.

 

[Dill]

<< LOL, you're funny. You call my state communistic, totalitarian, and post discription of senate proceedings that is pure yellow journalism and then get a little pissy when someone points out that your acting like an a$$hole? And you wonder why people don't want you to carry a concealed weapon? hahahaha >>



Uhmm...yea, and I suppose if something like this happened to PASS the bill, you'd be screaming like a little girl about how the bad men want to kill you.



<< Statistically he's right. You can laugh and reference 9/11 to lend credibility to your statement, but given where he says he lives, the chances are probably very slim. >>



Probably so, but yet the risk still exists. I'm not laughing about 9/11, I don't know anybody that thinks its funny, yet it is the truth about what I said.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Dill,

I am not saying it will never happen to me. I'm saying it is extremely unlikely to happen to me. But the vaccination argument doesn't work here. There are plenty of vaccinations you can get. The odds of a particular infection are relatively small but if the infection has significant morbidity and the vaccination does not then everybody should get the vaccination.

The following example is not true . . . just current hysteria.

But if MMR vaccinations cause significant morbidity like autism; even at a small rate. In a population where the risk of disease is low and there are treatments in case you contract the disease. It is very reasonable to question the utility of REQUIRING vaccination.

Repeat the principle is sound but there is no significant evidence that MMR vaccinations cause autism.

You have a right to bear arms. That right is not absolute. It can and is regulated. A reasonable regulation is for the majority that does not carry to be free from risk of harm by your firearm to the extent that my security does not have the practical effect of preventing you from carrying your firearm. Having to take off your holster to put on your coat is weak. Having your holster clash with the fanciful number you purchased at Saks doesn't count either.

All of these gun snatching criminals perplex me . . . I thought the gun deterred criminals?! So if your gun is hidden do you think it's less likely that a risk averse criminal is going to sneak up on you. Better yet why would the criminal sneak up on you at all? Why wouldn't he just move to an easier target like me? I clearly am not armed b/c . . . you can only carry if it's in the open!

Help me with my ignorance . . . I mean that seriously . . . studies of crime deterrence based on perception of criminals. Community watch, home security systems, lights on when you are away and someone picking up your mail all help, I believe. My understanding from criminals is they go for the easy target. But for the antisocial they go for any target and consequences do not matter. These are the people that I have reason to fear b/c they are going to accost me regardless of my weapon status. And if their harm is not a concern do you think they'll blink before shooting you from the corner or sneaking up and stabbing you from behind? Your CC would have no effect on these criminals b/c Lott's argument is that criminals make a conscious decision to reduce risk by commiting more property crimes (random) and commiting fewer violent offenses (nonrandom). The problem is his theory does not hold water b/c violent crime (CDC actually measured not calculated) decreased the greatest amongst people who DID NOT CC. And he posits no reason for why crime in some categories INCREASED (according to HIS model) in some states but decreased in others. Do criminals think differently in FL vs ME vs OR vs WV?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Lott's political ideology means very little to me b/c my criticism is of his systematically-flawed methods and how those ideologically aligned with his findings have run with them.

If his findings and demonstrated CC increased all crime statistics I would have the same criticism of his methodologies even though I would like to endorse the belief. You may question my veracity but truth is a lot more powerful than contrived conclusions.

There was a 10% drop in child firearm fatalities between 1997 and 1998; a tremendous outcome. The NRA claimed it was resources they dedicated to to gun education/firearm safety. Whole in that theory is the decrease was greatest amongst older inner city teens. Now the Eddie Eagle campaign also worked primarily with younger children. What kind of phenomena were operating on inner city youths in that age group. . . midnight basketball, booming economy, changes in drug trade. Can causation been proven? I don't know.

And unless you are too lazy to read about the NRA and how it spends more money than the US Government in training firearms safety which has led to the largest decline in firearm accidents in history or how it lobbies for longer sentences for violent criminals which is the biggest reason for the decline in crime you will indeed realise that they have an agenda, That is to make us safer without denying freedom to protect ones self because no one else can.

I love to read even warped stuff like the NRA or NOW websites. Did you read Lott's study? He said longer sentences do NOT have a significant effect on crime. Decreases in firearm accidents attributable to NRA funding for safety training? So why has there been NO change in the rate of child suicide by firearm in the last decade? Toughy . . . I don't know why either. My hypothesis is it is a complex phenomena that cannot be constrained to simple causal chain . . . much like crime. Most children who were killed by firearms in 2001 were late teens shooting one another 1900+, next came suicides 1000+. If you had to predict the outcome if all firearms in homes had to be stored locked away separate from ammunition what do you think would happen to the number of firearm accidents? My guess is that they would disappear except for the few 'accidents' that weren't 'accidents' and then the sheer idiots in society that can't handle chewing gum much less a firearm.

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

<< Uhmm...yea, and I suppose if something like this happened to PASS the bill, you'd be screaming like a little girl about how the bad men want to kill you. >>



you seem to be the one screaming...isn't that the whole point of you post? I just happened to point it out. LOL thanks again for proving my point. God forbid someone disagree with you.... As far as my choice of words, perhaps you consider the term 'asshole' to be worse than your insult to the people of wisconsin. If you dish it out, you should be prepared to eat some too. LOL, I am done with this stupid little flame war. My points were made, thanks to you.

 

[Russ]

<< But if you intend to carry them in public I want to see it . . . so I can cross the street. >>



This is a perfect example of irrational, fear-based thought process. Do you actually think that if the law-abiding gun owner is a threat to your safety, they become any less so simply because the weapon is visible rather then concealed? That makes no logical sense. Besides, if my intent were to do you harm, your attempt to cross the street is not going to prevent me from doing so.



<< The vast majority of CC are probably nice people. And I might even know one. But it's not like knowing if someone is gay or a lawyer. Gays aren't a threat >>



Actually, as a percentage of the group, a gay or a lawyer is more likely to harm you then a CCW holder. Permit holders, as a group, are involved in less crime then any other group you could classify, including cops.



<< I prefer the idea of a grassroots control over CC than Federal or State level. CC isn't in the US Constitution so would that mean that it's delagated to the state level? HAve the states send down to a district level, similar in size to school districts. >>



There are some states that do this, and it is an absolute disaster. Leaving it up to local jurisdictions sets up a situation where only the "connected" or powerful are allowed to receive permits. California is a perfect example. It is nearly impossible to be approved in San Francisco, yet gun-grabber supreme Diane Feinstein had no trouble getting a permit when she was Mayor.

Russ, NCNE

 

[docmanhattan]

<<

<< But if you intend to carry them in public I want to see it . . . so I can cross the street. >>



This is a perfect example of irrational, fear-based thought process. Do you actually think that if the law-abiding gun owner is a threat to your safetly, they become any less so simply because the weapon is visible rather then concealed? That makes no logical sense. Besides, if my intent were to do you harm, your attempt to cross the street is not going to prevent me from doing so.



<< The vast majority of CC are probably nice people. And I might even know one. But it's not like knowing if someone is gay or a lawyer. Gays aren't a threat >>



Actually, as a percentage of the group, a gay or a lawyer is more likely to harm you then a CCW holder. Permit holders, as a group, are involved in less crime then any other group you could classify, including cops.



<< I prefer the idea of a grassroots control over CC than Federal or State level. CC isn't in the US Constitution so would that mean that it's delagated to the state level? HAve the states send down to a district level, similar in size to school districts. >>



There are some states that do this, and it is an absolute disaster. Leaving it up to local jurisdictions sets up a situation where only the "connected" or powerful are allowed to receive permits. California is a perfect example. It is nearly impossible to be approved in San Francisco, yet gun-grabber supreme Diane Feinstein had no trouble getting a permit when she was Mayor.

Russ, NCNE >>

I think you're missing the entire concept of compromise, Russ. You say you should be able conceal your weapons. I say you I shouldn't. We both have our arguement, factoids, references, whatever that support the our views. At least the local level a decision can be made that is good for the area. You can claim corruption, but that falls into the irrational fear category, as well.

Get this through your head: Your claim that our fear is irrational is no more factually grounded than your claim that you safer with a concealed gun

Dramatization:

Me: "I feel unsafe because you could be hiding a gun and could shoot me."
Russ: "Don't be silly! Your fear irrational and unfounded. I'm a permit holder!"
Me: "Well, why do YOU carry a gun then?"
Russ: "Because someone might try and attack me and I have to be ready."

Who sounds more paranoid? You or me? Both of our fears are based on the unknown. It's a toss-up, but if I can at least see that you're armed, I can say, "Oh, that dudes packin', I best walk on the other side of the street."

C'mon, be a man about it., Russ Where a holster and strut about with spurs and 10 gallon hat. Or are you yella'?