How about this scenario: citizen goes into bar, having left his firearm dutifully locked inside his car, and proceeds to get loaded. At this point, several sheets to the wind, he decides he doesn’t care for someone’s attitude at the next table, and just in case decides to fetch his trusty firearm and bring it in to the bar for self-protection. He is still obeying the law, as he will not drink after he brings the loaded firearm in under his coat, but he is still several sheets to the wind, and maybe not exercising the best judgment as to the proper and legal use of his lawful firearm. Under the former law, he would be breaking it simply by re-entering the bar with a concealed weapon, but under the current law, he’s good. So we have a totally loaded citizen packing heat in a volatile environment, perfectly legally. Is that scenario more likely or less likely to result in a tragic incident than a scenario that discourages him from entering the premises armed?
In that circumstance, Bricker, I would like you to answer simply whether you find a tragic incident more likely under the current law or less likely, nothing more, please.
We don’t really need to posit drunks with handguns to make the case that having more firearms in a crowd where people are drinking alcohol increases the chances of gun use.
Now, most people who drink in public don’t get sloppy drunk, most drunks don’t get obnoxious and most obnoxious drunks don’t get violent. But it happens more in bars than it does at Chucky Cheese.
Then that should be a pretty easy point to prove, no? HAS there been more instances of gun violence since this access was granted? If not, then is there data to suggest either that no one is taking advantage of it (which shows something right there), or that the number of patrons is down in drinking establishments in Virginia (which might say something as well), or that there hasn’t been enough time to show any sort of trend? What I’m seeing in a lot of these threads on this subject (including the tangential discussion on this here) is the ASSUMPTION that allowing more access to carrying guns will cause potentially more violence. But I’ve seen no data…not even someone demonstrating that there has been too little time to really see any sort of trend.
[QUOTE=me, in post #823]
and 3) we’re only looking at one year. If the numbers skew the same way for a few years in a row, that’s a trend, and maybe we need to discuss it. But one year? Anything could happen.
I’m saying it’s a reasonable basis for opposing the law in Virginia Mr. Bricker is so proud of. So I don’t have to prove it.
But as a matter of fact, it would not be easy to prove, it’s just easy to make the argument. Prove that if I drop a nickle onto the floor an infinite number of times it’ll come up heads just as often as it comes up tails. You can’t do it, but it’s reasonable as a rule of thumb to calculate odds.
Just as it’s reasonable to figure there’s a higher public risk associated with legalized concealed carry in bars versus not legalizing concealed carry in bars.
[QUOTE=xenophon41]
I’m saying it’s a reasonable basis for opposing the law in Virginia Mr. Bricker is so proud of. So I don’t have to prove it.
[/QUOTE]
By assuming the results? Would you change your mind if data shows that the effect of allowing people who have the proper registration for open or conceal carry to take their weapons into bars has no effect or that there is even a drop in gun violence in those establishments? Why or why not?
Why? I presume there is some sort of historical data showing the number of violent encounters in Virginia bars due to guns. If you go a like period of years and the data indicates an increase, then that shows something. If you go a like period and the data shows no change then that shows something. If you go a like period of years and the data shows a decline then that shows something. What am I missing here?
If there IS a higher public risk then you should be able to quantify it, using trend data for the number of cases of gun violence, before and after. If there is a higher risk to the public in simply legalizing concealed carry (full stop) then THAT should be able to be quantified using trend data…right? Again, what am I missing here?
pseudotriton ruber ruber…fair enough. I hadn’t seen anyone make that argument, so thanks for pointing it out. I’d say that IS a reasonable argument, and one that further data should address.
Great. So the best way to resolve this is to count the number of people who get shot under a specific set of circumstances, do that for ten? fifteen? years, and we will have a basis for judgement.
Or, alternatively, might we not continue to forbid bringing firearms into bars and devise some method for extracting data outlining the dreadful consequences of our inaction? What might they be, I wonder?
[QUOTE=elucidator]
Great. So the best way to resolve this is to count the number of people who get shot under a specific set of circumstances, do that for ten? fifteen? years, and we will have a basis for judgement.
[/QUOTE]
Alternatively, I suppose we could just guess. The preliminary data, from what I understand, seems to indicate that despite opening up firearms carry laws in various states that gun violence is on the decline in the US (overall…it’s on the rise in some places, in decline in others, but the general trend seems to be down, from my own memories of the data), so I’d say that we don’t really have to wait for 15 years to determine if ordinary citizens are apts to slaughter each other wholesale (as opposed to retail) if we let them have their guns.
I suppose we might, if the voters think that inaction and the status quo is the best course. In places where the voters don’t think that’s good enough I suppose we’ll have these little experiments to provide data that will either justify adherence to the status quo or show that some of the theories about armed citizens might be flawed in some cases. Personally, I’m good with restricting folks from bringing firearms into bars or pubs (pretty easy for me, since I don’t carry a gun or have such a permit…my weapons are my dashingly handsome features and the disarming looks. Who wants to fight a fat, balding Hispanic with such a sunny disposition??). I’m equally good with voters deciding that they DO want to give such social experiments a go and see what happens. Some of the best things that have happened in the US have come from minority groups pushing through a social agenda that runs counter to existing ‘popular wisdom’ and the status quo, so I await developments here to see if this will also be the case…or if it will be an epic fail along the lines of folks who thought putting seatbelts in cars was a bad idea to mandate.
This is exactly where I get off the liberal bus–you ALWAYS have to justify reducing rights, and you ALWAYS have to justify it with hard data rather than a sense something is wrong.
Otherwise, you’re in the same league (even if he’s the Steelers to your Asscrack Mountain High Single-A team) with **magellan01 **and “no gay marriage because…er, I have a gut feeling”.
[QUOTE=Zeriel]
Otherwise, you’re in the same league (even if he’s the Steelers to your Asscrack Mountain High Single-A team) with magellan01 and “no gay marriage because…er, I have a gut feeling”.
[/QUOTE]
I doubt most are going to give this much traction, but to me it’s actually a good analogy. My dad, who is fairly rational (well, sometimes) actually feels pretty much the way 'luci does about the gun carry laws. Why should society gamble when the status quo is fine? We’ve been having the whole man and woman=marriage thingy for years (decades, centuries, whatever), and it’s worked out pretty well…why risk all the chaos and destruction HE fears might happen if we, gulp, allow people of the same sex to marry?? :eek:
I’m a bit less dispassionate about this one than the guns carried in bars thing, and have gotten into some pretty epic fights with my dad over this subject. Even the fact that one of my dad’s grandsons IS gay hasn’t managed to shift him on this…and I wouldn’t characterize him as a knee jerk anti-gay homophobe. He just doesn’t believe that people of the same sex should marry and have all the rights and privileges that heterosexuals have. And I scream at him that this is the whole point…you are denying those rights and privileges to people for no good reason, just based on a freaking feeling that it’s ‘wrong’!!
Well, don’t get off the bus without a transfer. The negative impact of gay marriage simply does not exist in any meaningful way. It is an utter abstraction. There is no good reason they should be forbidden to marry. They have a right.
The right to carry firearms on one’s person is a faith I do not share, but I am resigned that the fight just ain’t worth it. If the only tangible value of this exercise is to reassure ballistiphiles that their sacred rights are secure, it leaves me cooly detached.
Besides, i like gay people better than I like guns. Lot less dangerous, for one thing. That’s ten points, right there.
I honestly do not see the difference between this argument and the stuff that comes out of the mouths of the social conservative morons. Show me the money, y’know? If it’s got a negative impact, there oughta be some hard numbers.
Hence, I’m pro-gay-marriage, believe in global warming, and pro-concealed-carry, because in all cases the hard numbers that exist are so far promising. Different amounts of study, different weights, sure.
The point of all this, I suppose, is “don’t become what you hate”. Even if it seems really clear to you that something that’s unstudied is OBVIOUSLY going to have a huge deleterious effect, the minute that becomes your argument you’re one step away from calling people the Usual Suspects and changing your username to OMG A Rural White Entrepreneur Liberal or something.
Ad-hominem. Please do try to stick to the current argument. Otherwise, I’ll just assume that you don’t have a counter-argument and therefore have to resort to cheap character attacks as a way to dodge and run.
Then feel free to ignore the spin, and address the science. Again, going after the commentary around the paper is a good way to avoid having to address the actual argument, but understand that I and others reading this can see right through that.
All irrelevancies. I don’t know ‘Cuccinelli’. Never heard of him. I don’t care about his efforts to blame anything on anyone. Why this person should have any bearing on a factual argument I’m making is beyond me.
I know that, and that’s why I didn’t call you an alarmist. In fact, as you know I have said nice things about you in the past, about the way you have carried out the global warming debate, and I’ve credited you with helping to shift my position on the subject. So let’s stay away from the personal, hmm?
How is 3 degrees of warming ‘unacceptable’? Compared to what? I agree that the IPCC says that warming over 2.5 degrees would do net economic harm to the planet. But whether it’s ‘unacceptable’ depends on our range of realistic options and the cost of alternative courses.
So here’s what I want to know:
How much harm? Give me a figure in dollar amounts. I’ll accept wide error bars, but take them into account.
How much harm can you avoid through reasonable carbon restriction, and how much will it cost to avoid that harm?
How will you get and enforce a global treaty to reduce CO2, when countries will have to actively damage their own GDPs in order to comply? Do you honestly expect something like that to hold together?
If not a global treaty, explain how your own plan actually reduces global carbon emissions, taking into account things like carbon taxes pushing manufacturing to energy inefficient factories in other countries, and voluntarily reduction of oil consumption driving down the price of oil, and stimulating the use of it elsewhere.
This is a discussion that should be rooted in numbers - all costs, benefits, and options on the table. If not, you’ll just get another useless Kyoto treaty and muck up the economy a bit to no good end.
I have no idea what you’re saying here. I’ve haven’t been insulting or misleading in the least. I’m not the one trying to smear you by association with extremists and going all personal right out of the gate. And I’m not asking anyone to trust me. I’m not selling anything. I’m trying to understand a difficult issue because it’s interesting and because it’s good citizenship.
I really don’t care about you personally, and I don’t mine the archives for ammo to ‘get’ you with, because I tend to take your posts seriously and evaluate them based on their content. I’m weird that way.
Uh, okay. Strange, but okay. I’m not quite sure who you’re parodying there: the large right-wing subculture of evangelical Paleo-climate auto-didact bloggers? I hate those guys.
Wait… what about the elephant in the room? I want to know about the elephant.
The argument is to see if Shodan is on the level and if it is true that people like him get the same take downs just because you are from the right, not so, you are peddling misleading information, I do not care much that you are coming from the right and this exersise is to show why many “facts” coming from the sources you are relying are not so.
That DDT item was mentioned among the reasons why environmentalists and climate scientists should not be trusted, a real Ad-hominen when accusing the environmentalists involved of being mass murderers.
This actually shows that you are expecting others to miss the fact that you are even misleading yourself, I already did, the article is good science, down to the specific warning that we have to do something now to avoid problems in the future.
For someone that claims to be informed on the subject this is yet another example of the inadequacy of the sources you rely on, in this case this shows a gross lack of information of what Republicans are doing, not just criticizing scientists, but prosecuting them.
Now lets remember that Michael Mann was one of the biggest contributors to Paleoclimatology, that produced the classic hockey stick graph, the misleading information produced in the ongoing attempt to discredit it includes misinformation made not only by Republicans Prosecutors, but by Senators like Inhofe and all tea party members, you can count with your fingers the Republicans that accept the science.
You first.
This could be assigned to your ignorance, but for a couple of years I got plenty of experience on the SDMB and elsewhere regarding this subject, as with moon hoaxers and 911 truthers it is not hard to tahe on them when the evidence and consensus are on your side, the ammo is coming out of the ears of Google :). More than once other posters have made the note that they do not need to comment as I was already there with the facts, so as the context of the tread is to assign blame to the leftists that in this case are alarmists for driving away discussion on this subject you bet your ignorant rant applies to me as I’m usually the guy on front when this issue appears.
Follow the blue links on the text for the cites up there.
[quote=“Sam_Stone, post:978, topic:610530”]
How will you get and enforce a global treaty to reduce CO2, when countries will have to actively damage their own GDPs in order to comply? Do you honestly expect something like that to hold together?
If not a global treaty, explain how your own plan actually reduces global carbon emissions, taking into account things like carbon taxes pushing manufacturing to energy inefficient factories in other countries, and voluntarily reduction of oil consumption driving down the price of oil, and stimulating the use of it elsewhere.
As California and Australia are showing, many are already stopping listening to the misleaders and doing something about it, IMHO it is the trade and goods that will have to conform to the new regulations a force that will be hard to counteract and so many other countries will be pressured to produce tools and machinery that conforms to the new requirements in important markets.
This is still a discussion to figure out if guys like you are accurate on the idea that this site being mean to guys like you and Shodan with no good reasons, as it turns out, there are good reasons as you are grossly ignorant on this subject.
The ammo is not hard to find, but you are wrong here, the DDT item was mentioned by you in a thread I was a part of, as I pointed then it was really a huge brown M&M in the bowl.
And really, what I said before stands, you do pass asphyxiating items to others surrounded on a nice candy shell.
As mentioned before, you are showing ignorance on what deniers and most Republicans are doing with paleoclimate science, suffice to say that the Hokey stick came from that and it has been an ongoing and never ending effort to discredit that science and their researchers. That you claim to not be aware of this basic line of attack from the USA conservatives that are against any change in policy is getting silly.
Indeed, better to be ignorant of the clear anti-scientific efforts and harassment that virtually all Republican leaders are doing to paleoclimatologists and to virtually all other scientists involved in climate research.
