This site summarizes the legislation–there are links to The Real Documents. If you have the time.
Personally, I’ll be getting my groceries at HEB, not Kroger. (The latter chain will allow Open Carry in its stores.)
Not directed to you: What happens in Wyoming (what* does* happen there?) is irrelevant to me. As is any opinion from the Mises Institute.
I think you’ve taken quite a leap to reach the conclusions you have.
There is no assumption that is being made with the portion that you quoted. That section is describing the makeup of OECD countries. They are factual in nature - do you dispute them?
There is no claim that gun crime is dependent on country size and/or level of representation in government. The mention of these factors is used as a way to contrast the US with the comparison group.
It’s not being used as a citation for anything meaningful to the discussion. It does demonstrate weaknesses of certain comparison sets and offers alternatives. Whether those alternatives are better or worse is debateable.
…
By* no definition* is the OECD the list of most developed nations, no more than NATO or European Union or any of several orgs. It’s a organization.
So, then since Max Fisher left out Mexico, you agree he is 'cherry picking" and agree with part of the article.
Again, just becuse you want to tar this libertarian thinktank with the label ‘racist’ dont make it so. In any case, the facts in the article are facts. they are easily checked. It appears you can’t counter the article with facts so you are going for a cheap *ad hominen *attack.
Where do you shop now?
In fact, it’s the* exact opposite *of a rebuttal, since you agree with their point.
Not everyone who has with a gun is legal. When police see someone with a gun they have no way of knowing if that person has a CHL or not. This alone is reasonable suspicion, and in some cases probable cause, to detain someone in order to verify if the individual is complying with the law by having a CHL.
You will be better off anyways as HEB is usually cheaper than Kroger. HEB does permit concealed carry, just in case you are concerned.
Not everyone driving a car has a driver’s license, but that does not permit the police to stop everyone in a car just to see if they’ve got one. In other words, what you are suggesting is a strong derogation of existing law.
I’ve been trying to explain something similar to that over here, but some people just don’t get it.
Though an officer walking up and talking to someone on the street is different from a traffic stop, putting them in a situation where they feel detained is not. In Wisconsin we have unlicensed open carry (as it should be IMHO) and there is special training for officers on this as people still sometimes call 911 when they see an OCer. Basically a cop can walk up to you and ask you what’s up, why you’re carrying, etc… But if you walk away or tell him to pound sand there is nothing the police can do unless there is some other circumstance indicating a violation of law.
Wisconsin law specifically says carrying a weapon openly or concealed is not Disorderly Conduct.
This guy explains it pretty well.
So can we not make comparisons between NATO countries? As in, many believe Germany’s defense spending is too low. Should this be an invalid criticism of Germany, because Germany isn’t being compared to Costa Rica?
I have stated that I have very little use for responding to a neo-Confederate think thanks. I then went on to say that the whole article is premised on the fallacy of the beard - funny how the people who like that article keep avoiding that point I’ve made. I even provided a link to the definition of that fallacy. Me can use accurate facts to argue poorly, which is exactly what the article does.
The whole premise that comparing the US to OECD countries is invalid because there are other ways to measure the wealth of countries, does not make logical sense. It implies that there is only a few valid ways to compare the US to other countries, which I disagree with. We can compare cars by many measures - speed, handling, economy, by class of car, by country of origin of the car, and so on. The fact that one can decide alternative comparisons of cars doesn’t mean that one particular measure, accurately applied, is invalid.
If I say the Ford Ranger is the most fuel efficient light truck, that’s not cherry picking. If you want to compare the Ranger to all vehicles under 3,000 pounds and find that it is not the most efficient, that’s a perfectly fine measure, too. But your measurement doesn’t invalidate my measurement.
If you buy the premise of the Von Mises article, however, then you must think that your measure invalidates mine. But I’m interested in comparing a category - light trucks - and you may be interested in comparing a much larger category of vehicles. **Both measure are perfectly fine. ** I think comparing the US to countries like Japan, France, Australia, etc is a better measurement than comparing the US to counties like Oman and Khazakstan, which the article’s suggestion on using HDI > 0.75 would include.
But let’s face it: the article comes from the preconceived conclusion that it should make violence in the United States look like a non issue, and then backs into rationales to compare the US to counties with more violence whether or not those countries are much like the US at all.
As a general principle, I don’t agree that this claim is true. The Sixth Circuit addressed similar reasoning; the police were being sued for a stop of a person lawfully open carrying. The officer’s defense included the observation that he ha dno way of knowing if the carrier legally possessed the weapon – he could have been a felon, for example, and thus barred from legally carrying.
The Court eviscerated that reasoning, reminding us that even reasonable, articulable suspicion must be articulable - that is, it cannot be premised on a mere hunch or an inchoate suspicion that there is criminal activity afoot. “He might not have a license,” in other words, is not a reasonable, articulable suspicion. It’s a hunch.
Now, I of course make room for the existence of some specific provision of law that permits this kind of inspection.
But I’d want to see some detail.
I also make room for some local caselaw that permits such stops.
But, again, I’d want to see more detail.
So: cite?
Firstly you try an ad hominen by saying one of the founder sis racist. Being unable to back that up, and having it pointed out to you repeatedly that your argument just attacks the person (not even the writer of the piece), not the facts . you then switch to another ad hominen attack that it’s “neo-Confederate”. :rolleyes:
Nor does the* fallacy of the beard*:rolleyes: apply in this case at all.
But you still have not disputed a single* fact.*
I’ve said before, if you want to discuss whether or not this organization is reputable, open another thread and I’ll join in. If you think they’re the bees knees, let’s debate it. I just think it’s a large discussion and a hijack of this thread.
It does and I’ve explained why. Maybe if you put ten more roll eyes in your post you’ll win the arguement.
I have said that the article presents facts, but uses them in a fallacious argument, which is obvious if you were not so tied to the idea of defending gun ownership.
Then why do you keep bringing it up? First 'racist" then “neo-confederate”. * You *have hijacked this thread not us. No one is gonna let ad hominen attacks like those slide.
I say again - if you want to debate it, let’s start a new thread. You can defend Von Mises as much as you like. You can even use as many roll eyes in the thread as you wish. They are free.
Then stop with the ad hominen attacks.
I mostly shop at Kroger–locations are more convenient. But I can substitute HEB by changing my routine a bit. Their baked goods & meats are better than Kroger, in fact. HEB also owns Central Market–not too far & a Texas competitor to Whole Foods.
Open carry will also be barred at Whole Foods–but there’s that “whole paycheck” thing. (HEB even used the phrase in a TV ad.) Randalls, too–but I haven’t visited one in years.
Yes, I know that HEB allows Concealed Carry. I’m not worried for my safety–it’s the aesthetics of the thing…
The article doesn’t say that one measure invalidates the other. It does as you have done, it presents another way to measure, as an example to show different results. That is the way **ChickenLegs **presented the article. In other words, you used developed, or OECD, or rich countries as your comparison. The article used HDI. HDI does not invalidate the OECD measure (if using all the OECD countries), nor does the richest country measure invalidate the HDI measure. But whenever you pick a measure, it will call into question the reason why that particular measure was chosen. You think comparing the US to countries like Japan, France, or Australia is better than Oman and Khazakstan…why? If your rationale makes sense or is persuasive, then that’s great. If it’s using OECD countries but leaving out OECD countries that detract from the point you’re making, then not so great.