In repsonse to the OP, I oppose concealed-carry laws because states that have them have high murder rates than states that don’t, as I showed in this thread:
Now, as I can sense the statistical virgins already gearing up to accuse my analysis of being overly simplistic, let me offer a simple response. If you can show me a more in depth analysis which invalidates my approach, I will be happy to read it. If it is written intelligently and has appropriate citations of reliable sources of data, I will reconsider my stance.
Have you considered that, perhaps, the states with concealed carry laws in 2001 (the year you examined) passed concealed carry laws because they had higher murder rates than other states to begin with, and that the murder rates in those states experienced a subsequent drop? Analyzing one year doesn’t prove much.
Regarding point 3), First off, you cant take the gun into a bar, restuarant that serves alchohol, tavern, etc. If youre drunk then you must have done so (legally) at your home or someone elses. If you`re anywhere but the original place that you got drunk, then you probably drove there, again, illegal. The person would have broken several laws already on the books to have that scenario take place.
Points 1), and 2), are not good enough reasons to not allow CW. Think about it, your arguing that because someone might perform several illegal activities to obtain your weapon that that should be a reason for you not to own one?
Guess what? Many or your drinking rioting buddies already own guns. If they really wanted to, right now, they could walk down State Street with a holstered 45. Non-concealed.
This law isn`t intended to increase gun ownership, what it will do is get more of the present gun owners registered, trained, and informed.
Uncommon Sense, that gets back to my earlier question that was never answered. In what states can you walk around with an unconcealed weapon? And what are the restrictions?
These studies have been done, including a large one maybe five years ago, and it was found that crime rates in states dropped faster in states which passed concealed carry laws, than in states that didn’t. This was in the 1990s, when crime rates in general were dropping. You have to compare before and after data, not just single year. I’ll look for citations - I heard the full story on NPR, that tool of the NRA. You can also Google articles by John Lott.
Thank you very much, that’s one to bookmark. Now if I could just get my bookmarks organized…
Why do muggings occur in the first place? No one is claiming that liberalized CCW laws can end them completely, only that they may plausibly have a deterrent effect.
As has been pointed out, a large number of states have liberalized their CCW laws in the past 15 years or so. Have incidents like this increased in those states? If so, have they disproportionately involved CCW holders? Never mind about “potential”, or what might hapen, what are the facts?
See my question above.
Police officers carry their weapons openly. We are discussing concealed carry here.
A lot of things can happen. The question is, has the passage of liberalized CCW laws in the states that have them led to this sort of thing actually happening?
I am just quoting this for emphasis. xtisme has expressed my own feeling perfectly here.
Of course, which is why the text of the amendment reads, “The Right of the States to have a Well Regulated Militia Shall Not be Infringed.” How fortunate for us that they did not confuse the issue by putting in any extraneous verbiage, like a reference to some “Right of the People”.
Interesting question. I don’t know the answer, but I think a good place to start would be to ask what sort of insurance the police and armed security guards and private detectives have for this sort of thing. It’s obviously an issue for them as well.
In the states that have already liberalized concealed carry laws, have these laws led to an increase in this sort of problem?
1 - That’s a long thread, could you please point out the specific link, and 2 - Even if that is true, you still have to show that liberalized CCW laws cause higher murder rates.
How mind-bogglingly disingenuous. If guns aren’t dangerous, then why the desire to carry them, concealed? The entire purpose is to a) scare the crap out of someone, or b) shoot someone. Preferably option a), and usually because of the fear of someone doing the same to you.
Arguments for collecting, hunting or mere target practice simply don’t apply when you are talking about concealed carry. How, exactly, are guns supposed to be a deterrent to crime if they aren’t considered dangerous?
I think the danger lies strictly in the abount of control (or lack of) that the user excersizes over the weapon.
A gun lying on the dresser is not dangerous.
A gun in the hands of a four year old is.
A gun in the hands of catsix is probably not.
I think that is the general point that was being made.
Sorry, but I don’t buy it. If guns are not inherently dangerous, how does one explain the alleged reduction in crime that is supposed to occur when everyone’s packin’? How does one explain any alleged deterrence that a would-be attacker supposedly would face? Why the desire to conceal the weapon in the first place, so as to make said would-be attackers guess as to who’s armed and who’s not?
The entire argument behind concealed carry boils down to would-be attackers fearing being attacked themselves, thereby causing them to seek out gainful employment somewhere instead of turning to a life of crime, or some damn thing. If the danger isn’t there, the fear isn’t there, and the whole argument becomes nonsense. If you want to talk about irrational or potentially-dangerous people, then it doesn’t matter what they’re armed with, or even if they’re armed - they can be a potential threat regardless.
The general trend almost across the board is downward for ALL (well, except for Wy which went up) the states…including those with CCW. I haven’t sat down yet and gone through all the data and compared the relative rates of decline.
According to his other cite in the other thread, there are only 5 states and DC where the right to carry is denied. Those are NE, KS, MO, IL, WI…and DC. There are 8 states where the CCW is restricted, CA, IA, NY, MA, RI, NJ, DE, and MD.
Just a cursory look seems to indicate the 5 states that deny right to carry have declined at a faster rate than the national average. So, this kind of blows out of the water the concept that crime drops more in states with a right to carry than those without. However, the sample size for those states without is pretty small (and I didn’t really look hard at the 8 states with restriced access closely), so I’m not sure how valid even a tenitive statement like that is.
Broadly speaking, murder went down accross the board, reguardless of whether they have CCW or not. This seems to indicate that the dire predictions of citizen gunslingers wreaking havoc are a bit exaggerated…at least its not indicated in the murder rate or other evidence I saw on a quick look at ITC’s other thread (I didn’t go through the whole thing, just picked out his first post with cites in that thread). I certainly don’t see how this data ‘proves’ anything, one way or the other.
CCW is in effect in MOST of the states (something I didn’t know before hand…I assumed it was a minority of states that allowed it), yet I’ve seen nothing in the papers (and certainly there have been no cites from those opposed) showing either an increase in murders, or gunfights at the ok coral between gun wielding citizens. The fact that the general trend is downward for murder across the board SEEMS to indicate that CCW hasn’t had a real effect one way or the other.
I don’t have time to go all through the other thread ITC. I might have missed other cites you posted and other data. Also, I didn’t see where you interperated the data. Maybe later tonight I’ll have time to go through your other thread in more depth and see what else you said. Feel free to post relevant sections here if you like, or give your interperatation of the data you cited. I just tossed out this post on my lunch hour to give us something to look at to keep the discussion going and maybe even get off the path.
I guess you missed it when I pointed out that’s a dependent clause. Here’s an example of a sentence with a dependent clause - let’s say I have a roommate, and I say to my roommate:
“Since you’re going to meet me at the party later, why don’t you borrow my car?”
Does that give my roommate the right to take my car, blow me off, and drive to Vegas? Only if you remove the first part of the sentence. But you can’t do that, because it IS part of the sentence.
Usually, you’re clued in to a dependent clause coming up by conditional words such as “if”, “when”, “since”, “provided that”, etc., but not always.
“Possessing a valid driver’s license, you may drive a car.”
Using your logic, and bifurcating this sentence, this would mean you can drive a car whether or not you have a license, which of course is not the meaning of the sentence.
I agree that the Second Amendment is a poorly-worded piece of crap, but how is that cause to just flat-out ignore the main part of the sentence? I ask you this - if the Second Amendment was intended merely to protect the right of individual citizens to own guns for personal self-defense, then what exactly does the first part of the sentence mean? If the first part of the sentence is completely unrelated, why is it not simply a seperate amendment?
Year 2000.
Falls (W00-W19) … 13,322
Accidental discharge of firearms (W32-W34) … 776.
Accidental drowning and submersion (W65-W74) 3,482
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames 3,377
Accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances (X40-X49) 12,757
El Escorpio wrote:
Good question. However, ask yourself this. If your car is stolen, should there be a penalty on you? If you use an ax to split firewood, it gets stolen and you don’t report it, should you be held liable when some whacko uses it to dismember his family?
One of the unwritten golden rules of firearms handling is alcohol and firearms do not mix. I’m not particularly sure of the statutes, but I’m sure if you get stopped while packing and drinking, one of the penalties is immediate suspension or revocation of your CC license.
Wrong. If I carry my pistol with me while deer hunting, which is legal in Pennsylvania so long as I have a valid concealed carry license, in order to put a kill shot into a deer that I’ve wounded, that firearm will be holstered on my person as required. Because it is under the heavy weight jacket that I’ve got to wear in the winter, even if only partially obscured, it’s considered concealed, and the license is necessary. Open carry is perfectly legal without a license, but practically an impossibility in a winter deer hunt in PA.
How, exactly, are uniformed police officers patrolling the streets supposed to be a deterrent to crime if they aren’t considered dangerous to criminals?
In Pennsylvania, in a situation like that, your license is automatically revoked. We were also told at the meeting with the County Sheriff’s Deputy that we were prohibited from carrying a firearm into an establishment that does not sell food but sells alcohol (bar) and from carrying one while drinking at any establishment, or we risk the loss of our licenses. You may of course contest this at a hearing, but you’re not going to win. It’s also the case that even if you are not carrying your firearm at the time your license will be revoked if you have been found driving under the influence three times. Getting caught with illegal drugs is yet another way to lose your license, as is having a PFA (Protection From Abuse) order filed against you. The last one really bothers me, because PFAs are granted on the request of one party, typically with no requirement of evidence at all. I’ve seen someone file a PFA against her boyfriend solely because she wanted to make sure that he couldn’t take their baby to visit his mother in another state. She admitted to us (her family) that he had never been violent toward her. He lost his guns anyway.
Uncommon Sense, while you make some good arguments, and while I don’t deny that you have the right and would seem to have both the proficiency and the ‘common sense’ (if you can forgive me for using the term) to carry and possibly use a concealed weapon, this thread is an example of why many people are in favor of gun control.
Basically, for every sane, law-abiding, competent owner of a handgun there is out there, there are others who are so easily incensed by gun control that I wonder if they should be allowed to carry a weapon. Forget the criminals, forget the likelihood of a gun-related accident or a mugging. Unfortunately, many gun owners seem to have more passion about firearms than education or reasoning skills. Weird Al Einstein asks for cites and seems to think that any doubts about his argument are unworthy of being seen outside the pit, but he asks for cites when stumped for a reply, answers rhetorical questions, and takes idiomatic expressions literally just to make his argument superficially stronger.
If an ordinary adult gets so worked up about the topic just reading things on the Internet, I have my doubts about how well an ordinary adult could decide, in a split second, whether or not he would be justified in shooting someone. Even given that, panic or stress could cause inaccuracy and result in an unnecessary fatality of a bystander. Gun owners often cite their prowess on the range to refute this. As a conservatory student (I’ve performed in Carnegie Hall, had my picture in the NY Times twice) I’ve seen firsthand how much can go wrong when people have to perform under pressure.
Uncommon Sense, I’m pretty sure that if I knew you, I would be fine with letting you have rocket launchers and tanks if you wanted them. The problem is, if the government lets you have them, then we have to let others have them. I’m not so sure about the others.
We can nitpick the details to death. We can go over the percentages until the cows come home. In the end, it boils down to one thing. Freedom.
If youre a law abiding citizen, you need not worry nor care that others in your society are carrying a CW legally because the reality is youll probably never be in a situation that this will directly affect you (unless said CW person is saving your ass from a mugging). If youre the type that keeps your nose clean, there is no reason to believe that this law will affect you in any way shape or form. The numbers you will end up crunching are numbers put forth by the delinquent members of society. Not by the good people that want to ensure their own safety. Those that wish to carry CWs are under the impression that they are safer. They are under the impression that it is a freedom given to us by the Constituiton. They are a majority in this country. They have 46 other states on their side, and I might add, a good number of Dopers.
If you can find specific instances where the numbers show that CW are harmful to society (I doubt you will) then I will still support the CW laws.
Because, with every freedom we have, we have to give up something else in order to have that freedom.
Herein lies the crux of the matter. You se, the government doesn’t let me do anything. I let the government do things. It is a not-too-subtle difference. This country was founded, and still exists, on the idea that power flows from the people to the government, not the other way around. The gun control argument tends to fall along the lines of: people who understand this distinction - against gun control. People who do not understand this distinction - for gun control.
At no time does any owner of a gun have to justify anything to anybody.
Do you say the same things about those people who are incensed about the more obnoxious provisions in the Patriot Act? After all, they only restrict aspects of our First and Fourth Amendment rights - what’s the big deal?
The people who are “so incensed about gun control” are people who feel it is an unjustified infringment of a Constitutional right. Infringement of Constitutional rights IS something we should get worked up over.
As for how well “ordinary adults” can handle weapons under fire - what do you think police officers and soldiers are? Superhuman? I’d remind you that police work has traditionally been a working-class job, an alternative to being a butcher or a factory worker or a garbage truck driver. The pool from which police recruits are chosen is composed of very ordinary men and women; rocket scientists or test pilots they’re not. As Catsix has already shown, the requirements for obtaining a CCW permit are generally designed to exclude people with a history of violent behavior, drug abuse, or alcohol abuse; there’s no reason to believe that a citizen who meets the CCW permit requirements can’t be trained to use their weapon appropriately under stress.
When there’s no pre-performance, there’s no stage fright. You train, and train, and train, and practice, and practice, and practice again until your body performs the actions without your brain getting involved. That’s how it was when the crackhead broke into my apartment.
I did exactly what I had practiced thousands of times. I had the cell phone and the gun, and I was dialing. The door opened, and then there was no more barrier between him and me. The phone hit the floor, and I aimed. I gave him one verbal warning that he had 3 seconds to leave. He hesitated. I said ‘Two seconds.’ He turned and ran. I heard him go down the stairs. I closed the door, called the police, and waited. He was caught, I was safe. Another vicitm that never was.
I do not want to know what would have happened if I’d had to wait for the cops to arrive, which took seven minutes after I called. I do not want to know what would have happened had I not been armed. I’m glad I don’t. I do know what would have happened had he taken another step forward. I would’ve done exactly what I’d practiced. Double tap center of mass.
I didn’t think about the situation, didn’t think ‘Hey this is really bad. I might have to shoot this guy.’ I just did what I trained to, by rote. I believe that if you train enough, when that moment hits unexpectedly, you don’t have time to get nervous or feel the pressure. You can’t feel pressure to perform when you don’t know you’re going to be on stage.