Poll about Guns

[bmags]

I disagree completely. In Chicago, no law-abiding citizen can have a gun, but that doesn't stop thousands of criminals. There are other large cities with concealed carry without a problem (39 states have shall-issue policies).

 

You can never guarantee every individual their safety. Police cannot be everywhere all the time. More importantly, they are not legally required to protect the individual (this is mainly to prevent people from being able to sue if the police can't stop every single crime, I believe).

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

 

for the record, I don't live in chicago. I don't know what your laws are I haven't lived here in 4 years. But, further, no where in my statements did I indicate I needed a lecture that was given in your post.

 

edit: and more for the record, if this thread doesn't convince you that data is almost completely useless on a topic like this I don't know what will.

Edited January 17, 2009 by bmags

[StrangeSox]

Getting a gun to hopefully prevent yourself from being that 1 in a million that's murdered each year? That's logical? Sigh.

 

Why do you continue to ignore the tens of thousands of other violent crimes?

 

You're completely ignoring half of my arguments now. You're just calling it a logical fallacy if you dont have a sufficient answer.

 

And you obviously are not rational if you think drunk people should be given guns.

I'm not ignoring any of your arguments. They're just mostly emotional, ad hominem, or strawmen.

 

I don't think "drunk people should be given guns." That's another strawman. I said that there are plenty of states with carry laws that allow people to carry in bars without any problems.

 

Can you cite the statistic that shows how often a person carrying a gun prevents a violent crime from ever occurring to them?

 

There's one report out there that says about 2.5M a year, but I'm skeptical. That sort of statistic would be incredibly hard to track.

 

edit: Apparently the DoJ did this study in 1994 and came up with 1.5M crimes prevented by guns. I don't believe it breaks out concealed carry.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

 

Pertinent quote:

On any given

day, 1.1 million people were carrying

guns on their person outside the workplace,

while another 2.1 million stored

guns in their cars or trucks.

 

So, every day we have millions of people carrying without any of these fantasy Rambo moments you guys are worried about.

 

Can you cite anything that shows gun bans prevent violent crimes?

There's no proof, it's all conjecture. You can check your NRA brochure for more.

 

NRA is generally a completely self-serving organization. There are plenty of gun owners who hold the NRA in low regard.

 

That's not it all. Stats don't overrule logic in all cases, and I don't think they do in this debate. Every "party" is different; different people, different settings, different moods, different contexts. Stats from one have no bearing on another. Its like a poster said earlier; stats showing there's no crime in Boofoo, Hicksville where everyone has guns do not translate to Chicago, Illinois.

 

 

As to your question; If there was a way of knowing in advance, I'd prefer to attend the party where there are more guns, and the bad guys are offset or outgunned. That's a no brainer. However, there's no way of knowing that ahead of time. In actual society, you won't know who's packing until somebody (the bad guy) draws. Once that happens, a dangerous situation exists, no matter what. The fact that a good guy might be present and able to draw back could reduce the danger or it might enhance it; once again that would depend upon the specific context and the characters. I don't see how that could ever be meaningfully measured or predicted in advance with statistics.

Legally, with guns bans, you may not know which thug is packing, but you know that none of the law-abiding citizens are.

 

Criminals generally don't want to be shot. If there's an increased chance of a potential victim shooting back, they'll be less likely to attack in the first place.

 

for the record, I don't live in chicago. I don't know what your laws are I haven't lived here in 4 years. But, further, no where in my statements did I indicate I needed a lecture that was given in your post.

 

edit: and more for the record, if this thread doesn't convince you that data is almost completely useless on a topic like this I don't know what will.

 

I'm very confused. How is measurement of the effects of policy completely useless when discussing firearm ownership and concealed carry? What if the data show, time and again, that guns bans aren't effective at doing anything but disarming victims; meaningless? Then what is useful? How do we tell if gun bans or concealed carry permits have the outcomes we hope?

 

Half of this thread was a bunch of emotional rants from BigSqwert and Duke. Calling gun owners lunatics and ignoring any crime in Chicago that isn't a murder doesn't convince me that data is meaningless.

Edited January 17, 2009 by StrangeSox

[bmags]

Because this subject is too hard to tackle in numbers. They really aren't worth a damn and people continually asking "do you have numbers to back you up" is really ridiculous.

 

The personal rights and moral arguments are better made and much more interesting. The argument of "until the police can prove that they can protect me all time, I have the right to protect myself" is a better argument than bringing in london stats. Because even if violent crime went up, it doesn't really prove that the lack of guns has done nothing. People from London I talk to think its absurd the amount of guns we have, and are much happier with their laws. If they feel the law is serving their people it isn't a failure.

 

Clearly, a law banning weapons in america would not be serving a huge amount of people to their satisfaction. It would be means to a revolt.

[StrangeSox]

There are definitely two different discussions to have (effective policy [data] vs. morals/ rights), but that doesn't mean we can't have both. Bringing in London stats is relevant because its a real-world example we can study to determine the effectiveness of gun control. There are obvious cultural differences we need to take into account, but it can still be applied. If someone is going to make an argument to ban something based on public safety, they should be able to support their position beyond emotional appeals and fears. Yes, this is a complicated subject, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to quantify and study. Real-world effectiveness of laws isn't determined by philosophical debates and moral arguments. Realistically, either gun bans reduce violent crime or they don't. CCW either makes people safer or it doesn't.

 

As long as people believe some laws are effective, even if they are not, the laws are not a failure? Logical conclusions are never based on incredulity, anecdotes or popularity. By this measure, because enough people believe airport screening makes us safer, we've taken great steps to reduce the threat of airline terrorism. However, this is directly contradicted by real-world studies that repeatedly show the measures failing to do what they are supposed to do -- just like gun control. Someone can't just throw out what has actually happened because it doesn't support their philosophical argument. I reject the idea that the best measure of a law's success or failure is how the majority of people feel about it. There are objective ways to measure success.

Edited January 17, 2009 by StrangeSox

[NorthSideSox72]

In Iowa, concealed carry permits are granted at the sole discrection of the county sherriff. There are 99 counties and 99 sherriffs in Iowa, and each one has a very different approach. When I was living in Iowa, I was in Story County, and the sherriff at the time (I think his name was Fitzgerald) was very stringent for both open carry and concealed carry. he personally interviewed people, did background checks beyond the usual, etc. but Hamilton county next door, I knew some EMT's up there, and all you had to do was fill out a slip of paper and you'd get a permit.

 

[santo=dorf]

Funny how every mass shooting in the last decade has happened in a 'gun-free zones'. Maybe because the crazy bastards doing that knew that there wouldn't be anyone else there that was armed?

Yes, I too find it hilariously ironic that Columbine High School was in a gun free zone. Who's the idiot that thought that was a good idea? Don't they know high schools and colleges are the prime targets for warzones?

[santo=dorf]

And I bet those .000001% wish that they had a gun.

Give everyone a gun and I bet the % of accidental deaths jumps up quite a bit. I also think there will be a percentage of anti-gun people who will say "I bet those X% wish that they didn't have a gun."

[clyons]

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/eligible.html

You must be able to demonstrate competency with a firearm.

 

Possible Reasons for Ineligibility:

 

The physical inability to handle a firearm safely.

A felony conviction (unless civil and firearm rights have been restored by the convicting authority).

Having adjudication withheld or sentence suspended on a felony or misdemeanor crime of violence unless three years have elapsed since probation or other conditions set by the court have been fulfilled.

A conviction for a misdemeanor crime of violence in the last three years.

A conviction for violation of controlled substance laws or multiple arrests for such offenses.

A record of drug or alcohol abuse.

Two or more DUI convictions within the previous three years.

Being committed to a mental institution or adjudged incompetent or mentally defective.

Failing to provide proof of proficiency with a firearm.

Having been issued a domestic violence injunction or an injunction against repeat violence that is currently in force.

Renouncement of U.S. citizenship.

A dishonorable discharge from the armed forces.

Being a fugitive from justice.

 

 

Awful lot of reasons there to deny someone a permit. care to try again?

 

Yeah, you're right, dog. Those standards are extremely hard for sane, non-felons to meet. Good Lord.

 

Plus, there's no "denying" a pemit in Florida or any other "shall issue" jurisdicition: a person is either eligble or ineligible via the criteria you cited, or they aren't. If the applicant is eligible, the state has zero discretion to deny.

Edited January 18, 2009 by PlaySumFnJurny

[EvilMonkey]

Yeah, you're right, dog. Those standards are extremely hard for sane, non-felons to meet. Good Lord.

 

Plus, there's no "denying" a pemit in Florida or any other "shall issue" jurisdicition: a person is either eligble or ineligible via the criteria you cited, or they aren't. If the applicant is eligible, the state has zero discretion to deny.

Didn't bother to click around on the link before replying, did ya? if so, you would have also found these:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/apply.html

[

b]Get verification of training that satisfies the training requirement.[/b] The application lists acceptable documents. Make a photocopy to send with the application as an original cannot be returned. Persons serving in the United States Armed Forces may submit a copy of their Military ID Card to satisfy the training requirement.

Get certified copies of court documents relating to any criminal charges against you.

Take the fingerprint card to a local law enforcement agency and ask to be fingerprinted. In addition to providing fingerprinting services for the traditional "hard-card" format, electronic fingerprint devices are available at almost all 67 county sheriff’s offices in the state. Visit the Electronic Fingerprints Information page to learn how Live Scan fingerprinting saves processing time.

 

Just how hard do you want it to be? They have to show they are not crazy, not a felon, have their fingerprints on file withthe government (a very big deal for some) and can handle a gun properly. And the training classes have to be approved by the state, so it's not like you can just print up a fake certificate. You are right, in a 'shall issue' state, as long as you meet the criteria, they have to issue it. That prevents someone from not issuing it because the white sherrif doesn't like black people having guns, or similar situations like that.

[clyons]

Didn't bother to click around on the link before replying, did ya? if so, you would have also found these:

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/apply.html

[

 

Just how hard do you want it to be? They have to show they are not crazy, not a felon, have their fingerprints on file withthe government (a very big deal for some) and can handle a gun properly. And the training classes have to be approved by the state, so it's not like you can just print up a fake certificate. You are right, in a 'shall issue' state, as long as you meet the criteria, they have to issue it. That prevents someone from not issuing it because the white sherrif doesn't like black people having guns, or similar situations like that.

 

I never said it should be hard (although I do think it should be). All I said is that it the degree of difficulty varies by jurisdiction, and that in Florida--where they helped pioneer "shall issue" permits--it's not particularly difficult at all if you're not crazy or a con. Nothing in your link (which I did read, thanks) contradicts anything I posted, your unwarranted snarkiness notwithstanding.

 

Over and out.

[WilliamTell]

If my boy James Madison wrote it in the Bill of Rights, then it stays in the Bill of Rights. Honestly I don't believe that should be the reason it stays in the Bill of Rights, even though Madison is my favorite person to learn about in U.S. History, but I can see both sides, even though I tend to lean more towards taking it literally.