Open for debate

[safeinOhio]

found this. Does the 2nd protect your rights at work, or is this a condition of employment issue? Are CCW too easy to get in some states?


http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/opinion-nra-pushes-to-weaken-gun-laws-r-1260832167


In this study, the risk of a worker being killed at work was substantially higher in workplaces where employer policy allowed workers to keep guns: workplaces where guns were specifically permitted were 5 to 7 times more likely to be the site of a worker homicide relative to those where all weapons were prohibited.

And more guns in cars will mean more guns stolen from cars. A murder trial is currently underway in Florida where the defendant is accused of stealing a .25-caliber handgun from a car at his workplace and using it to kill a 23-year-old acquaintance. 

The article goes on to report that Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina and Virginia have made some or all handgun permit information confidential.


Maybe legislators did this because they are embarrassed by whom they are giving concealed weapons permits to and want to hide this information. Consider some of the crimes concealed weapons permit holders have committed in these states in just the past few months:

-- An Arkansas concealed weapons permit holder was unhappy when a car tailgated his. In response, he pulled out his loaded 9mm handgun and pointed it at the other driver. He even followed the other car into a Wal-Mart parking lot, went over to the driver and again threatened him with his gun.

-- A South Carolina concealed weapons permit holder faces charges of voluntary manslaughter after getting into a fight at a McDonald’s drive-thru. The man felt the car in front of him was taking too long at the drive-thru window and so started yelling. In the fight that ensued he pulled out his gun and shot and killed the 38-year-old father of three. 


-- And in Alabama, a concealed weapons permit holder armed with a small arsenal that included a handgun, two assault rifles, and a shotgun, shot and killed his mother, his grandparents, his aunt and uncle and then drove around town spraying bullets. In all, 10 people died before he turned a gun on himself. 


[X_Digger]

1. re the linked study: Same problems as Kellerman, et at

1) "We generally did not know how often employees had guns at work, whether workers’ guns were used during the fatal events, and whether perpetrators came armed or used the victims’ own weapons."

2) Selection bias- "Cases were 105 North Carolina workplaces where a worker was a victim of homicide between 1994 and 1998 and controls (2 per case) were randomly selected workplaces that were in operation in the month of a case event and were frequency matched to cases by industry sector."

Start with a rare event, match to similar industries, and look for a correlation to weapons policy. Extrapolating from instances of a rare event to try to correlate to a nebulous criteria is a losing proposition.

3) "Confounding factors" not accounted for sufficiently.. they "accounted for": High-risk industry, night hours, residential or industrial location, less than 2 years in current location, only 1 worker, majority male workers, majority non-White workers. They didn't account for things that might make one likely to be shot at work- neighborhood crime rate, past criminal convictions of the workers, reported criminal activity at the workplace, etc.

[Euromutt]

3. Yep; it's the standard public health research template

Case control study shows correlation (as case control studies often do) without proving causation, and it's a safe there'll never be a cohort study to try to actually falsify the hypothesis.

Hell, the articles contains several references to the usual suspects such as Hemenway and, indeed, Kellerman's 1993 NEJM study (the one in which he counted shootings committed with a gun from outside the household as being the fault of the gun kept in the household).

[safeinOhio]

5. Published in American Journal of Public Health a

peer review journal. One would have to go to the library to read any reviews of methodology. Or maybe you have read the entire journal article.

Still my guess is that as a condition of employment one gives up any claimed 2nd rights. Get a job somewhere else or don't carry at work. Don't park in company parking lot with a gun in car.
In sociology statistics, 2 anecdotes=data.

[X_Digger]

6. All that I pulled was from the 3 page summary..

They explain what they 'accounted for' right there. Those were all direct quotes.

Are you suggesting that the summary doesn't represent the actual methodology they used?

eta: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/95/5/830.pdf

[safeinOhio]

19. The methodology, as reported by the study,

controls only for 1, weapons allowed, 2, weapons not allowed. Under those controls there was a statistical (95% accurate) greater chance of being murdered in #1 as opposed to #2. The controls were random, no indication they aren't. As long as random, stats weigh that.

[X_Digger]

23. Err..

"Odds ratios were adjusted for other risk and preventive factors identified from previous analyses based on the same data,12,13 including 7 variables for workplace characteristics and 4 variables for control measures (see footnotes a and b in Table 2)."

And if you look at the footnotes, those are the only 'adjustments' that were accounted for.

(from the study linked in footnote 12- "Characteristics associated with notably higher risk included being at the current location for 2 years or less (odds ratio (OR) = 5.3, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.2, 12.6), having only one worker (OR = 2.9, 95% CI: 1.2, 7.2), and having night (OR = 4.9, 95% CI: 2.7, 8.8) or Saturday (OR = 4.2, 95% CI: 1.9, 9.2) hours. Workplaces with only male employees (OR = 3.1, 95% CI: 1.5, 6.5) or with African-American or Asian employees were also more likely to experience a killing.")

[eqfan592]

7. Unless a workplace is going to take measures....

...to ensure the safety of and protect the workers employed there, then now allowing those who are permitted to do so to carry while on the job is morally reprehensible, IMHO. As for the legalities, I'm not sure one way or another. But as has already been pointed out, this study has the same flaws as other previous studies, at best showing correlation without causation. Until you can find a study that can prove causation, then there really isn't much more to discuss.

[Euromutt]

37. You'd be amazed what gets past peer reviewers

Don't take my word for it; in this entry on Science-Based Medicine http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2889 Amy Tuteur, MD points out in the second comment:

Although this is particularly surprising because it is so obvious, a lot of bad analysis gets by reviewers at leading medical journals. That’s why it is so important to read a scientific paper in full, not just the abstract. All too often, the data in the paper does not support the conclusion in the abstract.

And while Dr. Tuteur isn't talking about firearm-related research, her comments very much apply to that particular area as well. One might almost be forgiven for suspecting the conclusions were written before the data was even analyzed (perish the thought, of course!).

[paulsby]

79. it is one thing to say don't carry at work

but to not allow workers to store guns in their cars means you are depriving them of the opportunity to carry to/from work etc.

iow, you effectively disarm them OFF the work site

that's the problem.

[iverglas]

84. uh oh

You left something out, didn't you? I'm sure it was inadvertent.

to not allow workers to store guns in their cars means you are depriving them of the opportunity to carry to/from work etc.

What you meant to say was:

to not allow workers to store guns in their cars on the employer's property means you are depriving them of the opportunity to carry to/from work etc.

But then it just doesn't make any sense, does it? I mean, unless they live in some strange place where there's only one parking lot in town ...



html fixed

[X_Digger]

2. re the article itself

"Maybe legislators did this because they are embarrassed by whom they are giving concealed weapons permits to and want to hide this information. Consider some of the crimes concealed weapons permit holders have committed in these states in just the past few months"

Maybe they'd like to avoid giving a shopping list to potential gun thieves, or providing the name / address of someone who's running from an abusive spouse. Police still have access to the data, which is the most important use of it that I can imagine. Many states also post aggregate numbers of permits, the number of new ones, suspensions, revocations, convictions of permit holders for any crime. Those numbers show that CCW/CHL holders are far less likely to commit crime than the general public, or even cops in Texas.

[Euromutt]

4. There's a few more obvious rejoinders

And more guns in cars will mean more guns stolen from cars.

Of course, an alternative solution would be if employers allowed their employees to keep the firearms on their persons instead of in effect forcing them to leave the weapons in an unsecured parking lot.

Consider some of the crimes concealed weapons permit holders have committed in these states in just the past few months: <...>

I think it's a safe bet that there weren't "some of the crimes" they could dig up, but all of the ones that involved unlawful use of a firearm. So that leaves how many CCW permit holders who didn't threaten or shoot at anyone with a firearm? A couple of million?

And regarding confidentiality of CCW permit holder info, well, it's not as if you can stroll into your local police station or DMV and ask to peruse the vehicle licensing database either, is it? We get understandably antsy about the idea that some guy we flipped off on the interstate can acquire our name, date of birth and home address just by walking into the DMV and submitting our license plate number.

[safeinOhio]

8. While looking for stats, I came across this

gov. site
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Shows a very large drop in gun violence beginning around 1993, with a slight uptick in 2005. What else happen then to cause this.

Brady Bill on background check was passed about then making it harder for violent criminals to get guns legally from gun dealers.

Can anyone debunk this correlation for me?

If correct I would think background checks for every gun transfer would lead to even less gun violence.
How to do this?
In Michigan, every handgun transfer from individual to individual must be done through the local police station. Apply for permit to purchase, take a written exam, bring in the weapon for a safety check and record serial number. A background check is also done.
Why would it be unimportant or any safer to allow private sales without a check than allowing firearm dealers to do the same.
One could get a permit to purchase from the Sheriffs office, go to gun show or private sale and buy a gun and then take it to the police to be checked. You'd make sure you were not buy a stolen gun also. If you have to be checked to buy from a dealer, I see no more rights violated in having to do the same from a private seller.

going a little off topic, but it is my thread anyway.

[taurus145]

9. No studies at hand to back it up, but

That's also about the time frame that states began issuing CCW permits in mass quantities. (Thanks, Beldar.)

If anyone thinks gun ownership by law abiding citizens doesn't deter crime, ask Swiss authorities.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

10. The NRA supports the NICS. Why would the gun need to go to the police to be checked?

If it turned out the gun you bought was stolen who would refund your money, the cops?

[safeinOhio]

15. As I remember the seller has a part to fill out

on the purchase permit.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

29. Yes the dealer has a part to fill out.

[X_Digger]

12. Well, it peaked _before_ 1994's Brady bill..

.. and it rose from 1984 on..



Why did gun crime stay relatively steady in the decade previous, then rocket upward?

My guess? the crack cocaine epidemic. Not a whit to do with gun laws.

The rate past 2006 has continued to fall (see the FBI's UCR), in spite of more guns, the growth of CCW/CHL..

[safeinOhio]

21. My view of the chart shows

nothing relatively steady except the straight declining line beginning around 1994. The sharp increase in 1989 may well shadow the crack wars, however, the crack epidemic didn't see a dramatic decrease like the crime committed by firearms line did.

[X_Digger]

25. Actually, there was a drop in cocaine arrests..

Looks like a spike around '89-'90, then another one around '94.. Now, arrests != all crimes, but still, as an indicator, there's a likely correlation.

[safeinOhio]

27. You can question studies all day

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime
Research into the effect of concealed carry laws on the incidence of crime has yielded mixed results. In his book, More Guns, Less Crime, University of Maryland scholar John Lott's analysis of crime report data claims a statistically significant effect of concealed carry laws on crime, with more permissive concealed carry laws correlated with a decrease in overall crime. Lott's conclusions remain controversial. Yale Law Professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres, for example, have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set and that re-running Lott's tests with more complete data yielded none of the results Lott claimed.<41> Such criticism by Donahue and Ayres appears questionable, however, when one considers a recent analysis that criticizes their data set for being too narrow. An article by Moody and Marvel uses a more extensive data set and projects effects beyond a five-year span. Though their data set renders an apparent reduction in the cost of crime, Donohue and Ayres point out that the cost of crime increased in 23 of the 24 jurisdictions under scrutiny. Florida was the only jurisdiction showing positive effects from Shall-Issue Laws. Donohue
and Ayres question the special case of Florida as well.<42> The empirical back-and-forth may well indicate that the data is too incomplete, ambiguous, and crude to establish the effect of conceal-carry on crime<43> The National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, claims to have found "no credible evidence" either supporting or disproving Lott's thesis.<44>
Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses.<45> However, one study suggests that in most states with shall-issue laws, there were increases in crime of all types.<46>

[X_Digger]

32. Did you reply to the wrong post? (or wrong post of mine?)

We were positing ideas about why the crime rate dropped (and rose earlier) in this subthread.

I haven't claimed that CCW led to the decrease, just mentioned that relaxing the requirements for a concealed license and / or increasing numbers of guns hasn't seemed to correlate to an increase in violent crime committed with guns. (Another interesting comparison is gallup's polling on attitudes towards guns over the same period.)

[safeinOhio]

38. Others suggest the decrease is

due to increase in CCWs.

[GreenStormCloud]

40. "Freakonomics" suggest that the decrease is due to abortion being legalized 20 years previously.

They make a very good argument for that being the case. Abortion choices operate to selectively abort future criminals. I use the crime/gun numbers to show that more guns did not cause more crime.

[X_Digger]

43. I'd never make that assertion..

.. but the inverse of the general principle has been disproved to my satisfaction- some simplify it to 'more guns = more crime'. The number of guns has gone up quite a bit, and the rate of gun owners has gone up steadily (though not as precipitously as the number of guns), yet crime using guns has gone down. During that same period, the Assault Weapons Ban was passed and expired, higher capacity pistol magazines became more popular, modern styled rifles became more popular, the Brady bill was passed, the Brady Bill's waiting period was replaced by NICS, some 20-ish states changed to 'shall issue' licensing, 'Castle Doctrine' was passed in a bunch of states..

But more than anything, I'd think the drop in violent crime has more to do with economics and cops on the street.

[eqfan592]

13. Actually, if I recall...

...the decline started before the law was passed, and the rate of decline did not increase with the passing of the law. Also, as has been noted, around the same time, many more states became "shall issue" states and the number of CCW permit holders increased.

So while you can point to some correlation, the timing doesn't exactly work right for the brady bill, and as has been stated before, correlation does not equate to causation.

[safeinOhio]

16. Most of the time

with a hard correlation, it does equate to causation, just not direction. Such as, more or less gun crimes leads to gun laws. While CCWs didn't really start to take off until late 90s, crack could correlate. More crack laws lead to more crime. As these are Federal stats, I'm sure there are peer reviews.

[X_Digger]

26. Not really..

Most of the time with a hard correlation, it does equate to causation, just not direction.

There can also be a third factor that affects both the measured factors equally.

As a stats professor once told me (paraphrasing badly, it was 20 years ago..), "A horses front left hoof correlates in speed to his back left hoof. However you can't say that one drives the other, the horse's head would have something to do with that."

[benEzra]

14. What else happened? Well, there was the improving economy beginning around 1993,

the election of a whole new administration, the widespread adoption of the "Community Policing" philosophy, a whole heck of a lot of new police officers on the street in 1994-1995, and demographic shifts, all of which undoubtedly had an effect.

BTW, Michigan's "safety check" is a joke; the primary intent seems to be registration. I seriously doubt black-market gun buyers comply...

[safeinOhio]

22. No, they just come to Ohio.

I think straw buyers think twice when there is a paper trail. I'm all for law abiding, qualified individual having access to legal guns. I have no problem with background checks and registration, or at least a paper trail. Reducing illegal buys and reducing gun violence by criminals and crazies helps me by keep my rights. I want the right to defend myself and I also want to lower the chances that I'll have too.

[benEzra]

36. How about qualified individuals having CHL's?

Your OP seems to suggest some antipathy toward normal people obtaining carry licenses. Being neither wealthy nor politically connected, I wouldn't be able to get a CHL in some jurisdictions, and I am quite happy to be able to get one here. I would also point out that since CHL holders have a lower rate of violent crime per capita than even the police, the current screening system is doing a pretty good job.

I'm not opposed in principle to background checks for private sales (we have them here in NC for all handgun purchases, dealer or private, although the Jim-Crow-era way they are administered needs remediation). I am opposed to registration, given its track record of misuse in this country, the UK, and Australia, among other places, and until there is no longer a lobby fighting for new restrictions on various classes of currently legal guns and who can lawfully own them, the creation of a "Who Owns What and Should We Let Them Keep It" list is not something I would be comfortable with.

[Euromutt]

50. The drop occurred in violent crime overall, not just gun crime

Take a shufti at some charts from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.




Here we see that from 1993 to 2002, estimated violent crime overall dropped by more than half; from over 4 million incidents to under 2 million.




Here we see that the number of nonfatal firearm violent crimes dropped by a similar amount during the same period, from over 1 million to under 500,000.



From this chart, we can see that the number of fatal firearm crimes dropped from ~18,000 to ~13,000 in the same period. Not as significant a drop as with nonfatal violent gun crimes, nor with violent crime overall.

So over the period 1993-2002, we see a drop of about half a million incidents of violent firearm crime (both fatal and nonfatal). But we also see a drop of over two million incidents in violent crime overall, of which about only a quarter involved firearms. How does the NICS check, let alone the 1994 AWB, explain the 3/4 of the drop in non-firearm violent crime, or the fact that firearm-violent crime decreased in parallel with non-violent firearm crime?

In other words, it's far more plausible that there was another cause that resulted in all violent crime dropping, firearm and non-firearm alike.

Michigan got rid of the "handgun safety inspection" at the start of this year, by the way. And with good reason; there were no objective standards for what constituted a "safe" handgun, which was because in practice, the "handgun safety inspection" was actually a "prospective handgun owner inspection" that allowed local law enforcement to deny a handgun to anyone they didn't like the look of. Black people in particular had a remarkable tendency to select "unsafe" handguns for purchase(!)

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yes and no.

Mostly no, if your workplace has a policy against firearms on their property. They have a right to forbid it, you have a right to work somewhere else if you want to carry anyway. It's Trespassing if you ignore it.

[safeinOhio]

17. You have the right to not go near a school,

in a bar or any establishment that restricts also? Seems all constitutional rights have some restrictions.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. There is a difference between public and private property.

Private property owners have the right to dictate who has access to it and under what conditions.

If they opt for no weapons, fine by me. My employer does the same. I don't complain. I don't like it, but I'd rather be employed than make a 'statement' or whatever.

[PavePusher]

47. I have the right to not go near a school?

Facsinating...

[slackmaster]

18. I consider myself to be a strong supporter of private property rights

If the owner of a business says no weapons, that's part of the deal you enter into when you work there.

[GreenStormCloud]

24. This is part of the general attempt to demonize CCW holders.

In the anti-gun media there have been a recent rush of stories that attempt to portray CCW holders as being a public menace. However, at least to states with large populations, TX & FL, publish the annual statistics of their CCW population.

You are much more likely to be struck by lightning that to be shot by a CCW holder. We are about eight times safer with guns than the general population.

[iverglas]

28. well hey

We <"CCW holders"> are about eight times safer with guns than the general population.

And wow, you're about a million brazillion times more likely to get testicular cancer than me.

Weren't you one of the ones bleating about how not enough factors were controlled for in the study that is the subject of this thread?

As was said to me earlier completely à propos of nothing, but is very à propos here: physician, heal thyself.

And go apply some controls to your comparison.

To spell it out: the demographics of holders of permits to carry firearms are not remotely similar to the demographics of the "general population". You lose this game.



and a typo

[GreenStormCloud]

30. Yes, our demographics are different.

We are selected (In most states)so that we are the most law-abiding people. We have all passed an FBI background check. Not just the NICS check, but a more through FBI background check. In most states, one is not able to get a CCW without an FBI stamp of approval.

That we our select demographic is eight times safer than the general public is still an established fact. There aren't any statistical studies that compare us to the legal gun owning public. I would suspect that our statistics would be similar, but that is conjecture on my part.

[iverglas]

31. established facts

That we our select demographic is eight times safer than the general public is still an established fact.

And it's an established fact that water boils at 100C. Germane to this discussion? Nope.


There aren't any statistical studies that compare us to the legal gun owning public.

Eh? How about to the demographically similar segment of the population? What's gun owning got to do with it? Afraid that people who don't own guns might not be a good control group?

I would suspect that our statistics would be similar, but that is conjecture on my part.

Yuppers.

And the persistent citation of the totally irrelevant (and unprovable) "statistic" about the law-abidingness of holders of permits vs the general population is not defensible.

[GreenStormCloud]

34. TX & FL post their annual statistics. The law-abiding part is well proven. N/T

The sample size is in the millions.

[iverglas]

39. really

And how exactly do you know that I didn't commit a robbery last night?

Not caught, not charged, certainly not convicted. But I might have dunnit.

I'm afraid that absence of convictions does not persuade me that someone is "law-abiding".

Yup, the same quibble applies to any other segment of the population. But we're not talking about them.

We're talking about the law-abidingness of the population with permits. If you want to talk about conviction rates, feel free. Call them what they are. Do not feel free to convert those numbers into law-abidingness rates.

The fact is that some people with permits to carry firearms do use those firearms to intimidate and to commit crimes. Would those same people be carrying those firearms in public if permits were not available? Well, if they're so damned law-abiding ...

So is granting permits contributing to putting people on the streets with firearms who then use those firearms to do or threaten harm?

Nice question, eh?

[GreenStormCloud]

41. I will reply tomorrow. Bedtime for me now. I work night shift. N/T

[gorfle]

46. We've already put that one to bed.

And how exactly do you know that I didn't commit a robbery last night?

Not caught, not charged, certainly not convicted. But I might have dunnit.

Iverglas, you already floated the idea some time ago that really all firearm owners are committing crimes left and right but just aren't getting caught.

And I easily debunked it.

In 2008, there were an estimated 1,382,012 violent crimes in the United States.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/index.html

There are an estimated 40-80 million firearm owners in the United States.

Thus even if every single violent crime last year was committed by a firearm owner, whether they were caught or not, this still means that 96%-98% of firearm owners were not involved in violent crimes.

Thus we can say that at least in regards to violent crime, most firearm owners are law-abiding, because 96-98% of them are not and numerically can not be involved in violent crime.

[iverglas]

51. just for starters

What's the reporting rate for assaults of women by their intimate partners? Sexual assaults of women and children by anyone, but particularly people known to them?

Who's committing those crimes? Not a single holder of a permit to carry a concealed weapon, I'm sure.

Those crimes aren't committed using concealed firearms. But they are crimes. Reported or not. And people with permits to carry concealed firearms do commit them. Just as bankers and firefighters and WalMart shelf stockers and farmers commit them.

Find me a law-abiding anybody and you'll have done better than Diogenes did. Human beings, including holders of permits to carry concealed firearms, are not angelic beings.

[GreenStormCloud]

53. Texas reports on those statistics by CHL holders too. N/T

[iverglas]

59. for fuck's sake, stop torturing the text

I quite obviously wasn't referring to reporting by police authorities.

I was referring to reporting TO police authorities.

[gorfle]

62. Please cite some data.

Please cite some data regarding unreported violent crime.

[iverglas]

65. please stop annoying the grownups

[gorfle]

72. I see you have no data to support your assertion.

So, you toss the shit-biscuit out that all firearm owners are out there committing crimes but just not getting caught.

When I point out that there are far, far more firearm owners than violent crimes committed annually, you toss out another shit-biscuit that, "Well, there's a lot more violent crimes out there than are being reported".

When I call you on it and ask for your data to support your assertion, you just say, "please stop annoying the grownups".

What an insightful, grownup response.

Still waiting for your data to back up your assertion.

[iverglas]

75. post 74

I decided to play your childish game.

[gorfle]

76. There is nothing childish.

I decided to play your childish game.

There is nothing childish about requiring people to cite data to support their assertions.

[gorfle]

61. I already put that one to bed, too.

What's the reporting rate for assaults of women by their intimate partners? Sexual assaults of women and children by anyone, but particularly people known to them?

I also already put this one to bed for you a long time ago. Violent Crime, as defined by the FBI, includes sexual assaults of women and children regardless of age and regardless of relationship to their attacker.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html

The FBI claims to have data on unreported crime, http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucrquest.htm , but I cannot find it.

Who's committing those crimes? Not a single holder of a permit to carry a concealed weapon, I'm sure.

They very well could be. Like I said, though, even if every single reported violent crime were committed by a firearm owner, it still means that 96-98% of firearm owners are not involved in them.

If you can find statistical data on unreported violent crime, I'll be glad to adjust the percentage.

Find me a law-abiding anybody and you'll have done better than Diogenes did. Human beings, including holders of permits to carry concealed firearms, are not angelic beings.

No one is claiming this.

What is being claimed is that there are so many more firearm owners than violent crimes committed that even if every single violent crime was committed by a firearm owner it still means that the vast majority of them aren't involved in violent crime - there simply aren't enough violent crimes to go around!

Since the vast majority of firearm owners are not involved in violent crime, we can safely say, in regards at least to violent crime, that firearm owners are very law-abiding.

This does not mean that no firearm owner is ever involved in violent crime. It means that most of them are never involved in violent crime.

[iverglas]

66. jezus, are you this thick?

I also already put this one to bed for you a long time ago. Violent Crime, as defined by the FBI, includes sexual assaults of women and children regardless of age and regardless of relationship to their attacker.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/violent_crime/...

What the fuck are you talking about?

From your source:

Expanded offense data are the details of the various offenses that the UCR Program collects beyond the count of how many crimes law enforcement agencies report. These details may include the type of weapon used in a crime, type or value of items stolen, and so forth. In addition, expanded data include trends (for example, 2-year comparisons) and rates per 100,000 inhabitants.

REPORTED CRIMES. Nothing to do with UNREPORTED CRIMES. And what I said had nothing to do with age, relationship with attacker, or any other burble.

It had to do with -- it WAS ABOUT -- REPORTING.


Like I said, though, even if every single reported violent crime were committed by a firearm owner, it still means that 96-98% of firearm owners are not involved in them.

And like I said, if every single violent crime were REPORTED TO POLICE, you'd have a basis for claiming that holders of permits to carry concealed firearms are lily-white, or claiming anything else about their involvement or non-involvement in violent crimes.

Reported violent crime rates do not reflect the incidence of violent crimes, and PARTICULARLY the incidence of violence against women by their intimate partners and sexual violence against women and children.

Permit holders are OVERWHELMINGLY men -- a source you should like:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82845
(2001 figures, find more recent if you like)

Still, the new state police data show that the bulk of new applicants are white men over 40.

Of the 17,828 applicants, 16,075 are men, and 13,303 are 41 or older, according to the Michigan State Police. Also, just 823 applicants are black, 37 are Asian, nine are American Indian, and 81 are unknown. Gun-rights activists say they are not surprised to see that women are signing up in larger numbers.

... In another shall-issue state, Texas, roughly 1 percent, or 217,000, of the residents carry CCW permits. Of those, about 19 percent, or 41,631, are women.

I see they also fit the other demographic characteristics I hypothesized.

There is absolutely no reason to think that the rates of spousal violence among those men is lower than it is in the general population, since that form of violence is known to be no respecter of socioeconomic or racial or ethnic lines. (Refute that if you will.)

So you are looking at a group composed overwhelmingly of middle-aged white men. Not a group known for its high rate of criminal activity, propotionately. But a group definitely well-represented in instances of UNREPORTED VIOLENCE against their spouses, for instance.

In 2001, "roughly 1%" of the entire population of Texas held permits. Make it roughly 2% of the population old enough to apply. Make that 2% overwhelmingly white, male and middle-aged. And be surprised that it has a low reported crime rate. I'm not. Bloody tautology.


formatting fixed

[gorfle]

73. Reading comprehension, Iverglas.

What the fuck are you talking about?

It had to do with -- it WAS ABOUT -- REPORTING.

You said:



What's the reporting rate for assaults of women by their intimate partners? Sexual assaults of women and children by anyone, but particularly people known to them?

Your second sentence hearkens back to a past argument you tried to make that violent crime did not include crimes of sexual assaults against women and/or children by people they know.

I was pointing out, AGAIN, that the FBI violent crime statistics include sexual assaults against women of all ages, including by people they know.

And like I said, if every single violent crime were REPORTED TO POLICE, you'd have a basis for claiming that holders of permits to carry concealed firearms are lily-white, or claiming anything else about their involvement or non-involvement in violent crimes.

So again, - please cite your data for unreported violent crime, and I will be happy to adjust my percentages of firearm owners involved in violent crime.

You are making the assertion that firearm owners are much more involved in unreported violent crime than reported violent crime.

Substantiate your claim.

[iverglas]

74. will you just stop?

Your second sentence hearkens back to a past argument you tried to make that violent crime did not include crimes of sexual assaults against women and/or children by people they know.

What it harkens back to is

1. The fact that UNREPORTED crimes are not included in the numbers you use.

2. The fact that there is a particularly low reporting rate in the cases of
- VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN by their intimate partners
- SEXUAL VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN by anyone and in particular by people known to them

Can you not just read for comprehension, instead of reading to see how you can distort and mischaracterize?

I HAVE NEVER SAID "that violent crime did not include crimes of sexual assaults against women and/or children by people they know".

I have said that reported violent crime does not include unreported violent crime, and a particularly high proportion of violence against women by their intimate partners and violence against women and children by people known to them is unreported.

Fuckin' ...

Why in the christ would I say that violent crime did not include crimes of sexual assaults against women and/or children by people they know? Do I look like a complete moron?


You are making the assertion that firearm owners are much more involved in unreported violent crime than reported violent crime.

NO, I AM NOT.

I *am* saying that holders of permits to carry concealed firearms fall mainly within a demographic that is more likely to commit violence against their intimate partners and to commit sexual violence against women and children than the general population is, simply because a slight majority of the general population is female while holders of permits to carry concealed firearms are overwhelmingly men. Duh.

Substantiate your claim.

Do something unpleasant with your misrepresentations. Or just stop posting them.


So again, - please cite your data for unreported violent crime, and I will be happy to adjust my percentages of firearm owners involved in violent crime.

I don't give a flying fuck what you do, and there really is such a thing as common knowledge. But since you seem unwilling/unable to find what everybody else knows, try this:

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2009/04/22/over-one-fourth-of-domestic-violence-incidents-go-unreported/

According to LegalMatch.com data, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in the past 12 months did not report the incident to the police. These figures come from an analysis of anonymous customer intake reports between now and April 2008. Studies by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) show that victims of crime are less likely to report incidents involving non-strangers than strangers.

You can go ahead and click the links at that page. I'm not doing it all for you.

Are 27% of armed robberies unreported? 27% of break-and-enters where occupants are assaulted?

In point of fact, FBI estimates, for example, seem to say that a far higher proportion of incidents of violence against women by their partners, and of sexual assaults, are never reported.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/2005/pg5o.html

In 2003, 38.5 percent of rapes and sexual assaults were reported to the police.

Only 36 percent of completed rapes were reported to the police during the years 1992 to 2000. Thirty-four percent of the attempted rapes, and 26 percent of the completed and attempted sexual assaults were reported.

A recently published eight-year study indicates that when perpetrators of completed rape are current or former husbands or boyfriends, the crimes go unreported to the police 77 percent of the time. When the perpetrators are friends or acquaintances, the rapes go unreported 61 percent of the time. When the perpetrators are strangers, the rapes go unreported 54 percent of the time.

The majority of adolescent sexual assaults (86 percent) went unreported.

Between 1995 – 2000, 86 percent of all rapes/sexual assaults committed against college students were not reported to police, compared to 12 percent that were reported.

Do do you own fact-checking; you certainly wouldn't want to rely on me anyway.

[gorfle]

77. I'll stop when you stop.

I HAVE NEVER SAID "that violent crime did not include crimes of sexual assaults against women and/or children by people they know".

I have said that reported violent crime does not include unreported violent crime, and a particularly high proportion of violence against women by their intimate partners and violence against women and children by people known to them is unreported.

Fuckin' ...

Why in the christ would I say that violent crime did not include crimes of sexual assaults against women and/or children by people they know?

You in fact said (or insinuated) just such a thing in a past discussion along this same vein. I'll have to go dig it up for you.

Do I look like a complete moron?

Yes.

According to LegalMatch.com data, 27% of the victims of domestic violence in the past 12 months did not report the incident to the police.

Thank you for finally providing some data to back up your assertions.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that 100% of violent crime goes unreported. This means that in 2008, instead of the 1,382,012 reported violent crimes in the United States, there were actually 2,764,024 violent crimes committed.

This means that of America's 40-80 million firearm owners, 93-96% are still not involved in violent crime each year.

I think it's pretty safe to say that, at least in terms of violent crime, the vast majority of firearm owners - well over 90%, are law-abiding.

I'll wager that CCW permit holders are even less likely to be involved in firearm-related crime even compared to other firearm owners.

[X_Digger]

80. Lol, I was about to make the same point.

.. 93-96 vs 96-98.

Big freaking whoop for all the drama.

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Nice gymnastics, but no points.

It is well know that a tiny percentage of the population commits most of the violent crimes. It is further well known that habitual violent criminals get caught, released, caught again, and so on. Trying to pretend that about 4.5 million people who have CCWs are really criminals who haven't been caught is laughable.

A very few CCWers do commit violent crimes after getting their permit, but the percentage is extremely low.

[gorfle]

33. So what?

To spell it out: the demographics of holders of permits to carry firearms are not remotely similar to the demographics of the "general population". You lose this game.

So what?

The point of the original poster was to cite anecdotes of CCW permit holders who committed firearm crimes, clearly trying to paint CCW permit holders as being dangerous.

We know that statistically this is false. Regardless of what demographic they are in, CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in firearm crime. The revocation rate is less than 2%. CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW permit holders. Regardless of why this is so - demographics, hair color, whatever - it is so. Attempting to paint CCW permit holders as being dangerous by citing anecdotes of dangerous CCW permit holders won't fly.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Thanks for bringing things back to the main point. N/T

[iverglas]

42. reply to the wrong post/er?

If you think the comparison offered is useful, say so. If you don't, have a word with that one.


The point of the original poster was to cite anecdotes of CCW permit holders who committed firearm crimes, clearly trying to paint CCW permit holders as being dangerous.

The original post had fuck all to do with "CCW permit holders", it had to do with firearms in the workplace. It may be that this involves "CCW permit holders", but that's not what it is ABOUT.


We know that statistically this is false. Regardless of what demographic they are in, CCW permit holders are hardly ever involved in firearm crime.

Phew, you really don't have a good grasp on this statistics thing, do you?

An overwhelming majority of the population is hardly ever involved in firearm crime.

And even lower proportion of the population that doesn't carry guns around in public than of the population that does (legally) carry guns around in public is involved in using firearms to intimidate and/or cause harm in public. The former would be: 0%.

Interesting little statistic, eh?


CCW permit holders are many times, sometimes hundreds of times less likely to be involved in crime than non-CCW permit holders.

So are white Lutheran women between the ages of 70 and 75 living in Boise who don't own firearms. I'll bet "CCW permit holders" are considerably more likely to be involved in crime than them.

So?

[gorfle]

44. Wrongo.

The original post had fuck all to do with "CCW permit holders", it had to do with firearms in the workplace. It may be that this involves "CCW permit holders", but that's not what it is ABOUT

The original poster cited three separate anecdotes of CCW-holder firearm crimes in an effort to support his supposition that CCW permits were too easy to obtain. The original post has EVERYTHING to do with CCW permit holders.

Phew, you really don't have a good grasp on this statistics thing, do you?

Actually, I have an excellent grasp of statistics, including academic study and professional implementation.

An overwhelming majority of the population is hardly ever involved in firearm crime.

Yes, and CCW permit holders are even less likely to be involved in firearm crime.

Thus attempts to portray CCW permit holders as dangerous individuals, as the original poster did, doesn't stand up to statistical scrutiny.

And even lower proportion of the population that doesn't carry guns around in public than of the population that does (legally) carry guns around in public is involved in using firearms to intimidate and/or cause harm in public. The former would be: 0%.

Interesting little statistic, eh?

Wow, people without firearms can't commit firearm crimes! What a revelation! Your intellect is dizzying.

So are white Lutheran women between the ages of 70 and 75 living in Boise who don't own firearms.

We'll worry about white Lutheran women between the ages of 70 and 75 living in Boise who don't own firearms when people start trying to paint them as especially dangerous.

Right now, the OP is trying to paint CCW permit holders as being especially dangerous. Statistically, they are not. Statistically, they are many times less likely to be involved in firearm crime than the rest of the general population, a good percentage of which (about 20-50%) does own firearms.

[gorfle]

45. You keep comparing apples to oranges.

And wow, you're about a million brazillion times more likely to get testicular cancer than me.

You keep trying to frame the debate in terms of people who have firearms vs. people who do not. This is comparing apples to oranges.

This is not what the debate is. The debate is how safe are CCW-permit holders relative to the rest of the general population. And about 20-50% of the rest of the general population (in the United States) have firearms.

[PavePusher]

48. Actually, she's trying to compare apples to orangutans.

And failing badly. Oranges would at least still be fruit...

[iverglas]

52. catch up, eh?

You keep trying to frame the debate in terms of people who have firearms vs. people who do not. This is comparing apples to oranges.

God, are you this far behind?

I keep trying to get people offering up bullshit "statistics" to play nice.

The population of holders of permits to carry concealed firearms IS NOT COMPARABLE TO the general population.

To start with, the first group, by definition (and barring errors), does not have a criminal record. A decent segment of the general population does.

I am quite sure that the first group, by self-selection, consists disproportionately, just for starters, of men in a particular age group, as compared to the general population.

The first group undoubtedly differs fairly widely from the general population in many other ways: I would venture to guess that it has a lower unemployment/social assistance rate, a higher average household income and a lower concentration of members of racial/ethnic minorities, and a lower tendency to live in socioeconomically disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

I'm guessing. But I'm not the one making assertions. People offering up the threadbare claim that holders of permits to carry concealed firearms have "lower" crime rates have the onus, in civil discourse, of offering a MEANINGFUL comparison, not a bullshit one.

Do people with similar demographic characteristics in the two groups -- holders and non-holders of permits to carry concealed firearms -- have similar crime rates?

For fuck's sake, just read this thread -- the very first reply to the OP:

3) "Confounding factors" not accounted for sufficiently.. they "accounted for": High-risk industry, night hours, residential or industrial location, less than 2 years in current location, only 1 worker, majority male workers, majority non-White workers. They didn't account for things that might make one likely to be shot at work- neighborhood crime rate, past criminal convictions of the workers, reported criminal activity at the workplace, etc.

The study in question controlled for multiple factors, but not for a bunch of others, so it's no damned good.

But you people can keep offering up this CCW holder vs. general population garbage with impunity??

I think not.

[GreenStormCloud]

54. You are much more likely to be struck by lightning than be shot by a CCWer.

That is an indication of how safe it is to be around us. After all, lightning is possible only on some days, while many of us carry every time we leave the home.

Take a look at the thread about MARTA to see the effect we have on crime. We help the public safety, just by being around.

[iverglas]

57. hahahaha

I am much more likely to get hit by lightning than to have somebody break into my home and murder me.

Ta!


We help the public safety, just by being around.

Well, I'll give you this: you certainly help make your society what it is.

[gorfle]

63. You just have no basis for your claim.

Well, I'll give you this: you certainly help make your society what it is.

The insinuation here is that CCW permit holders don't "help the public safety", and that they actually hinder it.

Do you have any data to support your assertion?

[iverglas]

67. damn, I hate having to spell it out

The insinuation here is that CCW permit holders don't "help the public safety", and that they actually hinder it

No, it isn't.

It was a reference to the hostile, suspicious, nasty, everyone for themself, devil take the hindmost, fuck you Jack I'm all right, ugly self-centredness that results in things like people dying because they can't afford health insurance / health care, among many other things.

[PavePusher]

69. Well, I do hope you wipe your chin after those screeds.... n/t

[gorfle]

71. Glad you agree then.

When a poster says, "We help the public safety, just by being around.", and you respond with:

Well, I'll give you this: you certainly help make your society what it is.

Given your history in this forum it was logical to assume that you are not agreeing with the poster, and in fact that you disagree with them with your usual sarcasm.

If in fact you agree that CCW permit holders do help with public safety just by being around, I apologize. I'm glad to see you have turned a new leaf.

[PavePusher]

81. Hey, I'm trying to enjoy my wine here, wassa matter with you?!

:spray:

[logjon]

82. more words of wisdom

It was a reference to the hostile, suspicious, nasty, everyone for themself, devil take the hindmost, fuck you Jack I'm all right, ugly self-centredness that results in things like people dying because they can't afford health insurance / health care, among many other things.

forehead, waffle iron. speaking of waffling, you're really good at making insinuations and then backpedaling, somehow managing to say even less after the fact. if you're not prepared for the worst, you're pretty much inviting it. should it be that way? no. will that ever not be the case? only in orwell's worst nightmare.

[iverglas]

83. how odd

You actually think it is not credible that what I said was a reference to the hostile, suspicious, nasty, everyone for themself, devil take the hindmost, fuck you Jack I'm all right, ugly self-centredness that results in things like people dying because they can't afford health insurance / health care, among many other things?

Like, you're saying I'm lying?

I assure you. That was exactly what I meant. I don't give a flying fuck whether you want to pretend you don't believe that, obviously. It would be nice if you'd come straight out and say you believe I'm lying, though ... even if that isn't true.

I think that people who promenade around in public with guns secreted about their persons help to make your society one characterized by the hostile, suspicious, nasty, everyone for themself, devil take the hindmost, fuck you Jack I'm all right, ugly self-centredness that results in things like people dying because they can't afford health insurance / health care, among many other things. What's not to believe about that? Why for the love of fuck would I pretend to have meant that rather than the trivially stupid thing you chose to (pretend to) believe I actually meant?

:shrug:



and typo

[X_Digger]

55. I think you're getting hung up on this because..

.. there's an often unsaid assertion in most of the arguments against CCW/CHL..

Frequently, the 'con' side of this argument posit all kinds of 'what-if's - road rage will turn deadly, shootouts over a parking spot, etc (can we take this as a given, or should I find examples?) The tack they take is that CCW/CHL licensees are a public menace.

Those what-if's all revolve around _public_ interaction with CCW/CHL holders. You know, interactions with the general public that one is likely to have. Since the licensing of a person for concealed carry isn't visible to the naked eye (no more than previous criminal convictions, etc), people who live in most states are likely to be in a public setting with someone who is licensed to carry, and may indeed be carrying right then.

In that context (interaction with the public), it's a very valid comparison. ("You say CCW/CHL holders are a public menace? No, they're 5-8x less likely to be involved in a crime {than the other members of the public you're likely to bump up against.}")

[GreenStormCloud]

56. Very good post on explaining the relevance. Outstanding. N/T

[iverglas]

58. deleted, posted in wrong place

[gorfle]

64. Precisely.

Exactly so. Those, like the OP, who are trying to assert that CCW permit holders are dangerous, are obviously comparing them as being more dangerous than your average citizen.

Hell, I'd be willing to be that CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in violent crime than police officers.

[iverglas]

68. wow, nice tries, folks

Comparing a group ("CCW holders") that is demographically less likely to be involved in crime/violence to the general population and claiming to have proved something by showing they are less involved in crime/violence than the general population amounts to proving NOTHING. It is essentially tautological.

Comparing a group ("CCW holders") that is demographically less likely to be involved in crime/violence to the general population and claiming to have proved something by showing they are MORE involved in crime/violence than the general population amounts to proving SOMETHING.

You people really don't understand this stuff, do you?

You can go ahead and dispute that it has actually been shown that they are more involved in this particular instance of crime/violence (workplace shootings) than the general population (or the population in question), but you can't say that if it is proved, it is meaningless because of the nature of the total population in question. Lordy.

If YOUR thesis were borne out, they would be involved in FEWER workplace shootings than other workers, although possibly less fewer than in comparisons with the general population, given the demographic characteristics of the population of potential workplace shooters (employed, for starters) -- NOT "your average citizen", but a subgroup thereof that I would assert is in fact less likely than "your average citizen" to commit crimes.

It is tautological to "prove" that people who belong to a comparatively very non-crime-committing demographic don't tend to commit crimes at the same rate as the general population.

It is the precise OPPOSITE if it can be shown that those same people tend to commit at least a particular crime in HIGHER proportions than a particular and relatively homogeneous group they belong to. Particularly when some factors have been controlled for, and no factors are controlled for in the comparison with the general population.

[gorfle]

70. Thank you for admitting it.

It is tautological to "prove" that people who belong to a comparatively very non-crime-committing demographic don't tend to commit crimes at the same rate as the general population.

Thank you for admitting that they don't tend to commit crimes at the same rate as the general population.

Regardless of why, the fact of the matter is they don't. Thank you for admitting it.

It is the precise OPPOSITE if it can be shown that those same people tend to commit at least a particular crime in HIGHER proportions than a particular and relatively homogeneous group they belong to. Particularly when some factors have been controlled for, and no factors are controlled for in the comparison with the general population.

Question for you: When people like the original poster insinuate that CCW-permit holders are dangerous, who do you think they are comparing them to?

[GreenStormCloud]

78. BTW - What happened to you in the thread about the woman who was shot 9 times?

You were carrying on about where all the bullets may have gone to. When it was pointed out that all nine were in the dead woman, you vanished from the thread.

[iverglas]

85. I do get bored

That was hardly a determining issue in the conversation -- and I WAS NOT THE ONE who actually raised the question.

The problem you have, you see, is the fact that the individual fired nine bullets ANYWHERE just boggles the mind. You seem to think it's wonderful that he struck her nine times. I think this brings us perilously close to murder. Just keep shooting, not until whatever threat you perceived is averted, but until they're dead. Whatever, eh?

[oneshooter]

86. Do you really know anything about which you are talking about? N/T

[gorfle]

60. Well THEN!

The population of holders of permits to carry concealed firearms IS NOT COMPARABLE TO the general population.

Well then, Iverglas, people like the original poster should stop trying to demonize CCW permit holders as being more dangerous than the general population!

But you people can keep offering up this CCW holder vs. general population garbage with impunity??

I think not.

I think so. So long as other people keep offering up that CCW permit holders are somehow more dangerous than your average citizen in the general population, I will keep pointing out that this is not true.

Like I said - DEMOGRAPHICS DON'T MATTER. Whether it is hair color, skin color, socio-economic conditions, drug useage, or whether you wipe front-to-back or back-to-front, it doesn't matter.

I don't care why CCW permit holders are less likely to be involved in violent crime than your average citizen, the fact is, they are.