Senate committee narrowly endorses concealed guns bill

[Narf]

TOPEKA -- A measure allowing Kansans to carry concealed handguns went to the full Senate after being endorsed Tuesday by the Federal and State Affairs Committee on a 5-4 vote.

Complete article here.

Should this bill make it into law it will bring to 47 the number of states which allow concealed carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.

This follows closely on the heels of Missouri's new CCW law. Currently only Kansas, Illinois, Nebraska and Wisconsin do not have some type of concealed-carry law.

[CO Liberal]

1. And The Stupidity Spreads Farther

Idiots......

[MrBenchley]

2. Fortunately the governor has already said she'd veto this crap

Good for her.

[CO Liberal]

3. Sounds Like Sanity Will Prevail

:-)

[Maurkov]

4. I'm biting back on my sarcastic response because I really want to know

Why are concealed carry permits a bad thing?

[slackmaster]

5. I was wondering the same thing

Right now in Kansas some people carry concealed weapons for self-protection in spite of the law. Wouldn't we be better off with law enforcement knowing who is (or may be) carrying? Doesn't it makes sense to make sure that people who have chosen to carry legally have been trained, screened, etc.?

I don't see a down-side to a state changing from no-issue to fair-issue with appropriate controls.

[CO Liberal]

19. I Do

Because eventually the assholes at the Nuts Ruining America (or some other pro-gun group) were convince the lawmakers that the "appropriate controls" infringe on their right, and they'll be made less restrictive. And then any moron will be able to pack heat. The result?? Blood in the streets.

And the lawmakers will be unable to put the genie back in the bottle.

That, basically, is why I oppose the concept of concealed carry.

[slackmaster]

21. Over 20 years of CCW liberalization, and not one state has lowered

its standards yet. I haven't heard of any proposal to, say, eliminate a training requirement or do away with criminal background checks, or lower the age threshold, or even to reduce a fee.

Keep us posted, CO.

:hippie:

[CO Liberal]

26. That Doesn't Mean It Will Never Happen

And no one can guarantee that.

[Low Drag]

34. Nor does it mean it won't become more strict

States with the so called shall issue carry permits have a very good track record. Crime goes down in public places after about 3 years. Remember predictions of the gun shine state for Florida back in the late 80's, it just didn't happen. Violent crime went down by about 11% while the rest of the nation was going up.

[slackmaster]

46. No one can guarantee an asteroid won't hit the Earth next Tuesday

Anything is possible.

[Narf]

69. Let's make it illegal for asteroids to hit earth. That'll stop 'em, right?

We can just pass a law. That fixes everything.

[slackmaster]

70. Maybe we could post a big sign on the moon

[CO Liberal]

71. Asteroids Are Beyond Human Control

Guns, on the other hand, are controlled by humans, and subject to control be reasonable legislation.

[slackmaster]

75. Wrong analogy

Asteroids are to criminals as the Earth being hit is to an innocent person becoming the victim of a crime.

Neither asteroids nor criminals respond to legislation, no matter how reasonable.

[Narf]

81. You mean telling them NO doesn't necessarily stop them...

Neither asteroids nor criminals respond to legislation, no matter how reasonable.

Well then, the obvious answer is MORE legislation. We'll pass laws until they all jump in line and play along. MORE laws...that'll teach 'em!

[CO Liberal]

88. On Occasion, Reasonable Criminals....

...seem to be more common than reasonable pro-gunners on this board.

:-)

[RoeBear]

89. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!

That was the SECOND funniest thing you've ever said here!

(go ahead ask me what number one was)

[CO Liberal]

90. I'm Assuming....

...you're referring to the "Bigfoot" post I made the day I took a double dose of muscle relaxers.

[RoeBear]

91. Ya nailed it!

Is there a way that we can tell when you're writing 'under the influence'? That way it'd be easier to know when we can discount what you're saying.

[CO Liberal]

92. I'll Start Posting Disclaimers

I'm going in for some pain relief procedures on my neck and back in the near future. If I'm really affected by the drugs, I'll either say so or stay off-line.

[RoeBear]

93. All funning aside...

...good luck with that procedure. Constant pain must be well....a constant pain.

[CO Liberal]

94. It Is, RoeBear, It Is.....

I was managing the pain fairly well until this most recent accident - now I have constant pain in my lower back that radiated down into my pelvis. Quite often, I get shooting pains down my legs, and pain and numbness in my arms. It's like my spinal column is sending all sorts of false alarms all the time....

I'm seeing two doctors right now - a pain management specialist who want to do an IDET procedure to repair the two damaged discs in my lower back, and a spine specialist who wants to give me an epidural to get rid of some of the pain in my neck, shoulder, and arms.

Till then, I suffer. I'll be posting updates in the Lounge as my condition changes.

[Narf]

97. What kind of muscle relaxers do they have you on, the good stuff?

[CO Liberal]

102. Zanaflex

I take an entire 4-mg pill at night to help me sleep, and relax the muscles while I'm laying down. I also take half a pill in the morning after I get to work, and another half once I get home. Before the doctor told me to split the pills, they knocked me out completely - taking half pills allows me to function.

[Narf]

6. The streets will run red with the blood from the carnage..

Just like it does in the other 46 states that allow concealed carry, especially Vermont and Alaska which allow concealed carry with NO permit required. If you can legally own a gun in those states you can legally carry it concealed. The carnage is unbearable!

[CO Liberal]

20. The Carnage Isn't There Yet...

...because the number of people carrying concealed is still relatively small. But if we ever get to the point where the majority is packing, watch out.

[slackmaster]

22. As I've pointed out several times, the proportion of permitted people

Tends to stabilize with around 1% of the population having permits.

A subset of those will be carrying a weapon at any given time.

[CO Liberal]

25. But If It Goes Beyond That....

...we'll be in deep doo-doo.

[FatSlob]

72. Any evidence?

[CO Liberal]

74. You Can't Have Evidence of a Future Event

Unless you're academically dishonest, like John Lott/Mary Rosh.

[FatSlob]

76. Then why do you think

law abiders will suddenly become crooks and cause blood in the streets.

[CO Liberal]

78. I DIdn't Say They'd Become Crooks

I said that with more guns out there, there would be more potential for people to use them.

[Narf]

28. You actually believe that, don't you?

Do you realize that CCW permit holders are some of the most law abiding citizens in the country. They're investigated, fingerprinted, and registered before they'er ever given a permit. ANY felony convictions, and even some misdemeanor ones, will automatically halt the issue of a permit. The same can certainly NOT be said for the rest of the population.

[CO Liberal]

32. Any Time Someone Tells Me Not to Worry About a Specific Group of People...

...I worry about that specific group.

Gun owners sure are a law-abiding group. Like that asshole down in Florida who shot a 16-year-old kid in the back for ringing his doorbell. Or the asshole who chose to ignore a local ordinance banning handguns in Wilmette, IL.

Bottom line? I cannot automatically assume that all gun owners will always do the right thing, because so many of them over the years have done the wrong thing.

(Edited to fix a few typos.)

[Low Drag]

35. Track Them Then

Notice you too are in CO. I guess you are not too keen on the CHP's being issued here?

You are correct in that there are always a few bad eggs in a group. People that go through all the trouble to get a CHP are not the type of people who cause problems.

So here's a challenge. Get the Denver Post or similar org to track crimes committed by people with CHP's. Do it for 2 or 3 years and report the findings. Hey, if it turns out like you think maybe you could get the law repealed?

[Narf]

37. I'm betting the numbers are quite low.

I wonder where one would find the statistics for number of gun crimes committed by CCW permit holders? What percentage of permit holders commit crimes with concealed guns?

[Low Drag]

38. Dade Co Florida

did just that and found after I think 5 years it was statistically non existent. These were the folks that rabidly opposed CCW in Florida prior to 1987 and had to admit it was working well.

I encourage all those against CCW/CHP's to look into it in great detail. *WARNING* You will have to work hard on this because major media sources won't touch it with a 100 ft pole because the results show CCW works for society.

Here's a thought for the group. Why do criminals in the US go to great pains to break into houses when no one is home? Felon surveys say they fear a home owner with a gun.
Therefore you non gun owners benefit from private gun owners. You are what is known as free riders.

[MrSandman]

52. Here are some from MI and TX...

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CCWAnnualReport_75775_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CCWAnnualreportstats_45253_7.pdf

Of course, I'm sure anyone wanting to prove the dangers of CCW can find contradictory links.

[CO Liberal]

40. I've Got Better Things To Do With My Time

We'd be better off if asshole legislators weren't passing idiotic laws under orders from the gun lobby.

[Narf]

49. Can't have those legislators passing common sense laws now, can we?

Those crazy legislators. Going around passing laws that support the rights of law abiding Americans. DAMN THEM TO HELL!

[CO Liberal]

63. You See It One Way...

...I see it another.

[TX-RAT]

77. Investigated, fingerprinted, and registered

Thats a good place to start for the ownership of a fire arm, but i feel far more needs to be done before issuing a CCW.

[slackmaster]

79. TX-RAT - How do you feel about the state of Texas' procedures?

Is the training and testing comprehensive enough? What changes would you make to your home state's licensing system?

[TX-RAT]

80. Minimal at best

Bare requirement for gun ownership at least.
Testing and evaluation in shoot no shoot situations.
Complete mental evaluation.

[slackmaster]

82. Are you familiar with Nevada's training requirements?

Applicants have to draw and shoot from several positions, some very uncomfortable. They also have to demonstrate a few shoot/no shoot decisions in poor light. Some instructors are particularly tough and introduce noise and other distractions.

[TX-RAT]

83. No such training in Tx.

All states should learn from Nev.

[slackmaster]

84. One more factoid about Nevada

People with permits are encouraged to wear either a Hawaiian shirt or a tuxedo while they are carrying a weapon, so police can identify permit-holders easily.

I'm not making this up. I know a Nevada concealed-weapons instructor.

[TX-RAT]

85. Kind of defeats the purpose of concealment doesn't it.

[TX-RAT]

86. Makes it easy for the criminal

Does that mean you would shoot the person in the hibiscus first?

[slackmaster]

87. No, probably the guy in the tux

He's probably a British agent.

[RoeBear]

64. That's ridiculous...

..and you know it.

[Sanity]

98. BLOODY KANSAS

NOOOOOOOOOO

[FeebMaster]

8. They're bad because

you shouldn't need a permit to carry at all.

[MrBenchley]

9. You mean besides the fact

that they do nothing to cut crime...

Ask any small business owner if he'll enjoy seeing customers with a gun coming through the door...

[Maurkov]

12. N/A

By that logic, by concealing their weapons, patrons are putting small business owners at ease.

Since I consider freedom to be important, whenever I look at an issue I ask, "why should this not be allowed?" Unless there is a reason more important that the freedom that would be sacrificed, I have to side with freedom. Unless you're prepared to argue that concealed carry in fact greatly increases crime, you may have trouble convincing me that it needs to be illegal. A tie is not sufficient.

[MrBenchley]

13. Too TOO funny...

"Since I consider freedom to be important, whenever I look at an issue I ask, "why should this not be allowed?""
Whenever I look at an issue, I look at the real world...and I certainly don't want every neurotic and halfwit given a pistol permit just because no way can be found to stop him. Nor do most citizens, which is why the gun industry keeps trying to keep this crap from facing a public vote. And in Missouri, when the citizens rejected it, the gun industry adn the GOP rammed it through anyway.

"Unless you're prepared to argue that concealed carry in fact greatly increases crime"
Actually the argument that is made by CCW advocates is that this imbecilic measure cuts crime...which is a flat-out fraud. In Florida it was passed in 1987...and between then and 1993 (when the Brady law was passed) violent crime INCREASED 31%.

After 1993, violent crime decreased in Florida as it did nationwide...but it decreased at a slower rate than it did in states with sane gun laws.

[Wingnut357]

14. Wish you would cite your sources a bit more often

"Whenever I look at an issue, I look at the real world...and I certainly don't want every neurotic and halfwit given a pistol permit just because no way can be found to stop him."

For this to be valid, you must assume that most or even many citizens are either neurotic and or intellectually incompetent.

[MrBenchley]

16. Florida's crime stattistics are easily available on the web

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

"you must assume that most or even many citizens are either neurotic and or intellectually incompetent."
No, all I have to do is look at the sort of specimen I've encountered in my life who claimed the need for a gun (which is a tiny subset of "most people"). A quick inspection of those lurking around gun owners' on-line forums, such as highroadrage will adequately demonstrate....

[Romulus]

17. to answer your question (from that other poster's source):

Crime rates (per 100K):

1987: 8479 (law passed)
1988: not given
1989: 8755
1990: 8539
1991: 8561
1992: 8289 (lower than 1987 rate)
1993: 8204
Decreasing trend, to 2002 rate: 5398

Population FL:
1987: 12,043,608
1991: 13,195,952
2002: 16,674,608

[MrBenchley]

23. In other words...

The CCW law didn't work, and the Brady law did.

[Low Drag]

36. What?

That chart shows a decrease starting in 1988.

To compare crime you need to look at the rate per 100,000. It factors in population changes etc and you can compare larger cites/states against smaller ones.

[Wickerman]

39. There is not near enough data to draw any evidence of causation

be it Brady or CCW. Its a fools errand to try and anyone reporting such is clearly a whore to his (oh, or her, can't forget Mary Rosh) own bias. The more folks report bogus stats on the gun issue the more us statisticians creep to the bottom of respected professions. Already we are neck and neck with politicians and used car salesmen.

[slackmaster]

43. Are you sure about that?

I don't buy anyone's seat-of-the-pants analysis of statistical data.

It IS possible to determine whether or not there is enough information to determine causation or lack thereof, but you have to run the numbers.

[Wickerman]

44. Go back to your stat books

WAY too many uncontrolled variables.

[slackmaster]

45. OK, I can accept that level of analysis

It's reasonable to conclude that the data don't provide any conclusions one way or another.

[iverglas]

110. uncontrolled variables

The one that springs to mind in this particular situation -- a longitudinal study, trends over time within a particular society -- is the demographic bulge created by circa & post-1970 baby boom breeding.

One of the factors that best predicts crime rates in a society is the proportion of the population consisting of young male persons. That proportion was high for a while as a result of the boomer baby-making. One would expect to see crime rates fall as that segment of the population aged, and the new group of young male persons accounted for a smaller proportion of the population than its predecessor cohort.

That phenomenon happens to coincide roughly with the introduction of both the tighter firearms regulations and more permissive firearms regulations that have been seen in the last decade in the US, sometimes in the same places (e.g. jurisdictions like Florida with permissive local concealed firearms rules, but also subject to national US "gun control" measures). Factoring out the component of any observed increase or decrease in violent/gun crime that could be attributed to either of those phenomena, when the demographics were changing so significantly, would be extremely difficult.

Economic circumstances also have an effect on crime rates, and also change over time. Factoring them out is another difficult task.

In making cross-cultural comparisons, where demographic and economic trends might be similar, there are different factors that are known to have some influence on crime rates that have to be accounted for. Homogeneity/diversity within the culture and rural/urban population patterns are two obvious examples.

Income disparity is an example of a factor that it is difficult to control for in both cases. Within the US, for example, income disparity has become more extreme in the last decade; between the US and comparable societies, income disparity is considerably more extreme in the US than elsewhere. This makes comparisons seeking to identify the effect of regulations challenging.

Studies by competent people with no axe to grind would be so nice to see, wouldn't they?

.

[MrSandman]

51. My only contention is...

That lacking any shred of credible data, statistical or anecdotal, that CCW increases crime, there is no case for prior restraint.

I do not believe there is any data which demonstrates a correalation.

Some of the Sheriff's I get to deal with disagree. Some believe it lowers crime, some believe it is a PITA. It seems to depend on the demographics of their counties.

[Wickerman]

53. The LE I know consider it a pita

they've has ome other choice words, but I consider those personal opinion. Again, as I posted some weeks back, and as a recent study has borne out - here in Minnesota its way more expensiveto license than what the Counties are being reimbursed.

[MrSandman]

54. Cost in WV...

Rakes in $$$ for sheriff dept. By law overruns are allocated to a specific fund not ccw related. Like I said, here it is attitude and demographics. Of course they have worked with it, what almost 15 years and open cary, even in a vehicle has never been illegal.

[Wickerman]

55. In Minnesota they get 80 or 100$ per application

back from the state. Some of the counties that have more sophisticated methods of accounting figured true costs of the process and found they couldn't accomplish the task within 50$ to 75$ of the fee awarded. It amounts to yet another unfunded mandate from the State. Article this week in the Star-Trib talking about the need for a raise in permitting fees. Sorry no link, buts someone with more time could search.

[MrSandman]

56. I think an app...

In WV is $60 and license fee is $15. Basically, they accaess state MH records and run a CIB. They do the CIB on nearly every traffic stop. I don't know if community MH centers charge them. They do not hire dedicated staff, it helps pay for staff downtime. Deputies do not do any of the work. One county, in one year, BEFORE app fees went up, ran a $60,000 surplus(urban county).

Here it is:

Date updated: Sunday, February 1, 2004

§61-7-4. License to carry deadly weapons; how obtained.


(a) Except as provided in subsection (h) of this section, any person desiring to obtain a state license to carry a concealed deadly weapon shall apply to the sheriff of his or her county for such license, and shall pay to the sheriff, at the time of application, a fee of seventy-five dollars, of which fifteen dollars of that amount shall be deposited in the courthouse facilities improvement fund created by section six, article twenty-six, chapter twenty-nine of this code. Concealed weapons permits may only be issued for pistols or revolvers.

For Training:

(d) All persons applying for a license must complete a training course in handling and firing a handgun. The successful completion of any of the following courses fulfills this training requirement:


http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/west+virginia

BTW, I was thinking about your dilemma at church. If you trust your congregation and do not put up a sign, the only ones to worry would be visitors, who it would be easier to change if theyt weren''t turned away in the beginning. Despite what is posted here, I doubt you get many weapons in church. Free opining, worth nothing.

[Wickerman]

57. I agree - and again

which I didn't post until my final volley on this subject - I'm not horribly concerned about CCW one way or the other. I do hate that we had to alter the appearance of our church for the display of a topic that is so contrary to the message of the church.

we are only required by law if we don't want weapons. So, in fact,we could do what you say and leave the sign down. However, that creates a lot of distress amongst our elderly - all of whom are not interested guns in church and hate to be the only church in town, who by lack of a sign, appear to welcome guns. The reasonable folks realize only the most zealous advocates will be carrying into church, sign or no. My point remains that its unconscionable that such a decision aver needed to be made when the Lege could've so easily and logically exempted Churches from the hastily written and unfairly adopted CCW bill.

On the cost - when all was broken out, and perhaps our requirements are more intesive than yours? - the per hour cost did not meet expenses. We had some counties that showed similar surpluses, but they didn't use the same accounting methods as our urban areas.

[MrSandman]

58. Ooops...

[MrSandman]

59. I don't know about start-up costs in 89...

Like I had said, WV has been at it a while now.

[Maurkov]

104. LE considers it a pita?

The majority of the Bill of Rights is a pita for LE. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.

[Wickerman]

105. Read the posts

these law enforcement are my friends and neighbors, I assure you they respect the bill of rights as much as the next person. Thanks for the knee jerk response, looks great on this progressive boards. :eyes:

[Maurkov]

119. My apologies

Now I've been following the threads under this article reasonably closely. Which posts do I need to review?

I'll tell you, I had some trouble parsing this:

"they've has ome other choice words, but I consider those personal opinion"

So I took the title at face value:

"The LE I know consider it a pita"

Im glad the LEOs you know are not authoritarian bastards, but to me the endorsement reads like, "9 out of 10 despots agree that a free press is a bad idea."

In context, I was thinking what a pita it would be to shoot or be shot by some armed homeowner when you serve a no-knock warrant on the wrong house. What sort of pita were you (they) talking about?

"I assure you they respect the bill of rights as much as the next person"
I know that should be a comfort, but I don't have a ton of faith in the next person, either. For me, if 6 or 7 of our first 10 amendments were explicitly written to make my job harder, I think I might get a little testy.

So, I wasn't being a knee jerker. I realize that some LEOs have a problem with CCW permits. I just dont think that automatically makes the permits a bad idea. You think their first hand experience lends them credibility, I think it makes (some of) them biased. My response was heavy handed, and I apologize.

[Wickerman]

120. Apology not accepted

No point in accepting a non-apology. Which posts should you read? How about the ones where I explain why they consider it more costly than the reimbursement they receive from the County and then the state?

I don't appreciate your calling my friends in le "despots". These guys drive our county roads and streets of our towns day and night. If they get in trouble, they know that back up is a minimum of 10 minutes away. A lot can happen in 10 minutes, particularly if firearms are present. I don't call that being an authoritarian bastard, I call that being a good citizen of the community.

As citizens, they can actually parse out the fact that though the amendments may make their job tougher, they, for the betterment of society, put their individual needs aside.

Yep, some LE sucks - some sucks real bad. So do some gun owners, so do some CCW holders. Most, on both sides of equation are decent, law abiding citizens.

However, when we use broad brush statements to paint one side or the other, we're not better than our opponents over at freak republic. Lets be better than that. It really shouldn't be so hard when we talk about folks who put their lives on the line for the community.

[TX-RAT]

121. Thanks

Thats something you don't see much of around here.

[Maurkov]

125. Whoa

Dial down the sensitivity. The pita you were referring to was that it's expensive for the county? That's it? See, we were talking about different things.

I'm sorry the despot comment struck a nerve. I was looking for an example that demonstrates an obvious vested interest in the given outcome. "9 out of 10 lawyers against tort reform?" Still too slimy.... Basically, it would surprise me for someone to come out in favor of something that even slightly increases the odds of getting them shot. Here we go: "9 out of 10 teens against reinstating the draft."

I know I have a left-libertarian streak. I tend to blame LE as complicit in the abuses of government. But I'd rather not be a bigot, even against a self-selected group. I'll have to think about it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[MrBenchley]

41. Too TOO funny...

"That chart shows a decrease starting in 1988"
Some "decrease" all right....

1986....120,977 violent crimes
1987....123,030 violent crimes
1989....145,473 violent crimes
1990....160,554 violent crimes
1991....158,181 violent crimes
1992....161,137 violent crimes
1993....161,789 violent crimes

And remember, those are the year's when the gun nuts' miracle cure of armed flabby Republicans among us was supposed to be cutting violent crime. AFTER 1993, violent crime dropped in Florida AND EVERY OTHER STATE, due to the Brady Law and the COPS program.

[slackmaster]

24. Why do we give so much power to the Crime Reduction Straw Man?

The purpose of liberalized CCW laws is to level the playing field for ordinary citizens; to remove the possibility of having a permit denied for arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious, or corrupt reasons.

I don't give a flying flip if that doesn't result in a reduction in overall crime. As long as it doesn't INCREASE crime, as long as liberalization of the law doesn't make life MORE DANGEROUS, all the arguments against it lack substance.

:hippie:

[MrSandman]

30. In other words...

"Actually the argument that is made by CCW advocates is that this imbecilic measure cuts crime...which is a flat-out fraud. In Florida it was passed in 1987...and between then and 1993 (when the Brady law was passed) violent crime INCREASED 31%."

Is just plain false

[MrBenchley]

31. No, sandman

it was true...and I posted a source that backed it up.

[MrSandman]

33. Then, by your posted source...

the crime rate began to fall in 1989-90. In anticipation of the 1994 AWB.

Reading all the data is very helpful.

[MrBenchley]

42. No, but thanks for

playing "let's pretend"....

[MrSandman]

50. Glad you enjoyed the pretension that the data...

supports that the crime rate went up between 87 and 93.

[MrBenchley]

60. Hey, violent crime in Florida increased 31%

between 1987 and 1993, no matter how desperately you spin it.

[Columbia]

61. Nice try

Year Crime Volume Crime Rate Population

1987 1,021,283 8,479.9 12,043,608
1993 1,116,567 8,204.8 13,608,627

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Crime_Statistics/1996/trends.asp

[MrBenchley]

62. Again, violent crime increased 31% no matter how desperately you spin

And the violent crime rate went from 1,021.5 per 100,000 in 1987 when the CCW law was passed to 1,188.9 in 1993 when the Brady Law was passed ....some "triumph" all right.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Crime_Statistics/1996/trends.asp

[MrSandman]

65. Still started declining in 1990...

Anticipation?







http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/Crime_Statistics/1996/Charts/violent_rate.asp

[MrBenchley]

66. Who DO you think you're kidding?

It declines slightly in 1991, and goes UP again in 1992.

[MrSandman]

67. More deception...

It peaked in 1990. It was higher in 93 than 87, but was already on the way down.

[MrBenchley]

68. The deception is from the RKBA crowd...

"It peaked in 1990. It was higher in 93 than 87"

1986....120,977 violent crimes
1987....123,030 violent crimes
1989....145,473 violent crimes
1990....160,554 violent crimes
1991....158,181 violent crimes
1992....161,137 violent crimes
1993....161,789 violent crimes

And remember, those are the years when the gun nuts' miracle cure of armed flabby Republicans among us was supposed to be cutting violent crime. AFTER 1993, violent crime dropped in Florida AND EVERY OTHER STATE, due to the Brady Law and the COPS program.

[MrSandman]

96. Rates or crimes?

Take a bite out oof reality.

[MrBenchley]

99. I got reality

you got the bite.

[MrSandman]

100. At least rates and crimes are not confused...

[MrBenchley]

101. Not by me...

although you have been struggling to confuse them....

[Maurkov]

95. I'm not laughing

"I certainly don't want every neurotic and halfwit given a pistol permit just because no way can be found to stop him"

Lets try out that argument on another piece of deadly hardware: the automobile. I don't want every neurotic and halfwit given a driver's license, therefore I should: a) ban them entirely, or b) restrict them to those who can demonstrate competence.

Obviously, I don't want to increase the number of armed crazies. Still, I must weigh that against the freedom of a person to defend herself. Do I think more crazies or more good guys will be empowered by CCW? Now I'm generally a misanthrope, but I still think the ratio is in favor of the good guys. We're talking specifically about the margin. How many good guys were carrying anyway? None (by definition). How many crazies were carrying anyway? Some. How many crazies really wanted to carry, but weren't, because it was illegal? Hardly any; Note that these have to be fresh crazies, because once they've got a criminal record, they'll be denied permits. That 'hardly any' is the marginal increase in danger that society faces. How many guns would you pluck from lawful fingers to keep them away from a single crazy? All of them?

"Actually the argument that is made by CCW advocates is that this imbecilic measure cuts crime...."

Oh my. I've never had anyone so brazenly construct a straw man. Lets return to the argument I made. I was weighing freedom vs. safety. CCW makes us freer without making us markedly less safe. Rebut?

[MrBenchley]

103. Oh, let's try that out....

"Lets try out that argument on another piece of deadly hardware: the automobile."
Automobiles are registered...automobile drivers are licensed and required to display proficiency (at some place other than auto dealerships)...databases are kept on both automobiles and licensed drivers....automobiles are manufactured to government safety standards and subject to mandated recalls...automobile drivers are required to be insured to protect the general public...the American Automobile Association is not headed by criminals, racists and crazies, and is not trying to repeal or block any and all legislation pursuant to automobiles...nor is the AAA engaged in a campaign of lies and propaganda about a mythical "right to drive."

"Oh my. I've never had anyone so brazenly construct a straw man. Lets return to the argument I made. "
Why? Yours was a straw man to start with. And the plain fact is that in state after state this imbecilic measure has been peddled on the basis of a deliberate fraud commissioned by the gun industry from a right wing crackpot named John Lott claiming "More Guns = Less Crime."

[Maurkov]

106. It's not complicated: Freedom vs. Safety

Would it be correct to say that you would support "shall issue" CCW permits if the requirements were as stringent as they are for driver's licenses? How do you reconsile that with your previous statement, "I certainly don't want every neurotic and halfwit given a pistol permit just because no way can be found to stop him?" If you don't support "shall issue" in those circumstances, do you feel diver's licenses ought to be "may issue?" Please clarify your position.

"headed by criminals.... campaign of lies...."
Just as the existance of Earth First! does not make environmentalism a bad idea, the nature or character of pro gun rights groups is immaterial.

You did not address my marginal safety argument, so I assume you concure with the analysis: CCW permits are not a significant danger to society.

"Why? {Your argument} was a straw man to start with"
I think you need on what straw man means. My argument was not a straw man because it was my argument, not a mischaracterization of yours. Why we should return to my argument is because it is the topic of this thead. I am not peddling for the gun industry or for John Lott. I am arguing for my freedom. Are you ready to discuss the merits of my argument now, or do you have another tangent in mind?

[MrBenchley]

107. Only to those who want to oversimplify the issue....

"Would it be correct to say that you would support "shall issue" CCW permits if the requirements were as stringent as they are for driver's licenses?"
No, as I've often said clearly, I believe an applicant should show an actual NEED to have a pistol permit.
And I think all guns should be registered, all gun owners licensed, and all ammo sales restricted to licensed gun owners and recorded.

"Just as the existance of Earth First! does not make environmentalism a bad idea"
Earth First! is not the largest environmental group, is it? Furthermore, the main tenets of environmentalism are not inventions by Earth First....

"You did not address my marginal safety argument"
I tend to ignore such risible crap.

"I am not peddling for the gun industry or for John Lott. I am arguing for my freedom."
The "freedom" to skulk around in public with a popgun in your pocket? That's paranoid delusion, not freedom.

[FeebMaster]

108. And yet

"No, as I've often said clearly, I believe an applicant should show an actual NEED to have a pistol permit."

you still haven't mentioned what you think is an acceptable need.

[MrBenchley]

109. Ask Jackney Sneeb, feeb....

[FeebMaster]

112. Are you saying you agree with

Jackney Sneeb's position on concealed carry?

[MrBenchley]

114. No, feeb...

I'm saying Jackney's a fucking idiot....

[FeebMaster]

115. That's not what it looks like to me.

You said: "No, as I've often said clearly, I believe an applicant should show an actual NEED to have a pistol permit."

I said: "And yet you still haven't mentioned what you think is an acceptable need."

You said: "Ask Jackney Sneeb, feeb...."

Clearly you're saying that you agree with Jackney Sneeb's position on concealed carry. Why else would you tell me to ask Jackney Sneeb when it's your answer I'm interested in?

[MrBenchley]

116. Yeah, but you can't figure out

the article about Orrin Hatch letting steroids and speed go on the market unregulated, either. AND your only complaint about the Republicans is that you don't think they're gun-crazy enough to suit.

There are people I will have a serious discussion of an issue with, feeb. You're not among them any more.

[FeebMaster]

117. You mean I was on your list at some point?

Clearly I have more complaints about the Republicans than they aren't being gun crazy enough for me. They're obviously not drug crazy enough for me either.

[slackmaster]

118. Damn, I hate laughing orange juice out through my nose

There are people I will have a serious discussion of an issue with, feeb.

MrBenchley owes me a new keyboard.

:argh:

[FatSlob]

126. Another sex reference!

"Fucking".

[MrBenchley]

127. Yeah, fat slob....

I said "fucking". Want to tell the teacher?

[slackmaster]

111. They've never answered that one, Feeb

Maybe one these needs-based licensing enthusiasts will grow some honesty and tell us who in their fantasy world would have the job of deciding who gets to own a gun and who doesn't.

[Maurkov]

124. I've made it as simple as I can

Yet you still refuse to grasp it.

"I believe an applicant should show an actual NEED to have a pistol permit"
Do you believe that an applicant should show an actual NEED to drive a car to have a driver's license? If not, why not?

"the main tenets of environmentalism are not inventions by Earth First"
Fair enough. But even if you establish that the NRA (that is the group you're thinking of, right?) is criminal and invented the concept of gun rights (as opposed to gun rights activists inventing the NRA), you're still stuck with an ad hominem: Bad person A agrees with you, so you're wrong.

"I tend to ignore...."
Lose debates much? Silence is consent. This is your third response that fails to address the issue of safety. I only keep bringing it up because if you don't believe that CCW permits are a danger, I have no idea why you're opposing them or debating me.

"That's paranoid delusion, not freedom."
It is freedom. A person is more free if they are permitted to do something than if they are forbidden. If you want to argue that it is a freedom that is worth nothing, you are welcome to attempt it (hint: try harder, less invective).

[iverglas]

113. I get so confused

If you don't support "shall issue" in those circumstances,
do you feel diver's licenses ought to be "may issue?"

Where are all the folks whom I'd expect to see, rushing in to tell our new friend (as they are so constantly telling me) that driving is a privilege, not a right!!!?

I mean, they're always just as wrong as they were the time before, but that doesn't usually stop them saying it. What happened here?

If driving were a privilege, wouldn't that make driver's licences "may issue"?

Marriage has been characterized, by courts in the US (and Canada), as an exercise of fundamental rights. Wouldn't that mean that marriage licences must be "shall issue"?

Funny how we seem to think we're entitled to require that people meet certain criteria in order to get marriage licences ... and how un-het up about that some people are, even when the criteria that are imposed are demonstrably and unarguably contrary to human decency.

(*I*, of course, am not saying that no restrictions could be imposed on the issuing of marriage licences. *I* am not the one suggesting that there is never any justification for limiting the exercise of rights in the public interest.)

Of course, that doesn't surprise me. Why would anyone care whether anyone else can get married or not? The problem doesn't affect the ME ME ME folks or involve restrictions on *their* rights, so it's plainly of no consequence.

Just f'r instance.

Anyhow, maybe somebody can tell me when driving became a right, and driver's licences became "shall issue". I'd like to be able to cite the date next time somebody tells me that driving is a privilege.

.

[MrBenchley]

123. For that matter

I'd like to see where you can fart around a car dealership for a few hours and get a drivers' license.

[Maurkov]

128. I know, it's amusing, but

Until the DMV demands proof of need before they'll issue....

I think the whole "driving is a privilege" meme exists only to do an end run around the 4th amendment in the case of suspected drunk driving. You don't want to take a breathalyzer test? Fine. We revoke your license. I'm ok with that. Oh, that and there is no constitutional amendment that even arguably establishes the right.

"Funny how we seem to think we're entitled to require that people meet certain criteria"
I think we have different ideas on what "shall issue" means. There can still be criteria that must be met: old enough, not a felon, not insane, pass a test, demonstrate competency. The point is, the criteria must be objective. In the case of "shall issue," there is no bureaucratic judgment call. If you meet the criteria you get the license, even if the clerk doesn't like you.

For the record, I think that for marriage licenses, the objective criteria of not being the same sex is stupid. But that's a different debate. And I think we already agree.

"*I* am not the one suggesting that there is never any justification for limiting the exercise of rights in the public interest."
Good. Neither am I. That would be stupid. The question is, why are you for limiting the exercise of rights without any justification?

[iverglas]

122. my headache worsens

Now I'm generally a misanthrope, but I still think the ratio is in favor of the good guys.

We can't trust the rest of the folks to elect a gummint that isn't going to set its iron heel on our neck ... but you like the idea of all those stupid/evil people wandering around with pistols in their pockets.

And I mean, we gotta assume that this is a *majority* of the folks we're talking about, right? When it comes to electing gummints, we should be able to tolerate a pretty hefty minority of stupid/evil people, since we can always outvote them. So to be of the mind that we need to arm ourselves against the gummints that those folks can be expected to elect, we need to think there are an awful lot of them.

Do I think more crazies or more good guys will be empowered by CCW?

Well, I could ask the same thing about voting, it seems to me.

But it makes more sense in the case of voting, really. A few crazies voting isn't going to do much harm. But a few crazies with firearms can do a considerable bit.

That 'hardly any' is the marginal increase in danger that society faces.

Yeah, and the schoolchildren killed in the UK in that mass shooting by that law-abiding gun owner were "hardly any", in the grand scheme of stuff, eh?


What you have here is indeed a straw fella. "Neurotics and halfwits" is a figure of speech sorta thing, referring to quite a whole lot more than "crazies", doncha think?

I would likely be afraid of the crazy people with guns, but I'd also definitely be afraid of the just plain pigheaded, stupid and selfish people with guns ... and the drunks with guns, and the hotheads with guns, and the people with PTSD and guns, and all the people who do all sorts of unpleasant things already with no guns at all, and whom I simply would not trust not to do even unpleasanter things if they had guns with them when the urge struck.

*I* don't distrust all of my fellow people, you see. I distrust what is probably a pretty small segment of them -- but I just have no way of knowing who they are until they do something to come to my attention.

I don't need to arm myself against the governments they elect. The votes they cast can be compensated for and corrected in many ways. What I'm more concerned about is the damage that a handful of them can do if they take a dislike to someone while they have a firearm in their pocket, which is considerably more than any handful of them can ever do with a ballot in their hand.

How many guns would you pluck from lawful fingers to keep them away from a single crazy?

Ah, how many babies would you kill to save the human race? Or just yourself?

We can all make up silly questions, can't we?

Quite obviously, in order to guarantee that no firearm ever fell into the hands of "a single crazy", we'd have to round up every firearm in the world and melt them all down.

Of course, before doing that, we might want to ask whether anyone had ever stated that guaranteeing that not a single firearm ever fell into the hands of a single crazy was really his/her goal.

CCW makes us freer without making us markedly less safe. Rebut?

"Rebut"? How about: ask that you say something that makes sense?

I get dreadfully confused by the "RKBA" stuff sometimes.

Repealing all "public decency"-type laws would make us all "freer", too. Freer to walk around with no clothes on at the mall, poop in parks, have sex in the hospital elevator and moon our neighbours' kids when they answer the front door. Unless posted otherwise, of course. Hey, if you want to tote your gun around all those places, why shouldn't I be able to satisfy my own urges there? Surely I'm not free if I can't. Surely I have a natural right to poop and have sex! They seem just as natural to me as shooting somebody.

One minute, the whole point of being able to tote guns around is to exercise that natural right to defend one's self and one's property -- i.e. to make one's self safer. That at least makes a little bit of sense.

The next, it's to be "free". And that one makes no sense at all. People do not do things because they are free to do them, nor do they normally demand to be permitted to do something simply because that will make them free to do it. They do things because they want to do them, for whatever reasons they have. And we very commonly restrict how and when and where people may do the things they want to do, because we have reasons for doing that.

As I understand it, some people want to be "free" to tote guns around so that they will be safer. Some other people want to restrict that freedom so that they, and others, will be safer.

Yes, restrictions on freedom need to be justified. But calling something a "freedom" -- which every single thing that anyone was capable of doing could in fact legitimately be called -- just doesn't offset justification for restricting it. There really has to be some interest in exercising the freedom invoked, where reasons are presented for restricting it, and the interests in issue on both sides have to be weighed.

What will be weighed on the one side is really not the "loss of freedom", but the loss of the ability to do something. And what will be weighed on the other side really just isn't always "safety".

Otherwise, since my walking around starkers or having sex in elevators really wouldn't ever interfere with somebody's safety, my liberty would have to trump.

The interest that individuals who want to tote guns around are demanding the "freedom" to be able to protect is their own safety. There needs to be at least some minimal demonstration that what they want to do will accomplish that, where there is some demonstration that restricting the freedom will serve the public interest.

It may be completely impossible to prove that restricting Individual A's freedom to tote guns around will enhance public safety. It would also be impossible to prove that giving me my freedom to poop in the park would diminish public safety.

But a whole lot of people pooping in the park might be a problem, particularly if even a few of them have worms. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this.

.

[Young Socialist]

18. they're very bad for criminals, how can

they be certain of a helpless victim if the soccer mom they're about to rob is packing?

[MrBenchley]

47. So the entire case for them is built on childish fantasy

[Fescue4u]

29. Concealed carry laws are a bad thing because

They expose the lie of the gun control zealots, that guns are evil.

The gun control zealots have been proven wrong about 47 times in their chants that concealed carry = "blood in the streets".

Proably nothing has done more to expose the lack of credibility of the gun control zealots, than the civil rights movement of concealed carry.

[MrBenchley]

48. Gee, fescue...

90,000 Americans shot a year isn't enough blood in the streets to suit you?

It's way too many to suit me.

[Narf]

7. Isn't it great? Only four more states to go!

[FeebMaster]

10. 48 to go, in my book. (nt)

[Narf]

11. Good point!

When the rest of us enjoy the freedom that Vermonters and Alaskans do it will be a good day.

[FeebMaster]

15. It's a start.

I'd like to see all the federal legislation repealed too.

[-..__...]

27. Hell.

At least for now, I'd settle for replacing "may issue" with "shall issue".

[YNGW]

73. Good.

>Should this bill make it into law it will bring to 47 the number of states which allow concealed carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.

Glad to hear it.