The problem with facts, evidence, and open mindedness...

[TPaine7]

It's a gun control fanatic's worst nightmare. Honest folks in the news media are scary enough. But when honest people are exposed to reality, it doesn't matter where they start out--and that's terrifying.

Welcome the News Tribune to the side of truth, logic, and real-world evidence:

We confess to harboring some reservations about the concealed carry law. Our fear was an increase in guns in public would result in more guns being displayed prematurely and/or more accidents.

{Sheriff Greg} White said recently: “All the fears over conceal and carry have never manifested.”

We concede the point.

Anecdotal evidence does not suggest an increase in accidents or unprovoked gunplay.

The evidence, however, does show people defending themselves from harm.

Source: http://www.newstribune.com/articles/2009/10/20/opinion/072op01hardlessonsy09.txt

Imagine if other media organizations honestly evaluated the evidence, despite their prejudices. Terrible, isn't it?

[onehandle]

1. This opinion piece is nothing but anecdotal.

The gun fetishist's mantra:

Positive anecdotes about guns, good.

That's the whole mantra. Simple, ain't it.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

3. Not really,

Newspapers deal largely in anecdotes. This hasn't changed that. But the "blood in the streets" predicted before CCW passed has not materialized. This newspaper took the sheriff's anecdotal testimony that the predicted problems haven't materialized and acknowledged their mistake.

It's not

Positive anecdotes about guns, good.

it's more like

Hysterical bullshit predictions about guns, bad

I would only expect those--almost certainly including you--who have the opposite opinion...

Hysterical bullshit predictions about guns, good

...to have a problem with that.

[GreenStormCloud]

6. 39 shall-issue states is a LOT of anecdotes.

39 states and the gun-grabbers oft predicted bloodbath-in-the-streets hasn't happened yet. 39 states are all reporting satisfaction with shall-issue laws.

Meanwhile, in Puerto Rico, which has very strict gun laws, there was a street shootout that left 7 dead and 20 wounded.

[friendly_iconoclast]

8. So dig up some anecdotes showing the opposite conclusion, then

No one is stopping you, and the Guns forum would certainly be the proper place for them.

Go on, we'll be waiting

[friendly_iconoclast]

9. Still no anecdotes showing the opposite. Why am I *not* surprised?

Guess his Google machine isn't reaching the intertubes.

Or something like that...

[Euromutt]

10. Anecdotal evidence is still evidence

The only problem is when you present anecdotal evidence as being representative of the overall situation. As a not entirely hypothetical example, if you posted a selection of news stories about guns being used in negligent unintentional shootings and in criminal activity, well, there's nothing wrong with that per se; it's evidence firearms are misused, even if is anecdotal.

But if you make out that those stories alone are evidence that firearms are misused to a far greater extent than they are used to prevent harm, then you're making an untenable statement.

So, not to put too fine a point on it, onehandle, since your mantra appears to be "negative anecdotes about guns, good," you're the pot calling the kettle black, at best. See, I don't think you're going to find many pro-RKBA types on this forum who will contest that guns get misused. We just think, based on the available evidence, that the benefits of private firearms ownership outweigh the costs.

[rl6214]

11. And in one post the name calling begins.

Can't debate the facts so resort to attempted insults and name calling.

[TPaine7]

4. What some folks seem to miss

is that conceal and carry passed in 2003. It's 2009 now, so even if the law took effect in 2004, that's FIVE YEARS of "anecdotal" evidence.

After five years, the Sheriff and the newspaper agree that they haven't seen the problems predicted. Sure the evidence is "anecdotal"--like almost all evidence LEO's and newspapers deal with. So what?

How many years does it take to demonstrate that hysterical anti-gun predictions are FOS? Twenty? Fifty? One hundred?

[paulsby]

5. my evidence is anecdotal

but it's a LOT of anecdotes. in 20 yrs of police work, i have become more and more convinced the refusing citizens the RKBA is simply bad policy, all constitutional issues aside.

i deal with violent crime at the source, not in some ivory tower. i don't fear people with CCW's. in fact, if i contact somebody who has a CCW , i am instantly MORe at ease than with the average person, because i know - statistically speaking - they are less likely to be engaged in criminal activity, or to assault me.

those are just the facts.

i live in a shall issue state- WA

there are TONS of people here with guns in their house, and on their person.

the last time i dealt with a person carrying a weapon LEGALLY who committed a crime, it was a guy with a CCW who was DUI.

that was about 2 years ago. and that's hardly a gun offense. i'm not saying it's prudent to carry while impaired.

[JonQ]

7. They should be applauded

they had a hypothesis, it was tested and found to be incorrect, and so they changed their hypothesis and admitted it publicly. Very good.

Unfortunately most are too dug in to admit it when reality contradicts their views.

They're still praying for "blood flowing in the streets".