Say Anything Blog

Not sure quite what you mean…

Don’t you just love statistical methodology?

That is one of Jadething’s favorites. Always tell people that they are wrong because they don’t know anything about it.

That’s all I could have asked for from JG…

“There is no credible evidence that ‘right-to-carry’ laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.�

I think we just got an endorsement from JG for “right-to-carry” laws, since they don’t increase crime in his view, right?

If that’s the conclusion you draw from such a statement, Aaron, you’re maintaining your status as a pathologically dishonest person.

If someone says there is no credible evidence there are little green men on the moon, does that mean there might be?

You should read the NAS report before embarrassing yourself further.

This is not statistical methodology.

It does some creative cherry-picking as well as some outright deception.

The National Research Council of National Academy of Sciences

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309091241/html/

recently issued an exhaustive study on this very matter.  Their conclusion?

“There is no credible evidence that ‘right-to-carry’ laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime.�

The study is particularly hard on adherents of John Lott (Smallest Minority’s patron saint).

No, Jg.  If there is no credible evidence that allowing people to carry firearms increases violence, then how could you be against giving back the public the right? (Seeing as how we have the 2nd amendment, you must default on the side of gun-owners , right?)

That was my point, stop skewing my words

Nationally, gun-related homicide went up slightly in 2004 over 2003. Does that show CCW doesn’t work?

You were awfully quick to claim causation when the rates worked in your favor--are you quick to claim same when they do not?

Where are the increases. Please to list them by city name.

Or--as E. William Colglazier, executive officer, National Academy of Sciences and National Research Council, puts it:

Firearms violence is a serious problem in the United States.

The question the gunloons should answer is if these ‘stats’ mean CCW is working---does it mean CCW isn’t working when gun-related homicides and violence start increasing?

First Marty, she is a redhead. Second, check that spelling!!

Watching that map has made me think of when I grew up in south MS. I never knew anyone who did not, at least, have a firearm in their vehicle. I left there in’79, have returned off and on over the years. Never saw or heard any brewhaha over carrying a weapon. There were counties and towns that were a bit harsh on people having weapons, you were not a local and whipped out a piece, you got to look through bars at your lawyer till it was sorted out. Or, you got your ass shot. Criminals become more circumspect, even cautious, when they think that 81 yearold at the ATM may well have a Detonics .45 Pony she is willing to stick in their abdomen and pull trigger on 2-3 times. My own mother carried a snub-nosed .44mag for several years. Only time she used it was to kill a Cottonmouth that was in the laundry room. She shot that poor bastard into 3 pieces. On the whole, I would agree that an armed AND trained population is not the problem. Please feel free to retort, in either defenition.

Carl, I absolutely agree with you.

For the record, I never tied the above statistics together.  I let them speak for themselves.  I fully believe that ccw HELP to reduce crime, but I would never say they are fully responsible for the drop in those charts above.

And yes, Carl, you are absolutely right that the biggest thing we as a society can do to help reduce gun violence is education.

Firearms violence is a serious problem in the United States

Yeah, but according your previous quote, CCW have nothing do with the problem or the solution, so why stop people from getting them?

Nationally, gun-related homicide went up slightly in 2004 over 2003. Does that show CCW doesn’t work?

They went down nearly 1/2 in a decade, and ticked back up a little… so suddenly they don’t work? ha!

lemme first say I have absolutely no desire to own a gun; I will probably never even shoot one again (just a few times as a kid with dad and the .22). But I don’t think increased restrictions on my right to own one are necessary. Absolutely ridiculous to assume me a criminal first, an intelligent self-thinker second. Example: Why isn’t anybody crediting EDUCATION with a decrease in the crime rate? Kids are being told in simple english that to use a gun on another person is very very very bad, one of the worst things you can do. The message is, and the cases show you WILL be caught and you WILL be mercilessly punished. Even in “the media” this is the case. So, in order to go against this teaching you’ve got to be pretty twisted, or very determined. Point is: the wrong people will still get the guns and will use them, so why deny the intelligent self-thinkers the additional benefit of their hobby, which is legitimate protection from the very people the lawmakers admit exist in such numbers that they (though wrongfully) feel further restrictions are necessary. I hope this makes sense...where is the voice of the people who don’t want to own guns but empathize with those that do?

The common sense is guns can be a hobby. It’s fun to practice your highspeed trajectory projectile skills! Especially if the projectile can punch through a bottle or a can or an old car door. It’s okay to admit it can be fun in a video game, but the real thing should be kept inaccessible by force? Common sense is to handle such a device safely. I don’t need to be protected from myself...I feel I understand the risks and would not make a decision that would lead to harm others, let alone myself. A gun is not a spent uranium rod...household knives are far more dangerous on a daily basis even in safe use. Don’t leave a loaded gun on the engine of your car if the engine is running. okay. Don’t put a loaded gun on the traintracks. okay.

2H9, your mother is no “lady” is she? I ‘spect she doesn’t heart too well either!

Carl, you make a point that I don’t think many people really think on. It is not just a catch phrase. Proper gunhandling. Not just don’t point it the wrong way. The responsibility of holding an instrument, or tool, that can end the life of a person or animal. That can, with a single moments inattention, disrupt and destroy the lives of an entire string of people. Whenever I go to shoot, that is always in my mind. One round gone astray, not on the target, can cause untold misery. Many born after 1970 have no concept of that power. They have TV and movies and novels. There is a disconnect, a buffer between peoples actions and their responsibility for the results of those actions. You have chosen not to bear arms, That is your God given right in America. It works in the other direction too. You own a firearm, you are bound to handle it with responsibility. You don’t, someone is going to be hurt. This is the point at which the left and the rest of America have split. From that position you can only go down. No individual can ever be responsible for their actions. If one is, then all are.

People in this country need to step outside their “Absolutely NO guns� vs. “Absolutely NO gun control� positions and come to a resonable consensus on this.

I think if you listen closely you’ll find this to be mostly true among average Americans…

It’s hard to find incidents where permit holders have committed violent serious crimes with their weapons! It doesn’t appear to happen or the antis would be all over it. Good gun control laws would allow law abiding citizens to own and carry while punishing those who use them for violence and mayhem.
It seems to me what the anti’s want is to punish the law abiding people and allow the criminals free reign to terrorize unarmed citizens.

Carl and Hotel, you guys make some excellent points.  I wish more people would look at gun issues like you two.  Let me take it to the next step, if I may.  We can agree that with proper handling, one can own and operate a gun with absolute safety and have a fun time too.  The same can be said for motor vehicles. We have laws in place that ensure drivers have the appropriate skills and that vehicles are operated in ways that are safe for everyone.  And we don’t have too many people complaining about them either. Why can’t this be done with guns?  Now, I can’t decide between guns and cars which have more potential safety hazards.  But I think if it were made manditory to show you know the proper ways to handle, store, and use a gun before being allowed to operate one, many of the 2nd Amendment controversies would fade away.  Like traffic laws, people would be agreeable because they just make sense.

People in this country need to step outside their “Absolutely NO guns” vs. “Absolutely NO gun control” positions and come to a resonable consensus on this.

Absolutely ridiculous to assume me a criminal first, an intelligent self-thinker second.

The problem isn’t so much with assuming someone wishing to own a firearm is a criminal--the problem is the vast majority of folks wanting to own a firearm aren’t qualified or trained to do so safely.

Nobody in their right mind would climb aboard an aircraft knowing the pilot had no training in how to fly.  Yet, everyday in this country, firearms are sold to folks who barely know which end of the firearm is which.  People who aren’t physically or mentally capable of handling a forearm in a safe and responsible manner.

It’s hard to find incidents where permit holders have committed violent serious crimes with their weapons!

To the contrary, it’s quite easy.

What is hard is finding instances where a CCW holder has used a firearm to prevent or stop a crime.

Example of CCW holders committing crimes?  Let’s go the Darwin Awards:

11/25/01, Vancouver, WA. James C. Wilson becomes frustrated with untangling Xmas lights he plans to put up. Takes .45 handgun outside and fires six rounds. As he’s arrested, he notes, “I guess I’m going to lose my concealed weapons permit.”

On February 25, 1999, 76-year-old Clay “Junior” Wallace, an Arkansas Concealed Weapons Permit holder, shot and killed Robert Qualls, 65, after an argument over new sewer service for the town of Black Oak, AR. The two men had been arguing inside Vera’s Cafe but went outside to settle the argument with a fist fight. After Qualls knocked down Wallace twice, Wallace pulled out a .38 caliber revolver that he was carrying and shot Qualls twice in the stomach, killing him.

A disabled handyman was arrested after the brutal murder of a popular Aventura, FL, surgeon. Robert Herndon, a Florida concealed-weapons permit holder, was accused of gunning down Dr. Bradley Silverman outside his office. Authorities later discovered that Herndon had been twice charged with assault, the first charge being dropped, the second reduced to a misdemeanor. Herndon was described by neighbors as “a man who easily lost his temper and who threatened them with his gun.” Moreover, when police sought Herndon for questioning following the January 11, 1999, murder, they traced him to a local mental health facility where he had voluntarily committed himself. Police later found out that Herndon had a long history of mental illness, but got a permit because of loopholes in the Florida law.

Thomas P. Kelly, 28, of Groveland, Florida, was charged with attempted murder after shooting Amerida Dale Woods during a July 19, 1998 argument. Kelly and Woods had been arguing, when Kelly went to his vehicle, grabbed a handgun and shot Woods. According to police investigators called to the scene, Kelly shot the victim twice before running away. Kelly was also charged with use of the firearm in commission of a felony, use of a firearm under the influence of alcohol and aggravated assault. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement later verified that Kelly had a valid CCW permit

Steven Dobric, a CCW permit holder with no prior criminal record, gunned down his estranged wife outside an all-night Cuban restaurant in Palm Beach, FL, before turning the gun on himself. According to investigators, Dobric, whom his wife had described as “unpredictable,” followed her and a friend as they left a local restaurant. Senada Dobric, upon noticing her husband following her, fled. Dobric chased her down and shot her twice in the head before shooting himself. Dobric’s weapon, a .40 caliber handgun, had been issued to him by the security company for which he worked.

In September 1997, former Broward County, FL, judge candidate and CCW license holder Daniel Blackman pulled his gun on an emergency room doctor at St. Mary’s Medical Center after the doctor refused to write him a prescription. The doctor fled from the examining room and summoned a police officer who confronted Blackman. Blackman then pointed his gun at the officer. The officer, knowing a stray bullet could hit another patient or medical personnel in the area, didn’t shoot at Blackman and managed to wrestle the gun from him. In 1996, Blackman was accused of threatening to put three bullets in the head of an officer after receiving a parking ticket at an airport. He was arrested after hitting another officer with his car and fleeing the scene. Police found a loaded 9mm automatic handgun, several knives and other weapons in his car. Charges were dropped on assurances Blackman would receive psychological treatment. Under Florida law, he was able to retain his CCW license

On Jan. 24, 2002, a derringer belonging to Ronald T. Cox, 54, accidentally discharged at an Indianapolis restaurant, wounding another patron. Investigators say the gun was in the pocket of Cox’s leather coat; it went off when he placed the coat on the back of a chair. Cox had a concealed-carry permit. Police also found marijuana in Cox’s coat

On November 7, 2001, the Alaska Court of Appeals ruled that under Alaska law a judge could not take into account a man’s mental illness when taking away his concealed-weapons permit. In October 1998, Timothy Wagner walked into an Anchorage store and told an employee that he needed to soak out the chemicals that had been injected into him or else they would kill him. He also said a computer chip had been implanted in his head. When police were called to the scene, Wagner failed to tell police immediately that he was armed as required by law. Despite a history of mental illness, Wagner was able to get and keep an CCW permit because Alaska’s concealed-weapons law was changed at the behest of the gun lobby to prohibit law enforcement from considering a person’s mental state when applying for a permit.

On July 6, 2001, an unnamed man fatally shot 17-year-old Jacob W. Walton during a road rage altercation in Spokane, WA. Walton was a passenger in a car that got into an altercation with the shooter. According to police, the shooter had a concealed-weapons permit

The list goes on....

Please to exhibit examples.

JG reduces himself to anecdotal evidence I see…

Nobody in their right mind would climb aboard an aircraft knowing the pilot had no training in how to fly. Yet, everyday in this country, firearms are sold to folks who barely know which end of the firearm is which.

The obvious difference being we don’t have a right in the US Constitution guaranteeing us the right to fly airplanes…

Aaron caught in a lie...again.

JG reduces himself to anecdotal evidence I see…

Providing names, dates, and events is not ‘anecdotal.’

Anecdotal is saying, ‘I knew this fellow once who...”

2H9 requested specific examples; that’s what he got.

Another lie by Aaron:

The obvious difference being we don’t have a right in the US Constitution guaranteeing us the right to fly airplanes…

Of course, there is no Constitutional right to a firearm, either.  To test this, I suggest you go to those municipalities where firearm ownership is prohibited.  If there existed a Constitutional right, you’d think these municipalities would have long had their gun prohibitions overturned.

But they have not; the conclusion is that Aaron has lied once more.

So I suppose some in 1850 could have argued that blacks didn’t have any rights, as evidenced by the entire south, eh?

It’s a stupid arguement.  Rights are God-given and unalienable.  Because they are sometimes infringed upon does not meant they do not exsist.

Care to make a small wager on THAT

You bet.

One need only look so far as the District of Columbia, Morton Grove, IL and a number of other cities or municipalities that have either outlawed all firearm ownership or restricted firearms such as handguns.

If you’re not familiar with Morton Grove, IL--and I’m betting you’re unfamiliar with most everything--in 1981, Morton Grove banned the sale and private possession of handguns. The law led to court challenges by the NRA on both the federal and state level, where it was found to be constitutional.

Of course, there is no Constitutional right to a firearm, either.

Care to make a small wager on THAT?  You are nuts…

Your evidence that it doesn’t exsist because it is not being enforced is like saying smoking weed or snorting crack is legal because it’s not enforced in some places

Providing names, dates, and events is not ‘anecdotal.’

Definition of anecdotal:

Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis

You cited several specific instances and used them to indicate a greater trend without any sort of scientific analysis.  By the very definition of the word, Jadegold, your comment was anecdotal.

But if you’d like to point to a situation during any time in history that gun control resulted in a meningful decrease in crime I’d certainly be interested in seeing that.  Though I know you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

You cited several specific instances and used them to indicate a greater trend without any sort of scientific analysis.

To the contrary.  2H9 asked for specific examples; that was what was provided.

By no means is it anecdotal.

But if you’d like to point to a situation during any time in history that gun control resulted in a meningful decrease in crime I’d certainly be interested in seeing that. Though I know you can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

Care to make a small wager on that?

You have given us a list of people who all lied in order to obtain a CCW. Therefore all citizens are liars and criminals. SSWWEEETTT. Also, I have here on my counter 3 different printings of the Darwin Awards, Have not found ant of these you listed. Again I say Sswweeett.

You have given us a list of people who all lied in order to obtain a CCW.

I have?  You asked for specific examples where CCW holders committed serious crimes.

Now, as to lying to obtain a CCW--again, it likely happens.  Since there is no penalty to lying on a NICS background check, it stands to reason folks lie all the time.

The Founding Fathers then took the time to elaborate on that principle in the Counsitution, part of which includes the 2nd amendment guaranteeing my right to bear firearms.

Test it out, Aaron. Walk into DC with a firearm on your hip.  We’ll see how fast your “god-given right” lasts.

BTW, the 2A says nothing about firearms.

Yes, rights are God-given.  Rights are unalienable, among those include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happieness.

The Founding Fathers then took the time to elaborate on that principle in the Counsitution, part of which includes the 2nd amendment guaranteeing my right to bear firearms.

What a Godawfully stupid argument, Aaron.

Rights are God-given?  Ok, show us where in the Bible (or Koran or Bhagvagita or whatever) it says God wants you to have firearms.

So I suppose some in 1850 could have argued that blacks didn’t have any rights, as evidenced by the entire south, eh?

In 1850, it wouldn’t have just been the South.  And it wouldn’t have just been blacks.

Remember, the Founding Fathers you so revere, were very content to grant blacks, Native Americans, and other ethic groups status as 3/5 of a white man.

Ya know,you’re right. The Darwin Awards are a very scientific organization. Let’s not lower ourselves to the level of accepting the reports of the Bureau of Alcohol,Tobaco,and Firearms, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Those knuckledraggers are all liars, just like all the citizens of America. Only Jadething knows or tells the truth.

Arms have a military meaning.  One takes up arms against other warring nations; one doesn’t take up arms against ducks.  At the time the 2A was written, the term ‘arms’ meant not just weaponry but all components of military force, including cavalries, artillery, etc.

And this is where Aaron could have *possibly* benefitted from a college education.  The 2A as written by Madison originally read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Note the military context of this version of the 2A.  We also know the only point of contention with Madison’s version and the version of the 2A that was enacted had to do with the “religiously scrupulous” clause.

IOW, none of the Founders came forward and argued against Madison’s version on the grounds it didn’t clearly set forth a guaranteed individual right to firearms. Instead the only objection (Elbridge Gerry) had to do with the religious clause.  The concern was that some states might declare certain religious groups ineligible for military service.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Care to take a moment to explain what the difference is between “arms” and “firearms”?

Thank you for your explanation, though I don’t know why you had to be so insultive about it.

Of course, the Founding Fathers also hated the idea of a standing army (thus the idea of militia and no standing army til after WW).  So the people were entrusted with the arms of the modern military.  Thanks again for your explanation

Of course, the Founding Fathers also hated the idea of a standing army (thus the idea of militia and no standing army til after WW). So the people were entrusted with the arms of the modern military.

Once more, you badly miss the point.

The Founders didn’t envision entrusting the people with “the arms of the modern military.”

They specifically refer to well-regulated militias as part of military service.  They certainly didn’t envision you or Likwud running down to your local sporting goods shop or gun show parking lot to pick up guns.

And not all Founding Fathers hated the idea of a standing army; they were pretty evenly divided on the issue. Of course, they pretty much signed up to the idea of permanent standing armies after the US had been sacked a couple times by the Brits and the abysmal performance of militias.

In fact, there are some very humorous accounts of various towns turning out to heckle the local militias.

[...] Say Anything shows graphics of how states have changed right-to-carry laws and the impact on crime.The methodology is argued in the comments. We report. You decide.Incidentally, Ch. 11 in Atlanta reports some Clayton Co. judges are now packing heat. Apparently, they agree its a good idea. [...]