Public display of guns- What do you think?

Pages

MaverickDago wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389...

seems appropriate to debate in this thread.

Key quote from here:

But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime.

Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”

Which is what Shoal has pretty much been saying the whole thread.

MaverickDago wrote:

If Cornell wins, violent crime is spiking by 1000%

I know this isn't quite the way you meant it, but as someone who was born and raised in Lexington KY, I can absolutely vouch that this is true.

Staats wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389...

seems appropriate to debate in this thread.

Key quote from here:

But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime.

Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”

Which is what Shoal has pretty much been saying the whole thread.

You forgot to quote this bit:

Hemenway said valid studies of the effects of more concealed weapons permits on firearms deaths could only be obtained by studying shooting deaths that involved concealed-carry permit holders.

But such data is not collected by most law enforcement agencies and not compiled nationally, said Rand of the Violence Policy Center. Her group would like to see nationwide reporting of the number of concealed-weapons permit holders, a “systematic collection of arrest and conviction data” for them as well as hard data on the number of justifiable homicides they’re involved in.

But “the NRA and the gun lobby would never allow that,” Rand charged. “The gun lobby is trying to keep all this data secret. … They know it’s not going to go well for them.”

The NRA’s Arulanandam denied that the organization universally opposes the collection of such data, but said it would not endorse the concept without seeing a specific proposal in writing.

Which is exactly what I've been saying--a powerful, pro-gun special interest group spikes any attempt to limit any hard look at the industry. Even the CDC report said that pretty much all the studies done to date had issues with the scope of the project or the quality and detail of the information. I'd make a bet that *any* real research into gun ownership and usage would be met with massive resistance by the NRA.

Either way, having the current, limited research on CC say that it doesn't have any impact on crime doesn't mean you jump to having more people carrying guns (and using the faulty logic that they keep you safer to justify it). If they have no effect on crime, then you obviously don't need them to keep safe, which means you don't need to carry one on you at all times. You don't get to have your cake and eat it to.

MaverickDago wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34714389...

seems appropriate to debate in this thread.

It is, but I don't think for the reason you believe it to be ;-D

See, the issue is, crime as gone down just about *everywhere* and not just in jurisdictions where people are licensed to pack. The best example is NYC: still very strict gun laws, right? Yet since the mid-90s NYC has gone from this to this

I've always wondered where this new fervor for guns came from when at the same time the crime rate was dropping. I could see back in the day why stuff like this made us feel better, as crime was going through the roof and the cities were collapsing. I just don't understand why now, after all these years of declining crime. I think the best answer is given in that article:

Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a gun-control group, said the movement “has to do with selling more guns.” While it was pushed by groups like the NRA, it also “dovetailed with the gun industry’s desperate need to find a new market.”

“Their efforts at reaching out to minorities and women have failed,” said Rand, whose group advocates banning all handguns and some rifles but believes sporting rifles and shotguns should remain legal. “The industry constantly has to look for a way to make a guy who already owns 15 guns buy a new one.”

Staats wrote:
But Dr. David Hemenway, Ph.D., a Harvard professor of public health who has studied gun violence for years, said that when it comes to concealed-carry laws, neither side can make a legitimate claim about their effects on crime.

Hemenway said that the most definitive review to date — a 2004 look at research on the topic by the National Research Council — “found no credible evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws increases or decreases violent crime.”

Which is what Shoal has pretty much been saying the whole thread.

It may not have a large effect on the crime rate; but it sure affects crime perpetrated against the actual carriers.

CannibalCrowley wrote:

It may not have a large effect on the crime rate; but it sure affects crime perpetrated against the actual carriers.

Sure. And global warming is no longer a threat because it snowed a lot this winter.

OG_slinger wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

It may not have a large effect on the crime rate; but it sure affects crime perpetrated against the actual carriers.

Sure. And global warming is no longer a threat because it snowed a lot this winter.

I hear that argument so f*cking often.

OG_slinger wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

It may not have a large effect on the crime rate; but it sure affects crime perpetrated against the actual carriers.

Sure. And global warming is no longer a threat because it snowed a lot this winter.

That's either a post hoc ergo propter hoc or a cum hoc ergo propter hoc. I'm tired of arguing against irrational opinions and retoric, so I think I'll play the "pick out the fallacy being used" game instead.

OG_slinger wrote:
CannibalCrowley wrote:

It may not have a large effect on the crime rate; but it sure affects crime perpetrated against the actual carriers.

Sure. And global warming is no longer a threat because it snowed a lot this winter.

Wow, your comment has nothing to do with the point I made. Congrats!

In other news, I think 12 pages is a new record for P&C gun control discussions before people got snarky.

Seth wrote:

In other news, I think 12 pages is a new record for P&C gun control discussions before people got snarky.

Progress!

Aetius wrote:
Seth wrote:

In other news, I think 12 pages is a new record for P&C gun control discussions before people got snarky.

Progress! :)

That's change I can believe in.

To be fair, it seems for the last few pages the argument has been running in circles. There is no evidence to prove or disprove the idea that more people openly carrying people-killing-metal-projectile-delivery-systems, or guns as some call them, would lead to an increase in instances of gun violence. This could be due to lack of information or there may be nothing to see. Really it all boils down to beliefs, feelings, and personal observations. I don't think there's an objective truth available for us to reach at this point.

I'm curious what qualifies as "gun violence" in the official statistics. I often hear of folks escalating conflicts by either brandishing or threatening to brandish a firearm. This is clearly illegal behavior, but is it "gun violence"? As I mentioned before, folks I work with say that this sort of thing is fairly commonplace in places like Southern Virginia or East Tennessee. As I've also mentioned, I think I'd need to pistol whip someone for thinking that I'd be okay with that sort of thing.

Paleocon wrote:

I'm curious what qualifies as "gun violence" in the official statistics. I often hear of folks escalating conflicts by either brandishing or threatening to brandish a firearm. This is clearly illegal behavior, but is it "gun violence"? As I mentioned before, folks I work with say that this sort of thing is fairly commonplace in places like Southern Virginia or East Tennessee. As I've also mentioned, I think I'd need to pistol whip someone for thinking that I'd be okay with that sort of thing.

Along the same lines, it's probably worth pointing out that a lot of the "gun violence" statistics only deal with situations where someone is actually killed. If you add in the total number of people that are shot but don't die then the "gun violence" figures explode.

Paleocon wrote:

I'm curious what qualifies as "gun violence" in the official statistics. I often hear of folks escalating conflicts by either brandishing or threatening to brandish a firearm. This is clearly illegal behavior, but is it "gun violence"? As I mentioned before, folks I work with say that this sort of thing is fairly commonplace in places like Southern Virginia or East Tennessee. As I've also mentioned, I think I'd need to pistol whip someone for thinking that I'd be okay with that sort of thing.

Officially, it's only homicides, robberies, and aggravated assault where the type of weapon is tracked. Flashing a weapon doesn't get captured in the local crime stats that get summed up into the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.

OG_slinger wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm curious what qualifies as "gun violence" in the official statistics. I often hear of folks escalating conflicts by either brandishing or threatening to brandish a firearm. This is clearly illegal behavior, but is it "gun violence"? As I mentioned before, folks I work with say that this sort of thing is fairly commonplace in places like Southern Virginia or East Tennessee. As I've also mentioned, I think I'd need to pistol whip someone for thinking that I'd be okay with that sort of thing.

Officially, it's only homicides, robberies, and aggravated assault where the type of weapon is tracked. Flashing a weapon doesn't get captured in the local crime stats that get summed up into the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.

I'll need to see the research methodology for myself, but if what you say is correct I can see all kinds of ways the conclusions above are just plain unreliable.

Paleocon wrote:

I'll need to see the research methodology for myself, but if what you say is correct I can see all kinds of ways the conclusions above are just plain unreliable.

Crime data is collected two way: the Uniform Crime Report or the National Incident-Based Reporting System.

The UCR Program collects offense information for murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson. It is a voluntary system, so not every law enforcement agency participates. The FBI estimates crime for local agencies that do not provide data for complete reporting periods.

The NIBRS is an automated collection of crime stats for agencies that have computerized record systems. It captures data in much more detail than the UCR program, but only 25% of agencies actually have the computer systems needed to pass the information on to the FBI.

There's also the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which publishes the National Crime Victimization Survey. It uses Census data, crime reports, and surveys to attempt to cover total crime, including crime that is not reported to law enforcement agencies.

To get better research, better (and more complete) data would have to be captured.

It appears that OC axe lobby is going to have an uphill battle. Especially if you're completely nuts!

Police shoot, kill ax-toting man at Calif. market

(AP) – 1 hour ago

INGLEWOOD, Calif. — Police in southern California have fatally shot a man they say threatened an officer with an ax during a confrontation with police at a grocery store.

Witnesses told police the man had been stabbing himself with a knife Saturday night at City Farm Market in Inglewood. A store employee says the man confronted him and told him he "killed people," then tried to stab the employee and walked away.

Police followed a trail of blood inside the store to a walk-in refrigerator in the market's warehouse. Two officers shot the suspect multiple times and killed him after he allegedly came out of the refrigerator wielding an ax and lunged toward one of them.

Police are withholding the suspect's identity pending notification of his family.

Pages