Arizona has become the third state to eliminate the need to have a permit to carry a concealed gun. Now, you can pack a gun without a permit in Arizona, Alaska, and Vermont.
Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law which will take effect 90 days after the current legislative session ends — sometime in August. She stated “I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well.”
Under the prior law, carrying a hidden firearm without a permit was a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and up to a $2,500 fine.
Two states — Illinois and Wisconsin — prohibit all concealed weapons.
For the full story, click here.
Jdog–
Lighten up. Byron and I have diametrically opposing views on gun control–but he understands my sense of humor. And, I should add, Byron can appreciate and read between the lines of my comments because he has a well-developed sense of humor himself.
We are all biased about certain subjects/issues–whether or not we’re willing to admit it is another thing.
Looping back to original topic — heaven forfend! — the change in Arizona isn’t about who gets to own guns, but simply to remove the requirement of taking training and getting a carry permit before carrying a concealed handgun.
That’s it.
Vermont has had a similar law for, well, forever, and it’s been a few years since Alaska removed the requirement to get a carry permit. The vast majority of states have laws that allow people to get carry permits much the way that they get drivers licenses — take a class, apply with some governmental entity — and those laws have had such negligible downsides that not one of them has come close to being repealed. Instead, those of us on the self-defense side deal with the same tired myths and logical fallacies being trotted out, over and over again, as have been so well displayed here.
As to Mespo’s worrying, it’s not merely thousands of citizens who can handguns for self-defense — it’s millions. The best estimates I’ve been able to find are somewhere around seven to eight million permits, nationwide, and that doesn’t even include Vermont . . . or those folks in Alaska and soon in Arizona who will be able to carry without having to get permits, although, certainly, some still will.
So: relax. Even if you live in one of the two states that only allow cops and criminals to carry, when you travel, you’ll often be around your fellow citizens who have a semiauto on the belt or a snubby revolver in his — or her — pocket, and it’ll be just fine.
“A person’s perception that an organization like NEJM is biased in regard to gun control could possibly issue from said person’s own biases and position on the subject.”
Or, perhaps, from a study of the CDC report, which surveyed the existing published, peer-reviewed literature in an effort to find some objective benefit from any “gun control” laws, and was unable to find an example.
Byron–
Aren’t we all–you know–what you said. 🙂
Elaine:
“A person’s perception that an organization like NEJM is biased in regard to gun control could possibly issue from said person’s own biases and position on the subject.”
Never, I am completely subj er um objective 🙂
Byron–
“even if they are somewhat biased when it comes to gun control.”
A person’s perception that an organization like NEJM is biased in regard to gun control could possibly issue from said person’s own biases and position on the subject.
even if they are somewhat biased when it comes to gun control.
Mespo:
NE Journal of Med. works for me.
Wayne:
If I was going to do a study on the pro’s and con’s of gun ownership I would look at who owns them, what they are used for, how many have used them for protection, how many times was the gun fired for protection, how many times was it just shown and not fired for protection, if it was fired a break down of death, injury or miss and who was killed or injured. If the gun wasn’t fired was there an injury to the owner, why wasn’t the gun fired. that type of thing.
There are many ways to set up a study to try and find what you want to find. Since we are all human it is hard not to have our personal bias enter into anything we do. The better studies are as objective as possible and the data is not “massaged” to promote the conclusion one wants.
Here was Wayne Jarvis’ first post on the thread:
“Wayne Jarvis
Mespo: Can you identify the flaw in that study? I’ll give you a chance to find it yourself (just to see if you can think analytically).
If not, I’ll be back later to point it out for you.”
=============================================================
It drips with sarcasm and a presumption of ignorance on the part of other posters as opposed to his own superiority.
=============================================================
Here is the last sentence from his last post:
“Rather than hurling childidh insults, show me where my logic is flawed.”
================================================================
Starting out with insults, he now admonishes others to not do so.
==============================================================
Finally this rather inane and empty sentence in the middle of his last post:
“Logic existed long before the peer review process …”
Common sense tells us that the “peer review” process has been going on since the first group of caveman went on a hunt together … logic, a mode of reasoning, requires time and proper instruction to be decently learned.
=================================================================
Review determination as to which argument was most persuasive:
An overbearing sense of self-worth wins the day only in one’s own mind.
I’m with mespo on this one.
Well, Mespo, prior to law school, I worked as a research biologist for about 6 years, so I actually do know a thing or two about peer review. On that note Byron is correct that its not all that its cracked up to be.
But you have a much bigger problem here. I am not espousing my opinions. I am using LOGIC. Logic existed long before the peer review process and remains useful even after today. The peer review process has not made logic outmoded.
Rather than hurling childidh insults, show me where my logic is flawed.
Byron:
“I am not sure what you are saying carries much weight unless we know the peers doing the review.”
****************
I think the New England Journal of Medicine qualifies as peers who know a thing or two about what they’re doing. It is the oldest medical journal in the world as well as the most widely read, cited, and influential general medical periodical in the world.
Wayne Jarvis:
“The study I cited was peer reviewed and published unlike your opinion.”
Wow. Just wow. I revert to my astonishment at the lack of ability to think critically.
**********************
I make no pretense to expertise here, but I revert to my astonishment that you consider your opinion and endorsement more believable and prescient that a peer reviewed study by two acknowledged experts who in the field whose data and conclusions were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Arrogance thy name is Wayne Jarvis.
Advocacy Tip: Try a countervailing study there, Wayneo. At least then we won’t have to just take your (rather uncredentialed) word for the proposition that you discovered what the entire scientific community missed in their “ignorance.”
“By the way, that FSU professor is a life long Democrat and member of both Amnesty International and the ACLU. But don’t let that get in the way of dismissing his argumentation without addressing it. He’s probably a right wing, drunken, deer-shooting member of Amnesty International and the ACLU.”
*****************
No, he just viewed too small a sample.
“The study I cited was peer reviewed and published unlike your opinion.”
Wow. Just wow. I revert to my astonishment at the lack of ability to think critically.
Byron: “the study Mespo cited looked at the number of innocent people killed per intruder killed. I would say a valid study…”
“It depends on what your position is whether you look at deaths or at protection. I think you need to look at both.”
This is simply wrong. Shooting an intruder is a means to end. It is not the end itself. If the gunowners bought guns for the opportunity to kill bad guys then this “study” might be on to something. But show me the study that establishes that that is why people buy guns.
The proper measure would be lives saved/lives lost. That’s what a legitimate study would attempt to measure.
Here, measuring the number dead intruders doesn’t even come close to this. Indeed, we can’t even assume that all the dead intruders presented an actual threat of life. Should a dead 15 year old who wanted to snatch a purse from an apartment count in favor of broader gun ownership in the name of “protection”? Maybe to some, but not to me.
If all that was on a menu was a shit sandwich, I would not say “hey, it’s better than nothing!” I would skip lunch.
I guess I am finicky when it comes to food and research.
Mespo:
I am learning that peer reviewed doesn’t mean much, it depends on the peers. I do some peer review for code compliance but my knowledge is not as good as say a PhD in structural engineering. And some PhDs are better than others. I am not sure what you are saying carries much weight unless we know the peers doing the review.
“You mean that if you take the suicides out of the study, the ratio drops from 42 to 1 to under 2.5 to 1?”
**************
You must take great solace that in your best case scenario you are only more than twice as likely to kill yourself or a family member than the bogey-man of the armed intruder. Want to play poker sometime?
“I DON’T THINK GUNS ARE THE REASON FOR THE DROP IN CRIME. I’ve only cited the drop in crime as evidence against the idea of more guns=more violence.”
***************
Since you don’t know the causative factors, how can you ascribe any weight to any given factor? If the rate would have dropped faster but for these inane BYOGun to the saloon laws wouldn’t that blow a nice hole in your tenuous argument that “I don’t know why it happened just that your rationale is wrong!”
Wayne Jarvis:L
The study I cited was peer reviewed and published unlike your opinion. Those who would take your opinion over a published peer reviewed study are the scary ones.