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.
Byron-
“I personally would not go to a bar in a city that allowed guns in bars and restaurants that served alcohol and I am a big believer in 2nd amendment rights.”
Do you really mean this? Do you realize that this will keep you from dining out in cities like Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Miami, Indianapolis, Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix, Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, St. Louis, Detroit, Atlanta, New Orleans, Minneapolis, and those are just the major cities I could think of off the top of my head.
mespo-
“It only “gets it wrong” because you, in your manifest expertise on the topic, disagree with its methodology. One awaits the “gobs” of countervailing studies there Jason. Maybe they exist only in your mind. Talking to yourself is a strange habit, too. By the way,how’s the food at the zoo?”
I actually started to respond to this. I even had several of the studies pasted in. But then I realized that this was a waste of my time. You haven’t read anything I’ve said, or have taken out of it only what you imagine. The paper I linked to earlier has a better and more concise response. For anyone reading, substitute mespo727272 each time you see the name, “Dr. Tanz”. Also, anyone serious about seeing some of those references can find them in the same paper.
“The fact that Dr. Tanz chooses to rely on conclusions he likes based on data from just two cities in the United States and Canada, while having no interest in the contrary conclusions dictated by national data comparisons, speaks for itself. Being intellectually indefensible, such a choice can only be explained, not justified; the only explanation is that it is “result-oriented,” that is, dictated by Dr. (p.550)Tanz’s emotional bias in favor of reaching anti-gun results regardless of the evidence.”
Please read the whole thing mespo. Or ignore it and drop in some more insults.
I’m not sure where this paranoia about alcohol and guns comes from. It’s by no means universal.
One anecdote: after doing a carry class, another instructor and I went to a restaurant with a name very much like Fred Robster for a beverage and a snack at the bar. He was openly carrying; I was discreetly carrying. At one point, the manager came over just for a quick chat, and, it became clear, to anticipate if there was going to be some possible trouble. Having decided that there wasn’t, that was it.
The sky did not fall. Some of the other folks noticed his holstered gun, and none of them either went apeshit or left precipitously.
In fact, it’s never been unlawful in Minnesota to carry in bars, and the antigun folks looking for examples of gun owners doing horrible stuff here have only been able to find examples of criminals in illegal possession.
So why is it so likely to be different in Arizona than it is here, and in all those other states that don’t forbid carry in bars?
I don’t get it.
Wayne:
I am not a doctor but I think different people have different reactions to alcohol. I would not be in favor of anyone drinking who is also carrying no matter if it was to only have a beer.
But then I would not operate a piece of heavy equipment or drive immediately after consuming one beer or glass of wine. It is that little bit of unknown with the alcohol that should give one pause. A slightly reduced reaction time or a misjudgement is all it takes and you have no idea what part alcohol takes.
Mespo would have you begging for mercy if you had a blood alcohol content of 0.04% and killed someone in a car wreck or an industrial accident.
Byron: my gut reaction is to agree with you re: guns and booze. That said my gut often reacts in a knee-jerk fashion. So I am willing to change my mind.
I do find Jmac’s solution of having a BAC requirement for carrying a gun. And at .04 you practically have to be stone cold sober to lawfully carry. That’s about 2 drinks for an average person. Let me ask you, after 2 drinks are you so out of your mind that you are going to shoot someone? On the other hand, people will drink too much (just as we know that people will drink to much and drive).
Wayne:
In regards to deterrent and concealed carry, you really don’t need everyone carrying to accomplish the deterrent factor. The very knowledge that concealed carry is legal in a particular jurisdiction is a deterrent, a criminal will not risk the possibility of attacking someone who is probably armed.
But guns in bars or around alcohol is a no no. I personally would not go to a bar in a city that allowed guns in bars and restaurants that served alcohol and I am a big believer in 2nd amendment rights. And for every conscientious individual who doesn’t drink when carrying and has had proper training there are probably 10 who haven’t. The law only requires a basic minimum competency when applying for a concealed carry license.
I think there is a golden mean on the issue of gun ownership between total freedom and total restriction. Citizens should be allowed to own firearms but some places should be off limits, bars are appropriate restrictions.
I never said that guns don’t have a deterrent effect. I simply questioned the “wisdom” of concealed weapons in alcohol-serving establishments, as most sane folks do. Sadly, Arizonians (or their elected officials) take a different view.
—–
I see the concern (really I do). But what the hell does a study about home fatalities in the home have to do with whether people should have guns in bars?
Again, if you are still arguing that people are “safer” if they are not armed, you continue to task that study to do some work that is well above its pay grade.
Jason:
” So what exactly does a study have to get wrong before you think it might be crap?
I’m still curious why your single peer reviewed and long since discredited study is worth more than gobs of peer reviewed studies that disagree with your point of view. Wait, I think I just answered my own question.”
*************
It only “gets it wrong” because you, in your manifest expertise on the topic, disagree with its methodology. One awaits the “gobs” of countervailing studies there Jason. Maybe they exist only in your mind. Talking to yourself is a strange habit, too. By the way,how’s the food at the zoo?
mespo727272-
“It was quite a leap, but it was directly onto your point that doubling your odds of unintended death by owning a firearm somehow refutes the study. Strange logic to try to refute the study’s conclusion by arguing that is was wrong in degree but not in kind.”
Study says x is 42 times more likely to happen given situation y. A chimp, using nothing but the information given in the study, could see that the study’s own numbers say that (at worst), x is 2.5 times more likely to happen. So what exactly does a study have to get wrong before you think it might be crap?
I’m still curious why your single peer reviewed and long since discredited study is worth more than gobs of peer reviewed studies that disagree with your point of view. Wait, I think I just answered my own question.
Jason:
““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.”
Awesome leap away from the point!”
*******************
It was quite a leap, but it was directly onto your point that doubling your odds of unintended death by owning a firearm somehow refutes the study. Strange logic to try to refute the study’s conclusion by arguing that is was wrong in degree but not in kind.
Wayne Jarvis:
“The study says what it says. Nothing more nothing less.”
*****************
On that point, that’s all I’ve been saying ’cause that’s all there is to say based on that study. I never said that guns don’t have a deterrent effect. I simply questioned the “wisdom” of concealed weapons in alcohol-serving establishments, as most sane folks do. Sadly, Arizonians (or their elected officials) take a different view. That’s the thrust of the thread, or at least I thought it was.
No disparagement in my comment, by the way. Just establishing that courtrooms are different environments than labs. There are no critters in the biology lab as smart as you and just as well-trained in the art of trying to reach a result the opposite of your hypothesis. You and I have proved that fact in this argument right here in our little e-courtroom.
Back to the topic. This is another example of legislation that has nothing to do with gun rights, but everything to do with giving the federal government a symbolic slap in the face to show who’s really the boss. I’ve lived in ten different states in the course of my life and have known gun owners in each of them. Never once have I heard a complaint from an individual about threats to gun ownership. The law is reactionary in the sense that it is a knee-jerk response to unfounded suspicion, and it makes as much sense as refusing to fill out the census form for fear of landing in one of Rep. Bachmann’s “re-education” camps. But I suppose that it will be a boon to NRA membership, firearms manufacturers and the now ubiquitous “militias” who want to be sure they’re all well-armed when it comes time to “take back our country.” Yahoo!
CEJ:
I think there might be many other factors and I bet socio-economic status is one of them and a big one. I think race plays a part to. It seems that most of the homicides that include children are by white males.
Do you have a break down on your studies that speak to socio-economic status and race?
Putting it another way, a woman is at an increased risk of being killed by her partner or ex-partner if the relationship was with a man who possess a gun versus a man with out a gun.
There are studies which show that states with higher rates of household availability of firearms had significantly higher homicide rates, particularly for females.
Fact is men with guns kill their wives, girlfriends, ex-wives, ex-girlfriends, and children significantly more often then men who do not have guns.
As a former scientist, you should know you cannot criticize a study because it didn’t answer your question, and instead answered another one correctly. To so assert, makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of setting up the “straw man.”
———–
Maybe we are just talking past each other here. If you are citing that study as just an interesting bit of trivia, then I agree with you. The study says what it says. Nothing more nothing less.
But if you are trying to use that study as some sort of evidence that people are “safer” if they do not own a gun (which it certainly seemed as if you were), you badly misread the study.
That study is not looking at the correct data to draw those kinds of conclusions, for the reasons I stated above ad nausem.
For the record: I don’t fear the courtroom, but I appreciate the concern. Stay classy.
mespo727272-
“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.”
Any study you cite, no matter its obvious problems, is valid. Any other study, no matter the level of peer review or credentials of the researcher, will be dismissed as the work of gun nuts or the NRA. It’s easy to win the game when you get to make up the rules.
“Since you don’t know the causative factors, how can you ascribe any weight to any given factor?”
I didn’t.
“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!”
Now you are proposing that a long, large, and consistent drop in crime would have been even better if not for guns. Holy crap.
“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.”
Awesome leap away from the point! I point out a massive problem with your pet study, so rather than say, “Hmm, that’s a rather titanic issue that should make me question the validity of the research,” you answered with that.
Wayne Jarvis:
“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.”
*****************
Sadly Wayne, the flawed logic is yours. The study is titled, Protection or peril? An analysis of firearms related DEATHS in the home, [emphasis mine] was and designed to determine the chances of killing an intruder versus killing yourself or a loved one with your own firearm. It answered that question. You want to know the indirect benefits of owning a gun for purposes of protection of your family. Fine, that was not the inquiry, nor my comment.
As a former scientist, you should know you cannot criticize a study because it didn’t answer your question, and instead answered another one correctly. To so assert, makes you guilty of the logical fallacy of setting up the “straw man.” In addition, you are likewise guilty of logical error of what I call reverse argumentum ad verecundiam wherein you disparage a recognized authority in favor of your own vain reasoning. As Locke might say, rather than an appeal to modesty, yours is an appeal to arrogance. Them’s the thinkin’ errors here, Champ, as if you really needed me to point them out to you.
I hope they keep you closer to the lab than the courtroom in your new profession. It’s scary in there, people really do know what they are talking about and can properly apply logic–when it’s needed, of course.
Byron,
I suggest that instead of asking what people use guns for, we assume that they’re used for their only designed function: launching a projectile at high speeds with a good degree of accuracy with the intent to damage the object that the projectile hits. Thus the first rule of gun safety.
The question is really what do people aim their fire arms at?
Jdog:
“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.”
*********************
What the CDC actually said was that, “The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combination of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)” (parenthetical information theirs).
I appreciate your dispassionate summary, but I like original sources best.