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.
Zimbabalouie:
that is true, even chimpanzees beat hell out of opposing tribes and kill rivals.
But they arent drunk.
You bet mespo!
Jason:
In every sense of the word you are the victim of gun violence. We’ll let the readers decide who made the best points, since obviously you can’t even agree with your own arguments.
mespo-
You make this so easy.
“Oh, I count them for quite a bit. I find it funny you should use the National Crime Victimization Study and Gary Kleck, PhD in the same breath. Kleck found nothing good about the NCV Study because it didn’t support his theory. Let’s see what one of your heroes (Kleck) says about another of your heroes NCV):”
You are wrong and the first line of the quote you chose shows why.
“Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it “was not designed to estimate HOW OFTEN people resist crime using a gun.” (emphasis mine)
Kleck finds the NCVS useless for counting DFUs, not for estimating relative risk between being armed or not, which is what we were talking about.
Kleck explicitly says this in his response to the latest crappy study you cited:
“The most authoritative study (Tark and Kleck 2004) used data from large-scale surveys conducted by the federal government (the National Crime Victimization Survey), covering large samples that were representative of the entire U.S. population, compared 18 different self-protection victim strategies, and controlled for far more confounding variables than Branas et al. did.”
DGUs VS the risk of gun possession. Two completely different things that mespo can’t distinguish.
“So which is it? 108,000 incidents or 2.5 million incidents of DGU? Seems the same argument you made against the NEJM Study has come home to roost.”
As I’ve demonstrated, you lack even basic reading comprehension. Also, your parallel doesn’t even work. Kleck has explicitly and exhaustively dealt with the flaws in the NCVS as far as counting DGUs. The math in his work is consistent even if you disagree with it. The garbage you cited saw its own math eating itself alive.
And let’s take those numbers. The lowest number, which even Kleck’s critics think is waaaaay too low, still outnumbers all gun deaths 3:1. The lowest number anyone takes seriously is just under 800,000, or roughly 26:1.
“Gee, when your own experts on the same side of the aisle can’t agree,”
Kleck isn’t “on the same side of the aisle” as the NCVS. Good God you are thick.
“As you,Jason, so righteously asked me, “So what exactly does a study have to get wrong before you think it might be crap?” I ask that question now of its author.”
So not only are you refusing to answer that question, you are doing it based on your completely wrong interpretation of what you read. I’ve amply demonstrated that you don’t understand what you are reading. Hilariously, the more you get wrong, the cockier you get. This is great fun.
“This is really a blast. Do you have any other arguments that won’t boomerang? I’d like to see them.”
My boomerangs are striking you in the head rather than returning to me. Repeated head trauma might explain your inability to read at a basic level.
Also, for the sake of completeness, since you didn’t respond to them, I take it you concede the following points:
*That none of them had anything to do with CCW being an old policy.
*The 200 justifiable homicides you referred to were an idiotic way to count DGUs.
*The 30,000 death nightmare you mentioned had nothing to do with the nightmare I referred to.
*That your simple correlation=causation model of thinking should show that a massive increase in gun prominence leads to huge increases in gun crime, while in fact, gun crime has fallen.
Jason:
“For example: “Data from the National Crime Victimization Study showed crime victims who had and used guns had both lower losses and injury rates from violent crimes. It was also found the victim’s choice of having a gun was not independent of the criminal’s choice. Based on these findings, consequences of having a greater portion of potential victims being armed were analyzed. Results showed this would reduce both losses and injuries from crime, as well as a criminal’s incentive to commit violent crimes and to be armed.”
Southwick, Lawrence
Journal of Criminal Justice Volume:28 Issue:5 September/October 2000 Pages:351-370
Kleck and associates did three more studies that found much the same thing, but of course, you don’t count anything by him.
*****************
Oh, I count them for quite a bit. I find it funny you should use the National Crime Victimization Study and Gary Kleck, PhD in the same breath. Kleck found nothing good about the NCV Study because it didn’t support his theory. Let’s see what one of your heroes (Kleck) says about another of your heroes NCV):
“Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it “was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates–to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey’s designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection.”
So which is it? 108,000 incidents or 2.5 million incidents of DGU? Seems the same argument you made against the NEJM Study has come home to roost. Gee, when your own experts on the same side of the aisle can’t agree, should we pay any attention to their proponent or anything said by either of them? As you,Jason, so righteously asked me, “So what exactly does a study have to get wrong before you think it might be crap?” I ask that question now of its author.
This is really a blast. Do you have any other arguments that won’t boomerang? I’d like to see them.
Guns are weapons, and weapons are used by our government everyday in crimes against innocent unarmed humans around the world. Other governments equally use weapons against unarmed and innocent humans on a daily basis. These are facts and not rhetoric.
Most every reply on this issue cosists of rhetoric and innuendo focusintg on probabilities that may or maynot ever occur. Yet each party is acting as though the end of time is at hand because they have a need to either defend or defame the use of weapons by ordinary humans.
Weapons have been used by humans since before the opposable thumb became the in thing. No weapons have ever escalated the human need to express anger, rage, and malcontent through violence. Weapons have simply made the carnage greater as humans got more clever. No cop, granny, bar bouncer, clergy, or other human in the state of Arizona will be in any greater danger in nine months than they are today.
Through out history any society that had equal access to weapons for defensive or offensive purposes have traditionally been safer and more polite than those societies where the access to weapons has not been equal.
So to all of you debating a concealed carry versus an open carry society use this opportunity to open your minds to the entire history of humans. Think about the entire historical need for weapons. Think about the lack of difference in government control and possession of weapons versus personal control and possession of weapons. It is certain to make reading your coments more interesting when you use more of your brain.
Byron-
“I would probably not go to a nightclub”
I don’t like going to bars at all. I got enough of the alcohol/testosterone induced nonsense in my twenties, even though I’ve never drank. Avoiding places where alcohol is consumed in large quantities is a great idea whether you have a gun or not.
“and I would be careful as the restaurant I chose to go to.”
But this puzzles me. What traits would you look at? Do you mean you would avoid restaurants in high crime areas? So would I. But in that case, it’s not the lawful CCW holder we are in fear of, but criminals who will carry regardless of the law. And can I amend your previous statement? It appears that your view is better stated as, “I would not eat in any restaurant that [fill in criteria here],” rather than the mere allowance of legal carry.
mespo-
“You advised that “Stop. Are you just willfully ignoring that this is not new policy? It’s been this way in many states for many years, and the nightmares [of gun violence] have not come true.”
Yes I did.
“Here’s a little pesky fact:”
Before I respond to any of your “pesky” facts, I’d like to point out that none have anything whatsoever to do with CCW in alcohol serving establishments being an old policy. So again, you are responding to what is in your head rather than what I actually said. But onward…
“People in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault. As the study concluded, “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year,* the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.”
~Branas et al, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health, 99(11)(2009), published online ahead of print, Sep 17, 2009”
This study is, to put it mildly, awful. They did not look into what the odds of injury were to people who actually used guns in self defense, which alone renders the conclusion nonsense. Their sample size was tiny and drawn from a single city. Other research on the topic utilized far larger sample sizes and the National Crime Victims Survey and found just the opposite.
For example: “Data from the National Crime Victimization Study showed crime victims who had and used guns had both lower losses and injury rates from violent crimes. It was also found the victim’s choice of having a gun was not independent of the criminal’s choice. Based on these findings, consequences of having a greater portion of potential victims being armed were analyzed. Results showed this would reduce both losses and injuries from crime, as well as a criminal’s incentive to commit violent crimes and to be armed.”
Southwick, Lawrence
Journal of Criminal Justice Volume:28 Issue:5 September/October 2000 Pages:351-370
Kleck and associates did three more studies that found much the same thing, but of course, you don’t count anything by him.
“* There are, on average, about 200 homicides justified by uses of deadly force in self-defense in the USA compared with about 30,000 gun deaths according to the NCICP.”
As has been pointed out, a fatal shooting is not the only way to count defensive gun uses. All of the available research indicates that most DFUs do not end in death, injury, or even shots fired. Brandishing the weapon is frequently enough to end the incident.
“Thirty Thousand deaths a year is a pretty big nightmare to me considering its about 6 times the rate in Canada and 30 times teh rate in the UK.”
That is not the nightmare I referred to. I was referring to the idea that allowing legal CCW in Ruby Tuesdays has not led to the feared drunken massacres. Aside from that, over half of those gun deaths are suicides, and as also has been pointed out repeatedly, gun violence has been in steep decline even while gun prominence has risen.
Jason:
I would probably not go to a nightclub and I would be careful as the restaurant I chose to go to.
I would not have a problem with a gun in church unless they were serving wine at communion.
Jason:
Just one small point:
You advised that “Stop. Are you just willfully ignoring that this is not new policy? It’s been this way in many states for many years, and the nightmares [of gun violence] have not come true.”
Here’s a little pesky fact:
People in possession of a gun are 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault. As the study concluded, “On average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year,* the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures.”
~Branas et al, “Investigating the Link Between Gun Possession and Gun Assault,” American Journal of Public Health, 99(11)(2009), published online ahead of print, Sep 17, 2009
* There are, on average, about 200 homicides justified by uses of deadly force in self-defense in the USA compared with about 30,000 gun deaths according to the NCICP.
Thirty Thousand deaths a year is a pretty big nightmare to me considering its about 6 times the rate in Canada and 30 times teh rate in the UK.
Keep shooting! You may actually hit something some day.
mespo-
“1. If you had the “gobs” of contrary studies, you’d show them.”
I already gave a link to a paper that has the references to many of them. I’m done doing the work for you when you won’t pay attention to it anyway. You again failed to answer the demolition of your Seattle study in that link, and hand-waved its obvious error(s).
“2. Ours is the most violent industrialized Nation with most of the carnage coming from firearms.
3. We own more guns per capita than any other Nation.
4. Europe and Japan have less guns and more domestic tranquility.”
Someone doesn’t know the difference between correlation and causation. And OH MY GOD, JAPAN HAS A HIGHER SUICIDE RATE, IT MUST BE DUE TO GUN CONTROL! Well, at least using your form of logic, I could come to that conclusion. Particularly since you think that suicides should be counted as gun violence.
“5. That is takes you a study to conclude that more guns = more violence = greater risk to the gun owner is astounding;”
No, because the evidence says otherwise. Again I point out that gun ownership and concealed carry have skyrocketed in the last twenty years. Gun violence has not. It is stunning that you continue to make your argument with no evidence.
“but it is stupefying that you would even waste your time seemingly defending that guns + alcohol = smart public policy.”
I’m not defending guns+alcohol. I do not think it should be legal to drink and carry and I support stiff penalties for those who do. I am defending people who are not drinking carrying in places where alcohol is served.
Byron-
“I learned early on that guns and alcohol don’t mix,”
I agree. That’s not what is at issue.
“You actually endanger the 2nd amendment with silly shit like what you are proposing.”
Stop. Are you just willfully ignoring that this is not new policy? It’s been this way in many states for many years, and the nightmares have not come true.
“There are many people opposed to any type of gun ownership and will beat you like a red headed stepchild the first time someone gets drunk and “slings” lead. It will happen and it is only a matter of time.”
It has and will happen in incredibly small numbers. And I can also link you to a story of a bar patron who stopped a massacre. Not a single state with this policy on the books has repealed it. Not one.
And I didn’t get an answer from you. Is it your position that you would never dine out in any of the big cities I listed, nor in any city in those states and many others that I didn’t list?
Jason:
I learned early on that guns and alcohol don’t mix, it was taught in boy scouts (by men who fought in WWII) and other places. The men teaching these tenants were men who accepted the 2nd amendment. I would say I can respect their opinion and accept that firearms and alcohol don’t mix.
You actually endanger the 2nd amendment with silly shit like what you are proposing. There are many people opposed to any type of gun ownership and will beat you like a red headed stepchild the first time someone gets drunk and “slings” lead. It will happen and it is only a matter of time.
I almost find myself agreeing with those here that have equated carrying a gun with a penis problem.
“Refutating” should be “refuting.” Not sure where that spelling came from. Probably, a study.
Jason:
Thank you for the cut and paste argument, and your near attempt at refutating of the seminal study. If only you had provided the contrary studies so that they could be examined. We’ll just take your word for it that they are directly contrary, employ valid scientific methodology and sampling protocol, aren’t biased or prejudiced, underwent the same level of peer scrutiny as that accorded by the NEJM, and, most importantly, that they were missed by the CDC (silly them) when its Task Force conducted it’s own analysis of the available data and studies.
Bottom line is this:
1. If you had the “gobs” of contrary studies, you’d show them. (The CDC would be interested, too, and you could get on Fox News).
2. Ours is the most violent industrialized Nation with most of the carnage coming from firearms.
3. We own more guns per capita than any other Nation.
4. Europe and Japan have less guns and more domestic tranquility.
5. That is takes you a study to conclude that more guns = more violence = greater risk to the gun owner is astounding; but it is stupefying that you would even waste your time seemingly defending that guns + alcohol = smart public policy.