Carrying a gun is getting easier

[JohnRich 4]

News:

Restrictions have been loosened in 24 states

A nationwide review by The Associated Press found that over the last two years, 24 states, mostly in the South and West, have passed 47 new laws loosening gun restrictions. Among other things, legislatures have allowed firearms to be carried in cars, made it illegal to ask job candidates whether they own a gun, and expanded agreements that make permits to carry handguns in one state valid in another.

The data on new laws is compiled from groups ranging from the Legal Community Against Violence, which advocates gun control, to the NRA.

Public attitudes toward gun control have shifted strongly over the past 50 years, according to Gallup polling. In 1959, 60 percent of respondents said they favored a ban on handguns except for “police and other authorized persons.” By last year, Gallup's most recent crime survey found 69 percent opposed such a ban.

The NRA boasts that almost all states grant handgun permits to people with clean criminal and psychological records. In 1987, only 10 states did. Only Wisconsin, Illinois and the District of Columbia now prohibit carrying concealed handguns entirely.

Source: http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091212/NEWS/912120343

Put that in your pipe and smoke it, gun-o-phobes.

[christelsabine 1]

As long as it's within your own borders, who cares?

You'll never enter any European destination, so again, who cares?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[quade 4]

Quote

Public attitudes toward gun control have shifted strongly over the past 50 years, according to Gallup polling. In 1959, 60 percent of respondents said they favored a ban on handguns except for “police and other authorized persons.” By last year, Gallup's most recent crime survey found 69 percent opposed such a ban.

And yet, are we any safer today than in 1959?

Hmmm.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

And yet, are we any safer today than in 1959?

Hmmm.

Are you implying that we are less safe due to guns?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

And yet, are we any safer today than in 1959?
Hmmm.

Are you implying that we are less safe due to guns?

I'm not implying it. I'm pointing out the discontinuity. The US now has FAR more guns and doesn't seem to be any more safe at all.

How do you account for that?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Public attitudes toward gun control have shifted strongly over the past 50 years, according to Gallup polling. In 1959, 60 percent of respondents said they favored a ban on handguns except for “police and other authorized persons.” By last year, Gallup's most recent crime survey found 69 percent opposed such a ban.

And yet, are we any safer today than in 1959?

Hmmm.

Homicide rates:

1959 - 4.9 per 100,000 (source, USDOJ, Dept. of Justice Statistics

2008 - 5.4 per 100,000 (source, FBI UCR, Sept 2009).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not implying it. I'm pointing out the discontinuity. The US now has FAR more guns and doesn't seem to be any more safe at all.

but likewise, doesn't appear to be less safe, despite the large increase.

The obvious simple conclusion would be they are unrelated.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Homicide rates:

1959 - 4.9 per 100,000 (source, USDOJ, Dept. of Justice Statistics

2008 - 5.4 per 100,000 (source, FBI UCR, Sept 2009).

You seem to want to ignore other factors like population density and drug crimes.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

I'm not implying it. I'm pointing out the discontinuity. The US now has FAR more guns and doesn't seem to be any more safe at all.

but likewise, doesn't appear to be less safe, despite the large increase.
The obvious simple conclusion would be they are unrelated.

I see. So let's recap.

More guns doesn't mean more safe.

So if more guns doesn't make you more safe, then does more guns mean the country is doing more hunting and target shooting?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 3,090]

>So if more guns doesn't make you more safe, then does more guns
>mean the country is doing more hunting and competitive target shooting?

?? Why does that follow? People may be buying more guns and not using them. (Think survivalist or gun collector who doesn't like to shoot.)

[Ron 10]

Quote

I'm not implying it. I'm pointing out the discontinuity. The US now has FAR more guns and doesn't seem to be any more safe at all.

How do you account for that?

The rate of gun ownership has increased three fold in those years, yet the rate of increase in violence has only gone up by 0.5% according to John.

Much more likely that things like population density and drug use have influenced the numbers more than just number of guns.

2/3rds of deaths by guns are suicides and drug related. People who are going to commit suicide will do it anyway, and criminals are not allowed to have guns already.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[quade 4]

Quote

>So if more guns doesn't make you more safe, then does more guns
>mean the country is doing more hunting and competitive target shooting?

?? Why does that follow? People may be buying more guns and not using them. (Think survivalist or gun collector who doesn't like to shoot.)

Well, it just seems to me that's kind of a waste. I know, I know, it's irrational of me to apply my sensibilities on purchases.

What I'm really thinking is that gun purchases are driven by fear whipped up by the gun sellers. Nothing ever seems to boost gun sales like the gun sellers (helped by generous soft publicity by the NRA) whipping up a good frenzy about legislation that -may- happen.

I sometimes wonder who the NRA really works for; the gun owners or the gun manufacturers. Similar to what we have in the USPA.

Edited to add
Oh, and the subject heading does say "carrying" doesn't it.

The only reason to carry is for safety purposes, but if the increase of guns hasn't increased safety, then why bother?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 10]

Quote

Well, it just seems to me that's kind of a waste. I know, I know, it's irrational of me to apply my sensibilities on purchases.

No, it is only irrational to apply YOUR sensibilities on OTHERS purchases.

I have not flown a plane in over a year... Does that mean me getting a pilots license was a waste?

Edit to answer:

Quote

The only reason to carry is for safety purposes, but if the increase of guns hasn't increased safety, then why bother?

States that have CHL/CWP have lower crime rates than States without. So it seems it DOES reduce crime.

Areas with gun bans have seen an increase in gun crime. DC/Chicago/LA

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

>So if more guns doesn't make you more safe, then does more guns
>mean the country is doing more hunting and competitive target shooting?

?? Why does that follow? People may be buying more guns and not using them. (Think survivalist or gun collector who doesn't like to shoot.)

Well, it just seems to me that's kind of a waste. I know, I know, it's irrational of me to apply my sensibilities on purchases.

What I'm really thinking is that gun purchases are driven by fear whipped up by the gun sellers. Nothing ever seems to boost gun sales like the gun sellers (helped by generous soft publicity by the NRA) whipping up a good frenzy about legislation that -may- happen.

I sometimes wonder who the NRA really works for; the gun owners or the gun manufacturers. Similar to what we have in the USPA.

Your AAD is a waste too, Quade.

Actually, it is the state legislatures and DC that seem to work for the gun makers, stirring up fears.

I bought the bulk of mine in 1999-2000 when it looked quite credible that California would try to prevent people from buying guns soon. The onslaught of BS legislation in the Columbine aftermath removed 3 of mine semis from the retail market. This isn't legislation that "may" happen, it is stuff that did happen. As typical, it only applies to the future - easier to get people happy about rights being needless removed.

Now, they sit mostly idle. But I have them on hand should I ever feel a need. No 10 day wait, with two visits to a remote retail outlet because most closed in the face of bay area hassles. No requirement for the latest safety certificate that obsoleted the last one.
Otherwise, it's a collectable like many others.

Back on point - there are a shitload more guns in the country, yet crime is the same. Again, that leads to a rather simple first explanation that there is no relationship between them.

In 1959, we had fears of being nuked to death by the Soviets. Essentially gone. If we were black, or another minority, we had to worry about being lynched. Not gone, but far more remote, unless we're gay. We're much less likely to be killed by a cop without there being consequences.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Edited to add
Oh, and the subject heading does say "carrying" doesn't it.

The only reason to carry is for safety purposes, but if the increase of guns hasn't increased safety, then why bother?

Uh, you replied to a citation by John that talked about ownership, not carrying. Subject heading is irrelevant. We know you're able to read and write.

But if you want to go down that tangent, you can't use a generic number of safety in a discussion about CCW use. Given the profile of those who make the effort to obtain one, I would expect their safety record to be better than average. But of course, you don't have a 1959 subset to compare to.

In any event, feel free to carry on with dataless arguments.

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Homicide rates:

1959 - 4.9 per 100,000 (source, USDOJ, Dept. of Justice Statistics

2008 - 5.4 per 100,000 (source, FBI UCR, Sept 2009).

You seem to want to ignore other factors like population density and drug crimes.

I just presented the numbers. I drew no conclusions whatsoever, why so defensive?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

States that have CHL/CWP have lower crime rates than States without. So it seems it DOES reduce crime.

Areas with gun bans have seen an increase in gun crime. DC/Chicago/LA

Out of curiosity, has the data upon which those assertions rely been corrected for population density and drug related crime?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

I'm not implying it. I'm pointing out the discontinuity. The US now has FAR more guns and doesn't seem to be any more safe at all.

How do you account for that?

The rate of gun ownership has increased three fold in those years, yet the rate of increase in violence has only gone up by 0.5% according to John.

Shady use of data, Ron. You use a ratio for one and a difference for the other. To go from 4.9 to 5.4 is a 10% increase

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[chuckakers 426]

Quote

Quote

Public attitudes toward gun control have shifted strongly over the past 50 years, according to Gallup polling. In 1959, 60 percent of respondents said they favored a ban on handguns except for “police and other authorized persons.” By last year, Gallup's most recent crime survey found 69 percent opposed such a ban.

And yet, are we any safer today than in 1959?

Hmmm.

The law-abiding citizens with guns are.

Chuck Akers
D-10855
Houston, TX

[AggieDave 6]

Huh. Here I thought you bought a new holster. Maybe even a nice custom made holster from Hoffners in Houston. He made me one for a special application I had, while I waited for not much money.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

States that have CHL/CWP have lower crime rates than States without. So it seems it DOES reduce crime.

Areas with gun bans have seen an increase in gun crime. DC/Chicago/LA

Source?

Looking at the FBI UCR, you must have done some serious cherry picking to reach those conclusions.

Florida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).

Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

States that have CHL/CWP have lower crime rates than States without. So it seems it DOES reduce crime.

Areas with gun bans have seen an increase in gun crime. DC/Chicago/LA

Out of curiosity, has the data upon which those assertions rely been corrected for population density and drug related crime?

I don't know if there have been corrections for that, but the UCR stats break down metro statistical areas, non-metro area cities, and non-metro counties in their crime reports.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Florida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).

And Texas is lower in both than Illinois.

Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).

[kallend 2,117]

Quote

Quote

Florida (large state, big cities) has higher homicide and violent crime than Illinois (large state, big cities).

And Texas is lower in both than Illinois.

Oklahoma (rural, one medium city) has much higher homicide and violent crime rate than Wisconsin (rural, one medium sized city).

Utah is lower in both than Wisconsin. So is Oregon.


Now prove it's due to the guns.

(DC is still #1 in both stats, btw)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Shady use of data, Ron. You use a ratio for one and a difference for the other. To go from 4.9 to 5.4 is a 10% increase

Shady or merely sloppy. But 10% doesn't match up well at all to 300%, esp since it drifts up and down, whereas guns in circulation increases constantly.