flyingferret

Thanks for posting. I guess that was a geek psuedo-insult. But I am not very old. I see a lot of hypothetical 'mays' So he is comparing the rates of state A after a CHL program to the rates of state B? That looks a little like apples and oranges to me. I would like to know how it changed my state. By the way, the Brooking Institution is far from bi-partisan. Look at their funding and their published works. They are pretty far left, even I think for most gun-control activists on this forum. I am not saying that they have no valid numbers. But if the main argument is comparing two seperate states, as listed above, I dont think that is an accurate measurement. For all states I have seen referenced, after a CHL program went into effect, their violent crime rates dropped drastically. I am spending too much weekend time on this thread -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

No, sorry, no matter which side it is, I will not register. It is out of principle. If I wanted them to have my address I would order the hardcopy edition of there paper. Likewise, since you have registered, why don't you cut and paste? You cannot? Are you on a TRS-80? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Bill, I think you make a logical and coherent argument. And I see your point. However, is VERY VERY hard to interpret for one person, let alone a group of people. Furthermore, if you feel obligated to interpret the First Amendment in such away as to allow flag-burning, you had better not "unduly restrict" my right to own a gun one single fraction of a percent. I feel that the Second Amendment is typically read much more constrictively than the first. We could start a whole other argument about which one of those is more dangerous. Anyway, I think I would say I agree with your statement. However, apply it in real life is impossible in my opinion. Therefore as a responsible citizen having been trained, it is might right to defend myself against people who have acquired illegal guns for deviant uses. I still insist that a point which almost everyone misses is this: MOST CRIMES ARE COMMITTED WITH ILLEGAL GUNS! They are already illegal, right now. They were obtained in a illegal manner and the cops could take them right now. So more restriction does not really fix that. Taking my gun away because they know the address on the registration does not fix that. Why is the illegal gun out there? Lack of resources for the PD, they might not even know it exists, until a crime is committed using it. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Coaching would probably be the most beneficial. fun stuff: accuracy, hit chug, team hit and chug, flour bombing under canopy, 100ft. watermelon passes in a Cessna, launching inflatables that you cannot out of your 182, raffle chances to do the DZO's wife in the turbine -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I cannot read the link without registering, which I patently refuse to do. Earlier when I posted a link like that I copied the content as well. Sorry, I just don't want register with 10 different papers across the country to see my news. Which is what I would do if I read every link people send me. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Okay, just for the sake that someone might be gaining from this thread, I will reply. I am a programmer by degree, so maybe logic applies itself to my thoughts that others do not see. What we are arguing: is the general public safer with concealed carry. (or at least this is the most recent sub-thread) You are arguing that you can supply me with countless articles of people being hurt by CHL holders. Would these people be hurt if a CHL had not been involved? As near as we can tell without supernatural vision: probably not. You are exactly right. But would other people have taken their place? People who would have been killed without a CHL holder intervening? If you are gonna argue your point, then I think I can validly argue that. So there is a tradeoff between people injured by criminals who might be saved by a CHL and people who are hurt by a CHL. Now, I hate to sound Russian, but honestly in any effort to thwart evil, people are pawns, they will die. I wish it was not so, but it is. So how do we judge safer?? That is right, the way in which less people die! And based on crime rates, less people are dying with a CHL programs in place. Period. I don't think so. It is nice that you don't think so, but show me please! Everything I have seen (numbers, not opinion pieces) points to the opposite! As long as the number is significantly less than the crime rate before, then we are making a difference, by the very definition of difference. Could we refine it? Make it safer? Probably. But a dozen or even 10 dozen articles is not even close to a 10, 20, or 30% reduction in violent crime. And keep in mind that these new figures still include the very percentage you are arguing with. Even with those violent crimes included there is a huge reduction. Pretty easily. With contrary studies, or with example after example of victims killed by people with concealed carry licences. Unless you have numbers that are more credible than those released by the Dept of Public Safety you are gonna have a hard time convincing me that crime rates have gone up and not down. Feel free to post URLs Feel free to disagree. Put I am still waiting for some kinda of statistical argument the more people are getting killed with CHLs. After all either way, people will get killed. The question is in which way do less people get killed. What about the innocent people that were wounded or killed? I pose the identical question to you! What about the people that were killed by drugged angry criminals before? What has changed? People are still getting killed by criminals. The very definition of the act means that the irresponsible party is here after a criminal. The difference is that now, you see 'crimes of passion' and irresponsibility and many many fewer cases of premeditated and career criminal activity. I dont know where in the world this general discrediting occured? I don't think it did. But even if it had, a deterant to criminal activity is still an argument. If perps think that there is a 50% chance that they are gonna mug a armed person, they will think twice, it is basic survival instinct. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Fixed. No my point is, what they did was against the law, the law was enforced, the system worked. Yes people got hurt, but how many in comparison? Crime rates are down. All I see is a handfuls of articles. We have already discussed that that media treats things with bias. I have concrete numbers saying that crime rates are down in direct correlation to the number of CHLs awarded. How can you argue with that? Will there be incidents? Yes. Will we ever eradicate crime totally? NO!!! so you look at the big picture, and on that level, CHLs are doing excellent. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

At least in Texas, a derringer is no way covered under concealed carry. He had weed, he busted, I dont have a problem with that. It is illegal to have a CHL weapon in a venue which makes 50% more of its revenue off alchohol. He got busted, I don't have a problem with that. Once again, it was illegal, busted, no problem here. NOTE the last sentence The second in 3 years? And I know what the first one was, wrote a paper on it...acquitted. Out of how many CHL licenses? 221,792 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographicsummary.PDF http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/demographics.htm I KNOW you would find a lot more crimes stopped by them. I have done the research, but I am leaving work for a half day, and cannot get it all now. His CCW permit should have been revoked and confiscated. Any time a felony is charged, it should be (in Texas) So you have a lot of cases of people breaking th elaw and being busted for it. I have no problem with that at all. In fact that is what people like PhillyKev and I are advocating--enforcing current laws rather than new ones. The laws are all there. Are you gonna have to enforce them? Yes. Will you occasionally get a person sane enough to get a CHL that later snaps? Probably. So, Concealed Carry licenses work? Licenses suspended in 5 years: 160 http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/licsusbyage.pdf Arrest rates for CHL versus public (opinionated site, but real data) : http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm Crime rates (opinionated site, but real data) : http://www.ncpa.org/press/nr080900a.html Professor at University of Chicago Law School : http://www.popoagie.com/MoreGunsLessCrime.html -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Thanks to murrays, I now have an incredibly hard to find custom sized d-box for a PC-1 -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

is falxori in Isreal? I doubt any Chicken Shack would have it in stock, but you can order online. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

http://www.radioshack.com/category.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F002%5F004%5F007%5F000&Page=1 Radioshack has them. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I echo a lot of what PhillyKev said. I am surprised and delighted to hear that billvon is not as anti-gun as I thought. I think to intelligently debate this, it has to be broken down. Gun Ownership: Hunters Casual Owners Concealed Carry holders Hunters are a very difficult group to regulate. However in most cases, they will buy longarms, not sidearms. However, there is an overlap between casual owners and hunters. And you have instances like the sniper buying a hunting rifle. How do you effectively target that without taking away the rights of avid hunters? I don't know, I have not seen a good solution yet. I think that in most of AggieDave's and my posts we have talked about concealed carry. I stand 100% behind this program and think the training is adequate (although you will find most CHL holders train far beyond the requirement on their own time and expense) In every state that I have seen referenced that implemented CHL, notably FL and TX, crime rates have dropped by large percentages. As such you can label me more as Pro-CHL, then pro-gun. I think a difficult issue, is that while billvon, et. al. are very reasonable individuals, a lot of the gun-control lobbyists are not. There is a pervasive attitude that if the citizens do not fight to keep them, the gun control lobby will take as much as is given. There have been numerous cases were a state instituted manditory tracking of all guns, only to use those tracking records a year or two later to seize all guns. New Hampshire was one of these, I think, dont have the stats at the moment. So many gun owners are very hesitant to consent to partial restrictions, fearing more will come later. This is not so much because of fear of citizens and the habits of government lobbists (insert MPAA/RIAA/DMCA/Brady Bill II rant here). -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

PhillyKev, thanks. I owe you a beer too. I just saw this: http://www.dallasnews.com/latestnews/stories/wfaa030123_gp_dfw.4f9e887e.html For those that dont want to register to view the news (which I refuse to do) -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Woo, I just saw a black cat and then another black cat. Was it the same black cat? Well, these seems very similiar to another recent thread.

I sent you a PM. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yep. I am off to home, where i have no internet for the moment -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

what? me post something tolkien related, never -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

#1 This thing all things devours: Birds, beasts, trees, flowers; Gnaws iron, bites steel; Grinds hard stones to meal; Slays king, ruins town, And beats high mountain down #2 Alive without breath, As cold as death; Never thirsty, ever drinking, All in mail never clinking #3 Where do the two above riddles come from? -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yeah, I am sure everyone will defend you. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Took him a whole 45 seconds to post it too. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yeah, I have had them, and they are not bad. We made them for a LAN party. A few tips: freeze them first, then the dough does not soak up as much grease. And sprinkle powdered suger on top after frying. Not my favorite, but very edible. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

Yes, I agree. There is a precarious balance. But at least it is good to see checks and balances in action against each other. We could start another whole history thread to debate the beginnings of the US. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

I think it is far from over, but it is nice to see someone being constructive. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/usapatriot020701.html I am what some might say a very strong conservative, economically and socially, but I think some of the most recent measures taken under the Bush Admin are going too far. However.....we were supposed to be talking about gun control

Actually, everyone is whining about the recent provisions. BUt I saw a really neat response in the paper the other day: States Rights!! That is right, the beauty of a republic of independent states. Many states have already countered some provisions from the Patriot Act with laws that do not allow state employees to collaberate with US officials to enforce them. See that is the constructive approach and I think it is gorgeous, whether or not I agree even, because it is democracy in action. -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

motorcycle = 2 wheels -- All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.