Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by Redleg:
And I am waiting for 1 from you also
I gave you 3 examples, you gave me 0- I know you saw them, you commented on it.And I am waiting for 1 from you also
Honestly, I'm weary of debating this with you... Your opposition has shifted from 'you just dont like it', to 'they not trained well enough', to 'they're irresponsible' to claiming many of permit holders become criminals. Just say what you think- Average, law abiding common folk just can't be trusted to carry weapons on their person to defend themselves with. That's what it comes down to isnt it?
You're entitled to your opinions on gun control, as I've said. I'm just glad your thinking isnt in the majority and that our state legislatures are continuing to pass laws that empower people to defend themselves.
Originally Posted by ceasar010:
>> "FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least
>> one doctor."
>>
>> Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
>> doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health
>> Measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that
>> the shock could cause people
>> to seek medical aid.
Now factor in how many lives doctors save, versus how many lives guns save.>> "FACT: Not everyone has a gun, but everyone has at least
>> one doctor."
>>
>> Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
>> doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health
>> Measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that
>> the shock could cause people
>> to seek medical aid.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
Its irrelevant to you because you dont enjoy it. How would you like it if someone wanted to ban whatever you like to do?
[Edited to remove personal attack; Ser Clegane]
Maybe you could send me a PM with whatever it was that was edited out of your post, Panzerjager. I'm curious about how I could possibly have prompted a personal attack. You must really care about your guns, huh...Its irrelevant to you because you dont enjoy it. How would you like it if someone wanted to ban whatever you like to do?
[Edited to remove personal attack; Ser Clegane]
My point, which you failed to pick up on, was that it is irrelevant that guns are a hobby for many. That's not the issue at hand. I've enjoyed time at a firing range myself. The issue is that they are used to kill peopleillegally. This discussion wouldn't be taking place if they were simply used for pasttime activities. It is the illegal use of these weapons that is of concern, it's not a conspiracy to specifically ruin someone's hobby...
Originally Posted by dgb:
Now factor in how many lives doctors save, versus how many lives guns save.
Actually, that's a great point DGB. If we were allowed to in our country, we should publish some statistics on how many home invasions, rapes, robberies and muggings were stopped because the intended victim was armed. We can't, because the justice department refuses to consider that as a mitigating factor. Just listed as 'unsuccessful'. Just for the record, I don't think doctors stop many rapes or murders, but I could be wrong.Now factor in how many lives doctors save, versus how many lives guns save.
I don't know. I do know however that it is patent nonsense to suggest that doctors should be banned because they have a higher level of accidents than guns.
I would like to have information about how many lives are saved/crimes are prevented though.
I would like to have information about how many lives are saved/crimes are prevented though.
I never understood the point with a concealed weapon if you don't have the intention ot actually hurt somebody. Even if I am against civilians carry any weapons, I can understand a visible weapon to deter any criminal acts against the carrier, but a concealed weapon speaks intent to me.....
I talked about that a few pages ago, but I'll happily re-summarize here...
Open carry of weapons is great- and I wouldn't mind seeing it more widespread, but there are some problems with it. First off, where open carry isnt common, it scares people. People have been known to call the police when they see it, and even in places where its perfectly legal, the police have been known to arrest, harass and otherwise embarass people for doing so.
Second, it gives up the element of suprise. The upside is, hopefully a bad guy will pick another target if they see you armed- the downside, if they don't, they already know your armed and where you're carrying it so they can plan accordingly. Again, if open carry was common this might be less a problem- but its not.
Open carry of weapons is great- and I wouldn't mind seeing it more widespread, but there are some problems with it. First off, where open carry isnt common, it scares people. People have been known to call the police when they see it, and even in places where its perfectly legal, the police have been known to arrest, harass and otherwise embarass people for doing so.
Second, it gives up the element of suprise. The upside is, hopefully a bad guy will pick another target if they see you armed- the downside, if they don't, they already know your armed and where you're carrying it so they can plan accordingly. Again, if open carry was common this might be less a problem- but its not.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
I gave you 3 examples, you gave me 0- I know you saw them, you commented on it.
Ah but I work swing shift - so the amount of time to search the web to get the stories is limited - but you posted three - so here is three facts from three different sites.I gave you 3 examples, you gave me 0- I know you saw them, you commented on it.
Originally Posted by :
In the 29 states that had lax CCW laws during 1997 and 1998, the crime rate fell 6%, from 5296.6 to 4971.2 crimes per 100,000 population. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 7%, from 4613.7 to 4297.2 crimes per 100,000 population. While the rate of violent crime for states with strict carry laws fell at relatively the same rate as less restrictive states from 1997 to 1998 (8% and 7.5% respectively), the robbery rate for these 22 strict states fell 13%, compared to the lax state's 10% (this includes an 11% drop for those states which relaxed their CCW laws after 1992, and a drop of only 7% who have had lax CCW laws since before 1992).
"These numbers demonstrate what we've been saying all along," said Sarah Brady, chair of the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Inc. "We don't need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don't get guns in the first place."
It seems that concealed weapons permits don't have the effect on reducing crime that you would like to claim.In the 29 states that had lax CCW laws during 1997 and 1998, the crime rate fell 6%, from 5296.6 to 4971.2 crimes per 100,000 population. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 7%, from 4613.7 to 4297.2 crimes per 100,000 population. While the rate of violent crime for states with strict carry laws fell at relatively the same rate as less restrictive states from 1997 to 1998 (8% and 7.5% respectively), the robbery rate for these 22 strict states fell 13%, compared to the lax state's 10% (this includes an 11% drop for those states which relaxed their CCW laws after 1992, and a drop of only 7% who have had lax CCW laws since before 1992).
"These numbers demonstrate what we've been saying all along," said Sarah Brady, chair of the The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Inc. "We don't need to make it easier for just anyone to carry a gun nor do we need more concealed handguns on our streets to fight crime. The way to fight crime is to punish criminals and to make sure that criminals don't get guns in the first place."
Originally Posted by :
Between 1992 and 1998, over a quarter (27%, 3/11) of the states that were "shall issue" during this entire time period experienced an increase in the violent crime rate, as well as in the robbery rate. This compares to increases in violent crime over the same 6 year time period in just 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws. Only 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws experienced an increase in robberies. If allowing more people to carry concealed handguns is supposed to be such an effective crime fighting strategy, why did the crime rate go up in so many "shall issue" states — particularly when compared to states that employed other strategies to fight crime?
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/r...truth&menu=gvrBetween 1992 and 1998, over a quarter (27%, 3/11) of the states that were "shall issue" during this entire time period experienced an increase in the violent crime rate, as well as in the robbery rate. This compares to increases in violent crime over the same 6 year time period in just 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws. Only 18% (4/22) of states with strict carry laws experienced an increase in robberies. If allowing more people to carry concealed handguns is supposed to be such an effective crime fighting strategy, why did the crime rate go up in so many "shall issue" states — particularly when compared to states that employed other strategies to fight crime?
A second site that shows the same data as the Brady site - but cites the FBI data sheets
Originally Posted by :
Between 1992 and 1997, the violent crime rate dropped by 24.8 percent in states enforcing strict concealed carry laws and no-issue laws compared to an 11.4 percent decline in states with lax or weak concealed carry laws.
Source: Press Release, January 18, 1999. Handgun Control/Center to Prevent Handgun Violence: Washington, DC [data analysis of Uniform Crime Reports, FBI]
Between 1992 and 1997, the violent crime rate dropped by 24.8 percent in states enforcing strict concealed carry laws and no-issue laws compared to an 11.4 percent decline in states with lax or weak concealed carry laws.
Source: Press Release, January 18, 1999. Handgun Control/Center to Prevent Handgun Violence: Washington, DC [data analysis of Uniform Crime Reports, FBI]
Another case study of Florida's Conceal Carry Law.
Originally Posted by :
Recent numbers from Dade County, Florida do not offer a comforting picture. According to information first reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Metro-Dade Police Department tracked 63 incidents involving concealed carry license holders in a five-year period (1987 to 1992) after the law went into effect; 25 incidents involved arrests. The 25 arrest incidents included such crimes as: aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, reckless display and discharging a firearm in public, armed trespass, and cocaine possession. Despite the arrests, in at least 12 of the 25 cases the arrestee was able to retain his concealed carry license—including one incident in which an armed license holder was arrested for misdemeanor battery on his spouse. The remaining 38 non-arrest incidents included: four accidental shootings (resulting in two injuries); three cases in which the license holder's gun was stolen; two cases of unauthorized carrying in restricted areas; and six disputes that escalated to the point where a gun was pulled. A review of the Dade County information reveals that in a broad sense 16 of the 63 incidents could be classified as attempts at defense of person or property, or efforts to intercede during the commission of a crime. And while there do appear to be legitimate self-defense uses detailed by the Metro-Dade police, in many of the 16 incidents the actual threat is unclear, possession of a concealed carry license may not have been necessary (because the license holder did not leave his or her home), or it is unclear whether the license holder was legally justified in brandishing or firing the weapon. (Please see Appendix One of the full study for the complete list of incidents.)
http://www.vpc.org/Studies/cccrimst.htmRecent numbers from Dade County, Florida do not offer a comforting picture. According to information first reported in U.S. News & World Report, the Metro-Dade Police Department tracked 63 incidents involving concealed carry license holders in a five-year period (1987 to 1992) after the law went into effect; 25 incidents involved arrests. The 25 arrest incidents included such crimes as: aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery with a firearm, reckless display and discharging a firearm in public, armed trespass, and cocaine possession. Despite the arrests, in at least 12 of the 25 cases the arrestee was able to retain his concealed carry license—including one incident in which an armed license holder was arrested for misdemeanor battery on his spouse. The remaining 38 non-arrest incidents included: four accidental shootings (resulting in two injuries); three cases in which the license holder's gun was stolen; two cases of unauthorized carrying in restricted areas; and six disputes that escalated to the point where a gun was pulled. A review of the Dade County information reveals that in a broad sense 16 of the 63 incidents could be classified as attempts at defense of person or property, or efforts to intercede during the commission of a crime. And while there do appear to be legitimate self-defense uses detailed by the Metro-Dade police, in many of the 16 incidents the actual threat is unclear, possession of a concealed carry license may not have been necessary (because the license holder did not leave his or her home), or it is unclear whether the license holder was legally justified in brandishing or firing the weapon. (Please see Appendix One of the full study for the complete list of incidents.)
Originally Posted by :
Charles Wesley Parrot was convicted in September 1958 of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He was sentenced to serve three years in a state penitentiary. His sentence was suspended after 18 months and he was placed on three years probation. In March 1983 Mr. Parrot was convicted of unlawful possession of a pistol. He was sentenced to serve two years in the state penitentiary. After nine months his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for 18 months and fined $512.25. He was granted a full pardon in the state of South Carolina in January 1989. On March 15, 1995 Charles Wesley Parrot was granted the specific authority to own, possess, and use firearms by the state of Florida's Office of Executive Clemency. Mr. Parrot has subsequently applied for, and obtained, a license to carry a concealed firearm.
And then another individual who express himself much better then I canCharles Wesley Parrot was convicted in September 1958 of assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. He was sentenced to serve three years in a state penitentiary. His sentence was suspended after 18 months and he was placed on three years probation. In March 1983 Mr. Parrot was convicted of unlawful possession of a pistol. He was sentenced to serve two years in the state penitentiary. After nine months his sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation for 18 months and fined $512.25. He was granted a full pardon in the state of South Carolina in January 1989. On March 15, 1995 Charles Wesley Parrot was granted the specific authority to own, possess, and use firearms by the state of Florida's Office of Executive Clemency. Mr. Parrot has subsequently applied for, and obtained, a license to carry a concealed firearm.
Originally Posted by :
I would feel uncomfortable carrying a loaded weapon. Very uncomfortable that I would possibly have the means to end a person's life within arm's reach. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it, or would ever be tempted. Just that fact makes me uncomfortable.
I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you. I don't trust a person who is not a licensed law enforcement officer of some kind - someone who, by virtue of their job, I would assume they have proper gun training - to carry a weapon. You may be a great person, love your kids, go to church, would never pull a gun in anger at another person - you may be supremely confident of that fact in your own mind, but I'm not. To me, you would be just as likely to be the one sticking up the fast-food clerk as the one defending him, or - in your possibly untrained and excited state - could be the one who with the best of intentions attempts to intervene but misses and hits someone else. Or you could be the one who gets pissed off at me in traffic and, instead of the flipping me the finger you pop off a few rounds at my back window.
I'm not concerned whether there are documented cases of this happening - I am afraid that they will, when more and more people are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
I understand completely that you have the best of intentions, the best training, the best gun money can buy, and the best reasons in the world to want to defend yourself. But I'm sorry, I don't have insight into your character from my vantage point and I can't assume you can be trusted with a gun any more than I can assume you're not going to attack me anyway without a gun.
Some people have used the automobile analogy as a comparison: A car is as lethal a device as a gun - do you have ethical problems driving a car? To that I would say, no, because I have a reasonable trust in my mind that: a) an acceptable percentage of the people driving have a legal driver's license, have been driving for a number of years, and know how to operate a car. I trust myself in that regard as well. Therefore, I think the relative risk of getting in or causing an accident and vital necessity of using a car is acceptable compared to the hardship and chaos that would result in banning automobiles. With firearms, however, even with the several self-defense case story articles I've read recently, I'm not convinced that the negligible gain from carrying a gun would outweigh the high potential risk of an accidental or intentional shooting.
I'm not pushing for any legislation change, I'm not pushing for repealing the 2nd amendment or anything like that. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a good idea because inevitably - inevitably - there will be a tragedy, or tragedies. And I don't want to be anywhere near it.
Thank you. I hope I've made myself clear - please reference this post if necessary.
http://lasthome.blogspot.com/2003_12...77145463406787I would feel uncomfortable carrying a loaded weapon. Very uncomfortable that I would possibly have the means to end a person's life within arm's reach. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it, or would ever be tempted. Just that fact makes me uncomfortable.
I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you. I don't trust a person who is not a licensed law enforcement officer of some kind - someone who, by virtue of their job, I would assume they have proper gun training - to carry a weapon. You may be a great person, love your kids, go to church, would never pull a gun in anger at another person - you may be supremely confident of that fact in your own mind, but I'm not. To me, you would be just as likely to be the one sticking up the fast-food clerk as the one defending him, or - in your possibly untrained and excited state - could be the one who with the best of intentions attempts to intervene but misses and hits someone else. Or you could be the one who gets pissed off at me in traffic and, instead of the flipping me the finger you pop off a few rounds at my back window.
I'm not concerned whether there are documented cases of this happening - I am afraid that they will, when more and more people are allowed to carry concealed weapons.
I understand completely that you have the best of intentions, the best training, the best gun money can buy, and the best reasons in the world to want to defend yourself. But I'm sorry, I don't have insight into your character from my vantage point and I can't assume you can be trusted with a gun any more than I can assume you're not going to attack me anyway without a gun.
Some people have used the automobile analogy as a comparison: A car is as lethal a device as a gun - do you have ethical problems driving a car? To that I would say, no, because I have a reasonable trust in my mind that: a) an acceptable percentage of the people driving have a legal driver's license, have been driving for a number of years, and know how to operate a car. I trust myself in that regard as well. Therefore, I think the relative risk of getting in or causing an accident and vital necessity of using a car is acceptable compared to the hardship and chaos that would result in banning automobiles. With firearms, however, even with the several self-defense case story articles I've read recently, I'm not convinced that the negligible gain from carrying a gun would outweigh the high potential risk of an accidental or intentional shooting.
I'm not pushing for any legislation change, I'm not pushing for repealing the 2nd amendment or anything like that. I'm just saying that I don't think it's a good idea because inevitably - inevitably - there will be a tragedy, or tragedies. And I don't want to be anywhere near it.
Thank you. I hope I've made myself clear - please reference this post if necessary.
Originally Posted by :
Honestly, I'm weary of debating this with you... Your opposition has shifted from 'you just dont like it', to 'they not trained well enough', to 'they're irresponsible' to claiming many of permit holders become criminals. Just say what you think- Average, law abiding common folk just can't be trusted to carry weapons on their person to defend themselves with. That's what it comes down to isnt it?
And did I not say that. The average person does not have the training to fire a weapon at another human being in a stressful situation. When you are in your home - you can do what the hell you want to defend yourself. However when your out in public - you have to be aware of other people's right to exist.Honestly, I'm weary of debating this with you... Your opposition has shifted from 'you just dont like it', to 'they not trained well enough', to 'they're irresponsible' to claiming many of permit holders become criminals. Just say what you think- Average, law abiding common folk just can't be trusted to carry weapons on their person to defend themselves with. That's what it comes down to isnt it?
Originally Posted by :
You're entitled to your opinions on gun control, as I've said. I'm just glad your thinking isnt in the majority and that our state legislatures are continuing to pass laws that empower people to defend themselves.
Then you should of just stated that verus calling my opinion hype.You're entitled to your opinions on gun control, as I've said. I'm just glad your thinking isnt in the majority and that our state legislatures are continuing to pass laws that empower people to defend themselves.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
People have been known to call the police when they see it, and even in places where its perfectly legal, the police have been known to arrest, harass and otherwise embarass people for doing so.
Why would the police do that if it's legal and accepted ??People have been known to call the police when they see it, and even in places where its perfectly legal, the police have been known to arrest, harass and otherwise embarass people for doing so.
Yes, I've seen the Miami study- and it supports my point totally. Out of more than 22,000 permits issued only 13 actually committed a felony and had their permits revoked. Thats what? 1/2 of 1%? There are hundreds of thousands of permits issued throughout the state of Florida. Where are the shooting rampages caused by your untrained nervous-nelly permit holders? Even your own biased study says that there is no significant increase in crime when people are empowered to defend themselves. So whats your argument against it again?
It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned. Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
Originally Posted by RedlegAnd then another individual who express himself much better then I can[quote:
I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you.
[/quote]Again, you're proving my point by allowing this person to speak for you- you apparently just don't trust people to carry guns to defend themselves. I guess this is where we differ.I also would feel uncomfortable knowing that anyone on the street, in the theatre, at a restaurant, at the supermarket could be carrying a loaded gun on their person. And here's why - despite training, despite temperament, despite the best of intentions: I don't trust you. That's simply it, I don't trust you.
It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned. Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
Originally Posted by bmolsson:
Why would the police do that if it's legal and accepted ??
If only I knew the answer to that one. Why would the police do that if it's legal and accepted ??
Like I said, where its not common, open carry can throw certain people into a panic. You would think that police know better- but I've heard several first hand accounts that beg to differ. Maybe 911 operators should ask more questions when they get a 'man with a gun' call... like, 'what's he doing with it?' 'Buying groceries?' 'Then why do you need police?'
Originally Posted by Martinus:
Why do you need an assault rifle?
Why do you need any guns to protect your rights? If the US government wanted to take away your rights a handful of guys with guns will not do anything against all the tanks, planes, artillery, missiles, and nukes (ok, that is a bit extreme) the US government has.
Why do you need an assault rifle?
Why do you need any guns to protect your rights? If the US government wanted to take away your rights a handful of guys with guns will not do anything against all the tanks, planes, artillery, missiles, and nukes (ok, that is a bit extreme) the US government has.
you talk about the government as if it is a thing, WE ARE the government. People rule themselfs out here, if it gets put to a vote, it will be fair, any full grown adult could vote on it. If it gets put to a vote and my side looses {I like guns so you know my side} I would not contest the results formaly, but you can be im going to say something along the lines of "I outta kill those bastards" then after turning in my guns, I would promptly strike the wall or lamp closest to me.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
If only I knew the answer to that one.
Like I said, where its not common, open carry can throw certain people into a panic. You would think that police know better- but I've heard several first hand accounts that beg to differ. Maybe 911 operators should ask more questions when they get a 'man with a gun' call... like, 'what's he doing with it?' 'Buying groceries?' 'Then why do you need police?'
Well, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the risk for this happen is FAR much smaller if NOBODY carry a gun ?? If only I knew the answer to that one.
Like I said, where its not common, open carry can throw certain people into a panic. You would think that police know better- but I've heard several first hand accounts that beg to differ. Maybe 911 operators should ask more questions when they get a 'man with a gun' call... like, 'what's he doing with it?' 'Buying groceries?' 'Then why do you need police?'
Originally Posted by bmolsson:
Well, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the risk for this happen is FAR much smaller if NOBODY carry a gun ??
If no one carried a gun would there be less a risk for people making 911 calls about people carrying guns? Umm, yeah, I suppose so... Of course that's neither a practical nor desirable situation. Well, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the risk for this happen is FAR much smaller if NOBODY carry a gun ??
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Yes, I've seen the Miami study- and it supports my point totally. Out of more than 22,000 permits issued only 13 actually committed a felony and had their permits revoked. Thats what? 1/2 of 1%? There are hundreds of thousands of permits issued throughout the state of Florida. Where are the shooting rampages caused by your untrained nervous-nelly permit holders? Even your own biased study says that there is no significant increase in crime when people are empowered to defend themselves. So whats your argument against it again?
What the study shows is that it is not impossible for criminals to have a concealed carrry permit. Which is something those that advocate conceal carry permits state will not happen. Which was exactly your point that criminals would not get conceal carry permits. So what point did it prove?Yes, I've seen the Miami study- and it supports my point totally. Out of more than 22,000 permits issued only 13 actually committed a felony and had their permits revoked. Thats what? 1/2 of 1%? There are hundreds of thousands of permits issued throughout the state of Florida. Where are the shooting rampages caused by your untrained nervous-nelly permit holders? Even your own biased study says that there is no significant increase in crime when people are empowered to defend themselves. So whats your argument against it again?
Originally Posted by :
Again, you're proving my point by allowing this person to speak for you- you apparently just don't trust people to carry guns to defend themselves. I guess this is where we differ.
Try again - I don't trust their training and ability to actually use the weapon on a city street. Defend yourself in your home that is your right - however you don't have the right to risk other people in a crowded store just because someone decides to rob the store. I guess you missed the six occasions that show that guns were pulled as an arguement escalated by concealed carry permit holders. Something once again those that advocate conceal carry permits stated would not happen. Just like while the study has a very low percentage of people with conceal carry permits committing crimes with their weapons - it goes to show that it does happen, again something that those who advocate the permit stated would not happen.Again, you're proving my point by allowing this person to speak for you- you apparently just don't trust people to carry guns to defend themselves. I guess this is where we differ.
Originally Posted by :
It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned.
So an individual can not have multiple sources of input to come to their own conclusions? How interesting. THe studies of the like of Lott who advocated the reduceing the restrictions of concealed carry permits are not skewed and slanted? Yea right - I read his study, try again.It's interesting to me that while you claim to support gun rights you dredge up all of the muck and slanted studies you can from well-known gun grabber groups to prove how evil concealed carry is. If you think they're credible, you should keep reading and learn why all guns should be banned.
Originally Posted by :
Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
And that makes the Florida Study invalid? Keep spouting about having guns in the classroom and I will go the opposite direction. That is the most ridiclous and acidine comment that comes from the pro-gun lobby - and is more dangerous then making assualt weapons completely illegal and banning the conceal carry permit. When the crowd that supports that type of nonsense screams baised about the Bradley Campaign - well they need to wake up themselves and stop reading the NRA sites.Did you know that guns in the home are 33x more likely to be used against the owners than a criminal? It's not, but they'll still tell you that and give twisted stats to back it up. Keep looking to the Brady campaign for inspiration...
What the study points to about the 33x more likely is the high number of suicides and low number of accidents in the home involving firearms. Is it skewed - sure it is to make a point, but when one looks at the numbers one can see what the point is.
(Two can play that game)
Again be careful of accusing others of something you yourself are guilty of.
Originally Posted by Redleg:
What the study shows is that it is not impossible for criminals to have a concealed carrry permit. Which is something those that advocate conceal carry permits state will not happen. Which was exactly your point that criminals would not get conceal carry permits. So what point did it prove?
You keep trying to hammer this point home- but you're fighting an argument that Ive never put forth. I never said permit holders never break the law. The point that I've been making is that they are statistically less likely to commit gun crimes than any other group. They're less likely to use a gun criminally in public than people who arent even legally supposed to be carrying guns in public.What the study shows is that it is not impossible for criminals to have a concealed carrry permit. Which is something those that advocate conceal carry permits state will not happen. Which was exactly your point that criminals would not get conceal carry permits. So what point did it prove?
Originally Posted by :
So an individual can not have multiple sources of input to come to their own conclusions? How interesting. THe studies of the like of Lott who advocated the reduceing the restrictions of concealed carry permits are not skewed and slanted? Yea right - I read his study, try again.
My point was, and still is, that if you think they're a credible organization you can't logically support people keeping guns in the home either as they've shown how dangerous it is to do so. Personally, I think they're full of crap, but you use it to support your arguments. Virtually every study of theirs has been disected and debunked, if anyone wants links I'll gladly provide them, but I wasnt wasting the time with you since you'll only believe data that supports your beliefs. I even took your skewed stats as a given, for the sake of discussion, and showed that even still it's not a compelling argument against concealed permits.So an individual can not have multiple sources of input to come to their own conclusions? How interesting. THe studies of the like of Lott who advocated the reduceing the restrictions of concealed carry permits are not skewed and slanted? Yea right - I read his study, try again.
Originally Posted by :
And that makes the Florida Study invalid? Keep spouting about having guns in the classroom and I will go the opposite direction.
You already have. You've said in other threads that you don't like handguns and you've said you only support gun rights because they're tools for farmers or hunters. And that makes the Florida Study invalid? Keep spouting about having guns in the classroom and I will go the opposite direction.
Originally Posted by :
What the study points to about the 33x more likely is the high number of suicides and low number of accidents in the home involving firearms. Is it skewed - sure it is to make a point, but when one looks at the numbers one can see what the point is.
What is that point? Try looking at the stats they don't show you. Suicide rates in households without guns are just the same as ones with guns. There's no appreciable difference. That doesnt stop them from trying to blame guns.What the study points to about the 33x more likely is the high number of suicides and low number of accidents in the home involving firearms. Is it skewed - sure it is to make a point, but when one looks at the numbers one can see what the point is.
To anyone interested, this pdf is a study on 'shall-issue' permits produced by the Minnesota legislature. It's probably the closest you'll get to an unbiased examination of claims on both sides. What it comes down to is, if you believe pro-carry studies permits can actually reduce crime. Alternatively, if you believe anti-carry studies, then permits have no significant effect on crime.
Now depending on your political leanings, I guess this could mean different things to people. From where I stand, I believe government should allow people to do what they want until it is convincingly proved that it's harmful to others. If the worst-case scenario that gun-grabbers can find is that it has no net effect on crime, why should we strip people of this right? If they could produce real proof that it actually increased crime in a significant manner at least they would have something to support their arguments with. I say let competent law-abiding citizens carry weapons to defend themselves with if they desire. There is certainly anecdotal evidence available in the media to show that people can and do save lives when carrying responsibly.
Note: Minnesota, in the end, did legalize 'shall-issue' permits.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
You keep trying to hammer this point home- but you're fighting an argument that Ive never put forth. I never said permit holders never break the law. The point that I've been making is that they are statistically less likely to commit gun crimes than any other group. They're less likely to use a gun criminally in public than people who arent even legally supposed to be carrying guns in public.
Less likely does not equate to a perfect record now does it.You keep trying to hammer this point home- but you're fighting an argument that Ive never put forth. I never said permit holders never break the law. The point that I've been making is that they are statistically less likely to commit gun crimes than any other group. They're less likely to use a gun criminally in public than people who arent even legally supposed to be carrying guns in public.
Originally Posted by :
My point was, and still is, that if you think they're a credible organization you can't logically support people keeping guns in the home either as they've shown how dangerous it is to do so. Personally, I think they're full of crap, but you use it to support your arguments. Virtually every study of theirs has been disected and debunked, if anyone wants links I'll gladly provide them, but I wasnt wasting the time with you since you'll only believe data that supports your beliefs. I even took your skewed stats as a given, for the sake of discussion, and showed that even still it's not a compelling argument against concealed permits.
There just as credible as the NRA - both are baised and skewed in thier reports and their information. Just like everyother advocy group out there. Again be careful of accusing others of what you yourself are guilty of. I have never stated I completely follow their agenda nor do I believe their information is 100% correct. But don't let that prevent you from arguing the arguement verus taking cheap ad homien attacks at someone who disagree's with you. Should I show you the studies on Lott's data that completely discredits his lack of scientific and social studies research on his report.My point was, and still is, that if you think they're a credible organization you can't logically support people keeping guns in the home either as they've shown how dangerous it is to do so. Personally, I think they're full of crap, but you use it to support your arguments. Virtually every study of theirs has been disected and debunked, if anyone wants links I'll gladly provide them, but I wasnt wasting the time with you since you'll only believe data that supports your beliefs. I even took your skewed stats as a given, for the sake of discussion, and showed that even still it's not a compelling argument against concealed permits.
Originally Posted by :
You already have. You've said in other threads that you don't like handguns and you've said you only support gun rights because they're tools for farmers or hunters.
Yep that is correct - handguns are a useless tool as far as I am concerned.You already have. You've said in other threads that you don't like handguns and you've said you only support gun rights because they're tools for farmers or hunters.
Originally Posted by :
What is that point? Try looking at the stats they don't show you. Suicide rates in households without guns are just the same as ones with guns. There's no appreciable difference. That doesnt stop them from trying to blame guns.
Never said it did - again making assumption on something? What I stated is that they are using suicides from guns to back up their 33x claims. What is that point? Try looking at the stats they don't show you. Suicide rates in households without guns are just the same as ones with guns. There's no appreciable difference. That doesnt stop them from trying to blame guns.
Originally Posted by :
To anyone interested, this pdf is a study on 'shall-issue' permits produced by the Minnesota legislature. It's probably the closest you'll get to an unbiased examination of claims on both sides. What it comes down to is, if you believe pro-carry studies permits can actually reduce crime. Alternatively, if you believe anti-carry studies, n permits have no significant effect on crime
There you go - To anyone interested, this pdf is a study on 'shall-issue' permits produced by the Minnesota legislature. It's probably the closest you'll get to an unbiased examination of claims on both sides. What it comes down to is, if you believe pro-carry studies permits can actually reduce crime. Alternatively, if you believe anti-carry studies, n permits have no significant effect on crime
Originally Posted by :
Now depending on your political leanings, I guess this could mean different things to people. From where I stand, I believe government should allow people to do what they want until it is convincingly proved that it's harmful to others. If the worst-case scenario that gun-grabbers can find is that it has no net effect on crime, why should we strip people of this right? If they could produce real proof that it actually increased crime in a significant manner at least they would have something to support their arguments with. I say let competent law-abiding citizens carry weapons to defend themselves with if they desire. There is certainly anecdotal evidence available in the media to show that people can and do save lives when carrying responsibly.
However it seems that you don't want to believe the anecdotal evidence that points out that sometimes the conceal carry permit holder's commit crimes with their weapons. Yep lets get upset with people who don't subscribe to your way of thinking.Now depending on your political leanings, I guess this could mean different things to people. From where I stand, I believe government should allow people to do what they want until it is convincingly proved that it's harmful to others. If the worst-case scenario that gun-grabbers can find is that it has no net effect on crime, why should we strip people of this right? If they could produce real proof that it actually increased crime in a significant manner at least they would have something to support their arguments with. I say let competent law-abiding citizens carry weapons to defend themselves with if they desire. There is certainly anecdotal evidence available in the media to show that people can and do save lives when carrying responsibly.
Like I stated earlier - you want to carry a weapon then do so openly. The people around you in public have just as much right to know if you are armed as you have to be armed.
Originally Posted by Redleg:
Less likely does not equate to a perfect record now does it.
Using the strawman again- I never made an argument that there's a 'perfect' record.Less likely does not equate to a perfect record now does it.
Originally Posted by :
Yep that is correct - handguns are a useless tool as far as I am concerned.
Good, then lets be clear- you don't support the second ammendment. While they're covered by it and I support their rights, it was not written with sportsmen in mind. Yep that is correct - handguns are a useless tool as far as I am concerned.
Originally Posted by :
However it seems that you don't want to believe the anecdotal evidence that points out that sometimes the conceal carry permit holder's commit crimes with their weapons. Yep lets get upset with people who don't subscribe to your way of thinking.
You still havent provided any anecodtal evidence- despite multiple requests. Is there some? Probably- but it still doesn't override the fact that, at best concealed weapons holders reduce crime, and at worst they have no net effect. Yet you want it banned because you don't trust people. However it seems that you don't want to believe the anecdotal evidence that points out that sometimes the conceal carry permit holder's commit crimes with their weapons. Yep lets get upset with people who don't subscribe to your way of thinking.
I believe that under both the 2nd and 9th amendments, people should have the freedom to do what they want, particularly when it comes to protecting themselves from harm until it can be proven convincingly that a great harm is being done by allowing people their freedom. There is no such evidence here. I don't believe in constraining people's freedoms just because they dont provide a clear benefit.
We can continue this if you want, but I think it's fruitless at this point. Any readers should be quite clear on both of our positions now and can judge the merits of each for themselves.
Originally Posted by Redleg:
Like I stated earlier - you want to carry a weapon then do so openly. The people around you in public have just as much right to know if you are armed as you have to be armed.
Like I stated earlier - you want to carry a weapon then do so openly. The people around you in public have just as much right to know if you are armed as you have to be armed.
A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
Originally Posted by ceasar010:
A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
There's that badly hitched trailer again. When was the last time somebody opened fire with their car keys and killed somebody?A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
Originally Posted by Xiahou:
Using the strawman again- I never made an argument that there's a 'perfect' record.
The same methods that you have used - good to see that you recongize it.Using the strawman again- I never made an argument that there's a 'perfect' record.
Originally Posted by :
Good, then lets be clear- you don't support the second ammendment. While they're covered by it and I support their rights, it was not written with sportsmen in mind.
Again you are incorrect - I support the second admendment - I don't support the concept of concealed carry permits falling under that protected constitutional right. Your confusing what I think as a useless tool means that I don't support the 2nd Admendment. A strawman arguement - which you should recognize by now - since I did it to you to drive a point home. Again the Constitution protects your right to keep and bear arms - it does not grant you the right to carry a concealed weapon. That is a legislative law - the consitution allows you to keep and bear arms that is exactly what it states.Good, then lets be clear- you don't support the second ammendment. While they're covered by it and I support their rights, it was not written with sportsmen in mind.
Originally Posted by :
You still havent provided any anecodtal evidence- despite multiple requests. Is there some? Probably- but it still doesn't override the fact that, at best concealed weapons holders reduce crime, and at worst they have no net effect. Yet you want it banned because you don't trust people.
Sure I have - there was even one about a convicted criminal getting a concealed carry permit in Florida - which you dismissed. People as a group have shown that they are not trustworthly. I trust individuals - but not the mob. Nor the mob believe that one must pack iron in order to protect oneself and thier property.You still havent provided any anecodtal evidence- despite multiple requests. Is there some? Probably- but it still doesn't override the fact that, at best concealed weapons holders reduce crime, and at worst they have no net effect. Yet you want it banned because you don't trust people.
Originally Posted by :
I believe that under both the 2nd and 9th amendments, people should have the freedom to do what they want, particularly when it comes to protecting themselves from harm until it can be proven convincingly that a great harm is being done by allowing people their freedom. There is no such evidence here. I don't believe in constraining people's freedoms just because they dont provide a clear benefit.
Again your confusing what I beleive with what you want to think I believe. The 2nd Admendment does not grant you the right to carry a concealed weapon. It does not grant you the right to carry out justice. What it grants you is the right to keep and bear arms - and the law allows you to defend yourself and your property. Like I have stated several times - carry any weapon you want - but do so openly so other members of society can evalute and decide if they want to be near you and your weapon. The constitutional right to keep and bear arms - does not give you the premission to stomp on other people's rights to know what is around them in a public area - nor and especially this one - on their property.I believe that under both the 2nd and 9th amendments, people should have the freedom to do what they want, particularly when it comes to protecting themselves from harm until it can be proven convincingly that a great harm is being done by allowing people their freedom. There is no such evidence here. I don't believe in constraining people's freedoms just because they dont provide a clear benefit.
Originally Posted by :
We can continue this if you want, but I think it's fruitless at this point. Any readers should be quite clear on both of our positions now and can judge the merits of each for themselves.
And again before accusing someone of hype - which was what started this - maybe you should discuss the issue in a calm and collective manner verus going off on them. Your attempts at ad homien arguements have fallen on death ears.We can continue this if you want, but I think it's fruitless at this point. Any readers should be quite clear on both of our positions now and can judge the merits of each for themselves.
Originally Posted by ceasar010:
A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
A firearm is a tool that has deadly consequences if used incorrect or disapportantly to the situation. A gun IS an inatimate object do they have a right to know if you have your car keys and money on you also.
If you go into a store - and the owner dislikes firearms in his store - and you are carrying a concealed weapon - you have violated his rights - in order to carry the weapon.
If your on a communter train that is full of people - they should have the right to know that someone on that train is armed with a weapon so they can decide if they want to be in that situation or not? By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society. Society allows you that right - however you should also owe society the ability to know that you are armed.
You want to carry a weapon on your person - then do so openly.
Originally Posted by :
There's that badly hitched trailer again. When was the last time somebody opened fire with their car keys and killed somebody?
When is the last time someone who legallly owned a gun did that?There's that badly hitched trailer again. When was the last time somebody opened fire with their car keys and killed somebody?
Originally Posted by Redleg:
A firearm is a tool that has deadly consequences if used incorrect or disapportantly to the situation.
If you go into a store - and the owner dislikes firearms in his store - and you are carrying a concealed weapon - you have violated his rights - in order to carry the weapon.
If your on a communter train that is full of people - they should have the right to know that someone on that train is armed with a weapon so they can decide if they want to be in that situation or not? By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society. Society allows you that right - however you should also owe society the ability to know that you are armed.
You want to carry a weapon on your person - then do so openly.
A firearm is a tool that has deadly consequences if used incorrect or disapportantly to the situation.
If you go into a store - and the owner dislikes firearms in his store - and you are carrying a concealed weapon - you have violated his rights - in order to carry the weapon.
If your on a communter train that is full of people - they should have the right to know that someone on that train is armed with a weapon so they can decide if they want to be in that situation or not? By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society. Society allows you that right - however you should also owe society the ability to know that you are armed.
You want to carry a weapon on your person - then do so openly.
If i walked down a crowded street with even a pellet gun displayed. I would have the cops called on me. If i walked down the street with it concealed there is no panic and people go about there every day activities.
Also you support carrying openly what about rifles and shot guns.
Originally Posted by PanzerJager:
When is the last time someone who legallly owned a gun did that?
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.When is the last time someone who legallly owned a gun did that?
Originally Posted by Goofball:
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
Actually, it's the tree service guy, he's 41, and not overweight.You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
Also, I'm a rural boob. Not a sub-urbunite.
Originally Posted by :
You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
Id take that bet.You're joking, right? Are you trying to claim that people who own their guns legally never kill people with them? I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
How about double or nothing? I bet you the number of people killed by a person who had legal ownership of the gun in question is less than 10% of all people killed by guns in the US or Canada.
Originally Posted by :
I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
Are you suggesting that only those who are married to the very ugly should be allowed to legally own guns?I'd be willing to bet that just about every overweight, 40-year old, sub-urbanite boob that pumps his wife full of lead when he comes home and finds her balling the pool-boy owned his gun legally.
or that promiscious women should also be armed?
what about the pool-boys, don't they a chance to defend themselves?
Originally Posted by :
By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society.
stats show that very few permitted carriers use their weapons, in response to violence or when they run amuck. Many many more are injured or killed by criminals with guns.By carrying a concealed weapon - and not being an undercover police officer - you can recklessly endanger their lives because of your desire to go armed into society.
ichi
Originally Posted by ceasar010:
If i walked down a crowded street with even a pellet gun displayed. I would have the cops called on me. If i walked down the street with it concealed there is no panic and people go about there every day activities.
And it proves my point - you don't need to go into society armed.If i walked down a crowded street with even a pellet gun displayed. I would have the cops called on me. If i walked down the street with it concealed there is no panic and people go about there every day activities.
Originally Posted by :
Also you support carrying openly what about rifles and shot guns.
When I go hunting the weapon is normally in the back seat of my truck for the police officer to see if I am stopped. When I go to a store to have the weapon looked at - I carry it into the store with the barrel pointed down. Like I have said not just once but numerous times - if you want to go around armed - then do it openly so that other citizens can make the decision to be near you or as far away as they need to be in their own minds.Also you support carrying openly what about rifles and shot guns.
Originally Posted by ichi:
stats show that very few permitted carriers use their weapons, in response to violence or when they run amuck. Many many more are injured or killed by criminals with guns.
ichi
stats show that very few permitted carriers use their weapons, in response to violence or when they run amuck. Many many more are injured or killed by criminals with guns.
ichi
Now Ichi - someone is going to come up and say that is nothing but disproved hype from the Bradley Campaign.
Originally Posted by :
2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005
Now the question that needs to be answered is out of how many of suicides were done with legally obtained firearms. Most of them according to the studies were done with handguns.2002, there were 30,242 gun deaths in the U.S:
17,108 suicides (56% of all U.S gun deaths),
11,829 homicides (39% of all U.S gun deaths),
762 unintentional shootings (3% of all U.S gun deaths),
and 300 from legal intervention and 243 from undetermined intent (2% of all U.S gun deaths combined).
-Numbers obtained from CDC National Center for Health Statistics mortality report online, 2005
Originally Posted by :
How about double or nothing? I bet you the number of people killed by a person who had legal ownership of the gun in question is less than 10% of all people killed by guns in the US or Canada.
A site with the Canadian Data.How about double or nothing? I bet you the number of people killed by a person who had legal ownership of the gun in question is less than 10% of all people killed by guns in the US or Canada.
http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/The...unControl.html
Originally Posted by :
Type of document: peer-reviewed research report
Firearms and adult, domestic homicides: the role of alcohol and the victim. Joshua E. Muscat and Michael S. Huncharek. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 12(2):105-110. 1991.
Key words: homicide, firearms
Summary: This study found that alcohol may be a contributing factor to domestic firearm homicides:
53% of victims had been drinking before the homicide
40% of victims were intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or greater) at the time of the homicide
62% of offenders had been drinking before the homicide
58% of victims who incited the homicide (by initiating physical contact, drawing a weapon, or verbally daring the offender to attack) had been drinking
The authors note that over 80% of the homicides were committed with handguns, and 45% of the handguns were Saturday night specials. eover, only half the offenders owned the guns used in the homicides; handguns were easily obtained through friends, spouses, or relatives.
The data were drawn from police records of 129 adult homicides and interviews with 49 offenders in six major Ohio cities. The homicides occurred between 1982 and 1985. A domestic homicide was defined as involving relatives or close friends, occurring inside or immediately outside the home, and which did not occur as secondary to another crime (for example, robbery). Domestic homicides committed with firearms are the largest distinct type of homicides.
Practical implications: Because it found that alcohol appears to contribute to the likelihood of domestic homicide, this study lends support to efforts to reduce violence by reducing alcohol use. The study also suggests that limiting the availability of cheap handguns may diminish domestic homicide.
http://www.tf.org/tf/alcohol/ariv/vfsum5.html#2Type of document: peer-reviewed research report
Firearms and adult, domestic homicides: the role of alcohol and the victim. Joshua E. Muscat and Michael S. Huncharek. The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology 12(2):105-110. 1991.
Key words: homicide, firearms
Summary: This study found that alcohol may be a contributing factor to domestic firearm homicides:
53% of victims had been drinking before the homicide
40% of victims were intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration of 0.10% or greater) at the time of the homicide
62% of offenders had been drinking before the homicide
58% of victims who incited the homicide (by initiating physical contact, drawing a weapon, or verbally daring the offender to attack) had been drinking
The authors note that over 80% of the homicides were committed with handguns, and 45% of the handguns were Saturday night specials. eover, only half the offenders owned the guns used in the homicides; handguns were easily obtained through friends, spouses, or relatives.
The data were drawn from police records of 129 adult homicides and interviews with 49 offenders in six major Ohio cities. The homicides occurred between 1982 and 1985. A domestic homicide was defined as involving relatives or close friends, occurring inside or immediately outside the home, and which did not occur as secondary to another crime (for example, robbery). Domestic homicides committed with firearms are the largest distinct type of homicides.
Practical implications: Because it found that alcohol appears to contribute to the likelihood of domestic homicide, this study lends support to efforts to reduce violence by reducing alcohol use. The study also suggests that limiting the availability of cheap handguns may diminish domestic homicide.
Yep achocal and legally owned guns can be dangerous. The bolded sentence could actually mean half of the domestic homicides were committed with legally owned firearms - primarily handguns.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO