tshile

yes i would support research. obama proposed a lot of research in his EU's after sandy hook. the left scoffed because they don't believe research is what is needed, and the right tried to tie it to door-to-door gun confiscation. i thought it was exactly what we needed. *shrug* support legislation? i would be highly inclined to support it, but i'm not going to blindly commit to it. you also have scotus/the constitution to deal with...

At least you're being honest. Next time you want to cry about how nothing is done, have some self reflection.

Have you seen who their constituents are?

I guess I didn't understand the connection. Though we're missing details if you want to go that route. It says she shot the tires... was she trying to shoot the tires? If so... she's a pretty good shot... I know the movies make it out to look like shooting a moving target with a pistol is easy, with the people diving and hitting head shots from a distance, but I believe it's quite hard. Maybe it was an SUV with giant tires on it *shrug*

I'm not sure how that applies to what Peter and I are discussing? I think that woman is an idiot that should go to jail for brandishing a weapon, endangering the public, and maybe even attempted murder. I don't know what the state laws are there, but I think she should also lose her permit. Edit: To clarify - I think she should be treated according to the laws there, but if I were writing the laws there what she did would put her in jail; possibly for a long time. There's nothing heroic about shooting a shop lifter. It's dangerous. Though I can't help but wonder if those two will shoplift again.

Right, but that violence was justified by State law, according to a jury of his peers. That's not a problem - someone followed the law. If you want to say the law is stupid and should be changed (which is how I feel) then that's one thing, but at the end of the day he was legally allowed to do what he did. The State of Florida called that self defense. Martin didn't attack Zimmerman with a gun. The violence is not gun related. The self defense aspect of it is, but not the violence that initiated the incident. This shouldn't show up in a 'gun violence' stat or discussion, unless you're intentionally being dishonest about it. Or unless your premise says FL law is stupid and you don't want to factor in their laws but instead want to use other laws; which is fine, I think the law is stupid myself, but at least be upfront an honest about it (in the fact that you're skewing the stats.) Furthermore, since Zimmerman was found legally not guilty, he shouldn't have his permit revoked... If he was found guilty, I'd bet his permit would have been revoked... this is what I'm talking about. If a permit holders' ability to have a permit led to him committing a crime, in this case violence with a gun (specifically murder), then he would have lost his permit. If the two were linked it should show up on that side of the stats... But it doesn't... because he didn't have his permit revoked... because what he did was legal... Now if you want to say Zimmerman was only able to shoot Martin because Zimmerman had a gun, when you get no disagreement from me there Not that it must happen, that it should happen often enough that you should see some impact on the # of revocations. I already said there are reasons why an incident might not lead to a revocation, or why a revocation might not be related to an issue of violence. It's not a one for one, but there should be some impact if we are to believe the two are related. Remember, I didn't start this saying it proves anything. I didn't demand the number match. I simply asked what the numbers are (or specifically how they've changed) because there should be something there. Come to find out - the people doing the research don't know; or worse, they do know, but they didn't include it in their report. Where we got to here was you and peter basically telling me I'm being ridiculous for asking about this. Saying it's completely irrelevant. The only reason to say that is to imply that one has to do with the other. There is no other reason. It's to try to convince people that it's bad that people have concealed permits. It's the same reason idiots on the other side run around trying to link any drop in crime to any gun law that has changed recently in their favor. For some reason you guys don't seem to have an issue seeing through their bull****...

I don't know, I'm so confused at this point. I didn't bold anything. You keep talking about an AZ law I said I was excluding because you already said they don't even require permits anymore and so it can't be measured. You keep talking about general crime after I had a whole paragraph explaining I was talking about one specific issue. Whether it's slowly or not is not the point, what I was saying was not dependent upon the speed. It was a simple example. Change the rate of change however you feel, it's irrelevant. I'm not the one trying to prove anything here. I don't have a side on the 'do guns increase/decrease' crime argument. You're the one with the side, and I'm just asking why key information is missing. It's missing. You don't seem to be able to explain it without changing the topic you're discussing; many of which you change to I have no disagreement with you over. Another thing I agree with you on - it's really hard to quantify all of this. Yet you seem to be quite comfortable reducing it to two simple stats (violent crime and laws changing). I don't get it, but have at it.

PeterMP Early on in the conversation you said this: Now if I recall correctly, you have said that at least twice (including the one I quoted) with the obvious implication being that less restrictions on concealed permits -> more violence/crime. I believe one time you pretty much outright state one has to do with the other. If you've changed from talking about that to talking about other things involving guns (specifically the AZ law you keep citing), then I apologize for missing the change in topic. I have been responding to you for the last two pages solely about this idea that it seems like you're pushing that concealed permits -> more violence/crime. I'll address the points related to the concealed permit in your last post below, but largely ignore the rest of it because I don't really disagree with you in terms of the general sense of gun laws and violence/crime. I'm not really interested in whether it leads to less, I have no reason to defend that argument because I don't subscribe to it. It's important because you are drawing a direct causation from concealed weapons laws to violence. Taking states that do not have permit requirements (like AZ) out of the picture... Permits are revoked for committing certain types of crimes; violent and gun crimes are on that list, among others. If there is this causation, you should see the permits being revoked. The only reason they wouldn't be revoked is if they do not know who the person is, or if there is not enough evidence that there was wrongdoing. I realize that because of that, there will not be a 1-for-1 in the numbers. Also realize you can have your permit revoked for other reason, like drug possession, that won't show up in the violence stats. You want to know where minimizing restrictions on concealed weapons increases or decreases violence? I think you'll have a hard time quantifying that, but one thing we do know is that your permit is revoked for committing a violent crime. Yet... you don't know these numbers. Worse off, you fail to see how they're even relevant or important! As for a study... Check out this one (Not for the study, but for the references): http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf On page 15 they start referencing where their stats came from. You'll see some they had to obtain from the states, but others have links. Some have links to dead pages. I bring it here to point out: Yes, you can get this information... FOIA, or just simply asking, should get it for you. It's not something you can easily find for every state, but most states will give it if you asked. Did your studies even ask? I keep asking if the numbers are in any of your studies, you haven't said one way or the other yet... If they didn't even ask... why? South Carolina active permits in 2014 253,339 Revoked: 895 That's 0.3% Virginia State Police, at one time, had their revoke % posted, it was also in the fraction of a percent range. These numbers are available. The ones I've seen have all shown that concealed permit owners are BY AND LARGE law abiding citizens; across the board. If they weren't the revocation numbers would be... i don't know... something higher than a fraction of a percentage point. The bottom line is that if you want to say that permits have some affect on increasing crime, then you should be able to show this by looking at permits being revoked. Because that's what happens when you have a permit and you get caught committing a crime (well most crimes), you get your permit revoked. What you're proposing would be like if over the last 10 years we slowly lowered the drinking age from 21 to 16, and over that same time the number of DUI related crashes, deaths, and arrests went up. And you came in here and started posting studies about it, none of which included in their numbers the # of people arrested under the age of 21; data that is available and directly relates to the conclusion you're arriving at and then telling everyone else to subscribe to. Yet you, and your studies, concluded that lowering the drinking age is the cause of the problem. Why? Because more people can drink, there are more deaths/arrests, therefore more people drinking is the cause of more deaths/accidents.Completely ignoring available data that is strongly linked to the argument. In this case - the age of the person that was driving drunk when the incident occurred. Sure, that conclusion sounds good, more alcohol drinkings -> more drinking and driving, that sounds perfectly reasonable. But you're ignoring data that would actually show a direct link and instead giving us a good sounding argument. Why? Why ignore that data? The obvious possible answer - Because it doesn't fit your narrative. Another possibility - Lazy researchers. I'm sure there are other reasons too. Maybe they just don't understand the topic they're researching as well as they should before conducting the research. If an increase in concealed weapon permits IN ANY WAY is linked to an increase in crime, then you should see an increase in revocations. Unless: - They aren't solving the crimes - There's some level of corruption there.

I have. You're just ignoring it. Please continue to make up what I said. I've haven't said "show me the permits being revoked" in this thread. In fact, no one has in the last few pages. Unless the find in my browser is broken. "accurately quoting what you posted." So you're a liar; and not even a good one.

And I agree with that. But for some the former is just more of the 'lol good guys with guns' stuff. I've seen it enough to know it definitely exists.

Right, except that's not really my point. You cite these studies about an increase in gun violence correlating with an increase in concealed permits. You (and I presume the studies you cite) then say one is caused by the other. Yet we have a way of measuring the actual influence (to a degree) of concealed permits on gun violence, and that's the revocation of concealed permits. I don't expect it to be a one-for-one, in either direction. You can have your permit revoked for things other than gun violence, and I'm sure there are situations where the person isn't identified so you cannot revoke a permit, or maybe there's not enough evidence to say what they did was wrong so they cannot revoke the permit (even if what they did was wrong.) Yet you don't don't seem to know what those numbers are, or even a trend, so I take that to mean that information is not in these studies you cite. You don't see a problem here? You're drawing conclusions about something while leaving out a very meaningful piece of data related to it. You're making conclusions using two numbers going up at the same time, completely ignoring another number that should be strongly tied to the conclusion you're making if that conclusion is indeed valid. Why is this information missing? Why should I give any study any level of credibility when they do not include this piece of information? I'm sure they could even get a list of permits revoked only for gun violence, if they asked nicely. They wouldn't even have to play the game of "well maybe some of these are revoked because he got caught with <preferred drug of choice>" You can't be serious? They get mocked and put in the same category as the people who build a bunker in their yard and stock it with 10 years worth of food. I'm not saying you or anyone here is mocking them, but they are mocked by the vocal pro-gun-control crowd.

Depends on what we're talking about. The 'going after' a shooter... military vets won't do it. That's what I was referring to with the SWAT and special military training. We have examples (this case) of it, we have others opining on it (this thread), with military training that will not go after a shooter. So you need something more advanced than standard military training. For the case right in front of you? Yeah, there's some basic training you should get on that. Though police and military people still have problems, so I don't know what level of training you would want. Interestingly enough, it's pretty common to see those more vocal about having strict gun control to mock those civilians that do take that training; they'll also talk about how it is to be required. Just another item to add to the disingenuous portion of the conversation. That was my only point, that when you start discussing things like that you're playing a game.

That's not at all what I'm saying, but please continue to just make **** up and moderate others' conversations. It's such a great contribution you make. You can tell it's widely appreciated by the number of people that just flat out ignore you for it.

Not quite. Look up the dictionary definition of a vigilante. Although some try to be (see the link about the shoplifting shooting earlier), but I fail to see how those people fall under the category of 'good guy with a gun.' Seems more like idiot with a gun to me. In all the studies you read, did they talk about permits being revoked and those numbers?

So the regular joes without the training (realistically you're talking about SWAT and special military training) that did stop someone they... what, don't count? Don't exist? Are statistically irrelevant? Wonder what the people around them think about being statistically irrelevant. Are the mass shootings statistically irrelevant? You say they're statically rare.

Right, and there are stories where people legally carrying a gun help a situation. That's the problem with anecdotes. If an increase in handing out permits actually contributes to an increase in gun violence (like you suggested) then we should see that in reflected in the number of permits revoked. I would think a quality journalist writing about the issue, or quality researcher studying the issue, would bother to look into that and cite it. I don't follow a lot of the studies to know how often that thing is included. I was thinking you might, but I certainly wouldn't blame you if you didn't That's pretty much how that one goes. It just proves that it's both sides that have no interest in doing anything reasonable, or compromising on anything. It's frustrating.

So we can add you to the list of people advocating for people to want to be Rambo?

I think you're missing the point. If concealed permits lead to violence, then that means the people with the permits are part of the violence. Which means we should see permits being revoked, since I'm not aware of a permit that allows you to commit a crime with a gun and still keep your permit. Hell, as far as I know it doesn't even need to be a crime with a gun. You're not going to get any gripe from me when it comes to training. Other than regular and rigorous being ambiguous.

Then we should see lots of permits being revoked, right?

This seemingly doesn't matter to many.

I know enough to know that speculating about what I, or anyone else, would do in that situation is foolish. And yes, a pistol can be incredibly hard to be proficient with, especially at any distance, depending on the person. There are cops with training and years of practice that I would consider terrible at it, and I've also seen people pick up a gun for the first time and be pretty accurate.

I don't know those state laws. I know where I live you'd definitely be charged with a crime. You'd probably get quite a few charges...

"..spraying bullets all over the place" The word choice used is interesting, and telling.

Hah, wonder if they'll try to shoplift again. Can't imagine being shot at is worth whatever they got.

No, those aren't the only possibilities. Though I definitely understand why painting those as the only possibilities makes your argument easier. My larger point is just how the pro gun control group is misleading in their arguments. We have a vet, with training, with a gun, who didn't decide to be a hero, and the knock is that he wasn't close enough to the shooter to take action. Therefore he shouldn't have had a gun because he's worthless. It's such a bogus mindset on the situation, yet so many people subscribe to it. The fact that he was in a room full of people that he could have helped protect if needed is just completely discarded. All that matters was that he wasn't next to the shooter, and that he didn't try to be a hero. Oh wait that last part doesn't matter, it only matters when we're speaking generally about how awful it is for someone ot carry a gun. Remember those are all rambo-wannabes that will shoot the wrong people and make things worse.