Non-CCW holders are unsafe for society

[mvccd1000]

Or at least, that seems to be the conclusion of this analysis:

http://www.mcrgo.org/mcrgo/doc_pdf/michiganconcealedcarrystudy.pdf

Based on an analysis of crime rates in Michigan since 2001, the study comes up with conclusions like:

"Comparing the entire 5-year data sample shows that for FBI major crimes, the violation rate for the CPL population is 60.41 per 100,000 population, while the violation rate for the non-CPL population is 3,765.29. This means the for the years 2001-2006, the non-CPL population committed 75 major crimes for every one committed by a CPL."



Looks like you're a lot safer around CCW holders than you are around some of the more righteous antis. :)

[Clovis Sangrail]

1. sample bias ? /nt

[iverglas]

4. duh, eh?

A population that by definition had no criminal record at a time not long before the study period (the date when the permit was issued -- barring improperly issued permits) is less likely to commit crimes in a 5-year period than the general population.

Quelle surprise.

[krispos42]

39. It is a surprise to many

Mostly the ones that predict unchecked college shootings if CCW is permited on campus. Or that the streets in <insert state name here> would run red with blood now that CCW licenses were issued. Or that people with CCW permits are knuckle-dragging neocon rednecks just itchin' for a chance to whip out their shiny metal penises and joyfully, legally kill some perceived criminal non-white person.

[iverglas]

50. well, you're just doing the same thing now

Me (with emphasis):

A population that by definition had no criminal record at a time not long before the study period ... is less likely to commit crimes in a 5-year period than the general population.


The *general population* includes people with lengthy criminal records and people with other democraphic characteristics that make them poor comparables for people with permits: age, economic status, etc.

Your comment actually just continues the conceit that there is some basis for asserting that permit holders and the "general population" are actually comparable in some way.


The obvious point to be taken from any of this is that these laws have been in effect for far too little time to be attempting to derive any conclusions from any data.

We will be needing to look at the track records of permit holders over their lifetimes, and at events in the places where they live over that period, at some point, not at permit holders and events in some 3 or 4 year period immediately following implementation of the legislation.

[Tejas]

53. You move as fast as some of our politicians

"The obvious point to be taken from any of this is that these laws have been in effect for far too little time to be attempting to derive any conclusions from any data."


Texas has had CCW since 1995, other states even longer.

13 years is not be long enough to derive anything?

[iverglas]

61. and you

still don't have a profile. So I just can't tell how fast you move at all.

[Tejas]

63. just another non-answer post from you (imagine that)

Sorry but my membership has been in effect for far too little time to be attempting to derive any conclusions on the worth of having a profile.

Check back in another 13 years.




Oh wait, according to you that would still be too soon.


;)

[iverglas]

65. sez you

Sorry but my membership has been in effect for far too little time

Oddly enough, that's one of the things a profile tells us.

So look ... a whole post devoted to nothing but making a claim about something I would have known long ago ...

[Tejas]

66. still another non-answer to #53 (imagine that) n/t

[iverglas]

68. 29 October 2007

Just in time for when I got bored and wandered off ... which was just shortly after I noted how boring and dumb your posts were ...

How could I have forgotten??

[Tejas]

71. ah, the adjectives

Too hard to resist eh? No surprise as usual. When lacking an argument, if all else fails........

[iverglas]

69. 13 years?

Got the 2007 stats out now do they? That would be unusual; 2006 would be unusual even, I suspect. So just what stats are out relating to permit holders in Texas?

Oh, and it went into effect on 1 Jan 1996. How many fingers you got? And has 2008 ended when I wasn't looking? I make that 11 completed years, myself.

I got my driver's licence in 1979, I think it was. I haven't killed anybody yet, but let's assume I'm a horrendous driver, speed through the local school zone at 50 mph every day, just never got caught. If I do it and kill somebody next year, will it have been a marvellous idea for me to have had a driver's licence all these years?

I'd kinda want to be looking at cumulative figures, myself, and you can't cumulate somebody in 2006 who doesn't get a permit until 2007. Rates don't interest me so much. I'd want to know why ANY concealed weapon permit holders were committing violent crimes involving firearms.


http://www.ncpa.org/press/nrsb052600.html

According to the report, the slightly more than 200,000 Texans who have become licensed to carry a concealed firearm are much more law-abiding than the average person. Comparing arrest rates for example:

* Texans who exercise their right to carry firearms are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense.

* They are 14 times less likely to be arrested for a non-violent offense.

* They are 1.4 times less likely to be arrested for murder.

Moreover, of the six licensees who were arrested and tried for murder or non-negligent manslaughter, four were found not guilty because they had acted in self-defense.

I'm just seeing the same assumption that the reading public is really, really stupid and can't immediately see the invalidity of a comparison between a person with a concealed weapon permit and "the average person".


http://www.txchia.org/sturdevant2000.htm

The average male Texan who is 21 years or older is 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for the violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and assault than the average male CHL holder.

Looking at violent crimes individually, the average male Texan who is 21 years or older is 1.7 times (rate of 7.4 v. 4.3) more likely to be arrested for murder; 87 times (rate of 24 v. 0.3) more likely to be arrested for rape; 53 times (rate of 44 v. 0.8) more likely to be arrested for robbery; 3.4 times (rate of 202 v. 60) more likely to be arrested for aggravated assault; and 10 times (rate of 892 v. 87) more likely to be arrested for other assaults than the average male CHL holder.

The average female Texan who is 21 years or older is 7.5 times more likely to be arrested for the violent crimes of murder and assault than the average female CHL holder.

Looking at violent crimes individually, the average female Texan who is 21 years or older is 2.0 times (rate of 1.2 v. 0.6) more likely to be arrested for murder; 2.5 times (rate of 48 v. 19) more likely to be arrested for aggravated assault; and 17 times (rate of 178 v. 11) more likely to be arrested for other assaults than the average female CHL holder.

What I find quite interesting in all these numbers (including the "study" that started this thread) is how NOT DISSIMILAR the arrest rates for murder are between the two groups.

I wouldn't expect to find concealed weapon permit holders committing a lot of shoplifting: they're certified crime-free to start with, and property crime is kind of a lifestyle thing.

I'd want to be looking at firearms-facilitated crime in particular, and firearms assaults/homicides in very particular. And that's where we're just not seeing a big huge difference.

It shouldn't be too damned difficult for someone with access to the data to compare the two groups in the homicide arrest category and factor out the non-permit holders with previous criminal convictions, and thus get a somewhat more comparable control group. I'd certainly think.

When the rates are so close for the two groups -- less than or equal to two times higher for the non-permit holder group -- that's what I'd like to see.

Anybody doing that? If not, I'd sure be wondering why not.

Let's have one of your smart remarks now. C'mon.

[Tejas]

70. same tired washed-up nonsense, facts please n/t

[iverglas]

72. Polly got some facts?

I keep asking for them, you keep being a parrot.

Oh no, Paco!

[Firethorn]

59. Still...

I hang around on gun boards.

Several states, upon the passage of their CCW law, saw the swearing of various police departments that any CCW holder stopped* would be treated as a felony stop, for the officer's safety. For those that don't know, a felony stop involves guns drawn, the subject put to the ground, handcuffed and searched.

These policies lasted less than a year. Why? It was much hassle over what the street officers quickly considered nothing. That CCW line ended up being translated into 'non-criminal'.

There's still a depression even if you look at only people with clean criminal records. Part of the reason is that CCW holders know their permit is fragile - any conviction can result in the loss of it, if not also the loss of their weapons.

*Possible because many states linked license plates to the CCW lists for tag checks. So it's come back 'Car registered to Joe Brown, CCW holder'.

[iverglas]

62. and that

There's still a depression even if you look at only people with clean criminal records.

is based on what?

Love to see them figures. Show 'em if you got 'em.

Clean criminal records + matched on other demographic characteristics, of course.

Just like some people demand when comparing other fruits.

[zanne]

2. The "MIchigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners" said that?

:rofl: Quelle surprise! What a right-wing rag!

[MercutioATC]

3. Hell, open carry is legal in Ohio.

It's illegal to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

However, it's perfectly legal to carry a weapon in plain sight without a permit.


...expect to get hassled, though...even some of the police don't know it's legal.

[iverglas]

5. really??

Looks like you're a lot safer around CCW holders than you are around some of the more righteous antis.

Can you translate the "more righteous antis" you have in mind into something that would be useful for comparative purposes?

I wonder what the crime rate during this 5-year period was among people who had no criminal record at the time those permit holders were issued their permits and who did NOT hold permits. Strikes me that would be the comparison we're looking for.

[krispos42]

40. THAT is an excellent question

One that needs answering.

[iverglas]

44. yeah ...

... and I've asked it three times now ... ;)

The study this thread is about is no more than several pages of meaningless bumph.

[zanne]

6. Gun-carriers with "road rage" more likely to use their guns...

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-carrying/index.html

Harvard Injury Control Research Center
Gun Carrying

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun carrying and road rage, Arizona:
Using data from a telephone survey in Arizona, we examined the relationship between road rage and gun carrying in motor vehicles.
Major Findings: Self-reported hostile actions (e.g. obscene gestures, cursing or shouting, aggressively tailgating) were more common among men, young adults, and individuals who carried a firearm in their car.
Publication: Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David; Solop, Frederic I. "Road Rage in Arizona: Armed and Dangerous?" Accident Analysis and Prevention. 2002; 34:807-814.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gun carrying and road rage, US
Over 2,400 licensed drivers responded to questions about their own aggressive driving in a 2004 national random digit dial survey.
Major findings: Seventeen percent of respondents admitted to making obscene or rude gestures in the past year, and another 9% admitted to aggressively following too closely. Males, young adults, binge drinkers, those ever arrested for a non-traffic violation, and motorists who had been in a vehicle in which there was a gun, were more likely to engage in such forms of road rage.
Publication: Hemenway, David; Vriniotis

[mvccd1000]

7. Did they look at LEGAL gun carriers?

I posted a study that looked at CCW holders, which means people who carry legally. Should you be surprised that a car full of gang-bangers carrying guns illegally would be more likely to act aggressively or engage in road rage?

[zanne]

8. You can't hide behind the "legal, law-abiding" thing forever...

That's just a way to try to absolve any gun carrier from blame. It's never you guys; it's always somebody else, isn't it? Actually, even if these people are illegal gun owners, don't you think that calls for stricter gun regulation, searches and background checks? You have a weak argument there. It's been used to death and it still doesn't work.

[mvccd1000]

19. Of course not.

I can carry $10,000 in cash around all day without breaking the law. If some guy robs a bank and carries the $10,000 he stole, he is a criminal.

Since I'm carrying the same thing he is, am I a criminal, or am I just "hiding behind the legal, law-abiding" thing?

You do seem to be easily confused by the concept of criminals vs. law-abiding citizens, don't you?

[krispos42]

41. We all agree that criminals need to be disarmed

The difference between pro-gun people and anti-gun people is that anti-gun people don't care about which methods are used to disarm the criminals.

[Firethorn]

60. How about

Stricter regulation on the bangers, not the ones with the permits, who've already jumped through hoops to gain their right.

In most cases, gang bangers already being felons, mere possession of a firearm is a felony. I fully support the police and court system tossing them into jail/prison whenever they're caught with one.

On the other hand, I've been investigated, attented class, and been tested for my permit. How many more hoops do you think I should jump through? Do you think additional hoops for me will lower the violent crime rate? Will it lower crime rates at all?

[iverglas]

10. did your study look at people WITHOUT criminal records?

Should you be surprised that a car full of gang-bangers carrying guns illegally would be more likely to act aggressively or engage in road rage?

Should you be surprised that a population in which there were obviously large numbers of criminals was more likely to commit crimes than a population in which there were BY DEFINITION no criminals???

[iverglas]

38. do you not realize the complete pointlessness of this "study" of yours?

Or are you just choosing not to admit it?


Some more tidbits from the "study" (all CPL:general population ratios being based on crimes/100,000 population for each group):

Between 2002 and 2006, CPLs were convicted of two murders. During this same time period, the non-CPL population committed 3,273 murders.

For the three-year period of 2004-2006, the non-CPL population committed eight rapes for each one committed by a CPL.

Between 2002 and 2006, CPLs were convicted of four robberies. During this same time period, the non-CPL population committed 61,989 robberies.

During the most recent three-year period, the non-CPL population committed about 5.5 aggravated assaults for every one committed by a CPL.

The three-year average ratio shows that the non-CPL population commits about 524 property crimes for every one committed by a CPL.

For the three-year period of 2004-2006, the non-CPL population committed about 400 larceny-thefts for each one committed by a CPL.

Because CPLs committed zero motor vehicle thefts for the years 2002-2006, it is impossible to determine a ratio with the non-CPL population, which committed 252,310 crimes during this same time period.

Because of the significant increase in overall CPL violation rates after 2003 ...

What kind of a dunderhead would compare the crime rate among a group of people who were certified crime-free at a point not long before the beginning of the study period to a group of people in which a significant proportion has already committed a crime or crimes?

What factor is most predictive of the commission of a crime?

Why, having committed a crime in the past.

So who would be surprised to find that a group of people who had never committed a crime in the past (of which they ahd been convicted, anyway) was less likely to commit crimes in future than a population that include numerous people who had committed crimes in the past?

A really good actor, I'd say.



Somebody get back to me when we have a study comparing holders of permits to non-holders of permits with similar demographic characteristics, specifically including age, sex, economic status and previous criminal history.

[zanne]

9. Uh-Oh. Looks who's funding the move for CCW

Funder of Lott 1996 CCW Study Has Links to the Gun Industry
Research conducted by John Lott, purporting to show that relaxed concealed weapons laws reduce crime has been the subject of severe criticism not just for its methodological shortcomings, but also for its funding source. These questions have focused on the ties to the firearms industry of the funder of Mr. Lott's fellowship, the John M. Olin Foundation.
There are significant links between the John M. Olin Foundation and the Olin Corporation, which owns Winchester Ammunition (the largest producer of ammunition in the U.S. and the manufacturer of the infamous "Black Talon" bullet). Olin Corporation at one time also owned Winchester Firearms, a trade name which it now licenses out. Winchester Ammunition stands to reap financial gain from the increased sale of handgun ammunition generated by the passage of lax concealed weapons laws.

The Violence Policy Center has conducted extensive research regarding the links between the Olin Corporation and the Olin Foundation as well as the political agenda of the Olin Foundation. While the Olin Foundation has denied any links between it and the Olin Corporation, research conducted by the Violence Policy Center has revealed the following:


The Olin Foundation was founded in 1953 by John M. Olin while he was head of Olin Corporation. The July/August 1983 issue of Foundation News details the historical overlap between the leadership of Olin Corporation and the Olin Foundation: " Olin started the foundation..., running it out of his vest pocket for a quarter of a century. `It was just a charitable checkbook,' says Joyce. Not until 1977 did Olin attempt something more substantial. That year he hired small staff for the foundation and persuaded both Simon and McCloy to join the enterprise.......an additional $50 million to the foundation, a gift that......soon place it among the big-league grantmakers."

Source: The Violence Policy Center

[slackmaster]

11. Laws concerning technical issues are often advocated by technical experts

What's the problem with that?

[pipoman]

12. Do you ever have a thought which is your own?

It seems plagiarism is a way of life for you. I can understand you are not being very eloquent, but you really should offer links to the mis-guided opinions you take as your own.

[zanne]

13. BWAHAHA!

You're running out of ammunition, aren't you? Unlike most others here in the gun forum, I supply a source for my statistics. :rofl: God, you're funny.

[pipoman]

14. So you are claiming to have written the nonsense in the post I responded to?

[zanne]

15. R-E-A-D it. nt

[Tejas]

64. T - H -I - N - K for yourself (quit being Brady's pawn)

copy/paste of police blotters, Brady verbatum, and on and on.

[pipoman]

16. So you are claiming that the CCW laws in all of these states were against

the will of the voters of these states?

[zanne]

18. It doesn't go by "The will of the voters"...

But then again, you know that. You don't get to vote on the question. Thanks for the map from "gun nuttery.com," though. I looked back at your posting history here in the gun forum. You very RARELY PROVIDE A SOURCE for your statistics. Even by your own admission, you go to a site called Gun Nuttery. Yet you guys complain about being called "gun nuts" here.

[mvccd1000]

20. Calling me a gun nut is like...

... calling you a control freak.

Both names are equally apt in this instance. :)

[zanne]

22. Witty retort, mvccd...

:sarcasm:

[mvccd1000]

23. Thanks.

I was smiling when I said it. :)

[spin]

36. The politically correct term for "gun nut" is..."gun enthusiast" (nt)

[zanne]

47. My ass it is. nt

[Turbo Teg]

57. The correct term for anti gunner is "wack job"

[pipoman]

24. Actually I got this map from Wikipedia

I looked back at your posting history here in the gun forum. You very RARELY PROVIDE A SOURCE for your statistics.

Absolutely, completely, totally and utterly false. I offer opinions composed in my very own brain in which case no link is available or needed. I NEVER copy and paste ANYTHING, EVER without a link or source, nor do I offer statistics EVER without a link or source. If you have an example of one of my posts which deviates from this please share. Unless you post an example you are a proven liar.

Edit: Semantics

[pipoman]

25. Furthermore...

CCW laws are sometimes passed by a vote and other times are passed by locally elected state reps who, if acting against the will of the majority of voters in their districts or precincts, would quickly loose their seats. Nice try though, any other fantasies you care to share regarding the question at hand?

[zanne]

27. LINK, please. nt

[pipoman]

30. See post 29

Opinion vs. Statistic vs. Truth

Think about it.

[zanne]

49. Again; LINK PLEASE. nt

[pipoman]

51. Uhhh..

what do you want a link to? What part of my statement are you disputing? To my knowledge, which is admittedly limited to states which I have lived, there are 2 ways to pass legislation at the state level: 1. by a vote of the people 2. by a bill voted on by both legislative bodies in the state (except Nebraska which is a unicameral (only one legislative body)) then sent to the governor for a signature (all of whom are elected by the voters of the state). Are there states which laws can be placed on the books by interested parties bypassing the two avenues described above?

[zanne]

52. When was the last time you were able to vote directly regarding a gun issue?

Or any other important issue, for that matter? As far as the state legislature goes, your legislator doesn't have to abide by your wishes, especially if your candidate for the office didn't win. Know what I mean?

Also, you failed to provide a source for your information or a link.

[pipoman]

54. I don't disagree..

I would like to see more important issues brought directly to the voters. That said several Democratic State Reps and Senators voted to over ride a veto of CCW in my state. They voted for CCW because Democratic voters in their districts wanted CCW.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/23/210942.shtml

House Minority Leader Dennis McKinney said legislators and Kansans became more familiar with the issue in the decade it has been around. He said most Democrats split with the governor because their constituents want the law.

"I have a lot more people back home who are for it because they understand it better," said McKinney, a Democrat from Greensburg who voted against the veto. "A lot of my constituents feel strongly about this issue."

Another Democrat, Rep. L. Candy Ruff, of Leavenworth, was the bill's chief champion.

"People now have the right to defend themselves if they want to," said Ruff, adding she doesn't plan to get a concealed gun permit.

"I've never had a desire to carry a concealed gun," she said. "I pushed it because two rape victims in my district asked me to." House Speaker Doug Mays, a Republican from Topeka, said his colleagues "finally heard the voices of the majority."

(I am not a big fan of news-hacks but this article came up in a google search with direct quotes from some of the Democrats who signed onto the bill)

Also, you failed to provide a source for your information or a link.

Which post are you talking about? If you are talking about post #25, which part of that post are you disputing? As iverglas pointed out in post #33, "It's a fact that the moon revolves around the earth, and we don't need any sources for that fact cited."

[zanne]

55. Most Americans favor stricter gun control.

As far as posting news articles with statistics in them, I think it's an excellent way to say what you want to say without having to go back and forth to prove you're not lying.

Poll: Little Change In Views On Handguns
After Virginia Tech Shooting Spree, Most Still Want Stricter Gun Laws But Oppose Banning All Handguns
Comments 122
NE W YORK, April 23, 2007
E-Mail Story
Print Story
Sphere
Share
Text Size: A A A
VideosPhotos

(CBS/AP)





Virginia Tech and Gun Control
Bob Schieffer talks to Virginia Tech University Relations Vice President Larry Hincker, James and Sarah Brady, and former FBI profiler Gregg McCrary. | Share/Embed

» More Videos

Related
Photo Essay
Virginia Tech Massacre

Gunman opens fire in dorm and classroom, killing at least 32 before killing himself.




Interactive
Guns In America

State-by-state gun laws and death rates, maps of recent school and workplace shootings and facts on who's at risk.





(CBS) There's been little change in Americans' views on gun control in the wake of last week's shooting rampage at Virginia Tech, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll.

A majority favors tighter handgun laws, but not in higher numbers than in the past. More than half said stricter laws could have helped prevent at least some of the violence at Virginia Tech, but Americans continue to oppose a ban on all handguns.

In all, 66 percent of those surveyed think there should be stricter laws covering the sale of handguns, while just 4 percent say the laws should be less strict. Twenty-eight percent think the laws should be kept as they are.

Those numbers are about the same as in August 1999, four months after the
shootings at Columbine High School in Colorado, when 67 percent said they favored stricter handgun laws.

SHOULD LAWS COVERING THE SALE OF HANDGUNS BE …?

Now
More strict
66%
Less strict
4%
Kept as they are
28%

8/1999
More strict
67%
Less strict
5%
Kept as they are
23%

Just 33 percent favor a ban on the sale of all handguns except those issued to police, while 64 percent oppose such a ban.

Support for a handgun ban has decreased somewhat in recent years. In April 1999, just days after the shootings at Columbine, 43 percent said they favored banning handguns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/23/opinion/polls/main2718866.shtml

[pipoman]

56. My biggest problem with this article

is the term "more strict". I don't know what that means and I don't believe many of the respondents do either. I am more than willing to consider specific proposals. For instance I believe a good change would be to make NICS available to people for private sales as long as the fee isn't prohibitive. I don't think there are many who are opponents of strict gun control who would object to this change. On the other side I believe that many laws on the books are not currently being enforced such as straw purchaser prosecutions and attempted purchases by prohibited purchasers investigations. The former is responsible for many guns ending up in the hands of criminals and the latter should be an enormous red flag to law enforcement that a possible criminal is attempting to purchase a firearm and has likely lied on the NICS form (punishable under penalty of perjury). Above is just my personal opinion based on several years of study and thought.

[jmg257]

58. Apparently not ALL gun control...or even "Most Americans"...or ALL polls anyway...

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Is the Virginia Tech tragedy likely to put gun control on the political agenda? Don't bet on it. In recent years, gun control has been an issue most politicians prefer to stay away from.
...
Support for gun control dropping
Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll.
In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990."


{This was before VT, so lets get something more recent...}


"LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.

The poll asked: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion?

Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime.

Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.

Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun control legislation are needed.

A majority of voters who support enforcement of gun laws already on the books exists virtually across all demographic groups and in all regions of the country with the only exception being Asian and liberal voters."

http://sev.prnewswire.com/entertainment/20070821/LATU11321082007-1.html


So what does this mean, taking the poll you posted into consideration? Apparently polls don't REALLY mean all that much, when trying to decide what "Most Americans" think - about guns or gun control anyway.

Shoot - some anti-gun survey, the report of which was authored by a wacky anti-gun nut, that was posted the other day contained blatantly false information, and was packed with leading questions, some with FALSE data in them, apparently meant to try get responses they wanted:

"If you were told that *ONE OUT OF FIVE law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty from
1998 to 2001 were killed with assault weapons, would that make you more likely to support
RENEWING the ban? Would you say . . .A lot more likely=1; Somewhat more likely=2; Not at all likely=3; Don't know=99"
http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/assaultweaponreport.pdf pg6

{*of course they did tell you this (just now in the question), and BTW, it is a LIE, but so what...}
*My {comment}, their EMPHASIS.

[iverglas]

67. gosh

it is a LIE

Not the first time it's been said, methinks. Haven't seen anything to back up the assertion.

Just because I'm terminally curious, I'd like to know. Got the truth? And a credible source for it, of course?

[jmg257]

73. Of course, though I do not think the VPC is very credible. FBI however...

"If you were told that ONE OUT OF FIVE law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty from
1998 to 2001 were killed with assault weapons,..."


Start with the FBI statistics for Law Enforcement officers slain in the line of duty between 1998 and 2001, compared to the number slain by rifles between 1998 and 2001; "Rifles" being the primary superset of "assault weapons"...
http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/killed/2001leoka.pdf

296 officers feloniously slain / 49 by all rifles = 16%; which is enough evidence right there to be well under "ONE IN FIVE".

But since that would include the 72 LE slain on 9/11, let's be more fair and go with just the 224 Officers slain otherwise / 49 ALL rifles = 21%.

IF 20% of the 224 officers slain were by so-called "assault weapons", at least 45 of the 49 rifles used would have had to have been "assault weapons". Yet in 2000 alone, 3 rifles were lever actions (.30-30s), 2 were .30 Caliber (M1 carbines) and 1 was a .270 (bolt action). In 2001, 1 was a .22, 1 was a .30-06, and 2 were .30 caliber. In 1999 1 was a .270. In 1998, 1 was a .30 caliber. The most deadly caliber for law enforcement over this time was the 7.62x39 - 22 were of this caliber (Yikes :(), which COULD all be "assault weapon" AK types, but weren't, because at least 8 were SKSs (non "AW").

Which puts us at 224 / 29 "assault weapons" = 13%. If the VPC's 9mm (see below) "assault weapons" are counted (+5) it's 224/34 = 15%. If ALL officers slain were counted 296/34 = 11.5%


For an easier read, just go here:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/officetwo.htm

and see how many of the VPC's identified so-called "assault weapons" aren't; i.e they REALLY don't meet the legal definition of this so-called "discrete class of firearm". I count at least 14 out of the 41: M1 Carbine? - Nope. SKS? Nope. Mini-14? Nope. None of these have pistol grips; SKS doesn't have detachable magazines (as VPC pointed out in note 11), none have any sort of muzzle device, though some Yugo SKSs have grenade launchers, M1s may or may not have bayonet lugs. Though they do count 5 9mm I didn't initially (listed by FBI as "handguns"?).

[jmg257]

74. Of course...part II...

"If you were told that *ONE OUT OF FIVE law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty from
1998 to 2001 were killed with assault weapons, would that make you more likely to support
RENEWING the ban? Would you say..."

{All caps are their EMPHASIS}


This leading question actually has a point - RENEWING the {federal 1994} "Assault Weapon" Ban. It was contained in a list of 9 questions, 4 of which dealt with RENEWING the ban, 3 about STRENGTHENING the ban (i.e. changing the definition of this "discrete class of firearm"(???)), a general ownership question, and 1 about "pre-ban" restrictions.

Since this question dealt with RENEWING the "Assault Weapons" Ban, it would make sense (to me at least) that the data provided would relate to weapons affected by the..."Assault Weapons" Ban (us being a polite and civilized society where lying/misleading surveys are frowned upon), which actually does indeed, sort of, identify a "discrete class of firearm". Namely:


Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Large capacity ammunition magazines
Folding or telescoping stock
Conspicuous pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device which enables the launching or firing of rifle grenades)

Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following:
Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or silencer
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of an automatic firearm

Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following:
Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban


Besides the 14 obvious NON-"assault weapons" mentioned in my 1st response (M1, SKS, *Mini-14), one should also wonder about several of the other weapons VPC declares as "assault weapons" (since their report is the source of the false survey data). There are 11 AR-15s & 7 MAK-90s, a few AKs, and an SA85; some of which would not while others possibly would not have been affected by the "AW"B, even if they were made after 1994 - they do not meet the Ban definition of "assault weapons". Exactly how many are not "assault weapons" is impossible for ME to know, but I would venture at least a few. Which would bring the actual number of LE Officers slain by "assault weapons" even lower - maybe alot lower. And ANY of those legally owned pre-1994 would also be unaffected by the Ban - but that is really nit-picking VPC/CFAs crediblity.


*I want to make a correction to my 1st response - "pre-ban" Mini-14s were produced with muzzle devices and bayo lugs, so MAY meet the legal definition (except that they were exempted so still wouldn't be affected by the Ban). My apologies.

[Longtooth]

75. Texas

had a direct vote for CHL. Ann Richards vetoed it. G.W. ran against her with the promise that he would sign it into law. Makes me wonder who would be president today had Ann Richards adhered to the will of the voters.

[pipoman]

31. oh, and

believe it or not the response you are responding to was conceived, composed and written by me...no help from any external thinkers...amazing how a properly functioning mind can communicate and discuss without sharing a brain isn't it?

[zanne]

26. This is one of many of your "statistics" with no source.

pipoman (1000+ posts) Thu Feb-14-08 08:06 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. IIRC there were 2 who were disarmed at VT
Edwards - Richardson '08

There are many more, but do your own research.

[pipoman]

29. I understand that to those who

are not well educated the difference between opinions and statistics are difficult to discern.

IIRC= 'if I remember correctly' which translates to 'I don't feel like or am too lazy to look it up, if you dispute the accuracy feel free to show me where I am wrong and I will gladly admit that I am mistaken.' On the other hand copying and pasting dissertations penned by someone else pretending it is my thought, not an example will you find.

[iverglas]

35. what dictionary are you using?

IIRC= 'if I remember correctly' which translates to 'I don't feel like or am too lazy to look it up, if you dispute the accuracy feel free to show me where I am wrong and I will gladly admit that I am mistaken.'


Noooo ... what it means is "you can completely ignore what I've just said unless it is of such blatant truth that nobody could possibly dispute it", which in the case cited it wasn't, so it just meant "you can completely ignore what I've said ... unless and until *I* come up with something to substantiate my bald assertion of something as fact when there's every possibility I just found it in my nose and handed it to you".

[zanne]

46. You are being disingenuous now.

In the statistics I copied, the name of the institute conducting the research was in the body of the article itself. However, I have a feeling you don't stop arguing until somebody gets really tired of you and says "What the hell--if I tell him he's right he'll stop". So, pipoman, you're right. You win. You won the argument with exquisite dialogue and exceptional insight. You win the "I won the argument" trophy and a year's worth of Cheerios. Do you feel better now?

[Longtooth]

28. I cannot speak to other states but here in Texas CHL was a hard fought battle

It was passed by the legislature but vetoed by Ann Richards.

It was passed by a statewide vote (the will of the voters) and vetoed by Ann Richards.

George W. Bush ran for Governor against Richards with the promise to sign CHL legislation being a BIG part of his campaign. He won and Texas got CHL. It makes me wonder who would be president right now had Ann Richards obeyed the "will of the voters".

[iverglas]

17. zanne ...

When you copy something from somewhere else, please give a link.

This one (pretty easily found by googling) is:

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/lottlink.htm

The source for facts isn't particularly relevant to a discussion unless the facts themselves are under dispute, but it is kind of important to establish that there is some source for the facts just to establish that they are indeed facts.

Whether Lott's work is tainted by his/his funder's bias is another question, and calls for examining the work done itself.



In the particular case at hand, the study appears to be just meaningless noise; the bit of it that is reproduced, in any event, compares the characteristics of two populations to produce what is basically a tautology: a population composed of people without criminal records is less likely to commit crimes than a population consisting in part of people with criminal records. The bias of the researcher is obvious in the choice of populations to study, in this case.

I wasn't actually able to see anything in the study itself before it crashed my adobe acrobat ...

[zanne]

21. I'm happy to provide a link.

If people who also copy facts from elsewhere will oblige.

[iverglas]

33. I don't know what that's about

What you copied wasn't "facts", it was published material in which some facts were stated. Facts are facts; they exist independently; one doesn't really "copy" facts. (If one finds one's facts somewhere, one may well want to present a source for them, if one wants others to take them seriously as actual facts and not as something one pulled out of one's nose, of course.)

If you just want to state facts without providing anything to substantiate them, that's one thing, and it can be perfectly acceptable. It's a fact that the moon revolves around the earth, and we don't need any sources for that fact cited.

But you're copying published material and republishing it here. It looks like plagiarism if there is no source cited, in a post here just as in a doctoral thesis.

Nobody here really imagines that you're pretending to have written the material in question, I think, although a newcomer would naturally think that you wrote what appears in your posts.

To the extent that there are facts in the material you are copying, anyone seeing them might like to know the source in order to determine whether they are actual facts or something that came out of someone's nose.

[zanne]

45. Iverglas..meet me in the Linguistics forum.

By the way, we should have one. It's late afternoon, I'm tired and I do know what you're saying. OK?

[jmg257]

32. You should look who funds the Harvard Injury Control Research Center

Not typically totally neutral on the subject...

"The David Bohnett Foundation
Handgun Control
The reduction and elimination of the manufacture and sale of handguns in the US.
The David Bohnett Foundation supports and encourages groups that promote the goals of reduction and elimination of the manufacture and sale of handguns in the U.S. "

Grant List:
"Harvard Injury Control Research Center
Boston, MA
$50,000.00/year for 2 years - The Means Matter: Suicide & Firearms (May. 17, 2006)"
http://www.bohnettfoundation.org/Programs/Guns/



But since we ARE talking about CCW here in this thread, let's see what the biased HICRC DOES say...

"Harvard Injury Control Research Center
{firearm research} Policy

The public health approach to reduce the problems of motor vehicles, tobacco and alcohol is applied to firearms policy.

Major Findings: Manufacturers try to focus prevention efforts on the user rather than the product. Public health efforts emphasize systematic data collection and a multi-faceted policy approach that includes modifying the product and the environment.

Publication: Hemenway, David. "The Public Health Approach to Motor Vehicles, Tobacco, and Alcohol, with Applications to Firearms Policy." Journal of Public Health Policy. 2001; 22:381-402.

Effect on homicide of gun carrying laws
We analyzed the effect on homicide of changes in state-level gun carrying laws using pooled cross-sectional time-series data for 50 states from 1979-1998.
Major findings: There was no statistically significant association between changes in concealed carry laws and state homicide rates. The finding was consistent across a variety of models."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/policy/index.html


Very interesting actually, and in keeping with a similiar study I have posted on occasion (though I do not like using statistics to support fundamental rights - they don't always agree); "An evaluation of state firearms regulations and homicide suicide rates", from a Univ of Pittsburgh group. This study too shows no significant relation between enactment of "shall issue laws" and homicide or suicide rates. Per their data homicide, gun homicide, & suicide rates were very slightly lower when shall issue laws are enacted.

"Rates per 100,000...
Firearm Homicides {with shall issue law}: 5.00
Firearm Homicides {w/o shall issue law} : 5.90
All Homicides {rate with shall issue law} : 7.5
All homicides {rate w/o shall issue law} : 8.99
Firearm Suicides {with shall issue law}: 9.70
Firearm Suicides {w/o shall issue law} : 10.20"

[iverglas]

34. very confusing ...

"An evaluation of state firearms regulations and homicide suicide rates", from a Univ of Pittsburgh group. This study too shows no relation between enactment of "shall issue laws" and homicide or suicide rates. In fact, homicide, gun homicide, & suicide rates were VERY slightly lower when CCW laws are enacted.

You appear to be citing this publication (even though you misquoted its title and didn't give any source where it could be accessed):

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/77
"An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates" (abstract)

Results:
When a "shall issue" law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant. No law was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides. No law was associated with a statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates.

Conclusion:
A "shall issue" law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. No law was associated with a statistically significant reduction in firearm homicide or suicide rates.

How exactly is your statement about the results of that study:

In fact, homicide, gun homicide, & suicide rates were VERY slightly lower when CCW laws are enacted.

consistent with what the paper apparently says, as summarized in that abstract?


Re "The Public Health Approach to Motor Vehicles, Tobacco, and Alcohol, with Applications to Firearms Policy" --

Effect on homicide of gun carrying laws
We analyzed the effect on homicide of changes in state-level gun carrying laws using pooled cross-sectional time-series data for 50 states from 1979-1998.

... I know what happens when I cite studies using data from before 1998, even when I've expressly pointed out the date.



And then of course there's the fact that the meta-study done a couple of years ago and oft cited hereabouts (and nearly as oft misrepresented) concluded that no valid conclusions about any of it could be drawn from the existing data, which are completely inadequate for the task.

[jmg257]

37. Sorry - was a bit rushed at first. (and am again now) But anyway...

"An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates"

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/77

"Results: When a "shall issue" law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant. No law was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides. No law was associated with a statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates.

Conclusion: A "shall issue" law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. No law was associated with a statistically significant reduction in firearm homicide or suicide rates"



They use "..MAY be associated with increased homicide rate.." - their tables of data showed the opposite.

more in a bit.

[jmg257]

42. The tables in the study I was referring to (and that their summary points refer to)...

"Table 2: Homicides

Rates per 100,000...
Firearm Homicides {with shall issue law}: 5.00
Firearm Homicides {w/o shall issue law} : 5.90
All Homicides {rate with shall issue law} : 7.5
All homicides {rate w/o shall issue law} : 8.99

Summary Point 3::"A "shall issue" law that permits the carrying of a handgun in an unrestricted fashion may be associated with an increase in homicide rates."

{Yet in the numbers in their chart, both "w/shall issue" homicide rates were slightly lower...}


Table 4 Suicides
Rates per 100,00...
Firearm Suicides {with shall issue law}: 9.70
Firearm Suicides {w/o shall issue law} : 10.20
All Suicides {rate with law} : 14.5
All Suicides {rate w/o law} :14.5

Summary point 4: "Little evidence was observed that any of the laws evaluated (they include legal age 21 laws) were associated with a significant reduction in either firearm homicide or firearm suicide rates."

{again, the "w/shall issue law" suicide rates were lower - though apparently not significantly}


I now see that this study was also from 1979-1998 (helps explain why the results match the Harvard group's study?). I agree with your point on dated studies, 1998 is 1/2 of the way through the consistent drop in murder rates that took place between 1991 and 2004 (after rising consistently from '85). I think more "drastic" changes in shall issues laws have taken place since 1998(??), and violent crime rates have started to go up again since '04.

[iverglas]

43. bits

I think more "drastic" changes in shall issues laws have taken place since 1998(??), and violent crime rates have started to go up again since '04.

That's the main point I would make against the dated data in this instance -- the more drastic changes.

What I'm not clear on from your tables is whether they are referring to the same thing as the results, from the abstract:

Conclusion: A "shall issue" law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates. No law was associated with a statistically significant reduction in firearm homicide or suicide rates.

Are your tables showing states with "shall issue" laws as compared to states without "shall issue" laws -- or changes over time in states that adopted "shall issue" laws?

Clearly the conclusion quoted is referring to the latter. If your tables are referring to the former, we're talking apples and oranges, aren't we?

I can't tell from the tables themselves, which is why I ask.

[jmg257]

48. I am checking to see if I can find a "readable" copy - the study is now pay-per view. nt