So, do the Gun "Enthusiasts" here contend that Violent Crime rates will...

[KansasVoter]

continue to go lower because we have more people carrying concealed?

And any violent crime rate drop is directly tied to more people carrying concealed? There is no other reason?

So the rate will go lower every year until it is lower than the other developed countries?

And the murder rate in this country will drop until it is lower than other developed countries?

And, using that logic, you think other countries, if they relaxed their gun laws, would see a drop in murder and violent crime rates?

[Duchess]

1. No. NT

[Taitertots]

2. They will continue to fluctuate based on many other variables that are shown to effect crime rates

The effectiveness of the police:Number per citizen, number per square mile....
The effectiveness of the courts:Number of convictions per reported crime....
The overall economic health of the community:GDP per capita, equality of income distribution, number of homeless....

Don't let us stop you from building up some fantasy straw man about how we think.

[KansasVoter]

5. Will CC lower them at all? How much?

[Taitertots]

10. Can you predict what will happen to the other variables during that time?

Obviously not.

It will have a non-deterministic result on crime rates. They will still depend on so many other things that attempting to tie them to one thing is simple minded thinking.

[TheWraith]

160. It is effectively impossible to prove that more guns equals less crime.

What is provable is that more guns does NOT equal more crime, and less guns does not equal less crime. As such, there's no basis for denying people the right to be armed for their self defense.

[eallen]

165. If it has no effect on crime rate, does that mean CC is bad?

:hippie:

[Tejas]

3. .gov confiscated guns in Kenya, roving bands with machetes prevail now.

[KansasVoter]

4. So if there were no guns in the USA at all, the murder rate would be the same?

[cowman]

7. Well

You can use the U.K. as an example, their murder rate is the same pre-ban vs. post-ban.
No one here is saying that more guns=less crime but more guns does not translate to more crime.

[KansasVoter]

8. Interesting on the UK. Seems like guns at least make it easier to kill someone.

[slackmaster]

22. The only people who kill people are people who are inclined to kill people

They kill people whether they have guns or not.

[KansasVoter]

23. Still, seems like without guns it would be harder. More attempts.

[slackmaster]

25. It seems to me that a person who has decided to kill someone will find a way to do it

We do in fact have laws that ban people who have committed violent crimes in the past, from acquiring firearms.

[TheWraith]

39. Evidently not, based on the success of UK criminals using knives.

You have to remember that a gun is not a magical deathstick--80% of people who are shot by a handgun survive the experience, which is about the same as for a knife wound.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. 'seems like' isn't a very sound argument.

[Statistical]

58. Fatality rate for gunshot wounds is rather low.

Roughly 20% of gunshot victims die from their wounds which is roughly similar to other methods of attempted homicide.

If you get stabbed and don't receive prompt medical attention you will likely die.
If you get shot and don't receive prompt medical attention you will likely die.

In most instances the method of death is simply blood loss results in cardiac failure and/or brain death.*
If the blood loss can be stopped, and replaced the person will likely live.

Guns aren't the insta-kill devices that Hollywood and gun grabbers make them out to be. The are the most effective method of delivering stopping power but in their absence alternatives work just fine.



* A very small % of gunshot fatalities are due to massive central nervous system trauma which results in near instantaneous death.

[NewMoonTherian]

99. It isn't that hard...

to kill someone at all(physically speaking). It's been going on for thousands of years, and people have very nearly perfected the procedure. Guns make it faster and can be used from a greater distance by a skilled person. Indiscriminate attacks are more difficult with a gun than by other methods. I don't think the murder rate would go down, and I think the overall crime rate would begin to climb, all other things being equal.

[one-eyed fat man]

134. There was some killer out west a few years back.

He hacked up his wife and mother-in-law and got the death penalty. Appealing his conviction he argued that the law discriminated against him because he was poor and couldn't afford a gun. He argued his sentence was more severe because had to resort to less humane methods to commit his murders.

You weren't that dipshit's defense attorney were you?

[Tejas]

27. No, just not as messy as machetes.

[TheWraith]

161. Not really, no.

The odds of someone dying from a gunshot wound and the odds of someone dying from a knife wound are nearly the same at about 20%, all other things being equal.

[krispos42]

35. Our non-firearm murder rate is equal to the combined murder rate of W. European nations.

So even assuming that 100% of murders that would have been committed with guns are simply not committed at all, we still have indications of a problem whose root causes are diverse and pervasive.

[TheCowsCameHome]

11. *facepalm*

No one is going to confiscate guns.

Get over it.

[Glassunion]

13. You missed thier point.

[Hoopla Phil]

15. It has happened, it is a matter of record. And it continues in California.

http://www.mcsm.org/sksconfisc.html

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=3745

And regarding New Orleans:
Lots of stuff there just click the links.
http://gunowners.org/notb.htm


But I think the major point being made was that without guns murderers will remain murderers, just using different tools.

[TheCowsCameHome]

50. One brand of weapon, over ten years ago, in one state

and we're rapidly on the way to being another Kenya, with roving bands of machete-wielding outlaws.

Fear and paranioa, all in one neat package.

Don't fall for it.

[AtheistCrusader]

54. Actually, they banned 'assault rifles'. All of them.

If you didn't already own and have one registered, your outta luck in that state. The SKS ban was an odd outlier, because it has a fixed box magazine, not a removable magazine, exempting it from the normal qualifiers of a 'assault weapon' as defined in the state of california.

[Hoopla Phil]

61. First you say "No one is going to confiscate guns.". When proven wrong you say

"One brand of weapon, over ten years ago, in one state". You obviously did not read all my sources as they also prove that wrong too.

Not one "brand" but an entire CLASS of rifle and in New Orleans it was EVERY gun going door to door.

The fact is there ARE people in this country that want to ban ALL guns and will do so at whatever opportunity there is. Be it one "brand" or class at a time that is the eventual goal. Dianne Feinstein is famous for saying that if she could have gotten the votes she would have banned all handguns "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in".

You are simply wrong and have been proven so.

[TheCowsCameHome]

66. And there are people that would allow ALL kinds of weapons

so I guess it's a wash, isn't it?

Neither side will have their way entirely.

Nice try, though.

[slackmaster]

68. Your statement is a Straw Man

Nobody says people should be allowed to have any kind of weapon at all, with no restrictions.

[Hoopla Phil]

70. They often fall back to that after being proven incorrect. Odd how that works.

[Hoopla Phil]

69. So now you change your argument again. Proven wrong twice now you

say it is a "wash" because "there are people that would allow ALL kinds of weapons". That is laughable on it's face. First, what is your definition of "ALL kinds of weapons". Then cite any organization that has campaigned for that, please. I have proven your first two claims incorrect. Now you make a third claim - can you prove it true? Let's see. . . .

[Hoopla Phil]

112. Still waiting. . .

[derby378]

120. Me, too

I want to see how this pans out in the end. :hi:

[Bold Lib]

128. I'd like to see you prove that "ALL kinds of weapons" remark.

Do it IF you can.

[AtheistCrusader]

132. How many and who? You won't find any here.

[Bold Lib]

144. People are still waiting on you to prove your "All kinds of weapons" assertion.

Can you do it?

[Jackpine Radical]

6. Actually, I don't know if I qualify as a "gun enthusiast"

And I live in one of the few remaining No-Concealed-Carry states. my position on CC is that I don't really care; I have seen no convincing evidence that CC has affected crime rates one way or the other. In fact, I have paid some attention to crime rates in a neighboring state that enacted CC in comparison to ours, and have seen no clear trends.

I should say that I have hunted and owned guns all my life. I have both long guns and pistols, but have never particularly thought of them as a means of self-devense, other than maybe against a cranky blac bear or something.

[Glassunion]

9. Wow, what sparked this? Did one of us "enthusiasts" make any of those claims?

If so I would like to know where.

Personally as an "enthusiast" who does carry, I would say no. Causation and correlation.

What I do know is that more guns/more CC does not = more crime.

[KansasVoter]

12. But more guns does not = less crime?

[Glassunion]

14. Correct, there are many factors at work.

[hack89]

16. While violent crime rates have plummeted as gun ownership skyrocketed

as pointed out many time, no one thinks the situation is that simple. Crime is a complex problem with many causes. The only thing we can say with any certainty is that more guns does not equal more crime. There are real facts to back up that assertion.

[TheWraith]

37. There's no significant evidence to argue a linkage.

At most, you can disprove one linkage--the idea that more guns equal more crime is demonstrably false.

As to guns preventing crime, there's a few data points, such as the fact that the DC murder rate is 17% lower so far this year compared to the same period before the DC gun ban was struck down. Or the fact that violent crime dropped significantly all through the 1990s as concealed carry became legal in most states.

However, all of these are correlation, not provable causation--there is no scientific evidence to show cause and effect, nor is it likely possible to get any. Realistically, the causes of violent crime are too complicated for any one factor to account for it. In that same time period, there's been a number of other factors: increases of the number of police officers via the COPS program, improvements in drug treatment and rehab options, increased public safety and awareness... Some people even hold Roe vs. Wade responsible, on the theory that safe legal abortion greatly reduced the number of unwanted children of poverty who would grow up to join gangs. However, anyone claiming to know the real answer is probably exaggerating.

[pipoman]

17. The better question, as it pertains to liberty and the limitation of liberty

is; with the reality that even in light of exponentially more guns in private hands AND literally millions of people legally carrying concealed weapons, the violent crime rate showing continual declines, how can you or anyone else actually advocate for reversing liberalization a civil liberty?

[KansasVoter]

24. So you are saying the guns reduced the crime rate?

[pipoman]

28. How about explaining to us all how

anyone could possibly read the post you responded to and get that impression?

[pipoman]

29. Are you saying that they increased crime rates?

[pipoman]

44. As expected

[HockeyMom]

18. NYC crime rate has fallen (top 5 SAFEST cities in country)

and yet has one of strictest gun control laws in the country. So if so few citizens are armed, why did the crime rate drop so significantly? What happened was 9/11. There has been an increased law enforcement, seen and UNSEEN, presence since then. So many private businesses, government buildings, monuments, etc., now have metal detectors and armed security screening visitors. As example, 5 years ago when I went to renew my driver's license at the DMV on LI 30 miles from NYC, I had to show ID, sign in, and go through a metal detector. When I rode the LIRR 50 miles from NYC, there were National Guard fully armed and in uniform on the trains. The difference between today and 20, 30 years is like night and day.

This decreases the crime rate, not armed citizens. When was the last time anyone heard of a shooting in a NYC McD's, as opposed to say someplace in Florida, where it is very EASY for citizens to own guns? Orlando, for example, is in the top 5 most dangerous cities in the country. WHY when it is so easy for Floridans to own guns to protect themselves? Apparently, when these shooting occured there didn't seem to be ANYBODY there who was armed? Why is that when it is SO EASY to own and carry guns in this place?

[Glassunion]

19. Causation and correlation.

The same could be said for Chicago? Yes. Up until a few weeks ago, they had a complete ban on handguns. They have low crime just like NYC yes?

[HockeyMom]

30. No

Chicago has a higher crime rate because it does not have the law enforcement presence that NYC has. Arming private citizens won't have the same effect. I gsve Florida as an example where it is very easy to own guns and yet has a higher crime rate.

[Statistical]

32. I give you VT which has very high gun ownership and very low crime.

The point is the there is no correlation between gun ownership and crime.

As you claimed the reason for drop in crime in NYC is due to heavier police state not the ban on guns.
It is entirely possible that if NYC loosened gun ownership restrictions one would see no change in rate of crime.

The UK saw no drop in homicide rate and a rise in violent crime rate after banning guns. In the absence of compelling government interest the firearms shouldn't be banned.

The burden of proof isn't on the citizens that "IF WE LOOSEN RESTRICTIONS WILL IT LOWER CRIME" that is merely a strawman.
The burden of proof is on the government. Show that the increased restrictions have lowered crime. If they haven't then they serve no purpose.

[one-eyed fat man]

111. How do you explain the high murder rate in prisons?

They are about as perfect a gun-free Utopia as you could wish for in your fondest dreams. Even more gun-free than your beloved and much lamented New York City. No one is allowed a gun except some of the guards.

How come there are murders, extortion, robberies and rapes in prisons if it's the easy availability of guns that causes crime like you say?

[AtheistCrusader]

133. You can't get much more wrong.

http://fundjail.sitebuilder.completecampaigns.com/content/pdf/Police_Sheriffper1000Capita_2007_1___6_1_1050.pdf

By your logic, all the states to the left of New York should have higher crime rates than NY. Which is not accurate. Illinois (which Chicago has 48 police officers per 10000 people) is nipping right at New York city's 54 per 10000 sworn officer to population rate.

Only New orleans has more than those two.

Seattle has FAR fewer officers per capita, almost HALF New York, yet we have a better violent crime rate than any of these cities. We DO have more non-violent crime, particularly car theft, but I'd rather live in a non-police state that has lower violent crime, than in a police state that has higher violent crime and lower property crime.

[pipoman]

20. Bottom line that many including the OP IMO refuse to

acknowledge is, in fact, gun laws have very, very little to do with crime rates, whether those gun laws are liberal or conservative.

[slackmaster]

26. The OP seems to have some strong preconceived ideas about pro-RKBA people

I think KansasVoter is stuck in some kind of "Package Deal Fallacy", assuming links among issues that are not necessarily linked.

Thoughtful "gun enthusiasts" are just as capable of gun control advocates of having nuanced, complex ideas. We're not stupid.

ETA I suspect that KansasVoter has seen a copy of the book "More Guns, Less Crime" and hasn't read any of it besides the cover.

[Statistical]

34. Exactly. Even that book never makes the claim that more guns CAUSES less crime.

Rather it shows statistically that stricter gun control in most instances had no meaningful impact on crime.
Crime rates are lower today than they were in the 1980s when gun control was much more restrictive.

Crime is caused by numerous complex socio-economic factors that aren't always present and vary from one location to another.
It is a complex issue however to turn the question around on the OP.....

There has never been a conclusive study that gun control or bans reduces crime. Criminals adapt.

[krispos42]

36. This was studied in the book "Freakonomics"

And the authors (economists both) put most of the credit for the declining crime rate on a) the legalization of abortion in New York State prior to Roe v. Wade and b) Mayor Dinkins' doubling of the NYPD in 5 years. Of course, Dinkins wasn't in office when the manpower increases took effect and nobody will dare mention the positive social benefits of legalized abortion, so Mussolini Guiliani (a.k.a Mr. Nice Eleven) gets the credit.

[TheWraith]

38. And Chicago had even stricter gun laws than New York City. It was a war zone.

Newsflash: criminals do not obey gun laws any more than they obey the laws against shooting people.

[spin]

42. Orlando does have a high crime rate, but next door neighbor Tampa ...

has shown a drop in crime.

Police: Tampa's crime rate down nearly 16%
Published: February 9, 2010

TAMPA - The city's crime rate has plummeted 56 percent in the past seven years, police announced today, including a nearly 16 percent reduction last year.

The multiyear drop "translates into 20,000 less victims of crime, and that's a number that says, without a doubt, Tampa is a safer city," Police Chief Jane Castor said at a news conference.

The crime rate includes seven categories: murder, robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, larcenies, vehicle thefts and forcible sex offenses. Each saw a decrease in 2009; homicides were down 26 percent and auto thefts fell 22 percent.

Police have credited the drop in reported crimes to the department's Focus on Four Plan, which aims to reduce robberies, burglaries, auto thefts and auto burglaries, in turn reducing other crimes. The plan includes decentralizing resources, making better use of crime data and trends, and developing community partnerships.


Tampa Police Chief Jane Castor, second from left, speaks with officers at the scene of a shooting at Club Mirage at Hillsborough and Himes avenues.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/feb/09/police-tampas-crime-rate-down-nearly-16-09/

Of course, maybe the bad guys just moved to Orlando.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. Seattle is safer from a murder/assault standpoint. We have some of the loosest gun laws in the count

ry.

Correlation/causation.

(We do have far higher arson, and vehicle theft. Not exactly gun related.)

[burrfoot]

102. You're still implying that the increased availability of

guns is causing the increased crime rate. You're not taking into account the bagillion (yes, bagillion!) other factors that play into crime rates- transient population, phenomenal amount of tourists....there are loads of reasons why there is more crime in Orlando than in NYC.

Also, regarding your second paragraph- no one has claimed that increased CCW has reduced crime. In fact, it's explicitly been stated multiple times in this very thread that what the facts demonstrate is that increased gun ownership does not lead to increased crime; NOT that increased gun ownership decreases crime.

[aklaft]

142. so you enjoy living in a police state then

sounds much better than law abiding citizens occasionally owning a gun.

[Big Al Mac]

171. I don't know where you got your data

but you're wrong.
There are NO Florida cities listed in the top 25 most dangerous cities of the US.
http://gawker.com/#!5695776/the-25-most-dangerous-cities-in-the-us-are-mostly-nice-places

The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mostly Nice Places According to a study of FBI crime statistics by CQ Press, St. Louis, Mo. was the "most dangerous city in the U.S." in 2010, probably due to former St. Louis Cardinal Mark McGwire's uncontrollable steroid-murder rages. Here's the top 25:

1. St. Louis, MO
2. Camden, NJ
3. Detroit, MI
4. Flint, MI
5. Oakland, CA
6. Richmond, CA
7. Cleveland, OH
8. Compton, CA
9. Gary, IN
10. Birmingham, AL
11. Baltimore, MD
12. Memphis, TN
13. New Orleans, LA
14. Jackson, MS
15. Little Rock, AR
16. Baton Rouge, LA
17. Buffalo, NY
18. New Haven, CT
19. Hartford, CT
20. Dayton, OH
21. Kansas City, MO
22. Washington, DC
23. Newark, NJ
24. Cincinnati, OH
25. Atlanta, GA

Published in 2010 from 2009 FBI data.
Here's the whole list:
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2010/City_crime_rate_2010-2011_hightolow.pdf

[slackmaster]

21. Short answer - No

I don't believe there is any correlation between the number or rate of people carrying concealed firearms, and rates of violent crime. Nor, as we discussed last week, between the number of people who own guns and rates of violent crime.

I don't know what direction crime rates will go. Historically they have gone up and down roughly parallel to the general condition of the economy, but it's obviously much more complex. Other factors like the number of people in the demographic groups most at risk for becoming criminals certainly contribute to crime rates.

So take your big fat Straw Man and keep it.

[Recursion]

115. Oddly enough, this last craptank of the economy didn't drag crime up with it

It's still too early to have all the data (and the downturn isn't over yet), but crime rates have remained stubbornly low despite the economic downturn and high unemployment.

[Statistical]

31. No they are uncorrelated. Guns neither raise nor lower crime rates.

The UK had a higher violent crime rate than the US prior to banning guns.
The UK had a lower homicide rate than the US prior to banning guns.

After banning guns UK saw no significant change in violent crime rate (slight rise but likely due to other factors) and/or homicide rate.
Today they still have lower homicide rate and much higher violent crime rate than the United States.

Given their is no correlation between lawful ownership of firearms and crime there is no compelling government reason to ban them.

The rational for banning guns doesn't even pass the first (and easiest) test in strict scrutiny.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

We don't ban things and then ask the public to prove why they are needed "prove crime would go down and we won't ban them". The burden of proof is on the government that any further restriction would serve a "compelling government interest".

The largest impact on violent crime rate has been:
* widespread legalized and cost effective abortion
* longer sentences for repeat offenders which "age out" violent criminals*


* Career violent criminals tend to commit more offenses per year when young 16-30 than when older 30+ and even less as the age beyond that. Sentences that push repeat offenders past that high frequency age rage reduce the number of potential victims.

[X_Digger]

33. No, the 'gun enthusiasts' contend no such thing.

My, that's a very pretty straw man you've set up to rail against.

Have fun with that.

[PavePusher]

40. Has PETA contacted you yet...

about your abuse of deceased equines?

[spin]

41. People who are licensed to carry concealed are not police ...

We have met the requirements to carry a firearm as a self defense tool. We have no law enforcement training and we do not play vigilante. Many of us practice situational awareness and if we feel that we may be entering into a potentially dangerous situation, we leave.

I don't visit outdoor ATMs hoping to provoke some fool into attacking me so that I have the opportunity to shoot him. I don't go into the areas of my small town where drug deals go down, looking to preform a citizens arrest. I don't investigate crime because it's not my job.

One time, a neighbor reported a prowler to the local police. Someone told the officer that he felt the prowler had ran into the vacant property next door. The officer who knew personally me noticed that I had a large flashlight. He asked me, "Are you carrying?" When I replied in the affirmative he asked if I was willing to help him check out the vacant property. We did, but found nothing unusual. That's the only time I ever came close to playing cop and at the best I was just shinning the flashlight and providing him with a little backup.

Any effect on crime created by licensed citizens carrying weapons results when the smart predators realize that some of their potential prey may be armed. Since they fear armed citizens more than police, they become more selective of their targets.

The same effect happens when burglars know that the homes they enter may contain armed inhabitants. They may still break into homes, but they make more effort to be certain that no one is inside or that the occupants do not have firearms.

In an area where citizens can own firearms in their home or legally carry concealed, the nature of crime changes. Not all criminals are real bright, so some do attack armed citizens and often learn that it's a bad idea. Often when the citizen reveals that he is armed, the criminal runs.

It is possible that if other countries allow the average citizen to own firearms and carry concealed, the crime rate might fall. It would be interesting if the U.K. changed its draconian gun laws but there is little chance of that happening. Since there are few firearms in he U.K. it would take years before enough citizens were armed to make any difference.

[proteus_lives]

43. I adore the simple creatures that gather around the water hole.

[TheCowsCameHome]

57. Welcome back.

[Callisto32]

45. Why is do you always put enthusiasts in quotes?

Quotes either show direct quote (nope) a word representing itself (nope again) or indicate that you believe the word is the incorrect term and you are using a word the other person used, arguendo (I think this is it).

How are gun enthusiasts different from say, water ski enthusiasts?

[rrneck]

46. Juvenile sarcasm. He thinks he's being cute. nt

[X_Digger]

47. It's his mod acceptable replacement for 'nut' after having it deleted like 10 times. n/t

[proteus_lives]

104. And he can't think of anything clever.

[GreenStormCloud]

48. There are many more variables to the violent crime rate than just guns.

However, the effect of legally owned guns, carried by carefully screened CCW permit holders is to put a suppressing effect on violent crime.

[jeepnstein]

49. It's not that simple.

We have an era organized crime in this country right now that makes the Roaring Twenties look like the good old days. Most of the murders we're seeing these days are directly tied to the sale and distribution of illegal street drugs. Or in my area's case, the resale and distribution of prescription pain killers. Since the dealers can't take their problems to court, they take it to the street corner.

Linking crime rates to my 2nd Amendment rights is like saying we only need the 1st Amendment if literacy drops.

[GreenStormCloud]

51. Me being armed greatly reduces the probability of me being a victim.

Or of my wife being a victim of violent crime. And that is the only crime rate that I really care about.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. I think they are likely to drop, but not solely because of concealed carry.

In fact, I recall quite a bit of hurf blurfing about how the crime rate was going to skyrocket when the economy tanked in '08, and it simply hasn't. It has continued to decline.

So I don't think all the variables have been accounted for.


I do not know if other countries would see lower crime rates if they relaxed firearms laws, because geography isn't the only driver to consider. There are cultural differences that seem to figure into it.

Eventually, yes, even with current firearm law in the US, I believe our violent crime rate will continue to decline, possibly on par with, or better than our european economic counterparts.

[benEzra]

56. I'd contend that barring some sort of black-swan economic event,

the crime rate will remain relatively stable or continue the declining trend, and that the constant fearmongering about carry license holders/protruding rifle handgrips/long range target rifles will remain fringe BS completely disconnected from reality.

I think that if the UK relaxed its laws with regard to civilian ownership, there would be no change in the overall crime rate (though their sky-high percentage of "hot" burglary might see some drop).

I think you can probably make a strong case that CHL licensure, "assault weapon" popularity, etc. don't cause huge drops in the crime rate. You cannot, however, make the case that CHL licensure, "assault weapon" ownership, etc. are a crime problem, either, as much as you might like that position from a philosophical standpoint.

And I do think a strong case could be made that diverting police resources away from traditional police work and toward harassment of lawful gun owners could indirectly increase the rate of violent crime via a number of secondary avenues, but that's a topic for a different thread.

[slackmaster]

59. I don't think this thread turned out the way KansasVoter expected

[HockeyMom]

60. It can't

because YOU people will never change your minds, not even when someone who HAS been around violence their entire life tells you otherwise. That would go against the very core of what you believe. You won't change your minds, and I and Kansas won't change ours. Again, don't tell me I would change my mind if I was in a life or death situation. Been there, done that.

[rrneck]

62. How many more life or death situations do you plan to be in?

Are you going to be there to intervene every time somebody gets assaulted with your hobby karate friend and an electric fan? Do you have a self defense solution that will work in place of a gun without fail every time? If not, you have nothing upon which to base your opinion. That makes it worthless - which is fine. Live your life as you wish. Unfortunately such an uninformed opinion when projected through a voting booth is political suicide for any politician that listens to you.

[HockeyMom]

72. Those incidents were 40 years ago

Forget that? NOTHING has happened since then. I am 62 now and will probably die of natural causes sooner than being killed by an assailant.

As far as voting booth? I am from a state that is very much pro gun control. They elect pro gun control (Dem or Rep) legislators. I need to move back THERE and not be where I now am where you can buy whatever you want in your local Walmart, no questions asked.

[rrneck]

73. What's your point? nt

[HockeyMom]

76. In 20 years nothing has happened

The odds are you will NEVER have to defend yourself and your family.

[Statistical]

82. The odds are I will never be in a potentially fatal car crash or be burned to death in my sleep.

I still wear a seatbelt every day, and have smoke detector and fire extinguisher in the home.

There were 1,382,012 violent crimes in the United States last year. The probability of being involved in at least one criminal attack in a persons lifetime is much higher than you likely think.

[rrneck]

89. Well, that's a comfort.

It's reasonable to assume that thousands of people will be murdered, assaulted and raped no matter where you choose to live. I'll ask you again, Do you have a self defense solution that will work in place of a gun without fail every time?

[X_Digger]

93. More likely than a home fire..

In the US there are 350,000 residential fires every year, and there are ~105,000,000 homes. Odds of a home fire? 1 in 300.

http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Fire-Prevention/fires-factsheet.html

According to the DOJ, the rate of being the victim of a violent crime is 20 / 1,000 overall (as high as 27 / 1,000 for some groups like african americans.) That comes out to 1 in 50.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=1743

[rrneck]

121. Made good your escape I see.

:rofl:

[Glassunion]

74. "where you can buy whatever you want in your local Walmart, no questions asked"

Yes... Whatever you want... No questions...

I count 48 questions. But that is just me. Not only do they ask the questions, but then all of your answers are ferified via the NICS system.
As far as whatever I want, doubtful, not from WalMart anyway.

Here are the questions they ask you..
1. Transferee’s Full Name (Last, First, Middle)
2. Residence Address (No., Street, City, County, State, ZIP Code; cannot be a post office box)
3. Place of Birth (City, State or foreign country)
4. Height/Weight
5. Male/Female
6. Birthdate
7. Social Security Number(Optional, but will help prevent misidentification.)
8. Race (Ethnicity) (Check one or more boxes)
9. What is your State of residence (if any)?
10. What is your country of citizenship?
11. If you are not a citizen of the United States, what is your INS-issued alien number or admission number?
12. Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you.
13. Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year?
14. Have you been convicted in any court of a felony, or any other crime, for which the judge could have imprisoned you for more than one year, even if you received a shorter sentence including probation?
15. Are you a fugitive from justice?
16. Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?
17. Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
18. Have you been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions?
19. Are you subject to a court order restraining you from harassing, stalking, or threatening your child or an intimate partner or child of such partner?
20. Have you been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence?
21. Have you ever renounced your United States citizenship?
22. Are you an alien illegally in the United States?
23. Are you a nonimmigrant alien?
24. If you are a nonimmigrant alien, do you fall within any of the exceptions set forth in Important Notice 6, Exception 2?

Here are the questions for WalMart...
1. Type of firearm(s) to be transferred:
2. Location of sale if at a gun show.
3. Type of Identification (e.g., driver's license or other valid government- issued photo identification.):
4. Aliens only: Types and dates of additional required identification (e.g., utility bills or lease agreements. See Instruction to Transferor 2.)
5. Nonimmigrant aliens only: Type of documentation showing an exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition (e.g., hunting license/permit;
waiver. See Instruction to Transferor 3.)
6. The transferee’s identifying information in Section A of this form was transmitted to NICS or the appropriate state agency on (date)
7. The NICS or state transaction number (if provided) was:
8. The reponse initially provided by NICS or the appropriate state agency was:
9. If initial NICS or state response was “Delayed,” the following response was received from NICS or the appropriate state agency on (date)
10. The name and Brady identification number of the NICS examiner (if provided)
11. No NICS check was required because the transfer involved only NFA firearm(s).
12. No NICS check was required because the buyer has a valid permit which qualifies as an exemption to NICS
13. Date
14. Manufacturer and/or Importer
15. Model
16. Serial Number
17. Type (pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, etc.)
18. Caliber or Gauge
19. Trade/corporate name and address of transferor
20. Federal Firearms License Number (Hand stamp may be used.)
21. Transferor’s Name (Please print.)
22. Transferor’s Signature
23. Transferor’s Title
24. Date Transfer is completed

[HockeyMom]

75. you live in Pa, not Florida

All you need is a Driver's License to prove you are over 18.

[Glassunion]

77. I'm afraid that you are misinformed.

Yes I live in PA and I would have to follow the exact same process if I lived in FL. All of those questions that I posted were from form 4473 and is required by Federal Law (even at WalMart they have to abide by Federal Law).

A Firearms Transaction Record, or Form 4473, is a United States government form that must be filled out when a person purchases a firearm from a Federal Firearm License holder (such as a gun shop/WalMart).

The Form 4473 contains name, address, date of birth, government-issued photo ID, National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check transaction number, make/model/serial number of the firearm, and a short federal affidavit stating that the purchaser is eligible to purchase firearms under federal law. Lying on this form is a felony and can be punished by up to five years in prison in addition to fines, even if the transaction is simply denied by the NICS.

The dealer also records all information from the Form 4473 into their "bound-book". A dealer must keep this log the entire time they are in business and is required to surrender the log to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) upon retirement from the firearms business. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

If a person purchases a firearm from a private individual who is not a licensed dealer, the purchaser is not required in most states to complete a Form 4473, though some states force individual sellers to sell through dealers.

These forms are given the same status as a tax return under the Privacy Act of 1974 and cannot be disclosed by the government to private parties or other government officials except in accordance with the Privacy Act. Individual dealers possessing a copy of the form are not subject to the Privacy Act's restrictions on disclosure. Dealers are required to maintain completed forms for 20 years in the case of completed sales and 5 years where the sale was denied by the NICS check coming back disapproved or other disqualifying information.


Some other interesting info about FL, from the Lee County SD... http://www.sheriffleefl.org/prevention/brochures/prtfirearms.aspx
Q: Do I have to register my firearms in Florida?
A: No. There is no required registration.

Q: Is there a waiting period when I purchase a firearm from a retail establishment?
A: Yes, Florida law requires a 3-day waiting period when purchasing a "handgun" from a retailer (for exceptions see F.S. 790.0655).

Q: Can I carry a firearm openly?
A: No, This is specifically prohibited under F.S. 790.053.

Q: Can I carry a concealed firearm?
A: Only if you possess a concealed firearms license issued by the Florida Department of State (F.S. 790.06). An individual not licensed and carrying a concealed firearm on or about his or her person is guilty of a third degree felony (F.S. 790.01(2)).

Q: How do I get a concealed firearm license?
A: Applications are available at any of our district stations, our headquarters facility, or from the Florida Department of State, Division of Licensing (1-850-487-0482).

Q: Once I have a concealed firearms license, are there any restrictions where I can carry my firearm?
A: Yes, F.S. 790.06(12) outlines a number of places a concealed firearm is prohibited, even if you’re licensed to carry one. Some examples are:
A Bar
Athletic Event
Courthouse
School
College/ University
Airport
Law Enforcement or Corrections Facility.

Q: My child likes to go hunting. Is it legal for him/ her to possess a firearm?
A: Florida law prohibits the possession of a firearm by a minor under the age of 18, however, hunting is an exception. Be aware though, an adult must supervise a minor under the age of 16, when lawfully hunting (for additional exceptions, see F.S. 790.22(3).

Q: I see kids in my neighborhood with BB guns. Are there any restrictions to their use?
A: Yes, if the minor is under the age of 16. BB guns, air or gas operated guns or electric weapons or devices are prohibited from use for any purpose by minors under the age of 16. However, it is allowed if the youth is being supervised and in the presence of an adult who is acting with the consent of the minor’s parent (F.S. 790.22(1)).

Q: May I have a firearm in my vehicle without a concealed firearm permit?
A: Yes, Persons 18 years of age or older may have a concealed firearm inside the vehicle as a means of self defense or legal purposes as long as it is "securely encased" or "not readily accessible for immediate use" (F.S. 790.25(5)). Examples of permissible storage include:

Closed Glove Compartment
Trunk
Gun Case
Gun Rack in Rear Window of a Pick-up Truck (in plain view)
Closed Box.

Q: What are a few examples of illegal storage in the vehicle?
A concealed firearm on the person, in pants, under coat, etc.
Under a seat.
In a door pocket.

Q: Do you offer a firearm-training course for the general public?
A: Yes, at the Lee County Gun Range operated by the Lee County Sheriff's Office.

Q: I am visiting from another state where I have a concealed firearm license. Does Florida honor my out-of-state license?
A: On July 1, 1999 a law took effect allowing out-of-state residents who are licensed to carry concealed weapons/ firearms in their home states to carry a firearm in Florida. However, it applies only to residents from states that have agreed to recognize the validity of Florida licenses. For a list of states participating in mutual recognition, call the Florida Department of State at 850-487-0482, or access their web page at: http://www.licgweb.dos.state.fl.us/news/concealedcarry.html

Safety

All too often our deputies are responding to needless tragedies such as an accidental death or serious injury to a child or adult due to a loaded firearm left unsecured, negligently handled or improperly maintained. The Florida Legislature has enacted a variety of laws particularly aimed at protecting children (F.S. 790.173(1)). In fact, a person faces up to sixty days in jail and/or a fine of up to $1000 dollars if convicted for failure to properly secure or store a firearm that becomes accessed by a minor (F.S.790.174).

The National Crime Prevention Council reports the likelihood of a homicide increases three times and suicide five times if a gun is kept at home. A firearm is more than forty times as likely to hurt or kill a family member as to stop a crime. If you have children or grandchildren in your home, be sure to have everyone trained by a certified instructor on firearm safety. Teach children what to do if they find a gun--stop, don’t touch, get away, tell a trusted adult.

Storage

Keep your firearm out of the reach and sight of children.
Use a trigger lock.
Store your firearm and ammunition separately.
Do not store your firearm in a nightstand or under a mattress or pillow.
Avoid storing your firearm with other valuables.
Store your firearm unloaded in a securely locked box or container.
Store your firearm in a location that is not exposed to extreme temperature changes or moisture.
Write down the firearm serial number and keep it with other important records.
Handling

Treat every firearm as if it were loaded.
Never leave a firearm unattended, even when cleaning.
Be sure your firearm is pointed in a safe direction; never point your firearm at anything you don’t wish to shoot.
Load your firearm only if and when you intend to use it.
Know how to safely decock and unload your firearm.
Avoid firearms when using alcohol, any type of medication or if you are fatigued.
Never permit the muzzle of a firearm to touch the ground.

Maintenance

Cleaning and other maintenance of your firearm should be done monthly.
Prior to cleaning, check your firearm twice to be sure it is unloaded.
Clean your firearm after each use.
Clean your firearm according to the manufacturer’s instructions.
Only a person qualified to do so should perform repairs and modifications to your firearm.

[HockeyMom]

84. Ok, so I will TEST this myself

Just like Kansas did with his NRA membership. I will go to my local Walmart and buy one myself. See how "difficult" it is in comparison to NY; since I know how difficult it was for husband to get guns there.

If I have to "waste" $100 to prove a point; so be it. I can always resell it here. I am sure a lot of locals would love to have a real cheap gun. Maybe I will offer to sell it for $5 and see how many offers I get.

Also, since I work in a bad area and have to get out of my car to get gas, I need to "defend" myself and have a gun available. I work in a school where guns are banned, so how can I defend myself at that gas station when I cannot bring a gun onto school property? Damn, what a great court case I could have! Cannot protect myself to and from work in a state where it is legal to bring your gun to work. Imagine THAT??????? I could even FURTHER your agenda!!!!!

[Glassunion]

87. You go ahead and do that.

Here is what you can expect.

You will have to fill out form 4473.
They will run a background check on you based on the info that you filled out.
You will be allowed to puchase a firearm if you are not inelligible based on the NICS check.

You will not be able to get "whatever you want in your local Walmart, no questions asked." especially a handgun.

[Statistical]

88. You think you can get a handgun for $100? at Walmart? With "no questions asked"?

:rofl:

1) Firearms cost more than $100 especially new and at retail.
2) Walmart doesn't sell handguns, hasn't anywhere in the US for about 20 years.
3) The NICS law is federal and applies to all 50 states and all territories (that includes FL)

To purchase a firearm the dealer needs to complete a 4473.
At a minimum this requires:
a) you complete the 4473 background check and weapon purchase form.
b) you sign that you acknowledge than any false statement is a felony.
c) provide government ID and proof of address which dealer makes a copy of
d) pass background check (done electronically via state police using info & ID you provide)
e) dealer records details of the transaction on 4473.

Then and only then do you get your gun. Not exactly "no questions asked".

If you want to save yourself some time here is a copy of the federal form you will be required to complete (yes even in Florida):
http://www.titleii.com/pdf/4473.pdf

They even warn criminals (isn't that nice)

"WARNING: You may not receive a firearm if prohibited by Federal or State Law. The information you provide will be used to determine whether you are prohibited under law from receiving a firearm."

:)

Of course there is this nice blurb also (on your "no questions asked form"):

I certify that the above answers are true and correct. I understand that answering “yes” to question 12a when I am not the actual buyer of the firearm is a crime punishable as a felony. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 12b through 12k is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 12l is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “yes” to question 13. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law.

However please do go try to buy a handgun from Walmart no questions asked in Florida. I think you will find it quite interesting. You can always back out of the sale at the last minute so it won't cost you anything to try.

If you find any $100 guns let me know I will buy a couple. :)

[HockeyMom]

90. Who said anything about a handgun?

How about a rifle for sport? Maybe I just want to go hunting, or have a rifle in my home for protection. As I said on another post, a handgun is moot since I cannot take it where I work on school property.

[Statistical]

91. All of the above still apply except Walmart does actually sell those.

It still is going to be more than $100 and you still are going to need to complete NICS form and pass background check.

Sorry I assumed handgun because "rifle for sport" doesn't fit this desired use:
"Also, since I work in a bad area and have to get out of my car to get gas, I need to "defend" myself and have a gun available."

Still don't take my word for it go there today; It should be fun.

Just tell the greeter that Statistical sent you (they will know who I am) and ask for the secret no questions asked gun sales section. They will hook you up. Promise.

[Euromutt]

108. You said "you can buy whatever you want in your local Walmart"

If "whatever you want" happens to be a handgun, then you are not going to be able to acquire it at your local Walmart, anywhere, because Walmart does not sell handguns. Nor short-barreled shotguns and rifles. Period.

[GreenStormCloud]

124. You may wish to review FL law.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC115.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0790->Section%20115#0790.115

You can have the gun in your car on the parking lot. Lock your car.

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC251.HTM&Title=-%3E2008-%3ECh0790-%3ESection%20251

Your employer can't forbid you to have a gun in your locked car on his parking lot.

[AtheistCrusader]

131. I think she implied she is a teacher.

Schools have a federally mandated exclusion zone for firearms, so, she would have to park down the street. Of course, this might increase the chances of the gun being stolen out of the car.

[Statistical]

136. There is no federal exclusion.

It was ruled Unconstitutional. Florida may have a state rule that prevents firearms to be carried, stored, transported on school grounds. Many states don't.

So Held: Possession of a gun near school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. A law prohibiting guns near schools is a criminal statute that does not relate to commerce or any sort of economic activity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

If you are wondering about why it talks about commerce. Federal govt tried to reach and say interstate commerce act allowed them to regulation the existence of firearms around schools. Lopez is a great precedent for two reasons. First it found a nearly worthless law Unconstitutional, and second it is one of the few times the court has found govt went to far with interstate commerce clause.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. I was unaware of this decision.

I sit corrected. (My state still has a state law to this effect)

[GreenStormCloud]

125. A suggestion for you.

You are badly mininformed about many gun laws. Take the classes for a FL Concealed Carry Permit. You will find it extremely informative about what the laws really are. The others in the class will not be raving lunatics. There will likely be some women in the class too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

138. UPDATE: A week later, and no 'test' results

That Walmart must be quite a long drive from her house.

Yeah, that's it!

[Glassunion]

139. Maybe she flunked the NICS test? (nt)

[shadowrider]

146. One of two things

1) She did go to Walmart and found out there ARE questions, PLUS the NICS check. This would force her to admit she was incorrect in her assumption and would have to change her stance and agree with us, or,

2) It was over the top bloviating and she never went, now can't tell us she backed out of her promise.

Either way, the next time we hear from her will be on another thread stating the exact things she did on this one. Wanna bet?

[Glassunion]

147. I'm not a gambling man... But what's the over/under?

[shadowrider]

148. Tough call. What's the difference between slim and none? (Slim having left town?)

[Statistical]

141. So what was the result of the TEST?

We are waiting to find out. Were you able to get your $99 gun "no questions asked" at Walmart yet?

Inquiring minds want to know!

[one-eyed fat man]

150. It's been a month and a half

"I will go to my local Walmart and buy one myself."

You have enough time to try every Wal-Mart between Ocala and Okeechobee. You found your $100, no paperwork, no questions asked, handgun yet?

You might try asking the guy who sells you your dope.

[one-eyed fat man]

164. Have you found out what a Form 4473 looks like yet? NT

[one-eyed fat man]

166. How did it go?

What gun did you buy?

[one-eyed fat man]

167. We're still waiting

"I will go to my local Walmart and buy one myself."

or is your word worthless?

[oneshooter]

169. She was lying to us. Already admitted that she had no intention of doing it. n/t

[Statistical]

80. False.

If you are going to have an opinion is it too much to ask that the opinion be informed?

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. That is untrue, you have to fill out the Federal form in all states

Why the persistent denial of reality?

[slackmaster]

86. You are very seriously misinformed, HockeyMom

By all means go and find out for yourself.

[friendly_iconoclast]

78. You've brought inconvenient truth to a faith-based argument. I like it!

And for the OP and his acolytes- Have a cookie, you'll feel better:

[Statistical]

79. "where I now am where you can buy whatever you want in your local Walmart, no questions asked."

This magical place doesn't exist in the United States.

Where is it?

[GreenStormCloud]

123. Indeed, the odds really are that you will live free of violent crime.

The problem is that some people lose the violent crime lottery. The consequences of losing that lottery are rather severe. Being armed give me the strong chance of turning the tables on an attacker if I should happen to become the criminal's next target.

That you have lived 40 years free of being attacks is no guarantee that your good luck will continue.

[spin]

63. Why so angry?

We are all a product of our own unique life experiences, upbringing and environment.

I personally don't consider that the decisions I've made for self defense would suit everybody. I have listened to your arguments and while they may work just fine for you, they fail to convince me that I am wrong in my beliefs.

I can present my opinions for your consideration but I understand that you may reject my viewpoint. I don't believe that I am the ultimate authority on surviving a life or death situation or that you qualify either.

I'm fine with your decision and would never be so authoritarian as to believe that you should follow any advise I give. Nor do I believe that my views make me any more intelligent or wiser than you are.

I enjoy posting in the DU Gungeon as it is far more challenging to debate with those who disagree with me than to post on a pro-gun forum where most agree with my opinion. It's just fun and helps to pass time.

Lighten up a little.

[slackmaster]

65. Last week KansasVoter misattributed to me the idea that more people owning guns reduces crime

KV never really acknowledged the error, even after failing a challenge to produce evidence that I held that view.

That's what this thread is about.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

127. thanks.

its all your fault ;)

[one-eyed fat man]

71. Like they say

Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and then. You got lucky, twice. Maybe that will last a lifetime, maybe it won't. Maybe the next time your lifetime will be determined by how long it takes for the guy who thinks the money you are getting from the ATM should be his to slide 6 inches of cheap Pakistani steel between your ribs.

If when you got up this morning you knew that some bimbo texting her boyfriend would put 2 tons of '87 Buick in your lane you'd have stayed home. But as it was you didn't so you fastened the seatbelt, an active precaution, or you bet your ass on the airbag, the passive approach.

Or she may have been going fast enough even the seatbelt and airbag didn't allow the collision to be survivable. You might be Claire Voyenne't, but I'm not. You make your choices, live your life and defend yourself any way you see fit.

Do the rest of us the courtesy of understanding that we do not all appreciate your imposing your choices on us. You are entirely free to be as gun free as you like. You are not entitled to make that decision for anyone but yourself.

[HockeyMom]

83. I don't get cash from an ATM machine

I get cash ($20) back when I grocery shop and use debit for purchases elsewhere. I rarely have a lot of cash on me and never have.

I don't drive on highways. I work 5 miles from my home and use 30 MPR side roads back and forth.

Your last argument works both ways. Why should the majority of a state who favor gun control laws and elect represents who hold similar views, be at the mercy of those minority who want guns?

If you don't like the gun control laws, or lenient gun laws, of the state where you live, you are free to move to a place that more "suits" you.

That is my plan.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Are there any other civil rights you think should be subject to majority veto?

Certainly the majority of Virginians were against interracial marriage before Loving v. Virginia was decided.

Was the majority then and there more or less correct in their view of rights than your purported pro-gun control majority?

[one-eyed fat man]

101. But you are not

"Why should the majority of a state who favor gun control laws and elect represents who hold similar views, be at the mercy of those minority who want guns? "

You are so kidding yourself. First you make no distinction between who has what guns.

What you are saying, nay demanding, is because you hate guns, no one should legally have a gun and you will fight to impose your will on everyone else.

You will ignore the career criminals who have guns, will always have guns and are perfectly willing to accept that they will have them, just as long as no one else does.

You are free to not own a gun. No one is making you buy a gun, touch a gun, shoot a gun or even look at a gun, but you make it perfectly clear you are not satisfied with that. You are insistent that no one be free to exercise a different choice simply because you don't like it.

I have a grandson who is like that about Brussels sprouts.

[MicaelS]

109. Here's your argument turned right back upon you...

Why should the majority of a state who favor abortion being restricted and elect representatives who hold similar views, be at the mercy of those minority who want abortion to be legal?

If you don't like the abortion laws of the state where you live, you are free to move to a place that more "suits" you.

See how easy that was?

[friendly_iconoclast]

114. Hah! No one *ever* replies to that one. Or the analogy to Proposition 8 in California

Some people like to use the argument you just parodied, until someone else points out the logical conclusions to it...

[krispos42]

122. So if the majority of people are against same-sex marriage...?

Just wondering how far that logic extends.

[proteus_lives]

105. But you're ignorant and ill-informed.

Plus, why would be agree with people who are desperate to control others?

Our position is about choice. You are all about control and fear.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. I haven't been around violence my entire life? Do tell me more about my life.

[spin]

64. Perhaps he thought we would say that if everybody was packing heat ...

all crime would end.

If so, he badly underestimated our intelligence. That's not surprising.

[rrneck]

67. Or significantly overestimated his own. nt

[proteus_lives]

106. In this forum, the failboat is named S.S. Brady.

[HockeyMom]

92. Husband has CCW in Florida and his gun sits in closet because he is AFRAID

to carry it. I had long talk with him right now. Basically, he just got it because he "could". He doesn't even keep it in his car because he is afraid somebody will steal it. He doesn't keep it on his person, or in his car, because he is afraid if somebody at work finds out, he will be fired. For all the gun rights in this state, it is still a Right to Work State and you can be fired for no reason given. He works with about 20 people, none of whom own guns. He is afraid if the owners of the company find out, or somebody "snitches" on him, he will be fired and they don't have go give a reason why. When he meets ME at work, he cannot bring a gun onto school property. So WHEN is he supposed to carry this?

Pointless to get a CCW solely for the reason that you "can". Why bother? He isn't "protecting" himself or anybody else with this.

[Statistical]

94. That is his choice (although yet again you are misinformed on guns laws)

Nobody is advocating forcing people to carry firearms. He has the choice and chooses not to use that; that is fine by me. Nothing wrong with that.

Florida does protect his right to keep firearm in a locked car at work. So he could carry to both to (but not in) his place of employment. Maybe he (or you) isn't aware of that, maybe he just doesn't care. He doesn't have to exercise those right though.

Just because some don't exercise that right doesn't mean other should be denied the choice.

[HockeyMom]

95. Right to Work means they can fire you for no reason given

I am not "uninformed" as to that. They could give a bad review and the real reason being they don't want guns on premises. He works in a place very much anti gun. That is a fact. It is also a fact that you cannot bring a gun onto school property. So who is "uninformed"?

YOU people don't want to see.

[Statistical]

96. How would they know he had a firearm? They wouldn't unless he decided to tell them.

Still like I said he isn't required to carry. If he chooses not to that is his choice.

[HockeyMom]

97. He tried to get people at work to go shooting with him

They know he has guns and a CCW.

[ManiacJoe]

98. OK, so they know he possesses guns.

They ASSUME he keeps the guns at home. (Normally a safe assumption.) If he chooses to keep the gun in the car while at work (and tells no one), they will still assume the gun is at home. Not a problem.

[one-eyed fat man]

103. He and you both have choices.

You may or may not like them but you have them. He has the choice to keep a gun in his car or not. State law gives him some protection in that area. He has determined that the risk of it being stolen outweighs the benefit of having it locked in the car. He has made a choice.

His boss hates guns and you say the whole place is anti gun. You've been telling us that is precisely what you would choose for everyone if you were queen of the world. But, you say, he could get fired if they found out. Hell you've been calling for that for everyone else, why has it got your knickers in a twist now? Heck, if he's a middle-aged white guy there's even less reason to hire him, the Human Resources folks can't check him off against any quota for minorities, disadvantaged, at risk youth, female or nothing!

Right to work state or not, no one OWES you a job. Piss off the boss is the fast way to be shown the door, always has been. You exercise the same discretion every time you make a purchase. If the surly clerk at some store jerks your chain, you will walk out and buy whatever it is you want someplace else.

[Hoyt]

174. Maybe he actually cares about what other folks around him think/feel. Novel idea to some here.

[spin]

100. You need to read the actual Florida "Take Your Gun to Work" law ...

I'll just post an excerpt:

790.251 Protection of the right to keep and bear arms in motor vehicles for self-defense and other lawful purposes; prohibited acts; duty of public and private employers; immunity from liability; enforcement.--

***snip***


(4) PROHIBITED ACTS.--No public or private employer may violate the constitutional rights of any customer, employee, or invitee as provided in paragraphs (a)-(e):

(a) No public or private employer may prohibit any customer, employee, or invitee from possessing any legally owned firearm when such firearm is lawfully possessed and locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot and when the customer, employee, or invitee is lawfully in such area.

(b) No public or private employer may violate the privacy rights of a customer, employee, or invitee by verbal or written inquiry regarding the presence of a firearm inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot or by an actual search of a private motor vehicle in a parking lot to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle. Further, no public or private employer may take any action against a customer, employee, or invitee based upon verbal or written statements of any party concerning possession of a firearm stored inside a private motor vehicle in a parking lot for lawful purposes. A search of a private motor vehicle in the parking lot of a public or private employer to ascertain the presence of a firearm within the vehicle may only be conducted by on-duty law enforcement personnel, based upon due process and must comply with constitutional protections.

(c) No public or private employer shall condition employment upon either:

1. The fact that an employee or prospective employee holds or does not hold a license issued pursuant to s. 790.06; or

2. Any agreement by an employee or a prospective employee that prohibits an employee from keeping a legal firearm locked inside or locked to a private motor vehicle in a parking lot when such firearm is kept for lawful purposes.
emphasis added

The entire law may be reviewed at the official state site:

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?mode=View%20Statutes&SubMenu=1&App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=790.251&URL=CH0790/Sec251.HTM

It's your husband's choice if he carries or not and I'm sure he could be fired for other reasons if the boss wanted to fire him.

My advise, for what it's worth, is to keep the permit. If you go on a road trip, he can carry his firearm concealed. In case of a mechanical failure, you might find yourself stranded and a target for a predator. Obviously this is very unlikely.

You never know what might happen. My daughter attracted the attentions of a stalker, so she filed a restraining order. This did little to deter the stalking. My daughter felt that the man posed a significant risk but fortunately she has a concealed weapons permit and carries. The stalker was aware of this and attempted to have a judge revoke her permit. The judge refused. The situation has resolved itself because the stalker finally was arrested and spend several weekends in jail. The judge threatened a year in prison if he continued to harass my daughter.

If you have a permit, it's wise to keep it. It might also be wise to get a permit before you have a true need to carry. You can always leave the gun at home, there is no requirement to carry it.

Of course, I believe that if you have a permit you should carry. Why not? You invested time and money to obtain the license. Unless you have amazing psychic ability, you can never tell when it might save your life.

edited for spelling

[rrneck]

107. You and your husband can do whatever you please.

Nobody cares what you do. We all care what you have a right to do.

There is a question pending in post #89.

[Euromutt]

119. Are you familiar with the term "anecdotal evidence"?

"Anecdotal" doesn't mean something untrue (though it can be); it means that it has not been established that that particular bit of evidence is representative of a significant percentage of (let alone all) cases.

For every American combat veteran who was demobilized and decided never to touch a gun again, there's at least one other who bought a rifle similar or identical to what he carried in combat (e.g. an M1 Garand) and used it to go hunting. For every CCW permit holder who leaves his handgun locked in its case in a closet, there's at least one (such as myself) who carries it almost every time he leaves the house. For every person who has been the victim of, or a witness to, a criminal use of a firearm, there's at least one person who's used a firearm to repel an assailant.

I have no reason to believe that anything you've told us in various threads about your and your relatives' experiences with firearms are untrue, but that does not make them representative of everybody's experiences.

[Xenotime]

110. That's usually how they spin it.

:hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide: :hide:

[spin]

113. Did you bother to read the replies to the OP ...

I get the opinion that most of the gun owners here feel that the answer to the question, "So, do the Gun "Enthusiasts" here contend that Violent Crime rates will continue to go lower because we have more people carrying concealed?" is FALSE.

People who carry concealed are not police. They don't investigate crimes or arrest people. They don't go looking for trouble. They just carry a weapon concealed in case they are the victim of a violent attack. Since such incidents do happen, they are not excessively paranoid.

[one-eyed fat man]

116. There is a tradition to uphold

She misses no opportunity to remind us all of the Nirvhanna she left behind in New York city when her troglodyte husband took employment in FloriDUH.

Of course it was the civic mindedness of New Yorkers that put "I didn't want to get involved," into the American lexicon.

Kitty Genovese, was a New York City woman who was stabbed to death within 100 feet her front door in Queens, New York on March 13, 1964. At least 38 individuals nearby apartments had heard or observed portions of the attack, which lasted over half an hour. One was quoted as having to turn up the volume on his TV to drown out the screaming. To New Yorkers' everlasting shame, the story crystallized around a quote from the article, from an unidentified neighbor who saw part of the attack but deliberated, before finally getting another neighbor to call the police, saying "I didn't want to get involved."

According to The New York Times, in an article dated December 28, 1974, ten years after the murder, 25-year-old Sandra Zahler was beaten to death early Christmas morning in an apartment of the building which overlooked the site of the Genovese attack. Neighbors again said they heard screams and "fierce struggles" but did nothing.

Then there is the "wilding", April 19, 1989, a slightly-built 28-year-old investment banker was violently assaulted while jogging in New York City's Central Park. She was raped and beaten almost to death. When found about four hours later, she was suffering from severe hypothermia and blood loss from multiple lacerations and internal bleeding, and her skull had been fractured so badly that her left eye was removed from the socket. The initial medical prognosis was that she would die or, at best, remain in a permanent coma due to her injuries.

Again, the "good citizens" of New York responded with their usual aplomb. The attack wasn't directed at them so "no reason to get involved." The crime was only one of 3,254 rapes reported in New York City that year why ruin your day in the park by calling the cops over it.

Now that there are security cameras we get videos of folks stepping over the body of dying people, some occasionally stopping to snap a picture of the dying man with their cell phone (but not bothering to call the cops) to the real jewel of humanity, the turd who rifles the dead man's pockets and takes his wallet.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Weekend/dying-homeless-man-stopped-mugging-sidewalk/story?id=10471047

[Euromutt]

118. A truly astounding display of closed-mindedness!

Congratulations, you've just proved that it doesn't matter if just about every response in an entire thread says "no, more guns does not mean less crime," you will (claim to) believe that everybody just said the contrary. I'd be tempted to conclude you're either lying or delusional, but the most likely explanation to my mind is that you simply refuse to absorb information that contradicts your beliefs, and you just ignored all the responses.

Mind you, that's a kind of dishonesty unto itself.

[derby378]

117. They're dropping in Dallas...

Our violent crime rates have been dropping dramatically. Right now, the only things that could threaten the downward turn are cutting law enforcement resources and not fixing the local job market.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

126. no.

:shrug:

[Euromutt]

129. Short answer: no

No, more people carrying concealed will almost certainly not reduce violent crime rates. As others have said in this thread, crime has a myriad of causes, any one of which will not necessarily influence the others (which is why fighting crime is such a tricky business).

What is abundantly clear is that more people carrying concealed has not resulted in an increase in violent crime. And while it may not have caused a decrease in the number of incidents of violent crime, it does provide prospective victims with a highly effective means of preventing an attempted violent crime from becoming a completed one. That may not matter a lot to society in general, but it can matter a whole lot to the person who wasn't physically, materially and/or emotionally harmed.

[Pullo]

135. If the data tells us liberal CCW laws have no negative impact on society .....

..... then there is no logical basis to oppose shall-issue CCW statutes. Period. Deference goes to the individual in such cases.

[SteveM]

140. no.nt

[pipoman]

143. You got some answering to do since yoiu lost every point you tried to make

in this thread.

[tourivers83]

145. Carjacking attempts.

What canceled carry may well do is lower the number of carjacking attempts that occur. If some senior citizen in a nice car stops for a red light and a couple of young thugs take a liking to his car the thought that he may have a .38 special stuck in his belt may prevent a crime from even happening. :hide:

[cleanhippie]

149. Real nice.

Just when this travesty of a thread was all but buried........

[benEzra]

151. I'm not making any causality arguments here, but violent crime *DID* drop again in 2009.

http://www.fbi.gov/page2/september10/crime_091310.html


Discussion here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x339309

[cleanhippie]

152. You stop using those facts right now. This does not conform to the message!

[friendly_iconoclast]

158. But it's fun to go back and search for those who said "More guns = more crime"!

If they are so foolish as to post here again, the resulting bactracking and attempts at CYA revisionism are at a minimum amusing and

can be somewhat illustrative of the Prohibitionist mindset....

[safeinOhio]

153. The drop in teenage

cocaine use has also dropped again. A steady decrease in cocaine use from the mid 80s may also be responsible for drop in violent crime. I don't think the drop in gang killings has much to do with CCWs. Also the increase of the number of US citizens now in jail may add to the decrease. Lots of reasons, none stand alone.

[PavePusher]

154. The entire point is that an increase in the number of guns in Citizens possesion...

has demonstratably NOT caused an increase in crime rates.

[benEzra]

155. Agreed. It does show that huge increases in carry licensure and lawful "assault weapon" ownership

are not correlated with violent crime, though. If you notice, rifle homicide in 2009 dropped *again* and is now at or near historic lows.

[rrneck]

156. I wonder.

How many of those who got new CHL's had already been carrying a concealed firearm all along but finally decided to do the paperwork and how many were actually new gun owners? Also, I wonder how many had been gun owners all along but decided to start carrying? I wouldn't even know how to begin to find out.

[mjane]

157. I'm not a gun enthusiast. I am a right to carry enthusiast

Similarly, I am not an abortion enthusiast. I am a pro-choice enthusiast.

[SteveM]

159. Just checking in. The FBI figures are out. What do you think? nt

[DWC]

162. I am a "Don't Be A Victim" enthusiasts

The ability to defend one's self is simply basic common sense. In order to accomplish this, one must have sufficient force to equal or exceed any potential violent threat. Fire arms are often referred to as "The Great Equalizer" because they do provide anyone with sufficient force to equal or exceed any potential violent threat.

Violent criminals are predators and like any predator in Nature, tend to prey on individuals perceived to be weaker and incapable to fight back. An individual armed and trained in the proper use of their weapon is definitely capable of fighting back and avoiding victim status.

IMO, more guns in the right civilian hands is directly related to lower violent crime rates.

[lawodevolution]

163. there're a lot of psychological factors involved

I'd say the media and the stories pass along by word of mouth reach the ears of criminals which make them think of changing to a less dangerous job.

[S_B_Jackson]

168. I contend that legalized Concealed Carry DOES NOT INCREASE violent crime rates

Nor does it increase the danger to the general public.

Therefore, if a law abiding citizen with no history of criminal activity and no adjudicated mental issues feels that it is in their best interest to carry a firearm with them for their protection, that the state should not impede their ability to do so beyond a reasonable requirement to demonstrate that they can do so without endangering others.

What other countries do is for them to decide.

[Bold Lib]

173. Well, the OP is not going to dispute you on that.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=217544

[Hoyt]

175. Loughner would agree with that.

[aikoaiko]

170. So, do the anti-gun "enthusiasts" here contend that the promised blood in the streets will ....

continue to not happen because invisible angels are protecting us?

[Bold Lib]

172. You're not very likely to get a response from the OP.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=217544

[aikoaiko]

176. Thank you. That cheered me up.

:hi: