[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by Roar

Thank you very much for comparing me with those guys.

I never said anything about you personally. I merely illustrated what can happen when the rhetoric of "for the good of the community" can lead to. People easily embrace that sort of thinking until it is they or their loved ones that are to be sacrificed for the "greater good."

Andrew

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by PonchoV8

On the flip side, I've met or seen some of the biggest buttholes in the world at gun shows where they just rent a table and set up. There's an element attracted to firearms (dealers and private peddlers) that are THE people you don't want to know in private life. They're arrogant, sometimes criminal and big mouthed. Try to talk to them about a gun trade and they start raising their voice and telling you how they're so this and that and their product is so special it deserves the price. Okay, keep it then. I keep looking for a deal I'm comfortable with

I know for certain one of the gun show dealers here paid someone to shoot up his ex-wife's house and he didn't care if her kids were inside.

You just described sellers of just about everything you can imagine. Haven't you been to a swap meet that has sellers with the same mentality? That's just the nature of selling, not necessarily of gun shows specifically.

As for the alleged act by the gun dealer, if it is true, then he is just a criminal, and not at all the kind of person I am referring to.

Andrew

[moto-d]

It really boils down to this: Many people who already believe in the benefits of concealed carry will find the evidence they need to vindicate their position in this Kroger example.

Likewise, those who do not believe in the benefits of concealed carry will find the evidence they need to vindicate their position in these examples: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/05-1

In short, I doubt anyone's mind will be changed from their current position, no matter which position they've taken, because their are cases to be made on both sides.

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by sleepy

No answer NytWyt?.

call me by my name and youll get one,this isnt in the CH YET,of course in your defense,sometimes its hard to separate such a well honed persona

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

call me by my name and youll get one,this isnt in the CH YET,of course in your defense,sometimes its hard to separate such a well honed persona

You didn't respond long before that. What is the answer?

[Elarson]

Originally Posted by moto-d

.

Likewise, those who do not believe in the benefits of concealed carry will find the evidence they need to vindicate their position in these examples: http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/07/05-1

.

Interesting article. Taking their facts at face value and crunching the math, you have 216 incidents in 31 states over a 4 year peiod. This boils down to 1.74 incidents per state per year.

For illustration, compare this to the number of people who have CCW permits in Ohio (246,760 as of the end of 2010). 1.74 incidents per year divided by 246,760 permit holders equals a failure rate of .0007%. This seems like an incredibly small percentage. I'm not sure I could name another human endeavor that has a failure rate so small.

FWIW,
Eric

[moto-d]

I would ask, has a smoke detector ever caused a fire? Has an insurance policy ever caused an accident? Because guns HAVE killed innocent people, so the analogy's a poor one.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Elarson

Interesting article. Taking their facts at face value and crunching the math, you have 216 incidents in 31 states over a 4 year peiod. This boils down to 1.74 incidents per state per year.

For illustration, compare this to the number of people who have CCW permits in Ohio (246,760 as of the end of 2010). 1.74 incidents per year divided by 246,760 permit holders equals a failure rate of .0007%. This seems like an incredibly small percentage. I'm not sure I could name another human endeavor that has a failure rate so small.

FWIW,
Eric

On average, yes, but a true measure of the merit of one position vs another would be to compare the failure rates vs. the success rates ... success defined by how many positive incidents could be attributed to CCW, compared to the .0007% failure rate. What if it were smaller?

And of course there's always the non-statistical impacts as well.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by moto-d

I would ask, has a smoke detector ever caused a fire? Has an insurance policy ever caused an accident? Because guns HAVE killed innocent people, so the analogy's a poor one.

No, PEOPLE have killed people, Bad behavior and stupidity have killed people. Have you ever seen a gun start shooting at people by itself? It takes a person to fire a gun at another, Guns don't do it on their own.
And SOME hard wired smoke detectors HAVE shorted out started fires. ANYTHING electric CAN start a fire if it shorts out.

What is the purpose of having insurance, fire, police department?
Answer. JUST IN CASE.

[Elarson]

People have been killed by:

pencils
baseball bats
anti-freeze
clothesline
hammers
butter knives
rocks
cars
and on and on....

These are all items that are good for society in the hands of a responsible person and dangerous in the hands of a criminal. It's all about the operator.

Eric

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by sleepy

No, PEOPLE have killed people, Bad behavior and stupidity have killed people. Have you ever seen a gun start shooting at people by itself? It takes a person to fire a gun at another, Guns don't do it on their own.

True, but they've done it with an instrument created with the sole purpose of taking life at worst, and injuring at best. Sure, pencils can be used to kill; but they're actually designed for writing. When a person kills with a gun, they're using that gun exactly as it was intended. You hope it's for a good cause, and you hope it's not accidental, but there are no guarantees, as my link shows.

[Elarson]

Originally Posted by moto-d

On average, yes, but a true measure of the merit of one position vs another would be to compare the failure rates vs. the success rates ... success defined by how many positive incidents could be attributed to CCW, compared to the .0007% failure rate. What if it were smaller?

And of course there's always the non-statistical impacts as well.

The non-statistical impact is that crime is lower in CCW states because the criminals have an element of fear (of a level playing field) that serves as a deterrent. Think of it from their side: If you decided to be a mugger, would it make sense for you to ply your trade in Dayton, OH where your intended victim might shoot you...or in Chicago where your victims are unarmed? It's a simple business decision.

Eric

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Elarson

The non-statistical impact is that crime is lower in CCW states because the criminals have an element of fear (of a level playing field) that serves as a deterrent. Think of it from their side: If you decided to be a mugger, would it make sense for you to ply your trade in Dayton, OH where your intended victim might shoot you...or in Chicago where your victims are unarmed? It's a simple business decision.

Eric

That's one argument, Eric, though I haven't seen the data comparing non-CCW states to CCW states. Could be why, if your claims are correct.

By non-statistical, I was meaning the direct impact of losing a family member to a statistically acceptable "failure rate."

In any case, the idea that "guns save lives" has a flaw in it, as these 216 examples show, acceptable statistically or not. Same goes for the other argument, as this Kroger example would indicate.

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by moto-d

True, but they've done it with an instrument created with the sole purpose of taking life at worst, and injuring at best. Sure, pencils can be used to kill; but they're actually designed for writing. When a person kills with a gun, they're using that gun exactly as it was intended. You hope it's for a good cause, and you hope it's not accidental, but there are no guarantees, as my link shows.

Your link also proves you have more of a chance of injury or death by taking prescribed medicine than being killed by a CCW holder. Just look at all the"if you've taken this drug and this happened call the law office of" commercials all day long on TV.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by sleepy

No, PEOPLE have killed people, Bad behavior and stupidity have killed people. Have you ever seen a gun start shooting at people by itself? It takes a person to fire a gun at another, Guns don't do it on their own.
And SOME hard wired smoke detectors HAVE shorted out started fires. ANYTHING electric CAN start a fire if it shorts out.

What is the purpose of having insurance, fire, police department?
Answer. JUST IN CASE.

Protection, of course. My argument is that insurance protects without any possibility of accidentally killing your daughter with it. Same with police and fire protection. That's not to say a gun can't protect and that guns are bad. It's just to argue that the analogy isn't without a big ol' flaw.

And yes, I suppose a fire detector can short out. But it's not MEANT to short out, it just doe sometimes. Guns, on the other hand, are meant to shoot at anything in front of them, good, bad, cat, dog, family member, bad guy. My link provides 216 examples of documents failure. Maybe there's 216 examples of success, hell I don't know.

[Elarson]

Originally Posted by moto-d

That's one argument, Eric, though I haven't seen the data comparing non-CCW states to CCW states. Could be why, if your claims are correct.

By non-statistical, I was meaning the direct impact of losing a family member to a statistically acceptable "failure rate."

In any case, the idea that "guns save lives" has a flaw in it, as these 216 examples show, acceptable statistically or not. Same goes for the other argument, as this Kroger example would indicate.

My point would be that there are many other things that we do evey day (getting in a car for instance) that pose a dramatically higher risk to our safety that a wayward CCW holder.

Everyone is free to make their own choice. Knowing that the criminals have guns regardless of the laws, I personally enjoy the feel of a level playing field. Does carrying a gun make me invincible? No...far from it. But if I don't have a gun, the armed criminal is 100% in control of my safety and that of my family. I cannot accept that when there is a solution.

Eric

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by sleepy

Your link also proves you have more of a chance of injury or death by taking prescribed medicine than being killed by a CCW holder. Just look at all the"if you've taken this drug and this happened call the law office of" commercials all day long on TV.

It does?

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Elarson

My point would be that there are many other things that we do evey day (getting in a car for instance) that pose a dramatically higher risk to our safety that a wayward CCW holder.

Eric

I wouldn't deny that. My sole argument from my first posting is that everyone is going to find the anecdote or statistic that proves their case about CCW. Hard to argue about the feeling of security it may provide an individual such as yourself ... it it does, it does. Just don't make it 217!

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by Roar

Well in USA its to late to ban GUNs , the whole country is allready full of it.

The sad truth about weapons is that actually there are more people killed by accident with guns (read children). This shuld be easy to fix if the owners learnt to keep them in a safe place where the children cant reach them.

Personally I dont mind if the bad guys get a bullet in their head. We had a tragedy here in Norway in July with a person going crazy, there it should have been someone with a tanks or something and flatten him to the ground.

You're "sadly" wrong.You must be getting your statistics from a liberal.

And how about this-If just one person was carrying a gun they could have KILLED HIM and saved all those lives.

[geeteeohguy]

Saw a bumper sticker at a gun show years back...it read "My guns have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's car". I thought it was perfect. My liberal father was mortified! Still, it was true. Guns don't kill people....people kill people.