[moto-d]

And I'm not "anti-gun", as you can see from my posts.

[bonneville Joe]

Originally Posted by Region Warrior

Another with criminal past and outstanding warrant.
Notice this?
Bringing handguns onto company premises violates State and Federal law

I don't know about Indiana, but in South Carolina unless the business itself has a no CCW or CWP policy it's fair game. If I or any of my employees carry in my business with my permission and someone commits a crime where lethal force is required it's on like donkey kong. It's called the Castle Doctrine. You have a right to defend yourself and your property on any privately owned property as long as you have permission to do so.

[Ron]

Convicted by a jury of his peers. Sentence carried out.

[hurryinhoosier62]

moto-d,

If you think Brown Deer is scary, let me take you on a drive up James Lovell Ave north
past the Bradley Center to N. 6th Ave. You'll be crawling into the trunk after about three blocks!!

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

moto-d,

If you think Brown Deer is scary, let me take you on a drive up James Lovell Ave north
past the Bradley Center to N. 6th Ave. You'll be crawling into the trunk after about three blocks!!

Pass ... unless you agree to let me take you for a spin down Capitol to N. 60th on the northwest side, where the old Capitol Court Mall used to be. You could be black and you'd look white!!!!!!

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by moto-d

Hemenway, David (December 31, 1998). "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws / Making A Killing: The business of guns in America". The New England Journal of Medicine 339 (27): 2029–30.

Ayres, Ian; John J. Donohue III (April 2003). "Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis". Stanford Law Review 55 (4): 1193. doi:10.2139/ssrn.343781.

Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

NAS, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) Executive Summary, Major Conclusions, page 2. Chapter 6 Right-to-Carry Laws, pages 120-151, reviews research by Lott and others on this issue.

Thank you for the cites. The Ayres paper can be downloaded through google scholar if anyone cares. I am trying to download the Hemenway NEJOM article, but the library system seems to be down.

As for academia in general having a leaning more towards the Progressive (aka socialist) agenda, that is no conspiracy, that is just fact of life. Also note that it really is improper to call Progressives Liberals. Unfortunately the word "liberal" has been tragically distorted in meaning and I resent that fact. Liberal comes from the word Liberty, and Liberal ideas are what this country was built on. However, during the FDR presidency, which was anything but liberal, certain policies were labeled as "liberal" and thus the whole meaning of the word got twisted around and perverted.

So real Liberals must now call themselves either Classic Liberals or another unclear term, Libertarian, but I digress...

Since we this thread has turned more in the direction of crime reduction, the simplest way to accomplish that is to legalize drugs. Unfortunately, the Protestant roots of this nation run deep and people love to legislate what others can or cannot put in their bodies.

Andrew

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by andrewb70

Thank you for the cites. The Ayres paper can be downloaded through google scholar if anyone cares. I am trying to download the Hemenway NEJOM article, but the library system seems to be down.

As for academia in general having a leaning more towards the Progressive (aka socialist) agenda, that is no conspiracy, that is just fact of life. Also note that it really is improper to call Progressives Liberals. Unfortunately the word "liberal" has been tragically distorted in meaning and I resent that fact. Liberal comes from the word Liberty, and Liberal ideas are what this country was built on. However, during the FDR presidency, which was anything but liberal, certain policies were labeled as "liberal" and thus the whole meaning of the word got twisted around and perverted.

So real Liberals must now call themselves either Classic Liberals or another unclear term, Libertarian, but I digress...

Since we this thread has turned more in the direction of crime reduction, the simplest way to accomplish that is to legalize drugs. Unfortunately, the Protestant roots of this nation run deep and people love to legislate what others can or cannot put in their bodies.

Andrew

No problem, Andrew, glad to provide. I'm afraid you and I will have to agree to disagree on Progressives being socialists, as there are simply too many millionaire Progressives who achieved their wealth through capitalism -- the antithesis of socialism.

As a nation, we were founded on classical liberalism, so you're right, the term has come to mean something else. What you refer to as a "socialist" in the US is more akin to social liberalism, a belief in a greater role for the state than classical free-market (John Locke) liberals would believe in. Roosevelt was certainly a social liberal, and being the scion of a family who made millions from privately owned enterprises, could not legitimately be called a socialist.

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by moto-d

No problem, Andrew, glad to provide. I'm afraid you and I will have to agree to disagree on Progressives being socialists, as there are simply too many millionaire Progressives who achieved their wealth through capitalism -- the antithesis of socialism.

As a nation, we were founded on classical liberalism, so you're right, the term has come to mean something else. What you refer to as a "socialist" in the US is more akin to social liberalism, a belief in a greater role for the state than classical free-market (John Locke) liberals would believe in. Roosevelt was certainly a social liberal, and being the scion of a family who made millions from privately owned enterprises, could not legitimately be called a socialist.

We are getting way off the thread here, but that may be OK. The various labels can definitely be confusing. You are right, there are definitely many Progressives that have attained wealth through private enterprise, however, I would not agree that it was anything that resembled true, free market capitalism. It is more akin to corporatism where corporate interests gain advantage through government interventions that favor their particular company or more often a particular industry. That is largely what has been happening in America over the last century, give or take...

Progressive is actually a good label for socialist, because the term is derived from Marx. Marx believe that it is the natural progress of society to move from Feudalism, to Capitalism, to Socialism, to Communism, hence the term Progressive...

For me the term Social Liberal is an oxymoron because socialist doctrine is violent in nature and very much against liberty.

Andrew

[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by moto-d

My theory, on the other hand, is that an armed robber sees a guy with a gun strapped to his waist, says to himself "holy s***" and moves on.

I guess my experience living in LA gives me a different perspective of gang bangers and criminals using guns. You must be really naive.

You make your choice and you live or die with the results.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

I guess my experience living in LA gives me a different perspective of gang bangers and criminals using guns. You must be really naive.

You make your choice and you live or die with the results.

I don't think I'm naive because I don't base my beliefs on what does or doesn't happen in LA, I think I'm sane because I don't base my beliefs on what does or doesn't happen in LA, seeing as how I live several thousand miles away.

[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by moto-d

That's a nice soundbite, but do you have evidence of that? Because I could make the same claim with every bit of evidence you choose to provide to me.

In any case, the idea that "guns save lives" has a flaw in it, as these 216 examples show, acceptable statistically or not.

I don't think I'm naive because I don't base my beliefs on what does or doesn't happen in LA, I think I'm sane because I don't base my beliefs on what does or doesn't happen in LA, seeing as how I live several thousand miles away.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

Your reference New England Journal of Medicine to support your position.
The most prestigious medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which claims openness to contrary views, is not immune to bias in this area. In fact, it is one of the most anti-gun publications in medical journalism. The NEJM routinely excludes articles that dissent from its well-known, strident, and inflexible position of gun-control advocacy. Editors have come and gone, but the governing board has made sure that the anti-gun position remains unaltered.

However Gun Control Science Misfires
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html

The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...f-gun-control/

You are naive, IMO, because you have not done the research and reading on this subject and have formed and posted conclusions or your opinions on the subject from your perspective. I stated my experience relating to why I have formed my opinions and and reasons for choosing to have a CCW and go armed. Your choice on what you do is your business, of which I do not care what you choose to do.

The Experts on this subject I have talked to seem to have a different opinion they what you have suggested in your posts. So I will continue to believe what I do and leave your actions to your choices.

Have a nice day.

[67_Krewzer]

..Okla. Woman Shoots, Kills Intruder: 911 Operators Say It's Okay to Shoot

By KEVIN DOLAK and RYAN OWENS | Good Morning America – 9 hrs ago.

A young Oklahoma mother shot and killed an intruder to protect her 3-month-old baby on New Year's Eve, less than a week after the baby's father died of cancer.

Sarah McKinley says that a week earlier a man named Justin Martin dropped by on the day of her husband's funeral, claiming that he was a neighbor who wanted to say hello. The 18-year-old Oklahoma City area woman did not let him into her home that day.

On New Year's Eve Martin returned with another man, Dustin Stewart, and this time was armed with a 12-inch hunting knife. The two soon began trying to break into McKinley's home.

As one of the men was going from door to door outside her home trying to gain entry, McKinley called 911 and grabbed her 12-gauge shotgun.

McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO that she quickly got her 12 gauge, went into her bedroom and got a pistol, put the bottle in the baby's mouth and called 911.

"I've got two guns in my hand -- is it okay to shoot him if he comes in this door?" the young mother asked the 911 dispatcher. "I'm here by myself with my infant baby, can I please get a dispatcher out here immediately?"

The 911 dispatcher confirmed with McKinley that the doors to her home were locked as she asked again if it was okay to shoot the intruder if he were to come through her door.

"I can't tell you that you can do that but you do what you have to do to protect your baby," the dispatcher told her. McKinley was on the phone with 911 for a total of 21 minutes.

When Martin kicked in the door and came after her with the knife, the teen mom shot and killed the 24-year-old. Police are calling the shooting justified.

"You're allowed to shoot an unauthorized person that is in your home. The law provides you the remedy, and sanctions the use of deadly force," Det. Dan Huff of the Blanchard police said.

Stewart soon turned himself in to police.

McKinley said that she was at home alone with her newborn that night because her husband just died of cancer on Christmas Day.

"I wouldn't have done it, but it was my son," McKinley told ABC News Oklahoma City affiliate KOCO. "It's not an easy decision to make, but it was either going to be him or my son. And it wasn't going to be my son. There's nothing more dangerous than a woman with a child."

She needed the 12 gauge and a pistol?

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

Your reference New England Journal of Medicine to support your position.
The most prestigious medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which claims openness to contrary views, is not immune to bias in this area. In fact, it is one of the most anti-gun publications in medical journalism. The NEJM routinely excludes articles that dissent from its well-known, strident, and inflexible position of gun-control advocacy. Editors have come and gone, but the governing board has made sure that the anti-gun position remains unaltered.

However Gun Control Science Misfires
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,7217,00.html

The Tainted Public-Health Model of Gun Control

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feat...f-gun-control/

You are naive, IMO, because you have not done the research and reading on this subject and have formed and posted conclusions or your opinions on the subject from your perspective. I stated my experience relating to why I have formed my opinions and and reasons for choosing to have a CCW and go armed. Your choice on what you do is your business, of which I do not care what you choose to do.

The Experts on this subject I have talked to seem to have a different opinion they what you have suggested in your posts. So I will continue to believe what I do and leave your actions to your choices.

Have a nice day.

Again, you advocate for CCW and go to all the trouble of posting stats regarding the defensive benefits of guns in general -- not ONE of which is a defense of CCW. So back to square one" why is CCW preferable to open carry as a defensive measure? I've posted a link to some of its failures, which you can accept or ignore at your pleasure. Post some CCW stats of success, and you'll have made your point. You even provide a statement to the effect that "the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot" to intimidate an attacker. The first part supports open carry, and the second could as easily take place with open carry as it does CCW. You may have done some research, but it all seems focused on the right to own a firearm, which I've never denied. Go back to square one, and provide some CCW stats. Then you may have a case.

[Elarson]

I can answer that. If a person open carries, the would-be attacker is aware and if he/she decides to go ahead with their attack, you do not have the element of surprise anymore. They can fashion their surprise attack to neutralize your ability to draw your weapon (such as grab your strong side arm from behind, shoot you in the back of the head, etc.)

If, on the other hand, you are carrying concealed, the would-be attacker does not have a pre-conceived plan for neutralizing your defense and you are on the desired "level playing field".

The fact that CCW is possible in a given locale still serves as a deterrent to some attackers. And of course, open carry is a deterrent to some attackers also.

Eric

[Gulliver]

Yesterday in USA TODAY /Jan 02, 2012

Record gun checks, sales for Christmas

By Michael Winter, USA TODAY


Along with millions of Kindles, Angry Birds and gift cards, Santa left a record number of guns under Americans' Christmas trees, especially in Kentucky, according to FBI statistics on background checks.

In the six days before Christmas, gun dealers submitted nearly half-a-million names for checks on criminal records and mental health issues, with 20% coming Dec. 23, according to news reports. That was the second-busiest gun-buying day in history, topped only by firearm purchases on Black Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, The London Telegraph says.

Final tallies for the entire month haven't been released, but December gun purchases will eclipse November. As of last week, 1,534,414 names had been sent to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, The New York Times reported in an editorial. About 1% of buyers are typically rejected, the paper said.

The FBI cautions there is not a one-to-one correlation between background checks and the number of guns sold because of "varying state laws and purchase scenarios." Many customers bought multiple weapons. Exact sales are neither reported nor recorded.

For the first 11 months of 2011, the FBI did a record 14.6 million checks, an increase of more than 70% from the 8.5 million in 2003. Kentucky led the nation, with more than 2 million background checks conducted through November, double the No. 2 gun-check state, Texas. The Bluegrass State, with a population of about 4.3 million, has been tops in background checks the past five years and has the most checks of any state since 1998 -- more than 12.6 million (pdf).

Here's the FBI's state-by-state breakdown through November (pdf).

The background checks were instituted with passage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993.

Why the growing popularity of guns?

The National Rifle Association told the Telegraph that in the face of police budget cuts and layoffs, Americans were concerned about self-defense. The NRA told CBS News that sport shooting is more popular.

Gun dealers cite fear of crime tied to a bad economy, expanded concealed-carry laws or the fear that the federal government will either restrict ownership or confiscate firearms.

"There are a lot of people concerned about pending gun legislation and the sense about the current administration. People think future availability will be limited, and there's a feeling of get it while you can," Dave LaRue of Legendary Guns in Phoenix told the Telegraph, noting that sales were up 25% from last Christmas.

There are similar stories in Ohio and New Mexico, according to news reports.

"The first-time gun buyers are the ones worried about someone breaking into their home," dealer Jeff Miller told The Dayton Daily News. "People (who already own guns) are kind of hoarding a little."

Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association, cited several reasons, including "relaxed conceal-and-carry laws in Ohio, more women learning about guns and the pro-gun message resonating," the Daily News writes.

"Owning a gun for self-defense is like owning a fire extinguisher or smoke detectors for safety," Irvine said. "All of the fears about all of the nonsense about guns, they're really myths that are falling by the wayside."

Gun control advocates note that fear about crime appears to be greater than actual crime, which FBI statistics show has been declining. They accuse the NRA of fear-mongering.

"It's a false sense of security, but they might go purchase a gun," said Toby Hoover, executive director of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. "I'm bothered by, especially at the holiday time, how many people think that these things ought to be holiday gifts, Christmas gifts for their families and their children. We're seeing more of that, which means it's becoming sort of an accepted thing. Firearms and weapons don't seem to go with holidays and peacefulness to me. I think we have a problem."

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Elarson

I can answer that. If a person open carries, the would-be attacker is aware and if he/she decides to go ahead with their attack, you do not have the element of surprise anymore. They can fashion their surprise attack to neutralize your ability to draw your weapon (such as grab your strong side arm from behind, shoot you in the back of the head, etc.)

If, on the other hand, you are carrying concealed, the would-be attacker does not have a pre-conceived plan for neutralizing your defense and you are on the desired "level playing field".

The fact that CCW is possible in a given locale still serves as a deterrent to some attackers. And of course, open carry is a deterrent to some attackers also.

Eric

Kinda of a lot of "ifs" in that statement, so here's one of my own: if an attacker sees you're armed and knows it, they are less likely to "go ahead with their attack" as you say, and move on ... kinda like when a car thief sees a Club on your steering wheel: of course they can remove it, but why bother? Too many other cars without.

Unless you're looking to start a gun battle, it seems to me a gun in plain sight is more of a deterrent than a hidden gun to a rationale, calculating shooter who's going to look for easier pickings. If the guy's absolutely bonkers, on the other hand, and dead set on a shootout, what's the difference if he can't see your gun? JMO.

[moto-d]

It strikes me one of two ways:

If you want to avoid an attack, you're better off letting the attacker know you've got talons, too -- maybe even bigger ones.

If you actually don't mind getting into a gunfight and an attacker thinks you're just another helpless easy-pickings chump, go with CCW and try to out-draw him/her.

[Elarson]

Well, it's kind of an academic debate for us in Ohio. Open carry is legal, but 100% guaranteed that someone who is scared of guns will call the police and you'll be in trouble for inciting panic. Even though it is legal and you could make a legitimate argument for "displaying talons" (as you colorfully describe), it is just not a viable solution....here.

Here in Ohio, CCW or non-carry are the only 2 practical choices. I suspect the same could be said for the majority of CCW states. ONly a few states have a comfortable environment for open carry (Alaska, Arizona, Texas.....I have been lead to believe.)

Eric

[moto-d]

Not wanting to scare the bejeebers out of non-gun people is probably the best argument I've heard here yet for CCW in places other than shoot-em-up states like Texas, Arizona and Alaska. Possibly the only one yet that passes the smell test.

[Elarson]

More clarification of CCW:

Liberal fantasy: every CCW holder is a wannabe gunslinger who is itchin' for a shootout.

Real life: CCW is one part of an overall self-defense strategy. The primary approach is situational awareness and avoidance of dangerous situations and people. The gun is only a comforting backup plan if the law-abiding citizen is cornered and has no other choice.

I don't know all 245,000 CCW people in Ohio and I can't cite any statistical data, but none that I've met WANT a confrontation. All that I know prefer to have a gun but move about quietly in society without it being a center of attention.

Eric