[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

moto-d,

ALL the sources you cite are PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.

Moto-d, I guess if you quote the Liberal, anti-gun crowd you must be one of them. The New England Journal of Medicine has long be anti-gun and lacks any credibility relating to gun issues or facts.
I recommend you read: Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

In addition to England removing firearms from civilian ownership and crime rates rising Australia also made this fatal mistake and crime soared. I guess this is also a coincidence? Strange that the cities with the most gun control laws also have the highest crime rates, vs. those with less gun control have lower crime rates.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that criminals fear armed citizens more then the police. "Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)."

Interviews with prisoners have confirmed they fear an armed citizen and will select a victim that is less likely to shoot them.

You appear typical of those that prefer to be sheep rather then sheep dogs, against the wolves that prey on the sheep. Good Luck on relying on 911 to save or protect you in an emergency.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

Moto-d, I guess if you quote the Liberal, anti-gun crowd you must be one of them. The New England Journal of Medicine has long be anti-gun and lacks any credibility relating to gun issues or facts.
I recommend you read: Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
http://gunowners.org/sk0802.htm

In addition to England removing firearms from civilian ownership and crime rates rising Australia also made this fatal mistake and crime soared. I guess this is also a coincidence? Strange that the cities with the most gun control laws also have the highest crime rates, vs. those with less gun control have lower crime rates.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that criminals fear armed citizens more then the police. "Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)."

Interviews with prisoners have confirmed they fear an armed citizen and will select a victim that is less likely to shoot them.

You appear typical of those that prefer to be sheep rather then sheep dogs, against the wolves that prey on the sheep. Good Luck on relying on 911 to save or protect you in an emergency.

Same goes, asking for sources and then tarring those sources is a logical fallacy. The case made by many is that CCW doesn't prevent any more crime than open carry does. This ranger that was shot in Washington the other day ... she was armed. And she is dead.

I was raised in northeast Wisconsin, near the border of Michigan's UP, and was raised in a culture of guns. I've been whitetail and bird-hunting since I was fourteen -- OOOPS, a liberal who pulls a trigger? Yeah, I just don't to swagger around with one in public.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

You appear typical of those that prefer to be sheep rather then sheep dogs, against the wolves that prey on the sheep. Good Luck on relying on 911 to save or protect you in an emergency.

Uh-huh. Guess what? I've lived 50 years so far without carrying a gun in my belt. So has everyone else I personally know, to a varying number of years You need a gun on your person for protection, go for it. Just don't shoot yourself in the toe.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

moto-d,

ALL the sources you cite are PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS. Are you a PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL?
Let's look at Great Britain, shall we? Firearm ownership is severely restricted.Great Britain now has the HIGHEST violent crime rate in Western Europe. Coincidence? Every home in Switzerland has a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon in it (as long as militia member lives there),yet has one of the LOWEST violent crime rates in the world. Coincidence?
You're starting to sound like a certain individual that used to "rabble-rouse" around Racine. His name is Alex Karas (no relation to the famous football player/actor). He used to scream that Wisconsin would turn into a "shooting gallery" if CCW was approved by the state legislature. Well, it's been approved. Has Wisconsin turn into a "shooting gallery"? BTW, don't try to use North Milwaukee as an example. It's ALWAYS been a lawless area inhabited by the GDs and the Bloods!!

How the hell do you know they're "progressive liberals?" Because they don't agree with your preconceived opinions? As much of the research I provided states, linking gun ownership to low crime rates without factoring in lower rates of drug abuse, lower rates of poverty and other sociological factors doesn't cut it. You seem to have decided it's all about the guns, which according to other voices of academia, the evidence doesn't automatically support..

I was asked for citations to some previous statements, which I provided. Now you don't like the citations because they're from lib-er-uhls. I'm not going to argue that point, because every time something comes along someone doesn't like, they can blame it on some giant liberal conspiracy.

CCW has been in Wisconsin all of two months. I doubt we'll turn into a "shooting gallery," as in general, other states with CCW haven't. I did provide a link to accidental shootings tied to those with CCW, which you can take or leave. I won't carry because I feel pretty safe in the part of Wisconsin in which I live. If someone feels safer carrying, let 'em do it. It's legal now.

Just please, don't give me this crap about the liberal conspiracies to refute counter-arguments I provide, 'cause that can go on all day.

[moto-d]

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that criminals fear armed citizens more then the police. "Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)."

The first part of your statement contradicts the second. If criminals fear an armed citizenry more than they fear the police, why all the shootings? They must not fear 'em as much you claim. Otherwise, they wouldn't put themselves in a position to get shot.

[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by moto-d

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that criminals fear armed citizens more then the police. "Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606)."

The first part of your statement contradicts the second. If criminals fear an armed citizenry more than they fear the police, why all the shootings? They must not fear 'em as much you claim. Otherwise, they wouldn't put themselves in a position to get shot.

Because armed citizens have their weapons concealed, and criminals are dumb.

The anti-gun sources you have provided have lone been proven to be biased and their rebuttals dis proven to be scientific. Their agenda fails to adhere to real scientific results.

Because you were "raised in northeast Wisconsin, near the border of Michigan's UP" I doubt that this area is more of the more high crime areas of the country.

Having lived in South Fl. during the drug wars in the late 70's and Southern CA. during the riots and 100K gang members, some of us choose to go armed.

I choose to carry a gun because a cop is too heavy. I also choose to have fire insurance and a fire extinguisher and have never had to use either. I also choose to have earthquake insurance in IN., never had to use it but have experienced earthquakes in So. CA.

Many of my friends have CCW permits and carry firearms, so I guess we have friends with different ideas about protection.

Quote "Yeah, I just don't to swagger around with one in public." "Just don't shoot yourself in the toe." And you know my experience with firearms? A little sarcastic?

By the way, I have been handling firearms longer then you have lived, probably read and studied more about firearms, gun handling, gun control and it's failure, etc.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Nomadac,

EXCELLENT POINT!!

moto-d,

My grandfather had to use a firearm in self-defense TWICE in his lifetime. Dad NEVER took his pistol out of its holster unless it was to clean or fire it. Uncle Bill had to draw his weapon after an idiot suffering from severe road-rage tried to intimidate him with a shotgun 2 YRS ago(BAD MOVE!!). ALL of these incidents occurred within 30 miles of where I'm sitting( rural S. Central Indiana). I DO NOT "swagger" about while I carry. It is my prayer that I NEVER have to use it, but as Dad used to say 'It's better to have one and NOT need it than to need one and NOT HAVE IT!' You are entitled to your opinion even if it's based on progressive liberal positions. BTW, do YOU know WHY the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution or are you one of those that believes it sanctions the National Guard?

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

Nomadac,

EXCELLENT POINT!!

moto-d,

My grandfather had to use a firearm in self-defense TWICE in his lifetime. Dad NEVER took his pistol out of its holster unless it was to clean or fire it. Uncle Bill had to draw his weapon after an idiot suffering from severe road-rage tried to intimidate him with a shotgun 2 YRS ago(BAD MOVE!!). ALL of these incidents occurred within 30 miles of where I'm sitting( rural S. Central Indiana). I DO NOT "swagger" about while I carry. It is my prayer that I NEVER have to use it, but as Dad used to say 'It's better to have one and NOT need it than to need one and NOT HAVE IT!' You are entitled to your opinion even if it's based on progressive liberal positions. BTW, do YOU know WHY the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution or are you one of those that believes it sanctions the National Guard?

Those are great personal anecdotes -- and if you look back at my VERY first post on this matter, I addressed how people's personal experiences may shape their opinions on this. My point is that the STATISTICAL evidence doesn't necessarily support CCW as a crime prevention. Open-carry might even serve better. When's the last time you slowed down passing by a speed trap you DIDN'T see? I think you said you've never pulled the gun you carry in the 20+ years you've carried it. And YOU live in a self-identified high-crime "meth" area. So it seems hard to believe your gun has prevented ANY crime to you personally.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

Because armed citizens have their weapons concealed, and criminals are dumb.

Then where is the preventative benefit of which you brag? They allow themselves to be attacked so they can use their gun? Wouldn't it make more sense to carry open, if carrying at all is the issue?

Originally Posted by Nomadac

The anti-gun sources you have provided have lone been proven to be biased and their rebuttals dis proven to be scientific. Their agenda fails to adhere to real scientific results.

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.

Originally Posted by Nomadac

Because you were "raised in northeast Wisconsin, near the border of Michigan's UP" I doubt that this area is more of the more high crime areas of the country.

No, it's not. But it does have it's crime, it's backwoods meth labs, it's drug dealers, etc. So the same argument could be made here, as all it takes is one. Still doesn't have many people carrying up there.

[QUOTE=Nomadac;4510568] "Yeah, I just don't to swagger around with one in public." "Just don't shoot yourself in the toe." And you know my experience with firearms? A little sarcastic? [\QUOTE]

No more than "You appear typical of those that prefer to be sheep rather then sheep dogs, against the wolves that prey on the sheep" without having a clue as to my own firearms background. I wasn't raised on the Berkley campus, but that doesn't mean I'm a supporter of the NRA either. Yes, it is possible to think packing a gun is essentially unnecessary without being Timothy Leary.

[Nomadac]

Originally Posted by moto-d

Then where is the preventative benefit of which you brag? They allow themselves to be attacked so they can use their gun? Wouldn't it make more sense to carry open, if carrying at all is the issue?

You apparently have not read much on this subject both Pro and Con, and do not understand why concealed is a deterrent. If a robber decides to holdup a store, or individual, they do not know who is carrying. With open carry the first person a criminal is going to shoot is the armed person. Surveys of criminals have confirmed they choose their victim based on who they believe is vulnerable and incapable of harming them.

It appears that you did not read the link to the facts I posted before. Maybe if you did more research on this subject you might be enlightened.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by Nomadac

You apparently have not read much on this subject both Pro and Con, and do not understand why concealed is a deterrent. If a robber decides to holdup a store, or individual, they do not know who is carrying. With open carry the first person a criminal is going to shoot is the armed person. Surveys of criminals have confirmed they choose their victim based on who they believe is vulnerable and incapable of harming them.

It appears that you did not read the link to the facts I posted before. Maybe if you did more research on this subject you might be enlightened.

Ha, that makes so little sense, I shouldn't even reply. So, let's see if I'm getting you right ... they target the armed person because they can SEE they're armed, but not the person with no gun showing because they MIGHT, maybe, possibly be armed. Hmmm. OK.

Then, you switch gears and tell me they choose people who are "vulnerable and incapable of harming them," which I would assume you mean to be the person open-carrying, based on your claim above. So a guy with a Glock 9 strapped to his waist is vulnerable and incapable or harming anyone. I see.

And this is the theory you want to stick with?

[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.

[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

[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.

[hurryinhoosier62]

moto-d,

Actually, it's NOT a high crime area. We do have a meth problem."Meth" heads tend to be violent. In Indiana, 1 in 10 of its residents are licensed to carry a concealed firearm.
I will put IN crime stats against ANY non-CCW state. IN will have a LOWER violent crime rate. You haven't explained one fact; the majority of patrol police officers ( not the upper eschelon, they're political) support responsible firearm ownership and CCW rights.
WHY?? According to your point, it makes no difference. You didn't answer my question:
Why is the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution?BTW....I DON'T SPEED!! I obey the law!!

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

moto-d,

I will put IN crime stats against ANY non-CCW state. IN will have a LOWER violent crime rate.

Really? Put IN against WI, then ... http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

And remember, CCW has only been in place 60 days here, so any effects won't be in place.

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

You haven't explained one fact; the majority of patrol police officers ( not the upper eschelon, they're political) support responsible firearm ownership and CCW rights.

Is it a "fact?" I've seen nothing here is Wisconsin to support that contention. Sure the Chiefs of Police association and the police union here in Wisconsin were against it, and I personally know one uniformed patrol officer in Marinette County, Wisconsin, who thinks it stinks. But I haven't seen any stats regarding CCW with individual officers.

[hurryinhoosier62]

Your opinion is based on ONE individual. Mine is based on 25 ISP (Indiana State Police)
troopers, 20 deputies of various Sherriff's depts here in IN (Clark,Floyd,Jefferson,Spencer,Dubois, Vanderburgh),and numerous local police officers that I have known over the years. You might want to do a little reseach on a poll conducted with the assistance of the FOP a few years back. This poll found that rank-and-file police officer supported CCW laws. You STILL haven't answered my question: WHY IS THE 2nd Amendment in the Constitution??

[moto-d]

Yep, my focus group is a small one, and yours ... well, I guess I'll just have to take your word on it (not sure what "FOP" is.) Does your 45+ represent a national majority you can call "a fact?" Again, your word, your opinion, your guesses.

As for the 2nd Amendment, its there because they most certainly felt individuals should have the right to defend themselves from a wide variety of ills, from a potentially oppressive government down to a guy breaking into their homes.

I've never once in my arguments here disputed the right to bear arms, so I'm not sure where you're going with that, which is why I never addressed the question.