Not only are you naive but you know absolutely nothing about gun laws, ccw laws, or John Lott's book...
I'm not the one who rushes to the Internet to point out I don't have a CCW. And then says to people who do (like me) that they don't know about gun laws.
You can't make this up.
PS: Lott's premise has been vindicated.
But you go on pretending that he has been "discredited"
It is easier that way.
Not only has John Lott's book been discredited, but he has made a fool of himself in the process by making up fictitious people and statistics that vast political scientists have pointed out.... and on top of that only morons like Anne Coulter decide to cite his book and him as a reference. https://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/04/ann-coulter-cites-discredited-gun-researcher-jo/192016
So don't comment anymore on John Lott's book if you're not willing to acknowledge the criticism of it.
You say his book has been vindicated... And then go on to cite an article that has very little to do with Lott's thesis..... Which again proves you did not read his book and you in fact most likely had never heard of his book before I brought it up but quickly rushed to google to search about the book..
So not only have vast economists, political scientists, but also sociologists have discredited his book. Stop foolishly attempting to defend him..... You're wrong
I have to throw in emoticons because that's what this forum is now just a pile of bull sh it smiley faces...
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Not only are you naive but you know absolutely nothing about gun laws, ccw laws, or John Lott's book...
I'm not the one who rushes to the Internet to point out I don't have a CCW. And then says to people who do (like me) that they don't know about gun laws.
You can't make this up.
PS: Lott's premise has been vindicated.
But you go on pretending that he has been "discredited"
It is easier that way.
Not only has John Lott's book been discredited, but he has made a fool of himself in the process by making up fictitious people and statistics that vast political scientists have pointed out.... and on top of that only morons like Anne Coulter decide to cite his book and him as a reference. https://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/01/04/ann-coulter-cites-discredited-gun-researcher-jo/192016
So don't comment anymore on John Lott's book if you're not willing to acknowledge the criticism of it.
You say his book has been vindicated... And then go on to cite an article that has very little to do with Lott's thesis..... Which again proves you did not read his book and you in fact most likely had never heard of his book before I brought it up but quickly rushed to google to search about the book..
So not only have vast economists, political scientists, but also sociologists have discredited his book. Stop foolishly attempting to defend him..... You're wrong
I have to throw in emoticons because that's what this forum is now just a pile of bull sh it smiley faces...
Stiln I own firearms and have a CCDW. I instruct on firearms handling primarily in small arms and see some agreement and disagreement in what has been said here. As this is such a polarizing issue I'll try to keep as much as my opinion out of this and try to be matter of fact. As far as an a certain amount of CCDW permits being known and discouraging crime, I wouldn't agree with that directly. I would however say that just the general known presence of firearms both possibly readily available in a residence or on a person though a concealed weapon does make a substantial difference. I would also say that nature of the criminal plays a big part of that. For instance a tweeker needing his next fix, may not first think out what waits behind him at a locked door. At the same time, if given the opportunity a mugger will most likely target an off guard female over a male of even average size in the same situation. My point is, a criminal with equal years experience in my state and the city of Chicago is more likely to get the business end of a shotgun or semi auto from me than some "law abiding citizen" in Chicago.
As far as a point you made about CCDW, concerning lack of experience, I am completely in agreement with you. I assist from time to time with conceal carry classes and it amazes me the number of people that may have not even shot a gun before, or only a few times. However, in my experience, alot of times, these people don't actually end up being people that regularly carry. I don't know that I have ever heard of a "bad shoot" from someone that was carrying concealed, that could be attributed to lack of experience....(But not at all saying that hasn't happened.) I do agree it should take more training to be a person that is permitted to carry concealed.
Also something else that was said pertained to the police and collateral damage as well as carrying citizens actually being able to prevent a crime from occurring or escalating. Police or citizen, does not matter. Every person behind a trigger has the obligation and responsibilty to know where each bullet goes. And citizens do prevent. The mall shooter in MN shot himself after seeing himself in the sights of the ex marine who had drawn on him. He did not even fire (exmarine) as he saw targets beyond the gunman and did not want to take the chance of hitting an innocent person.
Finally, I'm not sure where the point of an instructor or CCDW has absolutely anything to do with the second amendment or even why it would have been brought up.
Yeah I appreciate your honest and unique perspective on this manner as you have training and a full understanding on the matter.
I think it's interesting that many people believe that the training is substantial to obtain a ccw but I believe it isn't 12 hours in many states and many times less doesn't seem adequate given the hundreds of hours that police train for to carry a pistol.
And personally I feel that states should have more stringent laws concerning ccw permits. Obviously a high majority states are shall issue as opposed to may issue etc..
That marine has very good judgement but to say some redneck piece of garbage who carry's a pistol in one of the few states that doesn't even require a permit to cc pulls out his glock 21 and kills the criminal but also kills 4 children behind him.....
You're giving an example of the most optimal scenario that ever occurred an ex marine. You simply cannot set the bar that high by evaluating a citizens use of force by showing how a marine reacted in the particular situation.
But I respect your analysis thanks for the post.
0
Quote Originally Posted by potter36:
Stiln I own firearms and have a CCDW. I instruct on firearms handling primarily in small arms and see some agreement and disagreement in what has been said here. As this is such a polarizing issue I'll try to keep as much as my opinion out of this and try to be matter of fact. As far as an a certain amount of CCDW permits being known and discouraging crime, I wouldn't agree with that directly. I would however say that just the general known presence of firearms both possibly readily available in a residence or on a person though a concealed weapon does make a substantial difference. I would also say that nature of the criminal plays a big part of that. For instance a tweeker needing his next fix, may not first think out what waits behind him at a locked door. At the same time, if given the opportunity a mugger will most likely target an off guard female over a male of even average size in the same situation. My point is, a criminal with equal years experience in my state and the city of Chicago is more likely to get the business end of a shotgun or semi auto from me than some "law abiding citizen" in Chicago.
As far as a point you made about CCDW, concerning lack of experience, I am completely in agreement with you. I assist from time to time with conceal carry classes and it amazes me the number of people that may have not even shot a gun before, or only a few times. However, in my experience, alot of times, these people don't actually end up being people that regularly carry. I don't know that I have ever heard of a "bad shoot" from someone that was carrying concealed, that could be attributed to lack of experience....(But not at all saying that hasn't happened.) I do agree it should take more training to be a person that is permitted to carry concealed.
Also something else that was said pertained to the police and collateral damage as well as carrying citizens actually being able to prevent a crime from occurring or escalating. Police or citizen, does not matter. Every person behind a trigger has the obligation and responsibilty to know where each bullet goes. And citizens do prevent. The mall shooter in MN shot himself after seeing himself in the sights of the ex marine who had drawn on him. He did not even fire (exmarine) as he saw targets beyond the gunman and did not want to take the chance of hitting an innocent person.
Finally, I'm not sure where the point of an instructor or CCDW has absolutely anything to do with the second amendment or even why it would have been brought up.
Yeah I appreciate your honest and unique perspective on this manner as you have training and a full understanding on the matter.
I think it's interesting that many people believe that the training is substantial to obtain a ccw but I believe it isn't 12 hours in many states and many times less doesn't seem adequate given the hundreds of hours that police train for to carry a pistol.
And personally I feel that states should have more stringent laws concerning ccw permits. Obviously a high majority states are shall issue as opposed to may issue etc..
That marine has very good judgement but to say some redneck piece of garbage who carry's a pistol in one of the few states that doesn't even require a permit to cc pulls out his glock 21 and kills the criminal but also kills 4 children behind him.....
You're giving an example of the most optimal scenario that ever occurred an ex marine. You simply cannot set the bar that high by evaluating a citizens use of force by showing how a marine reacted in the particular situation.
yes, everuyone remembers your attempt to rationalize bigotry and try to keep biblebeating out of the happy marriage dsicussion. that was one for the ages.
fari enough, until there is a link to non-nranuts and non-gun manufacturers who also have called for the nranuts position of taxpayer funded armed guards in every school in the country and any teacher that wants one can go ahead and have one at school too, i'll assume it doesn't exists as i said.
unless i see that, i'll just ignore your trademarked attempts to steer the discussion to some stupid, narrow minded off topic point no one made in a failed attempt to follow along.
Yes your "logic" at work:
if you want armed guards in the school in your community you are most definitely not a "nra nut" and you certainly don't believe that "if you watch the walking dead, these scrubs are firing handguns and hitting the targets in the heads every time from 20, 30 50+ yards away."
No siree!! (pew-pew zombie dead!)
You are only a "rightwing nut" if you believe in all schools having armed guards.
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
yes, everuyone remembers your attempt to rationalize bigotry and try to keep biblebeating out of the happy marriage dsicussion. that was one for the ages.
fari enough, until there is a link to non-nranuts and non-gun manufacturers who also have called for the nranuts position of taxpayer funded armed guards in every school in the country and any teacher that wants one can go ahead and have one at school too, i'll assume it doesn't exists as i said.
unless i see that, i'll just ignore your trademarked attempts to steer the discussion to some stupid, narrow minded off topic point no one made in a failed attempt to follow along.
Yes your "logic" at work:
if you want armed guards in the school in your community you are most definitely not a "nra nut" and you certainly don't believe that "if you watch the walking dead, these scrubs are firing handguns and hitting the targets in the heads every time from 20, 30 50+ yards away."
No siree!! (pew-pew zombie dead!)
You are only a "rightwing nut" if you believe in all schools having armed guards.
unless i see that, i'll just ignore your trademarked attempts to steer the discussion to some stupid, narrow minded off topic point no one made in a failed attempt to follow along.
Nice projection, by the way.
Remember, wanting armed guards in every school in your school district doesn't make you an "NRA Nut" nor does it make you believe that trained officers can hit targets from 50 yards away.
Nope! Only if you want guns in every school. Then you believe those things!!!
Totally!
0
Quote Originally Posted by ClubDirt:
unless i see that, i'll just ignore your trademarked attempts to steer the discussion to some stupid, narrow minded off topic point no one made in a failed attempt to follow along.
Nice projection, by the way.
Remember, wanting armed guards in every school in your school district doesn't make you an "NRA Nut" nor does it make you believe that trained officers can hit targets from 50 yards away.
Nope! Only if you want guns in every school. Then you believe those things!!!
I cited an article (let me know if you would like more) showing more guns have resulted in fewer crimes.
You are left posting a bunch of smiley faces and linking to media matters pretending it all never happened.
Shocking. Really, I'm stunned.
You just completely evaded the point of the media matters link....
ONLY MORONS like Anne Coulter would delve into citing such a discredited, phony, worthless, not-respected individual.
Lott's book was yeah in an extremely vague nutshell more guns = less crime..............
However, his thesis revolves around carrying a firearm NOT simply purchasing one...... so he takes on a PARTICULAR ISSUE surrounding firearms... Not just adding up deaths and calculating firearm purchases.....
He attempts to provide a causation between shall issue states and may issue states in terms of cc and crime rates......
And in the process he FAILS...............
Again that's how I KNOW that YOU KNOW, NOTHING about this book.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Lott's book is entitled "More Guns, Less Crime"
I cited an article (let me know if you would like more) showing more guns have resulted in fewer crimes.
You are left posting a bunch of smiley faces and linking to media matters pretending it all never happened.
Shocking. Really, I'm stunned.
You just completely evaded the point of the media matters link....
ONLY MORONS like Anne Coulter would delve into citing such a discredited, phony, worthless, not-respected individual.
Lott's book was yeah in an extremely vague nutshell more guns = less crime..............
However, his thesis revolves around carrying a firearm NOT simply purchasing one...... so he takes on a PARTICULAR ISSUE surrounding firearms... Not just adding up deaths and calculating firearm purchases.....
He attempts to provide a causation between shall issue states and may issue states in terms of cc and crime rates......
And in the process he FAILS...............
Again that's how I KNOW that YOU KNOW, NOTHING about this book.
By the way, who wouldn't pay to watch Stilin try and articulate the "thesis" of John Lott's book?
Wow, would that be epic...
Anyway, since we all know Stilin can't take the fact that I am correct, he has to lie in response to facts presented, we can go to Amazon and see the description of Lott's book:
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime.
Of course I linked to an article which clearly shows Lott is vindicated and since Stilin has an emotional investment in Lott being wrong, Stilin stamps his feet and says Lott is wrong.
Touching. Really.
0
By the way, who wouldn't pay to watch Stilin try and articulate the "thesis" of John Lott's book?
Wow, would that be epic...
Anyway, since we all know Stilin can't take the fact that I am correct, he has to lie in response to facts presented, we can go to Amazon and see the description of Lott's book:
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime.
Of course I linked to an article which clearly shows Lott is vindicated and since Stilin has an emotional investment in Lott being wrong, Stilin stamps his feet and says Lott is wrong.
You just completely evaded the point of the media matters link....
ONLY MORONS like Anne Coulter would delve into citing such a discredited, phony, worthless, not-respected individual.
Lott's book was yeah in an extremely vague nutshell more guns = less crime..............
However, his thesis revolves around carrying a firearm NOT simply purchasing one...... so he takes on a PARTICULAR ISSUE surrounding firearms... Not just adding up deaths and calculating firearm purchases.....
He attempts to provide a causation between shall issue states and may issue states in terms of cc and crime rates......
And in the process he FAILS...............
Again that's how I KNOW that YOU KNOW, NOTHING about this book.
OMG!!!
He actually tried, and failed.
PS: Virginia is a shall issue state.
I love the fact that you type "discredited" over and over as if it becomes true the more you type it.
That's awesome.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
You just completely evaded the point of the media matters link....
ONLY MORONS like Anne Coulter would delve into citing such a discredited, phony, worthless, not-respected individual.
Lott's book was yeah in an extremely vague nutshell more guns = less crime..............
However, his thesis revolves around carrying a firearm NOT simply purchasing one...... so he takes on a PARTICULAR ISSUE surrounding firearms... Not just adding up deaths and calculating firearm purchases.....
He attempts to provide a causation between shall issue states and may issue states in terms of cc and crime rates......
And in the process he FAILS...............
Again that's how I KNOW that YOU KNOW, NOTHING about this book.
OMG!!!
He actually tried, and failed.
PS: Virginia is a shall issue state.
I love the fact that you type "discredited" over and over as if it becomes true the more you type it.
By the way, only to people who know absolutely nothing about an issue, does criticism = discredited.
Why, it is almost as if you're overly emotionally invested in this or something.
Hey, if Lott is so "discredited" why don't you post an example of a shall issue CCW state or locality having a crime increase after becoming shall issue?
Oh, wait, that would take critical thinking. And when we are emotionally invested, we don't do that.
Never mind.
0
By the way, only to people who know absolutely nothing about an issue, does criticism = discredited.
Why, it is almost as if you're overly emotionally invested in this or something.
Hey, if Lott is so "discredited" why don't you post an example of a shall issue CCW state or locality having a crime increase after becoming shall issue?
Oh, wait, that would take critical thinking. And when we are emotionally invested, we don't do that.
See, the funny part is that I am strongly in favor of training.
My nephew wants to go hunting with me this year (he is 13, will be 14 by the time the season rolls around). I told him that we would attend a 2 day hunter safety course, and if he went to the range with me 10 times between the course and hunting season I would take him.
HE told me that he wants a rifle of his own (I don't think that his dad will let him), but I told him that he should wait until he is older, and he can use one of my rifles. I told him that he needed to understand, respect, and be fully capable before he owns his own firearm.
When my daughter is old enough to walk, I will have her on a range. She will have her own rifle, but I will keep it in my safe.
Yada yada yada,
The point is, that in parts of the country where hunting, and firearms are a part of the culture, I feel that the utmost respect and care is taken when introducing youngsters to guns. I would trust any one of these children with a gun, much more than some bureaucrat cop, who didn't fire a shot til he entered the academy.
I wish that there was an atmosphere that was conducive to making training mandatory, but we are dealing with people that question the right of a citizen to own firearms period.
If the NRA and the federal government got together and worked on a firearm safety course, and created a curriculum for firearms mastery and skills development. I think that would be one of the greatest things for safety, and it would bring people together etc.
But I think we know that a Democrat president would never stand for anything like that. Better to "brainwash" kids against guns, and attack the 2nd amendment at it's very heart. With the "bitter Clingers" .
0
See, the funny part is that I am strongly in favor of training.
My nephew wants to go hunting with me this year (he is 13, will be 14 by the time the season rolls around). I told him that we would attend a 2 day hunter safety course, and if he went to the range with me 10 times between the course and hunting season I would take him.
HE told me that he wants a rifle of his own (I don't think that his dad will let him), but I told him that he should wait until he is older, and he can use one of my rifles. I told him that he needed to understand, respect, and be fully capable before he owns his own firearm.
When my daughter is old enough to walk, I will have her on a range. She will have her own rifle, but I will keep it in my safe.
Yada yada yada,
The point is, that in parts of the country where hunting, and firearms are a part of the culture, I feel that the utmost respect and care is taken when introducing youngsters to guns. I would trust any one of these children with a gun, much more than some bureaucrat cop, who didn't fire a shot til he entered the academy.
I wish that there was an atmosphere that was conducive to making training mandatory, but we are dealing with people that question the right of a citizen to own firearms period.
If the NRA and the federal government got together and worked on a firearm safety course, and created a curriculum for firearms mastery and skills development. I think that would be one of the greatest things for safety, and it would bring people together etc.
But I think we know that a Democrat president would never stand for anything like that. Better to "brainwash" kids against guns, and attack the 2nd amendment at it's very heart. With the "bitter Clingers" .
You just completely evaded the point of the media matters link....
ONLY MORONS like Anne Coulter would delve into citing such a discredited, phony, worthless, not-respected individual.
Lott's book was yeah in an extremely vague nutshell more guns = less crime..............
However, his thesis revolves around carrying a firearm NOT simply purchasing one...... so he takes on a PARTICULAR ISSUE surrounding firearms... Not just adding up deaths and calculating firearm purchases.....
He attempts to provide a causation between shall issue states and may issue states in terms of cc and crime rates......
And in the process he FAILS...............
Again that's how I KNOW that YOU KNOW, NOTHING about this book.
I made a post about media biases in one of your threads about FOX News. Do you think Media Matters is impartial?
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
You just completely evaded the point of the media matters link....
ONLY MORONS like Anne Coulter would delve into citing such a discredited, phony, worthless, not-respected individual.
Lott's book was yeah in an extremely vague nutshell more guns = less crime..............
However, his thesis revolves around carrying a firearm NOT simply purchasing one...... so he takes on a PARTICULAR ISSUE surrounding firearms... Not just adding up deaths and calculating firearm purchases.....
He attempts to provide a causation between shall issue states and may issue states in terms of cc and crime rates......
And in the process he FAILS...............
Again that's how I KNOW that YOU KNOW, NOTHING about this book.
I made a post about media biases in one of your threads about FOX News. Do you think Media Matters is impartial?
By the way, who wouldn't pay to watch Stilin try and articulate the "thesis" of John Lott's book?
Wow, would that be epic...
Anyway, since we all know Stilin can't take the fact that I am correct, he has to lie in response to facts presented, we can go to Amazon and see the description of Lott's book:
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime.
Of course I linked to an article which clearly shows Lott is vindicated and since Stilin has an emotional investment in Lott being wrong, Stilin stamps his feet and says Lott is wrong.
Touching. Really.
I'm still waiting for you vindicate him!!!!
You have still not acknowledged that John Lott's book has been discredited over and over and over..
You copied and pasted a link from Amazon that proves my exact point
Perhaps it's time for you to check in at the local GED program while I give myself a pat on the back and this forum watches you squirm trying to produce nonsense post after nonsense post......
Really, though, keep going this is prime time entertainment while I devour my lunch.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
By the way, who wouldn't pay to watch Stilin try and articulate the "thesis" of John Lott's book?
Wow, would that be epic...
Anyway, since we all know Stilin can't take the fact that I am correct, he has to lie in response to facts presented, we can go to Amazon and see the description of Lott's book:
Does allowing people to own or carry guns deter violent crime? Or does it simply cause more citizens to harm each other? Directly challenging common perceptions about gun control, legal scholar John Lott presents the most rigorously comprehensive data analysis ever done on crime statistics and right-to-carry laws. This timely and provocative work comes to the startling conclusion: more guns mean less crime.
Of course I linked to an article which clearly shows Lott is vindicated and since Stilin has an emotional investment in Lott being wrong, Stilin stamps his feet and says Lott is wrong.
Touching. Really.
I'm still waiting for you vindicate him!!!!
You have still not acknowledged that John Lott's book has been discredited over and over and over..
You copied and pasted a link from Amazon that proves my exact point
Perhaps it's time for you to check in at the local GED program while I give myself a pat on the back and this forum watches you squirm trying to produce nonsense post after nonsense post......
Really, though, keep going this is prime time entertainment while I devour my lunch.
I'm still waiting on you 14da-dumb-dumb-dumb to produce a link vindicates him concerning his thesis of right to carry states?!?
Wanna guess why you can't?
Please keep attempting to prove me wrong. It's what you're best at!
Not only have you not provided an evidence furthering your claim you have in fact taken my argument a step further by quoting my explanation of his thesis...
14!!!! You're da-dumb-dumb-dumb
0
I'm still waiting on you 14da-dumb-dumb-dumb to produce a link vindicates him concerning his thesis of right to carry states?!?
Wanna guess why you can't?
Please keep attempting to prove me wrong. It's what you're best at!
Not only have you not provided an evidence furthering your claim you have in fact taken my argument a step further by quoting my explanation of his thesis...
Why, it is almost as if you're overly emotionally invested in this or something. Emotionally invested?!?!
You're attempting to argue something that you have not read or delved into. I have read Lott's book in it entirety and his critics. Hence this thread has nothing to do with a firearm in the home this has to do with CCW laws..
Which you fail to understand!!!!!!!
Yet, you continue to claim that you do!!!
This is rich, it really is!
0
Why, it is almost as if you're overly emotionally invested in this or something. Emotionally invested?!?!
You're attempting to argue something that you have not read or delved into. I have read Lott's book in it entirety and his critics. Hence this thread has nothing to do with a firearm in the home this has to do with CCW laws..
Of course you are. See, if Lott is so "discredited" why don't you post an example of ashall issueCCW state or locality having a crime increase after becomingshall issue?
Oh, wait, that would take critical thinking. And when we are emotionally invested, we don't do that.
Never mind.
0
I'm still waiting for you vindicate him!!!!
Of course you are. See, if Lott is so "discredited" why don't you post an example of ashall issueCCW state or locality having a crime increase after becomingshall issue?
Oh, wait, that would take critical thinking. And when we are emotionally invested, we don't do that.
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
https://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/gundebate.htm
Gotta get back to work to earn a living. Unlike you who it seems, sits around all day at the computer fiddling his thumbs.
Have fun delving through and refuting every ounce of evidence in the YALE STUDY
You have to wonder, if SO many people have discredited his book, why is it that you 14-da-dumb-dumb-dumb is still attempting to defend John Lott.??
Is it because deep in your right wing brain you want to believe what he is saying is true and that any person who brings forth competing evidence to his book and thesis of his book is wrong?
I happily own both books! I know more about firearm laws than you'll know in a lifetime buddy. But please keep thinking the opposite. I sleep fine at night https://i.imgur.com/qtAcNz5.jpg
0
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
https://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/gundebate.htm
Gotta get back to work to earn a living. Unlike you who it seems, sits around all day at the computer fiddling his thumbs.
Have fun delving through and refuting every ounce of evidence in the YALE STUDY
You have to wonder, if SO many people have discredited his book, why is it that you 14-da-dumb-dumb-dumb is still attempting to defend John Lott.??
Is it because deep in your right wing brain you want to believe what he is saying is true and that any person who brings forth competing evidence to his book and thesis of his book is wrong?
I happily own both books! I know more about firearm laws than you'll know in a lifetime buddy. But please keep thinking the opposite. I sleep fine at night https://i.imgur.com/qtAcNz5.jpg
One last thing..... "When one considers the very small % of people who actually obtain carry licenses in NC for example, only .3 % of the state's population acquired a ccw permit within a year after enactment of such a law there.
Further, on a per capita basis most concealed carrying occurs in low-crime rural areas, whereas most crime occurs in urban areas, enforcing a disconnect between the enactment of concealed carry laws and any possible drop in crime.
0
One last thing..... "When one considers the very small % of people who actually obtain carry licenses in NC for example, only .3 % of the state's population acquired a ccw permit within a year after enactment of such a law there.
Further, on a per capita basis most concealed carrying occurs in low-crime rural areas, whereas most crime occurs in urban areas, enforcing a disconnect between the enactment of concealed carry laws and any possible drop in crime.
I don't currently own a firearm and I do have a permit. Quite honestly, the basic traning required to obtain the permit is inadequate to say the least but it maybe because I have much more experiences than some of them. To be fair, I don't think a lot of them end up carrying anyway.
0
I don't currently own a firearm and I do have a permit. Quite honestly, the basic traning required to obtain the permit is inadequate to say the least but it maybe because I have much more experiences than some of them. To be fair, I don't think a lot of them end up carrying anyway.
I happily own both books! I know more about firearm laws than you'll know in a lifetime buddy. But please keep thinking the opposite. I sleep fine at night
The person who: Doesn't own a firearm Never has applied for a CCW Has no formal legal education Can not properly understand and use the term "discredited"
Knows all about firearms laws. Really, he does.
And people who cite "Source Watch" as some sort of legitimate source of information are big truth tellers.
Really, they are.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
I happily own both books! I know more about firearm laws than you'll know in a lifetime buddy. But please keep thinking the opposite. I sleep fine at night
The person who: Doesn't own a firearm Never has applied for a CCW Has no formal legal education Can not properly understand and use the term "discredited"
Knows all about firearms laws. Really, he does.
And people who cite "Source Watch" as some sort of legitimate source of information are big truth tellers.
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
Is just accepted as fact by our resident gun law expert. Mind you, said statement is from 1998, and mind you firearms ownership and issuance's of CCW's have grown exponentially since 1998, and the murder rate is currently at a 40 year low, said resident expert has the temerity to actually post it as if it represents something other than a baseless assertion from a left winger.
Wow.
Again, I would be embarrassed to type such a thing. He'll do it again.
0
I love this.
This statement:
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
Is just accepted as fact by our resident gun law expert. Mind you, said statement is from 1998, and mind you firearms ownership and issuance's of CCW's have grown exponentially since 1998, and the murder rate is currently at a 40 year low, said resident expert has the temerity to actually post it as if it represents something other than a baseless assertion from a left winger.
Wow.
Again, I would be embarrassed to type such a thing. He'll do it again.
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
Is so absurd, and nobody with a modicum of knowledge on this topic would repeat it.
For example:
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A record 76,810 permits to carry concealed weapons
were issued in the state last year, the highest number on record,
according to the Ohio Attorney General's office Wednesday.
A record 64,650 were new licenses and only 12,160 were renewals, the office said.
The previous record of 45,497 was set in 2004, the first year
permits were issued, according to a spokesperson in the attorney
general's office
From 2004, the first full year of the
current concealed-carry law, to 2011, the number of checks processed by
the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for concealed-weapon permits rose
by 14,123, or 185 percent, according to Colorado data.
In
addition, there have been 9,200 more checks processed this year through
November than in all of last year, data show. That makes a total of
30,958 for 2012, which is the greatest yearly amount to date.
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
Is so absurd, and nobody with a modicum of knowledge on this topic would repeat it.
For example:
COLUMBUS, Ohio -- A record 76,810 permits to carry concealed weapons
were issued in the state last year, the highest number on record,
according to the Ohio Attorney General's office Wednesday.
A record 64,650 were new licenses and only 12,160 were renewals, the office said.
The previous record of 45,497 was set in 2004, the first year
permits were issued, according to a spokesperson in the attorney
general's office
From 2004, the first full year of the
current concealed-carry law, to 2011, the number of checks processed by
the Colorado Bureau of Investigation for concealed-weapon permits rose
by 14,123, or 185 percent, according to Colorado data.
In
addition, there have been 9,200 more checks processed this year through
November than in all of last year, data show. That makes a total of
30,958 for 2012, which is the greatest yearly amount to date.
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
Is so absurd, and nobody with a modicum of knowledge on this topic would repeat it.
For example
OKLAHOMA CITY - Newly released data shows a jump in the number of concealed carry licenses in Oklahoma.
According
to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, 39,875 concealed carry
licenses were issued in 2012 -- an increase of nearly 16,000 from 2011.
More than 46,000 applications were submitted.
"There's no
evidence that we have any significant increase in gun carrying, which means criminals are not likely to face an
increased risk of an armed victim."
Is so absurd, and nobody with a modicum of knowledge on this topic would repeat it.
For example
OKLAHOMA CITY - Newly released data shows a jump in the number of concealed carry licenses in Oklahoma.
According
to the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation, 39,875 concealed carry
licenses were issued in 2012 -- an increase of nearly 16,000 from 2011.
More than 46,000 applications were submitted.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
I
Hot Forum Topics
