Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2008, 06:18 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,480,890 times
Reputation: 1721

Advertisements

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Well, if the laws said I could carry on my hip, I would. It's already legal in several states.

And just knowing that concealed carry is legal is enough to drive would be criminals into other areas.
And you know this how?



Quote:
I don't think we'll be able to find statistics showing exactly how often something didn't happen, but a good indication is crime rates before and after passage of concealed carry laws.

NCPA - Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Crime (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/crime/pdcrm/pdcrm20.htm - broken link)

CCW Concealed Weapons Permit - Hand Gun Permit (http://www.azccw.com/More%20Facts%20&%20Statistics.htm - broken link)

Crime Trends In Utah And Concealed Carry Study
This is state infomation for the most part. Remember we are arguing about being able to carry in the city. But to be fair your probably right about finding exact statics.


All these hypotheticals, yet none of it has ever been shown to be true. Let's say this and what if and maybe this might happen.

Can you prove that these hypothetical could never happen?



In order to get a carry permit, most states require that you pass a background check. If you fail the check, you don't get a permit. So concealed carry permit holders are kind of a "purified" population...just being able to qualify for a permit means that you are generally much less prone to getting in trouble with the law than your average citizen.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgcon.html

A Critical Examination of John Lott's Paper

"Although this article by Rutgers University professor Dr. Goertzel is critical of Lott's study, regardless of which side of the gun control debate you reside, he offers sound advice: "When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis." (Goertzel's comments bring to mind the old saw: Economics is the one science that makes astrology look respectable.")


Look like the article is being contested.

Quote:
Any other questions?
Yes. How many of these permits are actually job related? like security guard or something similar. And how many are John Q public?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2008, 06:19 PM
 
19,198 posts, read 31,368,379 times
Reputation: 4013
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Yup, when you can't actually refute the points, argue spelling. Good one.
Who's refuting? That's the only post I have in this thread about Polarization. It simply points out that when we look at the characterics of the two sides of the divide, one has a tendency to misuse the word 'looser' to a far greater extent than the other. It's not a spelling issue when it appears over and over and over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Or better yet...just give up like you did in the thread about Kennesaw.
Give up? You don't know about Kennesaw. You don't know what a natural right is. You don't care if people die. All you care about is you and your precious piece. That's the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2008, 06:38 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,706,181 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
Who's refuting? That's the only post I have in this thread about Polarization. It simply points out that when we look at the characterics of the two sides of the divide, one has a tendency to misuse the word 'looser' to a far greater extent than the other. It's not a spelling issue when it appears over and over and over and over again.
Who's refuting? Not you, apparently.

And yeah, you're right...the fact that someone is misusing a commonly misused word in the English language is definitely justification for not actually addressing his points.

Quote:
Give up? You don't know about Kennesaw. You don't know what a natural right is. You don't care if people die. All you care about is you and your precious piece. That's the end.
Yeah...give up...as in, stop posting when you realized you had lost. No shame in it, really.

Anyway, to address your points.

1. I live in Kennesaw (well, Acworth, really, but if you cross the street, you're in Kennesaw)
2. You admitted that self defense was a natural right, but then you denied the tools to exercise that right, effectively denying the right...but I am the one that does not have a full grasp of what a natural right is?
3. You refused to consider banning items that kill more people than guns...so if it's true that I don't care if people die, then you even more don't care if people die.
4. I do care about my precious piece...just as much as I care about other tools that allow the exercise of natural rights, such as the internet, printing press, churches, private houses, etc. I would be just as upset about someone curtailing my freedom of speech by banning the internet as I am about gun bans.
5. How do you know when someone has lost an argument? When they start the ad hominem attacks and favor nit-picking spelling over substative replies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2008, 06:46 PM
 
1,080 posts, read 1,706,181 times
Reputation: 199
Quote:
Originally Posted by baystater View Post

And you know this how?
Did you read the next part? Drops in crime rates after concealed carry laws are passed.

Besides, does it not make sense? If you're looking to mug someone, do you pick the little old lady or the 6'3" 250lb guy with tattoos and a shirt that says "I don't dial 911...I dial 1911"? When concealed carry laws are passed in an area, the bad guys don't know who is carrying and who isn't, so why risk going after someone who is carrying, when they can just move on to safer targets?

Has the internet made us to statistics-mad that we can't just use a little bit of common sense?

Quote:

Can you prove that these hypothetical could never happen?
Can I prove that a hypothetical could never happen? Seriously? Can you prove that, hypothetically, if we armed every man, woman, and child in America, that criminals would not all give up their lives of crime become productive members of society? Come on...prove it isn't true.


Quote:
A Critical Examination of John Lott's Paper
Quote:

"Although this article by Rutgers University professor Dr. Goertzel is critical of Lott's study, regardless of which side of the gun control debate you reside, he offers sound advice: "When presented with an econometric model, consumers should insist on evidence that it can predict trends in data other than the data used to create it. Models that fail this test are junk science, no matter how complex the analysis." (Goertzel's comments bring to mind the old saw: Economics is the one science that makes astrology look respectable.")

Look like the article is being contested.
If you don't trust John Lott, maybe you trust Wiki:

Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Quote:
Yes. How many of these permits are actually job related? like security guard or something similar. And how many are John Q public?
I don't know, but what difference does it make?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2008, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,480,890 times
Reputation: 1721
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by dunkel25 View Post
Are you saying city dwellers are too stupid or too lazy to learn proper firearms handling?
I love how you use words like stupid and lazy and try force your point across. But I will indulge you. The main points why I don't like lots of guns on the streets of cities (Ex. Newark,NJ). 1. If people were allow just to carry guns let say without need for licensing, my guess is that many of the people wouldn't bother to learn actually gun safety unless it was taught by a parent. So Yeah I guess that would go into the lazy category. 2. From my personal observations in Manhattan, Newark, and in Boston I seen more fist fights over dumb reasons then I would every care to admit. I don't see this type of behavior nearly as much in the X-burbs or country. So let add guns into the mix with temper flaring. Yeah I can see a couple of incidences where to dopes get out of control and someone dies because of it. So I guess that goes into the stupid category. 3. Even if licensed and only used in self defense, cities (At least northeastern cities) Are so compact and so heavily populated that if either one defender or assailant misses those bullet fired could very well find there mark on some poor guy/gal hanging around.

[quote]Ok, just a few points about the links you provided:



Quote:
So they went from 49 in 05-06 to 58 in 06-07...how is that a decrease when the number got bigger?



So for the first time in 10 years, they saw a decrease...first time...in 10 years. One decrease...in a decade. Yes, those results truly are staggering.

Here's a couple of interesting points on the same subject:



BBC News | UK | Handgun crime 'up' despite ban




BBC NEWS | Politics | Gun crime soars by 35%


BBC NEWS | UK | England | Police 'winning London gun crime battle'

Looks like month after your article (gun crime soars 35%) London police were able to bring down 28%. A month later! This relates to me that if authorities get the right amount of manpower with the right focus they can knock down crime significantly and quickly.


[quote]
Quote:
Ok, these two articles were within 5 years of the gun ban. The UK had very few guns to begin with, compared to the US, and this was the level of success they were having 5 years after their ban was passed. Then you want to come to me with statistics saying that for the FIRST TIME IN 10 YEARS, the number of crimes committed with guns has decreased? It took 10 years to decrease gun crime...on an island...which had very few guns to begin with? And this is a success story? And how in the hell do you propose for this to work here in the US? [b]We have millions of guns already here, so how do you round them all up?
Remember we are talking about cities. Not the General US. Stay on focus. You can have as many guns as you like outside the cities.

Quote:
And even if you could wave your magic wand and get rid of them all, we can't even stop illegals and drugs from coming across our borders as it is...what makes you think we could possibly seal them against guns?
Who said that I thought we could stop illegal gun trade. It going to happen no matter what. I not against strengthen the border patrol. Though I think building that wall is a really stupid idea.
And HEY! Didn't you redstaters starting that whole minute man gig. Come on guys focus your need to put up or shut up about the boarders and get you butts down there and seal that border. Of course you guys will also have to figure out a way to cover the Canada border as well. That's going to be a bit harder.


Quote:
So, once again, the only possible result would be criminals with plenty of guns and law abiding citizens with no way of defending themselves...is this really what you want?
A perfect example of how clean up the street in general can be taken from Manhattan. 20 years ago Manhattan Island was not the prime real estate it is today. Until Rudy Giuliani came on board and put out a overwhelming police presence on the street. While I sure civil liberties were violated in some cases. The overall result was very positive.



Quote:
Anyway, back to the point...you showed that gun crime has decreased (slightly, for the first time in 10 years following the ban)...but what about crime overall?

Let's take a look:

#1 Dominica:113.822 per 1,000 people
#2 New Zealand:105.881 per 1,000 people
#3 Finland:101.526 per 1,000 people
#4 Denmark:92.8277 per 1,000 people
#5 Chile:88.226 per 1,000 people
#6 United Kingdom:85.5517 per 1,000 people
#7 Montserrat:80.3982 per 1,000 people
#8 United States:80.0645 per 1,000 people
#9 Netherlands:79.5779 per 1,000 people
#10 South Africa:77.1862 per 1,000 people
#11 Germany:75.9996 per 1,000 people
#12 Canada:75.4921 per 1,000 people
#13 Norway:71.8639 per 1,000 people
#14 France:62.1843 per 1,000 people
#15 Seychelles:52.9265 per 1,000 people
#16 Hungary:44.9763 per 1,000 people
#17 Estonia:43.3601 per 1,000 people
#18 Czech Republic:38.2257 per 1,000 people
#19 Italy:37.9633 per 1,000 people
#20 Switzerland:




If you look at the list, the UK ranks BELOW the US. Switzerland, where pretty much everyone and their cousin is REQUIRED BY LAW to own a military weapon, is 20th. Italy, with much more liberal gun laws than much of the rest of Europe is 19th.
With the link you provided it show overall crime not just crimes with a gun. the only number that was specifically related to guns was murder.

NationMaster - Murders with firearms (per capita) (most recent) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita - broken link)
Please look at the murder rate per capita UK is the lowest out of 32 nations.



Here are mine. And mine are alot more recent than yours.

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Police 'winning London gun crime battle'

BBC NEWS | UK | What can be done about gun crime?

BBC NEWS | UK | Who carries guns and why?

BBC NEWS | UK | Gang war lessons from America

We must look at 'root causes' of gun crime, April 2007 - The Londoner

Quote:
But please continue to embarass yourself with this ridiculous notion that guns somehow cause crime.
Embarrassed about what? Look I have to agree guns don't cause crime. It's just a tool. People cause gun crimes and gun accidents. Either by stupidity, lack of morals, Or lack of proper judgment.




Quote:
Unless you live in the city?
No. I should clarify guns for home defense will fly with me. But I very skeptical of how safe firing a bullet in an apartment or townhouse would be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2008, 01:55 AM
 
309 posts, read 362,156 times
Reputation: 111
Default Well said.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
I've been discussing this stuff for several decades--(and written a few posts on this forum in recent months)--I honestly can't imagine anything approaching a "Civil War". In the first place, there are no places that would be obvious "home territories" for either side. There is entirely too much apathy on ALL sides to even come close to a 'war'. No one would show up !

What I DO see, and it concerns me greatly, is a MORAL collapse--and a resultant disintegration..say, in the next 80 or 100 years. This, if it happens, will open the door to our being dominated and reduced to "third world" status by some hungrier, more focused, less self-centered, less guilt-ridden party--(right now, this looks like China--but in 100 years, who can say ?)

The "moral collapse" I see is more than just a collapse of traditional "family values"--traditional religion and sexual morals, etc., are well on their way out as we speak. I'm referring more to a collapse of our national purpose, and a cultural collapse. We see this already happening. Americans no longer "like" each other very much. We can no longer agree on right or wrong, or what an "American" really even IS, anymore. The "illegal immigration" forum is a true fiasco- Americans bitterly arguing over an issue that should be a no-brainer. The bitterness in politics is truly a tragedy--- cheap, mudslinging, empty "sound bites", tailored to the intellect of a 12-year old, take the place of intelligent discourse. We don't have the focus or attention span for anything more. We certainly wouldn't THINK of expecting our politicians to be honest. They're politicians, we feel, and we'd be STUPID to trust them....yet these are the people who have our fate in their hands.

I blame it mostly on the fact we no longer believe in anything beyond ourselves. We won't accept any moral system other than our own personal one....which obviously clashes with the NEXT guy's. We ask nothing of our citizens, our immigrants, or even our ILLEGALS---no thanks, no civic responsibilities, no respect....NONE of that is required. Be a citizen if you want to--if not, that's OK, too. No compulsory military service--we can barely get people to show up for JURY DUTY. We can't even "make" high-school students dress properly, and no one even expects them to anymore. They might "get mad at us" if we tried.

Multiculturalism has led us to believe that "ALL cultures are equivalent"....sounds nice, but if ALL are equivalent, then none are "better"--and therefore nothing is worth striving for. No more judgements, no standards, no more "bad"---it's 'all good' now. The result (as we're beginning to see) is there will be no more consensus on ANYTHING, and at some future time, America will no longer be united on ANYTHING, but will simply be a varied collection of 5, 10, or more mutually-hostile cultures, each of them disliking and distrusting the others, and no one in "charge".

In view of the above, I picture the day when someone who IS still dedicated to something (like their OWN nation---or their OWN culture) will find us "easy prey". America won't cease to exist---it is far too valuable a piece of real estate for that. But someone ELSE will be in charge, and will be calling the shots. They'll be "the boss". America will go on, as a leaner, meaner, harsher, and much less free society, and history will judge us very harshly--as the once great nation who "lost it all", not by invaders or wars, but by its own people simply giving up on themselves and "giving it all away". We won't get much sympathy, I'm afraid. More like pity and disgust.

Very well said and .........sadly, so very true.
This country is "dividing" more and more each day, IMO.......and it doesn't have everything to do with one's political beliefs.
Many ideologies that abound within America ARE quite regional in a geographic sense as much as anything.
Not only do people in the Eastern US feel differently than many in the West.........North and South are equally divided by their regional culture beliefs as well.......but NO...........that is just the tip.
There certainly IS a major difference in opinion between RURAL America and URBAN America as well.
It is plausible that there are several areas within America, that would LOVE to drop out and become their own sovreign nation or territory based largely, on the general consensus of the overall "attitudes" and beliefs of the majority in each area.
But, as far as I know.........only Texas, has it in their state Constitution allowing it to become its OWN sovreign nation....."Republic of Texas".......IF they should ever wish to.
I believe this is still the case.
Anyway you cut it though........IMO, there's NOTHING UNITED about the United States anymore and that IS the problem!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top