|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
October 22, 2013, 08:14 PM | #51 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
The Lott Mustard study has been pretty much debunked. Bad science that might have been caught if the work had been peer reviewed.
That the work was never submitted for peer review and instead published as pop science, before anyone got their hands on the study, was the first thing that set off alarm bells for me. |
October 22, 2013, 08:55 PM | #52 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 15, 2010
Posts: 1,850
|
Quote:
__________________
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin |
|
October 22, 2013, 09:18 PM | #53 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
However, if folks keep "pushing the envelope," neither I nor anyone else may have a say in the matter.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
October 22, 2013, 09:25 PM | #54 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
And in places where it is illegal, it will most likely remain so. That is unless the thought of the practice were to become sufficiently acceptable to enough people to cause them to elect politicians who would enact laws making it legal; or until a court so acts. And perhaps we should take some time to reflect on the fact that legal practices found obnoxious by enough people have a way of becoming illegal. And so we have noise abatement laws and laws in some places prohibiting you from parking your RV on your property in a manner visible to a public road. Public relations and understanding effective ways to influences the attitudes or people are important.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
October 22, 2013, 09:42 PM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 4, 2010
Posts: 1,210
|
Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response to critics
I agree with a lot of the points made about OC, that it's a public relations nightmare that makes ALL gun owners look bad. I support OC where legal, but I would never OC to make a point or because I assume the bad guys will leave me alone. I'm all for CCW, well, because I think it gives me a tactical advantage. Until OC activists see that it's causing more harm than good, 2A rights will go nowhere imp
|
October 22, 2013, 10:49 PM | #56 | |
Member
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
|
|
October 22, 2013, 11:10 PM | #57 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 23, 2013, 08:15 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
|
Truth be told, yes... OC'ing probably does ward off or dissuade garden variety opportunistic criminals. Those who weigh risk-vs-reward or those who have minimal confidence in their abilities will probably stay away.
Alternatively, OC'ing can/will attract the very worst of the worst - the fearless, the confident, perhaps the smartest most cunning and calculating of them all. While OC'ing may keep 100 "reasonable" criminals away, its also going to attract one that would view your gun as a prize, not a deterrent... I don’t know about the rest of you, but that is the one I want to pass right on by me and my ccw. I'll take my chances with the rest... |
October 23, 2013, 09:12 AM | #59 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: Campbell Ca
Posts: 1,090
|
I live in Santa Clara County(California)
We are a May Issue State. Our Elected Sheriff's have a long history of not issuing permits to people not associated with the legal system. If you are not a judge or work for the DA's Office you are SOL. The current Sheriff even refuses to accept applications in direct violation of law. Even though it's illegal there is no way to penalize, fine or charge her with these violations.
If you want to get a permit you should investigate the 'Sheriff's Advisory Board'. It seems to be a fundraising outfit to purchase goodies for her department that normal funding cannot. Can you say illegal slush fund? The only people not affiliated with the courts or DA's office that have CCW permits belong to this outfit. People started Open Carrying to protest this corruption and this 'brandishing' of firearms is what frightened the public into allowing the a-hats in Sacramento into banning even unloaded open carry of handguns. I've never been a proponent of Open Carry, but I can understand why some people do it. |
October 23, 2013, 09:33 AM | #60 | |||
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
IdahoCarry, as you can see, when it comes to proving factual claims, we have very high standards here at TFL. Opinions of all flavors are welcome, but if you claim something as cold, hard fact, you need to be prepared to back it up.
Deterrent effects: I find claims of deterrent effects somewhat troublesome. When you sit down and think about it, in order to prove a deterrent effect, we'd have to find:
However, even if I assume some degree of unmeasurable deterrent effect, I hardly think that Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|||
October 23, 2013, 10:01 AM | #61 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 198
|
Quote:
Last edited by Spats McGee; October 23, 2013 at 10:03 AM. Reason: To clarify quotes |
||
October 23, 2013, 10:07 AM | #62 | |
Junior member
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 198
|
Quote:
|
|
October 23, 2013, 10:11 AM | #63 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
IdahoCarry claimed something to be true. If one claims something to be true, he has he burden of proving it. He can't then claim that he doesn't need to prove it because there's no way to do so. If you can't prove that something is a fact, you have no business saying that it is a fact.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
October 23, 2013, 10:16 AM | #64 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
IdahoCarry, you claim that: I can just as validly point out that your open carry gives the criminal useful information to decide who to shoot first.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
October 23, 2013, 10:30 AM | #65 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
In retrospect, I think the most accurate statement of my position is that OC provides BG with information that he might not otherwise have and in so doing, might simply allow him to formulate a more effective plan. That might or might not include shooting the OC'er immediately. For example, a BG might steal the OC'ers gun, then shoot the OC'er when pursued.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
October 23, 2013, 10:41 AM | #66 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
One of John Lott's hypotheses in More Guns - Less Crime was that prevailing concealed carry meant that anyone might have a gun; and therefore a criminal couldn't know whether a particular potential victim was or was not armed. Lott suggested that lack of knowledge was likely to have a "chilling effect" on criminal behavior.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
October 23, 2013, 10:47 AM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,436
|
Quote:
That's a joke. So, the objection isn't that he failed to produce evidence, but that he asserted something that isn't especially susceptible to a solid conclusion based on data. IdahoCarry, I don't agree with all of your conclusions about OC, but those responding to you here are doing you a service by pointing out where you've over-reached. Whether and how one carries involves many variables and prudential considerations, so categorical assertions will build unnecessary weakness into your arguments. It does strike me as consistent with reason and experience that ordinary OC, not rationally construed as a threat by any normal person, should serve to educate and acclimate populations to an idea everyone on this thread already knows - mere possession of an arm is not a threat to the safety of another. It may also be possible that routine OC in a population might serve as a reminder to a person contemplating a violent criminal act that the response to his act might not leave him in a better position. I did not believe that is particularly susceptible to statistical proof, but that does not make it an unreasonable position (though I find Lott's reasoning on CC more persuasive on the issue of criminal deterrence where CC is common). I believe that many people who have carried in populated urban and suburban areas, at least in my part of the country, do not welcome any of the added attention that would accompany OC. If the basis for OC is prudential, educational and social, it may be a considerable distraction to otherwise sound and persuasive arguments to introduce categorical or statistical claims.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
October 23, 2013, 10:57 AM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 202
|
I have Open Carried, but there are very specific circumstances under which I'll do so.
I live in PA, which is an Open Carry state. I live in a fairly rural area. And I will *always* carry where it is legal to do so. 99% of the time I'm in public view, I carry concealed. I don't want the added attention, and I don't want to deal with ANY level of uncomfort of the general populace. I.e. the staring and questioning while I'm trying to get my groceries. If I'm on my property or walking the dog, and I don't feel like concealing due to weather or some other reason, I won't. I've walked my dog along the trail here plenty of times with my sidearm and not gotten a second glance. *** I used to live in CT. Also an open carry state. Totally different vibe. Because of the incidents there, people are WAY more sensitive to firearms. If I open carry in PA, I get maybe one or two people who look actually *alarmed* as opposed to what almost looks like a "Huh. I wonder why he's doing that?" look on. In CT, I open carried once, with a friend, to prove a point. He has incredibly gung-ho about open carry, pro-2A, to hell with everyone who doesn't like it, etc etc. I suppose this can't be "proven", but you could *fee* the tension. I counted at least a dozen people in the little convenience store who actively stared at me, some with obvious distaste, and a handful left the store outright as soon as I walked in. The fact that someone didn't call the police was shocking. (Note: when I OC'ed in CT, I always carried a memorandum from the State Troopers stating that it was legal to do so. Too many people unfamiliar with their own state laws....) |
October 23, 2013, 11:25 AM | #69 | |
Member
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
|
|
October 23, 2013, 12:00 PM | #70 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
|
This is getting silly.
While there are dumb criminals everywhere, its common sense to figure you standing there with an exposed gun (and no badge) will be the first to take a bullet. Furthermore, you may get conked over the head with the nearest wine bottle by a criminal who had no intention of commiting a crime until he laid eyes on your gun. |
October 23, 2013, 12:02 PM | #71 | |
Member
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
I rest my case. |
|
October 23, 2013, 12:05 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 22, 2004
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
|
|
October 23, 2013, 12:08 PM | #73 | |
Member
Join Date: October 20, 2013
Location: Hidden Springs, Idaho
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
And you can't use as evidence the dumbo who lacked situational awareness and allowed a teen to get behind him, steal his gun and then chased him knowing that the stolen gun had bullet in the chamber. If you try using that then you are using the same tactics as the left when they tried to apply the Sandy Hook shooting to the availability of guns. |
|
October 23, 2013, 12:11 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 668
|
Frank and Tom have said everything I was going to say, so I will sit back and eat popcorn before the lock.
|
October 23, 2013, 12:13 PM | #75 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,617
|
The fact seems to be (and I don't have a study to refer to) that perception creates its own reality.
There are a number of widely recognized "facts" we use to shape our opinions, about everything, really. In general conversation, citing studies and references isn't often done. However, on a board like this, when you make a claim of something as fact, you best have the "ammo" to back it up, and is best when you provide it with your claim of fact, and your reasoning why it is "proof". Things can be real and true, without studies saying they are. And a study saying something is real and true is not a guarantee of it being real and true, only that a study said it was. Some will accept any study as the bedrock of the earth. Others are more skeptical. Growing up in the (then, mostly) sane part of New York state, I saw a lot of open carry. Between late October and early December. Quite common, in those far off days, to see one, or even a group of people in a diner, an hour or so before dawn, wearing holstered sidearms, having coffee, or breakfast. Nobody so much as batted an eye. Permits were a requirement to own, and there was no permitted concealed carry. Can't speak for all, but none of the people I knew or met in those days openly worried about being a target because they were carrying a pistol on their belt. Also it generally wasn't a personal defense thing, a lot of those holstered pistols were longer barreled magnums. We make a lot of common sense assumptions, things like criminals don't obey the law, open display of valuable items makes you a potential target for theft, people being surveyed respond accurately and honestly, etc... Lots of things. Some of them are true. Some are true in some degree. Where we differ, mostly, is in what degree is applicable, or so I believe. Conceal carry is a deterrent. Its not a panacea. Open carry is also. And for the basic reason even bad guys don't want to be shot if they can avoid it. I think that is common sense. Open, because its there, and shows it. Concealed, because potential attackers cannot tell who is armed, and who is not. But, while the horns of eland might dissuade the individual hyena, they alone do little against the pack, or a single hungry lion. And as studies show, its tough to prove a negative.... Today, other than hunters and others carrying in the back country, open carry, particularly in urban settings is seen by many as a political statement. And, it is, to one degree, or another. Even if that's not the intent of the person carrying. Perception... We are gun people. We know not only what guns can do, but what guns ARE. The rest of the country does not know what we do. All they know is what they have been taught by generations of constant brainwashing by our entertainment industry (and in that, I include "news" reporting). Some people go into a virtual panic if they see you wearing a gun. Interestingly, those same people can see the same guy, with the same gun, but if he's wearing a shiny piece of tin on his shirt, they don't bat an eye. Again, perception. open carry is, I believe, a right. Its the "bear" part of "keep and bear arms". The fact that it is a right does not mean it is always prudent. I feel concealed carry is prudent, excepting those places where law forbids it. I also believe that while studies can provide useful information for consideration, basing law or policy on them alone is a poor practice. People lie. People in an anonymous study can lie freely, and some will. Believing what criminals say in a survey (or what teenagers say when surveyed about how often they have sex) to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is a leap of faith I just cannot make. Others, apparently can....
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|