Bill Maas, Glocks, and airport security.

[JaKaAch]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Do bears come with anything but brown eyes? I have never got that close.

I bet your right, brown only...I like bear claws

[maddman]

Icehog what state do you live in?

Glad you think of me as a yahoo.

I carry a gun because I was taught it is my right too, uncertainly my state is a shall issue state. The police are not hear to protect us, their job is to catch criminals. Its great you are a police officer Icehog you have a job i would love to have. But you say you know the statistics and i too know people who have been their done that who disagree with you. Its good to see people both sides of the argument.

The problem is our Federal Government is to far overreaching, They should not be able to tell a state or corporation that firearms are illegal in certain places. That is the problem we keep losing our right as "Free People"

Conceal Carry permits work no matter how much you disagree with them, they work.

Good little conversation though!

[davemo]

Originally Posted by icehog3

Correct....there are not mass shootings due to road rage. But as Ricky said, there are individual occurances. Two bullets can kill a pilot and co-pilot, and that would take out 100s on the plane, and maybe more on the ground. Is that risk OK because it doesn't happen on a "mass scale"?

I am for LEOs carrying firearms on commercial flights. Individual civilains....not so much.

My only problem with that attitude is the low probability that you (or any LEO) will be there at the critical moment.

But I've only flown twice since 9/11, so its not really something I have to worry about...

[cedjunior]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I
Yes, I am against concealed carry. Too many yahoos take a 40 hour course and think they are well-trained. I know all the arguments for it, so you need not rehash them for my benefit, you aren't going to change my mind. Guns in the home to protect your family if you choose? I am all for the right for non-felons to have handguns in their homes. Concealed carry wherever one chooses? Not so much.

Normally I wouldn't inject myself into this type of discussion (and possibly incur the wrath of a moderator), but I have to say, if you hadn't mentioned you were LEO I wouldn't have hard time guessing you were based you what you've said here. Whether elitist or not, you're displaying a very uninformed opinion.

Statistically speaking, the concealed carry segment of the population is less likely to commit a crime than the non-concealed carry segment of the population many times over. Example:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

I challenge anyone to find a state that is currently "Shall-Issue" where the ccw segment of the population is not exponentially less likely to commit a crime than the "unarmed" population.

So what exactly is the logic for not approving of ccw for the general population?

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by cedjunior

Normally I wouldn't inject myself into this type of discussion (and possibly incur the wrath of a moderator), but I have to say, if you hadn't mentioned you were LEO I wouldn't have hard time guessing you were based you what you've said here. Whether elitist or not, you're displaying a very uninformed opinion.

Statistically speaking, the concealed carry segment of the population is less likely to commit a crime than the non-concealed carry segment of the population many times over. Example:

"What we can say with some confidence is that allowing more people to carry guns does not cause an increase in crime. In Florida, where 315,000 permits have been issued, there are only five known instances of violent gun crime by a person with a permit. This makes a permit-holding Floridian the cream of the crop of law-abiding citizens, 840 times less likely to commit a violent firearm crime than a randomly selected Floridian without a permit." ("More Permits Mean Less Crime..." Los Angeles Times, Feb. 19, 1996, Monday, p. B-5)

I challenge anyone to find a state that is currently "Shall-Issue" where the ccw segment of the population is not exponentially less likely to commit a crime than the "unarmed" population.

So what exactly is the logic for not approving of ccw for the general population?

Uninformed is stating that correlation proves causation, in my opinion. It is a fallacy.

Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" most anything. What your example does not say is how the study was conducted. How many variables were absolutely controlled? Are we really comparing "apples to apples" with each population segment? To me, it would seem to hold more weight if the demographics of the people who had a permit were the same as the comparison group. Maybe this study did that, but the implication is that it does not.

To me, when someone cherry picks data to "prove" something, it smells.

[maddman]

what about statistics that show when a state becomes a shall issue state Crime seems to drop with the more permits issued.

[The Professor]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Uninformed is stating that correlation proves causation, in my opinion. It is a fallacy.

"post hoc ergo propter hoc" is the name by which that fallacy goes, typically

[ResIpsa]

isn't somebody's CUT missing the "yet" at the end of it?

[maddman]

really the demographic does not so much matter as long as the statistic holds true for all/most shall issue states. It shows a simple correlation between law abiding citizen will go threw the proper channels to be able to carry a firearm and these citizens are less likely to commit a crime hence they are law abiding.

[fireman43]

[fireman43]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

isn't somebody's CUT missing the "yet" at the end of it?

I miss CS Bux...

[Puffin Fresh]

Originally Posted by monsoon

Not trying to start an arguement ... just a couple of for all it's worth.

I knew someone would mention this... I remember the story because I'm a Chiefs fan.

He apparently is a criminal. It's a shame to, because he never had a shady past to my knowledge until now. This gun thing at the airport isnt' going to help his life any after his previous incident involving the drugs and a loaded gun.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Uninformed is stating that correlation proves causation, in my opinion. It is a fallacy.

Statistics can be manipulated to "prove" most anything. What your example does not say is how the study was conducted. How many variables were absolutely controlled? Are we really comparing "apples to apples" with each population segment? To me, it would seem to hold more weight if the demographics of the people who had a permit were the same as the comparison group. Maybe this study did that, but the implication is that it does not.

To me, when someone cherry picks data to "prove" something, it smells.

Originally Posted by The Professor

"post hoc ergo propter hoc" is the name by which that fallacy goes, typically

I frequently wonder where criminals get their weapons from. It seems to me there are only three possibilities:

1) criminals with firearms were once "law-abidiing citizens " who obtained their weapons through legitimate channels, or

2) criminals with firearms obtained them from "Law-abiding citizens" either because the asshat law abiding citizens sold them or gave them to the criminals when they shouldn't have, or

3) the "law-abiding citizens" failed to properly secure their firearms, thereby allowing them to fall into the hands of criminals, either through loss, theft, burglary, whatever.

Whatever the case may be, it seems to me that it's the "law-abiding citizens" who are the root cause of criminals having firearms.

Dave or Darrel, I trust one of you can point out the error in my logic to me.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by maddman

really the demographic does not so much matter as long as the statistic holds true for all/most shall issue states. It shows a simple correlation between law abiding citizen will go threw the proper channels to be able to carry a firearm and these citizens are less likely to commit a crime hence they are law abiding.

Please educate the masses on how demographics are not important? BTW, you seem to be using one in your explanation above.

[maddman]

well thats it we just need to ban law abiding citizens.!!!111

so i should have stated demographics are not important as in the way you implied them.