Bill Maas, Glocks, and airport security.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by maddman

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

Just because or do you have a list of reasons? I am all ears to why comparing like demographics would not be important.

[rumballs]

might i suggest:
http://www.clubstogie.com/vb/arcade....lay&gameid=194

[j6ppc]

Who cares anyway... back to cigars now!

[pistol]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Just because or do you have a list of reasons? I am all ears to why comparing like demographics would not be important.

just because Dave, duh...

[j6ppc]

Great smoke tonight this is a cigar board after all

[davemo]

Originally Posted by j6ppc

Great smoke tonight this is a cigar board after all

Well, this is the "Everything but Cigars" section...

[pistol]

Originally Posted by davemo

Well, this is the "Everything but Cigars" section...

the man has a point!

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by maddman

Icehog what state do you live in?

Glad you think of me as a yahoo.

Good little conversation though!

I don't think of you as a "yahoo", that was a statement meaning that there are yahoos out there carrying guns. I too appreciate the civil exchange of differing opinions. I live and work in Illinois.

My opinion has more to do with my personal experience dealing with homicide investigations where someone carrying a concealed gun (obviously illegally in my state) kills someone out of fear rather than being in a justified "deadly force" situation. I am certainly not saying that good citizens might not prevent some crimes if legally armed, I just think some will kill in situations where deadly force is not justified, because the shooter doesn't understand the laws or makes an unintelligent decision.

Thanks again for keeping the discussion civil though.

Originally Posted by davemo

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...

That's true Dave, some of my objections are just based on some of the things I stated above, but I can't disagree with the statement you make in general.

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?

You are not going to incur my wrath, but I take exception with you calling my opinion "uninformed". I have been doing this work for 21 years, have a Masters in Criminal Justice, read dozens of new court decisons every month, and am a certified instructor by the Department of Homeland Security, and have taught Deadly Force courses to LEOs. What are your qualifications?

Regarding your statement "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", I never said I thought the concealed carriers would commit crimes. I just think they are likely to use deadly force in situations where deadly force is not justified.

Statistics can be used to make both sides of every argument, and usually are.

[maddman]

Originally Posted by Bigwaved

Just because or do you have a list of reasons? I am all ears to why comparing like demographics would not be important.

Florida has had Concealed Carry for 20 years in those 20years 5 Violent crimes have been recorded for this group of people. 1 crime every 4 years for any demographic is incredibly low. Talk to any CCW holder they will tell you they will try and deescalate the situation every time. No one wants to shoot somebody but if the situation escalates to it that option is their.

Since Florida Enacted a shall issue policy their crime level has continued to drop, we are talking about a state that has as much of a diverse culture as New York but a much lower crime rate now. Why is this?

now tell me why an equal demographic matters? these numbers hold amazingly true for the Conceal Carry community.


A few days ago someone threatened to kill me because i backed into my driveway and held him up for a few seconds. I had a gun I had to deescalate the situation and hope he did not pull a knife or a gun to force my hand. In a case like this i would be dead if I was not able to control the situation or he advanced with a real want to kill me over his little road rage. Police would have been of no help.

Originally Posted by icehog3

My opinion has more to do with my personal experience dealing with homicide investigations where someone carrying a concealed gun (obviously illegally in my state) kills someone out of fear rather than being in a justified "deadly force" situation. I am certainly not saying that good citizens might not prevent some crimes if legally armed, I just think some will kill in situations where deadly force is not justified, because the shooter doesn't understand the laws or makes an unintelligent decision.

Well a person has a reasonable fear for their life and decided it was worth becoming a criminal and carry a concealed firearm, The state has failed them. Most of these people would probable have taken a Concealed Carry class if allowed to get a permit. And have a few hours of Shoot-no shoot situations. but once again some States do not find it reasonable for a person to have the right to protect them self.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by maddman

Florida has had Concealed Carry for 20 years in those 20years 5 Violent crimes have been recorded for this group of people. 1 crime every 4 years for any demographic is incredibly low. Talk to any CCW holder they will tell you they will try and deescalate the situation every time. No one wants to shoot somebody but if the situation escalates to it that option is their.

Since Florida Enacted a shall issue policy their crime level has continued to drop, we are talking about a state that has as much of a diverse culture as New York but a much lower crime rate now. Why is this?

now tell me why an equal demographic matters? these numbers hold amazingly true for the Conceal Carry community.


A few days ago someone threatened to kill me because i backed into my driveway and held him up for a few seconds. I had a gun I had to deescalate the situation and hope he did not pull a knife or a gun to force my hand. In a case like this i would be dead if I was not able to control the situation or he advanced with a real want to kill me over his little road rage. Police would have been of no help.

The first question is what point you're trying to make with the statistic. If you're saying that Florida's program is a good one because it contains enough controls that only mentally stable, law-abiding people can obtain a permit, then the statistic may be a useful one. However, if you're saying that the mere fact of carrying a concealed weapon with a permit makes you less likely to commit a crime, the design of the study is extremely important for the result to be valid in showing the cause and effect relationship.

If you're trying to prove the second point, it's essential to exclude from your sample of the general public those people who wouldn't qualify for a permit (e.g. by reason of mental illness or criminal record) and those people who wouldn't apply for a permit because they have every expectation of acquiring a criminal record in the future and don't want to be "in the system." You would also need to control for other factors that are statistically linked to violent crime (e.g. income level, gender, age). So, as an example, if 50% of the permit holders in Florida are affluent males over the age of 30, you need your sample of non-permit holders to include the same proportion of that demographic or you need to control for the differences when you're crunching your data before publishing the statistic.

[icehog3]

Originally Posted by maddman

Talk to any CCW holder they will tell you they will try and deescalate the situation every time.

I think to say every CCW holder will try to deescalate every situation is an untrue absolute.

Originally Posted by maddman

Well a person has a reasonable fear for their life and decided it was worth becoming a criminal and carry a concealed firearm, The state has failed them. Most of these people would probable have taken a Concealed Carry class if allowed to get a permit. And have a few hours of Shoot-no shoot situations. but once again some States do not find it reasonable for a person to have the right to protect them self.

Unfortunately many of people who use guns did not have a reasonable fear for their life. They definitely have fear, but it is certainly not always reasonable. And a few hours of shoot - don't shoot scenarios aren't going to make them a reasonable decision maker.

[ResIpsa]

Originally Posted by maddman

No one wants to shoot somebody but if the situation escalates to it that option is their.

Actually, you're wrong. Even in Florida the law still decides and defines under what circumstances a person is justified in using deadly force. And, thankfully, those circumstances are rare.

It's disturbing to think that people there are people out there carrying weapons who think of shooting someone as "their option"

[cedjunior]

Originally Posted by icehog3

I just think they are likely to use deadly force in situations where deadly force is not justified.

Unjustified deadly force in your opinion, or according to the law? If you mean according to the law, that would be homicide, right? In a state like Florida which has had ccw since 1987, how many legal permit owners committed homicides? Surprisingly very few? In a state like Texas, which has had ccw since 1995, how many homicides have been committed by permit owner? Surprisingly very few again? So its safe to say that permit owners as very unlikely to commit homicide? Wouldn't it then be safe to say that if a permit holder is very unlikely to commit homicide, they'd be very unlikely to use unjustified deadly force? Don't you think if they were more likely to use unjustified deadly force there would be a noticeable increase in homicides with all those extra ccw holders running around?

Unless of course when you say unjustified deadly force you mean in your opinion, then thats well, your opinion.

As far as demographics are concerned, they are not important. The only demographic that is important is who has a ccw and who doesn't. If any other demographic information matters, I'd like to know why.

[Bigwaved]

Originally Posted by cedjunior

As far as demographics are concerned, they are not important. The only demographic that is important is who has a ccw and who doesn't. If any other demographic information matters, I'd like to know why.

I believe my post explaining why demographics are an important consideration is clear. That is unless, you are attempting to skew your statistics to support your argument. If demographic are not important, then I would propose that we add dogs, cats and insects into the "n". I am sure that would change the results of the study...

[12stones]

Originally Posted by ResIpsa

Actually, you're wrong. Even in Florida the law still decides and defines under what circumstances a person is justified in using deadly force. And, thankfully, those circumstances are rare.

It's disturbing to think that people there are people out there carrying weapons who think of shooting someone as "their option"

Hey, who let you in here?! No gun threads for Vic!