CCW Laws Do NOT Reduce Crime

No surprise to sane people there....

"Thomas Kovandzic of the University of Alabama and Thomas Marvel of JUSTEC Research examined Florida's right-to-carry law, which has been in existence for 12 years.
Crime reduction has been the basis of arguments by proponents of concealed-handgun laws. They argue that the concealed-carry laws discourage criminals because they fear potential victims might be armed.
But the researchers concluded that concealed-carry laws also allow a larger number of potential criminals to obtain permits, as well.
"There may be numerous reasons for state policymakers to support right-to-carry laws, but the belief that these laws reduce crime should not be one of them," said Kovandzic and Marvell.
The study is published in the Aug. 14 issue of the journal Criminology & Public Policy. "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,566296,00.html

"But the researchers concluded that concealed-carry laws also allow a larger number of potential criminals to obtain permits, as well."

Now, I just have to ask...who is a "potential criminal". This study is complete and utter bullshit.

Signed,
A potential criminal

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of whiny person who hangs out on internet discussion boards all day.

tries any sort of desperate spin to justify his gun fetish??

Sounds about right.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's amazing how actual facts cause some RKBA enthusiasts to fly into a rage..

You might even think they're expressing castration anxiety whenever guns and sanity coincide in a discussion...

because it's because of some people that post on the anti-side that have made me really question my loyalties.

I thought this party stood for liberty, happiness, and defense of one's self and loved ones. The way some people post and behave here have made it clear that a large segment of this party is all too eager to deny people any of those.

present company included

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

or cheering for Tom DeLay does'nt make you question your loyalties....

But a thread pointing out that a rabidly pro-Republican pseudoscientist was full fo crap does?

say something to the effect of:

"Citizens should be allowed to carry concealed weapons, barring any prior felonies"

Then, yes, I do agree with them

B

What makes me question my loyalties are people on this board, most notably people on the anti-RKBA side, who would not blink an eye to deny the right of people to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property. That's not what this party is about and it's not why I became an American.

B

Sonow we're supposed to PRETEND "more guns/less crime" even though it's horseshit?

Screw that. I prrotect my loved ones and my property by pushing for justice and common sense steps against crime...not by arming every neurotic who isn't visibly drunk when they fill out some paperwork...

mine is just a little quicker and more "to the point"

Regardless, as a progressive and a DEMOCRAT, I would never even presume to deny another the right to protection either through the law or through the barrel of a gun.

B

and does nothing to make anyone safer.

"as a progressive and a DEMOCRAT, I would never even presume to deny another the right to protection"
And as a liberal Democrat, I see no reason to let armed neurotics roam the streets just because a corrupt industry is arming criminals.

the next time somebody attempts to carjack you or break into your home (with you in it), like what happened to me, we'll have a little "contest"

Let's see who's more effective: Benchly's undying hatred for guns and trust that 911 will be there to save you, or Superfly's Sig-Sauer 229 and years of firearms training.

Anybody want to get in on this bet?

next time somebody gets shot to death in NJ you can try to explain how unntrained and armed neurotics throwing more lead would improve the situation...

You really do have a fine, fine grasp of logical fallacies. I have to give you lots of praise for your uncanny ability to change the subject, like a ninja master.

resembling logic, do shoot off a flare or something.

because they have all the necessary equipment. While that's true to a certain extent, it kind of misses the point.

to know the mindset of every ccw holder. I don't consider myself a toughguy. I've never been in a fight on off duty time, and I sure in the hell don't want to get into anykind of trouble and lose my license. I have to make sure I have my tinfoil hat on anytime Iam around you.

Just somebody who's known RKBA loonies in real life...

that have CCW's. If you were ever in life threating accident and you knew the doctor had a CCW would you call him scum while he was trying to save your life?

who shouldn't be trusted with guns.

that the corrupt antis were predicting when the CCW law went into effect.

In 1986, Florida passed its idiotic CCW law. It had 120,977 violent crimes that year. Not only didnn't it get a drop in crime, byy 1993, it had 161,789 violent crimes. That isn't enough blood to suit you?

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

how many of those were committed with firearms from year to year, or are you just going to wow us with generalized BIG numbers?

What the hell is the diufference? Remember, the argument for the idiotic concept of CCW was that armed neurotics on the street would make crime drop...which is total horseshit.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and how much did crime increase in places without CCW laws? Also, how much of the increase came from property crime?

I gave you the link...

And the figures I quoted were all violent crime. In fact, property crime ALSO increased, despite the idiotic and dishonest claims of the RKBA crowd.

the index rate per 100,000 in 1986 was 8,238.0.

Compare this to the index rate per 100,000 in 2002, which was 5,398.4

Gee, that looks like the crime rate is going DOWN in Florida, according to the link you posted.

In 1986, Florida had a population of 11,657,843, with 120,977 violent crimes, total.

In 2002, Florida had a population of 16,674,608, with 127,905 violent crimes, total.

They added 5 million people to the population (or around a 45% increase in population), with a TOTAL increase of fewer than 7,000 violent crimes.

In other words, per capita violent crime has NOSEDIVED in Florida from 1986 to 2002. Your chart contradicts your premise.

On edit: Look at property crime in the same time frame (1986-2002).

Total property crime in 1986 was 839,397. In 2002, it was 772,250, despite a 45% increase in population. That's a considerable DECREASE in the total number of property crimes, despite a huge increase in total population.

So, from 1986 to 2002, ALL crime in Florida decreased.

It went up 31% between 1987 and 1993 when only the CCW law was in effect.

In 1994 the Brady Bill took efecct, and crime began to drop. But it dropped slower in Florida than it did in states with sane gun laws.

But go ahead and spin all you want.

where it REALLY dropped after they passed the CCW?

Yea those "sane gun laws" really did us a lot of good.

The whole Brady law argument has been discredited by several sources.
Even the groups you rely on to substantiate your rubbish stated the Brady law had no effect.

disproved it.

Kinda hard to deny when the State of Texas published the numbers for the world (minus Benchly) to see.

In 1986, the index rate was 8,238.0. In 1993, the index rate was 8,204.8. That certainly makes it appear that the crime rate from 1986 to 1993 (prior to passage of the Brady Act) had declined slightly.

Would you care to offer some kind of proof that the decrease from 1993 to 2002 was a direct result of the Brady Act? I thought not.

to head off responses they fear....."Would you care to offer some kind of proof .... I thought not."

But in fact, during the same period there was a decline in violent crime in EVERY state....which certainly suggests to the sane that the Brady Law is the reason.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

But wait, the CCW looks like it might have had a positive effect in reducing crime.

Concealed cary became became legal in Texas in late 1995.

Let's see what happens to the numbers begining in 1996.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/txcrime.htm

to what happened nationally from 1996 on...when the Brady Law was in effect.

My point was made, maybe if we had a federal CCW the federal numbers would be lower?

Try the Brady Law, not this idiotic CCW rubbish.

They wouldn't know how to publish the truth if it meant their own lives.

Heres another site to prove my point.

Oh look, the official state of texas site....

http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/stattabs/statecomparison/CrimeIncRatesection.pdf

The plain fact is that the Brady Law works...which is why the corrupt gun inndustry hates it so much..

from a group you trust enough to reference yourself.

"Gun Regulation

Findings from a recent study suggest that drops in the national crime rate through the 1990s had little to do Federal Firearms License (FFL) reforms enacted in 1994."

http://www.criminologyandpublicpolicy.com/policyflash/PressReleaseMarch2002.php

Here's another one

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/bradyreport000801.html

Another take on the same study;

Brady Law Fails to Reduce Murders
UPI
Tuesday, August 2, 2000
NEW YORK – The most comprehensive study of the Brady Act finds the law has not cut handgun killings, researchers reported Tuesday. In fact, the law's main result is increased violence against women, another researcher has found.
"We weren't able to see any effect on the homicide rate," study author Philip Cook told UPI Tuesday.
"In retrospect we would not expect Brady to be effective against violent crime. Increasingly homicides are committed by career criminals who do not get their guns in legal ways," said the Duke University researcher.
Cook and his co-author, Jens Ludwig of Georgetown University's Public Policy Institute, projected that in 1996 there were eight fewer homicides as a result of 44,000 people being prevented from buying a handgun in the 32 states where Brady created waiting periods and background checks.
This figure is "too small to be identified with state-level vital statistics," the researchers say.
Their study of the 1994 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act is published in today's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The two scientists compared gun crime and death rates in the 32 states in which the Brady gun-buying restrictions apply and compared them with the 18 states that already had laws equivalent to or stricter than Brady.
The researchers assumed that states in which Brady added rules would show how effective the legislation was. But reality intruded.
Cook said that when he and Ludwig looked at statistics from 1985 to 1997 they "found very little difference in trends in the two types of states."
The National Rifle Association hailed the study.
"We don't always agree with the American Medical Association, but in this case common sense prevailed,'' James Jay Baker, head of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, told the Chicago Sun-Times.
The study found that gun suicide rates for people 55 and older fell about 6 percent in the 32 states that added gun restrictions – but detected no overall reduction in suicides. Cook speculated that people who want to end their own lives probably will find a way.
Ludwig speculated that the "enormous loophole" caused by the sale of firearms by one private citizen to another and at gun shows might have been closed a bit by the law. Sales not handled by licensed firearms dealers are estimated to make up to 40 percent of the U.S. gun market.
Another gun violence researcher, Ed McGarrell of the Hudson Institute's Crime Control Policy Division, in Indianapolis, admitted to UPI that the "Brady law restrictions would only be on law-abiding citizens. ... It makes it inconvenient to get a gun."
McGarrell still believes the law and its background checks "are a good thing."

Could you possibly spin any MORE desperately?

"A new study finds that murder and suicide rates did not drop any faster in states that had to toughen their laws to comply with the 1994 Brady Act to regulate handguns."
But in fact they dropped across the board...

"But Ludwig acknowledged that the research was not designed to analyze the Brady Act’s indirect impact on what is known as the secondary gun market — gun sales by unlicensed dealers — which experts say is the source of a significant number of weapons used in crimes.
     The findings show “the importance of extending regulations like the Brady Act to secondary market sales,” Ludwig said. "

But go ahead and spin. The deperation shows.

"Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons.
Between 1992 through 1998 (the last six years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 30% while the violent crime rate for states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped half as much — by 15%. Nationally, the violent crime rate fell 25%.
Additionally, the robbery rate also fell faster in states with strict carry laws. Our analysis found that between 1992 and 1998, the robbery rate in strict and no issue states fell 44% while the robbery rate for the states that liberalized carry laws prior to 1992 dropped 24%. Nationally, the robbery rate fell 37%."

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/conctruth.asp

but you already know that.

Why do people on both sides insist on relying on propaganda?

"Why do people on both sides insist on relying on propaganda?"
Hey, you can go to the FBI numbers and try crunching them for yourself.

It "crunches" the FBI's numbers? More like crunch them, run over them with a garbage truck, and light them on fire.


B

"More like crunch them, run over them with a garbage truck, and light them on fire."
Gee, if that were true, it wouldn't be any problem for you to demonstrate it, would it?

"Look it up yorself"

YOU are the one making this claim....and now you are the one refusing to back it up.

Benchly's referral

Nothing like a taste of your own medecine.

YOU made the claim....and now you refuse to back it up.

You can spin all you like, but I backed up what I said. As your link in this post shows..

"glub, glub, glub"

(Drowning man)

"More guns/less crime" turns out to be total horseshit...

as evidence of Florida's increase in crime a link to a chart. According to your chart, your premise is full of shit.

You cite the 1986 and 1993 figures, not taking into account increases in population, and the HUGE decrease in both property and violent crime.

Either you're trying to "twist" the stats given in YOUR link, or you are...well, enough said.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

which is why you're so desperately trying to spin it away

"You cite the 1986 and 1993 figures, not taking into account increases in population,"
Take that innto account, and the violent crime RATE still goes up a whopping 17%, not down...

"and the HUGE decrease in both property and violent crime."
That only occured after the Brady Law was passed nationwide...and evenn then Florida's crime decreased at a slower pacce than crime did in states with sane gun laws.

made PROPERTY crime decrease?

You seem awfully happy to give the Brady Act the credit, but I've seen ZERO evidence from you.

"I've seen ZERO evidence from "
In fact, you've been trying desperately to spin the evidence you've seen from me away, using the same argument over and over.

contradicts what you are arguing.

And, of course, if that were true, you wouldn't have to spend post after post trying to spin so fuiriously.....

Here is some stuff JoinTogether didn't want to list on their website..
from the original website at http://www.criminologyandpublicpolicy.com/policyflash/PolicyFlash.php

They find that the 1987 passage of Florida's RTC law appears to have had no statistically significant effect on violent crime.
Well then I guess this shows that people who qualify for Right To Carry should be allowed to carry. AFter all, if the streets were going to run with blood, there would be a significant effect on violent crime...right?

I like this alot:
They further speculate that the benefits of allowing potential victims to carry concealed handguns might be cancelled out by an increased number of potential criminals securing permits to carry concealed handguns of their own.

Only the anti RKBA people would pass speculation as research, and only their followers would accept speculation as fact.

was supposed to be that it would CUT crime...but that turns out to be complete horseshit.

"In one of two 'reaction essays' included in the same issue of Criminology & Public Policy, John J. Donohue of Stanford University calls the Kovandzic and Marvell finding "the final bullet in the body of the more guns, less crime hypothesis." "
Now go snivel about it to somebody dumb enough to care.

Even by your proposed research, it doesn't increase crime, therefore, there it should be allowed. In fact, almost every state does allow it.

The arguement against concealed carry was that the streets would run with blood, and we would return to the old west. Well, YOUR research shows that isn't the case. It appears you are supporting the RKBA argument. I guess education does work after all!

Now go snivel about it to somebody dumb enough to care.
That's what you're here from Bench.

"it doesn't increase crime, therefore, there it should be allowed"
Go ahead and make that argument...but I don't think most Americans would buy it..

And the rest of us have to ask why the dishonest claim that it would cut crime was made in the first place...and supported by a totally bogus study funded by the gun industry.

"I guess education does work after all!"
Couldn't prove it by most of the RKBA posts.

Most Americans already have...

only 6 states deny their citizens the RKBA. So, I think you are fighting a losing battle, there, Bench.

doesn't it?

"I think you are fighting a losing battle"
I can tell from the screams of rage RKBA enthusiasts are emitting...and by the fact that their chief claim turns out to be total horseshit, based on pseudoscience and lies.

Go ahead and make that argument...but I don't think most Americans would buy it..
Well, you are wrong like you usually are on this matter. Most Americans do buy it, that is why RTC states GREATLY outnumber Shall issues and no issue states.
Think about it this way, The non and shall issue states have become RTC, but not one RTC state has become non or shall issue. I think I hear you starting your Spin Machine now


And the rest of us have to ask why the dishonest claim that it would cut crime was made in the first place...and supported by a totally bogus study funded by the gun industry.
All 4 of you in the anti RKBA groups made the dishonest claim that blood would run throught the streets with the introduction of RTC laws. WEll guess what Bench, it hasn't happened. You are wrong x 33 (or 34)...but don't let reality interfere with your thought process.

Couldn't prove it by most of the RKBA posts.
Couldn't prove it by ANY of the anti RKBA posts

The majority of Americans oppose such laws...and a lot of the support is based on the belief that Lott's pseudoscience is real. How much would fall away if they knew the truth about Lott's lies?

"the dishonest claim that blood would run throught the streets with the introduction of RTC laws. WEll guess what Bench, it hasn't happened. "
31% increase in Florida's violent crime doesn't seem like enough blood to you?

"Couldn't prove it by ANY of the anti RKBA posts"
Gee, WE are not the one's cheering for Republican corruption, or trying to pass off right wing propaganda from Newsmax as fact...or trying to pass off nutcase Marry Rosh as a scientist.

MrBenchley says "The majority of Americans oppose (shall-issue) laws..."

Then why do they keep electing state legislatures that support shall-issue?

You know...the thing you RKBA types keep rooting for.

Only Republicans support RKBA, and they've corrupted the legislatures of 34 states.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Here's your Tinfoil Hat Army:

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

trying desperately to pretend the main argument for CCW isn't a pile of lies...

The REAL main arguments for CCW are fairness and personal liberty.

Most of us on the pro-CCW side don't care whether or not it reduces violent crime overall. We want the means to defend ourselves, our families, and our property available and not subject to arbitrary denial.

You can hoot and holler all you want about Lott and all the others (none of whom I have ever cited), but we are winning this one state by state.

THAT's why the corrupt gun industry is always chanting "More Guns Less Crime" like scalded parrots.

"Most of us on the pro-CCW side don't care whether or not it reduces violent crime overall. "
Most of those on the RKBA side don't seem to care about anything but their neurotic gun fetish.

"we are winning this one state by state."
And crooked deal by crooked deal.

"Most of those on the RKBA side don't seem to care about anything but their neurotic gun fetish."

Most of those on the Anti RKBA side don't seem to care about anything but the pro RKBA neurotic gun fetish. It must be due to the pantloads of corrupt anti gun rights organizations' lies spewed from the river.

What happened in Michigan?

The lame-duck GOP legislature rammed this piece of crap bill through...and when citizens collected enough signatures to have referendum and overturn it, a GOP judge ruled it was a "spending" bill and not subject to referendum...

The judge threw out that petition because it didn't have enough valid signatures.

But distorting the truth and altering history are the stock in trade of the gun-grabbing monkeys you're pimping for, Benchley.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Mom, Slackmaster keeps hitting me!!!! Make him stop

I made you look.

If I remember corectly, they had a gun measure (don't remember the specifics) on the statewide ballot in 2000. The Nuts Ruining America pumped "bo-coo" dollars in to the Show-Me State in an atempot to get it passed.

The voters said "No"......

:-)

More like the governor vetoed the citizens.

Holden screws MO

"...Governor Bob Holden chooses to veto HB349, Missouri's current version of License to Carry which was passed by the Missouri House and Senate earlier this year."

<snip>

Looks like the voters said YES but ONE MAN said no.

"To cheers and a few catcalls, Gov. Bob Holden vetoed the Missouri Legislature's concealed-weapons bill Thursday in Webster Groves and took aim at the resident senator's wavering stand on the issue.
In 1999, a statewide referendum to allow concealed weapons failed with 52 percent of the votes cast in opposition, primarily in urban areas.
Pro-gun organizations found their chance in the state Capitol this year, when Republicans took control of both chambers."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/0/B7826A9F91CDB02B86256D590013AC8B?OpenDocument&Headline=Holden+vetoes+concealed+weapons+measure++

for the wisdom I can impart to you. Now, say "THANK YOU, MR SUPERFLY!"

Good boy.

I live in Missouri. I was going to point out that we had a statewide referendum on conceal and carry and the voters turned it down. It was only after that statement by the voters that the Republicans in our Legislature took the issue up. I felt Holden was totally right to veto that bill because it was blatant attempt to pull a fast one on the voters.

Dirk

It's amazing how the RKBA tries to distort and spin away actual fact.

Worth noting that the veto ceremony drew just a half dozen or so nutcases protesting that they wanted CCW.

http://www.brunchma.com/~acsumama/com/com040999.html

In Oregon and Colorado in 2000, voters got referenda to close the gun show loophole in each state....the NRA and the gun lobby spent MILLIONS in each state on "They're coming to take our guns away" hysteria...and voters in both states closed the loopholes overwhelmingly.

There's a reason why the Republicans keep gun control legislation bottled in committee and away from a vote...

CO Liberal erred in his post.

and not far right wing loonies....

"Crawford said the 1999 proposition to legalize concealed guns -- which lost by 44,000 votes -- was not an accurate expression of Missourians' attitudes because turnout was only about 30 percent."

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/6231133.htm

Did the governor of Missouri veto the bill or not after it had been passed in both houses of the Missouri legislature?

Answer: (I'll give you a hint...yes he did)

Did the voters of Missouri REJECT a CCW law by referendum in 1999? Yes..

Did the GOP and the corrupt gun industry try ramming it through anyway THIS year? Yes.

Did the Governor veto it? Yes.

Does the RKBA crowd lie? Routinely..

http://www.cgca.com/Annual_Gun_Show.htm

http://www.miwallcorp.com/schedule/2003schedbylocation.pdf

http://www.leadville.com/boomdays/

http://www.rosecitygunshows.com/shows.shtml

http://www.jcfairgrounds.com/Calendar.asp?View=EVENT&EventID=834&Date=08/16/2003&SectionID=-1

http://www.gungoodys.com/calendar.html

But I thought they closed the "loophole" in 2000?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - Gun buyers and merchants alike are grumbling about a new state law requiring private sellers to conduct criminal background checks before they sell weapons at gun shows.
In November, 70 percent of Colorado voters approved the measure to close the so-called gun show loophole by requiring background checks of prospective buyers in sales by unlicensed vendors. Only licensed sellers previously had to do the checks.
In all, 39 people submitted to the background checks Saturday and Sunday. Thirty-eight checks came back clean, and one was still pending Sunday night. It was not clear how many of the people checked bought guns. "


http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/94/128/01_95_m.html

"It is incredible to me that more than two years after Columbine, lawmakers have not yet acted to reduce the availability of guns to criminals and other prohibited persons by closing this loophole in our federal firearm laws.
The citizens of Colorado and Oregon – states with high rates of gun ownership – reacted by supporting referenda to close the gun show loopholes in their states. Now, Congress should do the same and enact legislation to close the gun show loophole nationwide."

http://levin.senate.gov/releases/042601pr1.htm

the chart you qouted DOES show a large decrease in the per capita crime rate in Florida, for both violent and property crime, frim 1986 to 2002.

Are you saying that your own source lies?

Geeze, it's long since got stale.

you make unsubstantiated claims, without any kind of logical basis, and offer it as "proof".

We can all tell....

Where did you find that?

At this rate and with Dean in the White House we could all wind up with Vermont style laws. Or maybe mandatory carry laws.

Don

n/t

John J. Donohue of Stanford University calls the Kovandzic and Marvell finding "the final bullet in the body of the more guns, less crime hypothesis

When the very study that he co-authored states that Texas benefits from maintaining their shall-issue system and California would benefit from adopting one.

As long as liberalized concealed carry doesn't INCREASE crime there's no reason not to adopt it everywhere, and the sooner the better.

Go peddle that to some other enthusiasts.

:toast:

in every way.

And eat it.

no matter how you slice it.

Here's another study that was publish in journal Criminology & Public Policy.

"Gun Regulation

Findings from a recent study suggest that drops in the national crime rate through the 1990s had little to do Federal Firearms License (FFL) reforms enacted in 1994."

http://www.criminologyandpublicpolicy.com/policyflash/PressReleaseMarch2002.php

By the way you forgot to include part of the report. (Spinster)

"First, they point out that few people have taken advantage of the concealed carry law… "despite millions of Floridians being eligible for permits... 12 years after the law was in effect, there were only 248,O49 valid concealed weapons permits in Florida, representing 2.1% of the Florida adult population."

These are hard numbers, witout speculation.
So let me save you the time.

"They further speculate that the benefits of allowing potential victims to carry concealed handguns might be cancelled out by an increased number of potential criminals securing permits to carry concealed handguns of their own."

This will be harder than they lead you to believe, given the extensive background check that is required to obtain the RTC permit.

"Dealers who dropped out of the gun selling market tended to be low-volume sellers, while dealers who remained in business after FFL reforms (30% of pre-reforms retail market) sold two thirds of guns recovered by police as a part of criminal investigations. So although the federal licensing reforms pushed 70% of FFL gun dealers out of the gun-selling arena, drops in crime across the nation may have been largely unrelated. "

In other words, the gun industry is a corrupt mess that sells guns to criminals.

Where does it say these dealers sold the guns to the criminal?

It doesn't.

The police traced them back to the original sale, which was probably a legitimate sale.

The dealer would then no longer be in control of any future sale conducted by the individual that originally purchased it, or responsible if the gun was stolen from the individual that originally purchased it.

All this statement indicates is that the police were able to trace two thirds of guns recovered by police, back to the original dealer.

Take note – it never mentions illegal sales!

So try again, and keep crying that friggin river of drivel.

Peddle it to someone dumb enough to buy it.

someone smart enough to know what their reading.

"someone smart enough to know what their reading."

You can't stay on topic even in your OWN THREAD!

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

Now cry me a fucking river about it

cause it contradicts your entire stance on the issue.

You even tried to spin one statement in your favor...without success I might add.

Peddle it elsewhere!

I'll stand by the study.

WELCOME ABOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Another gun-nut is born!!!

but, with friends like him, who needs enemies?

how desperate you've become, isn't it.