A
april32010
Guest
proof
- Status
L
lcburgundy
Guest
Egads, now we’ll have to sit through a cavalcade of horribly performed public health-type studies done in inner cities where a bunch of the guns were illegally owned, felon family members, etc. to tar all gun owners.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
No, it isn’t common sense, it appears to be based on pre-conceptions and projected beliefs vice hard data. Here’s a fun fact:
wallsofthecity.net/2010/02/a-criminal-perspective.html
"After 23 years of licensing those who wish to carry handguns, Florida has only had to revoke, at most, 0.277% of those licenses for cause.
As a somewhat random reminder, I would point out that Mayors Against Illegal Guns has had 2.2% of its members arrested, charged, and convicted of criminal activities (assuming 500 mayors – a number that is fiercely debated and probably artificially inflated).
Comparatively speaking, Mayors Against Illegal Guns members are almost eight times more likely to be convicted of crimes than Florida concealed firearm license holders – but that number is based off 23 years of licenses versus four years of MAIG. Assuming the mayors had as much history as the licenses, and assuming the same trend (11 mayors convicted in four years – a sizeable assumption, but it is all the data we have to operate on), you are looking at MAIG members being over 45 times more likely to be convicted of crimes than Florida concealed firearm license holders. How funny is that? "
S
SamH
Guest
Given the fact that over half of all gun deaths are from suicides it is somewhat true. The statement fails to acknowledge that fact. It makes it sound as if someone will break into your home and use the weapon against the owner, its usually the owner using the weapon against themself.
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/05/24/suicides-account-for-most-gun-deaths/
Bob gets one right - but for the wrong reasons.
E
estesbob
Guest
Lot of misinformation out there:
This article has been corrected. [George] Zimmerman called various law enforcement officials 46 times, not just 911, as originally stated. He made the calls over an eight-year period, not over the course of 15 months, as originally stated. The original sentence also cited a call Zimmerman made about a seven-year-old boy; the clause has been removed as it implied that Zimmerman was reporting suspicious activity. It appears that Zimmerman made the call out of concern. We regret the errors."–The New Republic, article dated July 26
This article has been corrected. [George] Zimmerman called various law enforcement officials 46 times, not just 911, as originally stated. He made the calls over an eight-year period, not over the course of 15 months, as originally stated. The original sentence also cited a call Zimmerman made about a seven-year-old boy; the clause has been removed as it implied that Zimmerman was reporting suspicious activity. It appears that Zimmerman made the call out of concern. We regret the errors."–The New Republic, article dated July 26
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
The goal is vigilance though. 
So no vigilance led to tragedy. :
So no vigilance led to tragedy. :
S
SamH
Guest
The “corrections” (intentional misstatements?) seem like they would be longer than the story they reported on.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Applying Catholic virtues is paramount in the discussion of the original post.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Makes you wonder what’s going on there. And just maybe why people their favor Stand your ground. 46 rimes is something. FBI didn’t say anything about that?
S
scipio337
Guest
Show me the causal data analysis that supports this
How many CCW owners are vigilantes. I want your solid data analysis.
You have a habit of ignoring such data when presented to you, and resorting to tired emotional tropes and vague “common sense” claims.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
You’re ignoring my statements and asking for conclusive data I simply do not have. Again, my claims are based on common sense; what vigilante would not want a CCW permit so they could get away with bloody murder? Please provide your reasoning to the contrary.
S
SamH
Guest
Is it a Catholic virtue to accuse fellow members of CA of wanting to kill people?
R
ronaldmiller
Guest
Robert Sock
To say that all people who have a CCW are vigilantes is an ad hominem remark and since vigilantism could reasonably be interpreted as sinful, you are judging another person. You might want to rethink some of your positions.
To say that all people who have a CCW are vigilantes is an ad hominem remark and since vigilantism could reasonably be interpreted as sinful, you are judging another person. You might want to rethink some of your positions.
F
fix
Guest
Right, that is not why it was posted.
Suudy
Active member
Common sense is not always accurate. In the past, common sense (as in, the common person’s sensory (name removed by moderator)ut) indicated that the universe revolved around the earth. It wasn’t until more study was done that it was proven otherwise.
The evidence shows that CCW holders are almost entirely law abiding citizens (see post #262). If only 0.227% of CCWs had to be revoked (and there are millions of CCW holders in the US), and “vigilantism” is not rampant (despite those millions of CCW permits), how can you make this connection between CCW and vigilantism?
I think your common sense is akin’s to Ptolemy’s–wrong. Well, at least Ptolemy applied some critical analysis of his observations. You haven’t provided any of your, or even observations of increased vigilantism among CCW holders.
S
SamH
Guest
How does a CCW help a person get away with bloody murder? What is “common sense” about that claim? It actually makes no sense.
S
styrgwillidar
Guest
Robert. Here’s my reasoning and it’s based just like you, on common sense. It is why Zimmerman’s story makes sense to me. Its common sense for someone seeking and utilizing a CCW.
It is common sense to avoid conflict, because the only thing you can do is draw and fire when in imminent fear for your life. There will be legal consequences regardless of how justified it was. So, it makes sense that he called the police, that he didn’t try to talk to Martin from his truck, that he only got out to get the info the dispatcher requested, that he stopped following when asked, that he only went to get the address because he thought Martin was long gone. That he was truly surprised by Martin- him appearing to ‘jump out’ from nowhere since Z was now focused in the dark, with a poor substitute for a flashlight, with poor visual dark adaptation on getting that address, that he wouldn’t have drawn his weapon prior to being in imminent fear for his life. That he rolled around screaming vice drawing his weapon.
Now, applying that to the larger class of people-- CCW holders attitudes are incompatible with ‘bloody murder’. Vigilantes, or anyone else willing to kill illegally don’t commit murder as a first offense, they have a violent mindset, have a violent history, and won’t be eligible for a CCW. More importantly, someone intent on committing criminal acts isn’t going to trouble themselves participating in legal niceties. Its very hard to setup a situation so it can appear to be a legal shoot when it isn’t. So, a vigilante isn’t going to kill someone and then call it in–so why bother with a legal weapon?
Now, in addition to common sense, that assessment is validated by the experience of the states with shall-issue CCWs holders. They have a far lower rate of crime than the general public.
Where is there any data to validate that your common sense is actually accurate in the real world, vice making sense to you?
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
It has been, yours assumes everyone is a vigilante by equating a permit with this assumed state of mind.
S
scipio337
Guest
This ^!
M
MaryT777
Guest
Yes… way too many tragic accidents with guns in the home.
The fact is that guns are more likely to be used against oneself or a loved one. For example, a suicidal person, perhaps within one’s own family, will seek out the opportunity to gain access to the weapon.
Mary.
- Status