On 17 Apr 2010 21:39:57 GMT, Eregon wrote:

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

The emphasis, and Gunner's statistics, miss the key point -- which has
been proven by careful regression analysis. The operative factor is
that the CCW holders are people who have no serious criminal record
and who have not been institutionalized.

In other words, the difference is not between CCW holders and the
general population. It's between people who have passed a CCW-type
background check and the general population.

Since the crooks and crazies will carry whatever/whenever/whereever they
want anyway, what's your beef?

Is it that the average citizen won't have to waste a lot of time filling
out asinine government forms only to have some gun-control-freak deny his
application "just because"?

Is it that Arizona might not get as much revenue from those who wish to
carry?

You ARE aware, are you not, that the whole purpose of a CCW permit is to
give the "carrier" a legal alibi when some officious badge-toter
"discovers" that the "carrier" is "carrying" since the CCW laws generally
require that the piece be so concealed that no one other than the
"carrier" knows that it's being "carried" and that - if it becomes
apparent that the "carrier" is "carrying" - a CCW holder can be charged
when a piece becomes apparent to others...

You ARE aware, are you not, that the biggest argument AGAINST "carrying"
is Self Defense? Self Defense NOT against robbers, murderers, etc. but
against LAWYERS! After all, if you have a CCW then you're a prime target
for any shyster since (s)he can easily get a listing of all CCW holders
from the state govt. and be lying in wait for you the next time that you
drive through a school zone. One good photo of you and (s)he can run to
the court house to file an "Endangering" suit against you for enough to
pay the whole tab for Obamacare.

It'd be even worse if you actually used that cannon since all of the
perp's kinfolk and/or heirs will line up to sue you for "Wrongful Death"
and any bystanders will be lining up to sue you for "Reckless
Endangerment", "Brandishing", and anything else that a starving shyster
can envision. evil grin


Good post!

Gunner


"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost