On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:58:03 -0400, Wes
wrote:

Ed,

Have your argument with Gunner. Please don't use me as his proxy. I'm talking apples and
you are talking oranges.


Wes

Actually..Ed is talking bull****. It may smell somewhat like
oranges...but...

Gunner





"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Since the person carrying in the case of Arizona can not imbibe, what
difference is there
in carrying in a bar or supermarket?

Wes

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.


What does that have to do with Iggy's question on carrying in bars?

Well, you were comparing it with carrying in a supermarket. My point --
which addresses Gunner's claims more than yours -- is that carrying in a
supermarket isn't the issue, either, according to the statistics. It's
passing a background check.


I'll grant you that the ccw permiting process tends to weed people out at
the cost of
weeding some people that may really need to be able to carry that just
can't afford the
costs involved. Think near poverty service workers and such.

Wes

What a shame.

There are around a dozen major classes of work that require background
checks (I once needed state fingerprinting to work in a country club that
had a liquor license, even though I worked 100 yards from any bar). Run a
regression on them, as I saw in a paper I read two or three years ago, and
they have about the same crime rate as CCW holders.

If you want to isolate people who are carrying guns, then you have to
include people who are criminals because they're carrying guns. No kidding.
Separated from those who've had a background check, they're in the same
statistical cohort. Then it gets interesting -- between those who have a
prior criminal record and those who don't.

In the end, looking at the crime rates for people with CCWs, the only
significant correlation you get is between those who have had criminal
background checks and those who didn't. The numbers come out about the same
and there is no significant difference between those who had the background
check for a CCW, and those who had a check because they're involved in
social work with children.


"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