"Eregon" wrote in message
...
"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?

There's no beef. I happen to favor right-to-carry laws. But I'm not
impressed with phony arguments, as you should know. Gunner's statistics,
although accurate on their face (more or less; I dug into it about three
years ago and learned that it's more equivocal than his selections suggest),
lead to a phony conclusion -- that concealed carry, itself, implies more
responsible behavior. There's no real evidence of that, for several reasons.


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"?

It's just the statistical evidence: People who go through background checks
and are approved are less likely to commit crimes. That's what the paper I
referred to was about. I'm not saying it was the last word (I really can't
follow much regression analysis) but it seems likely that the methodology
was solid and that the conclusions were correct. As is often the case, some
researchers spent a lot of time and effort confirming something that anyone
with a clear head probably realizes intuitively.


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

I doubt if revenue had anything to do with the law. The fact is that Arizona
has a strong conservative element in their politics, as well as a
libertarian element, and that they just combined through history and
circumstance to pass a law that is generally favored out there.


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...

I'm aware of how gun laws work. I was a very active pro-gun activist around
15 - 20 years ago.


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!

WHOSE biggest argument? Not mine.

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.

You have a vivid imagination. It tends to color your posts, frequently. d8-)


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

Paranoia strikes deep, Eregon.

--
Ed Huntress