"Eregon" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:


"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.


So do Lawyers - in the bank balance.

When Lawyers get in the act almost anything can happen regardless of the
specific wording of a specific law. Nowhere is this more apparent than
cases that are decided by emotional appeals to jurors - usually in the
plaintiff's favor - such as the bimbo whose coffee splattered because she
was too stupid to use a cup holder and, yet, got a lot of money out of
McDonalds. (Although her award was reduced on appeal the fact is that she
should have been required to pay McDonalds' legal expenses instead of
collecting anything.)

Perhaps you didn't hear that Joe Horn (the Texas man who provided that
state's first "Castle Law" case) had a lawsuit filed by one of the
burglars' families for "Wrongful Death". The Murder case verdict (and the
"Castle Law") was all that saved his home and savings as the civil suit
was withdrawn.

Not all states have "Castle Laws".

There are far too many that expect [potential] victims to run screaming
for their lives when confronted by an attacker/intruder.

From CCW to spilling coffee from McDonald's; you seem to have something to
bitch about at every turn.

I can see it gives you a lot to write about here. Now, if we could get you
to check your facts first, it might even be worth reading. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress