On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:10:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip good observations
The fact is that Dallas has a serious social problem.
snip some more good observations
==============
To view this as an isolated incident is a mistake IMNSHO.

We are now well into the third century of the [US] republic, and
we have spent literally trillions of dollars on social
engineering, and criminal justice.

The citizens are still in the position of having to blow the bad
guys away to protect themselves and/or their property, and by the
statistics its getting worse world wide, even in areas with the
most stringent gun control and social/political correctness.

For example in Canada they just had the equivalent of a Saint
Valentine's day massacre [6 bodies] complete with the innocent
vic [ TV repairman]. The UK is awash in gun crimes and for those
who can't afford a gun there is always a knife or machete.

What is going on here?

Are we on the verge of a new dark age??


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
[...]

Sure. But it didn't happen all of a sudden, like the CCW law going into
effect and Texans going out in large numbers and getting permits.

Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going into
effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did those
instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they increase
gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW holders? Was
that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:
[...]


Sure. But it didn't happen all of a sudden, like the CCW law going into
effect and Texans going out in large numbers and getting permits.


Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going into
effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did those
instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they increase
gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW holders? Was
that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?



Doug!??!

Ya'll got this cart/horse issue.

Yes, there WAS a surge of permits - as soon as the law went into effect.
Before that there WEREN'T ANY... GollY!

The REASON the law was enacted was because so many people were already
carrying. (yeah - before the law was writ).

You might say that this was the REASON the law was written.

Politicians follow the voting crowd.
(dunno why they think they should be called "leaders")

Put THAT in your spreadsheet and smpke it, Ed!

Richard

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
[...]


Sure. But it didn't happen all of a sudden, like the CCW law going into
effect and Texans going out in large numbers and getting permits.


Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going
into effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did
those instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they
increase gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW
holders? Was that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?



Doug!??!

Ya'll got this cart/horse issue.

Yes, there WAS a surge of permits - as soon as the law went into effect.
Before that there WEREN'T ANY... GollY!

The REASON the law was enacted was because so many people were already
carrying. (yeah - before the law was writ).

You might say that this was the REASON the law was written.

Politicians follow the voting crowd.
(dunno why they think they should be called "leaders")

Put THAT in your spreadsheet and smpke it, Ed!

Richard

Hey, Richard, remember what's going on here. I'm not trying to analyze
Texas's crime problem. I'm responding to the claim, which Gunner posted from
some source he came upon, that Texas's homicide rate was 'way down in the
two years or so after the CCW law was passed. The data -- spreadsheet or
not -- makes it clear that the CCW law had no measurable influence on it.

All of these complications you're bringing up could be taken as additional
evidence that passage of the law was not a factor. I don't disagree with you
on that, because the data alone tells us that it was not a factor IN
HOMICIDES.

If I were going to look at this closely (which I'm not; it takes weeks or
months of research, which I did for NJ years ago and I'm not doing again), I
wouldn't have started with homicides in the first place. The clearest
evidence should relate to muggings, car thefts, and other crimes for which
an armed citizen out in the street should have the biggest influence.

But I'm not going there, either. I'll leave that to the people who care.
From what I can see, Dallas's crime situation is beyond repair without a
complete overhaul of the entire system. It's been allowed to degenerate to
an incredible degree, and concealed carry isn't likely to help much, if at
all.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:21:21 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:19:54 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:34:30 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
A dead perp has a zero recidivism rate.

The trouble is that Dallas has thousands ready to fill their shoes.
You
can
shoot some more, and you will have no measurable effect.

If ten or twelve a day ended up dead, the rest would get the hint
sooner, plus there would be a dozen fewer perps every day. That's
gotta count for something.


Following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry law in 1995 and
through 1997, the number of homicides had dropped 25% compared to a
national reduction of 16%. Furthermore, the number of assaults and
rapes were cut in half, which again far exceeded the national rate.
Overall, the Texas crime rates have dropped to the lowest point in
over 25 years following the enactment of the Texas concealed carry
law.

Oh, boy, here we go. OK, Gunner, we'll take only one, for everyone's
sake.
Let's take the first sentence.


http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonl...e/RunHomStateb
yState.cfm

The Texas concealed carry law took effect on January 1, 1996. Here are
the
Texas murder rates for some years around that date:

1991 - 2652
1992 - 2239 (down 16% over previous year)
1993 - 2147 (-4%)
1994 - 2022 (-6%)
1995 - 1693 (-16%)
1996 - 1477 (-13%)
1997 - 1327 (-10%)
1998 - 1346 (+1%)

Note that the downward trend started in 1992, from the peak year of
1991.
The big year of decline actually was 1995 -- the year before the CCW law
took effect in Texas -- and that the trend inched up and then stabilized
after 1997 (you can see the longer trend at the BJS data site above). If
somebody here wants to do a regression analysis, it appears from the
year-over-year numbers that it will show *absolutely no effect* on the
murder rate due to the CCW law. The trend was set years before and it
followed a smooth curve right through the early CCW years.

This is the kind of thing about crime statistics that drives me crazy.
No
doubt you got that information above from some highly partisan source
that
didn't put the info into context -- intentionally, perhaps.

None of that "data" can be trusted, except from neutral sources. The
closest
thing we have to a neutral source is the FBI UCR. If you take even five
minutes to check out those statements, you'll probably see that the rest
of
it is just like this: so much baloney.


Keeps you busy doesnt it?

Idle hands do the devils work.....lol


Now that Ive got your attention..care to provide the same cites for
Florida after their CCW expansion?

Gunner

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Why would it? The focus is way too limited here. If you look at murders that
is what you are looking at; a connection to CCW permits is a different
subject. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other. Look at
murders. Who does them and why. When you break that down you find it's most
often people one knows or family members. Gang bangers kill lots of other
gang bangers. Husbands and boyfriends kill lots of wives and girlfriends.
When you break down the murder rate it's clear that CCW permits would have
little or no effect on overall murders. CCW permits are great for self
defense against strangers, which is rare, and for scaring off criminals but
as to having a major impact on murders overall, no way.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know
where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Why would it? The focus is way too limited here. If you look at murders
that
is what you are looking at; a connection to CCW permits is a different
subject. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

The focus is the one determined by the claim that Gunner cut-and-posted. It
said that homicides went down when the CCW law went into effect. That's what
all of the above was about.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:

Nope. Long distances are much shorter here. Connecticut is on the other side
of the earth from here, actually. And Massachusetts is on another planet.


And we have our own wars of northern aggression


Kevin Gallimore
Supreme Commander
Local Clamdiggers Military Action Committee


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
[...]

Sure. But it didn't happen all of a sudden, like the CCW law going into
effect and Texans going out in large numbers and getting permits.

Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going
into
effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did those
instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they increase
gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW holders?
Was
that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?

In the news articles they reported that it was a gold rush. I saw one number
at a gun site, so don't count on it, but it was 190,000 at the end of two
years. One assumes they either have a gun or are about to buy one when they
get a permit. I'm sure that's the case in most instances, but there also are
exceptions.

Don't forget what the issue is here, Doug. The claim was that the homicide
rate went down dramatically in the first two years of the CCW law. That's
the primary thing I've been discussing. As for the general efficacy of CCW
laws, that's a much bigger question.

--
Ed Huntress

On Oct 23, 12:46 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Yeah, but did you believe your own statement, or was that tongue-in-cheek?

It was more or less, the only data I had to go on. In the rough belief
that the available news stories seem to say NYC has less than 10
minute responses, and that Dallas has much longer responses, and we
assume both cities lie through their teeth, but are equally adept at
their ability to schew the numbers to their advantage: Yes, I believe
my statement.

I am reinforced in this thought by two things.

Apparently NYC reports less.

Actual experience with Dallas says their responses are way way longer
than what NYC claims.

My God. How can you live in a place like that? How about a nice house on the
Jersey Shore? d8-)

I haven't begun to tell you the worst. That's probably the rape victum
my employees rescued from near death. She was naked, unable to speak,
and so beaten, they couldn't tell what race she was. Or maybe it was
the pregnant women shot at the stop light, and both she and her baby
died. Or maybe it was the father carrying his two girls in his arms
walking away from their car when they ran out of gas, and a driver hit
them from behind and threw them from the overpass down onto Chalk Hill
Rd. Probably the only time they visited Chalk Hill Rd. the day they
died on it.

You assume you have to provide for your own protection, so you arm
yourself. You make sure your walls and doors are bullet proof. (Only
armor piercing gets inside the doors these days, and there are only 10
or so rounds per hundreds which have managed to do that. And that's
only in the hallway) You get an active burglar alarm monitoring
company like Sonitrol, and put up their stickers on every door, so
they only shoot at you and don't actually break in. You then you
blossom where you're planted, and enjoy the low rent.

It's really no different from what the first people in Texas did. If
not for people who put up with such things, and refused to run, Texas
would still be Northern Mexico. And may shortly be again.

Well, I used to be on the Virginia shore. I didn't find people thought
like I did there. I left when it occurred to me I was paying tax on my
dogs balls. The license was $5 neutered, and $15 unneutered. So that
was $5 for the dog, and $5 for each ball.

A lawsuit from CA may do what armed gangs could not. Both make as much
legal sense.

Randy

On Oct 23, 2:41 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going into
effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did those
instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they increase
gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW holders? Was
that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?

Doug and later I see Richard have the right idea on the statistics and
what really happened about CCH in Texas.

As is so often the case, the law lags the fact. The laws followed what
the people enacted by voting with their behavior. I started carrying
concealed in 1990 after my shoot out on the front steps. However, by
1996 my need to carry was declining and I was unwilling to take the
risk of being "caught" and "procsecuted" doing what I was sure I had a
constitutional right to do anyway. I passed the CCH test and training
in 1997, but never sent it in to be filed with the state.

The law passed in 1995 because of the influence of the October 1991
shooting in Kileen by George Henard. (The guy who taught my class was
one of the senators who proposed the law. I have that correlation from
a first hand source.)

See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

Suzanna Huff (to become a state representative because of this)
watched her parents be killed in front of her eyes, with her handgun
out in her car. Point is, it was illegal to carry in her car, but she
did, however, she was intimidated out of carrying it into the
restaraunt.

Likewise, in the same period, I was packing when I was coming and
going around my building. So, Ed, if you take those statistics, that
Texans began carrying concealed or not in the early 90's and rerun
your statistics, you may find fact of carry happened before the law,
and corresponds perfectly with that dip in crime which otherwise makes
less sense.

Not that I suspect you will take the anecdotal evidence of two
documented cases, Suzanne and I, as worthy of note.

Randy

On Oct 23, 2:41 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going into
effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did those
instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they increase
gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW holders? Was
that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?

As is so often the case, the law lags the fact. The laws followed what
the people enacted by voting with their behavior. I started carrying
concealed in 1990 after my shoot out on the front steps. However, by
1996 my need to carry was declining and I was unwilling to take the
risk of being "caught" and "procsecuted" doing what I was sure I had a
constitutional right to do anyway. I passed the CCH test and training
in 1997, but never sent it in to be filed with the state.

The law passed in 1995 because of the influence of the October 1991
shooting in Kileen by George Henard. (The guy who taught my class was
one of the senators who proposed the law. I have that correlation from
a first hand source.)

See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

Suzanna Huff (to become a state representative because of this)
watched her parents be killed in front of her eyes, with her handgun
out in her car. Point is, it was illegal to carry in her car, but she
did, however, she was intimidated out of carrying it into the
restaraunt.

Likewise, in the same period, I was packing when I was coming and
going around my building. So, Ed, if you take those statistics, that
Texans began carrying concealed or not in the early 90's and rerun
your statistics, you may find fact of carry happened before the law,
and corresponds perfectly with that dip in crime which otherwise makes
less sense.

Not that I suspect you will take the anecdotal evidence of two
documented cases, Suzanne and I, as worthy of note.

Randy

"RMDumse" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 23, 12:46 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Yeah, but did you believe your own statement, or was that
tongue-in-cheek?

It was more or less, the only data I had to go on. In the rough belief
that the available news stories seem to say NYC has less than 10
minute responses, and that Dallas has much longer responses, and we
assume both cities lie through their teeth, but are equally adept at
their ability to schew the numbers to their advantage: Yes, I believe
my statement.

I am reinforced in this thought by two things.

Apparently NYC reports less.

Actual experience with Dallas says their responses are way way longer
than what NYC claims.

My God. How can you live in a place like that? How about a nice house on
the
Jersey Shore? d8-)

I haven't begun to tell you the worst. That's probably the rape victum
my employees rescued from near death. She was naked, unable to speak,
and so beaten, they couldn't tell what race she was. Or maybe it was
the pregnant women shot at the stop light, and both she and her baby
died. Or maybe it was the father carrying his two girls in his arms
walking away from their car when they ran out of gas, and a driver hit
them from behind and threw them from the overpass down onto Chalk Hill
Rd. Probably the only time they visited Chalk Hill Rd. the day they
died on it.

You assume you have to provide for your own protection, so you arm
yourself. You make sure your walls and doors are bullet proof. (Only
armor piercing gets inside the doors these days, and there are only 10
or so rounds per hundreds which have managed to do that. And that's
only in the hallway) You get an active burglar alarm monitoring
company like Sonitrol, and put up their stickers on every door, so
they only shoot at you and don't actually break in. You then you
blossom where you're planted, and enjoy the low rent.

It's really no different from what the first people in Texas did. If
not for people who put up with such things, and refused to run, Texas
would still be Northern Mexico. And may shortly be again.

Well, I used to be on the Virginia shore. I didn't find people thought
like I did there. I left when it occurred to me I was paying tax on my
dogs balls. The license was $5 neutered, and $15 unneutered. So that
was $5 for the dog, and $5 for each ball.

A lawsuit from CA may do what armed gangs could not. Both make as much
legal sense.

I don't know whether to pass on my sympathy or to yell that you've got to
get out. I cannot imagine living under all those threats, and I mean that
seriously. I just can't imagine it.

Good luck to you, Randy, with your lawsuit and all. As I was reading your
post I was thinking about how the original Texans put up with the threats
they did because they wanted to build something -- farms, families,
businesses. All I can think of to build there now, as you describe it, is
some bullet traps, so you can get into the scrap lead business on the side.

I hope it isn't necessary.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , "Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
[...]

Sure. But it didn't happen all of a sudden, like the CCW law going into
effect and Texans going out in large numbers and getting permits.

Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going
into
effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did those
instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they increase
gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW holders?
Was
that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?

In the news articles they reported that it was a gold rush. I saw one number
at a gun site, so don't count on it, but it was 190,000 at the end of two
years. One assumes they either have a gun or are about to buy one when they
get a permit. I'm sure that's the case in most instances, but there also are
exceptions.

Well, that's the kind of additional information I was looking for. Having that
certainly strengthens your case considerably -- my point is that without it,
and other data like it, you don't have as much of a case as you think.

Don't forget what the issue is here, Doug. The claim was that the homicide
rate went down dramatically in the first two years of the CCW law.

OK, if that's the case -- I'll stand corrected. I thought we were discussing
the claim that the homicide rate went down *because*of* the CCW law.

That's
the primary thing I've been discussing. As for the general efficacy of CCW
laws, that's a much bigger question.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Ed Huntress wrote:

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...

Doug Miller wrote:


In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
[...]



Sure. But it didn't happen all of a sudden, like the CCW law going into
effect and Texans going out in large numbers and getting permits.


Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going
into effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did
those instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they
increase gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW
holders? Was that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?



Doug!??!

Ya'll got this cart/horse issue.

Yes, there WAS a surge of permits - as soon as the law went into effect.
Before that there WEREN'T ANY... GollY!

The REASON the law was enacted was because so many people were already
carrying. (yeah - before the law was writ).

You might say that this was the REASON the law was written.

Politicians follow the voting crowd.
(dunno why they think they should be called "leaders")

Put THAT in your spreadsheet and smpke it, Ed!

Richard


Hey, Richard, remember what's going on here. I'm not trying to analyze
Texas's crime problem. I'm responding to the claim, which Gunner posted from
some source he came upon, that Texas's homicide rate was 'way down in the
two years or so after the CCW law was passed. The data -- spreadsheet or
not -- makes it clear that the CCW law had no measurable influence on it.

All of these complications you're bringing up could be taken as additional
evidence that passage of the law was not a factor. I don't disagree with you
on that, because the data alone tells us that it was not a factor IN
HOMICIDES.

If I were going to look at this closely (which I'm not; it takes weeks or
months of research, which I did for NJ years ago and I'm not doing again), I
wouldn't have started with homicides in the first place. The clearest
evidence should relate to muggings, car thefts, and other crimes for which
an armed citizen out in the street should have the biggest influence.

But I'm not going there, either. I'll leave that to the people who care.
From what I can see, Dallas's crime situation is beyond repair without a
complete overhaul of the entire system. It's been allowed to degenerate to
an incredible degree, and concealed carry isn't likely to help much, if at
all.

--
Ed Huntress



I was just saying that people (here at least) were carrying BEFORE the
law was passed.

THerefore, I'd not expect to see much of a bump on the curve...

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 09:31:02 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Phooey. A simplistic single-variable analysis like that means nothing of
the
sort, either way. All it means is that _if all other factors were equal_
then
the CCW law had 'x' effect (or failed to have 'y' effect).

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

No, Doug, on two counts. First, the claim we're testing is that a single
variable (enactment of a CCW law) had a measurable effect. The authors of
the quote Gunner posted made that claim.

If there were other, confounding events going on at the same time, the curve
would have short-term lumps or kinks in it. It does not. Furthermore, you
can test it further (I did) by overlaying it with national and/or regional
data, where there were no new CCW laws in the other states. If the CCW law
had an effect in Texas you would see a kink or lump in the curve and no
comparable lumps in the other states.

Second, if there were countereffects from other variables, they would
produce lumps, as well. The chance that one variable would *exactly
counterbalance* the CCW law, and thus produce the *illusion* of a smooth
curve, is so vanishingly small that you'd might as well forget it. One
effect would have to turn on just as the other one turned off, and to
exactly the same degree and with the same trend. Your chances of winning the
lottery are greater.

This is standard curve-testing stuff in economics. It's a first cut, and you
have to look closer before putting your money on a bet. But it's a very
effective way to see if something happened or it didn't. In this case,
nothing happened.

BTW, I ran the same data for Florida over the past 15 minutes, around the
year 1987, when they enacted their CCW law. But I'll leave that as an
exercise for anyone who's interested. d8-)
=========
GOOD POINTS!!!!

And exactly were the elites [we?] go off the rails on everything
from monitary policy and minimum wage to CCW laws and social
engineering.

We need to update the catch phrase from "show me the money" to
"show me the results," and follow through with "no results" = "no
[more] money."

One problem is increasing governmental/corporate secrecy and
media censorship. Two examples, the supressed airline safety
survey and the non-news of the Dupont loss [ c. 100+ millions
actual + 100 million$ punative] for the environmental damages
they caused in WV.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:07:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Then we need to shoot more of them. The survivors will get the hint.

Gunner
========
This seems to be the core of the problem. Some individuals will
*NOT* learn from their past mistakes, let alone the mistakes of
others.

As Ben Franklin observed in Poor Richard's Almanac "Experence is
a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other." Sometimes the
tuition is your life.....


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

"cavelamb himself" wrote in message
...
snip


I was just saying that people (here at least) were carrying BEFORE the
law was passed.

THerefore, I'd not expect to see much of a bump on the curve...

I didn't expect to see one, either.

--
Ed Huntress

"RMDumse" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 23, 2:41 pm, (Doug Miller) wrote:
Right there are a couple of the additional factors. Sure, the law going
into
effect was a sudden event. But what about permit applications? Did those
instantaneously soar the moment the law took effect, or did they increase
gradually over time? What about increased gun purchases by CCW holders?
Was
that a sudden event, too, or was that gradual over time?

Doug and later I see Richard have the right idea on the statistics and
what really happened about CCH in Texas.

As is so often the case, the law lags the fact. The laws followed what
the people enacted by voting with their behavior. I started carrying
concealed in 1990 after my shoot out on the front steps. However, by
1996 my need to carry was declining and I was unwilling to take the
risk of being "caught" and "procsecuted" doing what I was sure I had a
constitutional right to do anyway. I passed the CCH test and training
in 1997, but never sent it in to be filed with the state.

The law passed in 1995 because of the influence of the October 1991
shooting in Kileen by George Henard. (The guy who taught my class was
one of the senators who proposed the law. I have that correlation from
a first hand source.)

See also:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre

Suzanna Huff (to become a state representative because of this)
watched her parents be killed in front of her eyes, with her handgun
out in her car. Point is, it was illegal to carry in her car, but she
did, however, she was intimidated out of carrying it into the
restaraunt.

Likewise, in the same period, I was packing when I was coming and
going around my building. So, Ed, if you take those statistics, that
Texans began carrying concealed or not in the early 90's and rerun
your statistics, you may find fact of carry happened before the law,
and corresponds perfectly with that dip in crime which otherwise makes
less sense.

Not that I suspect you will take the anecdotal evidence of two
documented cases, Suzanne and I, as worthy of note.

Randy

So they all started carrying in 1991, after the restaurant shooting? Nobody
started, say, in 1988, when the number of homicides started increasing?

The anecdotes are of interest to you personally, Randy, but two documented
cases don't tell us anything about the rises and falls in the crime rate.

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 12:10:55 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:
snip good observations
The fact is that Dallas has a serious social problem.
snip some more good observations
==============
To view this as an isolated incident is a mistake IMNSHO.

We are now well into the third century of the [US] republic, and
we have spent literally trillions of dollars on social
engineering, and criminal justice.

The citizens are still in the position of having to blow the bad
guys away to protect themselves and/or their property, and by the
statistics its getting worse world wide, even in areas with the
most stringent gun control and social/political correctness.

For example in Canada they just had the equivalent of a Saint
Valentine's day massacre [6 bodies] complete with the innocent
vic [ TV repairman]. The UK is awash in gun crimes and for those
who can't afford a gun there is always a knife or machete.

What is going on here?

Are we on the verge of a new dark age??

It's not that bad, George. Homicide rates are way down overall. Dallas is
just a hotspot with big problems.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.htm

--
Ed Huntress

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...

snip

=========
GOOD POINTS!!!!

And exactly were the elites [we?] go off the rails on everything
from monitary policy and minimum wage to CCW laws and social
engineering.

We need to update the catch phrase from "show me the money" to
"show me the results," and follow through with "no results" = "no
[more] money."

Since misuse of statistics has been around at least long enough to have
produced a famous quip from Mark Twain, we've been suffering from it for a
long time. It's a shame because it's one of the most useful tools anyone has
ever invented.


One problem is increasing governmental/corporate secrecy and
media censorship. Two examples, the supressed airline safety
survey and the non-news of the Dupont loss [ c. 100+ millions
actual + 100 million$ punative] for the environmental damages
they caused in WV.

I have high hopes for the Internet in the long run, as a medium that will
give us a lot more inside news. I'm losing faith in the mainstream media at
the same time we have all these new resources. If it wasn't just so damned
full of phony and misleading crap, it would be great as it is.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:04:20 -0500, F. George McDuffee
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:07:25 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Then we need to shoot more of them. The survivors will get the hint.

Gunner
========
This seems to be the core of the problem. Some individuals will
*NOT* learn from their past mistakes, let alone the mistakes of
others.

As Ben Franklin observed in Poor Richard's Almanac "Experence is
a dear school, but a fool will learn in no other." Sometimes the
tuition is your life.....

Sooner or later...those that dont learn, get shot. Shrug..simple
enough.

Darwin at work.

Gunner



Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

snip


Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know
where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

--
Ed Huntress


Why would it? The focus is way too limited here. If you look at murders
that
is what you are looking at; a connection to CCW permits is a different
subject. One doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the other.

The focus is the one determined by the claim that Gunner cut-and-posted. It
said that homicides went down when the CCW law went into effect. That's what
all of the above was about.

--
Ed Huntress

Well, the only statistic I'd be concerned about is my personal
victimization rate.

On Oct 23, 8:12 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
So they all started carrying in 1991, after the restaurant shooting? Nobody
started, say, in 1988, when the number of homicides started increasing?

No, of course, I knew quite a few people in the 1980's who would carry
in their cars, but very few on their person, none I can name
personally carrying at all times. After Henard, it became personal,
and they began carrying on their person. But there were many different
initiating event back then to, and each persons decision was personal,
but many in the same time frame.

My wife had some occassion to go to the bus station in 1991. As she
walked away from the bus station alone (this is down town Dallas,
broad daylight, heavy traffic, lots of bystanders), a black man
started following her and yelling at her, "Hey bitch! How 'bout I come
over and slap you up side you pretty head!" She's a tiny thing, so she
fled, she darted across the street through traffic, and he was
advancing. She looked around at the passing traffice, the other people
around the bus station impassively watching the drama without any
concern, and realized, if he caught up with her, she had no hope of
defending her self, or any of these other people around her coming to
her aid.

Another event about the time the law was passed was the Dallas
Cowboy's Super Bowl parade, 1994 iirc. I had been called for jury duty
that day. So I was inside the downtown court house, sitting in viador.
I was released from duty, and dumped out on the streets in the middle
of a riot. I was also disgruntelled, because I was unarmed that day.
They have metal detectors in the courthouse. So I went stomping off to
my car, upset about the obvious bias I'd seen in jury selection,
boiled by the sound of sirens, and wondering what was going on. I was
uncomfortable, because I noticed many people (blacks) staring at me as
I walked, having no idea of why they looked so intent and angry. I'm a
big guy, so no one bothered me, and I got in my car and drove out of
the carnage unaware, save the sirens and the squad of police streaking
past me on bicycles. I half chuckled and sneared to myself, always
something happening downtown. It wasn't until that evening I found out
a race riot was on down there. Many whites had been pommelled by gangs
of blacks for no apparent reason, as was shown on the evening news
that night. I think that also caused many people to start carrying as
well.

Yes, I don't expect to convince anyone with these specific cases, but
for me, I have no doubt of the timing of things, when the bulk of the
people who carry began, and the sudden drop in crime, as well as the
passage of the law - we were demanding it.

Thank you for your kind wishes and concerns. Yes, it is horrible,
neigh unbeleivable here. The very fact most can't imagine is why I
tell the story. However, we have managed to remain safe and unharmed
through it all. Like the early settlers, we tough it out, and for the
same reasons. Our land, and we won't let the bad guys drive us off it.
The real story here is the unacceptable stance of Dallas to act as a
provider of law and order while ever raising property taxes without
providing adequate services. Yet we often hear of the payoffs and
corruption among the City Counsil members. Clearly our saftey and well
being is not on the forefront of their minds:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...129b687ca.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...79327518_x.htm

No, I don't expect you can imagine living here. One of the things I
mentioned to the mayor in the letter with the 45 lbs of glass, was, I
felt safer in a third world country (PI where I started a PCB layout
design company) than I did in Dallas at the time.

But if you can't imagine it, you can't imagine what a state of mind
James Walton was in, either. Besides just getting this off my chest by
complaining about it, I hope I can impart the idea that James deserved
better treatment at the hands of the news. If any of you think he was
over reacting, or playing cowboy, or goes around armed to the teeth
and bragging about his needed killin' job, you need to try on his
shoes. Or mine. Or my wife's. Because if you can't understand the
situation out here, you can't understand how patient and reasonable
James has been, and why when they are stealing food out of his
refrigerator (one of the things he remarked to me about having
happened), the problem is way beyond just an issue of just defending
property, but they are encroaching on life, liberty, and literally the
pursuit of his next meal.

Randy

"RMDumse" wrote in message
ups.com...

snip

No, I don't expect you can imagine living here. One of the things I
mentioned to the mayor in the letter with the 45 lbs of glass, was, I
felt safer in a third world country (PI where I started a PCB layout
design company) than I did in Dallas at the time.

But if you can't imagine it, you can't imagine what a state of mind
James Walton was in, either. Besides just getting this off my chest by
complaining about it, I hope I can impart the idea that James deserved
better treatment at the hands of the news. If any of you think he was
over reacting, or playing cowboy, or goes around armed to the teeth
and bragging about his needed killin' job, you need to try on his
shoes. Or mine. Or my wife's. Because if you can't understand the
situation out here, you can't understand how patient and reasonable
James has been, and why when they are stealing food out of his
refrigerator (one of the things he remarked to me about having
happened), the problem is way beyond just an issue of just defending
property, but they are encroaching on life, liberty, and literally the
pursuit of his next meal.

Randy

Well, at least you're getting a chance to get it off your chest. Even after
living where I do for 29 years, though, and loving the place, I'd get out of
here in a heartbeat if it ran down the way you're saying Dallas has run
down. I might tell myself I was taking a stand but I also would know that
it's a losing battle if I have to arm myself just to have a chance of
surviving it. You can't turn a whole social community around with a gun.
Meantime, life can just pass you by while you're manning the Alamo.

Again, I hope things get better and that you stay under the gunfire. Nobody
needs the stress imposed by that much danger, particularly when we're
middle-aged or more.

--
Ed Huntress

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:22:51 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:41:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Aren't you forgetting that the main thrust of the media campaigns are
made in the year _prior_ to the law getting passed?

I'm not following you. Certainly interested parties are making their efforts
to get a law passed or not before it happens. But we're talking about trying
to measure what happened once the policy actually becomes law. Right?

Yes and no. I thought we were talking about the impact CC laws have on
crime rates. I measure that from the day the impact happens, not just
after the law is passed.

With the media blasting the intended law across all channels (night
and day for months) the perps get the hint and slow down immediately,
even before the law is actually passed. It appeared from another of
your posts that a significant drop in crime came in the year before
the CC law passed. John Lott showed something along that line in his
book _More Guns, Less Crime_. (Pgs 75-81? from the index)

Evidently, the smarter crooks saw the handwriting on the wall and
decided either to go straight or move. And the opposite happens with
the dumber perps. They think, once the law passes, "Let's go do crimes
now, before they get their guns!", and a spurt happens just after the
law goes into effect.

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
.. .

snip

=========
GOOD POINTS!!!!

And exactly were the elites [we?] go off the rails on everything
from monitary policy and minimum wage to CCW laws and social
engineering.

We need to update the catch phrase from "show me the money" to
"show me the results," and follow through with "no results" = "no
[more] money."

Yeah. We'd end up with a LOT less government and no War on Drugs, War
on Terror, War on whatever else, no more bridges to nowhere, no more
Navy docks on closed bases, etc. That would be a lot more cost
effective for the USA. Maybe we could even afford a better military as
a result. It's great that they've gone to commercial suppliers of
computers, clothing, etc. That's saving a BUNDLE!


Since misuse of statistics has been around at least long enough to have
produced a famous quip from Mark Twain, we've been suffering from it for a
long time. It's a shame because it's one of the most useful tools anyone has
ever invented.

They sure can be!


One problem is increasing governmental/corporate secrecy and
media censorship. Two examples, the supressed airline safety
survey and the non-news of the Dupont loss [ c. 100+ millions
actual + 100 million$ punative] for the environmental damages
they caused in WV.

I have high hopes for the Internet in the long run, as a medium that will
give us a lot more inside news. I'm losing faith in the mainstream media at
the same time we have all these new resources. If it wasn't just so damned
full of phony and misleading crap, it would be great as it is.

Full of crap? Y'mean, like the TV, newspapers, magazines, and movies?
Is the Internet any different, other than our being able to actually
find all that crap so quickly?

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:22:51 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:41:55 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


Think of this as something like teaching a man to fish. Now you know
where
the data is, and how neatly they lay it out for you. The thing to do
with
it
is to plunk it into Excel and let it draw a curve. If there's a kink in
the
curve soon after the CCW law was enacted, something happened. If there's
no
kink, it means that the CCW law had no effect.

Aren't you forgetting that the main thrust of the media campaigns are
made in the year _prior_ to the law getting passed?

I'm not following you. Certainly interested parties are making their
efforts
to get a law passed or not before it happens. But we're talking about
trying
to measure what happened once the policy actually becomes law. Right?

Yes and no. I thought we were talking about the impact CC laws have on
crime rates. I measure that from the day the impact happens, not just
after the law is passed.

With the media blasting the intended law across all channels (night
and day for months) the perps get the hint and slow down immediately,
even before the law is actually passed. It appeared from another of
your posts that a significant drop in crime came in the year before
the CC law passed. John Lott showed something along that line in his
book _More Guns, Less Crime_. (Pgs 75-81? from the index)

Aha. Now I see what you're saying. Yes, there probably is some effect from
all the publicity, but I would assume that a criminal smart enough to read
the news also is smart enough to know when the law takes effect. I wouldn't
expect it to have an effect *before* the date something actually can happen.


Evidently, the smarter crooks saw the handwriting on the wall and
decided either to go straight or move. And the opposite happens with
the dumber perps. They think, once the law passes, "Let's go do crimes
now, before they get their guns!", and a spurt happens just after the
law goes into effect.

Interesting thought, and it also would be interesting to see if the crime
numbers actually agree.

My own speculation is that a case like Florida shows a brief reduction in
crime as the law goes into effect and then it regresses to the mean in a
year or two. The fact of the matter is that the number of carrying citizens
on the street remains a small percentage of the population even after these
laws go into effect, and the criminals incorporate the very slight increased
risk into their new sense of equilibrium. After a year or two the natural
rotation of criminals starts driving the rate back up to what it was, or
back onto the original trendline, and the effect of having armed citizens on
the street reduces to zero. That would fit with other evidence that the
existence or non-existence of a shall-issue CCW is completely swamped by
other sociological factors -- something I've seen over and over again as
I've compared states and cities around the country.

Maybe I'll try that against the numbers this weekend. Or if it's nice
outside, maybe I won't. The bluefish are still running. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

snip


I have high hopes for the Internet in the long run, as a medium that will
give us a lot more inside news. I'm losing faith in the mainstream media
at
the same time we have all these new resources. If it wasn't just so damned
full of phony and misleading crap, it would be great as it is.

Full of crap? Y'mean, like the TV, newspapers, magazines, and movies?

No, like the Internet as it is. Like the stories we see pasted here from the
partisan "news" sites. If a commercial news organization tried those stunts
they'd be crucified and probably would be run out of business. On a website,
they just ignore it and then do it again. You've seen it; we've all seen it.

The trouble I have with the mainstream media is that they duck subjects,
believe the government sources, and pile on to each others' stories.
The days of tough investigative journalism seem to be gone, mostly because
they're trying to run the newsrooms too lean.

Is the Internet any different, other than our being able to actually
find all that crap so quickly?

Yeah, it's a lot different, and a lot worse. It's so consistently bad, in
fact, that we're becoming numb to it. It seems to be a new standard to
expect bull****, and to be surprised when you see something that isn't.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:38:24 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Yes and no. I thought we were talking about the impact CC laws have on
crime rates. I measure that from the day the impact happens, not just
after the law is passed.

With the media blasting the intended law across all channels (night
and day for months) the perps get the hint and slow down immediately,
even before the law is actually passed. It appeared from another of
your posts that a significant drop in crime came in the year before
the CC law passed. John Lott showed something along that line in his
book _More Guns, Less Crime_. (Pgs 75-81? from the index)

Aha. Now I see what you're saying. Yes, there probably is some effect from
all the publicity, but I would assume that a criminal smart enough to read
the news also is smart enough to know when the law takes effect. I wouldn't
expect it to have an effect *before* the date something actually can happen.

You don't think that having their illegal business spouted all over
the news doesn't make them a bit edgy; that some don't finally come to
the conclusion that crime really doesn't pay?


Evidently, the smarter crooks saw the handwriting on the wall and
decided either to go straight or move. And the opposite happens with
the dumber perps. They think, once the law passes, "Let's go do crimes
now, before they get their guns!", and a spurt happens just after the
law goes into effect.

Interesting thought, and it also would be interesting to see if the crime
numbers actually agree.

My own speculation is that a case like Florida shows a brief reduction in
crime as the law goes into effect and then it regresses to the mean in a
year or two. The fact of the matter is that the number of carrying citizens
on the street remains a small percentage of the population even after these
laws go into effect, and the criminals incorporate the very slight increased
risk into their new sense of equilibrium. After a year or two the natural
rotation of criminals starts driving the rate back up to what it was, or
back onto the original trendline, and the effect of having armed citizens on
the street reduces to zero. That would fit with other evidence that the
existence or non-existence of a shall-issue CCW is completely swamped by
other sociological factors -- something I've seen over and over again as
I've compared states and cities around the country.

Yeah, our society reacts heavily to whatever is on TV and forgets
whatever is not. It's a really damned sad state of affairs.


Maybe I'll try that against the numbers this weekend. Or if it's nice
outside, maybe I won't. The bluefish are still running. d8-)

I haven't fished in years, but the last blue fish I got was a
bluegill, a tiny but very tasty little pan-frier. If you have time,
pop by the library and grab a copy of Lott's book to read while you
wait for a bite.

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:31:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

snip


I have high hopes for the Internet in the long run, as a medium that will
give us a lot more inside news. I'm losing faith in the mainstream media
at
the same time we have all these new resources. If it wasn't just so damned
full of phony and misleading crap, it would be great as it is.

Full of crap? Y'mean, like the TV, newspapers, magazines, and movies?

No, like the Internet as it is. Like the stories we see pasted here from the
partisan "news" sites. If a commercial news organization tried those stunts
they'd be crucified and probably would be run out of business. On a website,
they just ignore it and then do it again. You've seen it; we've all seen it.

They do pull -exactly- those same stunts, only they're a bit more
subtle about it.


The trouble I have with the mainstream media is that they duck subjects,
believe the government sources, and pile on to each others' stories.
The days of tough investigative journalism seem to be gone, mostly because
they're trying to run the newsrooms too lean.

Yeah, likely. I read an article about the media -causing- events, too.
IIRC, it was from Cialdini's _Persuasion_. Once a national TV station
broadcasts the crash of an airplane, two more related incidents happen
within the coming week. It's things like this which make me believe
more in the Indian philosophy that we're making all of this up,
creating our physical selves from thought vibrations, affecting
reality by our beliefs, etc.


Is the Internet any different, other than our being able to actually
find all that crap so quickly?

Yeah, it's a lot different, and a lot worse. It's so consistently bad, in
fact, that we're becoming numb to it. It seems to be a new standard to
expect bull****, and to be surprised when you see something that isn't.

Whaddya mean "new"? I've felt that way so long it seems normal to me.
sigh

--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:38:24 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message

Yes and no. I thought we were talking about the impact CC laws have on
crime rates. I measure that from the day the impact happens, not just
after the law is passed.

With the media blasting the intended law across all channels (night
and day for months) the perps get the hint and slow down immediately,
even before the law is actually passed. It appeared from another of
your posts that a significant drop in crime came in the year before
the CC law passed. John Lott showed something along that line in his
book _More Guns, Less Crime_. (Pgs 75-81? from the index)

Aha. Now I see what you're saying. Yes, there probably is some effect from
all the publicity, but I would assume that a criminal smart enough to read
the news also is smart enough to know when the law takes effect. I
wouldn't
expect it to have an effect *before* the date something actually can
happen.

You don't think that having their illegal business spouted all over
the news doesn't make them a bit edgy; that some don't finally come to
the conclusion that crime really doesn't pay?

No, I don't. You're assuming they think like you would in their situation. I
don't think so.

Also, in Florida, for example, something like one adult in 40 has a
concealed-carry permit. In Texas, it's one in 60. And, of course, not
everyone who has a permit carries a gun all or most of the time. Some never
carry at all, after an initial period. For most people it's a PITA, like
flossing their teeth.

The result is that any increased *real* threat from concealed carry, as a
matter of real-world experience, is not very noticeable to criminals. There
already are off-duty cops and so on walking the streets with guns, before
you count the civilian CCWs. It's the *real* threat that can be measured as
real-world experience, rather than the *theoretical* threat, that criminals
notice and that soon filters into their conscious experience. They may make
a small adjustment in their behavior -- preferring to avoid mugging people
wearing jackets on warm days, for example. But that's probably true with or
without CCW laws. Crime rates, when measured carefully and honestly, don't
reflect any significant change after a year or two from the time a CCW law
is enacted. In the case of Texas, they don't seem to reflect any change at
all.

In general, the justification for right-to-carry laws is solid when it's
based on the principle of an individual right to self-defense. Carrying a
gun may improve *your* potential safety. When the argument turns to cutting
crime rates, however, it gets pretty flaky. From the numbers I've seen I
don't think it holds any water at all.

Evidently, the smarter crooks saw the handwriting on the wall and
decided either to go straight or move. And the opposite happens with
the dumber perps. They think, once the law passes, "Let's go do crimes
now, before they get their guns!", and a spurt happens just after the
law goes into effect.

Interesting thought, and it also would be interesting to see if the crime
numbers actually agree.

My own speculation is that a case like Florida shows a brief reduction in
crime as the law goes into effect and then it regresses to the mean in a
year or two. The fact of the matter is that the number of carrying
citizens
on the street remains a small percentage of the population even after
these
laws go into effect, and the criminals incorporate the very slight
increased
risk into their new sense of equilibrium. After a year or two the natural
rotation of criminals starts driving the rate back up to what it was, or
back onto the original trendline, and the effect of having armed citizens
on
the street reduces to zero. That would fit with other evidence that the
existence or non-existence of a shall-issue CCW is completely swamped by
other sociological factors -- something I've seen over and over again as
I've compared states and cities around the country.

Yeah, our society reacts heavily to whatever is on TV and forgets
whatever is not. It's a really damned sad state of affairs.


Maybe I'll try that against the numbers this weekend. Or if it's nice
outside, maybe I won't. The bluefish are still running. d8-)

I haven't fished in years, but the last blue fish I got was a
bluegill, a tiny but very tasty little pan-frier. If you have time,
pop by the library and grab a copy of Lott's book to read while you
wait for a bite.

I have little confidence in anything Lott says. You may remember we had a
go-around with him here on RCM a few years back. Google [Ed Huntress John
Lott] to see why I don't believe him.

--
Ed Huntress

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:31:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

snip


I have high hopes for the Internet in the long run, as a medium that
will
give us a lot more inside news. I'm losing faith in the mainstream media
at
the same time we have all these new resources. If it wasn't just so
damned
full of phony and misleading crap, it would be great as it is.

Full of crap? Y'mean, like the TV, newspapers, magazines, and movies?

No, like the Internet as it is. Like the stories we see pasted here from
the
partisan "news" sites. If a commercial news organization tried those
stunts
they'd be crucified and probably would be run out of business. On a
website,
they just ignore it and then do it again. You've seen it; we've all seen
it.

They do pull -exactly- those same stunts, only they're a bit more
subtle about it.

No, they don't. Not without being excoriated, like Dan Rather and some staff
at CBS.



The trouble I have with the mainstream media is that they duck subjects,
believe the government sources, and pile on to each others' stories.
The days of tough investigative journalism seem to be gone, mostly because
they're trying to run the newsrooms too lean.

Yeah, likely. I read an article about the media -causing- events, too.
IIRC, it was from Cialdini's _Persuasion_. Once a national TV station
broadcasts the crash of an airplane, two more related incidents happen
within the coming week. It's things like this which make me believe
more in the Indian philosophy that we're making all of this up,
creating our physical selves from thought vibrations, affecting
reality by our beliefs, etc.

I'm still clapping with one hand. But it's true that news is what the
newspapers say it is, and they have a limited field of attention and a mob
mentality about it.



Is the Internet any different, other than our being able to actually
find all that crap so quickly?

Yeah, it's a lot different, and a lot worse. It's so consistently bad, in
fact, that we're becoming numb to it. It seems to be a new standard to
expect bull****, and to be surprised when you see something that isn't.

Whaddya mean "new"? I've felt that way so long it seems normal to me.
sigh

That's you. I don't know how much direct experience with the media and news
people, but remember that I used to have lunch and go on PR junkets with
guys from TIME and the NYT when I worked as an editor in midtown Manhatten.
They have plenty of faults but making stuff up out of thin air is very rare.
On the Internet, they seem to see it as their primary challenge, to do it
without getting caught. And that's pretty easy.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Despite all the loaded guns in Dallas homes and businesses (and the
number, from a study done in 1988 - 1992 is pretty remarkable; one
assumes not much has changed in that regard), Dallas's burglary rate is
six times higher than that of New York City.
I'd like to see a cite for that

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_06.html

Dallas: 17.3/thousand population.
NYC: 2.7/thousand population

Dallas has 6.4 times the burglary rate of New York City.

Interesting. Just one more reason not to live in Dallas.

But then most people who can afford to, live in the suburbs, leaving the
less fortunate and the criminals in Big D proper.

"Rex" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Rex" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
Despite all the loaded guns in Dallas homes and businesses (and the
number, from a study done in 1988 - 1992 is pretty remarkable; one
assumes not much has changed in that regard), Dallas's burglary rate is
six times higher than that of New York City.
I'd like to see a cite for that

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_06.html

Dallas: 17.3/thousand population.
NYC: 2.7/thousand population

Dallas has 6.4 times the burglary rate of New York City.

Interesting. Just one more reason not to live in Dallas.

But then most people who can afford to, live in the suburbs, leaving the
less fortunate and the criminals in Big D proper.

Yeah, I figured that was the case, based on the city/county data and news
reports.

--
Ed Huntress

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:22:02 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:
snip
It appeared from another of
your posts that a significant drop in crime came in the year before
the CC law passed.
snip
===========
Showing how powerful and effective CCW is!!!

Same thing with the Smoot-Hawley-[Grundy] tariff "causing" the
"Great Depression."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act
http://www.buyandhold.com/bh/en/educ...ot_hawley.html
and about Grundy
http://www.brianjleung.com/smoothawley/congressbios.php

As Will Roges observed

It ain't what you don't know that hurts you,
its what you know that just ain't so.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
============
Merchants have no country.
The mere spot they stand on
does not constitute so strong an attachment
as that from which they draw their gains.

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826),
U.S. president. Letter, 17 March 1814.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:43:38 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:31:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
snip
No, like the Internet as it is. Like the stories we see pasted here from
the
partisan "news" sites. If a commercial news organization tried those
stunts
they'd be crucified and probably would be run out of business. On a
website,
they just ignore it and then do it again. You've seen it; we've all seen
it.

They do pull -exactly- those same stunts, only they're a bit more
subtle about it.

No, they don't. Not without being excoriated, like Dan Rather and some staff
at CBS.

Yes they do. Two blatant examples are gun control and global
warming(kumbaya). Anything said by anyone who fears global
warming(kumbaya) or guns is accepted as truth, and tons of things
which aren't even remotely related are being blamed on one or the
other. The "gun nuts" and "warming denialists" are seldom if ever
heard from. Some half-associate professor from the worst college in
some unheard of 3rd world country says "Orgasm may be linked with
cancer." and the media spouts headlines like "ORGASM CAUSES CANCER!"

Come on, Ed. Don't tell me that you buy the media's whole line. ****,
Rather's stunt was one of 1,000 others which went unnoticed by the
powers that be. Can you say "scapegoating"? I knew you could.


I'm still clapping with one hand. But it's true that news is what the
newspapers say it is, and they have a limited field of attention and a mob
mentality about it.

Yup. sigh


Is the Internet any different, other than our being able to actually
find all that crap so quickly?

Yeah, it's a lot different, and a lot worse. It's so consistently bad, in
fact, that we're becoming numb to it. It seems to be a new standard to
expect bull****, and to be surprised when you see something that isn't.

Whaddya mean "new"? I've felt that way so long it seems normal to me.
sigh

That's you. I don't know how much direct experience with the media and news

Very little, and from small towns.


people, but remember that I used to have lunch and go on PR junkets with
guys from TIME and the NYT when I worked as an editor in midtown Manhatten.
They have plenty of faults but making stuff up out of thin air is very rare.

No, they just accept statements from nobodies who appeared out of thin
air. "I didn't make it up. HE said it!" They're lazy (or budgeted) and
probably aren't checking their sources nearly as closely as they used
to.


On the Internet, they seem to see it as their primary challenge, to do it
without getting caught. And that's pretty easy.

There are surely some folks like that, but...Whatever.

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 09:43:38 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:31:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:14:02 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
snip
No, like the Internet as it is. Like the stories we see pasted here from
the
partisan "news" sites. If a commercial news organization tried those
stunts
they'd be crucified and probably would be run out of business. On a
website,
they just ignore it and then do it again. You've seen it; we've all seen
it.

They do pull -exactly- those same stunts, only they're a bit more
subtle about it.

No, they don't. Not without being excoriated, like Dan Rather and some
staff
at CBS.

Yes they do. Two blatant examples are gun control and global
warming(kumbaya).

Those are two issues on which you are an over-the-top partisan, and thus
unqualified to judge anyone for objectivity, including scientists who have
forgotten more about it than you'll ever learn. d8-)

Anything said by anyone who fears global
warming(kumbaya) or guns is accepted as truth...

By whom? Not by me, and not by most sensible people.

..., and tons of things
which aren't even remotely related are being blamed on one or the
other.

And the gun nutz blame most of the country's problems on gun control. What
else is new?

The "gun nuts" and "warming denialists" are seldom if ever
heard from.

Good grief. I hear from them all the time.

Some half-associate professor from the worst college in
some unheard of 3rd world country says "Orgasm may be linked with
cancer." and the media spouts headlines like "ORGASM CAUSES CANCER!"

Yup, they do get carried away with headlines, and they're always ready to
treat some early-stage research as if it were a conclusive finding. But
that's a weakness, not deceit. The Internet chatterers are mostly about
getting away with outright lies disguised as expert opinion.


Come on, Ed. Don't tell me that you buy the media's whole line. ****,
Rather's stunt was one of 1,000 others which went unnoticed by the
powers that be. Can you say "scapegoating"? I knew you could.

Tell us about the other 999. Seriously. You've made quite an accusation
there. It sounds to me like a case of letting your emotions carry you away.

Look, here's one small comparison. Matt Drudge publishes more outright lies
in one day than the networks broadcast in a month. He doesn't care. He's not
about careful journalism or truth. He's all about getting the news out
first, mostly from unattributed rumors. If he gets one big story out ahead
of the mainstream media per month, he gets notoriety for it. He's
accomplished his goal. He doesn't care that he also published 2,000 lies in
the same time. That's not his concern. And he has legions of worshippers
because of it.

No legit mainstream newssource could get away with that, publishing
unchecked rumors, for more than a week. And the big guys are fierce
competitors who love nothing more than to catch one of the other ones
publishing things that aren't true. They're all over each other when it
happens. When Drudge does it, everyone just turns the page.

That's just one example, and Drudge is not even an intentional liar. He just
doesn't really care what's true. He's said as much, openly. That's for
someone else to figure out, and then to give him the credit when one big
story happens to be true. Imagine that, he gets some right.

Others, such as some of the gun sites, pretty obviously cover up the truth
to make their cases. For example, the drop in homicides that "followed
passage of the CCW law." It's virtually certain they drew their numbers from
a source similar to the one I saw, which makes it abundantly clear that the
drop in homicides was already happening before the law, and, in fact, that
the reduction slowed down once the law was passed. They don't want you to
know that.

There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about the mainstream media
without making things up. Comparing them to the Internet bloggers is like
comparing a guy who claims too many business miles on his tax returns with
Ken Lay.



I'm still clapping with one hand. But it's true that news is what the
newspapers say it is, and they have a limited field of attention and a mob
mentality about it.

Yup. sigh


Is the Internet any different, other than our being able to actually
find all that crap so quickly?

Yeah, it's a lot different, and a lot worse. It's so consistently bad,
in
fact, that we're becoming numb to it. It seems to be a new standard to
expect bull****, and to be surprised when you see something that isn't.

Whaddya mean "new"? I've felt that way so long it seems normal to me.
sigh

That's you. I don't know how much direct experience with the media and
news

Very little, and from small towns.


people, but remember that I used to have lunch and go on PR junkets with
guys from TIME and the NYT when I worked as an editor in midtown
Manhatten.
They have plenty of faults but making stuff up out of thin air is very
rare.

No, they just accept statements from nobodies who appeared out of thin
air. "I didn't make it up. HE said it!" They're lazy (or budgeted) and
probably aren't checking their sources nearly as closely as they used
to.

That's mostly true. And the big factor is that they're under pressure to
produce too much these days, with seriously reduced staffs. It's too much to
get it right all of the time. In the mainstream media today, the money has
been squeezed out of the business, mostly by Internet advertising, and the
old model of journalism is breaking down. That's what makes me angry about
it. I don't believe they're intentionally making stuff up like the Internet
pundits do.

--
Ed Huntress

Also, in Florida, for example, something like one adult in 40 has a
concealed-carry permit. In Texas, it's one in 60. And, of course, not
everyone who has a permit carries a gun all or most of the time. Some
never
carry at all, after an initial period. For most people it's a PITA, like
flossing their teeth.

I can attest to this personally. Carrying a gun sounds nice but it's not as
easy as you might think it is. First off hiding it so that no one sees
it...ever, isn't so easy in the real world. You have to dress around your
gun. So you're always wearing covering garments even when you don't want to.
If you use a holster of any kind it's always difficult to hide the gun under
all circumstances and worse it's not all that comfortable either. Many
people find this out real quick. Carrying a 1911 sounds good until you try
it for a while. Believe me it gets heavy fast and uncomfortable if you do it
all day. It takes an effort to carry all the time. More than many people
want to do even if they legally can.



The result is that any increased *real* threat from concealed carry, as a
matter of real-world experience, is not very noticeable to criminals.
There
already are off-duty cops and so on walking the streets with guns, before
you count the civilian CCWs. It's the *real* threat that can be measured
as
real-world experience, rather than the *theoretical* threat, that
criminals
notice and that soon filters into their conscious experience. They may
make
a small adjustment in their behavior -- preferring to avoid mugging people
wearing jackets on warm days, for example. But that's probably true with
or
without CCW laws. Crime rates, when measured carefully and honestly, don't
reflect any significant change after a year or two from the time a CCW law
is enacted. In the case of Texas, they don't seem to reflect any change at
all.

That's because as a variable there are not enough people carrying to affect
the whole population. It's like blue whales meeting in the open ocean. The
idea that a violent criminal will run into someone with a permit and their
gun on them is rare. Rare enough that all the folks with CCW permits in
Texas don't amount to much as far as crime goes.



In general, the justification for right-to-carry laws is solid when it's
based on the principle of an individual right to self-defense. Carrying a
gun may improve *your* potential safety. When the argument turns to
cutting
crime rates, however, it gets pretty flaky. From the numbers I've seen I
don't think it holds any water at all.

Evidently, the smarter crooks saw the handwriting on the wall and
decided either to go straight or move. And the opposite happens with
the dumber perps. They think, once the law passes, "Let's go do crimes
now, before they get their guns!", and a spurt happens just after the
law goes into effect.

Interesting thought, and it also would be interesting to see if the
crime
numbers actually agree.

They don't because criminals don't think like that. Their motivations for
crime aren't that calculating. Then need money or drugs so they have to do
something right now. The last thing on their mind is whether CCW permits are
in effect or not.


My own speculation is that a case like Florida shows a brief reduction
in
crime as the law goes into effect and then it regresses to the mean in a
year or two. The fact of the matter is that the number of carrying
citizens
on the street remains a small percentage of the population even after
these
laws go into effect, and the criminals incorporate the very slight
increased
risk into their new sense of equilibrium. After a year or two the
natural
rotation of criminals starts driving the rate back up to what it was, or
back onto the original trendline, and the effect of having armed
citizens
on
the street reduces to zero. That would fit with other evidence that the
existence or non-existence of a shall-issue CCW is completely swamped by
other sociological factors -- something I've seen over and over again as
I've compared states and cities around the country.

Yeah, our society reacts heavily to whatever is on TV and forgets
whatever is not. It's a really damned sad state of affairs.


Maybe I'll try that against the numbers this weekend. Or if it's nice
outside, maybe I won't. The bluefish are still running. d8-)

I haven't fished in years, but the last blue fish I got was a
bluegill, a tiny but very tasty little pan-frier. If you have time,
pop by the library and grab a copy of Lott's book to read while you
wait for a bite.

I have little confidence in anything Lott says. You may remember we had a
go-around with him here on RCM a few years back. Google [Ed Huntress John
Lott] to see why I don't believe him.

--
Ed Huntress


Lott is someone who is right sometimes and sometimes he's not. His problem
is that he does have an agenda, which makes his work at times suspect.
Before taking any of his data as fact one needs to check his methodology and
his conclusions very closely. But then I would advise the same process to
all researcher's data no matter what their field.

Hawke

Larry Jaques wrote:
If you have time,
pop by the library and grab a copy of Lott's book to read while you
wait for a bite.


Ed may have a certain familiarity with Mr. Lott's writings


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/browse_thread/thread/3351a60983d2bb33/70d9ed65738d1f5e?lnk=st&q=huntress+lott#70d9ed6573 8d1f5e


Kevin Gallimore

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 16:10:08 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .

Anything said by anyone who fears global
warming(kumbaya) or guns is accepted as truth...

By whom? Not by me, and not by most sensible people.

By THE MEDIA, the subject we're talking about.


The "gun nuts" and "warming denialists" are seldom if ever
heard from.

Good grief. I hear from them all the time.

Via what MEDIA?


Some half-associate professor from the worst college in
some unheard of 3rd world country says "Orgasm may be linked with
cancer." and the media spouts headlines like "ORGASM CAUSES CANCER!"

Yup, they do get carried away with headlines, and they're always ready to
treat some early-stage research as if it were a conclusive finding. But
that's a weakness, not deceit. The Internet chatterers are mostly about
getting away with outright lies disguised as expert opinion.

OK, I'll agree that there is a lot of unsubstantiated crap on the Net.


Come on, Ed. Don't tell me that you buy the media's whole line. ****,
Rather's stunt was one of 1,000 others which went unnoticed by the
powers that be. Can you say "scapegoating"? I knew you could.

Tell us about the other 999. Seriously. You've made quite an accusation
there. It sounds to me like a case of letting your emotions carry you away.

OK, without the emotion, it's likely only about 876. Jeeze, where do
I start. I'll pick a few from today's paper tomorrow and post 'em if I
have time.


That's just one example, and Drudge is not even an intentional liar. He just
doesn't really care what's true. He's said as much, openly. That's for
someone else to figure out, and then to give him the credit when one big
story happens to be true. Imagine that, he gets some right.

I'll see you and raise you a "Halelujah!" How about the religious
programming channels, which seldom get anything right? g


Others, such as some of the gun sites, pretty obviously cover up the truth
to make their cases. For example, the drop in homicides that "followed
passage of the CCW law." It's virtually certain they drew their numbers from
a source similar to the one I saw, which makes it abundantly clear that the
drop in homicides was already happening before the law, and, in fact, that
the reduction slowed down once the law was passed. They don't want you to
know that.

There are plenty of legitimate things to complain about the mainstream media
without making things up. Comparing them to the Internet bloggers is like
comparing a guy who claims too many business miles on his tax returns with
Ken Lay.

What threw me over the edge to total distrust of the media was that
clip on Rush Limbaugh's show one time. I saw the entire -uncut-
30-second clip of Clinton leaving the funeral and he went from guffaw
to wiping away a tear from his eye in one step, just as he caught he
cameras on him. They were telling jokes but ALL the mainstream TV
networks showed only the last 8-10 seconds and made the comment that
he was tearful at the funeral. I absolutely exploded over that one
since I had seen the total farce that it was. Hell, I think Clinton
was responsible for the death in the first place.

DAMN I wish I'd _recorded_ that show.


No, they just accept statements from nobodies who appeared out of thin
air. "I didn't make it up. HE said it!" They're lazy (or budgeted) and
probably aren't checking their sources nearly as closely as they used
to.

That's mostly true. And the big factor is that they're under pressure to
produce too much these days, with seriously reduced staffs. It's too much to
get it right all of the time. In the mainstream media today, the money has
been squeezed out of the business, mostly by Internet advertising, and the
old model of journalism is breaking down. That's what makes me angry about
it. I don't believe they're intentionally making stuff up like the Internet
pundits do.

Whatever the cause, the result is all-too similar, though.

--
Jewish Zen:
Be here now. Be someplace else later. Is that so complicated, already?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
www.diversify.com - Uncomplicated Website Design, here and now.