Ignoramus25624 wrote:

I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
prefer some numbers.

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

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus25624 wrote:

I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
prefer some numbers.

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

Wes

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

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

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

Wes

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

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


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

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

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

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

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

Wes

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

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


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

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


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

Wes

What a shame.

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

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

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

--
Ed Huntress

On 2010-04-17, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

Wes

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

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


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

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

That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.

i

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk. There are laws against serving
people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying must be stone cold sober. My personal
feelings are to avoid places where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.

Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to the original reply.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least
a few of the bar patrons will be.

You must not have any 24-hour supermarkets in your area: that's where the
drunks go when the bars close...

Ignoramus25624 wrote:

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

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

That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.


The good points of the process is that in most states that have reciprocal agreements it
is based on a certain level of training.

Training is important. Most people have no idea when the use of lethal force is allowed.
Then there is the matter of safe gun handling. Practical matters of just not being in the
wrong place if you can avoid it. People often are clueless about these things.

Then there are the costs. My last renewal was 115.00 for 5 years. Gee, if I had done
something wrong during the previous 5 years I think they would have yanked my permit.
Indiana has lifetime permits now.

I can't remember what I paid for training. I'm a member of a gun club so I got a
discount.

Then there is the increasing cost of firearms driven up by lawsuits funded by anti gun
groups and mayors using public funds. Consider Bloomberg. I'd like to send that boy back
to pre WWII Germany to get a real education on gun control.

Anyway, for many that really need protection that live in poorer communities were there is
a lot of crime and poor police protection that earn a low standard of living, they are
priced out of being able to legally protect themselves.

Do you think the Obama administration would support a tax credit for 'working families' to
get the training and permiting to protect their own families?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Ed,

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


Wes




"Ed Huntress" wrote:


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

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

Wes

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

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


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

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


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

Wes

What a shame.

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

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

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

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus25624 wrote:

I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
prefer some numbers.

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
of the bar patrons will be.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.

You must not have any 24-hour supermarkets in your area: that's where
the drunks go when the bars close...

There aren't many but even what there is can't sell anything after
hours.


WGAS?

Your complaint was about drunks with weapons...and claimed that the
supermarket shoppers were more likely to be sober than the bar patrons
(see your comment quoted above).

One big difference between the bar and the 24-hour supermarket: the bar
(in most areas) has a "closing time" while the supermarket doesn't. This
time - in some areas - can be at 0500 with an "opening time" of 0600.
Just how much sobriety would you expect the bar patrons to gain during
this period?

Eregon wrote:

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

I believe the gun free school zone act was trimmed in US vs Lopez. I didn't do an
exhaustive reading but I belive my CCW permit protects me from that act of law.

Wes

Wes wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:

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

I believe the gun free school zone act was trimmed in US vs Lopez. I
didn't do an exhaustive reading but I belive my CCW permit protects me
from that act of law.

Wes


As may be - but if some slimeball filed a civil suit against you you'd
still have to pay a lawyer to represent you and THAT isn't cheap...

Just remember to counter-sue for legal expenses...

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:35:22 -0400, Wes
wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk. There are laws against serving
people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying must be stone cold sober. My personal
feelings are to avoid places where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.

Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to the original reply.

Wes


Its also interesting to note how many cops spend copious amounts of time
in bars while off duty, and are carrying.

Gunner


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

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

On Apr 17, 4:02*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
... 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.
Ed Huntress

If there is a common factor among the considerable number of people
I've known who applied for and received NH carry permits, it's that
they are the more alert and attentive ones. the people who maintain
SA. The ones who oppose guns tend to be much more self-absorbed. In
general I don't trust them with power tools either.

jsw

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

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Good post!

Gunner


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

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

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.

There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.

Yes there will. Should the guy just minding his business having a burger have his life at
risk because some drunk decides to go off on him?


There are laws
against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
must be stone cold sober.

I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away from
him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so funny.
There are also other circumstances that would seem less stupid where a gun
might come out that might seem perfectly reasonable or legitimate. Get a job
in any place liquor is served and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and
results even very modest drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You
could also just go down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the
servers.

We are discussing concealed carry, not open carry. While I support open carry it has
issues with weapon retention.


My personal feelings are to avoid places
where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.

The best possibility by far.
Way far.





Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to
the original reply.

When there is booze, there shouldn't be guns.
It's just my philosophy Wes and tempered by experience.
Anyway, I doubt that anyone will be able to get insurance and I for one
wouldn't want to stake my business or livelihood on the potential outcome,
even if the chance is very small.

There are few decent places to get a meal that don't have a liquour license in our
economy. I believe this senario is the thrust of the change in legislation.

The chances of me visiting the local rowdy bar for a burger near closing time if carrying
there was legal is zero.

Insurance works on large numbers. If the actuarial data is predictable, they will adjust
their rates if necessary. I don't think there will be any noticable change. Haven't seen
blood in the streets in Michigan due to CCW. Doubt it is happening anywhere else.



This is one of the reasons I've always thought it was nuts for legitimate
businesses to use bootleg software.
The issue of theft aside, everything you have worked so hard is at risk to
save a few bucks if you get caught. That's now way to live, especially if
you have a family counting on you.

The happiest day of my life was when a facility that was part of the corporation I used to
work for got busted. Instant corporate ruling to be legal now. I didn't have to spend
too much to get that way since I did my best to run a legal shop. That was in the days
when you could float licenses over a network. Now executives are a bit more enlightened
about licensing.


Unless Arizona's new law was carefully considered and drafted, it could
easily cause more trouble than the benefit it protects.
The only ones benefiting in the end might be attorneys. Know what I mean?

I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding member of the Arizona
citizens defense league. He has always seemed to be a rational person on firearms issues.
I don't have a lot of worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a
deployment at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.


Wes

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.

You must not have any 24-hour supermarkets in your area: that's where
the drunks go when the bars close...

There aren't many but even what there is can't sell anything after hours.

--
John R. Carroll

Gunner Asch wrote:

Its also interesting to note how many cops spend copious amounts of time
in bars while off duty, and are carrying.

Gunner


I have noticed that. I don't support the idea of drinking and carrying in public, even if
one is a cop.

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.

There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.


There are laws
against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
must be stone cold sober.

I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away from
him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so funny.
There are also other circumstances that would seem less stupid where a gun
might come out that might seem perfectly reasonable or legitimate. Get a job
in any place liquor is served and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and
results even very modest drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You
could also just go down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the
servers.

My personal feelings are to avoid places
where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.

The best possibility by far.
Way far.


Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to
the original reply.

When there is booze, there shouldn't be guns.
It's just my philosophy Wes and tempered by experience.
Anyway, I doubt that anyone will be able to get insurance and I for one
wouldn't want to stake my business or livelihood on the potential outcome,
even if the chance is very small.

This is one of the reasons I've always thought it was nuts for legitimate
businesses to use bootleg software.
The issue of theft aside, everything you have worked so hard is at risk to
save a few bucks if you get caught. That's now way to live, especially if
you have a family counting on you.

Unless Arizona's new law was carefully considered and drafted, it could
easily cause more trouble than the benefit it protects.
The only ones benefiting in the end might be attorneys. Know what I mean?

--
John R. Carroll

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

Eregon wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in
:

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.

You must not have any 24-hour supermarkets in your area: that's
where the drunks go when the bars close...

There aren't many but even what there is can't sell anything after
hours.


WGAS?

Your complaint was about drunks with weapons...and claimed that the
supermarket shoppers were more likely to be sober than the bar patrons
(see your comment quoted above).

I didn't have a complaint, I made an observation abd it wasn't "drunks with
weapons", it was with people drinking in the presence of firearms.

It's not legal to drink in supermarkets so I'd imagine there are fewer
shoppers that have alchohol in their system.
That doesn't mean I haven't seen people that were really loaded in
supermarkets. I have. They are the exception, not the rule.


One big difference between the bar and the 24-hour supermarket: the
bar (in most areas) has a "closing time" while the supermarket
doesn't.

You can stay open around the clock in many States if you are able to lock
your taps and cabinets.
Some places here do just that. In the absence of those provisions, you can't
even have cleaning personal in the building during the hours liquor can't be
served.



--
John R. Carroll

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.

There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.

Yes there will. Should the guy just minding his business having a
burger have his life at risk because some drunk decides to go off on
him?

That wasn't what I was talking about. The truth is that your life wasn't
likely at risk to start with.
The possibility of getting the **** kicked out of you is a lot different
than getting dead.




There are laws
against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
must be stone cold sober.

I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away
from him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so
funny. There are also other circumstances that would seem less
stupid where a gun might come out that might seem perfectly
reasonable or legitimate. Get a job in any place liquor is served
and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and results even very modest
drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You could also just go
down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the servers.

We are discussing concealed carry, not open carry.

So am I.
When there is a fair chance that everyone in the room is armed a person
might go for someone elses gun.
That's especially true when, for instance, some drunk is beating the ****
out of his wife or girlfriend and you have a brawl.


There are few decent places to get a meal that don't have a liquour
license in our economy. I believe this senario is the thrust of the
change in legislation.

That may well be.
I'm apt to think it's because of all of the Drug/Latin Gang kidnappings and
murders in Phoenix.



The chances of me visiting the local rowdy bar for a burger near
closing time if carrying there was legal is zero.

You can find bad behavior anywhere Wes, especially where you'd least think.
Don't believe me, ask around a little - start with your local Applebee's or
Chili's.


Insurance works on large numbers. If the actuarial data is
predictable, they will adjust their rates if necessary. I don't
think there will be any noticable change. Haven't seen blood in the
streets in Michigan due to CCW. Doubt it is happening anywhere else.

Michigan requires a permit with all that the proceedure entails. I thought
AZ was going to skip all of that.


I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding
member of the Arizona citizens defense league. He has always seemed
to be a rational person on firearms issues.

That's the same thing we hear out here when it comes to ballot initiatives.
The result of those good intentions to address real issues frequently looks
a lot like Prop. 187.
Didn't last a month.

I don't have a lot of
worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a deployment
at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.

I'm not worried at all.
I've got egg noodles on the stove cooking in half a pound of butter and
enough beef broth that when it's done, all I'll have is a little juice left
and a big bunch of yummie noodles.
LOL

--
John R. Carroll

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

Ed,

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


Wes

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

Gunner





"Ed Huntress" wrote:


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

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

Wes

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

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


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

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


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

Wes

What a shame.

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

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

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


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

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

"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

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ed,

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


Wes

Gee, I thought we were both talking about the effect of carrying guns
concealed. Besides, Gunner won't talk to me anymore. He doesn't seem to like
it. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"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.

"John R. Carroll" wrote in news:
:

It's not legal to drink in supermarkets so I'd imagine there are fewer
shoppers that have alchohol in their system.

You ARE imagining things.

That doesn't mean I haven't seen people that were really loaded in
supermarkets. I have. They are the exception, not the rule.


How often do you go to the supermarket at 0200?

"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ignoramus25624 wrote:

I am curious, how does it work out, in reality, when people carry
concealed weapons into drinking establishments. Has there been many
armed incidents, or not? I do not want opinions and would rather
prefer some numbers.

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

Wes

I forgot about that Wes. In my last class, we were informed that if we had
one drink while carrying, it was grounds for forfeiture of permit. State of
Nevada. NO alcohol threshold limit like driving.

Steve

"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

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:58:03 -0400, Wes
wrote:

Ed,

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


Wes

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

Gunner

I thought you claimed that you don't read my posts? g

Don't bother to try, Gunner. We know how you do with facts. If you can't
cut-and-paste 'em from some bull**** blog, you can't handle it.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:18:29 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus25624
scrawled the following:

On 2010-04-17, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

Wes

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

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


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

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

That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.

Ig, "weeding" means that the weedee can't have a license. It doesn't
mean they won't go into a bar with a gun. It's the unlicensed folks
you have to worry about, not the licensed folks.


---
A book burrows into your life in a very profound way
because the experience of reading is not passive.
--Erica Jong

"Ed Huntress" wrote in
:

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

Who was complaining about CCWs?

I merely pointed out one reason why some eschew them. Grin


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-)


I check them but not from Liberal sources since those all lie
continuously. grin

You would be unlikely to be surprised at the number of idiots that cite
the Huffington Post...

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 16:18:29 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus25624
scrawled the following:

On 2010-04-17, Wes wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

Wes

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

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


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

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

That "weeding" seems to be a great practice.

Ig, "weeding" means that the weedee can't have a license. It doesn't
mean they won't go into a bar with a gun. It's the unlicensed folks
you have to worry about, not the licensed folks.

In other words, it's not a question of whether or not they have a concealed
gun. It's a question of whether they passed a background check. Right?

BTW, what was that comment about seeing it "on every TV station"? I thought
you didn't have a TV.

--
Ed Huntress

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

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

Who was complaining about CCWs?

I merely pointed out one reason why some eschew them. Grin


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-)


I check them but not from Liberal sources since those all lie
continuously. grin

You would be unlikely to be surprised at the number of idiots that cite
the Huffington Post...

I don't cite any Posts, unless it's an opinion piece. As a writer, editor,
and researcher, I go for the original data sources. That's how it's done
when it's done right.

--
Ed Huntress

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



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...

That isn't true in MN. The permit says "permit to carry a pistol". It
permits concealment but does not require it. In fact, no permit is
necessary to openly carry in most of the state, except for some metro
area counties. Permit holders may openly carry anywhere in the state
where they may carry concealed.

Being legal doesn't make it a good idea, particularly in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis is not gun-friendly. I think there is only one gun shop
left in Minneapolis and it's constantly under siege by pols. There are
quite a few in surrounding burbs that are different political entities
but otherwise indistinguishable as part of the metro area.

Aside from in gun shops, at ranges and hunters and plinkers afield, I
don't recall ever seeing anyone not wearing a uniform carry openly in
MN. I spend most of my time in metroland.

One of the rare occasions where I do carry more than a pocket popper
is when I shoot at an indoor range only blocks from North Minneapolis,
where parking is in an underground ramp. There's a lot of drug and
gang activity in North Minneapolis. I can see how a denizen might
regard that ramp as a prime ambush site for a senior gent lugging
what must obviously be a rangebag since I'm headed for the door
labelled "Bill's Gunshop and Range". On those occasions I slip on an
open-carry OWB belt-clip holster with either a .40 S&W or a .45ACP for
the short walk between car and range door. I'd pack a .357 snubby if
I owned one because overpenetration isn't a concern in a
concrete-walled sparsely-populated sit. I don't own one so I go with
..40 or .45. Even openly carried, it still isn't highly visible
because lighting is poor in that ramp even in daytime during the
winter months, but it's a lot quicker to deploy than it would be if
concealed.

I don't know if seeing it would be deterrent or attractant and won't
speculate. I pay attention during the drive-in, while parking, and
when I get out of the car I do a careful 360 scan before unlocking the
trunk. Ditto when I exit that range en route to the car. The last
thing an assailant who decided to proceed would see is a front view in
a draftsman's parlance, or what a human factors engineer might
describe as "what you saw is what you got".

Most of my life these days is spent in a blissful condition
chartreuse: not quite condition-green-oblivious to environment, but
definitely low key.

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 15:40:42 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 17:35:22 -0400, Wes
wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at least a few
of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk. There are laws against serving
people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying must be stone cold sober. My personal
feelings are to avoid places where there could be a confrontation when it is optional.

Keep in mind I used bar when I should have added 'and resturants' to the original reply.

Wes


Its also interesting to note how many cops spend copious amounts of time
in bars while off duty, and are carrying.

Gunner

It is, they do, and that does occasionally result in tragedy. A
couple were news in these parts at the time but I can't find cites
now. Fancy that.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
Ed,

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


Wes

Gee, I thought we were both talking about the effect of carrying guns
concealed. Besides, Gunner won't talk to me anymore. He doesn't seem to like
it. d8-)


Sorry Ed,

I was trying to stay on topic in an off topic thread.

Wes

Don Foreman wrote in
:

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



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...

That isn't true in MN. The permit says "permit to carry a pistol". It
permits concealment but does not require it. In fact, no permit is
necessary to openly carry in most of the state, except for some metro
area counties. Permit holders may openly carry anywhere in the state
where they may carry concealed.

An excellent example of the variations in CCW Laws between the various
states.grin


Being legal doesn't make it a good idea, particularly in Minneapolis.
Minneapolis is not gun-friendly. I think there is only one gun shop
left in Minneapolis and it's constantly under siege by pols. There are
quite a few in surrounding burbs that are different political entities
but otherwise indistinguishable as part of the metro area.

Aside from in gun shops, at ranges and hunters and plinkers afield, I
don't recall ever seeing anyone not wearing a uniform carry openly in
MN. I spend most of my time in metroland.

One of the rare occasions where I do carry more than a pocket popper
is when I shoot at an indoor range only blocks from North Minneapolis,
where parking is in an underground ramp. There's a lot of drug and
gang activity in North Minneapolis. I can see how a denizen might
regard that ramp as a prime ambush site for a senior gent lugging
what must obviously be a rangebag since I'm headed for the door
labelled "Bill's Gunshop and Range". On those occasions I slip on an
open-carry OWB belt-clip holster with either a .40 S&W or a .45ACP for
the short walk between car and range door. I'd pack a .357 snubby if
I owned one because overpenetration isn't a concern in a
concrete-walled sparsely-populated sit. I don't own one so I go with
.40 or .45. Even openly carried, it still isn't highly visible
because lighting is poor in that ramp even in daytime during the
winter months, but it's a lot quicker to deploy than it would be if
concealed.

I don't know if seeing it would be deterrent or attractant and won't
speculate. I pay attention during the drive-in, while parking, and
when I get out of the car I do a careful 360 scan before unlocking the
trunk. Ditto when I exit that range en route to the car. The last
thing an assailant who decided to proceed would see is a front view in
a draftsman's parlance, or what a human factors engineer might
describe as "what you saw is what you got".

Most of my life these days is spent in a blissful condition
chartreuse: not quite condition-green-oblivious to environment, but
definitely low key.


Congratulations.

Seriously.

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Wes wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

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

The shoppers aren't likely to be stupid drunk and like as not at
least a few of the bar patrons will be.


The bar patrons are not supposed to be stupid drunk.

There always will be Wes, at least on occasion.

Yes there will. Should the guy just minding his business having a
burger have his life at risk because some drunk decides to go off on
him?

That wasn't what I was talking about. The truth is that your life wasn't
likely at risk to start with.
The possibility of getting the **** kicked out of you is a lot different
than getting dead.

How do you know when a fight with a drunk adult male is only a scuffle? There are clear
lines one doesn't cross, if the idiot thinks he is safe playing the bully in some drunken
stupor well, Darwinism has it's good points.




There are laws
against serving people that are clearly drunk. The person carrying
must be stone cold sober.

I've seen people with half a snootful try and snatch a cops gun away
from him. Something that started out as a joke ended up not being so
funny. There are also other circumstances that would seem less
stupid where a gun might come out that might seem perfectly
reasonable or legitimate. Get a job in any place liquor is served
and you'll get an eyeful of the effects and results even very modest
drinking can have on seemingly normal people. You could also just go
down to your local tavern for a beer and chat up the servers.

John, I've worked in a bar before. The one I worked at was nice and quiet.


We are discussing concealed carry, not open carry.

So am I.
When there is a fair chance that everyone in the room is armed a person
might go for someone elses gun.
That's especially true when, for instance, some drunk is beating the ****
out of his wife or girlfriend and you have a brawl.

If some ass hole is beating the chit out of his girlfriend I'd hope every man there worth
a damn was ready to intervene physically. Remember the use of deadly force is only
allowed if your life is at risk. After that, it gets sketchy.


There are few decent places to get a meal that don't have a liquour
license in our economy. I believe this senario is the thrust of the
change in legislation.

That may well be.
I'm apt to think it's because of all of the Drug/Latin Gang kidnappings and
murders in Phoenix.

Well if the citizens are a bit afraid, they likely like the idea of being armed. 9/11
wasn't a bad thing for gun rights in the US.



The chances of me visiting the local rowdy bar for a burger near
closing time if carrying there was legal is zero.

You can find bad behavior anywhere Wes, especially where you'd least think.
Don't believe me, ask around a little - start with your local Applebee's or
Chili's.

Well then that is an excellent reason to be armed. If I take mom to Applebee's, I don't
plan on drinking but I do plan on making sure her night is uneventful. I will be carrying
if it was legal. IIRC, Applebee's is a NCZ. I would sure hope I don't have a Suzanna
Gratia Hupp experience. Remember Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen? Not having a firearm with
some nut job picks you place and time can be deadly.


Insurance works on large numbers. If the actuarial data is
predictable, they will adjust their rates if necessary. I don't
think there will be any noticable change. Haven't seen blood in the
streets in Michigan due to CCW. Doubt it is happening anywhere else.

Michigan requires a permit with all that the proceedure entails. I thought
AZ was going to skip all of that.

For carry inside the state. For reciprocity, you have to do the full ccw process.


I listen to Charles Heller's podcasts regularly. He is a founding
member of the Arizona citizens defense league. He has always seemed
to be a rational person on firearms issues.

That's the same thing we hear out here when it comes to ballot initiatives.
The result of those good intentions to address real issues frequently looks
a lot like Prop. 187.
Didn't last a month.

I'm not familiar with Prop 187. When was ballot initiatives introduced? What was the
driving force? Pure democracy has issues if the voters have no understanding of how
economics work. Since the state is responsible for education, I guess the California
educational system failed big time. Is civics even part of the curriculum any more?

I don't have a lot of
worries on that but then I haven't been in Arizona since a deployment
at MCAS Yuma in the late 70's.

I'm not worried at all.
I've got egg noodles on the stove cooking in half a pound of butter and
enough beef broth that when it's done, all I'll have is a little juice left
and a big bunch of yummie noodles.

John, be careful, half a pound sounds like cholesterol city. I did have a couple slices
of Boston Brown bread with butter today so I can't be too hard on you today.

NN, I gotta go to work in the morning.

Wes