Skip to main content

View Diary: The opposite of fear is called B-A-N (247 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I responding, as I have repeated, to the claim... (6+ / 0-) the diary that the concealed-carry licensing process is one in which those seeking such permits get training to make them a responsible handler and user of firearms. The fact that "only" 500 murders (including some of police officers) have been committed by concealed-carry licensees in the past five years is not an issue in this particular concern of mine. As for gun-related accidents by concealed-carry licensees, I would love to see some statistics on that. The fact is there are no national statistics that break out accidents that way.

    What I am amazed at is that there seems to be actual opposition to ensuring that concealed-carry licensees get adequate training.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:54:33 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Correx: I *am* responding...n/t (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ancblu, zett

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 09:55:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  If ccw permit holders (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mildly Unsuccessful Lurker

      are less of a public risk statistically, a reasonable inference can be drawn that they are more motivated without obligation of increased regulation to be better trained and/or responsible.  

      There is no data correlation of which I am aware between the points you are drawing a relationship between and instead the data would tend to lead one to the opposite conclusion -- and that is my only point ... not that there should be no classroom or range training.

      •  Perhaps the training issue may be a workable (3+ / 0-)

        interface between the pro and anti 2A crowds?  I can see both points.  On one hand we're saying some places have require no training which would at least be a step towards making sure someone who carries understands their responsibilities.  On the other we're saying that those who make the choice to get a permit are already aware of them and don't need to be told by the nanny state.

        If getting training would help settle the issue and put an end to this perpetual equating lawful gun owners with criminals and targeting them for restriction I might go along with it.  Such training programs would still have to be inline with the 'shall not be infringed' concept and can't be used to effectively tax ownership out of people's reach.  Along with that we would need to get rid of MAY issue, making everywhere SHALL issue and incorporate national reciprocity without preemption (e.g. no municipality such as NYC may ban).

    •  And for statistical comparability (0+ / 0-)

      The evidence would need to be for peer groups (i.e., the same training, criminal and mental health background as may be required for those seeking a CCW permit): one group with CCW permits and one without.

      I seriously doubt any statistics exist that show CCW permit holders have a "statistical frequency of firearm related crime or accident...far below national averages" when compared to their peers.

      Those suggesting such statistics exist should have no problem providing them.  From an authoritative source, of course.

      Lacking such evidence, claims such as those ancblu and the diarist have made should be considered to be the worthless imaginings of someone desperately trying to justify their predilection toward firearms.

      •  Your "serious doubt" about a recognized negative (0+ / 0-)

        correlation would be alleviated by less than 5 minutes worth of research on your part.

        But from your own demonstrated ignorance you leap to "worthless imaginings" of that which you know nothing.

        Notice your transparent agenda and lack of intellectual rigor in both of your assertions?

        In any case, here's a start for you Sparky:

        This is an analysis of arrest data for Texas concealed handgun licensees that was performed on data from the subsequent years of 1996 - 2000. A comparison was made with the arrest data for the entire Texas population for the same time period, showing that, on average: male Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.7 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than male Texans with a CHL; and female Texans who are over 21 years old and are not CHL holders are 7.5 times more likely to be arrested for commission of a violent crime than female Texans with a CHL.

        There are more available, but it's time you make an honest effort.

        But here's my own speculation ... next from you will be the sound of crickets.

        •  Hardly (0+ / 0-)

          Did you even read my comment? And if you did, did you understand it?

          Tell you what -- why don't you read up on the concept of self-selection and get back to me with a relevant response?


        •  If it helps you understand (0+ / 0-)

          Perhaps this analogy might help.

          Imagine stumbling across a statistic that says police are far less likely to commit unlawful violent acts than the average population. To the dim-witted or gullible, that might be pretty darn impressive.  Bravo for the police.

          But a more discerning mind might realize that the "average population" includes mentally ill people, people with long histories of violent behavior, drug addicts, gang members, and so on. None of these type of people are likely to be police officers but they may be more prone to acts of violence. Consequently, it's an invalid and misleading comparison.

          A far more representative comparison would be compare the rate of unlawful violent acts committed by police to, say, firefighters. Those are two groups that of similar ages, similar occupation, similar training, and so on.

          You might just find the reverse: that police commit a statistically higher rate of unlawful violent acts than do firefighters. Now: I'm not saying that's the case, because I haven't looked up the statistics. But it's plausible.

          To make your statement convincing, you would need to produce a study from an authoritative source that compares the rate of violent acts (and accidental injuries or fatalities) committed by CCW permit holders compared to other people who have similar, comparable qualifications yet do not have a CCW permit.

          Although I haven't seen such a study, and I suspect none exists, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the level of violent crime or accidental injury/death is higher for CCW permit carriers than for their peer group.  

          Understand now?

        •  Well, you were right about one thing (0+ / 0-)

          Them there crickets eventually did show up.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site