I'm sorry, I should have googled more thoroughly before posting. The rancher I originally was thinking of was Ben Colvin, who had his herd confiscated for grazing Bureau of Land Management land, not Cliff Gardner, who is in trouble for grazing National Forest land that was created after his family had lived (and grazed their cattle) there for generations. Sorry for confusing everyone....LOL Anyone see a common denominator? Ron
That's fine, Carl. I'll be glad to refute you and Ed both.
**Alabama requires a permit to carry concealed but has no open carry restrictions or permit to buy laws. 329 murders in 2000.**Alaska same. 27 murders.
**Arizona same. 359 murders.Arkansas requires a permit to carry.
California....what needs to be said?
**Colorado concealed carry permit only....open is ok. 134 murdersConnecticut requires a permit to purchase and to carry.
**Delaware....concealed carry permit only....open is fine. 25.Florida....no open carry allowed.
Georgia....permit to carry open or concealed.
Hawaii requires permits to purchase, carry, and registration.
**Idaho appears to have no open carry restrictions. 16 murders.Illinois has laws that require permits to purchase and carry and registration etc etc etc.
Indiana requires a permit to carry open or concealed.
Iowa requires a permit to purchase and carry....
**Kansas....no laws applicable. 169.**Kentucky has no restrictions to open carry. 193.
**Louisiana has a permit to carry concealed only with no restrictions on open carry. 560.**Maine.... 15.
Maryland....permit to carry openly yadda yadda yadda. Massachusetts....permit to do just about everything.
Michigan....permit to purchase etc....
Minnesota....same
**Mississippi....no restrictions to open carry. 255.Missouri....permit to purchase etc etc etc.
**Montana....open carry is not restricted. 16.Nebraska....permit to purchase.
**Nevada has no apparent restrictions to open carry. 129.**New Hampshire....none at all. 22.
New Jersey....permit to buy/carry/registration etc.
**New Mexico has no restrictions to open carry. 135.New York....too obvious.
North Carolina....permits to buy etc.
North Dakota has no legal open carry allowed except when hunting etc.
**Ohio has no state laws prohibiting open carry but most of the state is restricted due to local laws. 418.Oklahoma allows no carrying unless it's unloaded and then only under strict regs.
**Oregon has no restrictions to open carry. 70Pennsylvania, no open carry is allowed.
Rhode Island....permits to buy and license to carry etc.
South Carolina....permit to carry openly or concealed.
**South Dakota has no apparent restrictions to open carry. 7 murders in 2000.Tennessee....no open carry allowed except hunting etc.
Texas requires a permit to carry open or concealed.
**Utah, open carry is allowed with some strict restrictions. 43.**Vermont has no open carry laws that apply. 9.
**Virginia allows open carry with no permits. 401.**Washington allows open carry. 196.
**West Virginia allows open carry. 46.**Wisconsin has no open carry restrictions that I could find. 169.
**Wyoming allows open carry without permits. 12. District of Columbia....y'all forgot this one, right? Common thing among antigunners is to skip DC when figuring the numbers to make things look better. Y'all wouldn't do that, would ya?By my count that is 25 states (those marked **) that allow open carrying without any sort of permit to buy/carry etc etc etc as per Gunner's quote.
Let's all look at the murder numbers now, shall we? What is that,
3,755 total murders in all those 25 open carry states? That's in 2000, of course....couldn't find this year's numbers. The total US that year had 15,517 murders so that makes 11,762 in states that restrict open carry as per Gunner's quote....and that makes a grand total of right at 76% of all murders committed in restricted carry states etc etc etc.How's that foot tasting there, dude?
Ed?
ral
As Gunner's quote is easily done if you would open a browser and close your mouth long enough.
ral
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:44:23 GMT, "Ed Huntress" brought forth from the murky depths:
Wasn't that recent post (this year) about the CDC releasing a report saying that they couldn't decide on anything, that the stats from 40 odd reports were incomplete? I wondered why the Center for DISEASE Control had a gun stat committee. Here it is:
John, was this the report you referred to?
============================================================== Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord. http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online ==============================================================
I think he is serious with that question!
Dan
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 17:51:36 GMT, "Ed Huntress" brought forth from the murky depths:
And just WHERE do you suppose I'll find those around HERE? ;) I thought they might have a bit more info, but thanks anyway.
Shame on me. I allowed a Google header to lead me astray.
============================================================== Like peace and quiet? Buy a phoneless cord. http://www/diversify.com/stees.html Hilarious T-shirts online ==============================================================
(snip)
Ah, but "meaningful" is pretty subjective, too. I went around a while back here on the MS newsgroup with a guy who was selective with his truths like that. He was discussing the comparative sizes of the continents and wanted to make the continent he chose look larger, so he threw in the statistic that it was the 5th largest continent. Yes, that's a true statement. That statement would also mean it's the 3rd smallest one, but since he wanted to emphasize how BIG the continent was he chose that direction. When I called him on it he thought I was disputing his claim about the size of the continent. I wasn't. I was just disputing his slant.
When I first saw that statement the first thing that occurred to me was that it wasn't quite true. There is NO state in the US where just ANYBODY can go buy a gun. Minors can't(legally), people who have been disqualified for several reasons (felons, those adjudged as dangers to society because of mental illness, people with restraining orders against them) can't do it legally either.
That's always a problem, because people don't "always" say what they mean or mean what they say. Added to that is the "Inferring what others imply" problem, too. Seeing through all those filters is difficult, if not impossible. One thing I always try to keep in mind is the list of logical fallacies people often employ. Once you spot them, it's pretty easy to figure out what's being attempted.
It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
(snip)
Maybe, but that word "reasonable" seems to have very different meanings to some people.
That's nice, but I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it requires me to satisfy YOUR desire to know who I am in order for me to enjoy my rights. Would you also like to know who I am before I exercise any of the other rights I have(or am supposed to have)?
It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:22:11 GMT, "John R. Carroll" wrote: (snip)
When Clinton was president he had the(his) Justice Department(how's THAT for a misnomer) do a study to back up his argument in favor of a national waiting period. He wanted them to find out the average amount of time a gun was owned before being used in a crime. If the results turned out to be two weeks or less it would support a two-week waiting period. Unfortunately(for him), the study resulted in a finding that the average time a gun was owned before it was used in a crime was 6 YEARS. Since nobody was asking for a 6-year waiting period they quietly announced the results of their study with little fanfare. If the results had come out like they wanted them to, there would have been a MAJOR press conference. Imagine that.
It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
(snip)
Shouldn't be too hard to find the answer, since we had a census fairly recently.
It is easier to fight for our principles than to live up to them.-Alfred Adler
That's what they said about Florida, when it became a shall issue state - of course the murder rate went DOWN, and they was an interesting unintended consequence - You saw massive robberies of people who's cars had "Z" license plates - "Z" plates were rentals, and they knew that the drivers would NOT have a gun. Florida actually had to pass a law revoking the "Z" plates, and banning rental car companies from putting visible ID on the outside of the cars!
In general, murder rates have gone done in every states that have inacted shall issue laws - Now THAT was significant
--
73 KC2IXE For the Children - RKBA! If the opposite of "pro" is "con", then what's the opposite of "progress"?
Ed:
OK, I can see where the quote was misleading.
Richard Lewis seems to have gathered some gun murder statistics from the year 2000 that tend to challenge your own data. Being the curious sort, I went to the following CDC site myself and checked the gun homicide data for the year 2001 for every state. I used Richard Lewis' data on which states were "open carry" and which weren't.
Oh, one other comment. I can certainly see why people don't bother to check this sort of data... ITS TOO MUCH WORK!
Good point. I mention that in another message in this thread which requires an especially tedious response, which I haven't posted yet.
Sometimes it's obvious by the tone of voice, the argumentative structure of it (calling anyone who doesn't see the "obvious" conclusion, crazy), or sometimes just knowing it's part of a continuing, one-sided argument and inferring the intention by context...like Gunner's arguments.
I would never guess that Gunner hoisted this quotation for the purpose of showing that "Ford" really is a fool. Nor do I think that "Ford" meant to say that counting states, which can have varying populations, and relating them to absolute numbers of murders, which vary among states, is an obvious syllogistic error (Illicit Minor) and that the reader is supposed to take it all as a joke.
I hope then that you spotted Illicit Minor. It takes a pretty slick propagandist to plug one of those into an argument without catching catcalls and a few Bronx cheers, but stupid people tend to do it without even trying. I kind of doubt that "Ford" is stupid, but you never know. On the other hand, True Believers tend to not notice them if they appear to favor their side of an issue.
And that's what we have here: a lot of otherwise smart people who are willing to suspend critical judgment in order to defend a point that favors their side. Notice, too, that a couple of them have defended "Ford's" point even while acknowledging that the substance of it -- his specific claim -- is not correct. In that kind of environment it's not easy to stick to the facts and avoid distractions and side arguments, like the ones Gunner and a couple of others have presented here in the last few hours.
But none of that noise obstructs the basic truth here -- the important and relevant one in regard to "Ford's" original claim -- that the logic of his statement falls into a class of logical fallacies that is used as a tool of propaganda. Beyond that, I'll argue his number, too, but that's really a minor point to the argument itself.
The problem with Richard's argument is the states he chose, not the numbers. I used 2001 data and that's somewhat different, but, again, I didn't even bother to check his *data*.
Maybe I'll finish it tonight. It's a pain in the ass to go through it, but hey, that's the reason I don't get into gunfights. I did my time on those from 1988 to around 1994. After this one, I'm hanging up my Ruger again.
No kidding. That's why I usually expect to be paid to do this stuff.
Ed Huntress
"No one but a fool (today, that includes Huntress) writes, but for money." -- Samuel Johnson
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 19:44:23 GMT, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
Good lord Ed..I thought everyone had seen that one...
ATLANTA (Reuters) - A report published by the Centers for Disease Control on Thursday found no conclusive evidence that gun control laws help to prevent violent crime, suicides and accidental injuries in the United States. Critics of U.S. firearms laws, which are considered lax in comparison with most other Western nations, have long contended that easy access to guns helped to fuel comparatively high U.S. rates of murder and other violent crimes. Gun control is a perennial hot political issue in the United States, which reported 28,663 gun-related deaths in 2000, the latest year for which complete data are available. Firearms were the second leading cause of injury-related death that year. But a national task force of health-care and community experts found "insufficient evidence" that bans on specific guns, waiting periods for gun buyers and other such laws changed the incidence of murder, rape, suicide and other types of violence. The findings were based on 51 studies, some partly funded by the CDC, of gun laws enacted in the mid-1970s and later. Dr. Jonathan Fielding, director of the Los Angeles County Health Department and head of the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, said the studies were marked by unreliable data, inappropriate analysis and inconsistent findings, making it impossible to determine the true effectiveness of gun laws. "WE DON'T KNOW" "This means that we don't know what effects, if any, a law has on the outcome," Fielding said in a conference call. "We don't mean it has no effect, and that's why it's important to do more studies." One study found that the 1994 Brady Bill, which required a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases until 1998 when a computerized checking system was introduced, significantly cut the rate of gun-related suicides in those under the age of 55. Several other studies, however, suggested that such declines were accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means. Officials with the National Rifle Association, a gun rights group that has accused the Atlanta-based CDC in the past of having an anti-gun slant, were not immediately available for comment on the report. The CDC, a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, is prohibited from using funds to promote gun control. HHS, however, is determined to reduce the rate of firearms-related deaths by about two-thirds by 2010. There are an estimated 200 million privately held rifles, handguns and other firearms in the United States, which guarantees the right to bear arms in its constitution. Approximately 4.5 million new firearms, including two million handguns, are sold each year in the nation. Secondhand firearms account for an additional 2 million to 4.5 million transactions annually.
"[T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas because those people were religious nuts with guns. Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns.\ Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock? Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue, why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen? -- P.J. O'Rourke, speech at the Cato Institute, May 6, 1993
Perhaps you're confusing "open carry" with "concealed carry." California is not a "shall issue" state re concealed carry permits. (In many counties the sheriffs are extremely willing to issue permits.) It is, however, legal to carry pistols openly, barring local ordinances and the propensity for the police to arrest people for disturbing the peace or some other such trumped up charge.
Not exactly. See above.
-- Robert Sturgeon
- Ambrose Bierce
OT post. Ultra right wing from the wrong coast. = gunner. Don't even have to look.
The laws and local variables apparently are what preclude the several sources I've checked from calling California "open carry."
Ed Huntress
(vöú *?Ùê¼Pô¤-è6?`áw¨}iµà¦à°T ?þ¡V ê?Ð(±Di§-HkÃ@ÉA+22Ûn¬³??¤×h@rv ½¶I?ãÊY??U±e¡ëpæÚøËÖsÌ?¶a?×Q?ü°m?þ,KY?VüÉn1§gSö@BûQ¾Y¸:?%1Íò?á(us?_ÙsáV?
No, you won't. All I said is Gunner won't reply to anything HE can't refute. So far, I'm three for three.
You're skewing your data to fit your argument: you don't provide a body count for 26 states (OK, 25 and D.C.) that limit handgun ownership. None of the open carry states has anything resembling a major metro- you just don't see that many turf wars in Maine. I live near a city that has a lively gang scene that generates a lot of drive-by and walk-up deaths. That kind of criminal activity spikes the state murder rate but if you go 20 miles in any direction away from downtown, and the murder rate drops off to less than one a year (usually a crime of passion). In short, your data isn't worth smoke off shit, because criminal activity doesn't occur at a state or even a county level- it's very localized- block by block. Just because one are of one city has a high crime rate, does that mean the whole state does? Of course not.
BTW- I'm all for responsible firearm ownership. It's just that I don't see that many responsible gun owners.
Sorry, I don't eat foot. How's the crow?
-Carl
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.