A fine article on CCW and 2nd Amendment

[RX-79G]

Agreed, but is this not --as seems to be your argument unless I'm missing something-- defeating the whole spirit of licensing? It's not like super-permissible licensing will make an otherwise-violent person more measured, after all, so it would have the same 'concerning' impact of making the licensed-carry figures look worse as more population is included.

Nope. You license people, they go do their thing and then you see how many of them harmed someone. Mission accomplished - CCL holders are a good bet.

 

[Sam1911]

The "plan" should be for out-of-state gun owners to challenge their debilitated status in neighboring states that don't offer reciprocity.

You mean, for citizens of one state to go sue the state government of another state because they can't carry there? Man...that would be interesting to watch.

I don't think it is just an academic pursuit to say that someone living in AZ and working in CA may have a issue. And when those challenges go to court the CA AG is going to claim that it is a question of safety, and this can be challenged directly with CCL stats in the complainants home state.

But the statistic stands. It's been recorded in plenty of states for long enough to establish the trend. The continuance of a government permit system to exercise the "bearing" of arms spelled out in the 2nd Amendment should not be lauded or countenanced if there's a chance it can be dissolved, simply to keep up a wee little bit of social accounting -- a statistic -- which might be of theoretical value in bolstering a case which may or may not happen someday.

It is a bit mind-boggling that we'd even discuss NOT pushing for the expansion of carry rights to completely artificially* make crime numbers look more favorable, just in case somebody might bring that up in court sometime, somewhere (which is a theory that needs a lot more proof than it has been given to be worthy of a second thought anyway).


* completely artificially, because we're not even arguing that any persons would or would not commit any crimes under a permit system that they would have without that system, only that, since we force a few of them to go get permits, well, hey, now we can count them. Yippee.
Literally...we want you guys to continue to be forced to sign up with the government and BEG to be granted privilidge to exercise a right, AND we want you to have to pay money for this, ... so we can count you all. And this, from our friends!?



I won't argue that I can't see the benefit of having a juicy (if universally ignored, or countered) statistic to point to. But the "juice" is light years away from being "worth the squeeze" as the saying goes.

 

[RX-79G]

Okay.

 

[barnbwt]

Nope. You license people, they go do their thing and then you see how many of them harmed someone. Mission accomplished - CCL holders are a good bet.

And poor minorities unable to afford the fees, time, and range practice needed to become licensed are a "bad bet"; you, me, and Michael Bloomberg are all on the same page. But it's not about you, me, or Michael Bloomberg; it's about the people, the individual persons being made legally defenseless in the face of extremely high-crime neighborhoods bent on abusing them. To those people, going unarmed is often an uncertain bet with infinite stakes. So they are willing to break the law and carry a defense weapon. After all, you sure as hell wouldn't go unarmed about those sketchy burroughs if you had to pass through, right?

Another point on your comment above; "CCL holders" are exactly who the state passes a law to say they are, whether they be a rarified subset of NYC billionaire blue-bloods, or any shlub who can pay a ransom & waste a weekend...or even an entire state like Vermont or Arizona. Now, I'm confused as to which of these groups you are referring to, since it's my impression that they are all a 'better bet' as you put it, compared to the closest disarmed equivalents (or their own disarmed past in recent decades).

BTW, your method of 'experimental governance' is going to be prone to wild errors and miscalculations due to independent variables. Altruistic-but-unaccountable rule by 'scientific method' in pursuit of social utility goals was the cornerstone of the most notorious tyrannical horrors of the last century. America was never meant to be ruled by benevolent dictators making decisions based upon social utility which necessarily devalues all individual rights in favor of the collective (i.e. the State itself). Your system also has no boundaries governing how many or how few can be harmed before 'the bet' is no longer 'good.' So long as we proactively ban the one guy most likely to commit a crime, the 'bet' is equally good to the alternative (it's actually more certain the fewer people you ban). At that point, the one guy is likely to get his head opened up by an armed victim if he chooses to act out, plus the amount of damage he can do by himself until that time is pretty minimal (and certainly not worth bothering every other person out there to submit to fees, courses, and licensure, all for his sake). It's an absurd scenario meant to illustrate a point, but it applies equally to your *implied* system of barring licenses to poor minorities more likely to commit crimes (though rapidly moderating in areas where the requirements are dropped/removed, CHLs still greatly favor wealthier white male portions of the community across the nation)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

You mean, for citizens of one state to go sue the state government of another state because they can't carry there? Man...that would be interesting to watch.

No kidding; talk about well-trod legal ground, this exact occurrence only arises & is upheld thousands of times a year when someone makes a wrong turn on the NJ turnpike and gets nailed by the cops (Shaneen Allen case example). If the person isn't in jail in the other state for violating their laws, the judge dismisses it immediately for lack of standing as a non-citizen*. If the person is in jail, they routinely respect the prosecuting states' jurisdiction to prosecute crimes within its borders, because one state cannot impose action or inaction on the part of another**. In neither case will they typically go into the viability of licensing authority under the RKBA itself, other than to say "we've always done it this way" (just like slavery, for hundreds of years)

*Even though it's a blatant restriction on interstate commerce/travel which only the Feds supposedly have the authority to impose
**This part illustrates the need for either; a respect for the RKBA as written, or a new redundant affirmation through legislation of the incorporation of the RKBA to the states (McDonald), even though this is **explicitly** declared by the fact "Congress shall make no law" does not appear in the 2nd Amendment like it does others (the right is **explicitly** to be respected, period, at every level of authority an individual or "the people" is subject to)

 

[RX-79G]

.or even an entire state like Vermont or Arizona.

Already covered. The entire state of AZ includes people who wouldn't have sought a license because they are intent on crime in the first place. If you don't separate license holders from everyone else you have to count every non-felon that commits a handgun crime.

Maybe read the thread so far? Less typing.

 

[barnbwt]

Already covered. The entire state of AZ includes people who wouldn't have sought a license because they are intent on crime in the first place. If you don't separate license holders from everyone else you have to count every non-felon that commits a handgun crime.

It also includes people who would have never gotten a license, for any reason or no reason (all of those people, actually)

Wouldn't that make the numbers even better, or zero, if you subtract criminals from the population of legal carriers, which is every other adult? What point are you trying to make with this statement?

I get the impression you see value in statistics on what percentage of "safe people" --as determined by some licensing scheme-- will commit gun crime. Isn't the whole point of them being "safe" that they do not commit crime? It's a self-referential situation where you are tallying the fraction of blonde-haired males who have brunette ponytails.

Spoiler

It is a low number

I thought the real purpose in all of this was to reduce the overall amount of violent crime, or hell, even just violent 'gun crime' in the community, so why does it matter, again, what the licensees are doing, when as you admit the criminals intend on being criminals, regardless (and therefore violating carry laws)?

Is it just about meting out harsher punishments on those criminals when they are caught using handguns? I'd think you could accomplish that by increasing penalties on violent crime in general just as easily (and would have much greater effect considering how frequently gun charges are dropped by prosecutors). Or is it more about denying civil liberties to a community more likely than your own to include those who harm others, so as to maintain your personal superior strategic standing against them?

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

Wouldn't that make the numbers even better, or zero, if you subtract criminals from the population of legal carriers, which is every other adult? What point are you trying to make with this statement?

You mean, define a population of lawful people by the fact that they haven't committed a crime? Because the people reading the study aren't idiots?

 

[barnbwt]

You mean, define a population of lawful people by the fact that they haven't committed a crime? Because the people reading the study aren't idiots?

Yes, exactly; this is precisely what a licensing scheme hopes to accomplish. Well, unless it is in reality being motivated by other motives that have absolutely no basis in some public safety benefit (not that this alone is sufficient cause to curtail this area of freedom). Througout all of history up to today, these systems are constructed by shutting out the poor and marginalized minorities, whom are always more afflicted with crime than their more affluent/influential counterparts. I'm not impugning anyone's intellect, I'm pointing out an apparent flaw in the reasoning of licensing and therefore the methods of its study (which a person looking at the issue objectively would realize is possibly why licensing doesn't have much effect in practice)

TCB

 

[RX-79G]

Yes, exactly; this is precisely what a licensing scheme hopes to accomplish. Well, unless it is in reality being motivated by other motives that have absolutely no basis in some public safety benefit (not that this alone is sufficient cause to curtail this area of freedom). Througout all of history up to today, these systems are constructed by shutting out the poor and marginalized minorities, whom are always more afflicted with crime than their more affluent/influential counterparts. I'm not impugning anyone's intellect, I'm pointing out an apparent flaw in the reasoning of licensing and therefore the methods of its study (which a person looking at the issue objectively would realize is possibly why licensing doesn't have much effect in practice)

TCB

That's ridiculous. I don't know how you convolute something simple:

"Hey, we should allow Wisconsin citizens who pass a background check to carry a gun!"
"That sounds dangerous. Those extra armed people are going to shoot each other."
"Actually, in every other state where people let themselves get a background check first, the people licensed to carry really behaved themselves."
"Oh, objection withdrawn. Clearly people who will consent to fingerprints and crap are pretty trustworthy with concealed guns."

 

[Ironicaintit]

My knee jerk reaction is to disagree here with RX-79G.

But if we ultimately want to win the argument, then the case (for common sense) must be made, for/to people who disagree with our right to an armed defense.

By allowing the numbers of "first time caught" offenders to be folded into the numbers of law abiding carriers, we lose leverage in making our point..... Because then it could be argued that gun owners are part of the criminal element

Not sure if I'm making any sense. Just thought it and wrote it all of a sudden.
I think that may be in part, the point RX is trying to make, but much more artfully than I just did.

 

[Sam1911]

Already covered. The entire state of AZ includes people who wouldn't have sought a license because they are intent on crime in the first place. If you don't separate license holders from everyone else you have to count every non-felon that commits a handgun crime

And you're willing to disenfranchise, restrict, and infringe the rights of all those people who can't afford (or don't want to get registered with the government) to get a permit in order to possess an effective means of self defense out on their streets just so you can make sure you have a nifty set of numbers compiled -- in case anyone forgets how many times we've compiled that set of numbers already over all the years there have been licensed to carry firearms in so many states -- if there's a court case sometime where they might be useful?

Seems there would be a non-trivial amount of blood shed by victims of crime that could be considered to fall on the heads of those who held up their right to go about armed just to chase statistics.

 

[Sam1911]

By allowing the numbers of "first time caught" offenders to be folded into the numbers of law abiding carriers, we lose leverage in making our point..... Because then it could be argued that gun owners are part of the criminal element

Which is all absurd. That's just bad statistics, not a dangerous, plausible result. Saying that when John grabs a gun and goes out to murder Bill, we have to tally up John into a "legal gun carriers" total because he could legally have that weapon right up to the point he pulled the trigger is quite silly. I'm not a criminal! I'm just plotting to murder someone!


Bottom line is this: it is fine and good to compile statistics from our existing and past situation and use them in bolstering our point. Bravo!

It is NOT fine or good or acceptable to hold back freedom from ANYONE in order to create or preserve a statistical measurement! Talk about the servant abusing the master!


We have potentially several millions of people poised to soon realize the level of freedom of arms as it is laid out in our federal Constitution -- for the first time in generations.

But we've got someone here protesting against that, "The statistics, won't somebody think of the statistics?!?"

 

[barnbwt]

Because then it could be argued that gun owners are part of the criminal element

You've got it backwards; the criminal element (whatever that means, as Sam points out it's kind of a dynamic figure) is part of the population, as are gun owners, and the two can overlap. All have human rights, like the right to defend one's self.

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

But we've got someone here protesting against that, "The statistics, won't somebody think of the statistics?!?"

No, he's absolutely correct that *some* people can only be pro gun insofar as the status quo disenfranchises 'undesireable populations.' The stats regarding those groups have only ever existed as a justification for denying their freedoms, even though the RKBA is supposed to exist above social utility arguments since it is so crucial to the continued freedom of the individual. Eurozone nations haven't gone more than thirty years on average after banning most guns, before now curtailing all sorts of undesireable political speech.

The real question is can we win without those folks, and if so, why would we not want to?

TCB

 

[Sam1911]

No, he's absolutely correct that *some* people can only be pro gun insofar as the status quo disenfranchises 'undesireable populations.'

I have to admit, I've read your replies and I have had difficulty seeing what you're seeing in RX's argument. I think he's really arguing that statistics, which are clearly in our favor in this case, are important enough that we should hold up progress toward permitless carry in order to preserve them. A pretty straightforward argument, though I disagree with it deeply.

You've introduced some questions of motives and purposes which I'm not following.

The stats regarding those groups have only ever existed as a justification for denying their freedoms,

Ok, that is perhaps so, although this one stat we're discussing here, the "Licensed gun carriers are ??x less likely to commit crimes than even the police" statistic isn't one that can be, or ever has been, used against the poor or RKBA proponents. Are you suggesting that some statistics can't exist or be used without involving other statistics less favorable? I'm a bit confused.

even though the RKBA is supposed to exist above social utility arguments since it is so crucial to the continued freedom of the individual

I completely agree with that, and it's part of my earlier rebuttal wherein I suggested that presenting statistics doesn't help a state or federal Supreme Court decide whether a law is Constitutional or not. Said from another direction, even if there is a measurable social ill, the right is too precious and too protected to abridge.

RX's counter is that courts do sometimes look to the overall social impact of a law, especially if the level of scrutiny applied isn't perfectly clear, or is determined to be fairly loose, i.e. "rational basis." And that having a statistic like this one to point to is nice, especially to counter all the other statistics various groups throw at RKBA arguments.

The real question is can we win without those folks, and if so, do we really even want to?

Uh, could you restate this or explain it better? Which folks? Why would we not want to win?

 

[RX-79G]

And you're willing to disenfranchise, restrict, and infringe the rights of all those people who can't afford (or don't want to get registered with the government) to get a permit in order to possess an effective means of self defense out on their streets just so you can make sure you have a nifty set of numbers compiled -- in case anyone forgets how many times we've compiled that set of numbers already over all the years there have been licensed to carry firearms in so many states -- if there's a court case sometime where they might be useful?

Again, I have to point out that not so many years ago almost no one could carry concealed in the US. We have CCLs because WE sought a licensing model. We did not make an appeal to justice to get where we are today. What I'm suggesting is just continuing on with that successful model for a bit longer before we move to the next step of CC. I understand your concerns about the poor, but the most number of Americans would helped in the shortest amount of time by opening up all the states instead of trying to get things perfect in some of the states.

Which is all absurd. That's just bad statistics, not a dangerous, plausible result. Saying that when John grabs a gun and goes out to murder Bill, we have to tally up John into a "legal gun carriers" total because he could legally have that weapon right up to the point he pulled the trigger is quite silly. I'm not a criminal! I'm just plotting to murder someone!

If John grabs a gun to murder Bill in VT, he was legally carrying. He isn't part of any subcategory of interest.
If Phil grabs a gun to murder Bill in WI and has no CCL, he was illegally carrying, like the majority of people with violent criminal intent would.
If Sam grabs a gun to murder Bill in WI and has a CCL, he is one of a statistically very small number of people who have a CCL yet committed a crime.

Which of those three do you want to talk about if you are considering allowing concealed weapons? Which is the best predictor of the CCL holder's future average behavior? All murderers, or just Sam - the exceptional CCL murderer whose rarity makes all the other CCL holders look like angels?

All murders are criminals, that isn't the point. The point is to be able to show that some self-identifying members of society are highly unlikely to become criminals in the future, and can therefore be trusted by the state to do right, even when they are armed in public. Whether that sounds stupid or unjust to you or not, that's how we got to today from 30 years ago when the states trusted no one with concealed weapons. Licensing made the case for legal carry, not appeals to justice or reason:

 

[Sam1911]

Again, I have to point out that not so many years ago almost no one could carry concealed in the US. We have CCLs because WE sought a licensing model.

"We" sought everything we could get. Every last scrap. And we continue to do so. If a licensing scheme was necessary at some step along that path, yes, we worked with that. It wasn't a goal and is to be discarded at the earliest possible moment.

What I'm suggesting is just continuing on with that successful model for a bit longer before we move to the next step of CC.

Guffaw. When, O sage, shall we be ready?
Fooey. Fight for what we can get, when we can get it. The road is hard enough without these bizarre worries that the statistics won't be preserved.

I understand your concerns about the poor,

Not really. You've basically said, "Screw them. They can wait while we get our statistics in line."

... but the most number of Americans would helped in the shortest amount of time by opening up all the states instead of trying to get things perfect in some of the states.

You really aren't big on the "art of the possible," are you? Opening up all states? Really? You would hold up permitless carry in the states who are RIGHT NOW poised to grasp it, and make them wait for the flippin' New Jerseys and Hawaiis of this country to come around to our side?

Those states will have to be forced, or waited out for generations of legislatures to come and go. That's pretty much a death sentence to the permitless carry efforts in all these other states. Sure, maybe ten or fifteen years from now they could try again when New Jersey finally falls ... maybe. What a terrible thing to do to all those people in Maine, Colorado, North Carolina, etc., etc., who could have these rights restored in the very near future.





And why? Why? You've given ONE reason: To preserve the ability to harvest (afresh, again) a statistic about whether licensed carriers are more law abiding than cops. A statistic that ALREADY is well established and well known and often cited. And your reason for putting these people through this "none for you...be patient...keep waiting" game is that this statistic is vital to turning some court cases in the few remaining virulently anti-gun states so that they will let people carry guns.

I've been a little too polite, a little too reserved in my critiques of this theory. This is the political strategy equivalent of wading out into the surf at Big Sur and urinating just as hard as you can. "Peeing against the tide." And meanwhile, good folks are deprived of the liberties they are on the very cusp of grasping. It's almost in their hands, but you'd take it from them. Unbelievable logic.

 

[Sam1911]

The point is to be able to show that some self-identifying members of society are highly unlikely to become criminals in the future, and can therefore be trusted by the state to do right, even when they are armed in public. Whether that sounds stupid or unjust to you or not, that's how we got to today from 30 years ago when the states trusted no one with concealed weapons. Licensing made the case for legal carry, not appeals to justice or reason:

And that factor has been proved over, and over, and OVER again in an ever increasing number of states for decades, to the point where such data could be pulled from at least 40-some of them. States have begun to move beyond the licensing requirement. They have decided that there is no value in keeping up a licensing scheme.

THAT last fact is a STRONGER point in the pro-carry argument than all the other data on how many carriers committed crimes. If state courts need to look at statistics and models from other states to decide whether people should be allowed to carry, they can bloody well look to states which have gone an order of magnitude farther than that and decided not only that they should allow specially licensed people to carry, but allow EVERYONE to do so.

And that puts paid to the whole "statistics" argument.

 

[larryh1108]

I agree, Sam. It makes no sense whatsoever what he is proposing. We already have piles of stats showing that the legally armed public is safer than the general population and the anti-gun legislators don't care.
There are millions of reported self defense stories yet the antis don't care. The antis hang onto the few statistics that show that guns are present around gun violence. Duh! That is the only thing they hang their hats on and have succeeded to eviscerate the rights of millions of gun owners in states like CA, NY, MA, etc. How they can justify banning guns based only on their looks is beyond me and how the law makers allow these laws to be written is also beyond belief. Gathering stats showing how safe and nonviolent gun owners are is a waste of time and resources. The stats already prove that the AR15 is seldom used in a majority of gun deaths yet they don't care what the stats say. All they claim is the AR is used in the mass shootings we see in the news.

 

[RX-79G]

Not really. You've basically said, "Screw them. They can wait while we get our statistics in line."

No, I most certainly did not. I was explaining that a method that gains right for the most people in the shortest amount of time is better than trying to perfect one region while ignoring everyone in a large, populous state.


You know, I was considering working through your points, but what was "those statistics don't make sense!" has given way to you implying that I hate poor people. I'm not dealing with your mudslinging.

Go ahead and be rude if you think that's the "high road". I made a statement that something has a potential downside and was asked to explain myself, which I have. Your derision sprinkled with your misunderstanding of a pretty simply stat problem just makes you appear that you are fighting to fight.

Chortle, fooey, ah shucks, guffaw.

 

[larryh1108]

Go ahead and be rude if you think that's the "high road".

I see the pot is calling the kettle black again.

 

[RX-79G]

It makes no sense whatsoever what he is proposing. We already have piles of stats showing that the legally armed public is safer than the general population and the anti-gun legislators don't care.

Not legislators, judges.

The other half of my argument involved leveraging reciprocity, which is going to require having licenses in nearby states to be reciprocal to.

 

[Sam1911]

which is going to require having licenses in nearby states to be reciprocal to.

Apparently a moot point as all of the recent "permitless" states still issue permits for those who really want them, primarily for reasons of "reciprocity." So I guess that's not a worry, either.

 

[Sam1911]

No, I most certainly did not. I was explaining that a method that gains right for the most people in the shortest amount of time is better than trying to perfect one region while ignoring everyone in a large, populous state.

The method that gains rights for the most people in the shortest time is ... what now? Oh, it was, "opening up all the states instead of trying to get things perfect in some of the states." Literally you are saying let's make everyone wait until NJ, MD, NY, HI, and the other hold-outs finally come over to our way of thinking. THAT's your plan for "rights for the most people in the shortest time. Does that really make sense to you? Hold up permitless carry in all these other states until we get NEW JERSEY on board? Really. Uh huh.

And you've still not expressed a clear and plausible reason WHY we must do this, except for the increasingly absurd sounding "gotta keep up the statistics" idea.


AND, you're looking at a dozen or more states all working on this right now and saying it's got to be either/or. Apparently, it is not legitimate to work on increasing concealed carry rights in the worst states while simultaneously working to help places like Colorado, North Carolina, etc., break on through into the light and ditch permitting all together? What is the conflict? Why demand that it cannot be both? We fight on many fronts. No issue demands that all states wait on every last other state to all toe the line before marching the next step forward. The idea's a bit absurd. Why are you demanding it for carry rights?

You know, I was considering working through your points

Sure. Ok. I would, of course, welcome that.

but what was "those statistics don't make sense!" has given way to you implying that I hate poor people.

I didn't say you hate them. I said you're willing to screw them out of the rights that could be theirs in order to preserve needlessly redundant statistic counts. By your own words, that is absolutely true.

I made a statement that something has a potential downside and was asked to explain myself, which I have.

Uh no. You said people in states poised to go to "Constitutional Carry" should stop, should wait, should put their progress on hold because it would be better to wait for all the most stubborn "anti" states to come to our side. That's different from saying that there's a potential downside.

One is akin to saying, "aww gee, that pretty white eggshell got broken ... but man this is a tasty omelette!" The other is saying that people who could attain a level of gun rights not tasted in their lifetimes, or their parents' lifetimes, should put that on hold for a few more decades because counting CCW license might bolster our case if New Jersey ever someday considers giving carry permits a moment's thought in court.

I'm not dealing with your mudslinging.

Go ahead and be rude if you think that's the "high road". ... Your derision sprinkled with your misunderstanding of a pretty simply stat problem just makes you appear that you are fighting to fight.

Chortle, fooey, ah shucks, guffaw.

This is sounding familiar. Point A proves unsupportable. Jump to point b, c, d, etc. When the points are all completely disassembled, inspected, and dismissed, resort to "you're a big meanie!!!"