[OAW]

As I've stated on many occasions I'm fairly ambivalent about gun control. Pretty center-right on the issue actually. But I do have concerns about this part ...

Missouri on Wednesday joined a growing list of states allowing most adults to carry concealed weapons without a permit, as the state's Republican-led Legislature used its supermajority to loosen existing gun laws.

The measure, described by supporters as "constitutional carry," allows people to carry hidden guns anywhere they can currently carry weapons openly, effective January 1. Missouri will join 10 other states with laws that allow most people to carry concealed guns even if they haven't gone through the training required for permits, according to the National Rifle Association, which supported the legislation.

The legislation also would create a "stand-your-ground" right, meaning people don't have a duty to retreat from danger any place they are legally entitled to be present. The NRA says 30 states have laws or court precedents stating people have no duty to retreat from a threat anywhere they are lawfully present. But Missouri's measure makes it the first new "stand-your-ground" state since 2011

Missouri joins states allowing concealed carry without permit | FoxNews.com

I support "concealed carry". But the GOP legislature decided to turn Missouri into a "stand your ground" state ...with no training or permits necessary to have a concealed weapon in public spaces. What could go wrong?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

When gun deaths spike in a few years, I'm sure I'll be told most of the deceased are criminals.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

^^ The statistics don't bear that out in other "Constitutional carry" states, they've seen violent crime rates drop by 23% since enacting the legislation. That's almost 33% better than states that still require a CWP, and >50% better than states that rarely, or never, issue permits at all. The mere presence of firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens lowers crime. My problem with this is that accident rates will go up 20%, though they're much lower than crime rates to begin with. This could be fixed with gun safety classes in schools, much like they had when I was in high school.

[Waragainstsleep]

He said gun deaths, not crime rates.

[Chongo]

Arizona has been open carry for eons. When a CCW permit law was passed, it was predicted it would Tombstone, didn't happen. A few years ago the need for a CCW permit was lifted allowing for concealed carry without a permit, still no Tombstone.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

He said gun deaths, not crime rates.

I didn't say crime rates.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

I didn't say crime rates.

Well let's review the record ...

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

^^ The statistics don't bear that out in other "Constitutional carry" states, they've seen violent crime rates drop by 23% since enacting the legislation.

To sit here and tell a bald-faced lie about something that we can all see in black and white a mere four posts up from this one is just beyond the pale. And no you didn't say "crime rates". You said "violent crime rates" ... but you can NOT be Bill "Clintonesque" on this one because the juxtaposition was CLEARLY made with "gun deaths". As I've said before ... speaking utter BS with confidence.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Yeah, let's. I said violent crime rates, not mere "crime rates" (which could have included gun-possession crimes and the like, which would have contributed to a drop in general crime).

I await your apology.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yeah, let's. I said violent crime rates, not mere "crime rates" (which could have included gun-possession crimes and the like, which would have contributed to a drop in general crime).

I await your apology.

Don't hold your breath.

Furthermore, we can all see that the last update to my post to correct spelling and what not was made a good TWO MINUTES before this LATEST FOOLISHNESS you are talking. So go ahead and keep trying to make this BS distinction without a difference about something I already addressed before you even posted this nonsense.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Don't hold your breath.

Of course not, that would require some degree of integrity. Most of the time, just having to address you disgusts me.

Furthermore, we can all see that the last update to my post to correct spelling and what not was made a good TWO MINUTES before this LATEST FOOLISHNESS you are talking. So go ahead and keep trying to make this BS distinction without a difference about something I already addressed before you even posted this nonsense.

Yeah, excuses... "correct spelling", you changed most of your post. And you're calling ME a liar? Admit you were being a jerk, apologize, and move on, FFS.

[Waragainstsleep]

I figure any crime involving a gun counts as violent but regardless its an irrelevant qualifier. Gun deaths ≠ crime rates, violent or any other subset of.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Of course not, that would require some degree of integrity. Most of the time, just having to address you disgusts me.

Then don't.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Can'tRead

Yeah, excuses... "correct spelling", you changed most of your post. And you're calling ME a liar? Admit you were being a jerk, apologize, and move on, FFS.

You know what? I shouldn't have said you "lied". Because quite frankly that would be giving you far too much credit in the "debate tactics" department. So I will retract that statement.

What I am saying is that you act like your d*ck will fall off unless you constantly engage in argumentative deflection around here.

1. Dakar made a specific point about "gun deaths" spiking after the passage of this legislation.

2. CTP called himself "countering" Dakar with a comment about how "violent crime rates" generally decrease after such legislation is passed. (I.e. argumentative deflection)

3. Waragainstsleep pointed out that Dakar didn't say anything about "crime rates" ... he spoke about "gun deaths".

4. CTP then "counters" Waragainstsleep with a dismissive comment about how he didn't say "crime rates". (i.e. pedantic BS)

5. OAW sees where this is going because this is CTP's typical MO. He's just incredulous that CTP would say something so blatantly false with the evidence to the contrary staring us all in the face. OAW already knows that CTP is going to make a distinction without a difference and try to hang his hat on the fact that he said "violent crime rates" and not "crime rates". He then reiterates that the issue is "gun deaths". Dakar didn't say anything about "crime rates". Violent or otherwise. As both Dakar and Waragainstsleep made brain-dead freaking obvious!. In hopes of nipping the pedantic BS in the bud.

6. But true to form CTP chooses to respond by making this irrelevant distinction about "violent crime rates" to OAW when he had already cut off all that nonsense at the pass. And then CTP has the nerve to be all up in his feelings because he got called out on his BS. Talking about "integrity" and demanding an "apology"



So now the million dollar question is are you going to continue to argue a point that is NOT in dispute? Or can you manage to address the ACTUAL ISSUE of "gun deaths"? Or would you rather have the last word and talk more smack because your unfettered ego demands it ... and just end up keeping it moving because we ALL know that you don't have a leg to stand on here?

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I figure any crime involving a gun counts as violent but regardless its an irrelevant qualifier. Gun deaths ≠ crime rates, violent or any other subset of.

Exactly!!! The fact that basic shit like this even has to be explained to CTP speaks volumes.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Then don't.

Then quit replying to me?

You know what? I shouldn't have said you "lied". Because quite frankly that would be giving you far too much credit in the "debate tactics" department. So I will retract that statement.

You're a far better liar, so I guess you'd know about that, doxxer. (Sometimes I regret going to bat for you over that with the staff, they were apparently talking about booting you for crossing that line and the forum would be better if I'd chosen differently. Oh well, live and learn.)

What I am saying is that you act like your d*ck will fall off unless you constantly engage in argumentative deflection around here.

What irony. Holy shit.

1. Dakar made a specific point about "gun deaths" spiking after the passage of this legislation.

2. CTP called himself "countering" Dakar with a comment about how "violent crime rates" generally decrease after such legislation is passed. (I.e. argumentative deflection)

3. Waragainstsleep pointed out that Dakar didn't say anything about "crime rates" ... he spoke about "gun deaths".

4. CTP then "counters" Waragainstsleep with a dismissive comment about how he didn't say "crime rates". (i.e. pedantic BS)

I specifically was citing violent crime (Ex. murder is a violent crime), not just mere "crime rates", an important distinction which I've already explained.

5. OAW sees where this is going because this is CTP's typical MO. He's just incredulous that CTP would say something so blatantly false with the evidence to the contrary staring us all in the face. OAW already knows that CTP is going to make a distinction without a difference and try to hang his hat on the fact that he said "violent crime rates" and not "crime rates". He then reiterates that the issue is "gun deaths". Dakar didn't say anything about "crime rates". Violent or otherwise. As both Dakar and Waragainstsleep made brain-dead freaking obvious!. In hopes of nipping the pedantic BS in the bud.

OAW was being stupid and didn't understand my point, so he jumped in and called me a liar (not the first time he's unjustly labeled me that way, either). He likes to call people names; liar, bigot, racist, etc. because those things likely reflect how he feels about himself and he's projecting.

6. But true to form CTP chooses to respond by making this irrelevant distinction about "violent crime rates" to OAW when he had already cut off all that nonsense at the pass. And then CTP has the nerve to be all up in his feelings because he got called out on his BS. Talking about "integrity" and demanding an "apology"

the distinction is clear, I've already explained it, you're the one being pedantic. Violent crime rates aren't the same as mere "crime rates", because only a comparatively small number of crimes that can involve a firearm are actually violent, but you aren't smart enough to get that.

So now the million dollar question is are you going to continue to argue a point that is NOT in dispute? Or can you manage to address the ACTUAL ISSUE of "gun deaths"?

The gun deaths that are violent crimes, you mean?

Apologize.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I figure any crime involving a gun counts as violent but regardless its an irrelevant qualifier. Gun deaths ≠ crime rates, violent or any other subset of.

NOPE. In fact, most crimes that involve guns aren't violent, which is what I was trying to explain when someone ignorantly jumped in and blew up the discussion with his stupidity.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Exactly!!! The fact that basic shit like this even has to be explained to CTP speaks volumes.

Open carry in states that don't allow it is a common non-violent crime that involves a firearm. As is merely brandishing a weapon and improper storage in transport.

Apologize.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Sometimes I regret going to bat for you over that with the staff, they were apparently talking about booting you for crossing that line and the forum would be better if I'd chosen differently.

I don't remember that part. Just saying.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants

Originally Posted by OAW

So now the million dollar question is are you going to continue to argue a point that is NOT in dispute? Or can you manage to address the ACTUAL ISSUE of "gun deaths"?

The gun deaths that are violent crimes, you mean?

Waragainstsleep broke out the stick figures for you already.

Gun deaths ≠ crime rates, violent or any other subset of.

But allow me to break it down to the very last compound for you. "Gun deaths" includes being unlawfully shot and killed .... which would qualify as a "violent crime". But a "suicide" or an "accidental discharge" can certainly result in a "gun death" .... but that is not a "violent crime". Conversely, a "violent crime" isn't necessarily a "gun death" ... which is the fundamental point that apparently eludes you. The FBI identifies the following as "violent crime" in its Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program:

- Murder
- Nonnegligent manslaughter
- Rape
- Robbery
- Aggravated assault

NONE of which even require a GUN to be involved. And THREE of which don't even require a DEATH to be involved. So to "counter" Dakar's point made about GUN DEATHS with some nonsense that isn't even remotely an apples-to-apples comparison is just .... you know what?



OAW

PS: Really interesting how this has to be spelled out for someone who claims to be a law enforcement officer.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I don't remember that part. Just saying.

Oh wait. Yet another outlandish claim by CTP? Imagine that.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by reader50 

I don't remember that part. Just saying.

I wasn't just speaking with you at the time.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

NOPE. In fact, most crimes that involve guns aren't violent, which is what I was trying to explain when someone ignorantly jumped in and blew up the discussion with his stupidity.

OK I see where you're coming from, some potentially violent incidents can be diffused by the production of a firearm without said firearm needing to be discharged but Dakar was talking about gun deaths. That includes accidents which would not be covered by any type of crime rate as I suspect you well know.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Waragainstsleep broke out the stick figures for you already.

As if he was correct. Are you concussed or something?

But allow me to break it down to the very last compound for you. "Gun deaths" includes being unlawfully shot and killed .... which would qualify as a "violent crime".

Well, at least you got that right.

But a "suicide" or an "accidental discharge" can certainly result in a "gun death" .... but that is not a "violent crime".

Correct on the first part, but not on the second, when there is damage or injury, or even just a disturbance of the peace involved. You're not doing so well here.

Conversely, a "violent crime" isn't necessarily a "gun death"

Nope, but gun deaths are covered by "violent crimes", and a large drop in violent crime will include an included drop in gun deaths, unless there's something very, very odd going on in the sample.

... which is the fundamental point that apparently eludes you.

Don't project your own skull thickness on to me. If you're hedging around this much, you have to know there are holes in your position.

The FBI identifies the following as "violent crime" in its Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program:

- Murder
- Nonnegligent manslaughter
- Rape
- Robbery
- Aggravated assault

NONE of which even require a GUN to be involved. [/quote]

They very often do, in every. single. example. That's why a drop in violent crime, especially a significant drop, will also add up to fewer gun deaths. How hard is this to understand? ****ing seriously?

PS: Really interesting how this has to be spelled out for someone who claims to be a law enforcement officer.

"Spelled out"? It's your ignorance that's on display here, not mine. You showed your ass, behaved like a fool, and are now doubling-down on it. It's pathetic.

Now apologize.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Oh wait. Yet another outlandish claim by CTP? Imagine that.

That's right, he's the only admin or mod around here, absolutely. WTF is wrong with you? Do they have a name for it so we can take up a collection to get it treated?

Apologize.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

OK I see where you're coming from, some potentially violent incidents can be diffused by the production of a firearm without said firearm needing to be discharged but Dakar was talking about gun deaths.

The drop in violent crimes, even murders, is substantial (23% in less than 2 years is huge) in places that discontinue the need for permits to carry, far outstripping the places that still do. Violent crimes also includes gun related homicides.

I'll be 100% honest in saying I'm not entirely sure why crime nosedives like that, but likely it does have to do with everyone being more aware that bad acting can cost you a lot more than some time in jail.

That includes accidents which would not be covered by any type of crime rate as I suspect you well know.

The number of accidental gun deaths compared to gun murders is tiny, statistically the savings in violent crime makes up for it, and can be countered with safety classes.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

The drop in violent crimes, even murders, is substantial (23% in less than 2 years is huge) in places that discontinue the need for permits to carry, far outstripping the places that still do. Violent crimes also includes gun related homicides.

I'll be 100% honest in saying I'm not entirely sure why crime nosedives like that, but likely it does have to do with everyone being more aware that bad acting can cost you a lot more than some time in jail.



The number of accidental gun deaths compared to gun murders is tiny, statistically the savings in violent crime makes up for it, and can be countered with safety classes.

And yet people still manage to discharge them by accident, children still get hold of them. If more people carrying didn't result in more accidents I'd assume someone was pulling a fast one with the figures somewhere.
Safety classes are all well and good but if you carry all day every day you will start to forget that you are carrying sooner or later because unlike a cop you aren't being regularly put in situations where you have to contemplate using it.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And yet people still manage to discharge them by accident, children still get hold of them. If more people carrying didn't result in more accidents I'd assume someone was pulling a fast one with the figures somewhere.

It sounds like you're objecting to *any* increase in accidents. But if violent crimes (especially murders) decrease more than accidents increase, society comes out ahead. Life is risky, and ultimately fatal. The best we can do is favorable compromises - there's no perfection to be had.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Safety classes are all well and good but if you carry all day every day you will start to forget that you are carrying sooner or later ...

Heh heh heh ... if you forget you're carrying, your accident rate will fall to zero. I've lost track of how many times I arrived at the grocery store, only to realize my wallet was still at home.

I don't have a strong opinion on right-to-concealed-carry laws. I'm reading the responses with interest. Other than the CpTp / OAW noise of course, which I'm trying to tune out.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

And yet people still manage to discharge them by accident, children still get hold of them. If more people carrying didn't result in more accidents I'd assume someone was pulling a fast one with the figures somewhere.

It's a tiny number, none-the-less. It could easily triple and still not equal the number saved by the drop in violent crime.

Safety classes are all well and good but if you carry all day every day you will start to forget that you are carrying sooner or later because unlike a cop you aren't being regularly put in situations where you have to contemplate using it.

No, you really don't.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by reader50 

Other than the CpTp / OAW noise of course, which I'm trying to tune out.

I'm still not sure why he went ham, it's always pretty disappointing when he starts that sort of thing. However, he still needs to apologize for lashing out for no good reason.

[OAW]

^^^
IF that's the case ... doubtful but let's roll with that anyway ... then you really can't read. Because it's been laid out in black and white quite clearly.

In any event, It should be pointed out that correlation is not causation. Declining "violent crime rates" after concealed carry legislation is passed has generally occurred in the midst of pre-existing downward trends. But naturally the proponents of such legislation ... who more often than not are in the pocket of the firearms manufacturing lobby ... contend that such laws are the reason why.

OAW

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OAW 

^^^
IF that's the case ... doubtful but let's roll with that anyway ... then you really can't read. Because it's been laid out in black and white quite clearly.

by people who don't follow statistics.

In any event, It should be pointed out that correlation is not causation. Declining "violent crime rates" after concealed carry legislation is passed has generally occurred in the midst of pre-existing downward trends. But naturally the proponents of such legislation ... who more often than not are in the pocket of the firearms manufacturing lobby ... contend that such laws are the reason why.

and then their own drops in violent crime outstripped the trend in other states by 23%, over the same time period. But no, "it's the gun lobby", because reasons!

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

It's a tiny number, none-the-less. It could easily triple and still not equal the number saved by the drop in violent crime.

Its a tiny number that isn't well tracked. So maybe it isn't so tiny.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Its a tiny number that isn't well tracked. So maybe it isn't so tiny.

or it isn't so well tracked because those instances are so few they're hard to find.

[reader50]

Does anyone have some real numbers we can argue over? Baseline accidents vs violent crime, and how they changed after the gun laws changed.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

That's the problem, at least for diehard CC opponents, accidents still haven't reached a level where they're statistically significant. I'm still not sold on it, I believe training is too important, but barring a major increase in gun accidents, I'd rather err on the side of personal liberties.