I know your not gonna believe this

[_JS]

May I see the studies?

[Amianthus]

May I see the studies?

Lott and Mustard are a couple. There are others.

[sirs]

Surely you can see why your argument fails Sirs?

No. since it's absolutely logical to conclude that criminals don't want to get shot.  Criminals, will more than likely traverse regions and areas where their victims are less likely to be armed and can shoot back.  "Gun Free Zones" are big bold proclaimations to criminals, "come here, we can't defend ourselves"

Do you see where your attempt to diss the stats falls, Js?

My problem here is that you and Ami are presenting a correlation as causation. You can act the fool, but the reality is that you are making the logical error.

I absolutely concur that stats can be made to say pretty much anything a person wants, by what stats are used.  We hear it everytime someone claims there are more gun crimes in the U.S. than the UK, all the while ignoring each country's population #, and violent crime rates as a % of the population vs sheer #'s.  Point being that the FACT remains there are largely less violent crime in regious where there are more permissive CCW laws.  That not only is a factual stat, but is suppoted by absolute logic.

[_JS]

No. since it's absolutely logical to conclude that criminals don't want to get shot.  Criminals, will more than likely traverse regions and areas where their victims are less likely to be armed and can shoot back.  "Gun Free Zones" are big bold proclaimations to criminals, "come here, we can't defend ourselves"

Do you see where your attempt to diss the stats falls, Js?

No, because you are making an argument from emotion and not proper reason with the correct use of a statistical study. You even make another logical error in trying to infer what takes place in the mind of a criminal (who we're told are avid followers of legislative news). I'll take sound sociological studies with proper data and use of statistics over Sirs anecdotal amateur criminologist reports any day of the week.

And to the contrary, I'm not trying to "diss the stats" but question your all's use of specious reasoning. Correlation does not equal causation Sirs.

I absolutely concur that stats can be made to say pretty much anything a person wants, by what stats are used.  We hear it everytime someone claims there are more gun crimes in the U.S. than the UK, all the while ignoring each country's population #, and violent crime rates as a % of the population vs sheer #'s.  Point being that the FACT remains there are largely less violent crime in regious where there are more permissive CCW laws.  That not only is a factual stat, but is suppoted by absolute logic.

Of course there are European cities with lower violent crime rates than American cities. In fact I posted a study that the New Zealand Government did on English-speaking nations which equalised all the laws and reporting statistics (a difficult thing to do unto itself) and then reported a vastly lower violent crime rate for nearly all major westernised English-Speaking nations when compared to the United States. That is a rate, not simply the numbers in total.

One wonders what the difference is.

[sirs]

No. since it's absolutely logical to conclude that criminals don't want to get shot.  Criminals, will more than likely traverse regions and areas where their victims are less likely to be armed and can shoot back.  "Gun Free Zones" are big bold proclaimations to criminals, "come here, we can't defend ourselves"  Do you see where your attempt to diss the stats falls, Js?

No, because you are making an argument from emotion and not proper reason with the correct use of a statistical study.

Actually no, I'm using logic to reinforce the actual statistics, that Ami has already referenced, that have taken into consideration the multiple variables you were applying

You even make another logical error in trying to infer what takes place in the mind of a criminal (who we're told are avid followers of legislative news).

Actually, no one is making that specific claim that criminals follow the law, only referencing that criminals, though dumb as they may be, are smart enough to not want to get shot when in the act of performing their crime, so will indeed look to hit areas less defended.  You think criminals have a death wish??  Interesting. 

And ironically, it's the "legislative news" (translated; the ever increasing gun regulations) that impact the person trying to defend themselves from the criminal who could care less about the law, since they have no intentions of following them in the 1st place

[kimba1]

Why would you be?  Or is that too personal a question?  I had one in Califonia

it`s not work related is the reason
my question how did you get one?
I took classes to get one and it stated only people of certain occupation may get one
it was 12 years since I got a permit.
has the laws changed?
wouldn`t be surprised
I found out all my baton training is illegal now.
lets just say my training is not too different from the chair & rope  scene in casino royale
I`m truely the wrong person to mess with.
useless you don`t want kids

[Amianthus]

I took classes to get one and it stated only people of certain occupation may get one

In California, it depends on the county you live in. California is a "may issue" state, which means that it's up to a judge or law enforcement to decide if you're going to get a permit, even if you meet all the qualifications.

In our discussion earlier about "general public" and concealed carry, I was incorrect. I had forgotten about Vermont, which has no state firearms laws. You can carry concealed or open with no restriction and no permit needed.

[sirs]

Why would you be?  Or is that too personal a question?  I had one in Califonia

it`s not work related is the reason  my question how did you get one?

I applied for a CCW, which included my reasons for having 1, (which was primairly for self defense), took the prequisate course work, provided 3 letters of recommendation, payed the required fees, 1 interview, and was granted a CCW, that required annual renewal on a firearms range

[kimba1]

I think everything is harder now.
some of my requirements now require the presence of a police officer
which limits the availability of the training classes
ex. pc832 require 8hr. instruction from a police officer
no exceptions
which makes it hard to get work in civil service security.
but that`s easy compared to nevada
those guys need way more permits than california
and their more expensive.
their done by county and I think zones.
so you may need multiple cards to work at anyone place.

[kimba1]

I remember the range requirements
pretty sad
I`ve always been a decent shot but some of my co-workers
uhhh
some people really shouldn`t have guns
it really does require some minimul ability.
broadside of the barn is the term I believe

[Lanya]

I looked up Ohio's concealed carry law.

'Additionally, you must have two hours of practical training
including range time and live-fire experience. The applicant must
also complete an examination that tests his or her competency.
The test, at a minimum, includes a written section on the ability to
name and explain the rules for the safe handling of a handgun, and
proper storage practices for handguns and ammunition. Addition-
ally, the exam must include a physical demonstration of compe-
tency on handgun usage and rules for safe handling and storage of
a handgun, and an examination requiring the physical demonstra-
tion of the attitude necessary to shoot a handgun in a safe manner.'

...............
'As long as you meet the criteria listed in the law, the sheriff must
issue you a concealed handgun license within 45 days of receiving
your properly completed application. The license lasts for four years.'

http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:hzOY37r03ZcJ:www.ag.state.oh.us/le/prevention/pubs/cc_booklet20040319-72.pdf+Ohio+concealed+carry+gun+law&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

[sirs]

I remember the range requirements  pretty sad

I agree.  It was the least problematic portion of the application process.  Having taken as many safety courses, and having been involved in several IDPA competitions, it really wasn't an issue for me personally.  That said, if you didn't take it seriously enough to pass it, you couldn't receive your CCW

[kimba1]

oh this wasn`t for the CCW
it was for the exposed gun permit
I passed without any problems
it was some of my fellow guards who couldn`t
and he was on a worker`s visa so he needed to pass to even stay here.
he practised every chance he got,but he`s just a real lousy shot.
he`s not here anymore.
before him I never thought anyone could be that bad with a gun.
but not anymore.
I will never doubt people`s inabilities to do things.
potential goes both ways.

[sirs]

oh this wasn`t for the CCW  it was for the exposed gun permit

Ahhhh, big time difference.  IMHO, much more dangerous, as it puts a big bright spotlight on who's actually carrying a weapon, that criminals can target immediately.  It's unfortunate your range reqirements are as laxed as you're claiming. 

[kimba1]

laxed?
he failed