“The weight of evidence suggests strongly that concealed carry does nothing to improve public safety. That’s the most optimistic thing you can say statistically.” – Professor Robert Spitzer in After Scalise Shooting, a Twist: Lawmakers Want to Loosen Gun Laws [via nytimes.com]
Well, then, an openly armed police force does nothing does nothing to improve public safety either as there were armed, professional police on site at the time of the shooting.
Guess so. We should give these hoplophobes the option of living their principles, add a 912 call option to bring an unarmed cleanup crew after they have been criminalized. After all, to use a gun by proxy (armed police), is still using a gun.
And they are more than welcome to decide not to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise. But their choices do not have bearing or weight on the decisions that I make. So not quite sure what they hope to achieve by publishing these studies. They are weightless from a moral and legal perspective.
Well said, GunDoc.
I think the number should be: 0118 999 881 99 9119 7253
867-5309
0118 999 881 99 9119 7253, would be the British number. USA would have to be slightly different to avoid confusion
Well – if that is true, then you should have no complaints whatsoever, about legalizing it everywhere. More freedom + no impact on “public safety” as you call it = win win. Let’s do it! Concealed carry – everywhere.
well yeah, sure. but how does it make you feel?
I can spot a Progressive such as this Castrati a mile away. The smug face gives them away. No happiness. Never a real smile. Just false smugness.
I thought the exact same thing when I saw the photo. I can even guess whom he voted for in the last several presidential elections. I’d bet you can too.
The CDC disagrees. But hey, I don’t care about “public” safety. I care about MY safety. The “public” can go take a flying leap into a woodchipper and improve the gene pool.
I don’t know what it was, but I had an the image of a politician telling one of his constituents , “Go jump into a wood chipper, improve the gene pool!”had me laughing till my eyes were watering.
Cool, so you take back all your ridiculous vaccine public safety comments?
Apples and oranges. There is no constitutional right to refuse quarantines or vaccinations. Next question.
Lol, says the hypocrite. And you keep seeming to forget the the same constitution does not give the government power to force medical care on individuals.
Actually, it does. Forced quarantines have been a part of common law since the Roman republic.
When called on your blatant hypocrisy, you just make shit up. Cool.
Would you like to hear about the cases under British and later US common law that revolve around this? There is nothing in the CotUS that prevents Conggress from passing a law vis-a-vi vaccinations. It would rather obviously fall under “necessry and proper” to the common defense and they did so when they addopted British common law more or less in its entirety.
As usual, you have no idea what you’re talking about. The only exceptions to the enumerated powers of Congress are listed in the Bill of Rights. I don’t see a word on point. So, for example, Congress couldn’t legitimately pass a law outlawing firearms “for the common defense” as the 2nd amendment specifically states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no “right” to be a disease spreading degenerate.
First off quarantine does not equal vaccination. Second, Maybe you fail to understated the purpose of the constitution. It does not grant rights, it limits the government. Citing history of forced quarantine or whatever else in ancient Rome is a a laughable attempt on your part to deflect your blatant hypocrisy. You have done this so many times, always a good time watching you jump backwards, side wards, make shit up, trying to cover for your unmistakable and quite ignorant double standard on this.
You’d have a leg to stand on if there was a prohibition. There is not, so it falls under the enumerated powers of Congress. Vaccination is basically government disease management. So is forced quarantine.
If the government has the right to stick you in a quarantine camp with no recourse to prevent the spread of deadly disease. (It does, I can cite dozens of cases in precedent starting with the Roman Repiblic.) Then logically, it has the power to make you take a harmless shot once or twice in your lifetime to achieve the same goals. Let me make it clear. A quarantine is rather likely to kill you as you are stuck with other people who may already have the disease. A shot is almost certainly not going to kill you. You have better odds of getting hit by lightning.
Quarantine is not medical care.
Pwrsrg, you are obviously a troll.
As a medical doctor, I can say unequivocally that vaccines are discredited science.
And no, the fourth amendment specifically prohibits forced vaccines. You seem to have a bit of a reading comprehension issue. Just because there are “laws” that “mandate” forced vaccines does not make them lawful, any more so than all the anti-gun laws on the books make them lawful.
If vaccines were effective, your choice to get them for yourself and your family is your choice. If you believe in them, the same way that people “believe” in human caused climate change, then my decision to get them or not is immaterial. And regardless, “public safety” is not a compelling reason for me to introduce demonstrably harmful substances into my own and my children’s bodies. The hippocratic oath forbids it.
Stop promulgating lunatic fringe bunk, since your opinion in this matter is subordinate to those that actually do this for a living.
Case law on point disagrees. There are numerous laws on the books that give health departments broad discretion in dealing with the spread of deadly disease. I can’t find a single example where these laws were ever found unconstitutional. At worst, it’s a state authority rather than federal authority issue. But the precedent is clear.
Interesting because you said this “The Civil Rights act as it applies to individual citizens comes from no authority granted to the federal government by the CotUS. As such authority is not granted, no law based on such authority can be constitutional.” And this when someone replied the SCOTUS defended it….”The civil rights act is unconstitutional on its face. Just because something upsets you doesn’t mean you can make it illegal.” Yet you use the same argument in favor of mandatory vaccines. and you continue to use vaccines and quarantine interchangeably, when they are not the sane thing. I’m not interested in your opinion on the risks with vaccines, because on that note you are 100% full of shit and have no idea what you are talking about. That’s a fact.
As I mentioned elsewhere PG2, unless you have an MD you forgot to mention, I am far better educated on this topic in particular and on most topics in general. It’s one of the benefits of being the educational underachiever in my family. Every single member except me has had either an MD or a bio related PhD for three generations. I just have my MBA and JD. (No, I don’t practice law, the stress to money ratio just wasn’t worth it and thanks to the GI bill, I didn’t have student loans forcing my hand.) My primary fields of focus were mechanical, aerospace, and biomechanical engineering with my JD focus being intellectual property law. I also have a smattering of Criminal Justice and history degrees as well as the Bio, Chem, and Physics degrees associated with graduating with the aforementioned engineering specialties. There’s a reason why I spent five (effectively eight with all my summer classes) years as an undergrad.
In retrospect, I wish I had focused on constitutional law for my JD, it would be a lot more fun and more useful, but allass I wasn’t quite that smart in my early 20s.
If I had gotten that commission that I was shooting for, I’d probably have been strong armed into a JAG MOS. Thankfully, by the time I went to law school, it was a non-issue.
Pserge, Gundoc is 100% correct, you are a troll. Funny stuff. At least you’re not calling women on this board “twats”, and threatening to beat up their “beta husbands”. Is your function to make gun owners look like psychopaths on online forums?
“As a medical doctor, I can say unequivocally that vaccines are discredited science.”
“Stop promulgating lunatic fringe bunk”
Hilarious. If you actually are a doctor, I truly hope you’re not practicing medicine or dispensing medical advice.
“As a medical doctor, I can say unequivocally that vaccines are discredited science.”
“If vaccines were effective, your choice to get them for yourself and your family is your choice. If you believe in them, the same way that people “believe” in human caused climate change, then my decision to get them or not is immaterial.”
Either you’re not a doctor or you’re one of the worst doctors on the planet.
Your first sentence is laughable. The second part I’ve quoted here, where you say your decision is immaterial, shows that you have absolutely no fucking idea what you’re talking about. If you really are an MD you should have your license pulled just for this post.
Vaccines have not been discredited. Vaccines have eliminated many life threatening diseases and have been shown time and again to save lives. Perhaps the FLU vaccine isn’t as effective as one might hope. Also… the Constitution outlines government functions. It’s the BILL OF RIGHTS that limits the government. Up until the 1st Amendment, no part of the Constitution limits government.
Vaccines are a little bit like wearing a seatbelt. Sure you don’t have to strap into your car. You also don’t have to drive. Similarly, you don’t have to vaccinate your kids… just don’t expect to get them into any public or private school.
Driving while your kids don’t wear seatbelts and exposing your kids to deadly diseases if they’re not vaccinated should both be considered child abuse. Why don’t you just leave a gas stove unlit while you’re at it?!?
*Gas stove running while unlit* Sorry, had to correct myself
@Tim, seatbelts are not in same conversation as injecting untested biological agents into newborns and children. But thanks for sharing your feelings.
Just as soon as you admit to seeing chem trails and your alien anal probe. Loosen up that tin foil hat sparky. Seriously though, almost all of your posts have something to-do with your new found anti-vaxer religion. Have you figured out that 1) THIS IS A FUCKING GUN BLOG SITE!….NOT AN ANTI-VAXER, GRANOLA LOVING, NON-PIT SHAVING HIPPIE BULLSHIT BLOG SPOT! 2) No one is interested in your position and fake science on vaccines. You are not converting anyone here because a) we fucking know better b) you sound like you live in a missle silo somewhere in North Dakota c) THIS IS A FUCKING GUN BLOG SITE!….TALK ABOUT GUNS OR THE TOPIC AT HAND OR KINDLY STFU!
I’m done now.
You were done after your first sentence. Your post is some kind of verbal diarrhea. It’s unfortunate that my pointing out Dr. Evil’s ridiculous hypocrisy regarding individual rights and the Constitution upsets you, but you can CHOOSE not to read the thread.
Tools like you are truly a waste of oxygen. Thank goodness that your disdain for vaccines will ensure chlorine in your personal gene pool, thus guaranteeing you produce no more idiots with the same views. The first couple of sentences were a joke. The rest was serious. You really need to stop with the conspiracy theories and anti-vaxer preaching. Everyone just points and laughs at you anyway. My guess is the reason you can’t drop it is due to some form of mental retardation or illness. Whatever the case may be, please just go back to your bunker or join a support group…hint TTAG is not your support group!
Sounds like you believe this is some sort of support group for yourself…really sad. If you’re going to post online, maybe you need thicker skin…or a safe space.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FONN-0uoTHI
“you sound like you live in a missle silo somewhere in North Dakota” – That sounds kinda cool to me. Not as cool as not having polio though.
@TX, funny, I thought the same the same thing about the missile silo. Not going to spend the time calories trying to bring you up to speed on Polio, but recommend reading “Dissolving Illusions” by Dr. Humphries. Very well written and cited throughout. Many other sources that rely on rely on public record instead of CDC statements.
I don’t have polio. Or small pox. Or tuberculosis. Vaccines work. Some things probably aren’t worth the risk of a vaccine, but others most certainly are.
That’s as much agreement as you will ever get out of me on the subject.
@TX, fair enough. My points here will always be supporting individual freedom, whether it’s the Bill of Rights, or having the right to tell the pharmaceutical industry to pound sand when they attempt to use the government to force their products on individuals.
I’m for well ordered liberty, which requires certain restrictions on personal freedoms because absolute freedom is a chaos in which no one is free. Well ordered liberty is minimal restrictions ensuring maximum freedom. The million dollar question is where to draw the line of minimal.
@TX, Fair enough, I understand your position. Until these products have more more than tobacco science backing their safety, expect a considerable blow-back whenever discussions include their use.
You realize that this discussion didn’t have anything to do with their use until you brought it up? When you bring it up, the conversation usually wasn’t about them.
@TX, I had to call out Dr. Evil on his over the top inconsistency and ignorance on the issue.
Then don’t be surprised when people call you out on your crazy stance that not only are vaccines are poisonous, but that they don’t work.
Vaccines are toxic. That’s not debatable. What’s debatable is HOW toxic they are. And we do not have the studies or the data to know this answer. as far them ‘working’, we need to define what that even means.
@ GunDoc
“Pwrsrg, you are obviously a troll.”
You even bother reading the comments? Pg2 just jumps in and goes totally off topic on his anti-vaccine jihad with 0 provocation. Do you even know the definition of an internet troll?
Says the pharma rep trying to protect his turf.
That was my thought exactly!
So, nationwide open carry, right? Strap it on like Matt Dillon and go about your day. That what he’s trying to say?
Why isn’t there an easy-to-remember URL the NRA can feature in their ads that clearly shows current FBI statistics for DGUs (and any other relevant stats that keep being misrespresented) in the US? The NRA talks facts but there is no sticking power to it because there is no convenient memorable location all the info can be referenced at a glance.
The facts and data need to be easily accessible so we all can stop wasting our breath.
It’s time for efficient public shaming of these ignorant fools — our version of the Left using labels to shut down conversation, but with actual facts rather than feelings. Might I suggest factsnotfeelings.com.
Secondly, there should be a site with a running tally of all politicians, judges, and all the anti-gun tards out there all lumped into an automatically generated and reoccuring white house petition to get all of these anti-Constitutional clowns out of schools and banned from any sort of public office.
TTAG has at the top of the page a menu item “Facts About Guns”.
If it is not the definitive source for the statistics you seek, it SHOULD be.
Why would any facts about DGU or crime rate (relative to local gun restrictions) statistics shame any of these ‘bought and paid fors’?
Every time someone points at facts that sports clear and solid scientific basis these lefties immediately start shouting ‘fake news, fake news, fake news’ until the general public believes the facts are indeed fake.
The downside to pro gunners is that we don’t own the majority of the media outlets and therefore we have very little authority to sway public opinion.
Remember that John Lott guy? He did some concrete research and subsequently barraged by the leftist media for lying, being bribed by the NRA and all sorts of nonsense because his ideas didn’t align with the liberal agenda. His research (when the left chooses to remember it exists) is usually billed as a complete lie paid for by the NRA and therefore invalid compared to their actually bribed ‘facts’
Pwrserge, despite his usual sunshiny self has it spot on with the CDC saying otherwise. Even the lowest estimates of DGU that only include reported shots fires show that you’re 10X more likely to use a gun to defend yourself than to be murdered by a gun. The higher end figures show well over 100X more likely to successfully defend yourself than to get shot. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. But no matter what the DGU success rate is… anyone who wants government to take my guns–even in the name of safety– can eat a whole bag of dicks.
Is it just me, or does that guy’s face seem really smug? Like he knows his audience is too stupid to fact check his lies and he therefore thinks he’s moving the needle? Dollars to donuts, even his liberal friends can’t stand being around him for very long.
That’s not “sunshine”… that’s incoming fire.
I noticed that also with that “smug” look. I also noticed that he says there are no “background checks” for online purchases……….these liberals push such “half-truths” as facts it almost makes you want to throw something. These people truly TRULY BELIEVE that if you don’t have a gun, then the criminals can’t steal it and then have a gun. Your reliance on the government for everything is paramount for your survival is truly how they want you live so there would be no violence. Absolute insanity!!
Lol, I’m always amused at anti gun friends who talk to me about the “gun show loophole” or the “no background checks on the internet”.
I say “Tell you what. You pick out any online gun you want from an online store and if you can pick it up or have it mailed to you without a background check of some sort, I’ll buy it for you.”
They then realize they have to send it to an FFL who’s job it is to run a background check and they say “Well, if it were a private seller, I could meet him and pick it up.”
And I say “If it were me selling to you right now you wouldn’t need a background check. So… the rules are exactly the same for online?!? Guess if the rules are different for a gun show.”
“… concealed carry does nothing to improve public safety.” – Professor Robert Spitzer
I wholeheartedly agree that concealed carry does nothing to improve public safety WHEN NO ONE IS ARMED BECAUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS DECLARED THAT TO BE ILLEGAL.
I agree too, concealed carry does nothing to prevent crime. Drawing your gun and firing does wonders to prevent crimes from continuing
Of course concealed carry doesn’t support Public Safety. Why would anyone think anything else.
The gunshot scares the public and they fear for their safety. The 100,000’s of defensive shootings are only for the purpose of saving individuals. These don’t count in the narrative. OMG, think of all the public that are going to be struck by stray bullets in any defensive shooting. Maybe two or three or more. Better the individual die or get beaten or raped than have the public in fear of a stray bullet. Concealed carry is the devil. Only the public (read disarmament narrative) matters.
At what point do hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals become “the public”?
Exactly!! It’s the anti narrative creates a definition of “Public” that is free from guns. In their narrative there is no number that brings concealed carriers and defensive gun use into the definition of “public”. We are just a bunch of individuals that threaten their happiness and, they are the ‘public’ we are not. Maybe I should have put in a “/sarc”
“Why would anyone think anything else.” Because studies have shown that criminals are less likely to commit violent crime when they know there is a chance that the victim might shoot them. They don’t know who is not carrying concealed, so they choose not to attack anyone and instead burgle parked cars.
Therefore, carrying concealed not only protects the carrier, but also the non carrying public at large. Freeloaders that they are.
There are some really rich quotes in the original article, including a pol bemoaning the new pro-gun bills being introduced right after a trajedy.
The lack of self-awareness is stunning.
“There are some really rich quotes in the original article, including a pol bemoaning the new pro-gun bills being introduced right after a trajedy. ”
Oh, yeah, and the one by Democrat Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton is particularly notable:
““It says everything about my Republican) colleagues that they would use the occasion of a tragedy on one of our members to come forward the day after with one of these bills,” Ms. Holmes Norton said.”
Wow.
Eleanor, it sure shows your hypocrisy when *your* colleagues would use the occasion of a tragedy on one of our public schools, where our *children* go, to come forward the day after a school shooting to push *your* agenda down the throats of the American people.
“The lack of self-awareness is stunning.”
*fist-bump*
I really enjoyed the non-voting representatives “if I have anything to say about it.” Turns out you don’t.
Funny that the NYT would use this particular incident to argue against concealed carry. Unless I read the story wrong, it seems that a couple of plain-clothed Capitol Police officers carrying concealed weapons stopped the shooter before anyone got killed. So concealed weapons certainly seem to have saved some lives in this particular instance.
Those were weapons carried by trained professionals, not the ignorant rabble who make up the gun-owning public. Had they been civilians, they would have missed the attacker, shot each other and several bystanders, and then been shot by the responding officers in the confusion as to whom the attacker was.
While we’re on the topic of magical bullshit that has never happened… can we talk about what would have happened if the bodyguards had been wearing power armor? Armed with phased plasma rifles in the 40 Watt range? How about if Congress contracted their security out to Ewoks?
After giving the bad guy a mild heat rash with their plasma rifles, the good guys in powered armor could have bent the SKS into handcuffs.
And Congress would have to include signs saying to beware of swinging tree trunks and airborne furries.
I think Wookies would make better security guards.
Serpent Vision, first let me say it’s so exciting to finally meet someone with super powers — the remarkable ability to create an alternate reality that fits their political agenda.
But I hate to disappoint, as there seem to be hundreds, maybe thousands of other people that claim to have this ability.
But you seem legit as you had a very specific series of events you have clearly thought through.
In the meantime, can you use your powers to let me know the winning lotto ticket?
Did SV’s sarcasm go right over your head? Or did your sarcasm go over my head?
I can’t take credit for imagining that scenario; I’ve seen repeated warnings about it from the pro-restriction crowd just about every time that the concept of an armed citizen stopping a mass shooter is discussed.
So what’s the opinion of trained civilians?
It’s not that difficult for a civilian to get training on par with any LEO agency and most serious shooters get more practice time (on range and tactical drills) in a year than most LEO officers receive in their lives
This is all academic though as it doesn’t matter though since the constitution forbids training requirements as a prerequisite to gun possession
But they are LEO. So it wasn’t really concealed carry as used in the article and the general message.
In what way is a police officer carrying off-duty not an example of concealed carry? Surely you don’t think that police aren’t civilians (they are), or that they recieve special, extraordinary or military training (they don’t), or that they can also somehow carry concealed a radio and call for backup at the first sign of trouble like they would while on the job (they can’t).
No, when an off-duty cop engages in a DGU it doesn’t matter if he/she is stopping a mass shooting or just protecting his/her own life, either way it illustrates that we’d all be safer if everyone were allowed to carry all the time instead of some states’ restriction to people with particular jobs (e.g. police) and most states’ restriction to the same plus people who have received more training than people the aforementioned vocations (at significant personal expense) and paid a (frequently sizable) fee.
tl;dr: when a cop isn’t actively backed up by a PD, they’re just another citizen with a gun and anything they do with that gun any other citizen could do as well or better.
Sarcasm my friend.
I was under the impression they were actually on duty at the time.
I will add that the MSM/antis THINK being an off duty cop makes it different and that they DO get extra special, super operatorfied, military style training.
They weren’t off duty. They were there specifically for this kind of situation.
Yeah, I left a comment to that effect at their fake news site. Let’s see if they post it.
Not a chance in hell it will get posted!
as of right now—its 52 morons for the fiction story and 0 for logical folks
There are even 5 or so? against the silencer act–saying that if the shooter had one? No one would know where the shots came from—in a full sized rifle?? To many JBond007 movies!
I really love the one saying that all 2nd shooters should have only brown besses! Hey moron fine by me–get off the net and post hand bills if you want a forum or stand on a box and shout!
there is your 1st amd in 1776 right?
“Not a chance in hell it will get posted!”
They sure as hell did. Not in the ‘Pics’ section, but in the all comments section.
Click all, then select oldest.
Great comments, ThomasR!
Here’s one:
Mia Ortman
“Because easy access to firearms is working out so well now?”
ThomasR
“Actually, it is. We have the lowest violent crime rate in over forty years, yet almost all states are allowing for licensed concealed carry and 11 states now have constitutional carry, which means a law abiding citizen can carry a firearm concealed or open with out the need of a license. The latest figures says that 15 million Americans citizens are licensed to carry a concealed firearm. And it was a couple of law abiding citizens carrying firearms that stopped and killed the shooter, it just happened to be some law enforcement officers, but in the end, they are just another American citizen defending themselves and others bearing a tool that is a right protected by our constitution.”
Civilians are usually hit by strays when the police empty their guns.
It seems to me that NYPD kills more bystanders every year than all concealed carriers I read about nation wide combined.
How many concealed carriers were actually carrying that day???? I thought it was zero due to their close ties to the place that doesn’t give a FU<K (Washington, D.C.) F em all, you reap what the (D)bags sew, and you don't oppose.
Even if you eradicate the evil (D) you'll need to carry, open carry, concealed carry.
No F's given to this guy, and not enough FU's either
ALL THESE (D)HEADS FORGET
THAT WE DIDN'T FING ASK
“The weight of evidence suggests strongly that concealed carry does nothing to improve public safety.”
Translation: “I really wish there were data showing that concealed carry increases gun violence and threatens public safety, but I can’t find it.”
This is really what the whole “debate” with the antis comes down to: We can’t provide proof that guns and gun owners are a problem but we don’t like them and their guns so they should go away.
They often, very often, preface their articles and studies and rants with something to the effect of; “The easy access to guns is what is driving crime, therefore we must reduce the availability of guns.” We POTG need to hammer back at this line of reasoning at every opportunity because it is the basis of their “common sense” and it is not true. There is no body of evidence that the existence and availability of guns drives crime. They like to spout that there is more gun crime in the U.S. than in other nations (to which I reply yes, and there are more alligator attacks in Florida than North Dakota) but always fail to mention overall crime rates. If the availability of guns were the driver, or even a partial driver, of the overall crime rates then our crime should be an order of magnitude (or more) greater than any other country. Crimes committed with guns, especially if you don’t consider the mere possession crimes as “gun crime” represent something in the range of .1%-.2% of the guns in the country (assuming 300-400 million guns). How can the availability of something that in 99.9% of instances is not used in crime be the driver of that crime? It is a ludicrous statement but one the anti’s use often and it usually goes unchallenged.
Given that, in this country there are 300 or 400 million or more guns and a tenth of a percent of them are used in crime, by how much would we have to reduce availability? This is a question the antis can’t and won’t answer because the answer is we would have to get rid of all of them to put a crimp on the guns available to criminals and the antis know they can’t make that sale. Even if 90% of the guns in the U.S. disappeared tomorrow, at current crime rates, the guns used in crime would still only represent 1% of the available guns. Reduce the number of guns by 99% and, at current rates, the guns used in crime would be 10% of the guns available. In other words, you can’t reduce the supply enough to shrink a tiny marginal part of the ‘marketplace’.
The anti’s regularly spout that their motivation is that we have a HUUGE gun problem in the U.S. No we do not. A tiny fraction of the guns in the U.S. are used by a small number of criminals to inflict harm on 1 or 2 tenths of one percent of the population. Falling down harms more people in this country than guns – maybe the anti’s should redirect their efforts to studying walking, shoes, stairs and handrails. They would have a bigger impact and piss off a lot fewer armed patriots.
/rant
Even if guns caused crime (they don’t), the explanatory power of guns would be fantastically small. It would take about a million guns to cause one “gun” crime.
“That’s the most optimistic thing you can say statistically.”
Unspoken addendum: If you only look at evidence produced by biased research intent on proving concealed carry endangers the public.
Even if his first sentence were true, the most optimistic thing one could say about concealed carry is that it reduces violent crime generally and is the best way to defend oneself from violent attack because there are studies showing both of those things. I don’t know which word he doesn’t understand, most, optimistic, can, say, or maybe statistically.
“The weight of evidence suggests strongly…”
Geez, with a preparatory statement like that you can rest assured some lawyer BS is about to follow.
i couldn’t see the author’s face through all that hedging.
“..the most optimistic thing you can say statistically.” depends on which statistics you look at and which ones you ignore, “Professor”. The recent Obama-funded CDC Study estimated 500,00 to 3 million DGU’s per year and Gary Kleck confirms about 760,00 verified DGU’s per year.
Apparently, the title “Professor” has become a synonym for “lying Marxist propagandist”, hence Spitzer is just a “useful idiot” for the NYT as the paper advances its anti-second amendment agenda.
“depends on which statistics you look at and which ones you ignore” – Exactly because you have to ignore many studies for that to be the most optimistic thing you can say.
“Washington, D.C., is the last place you want to condone or allow concealed-carry weapons,” said Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Democrat and the District’s nonvoting House member. “They are certainly not going to be successful if I have anything to say about it.”
Condone or allow a Constitutionally protected right? This is the exact mentality which should automatically remove these people from office for failure to follow their oath of office.
Hmmmm…well, since Scalise was mentioned, I will use just that situation as flat out PROOF that it does promote safety. Didn’t two people WITH a weapon (maybe concealed or not) stop a man that would have had a killing spree? What more evidence do you need to disprove that illogical mind think.
This professor is simply not someone to be taken seriously. It’s actually exactly the opposite:
The weight of evidence suggests strongly that concealed carry does nothing to IMPEDE public safety. That’s the most PESSIMISTIC thing you can say statistically.
He has to ignore the the totality of decades of scholarly research out there to make the claim he does. Such willful ignorance is his stock in trade, though. Although he acknowledges that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, he claims it only does so because the Supreme Court ruled so, not because it actually is so.
He claims that the SC ignored all of the historical evidence to arrive at that ruling. In fact, HE is the one ignoring the historical evidence, which is outlined nicely and unavoidably in the Heller decision itself.
This professor is just another purveyor of personal opinions masquerading as facts. Unfortunately, while we’re all entitled to our opinion, no one is entitled to his own facts.
“He claims that the SC ignored all of the historical evidence to arrive at that ruling.” To be fair, they did ignore a good bit of historical evidence with all that “unusual and dangerous” nonsense.
Well yeah Jimmy…good guy(and gal) with a gun. Simple…
I wonder if he works for CNN.
How is that people with college degrees are so stupid. No one had a gun because they are started travel from the gun free zone of the District of Columbia!!
Why are most college professors insanely stupid? After years of working with people who are highly educated, here is my conclusion. Their world of knowledge is often confined to the boundaries of their university and their friends that work in academia. Occasionally, they travel, but again, that travel is limited in scope to the ideas they learned in their isolated world.
BTW, I got my degree while in the military stationed in Europe during the Cold War. I never had the opportunity to be indoctrinated. I was never isolated from the world around me.
It doesn’t matter if it increases public safety. It’s a right. I can say books and media have instigated riots and wars (they have), but I’m still not going to curtail freedom of speech. These people make me sick.
The happy fact is that despite all the bias, distortions, and outright lies, the anti-gunners are losing! While they are damaging civil rights on the left coast and in the Northeast we are about to hit them with an end run they can’t stop with national reciprocity. If we can get the silencer issue resolved as well, you can expect a full meltdown by the anti-gun left that will only serve to make them look completely unhinged to middle America. The crazier they look and act, the more people will discount everything they say.
We are winning!
Josh Horwitz, the executive director for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said “I’m disgusted by the fact that we have to have mass shooting after mass shooting, and Congress isn’t doing anything about it.”
Wait.. I thought earlier in the article the writer listed three pieces of legislation Congress introduced to further codify self-defense? Ohhhhhh Congress isn’t doing what he wants.
there are an estimated 10 million more concealed carriers in the US now than when President Obama took office. Violent crime rates have continued to drop in most places in the US. While this may not be due to concealed carry, it indicates that Carrying a gun does not cause crime.
Can anyone confirm, Were the DC police on the security detail carrying concealed? My guess is they were, in which case Mr Spitzers assertion is completely wrong.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-police-played-key-role-in-saving-peoples-lives-officials-say/
“Plain-clothes Capitol Police officers protect senior members of Congress, including Scalise. They are part of a separate division within Capitol Police — the department of protective services. They look and act like Secret Service but are separate entities. ”
Plain-clothes + handguns most likely concealed carry or else they would have been the first targets.
Saying ‘violent crime continues to fall IN MOST PLACES’ is playing dirty statistics. Violent crime, specifically homicide is significantly increased- including in places where people have been getting lots of carry permits due to crime (Chicago). You don’t get to ignore the places your point doesn’t hold to make it stronger.
And even if violent crime were dropping, that is not evidence that conceal carry works. Correlation does not equal causation; there could be plenty of confounding variables causing the drop that has nothing to do with guns. For example, national cheese consumption strongly correlates with people dying by becoming tangled in their bedsheets (http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations)
If you’re going to argue against the antis BS claims, you need to understand how statistics actually work… and don’t work.
While correlation does not equal causation, it does indicate causation.
“The weight of evidence suggests strongly that concealed carry does nothing to improve public safety. That’s the most optimistic thing you can say statistically.” – Professor Robert Spitzer
Once again, an irrelevant perspective has been invoked.
The citizen has an inalienable right to self defense. This is true whether or not there is a collective, societal benefit.
Fbi stats and cdc stats say otherwise.
More useful info⬇
http://www.gunfacts.info
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/07/badly-flawed-misleading-donohue-aneja-weber-study/
Statistics are almost invariably useless when it comes to complicated social issues like crime.
The answer is almost always “there is not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis”
…but then you get guys like this who don’t understand that the above sentence doesn’t equate “the null hypothesis is correct!”
Guys like this don’t understand what a “null hypothesis” is. It is amazing to me how many people do not understand that the statement “it cannot be shown that x causes y” is not the same as saying “x does not cause y” OR “x and y are unrelated”.
Have you read John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime?” I’m sure you could find the paper and not have to read the whole book. If you have, what are your thoughts. I thought he was pretty convincing, and that was back when I understood things like p-scores and all that jazz. It’s been a long time since I needed to understand statistics in that detail, so I actually have forgotten more about statistics than most people will ever know (I’ve probably forgotten more than I know).
Concealed carry is not about public safety, it is about personal safety. If you want to increase public safety (i.e. reduce violent crime, at least in theory) hire more cops.
Or just do nothing since we already live in the safest atmosphere in human history. There are fewer things in this country, and this world, that are likely to kill you or seriously harm you than at any previous time. Diseases that could ravage a population have been cured, sources of energy have been tapped that allow you to keep yourself warm enough and cool enough, shelter is available, food is abundant, crime is low.
Heart disease kills people, cancer kills people and several other diseases kill people to a lesser degree. Particularly with cardiovascular disease and cancer, part of this is because we live long enough to die from these because we aren’t drowning trying to cross a river or being trampled by a horse or dying from an infection we got because we cut ourselves plowing a field. The public is already safe, any increase in expenditure aimed at public safety can only reduce harm by a tiny amount because there are not all that many dangers to address.
Will open carry increase public safety since concealed carry does not?
Concealed carry may not protect public safety but it tends to protect individual safety.
Of course one could argue that if the vast majority of individuals secure their personal safety then by default public will be insured. Of course most progfacists would find not bottom down ebough to swallow.
So his strongest argument against freedom is that most of the evidence shows that freedom doesn’t reduce danger?
I’m not sure how to respond. Maybe: “I agree. We win. Give us reciprocity now.”
Seriously, he is saying that “this law has no benefit. We need more of it.” How is that even an argument?
Comments are closed.