Pretty much, both sides have their own statistics.
I think you should look specifically at NH because NH allows *unliciensed* open carry and licensed concealed carry for any citizen who can pass a criminal and psychological background check. And they have been like that for decades before the Second Amendment cases.
So NH would be a perfect test-case to see how blood flows as high as a horse's bridle in this apocalypse. (*grin*)
NH has 6.1 deaths per 100,000 due to injury (either deliberate or accidental) from firearms. This is with 2.8% of households reporting keeping a loaded firearm.
Now, Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. In a lot of towns, they won't issue you the required license at all. They only have 1% of households reporting keeping a loaded firearm; and they report 3.2 deaths per 100,000.
To compare the two, you need to divide the injury rate by the loaded gun rate. The lower the number, the safer the individual gun owners are.
In NH that number is 2.18 whereas in MA that number is 3.2.
Individual gun owners in NH, per capita, are LESS likely than those in MA to die (or kill) either deliberately or accidentally due to firearm possession.
Furthermore, sheer quantity of guns makes no difference. The number of firearms in private hands increased 40% from 1975 to 1995, while the number of fatal firearms accidents declined 60% during that time.
This may well be attributable to the likelihood that people who are more familiar with firearms are more likely to be able to handle them safely.
But it doesn't end there.
In NH where people can openly carry without a license (!!!))) there were a whopping TEN murders last year!!! (1.3M population)
In MA, where you have to take classes, pay hundreds of dollars, deal with gobs of restrictions and still in some towns can't legally own a gun *at all* even in your own home ... there were 172 murders (6.6M population).
NH murder rate per 100k: 0.77
MA murder rate per 100k: 2.61
So in NH, where nearly 3 times as many people per capita keep loaded guns around, and ANY peacable citizen has been allowed to carry OPENLY without a license for decades, the murder rate is less than a THIRD of what it is in MA where everyone is so enlightened, regulated and licensed.
Sorry Marikod, I just don't see the connection.
If you want to argue that freedom entails risk -- I agree. Freedom to own a car, drink, own a metal ladder and a host of other things can result in accidents, injuries and death. It really sucks. But I don't favor a nationwide padded room.
I would STRONGLY champion the right for John Galt, Willy Wonka & GaG to own as many handguns as they want, despite the fact that you couldn't get me within a MILE of a fucking handgun !
Funny thing----my views on the 2nd ammendment really have changed in over 4 years; during that same time, my hobbying activity increased quite a bit. I'm sure the more astute can understand my change in philosophies without me going into long-winded bloviating.
Despite what certain idiots say, people CAN hold conflicting beliefs.
It would seem if one is a frequent hobbyist ( or , a provider, for that matter ) they would have a strong Libertarian streak.
Thoughts ?
"It would seem if one is a frequent hobbyist ( or , a provider, for that matter ) they would have a strong Libertarian streak."
You would think. Of course, I find it a bit odd that anyone who engages in this hobby is religious, given how much the 3 Abrahamic faiths spend their time telling people to ignore the funniest bits on their body.
Why wouldn't you get within a mile of a handgun, pria?
I can't stand guns; same goes for pot, but I certainly wouldn't deny people the right to use either.
Willy, a Q : if one is a libertarian hobbyist/provider, shouldn't they also theoretically be pro choice/gay marriage ? Or am I jumping to conclusions ?
Fair enough. I think that it's the duty for all responsible people to be armed, but I can certainly see why many wouldn't want to get involved in all that.
Setting the hobbyist/provider aspect of this aside, because I don't think it matters, but anyone who considers themselves a libertarian would be pro gay marriage.
Being pro choice wouldn't necessarily be the case, as some might view the liberty of an unborn fetus as something worth protecting. There's gray area on that one.
That is not even an issue any more. The legal question is whether they can display those handguns openly when they come to Starbucks for a latte, or keep handguns in their gym bag when they play pick up BB with me in Manhattan Beach.
Unless the new Supreme Court justices are able to inject some Second Amendment common sense onto the Court, I fear we are headed in that direction. And I see no connection between being a "hobbyist" and being a libertarian at all. TER and this Board are clear proof of that.
Why does open carry offend "common sense?". The 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms. It doesn't say "only in the home".
...but it doesn't make it a good idea. I'm in favor of open carry rights, but when everyone around you gets nervous when you do so, it's a better idea to keep that shit concealed.
add in the number of persons stopped for DUI each year, add the number of gang members and other trouble makers, include the number of untrained citizens who try to protect themselves with their own handguns, and perhaps you will see the concern.
doesn't mean they will get a 'carry permit' to take it outside the home. There are many hoops to jump through to get a carry permit. Some of them are: the completion of a state certified handgun training course, state and federal background check, FBI fingerprint check, psychological check, etc.
Just because a person has a weapon on his/her person, doesn't mean they are doing so legally. Felons are prohibited for life from any type of gun ownership. Does that stop them...hell no. Criminals are not called that because of their law abidding habits. Burress, in fact, did not have a permit to carry. New York is one of the most difficult states to get a permit, as is New Jersey.
Having a permit in one state, does not necessarily mean you have the right to carry in another. A few states have reciprocal carry rights, but don't think you can carry your weapon legally in Philly, and then drive through NJ on your way to NYC with it. You're going to jail if you get caught in NJ or NY. That's one of the fucked up laws that some are trying to change.
Being armed is a 2nd Amendment right. Taking that away increases your chances of being a victim. Don't believe me....look what happened in England, Canada, and Australia when that right was taken away.
Second Amendment calls into question all restrictions on the right to carry.
I'm not concerned about the guys who would not qualify for a carry permit. It is the untrained honest citizens who pose the real danger if carry is permitted in public places. The likelihood of accidents harming me or other third parties far outweighs the likelihood that an honest citizen in Starbucks would actually be able to use that gun to protect himself without shooting someone else.
So I vigorously oppose public carry, concealed or opened, and believe that anyone who supports such carry on grounds of Second Amendment rights may ultimately be right on the law but wrong on common sense.
I will use NH as an example. NH is a "shall issue" state that requires no training to get a permit for concealed carry.
YET -- you will have a hard time finding ANY cases where a person who was legally licensed to carry misused that firearm to hurt anyone.
In fact, even if you look nationwide; people who are licensed to carry in public are among the LEAST likely to commit an act of violence with a firearm.
Most states, of course, require some degree of training. I did the training in MA for their permit, as well as the training in SC and FL. That degree of training is ... okay. And it assures that utterly untrained individuals aren't running around in public with guns.
Now, personally, as someone fully trained in all sorts of weaponry and a tactical shooter who can take out someone behind a hostage and who routinely trains under fight-or-flight stress -- and has used those tactics in real life -- I am very unimpressed by the state mandated training courses. They do a good job of covering the law -- which is basically intended to scare the shit out of you so you'd rather just lay down and let yourself be killed than shoot back and defend yourself. But they do a crappy job of teaching important things like weapon retention, reloading under stress, and the most basic of tactics.
BUT -- in spite of these deficiencies in state-mandated training; the fact remains that compared to the number of CCW holders who publicly carry (albeit concealed), the number of people harmed by those permit holders is minuscule. They are among the safest people in America.
So I think your fear there is bare fear; not justified by the facts of objective reality.
Come to NH where there are thousands upon thousands of legal permit holders carrying concealed -- people who were never even required to take a class and simply had the background checks -- and you'll discover there's nothing to fear. No Wild West, no Blood Bath. Just ordinary people exercising their rights and hurting nobody.
There are over 200,000 non-fatal gun shot injuries each year. Fatal injuries seem to range between 650 and 1100. These statistics were complied BEFORE the Second Amendment cases when we had very strict gun control laws. You are focusing on acts of violence. I’m talking about all firearm caused injuries.
Remove these restrictions nationwide and permit open and concealed carry. It would defy belief that accidental firearm injuries would not increase if citizens started carrying firearms when they went to the grocery store or the park or their office. Mom is driving and her kid pulls her Beretta from the gym bag.
And why back down from any confrontation if you can legally carry in the open? Did that driver cut you off, John? Show him your Walther P99 and he won’t do it again. That is, unless he has his own Walther P99.
Now toss in the thousands of honest citizens who drive while intoxicated. Arm those guys and tell me if you are still confident that there's "nothing to fear."
Your anecdotal experience belies the cold hard statistics. But you also are forgetting that we have to engage in a balancing test whenever we decide public policy issues like this. If you balance the likelihood of accidental and intentional harm from unrestricted carry against the benefits from such use – which presumably would only be self-defense - the statistics would be overwhelming. The number of times the guy sitting next to me at Starbucks could defend himself against someone who tried to steal his wallet without injuring someone else is the store is slight indeed.
Come on John- you know I'm right on this one.
Something is amiss here. The world Health Organization recently concluded that violence, specifically violence caused by firearms, is a world wide public health problem. Their survey of 46 countries determined that, for the year surveyed, 2006, there were 88,649 firearms deaths. Granted the USA leads the field in this respect, but to say that 45 other countries had a total death rate by firearms equal to that of the USA pushes the realm of belief to a point. Hell, firearms deaths in Mexico alone are running approximately 1,000-1,200/month.
seems low if 46 countries are involved.
Pretty much, both sides have their own statistics.
I think you should look specifically at NH because NH allows *unliciensed* open carry and licensed concealed carry for any citizen who can pass a criminal and psychological background check. And they have been like that for decades before the Second Amendment cases.
So NH would be a perfect test-case to see how blood flows as high as a horse's bridle in this apocalypse. (*grin*)
NH has 6.1 deaths per 100,000 due to injury (either deliberate or accidental) from firearms. This is with 2.8% of households reporting keeping a loaded firearm.
Now, Massachusetts has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation. In a lot of towns, they won't issue you the required license at all. They only have 1% of households reporting keeping a loaded firearm; and they report 3.2 deaths per 100,000.
To compare the two, you need to divide the injury rate by the loaded gun rate. The lower the number, the safer the individual gun owners are.
In NH that number is 2.18 whereas in MA that number is 3.2.
Individual gun owners in NH, per capita, are LESS likely than those in MA to die (or kill) either deliberately or accidentally due to firearm possession.
Furthermore, sheer quantity of guns makes no difference. The number of firearms in private hands increased 40% from 1975 to 1995, while the number of fatal firearms accidents declined 60% during that time.
This may well be attributable to the likelihood that people who are more familiar with firearms are more likely to be able to handle them safely.
But it doesn't end there.
In NH where people can openly carry without a license (!!!))) there were a whopping TEN murders last year!!! (1.3M population)
In MA, where you have to take classes, pay hundreds of dollars, deal with gobs of restrictions and still in some towns can't legally own a gun *at all* even in your own home ... there were 172 murders (6.6M population).
NH murder rate per 100k: 0.77
MA murder rate per 100k: 2.61
So in NH, where nearly 3 times as many people per capita keep loaded guns around, and ANY peacable citizen has been allowed to carry OPENLY without a license for decades, the murder rate is less than a THIRD of what it is in MA where everyone is so enlightened, regulated and licensed.
Sorry Marikod, I just don't see the connection.
If you want to argue that freedom entails risk -- I agree. Freedom to own a car, drink, own a metal ladder and a host of other things can result in accidents, injuries and death. It really sucks. But I don't favor a nationwide padded room.
Burning a Koran is protected as much by the 1st amendment as worshipping Allah is. Real Libertarians don't get in an obsessive rut over the idea for months on end. Re-read the Liberterian platform and get back to me.
Something you share in common with "benlanger" ; you both share different sides of the same worthless coin.
-- Modified on 11/28/2010 10:59:47 AM
"Re: I want you to do an experiment
Posted by SouthernJezebel , 11/28/2010 8:18:20 PM [See my TER reviews]
Unless they knew the wjereabouts and the identity of the person on the video, "fatwa" my ass. Many ppl have did videos like that and none of them have mysteriously disappeared. But that wasn't really the point of this thread. Burning a koran is protected speech. And btw, muslim islamofascists threatened to burn a town to the ground bc US military had a dog named Khan. Bc muslims hate dogs and Khan is a muslim name or some shit. They don't need rational reasons to go nuts. They are thugs and need exterminated like coxkroaches. Period. Then the rest of the world doesn't have to walk on eggshells. No society should have to tolerate bloodthirsty goons."
-- Modified on 11/28/2010 12:50:39 PM
Hobbying is flaunting the violation of an established social norm. It may well be libertine in a personally hedonistic sense; but it is not AT ALL libertarian.
Libertarianism is premised on the idea that the overwhelming preponderance of people will behave themselves when left to their own devices. In essence, that we ALL share a certain moral code. Jay pointed this out in the Federalist Papers, noting that we were blessed to have a commonality of moral beliefs, and that the overall acceptance of such beliefs was a precondition for the extension of liberty.
So there are two key points here. 1. Libertarianism sees people as basically good and smart enough to order their own affairs without oversight 2. Near-universal agreement on points of morality is a precondition for its realization.
The reason why Objectivism sees libertarianism as a perversion of liberty is because 1 & 2 can only exist on a very small scale, or in theory. In reality, there are a substantial number of people whose desire to prey upon others is limited only by fear of adverse consequences; and moral views have long since diverged. As a result, libertarian approaches can often give free rein to the worst elements of society, thereby necessitating draconian governmental response and destroying the very liberty championed.
Do you want absolute religious freedom? How about for those who sacrifice virgins or perform female circumcision? Those whose religious views (including some segments of Christianity, Judaism and Islam) endorse stoning of gays?
Rights, to be of value in society, must be accompanied by responsibilities for outcomes; thus creating a feedback loop that prevents their abuse. Government's job is to provide that feedback loop. Thus, paradoxically to a libertarian but quite sensibly to an objectivist; certain restrictions on rights actually guarantee them. This is why laws restricting gun ownership by violent felons, people committed to mental institutions and so forth are a good thing -- they prevent abuses of the right that would necessitate removal of that right from everyone.
By preventing virgin sacrifices and stonings; limitations on religious rights actually make more rights available to more people.
But I digress.
Let's look a bit at the hobby. What is the purpose of TER? To create a feedback loop of responsibility that discourages abuse of the right to prostitution. What is the purpose of black lists? Same thing for hobbyists.
Looking closely, the hobby is predicated on "guilty until proven innocent." This is why we have reviews and providers require references ... all in advance.
Clearly, the hobby does NOT believe in people's essential goodness. Rather, it believes that people need to be held in check because without consequences they'll go hog wild. Furthermore, there are very divergent views within the hobby on moral issues. Thus, the hobby is not and cannot be a libertarian stronghold -- it contradicts the ideas of libertarianism as a precondition of its existence.
You see, those advance checks prevent a LOT of violence and evil. If these were dropped by either side of the equation, there would be real problems. And if you think LE is a problem for the hobby now, just *imagine* what it would be like if a hobbyist or provider were showing up dead everyday.