How many of the average Americans here have used a gun for protection?

Anything you would like to know about CC, shooting, firearms, hunting just ask I will be glad to tutor you lexie lacking. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

When the chat rooms first started cranking up in the 90's on the internet, it was disclosed that there were more "airline pilots" in the chats than the FAA had issued licenses .... I can see that some things just haven't changed.

Based on the immaturity of your posts, I have a reasonable belief that I was being "tutored" on "shooting, firearms, hunting" long before you were born .. by someone who was highly qualified to do it, and have since had some additional "tutoring" to improve on those skills.

Your criticism of someone getting shot on a hunting trip shows your ignorance, but in the meantime keep deluding yourself into believing you are an expert on anything, much less the "CC, shooting, firearms, hunting," unless, of course, "CC" refers to Canadian Club!

Anything you would like to know about CC, shooting, firearms, hunting just ask I will be glad to tutor you lexie lacking. Originally Posted by i'va biggen

After rereading ..."CC" does seem to refer to Canadian Club!

Your "expertise" in the use of Canadian Club to increase your intelligence is noted.

My conclusion is based on the FACT that Kansas, from which you lurk, didn't get a concealed carry law until 2006, and Texas got one with the learned stroke of George Bush's pen in 1995 .... in fact I personally attended the final argument in the Texas Senate for the passage of the bill he signed, while standing between two DA's (not "assistants" the "elected ones") ... one from a rural county another from an urban county ... with their respective takes on the "floor discussion" and the potentials of their future prosecutions based on what they understood the draft to be. Their comments were humorous .. in fact our whole discussion was humorous. Listening to the nay-sayers .... it reminded me of the "daylight savings time" arguments in the Texas House .. in which reps from farming areas were suggesting it would increase the length of the day and cause droughts and the loss of crops.

A challenge you have, "IvaLittleOne,' is like many others on here .... you actually believe that everyone else is less experienced than you and dumber than you. That's an impossibility specifically in your case.

My apologies....

.... just how close to "impossible" is it? I know it's "next to" it, but just how close is it ....?

Oh, BTW: http://www.usacarry.com/new_york_con...formation.html

I'm not sure what "next to impossible" means, but ...

"Concealed Permit:
May Issue to Residents and Non-Residents
The determination whether to grant the license is completely within the discretion of the licensing officer. However, the licensing officer must state specifically and concisely in writing the reasons for a denial. A denial can only be overturned in court if the denial is shown to be arbitrary and capricious."

Sounds like a cabby would have a tougher time getting a "permit" for his cab than a CHL. Doesn't even need union approval!!!

As for an article. .....

..... can you find one that says not lawfully carrying a weapon reduces crime?

And I'm not talking about regurgitating statistics while trying to justify a conclusion.

The last time this discussion hit the forums here the "experience" of Mexico where IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to get a CHL for a handgun was dismissed as being from a "underdeveloped country" .... without much explanation of what the fuck difference it makes that Mexico is an "underdeveloped country" .... in looking at "statistics" of killings by firearms to see if less LEGAL firearm ownership AND POSSESSION reduces "crime rates"?

Again, I would like to know how many of those killing people with handguns breast fed as babies (to distinguish from the adult fetishes) as an indicator of whether or not breast feeding or not breast feeding causes an increase in murders.

Statistically speaking, of course!!! Originally Posted by LexusLover

"Next to impossible" is demonstrated by the fact that the issue of limited CHL approvals in N.Y. was brought to SCOTUS which upheld N.Y.'s law.

If you have problems with the correlation being made, ask Gnadfly for his opinion since he is the one who first proposed such a correlation.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...ncealed-carry/

Interesting report on how few Texas Crimes are committed by CHL holders:

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CH...Report2013.pdf

When the chat rooms first started cranking up in the 90's on the internet, it was disclosed that there were more "airline pilots" in the chats than the FAA had issued licenses .... I can see that some things just haven't changed.

Based on the immaturity of your posts, I have a reasonable belief that I was being "tutored" on "shooting, firearms, hunting" long before you were born .. by someone who was highly qualified to do it, and have since had some additional "tutoring" to improve on those skills.

Your criticism of someone getting shot on a hunting trip shows your ignorance, but in the meantime keep deluding yourself into believing you are an expert on anything, much less the "CC, shooting, firearms, hunting," unless, of course, "CC" refers to Canadian Club! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Most of your posts indicate you were one of the airline pilots. Unless you are 80 I really doubt it lexie lacking. You are just another blustering buffoon that this board is full of. I know of several people who got shot hunting. If you don't then chances are you were busy flying the airplane.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control...ncealed-carry/

Interesting report on how few Texas Crimes are committed by CHL holders:

https://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CH...Report2013.pdf Originally Posted by gnadfly

There is nothing in the first article that supports your statement that the drop in the crime rate is due to people legally carrying a concealed handgun. Certainly some crimes have been prevented by such people. And, as you second cited article states, a few crimes, including homicide, have been committed by such people.

I am not against concealed carry, although I am in favor of proper training for those who wish to do so. But with such a small percentage of people actually legally carrying concealed handguns (less than 3% in Texas), I doubt that there is a major impact on crime due to it. I cited several articles earlier that if you took the time to look over gives several reasons as to why the crime rate has dropped significantly, none of which mentioned CCL holders as a reason. If you choose to ignore these articles, fine by me.

After rereading ..."CC" does seem to refer to Canadian Club!

Your "expertise" in the use of Canadian Club to increase your intelligence is noted.

My conclusion is based on the FACT that Kansas, from which you lurk, didn't get a concealed carry law until 2006, and Texas got one with the learned stroke of George Bush's pen in 1995 .... in fact I personally attended the final argument in the Texas Senate for the passage of the bill he signed, while standing between two DA's (not "assistants" the "elected ones") ... one from a rural county another from an urban county ... with their respective takes on the "floor discussion" and the potentials of their future prosecutions based on what they understood the draft to be. Their comments were humorous .. in fact our whole discussion was humorous. Listening to the nay-sayers .... it reminded me of the "daylight savings time" arguments in the Texas House .. in which reps from farming areas were suggesting it would increase the length of the day and cause droughts and the loss of crops.

A challenge you have, "IvaLittleOne,' is like many others on here .... you actually believe that everyone else is less experienced than you and dumber than you. That's an impossibility specifically in your case. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Just wrong...

"Next to impossible" is demonstrated by the fact that the issue of limited CHL approvals in N.Y. was brought to SCOTUS which upheld N.Y.'s law.

If you have problems with the correlation being made, ask Gnadfly for his opinion since he is the one who first proposed such a correlation. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't need to ask anyone. Statistical "correlations' are relatively meaningless if all of the variables affecting an outcome are not factored into the analysis.

The "discretionary" nature of the issuance of "licenses" is one such "factor," particularly when the critics point to the "methodology" of the discretionary decisions being made. The other "major" factor is, as I mentioned, the importation of firearms into the State based upon the imposed "restrictions."

Again,

Mexico serves as a viable example of what "zero" handgun tolerance gets you!

Just wrong... Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

What an intellectually stimulating and indepth response ... from the class fool.

And what is "wrong" ...

That Kansas got CC in 2006?
That Texas got CC in 1995?
That I stood in the Senate Chamber and listened to the debate?
That I stood with 2 DA's?

Or is it that farmers were complaining about "daylight savings time"?

Are you on "CC" too?

You are a fool ...

Can't even read an official city map and you want to call me "wrong"?

I don't need to ask anyone. Statistical "correlations' are relatively meaningless if all of the variables affecting an outcome are not factored into the analysis.

The "discretionary" nature of the issuance of "licenses" is one such "factor," particularly when the critics point to the "methodology" of the discretionary decisions being made. The other "major" factor is, as I mentioned, the importation of firearms into the State based upon the imposed "restrictions."

Again,

Mexico serves as a viable example of what "zero" handgun tolerance gets you! Originally Posted by LexusLover

To reiterate a FACT which for some reason you cannot understand -- I made no implication of a correlation between issuance of CHLs and crime. That was done by someone else. GOT IT??

If you continue to have a problem with his correlation, please address your statements to him and leave me out of it.

There is no statistically reliable data that supports the proposition that the reduction in crime over the past several decades is a result of CHL legislation other than the two events occurred at roughly the same time. There are an almost infinite variety of factors that effect crime rate. Lott's pronouncements to the contrary.

Think about it...the idea that these idiots who run around committing the type of crime where potential defensive use of a carry weapon comes into play are not thinking about whether or not their potential victim is carrying. These dumbasses think about 30 seconds ahead. They might hesitate to rob or assault one of their homeboys for fear of getting shot but the middle-aged guy walking out of 7/11? Or the old lady at the Laundromat? They just don't think that way.

I'm all in on carry legislation. But, the idea that you should be allowed to carry with no training is nuts. The current training offered in Texas is a joke. The decision to carry a handgun for personal protection ought to be one requiring some reflection.....and some qualification criteria....including ensuring that the licensee understands how to safely operate, store and utilize the weapon. Some of the people I've seen "qualifying" in the past at Texas CHL training sessions, I was afraid to stand next to on the range.

Finally a decent opinion post. Here is the question to go with it, how do you force people to get the proper training and NOT turn the entire process into a money making deal for the state. Can you grandfather people with military service or law enforcement experience? What about people who competitively shoot but have never served in either the military or LE? What about temperment. This is what they did in CT when I was there. To get a CCL you had to have a recommendation from a qualified pistol instructor, an interview with either a sheriff or police captain, and you paid $15 for a FBI background check. You laid down $30 and you got your CCL in less than two weeks. It didn't cost you a fortune, it didn't take the maximum amount of time, and you were not forced to go through training that you didn't need (if you are already competent).

Still, none of that is a magic bullet. You can still miss, you can still misread a situation, and you can still do something that is personally very bad at the spur of the moment. Just like a trained policeman.

I'll ask another question, why are this about an honest person wanting to carry for protection? Where is the angst over stopping some criminal from using a weapon to commit crimes?

Finally a decent opinion post. Here is the question to go with it, how do you force people to get the proper training and NOT turn the entire process into a money making deal for the state. Can you grandfather people with military service or law enforcement experience? What about people who competitively shoot but have never served in either the military or LE? What about temperment. This is what they did in CT when I was there. To get a CCL you had to have a recommendation from a qualified pistol instructor, an interview with either a sheriff or police captain, and you paid $15 for a FBI background check. You laid down $30 and you got your CCL in less than two weeks. It didn't cost you a fortune, it didn't take the maximum amount of time, and you were not forced to go through training that you didn't need (if you are already competent).

Still, none of that is a magic bullet. You can still miss, you can still misread a situation, and you can still do something that is personally very bad at the spur of the moment. Just like a trained policeman.

I'll ask another question, why are this about an honest person wanting to carry for protection? Where is the angst over stopping some criminal from using a weapon to commit crimes? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Why are this about? That's interesting syntax.

To reiterate a FACT which for some reason you cannot understand -- Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It is reasonable for me to assume I am more familiar with "FACTS" than you.

What state led the U.S. in reducing crime over the last 20 years? New York. And in what state is it next to impossible to obtain a CHL? New York. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

These are not "FACTS" .... they are opinions based on statistical data, which is also based on an opinion. Unless you are simply posting to argue, you posted the above OPINIONS to dispute the claim made that CHL reduces crime. Regardless of your subsequent desire to retreat from that purpose.

I do agree with your statement/opinion that other factors affect crime rates, and those factors play a greater role in changes in the statistical data.

For instance: LE and EMS response times when an incident is reported have an affect on murder rates.