A place for my piece

[BrokenLinkage]

I wish everyone would carry. It would save me the trouble. Kind of like herd immunity. Sorry Giller, but if enough people just fork over the wallet and avert their eyes, then the criminal act is reinforced as a successful alternative to gainful employment, and we are all less safe from the bad guys who often lack impulse control and have never experienced gun control.
BTW, I live in a reasonably safe area, yet it has been all of 10 days since I was 1st on scene of a carjacking 150 ft from my house. I was unarmed. The victim had a permit but was also unarmed at the time. She got back her wrecked car, broken phone, her credit, and most of the contents of her purse. A suspect is in custody. But she she can't get back the three plus days of lost time, and she won't feel safe walking to her car for a long time. I bet she shoots the next mofo who tries (I will thank her for the public service if she does).
Cultural bias / background: raised in the South, prep school to graduate education, professional, 2 siblings in law enforcement, one in-law career military, nephew a bounty hunter. Very pro-gun, in spite of the fact that some of the jokers with guns scare the S out of me; that is part of the price of freedom.
For a more factual perspective, look at the controlled study that is Kennessaw GA, and the impact on crime of requiring gun ownership.

And Dwight, try a fixed mount inside the pocket on the back of the passenger seat.

[Giller]

Originally Posted by BrokenLinkage

I wish everyone would carry. It would save me the trouble. Kind of like herd immunity. Sorry Giller, but if enough people just fork over the wallet and avert their eyes, then the criminal act is reinforced as a successful alternative to gainful employment, and we are all less safe from the bad guys who often lack impulse control and have never experienced gun control.
BTW, I live in a reasonably safe area, yet it has been all of 10 days since I was 1st on scene of a carjacking 150 ft from my house. I was unarmed. The victim had a permit but was also unarmed at the time. She got back her wrecked car, broken phone, her credit, and most of the contents of her purse. A suspect is in custody. But she she can't get back the three plus days of lost time, and she won't feel safe walking to her car for a long time. I bet she shoots the next mofo who tries (I will thank her for the public service if she does).
Cultural bias / background: raised in the South, prep school to graduate education, professional, 2 siblings in law enforcement, one in-law career military, nephew a bounty hunter. Very pro-gun, in spite of the fact that some of the jokers with guns scare the S out of me; that is part of the price of freedom.
For a more factual perspective, look at the controlled study that is Kennessaw GA, and the impact on crime of requiring gun ownership.

And Dwight, try a fixed mount inside the pocket on the back of the passenger seat.

But there is zero correlation between states where you can carry and those you can't with regard the crime rates, therefore there is zero proof that carrying actually reduces any crime.

Again, I'm fine if you want to carry cause it makes you feel better or it's your right, but you just can't argue it reduces crime. The facts do not support it.

[CHRISP357]

Originally Posted by Giller

But there is zero correlation between states where you can carry and those you can't with regard the crime rates, therefore there is zero proof that carrying actually reduces any crime.

Again, I'm fine if you want to carry cause it makes you feel better or it's your right, but you just can't argue it reduces crime. The facts do not support it.

The facts certainly do support it Hillary. You're just to stupid to understand the big words.
Look, you're a miserable little coward who is terrified of having to defend yourself or any family you may or may not have. Fine. We get it. Just stop criticizing the responsible people who will defend you when the time comes.

[Pdwight]

I think the problem and where the most friction comes from is choice. If you do not want to legally carry that is your choice, that being said you have no right to tell someone else that they should not be armed and calling names does no good at all......in fact it is like cheating to win the Special Olympics

But on to more interesting dialog in this flaming thread;

What do you prefer ?

I am a 1911 man but have a Sig P230 in my Boxster

[Timco]

Originally Posted by Pdwight

I think the problem and where the most friction comes from is choice. If you do not want to legally carry that is your choice, that being said you have no right to tell someone else that they should not be armed and calling names does no good at all......in fact it is like cheating to win the Special Olympics

But on to more interesting dialog in this flaming thread;

What do you prefer ?

I am a 1911 man but have a Sig P230 in my Boxster

Para Ordinance limited Hy Cap .45
Star PD sub compact .45
Beretta 92FS 9mm
Sterling 9mm SMG

[CHRISP357]

But on to more interesting dialog in this flaming thread;

What do you prefer ?

I am a 1911 man but have a Sig P230 in my Boxster[/QUOTE]

I've had a few 1911's. Loved my Gold cup. I've since moved on to Sig. I have three variations of the P220 and am looking at another one. Or two.

[Giller]

Originally Posted by CHRISP357

The facts certainly do support it Hillary. You're just to stupid to understand the big words.
Look, you're a miserable little coward who is terrified of having to defend yourself or any family you may or may not have. Fine. We get it. Just stop criticizing the responsible people who will defend you when the time comes.

You keep using the word "facts" but you never show any. Huh.

And show me where I've critisized anyone here but you, moron? I have no prob with you Americans wanting to carry guns....as a right. Said that many times. My argument is simply that it doesn't make you any safer, based on tangible evidence.

[Jamesp]

I'd say the Houston resident was safer with the armed robber dead in his driveway than he was when being threatened with a weapon. It's kind of hard to argue the opposite of that.

[Giller]

Originally Posted by Jamesp

I'd say the Houston resident was safer with the armed robber dead in his driveway than he was when being threatened with a weapon. It's kind of hard to argue the opposite of that.

And that's a great single example - and I'm sure there are a ton more. The challenge is, for every one like this, there are dozens of examples where the good guy didn't fare so well. Or where a family member was shot and killed accidentally. Or a stray bullet took out a bystander. There are hundreds of those every year. You can't cherry pick your examples and ignore the multitude of evidence against this.

There are far too many unstable people out there and getting a CC license is actually fairly simple in many states. There are tons of stories where CC people used their weapons in non-life threatening situations. Many have killed loved ones and coworkers.

Again, argue it's your right all you like - but if you want to argue FACTS - sorry, it can't be done.

[thstone]

Originally Posted by Giller

Again, argue it's your right all you like - but if you want to argue FACTS - sorry, it can't be done.

Here is the best data that I could find with references to the author of the actual study;

• There are "no statistically discernible relationship between concealed carry policies and the public’s perceptions of the number of firearm carriers." (Fortunato, 2015)
• "No support to the hypothesis that shall-issue laws have beneficial effects in reducing murder rates" (Grambsch, 2012)
• At the city level, there is "no evidence that [right-to-carry] laws reduce or increase rates of violent crime" (Kovandzic, Marvell and Vieraitis, 2005)
• "No statistically significant association exists between changes in concealed weapon laws and state homicide rates" (Hepburn, Miller, Azrael and Hemenway, 2004)

Of course, people can pick and choose from the multitude of studies that have been published. There are some that say that armed citizens are safer and that crime rates are reduced and there are other studies saying the exact opposite - if you want to cite a couple of studies reflecting/confirming your own personal opinion, its easy to do.

But the common denominator that I found seems to be that allowing concealed carry is largely irrelevant to the bigger picture of overall crime rates. The few people that are saved by having a gun is generally offset by a few accidents and everyone else continues to kill each other at the same rate whether concealed carry exists or not. Net change = 0.

This brings us right back to where we started; Owning and/or carrying a gun is a right and a personal decision. Choose wisely.

[Jamesp]

Originally Posted by Giller

And that's a great single example - and I'm sure there are a ton more. The challenge is, for every one like this, there are dozens of examples where the good guy didn't fare so well. Or where a family member was shot and killed accidentally. Or a stray bullet took out a bystander. There are hundreds of those every year. You can't cherry pick your examples and ignore the multitude of evidence against this.

There are far too many unstable people out there and getting a CC license is actually fairly simple in many states. There are tons of stories where CC people used their weapons in non-life threatening situations. Many have killed loved ones and coworkers.

Again, argue it's your right all you like - but if you want to argue FACTS - sorry, it can't be done.

Giller,
I'm sure you're a nice person, and meeting you in person would be a pleasure as it would be with most of the forum because we all share an enthusiasm for the Boxster. I wasn't going to post on this thread except to offer a solution to the original question, but there goes that idea. I hope you will read your post and see the irony that though you talk about facts, even yelling it in full caps, your post hasn't any. I was going to ask you to post some facts, but trolling for them would be a burden, and as the links you posted previously clearly had a hard core anti gun bias I figured I'd go find some unbiased facts and post them, here goes.

Now I'm in Texas, the most rootinist tootinist red neck hey "y'all watch this!" uneducated cow poke state in existence. Not a day goes by that some west Texas inbred imbecile goes by in his pickup truck clinging to his bible whooping and hollering while carelessly emptying his six shooter into the air.

All that that having been said to prove the "street cred" I have from living in a gun infested environment.

Texas gun laws are some of the most forgiving in the nation. Not only can you carry your gun in your car without a permit (provided you are allowed to carry at all - no felonies, class a misdomeanors, or unpaid child support, etc.), but you can pack on a golf cart or a boat! Provided it's concealed. As of January 1st if you have a CHL you can strap a couple to your hips and do your best Yosemite Sam impersonation - Yee Haw!!!

You claim to rely on facts. You imply your opinions are formed on them so let's look at the facts of Texas CHL crime rates versus the general population. This comes from the Texas Department of Public Safety Regulatory Services Division. I'm thinking they are an unbiased database. These are for the most part violent crimes. I'll give you the punch line (or facts if you prefer). CHL holders, for the most part, commit less than one percent of violent crimes compared to the general population without a CHL, in many cases zero percent. Surprised? You should be based on your previous posts.

Here are some juicy ones that seem to be worth focusing on for 2014: Assault with a deadly weapon 0.19%, Kidnapping 0.0%, Assault on a family member 0.13%, Deadly conduct discharging a firearm 0.57%, Murder 1.3%, Manslaughter 2.7%

And the list goes on for other crimes and years with similar noise levels - this is a far cry from the facts you've been shouting.

Here is a link to go educate yourself if you dare. Be careful with this information - you might actually start using factual information instead of biased websites and the truth will fly in the face of you and your friends. This could make you very unpopular so it may be best to refute it, dismiss it, disregard it or better yet just ignore it as it is a very inconvenient truth.

Texas DPS - CHL Conviction Rates Reports

Wishing you the best,

Jim

[pilut2]

Originally Posted by CHRISP357

The facts certainly do support it Hillary. You're just to stupid to understand the big words.
Look, you're a miserable little coward who is terrified of having to defend yourself or any family you may or may not have. Fine. We get it. Just stop criticizing the responsible people who will defend you when the time comes.

Wow! You are an angry man! I hope you aren't packing! Giller is not a miserable little coward, and judging from his posts- he isn't stupid either. He and I live in a society where self defense is rarely a concern. We don't need to carry concealed weapons or go to sleep with baseball bats under our pillows. One of the main reasons that we don't is because most people aren't armed, up here in Canada. There is no possible way that being allowed to carry a gun makes the general population safer. Although, I can certainly understand why you would feel the need to carry when everyone else is.

BTW. When you call someone stupid it is best to use the correct "to" in your sentence. Otherwise it makes you look a little stupid.

[CHRISP357]

[QUOTE=pilut2;495786]Wow! You are an angry man! I hope you aren't packing! Giller is not a miserable little coward, and judging from his posts- he isn't stupid either. He and I live in a society where self defense is rarely a concern. We don't need to carry concealed weapons or go to sleep with baseball bats under our pillows. One of the main reasons that we don't is because most people aren't armed, up here in Canada. There is no possible way that being allowed to carry a gun makes the general population safer. Although, I can certainly understand why you would feel the need to carry when everyone else is.

BTW. When you call someone stupid it is best to use the correct "to" in your sentence. Otherwise it makes you look a little stupid.[/QUOTE

I typed in "to" rather than "too". Wonderful catch Sir. You win! Your opinion shall now be mine!