Ohio joining Shall Issue CCW

[DonP]

It looks like the "corrupt gun industry" (blah, blah, blah) has finally succeeded in their efforts to bring shall issue CCW to the Buckeye state.

Now we can look forward to the "streets running red with blood" in the very near future. Just like they did when the Ohio CCW advocates went shopping before Christmas, killing hundred of innocents, or triggering the waves of trafic shootings over parking spaces in Minneapolis that occurred when they passed it into law there.

OK, all you lunatic, asswipe, penish fetishist gun lovers in Ohio, get ready.

From the Columbus Dispatch:

"Qualified Ohioans should be able to carry concealed handguns by summer. In a historic breakthrough, state legislators and Gov. Bob Taft reached a tentative agreement yesterday on the long-stalled proposal. The measure would allow disclosure of the names of permits to carry concealed handguns to qualified news reporters."

There's more to the article but I'm not sure how to post a link properly and how much of an article it's safe to quote and stay within the rules.

The reporters having access thing sounds kind of weird but maybe that's what it took to get it over the top.

Me, I'm staying here in Chicago where I'm safe from all those potentially violent legal gun owners. (Yeah, right).

[MrBenchley]

1. Dupe

"Just like they did when the Ohio CCW advocates went shopping before Christmas"
Yeah, all 12 of them.....what a lameass bunch....too scared to venture out where the sane felt safe without their popguns.

[Baclava]

2. With any luck ...#35...

Will emerge out of the cave of ignorance and into the light of freedom at last....

States that are Shall-Issue

1 Alaska
2 Arizona
3 Arkansas
4 Colorado
5 Connecticut
6 Florida
7 Georgia
8 Idaho
9 Indiana
10 Kentucky
11 Louisiana
12 Maine
13 Michigan
14 Minnesota
15 Mississippi
16 Missouri
17 Montana
18 Nevada
19 New Hampshire
20 New Mexico
21 North Carolina
22 North Dakota
23 Oklahoma
24 Oregon
25 Pennsylvania
26 South Carolina
27 South Dakota
28 Tennessee
29 Texas
30 Utah
31 Virginia
32 Washington
33 West Virginia
34 Wyoming
*

(or 46th state depending on definition of laws)

[-..__...]

3. Correction... 34 states.

Alaska went to Vermont style CCW a few months ago. :)

[Baclava]

4. I stand corrected

The Truth Is Out There...

[CO Liberal]

5. Ohio Joining List Of The Stupid

*** shaking head in disbelief ***

[SmokingLoon]

6. I guess then that most of the country is stupid?

Hey, don't you live in a "stupid" state?

[CO Liberal]

15. Yes, I Do

Because the legislature is controlled by stupid Republicans who do what the gun lobby tells them to.

[MrBenchley]

17. You will notice that any time

this gets near the voters they vote against it. You will also noticce that to pass it in state after state, all kinds of rules and regulations have to be bent or broken.

[Superfly]

20. For once, I agree with you

"all kinds of rules and regulations have to be bent or broken"

Yeah, like the right of citizens to privacy...

"The bill also makes the names of permit holders in each county available to reporters who ask a sheriff's department for the names."

Link

But, on the bright side, the CCW law is on the books, and the legislature can focus on having this assinine provision stricken.

[-..__...]

8. Ohio joins 21st century.

Let's see... 45 other states allow some sort of CCW; be it shall issue, may issue or no permit required. Maybe there's something in the water in those states that their government would be so foolish and reckless as to entrust their citizens to carry firearms? Or maybe it's just that it's been proven that states with CCW laws have shown no increase in gun related incidents or altercations? You may not like the idea of law abiding civilians carrying concealed firearms, but your opinion is grounded more in emotionalism, "the sky is falling" and a general loathing of firearms. Fortunately, the Ohio legislature (as well as the 45 other states), doesn't work that way (at least on this issue). Yes, there are bound to be a few isolated incidents of CCW holders abusing their rights, but no society or law is perfect and no matter how hard we try there will always be a few "bad apples". I just find it perplexing that you fear law abiding people carrying firearms to protect themselves from criminals when you should be more concerned with the criminals themselves.

[CO Liberal]

18. Slavery Was Once Popular, Too

That doesn't make it right......

[alwynsw]

49. I thought you'd do better than that.

By definition, slavery removes all of the enslaved individual's rights. The CCW laws are doing nothing more than restoring rights that were taken earlier in the 20th century. (Damn! I must be getting old, I almost said "earlier this century"._

[CO Liberal]

51. CCW Takes Away MY Right.....

...to feel safe. Now I never know whether or not the assholes I come into contact with every day are packing heat.

[slackmaster]

55. Where is your right to feel any particular way enumerated?

I haven't seen any references to a right to feel one way or another discussed in any scholarly literature.

[CO Liberal]

58. "LIfe, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"

Not knowing which asshole has a gun interferes with my pursuit of happiness, which is an inalienable right according to the Declaration of Independence.

[Columbia]

68. Take those inalienable rights in that order of importance

And consider that each preceding right trumps the latter one.

For example, my right to life trumps your liberty to take my life.

My right/liberty to keep and bear arms as I see fit trumps your right of "Pursuit of Happiness" and your desire to "feel" safe.

[CO Liberal]

71. And I See It as The Exact Opposite

You do not have the right to make anyone feel less secure, IMHO.

[Columbia]

72. You have no right to "feel" anything

Even without CCW, do you "feel" safe thinking that there is nobody out there who is capable of hurting you? People will and do carry illegally and shall-issue CCW only gives those law-abiding citizens the ability to legally carry an effective tool for self-defense.

[iverglas]

86. you might want to explain this

... to liberalhistorian, who recently said:

I don't ever want to feel that powerless and helpless again, though,
and the law gives me the right not to have to feel that way.

You say:

Even without CCW, do you "feel" safe thinking that there is nobody out there who is capable of hurting you?

One might reasonably ask: even carrying a concealed firarm, do you "feel" safe thinking that there is nobody out there who is capable of hurting you? Wouldn't only an idiot "feel" that, no matter how quick a draw s/he was, and regardless of whether s/he or anyone else was carrying a firearm? Did CO Liberal say that he thought there was "nobody out there" who was capable of hurting him?


People will and do carry illegally and shall-issue CCW only gives those law-abiding citizens the ability to legally carry an effective tool for self-defense.

Actually, it gives them the authority to carry concealed firearms for any reason they might have for wanting to carry concealed firearms, I think. How on earth would anyone control the carrying of concealed firearms on the basis of the individual's reason for wanting to carry them? ("Yes, ma'am, I want to carry that gun so that I can protect myself. No, ma'am, I haven't got my fingers crossed.")

It just strikes me that the people who want to wander abroad with guns are the ones saying that they have an overriding "right" to feel safe, though, while at the same time telling CO Liberal that he doesn't have that right. Strike anybody else as odd?

If there ain't no right to feel safe, then I'm just not sure what makes anybody's notion that hauling guns around with him/her will make him/her safer any more deserving of society's acquiescence than anybody else's notion that their doing it makes him/her unsafe.

I mean, it's not like there's some proof that hauling a gun around will actually MAKE someone safe. It's just one of those feelings, seems to me.

Me, I'd probably feel pretty safe walking around with a tiger on a string ...

.

[Columbia]

90. Rights and feelings

CCW is the right to carry a handgun for defense of self and others. If feeling safe is the by-product of that right is feeling more safe, then so be it.

However, there is no justification to take away another person's right for your own feeling of being safe. For example, if I think that all gun control proponents threaten my feeling of safety by advocating the banning and confiscating of firearms, I do not have the right to silence your right to free speech.

Your right to use your fists stops at my nose.

If you don't think carrying a weapon makes a person actually safer maybe you should tell that to the thousands of police offiers on the street right now and tell them to disarm for their safety.

[Stilgar]

77. you do not know a gun is there

how do you know anyone has a gun to make you feel less secure?

pursuit of happiness

my HIDING a gun does not impede your pursuit of happiness (unless you try to rob me, then it will)

[iverglas]

85. can you tell us

... which school of constitutional law you were taught that one at?

Whew. Constitutional law ... just another matter of opinion, eh?

.

[Columbia]

91. I love it when people stop arguing and start questioning your background

It means they have no counter-points.

You don't have to be a law student to understand Constitutional law. In fact, more people should independently research history, the Constitution, and law. It would provide our body of citizens with a much wider knowledge base and truly understand how many violations of the Constituion continue today.

[iverglas]

96. not nearly as much as I love it

... when people put words in other people's mouths that they never wrote instead of responding to what they actually said. It means ... well, far be it from me to speculate about what it means. And I see you haven't helped me out by explaining it yet.

"You don't have to be a law student to understand Constitutional law."

Nope, and you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to know that the person whom I asked the question does not understand constitutional law and that the statement of constitutional principle he offered --

Take those inalienable rights in that order of importance
And consider that each preceding right trumps the latter one.

-- was pure crapola. I wonder whether that might have been my point ... and why you don't appear (wish to appear?) to have got it ... but hey, far be it from me to speculate.

.

[Columbia]

97. Why don't you refute it?

Are you saying your right to "pursuit of happiness" trumps my right to life and liberty? It's quite a simple idea and I'm sorry you are not able to comprehend it. I never offered this piece of logic as constitutional law, but for a philosophical discussion. You are the one who made the jump to it being a discussion on law. If you really are so upset by it and think it is "crapola", then please tell us all in your infinite wisdom why instead of just saying so.

[slackmaster]

74. You already don't know which assholes have guns

I understand where you are coming from, but because of screening processes for CCW applicants I don't share your concern.

Peace and happiness be with you.

[CO Liberal]

75. I've Heard Enough Pro-Gunners On Local Talk Radio......

...who sound like they're on the edge of crossing over into mental illness to not want ANYONE to have a CCW permit. And many of these morons BRAG about the fact they have permits!!!!!

[RoeBear]

78. Why do you torture yourself...

...listening to that shit?

[CO Liberal]

80. You Have to Keep Track of What Your Enemy is Doing

And some of the people out hear sound downright dangerous.

[MrBenchley]

95. It's called bad government and it's a GOP hallmark

and this is no exception......

When a handful of "enthusiasts" held their first rally, the leader's neighbors soaked him with water pistols because they think he's a dangerous loony who shouldn't be packing heat.

http://www.cincypost.com/2003/09/29/guns092903.html

When they held their second rally, they went to an upscale shopping area where citizens felt safe...and they weren't wanted in the stores.

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news/1071570949109470.xml?nohio

And of course, all this comes at a time when thousands of Ohio citizens and their kids are being terrrorized by a gun totinng idiot snniping at schools, schoolbuses, homes and passing cars.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040106/ap_on_re_us/highway_shootings_7

[alwynsw]

67. The rub is that you still won't know

Firearm, knife, slapjack, piece of pipe (give me a pipe, matches, and anything for a projectile and I'll make you a dandy "firearm" in under 10 minutes - learned it from confiscated inmate contraband). You can never feel completely safe.

Recent incident to illustrate, using no weapons. Luckily the good guy won. My best pal in the world saw a LARGE thug attempt to take a car from an average size guy by brute force in Phoenix last fall. unfortunately for the thug, the average size guy just happened to be the AZ kickboxing state champion for several years in the 90'S. Guess who won?

Criminals can learn martial arts, too.

[demsrule4life]

98. Before your state approved CCW

you still didn't know which assholes were packing heat.

[RoeBear]

57. Borrowing from you...

this is huge APPLES & ORANGES that we are talking about here.

How dare you compare THE OWNERSHIP OF HUMAN BEINGS to being able to carry a sidearm for self defense. You, yourself, have stated clearly that you have no problem with legally entitled people owning guns for lawful purposes including self-defense. Why should self defense end at my front door? If some bad guy tries to harm me while I'm traveling I'm in just as much jeopardy as if it happened at home.
In actuality I'm in more jeopardy if a crime happens away from the familiarity of my home environ.

[Superfly]

10. So, which one is it?

Link

"I feel that reasonable gun control measures should be enacted to allow access to firearms to anyone who chooses to own them"

Shall issue permit laws are reasonable gun control measures that allow access to firearms to anyone who choses to own them, provided they meet the background check, etc.

[Superfly]

11. Let me remind you of something else you said...

Link

"That's why I favor reasonable gun control measures. Measures that would keep guns out of the hands of the bad guys, while allowing acces by those who choose to own them."

You are opposed to unfettered access and mandatory gun ownership, 2 concepts with which I am not familiar.

[CO Liberal]

21. But Not Uncontrolled Access

What happens if more and more pwople get CCW permits, and we end up with the bloodbath that many of us fear? How do you propose putting that genie back in the bottle?

I believe it makes more sense to keep the genie bottled.

[Superfly]

12. And again....

"the majority of us who favor reasonable gun control measures do not. We want to allow gun access to those who choose to own them, while keeping them out of the hands of those who should not have them."

Link

[CO Liberal]

22. Please Refer to My Post #21 Above n/t

[CO Liberal]

19. I Feel They're UN-Reasonable

More guns on the streets will only result in more deaths in the long run.

[Superfly]

23. You have said, repeatedly

that you support allowing the "good guys" have access to the firearms they choose, while preventing that for the "bad guys".

I do not think you have a clearly defined position on guns and you seem to waffle on the issue quite a bit.

[slackmaster]

24. CO, I'm really not trying to pick a nit here

But do you have any hard evidence that shall-issue laws actually result in more guns being carried in public? I know it seems like a reasonable assumption to make, but please consider these points:

1. Some people who are issued permits may have been carrying illegally before they were able to get a permit. I've personally known people who were being stalked and carried weapons while their applications for permits were in process, or who had applied and been denied because of the unfair discretionary-issue system here in California. Even when permits are granted it usually takes at least six months, and I know one person who works as a security guard who waited almost two years.

2. People with permits do not necessarily carry a weapon everywhere, all the time. In fact it is illegal for them to have a gun when they are consuming alcohol or in a place that specifically forbids weapons. And every state's laws have provisions to disallow concealed guns, e.g. Texas statute section 30.06 (ironic name that is the source of many jokes).

Some people may get a permit just because they can, and literally never carry a gun.

3. The people we should be most concerned about are not legal permit holders, rather people with criminal intent who won't bother to get a permit even if one is available.

[CO Liberal]

35. You Make it Easier for All People to Carry Guns.....

...you automatically make it easier for the wrong people to carry guns. And how do you put the genie back in the bottle?

[slackmaster]

36. No, I'm afraid I have to disagree

Because Ohio's shall-issue law, like those of all other states, includes a screening process for people who apply for permits.

Permits and guns are not going to be distributed to people selected randomly from the population, nor will everyone who wants a permit qualify. People most likely to commit a violent crime, i.e. those who have been convicted of doing so in the past, those who are under restraining orders, etc. need not apply. Nothing changes from their perspective.

And how do you put the genie back in the bottle?

So far out of all the states that have gone shall-issue there has been no impetus to put the genie back. If it ever turns out that a state's screening procedures are lax (and I acknowledge that may happen) they can always be tightened up.

[Township75]

26. Take a look at the stats.

"More guns on the streets will only result in more deaths in the long run."

The CCW "revolution" occured in the 90's. This lead to more and more guns on the streets carried by law abiding citizens, and the number of murders fell.

[MrBenchley]

28. Happy to

Florida passed its idiotic CCW law in 1986, when it had 120,977 violent crimes; by 1993, there were 161,789 violent crimes.

AFTER 1993 and the passage of the Brrady Bill, violent crime began to decline in Florida as it did nationwide.....but it did so more slowly than it did in states with sane gun laws.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/Crime_Trends/total_Index/total_crime.asp

[Romulus]

29. gee

Florida passed its idiotic CCW law in 1986, when it had 120,977 violent crimes; by 1993, there were 161,789 violent crimes.

FL stats without the spin:

1986: total crime rate per 100k = 8,238 (11,657,843 pop.)
1983: total crime rate per 100k = 8,204 (13,608,627 pop.)

2002: total crime rate per 100k = 5,398 (16,674,608 pop.)

Yeah, I would feel much safer in states like NY and NJ, where the police shoot first and ask questions later, or rough up every non-white male they see, all in the name of fighting crime with those "sane gun laws." :eyes:

[MrBenchley]

30. Too frigging funny

<sarcasm>Yeah, that CCW law worked like a charm on violent crime...</sarcasm> a 17% rise in the violent crime rate in just a little over six years.

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR/1996/Charts/violent_rate.asp

[DonP]

34. How is your repeal of "May Issue" CCW in New Jersey going?

I'm sure, based on your comments, that you feel that New Jersey's May Issue CCW laws are wrong too.

Are you putting your money where your mouth is and working toward the repeal of CCW in your home state?

Or does the corrupt gun industry run your state government like they run the other 45 with some form of CCW?

[MrBenchley]

37. I'm working to strengthen gun laws

But then I guess you knew that.

The last two Republican gun nuts running for state-wide office here lost badly...in fact, they had to spend the end of their campaign DENYING they had ever ever ever said the crap they had been eager to spout to little bunches of loonies like the NRA. And I'm proud to say, I helped.

[Superfly]

38. What did you do, hold a sign?

Cast a ballot?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

52. Is there an error in your stats?

Or did Florida's population decrease from 1983 to 1986?

[CO Liberal]

They Were Blown Away By A Hurricane

:-)

[Romulus]

64. my bad

that should say "1993", not 1983.

The population went up from 1986 to 1993.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RoeBear]

59. Ohio joining the ranks of...

...fair issue.

[SmokingLoon]

7. I've been fighting for this for years!

As a member of Ohioans For Concealed Carry. I couldn't be more thrilled.

[DonP]

60. Congratulations Loon

I know some of the other folks who worked on this with you. You guys did a great job of holding political feet to the fire through thick and thin.


(sarcasm on)

I guess you'll be getting a huge check now from the "corrupt gun industry", the Republicans and the evil NRA to spend on ammunition for the traffic and parking shooting you'll be involved in soon, huh?

(sarcasm off)


Here in Illinois we still are in the dark ages. But we comfort ourselves with the highest murder rate in America.

Wish our bretheren in Wisconsin well, their bill comes up for a veto override vote next week I hear.

[Fescue4u]

9. Late Christmas present

Now Ohio will see less violent crime.

I feel sorry for states that deny this civil right.

This is wonderful news for any true liberal.

[Columbia]

13. Congratulations Ohioans!

Great news!

:toast:

Now help us Californians become a free state too!

[alwynsw]

92. Based upon my California experiences

You'll have to move to another state to be free.

[Columbia]

94. Unfortunately

You are probably right... but due to family circumstances I'm going to stay and fight the good fight! There is hope yet! B-)

[Superfly]

14. As far as I'm concerned...there are

48 states and 1 district to go. Every state should have Vermont style CCW.

[slackmaster]

25. I'd settle for a federal shall-issue law or universal reciprocity

Either one would accomplish the same goal.

[Dolomite]

16. Way to go Ohio! Let's hope Wisconsin will be #47!

I know there are a couple of "bugs" to be worked out of HB12 (like the public disclosure clause, and the OSP insisting on open carry inside vehicles), but if you look at every other shall-issue state in the country, their CCW laws ALWAYS become more liberal as time goes on (Alaska being a good example of that). The important thing was to get it on to the books! Who'd of thought Ohio would EVER be getting concealed carry? (or Michigan, or Minniesoder for that matter?)

Wisconsin's Personal Protection Ammendment is going up for a veto override vote next Monday - it's going to be a squeaker - but with Ohio getting their's, it can only help!

(Now, if we could only keep all of that blood from the high-noon-at-every-traffic-light-shoot-outs spilling over from the borders of the "free" states of MI, MN, and IA in check until next Monday!)

[Romulus]

27. I suggest the naysayers

take a look at this thread about VA:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=32085

The VA fair-issue CCW went into effect in 1997. The precipitous decline in firearms crime happened immediately after. The CCW law obviously did not *cause* an increase in crime; whether it had an effect in reducing the crime rate is anyone's guess.

[MrBenchley]

31. Gee, wonder why there's no link?

[Superfly]

32. I just think you are upset

that you were mistaken on the effectiveness of programs like Project Exile and Safe Neighborhoods.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

40. Well folks, HERE'S why there's no link

Because the chart is on THIS page....

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,566431,00.html

Which also says THIS:

"These results suggest that previous claims that Project Exile has reduced homicide rates by 30 to 40 percent have exaggerated the program's success. One potential concern with the analysis is the possibility that unmeasured factors independent of Project Exile, and unique to Richmond, were driving crime trends. Such unmeasured factors might include policing practices, the age structure of the city's population, and other factors thought likely to influence homicide rates. To address this concern, we compare trends in adult and juvenile crimes within Richmond.
In this analysis, juveniles serve as a sort of control group; unlike adults, juveniles are not subject to the federal penalties under Project Exile, yet like adults they experience the same conditions that are unique to Richmond. In theory, the program effects should be concentrated among adults, and one should see a decline in adult arrests compared to juveniles. In fact, we find that adult homicide arrests increased relative to juveniles in Richmond. In this regard, three hypotheses are often advanced to link the decline in gun homicides observed during the 1990s to the increases observed prior to that point. First, if the introduction of crack cocaine sparked the increase in violence in the 1980s and early 1990s, declines in the drug's use would lead to less violence. Second, declines in homicide owing to rising incarceration rates may disproportionately affect cities with high crime rates. Finally, homicide victims may themselves be among the population of potential perpetrators. At any rate, while the precise dynamics remain unclear, the fact remains that most of the decline in gun homicides witnessed in Richmond following the implementation of Project Exile probably would have occurred even without the program. "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,566431,00.html

The crap about what "Legislators planning to give Virginia more gun laws" ought to do doesn't appear on that page...and I'd be surprised if it appears on that website at all given THIS:

"State budget cuts are threatening the future of Virginia's pioneering anti-gun Project Exile, but the governor's office is looking for ways to save the program, the Washington Times reported March 23 and the Associated Press reported March 26.
All $2.5 million in state funding for the project -- which seeks to increase federal prosecution of gun offenses -- was eliminated from the state budget by the General Assembly. But both the governor's press secretary and the state's public-safety chief say they are hopeful the money can be restored.
Without the state money, local governments would have to ante up funds to keep the project going. Experts say that's unlikely to happen. "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/funding/reader/0,2061,549473,00.html

and this:

"Not everyone thinks that Virginia's Project Exile program is successful in addressing gun crime, the Virginian Pilot reported Feb. 5."

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/summaries/reader/0,2061,266079,00.html

And THIS:

"Washington, DC - Gun violence prevention advocates declared victory last night in state legislative races in Virginia, where candidates supporting sensible gun laws won big. Delegates-elect Steve Shannon and Mark Sickles will hold seats formerly held by gun lobby-backed officials.
In addition, State House candidates James Dillard, Kristen Amundson, and Adam Ebbin, and State Senate candidates Janet Howell and Toddy Puller all won their races. Many faced challengers who sided with the gun lobby.
"Northern Virginia voters came to the polls yesterday and said 'enough is enough'," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "Voters want their representatives in Richmond to enhance public safety by closing the gun show loophole. They don't want so-called moderates in the pocket of the extremist gun lobby." "

http://www.jointogether.org/gv/news/alerts/reader/0,2061,567530,00.html

But at least we know now why there's no link. The chart has beene wrenched out of context to try to claim something that isn't true. A common tactic for the RKBA crowd.

[slackmaster]

42. Gee, Bench

Jointogether's spin doesn't fit their own chart, so why print it?

[Superfly]

43. Wow, this is funny....Jointogether is taking a tenuous position:

Basing their arguments on things like:

"Such unmeasured factors"
"Finally, homicide victims may themselves be among the population of potential perpetrators."

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

45. I take it you're on Internet Explorer...

you can always right-click to find the source. That's why I did not include a link...it was redundant.

[MrBenchley]

46. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre.....

[slackmaster]

54. If someone wanted to hide the source of a graphics file

They could simply copy it to a "throwaway" Web site of their own.

In the absence of that kind of tactic I cannot agree with your implication that there was an attempt to deceive.

[alwynsw]

50. Aw, fly, give him a break

He's probably using Netscape or Opera. Oops. Those browsers do the right click thing, too.

Sorry.

[Romulus]

56. that is funny

"Crime is falling, but don't worry about that. People should still have their firearms confiscated, anyway - just because!!"

[slackmaster]

47. Link to an opinion poll on the subject

http://tinyurl.com/yrrpw

[CO Liberal]

48. You Know What They Say About Opinions

They're like assholes. Everybody has one, and some of them really stink.

[MrBenchley]

53. And you know what they mean when they say "freeping a poll"

It's why so many online polls skew far right...and are often considered worthless.

[RoeBear]

61. I agree...

...online polls are usually won by the group that has the largest interest in the question being polled.

In this particular question there are probably three groups of people:
the first group that is ardently in favor of CCW
the second group that is vehemtly against CCW
and the third largest group that really doesn't care.

It would be obvious that the first group far out numbers the second group or else the poll wouldn't show the results that it does.

Maybe I'll run a poll to see if I'm right. :P

[iverglas]

88. don't bother with a poll

Just rethink what you said.

"...online polls are usually won by the group that has the largest interest
in the question being polled."

Fine, so far, maybe. (This could be said about elections, but I'm not certain that it's an accurate statement about polls. But assuming it for the sake of argument ...)

Then you said:

"In this particular question there are probably three groups of people:
the first group that is ardently in favor of CCW
the second group that is vehemtly against CCW
and the third largest group that really doesn't care."

What you've done is divide some apples up into groups; but what you then do is use the size of those groups to state a conclusion about oranges:

"It would be obvious that the first group far out numbers the second group or else the poll wouldn't show the results that it does."

The fact that there are more green apples than red doesn't mean that there are more big oranges than small.

The fact that "x" number of people have a strong opinion about something does not mean that the same number of people have a large interest in it.


How strongly someone is in favour of (or opposed to) something

is not the same thing as

How large their interest is in the issue.


One might say that people who perceive themselves as having a large interest in the law in question in the poll are the ones most likely to vote, and that those people seem to be considerably more likely to strongly favour the law than to oppose it or have no opinion.

But me, I'd tend to say that the people who perceive themselves as having a large interest in the outcome of the poll are the ones most likely to vote -- since, after all, the only effect of voting in a poll is to influence the outcome of the poll.

And that's one big reason why polls like this really tell us nothing about the opinions of the general population, which would include a lot of people who do not perceive themselves as having an interest in the outcome of a poll.

And that's why elections are really more meaningful measures of public opinion about public policy -- since the people who vote in elections are presumably acting out of the interest they perceive themselves as having in the outcome of the election, i.e. what the policy will actually be, and more people are likely to perceive themselves as having that interest.

And that's why I'd be curious whether in the last election in, say, Ohio, the question of a law permitting the concealed carrying of firearms was put to the legislators who have now voted on it, and whether those legislators, as candidates, stated what their intentions were before people voted for them ...

.

.

[alwynsw]

62. Let's be fair even if it is OT

First; polls are inherently inaccurate because of human error or the bias of the designer among other factors.

To give the topic of polls its due: How many times have we seen threads in this site that ask us to unfreep a poll? We then go do our duty and follow the link to unfreep.

[MrBenchley]

65. Too too funny

"How many times have we seen threads in this site that ask us to unfreep a poll?"
Why do you suppose unfreep can be used as a verb? It couldn't be because right wing pieces of shit tend to do just what I said, could it?

[DonP]

63. Now I get it

The polls you constantly quote, that allegedly show citizens overwhelmingly rejecting concealed carry, are all valid because you say they are.

The ones that you don't agree with, no matter the source, must have all been freeped.

How very convenient. Selective poll credibility on an as needed basis.

Wow, 45 states that are now under the control of the corrupt gun lobby, including New Jersey.

I guess the old rule applies that the only poll that really matters is the one on election day. The people don't seem to care enough about the issue to change things in any state that it has ever been initiated.

Do let us all know when CCW is completely repealed in New Jersey.

In the meantime, nice job Ohio CCW people. I heard it will be signed today or tomorrow.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DonP]

70. Who elects the representatives?

Could have fooled me.

Last time I looked the people voted in their representatives and govenors etc.?

But if you find arbitrary and easily "freeped" polls more valid as a reflection of the will of the people than how people actually vote, be my guest.

I'll take the decison of the duly elected representatives in Ohio.

BTW, which partiucular group of New Jersey scumbags rammed CCW through in your home state? Since no "real Democrat" would, I guess once upon a time NJ was all Republican.

I'm sure you can fix that in the next election cycle. Right?

We'll all wait to hear from you when it's voted out.

[MrBenchley]

73. Too fucking funny...

"if you find arbitrary and easily "freeped" polls more valid as a reflection of the will of the people than how people actually vote,"
Geeze, it's the gun lobby that is trying to keep this issue away from the voters...and ignored the voters in Missouri whenn they said no.

And for the record, it's damn difficult to get a concealed carry permit in New Jersey, and wisely so. And both of the GOP imbeciles running for state wide office recently pushing for "shall issue" stupidity went down in flames, denying they had ever promised their pin-headed supporters any such thing.

[DonP]

83. Gee, then getting it repealed should be easy for you, right?

If everyone, even the republicans, run away from the idea I'm sure you'll have no trouble rallying people to repeal it.

Or have you already lost to the corrupt gun lobby in NJ?

[MrBenchley]

84. Try and get a bit MORE desperate, Don...

Better yet, ask Bret Schundler what a swell idea shall issue laws are....

[Buffler]

69. Self defense is the most basic of all human rights

Self defense is the most basic of all human rights. Those who oppose the individuals right to defend themselves against harm can not claim to be supporters of human rights.

[MrBenchley]

76. Horse Shit

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that comes from collective action, not a solitary pinhead with a popgun in his pocket.

[Stilgar]

79. so you mean no just cause for personal self defense?

if ever your life is in danger you must wait for the help of the police? If you are being slashed with a knife, you have to go call 911 and hope he tires of cutting while waiting for the police??

I am sorry to inform you but the police don't have to help you. You are responsible for your own self. That includes protection.

[MrBenchley]

81. I meant exactly what I said

[RoeBear]

82. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

How do I get to have "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
if I have no life?

Your method: "Criminal, stop attempting to kill me or I'll say Stop! again."

My method: "Bang"

[Fescue4u]

87. Exactly Bench..

You said..


"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "

Self defense is simply an extension of the "life" part.

[MrBenchley]

93. Yeah, surrrrrre....

That explains all that sniveling the Founding Fathers did about "what if somebody has a knife" and "the police are no help.." Oh wait.....

[1a2b3c]

89. Good for them

Maybe Kansas will pass one too. I want the streets running red with blood.

[davidinalameda]

99. locking

getting out of hand

you're more than welcome to begin another thread on the same topic