Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Whatever is left, no matter how improbable...

... may not be the truth, because you may not be considering everything. That is the trouble with social science. It is the most chaotic thing in, well, civilization. The idea that each factor can be singled out and analysed in a vacuum may not be true, because, being a chaotic system, society plays off of many factors. An example might be the question "why are my eyes hazel?" You can analyse each gene in sequence from the start to the stop codons, but you won't find that single gene that makes eyes hazel, because eye color is determined by many genes. That is the nature of a chaotic system.

I do not know of any study that looks at Texas in a vacuum, but plenty of the ones conducted state-side do use data from Texas and few have been able to come to a conclusion that determines an effect either way. Many models provide inconsistent conclusions when subjected to different datasets. This unreliability puts the entire deductive process you described into question. If (seemingly) all other factors considered point to no effect, leaving concealed carry laws, and the studies about concealed carry laws (including data from Texas) also cannot determine no effect, then you have got nowhere.

Until the science gets more precise, we should continue to experiment, and using that data, build better predictive models that can be used to find out the actual causes. Until then we don't know. And really, I find all the speculative rhetoric that gets thrown from both sides is not very useful.


I would also like to remind everyone that in the time this thread has been active, approximately 800,000 more children have died around the world.
 
Last edited:
There were several Texas specific ones done around the turn of the century, mostly by Oklahoma and Texas institutions or personnel thereof. If I get some time Monday, I'll see if I can find any of them online for you to peruse.

Of those studies, CCW was the only obvious factor they did not attempt to account for. While, true, correlation does not prove cause, it does serve as a suitable workable hypothesis provided you have exhausted all other conceivable causes - and until someone can discover a different cause or confirm this one. This is the case with the Texas murder stats and CCW in my opinion.

If you want to look at crime in general, CCW has not had a statistically significant effect either way in Texas and therefore is in accord with your cited metastudy. But that wasn't the question I was responding to at the time. :dunno:

I would also like to remind everyone that in the time this thread has been active, approximately 800,000 more children have died around the world.

Source, please. Are these actual counted deaths or projected?

Also, if so, please tell the media.
 
Last edited:
Actually, Texas was no-issue and no-carry before 95. Carriage of pistols by citizens for self defense outside of a nebulously defined 'traveling' was banned entirely and was in fact a felony. No permits to carry for anyone, not even the corrupt NYC permit style.

Just a correction it's not possible to get CCW in NYC unless you need it for a job like guys who drive money trucks or private security. Otherwise you can get a permit to keep a weapon at your business/home and can only transport to/from dealer/range.

@MadCat
I'm not really sure what you are arguing against here tbh, the only statement I see from Spectre is that since CCW laws were enacted in TX homicide rate dropped by a large amount. That statement in and of itself is 100% true (as shown in data). That and other statistics/studies previously cited in this thread are meant to support one point and one point only: number of legal firearms of any time does not increase the amount of crime. You can argue if the crime/homicide rate drop is coincidental with CCW permits rather than casual but the point remains that allowing law abiding citizens have firearms does not increase crime/homicide rate. Given the above it should be clear that there is no compelling reason for tougher gun control laws.
 
Last edited:
Just a correction it's not possible to get CCW in NYC unless you need it for a job like guys who drive money trucks or private security. Otherwise you can get a permit to keep a weapon at your business/home and can only transport to/from dealer/range.

Or be rich/famous/connected, as mentioned before. See the NYC Permit Holder list that Gawker published, for example.

We didn't even have that back then - no permits for anyone, security carrying weapons had to be commissioned security officers.
 
Last edited:
Estimated.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44529626/ns/health/t/global-child-deaths-plunge-day/#.UPy7vCeYsuI

Includes link to report.

21,000/day * 37 days = 777000

If we expand our definition of child to under 10, it's even bigger.

And if you extend the definition of child to 21, as some of the studies on 'gun violence' did, it gets HUUUUUUUGE. :rolleyes:

Feel free to alert the media that an estimated 777,000 children died while they were covering the deaths of just 28 people in exhaustive, nauseating detail day in and day out over the same period. I'm sure they'll get right on covering that.
 
Gawker reposted the list of gun owners in NYC with a catchy title- "Here Is a List of All the Assholes Who Own Guns in New York City".
Gawker media/jalopnik/destructoid have been on my shitlist for years due to their high drama reporting,blatant content theft, and slanderous writings.. but this takes the cake.
http://theothermccain.com/2013/01/0...kers-johnjcook-and-its-about-damned-time-too/

And because John Cook's information is in a public database, here it is:
http://urbangrounds.com/2013/01/john-cook-gawker-address/
 
Ooooh I know where this is, maybe I should pay a visit and explain some things to him.... nicely....
 
They are right - it does work both ways. That being said, I don't think either side should resort to such lousy, low tactics, and simplistic arguments.

Take this Twitter guy that is quoted in that second piece:

You are not a man if you are not prepared and capable of defending your family from those who would do them harm. You're a coward

Really now? How about the people who are legally not allowed to have a gun? Like...oh I don't know...all the people residing legally in the United States on immigrant and non-immigrant visas?* In 2011, 8 million visas were issued (I'm not even counting those from previous years). Granted, a lot of them are tourist visas, but there is still a very large number of people who reside in the states (as students, temp workers, scholars, business owners, etc...) who are not allowed to have a gun. Are those all cowards and not real men?

These questions are beside the point, but they illustrate the fallacy in such arguments.

(* Apart from rare exceptions in certain states such as TN)
 
Last edited:
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Immigrant visa holders are allowed to purchase, possess and (where permits are issued) carry, per Federal and most state laws. Most non-immigrant (but non-tourist/non-student) visa holders are also allowed to purchase and possess by Federal law, but in most states they cannot carry and they are not allowed handguns. Rifles and shotguns are permitted for them, especially if they possess a valid hunting license.
 
Last edited:
Okay, correction - only non-immigrant then. Anyone on a F(n) or H1(n) visa is barred from owning a gun. That's still a good number of people. (And I'm not arguing that they should be allowed, only pointing out that arguments calling for "guns for all" are simplistic)
 
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Okay, correction - only non-immigrant then. Anyone on a F(n) or H1(n) visa is barred from owning a gun. That's still a good number of people. (And I'm not arguing that they should be allowed, only pointing out that arguments calling for "guns for all" are simplistic)

Reread added info above. H1-Bs are allowed to purchase and possess rifles and shotguns, just not handguns.

Per the ATF:

Q. May foreign visitors and other aliens legally in the United States purchase or possess firearms and ammunition while in the United States?


A. Nonimmigrant aliens generally are prohibited from possessing or receiving (purchasing) firearms and ammunition in the United States.

There are exceptions to this general prohibition. The exceptions are as follows:

nonimmigrant aliens who possess a valid hunting license or permit lawfully issued by a State in the United States;

nonimmigrant aliens entering the United States to participate in a competitive target shooting event or to display firearms at a sports or hunting trade show sponsored by a national, State, or local firearms trade organization devoted to the competitive use or other sporting use of firearms;

certain diplomats;

officials of foreign governments or distinguished foreign visitors so designated by the U.S. State Department;

foreign law enforcement officers of friendly foreign governments entering the United States on official law enforcement business; and

persons who have received a waiver from the prohibition from the U.S. Attorney General.
Significantly, even if a nonimmigrant alien falls within one of these exceptions, the nonimmigrant alien CANNOT purchase a firearm from a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) unless he or she (1) has an alien number or admission number from the Immigration and Naturalization Service AND (2) can provide the FFL with documentation showing that he or she has resided in a State within the United States for 90 days prior to the firearms transaction.

(A16) Q. Typically, who are "nonimmigrant aliens?"

In large part, nonimmigrant aliens are persons traveling temporarily in the United States for business or pleasure, persons studying in the United States who maintain a foreign residence abroad, and certain foreign workers. Permanent resident aliens are NOT nonimmigrant aliens. (Permanent resident aliens often are referred to as people with "Green Cards").
 
Last edited:
While I don't agree with "no gun == coward" as there are many factors to not owning a firearm especially in NYC*, owning a gun is a personal choice and neither side should be chastising the other for their personal choices.
*It's really expensive and you are not guaranteed the to get the permit in the first place, it's cheaper/easier to just move to Long Island and not be beholden to the stupid NYC laws.
 
Seems that there is conflicting information about this. This is from an immigration attorney website:

In general, nonimmigrants (such as those who hold F, H, J, O, L status in the US) cannot purchase or possess firearms (including handguns and long guns) in the United States. However, some exceptions apply that allow nonimmigrants to purchase and own guns.

To qualify for an exception, an alien must first establish that he/she is in valid status and has an ?A? number or Admission number (I-94 number) issued by USCIS. A nonimmigrant alien must also prove that he/she has been a resident of his/her home state in the U.S. for at least 90 days and will continue to live in that state. Nonimmigrants who wish to purchase handguns will also be required to purchase their firearm in their home state. Nonimmigrants who would like to purchase long guns may do so in any state, provided they meet the local regulations where he/she purchases the long gun.

Once these qualifications have been fulfilled, aliens must prove that they fall within one of the following categories:

An individual who was admitted to the U.S. for lawful hunting or sporting

To satisfy this category, the alien must show an invitation to a competitive target shooting event or sports or hunting trade show sponsored by a national, state, or local firearms trade organization devoted to the competitive use or other sporting use of firearms.

An individual who has been issued a valid hunting license or permit in the U.S.

The hunting license may be from any state, not necessary from the home state in the U.S. Most states in the U.S. sell hunting permits to nonimmigrant aliens.

Matches a lot of the information you provided, but it seems that a hunting license is the easiest way. And how easy would that be? I personally don't know a lot of hunters.
 
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Seems that there is conflicting information about this. This is from an immigration attorney website:



Matches a lot of the information you provided, but it seems that a hunting license is the easiest way. And how easy would that be? I personally don't know a lot of hunters.

Hunting license in most states is a fairly short course. Texas has an online course plus a one day 'field'/range course requirement - and we're one of the more extensive ones. Some states, you just pay your fee and you have a license on the spot.

Also, the information I posted is direct from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Pretty sure they're the controlling authority and not some random immigration attorney. :p
 
You know full well that a lot of rules for citizens do not extend to non-citizens. In my case, I've learned to trust immigration experts first and foremost, and only after listen to federal and state agency officials. I don't want to lose my status for some stupid shit that someone in an office that has no idea about immigration restrictions said is okay to do.

Some states, you just pay your fee and you have a license on the spot.

Huh??? Surely not. Maybe that's another problem that needs to be addressed. Dweebs like me (citizens or not), who have operated a gun only once or twice in their lives, should not be allowed to obtain a permit and a gun that easily.
 
Really now? Are those all cowards and not real men?
I would guess that the poster you quoted was simply implying that a man has the duty to protect his family, and what better way to do that than with a firearm? Of course if he cannot (or doesn't want to) own a firearm, there are other methods but they won't be as effective most of the time.


Huh??? Surely not. Maybe that's another problem that needs to be addressed. Dweebs like me (citizens or not), who have operated a gun only once or twice in their lives, should not be allowed to obtain a permit and a gun that easily.
Sure yes. In VT you don't even need a license, you just go and buy a gun.
 
Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

You know full well that a lot of rules for citizens do not extend to non-citizens. In my case, I've learned to trust immigration experts first and foremost, and only after listen to federal and state agency officials. I don't want to lose my status for some stupid shit that someone in an office that has no idea about immigration restrictions said is okay to do.



Huh??? Surely not. Maybe that's another problem that needs to be addressed. Dweebs like me (citizens or not), who have operated a gun only once or twice in their lives, should not be allowed to obtain a permit and a gun that easily.

The stats seem to indicate that it doesn't make a statistically significant difference if it is easy or hard to obtain a permit for a firearm. If that were so, NYC should have the least murders and crimes involving firearms of any city in the US short of Chicago - and it does not. Chicago should not have any crimes involving handguns as they don't issue permits and permit less ownership is banned - but that's not the case in reality either.

Further, it doesn't take long to teach firearms safety. In fact, it probably took you more time to write that last post than it takes to teach someone the basics. Now actual marksmanship... That can take quite a while longer.

I can teach someone how to safely handle and use a firearm in about three, maybe five minutes. Actually hitting your target at a distance can take quite a lot longer.

Police cadets get trained and certified as 'duly authorized and trained' operators in just one day. Most of the day is spent going over the laws surrounding their weapons use and very little going over their weapon itself.
 
Last edited:
Welcome to 'Mericuh. Don't go to Utah, it's easier to get a gun than a beer.
 
Top