A Gun Purchase Gone Awry
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure that this isn’t legal.
The man purchased a revolver from a licensed Indiana dealer who sent it to his home in the 6200 block of W. North Ave.
The pistol never showed up because, as he would find out later, it was mistakenly delivered to an apartment building at 8204 W. North Ave.
The UPS driver left the package at the front door of the building without getting a signature.
The gun, a .44 magnum revolver worth $600, is now missing.
If you buy a gun from out of state, doesn’t it have to be shipped to another dealer in the state where you can then pick it up?
If you buy a gun from out of state, doesn’t it have to be shipped to another dealer in the state where you can then pick it up?
Generally, yes. This man and his dealer could be in deep doo-doo.
Posted by Jed on August 27, 2007 at 0710 hrs
Unless, of course, the man has an FFL and operates his business out of his home address.
Posted by Jed on August 27, 2007 at 0716 hrs
Hmmmmmm. It was delivered (and stolen?) less than a mile from my home where we’ve had an unusual rash of hooliganism lately (and where it takes cops 20-30 minutes to respond to calls of attempted break-ins). I sure feel safe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1056 hrs
I sure feel safe.
Go buy a guy. Protect yourself and your family. Criminals will always have them, why not protect yourself?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1117 hrs
xxpilot, i don’t fault people who buy guns to protect themselves. I will not. My home is frequently visited by people close to me who live with mental illness. Being admittedly forgetful, I fear that the odds of any gun I owned being used for the wrong reason, though very remote, are still much too high for me.
I also doubt my own ability to react calmly and decisively with a gun if faced with a criminal in my home. That’s just me being honest with myself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1152 hrs
PatrickR - You could take courses to overcome your aprehensions if you want to (I appriciate you honest assesment of yourself). The NRA has a cadre of certified instructors that work with many police depts and private folks to teach them gun saftey, response to threat and other good stuff.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1209 hrs
xxpilot, i don’t fault people who buy guns to protect themselves. I will not.
Fair enough… Then you are kinda stuck with waiting for the police. Good luck! Or you could move to a safer place I suppose. Seems kinda sad to cede certain areas to crime by moving away, but I guess that’s the reality of a big city.
I do respect your choice and am encouraged that you respect the choices of other people. Very cool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1214 hrs
xxpilot: I do realize that I am simply stuck waiting for the police, but I also want to make it clear that in the nearly 17 years I’ve lived in the city of Milwaukee, I have never had an occassion where I would have pulled out a gun if I’d had one. Perhaps I was too trite in responding to the ridiculous situation of UPS leaving a gun on the wrong doorstep, but I’ve never been a victim of or even seen violent crime in my Milwaukee neighborhood…at least not what I would call violent crime. I’ve had one attempted break-in that was a mentally ill man just going crazy and kicking at my door (no, I wouldn’t have pulled a gun); I had one unsuccessful attempt to steal a purse through an (unfortunately/foolishly) open window in my kitchen; and I had one attempted break-in that I strongly suspect was three incredibly drunk guys just being dumb. That’s it for 17 years in Milwaukee. The recent hooliganism I refer to relates more to the kinds of things bratty kids would do in the city, suburbs, or anywhere else. Still, I wouldn’t want those hooligans to have the chance to lift a free gun off of someone’s porch.
Yes, there are areas of Milwaukee in which I would choose not to live based upon crime. But there are plenty of relatively safe places in which to live in the city of Milwaukee…including where I live. That doesn’t mean I’m not still upset about poor police response times in Milwaukee…but that’s another subject.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 1231 hrs
but I also want to make it clear that in the nearly 17 years I’ve lived in the city of Milwaukee, I have never had an occassion where I would have pulled out a gun if I’d had one.
I have a fire extinguisher in my kitchen and in my truck.
I’m 32 years old, and I’ve never been in a situation to need a fire extinguisher, but I keep those there none-the-less.
For the one time I might need one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 27, 2007 at 2253 hrs
Random Public Service Announcement: xxpilot, do you know how to use your fire extinguisher? PASS: Pull, Aim, Squeeze, Sweep.
HA. I guess that would work for your gun, too.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 0710 hrs
xxpilot, I don’t mean to imply that not experiencing violent crime in Milwaukee for 17 years means that a gun is unneeded or unuseful. I understand why many choose to have a gun, even if their experience with crime in the city has been as minimal as mine. I merely wanted to point out that many of us who live in the city don’t consider our neighborhoods to be violent or dangerous.
This topic spurred a conversation with my wife last night. We’ve been considering an eventual move from our current home…either to the suburbs if we want a bigger house and more land (which we both value), or downtown/eastside if we want to be closer to the activities and cultural opportunities that we both enjoy (also very highly valued by us). We’re leaning toward the downtown/eastside option.
Anyway, last night I asked my wife a question that has never come up in our discussion about our next home…“is crime a consideration for you in wanting to move from here eventually?” She chuckled, and then said, “what would make you ask that? No, of course not.” I then asked her if she ever wanted to get a gun. That generated a bigger laugh, and she said, “with YOU in the house….NO.” My wife knows me well…I’d be voted the one most likely to shoot himself in the foot.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 0829 hrs
Hmmmmmm. It was delivered (and stolen?) less than a mile from my home where we’ve had an unusual rash of hooliganism lately (and where it takes cops 20-30 minutes to respond to calls of attempted break-ins). I sure feel safe.
Posted by PatrickR on August 27, 2007 at 1056 hrs
I merely wanted to point out that many of us who live in the city don’t consider our neighborhoods to be violent or dangerous.
Sorry.. I guess I misunderstood your original comment then. First you said you don’t feel safe, then you said you don’t consider your neighborhood violent or dangerous..
Random Public Service Announcement: xxpilot, do you know how to use your fire extinguisher? PASS: Pull, Aim, Squeeze, Sweep.
HA. I guess that would work for your gun, too.
And for other things too!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 0909 hrs
My sarcastic “I sure feel safe” comment was nothing more than a lame attempt at noting how stupid I believe it is to leave mail-order guns on front porches (correct address or not). I admit that it was a lame comment. Yes, I do feel safe in my neighborhood, and yes, I do think it’s an unsafe practice to leave mail-ordered guns on front porches.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1019 hrs
After all, it’s not like a gun has super-powers that will prevent crime within shooting distance. It has special limited use in relatively rare situations. In the pipe dream situation, you use it to save the day: you’re there, you detect the criminal before anything bad happens, you find the gun lock key and get everything ready for your show of force that saves the day. In the innumerable nightmare scenarios, life is much worse afterwards.
Posted by John Foust on August 28, 2007 at 1020 hrs
Pure conjecture John
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1033 hrs
Yes, dreaming that you’re going to be there to save the day is pure conjecture. Draw me a scenario of how owning a gun saves the day and I’ll draw you two scenarios where it doesn’t, and we can have a reasonable argument (perhaps even buttressed by facts and anecdotes) about which scenarios are more probable. I’m not demeaning guns; I’ve owned and used them all my life. I’m just saying there’s lots of hope and dreaming going on. Only a dumb criminal won’t case your place before burgling. If they have any brains whatsoever, they’ll avoid confrontation. Yes, there are scenarios where you’ll fire at a crazed lunatic, but there are also scenarios where your pissed-off teen uses the weapon because they know where you hide the key.
Posted by John Foust on August 28, 2007 at 1047 hrs
Has anyone heard from DAD 29?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1216 hrs
Why, JP, what do you expect him to say?
I’m all ears to hear about any anecdotes regarding the use of household firearms to defend yourself, especially in terms of prevalence. After all, brandishing a weapon doesn’t make the police logs and crime stats - but how often does it happen when compared to the events that do make the papers?
Posted by John Foust on August 28, 2007 at 1240 hrs
I’m all ears to hear about any anecdotes regarding the use of household firearms to defend yourself, especially in terms of prevalence.
Every month there is a compilation of them in the NRA magazine along with a citation of the media source that originally reported it.
I’d say they average about a dozen documentable instances per month.
Here is a searchable database:
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
Now before you go slamming the source as biased, as it SURELY is, note that every single one of the stories has a citation source and date
for example:
Upon hearing a man trying to break into his Orange County, Fla., home, the 65-year-old homeowner retrieved a gun and fired, wounding the intruder. (Sentinel, Orlando, Fla., 8/26/07)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1349 hrs
John - several months ago we had a long debate about the use of guns to prevent crime. I am not sure if you were regualry posting yet. I provided the link to study that concluded that guns are used by private citizens about 2.5 million times a year in self defense. See Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun,” 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164. reprinted here:
http://www.guncite.com/gcdgklec.html
This is what Gertz and Kleck’s cheif adversaries had to say about the study: “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…. I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.” Marvin E. Wolfgang, “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at 188.
reprinted at : http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Wolfgang1.htmlGranted, I hope I never find myself in this situation but many of our fellow citizens do. It is not just a dream built on conjecture.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 1540 hrs
I don’t follow the field closely, so I’d be eager to hear if there was any response to either of these 12-year-old papers.
I don’t doubt that guns are used to deter invasion or property or threat to life. It doesn’t surprise me that the NRA keeps a list of examples. But even those seem to be the ones that make the newspaper. I can only assume there are many more incidents that don’t result in a call to the police.
On the other hand, I would also assume there are many more negative examples of guns being used or abused in private homes that don’t make the papers. If the gun goes off while cleaning and it hits the wall instead of a head, no one calls the police or the newspaper.
Posted by John Foust on August 28, 2007 at 1718 hrs
I can only assume there are many more incidents that don’t result in a call to the police.
I’ve had five that I can recall. No cops involved in any of them.
On the other hand, I would also assume there are many more negative examples of guns being used or abused in private homes that don’t make the papers. If the gun goes off while cleaning and it hits the wall instead of a head, no one calls the police or the newspaper.
True, but unlike the positive side of the scale (gun defense), these examples on the negative side (accidents, etc.) are almost always preventable and are within the control of the gun owner or homeowner.
Posted by Jed on August 28, 2007 at 1901 hrs
On the other hand, I would also assume there are many more negative examples of guns being used or abused in private homes that don’t make the papers. If the gun goes off while cleaning and it hits the wall instead of a head, no one calls the police or the newspaper
Well you are entitled to your assumptions John..
But at some point perhaps you might consider that your assumptions seem to be based in what you WANT to believe to be true.
It seems that you ask for fact and evidence, and when it doesn’t support your position, you seem to place more stock in things NOT evidenced than things that are?
That seems like poor judgement to me.
I don’t see ANY logic in assuming that there ‘must’ be more negative stories that don’t get reported than positive ones.
I’m not demeaning guns
LOL… that’s good humor… Sure you aren’t… Honesty starts with being honest with yourself John. You are absolutely demeaning guns. You have a proclivity for the negative when it comes to guns. When facts are in evidence you assume the facts not in evidence are more probable… In the face of positive data about the use of guns you consider your made up scenaros and assumptions to be more likely.. No, you’re not demeaning guns.. You’re just a BASTION of objectivity.
Yes, dreaming that you’re going to be there to save the day is pure conjecture. Draw me a scenario of how owning a gun saves the day and I’ll draw you two scenarios where it doesn’t,
I didn’t have to make up scenario’s, I posted a link to THOUSANDS of documented happenings… And you respond by making up a scenario of a guy cleaning his gun putting a round in the ceiling and that doesn’t get reported. Well if it doesn’t get reported, we can LOGICALLY assume noone got hurt (because you show up at an ER with a gunshot wound, BELIEVE ME that gets reported.
and we can have a reasonable argument (perhaps even buttressed by facts and anecdotes) about which scenarios are more probable.
I admire your bravery in jumping into a debate with nothing to support your position but your assumptions and made up scenarios.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 28, 2007 at 2125 hrs
I think there are plenty of people who put great stock in having a gun close at hand, but mostly it’s wishful thinking that they’re going to be in the right place and the right time to use it to keep the bad guys away from what’s precious. I don’t think it’s outlandish for me to suggest simultaneously that there are probably lots of incidents where people do successfully use a gun to deter a worse situation, as well as less positive incidents with a gun, where in both cases it doesn’t make the police reports or the NRA’s “let’s only look at the positives” list. I think you’re reaching to try to put me in a position where I’m not. Tell me there aren’t NRA members who think these same things.
Posted by John Foust on August 28, 2007 at 2310 hrs
Jed (22). Not to get all Andy Fife, but I’ve never needed to use a gun to defend myself against another person that I can recall now. A knife once, no cops. My strength to take down a mugger, cops. On the flip side, there was that guy who said he was going to shoot me if I walked past his tree stand one more time.
There’s accidents and then there’s things you just don’t want to happen, like someone else getting the gun when you don’t want them to. That could be someone in your home when you’re not around, or the gun could be wrestled from you.
I think there’s also a propensity for over-eager gun owners to use the gun in situations where it might be unreasonable or otherwise preventable, as you say. Some people just seem to get themselves in situations.
Posted by John Foust on August 28, 2007 at 2350 hrs
Whoops. Barney Fife. Andy Taylor. Time for bed.
Posted by John Foust on August 28, 2007 at 2350 hrs
Not to get all Andy Fife, but I’ve never needed to use a gun to defend myself against another person that I can recall now.
I guess you’ve never had people trying to break into your apartment while you’re there, or you’ve never had someone try to carjack you. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Often.
Posted by Jed on August 29, 2007 at 0640 hrs
I don’t doubt it happens. As Xx doesn’t seem to understand, I not only agree it happens, but I also agree there must be a fair number of times the cops or the newspaper never hear about it.
Why wouldn’t someone call the cops after an apartment break-in or an attempted carjacking?
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 0834 hrs
I don’t doubt it happens. As Xx doesn’t seem to understand, I not only agree it happens, but I also agree there must be a fair number of times the cops or the newspaper never hear about it.
Now you are changing your statement John. There may be a ‘fair number’ of times the cops and newspaper don’t hear about incidents. But that’s not what you said. you said:
I would also assume there are many more negative examples of guns being used or abused in private homes that don’t make the papers.
Why do you assume the negative would outpace the positive?
I’ll go back to your original comment John:
After all, it’s not like a gun has super-powers that will prevent crime within shooting distance.
Actually John, guns DO prevent crimes without ever being used. Ownership of guns and right to carry laws and such DO prevent crimes because it is a deterent. Criminals don’t pick on the strong, they pick on the weak. There is a plethora of documentation to support “more guns = less crime”. So in actuality, your comment that a gun doesn’t have super-powers… They actually do. Right to Carry and robust ownership of guns does have far reaching positive effects. The increased likelyhood (in the mind of criminals) that people might be armed DOES keep people safe. The proliferation of people defending themselves WILL make criminals think twice. Increased news reporting of the positive outcomes of people defending themselves WILL be noted by criminals. I’m sure word travels fast on the street (and the news would help) if these cowardly thugs knew people were likely armed, EVEN PEOPLE who are unarmed would be safer. So even people without guns would be safer because of people with guns.
When we empower law-abiding citizens with the right and the ability to defend themselves we are ALL safer. Criminals prey on the weak, and they don’t want to die.
It has special limited use in relatively rare situations.
So do fire extinguishers
In the pipe dream situation, you use it to save the day:
Not a pipe dream John, it happens EVERY day across the country. It may not have happened to YOU but there are business owners/convenience store owners, etc who have been held up MULTIPLE times. Depending on where people live and work, they may have multiple encounters with crime. For those who live in ‘safe’ areas, it would be a rare occurence (just like a house fire) but still a good idea to keep a fire extinguisher around.
My criticism of your comments remain the same. There are no absolutes. I’ve never said there were, but you would suggest that the negative of guns far outweighs the positive. I disagree, and I believe the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming in support of my position vs. yours which you’ve supported by conjecture and assumption.
I think there’s also a propensity for over-eager gun owners to use the gun in situations where it might be unreasonable or otherwise preventable, as you say. Some people just seem to get themselves in situations.
Well what you ‘think’ is not supported by any data. You toss out the same tired old arguements that right-to-carry opponents have. “oh, people will be pulling guns when they shouldn’t” blah blah blah… It hasn’t happened. As states pass right to carry and thousands apply and receive permits and THOUSANDS begin to carry on a regular basis there ARE NOT ANY significant increases in the improper use of the weapon. People DON’T “just pull a gun” because they have one on them. Law abiding citizens who carry guns respect guns and know how to use them and know when to use them and certainly don’t whip them out like a gunslinger at every conflict.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 0924 hrs
Why wouldn’t someone call the cops after an apartment break-in or an attempted carjacking?
Because there are a lot of places in this country where law enforcement is non-existent, or close thereto.
Posted by Jed on August 29, 2007 at 0945 hrs
One of the prime reasons to call the cops is to get a police report for insurance purposes. If you are not going to make a claim, and have suffered only property damage, the cops will likely do nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 1008 hrs
Xx… Perhaps I wasn’t clear. Perhaps you misread. I wasn’t saying there were more negative than positive events. I said there are many more negative events that don’t make the papers, too, just as there are many positive outcomes that don’t get reported. I meant “more” as in “additional,” not in comparative to the number of positive reported or unreported events.
You might think your gun protects you from crime as if it has a magic force field. I think there’s lots of wishful thinking going on, because there are lots of situations where you won’t be there to use it. If I wanted to steal easy-to-fence guns, would I case the house of the poor, or would I wait for the neighborhood camo-guy to leave with his boat for the weekend?
And then there’s the factor of the criminal having the same mindset… they think if they have a gun in their hand, they’re more invincible. More “right”. And that’s the core of the problem many people have with increased concealed-carry. Sure, plenty will be the lily-white, well-trained law-abiding citizens you dream about. Some will also be bozos. There will be an increase in the number of accidents and abuses, too.
Jed - are we talking obliquely about your experiences, or just hypotheticals? Are you saying you were in a situation where you thought law enforcement was non-existent and unresponsive, or that there are areas and people who feel that way?
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 1039 hrs
Perhaps you misread. I wasn’t saying there were more negative than positive events. I said there are many more negative events that don’t make the papers, too, just as there are many positive outcomes that don’t get reported. I meant “more” as in “additional,” not in comparative to the number of positive reported or unreported events.
I completely misread what you wrote. My apologies.
You might think your gun protects you from crime as if it has a magic force field. I think there’s lots of wishful thinking going on, because there are lots of situations where you won’t be there to use it.
My gun doesn’t protect me from all crime.
Others who own a gun doesn’t protect them from all crime. But it certainly does protect people from certain types of crimes.
There will be an increase in the number of accidents and abuses, too.
I categorically disagree. This is a conception that right to carry foes toss out there and its NOT evidenced by any fact, in the 40 Right to Carry states NONE has seen an increase in number of accidents or abuses by permit holders.
Florida, which has issued more carry permits than any state has issued over 1.2 million permits, but revoked only 157 (0.01%) due to gun crimes by permit-holders.
Those statistics prove true in other states as well.
I think there’s lots of wishful thinking going on, because there are lots of situations where you won’t be there to use it.
Well sure there might be.
But lets be real… Do the typical thugs out for a buck REALLY spend time casing places? You’ve been watching too much TV or something…
But even so, that doesn’t change that fact that while guns can’t prevent EVERY crime, they sure as hell can protect people from many times of crime and the statistics prove that the proliferation of guns in the hands of law abiding citizens drives crime rates down. This is fact.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 1101 hrs
Is there an increase in asshole-ism or abuses or accidents? Gee, we just spent a lot of time agreeing that there are probably lots of cases, both positive and negative, where guns are used and it doesn’t make the police blotter. If you increase the number of people carrying guns on a daily basis, I don’t think it’s crazy for me to suggest there will be more incidents of each kind. You want to argue that there will be more positive? Go ahead. What about the negative? It won’t happen? Why? Because bars full of drunks with guns will be better-behaved than ones without guns?
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 1121 hrs
Do the typical thugs out for a buck REALLY spend time casing places?
Check with your local law enforcement agency on this one xxp.
Your perception is what? That there are roving gangs or individuals that act on impulse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 1159 hrs
If you increase the number of people carrying guns on a daily basis, I don’t think it’s crazy for me to suggest there will be more incidents of each kind. You want to argue that there will be more positive? Go ahead. What about the negative? It won’t happen? Why? Because bars full of drunks with guns will be better-behaved than ones without guns?
Sorry John.. It just DOES NOT happen.
Perhaps from an emotional-thinking standpoint it does seem counter-intuitive, but the facts DO support just exactly what I said.
The shootouts on every corner and fender-benders turning into shout-outs that people feared with concealled carry haven’t happened in ANY of the 40 states that have right to carry.
The truth is that law-abiding people (the ones that are able to pass a background check and acquire a permit) do not exhibit ANY of the behavior you talked about.
They don’t go in bars and start fights and pull out there guns.
If you live in Wisconsin, where we live in the stone-age in terms of our rights to personal protection, I can understand your lack of exposure to the reality that people have self-control with guns.
But if you live in Vermont, anyone can carry a gun. No permit no nothing. Have you ever been to Vermont? Nice place, you don’t walk into a bar in Vermont and get shootouts when the patrons get drunk every night?
In all the 40 other states where there are MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of people carrying a concealled weapon every day these people don’t turn into hot-heads and pull their gun out everytime they have a disagreement.
You’re flat out wrong to assert that there would be any more violence because of law-abiding citizens carrying guns.
The people you read about NOW in the paper and on the news that get in a bar arguement and go outside and shoot someone. They are criminals, thugs. Very likely already have a criminal record. Obviously have no regard for the law. They have a gun now and its illegal.
Give a law-abiding citizen a gun and they don’t become a law-breaker.
Whats the problem here? You have no faith in law abiding citizens?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 1217 hrs
Xx, do you think that in places with more concealed-carry permit holders, they never use their weapons, even just to flash them? And these incidents won’t make the papers. Again, I’m willing to admit the positives. I’m even willing to believe in lots of unreported uses, bad or good. But you’re saying there’s only good and no bad?
Vermont? As white as Whitefish Bay, with a population comparable to Madison? Full of ice-cream-making, Birkenstock-wearing liberals?
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 1236 hrs
Vermont? As white as Whitefish Bay, with a population comparable to Madison? Full of ice-cream-making, Birkenstock-wearing liberals?
Alaska also has unrestricted carry law.
Although I guess I’m not sure what you are saying? Because Vermont is White they are more able to ‘control’ themselves with a gun?
What are you trying to point out?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 1253 hrs
When it comes to demographics, Vermont’s right up there when it comes to oldness and whiteness. Are you claiming their results are typical and what we should expect to see everywhere?
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 1304 hrs
Jed - are we talking obliquely about your experiences, or just hypotheticals? Are you saying you were in a situation where you thought law enforcement was non-existent and unresponsive, or that there are areas and people who feel that way?
My experiences.
I’ve been in areas where law enforcement is minimal, takes hours to arrive, and can’t do anything about the situation when they do arrive.
I’ve been in areas where I called the cops the first time, only to be told not to bother in the future unless someone got hurt or something of significant value got stolen.
Posted by Jed on August 29, 2007 at 1309 hrs
When it comes to demographics, Vermont’s right up there when it comes to oldness and whiteness. Are you claiming their results are typical and what we should expect to see everywhere?
Only 13% of their population is over 65. Compared to 12.4 % for the rest of the country being over 65. So demographically if you want facts, they aren’t any different age wise than any other state.
True, they are 96% white.
What are you suggesting? That color of ones skin has any effect on wether you could control your temper with a gun or not?
Are you claiming their results are typical and what we should expect to see everywhere?
I’m not CLAIMING… I’m telling… The data exists. Vermont and Alaska are the only unrestricted states… Which is why I used them as examples… BUT 40 other states honor right to carry. You want a permit, you get one (if you pass the background check/etc) MILLIONS of people walking around with guns and NO increase in bar-shootings as you suggest.
The data is all there if you want to inform yourself rather than speculate.
You seem to think average citizens (non-criminals) walking around packing heat would lead to arguements that turn into shootouts. You are mistaken. I am not offering an opinion. I’m stating fact. I have 40 states who have adopted right to carry laws which have proliferated guns in the hands (and pockets and jackets) of LAW abiding people.
Statisticlly there is not an IOTA of evidence to support your fear that arguements turn into shootouts.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 1442 hrs
John - Other than saying Kleck’s study is 12 years old you have not presented any counter evidence. Yet you still argue that there is no evidence one way or the other. Did you even look at the study? If you had you would have found out that Kleck was not limited by incidents that make the police blotter. Instead, he gathered his own first hand independent research. His methodology was so pure that his chief rival (another criminologist who advocates for outlawing private ownership of most if not all guns) thought it appropriate to publish a paper saying so. I don’t know what more you want. I gave you links to the papers. You have the internet at your figure tips. If you really want to have a debate go do some research and contribute something. So far all you are doing is giving us conjecture and speculation, which if memory serves is something you once ridiculed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 29, 2007 at 1527 hrs
Joe, all that might make sense if I was disagreeing with you or Kleck’s study. I didn’t think I was.
Posted by John Foust on August 29, 2007 at 1616 hrs
Maybe I made a leap but your latter posts with Jed and Xxpilot certainly implied that you were taking the position that we just don’t know if guns are really used to prevent crime in any significant way in the US. The study I cited pretty conclusively demonstrates that they are.
If I am misunderstanding what your position is, I apologize and ask for clarification.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 30, 2007 at 0808 hrs
JS Online has posted a correction to the original piece:
Correction: An item Monday in the Off the Cuffs column stated that UPS had delivered a handgun to the wrong place, and that the weapon was now missing. The shipper, a licensed firearms dealer in Indiana, had mislabeled the package, according to UPS and Wauwatosa police. The package ultimately was recovered, unopened, and delivered to the rightful owner.
Still doesn’t explain how a firearm got delivered by mail!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on September 21, 2007 at 1322 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 99
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/11/2012 11:55 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).