A Question to the Guys Who EDC GUNs

[sawman]

Some states allow concealed carry of firearms and weapons but if you actually use it in self-defense you get charged with murder 

I suppose you are talking about the situation in Florida..In FACT legally armed people defend themselves every day without being charged

Indeed, it's turned into a real lynch mob 

[Mr. Whippy]

In Maryland, the BossLady and I I would love to get carry permits.  It is extremely difficult to do if you're not LEO/security guard/armoured vehicle driver etc. 

Why do I want it?  In this part of the county, there are intermittent attacks on horses at night as well as sporadic cases of farm equipment thefts and barn burnings. 

For Janene, she's on the farm alone all day.  Personally, I would be much happier if she could carry on our farm (it is a definite gray zone as to "home carry").  For me, I do the night checks and while I carry when events have been recently reported, I realize that there is some risk in doing so, since the definition of "Home" can be easily interpreted as inside the structure of the house and not the 12 acre pasture next to the tractor shed.

I think this year, I'm willing to gamble the $120 non-refundable processing fee and apply for it, realizing this could be a total of $240 down the drain if the state says no.

[sawman]

I wish you luck with that, especially since I wasn't even aware MD of all states even issued carry permits.  I'm originally from MD (S. Baltimore) and they never impressed me as a very gun-friendly state.

[Mr. Whippy]

I wish you luck with that, especially since I wasn't even aware MD of all states even issued carry permits.  I'm originally from MD (S. Baltimore) and they never impressed me as a very gun-friendly state.

Their CCW permit process was just ruled unconstitutional.  The State of MD is appealing.  The State used as part of their defense that they didn't deny very many permits.  That is only because everyone knows they deny them so why waste $120 for the application?  There is a movement this summer to flood them with applications.  If they deny them, they undo their defense.  We shall see.

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Well, like I said, I'm all for self protection, and if your environment/situation is such that a handgun is necessary for that, then by all means, that's a sensible precaution.  I also am not at all opposed to keeping firearms for home defense and the like, but I do take issue with what groups like the NRA want to include as permissible items for "home defense".  In other words, an AR15 or AK47 with 60 round banana clips are hardly necessary for home defense.  From what I've read in some of the NRA literature, they want them to be as easy to buy as paint ball guns or BB guns.  It seems to me they want any and all firearms to be that easily available.  To me, that makes no sense whatsoever. 

As a scientist, and a psychologist, I feel I would remiss in my responsibility if I didn't remind everyone again about the psychological effects that carrying a weapon can and does have.  The "open carry" movement is sorely uninformed and misguided.  Again, a great deal of psychological research has shown that most people tend to be more violent when in possession of a firearm than when they are not.  That is what the 'open carry' movement doesn't understand, is that openly carrying a firearm is not a deterrent to violence, it is an invitation. 

Psychology aside, let me reiterate again that I have no problem with people exercising their legal rights to carry a hand gun.  At the same time, I believe that those who do also have a responsibility to be trained and demonstrate they know how to use that fire arm in a safe and responsible fashion when it is drawn.  That might sound like an oxymoron, but it is not.  I think of this like that old saying "gun control is being able to hit your target".  Otherwise, tragic collateral damage can occur. 

Those of you who do carry a handgun, would you want your use of your weapon in a situation where you were genuinely defending yourself to cause death or injury to innocent bystanders?  I would think not, thus the reason why I think there should be training and proficiency requirements for gun ownership and carry.  I will not comment on the political implications of this to keep within forum rules, but I believe that it's a logical extension of the old adage, "with power comes responsibility".  I think that the power of carrying a firearm requires that you also be required to show you can handle it responsibly.  So far, from what I've seen, laws like the 'stand your ground' law in Florida do not have such requirements, and in fact shield people who choose to act in a vigilante fashion, which is a basic violation of the rule of law in our country.

In general, this is not the situation in most states, and is why I oppose EDC of a hand gun in general, as most people (again, as MT.O members we are not most people) are not willing or required to demonstrate proficiency and responsibility with a hand gun, and it often leads to tragic consequences.

[captain spaulding]

Ugggghhhhh........   

[sawman]

How does that saying go?  Opinions are like smurfholes, everybody has one 

[Lynn LeFey]

Yeah, they are. Peer-reviewed scientific studies aren't OPINIONS though. They're tests that yield facts. That those results aren't what you want to hear is unfortunate, and maybe just MAYBE, might make folks want to reconsider their OPINION, in the face of fact.

Just saying.

[boss429]

Stand your ground law in Florida, it's nothing like the biased media says it is. Crime in Florida is at a 44 year low. The only gun violence that is up in Florida is the number of people shot by police.

[Chain Gang]

I just have to give my opinion on owning the AR15 and AK47.I have owned several over the years and would never need or recommend either one for self defense.They are just plain old fun to shoot.The fun factor gets even better when you start moding and tricking them out.It is just a hobby for me that I can enjoy with my friends.I really hate the government telling me what I can or cannot own.If these weapons are used illegally then hang the thugs from the tallest tree but leave the law abiding citizens alone.I'm speaking as an ex LEO and ccl holder that has left a deadly trail of bullet riddled spray paint cans,gallon jugs,and many paper targets in my path.

[Lynn LeFey]

Boss429: Crime in Florida has been on a downward trend since it's all-time high in 1990. There has been no real change from its gradual decline along this trend, and certainly wasn't made more pronounced in 2005 or shortly thereafter to coincide with Florida's passing of the Stand Your Ground laws.

Strangely enough though... there is a slight INCREASE in crime in 2006 and 2007, (and 2008 in some categories). So, yes, Florida is in a 40 year low for crime. It was headed that way LONG before the Stand Your Ground laws were passed. In the 2 to 3 years after those laws were passed, violent crime actually started to RISE, before resuming a downward trend. The numbers linked below cover up to 2010.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/flcrime.htm

Crime across the U.S. is also down right across the board, where Stand Your Ground laws aren't a factor.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

This pretty clearly points to the conclusion that it's not Stand Your Ground laws doing anything about the crime rates. In fact... you might notice that the decline in overall U.S. crime figures does NOT suffer the slight increase in 2006 - 2008 that we see in the Florida state figures.

When following those links, save yourself a mathematical headache, and look at the numbers in the second table of the linked pages, where crimes are expressed in occurrences per 100,000 people. Otherwise you're fighting figures versus a growing population number, and it's just a pain, when what you really want is already calculated in the second table.

[kd8fre]

 

I have nothing to add that won't go completely political.

[sawman]

I have nothing to add that won't go completely political.

You said it pal, and I just realized this forum has plenty of other threads to participate in that won't raise my blood pressure.  Moving right along.....

[ducttapetech]

ditto.
I am trying to be good and not throw a butch of numbers and facts arounds supporting ccw and owning firearms and crime det..........oops ....

[Lynn LeFey]

Feel free. I like arguments supported with fact. I'm not above being swayed by information. I just hate it when people dismiss the information they don't like, or try to bend statistics to say something they clearly don't.

Number away!

EDIT: before this goes too far, I'm going to make my position clear. I have no problem with people owning guns. I have no problem with people CCWing guns. I have serious problems with people claiming it's a great deterrent to crime.

I'm also not going to argue any point on accidental shootings. There are so few of them, and HALF of them done by males in a 2-year age group (18-19) that we could cut it significantly by better gun safety training, not more strict legislation. I had 'hunting and riflery safety' as a PE class in high school. There's never going to be 0 gun deaths per year, but then people die from accidents with kitchen knives, windows, etc. A certain small number is inevitable, and at some point should be accepted as a given.

[Mr. Whippy]

 


I too have my own strong opinions on gun ownership, particularly in the United States.  Up to this point it has been a very interesting discussion.  I can see the temps going up a bit, and people stepping away from the fire--which I greatly appreciate.

I'm going to watch this thread closely.  If the heat level increases from where it is, I'm going to lock it, not because anyone has stepped over the line (yet), but because there is no reason for hurt feelings/anger here on MT.O regarding an issue that won't be solved here, and which tends to evoke impassioned emotions. 


 

[sawman]

I too have my own strong opinions on gun ownership, particularly in the United States.  Up to this point it has been a very interesting discussion.  I can see the temps going up a bit, and people stepping away from the fire--which I greatly appreciate.

I'm going to watch this thread closely.  If the heat level increases from where it is, I'm going to lock it, not because anyone has stepped over the line (yet), but because there is no reason for hurt feelings/anger here on MT.O regarding an issue that won't be solved here, and which tends to evoke impassioned emotions. 


 

That's how I feel about it also.  I don't care who's right or wrong on the subject, I'd rather remain friends with each and every one of you.  Cheers! 

[Lynn LeFey]

Then I guess it's probably best to let this one rest.

[665ae]

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't at least comment a little bit

As a scientist, and a psychologist, I feel I would remiss in my responsibility if I didn't remind everyone again about the psychological effects that carrying a weapon can and does have.  The "open carry" movement is sorely uninformed and misguided.  Again, a great deal of psychological research has shown that most people tend to be more violent when in possession of a firearm than when they are not.  That is what the 'open carry' movement doesn't understand, is that openly carrying a firearm is not a deterrent to violence, it is an invitation. 

I'd really like to know the details of those studies you are referring too.  If you give a person predisposed to violence any type of weapon it will increase the chance they become violent.  I can only speak on my personal experience in the State of Michigan, but the increase in open carry has not, as far as I know, increased the amount of gun violence in the State, nor has the implementation of the CPL license turned Michigan into a vigilante state like some of it's opponents claimed it would do. 

Psychology aside, let me reiterate again that I have no problem with people exercising their legal rights to carry a hand gun.  At the same time, I believe that those who do also have a responsibility to be trained and demonstrate they know how to use that fire arm in a safe and responsible fashion when it is drawn.  That might sound like an oxymoron, but it is not.  I think of this like that old saying "gun control is being able to hit your target".  Otherwise, tragic collateral damage can occur. 

Those of you who do carry a handgun, would you want your use of your weapon in a situation where you were genuinely defending yourself to cause death or injury to innocent bystanders?  I would think not, thus the reason why I think there should be training and proficiency requirements for gun ownership and carry.  I will not comment on the political implications of this to keep within forum rules, but I believe that it's a logical extension of the old adage, "with power comes responsibility".  I think that the power of carrying a firearm requires that you also be required to show you can handle it responsibly.  So far, from what I've seen, laws like the 'stand your ground' law in Florida do not have such requirements, and in fact shield people who choose to act in a vigilante fashion, which is a basic violation of the rule of law in our country.

  I completely agree.  To quote Uncle Ben (re: Spider-man's uncle)  "With great power comes great responsibility."  (or something like that)  When I went through the CPL "training" course and required range time I was a bit disappointed with all but the legal portion of the class.

[gustophersmob]

Feel free. I like arguments supported with fact. I'm not above being swayed by information. I just hate it when people dismiss the information they don't like, or try to bend statistics to say something they clearly don't.

As an engineer, I totally agree with gathering data (although I am not above realizing that how I interpret data can be swayed by my biases, but that is another discussion). So, what I am about to say is in no way intended to be agrumantative towards what you have already said.  These are just the questions I have when casually thinking about this. 

I'm interested to see when OH, my state, passed its CCW laws and the more recent castle doctrine laws and see if they have correlation to the data in the links you provided (although note that correlation does not equal causation, but it is a good basis for formulating hypotheses).

The one thing I wonder about trying to correlate crime data with changes in the law is how much awareness of these sorts of laws does the general populace have?  If someone is predisposed, for whatever reasons, to commit a violent act, the law probably doesn't enter into their reasoning, or lack thereof.  But for the "average Joe," are they aware that the law is different, therefore causing them to react differently in a situation?  How long does it take after the law is changed for the average Joe to not only become aware of it, but "take advantage of it," so to speak? 

One thing that will always be unknown when looking at data like this is whether the changes in the laws kept the trend going down, when it may have otherwise gone up. Not saying that is what happened, just acknowledging that their are those unknowns.

Again, I hope this post isn't seen as political or offensive, just the stream-of-consciousness ramblings of a fellow member.  

[Lynn LeFey]

Mike: Response from Heins Doofenschertiz might take a while. His macbook just died.

Gustophersmob. These are all excellent points. I'm not well versed in analyzing statistics, and half-tempted to send the data sets to a friend to see if he has any thoughts on statistically important changes to the trend.

The truth of it is that for shall-issue and CCW, there is no consensus among the experts. There is no irrefutable proof one way or the other. There are peer-reviewed papers on both sides. A partial list is given in the wikipedia article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

[Heinz Doofenshmirtz]

Here is a link to a PDF of an article published by Elizabeth Loftus, one of the foremost experts on memory and eyewitness testimony in the field of psychology.

https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/LoftusLoftusMessoWeaponFocusLPagesHB87.pdf?uniq=rsen9z

It clearly describes and summarizes research on the weapon focus effect.  There is also a Wikipedia article on this topic, but it is poorly written and out of date.  The Loftus article is a far better coverage of the topic.

Here is one of the original articles on the weapons effect inducing violence.  It's a little dated, but clearly shows the effect.

http://faculty.uncfsu.edu/tvancantfort/Syllabi/Gresearch/Readings/A_Berkowitz.pdf

The results have been replicated several times, although there have been claims that such studies lack ecological validity.  That, however, is a moot point, as the ethical code of conduct for psychological research as maintained by the American Psychological Association makes such testing impossible to do.  There is also a Wikipedia article on this, but like the one above, it is limited and does not discuss the entire range of this research.  (Which is not surprising, as it's been proven that companies with Wikipedia entries on them have been shown to edit them themselves, and to do so in a very favorable light.  http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?currentPage=all  So I suspect that individuals and organizations who do not accept results that do not support their beliefs have edited the page to be what it is.)

Here is a more recent study that replicates the Berkowitz findings with a different task.  In the scientific community, results that support the same idea but yet use a different methodology are called convergent.  It adds support for the idea that in spite of the fact the testing might be lab based only, the convergence supports the validity of claims that the effects also occur in an ecological context.

http://socialcogneurolab.missouri.edu/pdfs/CAA-AJB-BDB-PsychSci1998.pdf

I will leave it to those who care to, to read these articles and consider it for themselves.  Let me reiterate, that I am not taking a political stance here, but am expressing my opinion on the matter as informed by replicated and peer reviewed scientific evidence on the effects of carrying a weapon in social situations and on personal psychology.  Many people choose to disregard scientific evidence that does not conform to their personal beliefs.  This actually has also been extensively studies in the psychology literature on what is known as Cognitive Dissonance, an idea proposed back in the early 60's by the social psychologist Leon Festinger, and is now one of the dominant theories in explaining many types of goal oriented behavior in people. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Lynn; I am very well versed in statistical analysis procedures.  I teach intro stats and have extensive experience with several advanced multivariate techniques including prime factors analysis, and particularly with multiple hierarchical regression and logistic regression.  I don't currently have time to do much research on violence statistics, but I will make a point of it later and do a follow up post on that.  I will also look more into the concealed carry literature and give a report back on that when I can.

I also agree with Mr.W on the recreational vs. home defense distinction.  I'm glad to see that someone who is a gun advocate recognize and acknowledge that.  I believe this distinction is one that needs to be made more widely, because it is deliberately neglected in many and most discussions of this issue.  I'll stop at this point because now I'm starting to get into topics that I can't support with evidence.

As above, I leave it to those interested to read the above articles and decide for themselves.