Awesome news for RKBA folks!

[darkangel218]

Oklahoma prepares for open carry gun law!!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/us/oklahoma-prepares-for-open-carry-gun-law.xml

[shraby]

1. Awesome is in the eye of the beholder.

[darkangel218]

2. True i guess :)

[PavePusher]

37. It's your right to go out in public with your face uncovered.

But you really shouldn't, as it might disturb some delicate flowers.


That's exactly what this is all about.

[gcomeau]

3. Explain the awesome. -eom

[darkangel218]

4. Its easier to carry your weapon if you dont have to hide it! :)

[gcomeau]

9. So the opposite of awesome then...

...at least for those concerned with living in a peaceful and well ordered society instead of the wild west.

Got it.

[darkangel218]

10. How will open carry make your environment less peaceful?

Last edited Wed Oct 31, 2012, 01:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Lol!

[gcomeau]

13. "It's easier to carry your weapon"

Those were your words right?

Let me guess, you subscribe to the absurd fiction that "an armed society is a polite society"? Which would be why the US firearms homicide rate is SIX TIMES higher than right across their northern border? All the politeness because of all the armed people?

[darkangel218]

14. What the hell are you talking about!

Its simply easier for ppl who have a permit to carry their weapons without worrying about having to hide them! That's all

[gcomeau]

17. I'm talking about what I said. Reading comprehension issues?

Easier to carry = carried more.

[darkangel218]

21. Lmao!!

Easier to carry doesn't equal carry more!! If someone gets their CC permit and wants to carry their firearm, having to conceal it won't deter them doing so.

What I meant by easier is more comfortable.

Its not your kind of soup, I get it, but a lot of people people prefer OC over CC.

[gcomeau]

23. Bull

Making something more convenient ALWAYS increases its incidence.

[darkangel218]

27. Incidence of what? the number of criminals deterred from engaging in crimes?

A citizen who lawfully open carries will actually deter a criminal from committing a violent act. Criminals don't OC.

[rl6214]

48. Bull

I conceal carry every day, being allowed to open carry cannot increase the amount of time I carry from every day to more than every day.

[gejohnston]

55. depends on what is customary

I grew up in Wyoming, where there are no restrictions on open carry. Guess what, no one did. I doubt any more than one or two do. It wasn't customary in the "old west" days either.

[PavePusher]

38. And the problem with that is...?

You do realise that criminals are still forbidden to carry weapons, yes?

[holdencaufield]

61. "I'm talking about what I said"

I should hope so, because talking what someone is saying is ventriloquism.

[gejohnston]

30. the murder rate is four times

only one third of Canadian murders are committed with firearms, one third are committed with bare hands. Prior to 1977, Canadian gun laws were on balance as lax if not laxer than ours. Their murder rate was still one fourth ours. States like Vermont and Wyoming has always allowed open carry, and is much safer than much of the US. If you remove the major cities, our murder rate is would be lower than Canada's.

[glacierbay]

11. Wild west huh?

You are aware that in those days the west was much less violent than most eastern cities? And do you think that citizens that already have a CC permit are suddenly going to start making society a less peaceful and less well ordered place?

[gcomeau]

16. Are you completely delusional?

The WORST homicide rates in any individual isolated cities get up around 50 per 100,000 people.

Homicide rates in the 19th century west THAT WE KNOW OF (and it's not like record keeping was up to today's standards, so this is only counting the ones we retained records of) was *way higher* than that.

http://cjrc.osu.edu/researchprojects/hvd/hom%20rates%20west.html

Monterey County CA : 609 per 100,000
Gila County, AZ: 164 per 100,000
CA ranching counties (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara): 140 per 100,000
Denver, Colorado: 105 per 100,000



And I repeat, those are MINIMUM rates based on homicides that actually got reported, recorded, and then the records survived until now. Pull yourself out of fantasy land.

[rDigital]

18. This comes from a study that extrapolates one single murder to equal around 78 murders.

The shenanigans have been seen before. The classic "big lie".

[gcomeau]

20. Ahem.

"They are minimum counts, not estimates of the number of homicides that occurred."

Try actually reading the material before making statements about it.

[rDigital]

24. The extrapolations are bogus. Not much to see there.

In an old west city of 500 residents, if one man kills his wife that one murder is extrapolated to a murders per 100K people of 200.

Your kung fu is weak today.

[gcomeau]

29. THERE AREN'T ANY EXTRAPOLATIONS!!!!

READ. THE. MATERIAL. It is insulting to the intelligence of everyone here to just spout off random statements about it without bothering to even look at it.

[rDigital]

31. I won, get used to it.

You're going to have to learn about the problems of comparing small numbers of people to large numbers of people. Yes, there was much extrapolation at your link.

[gcomeau]

34. Learn math.

You claimed the rates were lower. They were higher. As directly measured. The end. You're wrong. Get over it. You cannot change that one number is bigger than another number.

[rDigital]

40. You're allowed to stomp your feet because your ox is getting gored, just remember

this isn't personal. It's about facts and distortions.

Mr. Roth is anything but objective. He's a strong supporter of draconian gun control laws and his studies are muddied and destroyed by his cherry picking, bias and outright lies.

You should really read more of his works, they're hilarious. He claims the Iran-Contra scandal increased the murder rate in the 80's (not the crack epidemic).

Roth claims that prohibition had NO EFFECT on murder rates. He claims that the economy doesn't effect the murder rate either. To him it's entirely based on how people feel about the government. WOW.

Some of that is covered in this fantastic video.

[gcomeau]

41. Deal. With. The. Numbers.

Now you're just running off on tangents attacking the author instead of the data. Another popular reality deniers tactic.


WHAT extrapolation are you claiming was made? Point to it. Explain your claim.

Until you do that one number is much bigger than the other number and that's the end of the story.

[glacierbay]

43. This statement throws serious doubt on his claim.

The more amazing thing is how he got his data together. When someone asked him about the subjectiveness of determining what is murder, Roth responded that it is extremely subjective: "Tell me what murder rate you want and I can get you that murder rate."

Explain this.

[gcomeau]

64. Since it's an unsubstantiated second hand claim of a statement...

...I feel no need to explain it. You justify believing the guy who said he said that without any documentation or provision of context.

[glacierbay]

65. So you think that Lott is lying about what Roth said?

If he is, then why hasn't Roth come out a repudiated Lott? He's had the opportunity since 2006, but I can't find anything about him saying that Lott was lying or wrong.
And while wr're at it, how about the video posted by rDigital?
I stand by my post. He's about as believable as the now disgraced Michael Bellisiles.

[rDigital]

44. The author claims to get all of his info from newspaper clippings and anecdotes. He firmly places

himself in the same category of shenanery as flat-earthers, anti-choicers and people who deny global warming.

For a study that he himself calls "VERY SUBJECTIVE" credibility is everything. The science isn't science. It's the same type of anecdotal non-sense that the anti-global warming crowd uses.

The extrapolations are how he multiplies based on population. It's ludacris, one murder can be extrapolated into 200 based on the people/100k scale.

The onus is you to provide evidence, which Roth himself can't even provide BTW, I'm just here for the convenient debunk and the resonance.

[gcomeau]

50. For cripes sake

The extrapolations are how he multiplies based on population. It's ludacris, one murder can be extrapolated into 200 based on the people/100k scale.

You have got to be joking.

Let me ask you two questions

1. What is the difference between these *numbers*?

1/2
50,000/100,000
0.5
20/40


2. Do you understand how we express RATES?




It is your statement that is ludicrous. One murder does not get extrapolated to 200. The number expressed is a RATE not an ACCOUNTING of number of killings!

Do you or do you not understand what I am saying?

[glacierbay]

51. Why should we believe anything from him

when he says this?

The more amazing thing is how he got his data together. When someone asked him about the subjectiveness of determining what is murder, Roth responded that it is extremely subjective: "Tell me what murder rate you want and I can get you that murder rate."

He's about as believable as Michael Bellisiles was.

[rDigital]

54. The data sets are so small that the sampling error is taken to an egregious level.

The anecdotal becomes the rule. Junk science at its worst.

Needless to say, one single murder in a town of 500 produces interesting and misleading rates. One murder in a year is the difference between a murderPer100K of 0 and 200. Thats what we like to call a "big lie".
The "rule" vs reality. Attempting to browbeat other posters doesn't change the facts. Not even Garfield the Cat would fall for these shenanigans.

[gejohnston]

56. really?

http://bermudapolice.com/murder_rate.htm
it works both ways.

[glacierbay]

47. Of course we're questioning the author

because, in his own words, his numbers are highly subjective which makes his "facts" not facts, just speculation.

[glacierbay]

42. This is even better than what I found

Thanks, pretty much destroys the other poster's arguments.

[ileus]

36. On the mathematics of homicide rates, risks, and probabilities, see Randolph Roth

Basically: They make numbers whatever they want them to be....

[glacierbay]

39. After reading up on this guy

I equate him with Michael Bellisiles, I find this article about him very telling.

10/12/2006
Randolph Roth, Ohio State University History Professor, Seminar "American Homicide"

I just witnessed a really amazing seminar by Randolph Roth entitled "American Homicide." He has tried to put together homicide data for the United States over the last couple hundred years from newspaper reports and coroner reports. From this he makes claims that murder rates were basically flat from 1914 to 1933 and that prohibition had no impact on murder rates. I really wish that I could post a copy of the figure that Roth presented. The fact that murder rates seem to have risen in individual states after they adopted prohibition doesn't seem to matter, that murder rates fell dramatically as soon as prohibition ended to the month in 1933 doesn't matter. The more amazing thing is how he got his data together. When someone asked him about the subjectiveness of determining what is murder, Roth responded that it is extremely subjective: "Tell me what murder rate you want and I can get you that murder rate." In most fields you want to have some separation between those who put the data together and those who use it. Ideally it is best if those who put the data together have no idea what the data is going to be used for. But Roth who seems to have extremely strong political views has not ensured a separation in data gathering and use. Such separations are expected in most empirical work that I am familiar with. No actual bias necessarily occurs and even unconscious effects might be avoided, but the data has more credibility with others if precautions are taken. For example, those gathering the data should not even know what it is going to be used for.

It was also interesting that he had no desire to try to reconcile the data that he gets with state level and other patterns, such as those just discussed with prohibition.

I would have liked to have seen him use newspaper reports from today to construct the homicide rates that we see. Could he use newspaper reports to accurately construct the changes in crime rates? I doubt it.

I have also rarely seen an academic seminar where someone crops the ends of his figure (e.g., cutting off the crime data in 1992) to exaggerate the differences that he is trying to claim exist.

[sarisataka]

49. A few caveats

From the author's prologue:

If we assume the towns and counties that have been studied to date were representative of similar towns and counties, and that their inhabitants were a fair sample of the inhabitants of similar towns or counties, we can also be confident (because of the laws of probability) that homicide rates were high in towns and counties that have not yet been studied. For instance, we can estimate that there is only a 1-in-200 chance that the homicide rate for all Western cattle towns was less than 97 per 100,000 adults per year, if the five cattle towns studied to date were typical (as there is every reason to believe). The chance that the rate in all cattle towns was low or moderate by the standards of the most of the rest of the United States and other Western nations—10 per 100,000 adults per year or less—is vanishingly small.

Italics in original
He does not provide any indication that these datum meet those standard, beyond a supposition. Indeed the footnotes in the paper tell that many assumptions were made as this 'accurate' data in not complete. While usually supporting the author's conclusion that homicide rate was high, several also note that small changes in the data would drastically reduce several homicide rates.

Secondly:

(per 100,000 persons ages 16 and older per year)

By excluding those under the age of sixteen, we are no longer directly comparing to FBI UCR reports which use 100,000 inhabitants, regardless of age, as their measure. This difference will skew murder rates higher for data that does not take youths into account. The skewing effect is multiplied when you recall that the ratio of children to adults was higher in the nineteenth century compared to the twenty-first.

Third:
The author notes the transient population of the cattle towns and arbitrarily increases the town's population by 150 to account. While this will have a reducing effect on the murder rate, their is no data to show this also accounts for the increased violence that the transient drovers and cowboys brought with. The rowdiness of this group would tend to increase all crime in an otherwise peaceful town similar to the effect gangs have on neighborhoods in modern cities. Similarly mining towns were noted to have higher crime rates for similar reasons.

Finally:
The conclusion (Table 5) has a total rate, which id then broken out into homicides by Native Americans and by Others. As there existed a near state of war between many frontier settlements and the indigenous population, to class all of these deaths as criminal homicides in disingenuous at best.
Further there is no break down of cause of death. We cannot, therefore, conclude what effect, if any, firearms ownership had on the homicide rate. For example:

Homicide Rates in Kansas Cattle Towns1
(per 100,000 persons ages 16 and older per year)


Abilene Ellsworth Wichita Dodge City Caldwell
1870-2 1872-5 2 1871-5 2 1876-85 1879-85


Homicides 7 6 4 17 13

Average adult 737 626 1,502 1,029 1,104
Pop.

Years of 3 4 5 10 7
exposure

Pop. at risk 2,210 2,505 7,510 10,286 7,727



Homicide3 317 239 53 165 168


The 'notorious' Dodge City is in the middle yet had strict gun control. Wichita you could check your gun much like a coat yet is the lowest. So which gun control had more effect- we cannot tell.

If we accept the author's own cautions and do assume these are averages, the only thing that can be drawn from this is that the west had a high adult homicide rate.

[4th law of robotics]

26. BLOOD RUNNING IN THE STREETS!

Ignore the previous unbroken string of demonstrably false predictions, this time it's going to happen.

[darkangel218]

6. There, i fixed the title.

[amuse bouche]

5. Why is that awesome?

Sorry, I don't get it. Yahoos running around with guns 24/7? The thought gives me the creeps

[darkangel218]

7. No, not yahoos. Only those who already have their concealed weapon permit.

So no difference in who carries.

[Eleanors38]

12. These are matters within purview of the states --

In my opinion, states can restrict "concealed" or "open," but not both. They can, of course, recognize both. This is not going to be a big deal.

Curious, NYT doesn't mention that hot bed of gun nuttery, Vermont.

[nevergiveup]

8. Thank the Lord!

I could not sleep last night worrying about this.

[ileus]

15. What's the point, OCer's are just bullied and intimidated into not carrying.

That's why millions are driven underground by folks that think guns kill people or that they're just made to kill with.

We'll keep fighting the good fight...that's all we can do.

[rDigital]

19. In Ohio, they tried to bully me... I got an apology. nt

[darkangel218]

22. :D

Cheers!

[amuse bouche]

25. "fighting the good fight"

Oh my, such a burden for the righteous. Must be like a Christian Crusade or something

[darkangel218]

28. Fighting to defend our Constitutional right to bear arms.

Sorry you disagree with the US Constitution.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

33. You can bare your arms

But it's best to wear a jacket or sweater in cooler weather.

OTOH, in regards to bearing arms...no comment.

[darkangel218]

35. so i made a typo big deal :)

Thanx for pointing it out tho

[glacierbay]

46. I see what you did there.

[rDigital]

45. ROFL! : ) nt

[darkangel218]

52. *sticks tongue* :p

[ProgressiveProfessor]

59. It is also a take off on one of the more disruptive antis who posts here

[ileus]

32. Well the thread in GD was just locked.

[Clames]

53. So many delicate flowers.

So much poutrage...

[AtheistCrusader]

57. Works great in Washington State.

[JoeyT]

58. You'd think it would be awesome news for people that hate guns too.

The people who are carrying guns now are going to be the exact same people that were carrying them before: Now you just don't have to wonder who might have one because you'll be able to see it and avoid that person if you want.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. doesn't this law just give them choice to OC or CC whichever they prefer?

[JoeyT]

62. Probably,

but most of the people with an attitude that would be worrying to someone that didn't like guns are likely going to open carry if that's an option.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

66. ?

I don't understand why or really what you are saying.

Can you clairfy, please.

Thanks.

[NewMoonTherian]

63. As an Oklahoman, I'm thrilled...

that we've finally taken this positive step. It's only a step though. Constitutional carry should be the goal in every single state, federal laws going all the way back to the NFA need to be repealed and rewritten.

In the meantime, though, it's almost here! We're half an hour from restoring a sizable chunk of individual freedom.