Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

How else would you verify it?

 d-usa wrote:
So anyone with a gun permit could in fact be prone to violent or emotional conduct, be an alcohol and drug abuser, and suffer from mental health issues.

Just because I haven't been convicted of abusing alcohol or drugs doesn't mean that I couldn't be carrying drunk right now.

So you were wrong about the self reporting, you are fully aware that there are penalties for providing false information (including lifetime revocation of your permit), as well as penalties for unsafe handling of firearms, and mechanisms for revocation of a permit based on convictions for the above so I would say that there are sufficient safeguards that show permits are not "handed out like candy" as I originally objected to.

If you feel that these safeguards are insufficient then I look forward to details of how you would go about adjusting the method of issuing a firearm permit

 d-usa wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To be fair, a couple of these "doesn't suffer from..." rely on self reporting.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- is not an alcohol/drug abuser
- is not prone to violent or emotionally unstable conduct
- does not suffer from mental health issues

Except the alcohol/drug abuser and violent/unstable conduct isn't, it is defined by convictions with these as a factor

So anyone with a gun permit could in fact be prone to violent or emotional conduct, be an alcohol and drug abuser, and suffer from mental health issues.

Just because I haven't been convicted of abusing alcohol or drugs doesn't mean that I couldn't be carrying drunk right now.

So... guilty before proven innocent then?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So anyone with a gun permit could in fact be prone to violent or emotional conduct, be an alcohol and drug abuser, and suffer from mental health issues.

Just because I haven't been convicted of abusing alcohol or drugs doesn't mean that I couldn't be carrying drunk right now.

So you were wrong about the self reporting, you are fully aware that there are penalties for providing false information (including lifetime revocation of your permit), as well as penalties for unsafe handling of firearms, and mechanisms for revocation of a permit based on convictions for the above so I would say that there are sufficient safeguards that show permits are not "handed out like candy" as I originally objected to.

Negative.

I will stand 100% by my statement that this statement of yours:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Except that they aren't. I live in a gun friendly State (Indiana), anyone with a gun permit;
- is not an alcohol/drug abuser
- is not prone to violent or emotionally unstable conduct
- does not suffer from mental health issues

Is 100% wrong.

Having a permit means you have never been caught and convicted. It doesn't always mean that you lied about it since there are plenty of people that don't think they have an alcohol problem and plenty of people who don't know or believe that they have mental health issues or are violent and unstable. And some people do lie of course.

So the point stands, having a gun permit does not mean those things. I can be an alcohol abusing manipulative narcissist who beats his wife and still get my gun permit if I have not been convicted.

If you feel that these safeguards are insufficient

They are probably as good as they are going to get. I'm just not under any sort of delusion that people are outstanding citizens with no moral flaws or mental illness by virtue of being issued a piece of paper.

then I look forward to details of how you would go about adjusting the method of issuing a firearm permit

The only thing that should be improved, as mentioned after every incident since 2000, is that there needs to be better collaboration between mental health providers and agencies that issue licenses and the national background checks for purchasing guns.

If you were arrested for any of that it should be on the NCIS, but its up to the states to provide that data (I don't like that loophole).

 d-usa wrote:
Is 100% wrong.

Having a permit means you have never been caught and convicted. It doesn't always mean that you lied about it since there are plenty of people that don't think they have an alcohol problem and plenty of people who don't know or believe that they have mental health issues or are violent and unstable. And some people do lie of course.

So the point stands, having a gun permit does not mean those things. I can be an alcohol abusing manipulative narcissist who beats his wife and still get my gun permit if I have not been convicted.

I'm sorry that you decided to split hairs with my argument to try and make your point. It shouldn't need to be said that someone applying for a firearms license through their local police force will be disqualified based on convictions and not hearsay, but evidently for some it is necessary.
It may also interest you that water is typically wet, and that fire is typically hot

To help mitigate your confusion I have updated the post you objected to so strenuously

 d-usa wrote:
They are probably as good as they are going to get. I'm just not under any sort of delusion that people are outstanding citizens with no moral flaws or mental illness by virtue of being issued a piece of paper.

Nor am I, so it's a good thing that I never made that argument

 d-usa wrote:
The only thing that should be improved, as mentioned after every incident since 2000, is that there needs to be better collaboration between mental health providers and agencies that issue licenses and the national background checks for purchasing guns.

But per your above example you could still suffer from mental health issues, never been treated or come to the attention of the police/mental health professionals and obtain a license

And like I said, for those things it also it relies heavily on self reporting.

I never claimed that there is a way to make it so that anybody with those problems doesn't get a license.

I also didn't claim that anybody with a license doesn't have those problems.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
Guns don't kill people, localised organ and tissue damage, blood loss and/or shock do!

According to Deadpool, the correct argument is "guns don't kill people; it's the bullets that do the real work."

 d-usa wrote:
And like I said, for those things it also it relies heavily on self reporting.

Except that drug/alcohol abuser is determined by convictions, and that there is documented evidence for the other two.
"Does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that he or she has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;"
"Has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;
Has not been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled and committed for a ninety day commitment or a regular commitment to a mental health facility;
Has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including not guilty by reason of insanity; guilty but mentally ill; or incompetent to stand trial."

And as already stated knowingly giving a false statement is unlawful, and has repercussions.

 d-usa wrote:
I never claimed that there is a way to make it so that anybody with those problems doesn't get a license.

I also didn't claim that anybody with a license doesn't have those problems.

Good thing I never stated that you made such claims, I just pointed out that your own example would have gotten around your proposed solution.

But keep tilting at those windmills Don Quixote.

Wait a second, Illinois legislature passes conceal carry on July 8th 2013, so about a year ago ago and that retroactively leads to a 20+ year drop in crime in Chicago. Yea that sounds like a stretch, just a little (ok maybe a lot).

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Wait a second, Illinois legislature passes conceal carry on July 8th 2013, so about a year ago ago and that retroactively leads to a 20+ year drop in crime in Chicago. Yea that sounds like a stretch, just a little (ok maybe a lot).

Huh?

 d-usa wrote:
And like I said, for those things it also it relies heavily on self reporting.

Here in PA, its stupid easy to get your CC, but if you get caught lying, or breaking the law while carrying, they don't throw the book at you. They walk over and smash you in the face with it repeatedly. My uncle got caught in a bar carrying, he blew a .04 on a Breathalyzer (.06 is DUI here), mouthed off a bit and ended up in prison for 2 years

 cincydooley wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Wait a second, Illinois legislature passes conceal carry on July 8th 2013, so about a year ago ago and that retroactively leads to a 20+ year drop in crime in Chicago. Yea that sounds like a stretch, just a little (ok maybe a lot).

Huh?

Crime has been a long run decline in Chicago for 20+ years, last years drop probably has nothing do with conceal and carry but just part of longer run trend.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
And like I said, for those things it also it relies heavily on self reporting.

Except that drug/alcohol abuser is determined by convictions, and that there is documented evidence for the other two.

I guess you should edit your original post then.

"Does not have documented evidence which would give rise to a reasonable belief that he or she has a propensity for violent or emotionally unstable conduct;"
"Has not been involuntarily committed, other than a temporary commitment for observation or evaluation, to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority;
Has not been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous or gravely disabled and committed for a ninety day commitment or a regular commitment to a mental health facility;
Has not been found by a court to be mentally incompetent, including not guilty by reason of insanity; guilty but mentally ill; or incompetent to stand trial."

Which is not what you said.

And as already stated knowingly giving a false statement is unlawful, and has repercussions.

Which is also not what you said.

But keep tilting at those windmills Don Quixote.

Keep changing your argument Dreadclaw69.

Or is this another one of those "I know what I said, but it should have been obvious that I totally meant this other thing" arguments that happens quite a bit on here and that I should have known that when you said

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Except that they aren't. I live in a gun friendly State (Indiana), anyone with a gun permit;
- is not an alcohol/drug abuser
- is not prone to violent or emotionally unstable conduct
- does not suffer from mental health issues

You really meant

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Except that they aren't. I live in a gun friendly State (Indiana), anyone with a gun permit;
- is not an has never been convicted of alcohol/drug abuser or lied about having a problem
- is not prone to has never been charged with or convicted of violent or emotionally unstable conduct or lied about being violent or emotionally unstable
- does not suffer from has never been committed for or treated for mental health issues or lied about having mental health problems

FFS, I'm not making up what you said. It's right there in your post and in every single quote. If you want to say "Sorry, that's not what I meant" then just put on your big boy pants and say it. I certainly said "sorry, I was wrong" often enough. But don't say "people with a carry license don't have alcohol problems" and then turn around and say "obviously I said that they have never been convicted of alcohol problems" and "it's against the law to lie about that sort of thing" as if that mitigates the fact that people can be drunks and get a license and that your original statement was wrong.

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Wait a second, Illinois legislature passes conceal carry on July 8th 2013, so about a year ago ago and that retroactively leads to a 20+ year drop in crime in Chicago. Yea that sounds like a stretch, just a little (ok maybe a lot).

Huh?

Crime has been a long run decline in Chicago for 20+ years, last years drop probably has nothing do with conceal and carry but just part of longer run trend.

I would look at freakeconomics and some other correlational studies. I mean there is a likely cause that there was a drop of crime because of either school being more widely accessible or that there are more aboritions.

We don't know how or why currently. We can only think and correlate. In the future we might be able to tell. Yeah this happened because B happened.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Wait a second, Illinois legislature passes conceal carry on July 8th 2013, so about a year ago ago and that retroactively leads to a 20+ year drop in crime in Chicago. Yea that sounds like a stretch, just a little (ok maybe a lot).

Huh?

Crime has been a long run decline in Chicago for 20+ years, last years drop probably has nothing do with conceal and carry but just part of longer run trend.

I would look at freakeconomics and some other correlational studies. I mean there is a likely cause that there was a drop of crime because of either school being more widely accessible or that there are more aboritions.

We don't know how or why currently. We can only think and correlate. In the future we might be able to tell. Yeah this happened because B happened.

A few years a go, cops began cracking down hard on inner city gangs in Chicago. They did a damn good job, I'd say. But the gangs are all out in the burbs, now. Waukegan, North Chicago, etc.

 d-usa wrote:
FFS, I'm not making up what you said. It's right there in your post and in every single quote. If you want to say "Sorry, that's not what I meant" then just put on your big boy pants and say it. I certainly said "sorry, I was wrong" often enough. But don't say "people with a carry license don't have alcohol problems" and then turn around and say "obviously I said that they have never been convicted of alcohol problems" and "it's against the law to lie about that sort of thing" as if that mitigates the fact that people can be drunks and get a license and that your original statement was wrong.

How about you pick up the dummy you spat out, pick up all the toys you threw out of your pram and stop trying to find fault for the sake of finding fault. If you want to nit pick fine, you can go find someone else to indulge you. I'll say sorry when I'm wrong. I refuse to say sorry to someone who insists on splitting hairs and ignoring the plain and ordinary meanings of words. YMMV.


For someone who whined about OT raising his blood pressure and threatening to post less you seem to be making a lot of effort to find fault with things for the purpose of posting more, and starting arguments.

 kronk wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Blood Hawk wrote:
Wait a second, Illinois legislature passes conceal carry on July 8th 2013, so about a year ago ago and that retroactively leads to a 20+ year drop in crime in Chicago. Yea that sounds like a stretch, just a little (ok maybe a lot).

Huh?

Crime has been a long run decline in Chicago for 20+ years, last years drop probably has nothing do with conceal and carry but just part of longer run trend.

I would look at freakeconomics and some other correlational studies. I mean there is a likely cause that there was a drop of crime because of either school being more widely accessible or that there are more aboritions.

We don't know how or why currently. We can only think and correlate. In the future we might be able to tell. Yeah this happened because B happened.

A few years a go, cops began cracking down hard on inner city gangs in Chicago. They did a damn good job, I'd say. But the gangs are all out in the burbs, now. Waukegan, North Chicago, etc.

hahaha yeah... sure they did...
Crime in chicago because of cops hahaha. No. I think we can thank the FBI for doing that and their special task forces. The crime rate is not down because of the police force. It is because of several factors. That not being having better police forces.
http://chicagoist.com/2014/08/14/the_fbi_to_fight_chicago_gang_scour.php
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-gang-members-charged-with-racketeering-conspiracy-20140822-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-pizza-hut-four-shot-20140826-story.html
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/chicago/fbi-hit-chicago-streets-combat-gangs-sneed-scoop/wed-08132014-529pm
http://www.rrstar.com/article/20140807/News/140809458
http://www.suntimes.com/news/mitchell/29403827-452/another-senseless-child-slaying-in-chicago.html

Thats from this month.

Yeah. That cop was wrong.

South Chicago is still quite a bad place to be.

 Smacks wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Do you have any data to back up this claim that more concealed carry permits leads to more homicide?

I made no such claim. The issue is not concealed carry, it's guns in general. You have too many guns, and you think the answer is more guns. Here's some data for you.

The UK: hand guns have been illegal for 18 years. Number of spree killings in the past 18 years = 1 (carried out with a shotgun).

The USA: hands out gun permits like candy...

Need I go on? I can think of three spree killings that I read about this year alone. I remember looking at the Wikipedia page for spree killings, and the USA had to have its own page separate from the rest of the world because there was so many. I'm happy for you that you got more guns to play with, maybe it's just the best you can make of a bad situation. But it IS a bad situation. Throwing more guns into the mix isn't ever going to solve it.

Your statement implied that you think that everyone concealing a hand gun would lead to more homicide because any nutter with a bone to pick with you has a gun. But here is something I think does need saying.

The USA=/=The UK.

Got that? We have our own unique issues that lead to the gun violence in the states. We have a flourishing drug trade, disenfranchisement of minorities and so on. These issues may be present in the UK but they are more pronounced here. Not only that, but the solution to gun violence over there won't work here. Just outlawing them won't solve gun violence. It's sort of a "Once the genie is out of the bottle issue". We need a different solution if we really want to cut down on the shootings. Perhaps one outside of gun control.

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Do you have any data to back up this claim that more concealed carry permits leads to more homicide?

I made no such claim. The issue is not concealed carry, it's guns in general. You have too many guns, and you think the answer is more guns. Here's some data for you.

The UK: hand guns have been illegal for 18 years. Number of spree killings in the past 18 years = 1 (carried out with a shotgun).

The USA: hands out gun permits like candy...

Need I go on? I can think of three spree killings that I read about this year alone. I remember looking at the Wikipedia page for spree killings, and the USA had to have its own page separate from the rest of the world because there was so many. I'm happy for you that you got more guns to play with, maybe it's just the best you can make of a bad situation. But it IS a bad situation. Throwing more guns into the mix isn't ever going to solve it.

Your statement implied that you think that everyone concealing a hand gun would lead to more homicide because any nutter with a bone to pick with you has a gun. But here is something I think does need saying.

The USA=/=The UK.

Got that? We have our own unique issues that lead to the gun violence in the states. We have a flourishing drug trade, disenfranchisement of minorities and so on. These issues may be present in the UK but they are more pronounced here. Not only that, but the solution to gun violence over there won't work here. Just outlawing them won't solve gun violence. It's sort of a "Once the genie is out of the bottle issue". We need a different solution if we really want to cut down on the shootings. Perhaps one outside of gun control.

The UK also suffered during World War 2, so they were more than willing to part with handguns. They are sick of violence.

While the united states......

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
FFS, I'm not making up what you said. It's right there in your post and in every single quote. If you want to say "Sorry, that's not what I meant" then just put on your big boy pants and say it. I certainly said "sorry, I was wrong" often enough. But don't say "people with a carry license don't have alcohol problems" and then turn around and say "obviously I said that they have never been convicted of alcohol problems" and "it's against the law to lie about that sort of thing" as if that mitigates the fact that people can be drunks and get a license and that your original statement was wrong.

How about you pick up the dummy you spat out, pick up all the toys you threw out of your pram and stop trying to find fault for the sake of finding fault. If you want to nit pick fine, you can go find someone else to indulge you. I'll say sorry when I'm wrong. I refuse to say sorry to someone who insists on splitting hairs and ignoring the plain and ordinary meanings of words. YMMV.

You: "Having a license means you don't have an alcohol problem."
Me: "That's not what it means"
You: "Yes. It means that you have not been convicted of having an alcohol problem and it's against the law to lie about that".
Me: "That's not what you said. You said it means you don't have a problem. You didn't say that it means you were never convicted."
You" Stop having a temper tantrum because I meant something completely different from what I wrote!"

How is "You said license = no problem and not license = never been caught" splitting hairs?

Sorry you don't have the credibility to either stand behind what you wrote or admit when you are wrong.

 d-usa wrote:
You: "Having a license means you don't have an alcohol problem."
Me: "That's not what it means"
You: "Yes. It means that you have not been convicted of having an alcohol problem and it's against the law to lie about that".
Me: "That's not what you said. You said it means you don't have a problem. You didn't say that it means you were never convicted."
You" Stop having a temper tantrum because I meant something completely different from what I wrote!"

How is "You said license = no problem and not license = never been caught" splitting hairs?

Sorry you don't have the credibility to either stand behind what you wrote or admit when you are wrong.

What I said was; "is not an alcohol/drug abuser", not alcohol problem. If you're going to repeat my argument at least get it right.

There was a reason why I chose that particular phrase. What "alcohol abuser" means is;

"Alcohol abuser"
Sec. 2. "Alcohol abuser" means an individual who has had two (2) or more alcohol related offenses, any one (1) of which resulted in conviction by a court or treatment in an alcohol abuse facility within three (3) years prior to the date of the application.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar47/ch1.html

So an alcohol abuser is someone who was actually caught and convicted of an alcohol related offence. Guess that means I was right in what I wrote and what I meant. The problem lay with your understanding.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You: "Having a license means you don't have an alcohol problem."
Me: "That's not what it means"
You: "Yes. It means that you have not been convicted of having an alcohol problem and it's against the law to lie about that".
Me: "That's not what you said. You said it means you don't have a problem. You didn't say that it means you were never convicted."
You" Stop having a temper tantrum because I meant something completely different from what I wrote!"

How is "You said license = no problem and not license = never been caught" splitting hairs?

Sorry you don't have the credibility to either stand behind what you wrote or admit when you are wrong.

What I said was; "is not an alcohol/drug abuser", not alcohol problem. If you're going to repeat my argument at least get it right.

There was a reason why I chose that particular phrase. What "alcohol abuser" means is;

"Alcohol abuser"
Sec. 2. "Alcohol abuser" means an individual who has had two (2) or more alcohol related offenses, any one (1) of which resulted in conviction by a court or treatment in an alcohol abuse facility within three (3) years prior to the date of the application.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar47/ch1.html

So an alcohol abuser is someone who was actually caught and convicted of an alcohol related offence. Guess that means I was right in what I wrote and what I meant. The problem lay with your understanding.

The I will cede that you were right with the legal definition, which could have also been solved by posting it in your first reply.

When I read "alcohol or drug abuser" I don't think about the IN legal definition, I think about the common every day usage of "person that abuses alcohol or drugs". So that's what I was referring to in my reply.

So I was wrong in my interpretation of what you meant by "alcohol abuser" (aka: someone convicted) because I understood you to mean the generic "somebody that abuses drugs".

hey guys what's going on here

 d-usa wrote:
The I will cede that you were right with the legal definition, which could have also been solved by posting it in your first reply.

So I was wrong in my interpretation of what you meant by "alcohol abuser" (aka: someone convicted) because I understood you to mean the generic "somebody that abuses drugs".

Normally when myself and another user reach this point where we realize one of us got the wrong end of the stick I'm prepared to shrug it off and accept that things happen. But in this case you were twisting my words, misquoting me (things you love to point out when others do to you), stomping your feet, telling me to "put on your big boy pants and say" sorry, yet you're unwilling to extend the same courtesy in return?

 d-usa wrote:
When I read "alcohol or drug abuser" I don't think about the IN legal definition, I think about the common every day usage of "person that abuses alcohol or drugs". So that's what I was referring to in my reply.

There was a clue in my post that I was talking specifically about Indiana; http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/612178.page#7149331

Except that they aren't. I live in a gun friendly State (Indiana), anyone with a gun permit;

You quoted that particular line three times, you could have tried reading it once and not putting your effort into finding things to argue over and mis-reading me

 sebster wrote:

 Sasori wrote:
Quick question, was that Obama quote taken out of Context?

I don't remember him saying that, and it seems like something that would be taken out of context.. If not, wow.

A guy who was a professor at the same time as Obama at University of Chicago claims Obama said. That guy was John Lott, who is a full time gun rights lobbyist. And the quote is contradicted by Obama's statements that are actually on the record. So the amount of believability in that quote is basically completely fething zero.

That it would be spread around guns rights activists anyway shouldn't come as any great surprise. There is a basic disinterest in reality within the community. Not that anti-gun groups are much better... leading to the really woeful state of debate you get in the issue.

I too can find no citation to indicate he actually ever said that, and the one guy who claims he did has a a pretty... morally flexible history.

Anyway, murders have been sliding in Chicago for a long time well before concealed carry was permitted.



I'm open to the idea concealed carry reduces crime but this seems inadequate to support the premise. I don't really know how to prove it or disprove it, it's just my gut instinct.

 Ouze wrote:
hey guys what's going on here

Cops have run the gangs out of Chicago but the Feds and CCW guys are claiming credit.

Support the men in blue!

But not the Dallas Cowboys. feth those guys!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You quoted that particular line three times, you could have tried reading it once and not putting your effort into finding things to argue over and mis-reading me

So you won't take the "I'm sorry. I didn't realize you were working of a legal definition, I was assuming you were using the every-day version" apology then?

 kronk wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
hey guys what's going on here

Cops have run the gangs out of Chicago but the Feds and CCW guys are claiming credit.

Support the men in blue!

But not the Dallas Cowboys. feth those guys!

Did they chase them into Indiana?

 kronk wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
hey guys what's going on here

Cops have run the gangs out of Chicago but the Feds and CCW guys are claiming credit.

Support the men in blue!

But not the Dallas Cowboys. feth those guys!

I'm afraid your Texas passport has been...revoked.