Defending our rights in 2009

Hcidem · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Wouldn't leaving the references to others states' laws rationalize the request? I understand the feelings here of not needing to, but we are dealing with people who are not neccessarily of the same mindset.

I think any positive data which indicates no statistically-proven advantage to a particular part of a statute would be helpful. Along with this (presumably out-of-state) data, the supporting statutes (or lack thereof) would be necessary to drive home our point on any legislation in question.

However, as a general approach, I agree that out-of-state statutes should be secondary to an approach of eliminating laws which restrict the rights and liberties of Michigan citizens.

Edit: BTW, Taurus850CIA...have you reviewed the position paper written by EdifyGuy? Can you offer any comments?

Taurus850CIA · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Hcidem wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Wouldn't leaving the references to others states' laws rationalize the request? I understand the feelings here of not needing to, but we are dealing with people who are not neccessarily of the same mindset.

Click to expand...

I think any positive data which indicates no statistically-proven advantage to a particular part of a statute would be helpful. Along with this (presumably out-of-state) data, the supporting statutes (or lack thereof) would be necessary to drive home our point on any legislation in question.

However, as a general approach, I agree that out-of-state statutes should be secondary to an approach of eliminating laws which restrict the rights and liberties of Michigan citizens.

Edit: BTW, Taurus850CIA...have you reviewed the position paper written by EdifyGuy? Can you offer any comments?

EdifyGuys revision of Venators paper is what my comment was directed toward. Beyond the exclusion of the references, it looks good.

I certainly would rather see an elimination of restrictive laws as opposed to trading for another states' statute.

Taurus850CIA · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

"Repeal of all state laws mandating firearm-free zones. So-called “gun-free zones” are less safe than areas in which firearms may lawfully be carried, and too often become the sites of mass killings."

I just noticed that this rationalization was left while the other ones were removed.

ETA: I'm going to drop out of this conversation for now. My Blood-Caffeine level is way too low, and I consider that a handicap.

EdifyGuy · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Venator wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

Wouldn't leaving the references to others states' laws rationalize the request? I understand the feelings here of not needing to, but we are dealing with people who are not neccessarily of the same mindset.

Click to expand...

I felt the other states were important that's why I included them. This was done in regards to the CC law as more and more states allowed CC people realized that there wasn't a problem.

I included the other state to relay the message that many states allow these activities without incident. As for statistics, if they need them we can provide them. The point of including the other states is that if they were having serious problems with these less restrictivegun laws they would have addressed them.

Legislators use other state's laws all the time. They can argue that Michigan is the only state that outlaws whatever, or that 48 states have similar laws why can't Michigan. You get the idea.

That's the reason for including them, yes, but the problem is that as presented in your draft, that point was not made. The numbers were simply lobbed out there with no concurring information to make them meaningful. Perhaps it could be reworded more meaningfully, such as "23 states do not require X, including those with the lowest rate of x crime." That type of statement would be meaningful and relevant, not just simple trivia information.

Any ideas on phraseology to make those statistics meaningful? (it should be reasonably verifiable.....)

EdifyGuy · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

"Repeal of all state laws mandating firearm-free zones. So-called “gun-free zones” are less safe than areas in which firearms may lawfully be carried, and too often become the sites of mass killings."

I just noticed that this rationalization was left while the other ones were removed.

ETA: I'm going to drop out of this conversation for now. My Blood-Caffeine level is way too low, and I consider that a handicap.

Yes, because of the reason I removed the other 2, which I mentioned in the post above. The other two were not really rationalizations, but merely meaningless statistics; the majority don't do the one thing we're asking to eliminate, but a slim majority do the other thing we'd like to see ended. Unless we can connect those statistics to something relevant, such as rates of related crimes, they aren't helpful. But if we can make them relevant, then I am all for including them.

Does that make sense?

EDIT: I won't pick a fight over it anyway; if the consensus is to include them, even without an explanation, I won't fight that. I just believe that those facts should be used more effectively if we're going to use them.

Taurus850CIA · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

I can see your point in needing to clarify. It will take some research to come up with those numbers, and some thought to make it read properly. Maybe use this as a cover letter for the research that rationalizes the requests? If so, you may be correct in leaving just the simple statements themselves. All three requests should read the same, either way. I have a hard time with this sort of research, but I'll see what I can come up with.

nick7871 · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I can see your point in needing to clarify. It will take some research to come up with those numbers, and some thought to make it read properly. Maybe use this as a cover letter for the research that rationalizes the requests? If so, you may be correct in leaving just the simple statements themselves. All three requests should read the same, either way. I have a hard time with this sort of research, but I'll see what I can come up with.

That's the reason for including them, yes, but the problem is that as presented in your draft, that point was not made. The numbers were simply lobbed out there with no concurring information to make them meaningful. Perhaps it could be reworded more meaningfully, such as "23 states do not require X, including those with the lowest rate of x crime." That type of statement would be meaningful and relevant, not just simple trivia information.

Any ideas on phraseology to make those statistics meaningful? (it should be reasonably verifiable.....)

I will take on the research as well with you, just let me know what stateswestart with or the ones youwould likeme to research and I will forward the info to whom ever will beputtingit inwriting or verifying it.

EdifyGuy · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I can see your point in needing to clarify. It will take some research to come up with those numbers, and some thought to make it read properly. Maybe use this as a cover letter for the research that rationalizes the requests? If so, you may be correct in leaving just the simple statements themselves. All three requests should read the same, either way. I have a hard time with this sort of research, but I'll see what I can come up with.

Agreed. I should have noticed the inconsistency. But, "all bugs are obvious with enough eyes," right?

I'll see if I can't find some kind of charts showing per-capita gun crimes listed by state in ascending order. If one of you beats me to it, post a link. That's really what we need to back those state statistics up.

Here's an example of how one might read, if the numbers bear this out (which they should

)

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by handguns during traffic stops as in states which do not allow such carry.

That's a DUH, really, because the kind of people that would shoot a cop aren't about to carry a gun in plain sight; they'll hide it. Criminals don't care what the law says.....that's why they're called CRIMINALS!
[/rant=off]

EDIT: Formatting

Taurus850CIA · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

I've started a topic fishing for info. I'm sure we'll get some responses.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=20349&forum_id=65

nick7871 · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

EdifyGuy wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I can see your point in needing to clarify. It will take some research to come up with those numbers, and some thought to make it read properly. Maybe use this as a cover letter for the research that rationalizes the requests? If so, you may be correct in leaving just the simple statements themselves. All three requests should read the same, either way. I have a hard time with this sort of research, but I'll see what I can come up with.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I should have noticed the inconsistency. But, "all bugs are obvious with enough eyes," right?

I'll see if I can't find some kind of charts showing per-capita gun crimes listed by state in ascending order. If one of you beats me to it, post a link. That's really what we need to back those state statistics up.

Here's an example of how one might read, if the numbers bear this out (which they should )

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by handguns during traffic stops as in states which do not allow such carry.

That's a DUH, really, because the kind of people that would shoot a cop aren't about to carry a gun in plain sight; they'll hide it. Criminals don't care what the law says.....that's why they're called CRIMINALS!
[/rant=off]

EDIT: Formatting

Or not :question:

Taurus850CIA · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Welcome to OCDO, Nick. I sent you a PM.

EdifyGuy · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I've started a topic fishing for info. I'm sure we'll get some responses.
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=20349&forum_id=65

I'm not sure that's what we need most urgently, but it will be interesting to see what it turns up. I think that the simple reference to the constant headlines about mass shootings in "gun-free zones" is enough there. We need info more urgently about the other 2.5 requests, which presently have either no rationalization at all, or a dead-end statistic (depending on which version we're looking at.)

How do you like my sample for the vehicle carry rationalization? I think we could back it up, but we need to have the backup in place before we make the statement. That's only good scholarly practice.

Taurus850CIA · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

I'll edit to add info concerning the others. My mind sets itself in motion, and it goes like a bulldozer...

EdifyGuy · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

nick7871 wrote:

EdifyGuy wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I can see your point in needing to clarify. It will take some research to come up with those numbers, and some thought to make it read properly. Maybe use this as a cover letter for the research that rationalizes the requests? If so, you may be correct in leaving just the simple statements themselves. All three requests should read the same, either way. I have a hard time with this sort of research, but I'll see what I can come up with.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I should have noticed the inconsistency. But, "all bugs are obvious with enough eyes," right?

I'll see if I can't find some kind of charts showing per-capita gun crimes listed by state in ascending order. If one of you beats me to it, post a link. That's really what we need to back those state statistics up.

Here's an example of how one might read, if the numbers bear this out (which they should )

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by handguns during traffic stops as in states which do not allow such carry.

That's a DUH, really, because the kind of people that would shoot a cop aren't about to carry a gun in plain sight; they'll hide it. Criminals don't care what the law says.....that's why they're called CRIMINALS!
[/rant=off]

EDIT: Formatting

Click to expand...

Or not :question:

Was something I said unclear? I'll quote my 11th-grade chemistry teacher, Dan Carpenter: "If you don't understand something, raise your hand and I'll be happy to explain it more, but I need a more specific question than 'huh?!' "

Gosirr · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

EdifyGuy wrote:

Does anybody have any other thoughts on what should/should not be in this letter?

It looks great. I think the list of what we want to accomplish looks short. Mabe we shouldThink Bigger. More objectives.Just my .02

EdifyGuy · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Gosirr wrote:

EdifyGuy wrote:

Does anybody have any other thoughts on what should/should not be in this letter?

Click to expand...

It looks great. I think the list of what we want to accomplish looks short. Mabe we shouldThink Bigger. More objectives.Just my .02

I agree and disagree. I think that for the present purpose we need to stick to a manageable list of objectives, since we are certainly not going to be presenting the only legislation being considered this session. We don't want to drown the legislators with a flood of firearms-related bill so vast that there isn't sufficient session time to properly (formally) consider it all.

I agree that ultimately there are other things that need to be addressed as well, but I think we had better keep our objectives specific for now, and build on successes. There will be future sessions to address other issues, and I think that the four chief grievances of MI handgun owners are addressed here, and certainly the four main grievances I read posts about in the forums.

Thoughts? That's just my opinion, it's not inspired.....

EDIT: There's a reason that it says "During this legislative session," 'cuz we'll be back next time, and the next, and the next, until it's all fixed!

nick7871 · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

EdifyGuy wrote:

nick7871 wrote:

EdifyGuy wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I can see your point in needing to clarify. It will take some research to come up with those numbers, and some thought to make it read properly. Maybe use this as a cover letter for the research that rationalizes the requests? If so, you may be correct in leaving just the simple statements themselves. All three requests should read the same, either way. I have a hard time with this sort of research, but I'll see what I can come up with.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I should have noticed the inconsistency. But, "all bugs are obvious with enough eyes," right?

I'll see if I can't find some kind of charts showing per-capita gun crimes listed by state in ascending order. If one of you beats me to it, post a link. That's really what we need to back those state statistics up.

Here's an example of how one might read, if the numbers bear this out (which they should )

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by handguns during traffic stops as in states which do not allow such carry.

That's a DUH, really, because the kind of people that would shoot a cop aren't about to carry a gun in plain sight; they'll hide it. Criminals don't care what the law says.....that's why they're called CRIMINALS!
[/rant=off]

EDIT: Formatting

Click to expand...

Or not :question:

Click to expand...

Was something I said unclear? I'll quote my 11th-grade chemistry teacher, Dan Carpenter: "If you don't understand something, raise your hand and I'll be happy to explain it more, but I need a more specific question than 'huh?!' "

Rhetorical questions encourage the listener to reflect on what the implied answer to the question must be. When a speaker states, "How much longer must our people endure this injustice?" or "How many times do I have to tell you to stop walking into the house with mud on your shoes?"; no formal answer is expected. Rather, it is a device used by the speaker to assert or deny something.

conservative85 · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

EdifyGuy wrote:

Taurus850CIA wrote:

I can see your point in needing to clarify. It will take some research to come up with those numbers, and some thought to make it read properly. Maybe use this as a cover letter for the research that rationalizes the requests? If so, you may be correct in leaving just the simple statements themselves. All three requests should read the same, either way. I have a hard time with this sort of research, but I'll see what I can come up with.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I should have noticed the inconsistency. But, "all bugs are obvious with enough eyes," right?

I'll see if I can't find some kind of charts showing per-capita gun crimes listed by state in ascending order. If one of you beats me to it, post a link. That's really what we need to back those state statistics up.

Here's an example of how one might read, if the numbers bear this out (which they should )

23 states permit the unconcealed carry of loaded handguns in vehicles, and these states generally have similar incidence of law enforcement officers being harmed by handguns during traffic stops as in states which do not allow such carry.

That's a DUH, really, because the kind of people that would shoot a cop aren't about to carry a gun in plain sight; they'll hide it. Criminals don't care what the law says.....that's why they're called CRIMINALS!
[/rant=off]

EDIT: Formatting

If your interested in a good research and statistical read to help collaborate your numbers maybe you should check out John lott's book More guns less crime, it was a 20 year research study and it is good., he is not even pro-gun but he said that he had to show the flagrant disregard for level and fair research studies.

Venator · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

I didn't realize this was going to be a dissertation on the compare and contrast of gun laws across the country. Legislators have staff that can research and present statistic as they are needed. The idea of the letter was to introduce in a broad and concise manner what we would like the legislators to work towards.

While I feel that MOC is pro gun and could be involved in some way with restoring our firearm rights the General goal of this group is to inform people about the legality of OPEN CARRY. We seem to be drifting off course.

There are at least two pro-gun organizations in Michigan (MGO and MCRGO's being the major forces)that have more members, more money and more influence than a cyberspace forum such as MOC.

I feel we are deviating from our primary goals. Once we have achieved those we can expand into other pro-gun battles.

I don't want to discourage anyone from pursuing these other goals but perhaps a letter with an MOC letterhead may not be appropriate at this time. I'm interested in hearing what others members think.

conservative85 · Jan 7, 2009

imported post

Venator wrote:

I didn't realize this was going to be a dissertation on the compare and contrast of gun laws across the country. Legislators have staff that can research and present statistic as they are needed. The idea of the letter was to introduce in a broad and concise manner what we would like the legislators to work towards.

While I feel that MOC is pro gun and could be involved in some way with restoring our firearm rights the General goal of this group is to inform people about the legality of OPEN CARRY. We seem to be drifting off course.

There are at least two pro-gun organizations in Michigan (MGO and MCRGO's being the major forces)that have more members, more money and more influence than a cyberspace forum such as MOC.

I feel we are deviating from our primary goals. Once we have achieved those we can expand into other pro-gun battles.

I don't want to discourage anyone from pursuing these other goals but perhaps a letter with an MOC letterhead may not be appropriate at this time. I'm interested in hearing what others members think.

I agree!:celebrate I am all for expanding the awareness of Open Carry. Just as we discussed at Rose's. (Legitimacy)

Defending our rights in 2009

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter

Regular Member