An Iowa House member hopes to force action Wednesday on legislation to do away with the requirement that Iowans get a permit from their sheriff to carry a weapon.
Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, plans to use a procedural move to bring House File 2284 out of the Judiciary Committee to the House floor. The bill was never acted on by the committee and without representatives voting to suspend their rules it is not eligible for debate.
HF 2284 strikes a portion of the Iowa Code that requires a person to have a valid permit in order to carry certain weapons, such as handguns.
“We don’t think you should have to beg the government to get a permit to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights,” Shaw said Tuesday.
Yeah, you know, the way we all have to beg the government for permission to drive cars.
I think they should call this the Jared Loughner Bill. He's the most famous Constitutional Carrier.
Well Mike, lets talk about another state with Constitutional carry, namely Vermont. Vermont is ranked 44th in the nation and suffers under a truly horrendous homicice rate of 1.3/100k and a staggering violent crime rate of 104/100k.
ReplyDeleteHowever California, which the Brady Campaign has ranked first in proper gun laws have a homicide rate of a mere 5.0/100k and a violent crime rate of a paltry violent crime rate of 249/100k.
Iowa is suffering almost as badly as Vermont with a homicide rate of 1.5/100k and a violent crime rate of 202/100k.
I can't believe you want to rehash this old argument.
DeleteGuns aren't the only factor in the homicide and violent crime rates. Vermont doesn't have cities like Los Angeles and Oakland which contain huge neighborhoods rife with poverty and crime and all the attendant factors that contribute to the higher rates.
If I argued that guns and gun availability were the only factors involved in crime rates, then your Vermont question would have teeth. But, I don't and it doesn't.
"Vermont doesn't have cities like Los Angeles and Oakland which contain huge neighborhoods rife with poverty and crime and all the attendant factors that contribute to the higher rates."
DeleteYou are correct, Vermont doesn't have those demographic factors, however, you brought up Arizona and Loughner while in truth Iowa likely comes closer to Vermont in demographics than Arizona. Also keep in mind that your argument that gun laws in states like Arizona contribute to violent crime issues can also be answered with the same argument you just gave me about California.
Exactly, Sarge. Mike is always quick to blame guns when it's a data point in his favor. What we see is that these other factors are so big compared to "gun availability" that it can't even be measured as an affect on violence. But Mike continually beats the drum anyway.
Delete"these other factors are so big compared to "gun availability""
DeleteIt's good to see you abandoning your beloved math and venturing into the realm of logically thinking about the thing and making bold statements based on your mental theory. I do happen to disagree with your idea of the weight of gun availability in the overall picture. But at least now we're having a discussion rather than "my stats are better than your stats."
I don't understand what you're saying. How is my statement abandoning what I've said in the past? How is it not in line with the math I've showed where there is no correlation between gun laws and violence?
DeleteYou're being disingenuous. You know exactly what I mean.
DeleteHow would you put math to the determination of "these other factors are so big compared to "gun availability"? "
"Gun availability" is undetectable by the numbers. There is no correlation. Therefore the factors that affect rates of violence would be categorized under "other" (not guns).
DeleteWhaaat? The first part of your tricky explanation should suffice. Gun availability is undetectable, therefore you cannot use math to say what you said.
Delete"What we see is that these other factors are so big compared to "gun availability" that it can't even be measured as an affect on violence. "
How can you measure the "other factors" and compare them to "gun availability?" You can't. You have to use logical thinking and leave the math out of it.
Other factors ARE measurable, Mike. Like poverty rates. There is a solid correlation of 0.62 between a state's poverty rate and murder rate.
DeleteStats involves judging probabilities based on measurable factors. That's why we can look at correlations between other, measurable factors, but can't judge anything by "gun availability."
DeleteAs for your claimed "logic," your syllogisms are based on too many unproven given statements and fallacious arguments to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you and accept those givens.
So, what are the other factors that are measurable, besides poverty? And how can you there is no correlation between gun availability and rates of violence? Just because you can't measure it, isn't it possible to admit that it is a factor and that there is a correlation.
DeleteMike: “So, what are the other factors that are measurable, besides poverty?”
DeleteWeather does. Crime goes down when there are cold winters. I am sure drug use has a pretty strong correlation, as does race. I don’t have a data source for those, but they are well known to correlate. I just entered the poverty rates in my correlation spreadsheet to give you the number of 0.62, but it’s pretty well known they would be correlated, it’s just a matter of how much. Other than guns and poverty rates, the only other data I have in my table is education (in the form of SERI scores for science and math). That had a moderate correlation. That’s in there because you did a post on it a few months back.
Mike: “Just because you can't measure it, isn't it possible to admit that it is a factor and that there is a correlation.”
No, a correlation by definition is something that you can measure. As I said before it is objective math. You can’t question the math if you don’t like the answer, you can only question the accuracy of the data. But if you say “it’s there, we just can measure it”, how is that any different than not being there? But to give you some perspective, the correlation between Brady scores and murder rates is -0.06. You need to be +-0.20 before you can start calling it a statistically significant “weak” correlation, and that’s with larger sample sizes than 50. Here’s a rough guide:
http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libarts/polsci/statistics.html
So you’re way off. The correlation is about as close to zero as you are going to see.
TS, I really think you're more of a bullshit artist than a math guru. You say you CAN measure things like future weather predictions and drug use but not gun availability???
DeleteWhat you do is present pseudo-math and twisted statistical analysis to give credibility to your extreme gun-rights positions. Carry on, by all means, but don't expect to convince me.
Sorry, forgot the cite of my data,
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf
http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/SCGLM-Final10-spreads-points.pdf
Yeah, you know, the way we all have to beg the government for permission to drive cars.
ReplyDeleteYou make a good argument, Mikeb. I will support your movement to lift the requirement for government permission slips for driving.
As for Loughner--how much do you think the outcome in Tucson would have changed, if Arizona had still limited citizens to unconstitutional carry? Hell, how about restrictive "may issue"? Or how about a total ban on concealed carry?
Would that have made the carnage more tolerable?
In the gun control view, mass shooters would ask permission to carry their guns, and when that permission is denied, they'd all just stay at home and be good little boys.
DeleteKurt, you're asking those loaded questions again. No one, least of all me, thinks those laws would have prevented Loughner from doing what he did. But, you knew that and asked me that trick question anyway. That's pretty dishonest of you.
DeleteMy "loaded question" (apparently defined as "question for which Mikeb has no adequate answer") was in response to you bringing up Loughner as an indictment of Constitutional carry.
DeleteSo my next "loaded question": Do you believe that Constitutional carry had anything to do with Loughner's atrocity, or not? If not, who is being "dishonest," again?
We'll never know if Loughner would have been deterred by stricter gun laws in Arizona. I tend to agree that he probably wouldn't have, but he was practicing constitutional carry and he is an example of how that policy makes us less safe, especially since none of the others who were carrying that day made their presence known - except the one who couldn't do anything about it.
DeleteIf it "probably" (only 99.99999% likely) wouldn't have made a difference, then that policy "probably" (only 99.99999% likely) did nothing to make "us" less safe.
DeleteAh, continuing with the cannard about armed people in the crowd huh?
DeleteYou're the one perpetuating a "canard." At an outdoor public rally in ARIZONA, you really believe only one person had a gun with him?
DeleteFor one thing, it would make sense you'd find fewer carriers at a Democratic rally and more at a Republican one.
DeleteFor another thing, I'm not saying they couldn't have been there--merely that we can't know if there were any there, therefore the incident doesn't provide us with any data as to whether an armed person on scene could have stopped it quicker.
You, on the other hand, are saying that there absolutely were as many as 4 armed people in the crowd and that this proves they couldn't do anything.
You keep assuming they MUST have been there due to a fallacious misapplication of statistics. This is the canard. It makes sense to you, but it cannot be backed up logically.
I really don't like engaging in this type of discussion for a variety of reasons, but I do want to point out a couple of things. First, there is a good chance it is known how many people were carrying. After a mass shooting like this, don't you think the police would be getting statements from everyone there? AZ is not a duty to inform state, but under the circumstances, I bet anyone would inform. We know that the known guy who was carrying did exactly that. AZ does have a duty to answer, if an officer asks. I don't think the police reports are public domain for this, but this whole idea that several people kept their guns and hands in great pocket and just strolled away with no one the wiser is not very believable.
DeleteThe second point is that this was probably the shortest duration mass shooting of them all- and therefore the least amount of time for someone to do something. We know that the guy carrying was on his way, and had the shooting not been over, something was going to happen.
One reason why I don't like going down this path is because I don't want to push a notion that concealed carry is for public defense. Sometimes self-defense and public defense overlaps, and some people are legitimate heroes, but policy decisions on carry rights should be made for the reasons of self-defense.
Simon, you got it. I say there definitely were concealed carry guys there. You say there might have been. Nobody is saying there definitely weren't any.
DeleteTS, in an outdoor venue, you don't think most people just split when the gunfire started.
Yeah, I do. And I wouldn't blame anyone for that. I certainly wouldn't use that as an admonishment of concealed carry. One guy was running toward the gunfire- and I don't admonish him either.
DeleteI say there definitely were concealed carry guys there.
DeleteAnd I say you're making shit up in an utter vacuum of evidence. As usual.
"I say there definitely were concealed carry guys there. . . . Nobody is saying there definitely weren't any."
DeleteThat's because we're not comfortable making unprovable statements of fact and claiming that they're provable the way you keep doing with your fallacious misapplication of statistics.
I never said anything is provable. You're lying again, Simon. What I said is simple logic and common sense demands that in a state with constitutional carry, there were several or many armed civilians in that crowd. I don't remember the total number present that day, but we could figure on maybe 5% of that number, give or take.
DeleteThat's not making shit up, that's drawing a reasonable conclusion. Just yesterday we heard that 20% of Floridians have carry permits. That gives us a tiny glimpse into what's happening in Arizona.
You guys love to demand evidence when it's convenient, but let's talk DGUs and you're all about reasonable estimates with no evidence whatsoever.
Why do they have to use this process? Why are they afraid to put it to a full legilative vote? Especially, as pro gun people claim, that a majority would vote for it.
ReplyDeleteCitizens exercising their rights without asking your permission is such a pain, isn't it, Mikeb?
ReplyDelete"Why are they afraid to put it to a full legilative vote?"
ReplyDeleteAnon, the way I'm reading it, this procedural move is being done precisely so it can move to the floor so it CAN be voted on. Without this move, it will never leave the committee and wont be voted on at all.
"Rep. Tom Shaw, R-Laurens, plans to use a procedural move to bring House File 2284 out of the Judiciary Committee to the House floor. The bill was never acted on by the committee and without representatives voting to suspend their rules it is not eligible for debate."