arma virumque cano (et alia)
"Concord — The state Senate passed a bill Thursday that would allow people who can legally own a gun in New Hampshire to carry it concealed without any further requirements.Passed by Republicans along party lines, 14-9, the bill would eliminate the need for a license issued by local law enforcement officials.Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, said under the current law a person can openly carry a loaded firearm without a license, but the act of obscuring the gun can make the carrier a criminal.“This bill recognizes that the simple act of putting on a coat should not require a permit from the state,” she said." So they already have open carry, and don't seem to have problems with that. I especially liked this part,"Bradley cited statistics from the FBI that he said placed New Hampshire as the sixth safest state in the nation in terms of violent crime. He said residents are “very blessed” to be so high on the list, “but our radical and our dangerous neighbor to the west — Vermont, which has allowed concealed carry without a license for 200 years without a problem — is the safest state in the nation.”http://www.vnews.com/news/15661884-95/nh-senate-passes-concealed-carry-billWell said Mr. Bradley.....
"Bradley cited statistics from the FBI that he said placed New Hampshire as the sixth safest state in the nation in terms of violent crime. He said residents are “very blessed” to be so high on the list, “but our radical and our dangerous neighbor to the west — Vermont, which has allowed concealed carry without a license for 200 years without a problem — is the safest state in the nation.”And again, for Mikeb's benefit, since he seems to need the help, I'll point out that observing that Constitutional carry doesn't contribute to the problem of violent crime is in no way a claim that it is the reason for a low rate of violent crime.No need, in other words, to knock down that particular straw man, Mikeb.
How do you prove your allegation that carrying a gun concealed, or open has anything to do with the crime rate in New Hampshire,SS?
"How do you prove your allegation that carrying a gun concealed, or open has anything to do with the crime rate in New Hampshire,SS?" Ah, the old correlation isn't causation thing again. Sort of funny since most of the "studies" put out by the gun control industry work very hard to attempt to make the same type of claim, only to the detriment of a citizens' gun rights. Interestingly, I live in a state that often proves the assertions of the gun control lobby wrong. Minnesota has a shall issue permit system without the requirement to conceal. Pretty much the equivalent of Georgia's recently passed "guns everywhere" bill, and its been in place over ten years with no real issues. When it comes right down to it, I don't have to prove anything. The wonder of state level legislation is that each state gets to enact laws it thinks is to the benefit of its citizens, and if it doesn't work, they can modify it. In this case, they have had permit less open carry for quite a while and haven't had any problems, so now they are considering emulating Vermont, which allows open and concealed permit less carry. If it results in something they don't like, they can change it as they see fit. Though I haven't heard of any states reversing course in regards to expansion of carry laws. And if it works well, then perhaps another neighboring state will decide to go the Vermont. New Hampshire route. I think Kurt mentioned in another thread, while the gun control lobby has had to dial back its expectations, there seem to be a pretty good number of states considering Constitutional carry this year.
Kurt, why do you guys so often bring it up when we talk about violent crime? It's a standard response when talking about gun control to cite Vermont, the underlying implication is that Constitutional Carry is the reason for the crime rate.
So you can't/won't and then claim you don't have to, yet, you keep making the claim. WOW!
Kurt, why do you guys so often bring it up when we talk about violent crime?As usual, I can only speak for myself, not being qualified to speak for "[us] guys," but when I bring up Vermont's largely hands-off approach to gun regulation, and that state's very low violent crime rate, it's as evidence against the silly fantasy that "loose" gun regulation leads to more violent crime--a very popular fantasy among the reality-challenged.That seems to be an argument you know you can't win, which explains your temptation to move the argument to ground on which you are more comfortable. When you claim that I "imply" that Vermont has low violent crime because of Constitutional carry, you avoid the inconvenient fact of my never having said that.Fine, Mikeb--consider that strawman argument deftly vanquished. It's an argument I didn't defend, because it's one I've never made, but if it helps you feel better about yourself, then more power to you.
And you still can't get passed this, no matter how many times Sarge, Kurt, and I say "correlation is not causation" and how this only disproves the dangers of liberal carry laws that you guys always complain about.I repeat. It is useful to bring it up because it disproves the gun control argument that carry laws cause more crime.
Sandra, while its difficult to prove the point the evdidence does point in that direction, if nothing else it certainly isn't doing the harm that many gun control advocates claim, and while I speak only for myself and on my experiences I have spoken to criminals and they freely admit they are hesitant to go after people who may be armed, and yes I know it's strictly anecdotal support but it is something to consider. Mike, we have to ask ourselves why is it a standard response? And is the implication valid? It would seem that all things being equal if the statistically safer states have certain very distinct laws on big issues then maybe there is some validity in the idea that those laws are good.
I've heard constantly from pro gunners that having carry laws make crime go down. I'm looking for proof of that claim, just as you pro gunners demand proof from Mike, me, or anyone else, who make claims and you can't produce it. You can't even connect the little evidence to that conclusion. Thank you.
I should clarify that no one state proves or disproves anything. Vermont is one data point- one that works strongly against anti-carry arguments, but one out of fifty none the less. All the states together disprove the gun control argument by showing no correlation to violent crime and murder. When I re-read my above comment it looks like I am saying Vermont alone disproves you, and I don't want to give that impression.
"That seems to be an argument you know you can't win, which explains your temptation to move the argument to ground on which you are more comfortable. "You're being tricky again, Kurt. These are two sides of the same coin. The fact that Vermont is not awash in violent crime is because it lacks some of the other factors that contribute to it. Loose gun laws generally do contribute to more crime, and constitutional carry in Vermont is not responsible for its relatively good record.
You're being tricky again, Kurt.Not tricky--just rational. I can see why you might view that as a "trick," though.The fact that Vermont is not awash in violent crime is because it lacks some of the other factors that contribute to it.Then clearly, with Vermont's very hands-off approach to gun regulation, and it's very low violent crime rate, those "other factors" are vastly more important than gun regulation in terms of violent crime. . . . [C]onstitutional carry in Vermont is not responsible for its relatively good record.Which is what I've been saying, while you keep claiming I don't mean it.Let me see if I understand your position:A) It's wrong to credit Constitutional carry, and other minimalist gun regulation policies, for a low rate of violent crime in the jurisdictions with said policiesB) Even we gun rights advocates who vocally agree with the above don't really mean itC) It is legitimate to claim that such policies lead to increased violence, and you can "prove" that by pointing to places with minimally regulated guns, and high levels of violence, and places with oppressive regulation of guns, and low rates of violence; despite the fact that low rates of violent crime can and do coincide with low levels of gun regulation (and high levels of violent crime with oppressive regulation of guns).In other words, correlation does equal causation when regulation is minimal, and violence is high, and when regulation is extensive, and violence is low--and negative correlation equals causation when the situation is reversed.Is that your position?
"I've heard constantly from pro gunners that having carry laws make crime go down. I'm looking for proof of that claim, just as you pro gunners demand proof from Mike, me, or anyone else, who make claims and you can't produce it. You can't even connect the little evidence to that conclusion. Thank you."Well, you're going to have to take that up with people making that claim.
I am. That's SS, you and other gun loons on this site. No surprise you cannot answer the question, neither could SS.
I suppose it would be fruitless of me to ask you to provide a link and quote of SS or me making that claim. No, you don't work that way.
It would be fruitless. I don't need to provide proof. The proof is already printed on this site. Not my fault that you don't remember what you said, or deny it. But you can do what I had to do, search your comments on this blog.
" I don't need to provide proof." Then your comment is simply your opinion, and is worth whatever standing you hold with whoever is reading it.
I remember what I said, and I never said what you claim I did. All you have to do is copy and paste a link to your "proof" to nail me with a gotcha. Kurt and I do that all the time when Mike says, "I never said...". But we won't see it, you'll just say you read it somewhere- right next to that proof that Dodge City's murder rate dropped after they implemented a simple carry restriction.
Sorry you can't read liar. The proof is printed on this blog. I'm not your slave, do you own work, as I had to lazy ass. Glad tp prove you wrong (a liar) anytime.
Shall not be infringed.How many states have at least some chance of passing Constitutional carry this year? NH, SD, KS, IN, TX, WV--am I missing any?We shall overcome.
I agree it is horrible...repeal all licensing requirements for manicurist!
Exactly, what special kind of insanity requires 300 hours of training for a licence to apply nail polish.
What's the training requirement to become a licensed gunsmith? That would be a more apt analogy.
I honestly don't know if there is a training requirement any more than qualifying to hold an FFL. I imagine you might need certain training to be considered an authorized smith for various manufacturers. And of course, if you went to a good school, you can use that to show the level of your training.
6 months to two years for many of the accreditatee gunsmith schools, plus apprentice time and all of that.