Here's your chance..

Well what does the law say? This entire thread was started to get your questions answered about the new law, and so far it seems that no one knows because I've had my questions answered multiple ways.

 

That would be the final say. And it always best to check the law for oneself when seeking accurate legal information.

I have tried to Google that information and so far I have not come up with anything definitive

 

Your posts on this gun control show no doubts. My statement was specifically made on these posts of yours. I don't have any idea about your thoughts on other subjects. I have given you article after article, have provided videos and statistics and you have pooh-poohed all of them and likely without reading any of them. You have provided NOTHING but your own opinion. This means that there is absolutely nothing I can provide that you will even evaluate in a rational manner and discuss with facts and data.

There is the proof you requested. Then again, like with everything else, you will pooh-pooh this answer as well. Like I said, it is a waste of time talking to you. It is at least more "entertaining" to see a video like this to see ranting and right wing views, than trying to have a rational debate with you:

 

We are, in fact, a nation of individuals, with individual liberties. Your failure to read ideas you don't agree with is what leads you into a state of eternal fear and trepidation. I am not angry, if anything, I am frustrated that the very ideals on which this nation were founded are now considered controversial and to be avoided. It's a crying shame.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

 

Those two statements are completely incompatible with one another. You may once have been proficient, but no longer.

 

I would also add this as far as my understanding of the law.....

In order to check anyone before or even after this law the cop would have to have some good solid reason to believe that the person was either prohibited from owning guns or had no CCW. I don't believe this law changes that in any way shape or form.

 

What is the probable cause that would require a cop to ask to see a permit?

 

Before the new law, having a concealed firearm. Since it was illegal unless you had a permit.

 

How would a cop know that someone was carrying a "concealed" firearm?

 

Having a concealed firearm was NOT probable cause for detainment, because it, in and of itself, does not rise to the threshold of reasonable suspicion. People CAN have a concealed firearm, and so the mere presence of a concealed firearm, with no other factor, is not suspicious. This was the case before the new law, and remains true now.

 

It still remains illegal for some people to have guns. So that same metric still exist.

 

Simply having a concealed firearm has never been probable cause.

 

What proof have you offered of anything? You will not be able to find a study anywhere that concludes a causal effect of the single metric of more guns. Or less guns.

How would I know the details of the Philly study if I hadn’t read it? How would I know your other link was an opinion piece if I hadn’t read it? I don’t comment on things I don’t read. Sorry.

I poo poo. Nothing. I do explain why things you post are erroneous or false premises.

I told you there were more problems with your opinion piece. Here is one. It is from 2017 and makes claims historical studies on self defense use are debunked. Yet the latest (largest ever) survey on the subject affirms the historical data.

But because you probably didn’t even look at the date of your opinion piece you wouldn’t know this. Knowledge evolves. We can’t base our opinions on old data. We must stay up to date on new studies etc.

Again, if you wish to present some study you think proves your opinions are correct, post it. But don’t expect me to be impressed with old outdated opinion pieces and comedians.

SMH

 

So what do you disagree with? My insistence that we, when evaluating the impact of "more guns" on society, weigh both the negative AND the positive factors? I would think any intellectually honest person would insist on nothing less.

Lets try a little logic. "More guns" can have only one of three effects on violent crime:

1) They might cause violent crime to rise, or
2) ...they might cause violent crime to fall, or
3) ...they might have no impact at all on violent crime.

We know they must have some impact on violent crime, so option #3 can be safely eliminated.

Further, we know that since the 1990's, the number of guns in civilian hands has approximately doubled, while during that same time frame, violent crime has been cut in half. So, we can see that, regardless of causation, "more guns" has not caused violent crime to increase, because we do have more guns, and we do have less violent crime; Option #1 can be eliminated.

All that is left is: Option #2... more guns, less crime, demonstrably.

 

I have no more interest in any debates with you. Bye!

 

At least, I provided "something" to support my ideas. You have supplied NOTHING to support yours. All you have done is criticize but have not given any solutions back.

This is a problem that needs to be RESOLVED. It is not something we can ignore and allow to continue:

 

And here @Lucky1knows is asserting that you have offered no factual data but only your opinion or whatever it is he is accusing in the above post

 

" According to CNN's review of media reports "

Is this the same CNN that you recently provided a video of the 13-year-old purchasing a gun where they said that he was legally able to do so?

13-year-olds cannot legally purchase guns anywhere in this nation.

 

I agree that #3 is not in the picture. I disagree with you evaluation of #1 and #2 as studies show otherwise. I have given links to studies and articles that show exactly the opposite of what you have stated. The fact you are not believing them, is YOUR problem and not mine. I am the messenger and not the one that is providing that information. All I have provided is general common sense. If you carry a gun you are more likely to get shot at than in a gun shooter situation than not carrying a gun, for the simple reason that you are more of a risk to the shooter than if you don't carry a gun. Common sense is that cops have better and more training than the normal citizen, meaning that their decisions in a shoot-out situation are likely to be better than yours. Common sense shows that more guns usually mean more bullets and more shootings. As such, my own views are all based on COMMON SENSE

 

But the 13-year old DID purchase the gun, didn't he?

The whole point I was making is that if you want to purchase a gun, you can do so even if you do not qualify for it. This is something that needs to be put into the equation. That fact will continue no matter what, meaning that one of the things to be considered as a partial solution to the problem is to have less guns available for purchase.

 

That's the second time you posted that list of school shootings Lucky1Knows. I really think it's irrelevant, it too focused on firearms. What about the hatchet and machete deaths? Don't those people count?

Here is part of the Google answer for "list of homicides per capita by country"

Google gives the top ten as the first hit-


"Here are the 10 countries with the highest homicide rates:

• El Salvador - 52.02 per 100k people.
• Jamaica - 43.85 per 100k people.
• Lesotho - 43.56 per 100k people.
• Honduras - 38.93 per 100k people.
• Belize - 37.79 per 100k people.
• Venezuela - 36.69 per 100k people.
• Saint Vincent And The Grenadines - 36.54 per 100k people."- World Population Review
  
  
  The USA ain't even in the top ten.
  

 

Wikipedia has a more complete list from 2017. Says the U.S. homicide rate is 6.5 per 100,000 citizens. That all weapons, not just firearms.

 

That doesn't change the fact that CNN lied and said that he did it legally. CNN is a pathological liar and nothing they say is to be taken at face value.

This is a novel idea I know.... But instead of making new laws that are not going to prevent anything how about we go ahead and enforce existing laws that already exist?

Here in Florida if you go to a gun show and buy a gun the seller is still legally supposed to do the 3-day background check.

If people are ignoring that law how about you go ahead and arrest them for violating that law instead of trying to make new laws that won't be enforced?

 

CNN and politics is not the issue on this OP. You need to stay with the topic.

As far as your last paragraph. I am a realist, meaning that my solutions of life's problems take into consideration the reality of how life works. It takes into reality what actually can be done versus what the idealists want done.

In this respect, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I lean to the left because I am a caring and empathic person that feels other people's pain and the right has little of that, while the left is mostly based on that. Nonetheless, I am not political. I am against either extreme and I criticize the left extreme as much as the right extreme. I find a lot of right extremists on this board. It is depressing as I hate all extremes.

I look for real solutions and do not seek to support my ideas. I see to support the ideas that get something actually done.

 

I’ve presented my solutions to you before. You reject them out of hand. Everything from family dynamics to diet. All with studies showing the effects those things have on violent behavior.

Why tell you again when you have stated nothing will change your mind?

I have given solutions to reduce criminal behavior. You aren’t interested. Now I’m going to point out your false premises on this public forum. You don’t have to like it. You can make all kinds of accusations about my claims to know it all or having a bias. You can’t back any of them up with the PF quote function so I guess you are just SOL.