In countries where private firearm ownership is against the law, the rationale is that if no one has a gun to kill people with, no one will kill people with guns.

In countries where private firearm ownership for self-defense is allowed, with regulation, the rationale is that the more people that have guns, the fewer people that dare to shoot.

In the first scenario, you will simply get more cases of homicide or accidental manslaughter by other means, such as by knives, strangulation or falling from a height. In the second, there will be less cases of these, because, if you want to kill someone, why knife him when you can shoot him? For example, in Japan, a schoolgirl killed another with I-can’t-remember-what, and there was a school massacre by a man with a machete.

Incidentally, on the point of regulating guns with taxation, I remember the UK considering taxing chewing gum to pay for the cost of cleaning gum left in public places up. In my country, they simply banned it. Now you know where I’m from.

Dan, I really have to question whether you did the research on these topics when you say things like this. The bill to repeal the concealed weapons ban has provisions which would not allow carrying weapons into these types of places. Jails, police stations, etc are all on the “protected area” list also.

Well I was just half kidding the other times ;)

Only half?! :)

so I don’t know why you’d even ask that.

Well, you said, “More guns on the streets means more violence, plain and simple.” and “I know the NRA and their lackeys in polictical office are bound to push pro-gun laws”, So I was just trying to clarify that “more guns” actually means “more concealed guns” and “pro-gun laws” actually means “pro-concealed-gun laws”.

I pointed out that a large number of other researchers have called his research methodologies and claims into question.

Links?

And how do you, or the people proposing the law again in Wisconsin, think that would’ve stopped the recent violence in Milwaukee (for example)?

Do you think that seven year old girl would still be alive if she or her parents had guns on them?

All I know about the situation in Milwaukee is what you wrote in your post. :(

“Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” — Thomas Jefferson

The argument is that increased chance of a potential bystander (or victim) carrying a gun has a similar psychological deterring effect as an increase in police force.

I’ve said this before: guns should be regulated with taxation, not direct control legislation. The right to bare arms should fund the control of its own negative consequences. Passage of the concealed weapon legislation would increase sales. Attach a tax to gun sales and earmark the money for an increased police force. The increase in guns “in the wild” would mostly end up in the hands of law-abiding citizens, and the increased revenue would make society as a whole safer (from not only gun violence, but all crime). Not to mention an increase of jobs, an increase in general spending (due both to increased gun sales and consumer confidence — especially in urban areas), etc.

Anyway, everyone has their opinions, and unfortunately this is another one of those topics where any academic review is corrupted by politics. My point was only that the charge that the people who are pushing this are callous and inconsiderate is rather unfair, because that charge is based on your stance on the political issue, which is less than clear-cut.

I’m opposed to people carrying concealed weapons, yes. I didn’t mention anything related to general anti-gun legislation, so I don’t know why you’d even ask that.

This is about the third post that you’ve accused me of supporting somebody’s agenda. Can “we” not do that anymore please?

Well I was just half kidding the other times ;) But seriously, trying to lump the ability to carry a hidden weapon and ‘freedom’ together is really off base in my opinion, and that is one of the NRA’s tactics to get their more radical members foaming at the mouth and writing out checks.

Yep, he’s a conservative, he must be wrong.

My point about him belonging to a conservative think tank was just to point out where he’s coming from, I pointed out that a large number of other researchers have called his research methodologies and claims into question. The fact that he’s wrong and the fact that he works for a conservative organization could just be coincidence.

The bigger question here is why do you think anyone should be able to hide a gun in their jacket and go to public schools, churches, stadiums, and shopping malls? And how do you, or the people proposing the law again in Wisconsin, think that would’ve stopped the recent violence in Milwaukee (for example)?

Do you think that seven year old girl would still be alive if she or her parents had guns on them?

By the way, thanks for the venison. It was freakin’ delicious.

Right on … er um … what happened … was … ugh …
“The Fraternal Order of Police and the Law Enforcement Alliance of America — the two largest law-enforcement organizations in the country — support Wisconsin’s move to permit concealed weapons.”
http://badgerherald.com/news/2002/03/05/wisconsin_could_join.php