Posted by ( Ricky A.W. Curtis ) on March 21, 2008 at 11:02 am

Jody,

The answer as to why it was Speaker Naifeh who cast the deciding vote is well known.  Democratic 2nd District House Member Nathan Vaughn is facing a tough election in August against Republican Tony Shipley. That being the case, Rep. Vaughn can’t be casting votes that appear to be against the wishes of his contsituents on hot button issues like gun control, abortion, etc.  So, from here on out, Naifeh will be sitting in on Vaughn’s committees in order to allow Vaughn to vote with the Republicans and still leave the Democrats with enough votes to kill the bill.

And, the reason the House rule that permits the Speaker to sit in on these subcommittees is equally clear.  The House makes it own rules, so for so long as Naifeh is the Speaker there is no way to change the Rules.

Also, your comment on the merits of the bill is absolutely correct--no study has ever demonstrated that a gun control law has been effective to reduce crime, and most show that states, like TN, that allow concealed carry permits have considerably lower crime rates than states that don’t. 

Those that argue against concealed carry in state parks and elsewhere do it for purely political reasons, not for any justified safety concerns.
This past Wednesday a California woman was shot to death by a burglar while she was talking with 911.  Her chances of being alive today would have certainly been better had she picked up a handgun and the phone, instead of just the phone.  Those that deny that simple fact for purely political reasons make the world a more dangerous place for all of us.

Posted by ( Freedomman ) on March 22, 2008 at 10:38 am

The Tennessee Legislature has made it impossible for citizens (legally) to have the means to protect themselves in certain places.  A law which does harm to personal liberty should be taken as:  ‘An evil law is no law.’ I do not understand how having a steak and iced tea at at a restaurant where alcohol is served would turn someone into a crazed killer.  The crazed killers are the ones we need protection from and to all of you who were against the failed bill, I say to you: If you whining wimps ever get assaulted by some nut shooting up any establishment, while you are cowering under a table, I hope your whole freedom-hating life flashes before your face, just before you get yours!!!

Posted by ( Freedomman ) on March 23, 2008 at 11:21 am

Neither do I Jody but heres my bottom line.  It does not seem to bother the pols to pass legislation to deny the most basic right--the right to life.  Criminalizing self reliance, the personal responsibility of protecting ones own life and family is the lowest of the low.  There are 60 million laws in this country and some pols apparently feel that unless their name is on some of these freedom-destroying bills that they aren’t doing their jobs as “lawmakers”, boy do I despise that term.  Again, to those who urged legislators to deny this basic right: Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.  Some day, you might wish that a gun toter was around to help you. 

Is this better Jody?

Posted by ( Ricky A. W. Curtis ) on April 02, 2008 at 10:17 pm

Chris,

This will not come as a suprise to anyone that follows these blogs, but I have to respectfully disagree that it is a “stretch” to argue that liberal concealed carry laws reduce crime.  While you are correct that it would be impossible to pinpoint any one factor as the sole cause for a reduction in crime, there are numerouse studies, many of which are quoted in “More Guns, Less Violent Crime” by Prof.’s Lott and Mustard, which show that states with concealed carry laws have lower violent crime rates, and that those crime rates dropped after the passage of concealed carry laws.  You may disagree, but in light of the fact that it was a 15 year study, I would argue that’s pretty strong evidence that concealed carry laws reduce crime.

As for the other issue, I have no misconception that it would ever be easy to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger.  I simply point out that I like an individual’s chances to live with that opportunity vs. an unarmed woman with no way to defend herself. 

My wife and I were talking about gun control on one occasion, and while she agreed that gun control laws would not work because only the good guys would obey them, she--like other good hearted, but naive, souls--said that she thought the world would be a better place if there were no guns at all.

I told her to think about the fact that her Mom is about 5’4”, of below average strength, weight, endurance, etc.  Then, I told her to think about her mom being attacked by a stronger, faster, male attacker.  Other than a gun, there is no other method of defense which would be of value to her mother.  Her mom would swing a stick to slowly; a knife would require the attacker to get to close; mace would incapacitate her mom more than a virile attacker, etc.  Only a gun would allow a victim in her mother’s position the opportunity to defend themselves against a bigger, stronger, faster, violent offender.

Again, I say that those who deny those facts do so for political purposes, not for any regard for public safety.

Posted by ( Chris ) on April 08, 2008 at 9:09 am

Ricky,

I’m sure you are aware that Prof. Lott’s study does not hold up under scrutiny. His attempts to show an immediate decrease in crime following a concealed carry law is suspect. Robert Ehrilich has conclusively shown the flaws in Lott’s study. First his data does not come from the F.B.I. crime statistics.The actual data shows nothing special happening at the time these laws were passed. Lott has used the data from 10 states in his study. When looking at changes in the robbery rate state by state, only two of the states (West Virginia and Georgia) show decreases when concealed carry laws were enacted, while the other eight show increases. Overall, averaging the 10 states, there is a small but not statistically significant increase in the robbery rate certainly not the dramatic decrease Lott’s study shows. Ehrilich shows, Lott’s method in this study is virtually guaranteed to produce a result which shows that crime drops immediately following a law enactment. Taking Lott’s study at face value, they give inconsistent results. For example, he shows murders, rapes, and robberies each declining sharply and immediately after the year of passage of the laws, but the aggravated assault rate rises slightly and doesn’t start its descent until three years after the law’s passage. I guess the same sorts of folks are committing murders and assaults, so this difference is very puzzling. Ehrilich indicates that Lott shows the rate of multiple public shootings declining dramatically (by 100 percent) only two years after the laws passage. But using follow-up data in a more recent paper, Lott shows multiple shootings rising precipitously the year before the law passage and then declining right at the laws passage. Ehrilich points out “It’s difficult enough to understand why the impact of the laws should be so much greater on multiple shootings by crazed killers than ordinary murders (which drop only 10 percent), but figuring out how the laws could work in reverse time on the thinking of these psychos is a real challenge.” Would you disagree Ricky?
Furthermore Lott’s study does in no way account for any relevant variables. The broader point here is that although this study is interesting and I do believe that there is in fact some validity to concealed carry laws and crime reduction this study is far from the “smoking gun” evidence you present it to be.

The reality here is that crime in the United States increased dramatically until 1991 and has dropped ever since leveling off until recently when increases are evident. I tend to think crime is more a direct effect of the economic situation in a specific area. We know that most violent crime occurs in densely populated areas and in low income areas. I doubt very seriously Lott can show that when a state passes a concealed carry law the folks in the ghetto’s are paying attention and see these laws a deterrent. I tend to think you would be more successful in showing that as people become more educated, successful, and employed you see a drop in crime. Lott’s study does in no way account for the incredible drop in crime in New York City which has some of the most strict gun control laws on the books. Crime has decreased in Illinois and Wisconsin since 1991 and neither have concealed carry laws. I frankly believe that for your hypothesis to hold up we must assume that criminals keep up with the legislative happennings in their states and decided to magically stop commiting crime when a concealed carry law was passed. Perhaps some do, but I would wager that if for example we see a long term recession crime will increase. So I would submit that although there is some validity to concealed carry laws reducing crime it is miniscule compared to economic factors. 

As for your other point, I have no disagreement in the logic you present. My argument is that I find it so frustrating for people to emphatically claim that they would have no problem shooting someone who is commiting a crime against them. The broader point is that when a person decides to buy a gun and carry it daily for protection I don’t think they put enough thought into whether or not they can kill someone. In a lot of instances folks only aggravate the situation if they pull a gun and hesitate in using it. If a little ol’ lady pulls a gun on an attacker who doesn’t have a gun and hesitates, chances are she is going to get it. The choice to carry a gun is one that should be based the measured judgement of whether or not YOU can actually pull the trigger and kill another human being. If you are not prepared to do just that in a situation in which your life is in danger, you shouldn’t be toting around a concealed weapon.