waitforufo

Here is the title of the paper. The Effects of Gun Prevalence on Burglary: Deterrence vs Inducement Here is the sum total of what is says about carrying firearms. How do you justify saying that the point of the source you provided " is that increased conceal and carry does not deter crime " The source you provided is about burglary.

Interesting paper on gun ownership and burglary but this topic is about concealed carry on campus. Not really relevant.

Gee that would be swell. The fact that you can't even provide one hyperlinked source in support of your position from the article you posted tells a lot. You read something you liked and didn't bother to check the sources. If you can't bother, why should I? Does that apply to police stations?

For the record..... Like I said, If you have read all those hyperlinks in the article you provided, why not simply provide the ones with all the important convincing data and make a fool of me? Why provide a fluff article with hyperlinked sources when you can simply provide the sources? More cars on the road is not an appropriate analogy to law abiding citizens with concealed carry permits attending university with concealed weapons.

I didn't refuse, I simply said "I haven't had time to read it in detail". From the above you must have found the sources with all the key data. I'm sure the community here a science forums would appropriate if you provided the sources. You will also have the fun of making a fool of me. Go for it. Ooh big words, I'm impressed. I was simply pointing out that the US is not the worst as rangerx stated. Not that it is important to this topic. Several of those countries that are worse firearms related violent crime also have strict gun control laws. I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. I'm sure such data could be easily found. So go find data showing that those who carry firearms and have a concealed carry permit are increasing violent crime. Until then you don't have and argument.

This article claims that good guys with guns were not responsible for the reduction in crime rate. It does not provide any data that it increased the crime rate or decreased its reduction. So there should be no harm in permitting concealed carry. Not the worst.

Violent crime has dropped significantly since 1990. I have already shown that concealed carry laws have been significantly liberalized in that time frame. So there is a demonstrable correlation between liberalized concealed carry and a reduction in violent crime. No correlation does not mean causation, but you are arguing that the liberalization of concealed carry should increase violent crime, and that did not happen. You talk about more risks. Can you show data that as concealed carry has been more liberalized that more accidents have taken place? If you can then you have an argument. No data, no valid argument. You say the university is the place where our brightest go to study and develop. I have no doubt that our brightest can figure out how to be safe with firearms. If that is not the case, they must not be too bright. You fail to see the benefit of concealed carry on campus. I fail to see the harm. You provided one link to support your argument. I haven't had time to read it in detail, but most of what I read is supposition or lacked significant detail. For example campus rape. They say when the state passed concealed carry forcible rape went up on campus. They don't say if the campus was a gun free zone however. That is an important fact to leave unmentioned don't you think? Then they talk about how good guys with guns rarely stop bad guys with guns. Well people with concealed carry permits don't always carry so why is that a surprise? Then they talk about how more guns cause more fatal accidents. The US does not have an unusually high fatal accident rate. Then they argue that guns can make arguments lethal. This gets trotted out every time concealed weapons liberalization is argued. After the laws are passed this canard never materializes. People in arguments that turn to gun fights don't have concealed carry permits. As I have pointed out, liberalized concealed carry has not made anything worse.

I'm not hijacking anything. I'm simply asking for data that would make one believe that campus shooting incidences will likely rise due to concealed carry holders now being permitted to legally carry guns on campus. If you look at the animated map I provided you will see that concealed carry is permitted now in every state. Most states are shall issue. Eight have no restrictions what so ever. Also state laws have changed considerably since 1986. One would think that if liberalizing concealed carry caused more shooting incidences than there would now be supporting data. I did a search and couldn't find any. In fact there seems to be a correlation with crime reduction as concealed carry laws have been liberalized. Why would one not expect to see the same on campus? You say that university campuses should be a places of learning and development. I agree. Can you explain how concealed weapons will interfere with that? I don't see it or know of any evidence to support such a claim. Do you?

Any evidence that legal concealed carry increases homicide or firearms related injuries? Many states have legalized concealed carry over the past few decades. Many of these states are shall issue states. There should be plenty of data showing if concealed carry is a problem by now. Wiki has a nice animated map. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

If he broke the law he should be punished. What law did he break?

Let me make a recommendation to you. The next time you see a successful person say to yourself "good for them", and try to actually mean it. You will find that you are a happier and more successful person. The corporations I mention, you never mention, so how could I ever know that you understand that they exist? I have worked for corporations during economic downturns and I have worked for one company that went bankrupt. Tough times. I saw a lot of people get laid off. I was laid of myself once. But if those companies didn't down size all of them would have went bankrupt and everyone would have been without a job. Also, we now live in a world of free trade and intense international competition. People generally purchase products and services based on two considerations; quality and price. They determine quality they want, and then they try to find that quality at the lowest price. If they can't afford that lowest price they reduce their quality needs and try again. That environment is driven by consumers. Every purchase is a vote to determine what corporations succeed and which fail. Corporations simply respond to their competitive environment. By the way that is greatly influenced by government regulation. Regulations make it more expensive to do business, competition determines price, salaries and benefits diminish. Simple cause and effect. You should google "the nine scariest words in the English language." Well you hit the nail on the head. The "outside contractor" shift in employment is driven by government regulation which has become to burdensome. Companies can avoid that regulation by hiring outside contractors. Cause and effect. Also competition plays a role. Your competition moves to outside contractors, you will also, or go out of business. Well I guess you could transfer all your work to India and China. So you have a problem with the people owning the means to production? Now how about talking about the melting pot. If conformity and lack of diversity is so bad, how do you explain the economic success of countries like Japan and Korea? By the way I never looked at the melting pot as trying to wash away diversity. There have always been plenty of social clubs and varied religions that celebrate unique cultures in the United States. I have often enjoyed the celebrations and festivals these entities provide to the public. Haven't you? I also enjoy the unique food they have added to the american table. Same goes for music. Yet, Americans have formed a unique culture enjoyed by almost us all. Sure, new immigrants suffer the crucible in the beginning, but all have been accepted with the exception of blacks. None have tried harder to be integrated than blacks. We have actually made great strides of late. Just watch television programs and advertisements. Just watch sporing events. The problem we have today is that blacks are now simply political pawns kept in place to guarantee votes. Blacks should fear those nine scariest words more than anyone.

I have worked in corporations for 35 of those 60 years. In that time I have worked for 6 corporations. Never have I seen anyone at any level do anything at the "at the expense of those below." I have seen them provide education benefits, run fund raisers for food banks, habitat for humanity, homeless shelters, blood drives, children's hospitals, etc. I know because I have received those education benefits, contributed to those fund raisers, help build homes for habitat for humanity homes, and participated in almost every one of those blood drives. Yes, I have seen top officers earn million dollar salaries and receive large stock grants. These salaries and stock grants are approved by the shareholders of the company who demand profits. The shareholders want these profits because there middle class standard of living, retirement, children's education, and many other good things in their lives depend on those officers making decisions which drive those profits. Those corporations have also provided products and services demanded by the government and the general population. Products and services that make everyone's life better. If you are looking for villains, look elsewhere.

You think in conspiracies comrade. Business people just want prosperity. They make more money when there is prosperity. They could care less about the melting pot.

While it may be a courtesy for Trump or the RNC to not play an group or performing artists song, it is leagal if they have purchased a licence to do so. So the only legal question is was a licence purchased. http://www.vox.com/2016/7/19/12226858/donald-trump-queen-copyright

I am not. How could turkey under Islamic rule not be peaceful. Islam is the religion of peace.

If they have an Islamic government, that means they will be peaceful, so everything will be okay.

Why does every topic on this form turn into a gun control argument? Why do you keep conflating this issue?

I have done none of the above. I have said the Islam is the religion of peace. (Thank you again iNow for pointing out my homonym error). I have not brought up gun regulation in this topic even once. I have discouraged people like yourself from conflating Islam and gun control with this unrelated traffic incident. I simply woke up yesterday morning and read many news stories on all the major news outlets about a traffic incident in Nice France resulting in the loss of many lives including men, women, children and even babies. I then found that this traffic incident was a topic here and have been contributing. Based on the stories I read on major news outlets like MSNBC, a favorite of many on this forum, I have simply tried to keep this topic focused on the reports I read. I'm simply being blamed for reading things like the MSNBC twitter post.

I have provided my data. My data is found in every major media outlet reporting that there was a truck crash in Nice. How many headlines do you need? Just another unfortunate traffic related incident resulting in the loss of life. Other than that, nothing to see there. Time to move along. Well I think it was more than that. Someone should be held accountable. The truck manufacturer should be held accountable. I don't want my grandchildren running for there lives when they hear the ice cream truck driving down my street playing turkey in the straw.

Again, why all this talk of guns and Muslims. It was the truck. https://twitter.com/MSNBC/status/753805062531534848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Obviously, all those regulations mentioned by iNow are not enough.

Endy, you are just being "extremely careless."

Thank you.

Even with all those regulations and laws, that truck still killed all those people. Men, women, children and even babes. Trucks are a menace. Who said anything about guns? Why bring that into this conversation. Trucks kill people. Get with the program. I said Islam is the religion of piece.

Glad to see you are with me. It was the truck. The media is with me too. Definitely the truck. http://www.infowars.com/media-blames-truck-not-terrorists-or-islam-for-nice-attack/

Many interacting factors? Claims of complexity are always the last stand of the stubbornly wrong. Just look at the facts. The driver, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, is a member of the religion of piece, so it couldn't have been him. I'm sure he was repeating "allahu akbar" seeking allah's assistance in gaining control of that truck the whole time. Too bad allah was busy at the moment. It wasn't the fault of the French citizens of Nice. They were just enjoying Bastille Day waiting for a fireworks show with their now smashed an squished children. It's simple. It had to be the truck. We will just have to wait until the French equivalent of the NTSB figures it out. The truck manufacturer needs to be held accountable. It is just a curious coincidence that guys named Mohamed are frequently involved in these types of tragedies.