Here's your chance..

Hi, FatBack.

I'd be pleased to do the research and render an opinion if you wish. Are you prepared to pay me for my professional time?

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un-shot.

 

Nope. It doesn’t change who can carry or where. Not one bit. I’ve quoted the law.

SMH.

 

Well that's certainly a new cop out that I have yet to encounter on a forum.

You could just say no the data doesn't support it. And then you wouldn't have to make excuses about not enough time and make statements like the above

 

Hi again, FatBack.

It's your choice: professional answer or no answer. My question remains.

Regards, stay safe 'n well 'n un-shot.

 

You must be in Commiefornia, or a similar liberal/authoritarian state. I would be interested to see the law you are referencing. Police cannot stop and ID anyone unless they have RAS that a crime is afoot. Random ID checks are unconstitutional. Everyone has the presumption of innocence, a 5A right to remain silent, and a 4A protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The only law that benefits criminals is a law that restricts the law abiding from protecting themselves. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law.

 

Hey, would you like me to respond for you? My professional rates are reasonable!

 

I'll take the third choice..... We already have an answer.

Four pages into this thread and no one has been able to demonstrate that gun crimes have been on the rise in any state that has enacted the same law.


And if that's not enough you have Vermont where there has never been any sort of permit requirements to carry any sort of way and yet no one can demonstrate that Vermont has turned into a war zone..... Quite the opposite is actually the case

 

But they ARENT there to prevent the abuse of guns. In fact it has NEVER been demonstrated that law abiding citizens presented a problem or that criminals follow laws.

Dood...do you realize how pathetic you sound trying to use your embarrassing emotional appeal to make an argument? 1-**** no...I'm not going to change my opinion and target the rights of others because some criminal scumbag violated laws. NO...I'm not going to push for idiotic do nothing legislation that targets the wrong people. and finally...what kind of person MAKES that ridiculous emotional appeal about dead chirruns in a discussion about Constitutional Carry that has **** ALL to do with dead children? How do you live with yourself knowing you use dead children as a prop to push your argument?

 

I can count on one hand the people on PF I would risk $5 purchasing a goldfish from! I would spend your money somewhere else if I were you.

If you want to purchase research I’d look for someone who is less biased. Someone with a better handle on relative risk vs. absolute risk, and someone with a better understanding of correlation in relation to multiple potentially causative variables.

 

I mean every leftist rat run shithole across the country spawns poverty and violence. And tragically...the idiots that vote for those rat pieces of **** are eager to vote for MORE of them. Almost as if they LIKE the results.

 

One evident difference between you and I is that my goal in life is to do what does the most good and prevent any harm coming to others because of my actions.

I say this because to me, doing everything possible and legal to prevent injustice and unnecessary killings to occur is the most important thing.

Emotional argument? Absolutely, given that most of us in the world are here to do what is right, to care about others, to love and be loved and to enjoy life for what it is.............LIFE (be and stay alive)! Anything that interferes with that is (in my opinion) a wrong that needs to be righted.

Unfortunately, there are scumbags that do not follow those guidelines and that do damage and as such, everything possible (without hurting others) should be done to stop those scumbags from being successful. If that means, following some guidelines, adhering to some rules, or doing something that is bothersome or even causes some short-term problems, so be it!!! it is a SMALL price to pay for the ability of others to get what I mentioned above.

I am well AWARE of the fact that life itself creates a lot of unfair or unjust scenarios for all of us, for which there is nothing to be done or that can be done. Life is not fair all the time, to begin with. Nonetheless, when you have extremes in anything, it means that there is something wrong that we can do something about.

The charts below show where those extremes are when it comes to guns.





All extremes are bad and can be fixed.

 

You keep trying to key on the technicalities while I am keying on reality and common sense.

If I am a criminal, I am going to make extra sure to do things not to get caught for my criminal behavior. If I am going shopping at the store (don't need a gun for that) and know that the cops guarding the store are likely to stop me if I am carrying a concealed weapon (because carrying a gun without a permit is illegal) but that for some mistake of mine of not hiding it well, can be seen or at least is somehow noticeable, meaning that they will automatically check, I am not going to carry it.

Meaning that if I see something at the store that riles me up, I will not have a gun with me to where I could use it to resolve the issue.

Nonetheless and now that carrying a concealed weapon is not something for which cops can check me out (simply by routine of having to do so because carrying a concealed weapon without a permit is illegal), I now will carry the gun with me to the store and if something does rile me up, I might lose my mind and react and shoot all the people around me.

As such and under this circumstances, this criminal has gotten a break and has been given the ability to carry a gun even to places where normally he would not carry one.

What is the benefit of DeSantis have done what he did? How does it help anyone except the criminals?

I have yet to get an answer to that, even though I have now asked 6 people about it.

 

And I have yet to get an answer out of you for the entire purpose of this thread.

There are other states that have done the exact same thing that Florida has done here and they have done it years ago.

So if what you keep saying is true it should be very easy for you to use statistics to demonstrate it.

Just show one of those States having a sharp uptick in the sort of incidences you're describing versus not having them before the law was passed.

I should think it would be a very simple thing.... But evidently it's not because no one has managed to do so.

But here's an opportunity to step up to the plate and be the first one.

 

The benefit of this legislation has been explained to you thoroughly by six or more people so far. You simply are not comprehending or are not accepting what has been written to you. The legislation does not help criminals. It is not meant for criminals. DeSantis did not have criminals in mind when he decided that FL. needs legislation to make it easier for law-abiding citizens to carry their weapons without the burden of registration. That's all this is.

 

All I have done with this OP is ask a question. What is the benefit of what DeSantis did (or what was done in other states)?

I have not made any statements. I have just supported the reasons for my question. Why is this a positive for the public? It is a positive for DeSantis (and any other politician in another state where it has been done) as it makes them more popular among the gun carriers and therefore they are likely to get more votes. Where is this a positive to the citizens of that state.

NO ONE has been able to answer that question. Can you?

 

Don’t ya know, this just means we need more guns

 

Might I kindly suggest that you go back and read the op because there is a question there that this entire thread is based upon.

Your question has already been answered.... Just because you don't like or agree with the answer does not mean that it has not occurred.

 

How is me responding that I support the state from the OP pushing for more lax gun policy — which is the topic of the OP — a strawman.

I can post the definition of the word if you would like to discuss it.

I wish I could say the same to back to you but it’s more sad than funny.

 

You just aren’t listening. It IS NOT LEGAL NOW FOR CRIMINALS TO CARRY. The new law DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY LESS LIKELY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO CHECK OUT SOMEONE SUSPECTED OF BREAKING THE LAW. The new law DOES NOT decrease the penalty for carrying if you are prohibited. The new law DOES NOT CHANGE THE LIKELIHOOD OF ANY CRIMINAL TO CARRY OR BE SEARCHED AND/OR SUBJECTED TO A CHECK FOR WARRANTS OR PAST CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR.

The idea cops can no longer spot suspicious behavior is all in your head. The idea cops will no longer investigate suspicious behavior is all in your head. The idea it’s more “legal” or less “risky” for criminals to carry under the new law is all in your head. The idea consequences for illegal carry have changed is all in your head. The idea the odds of illegal carrying being caught and prosecuted have changed in any way is all in your head.

You don’t like the answers you get because they use the law to demonstrate the law changes nothing. You have been convinced by someone who hasn’t read the law of imaginary things that have no basis in reality.

 

Thats a good yahoo, son.

Do you recognize that you literally just posted a bunch of ridiculous **** that has NOTHING to do with Constitutional Carry and your sick attempt to drag dead children into the discussion to make your ridiculous argument?

 

You were PROVIDED the answer to that question...it prevents sick leftist ****-heads from being able to target law abiding CCW holders and post their names in the papers...all to the adoring support of like minded leftist ****-heads NOT in the media.
Hell...you were even given EXAMPLES of the sick leftists ****-heads actually DOING it.

 

Oh, you don’t know what a strawman is. I shouldn’t have assumed you knew.

You responded to the OP (that never brought up state voting history) with a comment about Darwinian effects on red states. Here is where you introduced the red states argument that was not part of the OP question. Thus a strawman you created to change the direction of the OP argument.

I then asked if bright blue states were included in your strawman diatribe about life expectancy and solving those problems. It was funny you only criticized red states when it’s not a red state issue and a blue state actually was the model for subsequent law changes in red AND blue states.

Your post was funny because I can’t take people seriously on these subjects who are so ill informed. Yes, it is sad your positions are based on false premises. But those false premises lead you to post funny things.

You can say whatever you like about me. My positions are fact based as opposed to your false premises. That’s all that matters at the end of the day.

 

Actually it's not at all the topic of the op. The op is pretty clear but I suggest you might want to go back and read it again for clarification

 

I never mentioned blue states outside of saying they should be able to pass laws as they see fit for them — how did you arrive at anyone not knowing that a handful of blue states have implemented similar policies?

Yes, that’s the strawman. Congratulations

Would you like to do a structural review of the worse states for gun violence, states with the most lax gun regulations as well as life expectancy? (Which was the point you seem to have successfully dodged)

They overlap quite a bit

 

Florida is a state
And they are pushing to make gun regulation less restrictive (in this case removing concealed carry limitations)

Which part are you taking issue with and we can walk though it together