• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

John R. Lott, Jr., CPRSC. Should schools have teachers carry guns? AAHB Health Behavior Research December 2018

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Anyone. Not just the good doc, that supports gun regulations, permits required to own or carry, mandatory training, etc etc simply is NOT on the side of gun owners RTKABA or the 2A that prohibits all of those things.

Liberals and antis can't be "converted" nor is there a reason to try.

It would be wise not to provide them ammunition from "experts" supposedly on our side though.
 

John Pierce

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
1,777
In More Guns, Less Crime, The War on Guns, The Bias Against Guns, and in my many op-eds and other writings, I have continually pointed out how extremely law-abiding concealed handgun permit holders are. How do I show that? By comparing the rate that permit holders are convicted or crimes or that they have their permits revoked to the number of permit holders. I can only do that if I know the number of concealed handgun permit holders. It allows me to fight back against claims about the danger of concealed handgun permit holders by Bloomberg's Everytown and groups such as the Violence Policy Center. Here is one of many examples:

Welcome to the forum Dr. Lott!
 

CJ4wd

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2017
Messages
265
Location
Planet Earth
An interesting discussion.
Considering some of the points that have been made such as Eye's "raison d’etre", wouldn't that stipulation also include the NRA and their preference for CC ? After all, they have that clothing line with hidden pockets, they sell concealable holsters, they sell RFID wallets, etc. They have a financial "interest" in promoting CC and it is that attitude that causes me to look askance at their oft-repeated requests for funds.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I find the NRA’s bias toward licensed carry to be off-putting and dropped my membership when the NRA-ILA refused to correct some errors in how they stated Alabama law in regards to OC.

Still, they sometimes support true Liberty initiatives, and I will be on their side when they do.

However, sometimes I worry that they are gun-control-pimps in the vein of Jesse Jackson having been accused of being a poverty-pimp.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,428
Location
Florida
We all need to make the moral and
no.

Bad logic.

If the 2A “was truly honored” (the precise wording that allegedly rendered anything Dr. Lott had to say as moot), then OC would have remained legal sans license, and this site would never have existed, as OC would have remained the default position.
So if no infringements existed, all 300+ million US citizens would carry openly? Nah. It'd be limited to a group. Also, even if infringements didn't exist, that doesn't mean that the entire population would support it. There would still be a vast amount of people that would try to find ways to infringe on it, much like they began to do immediately after the BoR and Constitution were enacted.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
no.



So if no infringements existed, all 300+ million US citizens would carry openly? Nah. It'd be limited to a group. Also, even if infringements didn't exist, that doesn't mean that the entire population would support it. There would still be a vast amount of people that would try to find ways to infringe on it, much like they began to do immediately after the BoR and Constitution were enacted.
If the RTKABA were honored the majority would probably OC for a couple of reasons.

One it would be common place and the shyness of folks for others to know they carry wouldn't apply.

It's physically more comfortable and for the tactical minded twice as fast to get your weapon in action from OC than CC

There wouldnt be a CC cash cow for "cc instructors " to milk with tacticool voodoo, the much ballyhooed element of surprise", etc ad nausea .

Sure some would prefer the OO7 feeling of a hidden weapon.

The whole landscape would be different as far as going armed

If the 2A were honored by the gov and SCOTUS as it was written and intended it wouldn't matter a hoot who supported it. The nation and the COTUS were founded on the principle of individual liberty, not mob rule.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
no.



So if no infringements existed, all 300+ million US citizens would carry openly? Nah. It'd be limited to a group. Also, even if infringements didn't exist, that doesn't mean that the entire population would support it. There would still be a vast amount of people that would try to find ways to infringe on it, much like they began to do immediately after the BoR and Constitution were enacted.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. If you think I am saying something different from the exact words I write, please ask directly, writing something like “Do you mean that...” to which I can answer yes or no.

On a second note: “We all have a God-given (or natural, if you prefer) Right to self defense,” is a moral argument. It is not a legal argument. It is not a statistical argument. It appeals to others’ sense of what is right and what is wrong.

If you are curious about my take on OC v CC, ask. You won’t like it, but I will tell you.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
Dr. Lott does not support permits if I read his writings correctly. Permits are a reality and making them as close to free as possible, and shall issue, is a stepping stone to the goal of permit free carry in all of the several states and territories.

His personal views on OC are a bit more cryptic. Perhaps more research on OC is warranted.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
Eye of the beholder I guess.

ALL I can get from his writings on the permit and registration score is he absolutely supports permits and registration as the "ideal".
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
The pure argument involves 80% of the good guys outgunning the 20% who are bad. It's a self-stabilizing environment, one where the armed, polite society becomes quite effective at minimizing crime.

If everyone knew everyone else, that might actually work. In reality, not only do you not know everyone else, but the bad guys often gang up on the good guys. Besides, things can devolve into a rather bloody mess before everything gets sorted out and the system stabilizes itself with bad guys making nice out of fear of retribution. Even then, it won't stop the brazen ones, hence the evolved process of removing them from the streets altogether.

Yes, modern incarceration is expensive, but not as expensive as Ferguson-type riots.

In and of themselves, permits do little more than provide bean counters with an easier accounting of whose carrying concealed. They're not, for example, used to expedite purchases of the implements of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In my mind, that's fairly short-sighted, tossing all those background check efforts out the window only to duplicate it, poorly, on the day of a purchase.

Ergo, I do not support permits or registration, either, as they appear to involve a good deal of effort and dollars for very little return. As for background checks, sure. Why not? At least it curbs wholesale gun trading by criminals.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
Snipp...

Yes, modern incarceration is expensive, but not as expensive as Ferguson-type riots.

In and of themselves, permits do little more than provide bean counters with an easier accounting of whose carrying concealed. They're not, for example, used to expedite purchases of the implements of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms. In my mind, that's fairly short-sighted, tossing all those background check efforts out the window only to duplicate it, poorly, on the day of a purchase.

Ergo, I do not support permits or registration, either, as they appear to involve a good deal of effort and dollars for very little return. As for background checks, sure. Why not? At least it curbs wholesale gun trading by criminals.
Alas since9, those privileged permit/license issued by this Nation’s states are in fact a massive revenue generation and a profit center, e.g., NC has issued, as of 2017, 607K which times $80 equates to $48.8 Million for the State’s Sheriff Offices to utilize without meaningful oversight! Thats not counting Tarheel citizens paying an instructor <> $100 for the manditory 8 hr + range time concealed class!

CO has issued 388K and OH has issued 623K ~ you do the math!

Further, you are incorrect when you unequivocally state the State issued privilege permit/license does not expedite firearm purchases, e.g., in NC, citizens must have either a PPP of privilege card to purchase a firearm and because of their possessing said privilege card are exempt from a NICS background check!

Sorry since9, CO privilege card holders are not exempted but the kind folk in OH are.

Oh, one other factoid about exemption, those states, except CO & FL but including UT, who issue their citizens privilege cards are by law, NICS’ bkgnd ck exempted.

Privilege cards do little...state revenue generation of $48M + instructor $$$ flowing into just one state’s economy does not sound statistically like a little?
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,428
Location
Florida
is a stepping stone to the goal of permit free carry in all of the several states and territories.
a stepping stone to something that already exists? if the 2nd amendment has been applied to the states, then where do they get their authority to mandate permits for carrying of weapons? the federal government does not require is not authorized to require individuals to purchase/acquire a permit to carry or own a weapon.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
a stepping stone to something that already exists? if the 2nd amendment has been applied to the states, then where do they get their authority to mandate permits for carrying of weapons? the federal government does not require is not authorized to require individuals to purchase/acquire a permit to carry or own a weapon.
Then go about your daily routine w/o a permit, you certainly have the right to do so.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
1,255
Location
Kentucky
You have an absolute right to carry on your own private property. You have absolutely zero right to carry on my private property.

If someone enters my domicile carrying a firearm and I do not know them, they're dead, period, bar none, end of discussion.

What will happen to me? Absolutely nothing. It's my private property, not theirs.

By the way, a fair number of wonderfully nice and well-armed gents who frequented this forum helped me move back in 2011. I treated them to a barbeque feast. Thanks, guys!

They were in and out of where I lived, back and forth, many times.

The key difference, there, Ghost1958, is I'd invited them. They had advanced permission, and I was very grateful for their assistance due to majorly bummed ankle. I needed all the help I could get!



I think you're mixing up business private property vs domicile private property. Businesses open to the public have an implied invitation of entry. If the sign says, "Open," then it's a written/posted invitation. If the sign says, "Closed," then it's a temporarily revoked invitation. A locked door is equivalent to a "closed" sign. Lacking any open/closed sign, if it looks, acts, and feels like a business and the door is unlocked, you're not trespassing if you enter, but you are trespassing if you do not leave the moment they say "we're closed" or "please leave."

Castle laws do not require me to ask or tell someone to leave. Without an express oral or written invitation, you're tresspassing the second you cross the threshold. B&E is equivalent to highly probable forfeiture of your own life.
Sorry but it is not that way in all or even most states.

In my own state unless I have a no trespassing sign displayed anyone coming on my land is NOT trespassing until they are verbally told they are.



Entering my dwelling is a different matter.

I'm betting it's that way in your state as well.
 

OC4me

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2009
Messages
758
Location
Northwest Kent County, Michigan
OC4me said:
"Should schools have teachers carry guns?"
"Should teachers have Second Amendment Rights?"

There . . . I fixed it!

Our side loses because we fail to argue the REAL issue!
John Lott:
If you ignore the safety issue and just argue 2A points, you will lose this debate. People in the middle of this debate may value freedom, but they are often willing to trade off freedom for safety. Fortunately, from your point of view, in this case, freedom and safety appear to go together. If you only argue 2A points, you come across as not having any responses to the safety concerns raised by others and you come across as callous.

I get your point John, however, it is the pro-infringement side that should be required to publicly insult teachers (and public servants) everywhere by explaining why such valued and law-abiding Citizens must be treated no better than felons? Switch the conversation around! The safety issue has not been lost, in fact merely shifted to put the antis on the defensive. Let the antis come across as callous!

In your defense, you are tackling the problem from an academic perspective, and not a legal one, a point which should be acknowledged.

BTW, I am a big fan of yours and a donor! Keep up the good work!
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Not my states law. Maybe yours.
Yes, mine. But yours, as well. We already examined your state laws, Ghost1958, either above or in another thread. I posted links to your laws. I quoted your laws. We even came to a somewhat mutual understanding.

Now you're backing off and going with your mantra, rather than observing the letter of the law.

Hmm...
 
Top