KS supports MD suit opposing CCW regs

[Chris0nllyn]

Originally Posted by letmetellyou

Like the guy you cited in Florida right? His was supposedly concealed.

The guy in FL was open carrying, but it became concealed, hence the issue.

If you would like to discuss hypothetical situations, we could.

[tom88]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

So now the Department of Justice is skewing stats....got it.

I have to agree that the DOJ statistics for crime are not very accurate. Sometimes because of mis-reporting and sometimes because the agencies who report intentionally under report to make themselves look better.

I think in smaller jurisdictions the statistics are reasonably accurate because the community knows what is actually happening. They know the crime they have.

In larger more urban areas however, I don't believe you can reasonably rely in the statistics. For instance, a robbery or burglary sometimes are classified as a thefts to limit the exposure of the agency.

While assaults are listed in the ucr, what is an agravated assault might be classified as a simple assault.

I'm surprised that you, someone who usually has such distrust of law enforcement, and often assumes the worst of them, would be arguing on behalf of them not doing this. You do understand where the stats the DOJ publishes are generated I hope.

[letmetellyou]

Originally Posted by Chris0nllyn

The guy in FL was open carrying, but it became concealed, hence the issue.

If you would like to discuss hypothetical situations, we could.

You brought up the hypothetical situation such as the mother of two. What is more of a deterent to crime? The guy walking down the street with the shotgun or the guy hiding it in his waistband? If this is really about lowering crime rates, wouldn't you agree the the open carry is more of a deterent?

[letmetellyou]

Originally Posted by tom88

I have to agree that the DOJ statistics for crime are not very accurate. Sometimes because of mis-reporting and sometimes because the agencies who report intentionally under report to make themselves look better.

I think in smaller jurisdictions the statistics are reasonably accurate because the community knows what is actually happening. They know the crime they have.

In larger more urban areas however, I don't believe you can reasonably rely in the statistics. For instance, a robbery or burglary sometimes are classified as a thefts to limit the exposure of the agency.

While assaults are listed in the ucr, what is an agravated assault might be classified as a simple assault.

I'm surprised that you, someone who usually has such distrust of law enforcement, and often assumes the worst of them, would be arguing on behalf of them not doing this. You do understand where the stats the DOJ publishes are generated I hope.

Exactly! My attempted armed robbery becomes a simple assault. This isn't just done by the shall issue states, it's been done by cities like NYC, Baltimore, and Chicago for years. It just goes to show that you can't rely on these stats.

[bulldog (Premo)]

Originally Posted by letmetellyou

Again I would ask where? You said factual. Lott compared trends in Idaho, Mississippi and West Virginia with trends in New York and Washington Dc. He discounted other people's scientific studies and put more emphasis on his own, although he did not provide justification to do so. Factual is an important word.

Simple question for you. Did you read the book?

[letmetellyou]

Originally Posted by bulldog

Simple question for you. Did you read the book?

I have had about enough from you. You are a dishonest person. I spoke to the sheriff and he said he would never tell someone they might be arrested for disturbing the peace simply because they are carrying a firearm. How dare you disparage that man's reputation because you are trying to make a point!

[bulldog (Premo)]

Originally Posted by letmetellyou

I have had about enough from you. You are a dishonest person. I spoke to the sheriff and he said he would never tell someone they might be arrested for disturbing the peace simply because they are carrying a firearm. How dare you disparage that man's reputation because you are trying to make a point!

There you go again, twisting words. I never said arrested, I said charged with... There is a difference.

Secondly, I doubt seriously that you talked to Sheriff Cameron, but instead think you're using that claim as a diversion to get away from the facts. I like Sheriff Cameron and would not disparage, misquote or twist anything he said to me. I would have no reason to do so as this conversation with you is nowhere near important enough to me to not tell the truth.

Now, back to my question. Have you read Lott's book yourself.

[letmetellyou]

Originally Posted by bulldog

There you go again, twisting words. I never said arrested, I said charged with... There is a difference.

Secondly, I doubt seriously that you talked to Sheriff Cameron, but instead think you're using that claim as a diversion to get away from the facts. I like Sheriff Cameron and would not disparage, misquote or twist anything he said to me. I would have no reason to do so as this conversation with you is nowhere near important enough to me to not tell the truth.

Now, back to my question. Have you read Lott's book yourself.

No. Why would I read a book which is written by a guy with an agenda. I did talk to time and am not twisting your words. Being charged with a crime is essentially the same thing as being arrested as far as I am concerned. It shows up on your record either way. You can doubt all you want, but I know from the horses mouth that he would not allow his deputies to charge someone with disturbing the peace because they were acting in a legal manner. That is not twisting your words at all.

[bulldog (Premo)]

Originally Posted by letmetellyou

No. Why would I read a book which is written by a guy with an agenda. I did talk to time and am not twisting your words. Being charged with a crime is essentially the same thing as being arrested as far as I am concerned. It shows up on your record either way. You can doubt all you want, but I know from the horses mouth that he would not allow his deputies to charge someone with disturbing the peace because they were acting in a legal manner. That is not twisting your words at all.

Of course you did not read it, you pulled your quotes from reviews that others had written online. Great research there slick. The fact is, Lott conducts his research in all 50 states of the country and even includeds data from other countries. But alas, you have your mind made up and don't want to be bothered to consider another side of the story.

He would not "allow" his deputies to charge....? You make it sound like they call Sheriff Cameron (or time as you call him. I assume you mean Tim, but can't be bothered to proof read your own material) each time they are about to make an arrest or to charge someone. Do you really think that happens? No, it does not. And after the fact, the Sheriff has no, or very nearly no say so in what happens. Once charged, it's in the DA's hands.

I tried being reasonable with you, but you're an ass clown and not worth a second more of my time.

I'm out!

[letmetellyou]

Originally Posted by bulldog

I tried being reasonable with you, but you're an ass clown and not worth a second more of my time.

I'm out!

The discussion you allegedly had with him is where he was supposed to have told you what would happen. It hadn't happened at that point but you want us to believe that he thinks his people would charge someone with a crime they did not commit and he is not going to take any action before hand to correct it.

That's it. You can't have an intelligent debate so you have to resort to name calling.