CONCEALED CARRY, RIGHT ON RED, LOW STANDARDS AND THE TALENT POOL
I guess I'd feel a little bit better about our wannabe concealed carry types taking to the training if there was even a smidge of an indication our citizens have mastered 'Right on Red, After Stop'. We've only had 42 years to master the "right on red" thing and generations of Illinoisans have continued proudly to not even vaguely stop before hooking a right. Maybe as a people, we're just too stupid and undisciplined to routinely put yet another weapon into our collective hands.
In a possibly related story, I noticed some of our non-advanced school board members were in favor of de-incentivizing AP classes. Great, guys, let's make sure nobody flies too high through hard work and a keen intellect.
posted by UMRBlog @ 08:08
33 comments
33 Comments:
Hey, if everyone were as smart as you, who would you talk down to?
If you would read farther than Jeff Mays , you can see the reason why . As a person who was in every AP class QHS offered , I see the reason .
As I recall members of that Wonderful Teachers Union were hugging on Blaggo's nuts hard when he tried to sell GRT here.
One even tried to tell me how wrong I was . Then 3rd Ward Bob Klingle without a handler tried to explain how GRT was great also .
I informed them both exactly what they could do to themselves .
What about Holder's views on the 2nd ????
At this point in time the Right attacked the 4th and the left attacks the 1st & 2nd ...............
One of these days we will get a larger base of MIDDLE to protect us all .
You missed you own point during your musings. If people actually had to take 20 hours of training on only turning right on red, I think you could trust them to go out into the streets again.
The offered CCW legislation requires many more hoops to jump through than that, and statistics show that trained citizens can carry safely.
See this study. I know it's long, but all the facts are in there to make you feel better about turning right on red, and carrying a concealed weapon.
http://www.wpri.org/Reports/Volume19/Vol19no4.pdf
Took 1004,
We've got nothing to argue about on that one!
TYFCB
0858,
Smart is not necessarily the point. A lot of smart people do unsafe things.
I do not you don't quarrel with my premise that a large majority of folks here in the basin are unsafe right-on-redders.
This leads to the mere discussion point "If they are unsafe with one lethal instrument, why would we want to expand their access to another?"
If you want to insult me instead of join issue on the discussion point, that's your call.
Now if you read this reply carefully, you will see that I have not challenged your intelligence.
Oh, and that would be "whom".
TYFCB
2quixote GRT.
Basin was out before anybody else identifying the GRT as a wet dream. Like 8 days later the local chamber of commerce figured it out.
Profiles in courage there.
None of which has anything to do with AP credit. A righteous AP dual credit gets a smart person out of tertiary or specialized education sooner, with less debt and contributing to the economy. If we ever needed smart people contributing to our economy soonest, it's now.
I'm pretty sure you got AP credit for being in my Sunday School Class!
TYFCB
Observer,
Actually, I'm not opposed to conceal/carry as a concept so long as the right of property owners to ban arms is protected and as long as the training period is as long as that required by peace officers and as long as the training is at least 20% discharge/deployment ("shoot/don't shoot").
But we do disagree on one fundamental point. You think the "right on red" behavior is a training issue. I think, more than anything, it is willful, selfish "my time is more important than your safety." behavior. Most people know the "after stop" part, they just don't give a rat's ass. They're busy, important, horny, talking on a cell phone, eating pizza, shaving, putting on lipstick or just generally entitled to make that right however and whenever they want to.
Just trying to put a context on what I see with my own eyes as I drive or walk around the area and superimpose it onto a current public safety-related proposal.
It'd be nice if you were right about the trainability of the sudden righters. While I appreciate the faith you have in our neighbors concern for the common good, I'm just not seeing it reflected in, among other things, right on red behavior.
TYFCB and I will look at your URL. Thanks for that too.
I myself am pretty damn sick of the Board of 4 , they have led us down a pretty dark path for years
"I do not you don't quarrel with my premise that a large majority of folks here in the basin are unsafe right-on-redders."
This makes no sense.
Also, what are your stats on right on redders, and what study have you seen that shows that ror's would not safely handle a weapon like a gun? Are most gun crimes or shootings, accidental or purposeful, committed by citizens who also have a tendency to roll to the right without coming to a complete stop? You must have some hard stats to make such a correlation. I contend one has nothing to do with the other. Your argument is bogus.
Should have read:
"You don't quarrel with my premise that a large majority of folks here in the basin are unsafe right-on-redders."
I highlighted the first three words and then whiffed the "delete" key I guess.
I don't think I need a scientific study to say that non-stopping right on redders are willful. They all took the pretty much the written test and studied the same Rules of The Road.
They choose to be careless with one lethal instrument. Now we're just discussing whether they would be more careful if entrusted with another lethal instrument, carried on their persons.
Often past human behavior is a pretty good indication of future human behavior.
TYFCB
2Key 1405,
That does not mean they're wrong on the AP thing. To adopt a proposition or thought solely because of who puts it forth is mere idolatry. To oppose it solely because of who puts it forward is just reactionary.
Neither is your style.
TYFCB
"I don't think I need a scientific study to say that non-stopping right on redders are willful."
I don't think your logic stands up. The extension being anyone who has broken the law shows a tendency to do so, so shouldn't be allowed to drive in the first place.
Besides, it takes more than a slightly portly city attorney's perception that a great majority of people where he happens to drive don't come to complete stop before proceeding to the right on red, to deny someone their 2nd amendment rights.
You would think people in other areas who do have CCW, also have a tendency to come to a complete stop. There must be stats that show that there is an increase in shootings in areas that allow CCW. Problematic for your argument is, there are no such increases.
Let's work backwards. I don't think I suggested any infringement of anybody's second amendment rights. That ship--regulated CONCEALED weapons--has long since sialed. In fact, I laid out, in another comment the circumstances under which I'd support CC.
The first part of your argument calls up the difficulty of dealing with anons. One of the problems is that the blogger doesn't know to how many individuals he is responding.
An anon suggested that TRAINING on R-on-R would curtail the problem. I suggested that it wouldn't if the behavior was willful and not ignorant. Then I suggested, several times, if the dangerous behavior was willful it might be evidence that there could be additional willful dangerous behavior by the same people with a different dangerous instrumentality.
This could have led to an interesting discussion of the motive for dangerous R-on-R and whether it was merely ignorant or willfully self-important. That could have led to a further discussion about whether that behavior, if willful, could bleed over into other practices with other dangerous instrumentalities.
Or, the whole thing could have gone in another direction and somebody could have shown me I was completely wrong and virtually nobody is failing to stop and clear before R-on-R'ing. What I see everyday is a mirage or an aberration of the enormously law-abiding and careful drivers of our state.
Instead, there was discussion of an "extension" I didn't make: people with moving violations shouldn't drive. The law's pretty clear on that. It takes real effort for a non-DUI driver to lose an Illinois privilege and I never suggested anything different.
Interesting exercise, this. Tried to discuss one form of heedless behavior in context of a proposal that's topical and, for the most part, I get a second amendment screech and a couple of insults. When somebody made the "training" argument, I tried to join issue with them on whether training would address the behavior,if willful. That went nowhere.
Here I thought this topic had promise. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.
1632,
I wrote my 1635 post before I saw yours. Yours was in the storage area while I was typing mine.
This is a good argument. I'm glad somebody made one. Of course, the problem is we have no pure "Right on Red" stats to compare with the gun accident stats. I suppose we could extrapolate from moving violations with some kind of postulate that a certain percentage of movers were R-o-R's.
I guess what I have, scientifically, is nothing more than a hypothesis. It would very hard to experiment to prove or disprove it. We'd have to observe drivers, find the R-o-R violators, give them guns and find out how the people at ground zero made out.
To satisfy the FDA, it'd have to be a double-blind study where some of the guns were real and some weren't and the CC designees didn't know which they had (Note to literalists: this paragraph is an attempt at humor.)
The other more modest version of it could just focus on R-o-R. If we picked 1000 people in downstate Illinois to train and follow and compared them to a control group with similar driving histories and no intervention training, then compared their traffic control device violations over, say, a five year period--we would have a pretty good idea whether the cause was ignorance or willfulness. If it were ignorance, the control group would have way more device violations. If it were willful or heedless, there wouldn't be much difference in the two groups.
(Total aside: I don't dispute that conceal carry does deter some violent and property crime. That's another topic for another day.)
Well, while Fred's uncle, Ted (Nugent) would argue that we should all be able to go out tomorrow and carry whatever weapon we want to however we want to, and God love him, I like the idea, I don't think that is reasonable. However, the inconsiderate right-on-red violators would not be amenable to taking remedial right-on-red classes and if they did only a few would make the effort to graduate. The same with potential CCW folks.
Many would be uninterested in the fee, the classes, the time involved and the mental investment to begin and/or finish the CCW requirements. Those that did make the investment would likely be taking the whole process very seriously.
I do, however, have some concerns with the off the cuff guidelines that I remember reading on QNO when he first broke the story about the Illinois Sheriffs supporting CCW. That whole "mental evaluation" thing worries me. Having taken and failed for employment a "psychological test" many years ago I wonder how many people wouldn't pass that test and if they did fail would that not only disqualify them from CCW, but also jeopardize their FOID? I mean, if they aren't deemed mentally sound then they probably aren't safe to own a firearm at all, right?
Oh, and by the way, I've never been arrested, have no record, haven't killed, beaten, or otherwise assaulted anyone, haven't stolen, embezzled, defrauded, etc., am happily married. Just in case you all were wondering.
Fred,
You'll just love the Rohrshach test.
TYFCB
They all look like naked people having sex to me.
4:53 PM, February 28, 2009
Or, you could assume drivers exhibit relatively the same characteristics nationwide. Since there is no data that supports an increase in shootings in states that allow CCW, you can dismiss your theory out of hand.
1704
Sure, why deal with an interesting stat set when you can just assume away the problem. Reminds me of the engineer on the desert island joke--"assume a can opener".
TYFCB
I don't think the newspaper story made the difference between AP classes and dual-credit classes clear enough. Lots of kids are getting "dual credit" from John Wood for basically doing their high school work in selected classes (NOT in AP classes) and paying extra money to John Wood. That's where the low standards are creeping in.
AP students have to pass a national exam to get a score, and then colleges can choose to accept only scores above a certain level -- some accept only 4 or 5 scores, others will take a 3. But for dual-credit classes, the kids get junior-college credit. and any college that takes junior-college credit has no way of knowing that the course was taken at a high school.
Dual credit is a flat-out scandal.
There is the answer , yet the real answer was "in newspaper only part of the story" ............
:)
Helpful explanation but THESE two were AP classes.
TYFCB
You want an arguement for ccw. Ask the family members of the two dead people in Hannibal. The police didn't do their job, the judge failed to do his job, the imigration department didn't do their job because our presidents don't enforce the laws of this country. It is time americans arm themselves. Our police departments are too busy enforcing seatbelt laws to be bothered with real crime.
Not that I don't agree with you, Bushie, but these folks were from Missouri, they already had the safeguards available to them to protect themselves. They either wouldn't, or couldn't take advantage of them, but even then a firearm doesn't guarantee your well-being. You still have to make informed decisions about your acquaintances, surroundings, etc. (That's why Ed won't go in bars.) This unfortunate incident could have been a little less dangerous if different decisions had been made by the victims. Hindsight is 20/20, unfortunately.
Fred:
Are you really saying the victims are some how to blame for their own deaths?
I agree that hanging out with certain people can be dangerous but the blame for what happened in Hannibal lies with the Hannibal Police department and Judge Jackson.
The woman did the right things,she went to the law and asked for help. They failed her, just as they do in many similar situations around this country.
Had she been my daughter and he hurt her he would simply vanish.
That the way you protect your family.
UMR, you sure about the length of time RTOR has been around? I remember the law being passed when I was at ISU, and that was 1980-83.
I believe the earliest states to have it were in response to the '73 oil crisis, so I'm not sure where your 42 year number came from.
28-38 years, tops.
Not that it matters, just feel like arugula...errr, arguin'. :)
Pravo the Lazy Slavniye
I got nothin', Bushie.
Memory,
I was in the military 64-68 (and invited back for a short stay by my close friend Milhouse in 69-70).
When I enlisted, there was no right turn until the thing turned green, period, end of story. That was '64. When I came back on a short leave Christmas of '65, still no ROR. When I got out (temporarily as it turned out--Thank you, Milhouse) in '68, it was permitted and not just for arrows. There were PSA's on TV about it.
Now, this was mostly Lake and McHenry Counties so I guess it's possible it was a local thing. I've always assumed the change happened in '67 or '68. I'll look it up in the legislative reference bureau, but not soon.
BTW, you're looking healthy of late. You join that new 24/7/365 gym with no membership required?
TYFCB
It's Lent. :)
Seriously though, just walking more and trying to eat less. It's amazing, works nearly every time. Plus I was in "Abe" and had to do a lot of dancing and jumping around stage (rather like a lumbering musk-ox to be sure, but every little bit helps).
Only 180 to go!
The reason folks like Carol Nichols think Jeff Mays is off base on *this particular* dual-credit issue is that it *is* firmly tied to the AP class and the AP standards will apply.
So while Jeff's concerns are probably legit wrt general dual-credit classes, they don't apply for AP/dc.
Hey that would be a great band name...
YOU WROTE SOME TIME AGO: This leads to the mere discussion point "If they are unsafe with one lethal instrument, why would we want to expand their access to another?"
--This is the problem with democrats, (and most Republicans actually). The government doesn't GIVE us access to anything. You are a lawyer for Christ's sake. You should know this. Reread that sentence and think of the arrogance of it as a public official. Then try rereading the second amendment. Come on UMR, you're better than that.
Government actually does grant access on a discretionary basis to the operation of motor vehicles on public roadways under the "privilege doctrine". That's one of those "rights" not granted to the people or the Central US Government and thus reserved to the states.
Surely you are not making the argument that Concealed Carry regulation by the several states is barred by the second amendment. Not even Chuck Heston and Wayne's world LaPierre advanced that one. Do keep in mind the CC Permitting process doesn't seek to restrict gun ownership or the right of an adult to carry a weapon openly and notoriously.
The context of the discussion was R-on-R dorks and concealed carry standards.
Now, I take your point on the use of the word "give" probably always a bad word to use in Conjunction with Government. When the government "gave" me guns, I had to "give them back when I was done with them. I could keep the boots, hats and jungle fungi.
TYFCB
Post a Comment
<< Home