State lawmakers made concealed firearms legal without a permit. Then, more West Virginians died.

[AndyS]

“This is just bad law,” said Steve Tanner, then-president of the West Virginia Sheriffs’ Association. “It endangers law enforcement and endangers the public.”
====
But in the months and years after the law was enacted, more West Virginians died from guns. A study, conducted by West Virginia University researchers and published in the American Journal of Public Health, found that firearm deaths were about 26% more frequent in the state after legislators passed HB 4145.
====
“This is something that you could have foreseen at the time,” Palumbo said. “When you put more guns in more places, you’re going to have more accidents and more gun casualties as a result.”
https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2023/10/12/west-virginia-gun-deaths-concealed-carry/?utm_source=The+Trace+mailing+list&utm_campaign=e58fdad993-trace_bulletin_oct_16_2023&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f76c3ff31c-e58fdad993-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

In a couple of years homicide rates went up 26%.

This ain't rocket science people. More guns = more death and injury. 26 states have Political Carry Laws (nothing about the Constitution applies here) and 26 states showed a 15% or more increase in homicides.

[Chainfire]

1. Florida recently did the same thing. I do not expect different results.

[louis-t]

2. Yes, but they do.

[flying_wahini]

3. Isn't it about time more Cops come out saying exactly this? It's a danger to ALL of us. Cops included.

[bpj62]

4. Oh but it gets better

The West Virginia Legislature passed a law allowing open carry on all public university grounds in the state. You cannot bring the weapon into the dorms or sporting events and class rooms but you can walk all over campus with it. This takes effect next fall. My son is an RA at WVU and they have no idea how they will enforce the ban in the dorms.

[TexasDem69]

6. Open carry has been legal in many, many states

For years. For instance, Virginia has allowed open carry for a while.

[AndyS]

7. Good for them, they got a head start on the killing . . .

[TexasDem69]

9. Ha, any stats?

Not sure why I ask. You won’t have any.

[AndyS]

13. Well, since you asked . . .

Well, there's the one I cited in the OP, ya know, the one you ignored?
https://mountainstatespotlight.org/2023/10/12/west-virginia-gun-deaths-concealed-carry/?utm_source=The+Trace+mailing+list&utm_campaign=e58fdad993-trace_bulletin_oct_16_2023&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f76c3ff31c-e58fdad993-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

Here are some other studies you can peruse at your leisure and come to your own erroneous conclusions:

Study Finds Significant Increase in Firearm Assaults in States that Relaxed Conceal Carry Permit Restrictions https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/study-finds-significant-increase-in-firearm-assaults-in-states-that-relaxed-conceal-carry-permit-restrictions

Gun Safety Policies Save Lives https://everytownresearch.org/rankings/

Banning open carry of unloaded handguns decreases firearm-related fatalities and hospital utilization https://tsaco.bmj.com/content/3/1/e000196

Carrying Firearms in Public https://efsgv.org/learn/policies/carrying-firearms-in-public/

Texas Mass Shootings Up 62.5 Percent Since Permitless Carry Bill https://www.reformaustin.org/public-safety/texas-mass-shootings-up-62-5-percent-since-permitless-carry-bill/

States with right-to-carry concealed handgun laws experience increases in violent crime, according to Stanford scholar https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/

I've got more cites if you have the time . . .

[bpj62]

31. Open carry isnt the point

Open carry on a college campus has generally been one of the places that is excluded from most open carry laws.

[TexasDem69]

5. Constitutional carry

Is likely to become more prevalent. But I’d personally support licensing requirements that are both objective and don’t impose a financial burden.

[AndyS]

8. Elaborate please.

[TexasDem69]

10. The response is self explanatory

There’s no need to elaborate

[AndyS]

11. Ah, another throwaway post with no substance . . .

Why did I expect more?

[TexasDem69]

15. What part did you find confusing?

[AndyS]

17. It's not confusing, it's empty.

It's glittering generality. It's like saying 'I support fewer people dying,' with no suggestion of how to accomplish that.

When someone like me makes a post the response is always 'link please! have to see some stats! and a demand for detail, detail, detail.

I say, 'I'd like to (____) and get how? who's going to enforce it? how to finance it?'

So, I'd like to see what restrictions? Who would provide the training? What does the training include? What do you think is too much cost? How do you define 'objective'?

Ya know, just a tiny little bit of context instead of another empty drive by post that does nothing but drive your post count up.

[TexasDem69]

18. Objective

Means the state doesn’t get to deny a license because it don’t like someone’s Facebook page, or their political views. Complete the training and get the license. And the cost for the training should be nothing—if the state wants to require a licensing course then the state should provide that course for free. But if there needs to be some sort of charge then $50 seems like a reasonable one.

[AndyS]

21. So, the cop who shot Tamir Rice should not have been flagged even though

his previous firearms trainer said "[he is] an emotionally unstable recruit and unfit for duty." That was a subjective call made by a superior. SUBJECTIVE. Here's the link 'cause I know you can't contain yourself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Tamir_Rice

What if your facebook page says, "I'm gonna kill me some n**gers" like one recent mass shooter? That facebook post was no more 'Private' the the political sign in your front yard but somehow it can't be used to judged fitness to carry a lethal weapon? Still think it's a private post I challenge anyone to post something like 'I'm gonna kill me a Biden and see how long before the Secret service is at your door. Public social media IS NOT PROTECTED BY PRIVACY LAWS.

"Complete the training and get the license." Why not just issue guns and licenses through vending machines 'cause that's more or less what you are advocating.

Why don't you go find a quiet place and think about what you are saying and how it's playing out in the real world.

Lastly exactly what should be included in 'training'? I can send a request to Utah, fill out the forms and get a concealed permit that is reciprocal in Texas (unless it's changed in the last ten years).

[TexasDem69]

23. "Flagged" how? No individual should get to say someone isn't

Fit to exercise constitutional rights based on subjective belief. I’m sorry you want to deprive Americans of their constitutional rights because you don’t like their thinking. To think you know what is best for everyone else is undoubtedly authoritarian. Stalin or the Khmer Rouge would applaud. I prefer to apply the law equally to all, not just those who agree with me.

Why are you even mentioning privacy laws? Take a deep breath.

[AndyS]

25. Did you read the wiki page I sent you?

So, the cop went though firearms training at a police academy. His instructor failed him and gave reasons.

Are you implying at the 2nd has some mystical power that supersedes current federal law and everyone should get a gun even if they are deemed by a professional firearms instructor to be unstable enough to be denied a job? Are you implying that the right to have a gun is UNLIMITED?

[TexasDem69]

29. I'm not suggesting anything

I’m stating that the Constitution protects the same rights for each individual, regardless of whether we like her views, or some random individual thinks those views should limit rights.

I’ve told you numerous times that 2d Amendments rights are subject to reasonable restrictions so not sure why you keep asking.

Someone’s subjective belief isn’t a reason to deny rights. At least the Supreme Court agrees, even if you don’t. You’re trying to impose restrictions on the 2d Amendment that wouldn’t be tolerated anywhere else.

Anyway, got to feed the dogs and hang out with them awhile so will check back tomorrow. Have a good Friday night.

[AndyS]

30. Since you've given me time

I will take this opportunity to respond to a number of erroneous assertions, distractions and otherwise counterproductive commentary.

In post #23 in response to flagging a police officer as un fit for hire it appears you've missed the discussions of a national police database to prevent unfit police officers from getting further work as police officers. We have these discussions every time a cop commits an atrocity like watching a fellow cop choke George Floyd to death and going back to his regular shift. In the case of the officer in the Tamir Rice incident he had been denied hire for being mentally unfit during firearms training, went to a neighboring town got a job as a cop and killed Tamir Rice was fired in that job and simply got another cop job 30 miles away before being discovered as the cop who killed a child and being fired once more just to move another 30 miles and get ANOTHER cop job. Apparently you see no problem hiring such ?qualified? people, giving them guns and dominion over regular citizens. Then you comment that no single person has the power to blah blah blah second amendment rights. I'll get to that later.

Also in post 23 you question why I brought up privacy rights r.e. Facebook as if it's a foreign concept to you. I did that because in post 18 you brought up facebook.

In post #19 you make it abundantly clear that you do not know the difference between causation and correlation. Until you figure that out how about not using that gun overlord talking point as if it is the terminal point of any discussion of gun laws and the outcome they have? Just tossing it out there as if it's definitive isn't a good look.

In post #14 you toss out another absurdity in "[gun violence increased] Probably everywhere and no real correlation to a particular change in law." What? No stats? No evidence? Just vagaries like "probably"? Not only do you make excessive demands for me 'show my work' while not even attempting to support yours but there you go again with the correlation bull shit you've been fed by the gun makers.

Finally let me address 'Objectivity' as if the world and law runs on 1s and 0s with no possible human input. Is it legal for someone to purchase a gun if they have been involuntarily committed to a metal institution? NO. So who issues commitment orders? That would be a trained mental health professional who issues an OPINION. No x-ray, no MRI or CAT scan that shows a positive undeniable binary sign that this person should not have a gun. The SCOTUS seems fine with that so why shouldn't a trained police firearms instructor who has training in what to look for in unstable individuals not have his OPINION recognized? Where else in the Constitution is there room for such abhorrent rights refusing behavior? 4th amendment says ' no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,". Probable cause, not complete and total proof beyond a reasonable doubt and it's backed up by what someone says they think, not evidence. Is there any wiggle room in the 8th amendment? The one that vaguely refers to "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted". I can't find a single absolute in the whole thing, can you? No, it's left open to interpretation.

So there is some of the fallacious blathering I take issue with in just this one thread.

One mre thing; guns are the problem. Not all guns but guns in the hands of untrained, unvetted fucking idiots who should not be allowed near them.

Look, I know this is nothing more than a highschool debate to you, a counting of coup and a scoring of points. I don't have that luxury. December 14, 2012 took that away from me. This shit has touched me personally. Someday it touch you too. When it does I'll offer sympathy.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. I compared the years 2015 and 2020. The increase in the rate per 100,000 was 80%.

For West Virginia:
In 2015 there were 50 gun homicides in a population of 1,843,332 giving a rate of 2.71.
In 2020 there were 87 gun homicides in a population of 1,784,787 giving a rate of 4.88. An 80% increase.

However, for comparison in Illinois:
In 2015 there were 692 gun homicides in a population of 12,859,585 giving a rate of 5.38.
In 2020 there were 1,167 gun homicides in a population of 12,587,530 giving a rate of 9.27. An 72% increase.

[TexasDem69]

14. So gun homicides increased

Probably everywhere and no real correlation to a particular change in law.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. I checked nationwide numbers:

2015 rate = 4.05
2020 rate = 5.88

[AndyS]

19. I don't think you know what that means.

Causation is a comparison of two variables. In this case guns and violence. If one variable changes and the other changes in like manner there is causation.

I'm assuming that neither of us has a degree in statistics. My only claim to first hand knowledge is a past marriage to someone with a degree in fiance which included a LOT of statistics. If your experience is greater I will bow to a refutation but meantime:
To explain this like a 6 year old can understand:

Variable 1, number of guns
Which leads to variable 2, number of gun violence incidents.

In all the research I've found increasing variable 1 increases variable 2. Decreasing variable 1 decreases variable 2. Causation can be been established.

A correlation would be some variable that, while linked to both of the variables but is not causually linked to the other. For instance, guns increase causing a violence increase which is linked to longer wait times at funeral homes. The wait times are correlated but not caused by variable 1.

The largest burden in proving causation is eliminating other variables such as "Probably everywhere" (with no cites or stats or any of the stuff I'm asked for). The shear number of studies in populations of different ethnicity, demographics, economics and geography along with the time proximity to the change pretty well eliminates the other possible variables leaving ONLY the guns.

[TexasDem69]

20. I'm trying to understand your post

It seems like you are arguing that the only cause of gun deaths is guns, even though some of those are intentional killings where the gun didn’t fire itself, and the vast majority are suicides. So yes, I concede that a gun was involved in the death of everyone who died from a bullet, but if you are arguing that guns are the problem then you need to rethink things

[AndyS]

22. That is not what I said. You know it. I was quite explicit in defining the two

variables and giving a passive explanation about eliminating other variables. Any six year old can understand what I gave you.

[TexasDem69]

24. Thanks!

I can’t decide if I should be offended or the six year old.

On edit, I’m trying to understand your point. It still sounds like you are arguing that the only problem is guns, and theees a thousand different variables in each instance.

[AndyS]

26. No, that is not what I said. You know it.

I will type this very slowly so you and read it better. Go back and re-read my reply. Note what variable 1 is. Note what variable 2 is. Note that I explained how many other variable were eliminated.

I refuse to spoon feed an adult more than that.

[Turbineguy]

27. No doubt it was a complete surprise to them.

Everybody knows that the more guns you have the safer you are.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

28. Let us hope their next experiment is not mandatory concealed carry.