http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2013/02/25/arkansas-business-publishes-concealed-carry-list Comments On: Arkansas Business publishes concealed carry list by David Ramsey en-us Copyright 2013 Arkansas Times. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Arkansas Times readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Arkansas Times. robert@arktimes.com (Arkansas Times Webmaster) Wed, 22 May 2013 00:00:01 -0500 Wed, 22 May 2013 12:45:00 -0500 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
I guess I have to thank you for pointing out it that I shouldn't hitch any wagons to Bellesilles. Could save me much embarrassment later. (Also, thanks to eruditas). He is scorned by even people who badly wanted to believe him. Frankly, I was shocked that the numbers were that low but I thought he knew what he was talking about. Guess not.

I don't agree with you that the answer is more guns though and I think that the NRA's "in-your-face" attitude turns people off. I do believe that if everybody were responsible gun owners, as I know you are, then each citizen could own a hundred firearms without a problem. But you know yourself that a lot of these people will never worry about training nor securing their guns. Ultimately, I think that there are so many guns now in circulation that new restrictions won't help much. And if the government ever starts going around gathering up existing firearms from law abiding citizens, you can count me firmly on your side. I don't think that's what Obama wants to do anyway. Better background checks (and better cooperation between entities which compile it) could help some and maybe better screening of mental health patients could help some too. But, not much is gonna happen, I can guarantee you that. If I can't then Bellesilles can. ;-)
Posted by Olphart]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 19:51:51 -0600 Arkansas Times
As far as trashing your source, I didn't do that so much as I used the work of historians retrieved from Yale Law Journal and other sources that seriously trashed Bellesiles. Give a good look at the first link I sourced. It is over fifty pages long, but packed with source notes on Bellesiles multiple errors of fact and judgement.

I go through stages, too, as far as history is concerned. I concentrated, for about four years on studying the Battle of Leyte with particular emphasis on the Battle off Samar. There were few books on the Leyte battle, much less on the heroic and miraculous victory at Samar. I got every book on the battle, including many books on the individual ships in Taffy Three. Read about the USS Johnston, USS Samuel B Roberts (known as the destroyer escort that fought like a Battleship), USS St Lo and the man of the hour, Adm. Sprague. Also read many things about Halsey to see why he fell so completely for the Japanese decoy fleet and almost cost the U.S. Navy a devastating loss.

Studied a bit of the Civil War, too. When I was eleven, my brother sent me some books by an author known as Bruce Catton. I got my first read of the Civil war from those books, as well as some of the first Doonebury books, too. For about a year I read a lot about the Battle of Tsushima Strait. Fear not, Olphart, for history, you can always make time. It is always time well spent.
Posted by Steven E]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 01:04:27 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Kaye Ransom]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:20:48 -0600 Arkansas Times
I'm gonna have to throw out the Jefferson quotes though. He wrote so many letters and so much other stuff that by pickin' through and choosin', you can make almost any point that you want to make. I do greatly admire the man though. Of course he had his faults but, God, what an intellect! Imagine how that man could blog on the internet if he were alive today.

As far as you trashin' my source, I'll look into it. I got something to do in the morning, for a change, so I have to go to bed a little earlier tonight than normal. I'll follow your links tomorrow and try to see whats-what.

I've developed a craving for history myself in my latter years but I jump all over the place and throughout all times. There seems to me to be so much written on military history, especially the history of WWII and the American Civil War that nobody could live long enough to read them all. They write them faster than you can read them. Anyway, more power to you on that.

You'd better let me buy you a beer BEFORE the shootout. It might throw your aim off a bit. I also fear getting hit in the tender areas by a Nerf ball. If we backed off to 10 paces, it won't hurt so bad.
Posted by Olphart]]> Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:00:23 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://chronicle.com/article/Michael-Belle…

Right now I have been finishing up on the latest Hornfisher book, Neptune's Inferno. His other book, Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors is one of the best histories of the Battle off Samar yet written. He also wrote about about the USS Houston, again doing better than other books before him in accuracy. I had read, The Fleet the Gods Forgot, and while it was a good read, it was filled with inaccuracies.

I read history books, and I do a lot of cross research, and I have gotten pretty good at picking crap from great.

Do better in your picks, Olphart. Using Bellesiles is about as useful and factual as using Kellerman, which will only embarrass you.
Posted by Steven E]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:46:14 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://www.claytoncramer.com/unpublished/A…

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/us/autho…

Poor baby. If he didn't want a hostile environment, then Bellesiles should have been honest.

Quotes from Founders, displaying the particular, and rather full, integration of firearms in the states.

"...one loves to possess arms, tho[ugh] they hope never to have occasion for them." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to George Washington, June 19, 1796. ME 9:341 Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Memorial Edition (Lipscomb and Bergh, editors) 20 Vols., Washington, D.C., 1903-04.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 (Foley, Ed., reissued 1967). (Letter to Peter Carr, his 15-year-old nephew, August 19, 1785).

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy." Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778.

"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion… in private self-defense …" John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)

Olphart, if your going to use a source, use one that has not been so universally refuted, proven fraudulent and found in copious error.

He even had his little award taken away from him. Poor lying, deceitful piece of academic trash. http://hnn.us/articles/1157.html
Posted by Steven E]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 22:21:07 -0600 Arkansas Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arming_Americ…

It does not appear to be a reliable source of data.
Posted by eruditas]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:53:29 -0600 Arkansas Times
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abs…

As a collector, I am quite familiar with the history of muskets, both military and civilian. America had a thriving market for very accurate muskets. That was last of the logistic problem with our early army and many of the militias. Something as simple as musket balls had differing calibers from rifle to rifle. They did make for lousy military rifles because of their time between reloads, but they did damage to the redcoats by their accuracy.

As far as handguns, flintlocks, by their nature were a bitch. Usually any person that had one, had two because, again, reload took time. Good pistols didn't get around till Sam Colt made his revolvers, which by then were cap and ball.

If your honor must be satisfied, then it will be Nerf guns at five paces, the loser buying the winner beer afterwards.
Posted by Steven E]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:39:07 -0600 Arkansas Times
Suh, yu hava impugned my honah yet once again and it shain't be tolerated.

My ignorance, indeed, knows no bounds but, as for this particular case, I musteth protest. I would provide an electronic link but this comes from an actual paper book so I'm gonna have to type it out.

From "Arming America: The Origins Of A National Gun Culture (New York; Knopf, 2000) "in probate records in the period 1765 - 1790 only about 14% of the inventories list guns and half of those guns are described as not working".

And another thing: Valerie said, "When our country was founded it was EXPECTED that you had a gun on you as you put your holster on with your socks and shoes everyday before you left the house...without a permit to do so."

That could hardly be true if only 14% of households owned guns. Also the part about the "holster" implies handguns not long guns. I don't believe that there were very many reliable handguns even in existence during the times of the founding fathers. So, I am forced to repeat that she's full of it and you're about half-full of it.

I'm old and you're getting there, no doubt, but even I wasn't there so we have to rely on historical records.

OK, your turn.
Posted by Olphart]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:35:00 -0600 Arkansas Times
Sorry Hired Mind 4% more murders in the USA than Russia.
Posted by Hackett]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:17:09 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Hired Mind]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:32:57 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Parish Pollard]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:47:13 -0600 Arkansas Times http://www.arkansasbusiness.com/article/91…. What a spectacle. Who knew the gun nuts were such sissies.
Posted by TM]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:42:00 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by Tired]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 10:35:12 -0600 Arkansas Times
“More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws,” author John Lott
Saturday, March 9, 2013 at 12:00 p.m. (Sturgis Hall) In partnership with the Crime Chronicle and KARN. - An economist and political commentator, Lott will discuss his book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” which argues against gun control restrictions in America. A former scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who earned his Ph.D. in economics from UCLA, Lott currently serves as a contributor to Fox News.

Think there'll be a Q&A afterward?
Posted by imjustsaying]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:44:11 -0600 Arkansas Times
You shouldn't call BS so quickly, though in regards to your ignorance of history. The militias had some damn fine shots that made a real mess of British cohesion. Still, the major problem with the Continental Army wasn't its lack of guns, but its lack of real soldiers. At that time, the British Army was the best in the world. The nascent American army was a polyglot of tinkers, tailors and militia. If you read about the experience of the American soldiers, you will know that they had a holy terror f the British bayonet. If the fighting got in close, unit cohesion usually fell apart. That was Washington's biggest dilemma. He had to make an army that would be trained well enough to even fight while being pummeled by its own artillery. What the Americans did add was the sniper. There were even dedicated troops armed with rifled muskets that would harass and chew away at British columns.

As far as the question of armed citizens nowadays holding off our own military, it is not impossible. I have noticed with some amusement the disdain held for our own citizen's ability to resist. I have also noted that some are of the failing opinion that our military would never attack its own citizens. My conclusions on this issue is mixed. I know not all would obey illegal and clearly unConstitutional orders to attack its citizens, but questionnaires have been going out since the early 80s gauging the willingness of our soldiers, particularly the officers ranks, to fight against its own civilians. The results, I have found, are disturbing. Some of the more idiotically snarky of this group have some belief that any fight would be a classical battlefield fight. Well, duh, dummy, of course the citizens would lose. But in other manners of fighting and resistance, there are ways to make tanks, armored cars and jets superfluous in the new kind of fight. Big cities are where tanks would go to die. Did you know one man with an unlit bottle of gasoline can knock out an M1 Abrams tank in a city street? Knocks the whole damn tank out without having to kill anybody or take undue chances of getting shot.

Is it probable that our military would get orders to attack its own citizens? Not probable, but it is possible and too many in the military would go along with orders, many not even knowing of the context of Nuremburg.
Posted by Steven E]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 09:12:12 -0600 Arkansas Times
If you look at the first link I posted, it talks about the problem with looking ONLY at guns as the main issue. Many states have extremely lax gun laws and have very low homicides or crime rates. Those southern states you bring up also have some of the highest poverty levels in the nation. Other areas like Los Angeles and DC where guns are not only heavily regulated, but banned, you have the highest crime rates in the country.

Ultimately, despite what the fools may snark, the gun is only a tool, and there are guiding issues that go beyond the simple tool that create the violence we have in certain areas.
Posted by Steven E]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:50:20 -0600 Arkansas Times
Will there be roses and butterflies at the lecture on the 9th? If not, my mommy won't let me go.

BTW, you're full of shit. George Washington had a lot of trouble at first with his first continental army. Seems that a lot of them had never owned nor shot a gun before.
Posted by Olphart]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 01:15:00 -0600 Arkansas Times Posted by taorider]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:21:55 -0600 Arkansas Times
John Lott, author of "More guns, less crime", will be at the Clinton School of Public Service on March 9th @ 12:00pm to disuss the positive effects of gun owners on their communities. RSVP on the Crime Chronicle Facebook page if you are interested in hearing REAL FACTS in regards to gun control and crime. https://www.facebook.com/events/450006631736256/


Posted by Valerie Emmons]]> Tue, 26 Feb 2013 00:01:55 -0600 Arkansas Times You earn in IDPA, buy hitting your target in the center
X number of times.
I'll leave you a parting gift. An education in firearms
Safety:

The 1st Law of Gun Safety - The Gun Is Always Loaded!

The 2nd Law of Gun Safety - Never Point A Gun At Something You're Not Prepared To Destroy!

The 3rd Law of Gun Safety - Always Be Sure Of Your Target And What Is Behind It!
The 4th Law of Gun Safety - Keep Your Finger Off The Trigger Until Your Sights Are On The Target!
Posted by clay pigeon]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 22:31:40 -0600 Arkansas Times Shot. "

OK, Mr. "expert pistol Shot". I challenge you to a duel....with Steven E. Meet him at dawn on the 29th, first sandbar south of Toad Suck. I'm puttin' my money on Steven cause his grammar is better.
Posted by Olphart]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:51:58 -0600 Arkansas Times
How ironic that ReTHUGliconS and Tea Pot Heads want to force everyone to have one or more guns in their houses, churches, colleges, etc. (small government, you know) yet when a high schooler tries to take a gun and clip into his school he gets arrested and expelled. You boys (and I do mean boys!) should be picketing the police department for this boy standing up for your rights to carry.

One other observation- if folks are allowed to open carry, we will know they have a concealed weapon permit (or do we?) so it would no longer be a secret. Won't that knowledge subject them to danger since they think the concealed carry list being available does just that? Oh, you've just got to love the twisted logic of the blog's gun fetishists.

I got my copy of the Secret Gun Club members so I know who to watch out for. What's your gang sign, boys?
Posted by Sound Policy]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 21:17:34 -0600 Arkansas Times http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-rep…

JRB, 129,947 permit holders out of 3,000,000 in the state? That's one of the keys of this data. It shows what a minority base the GOP is pushing laws for. Only 1 in 3 Americans own a gun in the first place. Though the rate is probably higher here, I bet it's still below 50%.

The well-armed red southern states have higher crime rates than most. #1 is South Carolina, #2 Tennessee, #5 Louisiana, #11 Arkansas, #15 Texas, #17 Oklahoma, #23 Alabama. Somehow MS is #31. If more weapons = citizens safer, those would be reversed.
Posted by Cindi Cobb]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:55:49 -0600 Arkansas Times I'll stand up to tyranny, since tyranny wears many coats and hides behind photo-shopped certificates of authenticity. I expect US soldiers the defend us from domestic issues, since they took an oath to protect us on foreign and domestic soil.
AR-15, not reliable, I prefer my Saiga.
Posted by clay pigeon]]> Mon, 25 Feb 2013 20:42:10 -0600 Arkansas Times