Minnesota Crime Committee met today

  • Thread starter Thread starter Q
  • Start date Start date
Q

Q

New member
The Senate and House Crime Committees met in the State Office Building this afternoon. "Cornered Rat" and I just returned (after a very pleasant meal) from the capital. The purpose of the hearing was to get views from "both" sides of the issue.

John Lott was invited to speak, as well as Jens Ludwig for the opposing side.

Boy, were we surprised at what we heard!

After the debate (which Lott clearly won), the senate asked the common questions using those "statistics" you'll see on anti sites. Amazingly, both Lott and Ludwig were debunking them.

In fact, the most Ludwig (I thought he was supposed to be this major anti) would say is that, according to his findings, there would likely be only a marginal shift in crime rates.

Of course, Lott went on to show how his findings didn't agree and that the improvement is much greater, but....

If Minnesota can do as well at the public hearing on Wednesday, it looks like we will have gotten a bill to pass out of committee and onto the floor. The first major hurdle has been cleared.

We still need to work on public opinion, however, and if you live in Minnesota, we sure could use the help.

=Q=
 
Q, sorry I don't live in Minnesota...well, not really :) Sounds like the pro-tyrrany proponent was at least intellectually honest with his research even if his is totally mistaken in his conclusions.
 
It was actually kind of funny, to watch Jens Ludwig, of all people, debunk the "2-1/2 times" and 42% statistics that are *always* used by the anti's...

------------------
"Oh, grow up, 007."
 
I don't know Jens Ludwig, but if he is a competent fellow, and was simply being honest, I won't mind disagreeing with him ... pretty darn nice to actually hear about an honest debate! Sounds like a fellow you can at least respect.
 
The anti side uses *facts* and figures that they know can't possibly stand up under examination, when they publish opinions. These opinions are meant to sway the opinion of people in the anti favor. In a one on one debate, they realize that they are using lies and fabrications to prove their point, and abandon that tactic. The best form of action, from their standpoint, is to debunk the very source of their figures, and make it look lke the real truth is far worse. It is a very effective technique. It's called propaganda. If you read through HCI's web site, you will notice that ALL of the figures and statistics that they publish are based on estimations and projections. Even the highly touted FBI reports are based on estimations, not real facts. The anti side relys on shock value to get someones attention, without revealing the whole truth.
" You are 10 times more likely to shoot a family member or someone you know.." is a prime example. Most neutral people ignore the someone you know part, and just remember the family member part. The FBI in compiling crime statistics, uses persons known, to include drug dealers shooting other drug dealers, and the like. The FBI also lumps justifieable shootings in with all criminal actions, and includes each seperate member. ( BG pulls a gun, 4 cops shoot him, 5 more gun related crimes). When brought out in the open, these facts as the anti's call them can't possibly stand on their own merit. The real message is sent after the debate, during the interview with the media. There the anti side claims a victory of common sense and reason over the proponents of violence. The polititions, not wanting to be viewed as pro violence, say nothing.

------------------
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
George Washington Jan 8,1790--There can be no doubt about the Second Amendment.
 
Mikey:

If your blood pressure is up to it:
http://www.handguncontrol.org
Be sure to check out the claims about CCW and the LEO orginizations. The oginizations listed are against federal preemption of State laws, but the woring and presentation make it appear all of the listed organizations are against CCW.

[This message has been edited by Hal (edited February 24, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Hal (edited February 25, 1999).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top