Man jailed over gun in UGA hotel

[brosometal]

Oh no, not again is this gonna be another one of those threads?  I took something a little different from the story:

..."according to UGA Police Lt. Lisa Boone."

I live in a University town and sometimes venture to campus.  I don't know the exact statistics (that shouldn't be a problem here, huh fellas? )  I love and respect hard working LEO's but as a rule if it ain't a game day these folks aren't workin ' that hard, and most of the time they aren't thinkin' that hard either.  Heaven forbid you draw attention to yourself on campus on a Sunday.  I have been stopped on a Sunday and had no less that 6 seperate officers stop by for "back up".  Now this is a campus but it isn't a large swath of area by any stretch of the imagination.  I tend to agree with Ron J.  He didn't need to be arrested but should have been beaten with some hose or a possibly punched through a phone book for stupidly leaving his weapon lying on the bed.

[tombogan03884]

that was in reguard to mass shootings not crime in general

Guns ( or lack thier of)  play no role in crime stats.    Crime is a very, very complex issue. 

Rather you like it or not, if we gave every one in the US a gun and holster, crime stats would change for a breif period of time, then they would go strait back to where they are now.

Then how come Ca and Ma with strict gun laws have more crime than places with few gun laws, History does not bear you out.

[Hazcat]

Let's see....

You state he is endorsed by the NRA yet your link is a wikiopedia entry.

You list a quote without reference or attribution and of course no link to the study.

YAWHN........

[WatchManUSA]

do you have any to disprove me?   

Almost ever single study done that has compared the number of guns to crime rates has come up with that statment.  only the biased studys ( both pro and against)  have said other wise.

and just for haz... some one from FL.,...

and he is even blessed by the NRA...

The best currently available evidence, imperfect though it is (and must always be), indicates that general gun availability has no measurable net positive effect on [crime] rates.... This is not [to] say gun availability has no effects on violence - it has many ... but these effects work in both violence-increasing and violence-decreasing directions, with the effects largely canceling out. For example, when aggressors have guns, they are (1) less likely to physically attack their victims, (2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but (3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury. Further, when victims have guns, it is less likely aggressors will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery. [Taken together] ... the best available time series and cross-sectional studies [show that], the overall net effect of gun availability on total rates of violence is not significantly different from zero. [Emphasis in original.]1

First let me point out that the link you provided does not say what you quoted.  The link is about Gary Kleck. 

At any rate if we examine the quote you provided we find it says that when a perpetrator have guns  they are:

(1) less likely to physically attack their victims,
(2) less likely to injure the victim given an attack, but {they are}
(3) more likely to kill the victim, given an injury.

That makes sense.

On the other side if the good people are armed:

“..it is less likely aggressors [the bad guys] will attack or injure them and less likely they will lose property in a robbery.”

That seems like a perfect reason why I should carry a sidearm because at the end of the day I don’t really care what happens to the crime rate.  I’m most concerned about what happens to me and my family.

If I win by being less likely to have bad things happen if attacked and the impact on the crime rate is neutral - I’m OK with that and I’m sure most people here will agree.

So I’ll take you back to the original post.  What does a discussion of the crime rate and gun ownership have to do with Eric Dewayne Baylis getting arrested at a hotel owned by the University of Georgia because it was within a school safety zone?

[TAB]

That was a qoute from his eval of the hart study... google him, you will see he has several published studys as well as books.

Chances are very high you will like him as he is anti gun control.  The NRA and NRA-ILA  site his works all the time.  I'm not going to spend my time looking up his works, I've read alot of them and for the most part I agree with him.  That is something I recomend you do. 

He is just one of many that has made the statment that guns don't effect crime stats.

[Sponsor]

[Pathfinder]

That was a qoute from his eval of the hart study... google him, you will see he has several published studys as well as books.

Chances are very high you will like him as he is anti gun control.  The NRA and NRA-ILA  site his works all the time.  I'm not going to spend my time looking up his works, I've read alot of them and for the most part I agree with him.  That is something I recomend you do. 

He is just one of many that has made the statment that guns don't effect crime stats.

Well, are we talking about mass shootings or crime after all?

Go read John Lott, conducted a multi-year study that clearly shows that guns lower crime. Not biased, based on police reports and professionally conducted surveys.

Not for the first time, I am through with this thread, the conversations on topic are good, but the unsubstantiated opinions and selective application of facts and knowledge are just really, really annoying.

Sayonara, folks, see you on other threads.

[Rastus]

You know what counts?  The three or so times a gun kept me or my family from being robbed and/or beaten and/or murdered. 

You know what else counts?  The time my wife's sister was raped and murdered and did not have a gun when she was carjacked.  Her decomposed body was found in a sugar cane field in West Baton Rouge Parish 2-1/2 months after the crime.

You know what else?  Those statistics include people who have a gun and should not be carrying one because they don't have the will to use it or even know how to use (train...train...train) one.

Here is something else.  Just because a perp has a gun and you are more likely to be killed by a perp with a gun that does not imply the gun is the reason someone is killed. 

I carry a gun with me on travel.  I keep it cased going in and out of the room.  When I'm in the room it is out where I can use it....or have ya'll not noticed the pristine law abiding areas ajacent to airports and the hotels/motels that service airport customers...or the downtown areas?? 

I've said this before, I don't give a rat's ass the consequences of defending my life or my family's life.  A lot of people talk about what they are willing to sacrifice to defend their loved ones then expose themselves when they cower behind the fear of breaking a law and going to jail.  That is to say, they are full of bovine scat because they are more concerned about what "the man" is going to do to them if they actually do something.  Other than those who have not yet shaken the indoctrination to not act (as I once was a part of when young) and actually thought through the results of being defenseless, the rest of them are likely cowards.

What matters is survival.  If you disagree with this...then I doubt you have ever faced the prospect of death at the hands of another.  Or if you did, you have yet to recognize the seriousness of the encounter.  The realization of a threat of impending death at the whim of society's finest provides a clarity of thought that stays with a person....everyone should experience this at least once.

Oh,and since guns don't matter...let's take them away from the police and see how that goes....I'm thinking we'd get to see just how thick society's veneer of peace and love is the first day.

[dj454]

Good post Rastus.

[ericire12]

TAB = Nuance

[WatchManUSA]

That was a qoute from his eval of the hart study... google him, you will see he has several published studys as well as books.

Chances are very high you will like him as he is anti gun control.  The NRA and NRA-ILA  site his works all the time.  I'm not going to spend my time looking up his works, I've read alot of them and for the most part I agree with him.  That is something I recomend you do. 

He is just one of many that has made the statment that guns don't effect crime stats.

One more try and then I'm done with this topic. 

TAB, lets assume that you are correct (I’m not conceding that however) - so what? 

If I'm less likely to become a victim of crime by carrying a gun and that, as you postulate, gun ownership is neutral to crime statistics - then carrying a gun is a good thing (or at a minimum - not a bad thing).

I’ll also point out that math is involved in calculating the crime rate.  It is kind of like a batting average in baseball.  Towards the end of the baseball season if a batter gets a couple three hits in a row the batting average only moves a couple of thousandths of a point.

As an aside, if a crime is not committed how can it be quantified and used in a statistical model?

So when taking a national crime number (a very big number) and then factor in the impact of gun owners (a relative small number) the mathematical impact is very small.

However, the impact to the individual who is not injured or killed in an incident has an extremely large impact to the individual and the person’s loved ones.