Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
651 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,330 Posts
As a "foreigner", I felt safe when I was there. Then again, I had my P7 on my hip the whole time.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
If you want to respond go here

Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona for Now on Arthur Frommer Online

Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping
Arizona for Now
Posted by Arthur Frommer at 8/19/2009 10:10 AM EDT

I am not yet certain whether I would advocate a travel boycott by others of
the state of Arizona; I want to learn more about Arizona's gun laws and how
they compare with those of other states. But I am shocked beyond measure by
reports that earlier this week, nearly a dozen persons, including one with an
assault rifle strapped about his shoulders and others with pistols in their
hands or holsters, were openly congregating outside a hall at which President
Obama was speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

For myself, without yet suggesting that others follow me in an open boycott, I
will not personally travel in a state where civilians carry loaded weapons
onto the sidewalks and as a means of political protest. I not only believe
such practices are a threat to the future of our democracy, but I am firmly
convinced that they would also endanger my own personal safety there. And
therefore I will cancel any plans to vacation or otherwise visit in Arizona
until I learn more. And I will begin thinking about whether tourists should
safeguard themselves by avoiding stays in Arizona.

According to the Phoenix, Arizona, police, people with guns including assault
rifles do not need permits in Arizona, but can simply carry such weapons with
them, openly and brazenly, when they gather to protest a speaker at a public
event. The police also acknowledge that about a dozen people carrying guns,
including one with an AR-15 assault rifle, milled about outside the event at
which President Obama spoke.

I would feel as I do regardless of the political identity of the speaker whom
these thugs attempted to intimidate. The continued tolerance of extremists
carrying guns is a frightening development which strikes at the heart of the
political process and endangers the ability to carry out a reasoned debate. Is
there any responsible citizen of the United States who believes that people
should carry guns to a public debate or speech? If Ronald Reagan were
delivering a political talk in Phoenix, Arizona, would they have felt it was
proper for protestors with guns to mill about outside the hall from which he
would leave?

I'd appreciate hearing your comments. The question is, should we all organize
a travel boycott of Arizona until this tolerance of armed intimidation is
ended, probably by an act of the Arizona legislature?



Read more:
Do Guns at Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona for Now on Arthur Frommer Online
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
ARIZ boycott

It's not the armed folks that worry me about Arizona!! It's the pesky BEES. I am highly allergic to insect venom and bees scare me much more than People with guns.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,355 Posts
Let him stay in safe zones. (Schools, malls, NYC, DC, Post Offices)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
792 Posts
Well I say let them boy-cot us... There is to many people here already.. Now if we could keep the Cali's from moving over here we would be ok..

PS... No offense to cali people, just the socialists that are trying to bring the cali laws to our state.. Tell them to go home.. And then keep going,... :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Are you kidding me!!! It is clear that Mr. Frommer wasn't actually in Phoenix when this "protest" occurred and is relying on the "un-biased" news media reports to draw his conclusion about Arizona.
Kind of funny how some people use their Constitutional Rights of free speech and freedom of the press to suggest that law abbiding citizens should have their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms taken away because it may "intimidate" someone else. Hope the State of Arizona and the Arizona legislature won't be "intimidated" by Mr. Frommer's posturing. This is a "great" State and we respect every Constitutional Right, even the ones that might seem intimidating.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
261 Posts
Czar of travel...

Probably is trying for an appointment for something on Obama's all-star cast of antigun people.
That's the last of buying me or mine anything from Frommers again ever! Someone needs to ask the guy how he thought the American Revolution was won. He probably thinks we shook a piece of sugarcane at the Japs after Pearl Harbor. What an educated idiot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Are you kidding me!!! It is clear that Mr. Frommer wasn't actually in Phoenix when this "protest" occurred and is relying on the "un-biased" news media reports to draw his conclusion about Arizona.
Kind of funny how some people use their Constitutional Rights of free speech and freedom of the press to suggest that law abbiding citizens should have their Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms taken away because it may "intimidate" someone else. Hope the State of Arizona and the Arizona legislature won't be "intimidated" by Mr. Frommer's posturing. This is a "great" State and we respect every Constitutional Right, even the ones that might seem intimidating.
geez write an article about something one wasnt even at......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,461 Posts
I've been to Phoenix, Flagstaff, and few other locations in Arizona since I moved to Las Vegas, Nevada. To read that Frommer's wants me suddenly boycott Arizona just because they don't like the fact that citizens are exercising their 2nd amendment rights is unbelievable. I think that we should be boycotting Frommer.

If the author of that article feels so unsafe he should consider staying a good distance away from Arizona. But to try to suggest that others should do the same is irresponsible. That reminds me of something Pres. Obama said earlier this year.

He said that corporations should not be scheduling conventions here in Las Vegas. Do you know what impact that had on the economy? Over 300 corporations cancelled their yearly conventions!!! That was devastating to the economy.

Let's boycott Frommer!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
792 Posts
We all know that washington is going to try to de-fuse the people showing up to protest armed,.. So this is nothing more the CNN and MSN and every other media that the government is controling has done,.. They are scared I'm sure because "behind every blade of grass, there is a gun in America" (I think that was Teddy Roosevelt?)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Boring Stats

Just out of curiosity I ran a Pearson's product moment correlation on the latest Brady Bunch rating of the States (1 = the States they like best) and the latest FBI rates for 2006* of violent crime (1 = the States with the highest number of crimes per 100,000).

The results were minutely positive (0.0223098064983772000) -- i.e., no significant correlation, albeit there was a very slightly higher ranking of crime in the where States The Bradies like the gun laws.

Had the gun laws they liked had significant effect there would have been a negative correlation approaching -1.0.

I then ran a Pearson's product moment correlation on the latest Brady Bunch rating of the States (1 = the States they like best) and the FBI's actual rates of violent crime . (Yes, I know I'm mixing paramedics and non-paramedics.)

Again, the results were minutely positive (0.0280386921633278).

So, the States where the Bradies like the laws have just a very little more crime than the States that they don't like.

OTOH, I have seen stats where when the CHPs go up, the crime goes down, significantly.

So, not only do we need to work on gun laws, we need to work on getting more people to get CHP and start carrying.



*the latest I found in a quick search
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Hopefully Frommer soon discovers how many states allow some sort of carry ( either open or concealed ). Maybe he'll get so freaked out he won't leave the security of his house. We can only hope !
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Just out of curiosity I ran a Pearson's product moment correlation on the latest Brady Bunch rating of the States (1 = the States they like best) and the latest FBI rates for 2006* of violent crime (1 = the States with the highest number of crimes per 100,000).
The Pearson correlation has no relevance. The mathematics require the assumption that the populations are normally distributed and the relationships linear. Neither of those assumptions are valid in the experiment you chose.

The results were minutely positive (0.0223098064983772000) -- i.e., no significant correlation, albeit there was a very slightly higher ranking of crime in the where States The Bradies like the gun laws.

Had the gun laws they liked had significant effect there would have been a negative correlation approaching -1.0.
Actually, unless someone chooses to make a weird scaling, the range of the correlation coefficient is between 0 and 1. The value 0.0 being no correlation and 1.0 complete correlation. Values around .7 are considered correlated but ONLY if the assumptions are met.

I then ran a Pearson's product moment correlation on the latest Brady Bunch rating of the States (1 = the States they like best) and the FBI's actual rates of violent crime . (Yes, I know I'm mixing paramedics and non-paramedics.)

Again, the results were minutely positive (0.0280386921633278).

So, the States where the Bradies like the laws have just a very little more crime than the States that they don't like.
Whether the issues are correlated is not determined by your study.

It is possible to use other stastitical measures to determine the degree of correlation. Pearson's isn't one of them.

I do agree, however, that is there is probably no correlation between gun control laws and reduced crime. Similarly, I doubt there is a correlation between gun ownership and reduced crime.

Crime is undoubtedly highly correlated with economics, opportunities and drug use. While it might make people feel good to think guns or gun control deter crime, it is unlikely there is any significant correlation.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,038 Posts
Hum?

My reference says of Pearson correlation:

The correlation coefficient is defined in terms of moments and does not require the data to be either marginally or jointly normally distributed [1]. Some distributions such as the Cauchy distribution have undefined variance and hence ρ is not defined if X or Y follows such a distribution. In some practical applications, such as those involving data suspected to follow a heavy-tailed distribution, this is an important consideration. However, the existence of the correlation coefficient is usually not a concern; for instance, if the range of the distribution is bounded, ρ is always defined.
I'd be concerned were I to assert a strong correlation (say +/- 0.7) from non-paramedics. However, I was pointing out not even a hint of a significant one.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
19,379 Posts
A local talk radio guy in Phoenix tonight wondered aloud if Frommer would recommend visiting Chicago, as it had 509 homicides in 2008... what's more dangerous?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,736 Posts
Hum?

My reference says of Pearson correlation:



I'd be concerned were I to assert a strong correlation (say +/- 0.7) from non-paramedics. However, I was pointing out not even a hint of a significant one.
It doesn't require a joint normal, but each individual set needs to be normally distributed. That is not the case. Plus the sample set is far too small to be statistically significant.

I don't think the result is necessarily wrong, in fact I agree with the conclusion, I just don't think it is mathematically justified using Pearson.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top