Firstly, making guns illegal and harder to obtain makes it harder for criminals to get their hands on guns. You know why Oldboy has a scene where the protagonist murders a bunch of guys with a hammer? Because it’s really hard to get guns in South Korea. Even if you can find them, they are prohibitively expensive and risky, making it downright unreasonable for your average day-to-day mobster to own one.
Secondly, making guns illegal makes it clear that if you’re carrying a gun and you aren’t in uniform, you’re likely to be dangerous and people should watch out. Even if you’re willing to break the law in other ways, just owning the gun makes it clear that you have, in fact, broken the law, and informs other people about this. Owning a gun becomes a liability to your plans with said gun, not just a normal part of being in society.
You do realize that in the USA, we have mass shootings at a rate of about one per day, whereas when they have one, it tends to make the news because this shit just doesn’t happen there all that often?
Also, nowhere in the USA counts as having “stringent gun laws”, because no matter where you are, you can drive across the country with no checks on your behavior, pick up a gun at the gun show in Redneck, AR with absolutely no checks or oversight, and drive back, again, with no checks on your behavior whatsoever.
However, MEBuckner primarily attempted to refute spamforbrains by arguing that concealed-carry caused crime rates to fall. See, e.g.,
In reality, the murder rate was cut mostly before CCW, as was the biggest part of the decline in crime generally.
I’ve not seen nationwide statistics on CCW demographics particularly, but nationwide gun owner demographics (see, e.g., Gallup polls) show the group with the highest gun ownership rate is white men, aged 50+, married and from the South.
State-level statistics on CCW are available for at least some states, and show similar patterns. In Texas, for example, 61% of licenses issued went to white males; while they had issued licenses to people aged 18 to 98, the most common ages were in the 40s and 50s.
In Arizona, a similar pattern holds: about two-thirds of CCW permit holders are males over the age of 40, more than 90% of them white.
In Oklahoma, the average age of a new CCW licensee was 49. Two-thirds were male, and 88% were white.
In Florida, the largest demographic among permit holders was men aged 51-65, closely followed by men aged 66+; three-quarters of all permit holders were male.
Not even close to being true. I don’t even have to go to moderate or conservative sources to refute this ridiculous claim.
The vast majority of gun sales at gun shows are by FFL licensed sellers, and include a federal background check. I have been to dozens of gun shows, and have bought several guns, and have never done so without a background check. Yes, it happens. but it is relatively infrequent.
If the claim is that rates would rise, one avenue to show that this claim is untrue is to show the rate falling. Another way would be to show the rate is unchanged. The rate did in fact fall, some of which as you say occurred as part of a trend that began before CCW permissiveness was super widespread. That is no matter though because it is sufficient to refute the claim.
I think this is sufficient to show that CCW holders disproportionately skew as you say. Moreso in Florida, Oklahoma, and Arizona based on their population. I’ve not seen the comparison you’re looking for, racial/age group to like racial/age groups. The idea when talking about rates of crime among CCW holders is not to say that being a CCW holder causes a person to be less inclined to commit crimes. The idea is that CCW holders self select among groups that disproportionately commit less crimes. That this happens to align with a certain racial/age band doesn’t change the conclusion.
Depends on how you define ‘mass shooting,’ doesn’t it?
There are about 300 to 400 incidents each year in which four or more persons are shot. That’s about one a day. Now if you limit ‘mass shootings’ only to incidents in public places, or only to incidents where multiple deaths occur, then yes, the totals drop.
For example, how would you classify the movie theater shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, last year? A man starts shooting random patrons watching a movie in a public theater; he commits suicide after killing two and wounding nine–is that a mass shooting by your definition? By the “official” definition, it’s not. With “only” two victims dead, it’s not horrific enough to qualify, because the feds and many researchers use four dead (not counting perpetrator) as the minimum. Other folks would say, “yeah, eleven random people shot in a public place = mass shooting.” What would you say?
I’ve certainly seen gun shows where multiple tables were private sellers–no background check required. You even admit this happens, and nobody has statistics on how often it happens. Further, not every gun sale at the show happens on the floor of the show, and nobody has any statistics on the parking lot sales. On what basis do you assert this is “relatively infrequent”?
Stringent gun laws make it very difficult to buy and possess guns. Depending on where you live and what gun you’re buying, there may or may not be ANY felonies involved here (although it would probably require a pre-1900 firearm or something else exotic for zero felonies).
Then I think we’re going to have to disagree about exactly what spamforbrains was claiming. His (her?) original post, you may recall, was
In other words, I’m not reading this as claiming that violent crime definitely would go up (“we’ll have to wait and see if…”), and the last point, about multiplying stories of crazies, does seem to be true.
So we have no idea if CCW holders are more or less inclined to commit crimes than other people of their age and background, but because most holders are older white men, and older white men commit relatively few crimes of violence, we should assume that CCW holders are all honorable and upright? Please clarify that logic.
Also, nowhere in the USA counts as having “stringent drug laws”, because no matter where you are, you can drive across the country with no checks on your behavior, pick up drugs on the street in any major city with absolutely no checks or oversight, and drive back, again, with no checks on your behavior whatsoever.
Except of course for the various felonies involved, no checks or oversight whatsoever. :rolleyes:
(my bold)
She stated it seems to be doing so. That’s false.
What we do know is that for those areas we have data, CCW holders are less inclined to commit crimes than the general population. I don’t assume that CCW holders are all honorable and upright - and I don’t think that’s the implication when talking about the relative propensity for criminal activity. CCW holders as a whole self selects and the conclusion I draw is that CCW is not a significant issue to be concerned about when it comes to people committing crime. Before the rise of shall issue CCW, the argument against it was that it would lead to increases in crime, blood in the streets, etc. This hasn’t occurred and we now have 40 states that are shall issue or constitutional carry. So what we know is that the arguments against more permissive CCW are dead.
I fully agree: Gun-related violence would plummet significantly if guns were banned. But the 2nd Amendment is the 2nd Amendment. Until it’s abolished, it’s the law.
Where in the USA does openly carrying a firearm make you a target for law enforcement (assuming, for the moment, that you are white, because African-Americans clearly play by different rules)? 8 states, 12 if we want to be generous, and the constitutionality of such laws are currently under question. Where in the USA does openly carrying a baggie of crack make you a target for law enforcement? I guarantee you that if you walk around with a baggie of crystal visible on your person, you will be a target for law enforcement literally wherever you are in the country and regardless of what color your skin is.
Where in the country does having an AR-15 in your trunk, unloaded, make you prosecutable, even without a license? Washington DC, and… where else? Where in the country does having a pound of weed in your trunk make you prosecutable? Everywhere except Colorado, and even there if you don’t have a license you’re in deep shit.
Where in the country can you legally buy heroin without any sort of license or permission? Where in the country is it legal for you to buy cocaine with no background checks online from private collectors? Yeah, you can’t ship it over state lines, and you can’t buy it unless you’re in the same state, but it’s not exactly hard to find a way to get around the laws this way!
Notice how this analogy sort of falls apart when you examine it?
Purchase a firearm outside of your state of residence. I think this derives from 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(5) but that may be focused on the seller.
It’s a felony to transport that firearm back to your state of residence. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(3)
It’s a felony to knowingly sell a firearm to a person that is not a resident of your state. 18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(5)
Depending on your home state, the possession of that firearm may be a felony.
Depending on your home state, the importation of that firearm may be a felony.
How do they know it’s crack? I toted a large gallon sized bag of detergent, and a bag of washing soda to my laundromat , in a downtown area, with zillions of cops, and not a single one even slowed their police car down.
California. They are illegal to own.
Oddly in CA you can carry a oz of pot openly and be safe- you might, might get a ticket. That pound? OK if you have a Medical marijuana permit, and even if not, it’s a minor misdemeanor.
No, nope.
Minor misdemeanor vs two Federal Felonies. Oops, wait,* three. * (Gotta cross a state line for yours). Maximum $500 fine vs 15 years in a Federal Pen.
I didn’t say CCW caused crime rates to fall. It’s quite mysterious what exactly caused the crime rate to go up so dramatically in the late 20th century and then start falling equally dramatically in the last years of the 20th century. So far, though, the statement (from spamforbrains) that “We’ll have to wait and see if violent crime goes up in response to concealed carry, and so far it seems to be doing so” (emphasis added) doesn’t seem to be borne out by any actual statistics.
And the statement
…Just sort of ignores that for the last thirty years or so, concealed carry has been greatly expanded in the U.S., millions of people have gotten permits, and yet the rates of murder and aggravated assault have continued to fall.