# The War on Guns **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 17, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101 "2013-09-17T22:13:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/381 "2013-10-01T18:33:55Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Well, here’s the quote. “Most of those guns stay at home or locked away” seems like saying gun owners don’t carry their guns around to me. OK, so he used the word “most”, which is true, you mistake it to mean some absolute, which is false. Get it? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/382 "2013-10-01T18:43:20Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > OK, so he used the word “most”, which is true, you mistake it to mean some absolute, which is false. Get it? I’ve been using “majority” and “most” quite a lot through our conversation; I missed it there. I apologise for giving the impression that I meant an absolute, which certainly you could believe based on that particular post. Call it poor writing on my part. Anyway, what I mean, given that it seems to be what **Lumpy** means, is most. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/383 "2013-10-01T18:57:17Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Well, here’s the quote. “Most of those guns stay at home or locked away” seems like saying gun owners don’t carry their guns around to me. I do not share your interpretation of what he said. > [@](#): > > Despite the outcry over “too many guns”, the fact is that most of those guns stay at home or locked away. The only people who routinely carry are police and security guards, career criminals, and probably less than 2% of the general population who choose to carry regularly. We’ve never actually tried a truly armed society, in which the majority of people in public could be expected to be carrying. Considering the anti’s insistence that “shall issue” would turn every fender bender into a shootout, I for one would have no qualms whatsoever about giving such an experiment a try. “too many guns” is the total population of firearms in the country (~300 million). Of that population, most stay at home or are locked away. Kable addressed this but many are not suitable for EDC (everyday carry). The people that carry are police (natch), criminals, and the people with CCW who choose to carry. The population of CCW folks is about, 6-7 million in the US. Some subset of that 6-7M people choose to carry everyday. That is where the roughly 2% figure comes in - it is of the total ~300M. It does not mean that only 2% of CCW permit holders actually carry. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/384 "2013-10-01T19:01:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > “too many guns” is the total population of firearms in the country (~300 million). Of that population, most stay at home or are locked away. Kable addressed this but many are not suitable for EDC (everyday carry). The people that carry are police (natch), criminals, and the people with CCW who choose to carry. The population of CCW folks is about, 6-7 million in the US. Some subset of that 6-7M people choose to carry everyday. That is where the roughly 2% figure comes in. It does not mean that only 2% of CCW permit holders actually carry. I too believe he did not mean that only 2% of CCW permit holders actually carry. I do take issue with your first point, however, specifically the “many are not suitable for EDC”, though. The two examples that Lumpy gives in his preceding paragraph, which with in conjunction with the second I took issue with, were both examples of situations occurring in a public place (or, at the very least, outside of the home). He wasn’t referring to, say, a shotgun for home defense, a rifle for using at a range, both of which I can certainly imagine would be stored most of the time at home. He was talking about guns carried in public; he then suggests that **those guns** are, for the most part, left at home. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/385 "2013-10-01T19:10:27Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I’ve been using “majority” and “most” quite a lot through our conversation; I missed it there. I apologise for giving the impression that I meant an absolute, which certainly you could believe based on that particular post. Call it poor writing on my part. Seems it was there on a few other posts. Once that discrepancy clears up so does your argument. > [@](#): > > Anyway, what I mean, given that it seems to be what **Lumpy** means, is most. What again was your argument? ---
**Author:** ![Esox\_Lucius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/848f3c/32.png) [@Esox\_Lucius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Esox_Lucius)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/386 "2013-10-01T19:52:56Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > There could, in fact, be other reasons. [There likely are other reasons](http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline). But what the map does show is that the proliferation of “shall issue” concealed carry policies hasn’t resulted in the “blood in the streets” predictions of such groups as the Brady Campaign. In other words, since violence is decreasing as concealed carry is increasing, you can’t make the claim that it is having a negative effect, and as such it doesn’t support any gun control argument at all. Could that be attributable to the low number of people who actually carry a gun? If the majority were carrying, I suspect that would change, but that’s just an opinion of course. Those who do carry a gun apparently aren’t using them or their shooting victims would keep the gun violence statistics up. And with so few carrying, I doubt that deterrence is a factor. Besides the lead study, there’s also the more plausible theory (IMO) that when crime becomes a problem in a neighbourhood, more effort is given to crime prevention which reduces the numbers. And hospitals are supposedly becoming better at saving the lives of seriously wounded gunshot victims. All of which leads me to question the effectiveness of conceal-carry in fighting crime. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/387 "2013-10-01T20:10:10Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Seems it was there on a few other posts. Once that discrepancy clears up so does your argument. > What again was your argument? If one argument for gun ownership is that they are a useful tool for protection in public, but most guns are actually left at home by their owners, then isn’t the first argument negated by practicality? ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/388 "2013-10-01T20:27:54Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If one argument for gun ownership is that they are a useful tool for protection in public… But who made that argument? It may be true at some point but I think most of us pro-gun guys here just said the stats show concealed carry has not been shown to be a danger to the public, which refutes Esox’s claim that it was. Gun ownership was certainly a useful tool to me, but I’m pretty well trained. > [@](#): > > but most guns are actually left at home by their owners, then isn’t the first argument negated by practicality? I always leave most of my guns at home. I usually have my Glock 23 with me however. YMMV. If some number of the general public are carrying however, criminals would have no idea if their victims or bystanders are armed or not. I could see that being a deterrence but could not tell you if it actually is or not. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/389 "2013-10-01T20:33:02Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Could that be attributable to the low number of people who actually carry a gun? If the majority were carrying, I suspect that would change, but that’s just an opinion of course. Right, crime might go down even more, but that’s just an opinion of course. > [@](#): > > And with so few carrying, I doubt that deterrence is a factor. Say you were a criminal. How many victims would need to be carrying concealed to make you think twice? > [@](#): > > Besides the lead study, there’s also the more plausible theory (IMO) that when crime becomes a problem in a neighbourhood, more effort is given to crime prevention which reduces the numbers. And hospitals are supposedly becoming better at saving the lives of seriously wounded gunshot victims. You got a cite or are you still reaching? > [@](#): > > All of which leads me to question the effectiveness of conceal-carry in fighting crime. Does this mean you have backed away from your initial claim that more guns on the street equals more homicides and such? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/390 "2013-10-01T20:38:56Z")
> [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Those who do carry a gun apparently aren’t using them or their shooting victims would keep the gun violence statistics up. You need to do more research on defensive gun use (DGU). It’s quite a frequent occurrence and doesn’t always result in shots fired or people shot. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/391 "2013-10-01T21:19:00Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > But who made that argument? It may be true at some point but I think most of us pro-gun guys here just said the stats show concealed carry has not been shown to be a danger to the public, which refutes Esox’s claim that it was. Gun ownership was certainly a useful tool to me, but I’m pretty well trained. \*\* Lumpy\*\* made that argument. In the post I originally quoted - he gave some examples of situations in which he believed that being armed would serve as protection against violence and crime. Earlier up the page, he points out that he hasn’t been a victim of crime, but then points out that he could well be so tomorrow, and makes several cites of crime statistics to point to the possibility. I originally quoted\*\* Lumpy\*\* _because_ he was making this argument. > [@](#): > > I always leave most of my guns at home. I usually have my Glock 23 with me however. YMMV. If some number of the general public are carrying however, criminals would have no idea if their victims or bystanders are armed or not. I could see that being a deterrence but could not tell you if it actually is or not. My original point was in reference to the idea, suggested by\*\* Lumpy\*\*, that a majority of gun owners leave their guns - including those which they would use for personal protection in the event of some public crime - at home. Perhaps, if he’s correct, you carrying your Glock 23 are in a minority of gun owners who actually carry. Either way, it seems a reasonable argument to make that if, as suggested, there is only a minority of actual carriers, that criminals would not have such a deterrence, or at least a reduced one, if there is one to start with. It does lead me to wonder; what percentage of actual lawful carriers is required to counterbalance the avaliability of guns to those with sinister intentions? Hypothetically, a situation where guns are widely avaliable but zero people carry legally would seem to be the extreme situation, but there must be a point somewhere at which there’s enough carriers to “make up” for the improved avaliability. I don’t know if that’s a question we could answer, though, but it seems an interesting one. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/392 "2013-10-01T21:39:05Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > \*\* Lumpy\*\* made that argument. No he didn’t. He just said he would like to give that “experiment a try.” > [@](#): > > In the post I originally quoted - he gave some examples of situations in which he believed that being armed would serve as protection against violence and crime. That’s great and I agree. > [@](#): > > Earlier up the page, he points out that he hasn’t been a victim of crime, but then points out that he could well be so tomorrow, and makes several cites of crime statistics to point to the possibility. Nothing unreasonable about that either. > [@](#): > > I originally quoted\*\* Lumpy\*\* _because_ he was making this argument. Sorry, I read him as making pretty much the same argument I made. I really think you are missing the point and trying to get a gotcha on him that just isn’t there, and a gotcha that isn’t very good even if it was there. Trying to make a mole hill out of a field if you would. > [@](#): > > My original point was in reference to the idea, suggested by\*\* Lumpy\*\*, that a majority of gun owners leave their guns - including those which they would use for personal protection in the event of some public crime - at home. I’m sure he’s right. Also, many of us that do carry do at some times and not others. It also depends on where we are going, is it legal to carry there, are we wearing clothes that make concealment worth the effort, etc. > [@](#): > > Perhaps, if he’s correct, you carrying your Glock 23 are in a minority of gun owners who actually carry. I’m sure I am. > [@](#): > > Either way, it seems a reasonable argument to make that if, as suggested, there is only a minority of actual carriers, that criminals would not have such a deterrence, or at least a reduced one, if there is one to start with. Based on my reading of him I don’t think Lumpy would disagree with you, and I think he cleared it up with a later post… I expect there is some deterrence, and I expect it would be stronger with more people carrying. > [@](#): > > It does lead me to wonder; what percentage of actual lawful carriers is required to counterbalance the avaliability of guns to those with sinister intentions? That’s a fair question. > [@](#): > > Hypothetically, a situation where guns are widely avaliable but zero people carry legally would seem to be the extreme situation Sounds like Chicago, or Washington DC. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/393 "2013-10-01T22:27:54Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > No he didn’t. He just said he would like to give that “experiment a try.” Not so. The experiment he refers to isn’t “gun ownership is a useful tool for protection in public” it’s, well, to quote him; > [@Lumpy](#): > > We’ve never actually tried a truly armed society, in which the majority of people in public could be expected to be carrying. Considering the anti’s insistence that “shall issue” would turn every fender bender into a shootout, I for one would have no qualms whatsoever about giving such an experiment a try. I read that as the “experiment” being a society in which the majority of people in public could be expected to be carrying. **Lumpy** certainly made the argument - elsewhere from that quoted point, to be clear, though that point is as a result of his argument - that gun ownership was a useful tool for protection in public. That’s why he was citing crime statistics - to show the kind of situation in which he believed a gun would be helpful for protection. That’s why he gave two examples, in the post I originally quoted, in which he directly said that being armed - even if the criminals were also armed - would be helpful for protection. > [@](#): > > I’m sure I am. On the basis that you would consider the number of gun owners who actually carry to be a minority, of which you yourself are one, what then do you say to the idea that the low percentage of people who carry negates the argument for gun ownership that arises from their supposed protective usefulness? I guess what I mean is; irregardless of whether they provide greater protection or not, if you’re not carrying, you’re not enjoying whatever protection that provides, no? If people aren’t carrying, in general, then the protection also from “Hmm, that guy _might_ have a gun.” is also diluted, no? > [@](#): > > Sounds like Chicago, or Washington DC. Not really. Enclaves in a nation aren’t what I would really define as not widely avaliable. Less so, sure, but it’s a hypothetical for a reason. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 1, 2013, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/394 "2013-10-01T23:11:18Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Not so. Yes so. > [@](#): > > **Lumpy** certainly made the argument - elsewhere from that quoted point, to be clear, though that point is as a result of his argument - that gun ownership was a useful tool for protection in public. Exactly what was his argument/claim? > [@](#): > > On the basis that you would consider the number of gun owners who actually carry to be a minority, of which you yourself are one, what then do you say to the idea that the low percentage of people who carry negates the argument for gun ownership that arises from their supposed protective usefulness? I guess what I mean is; irregardless of whether they provide greater protection or not, if you’re not carrying, you’re not enjoying whatever protection that provides, no? Your convoluted question is a bit unclear. If I’m not carrying however I do feel better if I am around people I know that are. Does that answer your question? > [@](#): > > If people aren’t carrying, in general, then the protection also from “Hmm, that guy _might_ have a gun.” is also diluted, no? Huh? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/395 "2013-10-02T00:16:07Z")
> [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](#): > > The first half of the amendment is ignored because it is a prefatory statement. “A purple shirt, being necessary to the esthetic taste of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” is just as valid. The Supreme Court thought so and ruled as such. The “militia” argument is dead and will never come back no matter how hard you guys push it. I don’t think the prefatory statement is dead yet. I think you could still read the prefatory statement as giving additional protections against federal attempts to disarm the organized militia. So if a state wanted their militia to have guns, perhaps the NFA cannot restrict that. I thought there was some state that wanted to permit some NFA weapons manufactured in state to be sold in state without NFA registration. > [@dropzone](#): > > And really, your “purple shirt” argument is embarrassingly lame. The Framers did not include that as some fluff that could be ignored. When they said “militia” they meant a “militia,” and if some members of the Supreme Court managed to mangle it to suit their desire that it mean something else, well, it wouldn’t be the first time they got overturned by a later court. With respect to the individual right to effective self defense, the prefatory clause might as well talk about purple shirts. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > Nope. It’s a strawman. It assumes I have a need for personal security and defense even when I don’t. What makes you think you have no need for protection or self defense? Are you under the impression that we have cured humanity of crime? It might not be worth the trouble to you but there are plenty of places where the threat of crime is ever present. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > That would be wrong. Why could I say it? Some people rely on the police for their safety and security. They act as if a policeman’s gun is there to protect them, its not. Its there to protect the policeman in the execution of his duties. > [@](#): > > I was expecting more from you. I showed how a gun can be unequalled by having a bigger gun or more of them. If that’s not right, I’m listening. I have several handguns and for the most part anything over a 9mm is going to be pretty fungible with any other handgun. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle\_energy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muzzle_energy) There is a difference between handguns and rifles/shotguns in accuracy, range and power but there is a reason why we don’t give all of our troops .75 caliber sidearms. The tradeoff is just not worth it. Hell, I have a subcompact 9mm (its so light that the kick is worse than the kick on a .45 revolver) and I rarely ever carry it because its heavy and I can’t drink when I carry. The only time I carry regularly is when I go to barbecues at gun friendly homes, thats when I break out the highly impractical but very shiny revolvers that I really shouldn’t buy but… shiiiiny. > [@](#): > > I’ve been through this before, but I’ll go once again. Safety is compromised more when _anyone_ has a gun around them. The more guns, the more chance for accidents, misunderstandings, mental blow-ups, road rage shootings, you name it. Add a swaggering, sneering attitude _a la_ George Zimmerman and the odds get bigger. A lot of people think this must be true for exactly the reasons you describe but there is no evidence that this is true. In fact there is evidence that increased CCW licensing results in no measurable increase in gun violence (and plenty of anecdotal examples where it reduces crime). > [@](#): > > But you don’t have to ask me. Nine out of ten countries agree: Carrying guns in public shouldn’t be allowed. (It’s probably more like 39 out of 40, but I’m not gonna count.) I don’t think that’s right. 9 out of 10 countries might agree not to have guns at all but which countries have high gun ownership AND also have no carry rights? > [@Kable](#): > > and people pretty much always shoot better when they shoot one gun at a time. Pfft, speak for yourself, nothing makes me shoot any better and its almost impossible for me to shoot any worse. I’ve tried everything and I’m still the worst shooter among my friends. > [@Lumpy](#): > > In the complete absence of guns Good luck getting the criminals to give up their guns. > [@](#): > > We’ve never actually tried a truly armed society, in which the majority of people in public could be expected to be carrying. Considering the anti’s insistence that “shall issue” would turn every fender bender into a shootout, I for one would have no qualms whatsoever about giving such an experiment a try. There have been mini experiments every time a state went from “no issue” to “shall issue” I don’t think gun violence generally goes down (with the national trend) in all these cases. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > In sixty years, I’ve been involved in one physical altercation (in my late teens, big surprise). I have as much fear of being attacked as I have of being hit by a meteorite. You have considerably more fear in you, apparently. Is that how you want to live? I’ve been in more fights than car accidents, I’ve had a gun pointed at me about half a dozen times (mostly by police) and I was in LA during the LA Riots. The gun stores were EMPTY in the weeks before the riots, you couldn’t even buy a crappy revolver in the week before the riots. Society is not yet crime frees (at least until the vulcans show us the cure for crime) and sometimes society breaks down, perhaps only for a short while but it doesn’t need to break down for long. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > How do you define “need” in this case? Would you shoot someone who just wants your wallet, or would he have to be threatening you physically? How would someone ask you for your wallet without threatening physical violence? Do they say “pretty please”? > [@](#): > > And how effective is a gun against criminals? If I’ve learned anything from Law and Order (heh), it’s that criminals aren’t interested in a fair fight. Aren’t they more likely to outnumber you, sneak up from behind, ambush you or otherwise catch you unaware and render your gun useless? You’re right, they’re not interested in a fair fight and if they see that their intended victim also has a gun, they aren’t interested in victimizing you. True story: First night of the LA riots, rioters and looter are running around with guns, knives, bats and just large numbers. They burn down half of Koreatown and the cops just drive right by them on their way to protect Beverly Hills. Then the next night the citizens arm themselves and the rioters and looters don’t burn down a single building. No thanks to the cops. > [@Esox\_Lucius](#): > > You’re quick to assume that guns are responsible for the lower numbers. Do you think there could be other reasons? > > I could show you maps of a lot more countries where gun deaths per capita are lower than in the U.S. Does that “prove” that more gun regulation results in fewer gun deaths? But it certainly pokes a hole in the notion that more CCW means more gun violence, doesn’t it? > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > It seems a bit odd to have one paragraph saying that guns are a highly useful tool for the levelling of the playing field, and then on the other saying that people apparently don’t widely use this tool. If the majority of gun owners keep theirs locked safely away at home, then why is a gun being useful for protecting oneself outside of the home an argument? People apparently aren’t taking them there. Its up to you. I personally don’t think its worth carrying almost three pounds (including the holster) everywhere just in case something happens. But if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I might > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Perhaps, if he’s correct, you carrying your Glock 23 are in a minority of gun owners who actually carry. Either way, it seems a reasonable argument to make that if, as suggested, there is only a minority of actual carriers, that criminals would not have such a deterrence, or at least a reduced one, if there is one to start with. > > It does lead me to wonder; what percentage of actual lawful carriers is required to counterbalance the avaliability of guns to those with sinister intentions? Hypothetically, a situation where guns are widely avaliable but zero people carry legally would seem to be the extreme situation, but there must be a point somewhere at which there’s enough carriers to “make up” for the improved avaliability. I don’t know if that’s a question we could answer, though, but it seems an interesting one. It sound like a form of herd immunity. Is there any evidence that a high density of CCWs lead to an increase in gun violence? I have been to gun shows where almost everyone seems to be carrying and I have yet to see anyone even draw their weapon (I’ve heard of accidental discharges but I don’t hear about a lot of intentional ones). ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/396 "2013-10-02T00:18:58Z")
> [@Kable](#): > > Yes so. > > Exactly what was his argument/claim? He’s had more than one, but the one I am specifically focusing on is his claim that carrying a gun is useful for protection in public. To cite; > [@Lumpy](#): > > In the complete absence of guns, how safe am I if a 6’2" 260 lb man decides to play “The Knockout Game” with me? Or if four youths surround me and tell me to hand over my wallet and cell phone? Guns don’t just make a big person and a small person equal, they mean that four people are no longer invulnerable against and omnipotent over one person- even if everyone in the scenario is armed. Fairly clear one, I would have said; he comes right out and says that having a gun means that those four people are “no longer invulnerable against and omnipotent over one person”. > [@Lumpy](#): > > In 52 years I have been fortunate enough to never be in a situation where I needed a gun. That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen tomorrow. I live in a “good” neighborhood close to the border of a “bad” neighborhood, and according to the weekly police reports robberies and assaults happen regularly within five blocks of my house- occasionally closer. This is the violent crime map: > [http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/...s1p-114669.pdf](http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/...s1p-114669.pdf) > (I live on the left edge of the map near the middle; a quiet week actually). > > As for mere burglaries and thefts: > [http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/...s1p-114667.pdf](http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/www/...s1p-114667.pdf) > > And the city where I live (Minneapolis) recently issued warnings about youth gang attacks in downtown: > > [http://www.startribune.com/local/min...222618461.html](http://www.startribune.com/local/min...222618461.html) Not so direct, but referring to times when he might need a gun, though he’s been lucky enough never to have been in such a situation, and citing crime statistics from his area suggests to me he believes that carrying a gun confers on him some advantage over not, should he be in those kinds of situations. > [@](#): > > Your convoluted question is a bit unclear. If I’m not carrying however I do feel better if I am around people I know that are. Does that answer your question? Apologies for being unclear. I’m not a great writer at the best of times. Let me try it this way; there is an argument in favour of gun ownership which says that carrying a gun provides some protection for the carrier. However, if in fact most of those who own guns aren’t carrying them, then, whether the first argument is true or not, it’s negated by the fact that people aren’t actually carrying them. > [@](#): > > Huh? If there’s a deterrent for a criminal who lives somewhere where there might be lots of people carrying, there would be less of a deterrent for a criminal who lives somewhere where there might be fewer people carrying? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/397 "2013-10-02T00:23:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Its up to you. I personally don’t think its worth carrying almost three pounds (including the holster) everywhere just in case something happens. But if I lived in a dangerous neighborhood, I might If a majority of gun owners agreed with you on this point, would you agree that it would invalidate an argument for gun ownership based on their protective quality provided? > [@](#): > > It sound like a form of herd immunity. Is there any evidence that a high density of CCWs lead to an increase in gun violence? I have been to gun shows where almost everyone seems to be carrying and I have yet to see anyone even draw their weapon (I’ve heard of accidental discharges but I don’t hear about a lot of intentional ones). Well, it strikes me that if you’re going to commit a crime, armed or not, you’d be a moron to do so in the middle of a large group of people who almost certainly also armed. Assuming they’re also not in on it, of course! ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/398 "2013-10-02T01:39:47Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > He’s had more than one, but the one I am specifically focusing on is his claim that carrying a gun is useful for protection in public. To cite; He said that it made him safer in public and gave specific circumstances. What’s the problem? > [@](#): > > Fairly clear one, I would have said; he comes right out and says that having a gun means that those four people are “no longer invulnerable against and omnipotent over one person”. That sounds true also. What’s the problem? > [@](#): > > Not so direct, but referring to times when he might need a gun, though he’s been lucky enough never to have been in such a situation, and citing crime statistics from his area suggests to me he believes that carrying a gun confers on him some advantage over not, should he be in those kinds of situations. Again what’s wrong with that? That sounds perfectly reasonable. > [@](#): > > Apologies for being unclear. I’m not a great writer at the best of times. Let me try it this way; there is an argument in favour of gun ownership which says that carrying a gun provides some protection for the carrier. True. > [@](#): > > However, if in fact most of those who own guns aren’t carrying them, then, whether the first argument is true or not, it’s negated by the fact that people aren’t actually carrying them. OK, duh. > [@](#): > > If there’s a deterrent for a criminal who lives somewhere where there might be lots of people carrying, there would be less of a deterrent for a criminal who lives somewhere where there might be fewer people carrying? I would think so, and based on what I have read, I think Lumpy thinks so too. ---
**Author:** ![Kable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed655f/32.png) [@Kable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kable)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/399 "2013-10-02T01:54:41Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If a majority of gun owners agreed with you on this point, would you agree that it would invalidate an argument for gun ownership based on their protective quality provided? Of course not. That’s like saying helmets aren’t protective because lots of motorcycle riders don’t wear them. > [@](#): > > Well, it strikes me that if you’re going to commit a crime, armed or not, you’d be a moron to do so in the middle of a large group of people who almost certainly also armed. Now you are thinking like us.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [October 2, 2013, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101/400 "2013-10-02T01:55:52Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If a majority of gun owners agreed with you on this point, would you agree that it would invalidate an argument for gun ownership based on their protective quality provided? You are making an argument against concealed carry then? A significant majority of people keep guns in their home to protect, you know, their home. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-war-on-guns/669101.md?page=21)