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.
I do not share your interpretation of what he said.
“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.
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.
Seems it was there on a few other posts. Once that discrepancy clears up so does your argument.
What again was your argument?
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.
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?
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.
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.
Right, crime might go down even more, but that’s just an opinion of course.
Say you were a criminal. How many victims would need to be carrying concealed to make you think twice?
You got a cite or are you still reaching?
Does this mean you have backed away from your initial claim that more guns on the street equals more homicides and such?
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.
** 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.
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.
No he didn’t. He just said he would like to give that “experiment a try.”
That’s great and I agree.
Nothing unreasonable about that either.
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.
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.
I’m sure I am.
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.
That’s a fair question.
Sounds like Chicago, or Washington DC.
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;
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.
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?
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.
Yes so.
Exactly what was his argument/claim?
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?
Huh?
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.
With respect to the individual right to effective self defense, the prefatory clause might as well talk about purple shirts.
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.
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 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
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.
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).
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?
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.
Good luck getting the criminals to give up their guns.
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.
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.
How would someone ask you for your wallet without threatening physical violence? Do they say “pretty please”?
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.
But it certainly pokes a hole in the notion that more CCW means more gun violence, doesn’t it?
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
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).
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;
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”.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
He said that it made him safer in public and gave specific circumstances. What’s the problem?
That sounds true also. What’s the problem?
Again what’s wrong with that? That sounds perfectly reasonable.
True.
OK, duh.
I would think so, and based on what I have read, I think Lumpy thinks so too.
Of course not. That’s like saying helmets aren’t protective because lots of motorcycle riders don’t wear them.
Now you are thinking like us.
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.