You can think that and stick to the “could” part of the statement. It’s about as realistic as the chance that the atomic particles in my arm will line up exactly right with those in my desk and allow me to push my arm through my desk. It’s possible but unlikely. No issue going to shall issue only leads to increase carry.
Curse those edit times!
On looking back I see that in your most recent post you talk specifically about going from no carry at all to some level of permitted carry - certainly, in those situations, there could be no decrease in gun carry levels. That’s not what you specified before that post, however.
Ah, and now I see you’ve already posted again. Yes, no issue going to shall issue can only lead to increased or the same levels of actual carry. But that isn’t the only possible change in permissiveness, is it? A simple yes/no? Going from none to some?
Pretty much that’s it. I suppose you can go from shall issue to constitutional carry. In that sense you have increased permissiveness and the effect may be negligible. The point stands that when you increase permissiveness, there are no observable negative results akin to the “blood in the streets” arguments that have been made in opposition. The clearest example of this is the dozens and dozens of states that have gone from no/may issue to shall issue. Any argument that increased permissiveness would lead to “blood in the streets” has been demonstrably false.
A BBQ gun is a colloquial term for a shiny fancy show gun that you only take out and wear to show off at special occasions. They are also called court guns and church guns.
I don’t literally mean that I wear them to barbecues (although I have).
I think the term has morphed a little bit from something like a Colt Python (very pretty AND very practical revolver) to something like a Taurus raging judge (entirely impractical unless a bear is attacking you (a lot of the larger caliber revolvers fall into this category)) or a heavily tricked out 1911 (so tricked out that it looks more like jewelry than a weapon).
Well, just because I don’t carry regularly doesn’t mean that it serves no defensive purpose for me.
It provides defense in my home, I would carry if there was rioting in DC or something like that, I would carry if I was going camping or someplace where I felt a little backup might be useful (I can’t imagine doing that at my age) and of course during the inevitable zombie apocalypse.
Just to be clear, you did originally bring up this change yourself slightly upthread, hence my post taking it into account.
Also worth saying that even your cite here seems to differentiate between more “levels” of permissiveness than a no and yes. I think it might also be argued that there are other legal factors which affect permissiveness beyond that top level; background checks, waiting periods, selling on laws, etc.
Also, I don’t believe your cite states that there are no negative results. You’re asserting that there are no such results, but all that particular cite does is show a trend in permissiveness. That’s not an example by itself. You need that as part of that argument, but you also need crime statistics.
Thanks for the “BBQ gun” info!
It was specifically protection from carried guns that was being talked about, so i’m putting home protection to one side for the moment - not that i’m discounting it. And of course, if you carry on some occasions that would be a higher level of protection for yourself and others, theoretically, than if you didn’t carry whatsoever. And likewise less if you carried at all the times you could.
I’m not naming any names, but I can’t help but think this thread has been hijacked by this:
Not naming names isn’t good enough. Cut the crap or take it to The BBQ Pit.
I have a lot of trouble with writing clearly.
I’m fairly sure though that I could come up with something better than “I’m not naming any names.”
Sorry, my bad.
When you say things like this it makes me think you have limited background knowledge of the topic you’re discussing. Those things have nothing to do with permissiveness of carry.
*My cite was a picture. * Of course it doesn’t say any of those things Those things are pretty much common knowledge. Again, there really is a base level of background knowledge required for this discussion otherwise I’m going to be spending a lot of time having to cite non-controversial pieces of background information.
Imagine you’re a car guy, someone who spends a lot of time working on cars, repairing them, rebuilding them, etc. And someone is asking you about carburetors. They say, “what does a carburetor do?” You reply, “It’s a device that blends air and fuel for an internal combustion engine.” (lifted that from wiki) And in response, the person says, “cite?” I mean sure they may want to know how you know that, and as a car expert you could go into the background of the whole thing but at some point it gets really tedious. I’ve reached that point.
So unless you have specific questions or make some specific assertion that seems particularly egregious, I’ll probably not respond. I plan on starting specific narrow threads at a later time but this is a 400+ post monster.
So we agree that self defense is a valid argument for owning guns. One that is not totally undermined (or even undermined at all) by the fact that most gun owners do not carry their guns regularly. Right?
I’ve already said I have limited background knowledge. So, I ask. Perhaps it’s just a difference in terminology, but I don’t see why adding qualifiers to an overall standard isn’t permissiveness (or lack of).
But you claimed it did. To quote;
Your picture backs up that second line. But your second line was meant to back up your first - "The clearest example of this (this being “when you increase permissiveness, there are no observable negative results akin to such arguments” is that dozens and dozens of states that show a trend towards permissiveness. That doesn’t work.
I’m afraid I never trust appeals to “common knowledge”. That’s not a reflection on you; it’s just based on the term fairly often being used wrongly.
Your point here loses a little steam in that you *did *just lift that from wiki in order to make a point. It doesn’t seem that difficult. The reason I ask you to cite is because I would assume having made the assertion you already have seen some statistics to back up your point. It’s not like a car, where a cite might be “I learned this in person from a mechanic/I read a book/I took apart an engine and discovered it myself”. Knowledge of the effects of gun involvement on both sides of crime across a state or a country is pretty much only something you could know from seeing some statistical study. The more apt analogy might be for a car guy to be asked, "How often do carburetors get replaced across the US? It’s not a question that an individual would be able to discover purely by themselves.
Assuming i’m not able to convince you otherwise, fair enough. See you in those thread, probably! Thanks for being so patient.
Possibly. It depends on whether owning guns has the side effect of also increasing the need for self defense; or increasing the need for the specific types of self defense that a gun allows. Which absolutely could be undermined by most gun owners not carrying.
I think it depends on who owns the guns.
There is no evidence that a liberalization of carry rules leads to an increase in violence.